- Editors' Suggestion
- Open Access
Cognitive dimensions in students’ mental models of linear light polarization
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010118 – Published 13 February, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/hng2-97bk
Abstract
Learners often struggle to develop expandable mental models of polarization due to its abstract nature and the multitude of models used to describe it. A closer examination of the structure of mental models for linear polarization is therefore worthwhile in order to gain insight into mental abstraction processes. Existing research has largely documented misconceptions, leaving the underlying cognitive structures of mental models insufficiently explored. To address this gap, we employed the Fidelities Model of Conceptual Development (FMCD) to investigate learners’ cognitions of linear polarization. The framework, distinguishes two dimensions of students’ mental models: Gestalt, which refers to visual and structural representations, and Functionality, which captures how well a model explains underlying processes. The degrees to which these dimensions align with reality allow for a typification of learners’ reasoning patterns. We developed a test instrument based on established students’ mental models and validated it through expert review and think-aloud studies. In a cross-sectional survey with German secondary school and university students, confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a robust two-factor structure (, , ) with solid factor-reliability (, ). Descriptive results showed developmental trends: while secondary students often exhibited “dual” models combining both FG and FF, university students increasingly relied on functionally oriented reasoning. The findings validate the FMCD in the domain of polarization and provide a diagnostic tool that informs instructional design for supporting students’ conceptual development in optics.
Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)
Article Text
References (61)
- R. A. Mason and M. A. Just, Neural representations of physics concepts, Psychol. Sci. 27, 904 (2016).
- K. Tóth, M. Michelini, and P. Bitzenbauer, Exploring the effect of a phenomenological teaching-learning sequence on lower secondary school students’ views of light polarisation, Phys. Educ. 59, 035009 (2024).
- I. Aykutlu, Ö. Ensari, and C. Bayrak, Prospective teachers’ conceptual understanding of the polarization of light, Eur. J. Phys. 44, 015701 (2023).
- P. Nikolaus, M. Dželalija, and I. Weber, Investigating students’ conceptual knowledge of quantum physics to improve the teaching and learning process, Eur. J. Phys. 14, 1113 (2024).
- M. S. Ubben and S. Heusler, Gestalt and functionality as independent dimensions of mental models in science, Res. Sci. Educ. 51, 1349 (2021).
- J. A. Greene and R. Azevedo, A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34, 18 (2009).
- G. Rickheit and L. Sichelschmidt, Mental models: Some answers, some questions, some suggestions, in Mental models in discourse processing and reasoning, edited by G. Rickheit and C. Habel (1999), pp. 9–40, 10.1016/S0166-4115(99)80045-4.
- S. Volodin, H. Khodr, P. Dillenbourg, and W. Johal, Going down the abstraction stream with augmented reality and tangible robots: The case of vector instruction, arXiv:2504.14562.
- K. Boonstra, M. Kool, A. Shvarts, and P. Drijvers, Theories and practical perspectives on fostering embodied abstraction in primary school geometry education, Front. Educ. 8, 1162681 (2023).
- D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, and H. E. Fischer, Multiple Representations in Physics Education, Models and Modeling in Science Education (Springer, Cham, 2017), Vol. 10, 10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5.
- M. S. Ubben and P. Bitzenbauer, Two cognitive dimensions of students’ mental models in science: Fidelity of gestalt and functional fidelity, Educ. Sci. 12, 163 (2022).
- M. S. Ubben, S. G. Hartmann, and A. Pusch, “Holes in the atmosphere of the universe”: An empirical qualitative study on mental models of students regarding black holes, Astron. Educ. J. 2 (2022).
- K. Tóth, M. Michelini, and P. Bitzenbauer, From light polarization to quantum physics: Supporting lower secondary school students’ transition from gestalt to functional thinking, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 20, em2449 (2024).
- P. Bitzenbauer and M. S. Ubben, The structure of learners’ perceptions of models (not only) in quantum physics: spotlight on Fidelity of Gestalt and Functional Fidelity, EPJ Quantum Technol. 12, 16 (2025).
- S. Aehle, P. Scheiger, and H. Cartarius, An approach to quantum physics teaching through analog experiments, Physics 4, 1241 (2022).
- B. S. Ambrose, P. R. L. Heron, S. Vokos, and L. C. McDermott, Student understanding of light as an electromagnetic wave: Relating the formalism to physical phenomena, Am. J. Phys. 67, 891 (1999).
- K. M. Cvenic, L. Ivanjek, M. Planinic, K. Jelicic, A. Susac, and M. Hopf, Analyzing high school students’ reasoning about polarization of light, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010136 (2021).
- M. H. P. Kesonen, M. A. Asikainen, and P. E. Hirvonen, University students’ conceptions of the electric and magnetic fields and their interrelationships, Eur. J. Phys. 32, 521 (2011).
- H. D. Park, K. Kim, M. Kwon, C. Lee, S. Kim, and J. B. Kim, Students’conceptions about polarized electromagnetic waves, in Teaching and Learning of Physics in Cultural Contexts (World Scientific, Singapore, 2004), pp. 190–196.
- E. Özdemir, M. Coramik, and H. Urek, Determination of conceptual understanding levels related to optics concepts: The case of opticianry, Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol. 8, 53 (2020).
- D. Thapa and V. Lakshminarayanan, Light and optics conceptual evaluation findings from first year optometry students, in Proceedings of the 12th Education and Training in Optics and Photonics (ETOP) Conference (2013), 10.1117/12.2070519.
- S. M. Pompea, E. F. Dokter, C. E. Walker, and R. T. Sparks, Using misconceptions research in the design of optics instructional materials and teacher professional development programs, in Proceedings of SPIE—Education and Training in Optics and Photonics (ETOP) (2007), 10.1117/12.2207517.
- K. Rieck, Polarisation von licht im physikunterricht: Ein elementarisierungsansatz zur einführung in quantenphysikalische begriffe und prinzipien, Dissertation, Universität Kassel, 2003.
- K. Tóth, Introducing quantum mechanics through light polarization: Experiences in Hungary, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2297, 012016 (2022).
- G. Zuccarini and M. Michelini, Promoting the transition to quantum thinking: Development of a secondary school course for addressing knowledge revision, organization, and epistemological challenges, arXiv:2301.00239.
- C. Singh and E. Marshman, Review of student difficulties in upper-level quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020117 (2015).
- M. Wilson and R. Beichner, A comparison of visual representations of electromagnetic plane waves, Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Physics, North Carolina State University, 2018.
- E. Colombo, M. Jaen, and L. C. de Cudmani, The concept of coherence of learning physical optics, in International Conference on Education in Optics (Proceedings of the SPIE, Tucumán, Argentina, 1990), Vol. 2525, pp. 452–454, 10.1117/12.224066.
- M. S. Ubben, J. M. Veith, A. Merzel, and P. Bitzenbauer, Quantum science in a nutshell: Fostering students’ functional understanding of models, Front. Educ. 8, 1192708 (2023).
- Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Representational Pluralism in Human Cognition: Tracing Points of Convergence in Psychology, Science Education, and Philosophy of Science, edited by M. Bélanger, P. Potvin, S. Horst, A. Shtulman, and E. F. Mortimer (Routledge, New York, NY, 2023), 10.4324/9781003189930.
- M. E. Roser, J. A. Fugelsang, K. N. Dunbar, P. M. Corballis, and M. S. Gazzaniga, Dissociating processes supporting causal perception and causal inference in the brain, Neuropsychology 19, 591 (2005).
- M. S. Gazzaniga, Forty-five years of split-brain research and still going strong, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 653 (2005).
- T. L. Flateby, A Guide for Writing and Improving Achievement Tests (University of South Florida, Office of Evaluation and Testing, Tampa, 1996).
