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

Characterizations of student, instructor, and textbook discourse related to basis and change of basis in quantum mechanics

Kaitlyn Stephens Serbin, Megan Wawro*, and Rebecah Storms

  • Department of Mathematics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA

  • *mwawro@vt.edu

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010140 – Published 2 June, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010140

Abstract

Communities develop social languages in which utterances take on culturally specific situated meanings. As physics students interact in their classroom, they can learn the broader physics community’s social language by co-constructing meanings with their instructors. We provide an exposition of a systematic and productive use of idiosyncratic, socially acquired language in two classroom communities that we consider to be subcultures of the broader community of physicists. We perform a discourse analysis on twelve quantum mechanics students, two instructors, and the course text related to statements about basis and change of basis within a spin-½ probability problem. We classify the utterances’ grammatical constructions and situated meanings. Results show that students and instructors’ utterances referred to a person, calculation, vector being in, or vector written in a basis. Utterances in these categories had similar situated meanings and were used similarly by the students and instructors. Utterances referred to change of basis as changing the form of a vector, writing the vector in another way, changing the vector into another vector, or switching bases. Utterances in these categories had varying situated meanings and were used similarly by the students and instructors. The students and instructors often switched between different discourse types in quick succession. We found similar utterance types, situated meanings, and grammatical constructions across students and instructors. The textbook’s discourse sometimes differed from the discourse of the students and instructors. Within this study, the students and instructors were from two universities, yet they spoke similar utterances when referring to basis and change of basis. This gives evidence to their shared social language with a broader community of physicists. Integrating and leveraging social languages in the classroom could facilitate students’ enculturation into the classroom and broader professional community.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (28)

  1. D. T. Brookes and E. Etkina, Using conceptual metaphor and functional grammar to explore how language used in physics affects student learning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010105 (2007).
  2. D. T. Brookes and E. Etkina, “Force,” ontology, and language, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010110 (2009).
  3. E. Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1998).
  4. A. Sfard, On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one, Educ. Res. 27, 4 (1998).
  5. J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1991).
  6. S. F. Itza-Ortiz, N. S. Rebello, D. A. Zollman, and M. Rodriguez-Achach, The vocabulary of introductory physics and its implications for learning physics, Phys. Teach. 41, 330 (2003).
  7. R. H. Romer, Heat is not a noun, Am. J. Phys. 69, 107 (2001).
  8. D. Brookes, G. Horton, A. Van Heuvelen, and E. Etkina, Concerning scientific discourse about heat, AIP Conf. Proc. 790, 149 (2005).
  9. D. T. Brookes and E. Etkina, Do our words really matter? Case studies from quantum mechanics, AIP Conf. Proc. 818, 57 (2006).
  10. J. S. Touger, When words fail us, Phys. Teach. 29, 90 (1991).
  11. H. T. Williams, Semantics in teaching introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 67, 670 (1999).
  12. J. K. Senior, The vernacular of the laboratory, Philos. Sci. 25, 163 (1958).
  13. J. P. Gee, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (Routledge, New York, NY, 2005).
  14. J. P. Gee, How to Do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit (Routledge, New York, NY, 2011).
  15. K. S. Serbin, R. Storms, and M. Wawro, Students’ language about basis and change of basis in a quantum mechanics problem, in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Boston, MA, edited by S. S. Karunakaran, Z. Reed, and A. Higgins (Special Interest Group of the Mathematics Association of America for Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Washington DC, 2020), pp. 520–528, http://sigmaa.maa.org/rume/RUME23.pdf.
  16. E. Ochs, P. Gonzales, and S. Jacoby, “When I come down I’m in the domain state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists, Studies Inter. Sociolinguistics 13, 328 (1996).
  17. J. N. Moschkovich, Chapter 1: An introduction to examining everyday and academic mathematical practices, J. Res. Math. Educ. Monograph 11, 1 (2002).
  18. B. B. Schwarz and M. J. Baker, Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and Practice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2016).
  19. N. Sinclair and S. G. Tabaghi, Drawing space: Mathematicians’ kinetic conceptions of eigenvectors, Educ. Studies Math. 74, 223 (2010).
  20. M. K. Ju and O. N. Kwon, Ways of talking, and ways of positioning: Students’ beliefs in an inquiry-oriented differential equations class, J. Math. Behav. 26, 267 (2007).
  21. C. L. Rasmussen, New directions in differential equations: A framework for interpreting students’ understandings and difficulties, J. Math. Behav. 20, 55 (2001).
  22. E. Euler, E. Rådahl, and B. Gregorcic, Embodiment in physics learning: A social-semiotic look, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010134 (2019).
  23. B. P. Schermerhorn and J. R. Thompson, Physics students’ construction of differential length vectors in an unconventional spherical coordinate system, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010111 (2019).
  24. R. E. Scherr, H. G. Close, E. W. Close, and S. Vokos, Representing energy II: Energy tracking representations, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020115 (2012).
  25. R. H. Bernard, Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1988).
  26. D. H. McIntyre, C. A. Manogue, and J. Tate, Quantum Mechanics: A Paradigms Approach (Pearson, Boston, MA, 2012), Vol. 192.
  27. A. Strauss and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998).
  28. V. K. Otero and D. B. Harlow, Getting started in qualitative physics education research, Getting Started in PER, Reviews in PER Vol. 2, edited by C. Henderson and K. A. Harper (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2009), http://www.per-central.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=9122.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation