Calculus is important for studying quantum physics

Quantum Physics in School - What Do Teachers Need? Results of a Delphi study


The subject of quantum physics is considered to be as important as it is challenging for physics lessons in schools. The creation of an empirical basis for the construction of guidelines for a particularly target-specific teacher training on the subject of quantum physics is the subject of this article.

The didactic reconstruction for the development of guidelines for teacher training guides the presented study. The basis of the reconstruction is the analysis of existing concepts for quantum physics teaching in schools and the empirical survey of the teacher's views on them. The focus of this article is on collecting and evaluating the views of teachers. For this purpose, an iterative communication technique was used to collect and quantify expert opinions, the Delphi method, which is established in didactic research.

As a result of the didactic reconstruction, six guidelines are presented that support lecturers in planning and carrying out the training. The guidelines imply advanced training that takes the path from classical to quantum physics and focuses on key experiments.


Quantum physics is considered to be equally important and challenging for teaching physics at school. This paper aims to provide an empirical basis for the construction of guidelines for a teacher training course on quantum physics, which is particularly focused on teachers ’needs.

The educational reconstruction for teacher education leads the presented investigation. The reconstruction is based on the analysis of existing concepts for quantum physics teaching in schools and the empirical collection of teachers ’views on them. The focus of this paper is on the collection and evaluation of teachers ’views. For this purpose, an iterative communication technique was used to collect and quantify expert opinions, the Delphi method, which is established in didactic research.

As a result of the educational reconstruction, six guidelines are presented which support the lecturer in planning and conducting the teacher training. The guidelines imply an advanced training program that follows the path from classical to quantum physics with special emphasis on key experiments.

Quantum Physics: Teaching and Social Relevance

Quantum physics is particularly suitable for taking a meta perspective on natural sciences. Your past is considered to be an example of an extraordinary change in theory in physics with a wide range of applications: The theory changes our worldview and the technologies based on it will change our everyday life even more in the future than in the past decades.

The Kultusministerkonferenz (2004) see in the Uniform examination requirements in the Abitur examination (EPA) quantum physics as a mandatory and fundamental topic for the Abitur exam:

Fundamental characteristics of quantum objects, including epistemological aspects, wave characteristics, quantum characteristics, stochastic behavior, complementarity, non-locality, behavior during the measurement process. (Conference of Ministers of Education 2004)

The explicit mention of the "epistemological aspects" underlines the assumption of the meta perspective on the natural sciences and the cognitive process. This represents a challenging task for physics lessons in school: For example, the question arises of a key experiment (Laumann et al. 2019) for the school that reveals the limits of classical theory. In addition, the teaching must be positioned to falsify the classical theory and, in particular, the treatment of the concept of dualism in the teaching must be clarified. A use of this term in the manner of a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses, which are placed around the hard core of the old theory in the sense of Lakatos (1974), buries the cognitive process.

The reduction to a topic that is perceived as abstract and difficult does not do justice to the challenge of teaching quantum physics. The potential of quantum physics for teaching lies in developing a position critical of science, discussing cognitive processes and distinguishing physics as an empirical science. However, exploiting the potential for physics teaching is a particular challenge in school practice, especially for teachers (Müller et al. 2000; Bronner 2010, p. 5; Pospiech and Schöne 2012). Targeted for the teaching of quantum physics in the classroom, needs-oriented advanced training is to be developed to support teachers. For this purpose, an empirical basis is created in the article described here: the subjective view of teachers on quantum physics in school lessons. Based on this, guidelines for teacher training are derived.

The Didactic reconstruction to develop guidelines for teacher training According to Van Dijk and Kattmann (2007) as well as Nawrath (2010), it is also the structure for the development of guidelines for teacher training and subsequently for the research project. The study is implemented using the Delphi method.

Teacher training on quantum physics in didactic research

The presented article focuses on the target group specificity of teacher training. For this purpose, the teachers' subjective view of existing concepts of quantum physics is empirically assessed. Such a specific empirical study on the practical-teaching perspective does not currently exist and represents the research gap that this project is intended to close. The empirical basis obtained in this way then enables the construction of guidelines for a training course and controls the selection, restructuring and combination of existing didactic concepts for quantum physics as the content of the training course (e.g. Bronner 2010; Müller and Wiesner 2000; Küblbeck and Müller 2003; Zollman et al. 2002). The didactic reconstruction provides the theoretical framework for the development of guidelines for teacher training (cf. Van Dijk and Kattmann 2007). This special consideration of the practical perspective is intended to ensure a high level of relevance to teaching. According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) a principle for a high transfer effect of the training content in the lessons of the participants. This principle is also underlined by Wolf et al. (1999) and Lipowsky and Rzejak (2012).

Didactic reconstruction to develop guidelines for teacher training

The didactic reconstruction is based on Kattmann et al. (1997) and is a model for the didactic conception of a topic that is established as a frame of reference in physics didactics and other didactics (cf. Krüger et al. 2014). Here the relationship of Technical clarification, the Capturing student perspectives and the Didactic structuring of a topic. The Technical clarification and capturing student perspectives form the basis of the reconstruction. The reciprocal and reciprocal reference of these two basic components enables the didactic structuring of a topic, which Student Perspectives and the Technical clarification considered.

With the ERTE model (Educational Reconstruction for Teacher Education), Van Dijk and Kattmann (2007) present an extension of the didactic reconstruction model, which can be used to develop advanced training for teachers. With the help of the ERTE model, Nawrath (2010) constructs guidelines for further training in teaching development taking contexts into account. The basis of the didactic triplet is the mutual and equal relationship between Didactic concepts and the Subjective views of the teachers to this. Based on this, the Guidelines designed for advanced training.

The models can be nested within one another (see Fig. 1), whereby the ERTE model can be understood as an extension of the didactic reconstruction. The model structures the research project described here by systematically focusing on the subjective views and existing didactic concepts. In this way, advanced training can be designed that particularly meets the needs of teachers and their view of didactic concepts.

A design-based research approach (e.g. Reinmann 2005) was also considered as a research framework: However, in order to develop an initial advanced training course, an elaborated hypothesis room about the subject-specific needs of the teachers would have to exist. In the ERTE model, it was ultimately more obvious to implement a hypothesis-generating and testing procedure (Delphi study) in order to generate guidelines for further training.

Goals and research questions

In the ERTE model, the basis of the triplet must first be created. On the one hand, the subject didactic concepts must be clarified as a result of a didactic conception and, on the other hand, the subjective view of the teachers must be ascertained:

The clarification of the subject didactic concepts can be understood as an analytical process. The review of existing concepts should be carried out at this point. Three questions guide the process of clarifying didactic concepts in quantum physics:


On which focal points and principles are subject didactic concepts for school lessons in quantum physics based?


What empirical evidence is there for the effect of didactic concepts in quantum physics?


What influence do curricula, standards and central exams have on the use of didactic concepts?

Capturing the subjective views of teachers on concepts in quantum physics requires an empirical approach. This process is also guided here by three questions:


Which subject didactic concepts are taken into account by teachers when planning and conducting lessons in quantum physics?


Which topics of quantum physics are perceived by the teachers as a special challenge for the learners in the classroom?


What is the retrospective view of your own training in the field of quantum physics?

The guidelines are constructed by relating the concepts and the teacher's subjective point of view to one another. This process is guided by an overarching research question:

How should a training course be designed that

  1. 1.

    takes into account the needs of teachers and

  2. 2.

    enables the lecturers to teach quantum physics relevant to technology and research as well as

  3. 3.

    whose epistemological claims meet?

In the following, the focus will be on the collection of subjective views on the concepts and the construction of the guidelines.

Clarification of didactic concepts

The clarification of the subject didactic concepts can only be given here for the sake of clarity and is concentrated on the setting of priorities. Here, therefore, question K1 in particular is being investigated. For a more detailed presentation of the concepts, please refer to Weber (2018), Willer (2003) and for the perspective of teaching practice to Rode and Barth (2017).

The levels to which the concepts relate are very different. Some concepts cover individual lessons on specific topics such as quantum cryptography. Other concepts describe a more comprehensive approach to quantum physics, which also takes up topics that go far beyond the topics mentioned in the curricula of the individual countries. There is hardly any evidence or even comparative field studies for the different concepts (Willer 2003), so that an assessment and selection of the concepts is difficult for the teachers in schools and may only be determined by personal interests.

In order to classify this multifaceted concept conglomerate, Müller and Wiesner (2000) propose a categorization according to priorities (SPS):


"Teaching concepts that concentrate particularly on the principles of quantum mechanical formalism (e.g. Feynman pointer) and apply them to various questions." (Müller and Wiesner 2000, p. 1) (e.g. Feynman 2006; Bader 2000 ; Rode 2011; Werner, 2000)


"Teaching concepts that focus on the conceptual issues of quantum physics." (Müller and Wiesner 2000, p. 1) (e.g. Müller and Wiesner 2000; Küblbeck and Müller 2003; Fischler 1992)


"Teaching concepts in which quantum physics is understood as the basis for understanding numerous physical theories (e.g. atomic physics, nuclear physics, particle physics, solid-state physics)." (Müller and Wiesner 2000, p. 1) (e.g. Niedderer 1992)


"Teaching concepts in which it is important as a basis for numerous technological applications (e.g. transistor, laser)." (Müller and Wiesner 2000, p. 1) (e.g. Zollman et al. 2002; Schneider and Meyn 2016 ; Reisch and Franz 2016)

The SPS a is often linked to quantitative questions. There is a struggle for representations that make the formal apparatus of quantum physics manageable with school mathematics. As an example, the pointer formalism can be cited, which is a geometric representation of complex numbers up to the path integral. The propagation is represented by a rotation of the pointer. With superposition, the pointers add vectorially and the square of the length of the pointer can be interpreted as the probability for the measurement of a quantum object.

Concepts with SPS b mainly describe the behavior of quantum systems or quantum objects. For this purpose, key experiments in quantum physics such as the "Knallertest" and the "Quantum Eraser" are explained. The description of the single photon variants of the experiments by classical physics leads to contradictions and shows the need for a new theory - quantum physics. For example, the Characteristics of quantum objects (Küblbeck and Müller 2003) developed as a "verbal formalism", which enables the description of key experiments. But Fischler's (1992) concept can also be classified here. This concept is characterized by the fact that learning difficulties were analyzed and the resulting references to classical physics are avoided. In this approach, quantum phenomena are clearly distinguished from classical phenomena.

In SPS c, atomic physics is usually in the foreground, especially the transition from Bohr's atomic model to the quantum mechanical orbital model. This focus can often be found especially in early concepts of quantum physics. Here, the physical argumentation is refined to such an extent that an explanation in the context of the classical theory fails. Example Bohr's atomic model: electrons on a circular path are always accelerated and, according to classical electrodynamics, emit energy as electromagnetic radiation. Such a system must collapse. Quantum physics is presented with this emphasis in order to resolve this conflict: The solutions of the Schrödinger equation are stationary.

Concepts that explain the LASER and the functionality of transistor and LED were initially subsumed under SPS d (Zollman et al. 2002). Recently, the SPS d has experienced numerous new variants, as quantum technologies are more mature and are becoming increasingly relevant for everyday life (QUTEGA, Leuchs et al. 2017). This shifts the focus to topics from the field of quantum information (quantum computers, quantum cryptography, etc.; see Schneider and Meyn 2016; Reisch and Franz 2016). This focus is thus approaching the SPS b, the emphasis on quantum technologies in these concepts is more focused than before on the term "quanta". A differentiation can also be made on the content level. Traditional concepts started with classical mechanics and lead to quantum mechanics. This path usually culminates in a consideration of the hydrogen atom.

Bronner (2010) criticizes such approaches that quantum optics are neglected. From a technical point of view, an approach that starts in optics and leads over via quantum optics to quantum electrodynamics can be enriched more cost-effectively and sustainably with real-world experiments (Bronner 2010; Scholz et al. 2018). Feynman (2006) also underline the efficiency of quantum electrodynamics through its application to simple phenomena from optics.

In addition, the concepts also differ in scope: The Munich concept for quantum physics, for example, is thematically very comprehensive and goes far beyond the traditional school content. In addition, the concept is enriched by numerous materials that can be used in the school. The concept by Rode (2013, 2017) describes a single teaching unit on quantum physics and shows possibilities for experimentation and the use of pointer modeling. Other concepts relate to individual teaching units on a topic within quantum physics (for example: Schneider and Meyn 2016; Reisch and Franz 2016).

The anchoring of concepts for quantum physics in curricula (cf.Kultusministerkonferenz 2020a), educational standards (Kultusministerkonferenz 2020b) and central exams depend on numerous factors: In addition to the quality criteria of the concepts, such as professional relevance, appropriateness and connectivity, the composition of the curriculum committee also plays an important role. The characteristics of the curricula / curricula of the different federal states are therefore very different: The optional anchoring of the pointer formalism in the Lower Saxony core curriculum (Chrost et al. 2009) is, for example, a special framework that cannot be found in any other federal state. Furthermore, in Lower Saxony, a content orientation can be recognized by the characteristics. The characteristics can also be found in the standardized examination requirements (Kultusministerkonferenz 2004), a transnational document, in a slightly modified form. The “quantum eraser” experiment is explicitly mentioned in the requirements as a sample task for a written Abitur examination in the basic course. This task is used, among other things, in the concept of Brachner and Fichtner (1977) to demonstrate the fundamental principle. The fundamental principle (e.g. Feynman et al. 1963, pp. 1–7), i.e. the complementarity of which-way information and interference, plays an important role in most concepts.

In summary, teachers who teach quantum physics in school are faced with a multitude of different concepts that are not obviously mutually exclusive and have very different priorities. What the teachers' subjective view of the existing concepts looks like is an open question. After all, it is they who prepare the students for the Abitur and implement the requirements from the curricula of the federal states.

The teacher's subjective view of quantum physics concepts

While meta-analyzes of the concepts in quantum physics exist (e.g. Bronner 2010; Burkard 2009; Müller 2005), there is no empirical basis for the teachers' subjective view of them.

When assessing the teachers' subjective point of view, the following framework conditions must be taken into account:

  1. 1.

    The potential participants have very different technical and didactic knowledge and a different status in their own reference group.

  2. 2.

    A theory-based hypothesis formation is not possible in the subject area to be worked on, as it is almost unprocessed.

  3. 3.

    Due to time and cost reasons, the participants cannot be brought together in physical meetings.

These framework conditions result in specific requirements for the research method. Expert interviews (Glasses and Laudel 2010), group discussions (Schäffer and Loos 2001) and the Delphi method (Häder 2009) were identified as possible methods. The Delphi method was selected from this because it offers a feedback process compared to the isolated expert survey. This enables intensive reconsideration and evaluation of one's own statements and those of other participants. At the same time, the method hides group dynamic effects. This sets it apart from the group discussion and takes the first framework condition into account to a particular extent. The Delphi method is suitable for generating and verifying hypotheses as part of a study. This takes point two into account. In the meantime it has also become established to carry out the Delphi method online (cf. Häder 2009), whereby the framework condition three is taken into account.

A disadvantage of the Delphi method is the variety of interpretations of the methodology and, associated with this, an unclear formulation. For this purpose, according to Häder (2009), the Delphi study was typed in advance. The study presented is a survey of expert opinions. Weber (2018) classifies the study in more detail and presents the resulting implications. At this point, the most important characteristics should be described.

Description of the Delphi method

The Delphi method is a turn-based communication technique. In at least two Delphi rounds becomes one Participant panel enables the exchange on a previously defined topic. In order to hide group dynamic effects, the participant panel does not communicate directly with each other. The discussion leader takes care of that Monitoring team. This provides anonymous and controlled feedback in the form of a round result and makes this available to the panel of participants in the next round, with the aim of: "[...] the influence of psychological or situational factors such as persuasion, aversion, the rousing influence to avoid a majority opinion ”(Ammon 2009, p. 459). The status inhomogeneity in the participant panel can thus be made manageable using the Delphi method.

Five processing steps are characteristic of a classic Delphi round (Häder 2009, p. 24; Ammon 2009, p. 460):

  1. 1.

    Operationalization of the question / problem to be processed

  2. 2.

    Design of a standardized and formalized questionnaire

  3. 3.

    Processing of the questionnaire by the participant panel

  4. 4.

    Feedback process by the monitoring team

    1. a.

      Anonymization of the individual responses

    2. b.

      Determination of the round result from answers and given reasons

    3. c.

      Information from the expert panel about the lap result

  5. 5.

    (Multiple) repetition of the procedure until a termination criterion has been met.

In physics didactic research, the Delphi method was used several times and was able to produce strong evidence:

  • Physical Education: A Curricular Delphi Study (Häussler et al. 1980)

  • Goals that teachers associate with experimentation in science education (Welzel et al. 1998)

  • Quantum physics in schools: inventory, perspectives and opportunities for further development through the implementation of a media server (Burkard 2009)

The panel of participants from the studies listed was selected. The participants were selected with the help of defined criteria and in some cases with an invitation system, i. H. Participants can themselves invite “suitable people” to take part in the study (e.g. Burkard 2009).

Key data from the Delphi study

The Delphi study described here took place from May 22, 2014 to July 31, 2015 and comprises three stages. A pilot study was carried out beforehand with specialist managers in order to develop the first round questionnaire. The participants in the main rounds were required to have taught the subject of quantum physics at least once in school. A later entry was also possible: Participation in the third round was possible, for example, without having participated in one of the previous rounds. The pool of participants is thus largely kept open. This differs from the previously mentioned Delphi studies from physics didactic research.

All schools with upper secondary school in Lower Saxony were contacted in order to acquire the participants. Stage 1 starts with 84 participants. 35 of these participants move on to level 2. 18 participants took part in the second stage without having taken part in stage 1. There are 53 participants in the second stage. 39 of these participants move on to the third stage. 14 participants took part in the first and third stage, 22 participants took part exclusively in the third stage. The number of participants in the third round increases compared to the second round to 75 participants. With 26 participants, more than 30% of the first stage also took part in the following stages. The observed panel mortality is common in Delphi studies (cf. Häder 2009). In addition, there is the drop in the number of participants in the second stage, which can be explained by the time (turn of the year) and the increased scope of processing.

In order to get the most authentic impression possible of the teachers' subjective point of view, care was taken to ensure that both experienced teachers and beginners in teaching quantum physics are represented in the pool of participants. This was achieved through targeted reactivation of the participants. It should be emphasized that the experienced teachers also included subject managers and teacher trainers. The number of upper-level courses taught was selected as an indicator of experience.

Fig. 2 shows the composition of the pool of participants. The largest group is made up of the participants with more than six upper-level courses taught: These are the experienced participants in the study. Beginners in teaching quantum physics are weakest in the pool. The proportion of beginners in the pool is still greater than 10% in all rounds. In the Delphi process, the monitoring team ensures that the interests of the beginners are also recognized and discussed in the panel.

Exemplary procedure from the first to the last round

The work of the monitoring team is of particular importance when conducting a Delphi study. The team has the task of extracting the condensate of the rounds and thus intervenes in the methodical process as a moderator. In an explorative qualitative approach, the participants' answers were bundled and common facets were worked out, which form the basis for the following Delphi round. In order to give an insight into the work of the monitoring team at this point, an exemplary procedure from the first to the last round is presented here. For this purpose, the development of a central question is presented over the various rounds and answers from the participants are shown, which represent sets of statements that significantly influence the further course of the study.

In the first Delphi round, the following question was put to the participants:

The topic ... from quantum physics is / was a special challenge for my students, because ... that helped / I would like to:

The following two answers are prototypical for many in the answer pool:

“Potential well, dye, complementarity, Schrödinger equation; In my opinion, all topics can only be worked out theoretically and you can just believe them and learn them by heart. "(Answer 0)

“The“ other ”approach, that quantum objects behave differently than classical objects and that we can only make a precise statement about the behavior of quantum objects under certain conditions [...], caused major problems. Only the very, very high-performing students use this offer for discussions. "(Answer 1)

From the first answer it can be deduced that the contents cannot be worked out in an epistemological process, but are received. This is attributed to the factual structure of the topics. The possible explanation for this is the lack of experiments in school lessons. The term complementarity can be found among the characteristics of quantum physics (Küblbeck and Müller 2003). The second answer describes quantum objects and the measurement process, which are also part of the traits. It is also emphasized that only the high-performing students take part in the discussions. On the basis of these and other answers, a paraphrase (bold below) was created for the second round, which was generalized to the entire characteristics:

A large part of the traits can only be worked out theoretically; you can just believe them and memorize them.

What is the meaning of the above paraphrase for your lessons and how do you rate the use of animations, simulations and original measured values ​​in this context?

With the given work assignment, the focus is directed to possibilities that can be an alternative to real experiments in the classroom.

A participant's answer is representative of a set of statements:

“Quantum physics is a very theoretical area in physics and often cannot be proven quickly. A simulation helps to visualize it, but the disadvantage is that the simulation is something “made”, which shows something, but is also based on the programming skills of the developer. I can also simulate a lie. "(Answer 2)

The answer makes it clear that simulations are perceived as helpful in class.

It is emphasized as a possible disadvantage that simulations do not necessarily have to describe the behavior of a physical system. This argument was taken up in the third round. In particular, it should be clarified whether other teachers also perceive this critical position with the learners.

Evaluate the following statement: My students have no confidence in the results of simulations in the field of quantum physics.

With the help of a five-point Likert scale, the participants in the third round were able to evaluate the statement. The poles are formed by the statements “do not agree” and “agree”. "Diverging Stacked Bar Charts" are used to display the results (Fig. 3 based on Bryer and Speerschneider 2016).

Robbins and Heiberger (2011) explain this form of representation and differentiate it from other representations of likert-scaled items. The width of the stacked bar is 100%. The bar is aligned relative to the center of the scale. This shows consent and not consent in swings to the right or left. The three percentages represent the proportions of those who disagree (76%), vote neutrally (16%) or agree (7%). Deviations in the sum of 100% are caused by rounding.

The median was chosen as a quantitative representation of the group opinion. In the above example, this is to be assessed as the answer “I tend not to agree”. Teachers do not perceive the students' skepticism towards simulations.

Representation of the qualitative data using Wordcloud

Word clouds were selected as an analysis tool for the free answers (see Fig. 7), because they enable a visual qualitative classification of the mentions of a key term. They thus help to assess the relevance of the answers in the entire answer field.

The text size scales with the frequency of the mentions. The horizontal and vertical alignment of the words and their positioning are random. In the following, the frequencies are based on an assignment to a keyword system.

This system was constructed from the answers (exploratory approach) and then coded twice. Cohens kappa serves as the quantity for the intercoder reliability. The widely used interpretation according to Landis and Koch (1977) is used.


Below along the key questions from the section Goals and research questions executed; the presentation of the results does not follow the chronology of the data acquisition within the Delphi rounds.

Which subject didactic concepts are taken into account by teachers when planning and conducting lessons in quantum physics?

In the second Delphi round, the participants were given the task:

Please mark below the concepts from which you are incorporating components into your lessons (gA / eA) and which concepts are not known to you.

When answering the question, it was possible to differentiate between the increased level of requirement (eA) and the basic level of requirement (gA). Furthermore, the participants could indicate that they were unfamiliar with a concept. If none of the available options was selected, these answers count as NA (not available).

Textbook concepts and concepts from subject didactics were available for selection.

Table 1 shows the results: Concepts from subject didactics are largely unknown. Exceptions to this are the Munich concept (Müller and Wiesner 2000) and the characteristics of quantum physics (Küblbeck and Müller 2003). The textbook concepts and the concepts with pointer formalism are well known and are incorporated on both the elevated and the basic level.

The question about the consideration of concepts was placed in front of the following open work order as an introduction:

Please describe elements of the concept from which your teaching will benefit in particular.

30 out of 53 participants worked on this assignment and emphasized in particular that a mixture of the available concepts was taught in practice.

"[...] This concept [Müller / Wiesner] enriched with the representations of Dorn-Bader and Impulse offers a basis for my teaching. [...] "(answer 3)

It is also stated that existing concepts should be supported by real experiments, although there are few experiments that can be carried out in school lessons. The pointer formalism and the traits are emphasized several times as viable concepts. The teaching materials of the Munich concept are named as helpful. Popular science books such as Feynman's QED (2006) are also incorporated into the lessons.

A strong orientation towards the core curriculum (Chrost et al. 2009) is emphasized by the respondents:

“The lessons are based strongly on the KeCu [core curriculum], there is no“ common thread ”with regard to a developed concept. There is still a need for action here [...]. "(Answer 4)

The free answers of the participants additionally underline the prominent role of the traits in the mediation practice of quantum physics. The quantitative answers from the third round give an insight into how the entire panel of experts assesses the role of traits (see Fig.4).

The selected items emphasize that the traits enable discussions in the classroom DiskuWesz (Approval eA: 69% / gA: 50%). The traits also have a structural function in that they run like a red thread through the lesson, RoFWesz (Agreement eA: 51% / gA: 52%).

Both items confirm the relevance and acceptance of the traits by the teachers. With the difference between eA and gA, DiskuWesz also emphasizes that mainly high-performing students take part in the discussions.

Wave-particle dualism

A common feature of modern concepts in quantum physics is the avoidance of a naive concept of dualism. For example, the following formulations are avoided: “Depending on the experimental question, the quantum object behaves sometimes as a wave and sometimes as a particle.” Just like: “A quantum object is both a wave and a particle.” Such formulations mostly come from the beginnings of quantum physics and suggest one Arbitrariness of nature. The technical research is far beyond this level. This also implies a derivation of quantum physics from classical physics, but this is not possible. On the other hand, the wave-particle dualism is one of the top topics that at least 90% of the participants identified as indispensable for an intellectually honest discussion of the topic of quantum physics (Fig. 5).