Refined characterization of student perspectives on quantum physics
MetadataShow full item record
The perspectives of introductory classical physics students can often negatively influence how those students later interpret quantum phenomena when taking an introductory course in modern physics. A detailed exploration of student perspectives on the interpretation of quantum physics is needed, both to characterize student understanding of physics concepts, and to inform how we might teach traditional content. Our previous investigations of student perspectives on quantum physics have indicated they can be highly nuanced, and may vary both within and across contexts. In order to better understand the contextual and often seemingly contradictory stances of students on matters of interpretation, we interviewed 19 students from four introductory modern physics courses taught at the University of Colorado. We find that students have attitudes and opinions that often parallel the stances of expert physicists when arguing for their favored interpretations of quantum mechanics, allowing for more nuanced characterizations of student perspectives in terms of three key interpretive themes. We present a framework for characterizing student perspectives on quantum mechanics, and demonstrate its utility in interpreting the sometimes contradictory nature of student responses to previous surveys. We further find that students most often vacillate in their responses when what makes intuitive sense to them is not in agreement with what they consider to be a correct response, underscoring the need to distinguish between the personal and the public perspectives of introductory modern physics students.
Baily , C & Finkelstein , N D 2010 , ' Refined characterization of student perspectives on quantum physics ' Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research , vol 6 , no. 2 , 020113 . DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020113
Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research
© 2010 The American Physical Society. The published version of this article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.