Design and Validation of the Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey.

The Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey (QMCS) is a 12-question survey of students' conceptual understanding of quantum mechanics. It is intended to be used to measure the relative effectiveness of different instructional methods in modern physics courses. In this paper we describe the design and validation of the survey, a process that included observations of students, a review of previous literature and textbooks and syllabi, faculty and student interviews, and statistical analysis. We also discuss issues in the development of specific questions, which may be useful both for instructors who wish to use the QMCS in their classes and for researchers who wish to conduct further research of student understanding of quantum mechanics. The QMCS has been most thoroughly tested in, and is most appropriate for assessment of (as a posttest only), sophomore-level modern physics courses. We also describe testing with students in junior quantum courses and graduate quantum courses, from which we conclude that the QMCS may be appropriate for assessing junior quantum courses, but is not appropriate for assessing graduate courses. One surprising result of our faculty interviews is a lack of faculty consensus on what topics should be taught in modern physics, which has made designing a test that is valued by a majority of physics faculty more difficult than expected.

[1]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits , 2004 .

[2]  L. Cronbach.  Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[3]  Bradley S. Ambrose.  A Repeat Performance? Challenges In Developing Robust Conceptual Understanding in Quantum Mechanics , 2005 .

[4]  Richard N. Steinberg,et al.  Performance on multiple-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems , 1997 .

[5]  E. Çataloğlu.  DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF AN ACHIEVEMENT TEST IN INTRODUCTORY QUANTUM MECHANICS: THE QUANTUM MECHANICS VISUALIZATION INSTRUMENT (QMVI) , 2002 .

[6]  Jeffery M. Saul,et al.  Student expectations in introductory physics , 1998 .

[7]  G. A. Ferguson,et al.  On the theory of test discrimination , 1949, Psychometrika.

[8]  David Hestenes,et al.  Interpreting the force concept inventory: A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller , 1995 .

[9]  Katherine K. Perkins,et al.  Faculty Disagreement about the Teaching of Quantum Mechanics , 2009 .

[10]  David E. Meltzer,et al.  Differences in Male/Female Response Patterns on Alternative-format Versions of the Force Concept Inventory , 2001 .

[11]  Randall Dewey Knight,et al.  Five Easy Lessons: Strategies for Successful Physics Teaching , 2004 .

[12]  C. Linder,et al.  Probability as a conceptual hurdle to understanding one-dimensional quantum scattering and tunnelling , 2005 .

[13]  N. Sanjay Rebello,et al.  The effect of distracters on student performance on the force concept inventory , 2004 .

[14]  Chandralekha Singh,et al.  Student understanding of quantum mechanics at the beginning of graduate instruction , 2008, 1602.06660.

[15]  Lillian C. McDermott,et al.  Development of a computer‐based tutorial on the photoelectric effect , 1996 .

[16]  Ratchapak Chitaree,et al.  Developing a prototype conceptual survey in fundamental quantum physics , 2012 .

[17]  Homeyra Sadaghiani.  Conceptual and mathematical barriers to students learning quantum mechanics , 2005 .

[18]  Chandralekha Singh,et al.  Student understanding of quantum mechanics , 2001 .

[19]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs , 1994 .

[20]  Rebecca S. Lindell,et al.  Are They All Created Equal? A Comparison of Different Concept Inventory Development Methodologies , 2007 .

[21]  Lei Bao,et al.  Addressing student models of energy loss in quantum tunnelling , 2005, physics/0502053.

[22]  E. Cataloglu,et al.  Testing the development of student conceptual and visualization understanding in quantum mechanics through the undergraduate career , 2002 .

[23]  R. Olsen,et al.  Introducing quantum mechanics in the upper secondary school: A study in Norway , 2002 .

[24]  Douglas Huffman,et al.  Interpreting the force concept inventory: A reply to Hestenes and Halloun , 1995 .

[25]  Rodney L. Doran,et al.  Basic measurement and evaluation of science instruction , 1980 .

[26]  Edwin F. Taylor,et al.  An Introduction to Quantum Physics , 1978 .

[27]  H. Wiesner,et al.  Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level , 2002 .

[28]  Charles Henderson,et al.  Common Concerns About the Force Concept Inventory , 2002 .

[29]  A. Karimi,et al.  Master‟s thesis , 2011 .

[30]  David P Maloney,et al.  Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism , 2001 .

[31]  Wendy K. Adams,et al.  Development and Validation of Instruments to Measure Learning of Expert‐Like Thinking , 2011 .

[32]  Jasprit Singh,et al.  Quantum Mechanics: Classical Results, Modern Systems, and Visualized Examples and Quantum Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications to Technology , 1997 .

[33]  D. Hestenes,et al.  Force concept inventory , 1992 .

[34]  C. E. Wieman,et al.  Deeper Look at Student Learning of Quantum Mechanics: The Case of Tunneling. , 2008, 0802.3194.

[35]  C. E. Wieman,et al.  AIP Conference Proceedings: Reforming a large lecture modern physics course for engineering majors using a PER-based design , 2007 .

[36]  L. D. Carr,et al.  Graduate quantum mechanics reform , 2008, 0806.2628.

[37]  Douglas Huffman,et al.  What does the force concept inventory actually measure , 1995 .

[38]  Michael C. Wittmann,et al.  Student Understanding of Tunneling in Quantum Mechanics: Examining Interview and Survey Results for Clues to Student Reasoning , 2004 .

[39]  Noah S. Podolefsky,et al.  New Instrument for Measuring Student Beliefs about Physics and Learning Physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey. , 2006 .

[40]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment , 2006 .

[41]  David Rosengrant,et al.  Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts , 2003, 1602.06497.

[42]  Melissa H. Dancy,et al.  Impact of Animation on Assessment of Conceptual Understanding in Physics , 2006 .

[43]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula , 1998 .

[44]  M. W. Richardson,et al.  The theory of the estimation of test reliability , 1937 .

[45]  Juan R. Burciaga,et al.  Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite , 2004 .

[46]  Lei Bao.  Dynamics of student modeling: A theory, algorithms, and application to quantum mechanics , 1999 .

[47]  Ratchapak Chitaree,et al.  Development and Use of a Conceptual Survey in Introductory Quantum Physics , 2009 .

[48]  Louis Deslauriers,et al.  Learning and retention of quantum concepts with different teaching methods , 2011 .

[49]  R. Hake.  Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[50]  Paul Kline,et al.  A Handbook of Test Construction : Introduction to Psychometric Design , 1987 .

[51]  Katherine K. Perkins,et al.  Transforming Upper‐Division Quantum Mechanics: Learning Goals and Assessment , 2009 .

[52]  C. E. Wieman,et al.  AIP Conference Proceedings: Exploring Student Understanding of Energy through the Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey , 2006 .