Please cite as:
Fletcher, P.R., (2004) PhD Thesis - How Tertiary Level Physics Students Learn and
Conceptualise Quantum Mechanics (School of Physics, University of Sydney)
CHAPTER 2
QUANTUM MECHANICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
It has already been noted that there has not been much education research
devoted to the teaching of quantum mechanics. The subject is far too specialised to
have much presence in mainstream education literature. What work has been done
is reported mainly in Chemistry and Physics journals.
The body of the literature summary has been presented in 3 sections.
The
Chemistry and physics articles have been treated separately to reflect the differences
in the types and styles of articles, within each discipline area the articles have been
classified and grouped under one of the following four headings – History;
Teaching specific ideas and concepts; Course materials; or Education research.
These cover a broad selection of articles which were intended by their authors to be
used by educators of the subject. These reviews are followed by a broad overview
of associated educational literature to situate the results of the research and provide
the theoretical framework of learning underpinning this study.
For a comprehensive categorised literature bibliography covering quantum
mechanics please refer to Appendix 8 for a Quantum Chemistry Literature Survey
and Appendix 9 for a Quantum Physics Literature Survey.
2.2 CHEMISTRY RELATED
Chemistry education research has had a presence since the 1920’s with the
publishing of the Journal of Chemical Education1 in 1924 and provided a broad
forum for all chemical educators. Chemistry education reached a milestone in the
late 1970’s when university chemistry departments recognised and began to appoint
faculty to positions specifically responsible for chemistry education. For example
Purdue University in 1982 established a Division of Chemical Education2 and offers
higher degree programs in chemical education.
1
2
Journal of Chemical Education – refer to http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/index.html
Completing the Program with a Division of Chemical Education
11
12
In relation to the teaching of quantum mechanics, the period 1970 through
to the commencement of this research has seen a steady number of articles in
chemical education literature devoted to quantum theory and introductory
quantum mechanics.
These include short essays addressing historical and
philosophical issues, descriptions of atomic models and bonding, representations of
bonding and energy levels, example problems suitable for presentation and
computer simulations.
In Appendix 8 Quantum Chemistry Literature Survey, the papers have been
categorised and grouped into the following structure.
HISTORY
Quantum Chemistry – History
TEACHING OF IDEAS AND CONCEPTS
Quantum Chemistry - Teaching Concepts
Interpretations
Bonding & Structure
Atoms
Orbitals
Mathematics
Specific
Quantum Chemistry - Lecture Demonstrations & Laboratory
Demonstrations
Laboratory
Quantum Chemistry - Computational Ideas
Curriculum Changes & Delivery
Software Programs
Wave Function Software
Atomic Structure & Orbital Programs
Web
EDUCATION RESEARCH
Quantum Chemistry - Education Research
2.2.1 Chemistry – History & Teaching of Ideas and Concepts Papers
Though these papers cover a wide variety of topics, their approach is
surprisingly similar. By and large they focus mainly on providing teaching support
materials.
One paper, chosen more or less at random, can be taken to be
by G.M. Bodner and J. Dudley Herron – refer to
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/chemed/bodnergroup/archive/publications/completing
13
representative and contain the common elements addressed. It is entitled Presenting
the Bohr Atom (Haendlers, 1982) and is typical of the format of the majority of this
literature.
The paper first acknowledges that the current available text material lacks
context and treats the topic in a simplistic way, ignoring the events and debates that
lead to the formalisation of theories. The paper then describes the context of the
topic, in this case an historical outline of the development of Bohr’s ideas. It cites
and contextualises the observations, theories and experiments from Faraday’s
experiments with electrolysis through to the Schrödinger theory of quantum
mechanics.
The main body of the article then refers back to this preliminary
information. The main topic of this article is entitled ‘Derivation of the Energies of
the Stationary States’ and details the derivation of Bohr’s model. The summary
section entitled ‘The Bohr atom in the Chemistry Curriculum’ then links the ideas
presented in the article back to the undergraduate chemistry curriculum.
The primary inference from this paper, as in other similar articles, is that a
more historically accurate and/or detailed treatment of the material should increase
the student’s understanding of the development of scientific theories. Also it is
proposed that this treatment of the material would also remove some of the
frustration students feel at the arbitrary nature of current textbook presentations.
The themes contained within this grouping of papers does have variation
when compared to the example above, some are less critical of the current material
or methods and focus more on presenting an idea, the utilisation of a tool or simply
offer advice on material delivery in a particular educational setting.
2.2.2 Chemistry – Education Research Papers
The proportion of specifically quantum mechanics education research based
papers is small when compared to the number of aforementioned papers. These
papers predominately address the areas of bonding and atomic structure.
Following is a representative selection of papers.
Patricia Keig and Peter Rubba in their paper Translation of Representations of
the Structure of Matter and its Relationship to Reasoning, Gender, Spatial Reasoning and
Specific Prior Knowledge (Keig, 1993) explore the abilities of students to appropriately
.html
14
translate between three representations of the structure of matter. The research uses
interviews as the primary research instrument and three variates of paper-andpencil instruments to measure reasoning, spatial reasoning and prior knowledge.
The discussion section of the paper reiterates the research questions and comments
on the findings in terms of translation errors, misunderstandings, misapplications,
spatial reasoning and gender differences. The conclusion paragraph then relates the
findings to models of knowledge and understanding, then briefly discusses
strategies which may assist instruction to minimise the identified weaknesses.
Georgeios Tsaparlis’s paper entitled Atomic Orbitals, Molecular Orbitals and
Related Concepts (Tsaparlis, 1997) analyses examination scripts of successful
students. The students knowledge and understanding of the following topics was
studied – the definition of an atomic orbital, the real mathematical verses the
complex mathematical forms of the atomic orbitals, the representations (shapes) of
the atomic orbitals, the approximate nature of atomic orbitals for many electron
atoms, Slater determinants, the definition of a molecular orbital, and the nature of
the chemical bond.
The analyses revealed that students did not have a clear
understanding of orbitals, they had difficulty in understanding the conceptual
similarity between the real and complex mathematical forms associated with atomic
orbitals, they confuse the orbital representations, and did not realise the
approximate nature of orbitals for many electron atoms. The paper then discusses
the implications of these finding for instruction and the curriculum, followed by
instructional strategies and suggestions for secondary and general chemistry
curricula.
The chemical education research papers related to quantum mechanics have
adopted well tested educational tools which are commonly utilised in mainstream
science education research. The research formats are narrow and tend to focus on
exploring the understanding of a specific concept(s), addressing the difficulties
and/or misconceptions students’ hold, followed by a discussion concerning the
implications to instruction and curricula.
2.2.3 Chemistry – Papers
In summary, the majority of chemical education publications relating to
quantum mechanics, provide useful teaching materials such as historical reviews
and presentation analogies. They generally conclude that these materials would
15
enhance a student’s understanding of the quantum concepts, but do not make
reference to supporting education research. There is therefore little emphasis on
pedagogy.
This lack of pedagogical research into the deeper question of learning is most
probably due to the fact that quantum mechanics is not currently considered a
particularly important area for the chemical education research community. This
would no doubt be related to the sheer number of topics that have to be covered,
and quantum mechanics is perceived to be only a very small part of the
undergraduate chemistry curricula.
2.3 PHYSICS RELATED
Physics education research has been growing over the past 25 years. For a
comprehensive literature reading list refer to the University of Marylands, Research
in Physics Education (RIPE) WEB site (URL http://www.umd.edu/ripe). At the
American Association of Physics Teachers meeting (AAPT) held in 1996, the
members decided to form a sub-branch for Physics Education Research. It should
be noted that a substantial portion of physics education research has been devoted
to studying student conceptual understanding of topics in physics. Also of note is
the recent increase in articles pertaining to theories of learning. However most
research has focused on the area of mechanics and to a lesser extent electricity,
magnetism, heat and optics. The amount that has been devoted to quantum physics
is quite small.
The physics education literature associated with quantum physics published
in the period 1970 to present can be categorised into four main types of articles.
These could be broadly described as History, philosophy and interpretation of
quantum mechanics; Teaching of specifics concepts - Ideas and methods for
teaching quantum concepts, including isolated computer simulations; Teaching
materials - Packaged teaching and assessment modules; and Education research.
The associated reference list is as complete as possible and is presented in Appendix
9 Quantum Physics Literature Survey, the papers have been categorised and
grouped into the following structure (see over page).
HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY AND INTERPRETATION
OF QUANTUM MECHANICS
Quantum Physics - History
16
Quantum Physics - Philosophy & Interpretation
TEACHING OF SPECIFIC CONCEPTS
Quantum Physics - Teaching Concepts
Quantum Mechanics - Lecture Demonstrations & Laboratory
Quantum Physics - Computational
Quantum Physics - Tests
TEACHING MATERIALS
Quantum Physics – Computer & Book based Course Material
Quantum Physics – Courses and comments
Quantum Physics - Textbook Review
EDUCATION RESEARCH
Quantum Physics - Education Research
Related education research on waves
2.3.2 Physics – History, Philosophy and Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics
The physics and physics education journals contain many historical accounts
that cover both the lives of the physicists, the theories they developed, philosophical
debates and discussions concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Although these are not directly aimed at addressing educational issues they are an
important resource component accessible to both teachers and students.
2.3.3 Physics – Teaching of Specific Concepts
The majority of physics education publications dealing with quantum
mechanics over the last 25 years predominately provided useful teaching materials
outlining the authors’ thoughts concerning the manner in which an idea, topic or
concept can be successfully presented. These articles, as do those in chemistry,
generally conclude that the material would enhance a student’s understanding of
the quantum concepts but make very few references to supporting education
research. It is also noted that half the physics articles listed do not have conclusions
or summaries that describe the outcomes one might expect from utilising the ideas
presented.
A representative example of a paper entitled “Quantum Mechanics
made Transparent” (Henry, 1990) is outlined below:
The article is described as a ‘sampler’. It shows “...how quantum mechanics
may be presented to students in a way that makes apparent how natural quantum mechanics
is as a description of the world... The basic ideas of quantum mechanics are developed from
17
intuitive first principles to the point where one can connect with the more traditional
treatments of quantum mechanics.”.
The article then uses a Socratic dialogue between a teacher and his students
which centres around a very detailed question and answer session.
The
conversation begins with a discussion of the postulates and leads into the
uncertainty principle. The discussion then moves on to cover the development of
the mathematical machinery associated with Hilbert Space and the idea of
representing observables by operators.
The terms ‘eigenstates’ and ‘probability
amplitudes’ are discussed and each of the operators commonly used are presented.
The author does not provide a summary or conclusion to the article.
A small number of articles describing selected lecture demonstration and
experimental apparatus appropriate to quantum mechanics have been published.
These articles provide a description of the apparatus, associated theory and
comment on its usefulness in an educational delivery context. A comprehensive list
of demonstrations and experiments and the primary information source for these is
available from Physics Instructional Resource Association3 PIRA.
The advent of low cost semiconductors and programmable calculators in the
mid 1970s spawned a series of papers describing how these could be used to
generate graphical representations of quantum phenomena.
Some examples
include “The analogue computer as an aid to teaching elementary quantum mechanics”
(Summers, 1976), an article which describes how analogue techniques can be use to
tackle simple quantum mechanical problems; “Fundamental quantum mechanics graphical presentation” (Wise & Kelley, 1977), provides a selection of computer
generated displays including a computer simulated diffraction experiment, a
derivation of the uncertainty relation, and several spatial distributions of
momentum amplitudes and “Simulations of quantum-mechanical measurements with
programmable pocket calculators” (Summers, 1978), which provides the reader with the
mathematics and the code for the implementation of numerical integration and
gives the example of a quantum isolator. These early papers and programs paved
the way for quite sophisticated simulation software packages that were developed
and distributed after the advent of the modern personal computer.
3
The Physics Instructional Resource Association
http://physics.csufresno.edu/pirapub/default
PIRA
WEB
site
at
URL
18
2.3.4 Physics – Teaching Materials
Packaged teaching and assessment modules
At the commencement of this research project there were three large and two
smaller computer assisted learning (CAL) packages currently available for teaching
tertiary level quantum physics. These were:
•
Software Teaching of Modular Physics (SToMP) - a project funded under the
teaching and learning technologies program (TLTP). Coordinated by Dr RA Bacon,
Physics Department, University of Surrey, Guildford
•
Simulations in Quantum Mechanics - Consortium for Upper Level Physics
Software (CUPS) produced by J.R. Hiller, I.D. Johnston and D.F. Styer.
•
Quantum Mechanics on the Personal Computer - developed by S Brandt and
H.D. Dahmen (Berlin Springer).
and
•
Visual Quantum Mechanics - Explorations of the Quantum world for NonScience Students, Physics Department, Kansas State University
•
Understanding the Unobservable - a reconstruction of First Year Quantum
Physics for Engineers and Scientists by Andrew Cheetham and John Rayner,
University of Canberra
Although these packages had been reviewed by journals4 the quantum
physics components appear to have been developed without reference to education
research material.
Since the commencement of this research project the Visual
Quantum Mechanics team headed by Dean Zollman has significantly developed and
has been guided by internal and external PER education research.
2.3.5 Physics – Education Research
The following papers have been selected and are representative of the major
quantum mechanics education research programs. Please refer to Appendix 9 for a
complete literature review.
In 1991 a research team at the Free University of Berlin, Germany, headed by
Helmut Fischler and Michael Lichtfeldt, presented a paper “Learning Quantum
Mechanics” at the International Workshop for Research in Physics Learning :
Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, held at the University of Bremen (March 4-
4 For articles referring to these and other CAL & video refer to the software clearinghouse
UniServe Science WEB site at URL http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/SCH
19
8, 1991). This was the first published research article to investigate into students’
conceptions and their learning processes in relation to quantum mechanics.
The article reports on findings from a study that compares a teaching unit
that avoids the use of mechanical models commonly presented in texts with a
control group.
The premise was that clinging to a historically orientated
development of the subject means the teaching will also cling to the conceptions of
classical physics. The researchers propose that these mechanical models will set up
additional obstacles to understanding quantum physics.
The teaching unit was trialled at several high schools in eleven physics
courses (150 students). The study consisted of an evaluation questionnaire; video
recordings of 32 lessons across six courses, in order to discover correlations between
student conceptions and their answers given in lessons; pre-interviews for two
courses, to find out what conceptions the student had at the beginning of the
teaching unit; a post questionnaire five to six weeks after course; and postinterviews of three courses. In addition the same pre- and post- questionnaire was
administered to a control group of students in a further 14 courses (120 students).
The range of topics covered by the questionnaires and interviews was —
light, atom-electron, particle-body and students’ ideas on the philosophy of science.
The questions took the form of open-ended free answer (eg. What is light really?)
and word pair associations. The verbal answers were transcribed from videotapes.
The study yielded results covering an overview of the students’ conceptions
before and after the teaching unit and a comparison between the test and control
groups; and case studies for individual students providing conceptual maps that
summarised the students’ network of ideas.
The article’s summary section provides an illustration of the results based
upon the examples provided in the results section. Referring to the test group, ”A
teaching concept, for example like the one here, which in the first stage of planning already
considers in detail possible conceptions of students, and consciously provides room for these
conceptions to develop in the physics course, will achieve an increased cognitive conflict
situation which will then lead the students to grapple with the subject matter in an
intensified manner. In this way the students became conscious of their own conceptions and
began to question them”.
Whereas the results from the control group tended to
incorporate the “new” phenomena into the “old” mechanistic ideas. “Here, the
20
different ideas in quantum physics were merely acquired verbally in the science language
level and forgotten again afterwards.”
Fischler and Lichtfeldt published a second paper entitled “Modern Physics
and Students’ Conceptions” (Fischler and Lichtfeldt, 1992) the article extends upon
the previous analyses and quantifies the “Change of students’ conceptions of an
atom’s stability” and provides “Comparisons of conceptual change between the test
and control groups”.
The article, “Common misconceptions regarding quantum mechanics”
(Styer, 1996), Daniel Styer presents fifteen preconceptions that students can have
concerning quantum mechanics. The article’s content has been drawn from his own
experiences and covers misconceptions relating to the idea of quantal state,
measurement and identical particles.
Styer points out that misconceptions are
operational as well as conceptual and recommends a variety of ways to utilise the
presented material.
These include guided discussions, essay questions and
diagnostic examinations.
Reflecting the increasing interest in educational aspects of quantum
mechanics during the period of this research two conferences have held dedicated
sessions. The first was at the 1999 NARST Annual Meeting - Looking Forward,
Looking Backward : Reflections on the Future and Past of Science Education Boston
with a session entitled “Research on the Teaching & Learning of Quantum Science”
where eight poster papers were presented.
The second was the 2002 Gordon
Conference -Physics Research and Education: Quantum Mechanics, Mount Holyoke
College, South Hadley MA, where twenty six papers were presented covering the
following areas of physics education research and developing curricula, quantum
mechanics curricula and teaching quantum mechanics, research experiments in
quantum curriculum, student understanding of physics concepts, theoretical
research and teaching quantum mechanics, topics in quantum mechanics, photon
experiments with undergraduates, quantum curricula, experimental research that
could influence quantum curricula.
2.4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF LEARNING – A LEARNING
MODEL
Although little research has been carried in the specific area of quantum
mechanics in relation to learning there is a great deal of empirical research and
21
theorising about student learning in science. One of the aims of this study as
outlined in Chapter 1 was to situate the results of the research into the broader
associated educational literature. This section provides an educational research
backdrop and highlights aspects of the literature which were considered important
to this specific investigation.
This thesis is concerned with student learning in the area of quantum
mechanics and the scope of the research questions would yield a great deal of
information collected from a number of different sources.
To interpret this
information and communicate the results it is necessary to introduce a theoretical
framework for learning. This study defines learning in quantum mechanics as a
complex process that is based on existing educational, psychological and scientific
theories that underpin the work of the science education community. It draws on
current work on learning theory from the fields of neuroscience, cognitive science,
science education and physics education research.
This section will briefly survey the literature that directly influences the
theoretical framework of learning underpinning this study. It will examine learning
as a constructivist process and the factors that influence learning outcomes. This
theoretical framework presupposes that learners develop cognitive structures to
store and retrieve knowledge.
2.4.1 Learning
In the fields of behavioural, cognitive and humanist psychology a definition
of learning has three criteria (Schuell 1986):
1.
a change (or a potential for change) in an individual’s behaviour or ability to
do something;
2.
a stipulation that the change must result from some sort of practice or
experience; and
3.
a stipulation that the change is an enduring one.
While there is some degree of consensus on a definition of learning, ideas
and theories on how learning occurs are subject to debate and constant revision. A
complete explanation linking the neurological behaviour of the brain to more
abstract and high level processes of learning is still unattained. This study adopts a
22
cognitive approach relying heavily on the constructivist view of learning to
establish a theoretical framework.
2.4.2 Constructivism
The fundamental tenet of constructivist learning theory is that students
construct knowledge from external experiences and interactions with their
environment.
The earliest references to the construction of knowledge are
attributable to the philosophers Vico and Kant in the 18th century. What is now
called constructivism incorporates ideas from a range of perspectives and is a large
multi-faceted subject. Various types of constructivism are described by Phillips
(1995) in terms of dimensions.
This work assumes a socio-cultural perspective
where learners are part of a collaborative environment actively building physical
models that are abstract human constructions.
The proposed theoretical framework draws on neo-Piagetian ideas of
knowledge construction. It also uses social constructivist ideas that originate with
Vygotsky.
Two schools of constructivism, initiated by the work of Piaget and
Vygotsky have had an enormous impact on science education research and practise.
Howe (1996) identifies three elements of Piagetian theory as being ‘particularly
influential’ to science education:
1.
the idea that a child learns through interaction with the environment has
resulted in a widespread discovery and hypothesis testing teaching style in
classrooms and laboratories;
2.
the idea that cognitive development occurs in predictable stages has led to
curricula designed to reflect the development level of children; and
3.
the idea that students must construct knowledge and meaning for
themselves has meant students are encouraged to have a more active role in
the teaching and learning process.
Vygotsky’s description of learning as a collaborative or shared experience
that is dependent of interactions with others has been widely interpreted and
implemented in science education.
Scholars who have made a substantial
contribution to this end include: Driver (1995), Rogoff (1984, 1986 and 1990), Lave
(1991), Roth (1990), Newmann, Griffin and Cole (1989, 1995). Social constructivism
provided a change of focus and facilitated the introduction of group and
23
cooperative learning styles.
The use of language by students was encouraged
children used their own language while they learnt scientific language. The zone of
proximal development and scaffolding has become a common teaching and
learning strategy.
A learner’s zone of proximal development is defined as the learner’s range of
ability with and without assistance from a teacher or peer. Thus one end of the
range is the student’s ability level without assistance and the other end of the range
is the learner’s ability level with assistance.
This is an important concept to
understand because it can guide what should be learnt next about a topic. For
example, when applying this in a learning setting you would assess a learner’s
present knowledge of a topic and identify a subset of new knowledge that would be
most appropriate to learn next and other subsets would be best left alone until later.
The subset that would be best to learn next is contained in the proximal zone. The
subsets that should be left until later are contained within the distal zone.
When it became widely realised that Vygotsky’s work contradicted the idea
that cognitive development precedes learning, emphasis was placed on the context
of learning. It led to acceptance of the idea that students’ cognitive development
progresses by learning science within a context that provides support and is
relevant to them. It also led to the recognition of what Lave (1991) describes as
situated learning. Transferring knowledge learnt in one context to another can be
difficult or even impossible. This has many implications for physics teaching as
identified by Johnston et al (1998).
2.4.3 Model of student learning
A useful way to summarise the teaching and learning ideas that inform this
study is by using a presage-process-product model (Biggs, 1978 and Prosser et al
1994, 1999). The model shows stages of the learning process and a possible logical
sequence of these stages. Each stage is influenced by a number of factors. For
example the learner’s prior knowledge, prior experiences, their attitude towards the
learning context, epistemological factors and characteristics of the learning context
itself.
24
Process
Presage
Product
Characteristics of
Student
- prior knowledge
- prior experiences
- affect
- motivation
Student Perceptions of
the Learning Context
- social interactions
- physical setting
- epistemological
Student Approaches
- surface or deep
- framing
- constructing
meaning
Learning Outcomes
- student responses
to a range of
problem solving
situations
Characteristics of
Learning Context
-physical setting
-resources
-pedagogical model
-content
-structure
-teaching strategies
Figure 2-1 : Presage – Process - Product Model of student learning. Adapted from Prosser,
Trigwell, Hazel and Gallagher (1994)
A model such as this allows us to see knowledge construction as a process
consisting of understandable stages. However it is a greatly simplified model and
one must remember that stages can occur simultaneously and multiplicable factors
in each stage are influential. Thus it is usually not possible to completely isolate
individual stages of the learning process, as interactions between the stages are
complex. For an individual learner the extent of influence of individual factors can
vary and this can result in a variety of learning outcomes for a group of students
involved in the same learning context.
This model forms the skeleton of the theoretical framework, attached to this
skeleton is the cognitive structure students develop while studying quantum
mechanics, the discipline structure of quantum mechanics and the factors that
influence student learning.
2.4.4
Cognitive structures
Cognitive structures are metaphorical constructions that describe the storing
of knowledge and the mechanics of learning. Study of the brain function and
human behaviour suggests that knowledge is stored in some organised manner, and
relatively simple psychological experiments such as memory tests tend to confirm
that individuals possess cognitive structures that they can access and add to as the
25
need arises. Neural research suggests that knowledge and learning are facilitated
by neurons and synapses. As an individual learns there is a growth in the number
of synapses (connections) between neurons (Fuster, 1999). This study requires the
use of a cognitive structure that is different from the detail of neuron activation and
response. In order to clearly articulate the cognitive structures the work of Phillips
(1987) is used. He defines three domains where a knowledge structure is present:
1.
the structure of part of the external world;
2.
the structure of our theories dealing with the structure of this part of the
world; and
3.
the structure of the psychological entities with which we master such
theories or deal with such parts of the world.
Taking an electron as a quantum mechanics example, the electron is the
external world structure, an individual’s cognitive structure is the way our brain
records our understanding of the electron and the wave function is the structure by
which we express our understanding of the external structure. It is clear that these
structures are related and to a degree independent, but they are not the same. The
second domain is called the cognitive structure and the third domain is the
discipline structure.
The discipline structure for quantum mechanics will be established through
a grounded study which is described in detail in Chapter 4 and the discipline
structure will be presented and discussed in Chapter 7. The cognitive structure
assumed is taken from Shavelson (1974), “The structure in a student’s memory is
referred to as a cognitive structure: a hypothetical construct referring to the organisation
(relationships) of concepts in memory.” .
This hypothetical structure consists of small elements or resources.
Activation of one element or resource may lead to the activation of another. This
process is called association. If an association exists between elements or resources
they are said to be linked. A series of linked elements or resources is called a
schema (Hintzman 1978). Although its origins are in memory research, the notion
of schema has been extended to learning. Remembering is one form of learning, but
human structures of knowledge are not simplistic and declarative, and theories
have evolved to explain the specialised and complex nature of humans’ procedural
26
or generative schemata. Schema is constantly modified by interactions with the
environment and so has to be seen as an “active” organisation. To describe the
processes of learning in terms of schema concepts of assimilation, accretion,
accommodation, restructuring and tuning are used.
For a more detailed
explanation of these concepts see the work of Glasserfeld (1989), Ausubel (1968),
Rumelhart and Norman (1978, 1980 and 1981).
This study assumes a schema-based cognitive structure for an individual’s
understanding of quantum mechanics. Learning using schema has the following
stages:
•
A new element or resource is encountered.
•
The new element triggers a recognition response.
•
The learner associates a specific activity or purpose with the new element
based on existing schema.
•
If the learners expectation is reinforced the new element is assimilated into an
existing schema.
•
If the learners expectation is NOT reinforced this perturbation leads to an
adjustment of the schema called accommodation.
•
If the original processing of the new element in terms of existing schema is
retained this is called accretion. This trace of the new element can be used to
later reconstruct the original input.
•
If in cases where there is no recognition response, entirely new schema may
be constructed, this is called restructuring.
•
By applying the schema the schema is slowly modified and refined. This
tuning allows schema to conform better and better to the sorts of situations to
which it is to apply.
Schema are small structures and it would take many schemata to represent a
students understanding of quantum mechanics.
Adopting a higher order
knowledge structure from Scherr (2002) and Redish (2004) it is proposed that
schema are grouped to form a larger model. The models of student knowledge
form a continuum between two extremes. On one extreme the model consists of
27
many strongly associated elements or resources that can be activated in a variety of
contexts and is stable and resistant to change. At the other extreme is a set of
largely independent elements and resources with weak associations, which are
activated in only limited contexts and are labile and easily changed.
The value of cognitive structure is the ability to retrieve, process and apply
knowledge to solve a range of problems.
2.5 IN RELATION TO CURRENT INVESTIGATION
The quantum mechanics education research literature review shows that
very little formalised research had been undertaken by either the Chemistry or
Physics education research communities by the commencement of this project in
1997. During the intervening period 1997-2003 a number of concurrent related
studies concerned with aspects of visualisation, understanding of the wave nature
of matter, student views and conceptions have been reported. The area of focus of
the current investigation, mainly the isolation of key concepts, identification of
learning difficulties, exploration of the role of mathematics, and the exploration of
visualisation and analogy in learning quantum mechanics in relation to 2nd year
undergraduate through to postgraduate has essentially no associated research
literature. This study will collect information on students’ understanding of
quantum mechanics through observation, interviews, review and problem solving
activities, the data will be analysed and interpreted internally and with respect to
wider educational literature outlined in the Learning Model section
28
CHAPTER 2 - REFERENCES
Ausubel, D.P., (1969) Chapter 3 – Meaningful reception learning and retention.
Educational psychology a cognitive view (Holt, Rinehart and Winston), pp83-123
Biggs, J.B., (1978) Individual and group differences in study processes, British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 48, 266-279
Driver, R., (1995) Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In L.P. Steffe and
J.Gale (Eds.) Constructivism in Education (Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates), pp385-400
Fischler, H., Lichtfeldt, M., (1990) Learning Quantum Mechanics, ? Proceedings of the
International Workshop for Research in Physics Learning : Theoretical Issues and Empirical
Studies, University of Bremen (March 4-8, 1991), pp240-258
Fischler, H., Lichtfeldt, M., (1992) Modern physics and students’ conceptions,
International Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 181-190
Fuster, J.M., (1999) Memory in the Cerebral cortex: An empirical approach to neural
networks in the human and nonhuman primate (MIT Press)
Glassersfeld, E. von, (1989) Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching.
Synthese 80(1), 121-140
Haendler, B.L., (1982) Presenting the Bohr Atom, Journal of Chemical Education, 59(5),
372-375
Henry, R.C., (1990) Quantum mechanics made transparent, American Journal of
Physics, 58(11), 1087-1100
Hintzman, D.L., (1978) Comments on the papers by Hunt and by Rumelhart and
Norman. In J.W. Cotton and R.A. Klatzhy (Eds.) Semantic factors in cognition
(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp55-60
Howe, A.C., (1996) Development of science concepts within a Vygotskian
framework. Science Education, 80(1), 35-51
Johnston, I.D., Crawford, K.P. and Fletcher, P.R., (1998) Student difficulties in
learning quantum mechanics, International Journal of Science Education, 20, 427-446
Keig, P.F. and Rubba, P.A., (1993) Translation of representation of the structure of
matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior
knowledge, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 883-903
Lave, J. and Wenger, E., (1991) Situated learning, legitimate peripheral participation
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Newman, D., Griffin, P. and Cole, M., (1989) The construction zone: Working for
cognitive change in school (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
29
Phillips, D.C., (1987) Chapter 12 – On describing a student’s cognitive structure,
Philosophy, science and social inquiry (New York: Pergamon Press) pp137-157
Phillips, D.C., (1995) The good, the bad and the ugly: The many faces of
constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K,. Hazel, E., and Gallagher, P., (1994) Students’ experiences
of teaching and learning at the topic level, Research and Development in Higher
Education, 16, 305-310
Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K., (1999) Understanding learning and teaching: the
experience in higher education (Open University Press, Buckingham)
Redish, E.F., (2004) To be published in The Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer
School in Physics Course CLVI (Italian Physical Society, 2004)
Rogoff, B., (1984) Introduction: Thinking and learning in social context. In B.Rogoff
& J.Lave (Eds) Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press), pp1-8
Rogoff, B., (1986) Adult assistance of children’s learning. In T.E. Raphael (Ed.), The
contexts of school-based literacy (New York: Random House), pp27-40
Rogoff, B., (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context
(New York: Oxford University Press)
Roth, K.J., (1990) Chapter 4 – Developing meaningful conceptual understandings in
science. In B.F. Jones and L.Idol (Eds.) Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive
Instruction (NCREL/Erlbaum)
Rumelhart, D.E and Norman, D.A., (1981) Analogical processes in learning. In J.R.
Anderson (Ed.) Cognitive skills and their acquisition (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates), pp335-359
Rumelhart, D.E. and Norman, D.A., (1978) Accretion, tuning and restructuring:
Three modes of learning. In J.W. Cotton and R.A. Klatzhy (Eds.) Semantic factors in
cognition (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp37-53
Rumelhart, D.E., (1980) Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B.
Bruce and W. Brewer (Eds.) Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates)
Scherr, R., (2002) AAPT Announcer 31(4), 92
Shavelson, R.J., (1974) Some methods for examining content structure and cognitive
structure in instruction, Educational Psychologist, 11, 111
Shuell, T.J., (1986) Cognitive conceptions of learning, Review of Educational Research,
56(4), 411-436
Styer, D.F., (1996) Common misconceptions regarding quantum mechanics,
American Journal of Physics, 64(1), 31-34
30
Summers, M.K., (1976) The analogue computer as an aid to teaching elementary
quantum mechanics, Physics Education, 11(4), 296-302
Tsaparlis, G., (1997) Atomic orbitals, molecular orbitals and related concepts:
Conceptual difficulties among chemistry students, Research in Science Education,
27(2), 271-287
Wise, M.N., Kelley, T.G., (1977) Fundamental quantum mechanics – a graphic
presentation, American Journal of Physics, 45(4), 384-394
Note: For a comprehensive categorised literature bibliography covering quantum
mechanics please refer to Appendix 8 for a Quantum Chemistry Literature Survey
and Appendix 9 for a Quantum Physics Literature Survey.
31
CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................................11
QUANTUM MECHANICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION LITERATURE REVIEW......................11
2.1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................11
2.2
CHEMISTRY RELATED......................................................................................................11
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.3
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.5
Chemistry – History & Teaching of Ideas and Concepts Papers....................................................12
Chemistry – Education Research Papers ........................................................................................13
Chemistry – Papers.........................................................................................................................14
PHYSICS RELATED............................................................................................................15
Physics – History, Philosophy and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics ....................................16
Physics – Teaching of Specific Concepts.......................................................................................16
Physics – Teaching Materials.........................................................................................................18
Physics – Education Research ........................................................................................................18
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF LEARNING – A LEARNING MODEL ......................20
Learning .........................................................................................................................................21
Constructivism................................................................................................................................22
Model of student learning...............................................................................................................23
Cognitive structures........................................................................................................................24
IN RELATION TO CURRENT INVESTIGATION ...............................................................27
FIGURE 2-1 : PRESAGE – PROCESS - PRODUCT MODEL OF STUDENT LEARNING. ADAPTED FROM
PROSSER, TRIGWELL, HAZEL AND GALLAGHER (1994)............................................................... 24