Representation-Based Instruction in Physics Education: Effects of Classical, Quantum, and Metaphysical Framings on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Epistemological Beliefs, and Tolerance of Uncertainty

Ayhan Aksakallı

doi:10.53444/deubefd.1779156

TR EN

Abstract

Fizik Öğretiminde Temsil Temelli Öğretim: Klasik, Kuantum ve Metafiziksel Çerçevelerin Öğrencilerin Kavramsal Anlama, Epistemolojik İnanç ve Belirsizlik Toleransı Üzerindeki Etkileri

Abstract

Bu çalışma, fizik öğretiminde temsil temelli öğretim yaklaşımlarının öğrencilerin kavramsal anlama düzeyleri, epistemolojik inançları ve belirsizlik toleransları üzerindeki etkisini incelemektedir. Araştırmada karma yöntemli yarı deneysel desen kullanılmış ve 30 lisans öğrencisi rastgele olarak üç gruba atanmıştır: klasik temsil grubu (n=10), kuantum temsil grubu (n=10) ve metafiziksel temsil grubu (n=10). Tüm gruplarda aynı fiziksel içerik ele alınmış; ancak öğretim süreci temsil çerçevesi-ne göre farklılaştırılmıştır. Klasik grupta Newtonyen kesinlik ve determinizm vurgulanırken, kuan-tum grupta olasılık temelli açıklamalar ve gözlemci bağımlılığı öne çıkarılmış, metafiziksel grupta ise Schrödinger’in Kedisi gibi düşünce deneyleriyle ontolojik belirsizlik tartışmaları yürütülmüştür. Veri toplama sürecinde Kavramsal Anlama Testi, Epistemolojik İnanç Ölçeği ve Belirsizlik Toleran-sı Ölçeği uygulanmış; ayrıca açık uçlu sorular ve odak grup görüşmeleriyle nitel veriler elde edil-miştir. Nicel veriler tek yönlü ANOVA ve Tukey HSD testleriyle analiz edilmiş, etki büyüklükleri (η²) hesaplanmıştır. Bulgular, gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılıklar olduğunu ve metafiziksel temsil grubunun kavramsal anlama (F (2,27) =9.64, p<.001, η²=.42) ve epistemolojik inanç düzeylerinde (F (2,27) =6.71, p=.004, η²=.33) en yüksek gelişimi gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Sonuç olarak temsil temelli öğretimde metafiziksel çerçevelerin, öğrencilerin epistemolojik farkındalığını güç-lendirebileceği ve belirsizlikle başa çıkma becerilerini destekleyebileceği değerlendirilmektedir.

Keywords

Belirsizlik, epistemolojik inanç, fizik eğitimi, kavramsal anlama, temsil

Representation-Based Instruction in Physics Education: Effects of Classical, Quantum, and Metaphysical Framings on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Epistemological Beliefs, and Tolerance of Uncertainty

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of representation-based instruction in physics education on stu-dents’ conceptual understanding, epistemological beliefs, and tolerance of uncertainty. A mixed-method quasi-experimental design was employed with 30 undergraduate students randomly assig-ned to three groups: classical representation (n=10), quantum representation (n=10), and metaphy-sical representation (n=10). All groups studied the same core physics content; however, the instruc-tional framing differed across conditions: the classical group emphasized Newtonian determinism and certainty, the quantum group focused on probabilistic reasoning and observer dependence, and the metaphysical group engaged with thought experiments such as Schrödinger’s Cat to explore ontological ambiguity. Data were collected using a Conceptual Understanding Test, an Epistemolo-gical Beliefs Scale, and a Tolerance for Uncertainty Scale, supported by open-ended questions and focus group interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests with effect sizes (η²), while qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis. Results indicated significant differences among groups, with the metaphysical representation condition yielding the highest gains in conceptual understanding (F (2,27) =9.64, p<.001, η²=.42) and episte-mological beliefs (F (2, F (6.71, p=.004, η²=.33). Overall, the findings suggest that metaphysical representations can support deeper epistemological awareness and enhance students’ ability to cope with uncertainty in physics learning.

Keywords

Conceptual understanding, epistemological beliefs, representation, physics education, uncertainty

Ethical Statement

This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee (Decision Date: 20.08.2025, Decision No: 408, Session No: 11). The proposal titled “Representation-Based Instruction in Physics Education: Effects of Classical, Quantum, and Metaphysical Framings on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Epistemological Beliefs, and Tolerance of Uncertainty” was evaluated in accordance with ethical principles, and it was unanimously decided by the committee members that the research complies with ethical standards.

References

Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple representations when learning comp-lex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in physics education (pp. 191–208). Springer.
Baggott, J. (2011). The quantum story: A history in 40 moments. Oxford University Press.
Bardi, A., Guerra, V. M., & Ramdeny, G. (2009). Openness and ambiguity intolerance: Their differential relations to wellbeing in the context of an academic life transition. Persona-lity and Individual Differences, 47(2), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.003
Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_7
Bohr, N. (1958). Atomic physics and human knowledge. Wiley.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x
Chen, Y.-C. (2022). Is uncertainty a barrier or resource to advance science? The role of uncer-tainty in science and its implications for science teaching and learning. Science & Edu-cation, 31, 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00244-9
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools. Sci-ence Education, 86(2), 175–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods rese-arch (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dirac, P. A. M. (1930). The principles of quantum mechanics. Oxford University Press.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008
Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epis-temic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4
Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathe-matics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554–567. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1023
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology, 4(9), 717–728. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.49102
Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and physics education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in physics education (pp. 9–27). Springer.
Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43(3–4), 172–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01397280
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Re-search, 67(1), 88–140. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
Kagan, J. (1972). Motives and development. Oxford University Press.
Keller, E. F. (2001). Making sense of life: Explaining biological development with models, me-taphors, and machines. Harvard University Press.
Kelly, G. J. (2021). Theory, methods, and expressive potential of discourse studies in physics education. Research in Science Education, 51, 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09984-0
Kohl, P. B., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2005). Student representational competence and self-assessment when solving physics problems. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010104
McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). Why we should teach the Bohr model and how to teach it effectively. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Educa-tion Research, 4(1), 010103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.010103
Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 317–377. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003317
Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of mul-timodal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843–1866. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600718294
Redish, E. F. (1994). Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics. American Journal of Physics, 62(9), 796–803. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17461
Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Phy-sics, 35(8), 1637–1678. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02302261
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3
Schrödinger, E. (1935). Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik. Naturwissensc-haften, 23(48), 844–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01491987
Topçu, M. S. (2012). Preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs in physics, chemistry, and biology: A mixed study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 433–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9345-0
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2010). Students’ understanding of the role of models in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110066485
Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (2013). Constructing representations to learn in science. Sense Publishers.
Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2006). Learning junior secondary science through mul-timodal representations. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(1), 87–107. https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/7752

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Physics Education

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ayhan Aksakallı ^*
0000-0001-6281-5828
Türkiye

Publication Date

March 31, 2026

Submission Date

September 6, 2025

Acceptance Date

February 12, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Number: 67

DOI

https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1779156

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA39CY33BX

APA

Aksakallı, A. (2026). Representation-Based Instruction in Physics Education: Effects of Classical, Quantum, and Metaphysical Framings on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Epistemological Beliefs, and Tolerance of Uncertainty. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 67, 385-416. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1779156

AMA

1.Aksakallı A. Representation-Based Instruction in Physics Education: Effects of Classical, Quantum, and Metaphysical Framings on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Epistemological Beliefs, and Tolerance of Uncertainty. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2026;(67):385-416. doi:10.53444/deubefd.1779156

Chicago

Aksakallı, Ayhan. 2026. “Representation-Based Instruction in Physics Education: Effects of Classical, Quantum, and Metaphysical Framings on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Epistemological Beliefs, and Tolerance of Uncertainty”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, nos. 67: 385-416. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1779156.

EndNote

Aksakallı A (March 1, 2026) Representation-Based Instruction in Physics Education: Effects of Classical, Quantum, and Metaphysical Framings on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Epistemological Beliefs, and Tolerance of Uncertainty. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 67 385–416.

IEEE

[1]A. Aksakallı, “Representation-Based Instruction in Physics Education: Effects of Classical, Quantum, and Metaphysical Framings on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Epistemological Beliefs, and Tolerance of Uncertainty”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 67, pp. 385–416, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.53444/deubefd.1779156.

ISNAD

Aksakallı, Ayhan. “Representation-Based Instruction in Physics Education: Effects of Classical, Quantum, and Metaphysical Framings on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Epistemological Beliefs, and Tolerance of Uncertainty”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 67 (March 1, 2026): 385-416. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1779156.

JAMA

1.Aksakallı A. Representation-Based Instruction in Physics Education: Effects of Classical, Quantum, and Metaphysical Framings on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Epistemological Beliefs, and Tolerance of Uncertainty. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2026;:385–416.

MLA

Aksakallı, Ayhan. “Representation-Based Instruction in Physics Education: Effects of Classical, Quantum, and Metaphysical Framings on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Epistemological Beliefs, and Tolerance of Uncertainty”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 67, Mar. 2026, pp. 385-16, doi:10.53444/deubefd.1779156.

Vancouver

1.Ayhan Aksakallı. Representation-Based Instruction in Physics Education: Effects of Classical, Quantum, and Metaphysical Framings on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Epistemological Beliefs, and Tolerance of Uncertainty. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2026 Mar. 1;(67):385-416. doi:10.53444/deubefd.1779156

Abstract

Abstract

Fizik Öğretiminde Temsil Temelli Öğretim: Klasik, Kuantum ve Metafiziksel Çerçevelerin Öğrencilerin Kavramsal Anlama, Epistemolojik İnanç ve Belirsizlik Toleransı Üzerindeki Etkileri

Abstract

Keywords

Representation-Based Instruction in Physics Education: Effects of Classical, Quantum, and Metaphysical Framings on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Epistemological Beliefs, and Tolerance of Uncertainty

Abstract

Keywords

Ethical Statement

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite