- 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

Exploring preservice teachers’ use of ontologies and stances toward the wave function through a classical-quantum analogy lesson

Paul de Haas* and Hanna Stammes

Henk W. de Regt

Erik Barendsen

  • *Contact author: paul.dehaas@ru.nl
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020130 – Published 9 September, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ynjj-22sw

Abstract

Physics students, teachers, and preservice teachers (PSTs) struggle with the abstract nature of quantum mechanics (QM), which has led to calls for a more conceptual approach to QM teaching and learning. In response, this study uses a novel analogy between Kundt’s tube and the infinite quantum well to elicit discussion of ontological issues. We investigated PSTs’ use of ontologies, including their interpretation of the wave function. Nine PSTs participated in the analogy lesson; dialogues were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. We identified five different ontologies: one classical and four quantum ontologies. The importance of probabilities in PSTs’ quantum ontologies stood out. Three ontologies (probabilistic particle, particle-wave, and probabilistic wave) expand the particle-wave duality, while the fourth (wave collapse) added a dynamic element to this axis. PSTs often used a single ontology in response to one aspect of the analogy but switched flexibly between ontologies across aspects of the analogy that they discussed. Concerning the wave function, we found both realist and formalist stances, revealing a diversity of interpretations that contrasts with the uniformity of the formalist QM courses PSTs had attended. We conclude that explicit attention to ontological issues in QM, supported by classical-quantum analogies, provides insight into PSTs’ ontological reasoning and offers a conceptual approach to teaching and learning QM. We present recommendations for PST training and implications for QM teaching reform.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (53)

  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. K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, H. J. Pol, A. Brinkman, and W. R. Van Joolingen, Secondary school students’ misunderstandings of potential wells and tunneling, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010132 (2020).
  3. T. Bouchée, L. de Putter-Smits, M. Thurlings, and B. Pepin, Towards a better understanding of conceptual difficulties in introductory quantum physics courses, Stud. Sci. Educ. 58, 183 (2022).
  4. C. Baily and N. D. Finkelstein, Refined characterization of student perspectives on quantum physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020113 (2010).
  5. 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).
  6. M. C. Wittmann and J. T. Morgan, Foregrounding epistemology and everyday intuitions in a quantum physics course for nonscience majors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020159 (2020).
  7. A. K. Mohan, Philosophical standpoints of textbooks in quantum mechanics, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 29, 549 (2020).
  8. B. W. Dreyfus, E. R. Sohr, A. Gupta, and A. Elby, “classical-ish”: Negotiating the boundary between classical and quantum particles, in Proceedings of the 2015 Physics Education Research Conference (2015), pp. 111–114.
  9. I. M. Greca and O. Freire, Meeting the challenge: Quantum physics in introductory physics courses, in International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (Dordrecht, Springer, 2014), pp. 183–209.
  10. C. Singh, Interactive learning tutorials on quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 400 (2008).
  11. M. A. Asikainen and P. E. Hirvonen, A study of pre- and inservice physics teachers’ understanding of photoelectric phenomenon as part of the development of a research-based quantum physics course, Am. J. Phys. 77, 658 (2009).
  12. N. Didiş Körhasan and M. Hidir, How should textbook analogies be used in teaching physics?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010109 (2019).
  13. N. Balta, High school teachers’ understanding of blackbody radiation, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 16, 23 (2018).
  14. H. K. E. Stadermann and M. J. Goedhart, 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, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020132 (2021).
  15. C. Baily and N. D. Finkelstein, Teaching quantum interpretations: Revisiting the goals and practices of introductory quantum physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020124 (2015).
  16. H. De Regt, Understanding Scientific Understanding (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017).
  17. B. W. Dreyfus, J. R. Hoehn, A. Elby, N. D. Finkelstein, and A. Gupta, Splits in students’ beliefs about learning classical and quantum physics, Int. J. STEM Educ. 6, 31 (2019).
  18. V. Kartsev, The Mach-Boltzmann controversy and Maxwell’s views on physical reality, in Probabilistic Thinking, Thermodynamics, and the Interaction of the History and Philosophy of Science, Synthese Library, Edited by J. Hintikka, C. D. Gruender, and E. Agazzi (Springer, Dordrecht, 1981), Vol. 146, p. 205.
  19. H. De Regt, Spacetime visualisation and the intelligibility of physical theories, Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 32, 243 (2001).
  20. J. Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to Microphysics: Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory in the Last Quarter of the Nineteenth Century (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1985).
  21. 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).
  22. M. Bunge, Survey of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 24, 272 (1956).
  23. R. Carnap, Philosophical Foundations of Physics: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Basic Books, New York, 1966).
  24. I. M. Greca and O. Freire Jr., Does an emphasis on the concept of quantum states enhance students’ understanding of quantum mechanics?, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 12, 541 (2003).
  25. 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).
  26. F. Rohrlich, On the ontology of QFT, in Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Field Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999), pp. 357–365.
  27. N. D. Mermin, What’s wrong with this pillow?, Phys. Today 42, 9 (1989).
  28. 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).
  29. C. Baily and N. D. Finkelstein, Teaching and understanding of quantum interpretations in modern physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010101 (2010).
  30. M. Bunge, Twenty-five centuries of quantum physics: From pythagoras to us, and from subjectivism to realism, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 12, 445 (2003).
  31. J. R. Hoehn, Investigating and valuing the messy nature of learning: Ontological, epistemological, and social aspects of student reasoning in quantum mechanics, Ph.d. thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2019.
  32. P. Maddy, How applied mathematics became pure, Rev. Symb. Log. 1, 16 (2008).
  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. P. Lautesse, A. Vila Valls, F. Ferlin, J.-L. Héraud, and H. Chabot, Teaching quantum physics in upper secondary school in france, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 24, 937 (2015).
  35. J.-M. Lévy-Leblond, On the nature of quantons, Sci. Educ. (Dordr.) 12, 495 (2003).
  36. C. Baily and N. D. Finkelstein, Interpretive themes in quantum physics: Curriculum development and outcomes, in Proceedings of the 2011 Physics Education Research Conference (AIP, Melville, NY, 2012), Vol. 1413, pp. 107–110.
  37. J. R. Hoehn and N. D. Finkelstein, Students’ flexible use of ontologies and the value of tentative reasoning: Examples of conceptual understanding in three canonical topics of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010122 (2018).
  38. J. R. Hoehn, J. D. Gifford, and N. D. Finkelstein, Investigating the dynamics of ontological reasoning across contexts in quantum physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010124 (2019).
  39. K. S. Taber, When the analogy breaks down: Modelling the atom on the solar system, Phys. Educ. 36, 222 (2001).
  40. M. Bunge, Analogy in quantum theory: From insight to nonsense, Br. J. Philos. Sci. 18, 265 (1968).
  41. R. Duit, On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science, Sci. Educ. 75, 649 (1991).
  42. D. E. Brown and J. Clement, Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction, Instr. Sci. 18, 237 (1989).
  43. R. Duit, W.-M. Roth, M. Komorek, and J. Wilbers, Fostering conceptual change by analogies—between Scylla and Charybdis, Learn. Instr. 11, 283 (2001).
  44. N. Didiş, The analysis of analogy use in the teaching of introductory quantum theory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 16, 355 (2015).
  45. J. K. Gilbert and R. Justi, Modelling-Based Teaching in Science Education (Springer Nature, Cham, 2016).
  46. L. V. Rodriguez, J. T. van der Veen, and T. de Jong, Role of analogies with classical physics in introductory quantum physics teaching, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010108 (2025).
  47. R. Healey, Quantum analogies: A reply to Maudlin, Philos. Sci. 66, 440 (1999).
  48. M. B. Hesse, Models and Analogies in Science (Sheed and Ward, London, 1963).
  49. S. Glynn, Teaching Science with Analogies: A Resource for Teachers and Textbook Authors, Instructional Resource (National Reading Research Center, 1994).
  50. E. Andreotti and R. Frans, Teaching quantum physics in secondary schools using the analogy with the physics of musical instruments, Phys. Educ. 58, 015008 (2022).
  51. P. Papacosta and N. Linscheid, An inexpensive and versatile version of Kundt’s tube for measuring the speed of sound in air, Phys. Teach. 54, 50 (2016).
  52. C. O’Connor and H. Joffe, Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines, Int. J. Qual. Methods 19, 1609406919899220 (2020).
  53. E. A. Davis, C. Beyer, C. T. Forbes, and S. Stevens, Understanding pedagogical design capacity through teachers’ narratives, Teach. Teach. Educ. 27, 797 (2011).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020130– Published 9 September, 2026
  • Received 18 December 2025
  • Accepted 5 August 2026
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