Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

QCaMP: A 4-Week Summer Camp Introducing High School Students to Quantum Information Science and Technology

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A four-week, no-prerequisites summer camp took high school students' quantum-concept test scores from 19% to 84% correct.

desk verdict Valuable camp curriculum write-up with detailed, reusable modules; the pre/post evaluation is too weak to support the causal language, but the paper deserves peer review after a stats fix and honest limitations. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15977 v1 pith:5QTN6M4P submitted 2025-04-22 physics.ed-ph quant-ph

Megan Ivory , Jan Balewski , Alisa Bettale , Jaden Brewer , Rachel Boren , Daan Camps , Lisa Hackett , Martin Juarez
show 8 more authors
Alina Kononov Kan-Heng Lee Maryanne Long Andy Mounce Sue Mniszewski Ravi K. Naik Scott Pakin Ernesto Sanchez
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ed-phquant-ph
keywords quantumeducationhighschoolsummercampcomputingsensingcommunicationpre/postassessmentworkforcedevelopmentproject-basedlearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper describes the 2024 Quantum Computing, Math and Physics Camp, a four-week summer program that introduced high school students to quantum computing, sensing, and communication without requiring prior math, physics, or programming courses. It argues that the camp worked: on a knowledge test tied to the lessons, students averaged 19% correct before the camp and 84% correct after, with most lesson topics reaching at least 80% correct. The paper also documents the full curriculum—from Malus's law and Bloch spheres to quantum key distribution, quantum annealing, and projects such as building an NV-center magnetometer—so the program can be reproduced and improved. A reader taking the paper's side would see it as evidence that a hands-on, prerequisite-free summer camp can move high school students from near-zero quantum familiarity to functional comprehension.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the camp-as-intervention: a 28-day sequence of lesson modules, hands-on labs, and mentor-guided group projects. The argument's moving parts are two assessments: a knowledge test with one multiple-choice question per lesson, including an 'I am not familiar with this concept' option intended to discourage guessing, and a Likert-scale attitudes survey, both administered before and after the program. The pre/post comparison is what turns the curriculum description into an outcome claim.

What would settle it

Give a comparable group of high school students the same knowledge assessment twice, four weeks apart, without any quantum instruction; if their scores rise anywhere near the reported 65-point gain, the camp is not the cause. Alternatively, re-test this year's participants three months after the camp; if scores fall back toward the pre-camp floor, the camp produced short-term familiarity rather than durable learning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an intensive four-week summer camp, designed for students whose only prerequisite is Algebra 1, can introduce high school students to quantum information science and technology across computing, communication, and sensing. The supporting evidence is a pre/post assessment: students answered 19% of the concept questions correctly before the camp and 84% after it, and every lesson topic showed improvement. The authors also report significant gains in students' self-rated understanding of quantum science, computing, and physics, while interest in pursuing a STEM or quantum career started high and did not significantly change over the camp.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pre/post test—one multiple-choice question per topic, with an 'I am not familiar' option—is a valid and fair measure of real understanding, and that the large improvement is caused by the camp rather than by test repetition, response bias, or the kind of student who enrolls in a four-week science camp.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the measured gain is real, high school students with only Algebra 1 can learn the core concepts of quantum computing, communication, and sensing in a single four-week summer program.
  • The modular structure—short concept lessons, hands-on activities, and a two-week group project—provides a template other quantum education programs could adopt without requiring college-level prerequisites.
  • The knowledge test's 'I am not familiar' option makes the 19% starting score a conservative baseline, so the jump to 84% is unlikely to come from lucky guessing alone.
  • The two topics that remained below 50% correct (superconducting qubits and linear algebra) show that the assessment can flag under-taught material, supporting its continued use as a diagnostic for curriculum revision.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same test was taken twice, so part of the reported gain may reflect familiarity with the questions rather than durable understanding; a delayed post-test weeks later would separate the two.
  • Students who enroll in a four-week, application-based summer camp are a self-selected group, so a similar gain cannot be assumed for the general high-school population.
  • The camp's resource-intensive setting—researchers, commercial quantum-optics kits, and dedicated project equipment—means a lower-cost school-based replication would be needed to learn which components are essential.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports on the 2024 QCaMP, a four-week summer camp for high school students introducing quantum information science and technology. The authors describe the curriculum (ten lessons, nine projects, professional development, and lab tours), the alignment of lessons with the National Q-12 QIS Key Concepts framework, and evaluation results from pre/post knowledge and attitudes assessments. The central quantitative claim is that students' average score on the knowledge assessment rose from 19% correct before the camp to 84% correct at completion, with statistically significant gains reported for several attitude items. The paper also discusses planned improvements to the camp based on these results.

Significance. If the reported learning gains were credible, this would be a valuable contribution to the quantum education literature: the paper provides a detailed, reproducible description of a four-week, project-based QIST curriculum for high school students, including lesson contents, hands-on kits, standards alignment, and honest self-critique of unaligned assessment items. The curriculum materials and project models are likely useful to other practitioners, and the paper's transparency about which lessons need revision is a strength. However, the evaluation methodology as reported does not yet support the central causal claim that the camp produced the measured gains, so the paper's significance for education research is contingent on strengthening the assessment and statistical analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-C] The knowledge assessment, described in Section III-C and Figure 2, is the primary evidence for the paper's central claim of learning gains, but the design and analysis do not support a causal interpretation. The same cohort of students answered one multiple-choice question per lesson topic at camp start and again at camp completion after four weeks of instruction on exactly those topics. The option 'I am not familiar with this concept' likely indexes vocabulary familiarity and test-taking recognition rather than durable understanding, and the 19% to 84% improvement can be substantially explained by test-retest familiarity, selective attention to items encountered on the pretest, and the removal of the 'not familiar' response through exposure to lesson-specific terms. No item-level data, distractor analysis, reliability estimate, or retention follow-up is provided. To support the claimed learning gain, the authors should report paired statistical tests (e.g., McNemar or paired t-test on item scores), item-level pre/post results, and ideally a delayed post-test or comparison group. Without these, the aggregate percentages are descriptive statistics, not evidence that the camp caused the gain.
  2. [Section III-C] The aggregate 84% post-test figure mixes items that the authors themselves state were not adequately covered by the lessons. The text says that two categories, Superconducting Qubits and Linear Algebra, 'had a knowledge-based question that was not adequately covered within the lesson,' yet these items are included in the overall average and in Figure 2. This conflation undermines the interpretability of the headline gain: a single aggregate number that includes both well-aligned and unaligned items cannot be used to infer overall curriculum effectiveness. The paper should present per-item results, distinguish aligned from unaligned items, and either exclude unaligned items from any overall claim or report the overall statistic with a clear caveat.
  3. [Section III-D] The attitudes analysis applies an independent-means t-test to paired pre/post responses from the same students. Section III-D states 'Pre and Post results were analyzed via a T-Test for two independent means with a two-tailed hypothesis,' which is inappropriate because the pre and post observations are dependent within subjects; this can produce misleading p-values. The authors should use a paired t-test or a nonparametric alternative such as the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for ordinal Likert items, and they should report the number of matched respondents for each analysis. Additionally, with three significant results out of fourteen comparisons, the paper should address multiple testing (for example, by using a false-discovery-rate control) or explicitly frame the findings as exploratory.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-A5] There is a typo in the module description: 'Gizburg-Landau' should be 'Ginzburg-Landau'.
  2. [Section II (introductory paragraph)] The phrase 'professional development and lab tours (Section II-C' is missing a closing parenthesis; it should read '(Section II-C)'.
  3. [Section III-C] The manuscript refers to Figure 2 as showing the knowledge assessment results, but the figure itself is not included in the provided text; please ensure the figure is present and that it labels the number of respondents (N) for the pre and post assessments.
  4. [Section III-B] The participant table (Table V) reports N=40 assessment responders, but it is unclear whether all 40 students completed both the pre- and post-knowledge assessments; the analysis should state the matched sample size and how missing responses were handled.
  5. [Section III-D] The phrase 'a T-Test for two independent means' is capitalized inconsistently and would be clearer as 'a t-test for two independent means'; also, the p-values in Table VI should report exact values or a consistent threshold notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 19%→84% gain is a measured pre/post outcome, not a derived prediction, and the assessment's alignment with the curriculum is a validity concern rather than a circularity.

full rationale

QCaMP makes no theoretical derivation that could collapse into its inputs. The headline result is an empirical pre/post knowledge assessment: students completed a pre-program and post-program knowledge assessment with one multiple-choice item per lesson topic, and the paper reports an average score of 19% correct before and 84% after. This is a measurement of an outcome, not a quantity fitted from data and then renamed a prediction. The test items are indeed tied to the lessons (the knowledge assessment gauged student ability to correctly answer concept questions related to each of the lesson topics), but aligning an outcome measure with instruction is standard evaluation practice; it would only be circular if the test score were itself used as the input to derive the curriculum or if the reported gain were an identity. No such reduction appears. The only self-citation to prior QCaMP work [5] supplies provenance for reused modules and is not load-bearing for the 2024 outcome claims. The paper candidly notes that items on Superconducting Qubits and Linear Algebra were not adequately covered within the lesson, showing the test is not simply a restatement of instruction. Methodological weaknesses—single-item constructs, no reliability statistics, no control group, no delayed retention test, and possible test-retest familiarity—are threats to the validity of the learning claim, and I flag them as such, but they are not circularity. Under the rule that circularity requires exhibiting a specific reduction by construction, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the validity of the measurement instruments and the interpretation of the observed changes as program effects. No free parameters, invented entities, or formal derivation are involved.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The single-question-per-topic pre/post knowledge assessment is a valid measure of student understanding of the taught concepts.
    The paper relies on this to conclude that knowledge gains occurred. No psychometric validation or multiple items are provided.
  • domain assumption The observed pre-to-post score increases are attributable to the camp curriculum rather than to test familiarity or other concurrent factors.
    No control group or alternate explanation is investigated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QCaMP: A 4-Week Summer Camp Introducing High School Students to Quantum Information Science and Technology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5QTN6M4P

