skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Context affects student thinking about sources of uncertainty in classical and quantum mechanics
Measurement uncertainty is an important topic in the undergraduate laboratory curriculum. Previous research on student thinking about experimental measurement uncertainty has focused primarily on introductory-level students’ procedural reasoning about data collection and interpretation. In this paper, we extended this prior work to study upper-level students’ thinking about sources of measurement uncertainty across experimental contexts, with a particular focus on classical and quantum mechanics contexts. We developed a survey to probe students’ thinking in the generic question “What comes to mind when you think about measurement uncertainty in [classical/quantum] mechanics?” as well as in a range of specific experimental scenarios and interpreted student responses through the lens of availability and accessibility of knowledge pieces. We found that limitations of the experimental setup were most accessible to students in classical mechanics while principles of the underlying physics theory were most accessible to students in quantum mechanics, even in a context in which this theory was not relevant. We recommend that future research probe which sources of uncertainty experts believe are relevant in which contexts and how instruction in both classical and quantum contexts can help students draw on appropriate sources of uncertainty in classical and quantum experiments.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1809178
PAR ID:
10524566
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
American Physical Society
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Physical Review Physics Education Research
Volume:
19
Issue:
2
ISSN:
2469-9896
Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
Physics Education Research Scientific reasoning and problem solving
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; (, 2020 PERC Proceedings)
    null; null; null (Ed.)
    Measurement uncertainty and experimental error are important concepts taught in undergraduate physics laboratories. Although student ideas about error and uncertainty in introductory classical mechanics lab experiments have been studied extensively, there is relatively limited research on student thinking about experimental measurement uncertainty in quantum mechanics. In this work, we used semi-structured interviews to study advanced physics students’ interpretations of fictitious data distributions from two common undergraduate laboratory experiments in quantum mechanics and one in classical mechanics. To analyze these interpretations, we developed a coding scheme that classifies student responses based on what factors they believe create un- certainty and differentiates between different types of uncertainty (e.g. imprecision, inaccuracy). We found that participants in our study expressed a variety of ideas about measurement uncertainty that varied with the context (classical/quantum) and the type of uncertainty. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; (, 2019 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings)
    Measurements in quantum mechanics are often taught in an abstract, theoretical context. Compared to what is known about student understanding of experimental data in classical mechanics, it is unclear how students think about measurement and uncertainty in the context of experimental data from quantum mechanical systems. In this paper, we tested how students interpret the variability in data from hypothetical experiments in classical and quantum mechanics. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 students who had taken quantum mechanics courses and analyzed to which sources they attribute variability in the data. We found that in the quantum mechanics context, most students interpret any variability in the data as irreducible and inherent to the theory. While acknowledging the influence of experimenter error, limited resolution of measurement equipment, and confounding variables (like air resistance) in classical mechanics, many students did not recognize the influence of such effects in quantum mechanics. Some students expressed the view that there are inherently fewer confounding variables in Quantum Mechanics and the equipment used is more precise. We derive tentative implications for instruction and propose further research to test the influence of framing on the responses to our interview protocol. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; (, Physical Review Physics Education Research)
    Previous research on student thinking about experimental measurement and uncertainty has primarily focused on students’ procedural reasoning: Given some data, what should students calculate or do next? This approach, however, cannot tell us what beliefs or conceptual understanding leads to students’ procedural decisions. To explore this relationship, we first need to understand the range of students’ beliefs and conceptual understanding of measurement. In this work, we explored students’ philosophical beliefs about the existence of a true value in experimental measurement. We distributed a survey to students from 12 universities in which we presented two viewpoints on the existence of a true definite position resulting from an experiment, asking participants to indicate which view they agreed with more and asking them to explain their choice. We found that participants, both students and experts, varied in their beliefs about the existence of a true definite position and discussed a range of concepts related to quantum mechanics and the experimental process to explain their answers, regardless of whether or not they agreed with the existence of a true value. From these results, we postulate that students who exhibit similar procedural reasoning may hold widely varying philosophical views about measurement. We recommend that future work investigates this potential relationship and whether and how instruction should attend to these philosophical views in addition to students’ procedural decisions. 
    more » « less
  4. ; (, Physical Review Physics Education Research)
    [This paper is part of the Focused Collection in Investigating and Improving Quantum Education through Research.] Instruction in quantum mechanics is becoming increasingly important as the field is not only a key part of modern physics research but is also important for emerging technologies. However, many students regard quantum mechanics as a particularly challenging subject, in part because it is considered very mathematical and abstract. One potential way to help students understand and contextualize unintuitive quantum ideas is to provide them opportunities to work with physical apparatus demonstrating these phenomena. In order to understand how working with quantum experiments affects students’ reasoning, we performed think-aloud lab sessions with two pairs of students as they worked through a sequence of quantum optics experiments that demonstrated particle-wave duality of photons. Analyzing the in-the-moment student thinking allowed us to identify the resources students activated while reasoning through the experimental evidence of single-photon interference, as well as student ideas about what parts of the experiments were quantum versus classical. This work will aid instructors in helping their students construct an understanding of these topics from their own ideas and motivate future investigations into the use of hands-on opportunities to facilitate student learning about quantum mechanics. Published by the American Physical Society2024 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; (, 2020 PERC Proceedings)
    null; null; null (Ed.)
    Prior research has shown that physics students often think about experimental procedures and data analysis very differently from experts. One key framework for analyzing student thinking has found that student thinking is more point-like, putting emphasis on the results of a single experimental trial, whereas set-like thinking relies on the results of many trials. Recent work, however, has found that students rarely fall into one of these two extremes, which may be a limitation of how student thinking is evaluated. Measurements of student thinking have focused on probing students’ procedural knowledge by asking them, for example, what steps they might take next in an experiment. Two common refrains are to collect more data, or to improve the experiment and collect better data. In both of these cases, the underlying reasons behind student responses could be based in point-like or set-like thinking. In this study we use individual student interviews to investigate how advanced physics students believe the collection of more and better data will affect the results of a classical and a quantum mechanical experiment. The results inform future frameworks and assessments for characterizing students thinking between the extremes of point and set reasoning in both classical and quantum regimes. 2020 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email