标题： 美国本科高年级量子力学课程的特征 显示英文标题

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

摘要： 高等本科量子力学（QM）通常被认为是一门难度较大的课程，其教学方法多种多样，内容覆盖也存在较大差异。 例如，两种常见的本科量子力学教学方法是自旋优先法，该方法在讨论波函数之前先介绍量子力学的假设；以及波函数优先法，该方法在讨论自旋之前先介绍薛定谔方程及其在各种势场中连续函数的解。 这些不同的方法，加上教师所用教材内容的差异，可能意味着美国各地的量子力学课程中学生学习的内容有所不同。 在本文中，我们基于美国各地机构教师的调查反馈对量子力学课程进行了描述。通过对76位教授量子力学课程（或课程系列）的教师的反馈进行分析，我们呈现了他们的教学方法、教学资源的使用情况以及量子力学主题的覆盖情况。 我们发现，样本中的大多数教师采用传统讲座方式，但许多教师使用互动讲座或其他非传统方法。 此外，教师们使用了各种各样的教学工具（例如，答题器问题）。 我们样本中的许多教师报告称他们教授的是单学期（或单季度）的量子力学课程；这些教师报告的内容覆盖与教授第一学期（或季度）量子力学课程的教师相似，但他们的反馈显示出更大的变异性。 我们还比较了采用波函数优先法和自旋优先法的教师之间的内容覆盖情况，发现大部分内容有较大的重叠，但在一些特定主题上的覆盖存在差异。 这些发现可以为未来的量子力学教育研究和教学工作提供参考。 显示英文摘要

摘要： 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.