- 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

Undergraduate students’ application of special relativity to paradoxes

Özlem Ery𝚤lmaz Muştu* and Hülya Ertaş K𝚤l𝚤ç†

  • *Contact author: ozlemeryilmaz@aksaray.edu.tr
  • †Contact author: ertashulya@aksaray.edu.tr
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020118 – Published 12 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/n3xm-f4pz

Abstract

In this paper, the focus has been on students’ application of special relativity theory after learning it. In order to determine students’ understanding and conceptualization of the theory of special relativity, paradoxes, which are contradictory problems, have been used in the study. How students solved paradoxes related to the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation has been investigated, and an answer has been sought to the question “What is the state of undergraduate students who have learnt special relativity theory in applying the theory to paradoxes?” The students who participated in the study had previously attended Physics I, General Physics 2, and General Physics 3 courses in which classical physics topics (force and motion, electricity and magnetism, and optics and waves) were taught. The data were analyzed using a phenomenographic approach to identify the categories emerging from students’ responses. Most students experience difficulty in understanding the nature of special relativity and applying the theory to other situations. For this reason, they did not use the concept of the reference frame in solving the paradoxes. From the students’ responses, it is understood that they mostly think within a single reference frame and experience difficulty in understanding the contradictions that arise when viewed from different reference frames.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (40)

  1. S. Boublil, D. Blair, and D. F. Treagust, Einstein’s “happiest thought”: Free-fall experiments enhance student learning of Einsteinian gravity in middle school, Teach. Sci. 69, 1 (2023).
  2. C. Zahn and U. Kraus, Sector models—A toolkit for teaching general relativity: I. Curved spaces and spacetimes, Eur. J. Phys. 35, 055020 (2014).
  3. R. D. Blandford and K. S. Thorne, Post-pandemic science and education, Am. J. Phys. 88, 518 (2020).
  4. T. Kaur, D. Blair, W. Stannard, D. Treagust, G. Venville, M. Zadnik, W. Mathews, and D. Perks, Determining the intelligibility of Einsteinian concepts with middle school students, Res. Sci. Educ. 50, 2505 (2020).
  5. R. Resnick, Introduction to Special Relativity (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1991).
  6. C. de Hosson, I. Kermen, and E. Parizot, Exploring students’ understanding of reference frames and time in Galilean and special relativity, Eur. J. Phys. 31, 1527 (2010).
  7. P. Alstein, K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, and W. R. van Joolingen, Teaching and learning special relativity theory in secondary and lower undergraduate education: A literature review, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 2 (2021).
  8. P. Alstein, K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, and W. R. van Joolingen, Supporting secondary school students’ understanding of time dilation through simulation-based inquiry learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 48, 1290 (2025).
  9. J. S. Aslanides and C. M. Savage, Relativity concept inventory: Development, analysis, and results, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res 9, 2013.
  10. R. E. Scherr, P. S. Shaffer, and S. Vokos, Student understanding of time in special relativity: Simultaneity and reference frames, Am. J. Phys. 69, S24 (2001).
  11. G. S. Selçuk, Addressing pre-service teachers’ understandings and difficulties with some core concepts in the special theory of relativity, Eur. J. Phys. 32, 1 (2011).
  12. A. Villani and J. L. A. Pacca, Students’ spontaneous ideas about the speed of light, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 9, 55 (1987)
  13. R. E. Scherr, P. S. Shaffer, and S. Vokos, The challenge of changing deeply held student beliefs about the relativity of simultaneity, Am. J. Phys. 70, 1238 (2002).
  14. R. E. Scherr, Modeling student thinking: An example from special relativity, Am. J. Phys. 75, 272 (2007).
  15. P. W. Hewson, A case study of conceptual change in special relativity: The influence of prior knowledge in learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 4, 61 (1982).
  16. P. Shabajee and K. Postlethwaite, What happened to modern physics?, Sch. Sci. Rev. 81, 297 (2000).
  17. K. Dimitriadi and K. Halkia, Secondary students’ understanding of basic ideas of special relativity, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34, 2565 (2012).
  18. M. Reiner and L. M. Burko, On the limitations of thought experiments in physics and the consequences for physics education, Sci. Educ. 12, 365 (2003).
  19. A. Velentzas and K. Halkia, The use of thought experiments in teaching physics to upper secondary-level students: Two examples from the theory of relativity, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35, 3026 (2013).
  20. R. B. Johnson and L. Christensen, Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2019), vol. 7.
  21. R. K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2003).
  22. J. W. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2013).
  23. F. Marton, Phenomenography—Describing conceptions of the world around us, Instruct. Sci. 10, 177 (1981).
  24. R. R. Sherman and R. B. Webb, Qualitative Research in Education (Routledge, London, 2004).
  25. J. T. Richardson, The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research, Rev. Educ. Res. 69, 1 (1999).
  26. E. Hernandez, E. Campos, P. Barniol, and G. Zavala, Phenomenographic analysis of students’ conceptual understanding of electric and magnetic interactions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 2 (2022).
  27. M. B. Miles, A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldana, Qualitative Data Analysis (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2014).
  28. S. Panse, J. Ramadas, and A. Kumar, Alternative conceptions in Galilean relativity: Frames of reference, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 16, 63 (1994).
  29. R. E. Scherr, An investigation of student understanding of basic concepts in special relativity, Ph.D. thesis, 2001.
  30. C. Wang, The grandfather paradox: Challenging the linear conception of time and the foundations of causal logic, IJSDR—Int. J. Sci. Dev. Res. 11, 5 (2026).
  31. D. Gousopoulos, E. Kapotis, and G. Kalkanis, Students’ difficulties in understanding the basic principles of relativity after standard instruction, arXiv:2311.09914.
  32. A. Villani and J. L. A. Pacca, Spontaneous reasoning of graduate students, I. J. Sci. Educ. 12, 589 (1990).
  33. P. Alstein, K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, and W. R. van Joolingen, Designing and evaluating relativity lab: A simulation environment for special relativity education at the secondary level, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 32, 759 (2023).
  34. M. G. de Souza, A. Serrano, and D. Treagust, Exploring the relationship between mental representations and conceptual understanding of special relativity by high school students, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 44, 91 (2026).
  35. G. J. Posner, K. A. Strike, P. W. Hewson, and W. A. Gertzog, Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change, Sci. Educ. 66, 211 (1982).
  36. M. T. H. Chi, Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities, Top. Cognit. Sci. 1, 73 (2009).
  37. A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).
  38. T. Hughes and M. Kersting, The invisibility of time dilation, Phys. Educ. 56, 025011 (2021).
  39. F. Kamphorst, M. J. Vollebregt, E. R. Savelsbergh, and W. R. van Joolingen, An educational reconstruction of special relativity theory for secondary education, Sci. Educ. 32, 57 (2023).
  40. D. Blair, E. Henriksen, and M. Hendry, Why don’t we teach Einstein’s theories in school, The Conversation (2016), retrieved from https://theconversation.com/why-dont-we-teach-einsteins-theories-in-school-69991.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020118– Published 12 August, 2026
  • Received 3 December 2025
  • Accepted 16 June 2026
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