This article was downloaded by: [Harvard College]

On: 02 September 2013, At: 17:34

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Modern physics and students’

conceptions
a a
Helmut Fischler & Michael Lichtfeldt
a
Free University of Berlin, Germany
Published online: 24 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Helmut Fischler & Michael Lichtfeldt (1992) Modern physics and
students’ conceptions, International Journal of Science Education, 14:2, 181-190, DOI:
10.1080/0950069920140206

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069920140206

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information
(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor
& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties
whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose
of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the
opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis
shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 1992, VOL. 14, NO. 2, 181-190

Modern physics and students' conceptions

Helmut Fischler and Michael Lichtfeldt, Free University of Berlin, Germany

The learning of modern physics is made more difficult for students because teaching often uses semi-
classical models (e.g. Bohr) and concepts (e.g. dualism). An introduction to quantum physics was
Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 17:34 02 September 2013

designed which omits all analogies to classical physics.

In the evaluation of the teaching unit, students' conceptions were recorded both at the beginning and
the end of the teaching. Students in the test groups dispensed with visualized conceptions and reached an
understanding which is more suitable to modern physics.

Introduction
Almost all textbooks for upper school grades introduce the atomic model of Bohr to
the students, in which electrons move in circular orbits round the nucleus-like
planets around the sun. In physics, this model was replaced 65 years ago by quantum
mechanics in which the description of the atom dispenses with all visualizations.
What justifications are given for using the Bohr model in class? Two arguments are
often put forward:
(a) The Bohr model, because of its descriptiveness, can be easily understood and
provides explanations for many observations.
(b) The Bohr model was of enormous significance in the process of developing
modern physics. Students should be introduced to this important stage.
This approach is criticized on the grounds that, in being oriented to historical
development, the teaching over-emphasizes the conceptions of classical physics.
The usage of mechanical models, which is implied in this, sets up an additional
obstacle to an appropriate understanding of quantum physics. Thus:
In school physics, the subject matter of modern theories is described with methods and
conceptions of classical physics which, for this purpose, are insufficient. In so doing, all
the unnecessary contradictions and difficulties are introduced into the school, which
even the most outstanding physicists of the semi-classical epoch in physics (c. 1900-
1925) had to grapple with because they had not yet fully uncovered the causes of these
difficulties. (Brachner/Fichtner 1974, p. 84; translation by the authors of the present
paper.)

Conditions for learning modern physics

In quantum physics, more than in other topics, problems of reducing difficult
concepts into simpler terms are central to teaching. Even though universal principles
for doing this do not yet exist, one principle can nevertheless be deduced from all the
investigations in the psychology of learning: simplified models should be construc-
ted in such a way that they are capable of being extended and so that the student is not
0950-0693/92 $3·00 © 1992 Taylor & Francis Ltd.
 182 RESEARCH REPORTS

forced subsequently to reorientate basic conceptions. This applies especially to such

models which, because they concern concepts used in daily life, are very attractive to
students. The more these conceptions are strengthened in class the more difficult it is
to replace them. In quantum mechanics it is essential to replace such concepts.
Students who have been shown the efficiency of Bohr's atomic model are unlikely
to abandon readily this illustrative model. Resorting temporarily to mechanical aids
for the sake of illustration means concealing the fundamental difference between the
students' concepts, on the one hand, which are supported by this model, and the
correct physical description, on the other. The orbit of an electron is simply not an
auxiliary device which is almost correct and thus can function for a while as a
comprehensive aid. Every single argument supported by the concept of orbit makes
the necessary change in thinking more difficult, delays the due process of discarding
mechanical models, and finally renders this process impossible. Such an opinion can
be deduced clearly from findings about the stability of students' conceptions.
Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 17:34 02 September 2013

In order to respond to this problem it is necessary to lay the foundation for the
intended understanding as early as possible, avoiding concepts which will contradict
this understanding. The latter, however, happens if the efficiency of illustrative
concepts is emphasized over a longer period while not confronting the students with
modern ideas until the teaching unit has almost come to its end. This results in a
confrontation which 'concedes' the failure of the earlier theory instead of presenting
the explanatory possibilities of the newer approach.
The discussion of students' current conceptions is an important prerequisite for
an intended conceptual change. This discussion should also include aspects of the
Newtonian metaphysical commitments which play a significant role in perceiving
and interpreting the phenomena of modern physics (Hewson 1982, Posner et al.
1982). But early demonstrations in the teaching process can show inconsistencies,
which should be emphasized.

Atomic models in textbooks

Most textbooks attempt to present the contents as illustratively as possible.
Publications can be found which dispense with subsidiary planetary orbits. The
books of Breithaupt (1987) and Duncan (1987), and the unit 'Waves, particles, and
atoms' of the Nuffield A-level physics course (1990) can be quoted as examples for
both positions. Breithaupt illustrates his text with a sketch in which, with respect to
the hydrogen atom, an electron is placed on an orbit and marked with two arrows:
one for the centripetal force and the other for the electron's velocity (p. 457). The
author quotes Bohr's suggestion that the angular momentum of an electron which
moves in a circular orbit of radius r with velocity v is the multiple of h\2n, thus
m-vr = n-hjln, n = 1,2,... . Simple calculations then lead to the energy levels. In a
subsequent paragraph ('Beyond Bohr') some ideas of quantum mechanics are given.
Why should the student learn these new ideas, if beforehand he has assured himself
of all that which can be achieved with the help of the illustrative model?
Duncan (1987) merely presents the basic ideas of Bohr in a short paragraph
without any illustration or description. Energy levels are presented as a result of
wave mechanics which, according to the author, cannot be treated in detail. Students
receive no aid from Duncan in understanding quantization in atoms. Later on in the
book, the energy levels, resulting from wave mechanics, are shown to be confirmed
 MODERN PHYSICS AND STUDENTS* CONCEPTIONS 183

experimentally with the help of line spectra and the Franck-Hertz experiment. In
contrast to this, Breithaupt provides the students with information which is oriented
to classical physics. It is true that the students learn how to calculate energy levels but
they have an electron which revolves round the nucleus in a fixed orbit with defined
velocities in mind. The presentation in Duncan is certainly nearer to the conceptions
of modern physics.
The same applies to the texts of the Nuffield course, even though this course, too,
confronts the students with severe problems of understanding. The line spectra of
gases are presented as the sole evidence for the fact that atoms have discrete levels.
The fundamental experiment of Franck-Hertz is not mentioned. The inconsequent
treatment of electrons is also problematic. The electron is almost equated with a
wave, i.e.
Explaining how a hydrogen atom has stable states... depends on a new way of thinking
about the electron-as a wave. (p. 295)
Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 17:34 02 September 2013

Somewhat later on (p. 300) Bohr's interpretation of a wave as being associated with
the electron is given. Subsequent to the calculation of the kinetic energy of the
electron as a standing wave in a box the size of the hydrogen atom, the electron again
is provided with properties of a classical particle moving in orbit. Thus:
So we imagine an electron with this kinetic energy rattling around in an atom-sized box.
(p. 302)
The students will be glad of this opportunity to reintroduce their old concepts.

Wave-particle duality
The following is a typical statement about 'dualism': matter and light have a dual
nature which can be wave-like or particle-like. Which side of its nature we see
depends on the experiment we use to detect it. In 1909 Taylor described an
experimental set-up in which light of very low intensity passed through a double slit
to hit a photographic plate. On the emulsion, statistically distributed black dots
appeared which, at a sufficient density, exhibited an interference pattern. Which
property of light do we emphasize? Does it really make sense to speak of a 'dual
nature'? Wouldn't it be better to abandon wave-particle terminology altogether and
instead state that matter and light consist of quantum objects which behave totally
differently from classical particles or waves? As long as the teacher continues to
express the idea that light reveals its particle nature in some experiments, students
will cling to a concept of photons which is very similar to the classical concept of
particles.

A new concept in introducing quantum mechanics

An approach which pi events students from attempting to understand the pheno-
mena of quantum physics in terms of the conceptions of classical physics will have to
proceed from the following basic premises:
(a) Reference to classical physics should be avoided.
(b) The teaching unit should begin with electrons (not with photons when
introducing the photoelectric effect).
 184 RESEARCH REPORTS

(c) The statistical interpretation of observed phenomena should be used and

dualistic descriptions should be avoided.
(d) The uncertainty relation of Heisenberg should be introduced at an early
stage (formulated for ensembles of quantum objects).
(e) In the treatment of the hydrogen atom, the model of Bohr should be avoided.

The demonstration of a diffraction or interference pattern which is composed of

stochastically distributed individual processes not only gets rid of the problem of
dualism but leads directly to modern conceptions. The teaching unit being presented
here begins with observation and the discussion of figures with which the students
are already familiar from wave optics. It is the purpose of this unit consciously to
break with previous ideas and conceptions in order to emphasize the 'curious'
behaviour of quantum objects. It would be entirely consistent with this intention to
describe this behaviour as 'mysterious', as often happens in English publications of a
Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 17:34 02 September 2013

high didactic standard (for example Squires 1986, Feynman et al. 1963).
In order to describe the strange behaviour of quantum objects, electrons are more
suitable than photons. This follows from the hypothesis which states that students
are tempted much more easily to associate photons with classical particles than to
imagine electrons as being some sort of matter-waves. Although the double-slit
experiment cannot be demonstrated experimentally with electrons, this disadvan-
tage will have to be put up with for the sake of the advantages in teaching by this
approach. Moreover, this disadvantage is not too severe because good films exist
which cover this topic.
These principles resulted in the following structure of the teaching unit:

1. Electron diffraction
The rings on the screen of the electron diffraction tube show a pattern that is already
known from experiments with light. Therefore it is plausible to assign a wavelength k
to these rings. It is not necessary to speak of electron waves. The variation of the
accelerating potential difference in the tube results in the De Broglie relation p = hjX,
p is momentum of the electrons treated classically before hitting the crystal, X is
wavelength related to the luminous phenomenon in the electron tube, if being
interpreted as an interference pattern.

2. Double-slit experiment with electrons

Film-the original treatise of Jonsson (1961).
High intensity: the distribution of the intensity is similar to interference patterns
with light. Therefore one can conclude: electrons are not classical particles. Low
intensity: statistically distributed singular events. Therefore electrons cannot be
described as a wave. Electrons are quantum objects.
3. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
There does not exist an ensemble of quantum objects whose mean variation both of
their momentums' ^-components and of their x-positions cannot be very small at the
same time: Ax- Apx^h/4n. Consequence: The quantum objects have a localization
energy.
4. Quantization of energy for a square-well potential and for the hydrogen atom
Wn = h2-n2l8m\2.
This quantization is derived by considering an analogy: in the double slit experiment
the electrons have shown a distribution on the screen which is similar to an
interference pattern. In a square-well potential the distribution of the probability of
finding an electron will presumably be similar to standing waves. This hypothesis is
confirmed by the results of the experiments which are carried out in the following
part of the teaching unit.
 MODERN PHYSICS AND STUDENTS' CONCEPTIONS 185

Quantization of energy for the hydrogen atom: W=WL + Wpot (WL: energy of
localization, Wpol: potential energy).
5. Franck-Hertz experiment and spectroscopic analysis
The Franck-Hertz experiment as a confirmation of the quantization. The mercury
atoms absorb energy only in distinct portions AW. This energy is emitted as
radiation with a frequency that is connected with AW via h, where h has the same
value as in the De Broglie relation: AW=h-f. Spectrum, energy level scheme. The
equation AW=h-f can be read from right to left: influenced by light with the
frequency/the atoms gain energy in discrete lumps h-f. Absorption lines.
6. Quantum objects of light: photons
(exterior photoelectric effect, Taylor experiment: stochastic distributions in double-
slit experiments).
7. Problems of interpretation
What is the meaning of A? 'Waves of chance'. Causality in modern physics.
Copenhagen interpretation.
Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 17:34 02 September 2013

The teaching unit is designed for 32 lessons. The basic decisions mentioned above
indicate that the main features of the new approach are both the special selection of
topics and their unusual order. The methods of teaching are not affected by these
preliminary decisions. The support provided for the teachers could concentrate on
explanations of, and detailed comments on, the content-related structure of the
teaching unit.
Two steps were taken to provide teachers with this information. A 'Teachers'
Guide' was produced and sent to all physics teachers at the grammar schools
(Gymnasiums) in Berlin, especially to those who had declared themselves willing to
teach this unit as part of its evaluation. Some workshops were offered in which the
approach could be discussed intensively. Many presentations, in the context of in-
service education for teachers, at national and international meetings of science
teachers/educators, and in publications in journals have made the approach well
known among the teachers and their trainers. It is generally called the 'Berlin
Concept of Quantum Physics'.
The new teaching strategy has been well received. However, it is difficult to
estimate how many teachers in Berlin and elsewhere use the materials of the teachers'
guide. Certainly many elements of the proposition are integrated into the teaching
courses in numerous high school classes.

Evaluation of the teaching unit

The teaching unit described above was tested in the spring semesters of 1988 and
1989 in a total of eleven O-level as well as A-level courses* at several grammar
schools and comprehensive schools in Berlin. During this trial, statements (both in
verbal and written form) were collected from the students involved in the test,
through which we recorded students' conceptions about the topic concerned both
before and after the lessons. The fundamental assumption that students' conceptions
can be changed in general by teaching was the basis for this approach.

* O-level and A-level courses corresponding to Grund- und Leistungskurse (basic and intensive
courses) in the upper level of the German Gymnasium (grammar school).
 186 RESEARCH REPORTS

The research followed the steps below:

1. A questionnaire was given to students on all 11 courses, and interviews were
carried out on two courses before the start of the lessons to find out what
conceptions the students then held.
2. Videorecordings were taken of all 32 lessons in six courses in order to discover
correlations between students' conceptions and their answers given during the
lessons, and to obtain additional verifications for the conceptions which had
been collected from the students.
3. Five weeks after the end of the teaching unit a second questionnaire was given.
From these data the conceptions which students held after the end of the
lessons were worked out. With the help of students' interviews from three
courses we wanted to make sure the information gathered in this way was
correct.
4. We gave the same questionnaire to the students before and after the teaching
Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 17:34 02 September 2013

unit in 14 further O-level and A-level courses (control group), which

introduced quantum physics in the conventional way of the Berlin syllabus.
This was done to help us correctly value the conceptional patterns shown in
the courses in which the new teaching concept had been tested.
All questions were assigned to the range of topics which make up the subject-matter
for teaching quantum physics in school: light, atom-electron, particle-body, and
students' ideas on the philosophy of science. The questions themselves were
different in type: open questions, e.g. 'What really is light?'; word-pair associations,
e.g. 'electron—real body'; drawings, e.g. 'What do you think a real hydrogen atom
looks like?'.
In total, written statements were gathered from 270 students of which just
under 150 belonged to the test group (taught through the new teaching unit) and
more than 120 belonged to the control group (taught along customary lines). The
verbal answers given by the students during the teaching unit and in the interviews
were transcribed from the videotapes. The transcripts also include notes on
students' play of features and gestures as remarks.
The results of the research consisted of four steps:
1. Overview of students' conceptions before the beginning of the teaching unit.
2. Comparison of students' conceptions of the two groups (test and control
group) five weeks after the lessons.
3. Perceptions in the process of change: a comparison of students' conceptions
before and after the teaching unit (whole data of all students).
4. Design of ideas' networks from all data of one student from the beginning of
the teaching unit up to the second questionnaire and interview (see Fischler
and Lichtfeldt 1991).
To give an impression of students' learning processes on the basis of their
conceptions during the teaching unit we focus our report in this paper on an item of
the topic 'atom-electron'. We will give the steps 1 to 3 above.

Students' conceptions
The students' answers to the questions concerning the hydrogen atom and its
stability will be discussed in this section. First, we will give some examples of
 MODERN PHYSICS AND STUDENT'S CONCEPTIONS 187

students' answers to the question 'Why is an atom stable?'. The answers given by the
students before the beginning of the actual lessons about the introduction to
quantum physics were:
.. .because the electron is tightly placed on an atomic shell, i.e., there is a distance
between the shell and the nucleus so that the electron cannot get to the nucleus.
The electron is acted upon by the centrifugal force and the attractive force of the atom.
Both forces are in equilibrium (Bohr's atomic model).
The electron is separated from the nucleus by its high velocity (centrifugal force).
As a result of the high angular velocity of the electrons, the resulting centrifugal force
prevents the electron from falling into the nucleus under the influence of the attractive
force.
Because the charges of electrons and protons neutralize each other.
The electron is negatively charged while the nucleus is positively charged. Again, the
electron is subject to a kind of centrifugal force which keeps it in its orbit. Therefore
Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 17:34 02 September 2013

they rather repel each other.

Electrons are fixed in their shells.
From the open answers of the students given with respect to the range of topics
quoted above, typical conceptual patterns were constructed using the following
theoretical guideline:
Students react to things on the basis of meanings which these things have for them.
(Blumer 1976, p. 81; translation by the authors of the present paper)
This approach proceeds from the theory of symbolic interactionism (adapted from
Mead 1987, Schiitz 1971) according to which meanings are built up on the basis of a
correlation between a
'stock of commonplace knowledge' and 'situational experience'. (Schiitz and
Luckmann 1979, p. 133; translation by the authors of the present paper)
On the basis of this interaction, a research approach was formulated, which
constructs cognitive networks of students from the interpretation of students' ideas
together with their meanings. These networks themselves, according to this
assumption, reflect students' conceptions (for more details of theoretical guidelines
see Fischler and Lichtfeldt 1991).
The following conceptions concerning the topic of the atom-electron occurred
most often:
Circle (circular orbit): conceptions of electrons which fly round the nucleus with (high)
velocity in fixed, prescribed orbits. In this conception the centrifugal force and the
Coulomb (electric) force are brought into equilibrium. The students use their
experience with roundabouts first to explain the movement of the planet, and then
second to explain the process in atomic shells, without regard to reference systems (63%
of 240 students in both groups).
Charge: students have a fixed conception of the repulsion between charges. They often
explain the properties of charges incorrectly. The charges of both the proton and the
electron cause a distance between the two particles (similar to a bi-polar dumbbell). The
students assemble a suitable conception from single elements of knowledge (23% of 240
students in both groups).
Shell: conception of a firm casing (shell, ball) on which the electrons are fixed or move
(8% of 240 students in both groups).
No significant difference between test group and control group could be established,
so it can be supposed that both groups (iV=240 students) were in the same initial
state.
 188 RESEARCH REPORTS

With regard to the conceptions of the electron in the hydrogen atom, a clear
tendency to view electrons as circling round the nucleus (with centrifugal and
Coulomb forces in equilibrium) was observed. The students related their expe-
riences with rotary movements to the forces inside the atom, unaware of their
meaning.
If the students who naively regarded electrons as fixed to shells are included in
the group of those who adhere to the conception of orbit, it can be seen that 71% of
the students (percentage sum of the constructions of Circle and Shell) used elements
from the language of Bohr's model conception (e.g.: electrons in orbits; energy leaps
from one shell to another; etc.). This model, however, had not been treated in
physics classes before the beginning of the teaching unit about quantum physics.
Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether the students really had Bohr's model in mind,
for none of the students mentioned Bohr's postulates, although they often connected
their illustrations with Bohr's model. Presumably this frame of conceptions had been
Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 17:34 02 September 2013

formed in chemistry lessons in years three and four of the German Gymnasium and
in biology lessons during the treatment of photosynthesis.
In conclusion it can be noticed that the students already possessed a fixed idea of
an electron in an atom, being strongly based on a mechanistic conception. The
question is, therefore, whether normal teaching, including the treatment of Bohr's
atomic model as an explanation of the quantization of energy levels, does imply the
reinforcement of already existing thought patterns.

Conceptions in the process of change

A comparison of the conceptions of the students from the two groups (test and
control group) after the lessons demonstrates that different changes in conceptions
have taken place. First of all, another conceptual pattern could be constructed from
students' answers:
hoc. {localization energy): the stability of atoms was regarded by the students as
connected with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. According to this conception, the
mere restriction of space results in a rise of the kinetic energy of the electrons, the loci of
which are subjected to a statistical distribution. At the same time the students dispensed
with statements about single electrons which they thought of as inconceivable.
In figure 1 the changes in students' conceptions concerning the stability of an atom
are given.
Within the range of topics discussed here, a clear dependency on the teaching
experienced by the students can be observed: 68% of the students in the test group
oriented themselves toward the conception of localization energy (Loc.) while the
students of the control group persisted in the conception of circle and shell.
This result cannot be put down to an improved memory performance of students
in the test group, because the questions put to the students after the end of the lessons
in quantum physics took place five weeks (including two to three weeks of school
holidays) after the end of the teaching unit. Therefore it has been presumed that the
contents of the teaching unit had been forgotten to a large extent by the students. It is
probable that large shifts have taken place within the range of conceptual patterns.
Students' interviews performed at the end of the course semester confirm this view.
These interviews were free discussions in student-student interactions.
 MODERN PHYSICS AND STUDENTS' CONCEPTIONS 189

69%

before
"OKCLE' "•Sf/ELL." "LOC."

five
weeks
after ..
Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 17:34 02 September 2013

test-group: 96 students control-group: 92 students

Before the teaching unit: no significant difference between test and control group.
Five weeks after the teaching unit: ^-significance concerning the interdependency of test and control
group: <0001 at a correlation of 0-6.

Figure 1. Change of students' conceptions of an atom's stability.

none little satisfactory complete

/ / / / control-group: 108 students test-group: 116 students

X2 significance < 0-001 at a correlation of 0-61.

Figure 2. Comparison of conceptual changes between test and control

group.
 190 MODERN PHYSICS AND STUDENTS* CONCEPTIONS

Summary of the evaluation

It has only been possible to give an insight into the general idea of the investigations
into students' conceptions within the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, the example
given illustrates the trend of the results of the investigation. A teaching approach, for
example like the one introduced here, which, from the outset, considers possible
conceptions of students in detail and consciously provides room for these concep-
tions to develop in class, will achieve an increased cognitive conflict situation which
will then, in turn, lead the students to grapple with the subject. In this way, the
students became conscious of their own conceptions and began to question them.
The results of the control group pointed to an incorporation of the 'new' phenomena
into the 'old' mechanistic ideas. Here, the different ideas in quantum physics were
merely acquired verbally and were forgotten again afterwards. This statement is
supported by figure 2. Here, for all items of the various topic areas, the conceptual
Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 17:34 02 September 2013

changes are rated, summarized, and reproduced separately for test group and control
group.

References

BLUMER, H. 1976, Der methodologische Standort des symbolischen Interaktionismus. In

Arbeitsgruppe Bielefelder Soziologen (eds), Alltagswissen, Interaktion und gesell-
schaftliche Wirklichkeit, Vol. 1: Symbolischer Interaktionismus und Ethnomethodologie
(Rowohlt, Reinbeck, Hamburg).
BRACHNER, A. and FICHTNER, R. 1974, Quantenmechanik im Unterricht. Physik und Didaktik,
Vol. 2, pp. 81-94 (part I), pp. 249-275 (part II).
BRACHNER, A. and FICHTNER, R. 1980, Quantenphysik (Schroedel, Hanover).
BREITHAUPT, J. 1987, Understanding Physics for Advanced Level (Stanley Thornes,
Cheltenham).
DUNCAN, T. 1987, Advanced Physics (Murray, London).
FEYNMAN, R. P., LEIGHTON, R. B. and SANDS, M. 1963, Lectures on Physics, Vol. III:
Quantum Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).
FISCHLER, H. and LICHTFELDT, M. 1991, Learning quantum mechanics. In R. Duit,
F. Goldberg and H. Niedderer (eds), Research in Physics Learning, Theoretical Issues
and Empirical Studies. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Bremen 1991 (IPN,
Kiel).
HEWSON, P. W. 1982, A case study of conceptual change in special relativity: the influence of
prior knowledge in learning. European Journal of Science Education, Vol. 4, pp. 61-76.
JÖNSSON, C. 1961, Elektroneninterferenzen an mehreren künstlich hergestellten Feinspalten.
Zeitschrift fur Physik, Vol. 161, pp. 454-474.
MEAD, G. H. 1987, Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 1 (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M.).
NUFFIELD ADVANCED PHYSICS COURSE 1990, Student's Guide 2 (Revised ed. 1990) (Longman,
Harlow).
POSNER, G. J., STRIKE, K. A., HEWSON, P. W. and GERTZOG, W. A. 1982, Accommodation of a
scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, Vol. 66,
pp. 211-228.
SCHÜTZ, A. 1971, Gesammelte Aufsätze, Vol. 1 (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague).
SCHÜTZ, A. and LUCKMANN, T. 1979, Strukturen der Levenswelt, Vol. 1 (Suhrkamp,
Frankfurt/M.).
SQUIRES, E. 1986, The Mystery of the Quantum World (Hilger, Bristol).