See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/390039582

Exploring the Impact of a Simulation-Based Learning Tool on Undergraduate

Quantum Computing Education

Conference Paper · June 2025

CITATIONS READS

0 128

5 authors, including:

Zifeng Liu Yukyeong Song

University of Florida University of Florida
28 PUBLICATIONS 52 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 120 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Wanli Xing Jing Guo

University of Florida University of Florida
161 PUBLICATIONS 3,370 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Zifeng Liu on 24 March 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Exploring the Impact of a Simulation-Based Learning Tool on
Undergraduate Quantum Computing Education

Abstract

As quantum computing (QC) technologies continue to advance, there is an increasing demand for
a workforce skilled in QC. Higher education plays a critical role in preparing students with the
foundational knowledge and specialized skills required for careers in quantum research,
development, and application. While a few studies have introduced QC to high school students or
computer science majors, there is limited focus on students from diverse academic backgrounds.
Existing research has primarily shared instructors’ experiences and efforts in teaching quantum
computing in higher education, but there is a notable lack of studies exploring ways to enhance
QC instruction and examining students’ learning and attitudes. This study introduces the
Spin-Quantum Gate Lab, a tool designed to enable undergraduate students to learn quantum
computing concepts through simulations. The tool is grounded in multimedia-based learning
(MBL) and simulation-based learning (SBL) theories, incorporating MBL materials, SBL tools,
and hands-on programming exercises to enhance QC education. To evaluate the tool’s impact on
students’ learning outcomes and attitudes, 19 undergraduate students from diverse majors at a
public university participated in a two-week quantum information science course using the tool.
Data collection included pre- and post-surveys with knowledge tests, attitude questionnaires, and
post-only engagement and usability surveys, alongside open-ended questions exploring students’
feedback on the lab. The results demonstrated significant improvements in students’ quantum
computing knowledge (p < .001), medium-to-high engagement and perceived usability scores
(M = 3.90, SD = 1.06), and no significant changes in attitude. This study introduces an
innovative learning tool for undergraduate quantum computing education and provides empirical
evidence supporting the effectiveness of the tool in enhancing QC learning.

1 Introduction

Quantum computing (QC), or Quantum Information Science and Technology (QIST), is an

emerging field grounded in the principles of quantum mechanics, offering the potential to
revolutionize industries by addressing complex problems far more efficiently than classical
computers [1]. Over the past decade, its growing significance has been underscored by major
global initiatives, including the U.S. National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Quantum Leap Big
Idea, the European Union’s Quantum Flagship, and national efforts in China and Japan [2–5].
These initiatives aim to advance the understanding and application of quantum phenomena,
fostering interdisciplinary research and enabling transformative breakthroughs in quantum
systems, materials, and communication technologies [6].
As quantum technologies continue to evolve, the demand for a quantum-proficient workforce is
accelerating. Higher education plays a critical role in equipping students with foundational
knowledge and specialized skills for careers in quantum research, development, and application
[7, 8]. However, QC education in higher education remains in its infancy, with many programs
still exploring effective ways to integrate QC into existing curricula. Industry-driven initiatives,
such as IBM’s Quantum Experience1 and Google’s Cirq2 , have put efforts in advancing QC
accessibility, but these platforms are often designed for experts or engineering students, leaving a
substantial gap for students from entry stage.
Recent years, researchers have focused on develop various educational technologies and
pedagogical approaches to support QC instruction. For instance, one study employed a
design-based research approach to teach intermediate-level undergraduate quantum mechanics
through drawing and simulations [9], while another introduced an online QC course requiring
minimal technical prerequisites [10]. Visualization tools are frequently utilized to illustrate
complex quantum phenomena, aiding students in understanding abstract concepts [9, 11, 12].
Additionally, efforts have been made to incorporate QC education into STEM curricula [13–15].
Despite these initial explorations, QC education still faces significant challenges, particularly in
ensuring accessibility for students from diverse academic disciplines and providing sufficient
learning resources. A review of the QC education literature highlights the scarcity of resources
and comprehensive curricula, emphasizing the need for effective pedagogical strategies and tools
[16]. As QC encompasses nearly all domains of science and engineering—drawing from
advances in physics, materials science, computer science, mathematics, and engineering [6],
addressing these challenges requires enhanced collaboration among stakeholders. Researchers
have also underscored the importance of evaluating how QC courses impact students’
self-efficacy, interest, identity development, and sense of recognition within the QC education
community [17–19]. However, most recent studies have primarily focused on curriculum design
or technology development (e.g., [9, 11, 20]), with limited empirical research conducted (e.g.,
[10, 12, 14]). These studies often provide only descriptive results without reporting significant
learning outcomes (see Table 1).
In this study, we aim to address the limitations of existing QC educational tools by designing and
developing a multimedia- and simulation-based learning tool, the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab, which
integrates both software and hardware aspects to enhance QC learning. Specifically, our study
seeks to (1) provide an intuitive and accessible learning environment for students from diverse
academic backgrounds, (2) emphasize hands-on learning through a ”learning-by-doing” approach
that combines Multimedia-Based Learning (MBL) and Simulation-Based Learning (SBL), and
(3) bridge the gap between QC hardware and software instruction, which has been largely
overlooked in prior research.
To evaluate the effectiveness of this tool, we conducted a mixed-methods pilot study with 19
undergraduate students at a public university, examining its impact on knowledge acquisition,
attitudes toward QC, and perceived usability. We hypothesize that (H1) students using this tool
1
https://quantum.ibm.com/
2
https://quantumai.google/cirq
 Table 1: Recent example research studies on quantum computing education.
Literature Year Target Population Approach Learning Outcome
[12] 2020 High school Simulation-based labs Descriptive: QC concepts ↑; Importance of QC ↓; Interest in QC learning ↓
[9] 2020 Undergraduate students Drawing with simulations No significant results reported
[20] 2020 Undergraduate major in CS Software-oriented approach using Q# No significant results reported
[11] 2021 Users with programming experience Virtual reality (VR)-based tool for QC programming No significant results reported
[14] 2021 Undergraduate students Comparison of Qiskit (IBM), PyQuil (Google), Q# (Microsoft), etc. Descriptive: QC understanding ↑; Interest in QC learning →
[21] 2021 Undergraduate major in engineering Qiskit (IBM), PyQuil (Google), Q# (Microsoft), etc. Descriptive: Satisfaction with the course
[10] 2023 Everyone: Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Q# (Microsoft) Descriptive: Retention and difficulty

will show a significant increase in their QC knowledge scores, (H2) students’ attitudes toward QC
will improve after the intervention, and (H3) the tool will be rated favorably in terms of usability
and engagement.
Quantitative data were collected through pre- and post-surveys, including knowledge assessments
and attitude questionnaires, while qualitative data were obtained through open-ended feedback
questions. The findings indicate significant improvements in students’ QC knowledge, with
medium-to-high engagement and usability ratings. This study not only introduces an open-access
tool to the QC education community but also provides empirical evidence of its effectiveness,
highlighting the potential of tailored learning tools to foster a more inclusive and
practice-oriented QC education landscape.

2 Related work

3 Quantum computing education

Despite the growing recognition of the strategic importance of QC among educators and
policymakers, research on effective strategies for teaching and learning QC remains
underdeveloped. While the terms “Quantum Information Science” and “Quantum Computing”
were coined decades ago and have garnered significant media attention in recent years,
peer-reviewed studies focusing on QC education for undergraduates with diverse academic
backgrounds are still limited.
Several researchers have explored various approaches to QC education, with some promising yet
context-specific findings. For instance, Hughes et al. [12] introduced a QC course aimed at
bridging the gap between popular science articles and advanced undergraduate textbooks through
interactive problem sets and simulation-based labs for active learning. However, their target
audience consisted primarily of high school students. Similarly, Uhlig et al. [13] reported on a
group project in a cybersecurity course that sparked significant interest in QC among graduate
students, motivating them to delve deeper into this complex subject.
Other studies have focused on adapting QC education for undergraduate students without a
physics background. Carrascal et al. [14] demonstrated the effectiveness of using computer
programming, including quantum simulators, circuit testing, and real quantum computer
programming, to teach QC concepts. Additionally, Temporão et al. [22] proposed that QC could
serve as a gateway to quantum physics for undergraduates, leveraging a blended learning
approach with IBM’s Qiskit framework. Gatti and Sotelo [21] introduced a curriculum
incorporating logic and programming skills in QC using Q# and the Microsoft Quantum Network,
effectively engaging undergraduate engineering students. Similarly, Mykhailova and Svore [20]
highlighted the success of software-driven approaches that included programming exercises and
final projects, demonstrating the positive impact of such methods on undergraduate learning
outcomes.
While simulation tools like IBM Qiskit [23] and Google Cirq [24] are widely used in QC
education, they come with notable limitations. These tools primarily emphasize programming for
cloud-based QC and simulators, which can enhance students’ understanding of quantum
mechanics and algorithms [9, 25]. However, their applicability often falls short for students in
disciplines such as chemistry, materials science, and electrical engineering, where a deeper
understanding of hardware operation principles is crucial [26, 27]. A review concluded that QC
technologies show promise in achieving results beyond traditional computing methods, but more
research is needed to address open problems and advance the field [28].
Moreover, the existing body of literature has largely concentrated on the “software” aspects of
QC education, such as quantum theoretical foundations, algorithms, programming, and modeling.
In contrast, fewer studies have addressed the “hardware” components, such as quantum
technology implementations involving materials, devices, circuits, and practical systems. This
gap leaves critical aspects of QC education underexplored. Furthermore, many studies that
identify their target student populations focus on physics majors, computer science students, or
high school learners [12, 15, 16, 29]. These studies often lack comprehensive data on students’
learning gains, attitude changes, and feedback, instead emphasizing instructors’ personal
reflections and lessons learned in teaching quantum concepts [14, 29].
This study aims to address the aforementioned challenges by designing and developing a
simulation tool for higher education. While building on prior research that utilizes simulations
and visualization techniques for teaching quantum computing (QC), this study distinguishes itself
by integrating both software and hardware aspects. Furthermore, it not only introduces an
open-access tool but also provides empirical evidence on its impact on students’ learning
outcomes. The tool is designed to support diverse learners, regardless of their prior experience
with QC.

