Characterization of Upper-Level Undergraduate Quantum Mechanics Courses in the U.S

TL;DR

This study surveys U.S. undergraduate quantum mechanics courses to analyze teaching methods, content coverage, and pedagogical tools, revealing diverse approaches and similarities across different instructional styles.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive characterization of QM courses in the U.S., comparing teaching approaches and content coverage, which informs future educational research and practice.

Findings

Many instructors use traditional lectures, but some employ interactive methods.

Wide variety of pedagogical tools like clicker questions are used.

Content coverage is similar across different course formats and approaches.

Abstract

Upper-level, undergraduate quantum mechanics (QM) is widely considered a difficult subject with many varied approaches to teaching it and considerable variation in content coverage. For example, two common approaches to undergraduate QM instruction are spins-first, which focuses on the postulates of QM in spin systems before discussing wavefunctions, and wavefunctions-first, which focuses on the Schr\"odinger equation and its solutions for continuous functions in various potentials before discussing spin. These different approaches, along with the content variability in the textbooks used by instructors, may mean students learn different things in QM classes across the United States (U.S.). In this paper, we offer a characterization of QM courses based on survey responses from instructors at institutions across the U.S. With the responses of 76 instructors teaching QM courses (or sequences), we present results detailing their teaching methodologies, use of pedagogical resources, and coverage of QM topics. We find that the plurality of instructors in our sample are using traditional lecture, but many instructors are using interactive lecture or another non-traditional method. Additionally, instructors are using a wide variety of pedagogical tools (e.g., clicker questions). Many instructors in our sample reported teaching single-semester (or single-quarter) QM courses; these instructors report similar content coverage to instructors teaching first-semester (or quarter) QM courses, though their responses showed greater variability. We additionally report a comparison of content coverage between instructors using wavefunctions-first versus spins-first approaches, finding a large degree of overlap with differences in coverage for a few specific topics. These findings can help inform both future research and instructional efforts in QM education.