- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Characterization of upper-level undergraduate quantum mechanics courses in the U.S.

Jesse Kruse, Molly Griston, and Bethany R. Wilcox

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020162 – Published 30 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/63s3-7tb8

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 a spins-first approach, which focuses on the postulates of QM in spin systems before discussing wave functions, and a wave functions-first approach, which focuses on the Schrödinger 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 nontraditional 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 first-quarter) QM courses, though their responses showed greater variability. We additionally report a comparison of content coverage between instructors using wave functions-first vs 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.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (39)

  1. J. P. Dowling and G. J. Milburn, Quantum technology: The second quantum revolution, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 361, 1655 (2003).
  2. C. Hughes, D. Finke, D.-A. German, C. Merzbacher, P. M. Vora, and H. Lewandowski, Assessing the needs of the quantum industry, IEEE Trans. Ed. 65, 592 (2022).
  3. M. F. Fox, B. M. Zwickl, and H. J. Lewandowski, Preparing for the quantum revolution: What is the role of higher education?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020131 (2020).
  4. M. Dubson, S. Goldhaber, S. Pollock, and K. Perkins, Faculty disagreement about the teaching of quantum mechanics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 137 (2009).
  5. S. Siddiqui and C. Singh, How diverse are physics instructors’ attitudes and approaches to teaching undergraduate level quantum mechanics?, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 035703 (2017).
  6. A. Buzzell, T. J. Atherton, and R. Barthelemy, Quantum mechanics curriculum in the us: Quantifying the instructional time, content taught, and paradigms used, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010102 (2025).
  7. D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2018).
  8. D. H. McIntyre, Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2022).
  9. J. S. Townsend, A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics (University Science Books, Sausalito, CA, 2000).
  10. R. Shankar, Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, 2012).
  11. M. Beck, Quantum Mechanics: Theory and Experiment (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2012).
  12. S. B. McKagan, L. E. Strubbe, L. J. Barbato, B. A. Mason, A. M. Madsen, and E. C. Sayre, PhysPort use and growth: Supporting physics teaching with research-based resources since 2011, Phys. Teach. 58, 465 (2020).
  13. E. Cataloglu and R. Robinett, Testing the development of student conceptual and visualization understanding in quantum mechanics through the undergraduate career, Am. J. Phys. 70, 238 (2002).
  14. H. R. Sadaghiani and S. J. Pollock, Quantum mechanics concept assessment: Development and validation study, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010110 (2015).
  15. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Validation and administration of a conceptual survey on the formalism and postulates of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020128 (2019).
  16. C. Singh and G. Zhu, Surveying students’ understanding of quantum mechanics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 301 (2010).
  17. S. Goldhaber, S. Pollock, M. Dubson, P. Beale, and K. Perkins, Transforming upper-division quantum mechanics: Learning goals and assessment, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 145 (2009).
  18. J. Falk. Developing a quantum mechanics concept inventory, Master’s thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 2004 (Unpublished).
  19. C. Singh and E. Marshman, Review of student difficulties in upper-level quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020117 (2015).
  20. M. C. Wittmann, J. T. Morgan, and L. Bao, Addressing student models of energy loss in quantum tunnelling, Eur. J. Phys. 26, 939 (2005).
  21. B. S. Ambrose, Investigation of student understanding of the wave-like properties of light and matter, Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington, 1999.
  22. C. Singh, Student understanding of quantum mechanics at the beginning of graduate instruction, Am. J. Phys. 76, 277 (2008).
  23. C. Singh, Student understanding of quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 69, 885 (2001).
  24. S. V. Chasteen, B. Wilcox, M. D. Caballero, K. K. Perkins, S. J. Pollock, and C. E. Wieman, Educational transformation in upper-division physics: The science education initiative model, outcomes, and lessons learned, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020110 (2015).
  25. K. D. Rainey, M. Vignal, and B. R. Wilcox, Designing upper-division thermal physics assessment items informed by faculty perspectives of key content coverage, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020113 (2020).
  26. J. C. Meyer, G. Passante, S. J. Pollock, and B. R. Wilcox, Introductory quantum information science coursework at us institutions: Content coverage, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 16 (2024).
  27. M. Vignal, K. D. Rainey, B. R. Wilcox, M. D. Caballero, and H. J. Lewandowski, Affordances of articulating assessment objectives in research-based assessment development, presented at PER Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 475–480, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Vignal.
  28. R. S. Bowen, Understanding by Design (Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, Nashville, TN, 2017).
  29. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 3: Quantum Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1965).
  30. J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano, Modern Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2020).
  31. H. R. Sadaghiani, Spin first vs position first instructional approaches to teaching introductory quantum mechanics, presented at PER Conf. 2016, Sacramento, CA, pp. 292–295, 10.1119/perc.2016.pr.068.
  32. W. D. Riihiluoma, Z. Topdemir, and J. R. Thompson, Comparative analysis of spins-first and wave functions-first students’ understanding of expressions in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010113 (2025).
  33. U.S. News & World Report, Best physics schools (2023), https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/physics-rankings.
  34. J. Kruse, M. Griston, and B. Wilcox, Instructors’ views on a flexible assessment design, presented at PER Conf. 2024, Boston MA, pp. 237–242, 10.1119/perc.2024.pr.Kruse.
  35. American Council on Education, Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Learning, 2021th ed. (American Council on Education, Washington, DC, 2021), https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/.
  36. NASA Minority University Research and Education Project (MUREP, 2024–2025 list of minority serving institutions (2024), https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/minority-university-research-education-project/.
  37. M. Griston, https://qmsurvey.streamlit.app/quantum-mechanics-instructor-survey (2025).
  38. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020102 (2007).
  39. C. Henderson, A. Beach, and N. Finkelstein, Facilitating change in undergraduate stem instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 952 (2011).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020162– Published 30 December, 2025
  • Received 10 July 2025
  • Accepted 3 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation