Research Article

Pre-service physics teachers’ use of photon concept in the context of single-photon double-slit experiment

Aku Pajula 1 * , Maija Nousiainen 1 , Ismo T. Koponen 1
More Detail
1 Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FINLAND* Corresponding Author
European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(4), October 2025, 417-432, https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/17511
Published: 04 December 2025
OPEN ACCESS   113 Views   76 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Research in physics education has revealed that students often have incomplete and incoherent ways to use the concept of photon. Most researchers in science education recommend photons to be taken in a realistic sense as existing entities of quantum objects. Furthermore, in science education literature it is often claimed that realistic stance to photons also is preferred by physicists. Taken that photons in quantum theory of light invariably refer to quantized degrees of the freedom of an electromagnetic field it is questionable how one should introduce photons as entities without inadvertently supporting naïve particle-realism about photons, a well-known situation in introductory teaching of quantum theory of light. Fewer researchers suggest that photons should be understood as photon states, quantized degrees of freedom of electromagnetic field, as in contemporary quantum optics and quantum theory of light. Here, by using a questionnaire (a Likert-scale survey), we explore pre-service physics teachers’ preferences to use expressions that can be associated with either quanton or photon state views about photons in context of single-photon double-slit experiment. The questionnaire is administered in two stages (in the beginning and after a teaching sequence) during a pre-service physics teachers’ course addressing quantum optics and technology. Based on the analysis of the responses, we find that at the beginning of the course, the responses are scattered but in the final survey, clusters corresponding to use of photon state-based expressions become more consistent.
Keywords: photon, quantum state, double-slit experiment, pre-service teachers

CITATION (APA)

Pajula, A., Nousiainen, M., & Koponen, I. T. (2025). Pre-service physics teachers’ use of photon concept in the context of single-photon double-slit experiment. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(4), 417-432. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/17511

REFERENCES

  1. Abdi, H. (2007). Kendall rank correlation. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics. SAGE.
  2. Aspect, A., Grangier, P., & Roger, G., (1982). Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A new violation of Bell’s inequalities. Physical Review Letters, 49, Article 91. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.91
  3. Ayene, M., Krick, J., Damitie, B., Ingerman, A., & Thacker, B. (2018). A holistic picture of physics student conceptions of energy quantization, the photon concept, and light quanta interference. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 1049–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9906-y
  4. Ayene, M., Kriek, J., & Damtie, B. (2011). Wave-particle duality and uncertainty principle: Phenomenographic categories of description of tertiary physics students’ depictions. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 7(2), Article 020113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.020113
  5. Bouchée, T., de Putter-Smits T. L., Thurlings, M., & Pepin, B. (2022). Towards a better understanding of conceptual difficulties in introductory quantum physics courses. Studies in Science Education, 58(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1963579
  6. Bunge, M. (2003). Twenty-five centuries of quantum physics: From pythagoras to us, and from subjectivism to realism. Science & Education 12(5–6), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025336332476
  7. Bungum, B., Henriksen, E. K., Angell, C., Tellefsen, C. W., & Bøe, M. V. (2015). ReleQuant–Improving teaching and learning in quantum physics through educational design research. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 11(2), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.2043
  8. Cheong, Y. W., & Song, J. (2014). Different levels of the meaning of wave-particle duality and a suspensive perspective on the interpretation of quantum theory. Science & Education, 23, 1011–1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9633-2
  9. Didic, N., Eryilmaz, A., & Erkoc, S. (2014). Investigating students’ mental models about the quantization of light, energy, and angular momentum. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 10(2), Article 020127. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020127
  10. Gerry, C., & Knight, P. (2004). Introductory quantum optics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791239
  11. Grangier, P., Roger, G., & Aspect, A. (1986). Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter: A new light on single-photon interferences. Europhysics Letters, 1(4), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/1/4/004
  12. Greca, I. M., & Freire, J. O. (2003). Does an emphasis on the concept of quantum states enhance students’ understanding of quantum mechanics? Science & Education, 12(5–6), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025385609694
  13. Greinert, F., Müller, R., Bitzenbauer, P., Ubben, M. S., & Weber, K.-A. (2023). Future quantum workforce: Competences, requirements, and forecasts. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19, Article 010137. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.010137
  14. Gupta, A., Hammer, D., & Redish, E. F. (2010). The case for dynamic models of learners’ ontologies in physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 285–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2010.491751
  15. Henriksen, E. K., Angell, C., Vistnes, A. I., & Bungum, B. (2018). What is light? Students’ reflections on the wave-particle duality of light and the nature of physics. Science & Education, 27, 81–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9963-1
  16. Hentschel, K. (2018). Photons: The history and mental models of light quanta. Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95252-9
  17. Kauark-Leite, P. (2017). Transcendental versus quantitative meanings of Bohr’s complementarity principle. In J. Faye, & H. J. Folse (Eds.), Niels Bohr and the philosophy of physics. Twenty-first-century perspectives (pp. 67–90). Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350035140.ch-003
  18. Koponen, I. & Nousiainen, M. (2018). An agent-based model of discourse pattern formation in small groups of competing and co-operating members. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 21(2), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3648
  19. Koponen, I., Pajula, A., & Nousiainen, M. (2025). Finnish pre-service physics teachers’ opinions about core concepts of quantum optics: Comparison to European multi-stakeholder perspective. LUMAT-B: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 10(1), Article 1.
  20. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, K., Pol, H. J., Brinkman, A., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2019). Key topics for quantum mechanics at secondary schools: A Delphi study into expert opinions. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1550273
  21. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, K., Pol, H. J., Brinkman, A., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2017). Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(1), Article 010109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.010109
  22. Lautesse, P., Valls, A. V., Ferlin, F. Heraud, J.-L., & Chabot, H. (2015). Teaching quantum physics in upper secondary school in France: ‘Quanton’ versus ‘wave-particle’ duality, two approaches of the problem of reference. Science & Education, 24, 937–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9755-9
  23. Levy-Leblond, J.-M. (1988). Quantum physics and language. Physica B, 151, 314–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4363(88)90185-4
  24. Loudon, R. (2000). The quantum theory of light. Oxford Science Publications. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198501770.001.0001
  25. Lounis, B., & Orrit, M. (2005). Single-photon sources. Reports on Progress in Physics, 68, 1129–1179. https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/68/5/R04
  26. McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2010). Design and validation of the quantum mechanics conceptual survey. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 6(2), Article 020121. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020121
  27. Merzel, A., Bitzenbauer, P., Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, K., Stadermann, K., Andreotti, E., Anttila, D., Bondani, M., Chiofalo, M., Faletic, S., Frans, R., Goorney, S., Greinert, F., Jurci, L., Koupilová, Z., Malgieri, M., Müller, R., Onorato, P., Pospiech, G., Ubben, M., Woitzik, A., & Pol, H. (2024). The core of secondary level quantum education: A multi-stakeholder perspective. EPJ Quantum Technology, 11, Article 27 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-024-00237-x
  28. Meyer, J. C., Passante, G., Pollock, S. J., & Wilcox, B. R. (2024). Introductory quantum information science coursework at US institutions: Content coverage. EPJ Quantum Technology, 11, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-024-00226-0
  29. Scarani, V., Chua, L., & Liu, S.Y. (2010). Six quantum pieces: A first course in quantum physics. World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/7965
  30. Stenhouse, D. (1986). Conceptual change in science education: Paradigms and language-games. Science Education, 70(4), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730700407
  31. Turkkila, M., & Lommi, H. (2020). Student participation in online content-related discussion and its relation to students’ background knowledge. Education Sciences, 10(4), Article 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10040106
  32. Wootters, W. K., & Zurek, W. H. (1979.) Complementarity in the double-slit experiment: Quantum nonseparability and a quantitative statement of Bohr’s principle. Physical Review D, 19, Article 473. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.19.473
  33. Yoon, T. H., & Cho, M. (2021). Quantitative complementarity of wave-particle duality. Science Advances, 7(34), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abi9268