# Arguing for a Quantum Computing Curriculum: Lessons from Australian Schools

Andrew E. Fluck

► To cite this version:

Andrew E. Fluck. Arguing for a Quantum Computing Curriculum: Lessons from Australian Schools. IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education (WCCE), Aug 2022, Hiroshima, Japan. pp.137-148, 10.1007/978-3-031-43393-1_14. hal-05533333

HAL Id: hal-05533333

https://inria.hal.science/hal-05533333v1

Submitted on 2 Mar 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Arguing for a Quantum Computing Curriculum: Lessons from Australian Schools

Andrew E. Fluck(✉) |

Carrick, Tasmania, Australia

Andrew.Fluck@utas.edu.au

**Abstract.** This chapter makes an argument for the development of a quantum computing curriculum. Building from a general look at innovation adoption, it presents survey data from 307 schools on the implementation of a new *Digital Technologies* subject in Australia. It was found that states and territories were taking 6–11 years to report student learning in the subject to parents. On a national basis, the analysis finds implementation is taking nearly 10 years from when the subject was framed, until full delivery. Despite this trajectory, the curriculum was radically revised after only 7 years. This rate of revision makes it difficult for schools to keep up with curriculum policy. With binary digit (bit) storage sizes predicted to fall to atomic levels in the next three decades, it is argued that quantum computing will become increasingly important. A future curriculum for this new computing paradigm therefore needs to be developed as a matter of urgency, so schools can anticipate innovation instead of lagging behind it. The chapter proposes a quantum curriculum for schools be developed as part of an international effort with the scope of recent Informatics frameworks.

**Keywords:** informatics · computing curricula · case study · quantum computing

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Technological Innovations

Historians have labelled technological innovations with descriptions such as ‘Stone Age’, ‘Bronze Age’, ‘Iron Age’, ‘“Agrarian Revolution”, ‘Industrial Revolution’ and ‘Information Age’. Each of these pertains to a period of time or a turning point in human thought.

Although many societies and geographic regions passed through these Ages in sequence, they did not all do so at uniform times. Additionally, some societies skipped Ages. For instance, the Bronze Age ended in Africa in 1200 BCE, while it lasted until 600 BCE in Europe (600 years later). Technological discrepancies can lead to friction between societies (e.g., Iron-Age Spaniards in 1532 used steel weapons to defeat Bronze-Age Incas in Peru). Sometimes these technological differences emanate from physical

A. E. Fluck—Independent Educator.
properties, abundance and associated techniques. Thus, to melt Bronze at 913 °C is
easier than Iron (1,538 °C) which requires a bloomery or forced-air furnace.

Specific theories have been developed to illustrate the spread of technological inno-
vations. These include Diffusion of Innovations [1], Technology Acceptance Model
version 2 [2] and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology [3]. Com-
mon to all of these is user perception or expectancy, facilitated by communication, or
knowledge of the impact of the technology. In today's world (the Age of the Internet),
communication is at close to the speed of light and virtually without cost. Given this
convenience, how quickly might we expect innovations to spread across society and into
schools?

## 1.2 Educational Transformations

Although Einstein is credited with the general theory of Relativity from 1915, it is not yet
taught in most Australian Primary/Elementary schools. An exception is the 'Einstein-
First project' from 2013 [4]. Thus, the time between new knowledge generation and
educational adoption can be over a century.

One might only speculate how long it was before flint knapping tuition was discon-
tinued as metals began to be smelted. The pace of educational transformation appears
to be only loosely connected with the adoption of technological innovations in society
more broadly. One argument would be that education is more about mind-tools like
language, mathematics, emotions and culture than specific physical devices.

Hattie [5] and others have found ways to gauge the effectiveness of educational
innovations, using effect sizes, effectiveness ratings or improvement indices [6]. The
Brookings Institute uses a 'leapfrog potential' model, one component of which is the
Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) framework for
technology [7]. However, many of these metrics only provide a comparison between a
control/traditional learning and teaching process, and a new pedagogical approach.

It could be said that numeracy is a subset of Mathematics, and Literacy is congruent
to Literature (but not identical). Technological transformations can lead to curriculum
upheaval, and the teaching of new, different content, skills, attitudes. So, it is difficult
to find a comparison for efficacy metrication if the educational transformation pertains
to Mathematics when the only comparator is a Numeracy skill. Still harder, when the
new skill is the use of very advanced Mathematics for the student age-range under
consideration [8] or any other similar technology-mediated educational transformation.
There seems to be a research gap in determining the time it takes for technological
innovations to be implemented in school classrooms.

These concepts of technological innovation and educational transformation are now
explored in a case study emerging from developments in Australia.
# 2 Australian Case Study

## 2.1 Background

Within Australia, there is considerable regional autonomy for school curricula, but the nationally developed Australian Curriculum is used by most institutions. Variations occur by state/territory and school funding arrangements. Approximately 30% of schools operate independent of sole government funding. In 2015 Ministers of Education endorsed the Digital Technologies curriculum, making it available to all schools nationally for the first time [9]. Within the overarching Australian Curriculum, computer use in schools is divided into ‘ICT’ and ‘Digital Technologies’. ICT involves Digital Literacy and learning with a computer (as a consumer). This is the pedagogical adaptation to student computer use. Digital Technologies (elsewhere known as Computer Science, Informatics or Computing) involves computational thinking, programming and learning about computers (as a creator). This chapter now examines the introduction of this new subject.

## 2.2 Australian Computer Society Survey of Schools

The Educator’s Committee of the Australian Computer Society decided to inform policy advice by collecting data on this situation. A national survey was conducted in November 2020–April 2021 and received data from 307 schools. These included primary, high school and senior colleges (covering students aged from 5–18). Responses came from government schools, independent and Catholic schools. It focused on the Digital Technologies subject in the Australian Curriculum. The representativeness of the sample differed by state and territory, with $X^2(7, n=243) = 131.4, p = .000$. Four states/territories (ACT, NSW, NT & VIC) were under-represented. The other four (QLD, SA, WA and TAS) were over-represented.

Looking at the veracity of the survey respondents, there was some confusion about this distinction between ICT (as a general capability) and Digital Technologies (as a discrete subject). One of the survey questions asked:

*List three software programs/tools (or websites) students use most in their learning of Digital Technologies/IT over the entire year.*

The answers to the question were analysed to determine which tools were strictly relevant to Digital Technologies, and thus the accuracy of respondent knowledge. Programming tools/sites such as Scratch, Minecraft, Code.org and robotics were clearly relevant to the Digital Technologies subject. However, online literacy learning apps, for example, focused on literacy reading/writing/inferencing skills. Therefore, this second kind of tool was not classified as strictly relevant to the Digital Technologies subject. Khan Academy was also a popular response, but its popularity for programming/coding videos put it into the ‘relevant’ category (Table 1).

This failure of teacher-respondents to accurately identify Digital Technologies/Information Technologies tools was worrying.

The average time spent teaching Digital Technologies closely matched the design time in the Australian Curriculum. The time spent per week ranged from 1.1 h for students aged 4–10 years to 1.9 h for students aged 13–14 years.
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Proportion of teacher-selected tools strictly relevant to Digital Technologies/Information Technology.</caption><thead><tr><td>Student Year levels</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>F - Year 2</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Years 3-4</td><td>36%</td></tr><tr><td>Years 5-6</td><td>60%</td></tr><tr><td>Years 7-8</td><td>70%</td></tr><tr><td>Years 9-10</td><td>60%</td></tr></tbody></table>

Less than half (46%) of responding schools reported operating a bring-your-own-device policy. Where such policies operated, they tended to focus on tablets for students aged less than 10 years, and laptops for older students.

In half the schools, Digital Technologies was reported as taught in an integrated fashion with other subjects for students in Primary/Elementary schools (aged up to 12). However, it was taught as a separate subject in the majority of Secondary/High schools with older students.

Once again, about half the teachers of Digital Technologies in Primary schools were untrained in the subject. However, in High schools, this out-of-area proportion dropped to 20% when they were teaching students 15-16 years old (Table 2).

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Proportion of teachers of Digital Technologies working outside their area of expertise (109 to 136 schools responded, according to year-group) [10]</caption><thead><tr><td>Student Year</td><td>Proportion of schools where more than half the teachers do not have Digital Technologies expertise</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P/K/F - Year 2</td><td>56%</td></tr><tr><td>Years 3-4</td><td>57%</td></tr><tr><td>Years 5-6</td><td>54%</td></tr><tr><td>Years 7-8</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>Years 9-10</td><td>20%</td></tr><tr><td>Years 11-12</td><td>12%</td></tr></tbody></table>

Finally, a comment from one teacher-respondent read as follows:

*The Digital Technologies curriculum is very heavy on jargon which makes it really hard for teachers with no formal expertise in that area to teach comfortably – it does in fact almost scare them away from teaching it. It would be good to have a curriculum in plain language (all key terms explained) and have links to places*
> where teachers can find more information before they have to teach something
> [10]

This lack of confidence was echoed by many, emphasizing the gap between current schooling requirements and their own education when they were younger. It is also a comment reflective of the rapid change of the technology from niche to society-wide entitlement over the span of a generation.

The data were interrogated further to see if reporting to parents had any relation to the time spent teaching Digital Technologies (DT), time spent on professional learning and proportion of teachers out of area. There was a weak, but significant, correlation between mean extent of reporting Digital Technologies from Kindergarten to Year 10 to parents, and the mean time devoted to teaching the subject, r (198) = .199, p = .005. Also, there was a weak but significant correlation between mean reporting of Digital Technologies K-10 and mean time spent on teacher professional learning for the subject, r (196) = .225, p = .001. However, no significant correlation was found between mean reporting of Digital Technologies K-10 and mean proportion of teachers out of area, r (200) = -.064, p = .364.

Therefore, increased professional learning and more time spent teaching Digital Technologies are associated with a greater proportion of schools reporting student achievements in the subject to parents/guardians. That teaching 'out of area' made little impact on the proportion of schools reporting student progress, is either a testament to the generic ability of teachers to master any subject, or to their leadership for insisting the subject be taught and reported despite this missing background in their staff.

## 3 Time from Innovation to Educational Implementation

Figure 1 shows how the proportion of respondent schools reporting student progress with Digital Technologies varied by state/territory within Australia. The report used this question to capture where the subject was taught, assessed and student progress monitored. All of those would have to occur for a report on learning to be sent to parents/guardians. Answers in each school were by year-level bands, so up to seven responses per school were possible (for a K-12 school).

In Western Australia, 95% of schools stated they report student achievements in the Digital Technologies subject to parents. In New South Wales (the most populous state), only 54% of schools stated this reporting to parents occurred. This could be explained by the variation of the Australian Curriculum used in that state, where the subject is taught integrated with the Science subject. In Tasmania, only 56% of schools reported Digital Technologies learnings to parents (Table 3).

So, after six years of the Digital Technologies subject being available, actual implementation in schools was patchy. About 21% of schools were yet to deliver the subject. This could be explained by the lack of obligation imposed by government guidelines. In Tasmania, these guidelines only mandated reporting for English/Literacy and Mathematics/Numeracy. Using the standard S-curve for adoption growth, full reporting (including Digital Technologies) is expected to begin in 2024 [11 p. 3]. That will make it nearly 10 years between when the subject was framed, and actual nationwide delivery.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Extent of Digital Technologies reporting to parents/guardians [10]</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Regional reporting of learning achievement for Digital Technologies to parents – and expected year for full implementation [10]</caption><thead><tr><th>State/territory</th><th>Proportion of schools reporting Digital Technologies learning achievements to parents by end of 2020</th><th>N (year level bands)</th><th>Implementation progress rate over 6 years (% per year since 2015)</th><th>Expected year for 100% implementation (linear extrapolation)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Northern Territory</td><td>100%</td><td>3</td><td>17%</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Western Australia</td><td>95%</td><td>106</td><td>16%</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Australian Capital Territory</td><td>93%</td><td>15</td><td>16%</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Queensland</td><td>86%</td><td>205</td><td>14%</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>South Australia</td><td>85%</td><td>142</td><td>14%</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Victoria</td><td>66%</td><td>99</td><td>11%</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Tasmania</td><td>56%</td><td>52</td><td>9%</td><td>2026</td></tr><tr><td>New South Wales</td><td>54%</td><td>80</td><td>9%</td><td>2026</td></tr></tbody></table>

To complicate matters, a substantial review of the subject curriculum will become available for schools to use from the start of 2023. In the revised subject, the number
of content descriptors for Digital Technologies will grow by 65% (from 43 to 71). This reflects some advances in the field, but also responds to the teacher-respondent quoted above. Thus, this fragmentation makes learning outcomes more accessible to teachers, turning complex outcomes into two simpler outcomes. The proportion of learning outcomes related to coding/programming will decrease from 14% to 8% [12]. This is much less than in other jurisdictions, ranging from 17% (Singapore) to 28% (New Zealand).

Although the period from publication of the initial Australian Curriculum in 2015 to the revision in 2023 was eight years, this was less than the expected implementation period of ten years. The curriculum is being revised at a faster pace than many schools can implement it. Schools are finding it difficult to keep pace with technological innovation.

# 4 Future Innovations and Transformations

## 4.1 Arguing for a Quantum Computing Curriculum

Given this conclusion, what can be done about it? It is now argued that schools cannot continue to lag innovation, but educational leaders need to anticipate change to remain relevant in current society.

In many ways, the Digital Technologies subject is evolving faster than government agencies can revise the guiding curriculum documents. The current curriculum is largely based on digital computers using binary digits (bits) and procedural programming. The rise of Quantum Computing challenges these fundamental concepts.

Australia has nurtured some promising technology innovations in quantum computing. These include room-temperature qubits from nitrogen vacancies in diamond [13, 14] and work at Michelle Simmons' group at the University of New South Wales with qubits made from Phosphorous atoms in Silicon [15]. Therefore, it is relevant to illustrate how some of these technological innovations can become educational transformations.

While some universities are actively engaging in this area of study [16, 17], few schools were found doing so. There is scant evidence of quantum computing curricula for schools. A search of the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) database for *quantum computing* in 2022 revealed only 18 items (in a library of 1.7 million records, dating back to 1966). Another search for "*quantum computing*" *curric*\* in the IEEE Xplore database found only 13 articles. In both databases, the results mostly related to higher, rather than school education or focused on quantum mechanics instead. Those that were school-centred focused on teaching approaches rather than curriculum structures.

Among the teaching approaches, gamification is popular to engage and stimulate student learning. Nita et al. [18] analysed this using their *Quantum Odyssey* puzzle game software with 50 UK high school students, and found visual understanding of quantum computing topics was improved.

Entanglement is a key quantum computing concept for students to understand, and was the focus of two reports. Satanassi [19] described an early international project and compared Finnish with Italian approaches which were evaluated with 26 upper secondary school students. That used a teleportation example to engage students with entanglement via narrative and technical methods. In so doing, they blended elements
of quantum communication with quantum computing. Marckwordt et al. [20] describe how high school students (ages 13 to 18) can be taught about the quantum concept of “entanglement” through dodgeball.

Further empirical evidence that quantum computing can be taught in schools comes from Hughes et al. [21]. They describe their experience with the IBM quantum computers and 45 high school students who accessed an online course with interactive problem sets and simulation-based labs. Salehi et al. [22] gathered data in 10 countries from 317 students, most of whom were aged over 18. They introduced students to quantum computing concepts through linear algebra and IBM Qiskit. Outside Europe, Angara et al. [23] took a wider view of USA and Canadian year 9–12 students. That team examined the learning materials supporting the IBM Qiskit language and IBM online quantum computers. They commented that the “Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA), the preeminent American Computer Science education association behind initiatives like the K–12 CS Standards,19 has demonstrated limited engagement in the area of Quantum Computing Education preuniversity” (p. 13). In short, the literature is scant on school quantum computing curricula in the broader sense.

## 4.2 Other Teaching Approaches

As a teaching stimulus, students can calculate the storage volume required for a single binary digit (bit) from the dimensions of historical storage devices. For instance, the mercury delay line in 1951 measured 110 × 880 × 80 mm and held 12,800 bits (605 mm³ per bit). By 2018, a micro-Secure Digital (SD) card measured 15 × 11 × 1 mm and held 64 GB bits (2.58 × 10⁻⁹ mm³ per bit). Figure 2 shows how this plot can be diagrammed and extended.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Size v. date plot of computer memory capacity</figcaption></figure>

From this information, students can predict the year when the storage space for a single bit will become as small as an atom. Facing this date, they can be introduced to the probabilistic features of qubits, entanglement and superposition.
Various resources are available for schools to explain this transition from the defined procedural use of bits to the non-deterministic use of qubits. These include [24]:

* Michael Nielsen - Quantum computing for the determined [video lectures] (https://michaelnielsen.org/blog/quantum-computing-for-the-determined)

* IBM - Qiskit Textbook (beta) https://qiskit.org/textbook-beta/; Quantum Composer (https://quantum-computing.ibm.com/composer/files/new)

* Microsoft - Quantum Katas (https://github.com/Microsoft/QuantumKatas); with Brilliant - Quantum Computing (course) (https://brilliant.org/courses/quantum-computing/)

* Jack Ceroni - Quantum Computing resources for high school students (https://uni.tary.fund/posts/high_school_resources.html)

* Cirq 1.0 on Google's Quantum Virtual Machine using a qubit grid. (https://quantumai.google/education)

Despite the availability of these educational resources, it remains to be seen how long it will take for Australian curricula to include Quantum Computing, or for schools to report on student learning achievement.

## 4.3 The Role of Informatics Frameworks

Other jurisdictions are recognizing the importance of being responsive to technological innovations and agile with consequent educational transformations. The K-12 Computer Science Framework [25] was designed by some USA states and national stakeholder associations such as the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). That framework is grounded in algorithmic digital computing. It has great advice for adopters regarding teacher professional development (which the case study above identified as important). Also, there is good regard for early childhood education. The writers look at future research, and particularly implementation. However, there is no mention of quantum techniques or non-deterministic computing such as machine learning.

There was no such omission from the CC2020 Report [26]. Aimed at undergraduate programs rather than schools, this curriculum identified quantum computing as an emerging area. Deloitte had nominated quantum computers as a 'macro force' (p. 89).

More recently, *Informatics for All* (informaticsforall.org) [27] is a broader, international coalition aiming to provide a framework for national curricula. It follows on from the Rome declaration [28], which called on nations to ensure every child is taught the basics of information technology. The Framework is quite effusive on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, so one might hope this aspect will be adopted Europe-wide and further. However, quantum computing and communications are absent at this stage.

# 5 Future Moves

Childe, Bestwick, Yeomans et al. [29] have filed a UK patent application for a quantum key distribution protocol. This documents a method whereby a commercial enterprise can operate a satellite for quantum communication between two ground points. The commercial enterprise will be unable to intercept the secret messages being passed through
the satellite, thus provide un-hackable communications as a service. Such technological advances have the potential to have massive impacts on financial, military and social spheres, both beneficial and evil. The question to ask, is how long will it take for the effects to be understood, and then how much longer for school students to be taught about them? Should quantum communications be considered as part of a school curriculum on quantum computing?

# 6 Conclusion

The imperatives of technological innovation and the implied need for educational transformation encourages us to reflect upon existing school curricula. There will continue to be tension between the old and the new. On one hand, it is valid to want new citizens to think for themselves, be adaptable in many future circumstances, and not rely upon technology to survive. In their younger years, they need to develop key mind-tools such as language, literacy and numeracy. On the other hand, increasing numbers of students acquire pocket-sized devices in their teens that can translate foreign languages in real time, provide instant global communications and provide other computing benefits. It would seem anachronistic to forbid them the opportunity to extend their personal capacities by not teaching how to access and beneficially use these devices. To transform education with computers requires a proactive stance for schools to keep pace with innovations. In this regard, an international effort to prepare a quantum computing curriculum for schools would be of great value.

Such a curriculum should articulate with emerging quantum computing curricula in higher education [17]. It should link the fundamental concepts for quantum computing to appropriate learning ages and look at visual, intellectual and attitudinal understandings for school students. Ideally, it will fit within a broader Informatics framework to be useful in schools right around the world. It is often useful to accompany such a niche curriculum document with practical teaching examples, but care should be taken not to link too strongly with any specific software development tool.

# References

1. Rogers, E.: Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. Free Press (2003)

2. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

3. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)

4. Kaur, T., Blair, D., Moschilla, J., Stannard, W., Zadnik, M.: Teaching Einsteinian physics at schools: part 1, models and analogies for relativity. Phys. Educ. 52(6), 065012 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aa83e4

5. Hattie, J.: Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge (2009)

6. What works clearinghouse: Procedures Handbook v. 4.1 (2020). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/WWC-Procedures-Handbook-v4-1-508.pdf
7. Winthrop, R.: We studied 3,000 new education ideas — here's how to choose the best. A political (2018). https://apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/we-studied-3000-new-education-ideas-heres-how-to-choose-the-best

8. Fluck, A.E., et al.: Large effect size studies of computers in schools: calculus for kids and science-ercise. In: Tatnall, A., Webb, M. (eds.) Tomorrow's Learning: Involving Everyone, pp. 70–80, Springer Nature, Switzerland (2017)

9. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]: The Australian Curriculum: Technology – Digital Technologies (v.8.4) (2022). https://www.australiancurri culum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/digital-technologies/

10. Australian Computer Society [ACS]: ACS response to the 2020/21 Australian Curricu- lum Review (2021). https://www.acs.org.au/content/dam/acs/acs-public-policy/ACS%20resp onse%20to%20F-10%20Australian%20Curriculum%20review.pdf

11. Department of Education, Tasmania (DoE): Communicating Learning Progress with Fami- lies Policy v.2 (2020). https://documentcentre.education.tas.gov.au/_layouts/15/DocIdRedir. aspx?ID=TASED-1060461114-3674

12. Fluck, A.E., Girgla, A.: Changing computer curricula in Australia. In: Passey, D., Leahy, D., Williams, L., Holvikivi, J., Ruohonen, M. (eds.) Digital Transformation of Education and Learning – Past, Present and Future. OCCE 2021. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 642. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-97986-7_12

13. Hare, J.: Quantum computing leap puts ANU spin-off on $1b track. Australian Finan- cial Review (2021). https://www.afr.com/technology/quantum-computing-leap-puts-anu spin-off-on-1b-track-20210323-p57d6v

14. Náfrádi, B., Choucair, M., Dinse, K.P., et al.: Room temperature manipulation of long lifetime spins in metallic-like carbon nanospheres. Nat. Commun. **7**, 12232 (2016). https://doi.org/10. 1038/ncomms12232

15. Kobayashi, T., Salfi, J., Chua, C., et al.: Engineering long spin coherence times of spin-orbit qubits in silicon. Nat. Mater. **20**, 38–42 (2021)

16. Friedrichs, C.L., et al.: An analysis of quantum computing courses world-wide. In: Proceed- ings of Seidenberg Student Faculty Research Day (2021). http://csis.pace.edu/~ctappert/srd/ a5.pdf

17. Piattini, M.: Training Needs in Quantum Computing. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on the QuANtum Software Engineering & pRogramming. Talavera de la Reina, Spain, 11–12 February 2020. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2561/paper2.pdf

18. Nita, L.: Inclusive learning for quantum computing: supporting the aims of quantum literacy using the puzzle game Quantum Odyssey (2021)

19. Satanassi, S.: Quantum computers for high school: design of activities for an ISEE teaching module. Master's Thesis. Universita di Bologna (2018)

20. Marckwordt, J., Muller, A., Harlow, D., Franklin, D., Landsberg, R.H.: Entanglement ball: using dodgeball to introduce quantum entanglement. Phys. Teach. **59**, 613–616 (2021)

21. Hughes, C., Isaacson, J., Turner, J., Perry, A., Sun, R.: Teaching quantum computing to high school students. Phys. Teach. **60**, 187–189 (2022)

22. Salehi, Ö., Seskir, Z., Tepe, İ: A computer science-oriented approach to introduce quantum computing to a new audience. IEEE Trans. Educ. **65**(1), 1–8 (2022)

23. Angara, P.P., Stege, U., MacLean, A., Müller, H.A., Markham, T.: Teaching Quantum Com- puting to High-School-Aged Youth: A Hands-On Approach. IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. **3**, 3100115 (2022)

24. Quantum computing report: Education: Resources (2022). https://quantumcomputingreport. com/education/

25. K12CS: A Vision for K–12 Computer Science (2016). https://k12cs.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/09/K%E2%80%9312-Computer-Science-Framework.pdf
26. ACM & IEEE-CS: Computing Curricula 2020: CC2020 – Paradigms for Global Computing Education (2020)

27. I4ALL: The Informatics Reference Framework for Schools (2022). https://www.informaticsforall.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Informatics-Reference-Framework-for-School-rel-ease-February-2022.pdf

28. I4ALL: The Rome Declaration (2019). https://www.informaticsforall.org/rome-declaration/

29. Childe, B., Bestwick, D., Williams, D., Iqbal, O., Yeomans, A.J.V.: Quantum key distribution protocol (GB2590064). Intellectual Property Office – UK (2019). https://patentimages.sto rage.googleapis.com/87/c0/c3/ed62a6fdf25490/GB2590064A.pdf