pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.02465 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-02 · ⚛️ physics.ed-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

What does it mean to think like a physicist? Insights from physics graduate students

Apekshya Ghimire , Chandralekha Singh
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 20:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ed-ph
keywords physics educationgraduate studentsthinking like a physicistconceptual understandingcore coursesresearch experiencesprofessional identityelectricity and magnetism
0
0 comments X

The pith

Physics graduate core courses prioritize rapid mathematical coverage over conceptual depth, while electives and research better foster thinking like a physicist.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper explores how seven physics graduate students define thinking like a physicist and how their training shapes that ability. Students describe physics as requiring a distinctive integration of physical concepts with mathematical tools that sets it apart from other sciences. Core courses, especially electricity and magnetism, often move quickly through techniques and content at the expense of deeper understanding. Elective courses and research experiences, by contrast, align more closely with building conceptual skills, problem-solving, and a sense of professional identity. Because these students simultaneously learn, research, and teach, their views point to concrete ways departments might adjust graduate preparation.

Core claim

Physics graduate students define thinking like a physicist as the ability to integrate physical intuition with mathematical formalism in ways that go beyond other disciplines. Core courses frequently emphasize techniques and breadth at a fast pace, which limits opportunities for this integration and for developing problem-solving skills. Elective courses and research experiences prove more effective at supporting conceptual engagement and identity formation as physicists.

What carries the argument

Thinking like a physicist (LTP), the integration of physical concepts with mathematical representations that students see as unique to the discipline.

If this is right

  • Departments could redesign core courses to slow the pace and emphasize conceptual links alongside techniques.
  • Research experiences could be positioned earlier in the curriculum to strengthen identity development.
  • Graduate students' simultaneous roles as learners, researchers, and teachers make their input especially useful for curriculum changes.
  • Elective courses already show synergy with LTP goals and could serve as models for core-course reform.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same tension between coverage and depth may appear in undergraduate physics sequences or in other STEM graduate programs.
  • Tracking how LTP develops over the full course of graduate training could reveal whether early research involvement produces lasting differences in research output.
  • A controlled change in one department's core sequence, followed by repeated interviews, would test whether the reported student experiences translate into measurable shifts in conceptual understanding.

Load-bearing premise

That interviews with seven students at one US research university capture the typical ways graduate training develops physicist thinking across departments.

What would settle it

A multi-university survey or classroom observation study that finds no systematic difference in conceptual depth between core courses and electives would undermine the reported pattern.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02465 by Apekshya Ghimire, Chandralekha Singh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Themes, subthemes, and codes on graduate students’ perspectives on LTP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Learning to think like a physicist (LTP) is often cited as a central goal of graduate physics education, yet what this means in practice and the extent to which physics graduate education prepares students to develop LTP and view LTP as valuable to their research and teaching remain unclear. This interview-based study, conducted with seven physics graduate students at one US public research university, explores how students define thinking like a physicist and how their coursework and research experiences correlate with this development. Students emphasized that physics uniquely requires integrating physical and mathematical concepts in ways that go beyond other science disciplines. Our findings show that physics core courses, particularly electricity and magnetism, frequently emphasize mathematical techniques and content coverage at a rapid pace at the expense of deeper conceptual engagement and development of LTP. In contrast, physics elective courses and research experiences were more synergistic with and effective in fostering conceptual understanding, problem-solving skills, and identity development as physicists. Because graduate students simultaneously take core courses, conduct research and teach introductory physics, their perspectives on LTP are particularly valuable in how physics departments may consider transforming their preparation. Their voices highlight how this transformative stage of training can either support or hinder the development of physicist thinking.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports on semi-structured interviews with seven physics graduate students at a single US public research university. It explores how these students define 'thinking like a physicist' (LTP) as the integration of physical intuition with mathematical formalism, and finds that core courses (especially E&M) are perceived as prioritizing rapid mathematical coverage and content breadth at the expense of conceptual depth, while electives and research experiences better support conceptual understanding, problem-solving, and physicist identity formation. The authors argue these student perspectives can inform departmental efforts to align graduate training with LTP goals.

Significance. If the descriptive patterns hold beyond this sample, the work supplies concrete, student-centered evidence on a persistent tension in graduate physics education between technical proficiency and conceptual development. Such insights could help departments redesign core sequences to better integrate research-like thinking, particularly since the participants are simultaneously taking courses, teaching, and conducting research.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods and Results] Methods and Results sections: The central claim that core courses 'frequently emphasize mathematical techniques and content coverage at a rapid pace at the expense of deeper conceptual engagement' rests on thematic analysis of interviews with only seven students from one institution. No triangulation with syllabi, classroom observations, or performance data is described, and the purposive sample introduces unaddressed risks of selection and recall bias. This directly limits the warrant for the word 'frequently' and for any implied recommendations about broader curricular change.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion section: The extrapolation that elective courses and research experiences are 'more synergistic with and effective in fostering' LTP is presented without comparative data on time-on-task, assessment alignment, or student outcomes across course types. The small n precludes any quantitative contrast that would strengthen the contrast drawn in the abstract.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The acronym LTP is used extensively before its first full expansion; a single-sentence operational definition early in the introduction would improve readability.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 (participant demographics) lists institution type but omits year in program and research area; adding these would help readers assess how representative the views may be within the sample.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have helped us clarify the scope and limitations of our qualitative study. We agree that the small sample size from a single institution requires more cautious language in our claims, and we will revise the manuscript accordingly to better align our interpretations with the data collected.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods and Results] Methods and Results sections: The central claim that core courses 'frequently emphasize mathematical techniques and content coverage at a rapid pace at the expense of deeper conceptual engagement' rests on thematic analysis of interviews with only seven students from one institution. No triangulation with syllabi, classroom observations, or performance data is described, and the purposive sample introduces unaddressed risks of selection and recall bias. This directly limits the warrant for the word 'frequently' and for any implied recommendations about broader curricular change.

    Authors: We acknowledge the limitations of our purposive sample of seven students from one institution and the absence of triangulation with additional data sources such as syllabi or observations. These factors mean we cannot claim broad frequency or generalizability. We will revise the manuscript to replace 'frequently' with phrases such as 'according to the students interviewed' or 'in the reported experiences of our participants' throughout the Results and Discussion sections. We will also expand the limitations subsection in Methods to explicitly address selection bias, recall bias, and the single-institution context. While we cannot add new data collection at this stage, these textual revisions will ensure claims remain grounded in the qualitative evidence provided. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion section: The extrapolation that elective courses and research experiences are 'more synergistic with and effective in fostering' LTP is presented without comparative data on time-on-task, assessment alignment, or student outcomes across course types. The small n precludes any quantitative contrast that would strengthen the contrast drawn in the abstract.

    Authors: We agree that our statements comparing electives and research to core courses are based solely on student perceptions rather than direct comparative metrics. We will revise the abstract, Results, and Discussion to qualify these findings, for example by stating that participants described electives and research as more aligned with LTP development in their own experiences. We will remove any implication of quantitative effectiveness and instead emphasize the qualitative insights from the interviews. This will include adding a sentence noting the lack of comparative outcome data as a limitation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical qualitative interview study

full rationale

The paper reports thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with seven physics graduate students at one institution, directly summarizing their self-reported definitions of 'thinking like a physicist' and perceptions of how core courses (especially E&M), electives, and research experiences support or hinder LTP development. No equations, parameter fitting, predictions, or derivations appear; claims rest on quoted or paraphrased participant responses rather than reducing to self-definitions, fitted inputs, or self-citation chains. The methodology is self-contained as standard qualitative research without load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that interview responses from a small group accurately capture LTP development processes without external corroboration.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Self-reported student experiences reliably indicate the presence or absence of LTP development
    The study interprets interview data as evidence of how courses and research affect thinking like a physicist.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5507 in / 1176 out tokens · 50843 ms · 2026-05-13T20:20:36.843482+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Van Heuvelen A 1991 Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research‐based instructional strategies. Am. J. Phys. 59 (10) 891-897

    work page 1991

  2. [2]

    What makes a person a physicist? Learning Assistant and physics major views

    Starita J T, White G D and Sikorski T -R 2020. What makes a person a physicist? Learning Assistant and physics major views. Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings 509-514

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    2012 Thinking like a physicist: A multi -semester case study of junior -level electricity and magnetism

    Chasteen S V, et al. 2012 Thinking like a physicist: A multi -semester case study of junior -level electricity and magnetism. Am. J. Phys. 80 (10) 923-930

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Singh C 2002 When physical intuition fails. Am. J. Phys. 70 (11) 1103-1109

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    Maries A, Sayer R and Singh C 2025 Investigation of student and faculty problem solving: An example from quantum mechanics. Am. J. Phys. 93 (6) 492-498

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Mathematics & Physics: An innermost relationship

    Tzanakis C 2016. Mathematics & Physics: An innermost relationship. Didactical implications for their teaching & learning, Montpellier, France 79-104

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    2012 Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education

    Uhden O, et al. 2012 Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education. Science & Education 21 (4) 485- 506

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Math as Prerequisite

    Karam R, Uhden O and Höttecke D 2019. The “Math as Prerequisite” illusion: historical considerations and implications for physics teaching. Mathematics in Physics Education. G. Pospiech, M. Michelini and B. -S. Eylon. Cham, Springer International Publishing37-52

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Science & Education 24 (5) 543-559

    Kjeldsen T H and Lützen J 2015 Interactions between mathematics and physics: The history of the concept of function—teaching with and about nature of mathematics. Science & Education 24 (5) 543-559

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    Science Education 97 32-57

    Hull M, Gupta A and Elby A 2013 How students blend conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning in solving physics problems. Science Education 97 32-57

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Physical Review Physics Education Research 15 (2) 020130

    Branchetti L, Cattabriga A and Levrini O 2019 Interplay between mathematics and physics to catch the nature of a scientific breakthrough: The case of the blackbody. Physical Review Physics Education Research 15 (2) 020130

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Science & Education 33 1-18

    Palmgren E and Rasa T 2022 Modelling roles of mathematics in physics. Science & Education 33 1-18

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Educational Psychologist 17 102-127

    Reif F and Heller J I 1982 Knowledge structure and problem solving in physics. Educational Psychologist 17 102-127

    work page 1982

  14. [14]

    Physical Review Physics Education Research 20 (2) 020139

    Keebaugh C, Marshman E and Singh C 2024 Challenges in sensemaking and reasoning in the context of degenerate perturbation theory in quantum mechanics. Physical Review Physics Education Research 20 (2) 020139

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    2021 A detailed characterization of the expert problem -solving process in science and engineering: guidance for teaching and assessment

    Price A M, et al. 2021 A detailed characterization of the expert problem -solving process in science and engineering: guidance for teaching and assessment. CBE—Life Sciences Education 20 (3) ar43

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    European Journal of Physics 36 (5) 055001

    Fredlund T, Airey J and Linder C 2015 Enhancing the possibilities for learning: variation of disciplinary-relevant aspects in physics representations. European Journal of Physics 36 (5) 055001

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Pietrocola M 2008 MATHEMATICS AS STRUCTURAL LANGUAGE OF PHYSICAL THOUGHT

    work page 2008

  18. [18]

    2007 An exploration of university physics students' epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations

    Domert D, et al. 2007 An exploration of university physics students' epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations. NorDiNa: Nordic Studies in Science Education 3 (1) 15-28

    work page 2007

  19. [19]

    1980 Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems

    Larkin J, et al. 1980 Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science 208 (4450) 1335-1342

    work page 1980

  20. [20]

    Leonard W J, Dufresne R J and Mestre J 1996 Using qualitative problem -solving strategies to highlight the role of conceptual knowledge in solving problems. Am. J. Phys. 64 1495-1503

    work page 1996

  21. [21]

    The Journal of Education 196 (2) 1-38

    Schoenfeld A H 2016 Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. The Journal of Education 196 (2) 1-38

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Peters P C 1982 Even honors students have conceptual difficulties with physics. Am. J. Phys. 50 (6) 501-508

    work page 1982

  23. [23]

    The Physics Teacher 59 (5) 314-318

    Redish E F 2021 Using math in physics: Overview. The Physics Teacher 59 (5) 314-318

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    The cognitive blending of mathematics and physics knowledge

    Bing T J and Redish E F 2007. The cognitive blending of mathematics and physics knowledge. AIP Conference Proceedings, American Institute of Physics 26-29

    work page 2007

  25. [25]

    Cognition and Instruction 19 (4) 479-541

    Sherin B L 2001 How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction 19 (4) 479-541

    work page 2001

  26. [26]

    International Journal of Science Education 29 (9) 1089-1110

    Gaigher E, Rogan J M and Braun M W H 2007 Exploring the development of conceptual understanding through structured problem‐solving in physics. International Journal of Science Education 29 (9) 1089-1110

    work page 2007

  27. [27]

    Recherches en Communication; No 19: Sémiotique cognitive — Cognitive Semiotics 19 57-86

    Fauconnier G and Turner M 2003 Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Recherches en Communication; No 19: Sémiotique cognitive — Cognitive Semiotics 19 57-86

    work page 2003

  28. [28]

    Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 8 (1) 010105

    Bing T J and Redish E F 2012 Epistemic complexity and the journeyman -expert transition. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 8 (1) 010105

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 5 (2) 020108

    Bing T J and Redish E F 2009 Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 5 (2) 020108

    work page 2009

  30. [30]

    Rebello N S, et al. 2017. Transfer of learning in problem solving in the context of mathematics and physics. Learning to Solve Complex Scientific Problems. D. H. Jonassen, Routledge223-246

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    European Journal of Physics 41 (6) 065705

    Eriksson M, Eriksson U and Linder C 2020 Using social semiotics and variation theory to analyse learning challenges in physics: a methodological case study. European Journal of Physics 41 (6) 065705

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 10 (1) 010119

    Karam R 2014 Framing the structural role of mathematics in physics lectures: A case study on electromagnetism. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 10 (1) 010119

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 9 (2) 020118

    Hu D and Rebello N S 2013 Using conceptual blending to describe how students use mathematical integrals in physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 9 (2) 020118

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    hidden variable

    Meltzer D E 2002 The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible “hidden variable” in diagnostic pretest scores. Am. J. Phys. 70 (12) 1259-1268

    work page 2002

  35. [35]

    Singh C, et al. 2023. Instructional strategies that foster effective problem -solving. The International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Learning Physics, Melville, New York, AIP Publishing LLC https://doi.org/10.1063/9780735425477_017

    work page doi:10.1063/9780735425477_017 2023

  36. [36]

    Framework of Mathematization in Physics from a Teaching Perspective

    Pospiech G 2019. Framework of Mathematization in Physics from a Teaching Perspective. Mathematics in Physics Education. G. Pospiech, M. Michelini and B. -S. Eylon. Cham, Springer International Publishing1 - 33

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    Physical Review Physics Education Research 21 (2) 020125

    Kashyap J S and Singh C 2025 Case study examining graduate student sensemaking using the epistemic game framework for Laplace's equation in upper-level electrostatics. Physical Review Physics Education Research 21 (2) 020125

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Education Sciences 15 (10) 1314

    Justice P D, Marshman E and Singh C 2025 A Framework for Understanding the Impact of Integrating Conceptual and Quantitative Reasoning in a Quantum Optics Tutorial on Students’ Conceptual Understanding. Education Sciences 15 (10) 1314

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    Physical Review Physics Education Research 13

    Modir B, Thompson J and Sayre E 2017 Students’ epistemological framing in quantum mechanics problem solving. Physical Review Physics Education Research 13

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    How traditional physics coursework limits problem -solving opportunities

    Montgomery B J, Price A M and Wieman C 2023. How traditional physics coursework limits problem -solving opportunities. Physics Education Research Conference 2023 230-235

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Proc 1513 (1) 382-385

    Singh C and Maries A 2013 Core graduate courses: A missed learning opportunity? AIP Conf. Proc 1513 (1) 382-385

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    2020 Students' understanding of the concept of the electric field through conversions of multiple representations

    Campos E, et al. 2020 Students' understanding of the concept of the electric field through conversions of multiple representations. Physical Review Physics Education Research 16 (1) 010135

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research 7 (1) 010113

    Nguyen D-H and Rebello N S 2011 Students’ difficulties with integration in electricity. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research 7 (1) 010113

    work page 2011

  44. [44]

    2017 Student difficulties regarding symbolic and graphical representations of vector fields

    Bollen L, et al. 2017 Student difficulties regarding symbolic and graphical representations of vector fields. Physical Review Physics Education Research 13 (2) 020109

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research 9 020108

    Hu D and Rebello N S 2013 Understanding student use of differentials in physics integration problems. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research 9 020108

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    Education Sciences 13 (2) (2) 138

    Maries A and Singh C 2023 Helping students become proficient problem solvers Part I: A brief review. Education Sciences 13 (2) (2) 138

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Problem solving and learning

    Singh C 2009. Problem solving and learning. AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP 183 -197 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3183522

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3183522 2009

  48. [48]

    Physical Review Physics Education Research 19 (1) 010118

    Sirnoorkar A, Bergeron P D O and Laverty J T 2023 Sensemaking and scientific modeling: Intertwined processes analyzed in the context of physics problem solving. Physical Review Physics Education Research 19 (1) 010118

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Singh C 2008 Assessing student expertise in introductory physics with isomorphic problems. II. Effect of some potential factors on problem solving and transfer. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 4 (1) 010105

    work page 2008

  50. [50]

    Mason A and Singh C 2010 Helping students learn effective problem solving strategies by reflecting with peers. Am. J. Phys. 78 (7) 748-754

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 10 (2) 020106

    Van Dusen B, Barthelemy R S and Henderson C 2014 Educational trajectories of graduate students in physics education research. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 10 (2) 020106

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    Education Sciences 15 (8) 1038

    Ghimire A and Singh C 2025 Using unguided peer collaboration to facilitate early educators’ pedagogical development: An example from physics TA training. Education Sciences 15 (8) 1038

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    2024 Voices from graduate school and the workforce: identified student outcomes from completing a multi-semester undergraduate research experience capstone

    Colclasure B C, et al. 2024 Voices from graduate school and the workforce: identified student outcomes from completing a multi-semester undergraduate research experience capstone. Education Sciences 14 (6) 598

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research 6 (2) 020124

    Mason A and Singh C 2010 Surveying graduate students’ attitudes and approaches to problem solving. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research 6 (2) 020124

    work page 2010

  55. [55]

    which-path

    Maries A, Sayer R and Singh C 2020 Can students apply the concept of “which-path” information learned in the context of Mach–Zehnder interferometer to the double-slit experiment? Am. J. Phys. 88 (7) 542-550

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    Education Sciences 15, 1602

    Ghimire A and Singh C (2025) Perspectives of women and men students and faculty on conceptual and quantitative problem-solving in physics from introductory to graduate levels. Education Sciences 15, 1602

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Physical Review Physics Education Research 21 (1) 010148

    Robbins M E, Davis N D and Burkholder E W 2025 Decision making in graduate physics coursework: What is being assessed versus what is expected. Physical Review Physics Education Research 21 (1) 010148

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Physical Review Physics Education Research 21 (1) 010125

    Robbins M E, DiQuattro G J and Burkholder E W 2025 Assessment of expert decisions in graduate quantum mechanics. Physical Review Physics Education Research 21 (1) 010125

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    Studies in Higher Education - STUD HIGH EDUC 34 517-532

    Ulriksen L 2009 The implied student. Studies in Higher Education - STUD HIGH EDUC 34 517-532

    work page 2009

  60. [60]

    The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, SAGE Publications Ltd

    Saldana J (2021). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, SAGE Publications Ltd

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Journal of Thought 21 (3) 28-49

    Marton F 1986 Phenomenography—A Research Approach to Investigating Different Understandings of Reality. Journal of Thought 21 (3) 28-49

    work page 1986

  62. [62]

    Physical Review Physics Education Research 20 (2) 020152

    Marshman E, Maries A and Singh C 2024 Using multiple representations to improve student understanding of quantum states. Physical Review Physics Education Research 20 (2) 020152

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    Physical Review Physics Education Research 16 (2) 020112

    Wawro M, Watson K and Christensen W 2020 Students’ metarepresentational competence with matrix notation and Dirac notation in quantum mechanics. Physical Review Physics Education Research 16 (2) 020112

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    Physical Review Physics Education Research 13 (2) 020103

    Maries A, Lin S -Y and Singh C 2017 Challenges in designing appropriate scaffolding to improve students’ representational consistency: The case of a Gauss’s law problem. Physical Review Physics Education Research 13 (2) 020103

    work page 2017

  65. [65]

    Meltzer D E 2005 Relation between students' problem -solving performance and representational format. Am. J. Phys. 73 (5) 463--478

    work page 2005