Analysis of pre-service physics teachers’ mental models of and reasoning about the Higgs boson using the SOLO taxonomy

Philipp Bitzenbauer; Angela Fösel

doi:10.29333/ejmste/17028

Full Text (PDF)

Philipp Bitzenbauer ¹ ^* , Angela Fösel ²

More Detail

¹ Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, GERMANY² Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, GERMANY^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

The Higgs boson, a cornerstone of the standard model, poses exceptional conceptual challenges for learners and future teachers due to its abstract, quantum-field nature. We conducted an interview study with 29 pre-service physics teachers who had completed an experimental particle physics course. The participants responded to eight targeted questions about the Higgs boson. Their answers were first analyzed qualitatively through the lens of the cognitive dimensions Fidelity of Gestalt and Functional Fidelity and were then coded according to the structure of the observed learning outcome (SOLO) taxonomy (pre-, uni-, multi-, relational). The results showed a dominance of dual thinking and pre-/uni-structural reasoning, with only a minority of relational responses indicative of integrated, expert-like reasoning. These patterns echo recent findings from physics education research and inform classroom practice.

Keywords

particle physics
pre-service teachers
Higgs boson
qualitative analysis
reasoning
SOLO taxonomy

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 21, Issue 10, 2025, Article No: em2706

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17028

Publication date: 01 Oct 2025

Online publication date: 16 Sep 2025

Article Views: 1588

Article Downloads: 291

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Alsop, S., & Beale, S. (2013). Molasses or crowds: Making sense of the Higgs boson with two popular analogies. Physics Education, 48(5), Article 670. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/48/5/670
Andrews, I., & Nikolopoulos, K. (2018). Introducing particle physics concepts through visual art. Physics Education, 53(5), Article 054001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aad276
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). Academic Press.
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. What the students does. McGraw Hill.
Bitzenbauer, P., & Meyn, J. P. (2022). Toward types of students’ conceptions about photons: Results of an interview study. In J. Borg Marks, P. Galea, S. Gatt, & D. Sands (Eds.), Physics teacher education. Challenges in physics education (pp. 175-187). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06193-6_13
Bitzenbauer, P., & Ubben, M. S. (2025). The structure of learners’ perceptions of models (not only) in quantum physics: Spotlight on fidelity of gestalt and functional fidelity. EPJ Quantum Technology, 12(1), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00316-7
Collis, K. F., & Biggs, J. B. (1979). Classroom examples of cognitive development phenomena: The SOLO taxonomy. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED185055
Colman, A. M. (2015). A dictionary of psychology (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Englert, F., & Brout, R. (1964). Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons. Physical Review Letters, 13(9), Article 321. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321
Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). Learners’ knowledge in optics: Interpretation, structure and analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 57-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900290000
Gourlay, H. (2016). Learning about A level physics students’ understandings of particle physics using concept mapping. Physics Education, 52(1), Article 014001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/52/1/014001
Higgs, P. W. (1964). Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields. Physics Letters, 12, 132-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9
Hobson, A. (2011). Teaching elementary particle physics: Part I1. The Physics Teacher, 49(1), 12-15. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3527746
Ke, J. L., Monk, M., & Duschl, R. (2005). Learning introductory quantum physics: Sensori-motor experiences and mental models. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1571-1594. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500186485
Kranjc Horvat, A., Wiener, J., Schmeling, S. M., & Borowski, A. (2022). What does the curriculum say? Review of the particle physics content in 27 high-school physics curricula. Physics, 4(4), 1278-1298. https://doi.org/10.3390/physics4040082
Kvita, J., Čermáková, B., Matulová, N., Poštulka, J., & Staník, D. (2019). Particle camera MX-10 in physics education. Physics Education, 54(2), Article 025011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aae9a0
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education: Examples of methodology and methods (pp. 365-380). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13
McGinness, L., Dührkoop, S., Woithe, J., & Jansky, A. (2019). 3D printable quark puzzle: A model to build your own particle systems. The Physics Teacher, 57(8), 526-528. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5131116
McGrath, C., Palmgren, P. J., & Liljedahl, M. (2019) Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews. Medical Teacher, 41(9), 1002-1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1497149
Organtini, G. (2012). Unveiling the Higgs to students. European Journal of Physics, 33(5), Article 1397. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/33/5/1397
Peskin, M. E. (2019). Concepts of elementary particle physics (vol. 26). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812180.001.0001
Petri, J., & Niedderer, H. (1998). A learning pathway in high-school level quantum atomic physics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1075-1088. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200905
Salimpour, S., Tytler, R., Fitzgerald, M. T., & Eriksson, U. (2023). Is the universe infinite? Characterising a hierarchy of reasoning in student conceptions of cosmology concepts using open-ended surveys. Journal for STEM Education Research, 6(1), 102-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00088-8
Taber, K. S. (2005). Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89(1), 94-116. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20038
Törnkvist, S., Pettersson, K. A., & Tranströmer, G. (1993). Confusion by representation: On student’s comprehension of the electric field concept. American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 335-338. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17265
Tusoy, M., & Baraquia, L. (2025). The use of PhET simulations in evaluating students’ level of cognitive skills utilizing SOLO taxonomy. Journal of Education and Learning Reviews, 2(1), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.60027/jelr.2025.1259
Tuzón, P., & Solbes, J. (2016). Particle physics in high school: A diagnose study. PLoS ONE, 11(6), Article e0156526. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156526
Tytler, R. (1998). Children’s conceptions of air pressure: Exploring the nature of conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 929-958. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200803
Ubben, M. S., & Bitzenbauer, P. (2022). Two cognitive dimensions of students’ mental models in science: Fidelity of gestalt and functional fidelity. Education Sciences, 12(3), Article 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030163
Ubben, M. S., & Bitzenbauer, P. (2023). Exploring the relationship between students’ conceptual understanding and model thinking in quantum optics. Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology, 2, Article 1207619. https://doi.org/10.3389/frqst.2023.1207619
Ubben, M. S., & Heusler, S. (2021). Gestalt and functionality as independent dimensions of mental models in science. Research in Science Education, 51(5), 1349-1363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09892-y
Ubben, M. S., Hartmann, J., & Pusch, A. (2022). Holes in the atmosphere of the universe: An empirical qualitative study on mental models of students regarding black holes. Astronomy Education Journal, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.32374/AEJ.2022.2.1.029ra
van den Berg, E., & Hoekzema, D. (2006). Teaching conservation laws, symmetries and elementary particles with fast feedback. Physics Education, 41(1), Article 47. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/41/1/004
Veith, J. M., Bitzenbauer, P., & Girnat, B. (2022). Exploring learning difficulties in abstract algebra: The case of group theory. Education Sciences, 12(8), Article 516. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080516
Wiener, J., & Woithe, J. (2020). What is your favourite particle and why? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1512, Article 012021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1512/1/012021
Woithe, J., Boselli, M., Chatzidaki, P., Dahlkemper, M. N., Duggan, R., Durey, G., Herff, N., Kranjc Horvat, A., Molaro, D., Scheerer, G. W., Schmeling, S., Thill, P. G., Wiener, J., & Zoechling, S. (2022). Higgs in a box: Investigating the nature of a scientific discovery. The Physics Educator, 4(4), Article 2250019. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2661339522500196
Woithe, J., Wiener, G. J., & Van der Veken, F. F. (2017). Let’s have a coffee with the Standard Model of particle physics! Physics Education, 52(3), Article 034001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aa5b25

How to cite this article

APA

Bitzenbauer, P., & Fösel, A. (2025). Analysis of pre-service physics teachers’ mental models of and reasoning about the Higgs boson using the SOLO taxonomy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(10), em2706. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17028

Vancouver

Bitzenbauer P, Fösel A. Analysis of pre-service physics teachers’ mental models of and reasoning about the Higgs boson using the SOLO taxonomy. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2025;21(10):em2706. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17028

AMA

Bitzenbauer P, Fösel A. Analysis of pre-service physics teachers’ mental models of and reasoning about the Higgs boson using the SOLO taxonomy. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2025;21(10), em2706. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17028

Chicago

Bitzenbauer, Philipp, and Angela Fösel. "Analysis of pre-service physics teachers’ mental models of and reasoning about the Higgs boson using the SOLO taxonomy". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2025 21 no. 10 (2025): em2706. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17028

Harvard

Bitzenbauer, P., and Fösel, A. (2025). Analysis of pre-service physics teachers’ mental models of and reasoning about the Higgs boson using the SOLO taxonomy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(10), em2706. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17028

MLA

Bitzenbauer, Philipp et al. "Analysis of pre-service physics teachers’ mental models of and reasoning about the Higgs boson using the SOLO taxonomy". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 21, no. 10, 2025, em2706. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17028