Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1901.06961

Quantifying critical thinking: Development and validation of the Physics Lab Inventory of Critical thinking (PLIC)

Cole Walsh·Katherine N. Quinn·C. Wieman·N. G. Holmes
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Introductory physics lab instruction is undergoing a transformation, with increasing emphasis on developing experimentation and critical thinking skills. These changes present a need for standardized assessment instruments to determine the degree to which students develop these skills through instructional labs. In this article, we present the development and validation of the Physics Lab Inventory of Critical thinking (PLIC). We define critical thinking as the ability to use data and evidence to decide what to trust and what to do. The PLIC is a 10-question, closed-response assessment that probes student critical thinking skills in the context of physics experimentation. Using interviews and data from 5584 students at 29 institutions, we demonstrate, through qualitative and quantitative means, the validity and reliability of the instrument at measuring student critical thinking skills. This establishes a valuable new assessment instrument for instructional labs.

Explore related subjects

physics.ed-ph

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Cole Walsh, Katherine N. Quinn, C. Wieman, N. G. Holmes. 2019-01-21. Quantifying critical thinking: Development and validation of the Physics Lab Inventory of Critical thinking (PLIC). https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.06961

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Addressing misconceptions in university physics: A review and experiences from quantum physics educators

Students often begin physics courses with misconceptions rooted in everyday experience and intuition, which can be resistant to change. While research has identified strategies for addressing misconceptions across physics, it remains unclear whether different domains, like classical and quantum physics, require different approaches. Quantum concepts can pose different representational and mathematical demands, while both domains require instructors to elicit and develop students' reasoning. To support discussion of these instructional challenges, we organize selected literature on addressing misconceptions in physics education and summarize instructors' accounts. The overview groups 122 distinct works into four categories, with further subcategories. A preliminary framework developed from existing review literature informed the interview guide. We interviewed 12 instructors from the University of Waterloo's Institute for Quantum Computing and the Perimeter Institute, who have collectively taught over 100 quantum courses. The accounts describe difficulties involving instructional representations, prerequisite knowledge, and the interpretation of students' reasoning, alongside reported diagnostic and instructional responses. We draw these accounts and the literature together as questions for instructional planning. The report does not resolve the intended classical--quantum comparison or establish comparative instructional effectiveness.

physics.ed-ph↗
arXiv2026

Johann Bernoulli's analysis of elastic collisions (a teaching sequence to introduce the dynamic law thereby inspired)

In order to explain an elastic collision, Johann Bernoulli considered two bodies connected by a spring. Motion is defined as a succession of states of rest. Then, considering the spring to be a lever with a body at each extremity, the laws of equilibrium imply that `motion' is described by the time variation of the (common) quantity of motion of the bodies; the dynamic law is thus deduced. This inspires a teaching sequence to introduce the dynamic law (in one dimension) in introductory physics course; we call it ``bernoullian sequence''.

physics.ed-ph↗
arXiv2026

Design and Initial Evaluation of a Photovoltaics-focused Course-based Undergraduate Research Experience in Physics

Traditional physics laboratory courses often focus on experiments with well-known results, limiting students' engagement in authentic scientific practices. Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), where students engage in real research with unknown outcomes, have been shown to support positive student outcomes, such as increased self-efficacy, persistence, and engagement in scientific practices. However, discipline-specific studies of CUREs in physics remain limited. We describe the development, structure, and initial implementation of a photovoltaics-focused CURE in a second-year undergraduate physics laboratory course at the University of Colorado Boulder. To examine how students experienced the course, we analyzed end-of-semester reflection assignments using the five CURE components (i.e., scientific practices, discovery, relevance, collaboration, and iteration), as well as established dimensions of research authenticity, as analytic frameworks. Students described experiences associated with all five CURE components, with collaboration, relevance, and scientific practices appearing most prominently in their reflections. Students also associated authentic research with meaningful scientific contribution, engagement in authentic scientific practices, and navigating the uncertainty and setbacks inherent in research, although fewer explicitly identified themselves as researchers or scientists. A subset of students additionally connected the course to their immediate thinking about future academic and professional pathways. This work contributes both a discipline-specific model for implementing CUREs in experimental physics laboratory courses and provides insight into how students interpret and experience authentic research within this course context.

physics.ed-ph↗