- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Students’ metarepresentational competence with matrix notation and Dirac notation in quantum mechanics

Megan Wawro1,*, Kevin Watson1,†, and Warren Christensen2

  • 1Department of Mathematics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58108, USA

  • *mwawro@vt.edu
  • †Deceased.
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020112 – Published 25 August, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020112

Abstract

This article shares analysis regarding quantum mechanics students’ metarepresentational competence (MRC) that is expressed as they engaged in solving an expectation value problem, which involves linear algebra concepts. The particular characteristic of MRC that is the focus of this analysis is students’ critiquing and comparing the adequacy of representations, specifically matrix notation and Dirac notation, and judging their suitability for various tasks. With data of students’ work during semistructured individual interviews, components of students’ MRC were analyzed and categorized according to value-based preferences, problem-based preferences, and purpose and utility awareness. Detail is provided on two students who serve as paradigmatic examples of students’ power and flexibility within different notation systems, and detail of a third student is given as a point of contrast. In addition to adapting MRC as a helpful construct for characterizing student understanding at the intersection of undergraduate mathematics and physics, we aim to demonstrate how students’ rich understanding of linear algebra and quantum mechanics includes and is aided by their understanding and flexible use of different notational systems. For example, the problem-based preference aspects of MRC highlight that any particular problem-solving approach is itself intrinsically tied to a notational system. We suggest that any instruction with the goal of helping students develop a deep understanding of quantum mechanics and linear algebra should provide opportunities for students to use and improve their MRC.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (43)

  1. National Research Council, Discipline-based education research: Understanding, and improving learning in undergraduate science, and engineering, edited by S. R. Singer, N. R. Nielsen, and H. A. Schweingruber, Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Direction of Discipline Based Education Research. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (The National Academies Press Washington, DC, 2012).
  2. A. diSessa, D. Hammer, B. Sherin, and T. Kolpakowski, Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children, J. Math. Behav. 10, 117 (1991).
  3. M. Wawro, K. Watson, and W. Christensen, Meta-representational competence with linear algebra in quantum mechanics, in Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, San Diego, CA, edited by A. Weinberg, C. Rasmussen, J. Rabin, M. Wawro, and S. Brown (Special Interest Group of the Mathematics Association of America for Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Washington, DC, 2017), pp. 326–337. http://sigmaa.maa.org/rume/RUME20.pdf.
  4. A. diSessa, Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction, Cognit. Instr. 22, 293 (2004).
  5. A. diSessa and B. Sherin, Meta-representation: An introduction, J. Math. Behav. 19, 385 (2000).
  6. F. Azevedo, Designing representations of terrain: A study in metarepresentational competence, J. Math. Behav. 19, 443 (2000).
  7. L. R. D. L. Meira, Mathematical representations as systems of notations-in-use, in Symbolizing, Modeling, and Tool Use in Mathematics Education, edited by K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Van Oers, and L. Verschaffel (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2002), pp. 87–103.
  8. B. Sherin, A. A. diSessa, and D. Hammer, Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model, Interact. Learn. Environ. 3, 91 (1993).
  9. A. Iszák, G. Çağlayan, and J. Olive, Meta-Representation in an Algebra I classroom, J. Learn. Sci. 18, 549 (2009).
  10. A. Iszák, “We want a statement that is always true”: Criteria for good algebraic representations and the development of modeling knowledge, J. Res. Math. Educ. 34, 191 (2003).
  11. R. J. Beichner, Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs, Am. J. Phys. 62, 750 (1994).
  12. P. B. Kohl, D. Rosengrant, and N. D. Finkelstein, Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010108 (2007).
  13. D. E. Meltzer, Relation between students’ problem-solving performance and representational format. Am. J. Phys. 73, 463 (2005).
  14. D. Rosengrant, A. Van Heuvelen, and E. Etkina, Do students use and understand free-body diagrams?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010108 (2009).
  15. M. Hill and M. D. Sharma, Students’ representational fluency at university: A cross-sectional measure of how multiple representations are used by physics students using the representational fluency survey, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 11, 1633 (2015).
  16. M. Hill, M. D. Sharma, and H. Johnston, How online learning modules can improve the representational fluency and conceptual understanding of university physics students, Eur. J. Phys. 36, 045019 (2015).
  17. G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Bailey, and J. Farley, Physics Metacognition Inventory Part II: Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37, 2769 (2015).
  18. G. Taasoobshirazi and J. Farley, Construct validation of the physics metacognition inventory, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35, 447 (2013).
  19. T. Fredlund, J. Airey, and C. Linder, Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction, Eur. J. Phys. 33, 657 (2012).
  20. A. Arcavi, Symbol sense: Informal sense-making in formal mathematics, For the Learning Math. 14, 24 (1994).
  21. A. Arcavi, Developing and using symbol sense in mathematics, For the Learning Math. 25, 42 (2005).
  22. G. Harel and J. Kaput, The role of conceptual entities and their symbols in building advanced mathematical concepts, in Advanced Mathematical Thinking, edited by D. Tall (Kluwer Academic Publishers New York, NY, 2002).
  23. J. Novotná and M. Hoch, How structure sense for algebraic expressions or equations is related to structure sense for abstract algebra, Math. Educ. Res. J. 20, 93 (2008).
  24. D. O. Tall, Building theories: The three worlds of mathematics, For the Learning Math. 24, 29 (2004).
  25. J. Hillel, Modes of description and the problem of representation in linear algebra, in On the Teaching of Linear Algebra, edited by J.-L. Dorier (Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2000), pp. 191–207.
  26. M. Wawro, Reasoning about solutions in linear algebra: The case of Abraham and the Invertible Matrix Theorem, Int. J. Res. Undergraduate Math. Educ. 1, 315 (2015).
  27. G. Çağlayan, Making sense of eigenvalueeigenvector relationships: Math majors’ linear algebra-geometry connections in a dynamic environment, J. Math. Behav. 40, 131 (2015).
  28. C. Singh and E. Marshman, Investigating student difficulties with Dirac notation, in Proceedings of the 2013 Physics Education Research Conference, Portland, OR, edited by P. V. Engelhardt, A. D. Churukian, and D. L. Jones (AIP, New York, 2013).
  29. E. Gire and E. Price, Structural features of algebraic quantum notations, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020109 (2015).
  30. B. P. Schermerhorn, G. Passante, H. Sadaghiani, and S. J. Pollock, Exploring student preferences when calculating expectation values using a computational features framework, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020144 (2019).
  31. D. McIntyre, C. A. Manogue, and J. Tate, Quantum Mechanics: A Paradigms Approach, 1st ed. (Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, 2012).
  32. R. H. Bernard, Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology (Sage Publications Newbury Park, CA, 1988).
  33. A. diSessa, Students’ criteria for representational adequacy, in Symbolizing, Modeling and Tool Use in Mathematics Education, edited by K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Van Oers, and L. Verschaffel (Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2002), pp. 105–129.
  34. B. Glaser and A. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Aldine Publishing Company Chicago, IL, 1967).
  35. I. D. Johnston, K. Crawford, and P. R. Fletcher, Student difficulties in learning quantum mechanics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 427 (1998).
  36. C. Singh, Student understanding of quantum mechanics. Am. J. Phys. 69, 885 (2001).
  37. D. F. Styer, Common misconceptions regarding quantum mechanics. Am. J. Phys. 64, 31 (1996).
  38. C. Singh and E. Marshman, A review of student difficulties in upper-level quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020117 (2015).
  39. J. P. Smith, Competent reasoning with rational numbers, Cognit. Instr. 13, 3 (1995).
  40. A. P. Adiredja, Anti-deficit narratives: Engaging the politics of research on mathematical sense making, J. Res. Math. Educ. 50, 401 (2019).
  41. B. Sherin, A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learning 6, 1 (2001).
  42. J. Hiebert and P. Lefevre, Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis in Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics, edited by J. Hiebert (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale, NJ, 1986).
  43. J. R. Star, Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge, J. Res. Math. Educ. 36, 404 (2005).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020112– Published 25 August, 2020
  • Received 17 March 2020
  • Accepted 24 July 2020
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation