- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

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

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Epistemic aims and values of quantum computation in foundational research papers and implications for education

Sara Satanassi1 and Sibel Erduran2

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010147 – Published 16 June, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/8sq2-zrr9

Abstract

As quantum technologies gain importance across scientific and societal domains, understanding the foundational principles driving their development is increasingly crucial. While much work has been devoted to defining essential knowledge and curriculum content for quantum technologies at various educational levels, less attention has been paid to how the Second Quantum Revolution is shaping the nature of quantum computation in terms of its foundational epistemic aims and values. The paper presents a conceptual account of the nature of quantum computation through document analysis of foundational research papers. Using the lens of the Family Resemblance Approach to the nature of science, it uncovers the core epistemic aims and values characterizing the domain of quantum computation. By applying this analytical framework, the study identifies both predetermined epistemic aims and values (e.g., objectivity and accuracy) and emergent subcategories (e.g., materiality of information and efficiency) relevant to quantum computation. The document analysis contributes to the literature on the nature of science in general and to the characterization of quantum computation as a domain in particular. Furthermore, the analysis brings to light implicit epistemic aims and values that guide practitioners in a scientific domain to the foreground, which often remain unarticulated in educational contexts. The findings include 17 instances of epistemic aims and values of quantum computation generated from an analysis of significant research papers in the field. By systematically generating these epistemic aims and values, the study provides a nuanced and explicit approach to characterizing the nature of quantum computation, enabling educators to incorporate these themes into curriculum design, teaching, and learning. Some implications for quantum technologies education are discussed.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (86)

