Investigating the dynamics of ontological reasoning across contexts in quantum physics

Abstract

The ontologies students use-their conceptions about the nature of entities-impact the way they learn physics and reason through physics problems. We investigate students' capacities for flexible use of ontologies in a modern physics context, focusing on students' reasoning around two quantum entities (photons and electrons) for three canonical topics in introductory quantum physics (double slit experiment, Mach-Zehnder interferometer, and quantum tunneling). We present a description of a full framework to describe and distinguish between different kinds of dynamic ontologies. The framework identifies possible ontological structures in individual reasoning episodes, three of which we identify in our data set: unitary (applying a single stable ontology), parallel (switching back and forth between multiple ontologies), and blended (constructing a novel ontology by blending two or more input ontologies). These different ontological structures are applied to the specific ontologies used (e.g., wave or particle) for the specific entity (e.g., photon or electron). We demonstrate the utility of the framework by coding individual responses from a representative sample of an introductory modern physics course to an array of written and multiple-choice questions on homework, exams, and pre-and postsurveys. We present and explore the patterns of use of ontologies across the three topical contexts and these various modalities. We demonstrate that students use a variety of ontologies and ontological structures across entities and topic areas, even when not explicitly prompted to do so. In addition to providing evidence of students' capacities for flexible use of ontologies, we find that the wording and framing of the question prompts impact students' use of ontologies. Expanding on the aggregate data, we engage in analysis of a few notable examples to demonstrate how the wording, framing, and content of prompts can intersect to collectively impact students' use of ontologies and ontological structures.

Secondary school students’ views of nature of science in quantum physics

“…In an atom, electrons are mainly described as classical particles but to explain the outcome of the double-slit experiment all interviewees also used wave properties. We agree with Hoehn et al (2019) who argue that the tentative and messy reasoning about the wave-particle dualitymixing of and switching between different interpretationsis not a problem but an essential and productive step of students' sense-making in QP. In their study, the authors analysed students' explanations of the double-slit experiment with the conceptual blending framework.…”

“…This result accords with a large number of findings in research on introductory QP education (Adbo & Taber, 2009;C. Baily & Finkelstein, 2010;Harrison & Treagust, 1996;Hoehn et al, 2019;Mannila et al, 2002;Petri & Niedderer, 1998). In an atom, electrons are mainly described as classical particles but to explain the outcome of the double-slit experiment all interviewees also used wave properties.…”

“…Because, for some epistemological aspects, this would imply a preference for one philosophical perspective on QP. In this approach, we follow physics educators who emphasise that it is essential for students' QP learning to develop their own epistemological perspective (Bungum et al, 2018;Hoehn et al, 2019). Therefore we will focus on those NOS views which are relevant in the context of QP learning (see Table 1).…”

Categorical framework for mathematical sense making in physics

“…Ultimately, for the experienced physicist, the wave function is likely both a mathematical and a physical entity. This dual view of an entity is an example of a dynamic ontology [43] which is built up over time, perhaps through engagement with coordinated reasoning structures like the one developed in this epilogue.…”

Splits in students’ beliefs about learning classical and quantum physics

“…This investigation is part of a larger study of student thinking in quantum mechanics (Dreyfus, Elby, Gupta, & Sohr, 2017;Hoehn & Finkelstein, 2018b;Hoehn, Gifford, & Finkelstein, 2019;Sohr, Gupta, & Elby, 2018; Tutorials on thinking about quantum entities, n.d.). Our studies take place in two different levels of quantum mechanics (QM) instruction in undergraduate curriculum for physics majors in the US-a more general course typically called "Modern Physics" and more specialized advanced quantum mechanics.…”