Data Collection

Quantitative and qualitative data have been collected as part of a larger project that sought to build a comprehensive picture of how members of the LPSU Physics & As- tronomy Department view particular types of evaluation and what preparation will best prepare students for a QMC. Based on the information taken from all the interviews, published literature, and popular quantum mechanics texts, a survey instrument was designed in an effort to question a broader segment of the department and to provide a finer gradation to some of the responses given in the interviews [94]. Email addresses of all the students that have taken the QMC in the past three years were collected and

the survey was offered to them.

There are 12 respondents and the survey covers three main topics. The first is what types of evaluation are appropriate for a QMC, and their rationale for that answer in the form of a short open response. The second topic covered is what physics and mathematics topics they believe should be prerequisite for the QMC and the rationale for those responses. Choices that are based on interview responses, popular textbooks, and literature were ranked from most important to least important. Finally, the last topic addressed was what material they think should be covered in the QMC. Those choices, that are based on the previously mentioned research material, were ranked from most important to least important.Categories were defined in the following way:

– Not Applicable is defined as a topic that has no bearing on the students under-

standing of quantum mechanics.

– Prerequisite is defined as having a student be “Familiar” or have “Mastered” the

topic in a course taken before the QMC.

– Introduced is defined as having knowledge of vocabulary and being able to use

equations associated with a topic.

– Familiar is defined as knowledge of a topic that is greater than only vocabulary

and definitions, and involves manipulating equations and explaining results.

– Mastery is defined as having in-depth knowledge of a topic including its conceptual

and mathematical origins.

– Beyond Scope is defined as a topic that should expect to be “Familiar” or “Mas-

Assignments, two sets of class notes, and the mid-term exam were collected and copied so that they could be analyzed multiple times and by multiple coders. Over the course of the semester there were four assignments, a mid-term exam, and a final exam to which the researcher did not have access. It is important to note that the mid-term exam offered five questions, and the student selected three to complete for credit. This selection process can be viewed as a possible indicator of confidence at the middle of the semester. Before the first lecture of the semester, a diagnostic survey, the QMCS, was offered to the class. All of this data was taken in an effort to characterize the student knowledge and perspective before learning anything from the QMC which could be compared to evidence from assignments as the semester progressed.

Interviews were scheduled as semi-structured, one-hour conversations for all partic- ipants and the main goals of the interview were to determine student and faculty perception of different evaluation types and what material should be prerequisite to and covered in a QMC. Interviews conducted with students were scheduled before they had taken the first lecture in Quantum Mechanics in an effort to understand their initial perceptions of the course and student rational before seeing any course mate- rial. It was explained to all interviewees that the evaluation questions were focused on upper-division courses, and that our research interest was in quantum mechanics. Interviewees were asked what evaluation techniques they believed were appropriate for that course and for the upper-division in general. The questions on evaluation techniques are as follows:

1. “How appropriate do you think multiple choice (MC) questions are for evaluating student knowledge?”

2. “How appropriate do you think student presentations (SP) are for evaluating student knowledge?”

3. “How appropriate do you think oral examinations (OE) are for evaluating student knowledge?”

4. “How appropriate do you think written problems (WP) are for evaluating student knowledge?”

5. “How appropriate do you think short answer questions (SA) are for evaluating student knowledge?”

The goals of the interview were to determine student and faculty perception of eval- uation, course content, and prerequisite material in a course in quantum mechanics. Interviews conducted with students were scheduled before they had taken even the first lecture in quantum mechanics to better understand their initial perceptions of the course before seeing any in-class material. It was explained to all interviewees that our research interest was focused on quantum mechanics. Faculty interviewees were asked what their perceptions were as well as what they thought a students perception would be. This body of work focuses on the questions associated with student and faculty thoughts on preparation, material covered in the QMC, and what conceptual knowledge students possess before taking the class.