- 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
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Investigating the effect of two-state approaches on students’ understanding of quantum measurement: A quasiexperimental field study

Kristóf Tóth

Sergej Faletič

Marisa Michelini

Gesche Pospiech

Andrea Betti, Marco Nicolini, and Marco Parmiggiani

Joaquin Veith and Philipp Bitzenbauer

  • University of Udine, Unità di ricerca in didattica della fisica, Dipartimento di scienze matematiche, informatiche e fisiche, via delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine, Italy

  • TU Dresden, Department of Physics, Physics Education Research Group, Helmholtzstraße 10, 01069 Dresden, Germany

  • Liceo Scientifico Alessandro Tassoni, Viale Virginia Reiter 66, 41121 Modena, Italy

  • Leipzig University, Institute of Physics Education, Vor dem Hospitaltore 1, 04103 Leipzig, Germany

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020142 – Published 5 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/15rm-rlnj

Abstract

With the rise of quantum computing, interest has grown in using two-state quantum systems (qubits) at the secondary level to foster students’ conceptual understanding. Quantum measurement, in particular, is central to quantum theory and its accurate conceptualization by students is crucial for grasping fundamental quantum principles. However, instructional methods typically make use of different contexts (i.e., different two-state systems), significantly affecting students’ conceptual development in quantum physics. In this paper, we report findings from a cluster-randomized field trial involving 181 students taught through three inquiry-based, two-state approaches: the which-path-encoded single-photon, the polarization, and the double-well potential approach. All three approaches supported students’ conceptual development, yet students taught using photon polarization and the double-well potential significantly outperformed those participating in a course following the which-path-encoded single-photon approach. Our findings indicate that students participating in the which-path-encoded single-photon approach often retain mixed-thinking frameworks, whereas those taught with photon polarization or the double-well potential approaches were more likely to develop toward quantum thinking. Thus, our findings underpin how influential the choice of (experimental) context is on students’ conceptual development (also) in quantum physics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (56)

  1. G. Ireson, A multivariate analysis of undergraduate physics students’ conceptions of quantum phenomena, Eur. J. Phys. 20, 193 (1999).
  2. M. S. Ubben, J. M. Veith, A. Merzel, and P. Bitzenbauer, Quantum science in a nutshell: Fostering students’ functional understanding of models, Front. Educ. 8, 1192708 (2023).
  3. M. S. Ubben and S. Heusler, Gestalt and functionality as independent dimensions of mental models in science, Res. Sci. Educ. 51, 1349 (2021).
  4. M. S. Ubben and P. Bitzenbauer, Two cognitive dimensions of students’ mental models in science: Fidelity of gestalt and functional fidelity, Educ. Sci. 12, 163 (2022).
  5. M. Ubben and P. Bitzenbauer, Exploring the relationship between students’ conceptual understanding and model thinking in quantum optics, Front. Quantum Sci. Technol. 2, 1207619 (2023).
  6. K. Tóth, M. Michelini, and P. Bitzenbauer, From light polarization to quantum physics: Supporting lower secondary school students’ transition from gestalt to functional thinking, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 20, em2449 (2024).
  7. P. Bitzenbauer and M. S. Ubben, The structure of learners’ perceptions of models (not only) in quantum physics: Spotlight on fidelity of gestalt and functional fidelity, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 12, 16 (2025).
  8. C. Stefani and G. Tsaparlis, Students’ levels of explanations, models, and misconceptions in basic quantum chemistry: A phenomenographic study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 520 (2009).
  9. F. Greinert, S. Goorney, D. Hilfert-Rüppell, M. S. Ubben, and R. Müller, Extending the European competence framework for quantum technologies: New proficiency triangle and qualification profiles, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 12, 1 (2025).
  10. 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, 27 (2024).
  11. M. Michelini, G. Pospiech, S. Faletič, and A. Stefanel, GIREP community on teaching/learning quantum physics in secondary school, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1929, 012044 (2021).
  12. P. Bitzenbauer, S. Faletič, M. Michelini, K. Tóth, and G. Pospiech, Design and evaluation of a questionnaire to assess learners’ understanding of quantum measurement in different two-state contexts: The context matters, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020136 (2024).
  13. P. Onorato, M. Di Mauro, and M. Malgieri, To teach or not to teach quantum physics? Revisiting goals and practices of instruction in secondary schools, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2950, 012028 (2025).
  14. M. Michelini, A. Stefanel, and K. Tóth, Implementing Dirac approach to quantum mechanics in a Hungarian secondary school, Educ. Sci. 12, 606 (2022).
  15. P. Hu, Y. Li, and C. Singh, Challenges in addressing student difficulties with quantum measurement of two-state quantum systems using a multiple-choice question sequence in online and in-person classes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020130 (2023).
  16. P. Hu, Y. Li, and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of the basics of quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020108 (2024).
  17. P. A. M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 4th ed. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1958).
  18. R. P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Addison-Wesley, Boston, 1965), Vol. 3.
  19. A. P. French and E. F. Taylor, An introduction to quantum physics, in The MIT Introductory Physics Series (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1978).
  20. J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics, 4th ed. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1985).
  21. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).
  22. S. Faletič, A double well on-line simulation and activities for active learning of introductory quantum mechanics, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 045706 (2020).
  23. G. Zuccarini, C. Sutrini, M. Bondani, C. Macchiavello, and M. Malgieri, Teaching quantum information science to secondary school students with photon polarization and which-path encoding, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 74 (2024).
  24. C. Bernhardt, Quantum Computing for Everyone (MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, 2019).
  25. R. Müller and H. Wiesner, Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level, Am. J. Phys. 70, 200 (2002).
  26. R. Scholz, S. Wessnigk, and K.-A. Weber, A classical to quantum transition via key experiments, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 055304 (2020).
  27. F. Hennig, K. Tóth, M. Förster, and P. Bitzenbauer, A new teaching-learning sequence to promote secondary school students’ learning of quantum physics using Dirac notation, Phys. Educ. 59, 045007 (2024).
  28. 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).
  29. M. Michelini, R. Ragazzon, L. Santi, and A. Stefanel, Discussion of a didactic proposal on quantum mechanics with secondary school students, Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. 27C, 555 (2004).
  30. S. Faletič, Sim QM double-well, https://www.fmf.uni-lj.si/sl/imenik/53/faletic-sergej/ (2025) [Accessed 2025-05-06].
  31. M. E. Robbins, G. J. DiQuattro, and E. W. Burkholder, Assessment of expert decisions in graduate quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010125 (2025).
  32. D. Ardac, Solving quantum number problems: An examination of novice performance in terms of conceptual base requirements, J. Chem. Educ. 79, 510 (2002).
  33. C. Singh, Transfer of learning in quantum mechanics, AIP Conf. Proc. 790, 23 (2005).
  34. E. M. Stump, M. Dew, G. Passante, and N. G. Holmes, Context affects student thinking about sources of uncertainty in classical and quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020157 (2023).
  35. G. Pospiech, S. Faletič, M. Michelini, L. Santi, and K. Tóth, Design and evaluation of a questionnaire on the quantum physics measurement process, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2950, 012026 (2025).
  36. P. Bitzenbauer, Effect of an introductory quantum physics course using experiments with heralded photons on preuniversity students’ conceptions about quantum physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020103 (2021).
  37. H. R. Sadaghiani and S. J. Pollock, Quantum mechanics concept assessment: Development and validation study, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010110 (2015).
  38. M. Michelini and A. Stefanel, A path to build basic quantum mechanics ideas in the context of light polarization and learning outcomes of secondary students, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1929, 012052 (2021).
  39. M. Michelini, R. Ragazzon, L. Santi, and A. Stefanel, Proposal for quantum physics in secondary school, Phys. Educ. 35, 406 (2000).
  40. https://qtedu.eu/project/development-quantum-concepts-different-two-state-approaches.
  41. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988).
  42. J. M. Veith, P. Bitzenbauer, and B. Girnat, Exploring learning difficulties in abstract algebra: The case of group theory, Educ. Sci. 12, 516 (2022).
  43. V. P. Coletta and J. J. Steinert, Why normalized gain should continue to be used in analyzing preinstruction and postinstruction scores on concept inventories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010108 (2020).
  44. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  45. H. Levene, Contributions to Probability and Statistics (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, 1960), pp. 278–292.
  46. S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk, An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples), Biometrika 52, 591 (1965).

  47. According to Shapiro-Wilk tests, the distribution of the differences between the pre- and post-test scores does not deviate statistically significantly from the normal distribution for the polarization approach (p=0.638), the double-well approach (p=0.587), and the which-path-encoded single-photon approach (p=0.129).

  48. For example, if a student chose a response option indicating mixed thinking on an item in the pretest (1 point) but chose a response option indicating quantum thinking on the post-test (2 points), this is counted as a transition 1→2. The total number of such transitions is N×8 per cohort, as the instrument contains eight single-choice items.

  49. H. R. Fischler and M. Lichtfeldt, Modern physics and students’ conceptions, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 14, 181 (1992).
  50. M. Michelini and A. Stefanel, Learning paths of high school students in quantum mechanics, in Proceedings of the Frontiers of Physics Education, edited by R. Jurdana-Šepić, V. Labinac, M. Žuvić, and A. Šušac (Zlatni Rez, Rijeka, Croatia, 2008), pp. 337–343, https://www.fisica.uniud.it/URDF/articoli/ftp/2008/2008-10.pdf.
  51. M. Michelini, L. Santi, and A. Stefanel, Building quantum formalism in upper secondary school students, in Proceedings of the International Conference GIREP-ICPE-MPTL 2010 (Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne, Reims, 2011), https://www.fisica.uniud.it/urdf/articoli/ftp/2011/2011-09.pdf.
  52. B. S. Ambrose, P. S. Shaffer, R. N. Steinberg, and L. C. McDermott, An investigation of student understanding of single-slit diffraction and double-slit interference, Am. J. Phys. 67, 146 (1999).
  53. S. Vokos, P. S. Shaffer, B. S. Ambrose, and L. C. McDermott, Student understanding of the wave nature of matter: Diffraction and interference of particles, Am. J. Phys. 68, S42 (2000).
  54. B. A. Thacker, A study of the nature of students’ models of microscopic processes in the context of modern physics experiments, Am. J. Phys. 71, 599 (2003).
  55. C. Singh and E. Marshman, Review of student difficulties in upper-level quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020117 (2015).
  56. 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).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020142– Published 5 November, 2025
  • Received 18 July 2025
  • Accepted 24 October 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