- 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

Examination of students’ quantum physics knowledge construction with peers and metacognitive evaluations

Nilüfer Didiş Körhasan1,2,* and Gesche Pospiech2

  • *Contact author: niluferdidis@gmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020153 – Published 26 December, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020153

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection in Investigating and Improving Quantum Education through Research.] As one of the successful theories in physics, quantum physics, constructed out of physical ideas and expressed mathematically, provides the required information for the development of technology by describing atomic or quantum systems. For several reasons related to the characteristics of quantum physics knowledge, students struggle with understanding the concepts forcing them to change their classical thinking. However, previous research showed that discussing quantum physics phenomena with peers helped students in problem solving, improving understanding, and constructing quantum physics knowledge. In this study, we focused on students’ knowledge construction in several different quantum physics topics with peer discussions depending on the kind of quantum physics problems and group structure. Examination of students’ tests with 45 quantum physics problems and reflection reports for four sessions during the semester indicated that the occurrence of knowledge construction is associated with group size and gender composition but not with the kind of problems. The knowledge construction condition is also related to group size, and satisfaction with knowledge and disagreements in group discussions are important for the construction of quantum physics knowledge.

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

References (96)

  1. M. F. J. Fox, B. M. Zwickl, and H. J. Lewandowski, Preparing for the quantum revolution: What is the role of higher education?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020131 (2020).
  2. C. Singh, Student understanding of quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 69, 885 (2001).
  3. C. Singh, Student understanding of quantum mechanics at the beginning of graduate instruction, Am. J. Phys. 76, 277 (2008).
  4. 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).
  5. 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).
  6. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Improving students’ understanding of quantum measurement. I. Investigation of difficulties, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010117 (2012).
  7. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Surveying students’ understanding of quantum mechanics in one spatial dimension, Am. J. Phys. 80, 252 (2012).
  8. K. S. Taber, Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas, Sci. Educ. 89, 94 (2005).
  9. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Improving students’ understanding of quantum mechanics via the Stern–Gerlach experiment, Am. J. Phys. 79, 499 (2011).
  10. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Improving student understanding of addition of angular momentum in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010101 (2013).
  11. N. Didiş Körhasan and L. Wang, Students’ mental models of atomic spectra, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 17, 743 (2016).
  12. L. Ivanjek, P. S. Shaffer, L. C. McDermott, M. Planinic, and D. Veza, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory spectroscopy. I. Identifying student difficulties with atomic emission spectra, Am. J. Phys. 83, 85 (2015).
  13. N. Didiş, A. Eryılmaz, and Ş. Erkoç, Investigating students’ mental models about the quantization of light, energy and angular momentum, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020127 (2014).
  14. G. Passante, P. J. Emigh, and P. S. Shaffer, Student ability to distinguish between superposition states and mixed states in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020135 (2015).
  15. T. Wan, P. J. Emigh, and P. S. Shaffer, Probing student reasoning in relating relative phase and quantum phenomena, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020139 (2019).
  16. L. Bao and E. F. Redish, Understanding probabilistic interpretations of physical systems: A prerequisite to learning quantum physics, Am. J. Phys. 70, 210 (2002).
  17. P. J. Emigh, G. Passante, and P. S. Shaffer, Student understanding of time dependence in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020112 (2015).
  18. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of the probability distributions for measuring physical observables in quantum mechanics, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 025705 (2017).
  19. H. R. Sadaghiani, Conceptual and mathematical barriers to students learning quantum mechanics, doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 2005 (unpublished).
  20. P. Wattanakasiwich, Model of understanding of probability in modern physics, doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 2005 (unpublished).
  21. M. Ayene, J. Kriek, and B. Damtie, Wave-particle duality and uncertainty principle: Phenomenographic categories of description of tertiary physics students’ depictions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020113 (2011).
  22. B. Bungum, M. V. Bøe, and E. K. Henriksen, Quantum talk: How small-group discussions may enhance students’ understanding in quantum physics, Sci. Educ. 102, 856 (2018).
  23. N. Didiş Körhasan and K. Miller, Students’ mental models of wave-particle duality, Can. J. Phys. 98, 266 (2020).
  24. G. Ireson, The quantum understanding of pre-university physics students, Phys. Educ. 35, 15 (2000).
  25. K. Mannila, I. Koponen, and J. A. Niskanen, Building a picture of students’ conceptions of wave- and particle-like properties of quantum entities, Eur. J. Phys. 23, 45 (2002).
  26. C. Keebaugh, E. Marshman, and C. Singh, Investigating and addressing student difficulties with the corrections to the energies of the hydrogen atom for the strong and weak field Zeeman effect, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 045701 (2018).
  27. N. Didiş, A. Eryılmaz, and Ş. Erkoç, Pre-service physics teachers’ comprehension of quantum mechanical concepts, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 6, 227 (2010).
  28. 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).
  29. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of quantum mechanical observables and their corresponding operators in Dirac notation, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 015707 (2018).
  30. K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, H. J. Pol, A. Brinkman, and W. R. van Joolingen, Secondary school students’ misunderstandings of potential wells and tunneling, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010132 (2020).
  31. S. McKagan, K. Perkins, and C. Wieman, Deeper look at student learning of quantum mechanics: The case of tunneling, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020103 (2008).
  32. Ö. Özcan, N. Didiş, and M. F. Taşar, Students’ conceptual difficulties in quantum mechanics: Potential well problems, Hacettepe Univ. J. Educ. 36, 169 (2009), http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/yonetim/icerik/makaleler/1594-published.pdf.
  33. T. Tu, C-F. Li, J-S. Xu, and G-C. Guo, Students’ difficulties with solving bound and scattering state problems in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020142 (2021).
  34. M. C. Wittmann, J. T. Morgan, and L. Bao, Addressing student models of energy loss in quantum tunneling, Eur. J. Phys. 26, 939 (2005).
  35. 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).
  36. C. Singh and E. Marshman, Review of student difficulties in upper-level quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020117 (2015).
  37. B. Modir, J. D. Thompson, and E. C. Sayre, Students’ epistemological framing in quantum mechanics problem solving, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020108 (2017).
  38. 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).
  39. 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).
  40. 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).
  41. L. C. McDermott and P. Shaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice Hall, Hoboken, NJ, 1998).
  42. E. F. Redish, R. N. Steinberg, and M. C. Wittmann, A new model course in applied quantum physics, https://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/qm/qmcourse/NewModel/qmtuts.htm (2001).
  43. QuILTs, Quantum Interactive Learning Tutorials. Developed by Chandralekha Singh, and PER team at the University of Pittsburgh, https://www.physport.org/curricula/QuILTs/ (2011).
  44. C. Singh, Interactive learning tutorials on quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 400 (2008).
  45. Benjamin W. Dreyfus, Jessica R. Hoehn, Erin Ronayne Sohr, Noah D. Finkelstein, Ayush Gupta, Andrew Elby, and Kathleen Hinko, Tutorials on thinking about quantum entities, https://www.physport.org/curricula/quantumentities/ (2016).
  46. University of Washington Physics Education Group, Tutorials in physics: Quantum mechanics, https://sites.google.com/uw.edu/uwpeg/curricula/tutorials-in-physics-quantum-mechanics (2019).
  47. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Pearson & Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1997).
  48. C. Singh and G. Zhu, Improving students’ understanding of quantum mechanics by using Peer Instruction tools, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 77 (2012).
  49. L. Vygotsky, Mind in Society (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978).
  50. G. Pospiech, Philosophy and quantum mechanics in science teaching, Sci. Educ. 12, 559 (2003).
  51. H. Jeong and M. T. H. Chi, Knowledge convergence and collaborative learning, Instr. Sci. 35, 287 (2007).
  52. P. K. Tao, Peer collaboration in solving qualitative physics problems: The role of collaborative talk, Res. Sci. Educ. 29, 365 (1999).
  53. P. N. Johnson-Laird, The history of mental models, in Psychology of Reasoning: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives, edited by K. Manktelow and M. C. Chung (Psychology Press, New York, NY, 2004), pp. 179–212.
  54. P. W. Hewson, A conceptual change approach to learning science, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 3, 383 (1981).
  55. P. W. Hewson and M. G. A. Hewson, The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction, Instr. Sci. 13, 1 (1984).
  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).
  57. J. H. Flavell, Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry, Am. Psychol. 34, 906 (1979).
  58. M. C. Wang, G. D. Haertel, and H. J. Walberg, What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature, J. Educ. Res. 84, 30 (1990).
  59. N. Yuruk, M. E. Beeth, and C. Andersen, Analyzing the effect of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ understanding of force and motion concepts, Res. Sci. Educ. 39, 449 (2009).
  60. A. R. Mota, N. Didiş Körhasan, K. Miller, and E. Mazur, Homework as a metacognitive tool in an undergraduate physics course, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010136 (2019).
  61. N. Didiş Körhasan, A. Eryılmaz, and Ş. Erkoç, The role of metacognition in students’ mental models of the quantization, Sci. Educ. Int. 29, 183 (2018).
  62. J. Lee and N. Didiş Körhasan, Effect of group type on group performance in peer-collaborated two-round physics problem solving, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020112 (2022).
  63. K. Miller, N. Lasry, B. Lukoff, J. Schell, and E. Mazur, Conceptual question response times in Peer Instruction classrooms, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020113 (2014).
  64. K. Miller, J. Schell, A. Ho, B. Lukoff, and E. Mazur, Response switching and self-efficacy in Peer Instruction classrooms, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010104 (2015).
  65. M. Lorenzo, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006).
  66. C. Singh, Impact of peer interaction on conceptual test performance, Am. J. Phys. 73, 446 (2005).
  67. M. K. Smith, W. B. Wood, W. K. Adams, C. Wieman, J. K. Knight, N. Guild, and T. T. Su, Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions, Science 323, 122 (2009).
  68. H. Jang, N. Lasry, K. Miller, and E. Mazur, Collaborative exams: Cheating? Or learning?, Am. J. Phys. 85, 223 (2017).
  69. L. Deslauriers and C. Wieman, Learning and retention of quantum concepts with different teaching methods, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010101 (2011).
  70. 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).
  71. M. J. Brundage, A. Malespina, and C. Singh, Peer interaction facilitates co-construction of knowledge in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020133 (2023).
  72. A. Ghimire and C. Singh, How often does unguided peer interaction lead to correct response consensus? An example from conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism, Eur. J. Phys. 45, 035703 (2024).
  73. W. Z. Shi, The effect of peer interactions on quantum physics: A study from China, J. Baltic Sci. Educ. 12, 152 (2013).
  74. R. J. Pearson, Tailoring clicker technology to problem-based learning: What’s the best approach?, J. Chem. Educ. 94, 1866 (2017).
  75. E. M. Marshman, Improving the quantum mechanics content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge of physics graduate students, doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 2015 (unpublished).
  76. C. Turpen and N. D. Finkelstein, Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of Peer Instruction, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020101 (2009).
  77. R. Leinonen, M. A. Asikainen, and P. E. Hirvonen, Peer discussions in lecture-based tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010114 (2017).
  78. M. C. James and S. Willoughby, Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: What you have not heard might surprise you!, Am. J. Phys. 79, 123 (2011).
  79. A. Pawlak, P. W. Irving, and M. D. Caballero, Development of the modes of collaboration framework. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010101 (2018).
  80. S. McKagan, K. Perkins, and C. Wieman, Design and validation of the Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020121 (2010).
  81. 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).
  82. N. Didiş Körhasan, A. Eryılmaz, and Ş. Erkoç, The influence of instructional interactions on students’ mental models about the quantization of physical observables: A modern physics course case, Eur. J. Phys. 37, 015701 (2016).
  83. G. Ireson, A multivariate analysis of undergraduate physics students’ conceptions of quantum phenomena, Eur. J. Phys. 20, 193 (1999).
  84. Ş. Erkoç, Fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics (Taylor and Francis CRC Press, New York, 2006).
  85. K. Miller, G. Kestin, and O. Miller, How gender composition and group formation impact the effectiveness of group work in two-stage collaborative exams, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020137 (2022).
  86. S. B. Merriam, Qualitative Research (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2009).
  87. R. K. Yin, Case Study Research (Sage Publications, CA, 2003).
  88. Ö. Özcan, Investigation of conceptual, and mathematical difficulties in learning quantum mechanics, and relativity, doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University, Türkiye, 2009 (unpublished, in Turkish).
  89. R. Robinett and E. Cataloglu, Testing the development of student conceptual and visualization understanding in quantum mechanics through the undergraduate career, Am. J. Phys. 70, 238 (2002).
  90. H. Sadaghiani and S. Pollock, Quantum mechanics concept assessment: Development and validation study, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010110 (2015).
  91. PhysPort, Supporting physics teaching with research-based resources, available at https://www.physport.org/ (2019).
  92. N. Didiş Körhasan, Conceptual quantum physics for pre-service science teachers, in Proceedings of the GIREP-ICPE-EPEC-MPTL 2019 Conference, Budapest, Hungary (2019), pp. 395–396.
  93. N. Didiş Körhasan, Investigation of the interaction of students’ mental models with Peer Instructional elements in an undergraduate physics course, Sci. Educ. Int. 32, 220 (2021).
  94. G. Pospiech, Framework of mathematization in physics from a teaching perspective, in Mathematics in Physics Education, edited by G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, and B. S. Eylon (Springer, New York, 2019), pp. 1–36, 10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9_1.
  95. O. Uhden, R. Karam, M. Pietrocola, and G. Pospiech, Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education, Sci. Educ. 21, 485 (2012).
  96. L. C. McDermott, Guest comment: How we teach and how students learn a mismatch?, Am. J. Phys. 61, 295 (1993).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020153– Published 26 December, 2024
  • Received 30 June 2024
  • Accepted 22 November 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