@misc{pith2026250415977,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QCaMP: A 4-Week Summer Camp Introducing High School Students to Quantum Information Science and Technology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5QTN6M4P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15977}
}
read the original abstract

The 2024 Quantum Computing, Math and Physics Camp (QCaMP) for Students was a 4-week long summer camp aimed at introducing high school students to quantum concepts and careers, including applications spanning quantum computing, sensing, and communication. The program ran for 7 hours/day, Monday-Friday, July 1-26, and included hands-on modules and activities, professional development, and project-based learning. Here we provide details on the camp curriculum and outcomes based on pre and post knowledge and attitudes assessments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15977 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of a solved Star Battle puzzle from krazydad.com [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A knowledge-based assessment was administered to students before [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Overview of Quantum Initiatives Worldwide 2023,

    “Overview of Quantum Initiatives Worldwide 2023,” QURECA, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.qureca.com/overview-of-quantum-ini tiatives-worldwide-2023/

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Quantum Technology Workforce Monitoring Report – March 17, 2025,

    “Quantum Technology Workforce Monitoring Report – March 17, 2025,” QED-C, Mar. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://quantumcon sortium.org/blog/quantum-technology-workforce-monitoring-report-m arch-17-2025/

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    High-Paying Quantum Tech Jobs Growing Fast—Grad Degree Not Required,

    M. Fore, “High-Paying Quantum Tech Jobs Growing Fast—Grad Degree Not Required,” University of Chicago, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //professional.uchicago.edu/stories/quantum-science-networking-and-c ommunications/high-paying-quantum-tech-jobs-growing-fast

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Quantum Information Science and Technology Workforce Development National Strategic Plan,

    “Quantum Information Science and Technology Workforce Development National Strategic Plan,” Subcommittee on Quantum Information Sci- ence, Committee on Science, National Science and Technology Council,

    work page

  5. [5]

    Quantum Computing, Math, and Physics (QCaMP): Introducing Quantum Computing in High Schools,

    M. Ivory et al., “Quantum Computing, Math, and Physics (QCaMP): Introducing Quantum Computing in High Schools,” 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Bellevue, W A, USA, 2023, pp. 1–9, doi: 10.1109/QCE57702.2023.20318

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Teaching quantum infor- mation science to high-school and early undergraduate students,

    S. Economou and T. Rudolph and E. Barnes, “Teaching quantum infor- mation science to high-school and early undergraduate students,” 2018, arxiv:2005.07874. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.07874

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    The Virtual Quantum Optics Laboratory,

    B. R. La Cour, M. Maynard, P. Shroff, G. Ko and E. Ellis, “The Virtual Quantum Optics Laboratory,” 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Broomfield, CO, USA, 2022, pp. 677–687, doi: 10.1109/QCE53715.2022.00091

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Available: https://www.desmos .com/calculator

    Desmos Graphing Calculator, [Online]. Available: https://www.desmos .com/calculator

    work page

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit,

    A. Javadi-Abhari et al., “Quantum computing with Qiskit,” 2024, arXiv:2405.08810. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.08810

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and Public-Key Cryptosystems,

    R. L. Rivest, A. Shamir, and L. Adleman, “A Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and Public-Key Cryptosystems,” 1978. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.21236/ada606588

    1978 doi

  3. [11]

    Advanced Encryption Standard (AES),

    “Advanced Encryption Standard (AES),” NIST FIPS 197-upd1: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2001. [Online] Available: https: //doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.197-upd1

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete loga- rithms and factoring,

    P. W. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete loga- rithms and factoring,” Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 1994, pp. 124–134, doi: 10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700

    1994

  5. [13]

    Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing,

    C. H. Bennett, and G. Brassard, “Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing,” Theoretical Computer Science, 560, 7–11, 1984, doi: 10.1016/j.tcs.2014.05.025

    1984 doi

  6. [14]

    [Online]

    T ¨uftelLab digital. [Online]. Available: https://digital.tueftellab.de/mod/ page/view.php?id=398

  7. [15]

    Quantum Annealing in the Transverse Ising Model,

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, “Quantum Annealing in the Transverse Ising Model,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 58, iss. 5, pp. 5355–5363, Nov. 1998, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.58.5355

    1998 doi

  8. [16]

    How The Quantum Annealing Process Works,

    “How The Quantum Annealing Process Works,” D-Wave, Dec. 2015, [Online]. Available: https://youtu.be/UV RlCAc5Zs

    2015

  9. [17]

    The Physics of Quantum Annealing - Hamiltonian and Eigenspectrum,

    “The Physics of Quantum Annealing - Hamiltonian and Eigenspectrum,” D-Wave, Mar. 2016, [Online]. Available: https://youtu.be/tnikftltqE0

    2016

  10. [18]

    A Tutorial on Formulating and Using QUBO Models,

    F. Glover and G. Kochenberger and Y . Du, “A Tutorial on Formulating and Using QUBO Models,” 2019, arxiv:1811:11538. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11538

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Build Your Own Quantum Key Distribution,

    “Build Your Own Quantum Key Distribution,” University of Waterloo Institute for Quantum Computing, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://uw aterloo.ca/institute-for-quantum-computing/sites/default/files/uploads/d ocuments/qkd manual assemblyinstructions v5.pdf

    2024

  12. [20]

    Quantum Cryptography Analogy Demonstration Kit,

    “Quantum Cryptography Analogy Demonstration Kit,” Thorlabs. [On- line]. Available: https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectg roup id=9869

  13. [21]

    Two-Slit Interference, One Photon at a Time,

    “Two-Slit Interference, One Photon at a Time,” TeachSpin. [Online]. Available: https://www.teachspin.com/two-slit

  14. [22]

    Quantum Eraser Demonstration Kit,

    “Quantum Eraser Demonstration Kit,” Thorlabs. [Online]. Available: ht tps://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup id=6957

  15. [23]

    Determining Planck’s Constant with LEDs: Investigating the Photoelec- tric Effect and Electronic Light Sensors,

    “Determining Planck’s Constant with LEDs: Investigating the Photoelec- tric Effect and Electronic Light Sensors,” Carolina. [Online]. Available: https://www.carolina.com/physical-science-light-and-optics/determinin g-plancks-constant-with-leds-investigating-the-photoelectric-e...

  16. [24]

    Quantum Instrumentation Control Kit–Defect Arbitrary Waveform Generator (QICK-DAWG): A Quantum Sensing Control Framework for Quantum Defects,

    E. G. Riendeau et al., “Quantum Instrumentation Control Kit–Defect Arbitrary Waveform Generator (QICK-DAWG): A Quantum Sensing Control Framework for Quantum Defects,” 2023, arXiv:2311.18253. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.18253

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Scalable quantum simulation of molecular energies,

    P. O’Malley, et al. “Scalable quantum simulation of molecular energies,” Phys. Rev. X, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 031007, 2016, doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevX.6.031007

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Two Not Touch Puzzles,

    “Two Not Touch Puzzles,” Krazydad. [Online]. Available: https://kraz ydad.com/twonottouch/

  19. [27]

    D-Wave Documentation,

    “D-Wave Documentation,” D-Wave. [Online]. Available: https://docs.d wavequantum.com/en/latest/index.html

  20. [28]

    Available: https://www.sandia.gov/quantum/qua ntum-information-sciences/projects/qscout/

    “QSCOUT” [Online]. Available: https://www.sandia.gov/quantum/qua ntum-information-sciences/projects/qscout/

  21. [29]

    TourSandia: QScout,

    “TourSandia: QScout,” [Online]. Available: https://tours.sandia.gov/M ESA/

  22. [30]

    Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata- driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support,

    P. A. Harris, R. Taylor, R. Thielke, J. Payne, N. Gonzalez, J. G. Conde, “Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata- driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support,” J Biomed Inform. 42(2), pp. 377–381. Apr. 2009

    2009

  23. [31]

    Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches,

    J. W. Creswell, and C. N. Poth, “Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches,” Sage publications, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    [Online]

    National Q-12 Educational Partnership. [Online]. Available: https://ww w.q12education.org/

  25. [33]

    Barnes, E., Bennett, M.B., Boltasseva, A. et al. Outcomes from a workshop on a national center for quantum education. EPJ Quantum Technol. 12, 40 (2025). doi: 10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00343-4

    2025 doi

  26. [2018]

    Available: https://www.quantum.gov/wp-content/uploa ds/2022/02/QIST-Natl-Workforce-Plan.pdf

    [Online]. Available: https://www.quantum.gov/wp-content/uploa ds/2022/02/QIST-Natl-Workforce-Plan.pdf

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.