- 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

Insights from educators on building a more cohesive quantum information science and engineering education ecosystem

Shams El-Adawy1,2,*, A. R. Piña3, Benjamin M. Zwickl3, and H. J. Lewandowski1,2

  • *Contact author: shams.eladawy@colorado.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020144 – Published 10 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/tfmb-hnvz

Abstract

As the need for a quantum-ready workforce grows, educators in quantum information science and engineering (QISE) face the challenge of aligning their programs and courses with industry needs. Through a series of interviews with program directors and faculty across 15 different institutions, we identified the considerations that educators are currently addressing as they develop their various courses and programs. Grounded in a curriculum framework, we conducted a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis, which revealed shared challenges and opportunities about program goals, curriculum development, collaboration, program data collection and evaluation, and connections across stakeholders in the quantum ecosystem that educators should consider when developing their QISE efforts. Our findings highlight five overarching themes: (1) the strategic ways educators navigate institutional structures to support QISE initiatives, (2) the ongoing challenge of aligning QISE curricula with industry and institutional needs, (3) the importance of fostering interdisciplinary collaboration across departments and institutions in QISE, (4) the need for robust data collection and evaluation to inform QISE course and program development, and (5) the importance of strengthening industry-academia connections to prepare students for the quantum workforce. The details and interconnections in our findings illustrate the value of applying a structured approach to QISE course and program development with the goal of creating a more cohesive QISE education ecosystem.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (65)

