- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Learning quantum properties with informationally redundant external representations: An eye-tracking study

Eva Rexigel*

Linda Qerimi*

Jonas Bley

Sarah Malone

Stefan Küchemann and Jochen Kuhn

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010124 – Published 25 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/b18l-zn9q

Abstract

Recent research indicates that the use of Multiple External Representations (MERs) has the potential to support learning, especially in complex scientific areas, such as quantum physics. In particular, the provision of informationally redundant external representations can have advantageous effects on learning outcomes. This is of special relevance for quantum education, where various external representations are available, and their effective use is recognized as crucial to student learning. However, research on the effects of informationally redundant external representations in quantum learning is limited. The present study aims to contribute to the development of effective learning materials by investigating the effects of informationally redundant external representations on students’ learning of quantum physics. Using a between-subjects design, 113 students were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. The control group learnt with a traditional multimedia learning unit on the behavior of a single photon in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The three intervention groups received redundant essential information in the Dirac formalism, the Bloch sphere, or both. The use of eye tracking enabled insight into the learning process, depending on the external representations provided. While the results indicate no effect of the study condition on learning outcomes (content knowledge and cognitive load), the analysis of visual behavior reveals decreased learning efficiency with the addition of the Bloch sphere to the multimedia learning unit. The results are discussed based on current insights into learning with MERs. The study emphasizes the need for careful instructional design to balance the associated cognitive load when learning with informationally redundant external representations.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (65)

  1. C. Singh and E. Marshman, Review of student difficulties in upper-level quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020117 (2015).
  2. T. Bouchée, L. de Putter-Smits, M. Thurlings, and B. Pepin, Towards a better understanding of conceptual difficulties in introductory quantum physics courses, Stud. Sci. Educ. 58, 183 (2022).
  3. S. Ainsworth, DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations, Learn. Instr. 16, 183 (2006).
  4. E. Rexigel, J. Bley, A. Arias, L. Qerimi, S. Küchemann, J. Kuhn, and A. Widera, Investigating the use of multiple representations in university courses on quantum technologies, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 12, 22 (2025).
  5. S. Ainsworth, The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts, in Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education, Models and Modeling in Science Education, edited by J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner and M. Nakhleh (Springer, Netherlands, 2008), pp. 191–208, 10.1007/978-1-4020-5267-5_9.
  6. A. Merzel, P. Bitzenbauer, K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, K. Stadermann, E. Andreotti, D. Anttila, M. Bondani, M. L. M. Chiofalo, S. Faletič, R. Frans, S. Goorney, F. Greinert, L. Jurčić, Z. Koupilová, M. Malgieri, R. Müller, P. Onorato, G. Pospiech, M. Ubben, A. Woitzik, and H. Pol, The core of secondary level quantum education: A multi-stakeholder perspective, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 1 (2024).
  7. H. R. Sadaghiani and J. Munteanu, Spin first instructional approach to teaching quantum mechanics in sophomore level modern physics courses, presented at PER Conf. 2015, College Park, MD, pp. 287–290, 10.1119/perc.2015.pr.067.
  8. W. Dür and S. Heusler, Was man vom einzelnen Qubit über Quantenphysik lernen kann, PhyDid A 1, 01 (2012).
  9. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of quantum mechanics in the context of single photon interference, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010117 (2017).
  10. A. Donhauser, P. Bitzenbauer, L. Qerimi, S. Heusler, S. Küchemann, J. Kuhn, and M. S. Ubben, Empirical insights into the effects of research-based teaching strategies in quantum education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020601 (2024).
  11. P. Bitzenbauer, J. M. Veith, B. Girnat, and J.-P. Meyn, Assessing engineering students’ conceptual understanding of introductory quantum optics, Physics 4, 1180 (2022).
  12. F. Hennig, K. Tóth, J. Veith, and P. Bitzenbauer, Introducing quantum physics concepts and Dirac notation at the secondary school level: Insights into student reasoning from an acceptance survey, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020147 (2024).
  13. S. Ainsworth, The multiple representations principle in multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2021), pp. 158–170, 10.1017/9781108894333.016.
  14. J. Patchitt, M. T. Sherman, and H. Critchley, Effects of perceptual redundancy, conceptual redundancy and self-relatedness on categorical responses, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 77, 2165 (2024).
  15. J. Sui and G. W. Humphreys, More of me! Distinguishing self and reward bias using redundancy gains, Attent. Percept. Psychophys. 77, 2549 (2015).
  16. W. Schnotz, Kognitive Prozesse bei der sprach- und bildgestützten Konstruktion mentaler Modelle, in Sprache, Sinn und Situation: Festschrift für Gert Rickheit zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by L. Sichelschmidt and H. Strohner (Deutscher Universitätsverlag, Wiesbaden, 2001), pp. 43–57, 10.1007/978-3-663-08962-9_3.
  17. W. Schnotz, Integrated model of text and picture comprehension, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2021), pp. 82–99, 10.1017/9781108894333.010.
  18. R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, Introduction to multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2021), pp. 3–16, 10.1017/9781108894333.003.
  19. R. E. Mayer, The multimedia principle, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2021), pp. 145–157, 10.1017/9781108894333.015.
  20. R. E. Mayer, Cognitive theory of multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2021), pp. 57–72, 10.1017/9781108894333.008.
  21. E. Rexigel, J. Kuhn, S. Becker, and S. Malone, The more the better? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits of more than two external representations in STEM education, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 36, 124 (2024).
  22. N. Ott, R. Brünken, M. Vogel, and S. Malone, Multiple symbolic representations: The combination of formula and text supports problem solving in the mathematical field of propositional logic, Learn. Instr. 58, 88 (2018).
  23. S. Malone, K. Altmeyer, M. Vogel, and R. Brünken, Homogeneous and heterogeneous multiple representations in equation-solving problems: An eye-tracking study, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 36, 781 (2020).
  24. W. Schnotz and M. Bannert, Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation, Learn. Instr. 13, 141 (2003).
  25. W. Schnotz, An integrated model of text and picture comprehension, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2005), pp. 49–70, 10.1017/CBO9780511816819.
  26. W. Schnotz, Kognitive prozesse bei der sprach-und bildgestützten konstruktion mentaler modelle, in Sprache, Sinn und Situation: Festschrift für Gert Rickheit zum 60. Geburtstag (2001), p. 43, 10.1007/978-3-663-08962-9_3.
  27. M. A. Lindner, A. Eitel, J. Barenthien, and O. Köller, An integrative study on learning and testing with multimedia: Effects on students’ performance and metacognition, Learn. Instr. 71, 101100 (2021).
  28. M. A. Rau, Conditions for the effectiveness of multiple visual representations in enhancing STEM learning, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29, 717 (2017).
  29. K. L. Daniel, C. J. Bucklin, E. Austin Leone, and J. Idema, Towards a definition of representational competence, in Towards a Framework for Representational Competence in Science Education (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018), pp. 3–11, 10.1007/978-3-319-89945-9_1.
  30. L. Fiorella and R. E. Mayer, Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by L. Fiorella and E. R. Mayer, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2021), pp. 185–198, 10.1017/9781108894333.019.
  31. F. Paas and J. Sweller, Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2021), pp. 73–81, 10.1017/9781108894333.009.
  32. D. Mutlu-Bayraktar, V. Cosgun, and T. Altan, Cognitive load in multimedia learning environments: A systematic review, Comput. Educ. 141, 103618 (2019).
  33. J. Sweller, P. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga, Measuring cognitive load, in Cognitive Load Theory (Springer, New York, NY, 2011), pp. 71–85, 10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4_6.
  34. S. Kalyuga and J. Sweller, The redundancy principle in multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2021), pp. 212–220, 10.1017/9781108894333.021.
  35. S. Kalyuga, The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2021), pp. 171–182, 10.1017/9781108894333.017.
  36. S. Kalyuga and A. Renkl, Expertise reversal effect and its instructional implications: Introduction to the special issue, Instr. Sci. 38, 209 (2010).
  37. A. Merzel, E. Y. Weissman, N. Katz, and I. Galili, Mathematical structures in quantum physics education for high school students: Unveiling the power of Dirac notation for conceptual and problem-solving proficiency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020134 (2024).
  38. M. Wawro, K. Watson, and W. Christensen, Students’ metarepresentational competence with matrix notation and Dirac notation in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020112 (2020).
  39. A. Merzel, E. Y. Weissman, N. Katz, and I. Galili, Mathematical structures in quantum physics education for high school students: Unveiling the power of Dirac notation for conceptual and problem-solving proficiency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020134 (2024).
  40. P. Hu, Y. Li, R. S. K. Mong, and C. Singh, Student understanding of the Bloch sphere, Eur. J. Phys. 45, 025705 (2024).
  41. T. N. Höffler and D. Leutner, The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations–evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis, Comput. Hum. Behav. 27, 209 (2011).
  42. B. C. O. F. Fehringer, Spatial thinking from a different view: Disentangling top-down and bottom-up processes using eye tracking, Open Psychol. 2, 138 (2020).
  43. E. Alemdag and K. Cagiltay, A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning, Comput. Educ. 125, 413 (2018).
  44. A. Coskun and K. Cagiltay, A systematic review of eye–tracking–based research on animated multimedia learning, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 38, 581 (2022).
  45. P. Klein, A. Lichtenberger, S. Küchemann, S. Becker, M. Kekule, J. Viiri, C. Baadte, A. Vaterlaus, and J. Kuhn, Visual attention while solving the test of understanding graphs in kinematics: An eye-tracking analysis, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 025701 (2020).
  46. L. Hahn and P. Klein, Eye tracking in physics education research: A systematic literature review, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 013102 (2022).
  47. F. Schmidt-Weigand, A. Kohnert, and U. Glowalla, A closer look at split visual attention in system-and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning, Learn. Instr. 20, 100 (2010).
  48. T. Rasch and W. Schnotz, Interactive and non-interactive pictures in multimedia learning environments: Effects on learning outcomes and learning efficiency, Learn. Instr. 19, 411 (2009).
  49. M. Hannus and J. Hyönä, Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low-and high-ability children, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 24, 95 (1999).
  50. J. Hyönä, The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning, Learn. Instr. 20, 172 (2010).
  51. E. Rexigel, L. Qerimi, S. Malone, S. Küchemann, and J. Kuhn, Learning Quantum Properties with Informationally Redundant Representations (2024), 10.17605/OSF.IO/HTE4P.
  52. M. Waitzmann, R. Scholz, and S. Wessnigk, Testing quantum reasoning: Developing, validating, and application of a questionnaire, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010122 (2024).
  53. M. Klepsch, F. Schmitz, and T. Seufert, Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load, Front. Psychol. 8, 1997 (2017).
  54. J. Leppink, F. Paas, C. P. M. van der Vleuten, T. van Gog, and J. J. G. van Merriënboer, Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load, Behav. Res. Meth. Instrum. Comput. 45, 1058 (2013).
  55. M. Waitzmann, Wirkung eines quantenoptischen Realexperiments auf das physikalische reasoning, Ph.D. thesis Institutionelles Repositorium der Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover, 2023, 10.15488/14065.
  56. P. Jansen, A. Schmelter, C. Quaiser-Pohl, S. Neuburger, and M. Heil, Mental rotation performance in primary school age children: Are there gender differences in chronometric tests?, Cognit. Dev. 28, 51 (2013).
  57. B. C. Fehringer, R-cube-SR test, Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 39, 37 (2021).
  58. J. Sweller, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, and F. Paas, Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 31, 261 (2019).
  59. M. Kragten, W. Admiraal, and G. Rijlaarsdam, Students’ learning activities while studying biological process diagrams, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37, 1915 (2015).
  60. P. A. O’Keefe, S. M. Letourneau, B. D. Homer, R. N. Schwartz, and J. L. Plass, Learning from multiple representations: An examination of fixation patterns in a science simulation, Comput. Hum. Behav. 35, 234 (2014).
  61. R. P. Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006).
  62. E. R. Johnston, N. Harrigan, and M. Gimeno-Segovia, Programming Quantum Computers: Essential Algorithms and Code Samples (O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol, CA, 2019).
  63. J. Bley, E. Rexigel, A. Arias, N. Longen, L. Krupp, M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, P. Lukowicz, A. Donhauser, S. Küchemann, J. Kuhn, and A. Widera, Visualizing entanglement in multiqubit systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023077 (2024).
  64. A. A. diSessa and B. L. Sherin, Meta-representation: An introduction, J. Math. Behav. 19, 385 (2000).
  65. W. Schnotz, U. Ludewig, M. Ullrich, H. Horz, N. McElvany, and J. Baumert, Strategy shifts during learning from texts and pictures, J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 974 (2014).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010124– Published 25 February, 2026
  • Received 27 January 2025
  • Accepted 18 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation