Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Innovative Approaches to Teaching Quantum Computer Programming and Quantum Software Engineering

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A six-step curriculum that teaches quantum programming through three SDKs is proposed as a distinct new pedagogical pattern.

desk verdict A practical but unvalidated curriculum proposal: useful as an instructor's blueprint, not as evidence that the approach improves learning. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01446 v1 pith:QKDHKAI7 submitted 2024-12-29 physics.ed-ph cs.SEquant-ph

Majid Haghparast , Enrique Moguel , Jose Garcia-Alonso , Tommi Mikkonen , Juan Manuel Murillo This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ed-phcs.SEquant-ph
keywords quantumcomputerprogrammingeducationsoftwareengineeringQiskitPennyLaneOceanSDKDockercontainerizationcurriculumdesigncomputingpedagogy
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

Quantum programming is hard to teach because students must absorb new concepts and manage fast-changing toolchains at once. This paper proposes a six-step course structure—quantum foundations; quantum software engineering and the development lifecycle; containerization with Docker; then hands-on programming with Qiskit, PennyLane, and the Ocean SDK—as a reusable pattern for university courses. The authors' central pedagogical claims are that the sequence is distinct from existing courses, since they have not seen another course presenting three different quantum SDKs side by side, and that putting Docker before hands-on programming gives a more efficient learning experience. The curriculum is grounded in the authors' teaching in Finland and Spain and is offered as a template for other instructors; they state that a comparative empirical evaluation is planned as future work.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the six-step curriculum sequence itself: (1) establishing the quantum foundation, (2) quantum software engineering and the quantum software development lifecycle, (3) containerization for quantum programming education, (4) programming with Qiskit, (5) programming with PennyLane, and (6) programming with the Ocean SDK. Within the sequence, Docker is the enabling mechanism: pre-configured containers give each student an identical, isolated environment before quantum code is written, which the paper argues removes setup overhead and makes later SDK labs run smoothly. The three-SDK comparison carries the breadth of the course, with each framework embodying a different style of quantum programming, and the final labs on real quantum devices carry the transfer from theory to practice.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison in which equivalent student groups take a Docker-first, three-SDK course versus a direct-Qiskit course would settle the efficiency claim if the Docker-first group neither reaches working quantum programs faster nor scores higher on the same assessment; discovering an existing course that already teaches all three SDKs would settle the distinctiveness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that quantum computer programming can be taught by deliberately combining one environment-management strategy—Docker containers—with three SDKs chosen to represent different quantum computing paradigms: Qiskit for gate-based circuit execution, PennyLane for hybrid quantum-classical and quantum machine learning, and Ocean for annealing-based computation. The proposed ordering builds from quantum foundations to quantum software engineering and the hybrid classical-quantum development lifecycle, moves to containerization, and only then enters SDK-specific programming. The authors maintain that this structure is distinct from most existing courses and that it gives fair, balanced exposure to the current tool landscape. They present the six steps as a pattern generalized from their own teaching experience, with an empirical comparison against other methods left explicitly to future work.