- D. L. Jackson, J. A. Gillaspy, and R. Purc-Stephenson, Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations, Psychol. Methods 14, 6 (2009).
- K.-H. Yuan and P. M. Bentler, Structural equation modeling with robust covariances, in Testing Structural Equation Models (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998), pp. 225–243.
- K. Schermelleh–Engel, H. Moosbrugger, and H. Müller, Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures, MPR-Online 8, 23 (2003).
- G. Cho, H. Hwang, M. Sarstedt, and C. M. Ringle, Cutoff criteria for overall model fit indexes in generalized structured component analysis, J. Mark. Anal. 8, 189 (2020).
- S. I. Vrieze, Model selection and psychological theory: A discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion and the Bayesian information criterion, Psychol. Methods 17, 228 (2012).
- A. Chakrabarti and J. K. Ghosh, AIC, BIC and recent advances in model selection, J. Indian Stat. Assoc. 49, 1 (2011).
- H. M. Buzick, Testing for heterogeneous factor loadings using mixtures of confirmatory factor analysis models, Front. Psychol. 1, 165 (2010).
- P. Kline, Handbook of Psychological Testing, 2nd ed. (Routledge, London, 2000), 10.4324/9781315812274.
- R. P. McDonald, Test Theory: A Unified Treatment (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1999).
- T. A. Brown, Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, 2nd ed. (Guilford Press, New York, 2015).
- C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, J. Mark. Res. 18, 39 (1981).
- N. Nachar, The Mann–Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two independent samples come from the same distribution, Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 4, 13 (2008).
- D. S. Kerby, The simple difference formula: An approach to teaching nonparametric correlation, Compr. Psychol. 3, 1 (2014).
- R. Case, Neo-Piagetian theories of intellectual development, in Piaget’s Theory (Psychology Press, London, 2013), pp. 61–104.
- G. S. Halford, N. Cowan, and G. Andrews, Separating cognitive capacity from knowledge: A new hypothesis, Trends Cognit. Sci. 11, 236 (2007).
- A. Baddeley, The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?, Trends Cognit. Sci. 4, 417 (2000).
- R. A. Bethlehem, J. Seidlitz, S. R. White, J. W. Vogel, K. M. Anderson, C. Adamson, S. Adler, G. S. Alexopoulos, E. Anagnostou, A. Areces-Gonzalez et al., Brain charts for the human lifespan, Nature (London) 604, 525 (2022).
- L. Grosslight, C. Unger, E. Jay, and C. L. Smith, Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28, 799 (1991).
- R. K. Coll and D. F. Treagust, Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners’ mental models of ionic bonding, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40, 464 (2003).
- S. W.-Y. Lee, H.-K. Wu, and H.-Y. Chang, Examining secondary school students’ views of model evaluation through an integrated framework of personal epistemology, Instr. Sci. 49, 223 (2021).
- J. M. Veith, E. Machisi, M. S. Ubben, F. Hennig, and P. Bitzenbauer, Analysis of high school students’ mental models of angles, Front. Educ. 10, 1679857 (2025).
- A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, How physics instruction impacts students’ beliefs about learning physics: A meta-analysis of 24 studies, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010115 (2015).
- M. Şahin, Exploring university students’ expectations and beliefs about physics and physics learning in a problem-based learning context, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 5, 321 (2009).
- A. Müller and C. Brown, An evidence-based approach to tasks in science education, Res. Sci. Educ. 5, 6 (2022).
- J. Zhang, The nature of external representations in problem solving, Cognit. Sci. 21, 179 (1997).
- R. Schwonke, K. Berthold, and A. Renkl, How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful, Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 23, 1227 (2009).
- J. F. Sima, H. Schultheis, and T. Barkowsky, Differences between spatial and visual mental representations, Front. Psychol. 4, 240 (2013).
- F. Pulvermüller, Neurobiological mechanisms for language, symbols and concepts: Clues from brain-constrained deep neural networks, Prog. Neurobiol. 230, 102511 (2023).