3.1 Theoretical foundation

The design of the learning technology and instruction for the QC course is grounded in the
theoretical framework of cognitive constructivism. Cognitive constructivism, a branch of
constructivism, posits that learning occurs as learners actively construct their understanding of the
world through experience [30]. This theory emphasizes the role of individual experiences and
hands-on activities in shaping cognitive mental models of the world [31]. By engaging in
experiential learning or “learning by doing” [32], students form mental representations that help
them grasp complex concepts. Given the abstract nature of QC [11, 33], cognitive constructivism
[34] provides a strong rationale for the course design. Quantum mechanics requires learners to
build new mental models to understand how phenomena at the quantum level differ from classical
physics [10, 13]. Therefore, helping learners construct accurate mental models of how quantum
systems work can be an effective pedagogical strategy for enhancing their understanding of
QC.
In alignment with this theoretical foundation, we adopted several pedagogical
strategies—multimedia-based learning (MBL) [35], simulation-based learning (SBL) [36], and
experiential learning [37]—to foster hands-on, interactive experiences in QC education.
The MBL materials are carefully designed to include most important and essential physical
concepts, selected topics on hardware realization of QC, as well as examples of most important
quantum algorithms, a total of six key concepts covered. The design of the video and animation
contents followed five principles, as proposed by Betrancourt’s work [38]: (1) apprehension
principle, (2) congruence principle, (3) interactivity principle, (4) attention-guiding principle, (5)
flexibility principle. Taking the quantum tunneling Animation as an example, to provide a graphic
depiction of tunneling behavior, the apprehension principle was implemented by following the
traditional representation of quantum tunneling. As the barrier thickness became closer to the size
of the electron wavelength, the congruence principle made the cause-and-effect link clearer,
assisting students in building a functional mental model of quantum interference. The
interactivity principle allowed students to interactively change parameters such as the thickness
and height of the quantum tunneling barrier, enhancing their understanding of how these
parameters influence tunneling. The attention-guiding principle emphasized using deliberate
verbal commentary to direct students’ attention to the crucial aspects of the quantum tunneling
animation. Lastly, the flexibility principle included an option to initiate the quantum tunneling
animation within a static image, accompanied by the relevant background information.
The functionalities of the simulation tool developed to enhance SBL in QC. These tools are
designed to facilitate learning in five key categories that are beneficial to SBL in QC: providing
background information, helping learners make hypotheses, conducting experiments, interpreting
data, and regulating the learning process [39, 40]. To provide background knowledge, the tool
offers detailed descriptions and interactive activities. It also includes diagrams to help learners
formulate hypotheses about quantum operations and how varying design parameters might affect
outcomes. To aid in conducting experiments, the tool comes equipped with a variety of pre-set
quantum hardware parameters, alongside a feature that reveals the physical meaning of each
parameter as the learner interacts with the tool. Additionally, it facilitates data interpretation
through interactive visualizations and animations that demonstrate qubit evolution. Lastly, the
tool supports the regulation of the learning process by incorporating pre-simulation quizzes, a
step-by-step simulation guide, and tailored homework for self-assessment.
Hands-on or experiential learning promotes trial and error, hence learning from mistakes through
self- correction, thereby enhancing and accelerating the learning process itself. Experiential
Learning Theory [37] defines hands-on learning as a cycle composed of four elements: (1)
concrete experience (i.e., doing or having an experience); (2) reflective observation (i.e.,
reviewing the experience); (3) abstract conceptualization (i.e., concluding and learning from
experience); (4) active experimentation (i.e., trying out what has been learned). For concrete
experience, students start with a quantum program that is either functionally incorrect and/or
functionally incomplete, run the program and record their observations, which forms the initial
concrete experience. For reflective observation, students analyze the outcome of the
incorrect/incomplete quantum program. For abstract conceptualization, students identify code
structure/statements that lead to incorrect/incomplete behavior, for active experimentation,
students fix code structure/statements that lead to incorrect/incomplete behavior.
4 Methods

4.1 Spin-Quantum Gate Lab

The Spin-Quantum Gate Lab is an interactive simulation tool designed to provide hands-on
experience with quantum gate operations, particularly in the context of silicon-based spin qubits.
This tool was developed to make the complex field of QC more accessible to undergraduate
students by linking theoretical concepts with practical experimentation. The tool simulates the
behavior of single-qubit rotational gates and two-qubit controlled-phase (CPhase) gates, which
are shown in Figure 1a. These simulations are essential for understanding the foundational
operations of QC, as they form a universal gate set. Figure 1b shows the user interface of the tool
which allows users to manipulate parameters such as magnetic field values, dephasing times, and
initial quantum states, enabling a comprehensive exploration of quantum phenomena. The
simulations are based on the Lindblad Master Equation (LME) [41], which accounts for the
decoherence effects that occur in quantum systems.

(a) (b)

Figure 1: Spin qubit array and device parameter configuration interface. Note: (a) The spin qubit
array consists of a single-qubit rotational gate and a two-qubit gate, which together form a universal
gate set for QC. The application of a magnetic field induces spin rotation, enabling the implemen-
tation of a single-qubit rotational gate. In contrast, applying a voltage to the barrier gate between
two spins facilitates the creation of a two-qubit entangling gate. (b) The control panel allows for
the configuration of various device parameters, including the initial state, magnetic field strength,
and dephasing time, among others.

The tool offers multiple visualization modes to enhance comprehension of quantum systems. The
energy levels plot in Figure 2a highlights the variations around the detuning point, illustrating
how the quantum system is controlled. The time evolution of probability in Figure 2b reveals how
the probabilities of different quantum states evolve, with emphasis on dephasing and the gradual
loss of pure states due to decoherence. The density matrix in Figure 2c provides a detailed
representation of the quantum state, encompassing both pure and mixed states while
demonstrating the effects of decoherence. Quantum tomography in Figure 2d enables
comprehensive characterization of the quantum state through measurements in different bases,
such as Pauli matrices, offering deeper insights into its properties. Lastly, the spin rotation
 (a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

Figure 2: Visualization of quantum mechanisms through simulation results. Note: The tool
presents various simulation results to enhance the understanding of latent quantum mechanisms.
(a) The relationship between energy levels and detuning energy for the CPhase gate illustrates the
gate’s operation via manipulation of detuning energy. (b) The time evolution of probability distri-
butions reveals the probability of each state, highlighting the decoherence of pure states over time.
(c) The density matrix offers a comprehensive representation of the quantum state, capturing both
mixed states and decoherence effects. (d) The quantum state tomography, derived from measure-
ments in the Pauli matrices, provides a detailed visualization of the state. (e) The spin rotation
sequence depicts the dynamics of spin rotation under an applied magnetic field, offering valuable
insights into the associated physical processes.

sequence in Figure 2e illustrates the dynamics of spin rotation under an applied magnetic field,
enhancing the understanding of these quantum processes.
In contrast to previous tools highlighted in [10, 12], which primarily emphasized the software
aspects of Quantum Information Science and Technology (QIST) education—such as quantum
theoretical foundations, algorithms, programming, and modeling—the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab
integrates both these software dimensions and the critical hardware aspects essential to quantum
computing (QC) education. This includes, for instance, the implementation of quantum
technologies across various levels, from materials and devices to circuits and practical systems.
To address the gap in the literature regarding limited studies on students’ learning outcomes and
feedback, we conducted a classroom experiment utilizing the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab.
Furthermore, our study incorporates participants from diverse academic backgrounds, and we
systematically analyze their experiences, knowledge acquisition, attitudes, engagement levels,
and perceptions of usability following their interaction with the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab.
4.2 Participants
To evaluate the effectiveness of the MBL, SBL, and hands-on programming content, a total of 19
students from a public university in the southern United States participated in this pilot study. The
participants predominantly majored in engineering disciplines, including Electrical and Computer
Engineering (ECE), Materials Science and Engineering (MSE), Computer Science (CS), Biology
and Chemistry. Of the 19 students, six were undergraduates and 13 were graduate students. The
gender distribution included 16 male and three female students. In terms of ethnicity, 10
participants identified as Asian, five as White, two as South Asian, one as Black/African
American, and one did not report their race. This study received IRB approval from the
University of Florida with IRB No. 202200587.

4.3 Procedure
This study consists of three phases. Pre-Intervention phase: Participants voluntarily joined the
study. Prior to engaging with the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab to learn QC, students completed a
pre-survey designed to assess their background, experience, and prior knowledge. An additional
attitude survey was administered to capture their perceptions of QC before the intervention.
Intervention phase: Participants engaged with the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab for a total of
approximately two hours every two weeks, over a period of two weeks. This phase was designed
to offer a blended learning experience that combined hands-on interaction with the simulation
tool and teacher-led instruction to deepen the participants’ understanding of QC concepts. The
Spin-Quantum Gate Lab was integrated into the curriculum with a focus on scaffolding the
students’ learning process. Each session began with a brief instructional segment where the
teacher introduced key concepts such as single-qubit gates, two-qubit gates, and quantum
entanglement. Following this, the students were guided through step-by-step exercises using
simple examples within the lab tool, which helped them apply these theoretical concepts in
practice. Post-Intervention phase: Upon completing the intervention, students were asked to fill
out a post-survey, which mirrored the pre-survey in evaluating their background, experience,
knowledge, and attitudes. Additionally, students completed an engagement and usability
questionnaire, along with three open-ended questions.

4.4 Measurements
The participants used the MBL materials and the SBL tool in the same quantum information
science course for two weeks. Pre- and post-surveys were administered to collect data. In
addition to eight questions about students’ background and their QC learning experience, the
pre-survey (shown in Table 2) includes five knowledge test questions, such as “Which of the
following can form a universal set of quantum gates?”. The five-point attitude questionnaire,
adapted from Hanrahan et al. [42]’s work, consists of seven items that explore students’
self-efficacy and identity related to QC. The post-survey retains the knowledge test and attitude
questionnaire from the pre-survey and adds a seven-item engagement and usability questionnaire,
adapted from Brooke [43]’s study (shown in Table 3). It also includes three open-ended questions,
such as “How did the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab aid your understanding of quantum computing
concepts?” and “What did you like about the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab?”.
Table 2: Pre and post survey used questions. Note: Background questions were open-ended,
experience and attitude questions were rated on a five-point scale, and the knowledge test consisted
of multiple-choice questions, with correct answers scored as 1 and incorrect answers as 0.
Constructs Question Number Question Text
1 What is your full name?
2 What is your major?
Background 3 Are you in undergraduate or graduate school?
4 What year are you?
5 Please select your gender
6 Please select your ethnicity/race (select all that apply)
7 I have experienced quantum computing education before this course.
Experience
8 I have developed an application using quantum computing before this course.
9 Which of the following can form a universal set of quantum gates?
10 To realize an X gate on a semiconductor spin qubit, what is the direction of the magnetic field of the control pulse?
Knowledge test
11 If the dephasing time of a quantum gate increases, what is its impact on fidelity?
A semiconductor double quantum dots structure consists of two neighboring quantum dots Q1 and Q2.
12
It can form a two-qubit quantum gate. Which of the following can achieve a two-qubit controlled-phase gate operation?
13 Which of the following can result in a faster two-qubit quantum gate, which has a smaller gate delay?
14 I can understand the concepts of quantum mechanics when I read.
15 I can understand the concepts of quantum computing when I attend a lecture or prime-time meeting.
Attitude questions 16 I can understand how quantum hardware, such as a quantum gate, is realized when I run simulations.
17 I can understand the physical concepts used in quantum computing.
18 Working on quantum computing homework (e.g., this course’s homework) is stressful for me.
19 I believe I can use quantum computing in my future career.
20 I want to pursue a career in quantum computing in the future.

Table 3: Post-survey only questions. Note: The post-survey also includes the knowledge test and
attitude questions from the pre-survey.
Constructs Question Number Question Text
1 This course motivated me to pursue a career in quantum computing.
2 This course has increased my interest in quantum computing.
Engagement and usability 3 I enjoyed using the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab to have simulations about semiconductor-based quantum computing.
4 I can explain the mechanism of semiconductor-spin-based quantum computing using the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab.
5 The Spin-Quantum Gate Lab helped me understand the concepts of semiconductor-based quantum computing technology.
6 I would like to use the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab frequently when I study semiconductor-based quantum computing in the future.
7 I think the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab was easy and intuitive to use.
8 How did the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab help with your understanding of quantum computing concepts?
Open-ended questions 9 What did you like about the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab?
10 What did you NOT like about the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab and how would you improve it?

5 Results

5.1 Experience and knowledge

The experience, knowledge and attitude results are in Table 4. Before the intervention, 12
students reported having no or very limited experience with QC education, and 15 out of the 19
students indicated that they had never developed or had very limited experience in developing an
application using QC. Out of the 19 students, 14 demonstrated improved learning performance
after engaging with the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to
 Table 4: Experience, knowledge and attitude results. Note: SD is Standard Deviation.

Pre-survey Post-survey
Category Item No. Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Comparison
7 2.42 (1.53) / /
Experience
8 1.44 (1.12) / /
9 0.37 (0.48) 0.47 (0.50)
10 0.42 (0.49) 0.84 (0.36)
p < 0.001***,
Knowledge test 11 0.47 (0.50) 0.74 (0.44)
Cohen’s d = 0.90
12 0.63 (0.48) 0.84 (0.36)
13 0.68 (0.47) 0.79 (0.41)
14 3.58 (0.82) 3.89 (0.72)
15 3.84 (0.93) 3.95 (0.89)
16 3.68 (1.08) 3.74 (0.96)
Attitude 17 3.42 (0.99) 3.47 (0.94) p = 0.81
18 3 (0) 2.58 (0.94)
19 4.26 (0.85) 4.37 (0.74)
20 4.10 (0.72) 3.84 (0.93)

compare the knowledge scores of the students before and after the two-week intervention using
the tool. From overall comparison, the results indicated a statistically significant increase in
scores from the pre-test (M = 2.57, SD = 1.23) to the post-test (M = 3.68, SD = 1.17), with a
large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.90) and significance at p < .001. This suggests a substantial
improvement in students’ knowledge following the intervention.
We further compared the learning scores of students with different levels of experience. Among
students with prior QC experience (n = 7), all demonstrated an increase in their knowledge scores,
with an average gain of 1.57. In contrast, students with no or limited experience (n = 12) showed
an average increase of 0.83; this indicates that the Spin-Quantum Gate Lab is helpful for both
students with or without QC learning experience.

5.2 Attitude
For attitude, the pre-survey shows that the mean values of the seven attitude questions were 3.58,
3.84, 3.68, 3.42, 3.00, 4.26, and 4.11. After the intervention, the average values for the seven
questions changed to 3.89, 3.95, 3.74, 3.47, 3.00, 4.37, and 3.84. Although five out of the seven
questions (Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, and Q19, shown in Table 2) showed an increase in score, no
significant difference was found in students’ attitudes toward QC. For students with different
levels of prior experience, both groups showed an increase in attitude scores. Students with prior
experience had an average increase of 0.86, while those without experience showed a higher
average increase of 1.25.
5.3 Engagement and usability
Shown in Figure 3, the average scores for Q1 to Q7 in Table 3 are 3.89, 4.11, 4.06, 3.26, 3.79,
4.00, and 4.16. The engagement and usability score (M = 3.90, SD = 0.87) from the post-survey
indicates that students were actively involved in the learning process and found the materials and
tools to be user-friendly. Students without prior experience had an average engagement and
usability score of 3.68, while those with experience showed a higher average score of 4.26.

Figure 3: The post-survey engagement and usability results. Note: Values like 3.89 (1.10) represent
Mean(Standard Deviation).

5.4 Open-ended questions

From the open-ended question Q8 on understanding QC concepts, students emphasized learning
by doing, focusing on the role of interactive parameter tuning and visual feedback in enhancing
their understanding. They highlighted how simulations provided a hands-on experience. One
student noted, “It (the simulation tool) provided nice visuals to understand the concepts presented
in the lectures and class material.” Another mentioned, “It helped me understand the relationship
between the parameters and increasing fidelity for one- and two-qubit systems.” Students
appreciated the tool’s features, often praising its visualization capabilities with comments such as
“nice visuals” and “visual simulations,” which helped them grasp complex concepts. Many also
mentioned the tool’s ease of use, describing it as “very easy to use” and “user-friendly.”
Additionally, the quick feedback from simulations was valued, as students found it helpful in
understanding quantum gates more effectively. However, some technical issues were reported,
including bugs and glitches such as “small bugs, but they did not distract me,” and problems with
results not refreshing automatically or the result window not changing dynamically. Despite these
minor issues, the overall feedback indicates that the proposed MBL material, SBL tool, and
hands-on programming content had a positive impact on students’ learning of QC.

6 Discussion and conclusion

This study aimed to address several critical gaps in QC education, including (1) providing an
accessible learning tool for students from diverse backgrounds, (2) integrating both software and
hardware aspects of QC, and (3) leveraging learning-by-doing pedagogies to enhance student
engagement. Our findings support the first objective, as the tool was well-received by students
with varied prior experience in QC. The second objective—bridging the gap between hardware
and software learning—was partially achieved, as students found the tool useful for
understanding QC concepts, though the impact of hardware-specific features remains an area for
further investigation. Lastly, our study reinforces the efficacy of learning-by-doing approaches,
aligning with research demonstrating that active, hands-on experiences contribute to knowledge
retention in complex technical domains [14, 28].
The findings from this study demonstrate the effectiveness of the MBL and SBL tool in enhancing
students’ understanding of QC. Consistent with prior research highlighting the benefits of
interactive learning environments in technical education [12, 20], our results show a significant
improvement in students’ QC knowledge following the intervention. The increase in knowledge
scores from the pre-test to the post-test (M = 2.57 to M = 3.68, p < .001), with a large effect
size (Cohen’s d = 0.90), underscores the impact of the tool in facilitating deeper conceptual
understanding. Despite the improvement in knowledge acquisition, there was no significant shift
in students’ attitudes toward QC. This suggests that while MBL and SBL tools enhance cognitive
understanding, they may need to be supplemented with additional instructional strategies to
influence affective factors such as interest, self-efficacy, and career aspirations. Previous research
suggests that attitudes toward highly specialized technical fields often require extended exposure
and real-world applications to shift meaningfully [17, 18]. Future implementations could explore
strategies such as incorporating mentorship programs, project-based learning, or industry
collaborations to strengthen students’ sense of engagement and belonging in QC. Furthermore,
engagement and usability ratings (M = 3.90, SD = 0.87) indicate that students generally found
the tool intuitive and engaging. However, technical challenges, including minor software bugs
and glitches, were reported by some participants. These usability issues may have moderated the
overall learning experience, reinforcing the importance of refining the tool’s technical robustness
to maximize its impact [44]. Future research should examine the relationship between usability,
engagement, and learning outcomes, potentially considering engagement as a mediating factor in
the effectiveness of QC learning tools.
The integration of interactive, hardware-supported QC learning tools has significant implications
for STEM education and workforce preparation. First, these tools can broaden participation
beyond traditional physics and computing disciplines, making QC education more accessible to
students with diverse academic backgrounds. Second, this study contributes to ongoing efforts to
promote equitable access to advanced technologies, fostering inclusivity in STEM education.
Third, the development of scalable and adaptable QC education tools represents a step forward in
enhancing the infrastructure for quantum education and workforce development.
While this study provides valuable insights into the role of the MBL and SBL tool in QC
education, several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the
sample size (N = 19) is relatively small, future studies should include a larger and more diverse
participant pool to strengthen the robustness of the findings. Second, the study was conducted
over a short intervention period (two weeks), which may not fully capture long-term retention and
attitudinal shifts. Longitudinal studies examining sustained engagement and learning gains are
needed.
Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1657366.

References
[1] Andrew Steane. Quantum computing. Reports on Progress in Physics, 61(2):117, 1998.
[2] U.S. Congress. H.r. 6227—national quantum initiative act, 2018. 115th Congress, 164:132 STAT. 5092.
[3] European Commission. Quantum technologies flagship kicks off with first 20 projects, 2018.
[4] M. Giles. The man turning china into a quantum superpower, 2018. MIT Technology Review.
[5] N. Koshika. Japan plots 20-year race to quantum computers, chasing us and china, 2019. Nikkei Asian Review.
[6] National Science and Technology Council. National strategic overview for quantum information science, 2018.
[7] A. Asfaw, A. Blais, K. Brown, Jonathan Candelaria, Christoph M. Cantwell, L. Carr, et al. Building a quantum
engineering undergraduate program. IEEE Transactions on Education, 65:220–242, 2021. doi:
10.1109/TE.2022.3144943.
[8] Michael Fox. Preparing for the quantum revolution: what is the role of higher education? Photonics for
Quantum 2020, 2021. doi: 10.1117/12.2611198.
[9] Shaaron Ainsworth, Antje Kohnle, and Gina Passante. Designing drawing activities to support
simulation-based learning in quantum mechanics. 2020.
[10] Jonathan Liu and Diana Franklin. Introduction to quantum computing for everyone: experience report. In
Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, pages 1157–1163,
2023.
[11] H. Genç, Serkan Aydin, and Hasan Erdal. Designing a virtual reality programming environment for quantum
computers. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30:690 – 707, 2021. doi: 10.1002/cae.22481.
[12] Ciaran Hughes, Joshua Isaacson, Anastasia Perry, Ranbel F. Sun, and J. Turner. Teaching quantum computing
to high school students. The Physics Teacher, 2020. doi: 10.1119/10.0009686.
[13] R. P. Uhlig, P. Dey, Shatha Jawad, B. Sinha, and M. Amin. Generating student interest in quantum computing.
2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), pages 1–9, 2019. doi: 10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028378.
[14] Ginés Carrascal, A. D. Del Barrio, and G. Botella. First experiences of teaching quantum computing. The
Journal of Supercomputing, pages 1–30, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s11227-020-03376-x.
[15] Stefan Seegerer, Tilman Michaeli, and R. Romeike. Quantum computing as a topic in computer science
education. The 16th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 2021. doi:
10.1145/3481312.3481348.
[16] Yuming He, Shenghua Zha, and Wu He. A literature review of quantum education in k-12 level. Innovate
Learning Summit, pages 418–422, 2021.
[17] Clarice D. Aiello, D. Awschalom, H. Bernien, and Tina Brower-Thomas et al. Achieving a quantum smart
workforce. Quantum Science & Technology, 6, 2020. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/abfa64.
[18] Ciaran Hughes, Doug Finke, Dan-Adrian German, C. Merzbacher, P. Vora, and H. Lewandowski. Assessing the
needs of the quantum industry. IEEE Transactions on Education, 65:592–601, 2021. doi:
10.1109/TE.2022.3153841.
[19] Tunde Kushimo and B. Thacker. Investigating students’ strengths and difficulties in quantum computing. 2023
IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 03:33–39, 2022. doi:
10.1109/QCE57702.2023.20322.
[20] M. Mykhailova and K. Svore. Teaching quantum computing through a practical software-driven approach:
Experience report. Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2020.
doi: 10.1145/3328778.3366952.
[21] Laura N. Gatti and R. Sotelo. Quantum computing for undergraduate engineering students: Report of an
experience. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages
397–401, 2021. doi: 10.1109/QCE52317.2021.00060.
[22] G. Temporão, Thiago B. S. Guerreiro, Pedro Ripper, and A. Pavani. Teaching quantum computing without
prerequisites: a case study. 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering
(QCE), pages 673–676, 2022. doi: 10.1109/qce53715.2022.00090.
[23] G. F. de Jesus, M. H. F. da Silva, T. G. D. Netto, L. Q. Galvão, F. G. D. O. Souza, and C. Cruz. Quantum
computing: An undergraduate approach using qiskit. arXiv, 2021. URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.11388.
[24] S. Pattanayak. Quantum machine learning with Python: Using Cirq from Google research and IBM Qiskit.
Apress, 2021.
[25] Muhammad Tawil and Ahmad Dahlan. Developing students’ creativity through computer simulation based
learning in quantum physics learning. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 12(8):
1829–1845, 2017.
[26] Nathalie P De Leon, Kohei M Itoh, Dohun Kim, Karan K Mehta, Tracy E Northup, Hanhee Paik, BS Palmer,
Nitin Samarth, Sorawis Sangtawesin, and David W Steuerman. Materials challenges and opportunities for
quantum computing hardware. Science, 372(6539):eabb2823, 2021.
[27] Carmen G Almudever, Lingling Lao, Xiang Fu, Nader Khammassi, Imran Ashraf, Dan Iorga, Savvas
Varsamopoulos, Christopher Eichler, Andreas Wallraff, Lotte Geck, et al. The engineering challenges in
quantum computing. In Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), 2017, pages
836–845. IEEE, 2017.
[28] L. Gyongyosi and S. Imre. A survey on quantum computing technology. Comput. Sci. Rev., 31:51–71, 2019.
doi: 10.1016/j.cosrev.2018.11.002.
[29] P. Angara, U. Stege, Andrew MacLean, H. Müller, and T. Markham. Teaching quantum computing to
high-school-aged youth: A hands-on approach. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 3:1–15, 2022.
doi: 10.1109/tqe.2021.3127503.
[30] Peggy A Ertmer and Timothy J Newby. Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features
from an instructional design perspective. Performance improvement quarterly, 6(4):50–72, 1993.
[31] J Piaget. The origins of intelligence in children. International University, 1952.
[32] John Dewey. Experience and education. In The educational forum, volume 50, pages 241–252. Taylor &
Francis, 1986.
[33] Peter Hu, Yangqiuting Li, and C. Singh. Investigating and improving student understanding of the basics of
quantum computing. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 2024. doi:
10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020108.
[34] Cody Kalina and KC Powell. Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom.
Education, 130(2):241–250, 2009.
[35] Richard E Mayer. Multimedia learning. In Psychology of learning and motivation, volume 41, pages 85–139.
Elsevier, 2002.
 [36] Fatimah Lateef. Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing. Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shock,
3(4):348–352, 2010.
[37] D. A. Kolb, R. E. Boyatzis, and C. Mainemelis. Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new
directions. In Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles, pages 227–247. Routledge, 2014.
[38] M. Betrancourt. The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer, editor, The
Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, pages 287–296. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[39] N. Campos, M. Nogal, C. Caliz, et al. Simulation-based education involving online and on-campus models in
different european universities. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(8),
2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0181-y.
[40] A. W. Makkink and C. Vincent-Lambert. The development of ‘satlab’: A tool designed to limit assessment bias
in simulation-based learning, 2020.
[41] Todd A. Brun. Continuous measurements, quantum trajectories, and decoherent histories. Physical Review A,
61(4):042107, March 2000. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.61.042107.
[42] John Hanrahan, Michail Sideris, Parmenion P Tsitsopoulos, Alexios Bimpis, Terouz Pasha, Peter C Whitfield,
and Apostolos E Papalois. Increasing motivation and engagement in neurosurgery for medical students through
practical simulation-based learning. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 34:75–79, 2018.
[43] John Brooke. SUS: A ”quick and dirty” usability scale, pages 189–194. Taylor and Francis, London, 1996.
[44] Heba Ismail, Moutasim El Ayoubi, M. Qassem, and Fares Al Areefi. Assessing the impact of gamification
tools’ usability on student engagement: A comparative study in engineering education. 2024 4th
Interdisciplinary Conference on Electrics and Computer (INTCEC), pages 1–8, 2024. doi:
10.1109/INTCEC61833.2024.10603117.

View publication stats