Load-bearing premise

The practical value of the curriculum rests on the assumption that the authors' own teaching experience is sufficient evidence that this six-step order and three-SDK coverage improve learning; the paper states that a comparative empirical evaluation is still future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the six-step sequence is adopted, students master Docker-based environment setup before writing quantum code, so SDK labs start from identical working installations.
  • Covering Qiskit, PennyLane, and Ocean side by side gives students a direct comparison of gate-based, hybrid machine-learning, and annealing-based programming styles.
  • Instructors can align the six steps to available course hours and, at the containerization stage, optionally introduce orchestration and quantum serverless concepts.
  • Because the course includes submitting jobs to real quantum devices, students learn how to retrieve and interpret results from actual hardware rather than only simulators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit: if Docker-first ordering is what improves learning, students in a Docker-first section should reach their first successful quantum program measurably faster than students who install each SDK directly.
  • The three-SDK pattern suggests a broader curriculum principle: treat the quantum tool landscape itself as part of the subject, so the course stays relevant even when these particular frameworks are superseded.
  • The same Docker-first strategy could transfer to other fast-changing programming domains where environment setup, rather than language concepts, is the main source of friction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes a six-step curriculum for teaching quantum computer programming and quantum software engineering, developed collaboratively by lecturers in Finland and Spain. The proposed sequence covers quantum foundations, quantum software engineering and development lifecycles, containerization with Docker, and hands-on programming with three SDKs (Qiskit, PennyLane, and Ocean SDK). The authors claim that the curriculum structure is distinct from existing courses and that introducing Docker before practical quantum programming provides a more efficient learning experience. The manuscript is a descriptive pedagogical proposal; it contains no student learning-outcome data, no comparison with other teaching approaches, and no assessment instruments, and it explicitly defers empirical evaluation to future work in Section VIII-C.

Significance. If validated, the proposed pattern of combining Docker, three quantum SDKs, and a six-step sequence would be a useful, concrete resource for instructors building quantum programming courses. The paper also provides a helpful catalog of existing teaching resources and vendor-provided materials, such as the Xanadu Codebook, and it makes specific, actionable suggestions about environment setup and real-QPU access. However, the central claims of distinctness and pedagogical benefit are not supported by evidence within the manuscript; the paper is best read as an experience report or curriculum proposal rather than as a demonstrated contribution to physics education research. Its value to the community currently rests on plausibility and practical experience, not on measured outcomes.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV and §VIII-C] The paper's central effectiveness claim is explicitly untested. Section IV asserts that 'By incorporating Docker into the quantum computer programming curriculum before introducing practical quantum programming concepts, instructors can provide a more efficient learning experience,' but no data, control group, learning-outcome measure, or validated instrument is presented anywhere in the manuscript. Section VIII-C then states that the authors 'plan to conduct an empirical evaluation and publish the preliminary results' and that a 'comparative analysis will help us determine if our approach is superior to existing methods.' This is an admission that superiority and efficiency have not yet been demonstrated. Because every practical recommendation in Sections IV–VII depends on this unsupported causal claim, the headline contribution of the paper is not established.
  2. [§VIII-B] The claim that the curriculum is 'distinct from most existing courses' and that 'we have yet to encounter a course on quantum computer programming that offers and discusses three different SDKs' is presented without any systematic survey or search methodology. This claim is factually checkable, and the manuscript provides no basis for verifying it beyond the authors' personal experience. While this issue is secondary to the effectiveness claim, it contributes to the paper's current framing as a novel contribution without supporting evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'simulation optimization, data processing' likely should read 'simulation, optimization, and data processing'; the current wording may confuse readers.
  2. [Throughout] Capitalization of 'PennyLane' is inconsistent (e.g., 'Pennylane' appears in Section III and in the Index Terms); the vendor's official spelling should be used consistently.
  3. [§V] The acronym QPU is used in the first item of the numbered list without being expanded; please define it at first use.
  4. [§VI-A] The term 'codercises' is used without explanation; since it is likely a contraction of 'coding exercises,' it would help to define it on first use.
  5. [§VIII-C] The sentence 'Our paper would greatly benefit from explicitly making the teaching materials available to a wider audience' reads as a future suggestion rather than a description of what the paper currently offers; if the authors intend to share materials, a link or repository would strengthen the contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper proposes a practical curriculum; its self-citations are background resources and the effectiveness claim is explicitly deferred to future empirical evaluation.

full rationale

This is a curriculum-design paper with no mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or predictive claims of the kind that can reduce to their own inputs by construction. The six-step teaching approach (quantum foundation, quantum software engineering, Docker containerization, Qiskit, PennyLane, Ocean SDK) is presented as a pedagogical proposal based on the authors' teaching experience. The only potentially circular elements are self-citations: references [18], [19], and [22] are cited as sources for course content (quantum software engineering lifecycle, full-stack quantum software, and Qubernetes). These citations are not load-bearing for the central claim of pedagogical benefit; they merely point students and instructors to prior work on the same topics. The paper's strongest claim is that the combination of three SDKs plus Docker is distinct, which is presented as an empirical observation ('we have yet to encounter a course...'), not as a derived result. The effectiveness claim appears in Section IV as 'instructors can provide a more efficient learning experience,' but Section VIII-C explicitly states that the authors 'plan to conduct an empirical evaluation and publish the preliminary results' and that a 'comparative analysis will help us determine if our approach is superior to existing methods.' This is an admission that effectiveness is untested, which is a substantive evidence limitation but not a circular structure: the claim is not defined in terms of, or fitted to, the same data it is supposed to predict. No equation is reused as both assumption and conclusion, and no parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the paper does not exhibit circularity; at most it suffers from an unverified empirical claim, which belongs to correctness risk rather than circularity analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities; its central claims rest on unvalidated pedagogical assumptions rather than on mathematical derivations or empirical measurements.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Quantum computer programming is important and difficult to teach, so a structured teaching agenda is needed.
    Stated in the abstract and introduction; anchors the paper's motivation but is not tested.
  • domain assumption Teaching Docker containerization before quantum programming improves learning efficiency.
    Section IV asserts 'instructors can provide a more efficient learning experience' with no experimental support.
  • domain assumption The authors' classroom experience in Finland and Spain generalizes to other institutions.
    Section I says the approach 'is based on the experience of teaching... in two countries', but no student data is reported.
  • domain assumption Coverage of three distinct SDKs (Qiskit, PennyLane, Ocean) is superior to focusing on one framework.
    Section VIII-B lists strengths of covering three SDKs, but provides no comparative evidence.
  • domain assumption External resources (Xanadu Codebook, Qiskit, Ocean docs) are current and complete enough for instruction.
    Sections VI and VII rely on these third-party resources without verification of recency or completeness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Innovative Approaches to Teaching Quantum Computer Programming and Quantum Software Engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QKDHKAI7

@misc{pith2026250101446,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Innovative Approaches to Teaching Quantum Computer Programming and Quantum Software Engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QKDHKAI7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01446}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computing is an emerging field that promises to revolutionize various domains, such as simulation optimization, data processing, and more, by leveraging the principles of quantum mechanics. This paper outlines innovative pedagogical strategies developed by university lecturers in Finland and Spain for teaching quantum computer programming and quantum software engineering. Our curriculum integrates essential tools and methodologies such as containerization with Docker, Qiskit, PennyLane, and Ocean SDK to provide a comprehensive learning experience. The approach consists of several steps, from introducing the fundamentals of quantum mechanics to hands-on labs focusing on practical use cases. We believe quantum computer programming is an important topic and one that is hard to teach, so having a teaching agenda and guidelines for teaching can be of great help.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Qiskit: An open-source framewor k for quantum computing,

    Qiskit contributors, “Qiskit: An open-source framewor k for quantum computing,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 2573505

    doi:10.5281/zenodo 2023

  2. [2]

    Hundt, Quantum computing for programmers

    R. Hundt, Quantum computing for programmers. Cambridge University Press, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    E. R. Johnston, N. Harrigan, and M. Gimeno-Segovia, Programming quantum computers: essential algorithms and code samples . O’Reilly Media, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Ying, F oundations of quantum programming

    M. Ying, F oundations of quantum programming. Elsevier, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum- classical computations,

    V . Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V . Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadi et al. , “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum- classical computations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968 , 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1811.04968

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.04968 2018

  6. [6]

    D-wave ocean software documentation

    “D-wave ocean software documentation.” [Online]. Avai lable: https:// docs.ocean.dwavesys.com/

    work page

  7. [7]

    McMahon, Quantum computing explained

    D. McMahon, Quantum computing explained . John Wiley & Sons,

    work page

  8. [8]

    N. D. Mermin, Quantum computer science: an introduction . Cambridge University Press, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511813870

    work page 2007

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Nakahara and T

    M. Nakahara and T. Ohmi, Quantum computing: from linear algebra to physical realizations. CRC press, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    Quantum computation and qu antum information,

    M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, “Quantum computation and qu antum information,” 2002. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1119/1. 1463744

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    E. G. Rieffel and W. H. Polak, Quantum computing: A gentle introduc- tion. MIT Press, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual cl assical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels,

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Per es, and W. K. Wootters, “Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual cl assical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels,” Physical review letters , vol. 70, no. 13, p. 1895, 1993

    1993

  5. [13]

    Algorithms for quantum computation: discr ete logarithms and factoring,

    P . W. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: discr ete logarithms and factoring,” in Proceedings 35th annual symposium on foundations of computer science . IEEE, 1994, pp. 124–134

    1994

  6. [14]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for d atabase search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for d atabase search,” in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , 1996, pp. 212–219

    1996

  7. [15]

    Quantum annealing with manufactured spins,

    M. W. Johnson, M. H. Amin, S. Gildert, T. Lanting, F. Hamz e, N. Dickson, R. Harris, A. J. Berkley, J. Johansson, P . Bunyk et al. , “Quantum annealing with manufactured spins,” Nature, vol. 473, no. 7346, pp. 194–198, 2011

    2011

  8. [16]

    [On- line]

    Microsoft, Q# Language Specification , 2020. [On- line]. Available: https://github.com/microsoft/qsharp-language/tree/ main/Specifications/Language#q-language

    2020

  9. [17]

    Developers, “Cirq,” dec 2023

    C. Developers, “Cirq,” dec 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.10247207

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Quantum so ftware engineering and quantum software development lifecycle: a survey,

    K. Dwivedi, M. Haghparast, and T. Mikkonen, “Quantum so ftware engineering and quantum software development lifecycle: a survey,” Cluster Computing, pp. 1–19, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10586-024-04362-1

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Full-stack quantum software in practice: ecosystem, stak eholders and challenges,

    V . Stirbu, M. Haghparast, M. Waseem, N. Dayama, and T. Mi kkonen, “Full-stack quantum software in practice: ecosystem, stak eholders and challenges,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Com- puting and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 2. IEEE, 2023, pp. 177–180

    2023

  12. [20]

    Enabling continuous deployment techniq ues for quantum services,

    J. Romero- ´Alvarez, J. Alvarado-V aliente, E. Moguel, J. Garcia-Alons o, and J. M. Murillo, “Enabling continuous deployment techniq ues for quantum services,” Software: Practice and Experience , 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Using open api for the development of hybr id classical-quantum services,

    J. Romero- ´Alvarez, J. Alvarado-V aliente, E. Moguel, J. Garc´ ıa-Alonso, and J. M. Murillo, “Using open api for the development of hybr id classical-quantum services,” in International Conference on Service- Oriented Computing . Springer, 2022, pp. 364–368

    2022

  14. [22]

    Qubernetes: Towards a unified cloud-native execution platform for hybri d classic- quantum computing,

    V . Stirbu, O. Kinanen, M. Haghparast, and T. Mikkonen, “ Qubernetes: Towards a unified cloud-native execution platform for hybri d classic- quantum computing,” Information and Software Technology , p. 107529, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Xana du quantum codebook,

    C. Albornoz, G. Alonso, M. Andrenkov, P . Angara, A. Asad i, A. Ballon, S. Bapat, L. Botelho, I. D. Vlugt, O. D. Matteo, P . Downing, P . Finlay, A. Fumagalli, A. Gardhouse, N. Girard, A. Hayes, J. Izaac, R. Janik, T. Kalajdzievski, N. Killoran, I. Kureˇ ci´ c, O. Landon-Cardi...

    2023

  16. [2007]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470181386

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470181386

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.