- 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

Expert perspectives on the future of quantum physics education at the secondary level

Philipp Bitzenbauer1,*, Malte S. Ubben1, Daria Anttila2, Maria Bondani3, Maria Luisa Chiofalo4, Sergej Faletic5, Simon Goorney6, Franziska Greinert7, Rainer Müller7 et al.

Zdeňka Koupilová8, Massimiliano Malgieri9, Avraham Merzel10, Henk J. Pol11, Gesche Pospiech12, Heike Kirsten Elisabeth Stadermann13, Efraim Yehuda Weissman14, and Kim Krijtenburg-Lewerissa15,†

  • *Contact author: philipp.bitzenbauer@uni-leipzig.de
  • †Contact author: k.krijtenburg-lewerissa@uu.nl
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020157 – Published 16 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/d1yx-kfsz

Abstract

As quantum technologies increasingly impact society and the workforce, there is a growing need to integrate quantum physics (QP) education into all levels of the curriculum, including secondary education. However, despite increasing interest, there is little consensus on which topics should be covered and to what depth. This study addresses this issue by exploring experts’ perspectives on the future of QP education at the secondary school level. Using an adapted Delphi method, we conducted three rounds of surveys with a diverse panel of quantum physics and physics education experts. The study aimed to identify the most appropriate QP concepts for inclusion in secondary school curricula and the instructional level at which they should be taught. The findings show strong expert support for including foundational QP topics, such as quantum interference, superposition, and quantum measurement, taught at a conceptual rather than a mathematical level. More advanced topics related to quantum technologies were widely deemed unsuitable for the secondary school. These results are consistent with existing national curricula and provide valuable insights into current perspectives on QP education, reinforcing the importance of core quantum physics concepts in secondary education. These insights lay the groundwork for further research into the future direction of quantum education and support the integration of quantum technologies into secondary school curricula.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (54)

  1. A. van de Merbel, J. Peer, S. J. Willems, and J. Cramer, Quantum technology will change my life. “Citizens” attitudes and knowledge of quantum science and technology, J. Phys. Commun. 8, 075005 (2024).
  2. EPSRC, Quantum technologies public dialogue report, https://nqit.ox.ac.uk/sites/www.nqit.ox.ac.uk/files/2018-07/Quantum%20Technologies%20Public%20Dialogue%20Full%20Report_0.pdf (2017).
  3. C. D. Aiello et al., Achieving a quantum smart workforce, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 030501 (2021).
  4. 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).
  5. F. Greinert, R. Müller, S. Goorney, J. Sherson, and M. S. Ubben, Towards a quantum ready workforce: The updated European Competence Framework For Quantum Technologies, Front. Quantum Sci. Technol. 2, 1 (2023).
  6. E. Barnes et al., Outcomes from a workshop on a National Center for Quantum Education, arXiv:2410.23460.
  7. M. Darienzo, A. M. Kelly, D. Schneble, and T.-C. Wei, Student attitudes toward quantum information science and technology in a high school outreach program, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020126 (2024).
  8. A. Merzel, P. Bitzenbauer, K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, H. K. E. Stadermann, E. Andreotti, D. Anttila, M. Bondani, M. L. M. Chiofalo, S. Faletič, R. Frans et al., The core of secondary level quantum education: A multi-stakeholder perspective, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 27 (2024).
  9. T. Roberson, Talking about responsible quantum: “Awareness is the absolute minimum that … we need to do”, NanoEthics 17, 2 (2023).
  10. G. Zuccarini, C. Sutrini, M. Bondani, C. Macchiavello, and M. Malgieri, Teaching quantum information science to secondary school students with photon polarization and which-path encoding, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 74 (2024).
  11. 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).
  12. QTEdu CSA, QTEdu.eu: European open portal: Community and resources, https://qtedu.eu/ (2024).
  13. S. Goorney, M. Sarantinou, and J. Sherson, The quantum technology open master: Widening access to the quantum industry, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 7 (2024).
  14. F. Greinert and R. Müller, European Competence Framework for Quantum Technologies (CFQT) (Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024), 10.2759/389764.
  15. Z. C. Seskir, S. R. Goorney, and M. L. Chiofalo, Educating to the “culture” of quantum technologies: A survey study on concepts for public awareness, Eur. J. STEM Educ. 9, 03 (2024).
  16. M. L. M. Chiofalo, C. Foti, C. Lazzeroni, S. Maniscalco, Z. C. Seskir, J. Sherson, C. A. Weidner, and M. Michelini, Games for quantum physics education, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2727, 012010 (2024).
  17. A. Donhauser, P. Bitzenbauer, L. Qerimi, S. Heusler, S. Küchemann, J. Kuhn, and M. S. Ubben, Empirical insights into the effects of research-based teaching strategies in quantum education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020601 (2024).
  18. P. Kaushik, N. Vu, C. Yeung, N. Sorak, P. Khazaei, D. G. A. Cabral, B. C. Allen, V. Venkatesh, L. K. Boyle, V. S. Batista et al., Impact of quantum mechanics-based workshops on developing high school students’ interest and intuition in quantum information science, in Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) (IEEE, New York, NY, 2024), pp. 1–4.
  19. P. Onorato, M. Di Mauro, and M. Malgieri, Investigating the beliefs of experts on teaching quantum physics at secondary schools: Key concepts, topics, and fundamentals, Phys. Educ. 59, 025006 (2024).
  20. H. K. E. Stadermann and M. J. Goedhart, Why and how teachers use nature of science in teaching quantum physics: Research on the use of an ecological teaching intervention in upper secondary schools, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020132 (2021).
  21. C. Foti, D. Anttila, S. Maniscalco, and M. L. Chiofalo, Quantum physics literacy aimed at K12 and the general public, Universe 7, 86 (2021).
  22. E. K. Henriksen, B. Bungum, C. Angell, C. W. Tellefsen, T. Frågåt, and M. V. Bøe, Relativity, quantum physics and philosophy in the upper secondary curriculum: Challenges, opportunities and proposed approaches, Phys. Educ. 49, 678 (2014).
  23. D. M. Silberman, Teaching quantum to high school students, in Seventeenth Conference on Education and Training in Optics and Photonics: ETOP 2023, edited by D. J. Hagan and M. McKee (SPIE, 2023), Vol. 12723, p. 127232R, 10.1117/12.2665916.
  24. H. K. E. Stadermann, E. van den Berg, andM. J. Goedhart, Analysis of secondary school quantum physics curricula of 15 different countries: Different perspectives on a challenging topic, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010130 (2019).
  25. K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, H. J. Pol, A. Brinkman, and W. Van Joolingen, Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010109 (2017).
  26. B. Winkler, P. Bitzenbauer, and J.-P. Meyn, Quantum physics≠ quantum physics. A survey of researchers’ associations, Phys. Educ. 56, 065031 (2021).
  27. QTEdu CSA, Community-based development of the Quantum Concept Inventory [QCI], https://qtedu.eu/project/community-based-development-quantum-concept-inventory (2024).
  28. F. Greinert, S. Goorney, D. Hilfert-Rüppell, M. S. Ubben, and R. Müller, Extending the European competence framework for quantum technologies: New proficiency triangle and qualification profiles, arXiv:2410.07692.
  29. F. Greinert and R. Müller, European Competence Framework for Quantum Technologies (v1.0), Zenodo, 2021, 10.5281/zenodo.6834599.
  30. F. Greinert and R. Müller, Competence Framework for Quantum Technologies: Methodology and Version History (Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021), 10.2759/130432.
  31. S. Faletič, M. Bondani, P. J. Emigh, K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, G. Pospiech, and M. Michelini, Symposium on teaching and learning quantum physics, in Physics Education Today: Innovative Methodologies, Tools and Evaluation (Springer, New York, 2024), pp. 55–72.
  32. M. Michelini and A. Stefanel, Approaches on T/L quantum physics from per literature, in Teaching-Learning Contemporary Physics: From Research to Practice (Springer, Cham, 2021), Vol. 3,10.1007/978-3-030-78720-2.
  33. J. D. Vermunt and Y. J. Vermetten, Patterns in student learning: Relationships between learning strategies, conceptions of learning, and learning orientations, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 16, 359 (2004).
  34. S. Faletič, A double well on-line simulation and activities for active learning of introductory quantum mechanics, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 045706 (2020).
  35. M. Michelini, R. Ragazzon, L. Santi, and A. Stefanel, Proposal for quantum physics in secondary school, Phys. Educ. 35, 406 (2000).
  36. P. Häußler, K. Frey, L. Hoffmann, J. Rost, and H. Spada, Physikalische Bildung: Eine curriculare Delphi-Studie Teil II, IPN-Arbeitsberichte 42, IPN Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Kiel, 1980.
  37. K.-A. Weber, Quantenoptik in der Lehrerfortbildung: Ein bedarfsgeprägtes fortbildungskonzept zum quantenobjekt “photon” mit realexperimenten, in Studien Zum Physik- und Chemielernen (Logos, Berlin, 2018), Vol. 269.
  38. K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, H. J. Pol, A. Brinkman, and W. R. van Joolingen, Key topics for quantum mechanics at secondary schools: A Delphi study into expert opinions, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 41, 349 (2019).
  39. F. Gerke, R. Müller, P. Bitzenbauer, M. S. Ubben, and K.-A. Weber, Requirements for future quantum workforce—A Delphi study, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2297, 012017 (2022).
  40. 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).
  41. M. J. Clayton, Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education, Educ. Psychol. 17, 373 (1997).
  42. H. A. Linstone and M. Turoff, Introduction, in The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, edited by H. A. Linstone and M. Turoff (Addison-Wesley, 1975), pp. 1–16.
  43. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/d1yx-kfsz for the three questionnaires that were used in this Delphi study.
  44. E. Y. Weissman, A. Merzel, N. Katz, and I. Galili, Phenomena and principles: Presenting quantum physics in a high school curriculum, Physics 4, 1299 (2022).
  45. S. Wuttiprom, M. D. Sharma, I. D. Johnston, R. Chitaree, and C. Soankwan, Development and use of a conceptual survey in introductory quantum physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31, 631 (2009).
  46. S. McKagan, K. Perkins, and C. Wieman, Design and validation of the quantum mechanics conceptual survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020121 (2010).
  47. W. J. Tastle and M. J. Wierman, Consensus and dissention: A measure of ordinal dispersion, Int. J. Approx. Reason. 45, 531 (2007).

  48. The authors of Ref. [47] illustrate the plausibility of the formula using example answer distributions to a rating-scale question. For instance, on a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, … , 5 = strongly agree), if 50% of respondents select strongly disagree and the other 50% select strongly agree, the consensus metric yields Cns=0.00.

  49. H. K. E. Stadermann and M. J. Goedhart, “Why don’t you just tell us what light really is?” Easy-to-implement teaching materials that link quantum physics to nature of science, Phys. Educ. 57, 025014 (2021).
  50. M. Rabinowitz, Examination of wave-particle duality via two-slit interference, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 9, 763 (1995).
  51. E. K. Henriksen, C. Angell, A. I. Vistnes, and B. Bungum, What is light? students’ reflections on the wave-particle duality of light and the nature of physics, Sci. Educ. 27, 81 (2018).
  52. P. Lautesse, A. Vila Valls, F. Ferlin, J.-L. Héraud, and H. Chabot, Teaching quantum physics in upper secondary school in France: “Quanton” versus “wave–particle” duality, two approaches of the problem of reference, Sci. Educ. 24, 937 (2015).
  53. P. Bitzenbauer, S. Faletič, M. Michelini, K. Tóth, and G. Pospiech, Design and evaluation of a questionnaire to assess learners’ understanding of quantum measurement in different two-state contexts: The context matters, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020136 (2024).
  54. M. L. Chiofalo, C. Foti, M. Michelini, L. Santi, and A. Stefanel, Games for teaching/learning quantum mechanics: A pilot study with high-school students, Educ. Sci. 12, 446 (2022).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020157– Published 16 December, 2025
  • Received 21 June 2025
  • Accepted 7 November 2025
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