pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24015 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 💻 cs.CY

QubitQuest: Learning Quantum Computing through Mini-Games

Bella Hill , Miguel Morales-Trujillo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 01:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords quantum computing educationgamificationeducational mini-gamesBloch sphereentanglementquantum circuitslearning outcomesuser study
0
0 comments X

The pith

Mini-games on the Bloch sphere, entanglement, and quantum circuits raise beginners' post-play quiz scores.

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

Quantum computing poses challenges for beginners because of its abstract concepts and mathematical demands. This paper tests whether short, focused mini-games can help introduce those concepts effectively. Three games were built to cover the Bloch sphere, entanglement, and quantum circuits in progressive steps that balance play and learning. A user study measured understanding with questionnaires before and after play. Scores rose after the games, and players who completed more levels scored higher afterward, pointing to a link between engagement and learning gains.

Core claim

The paper establishes that participants who played the three QubitQuest mini-games scored higher on questionnaires testing introductory quantum computing concepts after play than before, and that completing more game levels correlated with higher post-game scores, indicating that the mini-games can improve learning outcomes when motivation and engagement are present.

What carries the argument

Three educational mini-games that introduce the Bloch sphere, entanglement, and quantum circuits in small, progressive difficulty units while aiming to maintain engagement and motivation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The mini-game format could be adapted for other abstract technical subjects where visualization and incremental practice matter.
  • Longer-term follow-up tests could check whether the score improvements persist beyond the immediate post-game period.
  • Integrating the games with classroom instruction might amplify effects compared to standalone play.

Load-bearing premise

Gains on the pre- and post-game questionnaires reflect actual learning from the mini-games rather than practice effects from seeing the questions twice or self-selection by already-motivated players.

What would settle it

A study in which participants complete the same questionnaires twice without playing the mini-games and show comparable score increases would indicate that the observed gains do not stem from the games.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24015 by Bella Hill, Miguel Morales-Trujillo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: QubitQuest Main Page view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Entanglement Mini-Game Quantum Circuits Mini-Game: The quantum circuits mini￾game is designed to teach the application of quantum gates to two qubits. This is visualised using a matrix representation of a two￾qubit circuit (see view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Bloch Sphere Mini-Game Entanglement Mini-Game: The main QC concepts in the en￾tanglement mini-game are entanglement, measurement, and deco￾herence. This mini game involves a cat agility course with a series of obstacles for cats to navigate (see view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quantum Circuits Mini-Game 4.2 Game Design Decisions The main game elements in the final version were levels with in￾creasing difficulty, a point-based system, and a rewards feature that unlocks a little jester outfit for the relevant cat on the main page. Although narrative/storyline was in the initial design of the game, it was low-ranked in terms of user engagement preferences. Instead, the mini-games w… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ranking of the Mini-Games view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Motivation and Engagement Questions Nine participants completed at least one in-game quiz, with four completing all three. Of participants who completed at least one in-game quiz, 89% reported that the quizzes were useful and that the difficulty level was appropriate. Open-ended responses indicated that participants particularly enjoyed the visualisations, interactions with the Bloch sphere, and the game’s… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum Computing (QC) is often challenging for beginners due to its abstract concepts and mathematical foundations. This paper explores the use of gamification to support the learning of introductory QC concepts. To investigate this, QubitQuest was developed as a set of three educational mini-games designed to teach key QC topics: the Bloch sphere, entanglement, and quantum circuits. The mini-games aim to balance engagement, motivation, and learning while introducing concepts in small and focused units of progressive difficulty. A two-phase user study was conducted to evaluate the mini-games. In the first phase, a preliminary survey was conducted to gather information on learners' preferences and inform the design of the mini-games. In the second phase, participants played the mini-games and completed pre- and post-game questionnaires to assess their learning. The results show that participants improved their understanding of introductory QC concepts after playing the mini-games, with post-game scores higher than pre-game scores. Those who completed more levels achieved higher post-game scores, indicating that motivation and engagement influenced the learning outcomes. These findings suggest that mini-games may improve students' learning experience and outcomes when exposed to introductory QC concepts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces QubitQuest, a collection of three educational mini-games targeting introductory quantum computing topics (Bloch sphere, entanglement, and quantum circuits) via progressive, focused gameplay. A two-phase user study is described: an initial survey to gather learner preferences and guide design, followed by participants completing pre- and post-game questionnaires after playing the games. The central empirical claim is that post-game scores exceeded pre-game scores and that participants completing more levels achieved higher post-game scores, supporting the conclusion that the mini-games improve understanding of QC concepts.

Significance. If the reported score gains can be shown to reflect genuine learning attributable to the mini-games rather than confounds, the work would offer a practical, engaging entry point for QC education that could complement existing resources. The concrete implementation of three focused mini-games and the two-phase study design provide a replicable template for gamified QC tools, though the current evidence base is preliminary.

major comments (3)
  1. [User Study (Phase 2)] User Study section (Phase 2): the pre/post questionnaire design contains no control arm, randomization, or counterbalancing of question order. This prevents exclusion of practice effects and self-selection as alternative explanations for the observed score increases, directly undermining the attribution of gains to the mini-games.
  2. [Results] Results section: the reported improvements and correlation with levels completed are presented without sample size, statistical tests, effect sizes, error bars, or any mention of questionnaire validation/reliability metrics. These omissions make it impossible to assess whether the data support the learning claim.
  3. [User Study] Questionnaire description: no details are given on item development, pilot testing, or evidence that the instrument measures QC conceptual understanding rather than test familiarity or general cognitive skill.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the summary of results would be strengthened by including the number of participants and a brief statement of the statistical approach used.
  2. [Game Design] Figure captions and game screenshots: ensure all visual elements are clearly labeled with the specific QC concept each mini-game targets.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the paper while being transparent about the exploratory nature of the study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: User Study section (Phase 2): the pre/post questionnaire design contains no control arm, randomization, or counterbalancing of question order. This prevents exclusion of practice effects and self-selection as alternative explanations for the observed score increases, directly undermining the attribution of gains to the mini-games.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of a control arm, randomization, and counterbalancing limits the ability to rule out practice effects or self-selection. The Phase 2 study was intentionally designed as an initial, low-barrier exploratory evaluation in an authentic educational setting to assess feasibility and preliminary learning signals before committing resources to a more rigorous controlled trial. The within-subjects pre/post comparison combined with the positive correlation between levels completed and post-game scores offers suggestive support for the mini-games' contribution. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly discuss these design limitations and outline plans for future randomized controlled studies. We cannot retroactively introduce a control arm into the already-completed dataset. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Results section: the reported improvements and correlation with levels completed are presented without sample size, statistical tests, effect sizes, error bars, or any mention of questionnaire validation/reliability metrics. These omissions make it impossible to assess whether the data support the learning claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the Results section currently lacks these quantitative details. The revised version will report the exact sample size, the statistical tests performed (e.g., paired t-tests for pre/post differences and correlation analysis), effect sizes, and error bars or confidence intervals. We will also add available reliability metrics for the questionnaire (such as internal consistency) and clarify the preliminary status of the instrument. These additions will allow readers to evaluate the strength of the empirical claims directly. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Questionnaire description: no details are given on item development, pilot testing, or evidence that the instrument measures QC conceptual understanding rather than test familiarity or general cognitive skill.

    Authors: We will expand the User Study section to describe the questionnaire development process, including how items were aligned with the specific learning objectives of each mini-game and any pilot testing that was performed. We recognize that without formal validation against established quantum-computing concept inventories the instrument remains preliminary and could partly reflect test familiarity. This limitation will be stated explicitly in the revised text, together with the rationale for the chosen items. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • The completed nature of the Phase 2 user study prevents addition of a control arm, randomization, or counterbalancing to the existing data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical user-study claims with no derivations or fitted models

full rationale

The paper reports results from a two-phase user study (preliminary survey followed by pre/post questionnaires after playing mini-games). All central claims—post-game score increases and correlation with levels completed—are direct empirical observations from participant data. There are no equations, first-principles derivations, parameter fits, or predictions that could reduce to their own inputs by construction. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for any mathematical result. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as standard empirical reporting.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No mathematical derivations, free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the work is an empirical education study relying on standard questionnaire methods.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5493 in / 988 out tokens · 42313 ms · 2026-05-08T01:42:22.950521+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agustín Aibar-Almazán, Yolanda Castellote Caballero, María del Carmen Carcelén-Fraile, Yulieth Rivas-Campo, and Ana María González-Martín. 2024. Gamification in the classroom: Kahoot! As a tool for university teaching innova- tion.Front. Psychol.15 (2024). 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1370084

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1370084 2024

  2. [2]

    Tommy Prasetyo Aji and Togar Alam Napitupulu. 2018. Effect of Gamification on E-learning to Support Learning Achievement and Learning Motivation.J. Theor. Appl. Inform. Technol.96, 12 (2018), 3643–3653

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Aditya Anupam, Ridhima Gupta, Azad Naeemi, and Nassim JafariNaimi. 2018. Particle in a Box: An Experiential Environment for Learning Introductory Quan- tum Mechanics.IEEE Trans. Educ.61, 1 (2018), 29–37. 10.1109/TE.2017.2727442

    work page doi:10.1109/te.2017.2727442 2018

  4. [4]

    Michael Artner, Guenter Wallner, and Robert Wille. 2023. Introducing QRogue: Teaching Quantum Computing Using a Rogue-like Game Concept. InProc. 18th Int. Conf. Found. Digit. Games. Lisbon, Portugal, 1–4. 10.1145/3582437.3587177

    work page doi:10.1145/3582437.3587177 2023

  5. [5]

    Gökçe Elif Baykal, Eva Eriksson, and Olof Torgersson. 2023. Assessment of learning in child–computer interaction research: A semi-systematic literature review.Int. J. CCI36 (2023). 10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100578

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100578 2023

  6. [6]

    gamification

    Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification". InProc. 15th Int. Acad. MindTrek Conf.: Envisioning Future Media Environ,. Tampere, Finland, 9–15. 10.1145/2181037.2181040

    work page doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040 2011

  7. [7]

    Christo Dichev and Darina Dicheva. 2017. Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review.Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ.14, 9 (2017). 10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5

    work page doi:10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5 2017

  8. [8]

    Daniel Escanez-Exposito, Javier Correa-Marichal, and Pino Caballero-Gil. 2023. Qubit: The Game.Teaching Quantum Computing through a Game-Based Ap- proach. InComput. Sci. – ICCS 2023: 23rd Int. Conf.Prague, Czech Republic, 108–123. 10.1007/978-3-031-36030-5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-36030-5 2023

  9. [9]

    Glen Evenbly. 2024. Exploring Gamification in Quantum Computing: The Qubit Factory.arXiv:2406.11995

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Sara Gamble. 2019. Quantum Computing: What It Is, Why We Want It, and How We’re Trying to Get It. InFrontiers of Engineering: Reports on Leading-Edge Engineering from the 2018 Symposium.Nat. Acad. Press, Washington, DC, USA, 5–8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538701/

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Bella Hill. 2025. QubitQuest. canterbury.ac.nz. https://csse-seng402-p9. canterbury.ac.nz Accessed: Nov. 12, 2025

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Klementyna Jankiewicz, Piotr Migdal, and Pawel Grabarz. 2022. Virtual Lab by Quantum Flytrap: Interactive simulation of quantum mechanics. InExtended Abstr. 2022 CHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Syst.New Orleans, LA, USA, 1–4. 10.1145/3491101.3519885

    work page doi:10.1145/3491101.3519885 2022

  13. [13]

    Joey Lee and Jessica Hammer. 2011. Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother?Acad. Exch. Quart.15, 2 (2011), 146–151

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    Conor Linehan, Ben Kirman, Shaun Lawson, and Gail Chan. 2011. Practical, appropriate, empirically-validated guidelines for designing educational games. InProc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Syst.Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1979–

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    10.1145/1978942.1979229

    work page doi:10.1145/1978942.1979229

  16. [16]

    Harlow, Emily E

    Tianle Liu, David Gonzalez-Maldonado, Danielle B. Harlow, Emily E. Edwards, and Diana Franklin. 2023. Qupcakery: A Puzzle Game that Introduces Quantum Gates to Young Learners. InProc. 54th ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Educ. V. 1. Toronto, ON, Canada, 1143–1149. 10.1145/3545945.3569837

    work page doi:10.1145/3545945.3569837 2023

  17. [17]

    Piotr Migdał, Klementyna Jankiewicz, Paweł Grabarz, Chiara Decaroli, and Philippe Cochin. 2022. Visualizing quantum mechanics in an interactive sim- ulation – Virtual Lab by Quantum Flytrap.Opt. Eng.61, 8 (2022), 081808. 10.1117/1.OE.61.8.081808

    work page doi:10.1117/1.oe.61.8.081808 2022

  18. [18]

    Miguel Morales-Trujillo, George Carr-Smith, and Muhammad Ovais Ahmad. 2025. Risktionary: Drawing and Guessing for Learning about Risk Management. In Proceedings of the 2025 29th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering Companion. 221–229

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Miguel Morales-Trujillo and Gabriel Alberto García-Mireles. 2020. Gamification and SQL: an empirical study on student performance in a database course.ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)21, 1 (2020), 1–29

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Miguel Morales-Trujillo, Gabriel Alberto García-Mireles, and Polina Maslova

    work page

  21. [21]

    In2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS)

    What can go wrong in a software project? Have fun solving it. In2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS). IEEE, 995–1004

    work page

  22. [22]

    Kalpana Nand, Nilufar Baghaei, John Casey, Bashar Barmada, Farhad Mehdipour, and Hai-Ning Liang. 2019. Engaging children with educational content via Gamification.Smart Learn. Environ.6, 6 (2019). 10.1186/s40561-019-0085-2

    work page doi:10.1186/s40561-019-0085-2 2019

  23. [23]

    Laurentiu Nita, Nicholas Chancellor, Laura Mazzoli Smith, Helen Cramman, and Gulsah Dost. 2021. Inclusive learning for quantum computing: support- ing the aims of quantum literacy using the puzzle game Quantum Odyssey. arXiv:2106.07077

    work page arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Laurentiu Nita, Laura Mazzoli Smith, Nicholas Chancellor, and Helen Cramman

    work page

  25. [25]

    The challenge and opportunities of quantum literacy for future education and transdisciplinary problem-solving.Res. Sci. Technol. Educ.41, 2 (2023), 564–

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    10.1080/02635143.2021.1920905

    work page doi:10.1080/02635143.2021.1920905 2021

  27. [27]

    Kavita Saini, Ritu Gupta, and Sandhya Pundhir. 2025. Chapter Six - Quantum computing: An introduction. InPost-Quantum Cryptography Algorithms and Approaches for IoT and Blockchain Security, Pethuru Raj, Kavita Saini, and Brij B. Gupta (Eds.). Advances in Computers, Vol. 138. Elsevier, 149–165. doi:10.1016/bs. adcom.2025.02.008

    work page doi:10.1016/bs 2025

  28. [28]

    Josh Schneider and Ian Smalley. 2024. What is quantum computing? IBM.com. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/quantum-computing Accessed: Mar. 9, 2025

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Dale H. Schunk. 2012.Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective(6th. ed.). Pearson, Boston, MA, USA

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    Stefan Seegerer, Tilman Michaeli, and Ralf Romeike. 2021. Quantum Computing As a Topic in Computer Science Education. InProc. 16th Workshop Primary Secondary Comput. Educ.Germany, 1–6. 10.1145/3481312.3481348

    work page doi:10.1145/3481312.3481348 2021

  31. [31]

    Zeki Seskir, Piotr Migdał, Carrie Weidner, Aditya Anupam, Nicky Case, Noah Davis, Chiara Decaroli, İlke Ercan, Caterina Foti, Paweł Gora, Klementyna Jankiewicz, Brian La Cour, Jorge Yago Malo, Sabrina Maniscalco, Azad Naeemi, Laurentiu Nita, Nassim Parvin, Fabio Scafirimuto, Jacob Sherson, Elif Surer, James Wootton, Lia Yeh, Olga Zabello, and Marilù Chiof...

    work page doi:10.1117/1.oe.61.8.081809 2022

  32. [32]

    Macario Polo Usaola. 2025. Introduction to Quantum Computing (Lecture Notes). Universidad de Castilla – La Mancha (Spain)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim, Rafael Savi, and Adriano Ferreti Borgatto

    work page

  34. [34]

    DELIVER!–An educational game for teaching Earned Value Management in computing courses.Information and software Technology54, 3 (2012), 286–298

    work page 2012

  35. [35]

    Maurice Weingärtner and Tim Weingärtner. 2023. Quantum Tic-Tac-Toe - learn- ing the concepts of quantum mechanics in a playful way.Comput. Educ. Open4 (2023), 100125. 10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100125

    work page doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100125 2023

  36. [36]

    Weisz, Maryam Ashoori, and Zahra Ashktorab

    Justin D. Weisz, Maryam Ashoori, and Zahra Ashktorab. 2018. Entanglion: A Board Game for Teaching the Principles of Quantum Computing. InProc. 2018 Annu. Symp. Computer-Human Interact. Play. Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 523–534. 10.1145/3242671.3242696

    work page doi:10.1145/3242671.3242696 2018

  37. [37]

    Apostolos Xenakis, Maria Avramouli, Maria Sabani, Ilias Savvas, Costas Chaikalis, and Kalliopi Theodoropoulou. 2023. Quantum Serious Games to Boost Quantum Literacy within Computational Thinking 2.0 Framework. In2023 IEEE Global Eng. Educ. Conf. (EDUCON). Kuwait, 1–9. 10.1109/EDUCON54358.2023.10125266

    work page doi:10.1109/educon54358.2023.10125266 2023

  38. [38]

    Nilüfer Zeybek and Elif Saygı. 2023. Gamification in Education: Why, Where, When, and How?—A Systematic Review.Games Cult.19, 2 (2023), 237–264. 10.1177/15554120231158625

    work page doi:10.1177/15554120231158625 2023

  39. [39]

    Qi Zhang, Liheng Yu, and Zhonggen Yu. 2021. A Content Analysis and Meta- Analysis on the Effects of Classcraft on Gamification Learning Experiences in terms of Learning Achievement and Motivation.Educ. Res. Int.2021 (2021), 21. 10.1155/2021/9429112

    work page doi:10.1155/2021/9429112 2021