Building Bridges in Quantum Information Science Education: Expert Insights to Guide Framework Development for Interdisciplinary Teaching and Evolution of Common Language

The rapid growth of quantum information science and technology (QIST) presents unique educational challenges as it brings together students and researchers from many disciplines. This work presents findings from in-depth interviews with leading quantum researchers who are also educators, whose perspectives provide guidance for developing a framework for interdisciplinary QIST teaching and builds on our earlier paper that focused on QIST courses and curricula. We discuss their reflections on three critical aspects of QIST education: (1) the development of a common interdisciplinary language, (2) determining appropriate levels of abstraction and physical detail for students from various disciplines, and (3) why students should pursue courses, degrees, and careers in this field. Our analysis reveals that the emergence of linguistic evolutions such as “qubits” and “measurement bases”, rather than a focus on measurement of physical observables and their corresponding Hermitian operators, has begun to create a unifying framework that transcends disciplinary boundaries. Nevertheless, educators face ongoing challenges in balancing the level of abstractness with physical details as well as mathematical rigor with conceptual accessibility. The experts emphasize that successful QIST education for an interdisciplinary student body not only requires a shift from traditional quantum mechanics pedagogy for physics majors, but careful consideration of students’ diverse prior conceptual and mathematical foundations. They highlighted that students have the unique historical opportunity to participate in creating transformative quantum technologies while developing transferable skills for an evolving technological landscape. These findings provide valuable guidance for developing a framework for interdisciplinary QIST teaching especially useful for foundational courses.

💡 Research Summary

This paper investigates the pedagogical challenges that arise when teaching quantum information science and technology (QIST) to students drawn from physics, computer science, engineering, chemistry, mathematics and related disciplines. Building on a previous study that catalogued existing QIST courses and curricula, the authors conduct in‑depth, semi‑structured interviews with thirteen leading quantum researchers who are also educators. Nine of these interviewees provide the most substantive data and are analyzed through a two‑stage coding process grounded in Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) framework.

The study is organized around three research questions (RQs). RQ1 asks how a common interdisciplinary language can be created; RQ2 explores the appropriate level of physical detail versus abstraction for foundational QIST courses; RQ3 seeks the messages educators would give to students considering QIST degrees or careers.

Key findings for RQ1 coalesce around five recurring codes: “Know your audience,” “Power of common language,” “Content that can be left out,” “Appropriate terminology for complex concepts,” and “Cross‑disciplinary curriculum design.” Educators stress that instructors must first assess the prior knowledge of their mixed‑discipline cohort, then deliberately select core concepts that all students can grasp. The emergence of terms such as “qubit,” “measurement basis,” and the verb “to quantum” is highlighted as a linguistic shift that abstracts away from traditional physics‑centric language (e.g., Hermitian operators) and makes quantum ideas more accessible to non‑physicists.

For RQ2, participants argue that a balance must be struck between abstraction and concrete physical grounding. In introductory courses, the emphasis should be on information‑theoretic notions—state vectors, quantum gates, simple circuit models—while detailed hardware specifics (e.g., superconducting circuit layouts, trapped‑ion trap designs) can be deferred to advanced modules. Nonetheless, a minimal exposure to the physical basis of operations such as the CNOT gate is deemed essential for students to understand the constraints of the noisy intermediate‑scale quantum (NISQ) era. The “Content that can be left out” code reflects a pragmatic approach: omit deep derivations of measurement theory in favor of operational descriptions that align with algorithmic thinking.

R​Q3 elicits a uniformly optimistic message. All educators encourage students to enter the “second quantum revolution,” emphasizing that the field is still in its formative stage, offering unprecedented opportunities to shape transformative technologies. They point out that QIST training cultivates transferable skills—systems thinking, linear‑algebraic reasoning, algorithmic design—that are valuable across many high‑tech sectors. Moreover, the interdisciplinary nature of QIST is presented as a career advantage, allowing graduates to bridge gaps between hardware developers, software engineers, and theoretical scientists.

The authors propose a provisional framework for interdisciplinary QIST education: (1) conduct a pre‑course diagnostic of students’ disciplinary backgrounds; (2) co‑design curricula with faculty from the relevant departments to agree on shared learning objectives; (3) adopt a tiered abstraction model where foundational courses focus on abstract information‑theoretic concepts, while subsequent courses gradually introduce physical implementation details; (4) employ project‑based learning that gives students hands‑on experience with real quantum platforms or simulators; and (5) continuously iterate the curriculum based on feedback from both students and educators.

In conclusion, the paper demonstrates that developing a common language and calibrating the level of abstraction are pivotal for effective interdisciplinary QIST instruction. It underscores the necessity of cross‑disciplinary collaboration among educators and suggests that a scaffolded, ZPD‑informed approach can accommodate the diverse mathematical and conceptual foundations of students. The authors call for future empirical work to test the proposed framework in actual classroom settings and to measure learning outcomes quantitatively.