Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 173 references

Affordances and Challenges of Incorporating a Remote, Cloud-accessible Quantum Experiment into Undergraduate Courses

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Remote, cloud-accessible quantum experiments can benefit undergraduate students, but they will not replace hands-on labs.

desk verdict First study of Oqtant in teaching; the claims stay inside the evidence, so the self-selection worry weakens but does not sink it. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00613 v1 pith:I62AGZPN submitted 2025-02-02 physics.ed-ph

Victoria Borish , H. J. Lewandowski This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ed-ph
keywords remoteexperimentsquantumeducationBose-EinsteincondensateOqtantundergraduatephysicscoursesinstructorperceptionsstudentexperimentalskills
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 sets out to establish what remote, cloud-accessible quantum experiments can and cannot do for undergraduate physics students, using the publicly available Bose-Einstein condensate platform Oqtant as a test case. The authors argue that Oqtant and similar platforms may benefit students by giving them real experimental data and authentic scientific practices, while explicitly not replacing hands-on experience with apparatus. They base this on surveys of 29 instructors, an interview with one instructor who embedded Oqtant in an upper-division quantum mechanics course, and reflections and think-aloud interviews with 12 students. The value of the claim, if correct, is that institutions without expensive cold-atom labs could still offer students meaningful contact with cutting-edge quantum experiments, provided instructors receive enough support.

What carries the argument

The central object is Oqtant, a cloud-accessible Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) apparatus on which users submit jobs that set parameters for evaporative cooling and optical potentials and then receive real absorption images with computed atom number and temperature. The mechanism that carries the paper's argument is the pairing of that real hardware with structured educational activities: students analyze pre-taken data, submit their own parameter choices, fit Gaussian and bimodal models, and reflect on what they did. The load-bearing feature is that the data are real, user-controlled, and imperfect, and students explicitly cite the noise, variation, and experimental flaws as what made the experience feel authentic; the authors use that perceived authenticity as evidence for the platform's educational potential.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison in which matched undergraduate courses are randomly assigned to either use a real remote experiment like Oqtant or work with a high-fidelity simulation on the same tasks, with students' experimental reasoning and data-analysis performance assessed blind, would test the central claim; if the remote-experiment group shows no advantage over the simulation group, the premise that real hardware adds educational value would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that remote quantum experiments like Oqtant can offer undergraduate students real educational value, but they function as a supplement, not a substitute, for hands-on apparatus work. Instructors report wanting to use Oqtant for a wide range of goals, from demonstrating quantum behavior and teaching data analysis to connecting theory with experiment and preparing students for the quantum workforce, while anticipating obstacles such as unreliable access, their own limited expertise, students' missing background knowledge, and the risk of displacing hands-on time. A single course implementation shows these obstacles can be navigated: an instructor with no atomic-physics expertise integrated two structured Jupyter-notebook activities and an open-ended group project into a second-semester quantum mechanics course, running jobs during Oqtant's offline windows and analyzing them later, and perceived gains in students' critical thinking about data and tolerance for the messiness of real science. The student data support the central claim in a specific way: most students felt they were working with a real experiment because they chose parameters, received noisy and variable real data, noticed imperfections like dust on images, and had to interpret what they saw, even though they never physically touched the apparatus.

Load-bearing premise

The study's conclusions rest on the assumption that the instructors and students who volunteered, many of them already interested in hands-on quantum experiments, speak for the broader population of potential classroom users; if typical instructors and students respond differently, the observed affordances and challenges could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Remote quantum experiments can give students at institutions without cold-atom labs access to real experimental data and some authentic scientific practices, but they will not teach hands-on skills like optical alignment.
  • Instructors who adopt such platforms should expect to supply or seek structured activities, background materials, training, and a point of contact, because lack of expertise and unreliable access are the main anticipated obstacles.
  • Students can perceive a remote experiment as real when they control parameters and receive variable, noisy data, which suggests that design choices, not just the fact of remote access, determine whether a platform feels like a simulation.
  • A course can integrate a remote experiment even when the hardware is never online during class time, by having students submit jobs to a queue and analyze results in later sessions.
  • The perceived benefits reported here are existence claims rather than measured learning gains, so the next step is direct assessment of experimental skills and conceptual understanding.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the realness factors students named, choosing parameters, seeing noise, and interpreting data, form a testable checklist for other remote experiments; a platform that removes these, such as one serving pre-recorded data, would be predicted to lose much of the educational benefit the paper describes.
  • Editorial inference: because the sample was self-selected and small, the themes should be read as existence proofs; a larger or randomized implementation could find that these benefits occur less often in typical classrooms, especially where instructor support is thin.
  • Editorial inference: Oqtant's indefinite pause sharpens the paper's sustainability question; without a stable funding model, educational access to remote quantum hardware depends on industry goodwill, so academic consortia or shared-institution facilities are a natural next experiment.
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 an exploratory qualitative study of instructor and student perceptions of Oqtant, a remote, cloud-accessible Bose-Einstein condensate experiment. The authors surveyed 29 instructors interested in using Oqtant, interviewed one instructor who implemented researcher-developed Jupyter-notebook activities in an upper-division quantum mechanics course, and analyzed think-aloud interviews plus course materials from 12 students. The central conclusion is explicitly hedged: Oqtant and similar remote experiments 'may have the potential' to benefit students, but they will not replace hands-on experiences with apparatus. The paper repeatedly states that it is not evaluating learning efficacy and instead aims to document possible affordances and challenges.

Significance. The manuscript is timely and relevant for physics education research, particularly given national and international efforts to expand the quantum workforce. Its strengths include transparent reporting of recruitment and analysis procedures, full survey and interview protocols in the Supplemental Material, publicly available educational activities, and cautious language that matches the exploratory design. It provides one of the first documented educational implementations of Oqtant and identifies a useful set of themes, including students' perceptions of the 'realness' of the experiment, the challenges of job queues and software installation, and instructor concerns about access and expertise. The study is appropriately framed as a starting point rather than an efficacy evaluation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A 1 and Sec. III C] The recruitment strategy—ALPhA newsletter posts, conference posters, and direct emails to 164 instructors already known to be interested in hands-on quantum optics experiments—together with self-selected student volunteers creates a volunteer/enthusiast bias. The Limitations section (Sec. III C) acknowledges the small sample and the single implementing instructor, but it does not address volunteer bias or social desirability. Because the paper draws conclusions about what 'instructors' and 'students' perceive, the authors should add an explicit statement that the themes come from an early-adopter, self-selected population and may not transfer to typical classrooms.
  2. [Sec. IV B 2 and Sec. V] The implementation evidence rests on a single collaborating instructor who used materials developed by the authors; the perceived outcomes are not corroborated by direct student data from that course, since only 7 of 12 students consented to use of their course materials and no students volunteered for interviews. The paper notes the small sample but should also explicitly flag the developer-instructor relationship and the absence of student self-report in the course as potential sources of social-desirability bias in the instructor's perceived-benefits claims.
  3. [Sec. III B and Sec. IV C 1] The methods state that the analysis focuses on the existence of themes rather than their prevalence, yet Sec. IV C 1 opens with 'most of them agreed' and later says 'the students predominantly felt like they were working with a real experiment.' Given the non-representative sample, these prevalence-like statements should either be accompanied by exact counts or be rephrased as sample-specific observations, to keep the language consistent with the stated existence-theme approach.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II C] The section heading reads 'The cloud-accessible quantum matter experiment, Oqant' and should be corrected to 'Oqtant.'
  2. [Sec. II C] The phrase 'de Boglie wavelength' should be 'de Broglie wavelength.'
  3. [References] References [29] and [85] are missing author information and currently display as '(),' before the title; these should be completed.
  4. [Table I] Consider adding a sentence explaining why the think-aloud interview students and the course students were combined for the thematic analysis despite their different contexts; the current justification in Sec. III B is brief and could be expanded.
  5. [Fig. 2] The caption lists the course-type colors as 'quantum mechanics (light yellow), beyond-first-year (BFY) lab (medium orange), or other (dark red) courses,' but the legend order in the figure may not match; please check for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper's modal claim rests on independent qualitative data rather than fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

This is a qualitative education study with no mathematical derivation chain, so the fitted-input-as-prediction failure mode does not apply. The central conclusion ("Oqtant and other similar types of remote experiments may have the potential to benefit students, although they will not replace hands-on experiences with apparatus," Sec. V) is explicitly modal and is supported by triangulated independent data: instructor surveys (Sec. III A 1), one instructor interview (Sec. III A 4), think-aloud interviews (Sec. III A 3), and students' written reflections from the course implementation. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction; no uniqueness theorem is imported; no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The authors do cite their own prior work (e.g., Refs. [36] and [43]) for background on quantum optics experiments, but those citations are contextual and not load-bearing for the paper's claims. One potentially self-referential feature is that the authors developed the educational activities and then studied those same activities (Sec. III A 2), and the instructor-survey responses also informed activity development; however, the research questions ask about participants' perceived affordances and challenges, not about whether the authors' materials cause measured learning gains. The paper repeatedly hedges that it is not an evaluation of efficacy (Sec. V: "Our primary goal was not evaluating student learning, so we cannot speak definitively to the efficacy of this approach"), and the limitations section (Sec. III C) confines claims to "the existence of ideas students may have." Thus no circular step can be exhibited with a specific reduction, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities appear because the paper is a qualitative study, not a derivation. The listed axioms are the background assumptions about self-report validity, sample representativeness, and platform authenticity that the analysis depends on.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Self-reported perceptions from interviews and written reflections are treated as evidence of educational experiences.
    The central claims rest on thematic coding of participant self-reports rather than direct observation of learning or behavior. This is standard in qualitative PER but is an unproved premise.
  • domain assumption The small, self-selected sample is treated as sufficient to identify themes about experiences.
    Authors acknowledge the small sample and argue their claims are about existence of ideas rather than prevalence (Sec. III C), but the transferability of those themes to other settings is assumed.
  • domain assumption Oqtant is assumed to be a real, functioning experiment that returns genuine physical data.
    The paper does not independently verify the hardware or data authenticity, relying on Infleqtion's descriptions (Sec. II C) and the Oqtant team as partners.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Affordances and Challenges of Incorporating a Remote, Cloud-accessible Quantum Experiment into Undergraduate Courses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I62AGZPN

@misc{pith2026250200613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Affordances and Challenges of Incorporating a Remote, Cloud-accessible Quantum Experiment into Undergraduate Courses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I62AGZPN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00613}
}
read the original abstract

As quantum technologies transition from the research laboratory into commercial development, the opportunities for students to begin their careers in this new quantum industry are increasing. With these new career pathways, more and more people are considering the best ways to educate students about quantum concepts and relevant skills. In particular, the quantum industry is looking for new employees with experimental skills, but the instructional labs, capstone projects, research experiences, and internships that provide experiences where students can learn these skills are often resource-intensive and not available at all institutions. The quantum company, Infleqtion, recently made its online quantum matter machine Oqtant publicly available, so people around the world could send commands to create and manipulate Bose-Einstein condensates and receive back real experimental data. Making a complex quantum experiment accessible to anyone has the potential to extend the opportunity to work with quantum experiments to students at less-resourced institutions. As a first step in understanding the potential benefits of using such a platform in educational settings, we collected data from instructors and students who were interested in using, or had used, Oqtant. In this study, we investigate instructors' views about reasons they would like to use Oqtant and challenges they would face in doing so. We also provide a concrete example of how Oqtant was used in an upper-division undergraduate quantum mechanics course and the instructor's perception of its benefits. We complement this with the student perspective, discussing student experiences interacting with Oqtant in their course or through think-aloud interviews outside of a course. These results will help the community consider the potential value for students of creating more opportunities to access remote quantum experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00613 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Photos of (a) the entire Oqtant apparatus and (b) a close-up of the optics surrounding the vacuum chamber in which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Learning goals instructors would value for their students if they were to use Oqtant in their courses. (a) Four broad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

173 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    one of the terminal courses

    Details of implementation The instructor we partnered with chose to implement Oqtant in a second-semester quantum mechanics course for upper-division physics students. The course was “one of the terminal courses” in the physics major at a primarily-undergraduate institution and covered topics such as the quantum harmonic oscillator; hydrogen atom; perturb...

    2024

  2. [2]

    happy with how it went

    Perceived outcomes The instructor thought that the students in their class had accomplished the learning goals of thinking critically about experimental data and learning how to work with it. When asked if their learning goals were met, the in- structor said they were “happy with how it went” al- though they acknowledged that some students “did it better ...

  3. [3]

    even though we’re seeing it over a computer screen, these runs still seem like ‘my’ personal runs which makes it that much more fun

    Parts enjoyed Generating student enjoyment and motivation is a common goal for instructors when incorporating quan- tum experiments into their courses (e.g., see Sec. IV A 1 and Ref. [43]), so we investigated what parts of work- ing with Oqtant the students particularly enjoyed or did not enjoy. Table VII shows the identified themes related to student enj...

  4. [4]

    Even though I could only access it remotely, I felt that when I submitted jobs I was actively requesting data from a lab I know exists but physically can’t visit myself

    ‘Realness’ of experiment One question that naturally arises when students do not have physical access to an experiment, is whether or not students perceive themselves to be working with a real experiment. When we directly asked the students, most of them agreed that working with Oqtant did feel like working with a real experiment even though they could on...

  5. [5]

    This lab shares many similarities to previous labs [in courses] in the sense that there was data to be obtained through a streamlined process

    Comparison with other experiments Although Oqtant is a new type of publicly available experimental platform, there are many ways it is both similar to and different from other physics experiments. We asked students to compare Oqtant with other exper- iments they know about in both instructional and re- search labs, noting that they came in to this study w...

  6. [6]

    Kaur and A

    M. Kaur and A. Venegas-Gomez, Defining the quantum workforce landscape: A review of global quantum educa- tion initiatives, Opt. Eng. 61, 081806 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    6227 - National Quantum Initiative Act, 115th Congress 164, 132 STAT

    H.R. 6227 - National Quantum Initiative Act, 115th Congress 164, 132 STAT. 5092, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ368/PLAW- 115publ368.pdf

    2018

  8. [8]

    Quantum Information Science and Technology Workforce Development National Strategic Plan, Tech. Rep. (Sub- committee on Quantum Information Science, Committee on Science of the National Science & Technology Council, 2022)

    2022

Show all 173 references
  1. [9]

    Riedel, M

    M. Riedel, M. Kovacs, P. Zoller, J. Mlynek, and T. Calarco, Europe’s quantum flagship initiative, Quant. Sci. Technol. 4, 020501 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    J. K. Perron, C. DeLeone, S. Sharif, T. Carter, J. M. Grossman, G. Passante, and J. Sack, Quan- tum undergraduate education and scientific training, arXiv:2109.13850 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J. C. Meyer, G. Passante, S. J. Pollock, and B. R. Wilcox, Today’s interdisciplinary quantum information classroom: Themes from a survey of quantum informa- tion science instructors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010150 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    M. F. J. 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)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Hasanovic, C

    M. Hasanovic, C. Panayiotou, D. Silberman, P. Stimers, and C. Merzbacher, Quantum technician skills and com- petencies for the emerging Quantum 2.0 industry, Opt. Eng. 61, 081803 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    H. K. E. Stadermann, E. van den Berg, and M. J. Goed- hart, Analysis of secondary school quantum physics cur- ricula of 15 different countries: Different perspectives on a challenging topic, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010130 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Z. C. Seskir, P. Migda l, C. Weidner, A. Anupam, N. Case, N. Davis, C. Decaroli, ˙I. Ercan, C. Foti, P. Gora, et al., Quantum games and interactive tools for quantum tech- nologies outreach and education, Optical Engineering61, 081809 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Asfaw, A

    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. Educ. 65 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    C. D. Aiello, D. Awschalom, H. Bernien, T. Brower, K. R. Brown, T. A. Brun, J. R. Caram, E. Chitambar, R. Di Fe- lice, K. M. Edmonds, et al., Achieving a quantum smart workforce, Quant. Sci. Technol. 6, 030501 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    L. C. Auchincloss, S. L. Laursen, J. L. Branchaw, K. Ea- gan, M. Graham, D. I. Hanauer, G. Lawrie, C. M. McLinn, N. Pelaez, S. Rowland, et al. , Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: a meeting report (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Greinert, M

    F. Greinert, M. S. Ubben, I. N. Dogan, D. Hilfert- R¨ uppell, and R. M¨ uller, Advancing quantum technology workforce: industry insights into qualification and train- ing needs, arXiv:2407.21598 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hughes, D

    C. Hughes, D. Finke, D.-A. German, C. Merzbacher, P. M. Vora, and H. Lewandowski, Assessing the needs of the quantum industry, IEEE Trans. Educ. (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Greinert, R

    F. Greinert, R. M¨ uller, P. Bitzenbauer, M. S. Ubben, and K.-A. Weber, Future quantum workforce: Competences, requirements, and forecasts, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010137 (2023). 23

    2023

  14. [22]

    Kozminski, H

    J. Kozminski, H. Lewandowski, N. Beverly, S. Lindaas, D. Deardorff, A. Reagan, R. Dietz, R. Tagg, M. Eblen- Zayas, J. Williams, et al., AAPT recommendations for the undergraduate physics laboratory curriculum, Amer- ican Association of Physics Teachers (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs, Phys21: Preparing physics student for 21st-century ca- reers (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    K. A. Oliver, A. Werth, and H. J. Lewandowski, Stu- dent experiences with authentic research in a remote, in- troductory course-based undergraduate research experi- ence in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010124 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    A. J. Buchanan and G. R. Fisher, Current status and implementation of science practices in course-based un- dergraduate research experiences (CUREs): A system- atic literature review, CBE—Life Sciences Education 21, ar83 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    R. L. Merritt and H. J. Lewandowski, Physics instruc- tor views on course-based undergraduate research experi- ences (cures), in 2024 PERC Proceedings, edited by Q. X. Ryan, A. Pawl, and J. P. Zwolak (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, C. Walsh, and N. G. Holmes, Direct measurement of the impact of teaching experimen- tation in physics labs, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011029 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    A. J. Dutson, R. H. Todd, S. P. Magleby, and C. D. Sorensen, A review of literature on teaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses, Jour- nal of engineering education 86, 17 (1997)

    1997

  21. [29]

    N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Examining and con- trasting the cognitive activities engaged in undergraduate research experiences and lab courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020103 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    A. E. Tingle, A. Loiacono, V. E. Colussi, and N. Fitch, Oqtant: democratizing quantum research and education, in Quantum Computing, Communication, and Simula- tion IV, Vol. 12911 (SPIE, 2024) pp. 345–352

    2024

  23. [31]

    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)

    2024

  24. [32]

    J. L. Rosenberg, N. Holincheck, and M. Colandene, Sci- ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics under- graduates’ knowledge and interest in quantum careers: Barriers and opportunities to building a diverse quan- tum workforce, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010138 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    M. B. Bennett, J. ´E. Arrow, S. Novack, and N. D. Finkelstein, Investigating student participation in quan- tum workforce initiatives, arXiv:2407.14698 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Observation of Bose-Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor, Science 269, 198 (1995)

    1995

  27. [35]

    (), Oqtant, https://oqtant.infleqtion.com/

  28. [36]

    Borish and H

    V. Borish and H. J. Lewandowski, Seeing quantum effects in experiments, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020144 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    F. A. Casta˜ no, E. L´ opez, J. A. Jaramillo, V. Navarro, and J. Osorio, Deploying an IoT-based remote physics lab platform to enhance experimental physics education in remote regions, Physics Education 59, 065017 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    https://www.pppl.gov/remote- glow-discharge-experiment-rgdx

    Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, Remote Glow Dis- charge Experiment. https://www.pppl.gov/remote- glow-discharge-experiment-rgdx

  31. [39]

    IBM Quantum Computing, https://www.ibm.com/ quantum

  32. [40]

    Kohnle and A

    A. Kohnle and A. Rizzoli, Interactive simulations for quantum key distribution, European Journal of Physics 38, 035403 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    P. Hu, Y. Li, and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of the basics of quantum comput- ing, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020108 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Beck, Quantum mechanics: Theory and experiment (Oxford University Press, 2012)

    M. Beck, Quantum mechanics: Theory and experiment (Oxford University Press, 2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    S. G. Lukishova, Fifteen years of quantum optics, quan- tum information, and nano-optics educational facility at the Institute of Optics, University of Rochester, Opt. Eng. 61, 081811 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Borish, A

    V. Borish, A. Werth, and H. J. Lewandowski, Seeing quantum mechanics: The role of quantum experiments, in Proceedings of the 2022 Physics Education Research Conference (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    S. G. Lukishova, How to teach quantum in the age of the second quantum revolution: overview of the current state of the art, Optics Education and Outreach VIII 13128, 37 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Pi˜ na, M

    A. Pi˜ na, M. Verostek, B. Boyle, E. Watts, M. Lawler, M. Cacheiro, N. Pradeep, C. West, S. El-Adawy, H. Lewandowski, and B. Zwickl, United States quantum education landscape dataset and visualizations, https: //quantumlandscape.streamlit.app/ (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    E. J. Galvez, C. H. Holbrow, M. Pysher, J. Martin, N. Courtemanche, L. Heilig, and J. Spencer, Interference with correlated photons: Five quantum mechanics exper- iments for undergraduates, Am. J. Phys. 73, 127 (2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    Kohnle, C

    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)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Borish and H

    V. Borish and H. J. Lewandowski, Implementation and goals of quantum optics experiments in undergraduate in- structional labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010117 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    K. A. Oliver, V. Borish, B. R. Wilcox, and H. Lewandowski, Education for expanding the quan- tum workforce: Student perceptions of the quantum industry in an upper-division physics capstone course, arXiv:2407.07902 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hunter, S

    A.-B. Hunter, S. L. Laursen, and E. Seymour, Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in stu- dents’ cognitive, personal, and professional development, Science Education 91, 36 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    McKagan, K

    S. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, C. Malley, S. Reid, R. LeMaster, and C. Wieman, Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching quantum me- chanics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 406 (2008)

    2008

  45. [53]

    S. Z. Ahmed, C. A. Weidner, J. H. Jensen, J. F. Sherson, and H. Lewandowski, Student use of a quantum simu- lation and visualization tool, Eur. J. Phys. 43, 065703 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Waitzmann, R

    M. Waitzmann, R. Scholz, and S. Wessnigk, Testing quantum reasoning: Developing, validating, and appli- cation of a questionnaire, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010122 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Malgieri, P

    M. Malgieri, P. Onorato, and A. De Ambrosis, Teaching quantum physics by the sum over paths approach and 24 GeoGebra simulations, Eur. J. Phys. 35, 055024 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Marshman and C

    E. Marshman and C. Singh, QuILTs: Validated teaching– learning sequences for helping students learn quantum mechanics, in Physics Teacher Education: What Mat- ters? (Springer, 2022) pp. 15–35

    2022

  49. [57]

    Marshman and C

    E. Marshman and C. Singh, Interactive tutorial to im- prove student understanding of single photon experi- ments involving a Mach–Zehnder interferometer, Eur. J. Phys. 37, 024001 (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    B. R. La Cour, M. Maynard, P. Shroff, G. Ko, and E. Ellis, The virtual quantum optics laboratory, arXiv:2105.07300 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Migda l, K

    P. Migda l, K. Jankiewicz, P. Grabarz, C. Decaroli, and P. Cochin, Visualizing quantum mechanics in an interac- tive simulation–Virtual Lab by Quantum Flytrap, Opt. Eng. 61 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    QuEra Aquila, https://www.quera.com/aquila

  53. [61]

    Bronner, A

    P. Bronner, A. Strunz, C. Silberhorn, and J.-P. Meyn, Interactive screen experiments with single photons, Eur. J. Phys. 30, 345 (2009)

    2009

  54. [62]

    Bitzenbauer, Effect of an introductory quantum physics course using experiments with heralded photons on preuniversity students’ conceptions about quantum physics, Phys

    P. Bitzenbauer, Effect of an introductory quantum physics course using experiments with heralded photons on preuniversity students’ conceptions about quantum physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020103 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    E. J. Galvez, Remote quantum optics labs, in Complex Light and Optical Forces XV, Vol. 11701 (SPIE, 2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    C. He, $10,000 and six months later: How the physics department automated lab courses for remote learning, UC Santa Barbara Daily Nexus (2021), https://dailynexus.com/2021-01-03/10000-and- six-months-later-how-the-physics-department- automated-lab-courses-for-remote-learning/

    2021

  57. [65]

    IonQ Quantum Cloud, https://ionq.com/quantum- cloud

  58. [66]

    C. Tran, T. N. Narong, and E. S. Cooper, Modeling quantum enhanced sensing on a quantum computer, arXiv:2209.08187 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Qubit by Qubit, https://www.qubitbyqubit.org/ programs

  60. [68]

    C. C. Tappert, R. I. Frank, I. Barabasi, A. M. Leider, D. Evans, and L. Westfall, Experience teaching quantum computing., Association Supporting Computer Users in Education (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    com/qiskit-community/qgss-2023/tree/main

    Qiskit Global Summer School 2023, https://github. com/qiskit-community/qgss-2023/tree/main

    2023

  62. [70]

    Singh, A

    C. Singh, A. Asfaw, and J. Levy, Preparing students to be leaders of the quantum information revolution, Physics Today 10.1063/PT.6.5.20210927a (2021)

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    Brody and R

    J. Brody and R. Avram, Testing a Bell inequality with a remote quantum processor, The Physics Teacher 61, 218 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for details about the data sources and data analysis

  65. [73]

    Pitzevskii and S

    L. Pitzevskii and S. Stringari, Bose-Einstein Condensa- tion (Oxford University Press, 2003)

    2003

  66. [74]

    E. A. Salim, S. C. Caliga, J. B. Pfeiffer, and D. Z. Ander- son, High resolution imaging and optical control of Bose- Einstein condensates in an atom chip magnetic trap, Ap- plied Physics Letters 102, 10.1063/1.4793522 (2013)

    2013 doi

  67. [75]

    H. J. Lewandowski, D. Harber, D. L. Whitaker, and E. A. Cornell, Simplified system for creating a Bose–Einstein condensate, Journal of low temperature physics 132, 309 (2003)

    2003

  68. [76]

    Inguscio, S

    M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. Wieman, Bose-Einstein condensation in atomic gases, Vol. 140 (IOS Press, 1999)

    1999

  69. [77]

    Advanced Laboratory Physics Association, https:// advlab.org/

  70. [78]

    S. B. Merriam and E. J. Tisdell, Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation(John Wiley & Sons, 2015)

    2015

  71. [79]

    N. G. Holmes and E. M. Smith, Instructional strategies that foster experimental physics skills, in The Interna- tional Handbook of Physics Education Research: Learn- ing Physics (AIP Publishing, 2023) pp. 18–1 – 18–20

    2023

  72. [80]

    Simon and J

    B. Simon and J. Taylor, What is the value of course- specific learning goals?, Journal of College Science Teach- ing (2009)

    2009

  73. [81]

    The Lewandowski Group: Quantum Education, https://jila.colorado.edu/lewandowski/research/ quantum-education-1

  74. [82]

    Charters, The use of think-aloud methods in qualita- tive research: An introduction to think-aloud methods, Brock Education Journal 12, 10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38 (2003)

    E. Charters, The use of think-aloud methods in qualita- tive research: An introduction to think-aloud methods, Brock Education Journal 12, 10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38 (2003)

    2003 doi

  75. [83]

    Braun and V

    V. Braun and V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psy- chology, Qualitative Research in Psychology3, 77 (2006)

    2006

  76. [84]

    Barnes, M

    E. Barnes, M. B. Bennett, A. Boltasseva, V. Borish, B. Brown, L. D. Carr, E. W. Easton, S. E. Economou, E. E. Edwards, N. D. Finkelstein, et al., Outcomes from a workshop on a national center for quantum education, arXiv:2410.23460 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    show[ed] some deep thought

    focusing on optical barriers and tunneling, quantum interference, and the speed of sound in quantum matter. No in-class time was dedicated to working on the final project, but the students had 2–3 weeks to complete it, with Oqtant being online one of those weeks. To grade the ...

  78. [86]

    Eisenhart, Generalization from qualitative inquiry, in Generalizing from educational research: Beyond qualita- tive and quantitative polarization(2009) pp

    M. Eisenhart, Generalization from qualitative inquiry, in Generalizing from educational research: Beyond qualita- tive and quantitative polarization(2009) pp. 51–66

    2009

  79. [87]

    A. D. Robertson, S. B. McKagan, and R. E. Scherr, Se- lection, generalization, and theories of cause in physics education research: Connecting paradigms and practices, Getting Started in PER, 2 (2018)

    2018

  80. [88]

    B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Open-ended versus guided laboratory activities: Impact on students’ beliefs about experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020132 (2016)

    2016

  81. [89]

    E. M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, Best practice for instruc- tional labs, Nature Physics 17, 662 (2021)

    2021

  82. [90]

    Liu and H

    Q. Liu and H. J. Lewandowski, Correlation of open-ended activities in laboratory courses with students’ views of experimental physics, in 2024 PERC Proceedings(2024)

    2024

  83. [91]

    infleqtion.com/examples/hello_world/

    (), Oqtant example notebooks, https://oqtant-docs. infleqtion.com/examples/hello_world/

  84. [92]

    Dounas-Frazer and H

    D. Dounas-Frazer and H. J. Lewandowski, Nothing works the first time: An expert experimental physics episte- mology, in Physics Education Research Conference 2016, PER Conference (Sacramento, CA, 2016) pp. 100–103

    2016

  85. [93]

    K. Henige, Undergraduate student attitudes and percep- tions toward low-and high-level inquiry exercise physiol- ogy teaching laboratory experiences, Advances in physi- ology education 35, 197 (2011)

    2011

  86. [94]

    D. C. Owens, T. D. Sadler, A. T. Barlow, and C. Smith- Walters, Student motivation from and resistance to ac- tive learning rooted in essential science practices, Re- search in Science Education 50, 253 (2020)

    2020

  87. [95]

    Z. Y. Kalender, E. Stump, K. Hubenig, and N. G. Holmes, Restructuring physics labs to cultivate sense of 25 student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020128 (2021)

    2021

  88. [96]

    D. R. Dounas-Frazer and H. J. Lewandowski, Electronics lab instructors’ approaches to troubleshooting instruc- tion, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010102 (2017)

    2017

  89. [97]

    A. M. Phillips, M. Sundstrom, D. G. Wu, and N. G. Holmes, Not engaging with problems in the lab: Stu- dents’ navigation of conflicting data and models, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020112 (2021)

    2021

  90. [98]

    T. O. B. Odden, D. W. Silvia, and A. Malthe-Sørenssen, Using computational essays to foster disciplinary epis- temic agency in undergraduate science, Journal of Re- search in Science Teaching 60, 937 (2023)

    2023

  91. [99]

    A. M. Phillips, J. Watkins, and D. Hammer, Problema- tizing as a scientific endeavor, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020107 (2017). Affordances and Challenges of Incorporating a Remote, Cloud-accessible Quantum Experiment into Undergraduate Courses: Supplemental Material In t...

    2017

  92. [100]

    Please enter your name

  93. [101]

    Please enter the name of your institution

  94. [102]

    If you teach multiple such courses and your responses to the survey questions would vary by course, feel free to fill out and submit this survey multiple times

    If you were provided with materials (e.g., activities for the students, an instructor’s guide with explanations for how to use the activities, etc.), would you consider incorporating activities using [Oqtant] into a course you teach? ( Yes, Maybe, No ) For the rest of the ques...

  95. [103]

    Please list the course number and name for the course you are responding about

  96. [104]

    How would you classify this course? ( Beyond-first-year lab course, Quantum mechanics course, Other) If Beyond-first-year lab course: (a) Approximately how many lab sessions during the course would you have to dedicate to an activity with [Oqtant]? ( 1, 2, 3, 4, Other) (b) How...

  97. [105]

    Which of the following would you be most interested in incorporating into your course? Please select only the ones you think you would have time for

    There are many learning goals related to [Oqtant] for which we could design activities. Which of the following would you be most interested in incorporating into your course? Please select only the ones you think you would have time for. These options include both descriptions...

  98. [106]

    ( Very impor- tant, Somewhat important, Not important for each) • Help students learn concepts about quantum mechanics

    Rank the importance of each of the following reasons for incorporating [Oqtant] into your course. ( Very impor- tant, Somewhat important, Not important for each) • Help students learn concepts about quantum mechanics. • Prepare students for the quantum workforce. • Provide stu...

  99. [107]

    Which of the following other experiments do you have in your course (or in other courses at your institution) that could provide students a hands-on experience complementary to working with [Oqtant]? [ Magneto-optical trap (MOT), Saturated absorption spectroscopy, Other]

  100. [108]

    What, if anything, will your students already know about BECs before working with [Oqtant]?

  101. [109]

    Is there anything you would be concerned about in terms of incorporating activities based on [Oqtant] into your course?

  102. [110]

    What kind of support would you need to feel comfortable incorporating [Oqtant] into your course?

  103. [111]

    Please enter anything else you’d like to share with us. B. Instructor interview protocol

  104. [112]

    How long have you been an instructor?

  105. [113]

    What range of courses have you taught?

  106. [114]

    What is your current research area?

  107. [115]

    What was your level of knowledge about BECs prior to deciding to incorporate Oqtant into your course?

  108. [116]

    What was your level of knowledge about atomic physics experiments prior to deciding to incorporate Oqtant into your course?

  109. [117]

    What was your level of knowledge about Python prior to deciding to incorporate Oqtant into your course? 3

  110. [118]

    What course did you use Oqtant in?

  111. [119]

    What level are the students in your course?

  112. [120]

    Have you taught this course before (a) If so, how frequently? (b) If so, how often do you adjust the materials in this course?

  113. [121]

    Why did you choose to implement activities with Oqtant in your course?

  114. [122]

    What specific learning goals did you have for using Oqtant?

  115. [123]

    What prior background knowledge were you assuming students had before this course (related to Oqtant)?

  116. [124]

    How did you implement Oqtant in your course? (a) Was it synchronous or asynchronous? (b) How much time did students have to work on the activities? (c) Did you include the preparation activities? If so, how? (d) Did it line up with any other content in your course? (e) Did stu...

  117. [125]

    Did you coordinate with other instructors at your institution when using Oqtant in your course?

  118. [126]

    How frequently did you communicate with me and/or staff at Infleqtion throughout this process? What method of communication did you use?

  119. [127]

    Were these activities at an appropriate physics-content level for your students?

  120. [128]

    Were these activities at an appropriate level of Python for your students?

  121. [129]

    Do you think your students achieved the learning goals you had for them? Why do you think that?

  122. [130]

    How do you think your students perceived these activities?

  123. [131]

    What skills do you think your students gained from working with Oqtant? How do you know this?

  124. [132]

    What knowledge do you think your students gained from working with Oqtant? How do you know this?

  125. [133]

    Are there any other benefits you think your students gained from working with Oqtant?

  126. [134]

    How did you feel about the progress the students made on their projects? Was it what you expected?

  127. [135]

    Overall, how was the process of using Oqtant in your class?

  128. [136]

    Did the activities cover the material you had hoped that they would?

  129. [137]

    Did the preparation activities cover the material you had hoped they would to prepare students for the activities?

  130. [138]

    Did the activities last a reasonable amount of time? Would you have wanted them to be shorter or longer?

  131. [139]

    How did the division of materials (e.g., the break point between Activity 1 and Activity 2) work?

  132. [140]

    Did you feel that you were successful at helping your students work through these activities?

  133. [141]

    How was communication with me and Infleqtion throughout the process?

  134. [142]

    Is there any other form of support you would have liked?

  135. [143]

    Did you feel like the activities with Oqtant fit well into the rest of your course?

  136. [144]

    Did you enjoy incorporating Oqtant into your course? Why or why not?

  137. [145]

    What challenges did you encounter while implementing Oqtant in your course? Were any of these particularly frustrating?

  138. [146]

    Is there anything you would do to change the way you implemented Oqtant if you were to use it again?

  139. [147]

    Would you choose to implement Oqtant in this course in the future? Why or why not?

  140. [148]

    Would you choose to implement Oqtant in another course you teach in the future? Why or why not? 4

  141. [149]

    What would you tell future instructors considering implementing Oqtant in their courses?

  142. [150]

    What do you wish that you had known before implementing Oqtant in your course?

  143. [151]

    Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experience working with Oqtant in your course?

  144. [152]

    Student interview protocols Questions after Activity 1

    Are there any questions you wish I had asked you in this interview? C. Student interview protocols Questions after Activity 1

  145. [153]

    What is absorption imaging?

  146. [154]

    Explain how you can obtain properties of atoms from absorption images

  147. [157]

    Did you feel like you were working with a real experiment even though you could only access it remotely?

  148. [159]

    Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experience working with this activity? Questions after Activity 2

  149. [160]

    How can you create a BEC experimentally?

  150. [161]

    How can you experimentally verify that atoms are in a BEC?

  151. [162]

    Explain what RF evaporation is and how it can be used to cool atoms

  152. [163]

    time of flight

    Describe what the “time of flight” is in an atomic physics experiment and how it affects the shape of the atoms you see in an image

  153. [164]

    Describe an effect you could see with a BEC that you would not see with a thermal cloud of atoms

  154. [165]

    What is quantum about a BEC?

  155. [166]

    What parts of this activity did you enjoy?

  156. [167]

    What parts did you not enjoy?

  157. [168]

    How did the fact that you could not see the physical apparatus affect your experience?

  158. [169]

    What benefits and drawbacks to working with a remote experiment did you notice today?

  159. [170]

    How does this experiment compare with other experiments you have interacted with in lab courses and/or research experiences in the past?

  160. [171]

    Jupyter notebook reflection questions Activity 1

    Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experience working with this activity? D. Jupyter notebook reflection questions Activity 1

  161. [172]

    How does the kind of data analysis you performed in this activity compare with other kinds of data analysis you have done in prior labs? What are the similarities and differences?

  162. [173]

    What benefits and drawbacks do you notice so far to working with a remote experiment? Activity 2

  163. [174]

    What, if any, parts of this activity emphasized the quantum nature of matter?

  164. [175]

    How similar or different do you think Oqtant is from other apparatus in research labs?

  165. [176]

    Did this activity feel like you were working with a real experiment even though you could only access it remotely? Explain why or why not. 5 II. DATA ANALYSIS For the closed-response parts of the instructor survey, we performed only one data cleaning step, which ensured the cl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.