- 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

Empirical insights into the effects of research-based teaching strategies in quantum education

Anna Donhauser*

Philipp Bitzenbauer

Linda Qerimi

Stefan Heusler

Stefan Küchemann and Jochen Kuhn

Malte S. Ubben

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

  • *Contact author: anna.don.donhauser@fau.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020601 – Published 4 December, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020601

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection in Investigating and Improving Quantum Education through Research.] The present review intends to show the current state of teaching quantum-related content, to analyze and compare its learning efficiency, and to give a systemized overview of quantum-educational activities in the last years. We focus on teaching and learning elements, their innovative tools, and process-oriented studies that are empirically validated. In terms of content, we mainly concentrate on aspects of modern quantum technology. The final dataset for our analysis and synthesis included 50 studies published since 2017 and until the follow-up survey in February 2024. We have found that most of the teaching strategies described and investigated are in the field of quantum mechanics and are designed to provide an introduction to the rather broad and differentiated topic of quantum science. Studies specifically addressing mathematical concepts can exclusively be found for the target group of university students. Visualizing ideas or innovative social interventions to improve quantum learning is mainly found in schools while only a few approaches for further education show validated results. Tools most often examined in the studies reported were of digital nature, though some experiment-focused learning environments were also evaluated.

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. https://qt.eu

  2. C. Foti, D. Anttila, S. Maniscalco, and M. L. Chiofalo, Quantum physics literacy aimed at K12 and the general public, Universe 7, 86 (2021).
  3. R. De Wolf, The potential impact of quantum computers on society, Ethics Inf. Technol. 19, 271 (2017).
  4. H. Stadermann, E. van den Berg, and M. 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. 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).
  6. R. V. Olsen, Introducing quantum mechanics in the upper secondary school: A study in Norway, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 565 (2002).
  7. G. Pospiech, Teaching the EPR paradox at high school?, Phys. Educ. 34, 311 (1999).
  8. G. Pospiech, Uncertainty and complementarity: The heart of quantum physics, Phys. Educ. 35, 393 (2000).
  9. G. Pospiech, Quantum cryptography as an approach for teaching quantum physics, in Teaching-Learning Contemporary Physics: From Research to Practice, edited by B. Jarosievitz and C. Sükösd (Springer, Cham, 2021).
  10. M. Michelini, R. Ragazzon, L. Santi, and A. Stefanel, Proposal for quantum physics in secondary school, Phys. Educ. 35, 406 (2000).
  11. P. Bitzenbauer and T. Zenger, Online course on quantum physics: Reading primary sources with secondary school students, Phys. Teach. 60, 572 (2022).
  12. S. Aehle, P. Scheiger, and H. Cartarius, An approach to quantum physics teaching through analog experiments, Physics 4, 1241 (2022).
  13. M. Malgieri and P. Onorato, Recent progress on the sum over paths approach in quantum mechanics education, Physics 4, 1012 (2022).
  14. E. Y. Weissman, A. Merzel, N. Katz, and I. Galili, Phenomena and principles: Presenting quantum physics in a high school curriculum, Physics 4, 1299 (2022).
  15. 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).
  16. 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).
  17. P. P. Angara, U. Stege, A. MacLean, H. A. Müller, and T. Markham, Teaching quantum computing to high-school-aged youth: A hands-on approach, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 3, 1 (2021).
  18. L. V. Rodriguez, J. T. van der Veen, A. Anjewierden, E. van den Berg, and T. de Jong, Designing inquiry-based learning environments for quantum physics education in secondary schools, Phys. Educ. 55, 065026 (2020).
  19. K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, H. J. Pol, A. Brinkman, and W. Van Joolingen, Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010109 (2017).
  20. M. Ayene, J. Kriek, and B. Damtie, Wave-particle duality and uncertainty principle: Phenomenographic categories of description of tertiary physics students’ depictions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020113 (2011).
  21. E. K. Henriksen, C. Angell, A. I. Vistnes, and B. Bungum, What is light? Students’ reflections on the wave-particle duality of light and the nature of physics, Sci. Educ. 27, 81 (2018).
  22. M. Nousiainen and I. T. Koponen, Pre-service teachers’ declarative knowledge of wave-particle dualism of electrons and photons: Finding lexicons by using network analysis, Educ. Sci. 10, 76 (2020).
  23. 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, New York, 2022), pp. 175–187.
  24. M. Ayene, J. Krick, B. Damitie, A. Ingerman, and B. Thacker, A holistic picture of physics student conceptions of energy quantization, the photon concept, and light quanta interference, , Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 17, 1049 (2019).
  25. Ö. Özcan, Pre-service physics teachers’ comprehension of wave function and operator concepts in quantum mechanics, Int. J. Phys. Sci. 6, 2768 (2011).
  26. Ö. Özcan, Investigation of mental models of turkish pre-service physics students for the concept of “spin”, Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 52, 21 (2013).
  27. J. Petri and H. Niedderer, A learning pathway in high-school level quantum atomic physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1075 (1998).
  28. K. S. Taber, Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas, Sci. Educ. 89, 94 (2005).
  29. 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).
  30. 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).
  31. S. Faletic, P. Bitzenbauer, M. Bondani, M. Chiofalo, S. Goorney, K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, O. Mishina, R. Muller, G. Pospiech, I. Ercan et al., Contributions from pilot projects in quantum technology education as support action to quantum flagship, arXiv:2303.07055.
  32. P. Bitzenbauer, Quantum physics education research over the last two decades: A bibliometric analysis, Educ. Sci. 11, 699 (2021).

  33. https://qtedu.eu/

  34. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101070193

  35. https://q12education.org/about

  36. A. Acín, I. Bloch, H. Buhrman, T. Calarco, C. Eichler, J. Eisert, D. Esteve, N. Gisin, S. J. Glaser, F. Jelezko et al., The quantum technologies roadmap: A European community view, New J. Phys. 20, 080201 (2018).
  37. R. Müller and S. Heusler, Quantentechnologien unterrichten? Schulische Zugänge mit den Wesenszügen der Quantenphysik und didak1sche Potenziale, Unterr. Phys. 2023, 2 (2023).
  38. 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).
  39. F. Greinert, R. Müller, P. Bitzenbauer, M. S. Ubben, and K.-A. Weber, Future quantum workforce: Competences, requirements, and forecasts, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010137 (2023).
  40. A. R. Hayati, Z. L. Afriani, and A. Akbarjono, Teacher’s teaching strategies in EFL class, Jadila 1, 330 (2021).
  41. P. Bitzenbauer and J.-P. Meyn, A new teaching concept on quantum physics in secondary schools, Phys. Educ. 55, 055031 (2020).
  42. K. Tóth, M. Michelini, and P. Bitzenbauer, Exploring the effect of a phenomenological teaching-learning sequence on lower secondary school students’ views of light polarisation, Phys. Educ. 59, 035009 (2024).
  43. 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).

  44. https://tinyurl.com/ye24923s

  45. D. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. Altmann, Preferred reportin items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The prisma statement, PLoS Med. 6, e1000097 (2009).
  46. R. van de Schoot, J. de Bruin, and R. Schram et al., An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews, Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 125 (2021).
  47. C. E. Hill, B. J. Thompson, and E. N. Williams, A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research, Couns. Psychol. Q. 25, 517 (1997).
  48. F. Greinert and R. Müller, European competence framework for quantum technologies Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6834598 (2024).
  49. M. Waitzmann, K.-A. Weber, S. Wessnigk, and R. Scholz, Key experiment and quantum reasoning, Physics 4, 1202 (2022).
  50. 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).
  51. 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).
  52. P. Bitzenbauer, Practitioners’ views on new teaching material for introducing quantum optics in secondary schools, Phys. Educ. 56, 055008 (2021).
  53. Z. Bouchée, M. Thurlings, L. de Putter-Smits, and B. Pepin, Investigating teachers’ and students’ experiences of quantum physics lessons: Opportunities and challenges, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 41, 777 (2021).
  54. H. K. E. Stadermann and M. J. Goedhart, Why and how teachers use nature of science in teaching quantum physics: Research on the use of an ecological teaching intervention in upper secondary schools, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020132 (2021).
  55. K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, H. Pol, A. Brinkman, and W. von Joolingen, Prior knowledge of potential energy and the understanding of quantum mechanics, Phys. Educ. 57, 025012 (2022).
  56. T. S. Moraga-Calderón, H. Buisman, and J. Cramer, The relevance of learning quantum physics from the perspective of the secondary school student: A case study, Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 8, 32 (2020).
  57. R. Sayer, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Quantum interactive learning tutorial on the double-slit experiment to improve student understanding of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010123 (2017).
  58. A. Kohnle and G. Passante, Characterizing representational learning: A combined simulation and tutorial on perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020131 (2017).
  59. P. Hu, Y. Li, and C. Singh, Challenges in addressing student difficulties with basics and change of basis for two-state quantum systems using a multiple-choice question sequence in online and in-person classes, Eur. J. Phys. 44, 065703 (2023).
  60. C. D. Porter and A. F. Heckler, Effectiveness of guided group work in graduate level quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020127 (2020).
  61. 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).
  62. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of quantum mechanics in the context of single photon interference, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010117 (2017).
  63. 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).
  64. V. Borish and H. J. Lewandowski, Seeing quantum effects in experiments, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020144 (2023).
  65. S. Lukishova, Fifteen years of quantum optics, quantum information, and nano-optics educational facility at the institute of optics, University of Rochester, Opt. Eng. 61 (2022).
  66. A. Mariesa, R. Sayer, and C. Singh, Can students apply the concept of which-path information learned in the context of Mach–Zehnder interferometer to the double-slit experiment?, Am. J. Phys. 88, 542 (2020).
  67. C. Hughes, J. Isaacson, A. Perry, R. Sun, and J. Turner, Teaching quantum computing to high school students, Phys. Teach. 60, 187 (2022).
  68. G. Karakok, Making connections among representations of eigenvector: What sort of a beast is it?, ZDM Math. Educ. 51, 1141 (2019).
  69. T. Wan, P. J. Emigh, and P. S. Shaffer, Investigating how students relate inner products and quantum probabilities, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010117 (2019).
  70. P. J. Emigh, G. Passante, and P. S. Shaffer, Developing and assessing tutorials for quantum mechanics: Time dependence and measurements, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020128 (2018).
  71. B. Schermerhorn, G. Corsiglia, H. Sadaghiani, G. Passante, and S. Pollock, From Cartesian coordinates to Hilbert space: Supporting student understanding of basis in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010145 (2022).
  72. I. Testa, A. Colantonio, S. Galano, I. Marzoli, F. Trani, and U. Scotti di Uccio, Effects of instruction on students’ overconfidence in introductory quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010143 (2020).
  73. I. Testa, G. Capasso, A. Colantonio, S. Galano, I. Marzoli, U. S. di Uccio, F. Trani, and A. Zappia, Development and validation of a university students’ progression in learning quantum mechanics through exploratory factor analysis and Rasch analysis, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 41, 388 (2018).
  74. S. Montagnani, A. Stefanel, M. L. M. Chiofalo, L. Santi, and M. Michelini, An experiential program on the foundations of quantum mechanics for final-year high-school students, Phys. Educ. 58, 035003 (2023).
  75. U. S. di Uccio, A. Colantonio, S. Galano, I. Marzoli, F. Trani, and I. Testa, Development of a construct map to describe students’ reasoning about introductory quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010144 (2020).
  76. S. Satanassi, E. Ercolessi, and O. Levrini, Designing and implementing materials on quantum computing for secondary school students: The case of teleportation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010122 (2022).
  77. A. T. Danielsson, S. Engström, P. Norström, and K. Andersson, The making of contemporary physicist: Figured worlds in the university quantum mechanics classroom, Res. Sci. Educ. 51, 1141 (2021).
  78. S. Faletić, A double well on-line simulation and activities for active learning of introductory quantum mechanics, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 045706 (2020).
  79. E. Palmgren, K. Tuominen, and I. Kontro, Self-efficacy and conceptual knowledge in quantum mechanics during teaching reforms and the Covid-19 pandemics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020122 (2022).
  80. M. J. Carreño, J. Sepúlveda, S. Tecpan, C. Hernández, and F. Herrera, An instrument-free demonstration of quantum key distribution for high-school students, Phys. Educ. 54, 065006 (2019).
  81. B. Bungum and S. Selstø, What do quantum computing students need to know about quantum physics?, Eur. J. Phys. 43, 055706 (2022).
  82. E. F. Combarro, S. Vallecorsa, L. J. RodríguezMuñiz, A. AguilarGonzález, J. Ranilla, and A. D. Meglio, A report on teaching a series of online lectures on quantum computing from CERN, J. Supercomput. 77, 14405 (2021).
  83. 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).
  84. 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 (2023).
  85. S. Z. Ahmend, C. A. Weidner, J. H. M. Jensen, J. F. Sherson, and H. J. Lewandowski, Student use of a quantum simulation and visualization tool, Eur. J. Phys. 43, 065703 (2022).
  86. P. Nyirahabimana, E. Minani, M. Nduwingoma, and I. Kemeza, Prime indicators of current teaching methodologies and students’ perceptions in quantum physics, Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 11, 1134 (2022).
  87. D. A. Denisova, N. G. Levanova, I. V. Evgrafova, and A. S. Verkhovod, Formation of cognitive activity of technical university students using elements of blended learning in the study of quantum physics, Rev. Tempos Espaços Educ. 14, e15296 (2021).
  88. I. Dökme and Z. K. Ünlü, The challenge of quantum physics problems with self-metacognitive questioning, Res. Sci. Educ. 51, 783 (2019).
  89. I. Yusuf, S. W. Widyaningsih, and S. R. B. Sebayang, Implementation of e-learning based-STEM on quantum physics subject to student HOTS ability, J. Turk. Sci. Educ. 15, 67 (2018).
  90. Abdurrahman, A. Saregar, and R. Umam, The effect of feedback as soft scaffolding on ongoing assessment toward the quantum physics concept mastery, J. Pendidikan IPA Indonesia 7, 41 (2018).
  91. M. V. Bøe, E. K. Henriksen, and C. Angell, Actual versus implied physics students: How students from traditional physics classrooms related to an innovative approach to quantum physics, Sci. Educ. 102, 649 (2018).
  92. I. V. Korsun, How e-learning demonstrates the formation of students’ cognitive activity in the teaching of quantum physics, Inf. Technol. Learn. Tools 61, 127 (2017).
  93. M. Malgieri, P. Onorato, and A. D. Ambrosis, Test on the effectiveness of the sum over paths approach in favoring the construction of an integrated knowledge of quantum physics in high school, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010101 (2017).
  94. R. K. Choudhary, A. Foppoli, T. Kaur, D. G. Blair, M. Zadnik, and R. Meagher, Can a short intervention focused on gravitational waves and quantum physics improve students’ understanding and attitude?, Phys. Educ. 53, 065020 (2018).
  95. M. Bondani, M. Chiofalo, E. Ercolessi, C. Macchiavello, M. Malgieri, M. Michelini, O. Mishina, P. Onorato, F. Pallotta, and Satanassi, Introducing quantum technologies at secondary school level: Challenges and potential impact of an online extracurricular course, Physics 4, 1150 (2022).
  96. E. Andreotti and R. Frans, Teaching quantum physics in secondary schools using the analogy with the physics of musical instruments, Phys. Educ. 58, 015008 (2023).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020601– Published 4 December, 2024
  • Received 29 June 2024
  • Accepted 9 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