Research-based interactive simulations to support quantum mechanics - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Research-based interactive simulations to support quantum mechanics learning and teaching Antje Kohnle University of St Andrews www.st-andrews.ac.uk/physics/quvis quantumphysics.iop.org GIREP-MPTL 2014 International Conference, 7-12 July, Palermo

The QuVis team  Development of simulations and accompanying activites: Antje Kohnle  Students coding simulations: Martynas Prokopas, Aleksejs Fomins, Joe Llama, Inna Bozhinova, Gytis Kulaitis + others  Final year project students: Bruce Torrance, Anna Campbell, Scott Ruby, Cory Benfield + others  Technical support: Tom Edwards, Alastair Gillies  Faculty involved in evaluation: Christopher Hooley, Charles Baily, Natalia Korolkova, Donatella Cassettari, Bruce Sinclair, Georg Hähner, Friedrich Koenig, Noah Finkelstein, Catherine Crouch, Gina Passante + others Eur. J. Phys. 31 (2010) 1441-1455; Am. J. Phys. 80 (2012) 148-153

Outline  Challenges of quantum mechanics instruction  Interactive simulations  Overview of the QuVis resources  Development process and evaluation outcomes  Conclusions and future plans

Challenges of quantum mechanics instruction “ I will never believe that god plays dice with the universe. ” “ I think I can safely say – Albert Einstein that nobody understands quantum mechanics. ” – Richard Feynman “ Learning quantum mechanics is challenging .” – Chandralekah Singh, University of Pittsburgh

Challenges of quantum mechanics instruction Observing screen  Counterintuitive Observing screen behaviour which disagrees with our classical intuition.  Phenomena that can not be observed directly. (c) 1989 Hitachi Ltd. Double slit  Complicated mathematics required to solve even simple phenomena.  Instruction often focuses on Electron source simplified abstract models.

Outline  Challenges of quantum mechanics instruction  Interactive simulations  Overview of the QuVis resources  Development process and evaluation outcomes  Conclusions and future plans Resources shown recommended in the 2014 MPTL review Review process: E Debowska et al., Eur. J. Phys. 34 (2013) L47 www.um.es/fem/PersonalWiki/pmwiki.php/MPTL/Evaluations

Making the invisible visible http://phet.colorado.edu/ S B McKagan et al, AJP, 76, 406 (2008)

Visualizing complicated time-dependent behaviour to help build physical intuition 2 probability density ψ x position x Zhu and Singh, Phys Rev ST PER http://www.compadre.org/psrc/items/detail.cfm?ID=6814 8, 010118 (2012) Belloni and Christian, Am J Phys, 76, 385 (2008)

Challenging students’ classical ideas by allowing them to assess whether they can explain experimental outcomes

The potential of interactive simulations  Engage students to explore physics topics through interactivity (student agency), prompt feedback (trial and error exploration) and multiple representations.  Through careful interaction design, implicitly guide students towards the learning goals.  Activities promote guided exploration and sense-making. e.g. Podolefsky et al., Phys Rev ST PER, 6, 020117 (2010)

Interactivity and student agency 1 hour workshop session, Hidden Variable simulation Group 1 (N=34): Screenshots/activity Group 2 (N=48): Simulation/activity Group 1: 20/29 50 comments similar Percent of students 40 to 30 “ Much easier to play around with 20 simulations so that 10 you can run tests and experiments .” 0 1 2 3 4 5 not very 13/14 St Andrews level 2 enjoyable enjoyable Quantum Physics

Outline  Challenges of quantum mechanics instruction  Interactive simulations  Overview of the QuVis resources  Development process and evaluation outcomes  Conclusions and future plans

QuVis: www.st-andrews.ac.uk/physics/quvis 17 simulations 50 simulations 18 simulations NEW: sims for touchscreens research-based; freely available for use online or download; introductory to advanced level

QuVis: www.st-andrews.ac.uk/physics/quvis problem sets, password- protected solutions available to instructors

QuVis: www.st-andrews.ac.uk/physics/quvis One collection embedded in a full curriculum at quantumphysics.iop.org developing introductory quantum theory using two-level systems

IOP quantum physics: quantumphysics.iop.org Kohnle et al., Eur J Phys, 35, 015001 (2014)

IOP quantum physics: quantumphysics.iop.org Elizabeth Swinbank Derek Raine Christina Walker (York) (Leicester) (IOP) Editor; Project lead Project Physics education and editor manager Pieter Kok Mark Everitt Dan Browne Antje Kohnle (Sheffield) (Loughborough) (UCL) (St Andrews) Author Author Author Simulations Quantum Foundations Quantum Physics information of qm information education

Quantum mechanics curricula in the UK 20 core Birmingham 18 Bristol Number of institutions options 16 Cambridge Exeter 14 neither Galway 12 Glasgow 10 Heriot-Watt 8 Hertfordshire 6 Hull 4 Imperial Kent 2 King's 0 Leicester Bohr atom Copenhagen Separation of variables Series solution Variational method t-indep pert Fermi rule Dirac equn Identical particles 2nd quantisation Photon statistics Radiative trans Entanglement Bell Qubits Quantum crypt. Spin Loughborough Sheffield St Andrews Strathclyde Sussex Swansea UCL Warwick York Survey by IOP resources: novel material for these and other topics Derek Raine suitable for a first university course in quantum physics (Leicester), 2011

IOP quantum physics: quantumphysics.iop.org Advantages of developing introductory quantum theory using two level systems (spin ½ particle, two-level atom, single photons in an interferometer):  Focus on experiments that have no classical explanation.  Focus on interpretive aspects of quantum mechanics.  Focus on quantum information theory (two-level systems are qubits).  Mathematically less challenging: basic algebra versus differential equations and calculus. Some linear algebra included in the IOP resources. Michelini, Ragazzon, Santi and Stefanel (2000), Scarani (2010), Malgieri, Onorato & De Ambrosis (GIREP 2014)

In-class trials: level two Quantum Physics (Scottish level two = first year university elsewhere) PART 1  The photoelectric effect; single photon experiments. Pre-lecture readings from the IOP Quantum Physics resource Workshop: Interferometer experiments simulation Homework: Phase shifter in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer  Spin; successive Stern-Gerlach experiments; entanglement; hidden variables Workshop: The expectation value of an operator Workshop: Entangled spin ½ particle pairs versus hidden variables Homework: Quantum cryptography PART 2  Matter waves; the Schrödinger equation; energy eigenstates; infinite and finite square wells

Two-level systems at the introductory level Perceived difficulty of Quantum Physics part 1 (two-level systems) compared with part 2 (wave mechanics) 2013 (N=68): 60 Percent of students 5/16 lectures 50 2013 on two-level 40 systems 2014 30 20 2014 (N=73): 10 9/18 lectures 0 on two-level 1: much 2 3 4 5: much less more systems difficult difficult level 2 Quantum Physics

Two-level systems at the introductory level Two-level Wave p-value for Effect size systems mechanics paired t-test Exam 2013 71.7% 56.7% p<0.005 0.82 (Instructor A) Exam 2014 83.8% 68.5% p<0.005 0.61 (Instructor B) Significant differences with large effect sizes. difference in means Effect size = average standard deviation 2013 (N=70) 2014 (N=87)

Outline  Challenges of quantum mechanics instruction  Interactive simulations  Overview of the QuVis resources  Development process and evaluation outcomes  Conclusions and future plans

Student perceptions “How useful for learning quantum physics have you found the simulations used in the course?” 13/14 level two 13/14 level three Quantum Physics (N=73) Quantum Mechanics (N=57) 5 simulations 17 simulations 30 35 30 25 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0

Student perceptions 13/14 level four Advanced Quantum Mechanics (N=16) 4 simulations 12 “I wish for the 10 8 simulations to 6 remain in Advanced 4 2 Quantum Mechanics .” 0 Evaluation and refinement using student feedback key in developing educationally effective resources.

Developing educationally effective simulations In-class Coding trials considers  revisions to research on  physics  revisions  student all student  ideas for new simulations difficulties coders simulations and activities  interaction  iterative wherever design revisions appropriate  visualization during Observation coding Initial design sessions student difficulties: Johnston et al (1998), Bao & Redish (2002), Wittmann et al (2005), Singh (2008) , ... interaction design: Clark & Mayer (2008), Adams et al (2008), Podolefsky et al (2010), Saffer (2010), ... visual representations: Adams et al (2008), Lopez and Pinto (2014), Chen and Gladding (2014), ...