  1. National Quantum Initiative, National quantum initiative, http://quantum.gov/ (2018).
  2. M. Riedel, M. Kovacs, P. Zoller, J. Mlynek, and T. Calarco, Europe’s quantum flagship initiative, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 020501 (2019).
  3. P. Knight and I. Walmsley, UK national quantum technology programme, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 040502 (2019).
  4. National Science and Technology Council, Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science, Quantum information science and technology workforce development national strategic plan (2022), https://www.quantum.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/QIST-Natl-Workforce-Plan.pdf.
  5. T. Ryan, H.R.4346—117th congress (2021–2022): Chips and science act, (2022), https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4346.
  6. M. Taylor, The US CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, MRS Bull. 48, 874 (2023).
  7. J. K. Perron, C. DeLeone, S. Sharif, T. Carter, J. M. Grossman, G. Passante, and J. Sack, Quantum undergraduate education and scientific training, arXiv:2109.13850.
  8. S. E. Economou and E. Barnes, Hello quantum world! A rigorous but accessible first-year university course in quantum information science, arXiv:2210.02868.
  9. A. Asfaw, A. Blais, K. R. Brown, J. Candelaria, C. Cantwell, L. D. Carr, J. Combes, D. M. Debroy, J. M. Donohue, S. E. Economou et al., Building a quantum engineering undergraduate program, IEEE Trans. Ed. 65, 220 (2022).
  10. S. Blanchette, D. Normandin, M. Pioro-Ladrière, L. St-Hilaire, A. Soldera, K. Thibault, and D. Touchette, The design and implementation of a quantum information science undergraduate program, arXiv:2412.01874.
  11. 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).
  12. L. Qerimi, S. Malone, E. Rexigel, S. Mehlhase, J. Kuhn, and S. Küchemann, Exploring the mechanisms of qubit representations and introducing a new category system for visual representations: Results from expert ratings, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 12, 45 (2025).
  13. S. DeVore and C. Singh, Development of an interactive tutorial on quantum key distribution, arXiv:1601.00730.
  14. S. E. Economou, T. Rudolph, and E. Barnes, Teaching quantum information science to high-school and early undergraduate students, arXiv:2005.07874.
  15. Ö. Salehi, Z. Seskir, and I. Tepe, A computer science-oriented approach to introduce quantum computing to a new audience, IEEE Trans. Ed. 65, 1 (2021).
  16. B. Cervantes, G. Passante, B. R. Wilcox, and S. J. Pollock, An overview of quantum information science courses at US institutions, presented at PER Conf. 2021, 10.1119/perc.2021.pr.Cervantes.
  17. A. Buzzell, T. J. Atherton, and R. Barthelemy, Quantum mechanics curriculum in the U.S.: Quantifying the instructional time, content taught, and paradigms used, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010102 (2025).
  18. A. Piña, S. El-Adawy, M. Verostek, B. T. Boyle, M. Cacheiro, M. Lawler, N. Pradeep, E. Watts, C. G. West, H. Lewandowski et al., Landscape of quantum information science and engineering education: From physics foundations to interdisciplinary frontiers, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020131 (2025).
  19. M. F. Fox, B. M. Zwickl, and H. J. Lewandowski, Preparing for the quantum revolution: What is the role of higher education?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020131 (2020).
  20. C. D. Aiello, D. D. Awschalom, H. Bernien, T. Brower, K. R. Brown, T. A. Brun, J. R. Caram, E. Chitambar, R. Di Felice, K. M. Edmonds et al., Achieving a quantum smart workforce, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 030501 (2021).
  21. 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).
  22. C. Hughes, D. Finke, D.-A. German, C. Merzbacher, P. M. Vora, and H. Lewandowski, Assessing the needs of the quantum industry, IEEE Trans. Ed. 65, 592 (2022).
  23. M. Hasanovic, C. Panayiotou, D. Silberman, P. Stimers, and C. Merzbacher, Quantum technician skills and competencies for the emerging quantum 2.0 industry, Opt. Eng. (N.Y.) 61, 081803 (2022).
  24. 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).
  25. 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, 1225733 (2023).
  26. F. Greinert, M. S. Ubben, I. N. Dogan, D. Hilfert-Rüppell, and R. Müller, Advancing quantum technology workforce: Industry insights into qualification and training needs, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 82 (2024).
  27. S. El-Adawy, A. R. Piña, B. M. Zwickl, and H. J. Lewandowski, Industry perspectives on projected quantum workforce needs, presented at PER. Conf. 2025, Washington, DC, edited by A. Pawl, J. P. Zwolak, and A. E. Leak, 10.1119/perc.2025.pr.El-Adawy.
  28. J. C. Meyer, G. Passante, S. J. Pollock, and B. R. Wilcox, Introductory quantum information science coursework at US institutions: Content coverage, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 16 (2024).
  29. 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).
  30. E. Barnes, M. B. Bennett, A. Boltasseva, V. Borish, B. Brown, L. D. Carr, R. R. Ceballos, F. Dukes, E. W. Easton, S. E. Economou et al., Outcomes from a workshop on a national center for quantum education, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 12, 40 (2025).
  31. 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).
  32. J. C. Meyer, G. Passante, and B. Wilcox, Disparities in access to U.S. quantum information education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010131 (2024).
  33. G. R. Morrison, S. J. Ross, J. R. Morrison, and H. K. Kalman, Designing Effective Instruction (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2019).
  34. S. V. Chasteen, K. K. Perkins, P. D. Beale, S. J. Pollock, and C. E. Wieman, A thoughtful approach to instruction: Course transformation for the rest of us, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 40, 24 (2011), https://www.jstor.org/stable/42992874.
  35. S. V. Chasteen, B. Wilcox, M. D. Caballero, K. K. Perkins, S. J. Pollock, and C. E. Wieman, Educational transformation in upper-division physics: The science education initiative model, outcomes, and lessons learned, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020110 (2015).
  36. D. L. Reinholz and N. Apkarian, Four frames for systemic change in STEM departments, Int. J. STEM Educ. 5, 1 (2018).
  37. J. Kania and M. Kramer, Collective impact, Stanford Soc. Innov. Rev. 9, 36 (2011).
  38. ABET, Accreditation step-by-step (2025), https://www.abet.org/accreditation/get-accredited/accreditation-step-by-step/.
  39. The Higher Learning Commission, HLC requirements and policies (2025), https://www.hlcommission.org/accreditation/policies/.
  40. P. Khanna, C. Roberts, and A. S. Lane, Designing health professional education curricula using systems thinking perspectives, BMC Med. Educ. 21, 1 (2021).
  41. T. Sammut-Bonnici and D. Galea, SWOT analysis, in Wiley Encyclopedia of Management (2015), Vol. 12, 10.1002/9781118785317.weom120103.
  42. B. Orr, Conducting a SWOT analysis for program improvement, US-China Educ. Rev. A 3, 381 (2013), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED543801.
  43. J. F. L. Jackson, L. J. Charleston, and J. E. Gilbert, The use of regional data collection to inform university led initiatives: The case of a STEM education SWOT analysis, J. STEM Educ. 15 (2014). Retrieved from https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1747.
  44. B. Awuzie, A. B. Ngowi, T. Omotayo, L. Obi, and J. Akotia, Facilitating successful smart campus transitions: A systems thinking-SWOT analysis approach, Appl. Sci. 11, 2044 (2021).
  45. V. Allareddy, P. Atsawasuwan, S. Frazier-Bowers, C. Hong, S. Huja, N. Katebi, M. K. Lee, S. Y. Mehta, S. Padala, A. Utreja et al., Orthodontic educational landscape in the contemporary context: Insights from educators, in Seminars in Orthodontics (Elsevier, New York, 2024).
  46. I. Etikan, S. A. Musa, R. S. Alkassim et al., Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling, Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 5, 1 (2016).
  47. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/tfmb-hnvz for the list of interview protocol questions.
  48. A. Pina, S. El-Adawy, M. J. Verostek, H. Lewandowski, and B. M. Zwickl, Investigating opportunities for diversity and growth in the landscape of quantum information science engineering education in the U.S., in Proceedings of the 2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (2025), https://peer.asee.org/56888.
  49. B. Zwickl, G. Howland, and N. Pradeep, Mapping expert knowledge of quantum sensing and measurement, in APS April Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2024, pp. F08-003.
  50. N. Pradeep, B. M. Zwickl, and G. A. Howland, Capturing expert mental models of quantum sensing using concept maps, presented at PER Conf. 2025, Washington, DC, edited by A. Pawl, J. P. Zwolak, and A. E. Leak, 10.1119/perc.2025.pr.Pradeep.
  51. S. B. McKagan, L. E. Strubbe, L. J. Barbato, B. A. Mason, A. M. Madsen, and E. C. Sayre, physport use and growth: Supporting physics teaching with research-based resources since 2011, Phys. Teach. 58, 465 (2020).
  52. M. K. Chessey, C. A. Turpen, A. M. Madsen, and S. B. McKagan, The living physics portal: Reimagining college physics teaching by recognizing faculty expertise and providing opportunities for influence, AIP Conf. Proc. 3040, 060014 (2023).
  53. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, G. Swackhamer et al., Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  54. A. M. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Resource letter RBAI–1: Research—based assessment instruments in physics and astronomy, Am. J. Phys. 85, 245 (2017).
  55. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, E. C. Sayre, and C. A. Paul, Resource Letter RBAI-2: Research-based assessment instruments: Beyond physics topics, Am. J. Phys. 87, 350 (2019).
  56. E. Cataloglu and R. Robinett, Testing the development of student conceptual and visualization understanding in quantum mechanics through the undergraduate career, Am. J. Phys. 70, 238 (2002).
  57. 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).
  58. 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).
  59. H. R. Sadaghiani and S. J. Pollock, Quantum mechanics concept assessment: Development and validation study, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010110 (2015).
  60. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Validation and administration of a conceptual survey on the formalism and postulates of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020128 (2019).
  61. K. Durkin, M. Lin, M. H. Kolodrubetz, and R. P. McMahan, QISCIT: A validated concept inventory assessment for quantum information science, arXiv:2506.17122.
  62. J. C. Meyer, New Paradigms in Quantum Education for the Second Quantum Revolution (University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 2025).
  63. American Physical Society & American Association of Physics Teachers, How to assess student learning at the program level (Version 1). In EP3 Guide for physics departments (2024), https://ep3guide.org/guide/how-to-assess-student-learning/.
  64. A. R. Pina, S. El-Adawy, H. J. Lewandowski, and B. M. Zwickl, Industry insights into quantum knowledge needed for the quantum information science and engineering workforce, presented at PER Conf. 2025, Washington, DC, edited by A. Pawl, J. P. Zwolak, and A. E. Leak, 10.1119/perc.2025.pr.Pina.
  65. Rochester Institute of Technology and University of Colorado Boulder: United States QISE Workforce and Education Landscape Project, Industry perspectives, https://www.rit.edu/quantumeducationandworkforce/industry-perspectives (2025).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020144– Published 10 November, 2025
  • Received 3 July 2025
  • Accepted 21 October 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