- 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

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

Peter Hu1,*, Yangqiuting Li1, and Chandralekha Singh1

  • 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA

  • *Corresponding author: pth9@pitt.edu.
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020130 – Published 14 September, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020130

Abstract

Research-validated multiple-choice questions comprise an easy-to-implement instructional tool that serves to scaffold student learning and formatively assess students’ knowledge. We present findings from the implementation, in consecutive years, of a research-validated multiple-choice question sequence [referred to in this study as a clicker question sequence (CQS)] on quantum measurement as it applies to two-state quantum systems. This study was conducted in an advanced undergraduate quantum mechanics course, in both online and in-person learning environments across three years. Student learning was assessed after traditional lecture-based instruction in relevant concepts, and their performance was compared with that on a similar assessment given after engaging with the CQS. We analyze, compare, and discuss the trends observed in the three implementations.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (64)

  1. C. Singh, Helping students learn quantum mechanics for quantum computing, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 42 (2007).
  2. C. Singh, A. Asfaw, and J. Levy, Preparing students to be leaders of the quantum information revolution, Phys. Today 2021, 0927a (2021).
  3. A. Asfaw et al., Building a quantum engineering undergraduate program, IEEE Trans. Ed. 65, 220 (2022).
  4. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Improving students’ understanding of quantum measurement. I. Investigation of difficulties, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010117 (2012).
  5. I. D. Johnston, K. Crawford, and P. R. Fletcher, Student difficulties in learning quantum mechanics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 427 (1998).
  6. C. Singh, Student understanding of quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 69, 885 (2001).
  7. D. Domert, C. Linder, and Å. Ingerman, Probability as a conceptual hurdle to understanding one-dimensional quantum scattering and tunnelling, Eur. J. Phys. 26, 47 (2004).
  8. A. Kohnle, M. Douglass, T. J. Edwards, A. D. Gillies, C. A. Hooley, and B. D. Sinclair, Developing and evaluating animations for teaching quantum mechanics concepts, Eur. J. Phys. 31, 1441 (2010).
  9. A. Kohnle, I. Bozhinova, D. Browne, M. Everitt, A. Fomins, P. Kok, G. Kulaitis, M. Prokopas, D. Raine, and E. Swinbank, A new introductory quantum mechanics curriculum, Eur. J. Phys. 35, 015001 (2013).
  10. G. Passante, P. J. Emigh, and P. S. Shaffer, Examining student ideas about energy measurements on quantum states across undergraduate and graduate levels, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020111 (2015).
  11. K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, H. J. Pol, A. Brinkman, and W. R. van Joolingen, Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010109 (2017).
  12. R. Müller and H. Wiesner, Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level, Am. J. Phys. 70, 200 (2002).
  13. M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Investigating student understanding of quantum physics: Spontaneous models of conductivity, Am. J. Phys. 70, 218 (2002).
  14. C. Singh, M. Belloni, and W. Christian, Improving students’ understanding of quantum mechanics, Phys. Today 59, No. 8, 43 (2006).
  15. C. Singh, Student understanding of quantum mechanics at the beginning of graduate instruction, Am. J. Phys. 76, 277 (2008).
  16. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Framework for understanding the patterns of student difficulties in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020119 (2015).
  17. V. Dini and D. Hammer, Case study of a successful learner’s epistemological framings of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010124 (2017).
  18. E. Gire and E. Price, Structural features of algebraic quantum notations, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020109 (2015).
  19. D. F. Styer, Common misconceptions regarding quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 64, 31 (1996).
  20. P. Jolly, D. Zollman, N. S. Rebello, and A. Dimitrova, Visualizing motion in potential wells, Am. J. Phys. 66, 57 (1998).
  21. D. A. Zollman, N. S. Rebello, and K. Hogg, Quantum mechanics for everyone: Hands-on activities integrated with technology, Am. J. Phys. 70, 252 (2002).
  22. B. W. Dreyfus, A. Elby, A. Gupta, and E. R. Sohr, Mathematical sense-making in quantum mechanics: An initial peek, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020141 (2017).
  23. P. Hadzidaki, G. Kalkanis, and D. Stavrou, Quantum mechanics: A systemic component of the modern physics paradigm, Phys. Educ. 35, 386 (2000).
  24. S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, C. Malley, S. Reid, R. LeMaster, and C. E. Wieman, Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 406 (2008).
  25. G. Passante and A. Kohnle, Enhancing student visual understanding of the time evolution of quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010110 (2019).
  26. G. Passante, B. P. Schermerhorn, S. J. Pollock, and H. R. Sadaghiani, Time evolution in quantum systems: A closer look at student understanding, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 015705 (2019).
  27. C. D. Porter and A. F. Heckler, Graduate student misunderstandings of wave functions in an asymmetric well, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010139 (2019).
  28. M. C. Wittmann, J. T. Morgan, and L. Bao, Addressing student models of energy loss in quantum tunnelling, Eur. J. Phys. 26, 939 (2005).
  29. U. Scotti di Uccio, A. Colantonio, S. Galano, I. Marzoli, F. Trani, and I. Testa, Design and validation of a two-tier questionnaire on basic aspects in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010137 (2019).
  30. S. Pollock, G. Passante, and H. Sadaghiani, Adaptable research-based materials for teaching quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 91, 40 (2023).
  31. C. Singh, Interactive learning tutorials on quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 400 (2008).
  32. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Improving students’ understanding of quantum measurement. II. Development of research-based learning tools, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010118 (2012).
  33. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
  34. P. Justice, E. Marshman, and C. Singh, Development and validation of a sequence of clicker questions for helping students learn addition of angular momentum in quantum mechanics, presented in PER Conf. 2018, Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Justice.
  35. P. Justice, E. Marshman, and C. Singh, Improving student understanding of quantum mechanics underlying the Stern–Gerlach experiment using a research-validated multiple-choice question sequence, Eur. J. Phys. 40, 055702 (2019).
  36. P. Hu, Y. Li, and C. Singh, Challenges in addressing student difficulties with time-development of two-state quantum systems using a multiple-choice question sequence in virtual and in-person classes, Eur. J. Phys. 43, 025704 (2022).
  37. D. L. Schwartz, J. D. Bransford, and D. Sears, Efficiency and innovation in transfer, Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age, Greenwich, CT, 2005), pp. 1–51.
  38. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 68, S52 (2000).
  39. R. Sayer, E. Marshman, and C. Singh, Case study evaluating Just-In-Time Teaching and Peer Instruction using clickers in a quantum mechanics course, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020133 (2016).
  40. G. M. Novak, E. T. Patterson, A. D. Gavrin, and W. Christian, Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning and Web Technology (Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999).
  41. P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 60, 627 (1992).
  42. P. Dillenbourg, Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series (Elsevier Science, Inc., New York, 1999), p. 1.
  43. D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, Making cooperative learning work, Theory Into Practice 38, 67 (1999).
  44. C. Singh, Impact of peer interaction on conceptual test performance, Am. J. Phys. 73, 446 (2005).
  45. M. Brundage, L. Malespina, and C. Singh, Peer instruction facilitates co-construction of knowledge related to quantum mechanics formalism and postulates, presented in PER Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Brundage.
  46. M. T. H. Chi, Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities, Topics Cogn. Sci. 1, 73 (2009).
  47. M. T. H. Chi and R. Wylie, The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes, Educ. Psychol. 49, 219 (2014).
  48. C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970 (2001).
  49. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Surveying students’ understanding of quantum mechanics in one spatial dimension, Am. J. Phys. 80, 252 (2012).
  50. H. R. Sadaghiani and S. J. Pollock, Quantum mechanics concept assessment: Development and validation study, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010110 (2015).
  51. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Validation and administration of a conceptual survey on the formalism and postulates of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020128 (2019).
  52. C. Singh and G. Zhu, Improving students’ understanding of quantum mechanics by using peer instruction tools, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 77 (2012).
  53. J. H. McMillan and J. F. Wergin, Understanding and Evaluating Educational Research (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1998).
  54. C. Singh, Student difficulties with quantum mechanics formalism, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 185 (2007).
  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. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of the expectation values of observables in quantum mechanics, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 045701 (2017).
  57. 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).
  58. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Academic Press, New York, 2013).
  59. E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories, Am. J. Phys. 65, 45 (1997).
  60. P. Hu, Y. Li, and C. Singh, Challenges in addressing student difficulties with measurement uncertainty of two-state quantum systems using a multiple-choice question sequence in online and in-person classes, Eur. J. Phys. 44, 015702 (2022).
  61. B. R. Wilcox and S. J. Pollock, Investigating students’ behavior and performance in online conceptual assessment, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020145 (2019).
  62. B. Van Dusen, M. Shultz, J. M. Nissen, B. R. Wilcox, N. G. Holmes, M. Jariwala, E. W. Close, H. J. Lewandowski, and S. Pollock, Online administration of research-based assessments, Am. J. Phys. 89, 7 (2021).
  63. B. R. Brown, A. Mason, and C. Singh, Improving performance in quantum mechanics with explicit incentives to correct mistakes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010121 (2016).
  64. A. Mason, E. Yerushalmi, E. Cohen, and C. Singh, Learning from mistakes: The effect of students’ written self-diagnoses on subsequent problem solving, Phys. Teach. 54, 87 (2016).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020130– Published 14 September, 2023
  • Received 16 January 2023
  • Accepted 2 August 2023
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