  1. G. J. Milburn and A. J. Leggett, The Feynman processor: Quantum entanglement and the computing revolution, Phys. Today 52, No. 7, 51 (1999).
  2. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, and E. M. Hafner, The Feynman lectures on physics; Vol. I, Am. J. Phys. 33, 750 (1965).
  3. N. Gisin and R. Thew, Quantum communication, Nat. Photonics 1, 165 (2007).
  4. C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017).
  5. S. S. Gill, A. Kumar, H. Singh, M. Singh, K. Kaur, M. Usman et al., Quantum computing: A taxonomy, systematic review and future directions, Software 52, 66 (2021).
  6. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm [Internet], arXiv:1411.4028.
  7. F. Ablayev, M. Ablayev, J. Z. Huang, K. Khadiev, N. Salikhova, and D. Wu, On quantum methods for machine learning problems part I: Quantum tools, Big Data Min. Anal. 3, 41 (2020).
  8. P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comput. 26, 1484 (1997)..
  9. A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature (London), 607, 667 (2022).
  10. O. Mishina, J. Sherson, L. V. Kroon, C. Brand, R. Müller, W. van Joolingen, and F. Wilhelm-Mauch, Strategic agenda summary: Education for QT, Retrievable: https://qt.eu/media/pdf/Strategic_Research-_Agenda_d_FINAL.pdf (2019).
  11. A. Acín, I. Bloch, H. Buhrman, T. Calarco, C. Eichler, J. Eisert et al., The quantum technologies roadmap: A European community view, New J. Phys. 20, 080201 (2018).
  12. https://qtedu.eu/.
  13. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/quantum-technology-sees-record-investments-progress-on-talent-gap.
  14. M. Kaur and A. Venegas-Gomez, Defining the quantum workforce landscape: A review of global quantum education initiatives, Opt. Eng. (N.Y.) 61, 081806 (2022).
  15. 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 (2022).
  16. F. Greinert, R. Müller, S. R. Goorney, R. Laurenza, J. Sherson, and M. S. Ubben, European competence framework for quantum technologies, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10976836 (2024).
  17. F. Greinert, R. Müller, P. Bitzenbauer, M. S. Ubben, and K. A. Weber, Future quantum workforce: Competences, requirements, and forecasts, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010137 (2023).
  18. https://qt.eu/media/pdfompetence_Framework_for_QT_v2_5_2024.pdf.
  19. F. Greinert, S. Goorney, D. Hilfert-Rüppell et al., Extending the European competence framework for quantum technologies: New proficiency triangle and qualification profiles, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 12, 1 (2025).
  20. Well-being 2030 action [Internet], Available from: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/1-1-learning-compass/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf.
  21. J. C. Meyer, G. Passante, SJ 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).
  22. A. Asfaw, A. Blais, K. R. Brown, J. Candelaria, C. Cantwell, L. D. Carr et al., Building a quantum engineering undergraduate program, IEEE Trans. Educ. 65, 220 (2022).
  23. A. S. Dzurak, J. Epps, A. Laucht, R. Malaney, A. Morello, H. I. Nurdin et al., Development of an undergraduate quantum engineering degree, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 3, 6500110 (2022).
  24. S. Satanassi, E. Ercolessi, and O. Levrini, Designing and implementing materials on quantum computing for secondary school students: The case of teleportation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010122 (2022).
  25. S. Satanassi, Investigating the learning potential of the Second Quantum Revolution: Development of an approach for secondary school students, Uniboit [Internet], Available from: https://amsdottorato.unibo.it/10716/ (2023) [cited October 25, 2024].
  26. S. Satanassi, E. Ercolessi, and O. Levrini, An approach to the Second Quantum Revolution for secondary school students: The case of the random walk algorithm, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2750, 012024 (2024).
  27. S. Satanassi and O. Levrini, Second quantum revolution: The progressive design of an approach to value its cultural and conceptual scope, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010112 (2025).
  28. S. Satanassi, E. Ercolessi, and O. Levrini, A comparison between the First and the Second Quantum Revolutions: Development of a teaching course for secondary school students, Nuovo Cimento C 47, 345 (2024).
  29. M. Bondani, M. L. Chiofalo, E. Ercolessi, C. Macchiavello, M. Malgieri, M. Michelini et al., Introducing quantum technologies at secondary school level: Challenges and potential impact of an online extracurricular course, Physics 4, 1150 (2022).
  30. C. Sutrini, G. Zuccarini, M. Malgieri, M. Bondani, and C. Macchiavello, An educational model of the Deutsch algorithm for secondary school, Eur. J. Phys. 45, 025302 (2023).
  31. G. Zuccarini, C. Sutrini, M. Bondani et al., Teaching quantum information science to secondary school students with photon polarization and which-path encoding, EPJ Quantum Technol. 11, 74 (2024).
  32. G. Pospiech, Quantum cryptography as an approach for teaching quantum physics, in Teaching-Learning Contemporary Physics, Challenges Physics Education, edited by B. Jarosievitz and C. Sükösd (Springer, Cham, 2021), pp. 19–31.
  33. N. Gisin, Quantum chance: Nonlocality, in Teleportation and other Quantum Marvels (Springer, New York, 2014), p. xi.
  34. A. Aspect, Introduction: John Bell and the Second Quantum Revolution, in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2008), pp. xvii–xl.
  35. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
  36. N. Bohr, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).
  37. P. G. Merli, G. F. Missiroli, and G. Pozzi, On the statistical aspect of electron interference phenomena, Am. J. Phys. 44, 306 (1976).
  38. A. Aspect, Proposed experiment to test the nonseparability of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. D 14, 1944 (1976).
  39. A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982).
  40. J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Phys. Phys. Fiz. 1, 195 (1964).
  41. J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony, Bell’s theorem. Experimental tests and implications, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 1881 (1978).
  42. R. Landauer, The physical nature of information, Phys. Lett. A 217, 188 (1996).
  43. J. Preskill, Lecture notes for physics 229: Quantum information and computation [Internet], Available from: http://www2.fiit.stuba.sk/~kvasnicka/QuantumComputing/PreskilTextbook_all.pdf (1998) [cited October 25, 2024].
  44. E. Schrödinger, Are there quantum jumps?, Br. J. Philos. Sci. 3, 109 (1952).
  45. J. P. Dowling and G. J. Milburn, Quantum technology: The Second Quantum Revolution, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 361, 1655 (2003).
  46. S. Erduran and Z. R. DagherReconceptualizing nature of science for science education, in Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education: Scientific Knowledge, Practices and other Family Categories (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2014), pp. 1–18.
  47. G. Irzik and R. Nola, A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education, Sci. Educ. 20, 591 (2010).
  48. G. Irzik and R. Nola, New directions for nature of science research, in International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (Springer, Dordrecht, 2013), pp. 999–1021.
  49. S. Erduran and Z. R. Dagher, Regaining focus in Irish Junior Cycle Science: Potential new directions for curriculum and assessment on nature of science, Irish Educ. Stud. 33, 335 (2014).
  50. Y. F. Yeh, S. Erduran, and Y. S. Hsu, Investigating coherence about nature of science in science curriculum documents, Sci. Educ. 28, 291 (2019).
  51. E. Kaya and S. Erduran, From FRA to RFN, or how the family resemblance approach can be transformed for science curriculum analysis on nature of science, Sci. Educ. 25, 1115 (2016).
  52. S. M. Mork, B. S. Haug, Ø. Sørborg, S. Parameswaran Ruben, and S. Erduran, Humanising the nature of science: An analysis of the science curriculum in Norway, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 44, 1601 (2022).
  53. M. Caramaschi, A. Cullinane, O. Levrini, and S. Erduran, Mapping the nature of science in the Italian physics curriculum: From missing links to opportunities for reform, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 44, 115 (2021).
  54. H. Tairab, R. Takriti, L. Rabbani, I. AlAmirah, N. Alhosani, and S. Erduran, Magnifying the scope of nature of science (NOS) toward the whole: An investigation of NOS representation in early childhood science education standards, Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ. 23, 210 (2023).
  55. K. K. C. Cheung and S. Erduran, A systematic review of research on family resemblance approach to nature of science in science education, Sci. Educ. 32, 1637 (2023).
  56. M. Barak, T. Ginzburg, and S. Erduran, Nature of engineering, Sci. Educ. 33, 679 (2022).
  57. W. Park, J. Y. Wu, and S. Erduran, The nature of STEM disciplines in the science education standards documents from the USA, Korea, and Taiwan, Sci. Educ. 29, 899 (2020).
  58. S. Ayd𝚤n-Günbatar and G. H. Roehrig, Elaborating nature of engineering through family resemblance approach, Sci. Educ. 34, 95 (2025).
  59. H. Zhang, C. Wu, J. Xie, Y. Lyu, J. Cai, and J. M. Carroll, Redefining qualitative analysis in the AI era: Utilizing ChatGPT for efficient thematic analysis, Comput. Hum. Behav. 4, 100144 (2025).
  60. R. Bijker, S. S. Merkouris, N. A. Dowling, and S. N. Rodda, ChatGPT for automated qualitative research: Content analysis, J. Med. Internet Res. 26, e59050 (2024).
  61. A. Vaswani, G. Brain, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones et al., Attention is all you need [Internet], Available from: https://user.phil.hhu.de/~cwurm/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/7181-attention-is-all-you-need.pdf (2017).
  62. T. Kojima, S. Gu (Shane), M. Reid, Y. Matsuo, and Y. Iwasawa, Large language models are zero-shot reasoners, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems [Internet] (2022), Vol. 35, p. 22199, Available from: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/8bb0d291acd4acf06ef112099c16f326-Abstract-Conference.html.
  63. X. Wang, J. Wei, D. Schuurmans, Q. Le, E. Chi, S. Narang, A. Chowdhery, and D. Zhou, Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models, arXiv:2203.11171.
  64. J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, B. Ichter, F. Xia et al., Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems [Internet] (2022), Vol. 35, p. 24824, Available from: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/9d5609613524ecf4f15af0f7b31abca4-Abstract-Conference.html.
  65. R. M. Davison, H. Chughtai, P. Nielsen, M. Marabelli, F. Iannacci, M. van Offenbeek, and N. Panteli, The ethics of using generative AI for qualitative data analysis, Inf. Syst. J. 34, 1433 (2024).
  66. D. T. Marshall and D. B. Naff, The ethics of using artificial intelligence in qualitative research, J. Empirical Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 19, 92 (2024).
  67. A. Castellanos, H. Jiang, P. Gomes, D. Vander Meer, and A. Castillo, Large language models for thematic summarization in qualitative health care research: Comparative analysis of model and human performance, JMIR AI 4, e64447 (2025).
  68. J. A. Jiang, K. Wade, C. Fiesler, and J. R. Brubaker, Supporting serendipity: Opportunities and challenges for human-AI collaboration in qualitative analysis, Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, 1 (2021).
  69. H. W. De Regt, Understanding, values, and the aims of science, Philos. Sci. 87, 921 (2020).
  70. P. W. Bridgman, The Logic of Modern Physics (Macmillan, New York, NY, 1927), Vol. 3.
  71. R. Oeckl, A first-principles approach to physics based on locality and operationalism, Proc. Sci. FFP14 (2014) 171 [arXiv:1412.7731].
  72. L. Scorzato, On the role of simplicity in science, Synthese 190, 2867 (2013).
  73. F. J. Boge, M. Á. Carretero-Sahuquillo, P. Grünke, and M. King, Introduction: Simplicity out of complexity? Physics and the aims of science, Synthese 201, 116 (2023).
  74. T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms, 3rd ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2009), ISBN [Amazon][WorldCat].
  75. A. Aberdein, C. J. Rittberg, and F. S. Tanswell, Virtue theory of mathematical practices: An introduction, Synthese 199, 10167 (2021).
  76. M. Inglis and A. Aberdein, Beauty is not simplicity: An analysis of mathematicians’ proof appraisals, Philos. Math. 23, 87 (2015).
  77. J. Ossorio-Castillo and J. M. Tornero, Quantum computing from a mathematical perspective: A description of the quantum circuit model, .
  78. G. E. Dieter and L. C. Schmidt, 6.6 morphological methods, in Engineering Design, 5th ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2013), pp. 226–230.
  79. G. E. Moore, Cramming more components onto integrated circuits, Electron. Mag. 38, 114 (1965).
  80. R. Kelly and S Erduran, Understanding aims and values of science: Developments in the junior cycle specifications on nature of science and pre-service science teachers’ views in Ireland, Irish Educ. Stud. 38, 43 (2018).
  81. S. Loucks-Horsley, K. E. Stiles, S. Mundry, N. Love, and P. W. Hewson, Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics, 3rd ed. (Corwin Press, 2010).
  82. G. F. Hoban, Teacher Learning for Educational Change : A System Thinking Approach (Open University Press, Buckingham, 2002).
  83. S. Erduran, Social and institutional dimensions of science: The forgotten components of the science curriculum?, Science 381, eadk1509 (2023).
  84. M. Barak, T. Yachin, and S. Erduran, Tracing preservice teachers’ understanding of nature of science through their drawings and writing, Res. Sci. Educ. 53, 507 (2023).
  85. OECD, OECD future of education, and skills. OECD learning compass 2030: A series of concept notes, Retrieved: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf (2019).
  86. https://pisa-framework.oecd.org/science-2025/

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010147– Published 16 June, 2026
  • Received 9 May 2025
  • Accepted 24 February 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

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

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation