Özgür ÖZCAN, Mehmet Fatih TAŞAR, Nilüfer DİDİŞ

Students' conceptual difficulties in quantum mechanics: Potential well problems

Bu çalışmada öğrencilerin kuantum mekaniğinin temel konularından olan bir boyutlu potansiyel kuyu problemleri ve tünelleyen parçacıkların olasılık yoğunluklarıyla ilgili kavramsal zorlukları tespit edilmiştir. Bu amaçla bu çalışmanın araştırmacılardan biri tarafından çoktan seçmeli Kuantum Mekaniği Kavramsal Testi geliştirilmiş ve Türkiye’de üç farklı üniversitenin Fizik Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı ve Fizik Bölümünde öğrenim gören ve 95 lisans ve 15 lisansüstü öğrencilerine uygulanmıştır. Ayrıca, bu kavramları öğrencilerin nasıl anladığıyla ilgili daha detaylı veri toplamak amacıyla seçilen beş lisans ve beş lisansüstü öğrencisiyle yarı yapılandırılmış öğrenci görüşmeleri yapılmıştır. Öğrencilerde yaygın olarak görülen klasik fiziğe dayalı düşünce biçiminden kaynaklanan anlama zorlukları tespit edilmiştir. Bu zorluklar, öğrencilerin potansiyel kuyu problemleri ve kuantum tünelleme kavramlarını anlamalarını geliştirmeye odaklanan öğretim stratejileri ile gözönüne alınmalıdır.

Öğrencilerin kuantum mekaniğindeki kavramsal zorlukları: Potansiyel kuyu problemleri

In this study, students’ conceptual difficulties about some basic concepts in quantum mechanics like one-dimensional potential well problems and probability density of tunneling particles were identified. For this aim, a multiple choice instrument named Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Test has been developed by one of the researchers of this study and administered to 95 upper-class undergraduates and 15 graduate level students at physics education and physics departments at three universities in Turkey. In addition, in order to be able to gather more information about how students understand these concepts, semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected five undergraduate and five graduate students. Common student difficulties which are deemed to stem from thinking based on classical mechanics were determined. These difficulties should be taken into account by instructional strategies that focus on improving student understanding of potential well problems and quantum tunneling concepts.

PDF

___

Çataloğlu, E. (2002). Development and validation of an achievement test in introductory quantum mechanics: The quantum mechanics visualization instrument (QMVI).Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
Çataloğlu, E., & Robinett, R. W. (2002). Testing the development of student conceptual and visualization understanding in quantum mechanics through the undergraduate career. American Journal of Physics, 70(3), 238-251.
Faye, J. (2002). Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. [On-line] Available: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/
Hadzidaki, P., Kalkanis, G., & Stavrou, D. (2000). Quantum mechanics: A systematic component of the modern physics paradigm, Physics Education, 35, 386-392.
Ireson, G. (2000). The quantum understanding of pre-university physics students. Physics Education, 35(1), 15-21.
Jolly, P., Zollman, D., Rebello, N. S., & Dimitrova, A., (1998). Visualizing motion in potential wells. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 57-63.
Krane, K. (1996). Modern physics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. London: Sage Publications.
Merzbacher, E. (1998). Quantum mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Morgan, J.T. (2006). Investigating how students think about and learn quantum physics: An example form tunneling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maine, Maine.
Morgan, J. T., Wittmann, M. C., & Thompson, J. R. (2004). Student understanding of tunneling in quantum mechanics: Examining interview and survey results for clues to student reasoning. AIP Conference Proceedings, 720, 97-100.
Müller, R., & Wiesner, H. (2002). Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level. American Journal of Physics, 70(3), 200-209.
Niedderer, H., & Bethge, T. (1995). Students’ conceptions in quantum physics. [On-line] Available at: www.idn.uni-bremen.de/pubs/Niedderer/1995-AJP-TBHN.pdf
Nitko, A. J. (1996). Educational assessment of students. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor’s new mind. England: Oxford University Press.
Redish, E.,Wittmann, M. C., & Steinberg, R. (2000). Affecting student reasoning in the context of quantum mechanics. [On-Line]. Available: http://perlnet.umephy.maine.edu/research/tunnel2000guelph.pdf
Roussel, M. (1999). Redesigning the quantum mechanics curriculum to incorporate problem solving using a computer algebra system, Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 1373-1377.
Singh, C., Belloni, M., & Christian, W. (2006). Improving students’ understanding of quantum mechanics. Physics Today, 59(8), 43-49.
Styer, D. F. (1996). Common misconceptions regarding quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 64, 31-34.
Strnad, J. (1981). Quantum physics for beginners. Physics Education, 16(2), 88-92.
Wittmann, M. C., & Morgan, J. T. (2004). Understanding data analysis from multiple viewpoints: An example from quantum tunneling. AIP Conference Proceedings, 720, 3-6.
Wittmann, M. C., Morgan, J. T., & Bao, L. (2005). Addressing student models of energy loss in quantum tunneling. European Journal of Physics, 26, 939-950.