- 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

Visualizing quantum states: A pilot study on problem solving in quantum information science education

Jonas Bley1, Eva Rexigel1, Alda Arias1, Lars Krupp2,3, Steffen Steinert4,5, Nikolas Longen2, Paul Lukowicz2,3, Stefan Küchemann4, Jochen Kuhn4 et al.

Maximilian Kiefer-Emmanouilidis1,2,3 and Artur Widera1

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020160 – Published 19 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/hdpv-frft

Abstract

In the rapidly evolving interdisciplinary field of quantum information science and technology, a major obstacle is the need to understand advanced mathematics to solve complex problems. Current findings in educational research suggest that incorporating visualizations into problem-solving settings can have beneficial effects on students’ performance and cognitive load compared to relying solely on symbolic problem-solving content. Visualizations like the (dimensional) circle notation enable us to represent not only single-qubit but also more complex multiqubit states, entanglement, and quantum algorithms. In this pilot study, we aim to take an initial step toward identifying the contexts in which students benefit from the presentation of visualizations of single- and multiqubit systems in addition to mathematical formalism. For this purpose, we propose a set of test items and a comprehensive methodology to assess students’ performance and cognitive load when solving problems. This is a pilot investigation with a large breadth of questions intended to generate hypotheses and guide larger-scale, more focused studies in the future. Specifically, we compare two approaches: using the mathematical-symbolic Dirac notation alone and using it in combination with the (dimensional) circle notation. In surveys in one-, two- and three-qubit systems, we gather qualitative data from five, five and two think-aloud interviews, identifying problems that students encounter and their problem-solving strategies. In addition, we analyze quantitative data (performance and cognitive load) from 23, 27, and 17 participants in surveys on one-, two-, and three-qubit systems recruited mainly from our quantum computing lectures. We find that most of the test items are appropriate for a heterogeneous target group, as they can differentiate between participants in terms of performance and time taken. In general, the A-B crossover structure of the study is suitable for investigating the benefits of visualization for problem solving with regard to length and feasibility. Future studies should, however, be narrower in scope, given the observable dependence on student characteristics and context, with particular interest lying in the further investigation of the Hadamard gate, the cnot gate, and entanglement in multiqubit systems.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (89)

  1. 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).
  2. Visualization in Science Education, edited by J. K.Gilbert (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2005).
  3. M. Evagorou, S. Erduran, and T. Mäntylä, The role of visual representations in scientific practices: From conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to “seeing” how science works, Int. J. STEM Educ. 2, 11 (2015).
  4. M. Kim and Q. Jin, Studies on visualisation in science classrooms: A systematic literature review, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 44, 2613 (2022).
  5. M. A. Rau, Conditions for the effectiveness of multiple visual representations in enhancing stem learning, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29, 717 (2017).
  6. M. Opfermann, A. Schmeck, and H. E. Fischer, Multiple representations in physics and science education–Why should we use them?, in Multiple Representations in Physics Education (2017), pp. 1–22, 10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5.
  7. N. Munfaridah, L. Avraamidou, and M. Goedhart, The use of multiple representations in undergraduate physics education: What do we know and where do we go from here?, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 17, em1934 (2021).
  8. J. Liu and D. Franklin, Introduction to quantum computing for everyone: Experience report, in Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, SIGCSE 2023 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2023), pp. 1157–1163, 10.1145/3545945.3569836.
  9. S. Goorney, J. Bley, S. Heusler, and J. Sherson, A framework for curriculum transformation in quantum information science and technology education, Eur. J. Phys. 45, 065702 (2024).
  10. L. Schewior and M. A. Lindner, Revisiting picture functions in multimedia testing: A systematic narrative review and taxonomy extension, Educ. Psychol. Rev, 36, 49 (2024).
  11. J. Sweller, J. J. G. van Merrienboer, and F. G. W. C. Paas, Cognitive architecture and instructional design, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10, 251 (1998).
  12. K. L. Daniel, C. J. Bucklin, E. Austin Leone, and J. Idema, Towards a definition of representational competence, in Towards a Framework for Representational Competence in Science Education (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018), pp. 3–11, 10.1007/978-3-319-89945-9_1.
  13. S. Ainsworth, The multiple representations principle in multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, edited by R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2021), pp. 158–170.
  14. L. Hu, G. Chen, P. Li, and J. Huang, Multimedia effect in problem solving: A meta-analysis, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33, 1717 (2021).
  15. R. E. Mayer, Cognitive theory of multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, edited by R. E. Mayer and L.Fiorella (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2021), pp. 57–72.
  16. W. Schnotz, Integrated model of text and picture comprehension, in Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, edited by R. E. Mayer and L.Fiorella (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England 2021), pp. 82–99.
  17. S. Ainsworth, DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations, Learn. Instr. 16, 183 (2006).
  18. J. L. Cooper, P. G. Sidney, and M. W. Alibali, Who benefits from diagrams and illustrations in math problems? Ability and attitudes matter, Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 32, 24 (2018).
  19. T. Fredlund, C. Linder, J. Airey, and A. Linder, Unpacking physics representations: Towards an appreciation of disciplinary affordance, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020129 (2014).
  20. M. Wawro, K. Watson, and W. Christensen, Students’ metarepresentational competence with matrix notation and Dirac notation in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020112 (2020).
  21. S. Seegerer, T. Michaeli, and R. Romeike, Quantum computing as a topic in computer science education, in Proceedings of the 16th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, WiPSCE ’21 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2021), 10.1145/3481312.3481348.
  22. A. Kohnle, C. Baily, and S. Ruby, Investigating the influence of visualization on student understanding of quantum superposition, presented at PER Conf. 2014, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 139–142, 10.1119/perc.2014.pr.031.
  23. A. Kohnle, C. Baily, A. Campbell, N. Korolkova, and M. J. Paetkau, Enhancing student learning of two-level quantum systems with interactive simulations, Am. J. Phys. 83, 560 (2015).
  24. 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).
  25. P. Hu, Y. Li, R. S. K. Mong, and C. Singh, Student understanding of the Bloch sphere, Eur. J. Phys. 45, 025705 (2024).
  26. F. Hennig, K. Tóth, M. Förster, and P. Bitzenbauer, A new teaching-learning sequence to promote secondary school students’ learning of quantum physics using Dirac notation, Phys. Educ. 59, 045007 (2024).
  27. I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2006).
  28. J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2018).
  29. D. C. Brody and L. P. Hughston, Geometric quantum mechanics, J. Geom. Phys. 38, 19 (2001).
  30. K. G. H. Vollbrecht and R. F. Werner, Entanglement measures under symmetry, Phys. Rev. A 64, 062307 (2001).
  31. S. Heusler, P. Schlummer, and M. S. Ubben, The topological origin of quantum randomness, Symmetry 13, 581 (2021).
  32. H. Mäkelä and A. Messina, N-qubit states as points on the Bloch sphere, Phys. Scr. 2010, 014054 (2010).
  33. M. Boyer, R. Liss, and T. Mor, Geometry of entanglement in the Bloch sphere, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032308 (2017).
  34. O. Gamel, Entangled Bloch spheres: Bloch matrix and two-qubit state space, Phys. Rev. A 93, 062320 (2016).
  35. C. J. D. Kemp, N. R. Cooper, and F. N. Ünal, Nested-sphere description of the n-level Chern number and the generalized Bloch hypersphere, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023120 (2022).
  36. M. Backens, The ZX-calculus is complete for stabilizer quantum mechanics, New J. Phys. 16, 093021 (2014).
  37. A. Hadzihasanovic, A diagrammatic axiomatisation for qubit entanglement, in Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (2015), pp. 573–584, 10.1109/LICS.2015.59.
  38. K. F. Ng and Q. Wang, A universal completion of the ZX-calculus, arXiv:1706.09877.
  39. M. Backens and A. Kissinger, ZH: A complete graphical calculus for quantum computations involving classical non-linearity, Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci. 287, 23 (2019).
  40. B. Coecke, D. Horsman, A. Kissinger, and Q. Wang, Kindergarden quantum mechanics graduates ... or how I learned to stop gluing LEGO together and love the ZX-calculus, Theor. Comput. Sci. 897, 1 (2022).
  41. H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Topological quantum distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 180501 (2006).
  42. A. Kubica, B. Yoshida, and F. Pastawski, Unfolding the color code, New J. Phys. 17, 083026 (2015).
  43. Y. Aadel, A. Belhaj, M. Bensed, Z. Benslimane, M. B. Sedra, and A. Segui, Qubit systems from colored toric geometry and hypercube graph theory, Commun. Theor. Phys. 68, 285 (2017).
  44. M. Vasmer and A. Kubica, Morphing quantum codes, PRX Quantum 3, 030319 (2022).
  45. A. Garon, R. Zeier, and S. J. Glaser, Visualizing operators of coupled spin systems, Phys. Rev. A 91, 042122 (2015).
  46. D. Leiner, R. Zeier, and S. J. Glaser, Symmetry-adapted decomposition of tensor operators and the visualization of coupled spin systems, J. Phys. A. 53, 495301 (2020).
  47. B. Koczor, R. Zeier, and S. J. Glaser, Time evolution of coupled spin systems in a generalized Wigner representation, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 408, 1 (2019).
  48. D. Huber and S. J. Glaser, Beads: A canonical visualization of quantum states for applications in quantum information processing, New J. Phys. 27, 094509 (2025).
  49. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010).
  50. L. Nita, L. Mazzoli Smith, N. Chancellor, and H. Cramman, The challenge and opportunities of quantum literacy for future education and transdisciplinary problem-solving, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 41, 564 (2023).
  51. S. Felloni, A. Leporati, and G. Strini, Diagrams of states in quantum information: An illustrative tutorial, arXiv:0904.2656.
  52. L. Nita, N. Chancellor, L. M. Smith, H. Cramman, and G. Dost, Inclusive learning for quantum computing: Supporting the aims of quantum literacy using the puzzle game quantum odyssey, arXiv:2106.07077.
  53. E. R. Johnston, N. Harrigan, and M. Gimeno-Segovia, Programming Quantum Computers: Essential Algorithms and Code Samples (O’Reilly Media, Incorporated, Sebastopol, CA, 2019).
  54. B. Just, Quantum Computing Compact, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2023), first edition released in 2020 in German.
  55. G. Hellstern, J. Hettel, and B. Just, Introducing quantum information and computation to a broader audience with MOOCS at OpenHPI, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 59 (2024).
  56. J. Bley, E. Rexigel, A. Arias, N. Longen, L. Krupp, M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, P. Lukowicz, A. Donhauser, S. Küchemann, J. Kuhn, and A. Widera, Visualizing entanglement in multiqubit systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023077 (2024).
  57. M. A. Lindner, A. Eitel, B. Strobel, and O. Köller, Identifying processes underlying the multimedia effect in testing: An eye-movement analysis, Learn. Instr. 47, 91 (2017).
  58. M. Brang, H. Franke, F. Greinert, M. S. Ubben, F. Hennig, and P. Bitzenbauer, Spooky action at a distance? A two-phase study into learners’ views of quantum entanglement, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 33 (2024).
  59. J. Sweller, Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cognit. Sci. 12, 257 (1988).
  60. S. Kalyuga, P. Ayres, P. Chandler, and J. Sweller, The expertise reversal effect, Educ. Psychol. 38, 23 (2003).
  61. Y.-c. Yeh, Aptitude-treatment interaction, in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2012), pp. 295–298.
  62. S. M. Downing, Twelve steps for effective test development, in Handbook of Test Development, edited by S. M.Downing and T. M. Haladyna (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2006), pp. 3–25.
  63. J. L. Little and E. L. Bjork, Optimizing multiple-choice tests as tools for learning, Mem. Cognit. 43, 14 (2015).
  64. D. Thissen, L. Steinberg, and A. R. Fitzpatrick, Multiple-choice models: The distractors are also part of the item, J. Educ. Meas. 26, 161 (1989).
  65. D. F. Styer, Common misconceptions regarding quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 64, 31 (1996).
  66. P. Hu, Y. Li, and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of the basics of quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020108 (2024).
  67. J. K. Freericks, Focus on conceptual ideas in quantum mechanics for teacher training, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2490, 012004 (2023).
  68. M. J. Gierl, O. Bulut, Q. Guo, and X. Zhang, Developing, analyzing, and using distractors for multiple-choice tests in education: A comprehensive review, Rev. Educ. Res. 87, 1082 (2017).
  69. D. Thissen, 9—timed testing: An approach using item response theory, in New Horizons in Testing (Academic Press, San Diego, 1983), pp. 179–203, 10.1016/B978-0-12-742780-5.50019-6.
  70. P. J. Ferrando and U. Lorenzo-Seva, An item response theory model for incorporating response time data in binary personality items, Appl. Psychol. Meas. 31, 525 (2007).
  71. F. Goldhammer, J. Naumann, A. Stelter, K. Tóth, H. Rölke, and E. Klieme, The time on task effect in reading and problem solving is moderated by task difficulty and skill: Insights from a computer-based large-scale assessment, J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 608 (2014).
  72. M. Tancoš, E. Chvojka, M. Jabůrek, and Š. Portešová, Faster smarter: Children with higher levels of ability take longer to give incorrect answers, especially when the task matches their ability, J. Intell. 11, 63 (2023).
  73. B. Hoffman and G. Schraw, Conceptions of efficiency: Applications in learning and problem solving, Educ. Psychol. 45, 1 (2010).
  74. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/hdpv-frft for the introductory slides and test items of all surveys.
  75. M. D. Wolcott and N. G. Lobczowski, Using cognitive interviews and think-aloud protocols to understand thought processes, Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 13, 181 (2021).
  76. B. C. O. F. Fehringer, Spatial thinking from a different view: Disentangling top-down and bottom-up processes using eye tracking, Open Psychol. 2, 138 (2020).
  77. R. Lockhart, Low-rank separable states are a set of measure zero within the set of low-rank states, Phys. Rev. A 65, 064304 (2002).
  78. M. Klepsch, F. Schmitz, and T. Seufert, Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load, Front. Psychol. 8, 1997 (2017).
  79. K. E. DeLeeuw and R. E. Mayer, A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load, J. Educ. Psychol. 100, 223 (2008).
  80. A. Raidvee, M. Toom, K. Averin, and J. Allik, Perception of means, sums, and areas, Attent. Percept. Psychophys. 82, 865 (2020).
  81. F. M. Lord, The relation of the reliability of multiple-choice tests to the distribution of item difficulties, Psychometrika 17, 181 (1952).
  82. U. of WashingtonUnderstanding item analyses, https://www.washington.edu/assessment/scanning-scoring/scoring/reports/item-analysis/ [accessed 14th February, 2025].
  83. P. Chandler and J. Sweller, The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction, Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 62, 233 (1992).
  84. L. Hahn and P. Klein, Eye tracking in physics education research: A systematic literature review, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 013102 (2022).
  85. H. A. Taylor, H. Burte, and K. T. Renshaw, Connecting spatial thinking to stem learning through visualizations, Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2, 637 (2023).
  86. J. J. G. van Merriënboer and J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 17, 147 (2005).
  87. P. Gerjets, K. Scheiter, and G. Cierniak, The scientific value of cognitive load theory: A research agenda based on the structuralist view of theories, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 21, 43 (2009).
  88. Z. C. Seskir et al., Quantum games and interactive tools for quantum technologies outreach and education, Opt. Eng. (N.Y.) 61, 081809 (2022).
  89. J. Bley, E. Rexigel, A. Arias, L. Krupp, S. Steinert, N. Longen, P. Lukowicz, S. Küchemann, J. Kuhn, M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, and A. Widera, Multiqubit state visualisations to support problem solving—pilot study results, 2024, 10.5281/zenodo.14051040.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020160– Published 19 December, 2025
  • Received 14 March 2025
  • Accepted 14 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