pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24995 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · ⚛️ physics.ed-ph · quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Bridging the Quantum Divide: A Learning-Centric Quantum Hackathon for Underrepresented Students (Extended Version)

Fahimeh Bayeh , Linh Dinh , Dongho Lee , Scott Wesley
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 17:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ed-ph quant-ph
keywords quantum hackathonunderrepresented studentsmastery learningintegrated course designquantum computing educationhigh school studentsQuirk simulatorNova Scotia
0
0 comments X

The pith

A two-day quantum hackathon using mastery learning and integrated course design successfully introduced underrepresented high school students to quantum computing basics.

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

The paper describes the design and running of a two-day quantum hackathon for underrepresented high school students in Nova Scotia. It structures the event around mastery learning and specification grading within the Integrated Course Design framework, spending the first day on hands-on introductions to quantum concepts and the second on guided application challenges, all using the Quirk simulator for circuits. Student feedback is presented as evidence that the event taught the basics and reached most of the intended demographics. A sympathetic reader would care because the work offers a concrete model for making an advanced, rapidly developing field accessible through short, targeted educational events rather than relying solely on formal schooling.

Core claim

We designed and implemented a two-day quantum hackathon for underrepresented high school students in Nova Scotia, Canada. The first day introduced quantum computing through hands-on activities while the second day taught application through guided challenges. Both days followed mastery learning and specification grading inside the Integrated Course Design framework, with all circuit work performed in Quirk. Based on feedback from students, the hackathon successfully introduced students to the basics of quantum computing and reached most of our target demographics.

What carries the argument

The Integrated Course Design framework, which identifies situational factors for the target group, sets learning outcomes, and works backward to create curriculum and educative assessments, combined with mastery learning, specification grading, and the Quirk simulator for accessible circuit work.

Load-bearing premise

Self-reported student feedback reliably measures actual learning gains and the participants accurately represent the intended underrepresented demographics without unstated selection effects.

What would settle it

A pre- and post-hackathon quiz on quantum computing concepts showing no statistically significant score improvement would indicate the event did not successfully introduce the basics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24995 by Dongho Lee, Fahimeh Bayeh, Linh Dinh, Scott Wesley.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An example of unclear documentation in Quirk. view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The objective structure for a teleportation challenge. view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The physical Bloch Sphere. The two-day event was held on August 8-9 in 2025. The format was hybrid (using Zoom) to accommodate students from rural areas, with one student switching from in-person to online attendance. The in-person students were provided with food (at no associated cost) to offset economic barriers. The first day was divided into four lectures, separated inte￾grated activities and breaks. … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The visit to Ultrafast Quantum Control Lab. view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The second day of the event: The competition view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Adding a new wire in Qiskit Composer view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An example of control use in Quirk. However, the conditions (== 1) and (== 2) state that the X-gate should be executed when the bit string is 01 and the Y -gate should be executed when the bit string is 10. Putting aside issues of endianness, which novice programmers ought not to think about, this code is still incorrect, since neither gate will execute when the measurement outcome is 11. The correct way t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper describes the design and implementation of a two-day quantum hackathon for underrepresented high school students in Nova Scotia, Canada. The first day of the hackathon is spent introducing students to quantum computing through hands-on activities, whereas the second day teaches students to apply this knowledge through guided challenges. Both days are informed by the theory of mastery learning and specification grading, with the full curriculum being crafted within the Integrated Course Design framework. This requires identifying situational factors unique to our target demographics, from which we develop learning outcomes, and then work backwards to a full curriculum with educative assessments. A novel aspect of our hackathon is that all circuit simulations are performed within Quirk: a decision based on best practices in computer science education. Based on feedback from students, we conclude that our hackathon successfully introduced students to the basics of quantum computing, and was able to reach most of our target demographics.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the design and implementation of a two-day quantum hackathon for underrepresented high school students in Nova Scotia. It applies mastery learning, specification grading, and Integrated Course Design to develop a curriculum using Quirk for circuit simulations on day 1 (introduction) and guided challenges on day 2 (application). The authors conclude, based on student feedback, that the event successfully introduced participants to quantum computing basics and reached most target demographics.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work offers a replicable, theory-informed model for broadening participation in quantum education, with explicit attention to situational factors for underrepresented groups and use of accessible tools like Quirk. The detailed backward design process from learning outcomes is a strength that could aid other educators, though the absence of objective measures limits its value as rigorous evidence of learning gains.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and conclusion: The central claim that the hackathon 'successfully introduced students to the basics of quantum computing' rests solely on post-event student feedback. No pre/post knowledge assessments, quiz scores, quantitative metrics, control comparisons, or error analysis are described, leaving open alternative explanations such as novelty effects or social desirability bias.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and conclusion: The claim of reaching 'most of our target demographics' lacks supporting recruitment statistics, verification methods, or demographic data tables, making it impossible to evaluate selection effects or actual representation.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify the exact form and questions used in the student feedback collection to allow replication.
  2. Add a dedicated section or table summarizing participant numbers, demographics, and response rates if such data exist in the full manuscript.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive suggestions. We agree that the claims in the abstract and conclusion require more precise qualification to match the available evidence from student feedback. We will revise the manuscript to address both points raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and conclusion: The central claim that the hackathon 'successfully introduced students to the basics of quantum computing' rests solely on post-event student feedback. No pre/post knowledge assessments, quiz scores, quantitative metrics, control comparisons, or error analysis are described, leaving open alternative explanations such as novelty effects or social desirability bias.

    Authors: We agree that the evidence is limited to post-event feedback and does not include objective pre/post assessments or quantitative metrics. In the revised manuscript we will change the abstract and conclusion to state that student feedback indicated the hackathon successfully introduced participants to quantum computing basics, while explicitly noting the absence of pre/post measures and the possibility of novelty or social desirability effects. We will also add a dedicated limitations subsection discussing these constraints and their implications for interpreting the results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and conclusion: The claim of reaching 'most of our target demographics' lacks supporting recruitment statistics, verification methods, or demographic data tables, making it impossible to evaluate selection effects or actual representation.

    Authors: The manuscript describes the target demographics and recruitment approach but does not present tabulated statistics or verification details. We will revise the relevant sections to include available self-reported demographic data from participants, describe the recruitment channels used, and qualify the claim to reflect that representation was assessed via participant feedback and registration information rather than independent verification. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: descriptive educational report with direct feedback-based claims

full rationale

The paper is a descriptive account of hackathon design and implementation using external educational frameworks (mastery learning, specification grading, Integrated Course Design) and reports outcomes solely from post-event student feedback. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or self-citations appear in the load-bearing steps. The central conclusion follows directly from the described activities and feedback collection without any reduction of claims to their own inputs by construction, rendering the chain self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The design rests on the effectiveness of standard educational theories applied to quantum topics; no free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms beyond domain assumptions about learning frameworks are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Mastery learning and specification grading improve outcomes for underrepresented high school students in quantum topics
    Invoked as the basis for curriculum design without new validation data in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5463 in / 1259 out tokens · 62261 ms · 2026-05-07T17:12:35.199027+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

106 extracted references

  1. [1]

    The international year of quantum science and technology across Canada,

    N. J. R. John Donohue, Ben Newling, “The international year of quantum science and technology across Canada,” inPhysics in Canada, vol. 81, no. 2. CAP, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    Canada’s national quantum strategy,

    ISED Citizen Services Centre, “Canada’s national quantum strategy,” Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Report Iu4- 414/2022E-PDF, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Quantum manifesto: A new era of technology,

    Quantum Flagship, “Quantum manifesto: A new era of technology,” European Commission, Report, 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    National quantum strategy: Building a thriving future with Australia’s quantum advantage,

    DISR, “National quantum strategy: Building a thriving future with Australia’s quantum advantage,” Austrlian Government, Report, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Quantum informa- tion science and technology workforce development national strategic plan,

    Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science, “Quantum informa- tion science and technology workforce development national strategic plan,” NSTC, Report, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Government launches quantum tech discovery,

    S. Reti, “Government launches quantum tech discovery,” https://www. beehive.govt.nz, Dec. 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    A survey of educational efforts to accelerate a growing quantum work- force,

    T. Plunkett, T. L. Frantz, H. Khatri, P. Rajendran, and S. Midha, “A survey of educational efforts to accelerate a growing quantum work- force,” inIEEE Int. Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineering, 2020, pp. 330–336

    2020

  8. [8]

    Post event report: African quantum summit 2025,

    S. Majera, “Post event report: African quantum summit 2025,” Quan- tumKE, Report, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Framework for quantum technology driven research and innovation in South Africa: the South African Quantum Technology Initiative (SA QuTI),

    National Working Group for Quantum Technology, “Framework for quantum technology driven research and innovation in South Africa: the South African Quantum Technology Initiative (SA QuTI),” Republic of South Africa: NSTC, Report, 2021

    2021

  10. [10]

    From computing to quantum mechanics: accessible and hands-on quantum computing education for high school students,

    Q. Sun, S. Zhou, R. Chen, G. Feng, K. T. Cheung, J. Li, S.-Y . Hou, and B. Zeng, “From computing to quantum mechanics: accessible and hands-on quantum computing education for high school students,”EPJ- QT, vol. 11, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    2025 quantum open source survey,

    Unitary Fund, “2025 quantum open source survey,” unitaryfoundation. github.io/survey-2025, 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Teaching quantum computing without prerequisites: a case study,

    G. P. Tempor ˜ao, T. B. S. Guerreiro, P. S. C. Ripper, and A. M. B. Pavani, “Teaching quantum computing without prerequisites: a case study,” inIEEE Int. Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineering, 2022, pp. 673–676

    2022

  13. [13]

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

    S. E. Economou, T. Rudolph, and E. Barnes, “Teaching quantum information science to high-school and early undergraduate students,” 2020

    2020

  14. [14]

    Quantum computing, math, and physics (QCaMP): In- troducing quantum computing in high schools,

    M. Ivory, A. Bettale, R. Boren, A. D. Burch, J. Douglass, L. Hackett, B. Kiefer, A. Kononov, M. Long, M. Metcalf, T. B. Propp, and M. Sarovar, “Quantum computing, math, and physics (QCaMP): In- troducing quantum computing in high schools,” inIEEE Int. Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineering, 2023, pp. 1–9

    2023

  15. [15]

    Quantum computing for high- school students an experience report,

    P. P. Angara, U. Stege, and A. MacLean, “Quantum computing for high- school students an experience report,” inIEEE Int. Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineering, 2020, pp. 323–329

    2020

  16. [16]

    Quantum computing education for computer science students: Bridging the gap with layered learning and intuitive analogies,

    A. Mjeda and H. Murray, “Quantum computing education for computer science students: Bridging the gap with layered learning and intuitive analogies,” inIEEE Int. Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineer- ing, vol. 03, 2024, pp. 61–70

    2024

  17. [17]

    Introduction to quantum computing for every- one: Experience report,

    J. Liu and D. Franklin, “Introduction to quantum computing for every- one: Experience report,” in54th ACM Technical Symp. on Computer Science Education V . 1, 2023, pp. 1157–1163

    2023

  18. [18]

    Quantum computing for high school: an approach to interdisciplinary in STEM for teaching,

    S. Satanassi, P. Fantini, R. Spada, and O. Levrini, “Quantum computing for high school: an approach to interdisciplinary in STEM for teaching,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser, vol. 1929, no. 1, 2021

    1929

  19. [19]

    Quantum science across canada in 2025,

    The CAP International Year of Quantum Science and Technology Task Force, “Quantum science across canada in 2025,” inPhysics in Canada, vol. 81, no. 2. CAP, 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    Why written objectives need to be really SMART,

    O. Ogbeiwi, “Why written objectives need to be really SMART,” British Journal of Healthcare Management, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 324–336, 2017

    2017

  21. [21]

    Smart goals: How the application of smart goals can contribute to achievement of student learning outcomes,

    K. B. Lawlor and M. J. Hornyak, “Smart goals: How the application of smart goals can contribute to achievement of student learning outcomes,”Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, vol. 39, pp. 259–267, 2012

    2012

  22. [22]

    A practical review of mastery learning,

    M. Winget and A. M. Persky, “A practical review of mastery learning,” Am. J. Pharm. Educ., vol. 86, no. 10, pp. 1114–1122, 2022

    2022

  23. [23]

    There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management goals and objectives,

    G. T. Doran, “There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management goals and objectives,”Management Review, vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 35–36, 1981

    1981

  24. [24]

    Be SMART: Promoting goal setting with students at-risk of early school leaving through a mentoring program,

    J. Martins, T. Moreira, J. Cunha, J. Carlos N ´u˜nez, and P. Ros ´ario, “Be SMART: Promoting goal setting with students at-risk of early school leaving through a mentoring program,”Child. Youth Serv. Rev., vol. 157, p. 107423, 2024

    2024

  25. [25]

    Beyond SMART? a new framework for goal setting,

    T. Day and P. Tosey, “Beyond SMART? a new framework for goal setting,”The Curriculum Journal, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 515–534, 2011

    2011

  26. [26]

    Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s ‘learning for mastery’,

    T. R. Guskey, “Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s ‘learning for mastery’,”J. Adv. Acad., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 8–31, 2007

    2007

  27. [27]

    Learing for mastery,

    B. S. Bloom, “Learing for mastery,”Evaluation Comment, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1–12, 1968

    1968

  28. [28]

    Mastery-based testing in linear algebra: An entry point to alternative grading,

    R. Swanson, A. Bingham, M. Sanders, and C. Moulton, “Mastery-based testing in linear algebra: An entry point to alternative grading,”TLI, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

    Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis,

    C.-L. C. Kulik, J. A. Kulik, and R. L. Bangert-Drowns, “Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis,”RER, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 265–299, 1990

    1990

  30. [30]

    Comparing mastery-based testing with traditional testing in Calculus II,

    A. Harsy and A. Hoofnagle, “Comparing mastery-based testing with traditional testing in Calculus II,”IJ-SoTL, vol. 14, 2020

    2020

  31. [31]

    Second chance grading: An equitable, meaningful, and easy-to-implement grading system that synergizes the research on testing for learning, mastery grading, and growth mindsets,

    O. E. Fernandez, “Second chance grading: An equitable, meaningful, and easy-to-implement grading system that synergizes the research on testing for learning, mastery grading, and growth mindsets,”PRIMUS, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 855–868, 2021

    2021

  32. [32]

    Standards- based grading: Preliminary studies to quantify changes in affective and cognitive student behaviors,

    A. R. Carberry, M. T. Siniawski, and J. D. N. Dionisio, “Standards- based grading: Preliminary studies to quantify changes in affective and cognitive student behaviors,” in2012 Frontiers in Education Conf. Proceedings, 2012, pp. 1–5

    2012

  33. [33]

    The evolution of a criterion referenced system of grading for engineering science coursework,

    J. Heywood, “The evolution of a criterion referenced system of grading for engineering science coursework,” inIEEE Frontiers in Education Conf. Proceedings, 2014, pp. 1–6

    2014

  34. [34]

    A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement,

    D. S. Yeager, P. Hanselman, G. M. Walton, J. S. Murray, R. Crosnoe, C. Muller, E. Tipton, B. Schneider, C. S. Hulleman, C. P. Hinojosa, D. Paunesku, C. Romero, K. Flint, A. Roberts, J. Trott, R. Iachan, J. Buontempo, S. M. Yang, C. M. Carvalho, P. R. Hahn, M. Gopalan, P. Mhatre, R. Ferguson, A. L. Duckworth, and C. S. Dweck, “A national experiment reveals...

    2019

  35. [35]

    Implicit theo- ries of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention,

    L. S. Blackwell, K. H. Trzesniewski, and C. S. Dweck, “Implicit theo- ries of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention,”Child Dev., vol. 78, pp. 246– 263, 2007

    2007

  36. [36]

    Mastery learning and specs grading in discrete math,

    E. Tuson and T. Hickey, “Mastery learning and specs grading in discrete math,” in27th ACM Conf. on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1. ACM, 2022, pp. 19–25

    2022

  37. [37]

    The effects of standards-based grading on student performance in Algebra 2,

    R. B. Rosales, “The effects of standards-based grading on student performance in Algebra 2,” EdD, Western Kentucky University, 2013

    2013

  38. [38]

    Developing and implementing a specifications grading system in an organic chemistry laboratory course,

    W. J. Howitz, K. J. McKnelly, and R. D. Link, “Developing and implementing a specifications grading system in an organic chemistry laboratory course,”J. Chem. Educ., vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 385–394, 2021

    2021

  39. [39]

    L. D. Fink,Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses, 2nd ed. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass, 2013

    2013

  40. [40]

    Wiggins and J

    G. Wiggins and J. McTighe,Understanding by Design, 1st ed. Alexan- dria, USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Design, 2005

    2005

  41. [41]

    Scored out of 10: Experiences with binary grading across the curriculum,

    A. Berns, “Scored out of 10: Experiences with binary grading across the curriculum,” in51st ACM Technical Symp. on Computer Science Education, 2020, pp. 1152—-1157

    2020

  42. [42]

    Introduction to the special issue on implementing mastery grading in the undergraduate mathematics classroom,

    R. Campbell, D. Clark, and J. OShaughnessy, “Introduction to the special issue on implementing mastery grading in the undergraduate mathematics classroom,”PRIMUS, vol. 30, no. 8-10, pp. 837–848, 2020

    2020

  43. [43]

    Simple specifications grading,

    S. Carlisle, “Simple specifications grading,”PRIMUS, vol. 30, no. 8-10, pp. 926–951, 2020

    2020

  44. [44]

    Variations in implementation of specifications grading in STEM courses,

    M. Y . Tsoi, M. E. Anzovino, A. H. L. Erickson, E. R. Forringer, E. Henary, A. Lively, M. S. Morton, K. Perell-Gerson, S. Perrine, O. Villanueva, M. G. Whitney, and C. M. Woodbridge, “Variations in implementation of specifications grading in STEM courses,”Georgia J. of Sci., vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 1q+, 2019

    2019

  45. [45]

    Using revision and specifications grading to develop students’ mathematical habits of mind,

    P. V . Prasad, “Using revision and specifications grading to develop students’ mathematical habits of mind,”PRIMUS, vol. 30, no. 8-10, pp. 908–925, 2020

    2020

  46. [46]

    The operational definition of competency-based education,

    J. Gervais, “The operational definition of competency-based education,” JCBE, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 98–106, 2016

    2016

  47. [47]

    L. B. Nilson,Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time. New York, USA: Routledge, 2014

    2014

  48. [48]

    Effects of standards-based report cards on student learning,

    T. A. Craig, “Effects of standards-based report cards on student learning,” EdD, Northeastern University, 2011

    2011

  49. [49]

    Code camps and hackathons in education - literature review and lessons learned,

    J. Porras, A. Knutas, J. Ikonen, A. Happonen, J. Khakurel, and A. Herala, “Code camps and hackathons in education - literature review and lessons learned,” in52nd Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, 2019, pp. 7750–7759

    2019

  50. [50]

    Hack days as a method to increase interdisciplinary knowledge and collaboration skills of college students in STEM fields,

    J. Tandon, N. Pakpour, and M. Gumina, “Hack days as a method to increase interdisciplinary knowledge and collaboration skills of college students in STEM fields,”JISE, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 81–92, 2021

    2021

  51. [51]

    Tackling regional public health issues using mobile health technology: Event report of an mHealth hackathon in Thailand,

    A. Pathanasethpong, C. Soomlek, K. Morley, M. Morley, P. Polpinit, A. Dagan, J. W. Weis, and L. A. Celi, “Tackling regional public health issues using mobile health technology: Event report of an mHealth hackathon in Thailand,”JMIR Mhealth Uhealth, vol. 5, no. 10, 2017

    2017

  52. [52]

    Synergy between smart cities’ hackathons and living labs as a vehicle for accelerating tangible innovations on cities,

    M. Alba, M. Avalos, C. Guzm ´an, and V . M. Larios, “Synergy between smart cities’ hackathons and living labs as a vehicle for accelerating tangible innovations on cities,” inIEEE Int. Smart Cities Conf., 2016, pp. 1–6

    2016

  53. [53]

    Learning from collaborative integration: The hackathon as design charrette,

    B. Safarova, E. Ledesma, G. Luhan, S. Caffey, and C. Giusti, “Learning from collaborative integration: The hackathon as design charrette,” in33rd Int. Conf. on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, 2015, pp. 233–240

    2015

  54. [54]

    Understanding and improving the culture of hackathons: Think global hack local,

    A. Decker, K. Eiselt, and K. V oll, “Understanding and improving the culture of hackathons: Think global hack local,” in2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conf., 2015, pp. 1–8

    2015

  55. [55]

    R. M. Felder and R. Brent,Active Learning: Models from the Analytical Sciences. American Chemical Society, 2007, chapter Cooperative Learning, pp. 34–53

    2007

  56. [56]

    The effect of cooperative learning models on learning outcomes: A second-order meta-analysis,

    B. ¨Ozt¨urk, “The effect of cooperative learning models on learning outcomes: A second-order meta-analysis,”EPASR, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 273–296, 2023

    2023

  57. [57]

    Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education,

    D. R. Sadler, “Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education,”Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 175–194, 2005

    2005

  58. [58]

    Teaching quantum computing to high-school-aged youth: A hands-on approach,

    P. P. Angara, U. Stege, A. MacLean, H. A. M ¨uller, and T. Markham, “Teaching quantum computing to high-school-aged youth: A hands-on approach,”TQE, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2022

    2022

  59. [59]

    An exploration in the space of mathematics educations,

    S. Papert, “An exploration in the space of mathematics educations,” International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 95–123, 1996

    1996

  60. [60]

    Computational thinking,

    J. M. Wing, “Computational thinking,”Commun. ACM, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 33––35, 2006

    2006

  61. [61]

    Computational thinking and thinking about computing,

    ——, “Computational thinking and thinking about computing,”Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A, vol. 366, no. 1881, pp. 3717–3725, 2008

    2008

  62. [62]

    Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?

    V . Barr and C. Stephenson, “Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?”ACM Inroads, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 48–54, 2011

    2011

  63. [63]

    Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field,

    S. Grover and R. Pea, “Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field,”Educ. Res., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 38–43, 2013

    2013

  64. [64]

    Computational thinking through an empirical lens: A systematic review of literature,

    N. O. Ezeamuzie and J. S. C. Leung, “Computational thinking through an empirical lens: A systematic review of literature,”JECR, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 481–511, 2022

    2022

  65. [65]

    Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking,

    P. J. Denning, “Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking,” Commun. ACM, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 33—-39, 2017

    2017

  66. [66]

    Computational thinking education: Issues and challenges,

    C. Angeli and M. Giannakos, “Computational thinking education: Issues and challenges,”Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 105, 2020

    2020

  67. [67]

    Computational thinking tools,

    A. Repenning, A. Basawapatna, and N. Escherle, “Computational thinking tools,” inIEEE Symp. on Visual Languages and Human- Centric Computing, 2016, pp. 218–222

    2016

  68. [68]

    To block or not to block, that is the question: students’ perceptions of blocks-based programming,

    D. Weintrop and U. Wilensky, “To block or not to block, that is the question: students’ perceptions of blocks-based programming,” in14th Int. Conf. on Interaction Design and Children, 2015, pp. 199—-208

    2015

  69. [69]

    Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms,

    ——, “Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms,”ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., vol. 18, no. 1, 2017

    2017

  70. [70]

    Using app inventor in a K-12 summer camp,

    A. Wagner, G. Jeff, J. Corley, and D. Wolber, “Using app inventor in a K-12 summer camp,” inProceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symp. on Computer Science Education, 2013, pp. 621–626

    2013

  71. [71]

    Transitioning from block- based to text-based programming languages,

    L. Moors, A. Luxton-Reilly, and P. Denny, “Transitioning from block- based to text-based programming languages,” inInt. Conf. on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering, 2018, pp. 57–64

    2018

  72. [72]

    Heuristic evaluation for novice program- ming systems,

    M. K ¨olling and F. McKay, “Heuristic evaluation for novice program- ming systems,”ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., vol. 16, no. 3, 2016

    2016

  73. [73]

    Educational resources for promoting talent in quantum computing,

    P. Pashaei, H. Amiri, R. Haenel, P. L. S. Lopes, and L. Chrostowski, “Educational resources for promoting talent in quantum computing,” in IEEE Int. Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineering, 2020, pp. 317–322

    2020

  74. [74]

    Teaching quantum computing to high school students,

    C. Hughes, J. Isaacson, J. Turner, A. Perry, and R. Sun, “Teaching quantum computing to high school students,”Phys. Teach., vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 187––189, 2022

    2022

  75. [75]

    Quantum computing online work- shops and hackathon for Spanish speakers: A case study,

    A. Maldonado-Romo and L. Yeh, “Quantum computing online work- shops and hackathon for Spanish speakers: A case study,” inIEEE Int. Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineering, 2022, pp. 709–717

    2022

  76. [76]

    Pathways to quantum: Fostering high school student interest in quan- tum information science,

    J. R. Simons, N. Holincheck, J. L. Rosenberg, and L. M. Akesson, “Pathways to quantum: Fostering high school student interest in quan- tum information science,” inIEEE Int. Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineering, vol. 03, 2025, pp. 23–28

    2025

  77. [77]

    Making the quantum world accessible to young learners through quantum picturalism: An experimental study,

    S. D ¨undar-Coecke, C. Puca, L. Yeh, M. H. Waseem, E. M. Pothos, T. Cervoni, S. M. L. Pfaendler, V . Wang-Ma ´scianica, P. Sigrist, F. Tomassini, V . Anandraj, I. Khan, S. Gogioso, A. Kissinger, and B. Coecke, “Making the quantum world accessible to young learners through quantum picturalism: An experimental study,” 2025

    2025

  78. [78]

    Experience teaching quantum computing,

    C. C. Tappert, R. I. Frank, I. Barabasi, A. M. Leider, D. Evans, and L. Westfall, “Experience teaching quantum computing,” inAssociation Supporting Computer Users in Education, Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association Supporting Computer Users in Education, 2019, pp. 46–60

    2019

  79. [79]

    Increasing women’s participation in cs at large public universities: Issues and insights,

    J. Rezwana and M. L. Maher, “Increasing women’s participation in cs at large public universities: Issues and insights,”ACM Inroads, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 18—-25, 2023

    2023

  80. [80]

    Engaging black and latinx students through communal learning opportunities: A relevance intervention for middle schoolers in stem elective class- rooms,

    D. L. Gray, T. L. McElveen, B. P. Green, and L. H. Bryant, “Engaging black and latinx students through communal learning opportunities: A relevance intervention for middle schoolers in stem elective class- rooms,”Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 60, 2020

    2020

Showing first 80 references.