- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Students’ views of experimental physics after participating in lab courses with open-ended activities

Qiaoyi Liu* and H. J. Lewandowski

  • JILA, National Institute of Standards and Technology and University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA and Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA

  • *Contact author: qili7958@colorado.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020151 – Published 5 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/5np1-mccl

Abstract

Improving students’ views of experimental physics is often an important goal of undergraduate physics laboratory courses. However, traditional lab courses typically include highly guided activities that often do not require or encourage students to engage in the authentic process of experimental physics. Alternatively, open-ended activities in lab courses can provide students with a more authentic learning experience. Here, we investigate the correlation of open-ended activities in lab courses with students’ views of experimental physics, using an expanded database of the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for Experimental Physics (E-CLASS) survey responses from over 30,000 students at over 100 institutions. We show that the inclusion of some open-ended activities is associated with more expertlike postinstruction responses relative to the courses that include only traditional guided activities, and the effect is larger for students with low preinstruction scores. We also find that for courses with at least 1 week spent on open-ended activities, the number of weeks (above zero) spent on open-ended activities is not associated with a pre- to post-instruction gain in the E-CLASS scores. This result suggests that possibly including even a small amount of time on open-ended activities can improve students’ views of experimental physics, which lowers the barrier for instructors to implement such components. These results also suggest that additional research should be conducted to better understand and categorize lab environments beyond simple definitions of inquiry, so as to understand the possible causation mechanisms of labs on students’ views of experimental physics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (67)

  1. R. Trumper, The physics laboratory—A historical overview and future perspectives, Sci. Educ. 12, 645 (2003).
  2. S. B. McKagan, D. A. Craig, M. Jackson, and T. Hodapp, A Guide to Effective Practices for Physics Programs (EP3) (American Physical Society, College Park, MD, 2021), https://ep3guide.org/.
  3. N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Introductory physics labs: We can do better, Phys. Today 71, No. 1, 38 (2018).
  4. C. Wieman, Comparative cognitive task analyses of experimental science and instructional laboratory courses, Phys. Teach. 53, 349 (2015).
  5. B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, Open-ended versus guided laboratory activities: Impact on students’ beliefs about experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020132 (2016).
  6. B. M. Zwickl, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, The process of transforming an advanced lab course: Goals, curriculum, and assessments, Am. J. Phys. 81, 63 (2013).
  7. D. Doucette, B. D’Urso, and C. Singh, Lessons from transforming second-year honors physics lab, Am. J. Phys. 88, 838 (2020).
  8. J. R. Hoehn, M. F. Fox, A. Werth, V. Borish, and H. Lewandowski, Remote advanced lab course: A case study analysis of open-ended projects, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020111 (2021).
  9. E. Etkina and A. Van Heuvelen, Investigative science learning environment—A science process approach to learning physics, in Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2001).
  10. M. Wells, D. Hestenes, and G. Swackhamer, A modeling method, Am. J. Phys. 63, 606 (1995).
  11. R. J. Beichner, J. M. Saul, R. J. Allain, D. L. Deardorff, and D. S. Abbott, Introduction to scale-up: Student-centered activities for large enrollment university physics, in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education (American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC, 2000).
  12. R. E. Scherr and N. Holmes, Quantifying uncertainty and distinguishing data sets in introductory physics, CourseSource 10 (2023).
  13. A. Werth, K. Oliver, C. G. West, and H. Lewandowski, Assessing student engagement with teamwork in an online, large-enrollment course-based undergraduate research experience in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020128 (2022).
  14. A. Werth, C. G. West, and H. Lewandowski, Impacts on student learning, confidence, and affect in a remote, large-enrollment, course-based undergraduate research experience in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010129 (2022).
  15. R. Merritt and H. Lewandowski, Physics instructor views on course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), presented at PER Conf. 2024 Boston, MA, 10.1119/perc.2024.pr.Merritt.
  16. M. Kretchmer, R. Merritt, and H. Lewandowski, Exploring student beliefs of traditional physics laboratory coursework in relation to authentic research, presented at PER Conf. 2024 Boston, MA, 10.1119/perc.2024.pr.Kretchmer.
  17. B. R. Wilcox, Students’ views about the nature of experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020110 (2017).
  18. B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, A summary of research-based assessment of students’ beliefs about the nature of experimental physics, Am. J. Phys. 86, 212 (2018).
  19. B. M. Zwickl, T. Hirokawa, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Epistemology and expectations survey about experimental physics: Development and initial results, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010120 (2014).
  20. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Students’ epistemologies about experimental physics: Validating the Colorado learning attitudes about science survey for experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010123 (2016).
  21. Q. Liu and H. Lewandowski, Correlation of open-ended activities in laboratory courses with students’ views of experimental physics, presented at PER Conf. 2024 Boston, MA, 10.1119/perc.2024.pr.Liu.
  22. A. R. Carter, One hundred years later, introductory labs are poised for change, Phys. Teach. 59, 97 (2021).
  23. National Research Council, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, and Committee on Development of an Addendum to the National Science Education Standards on Scientific Inquiry, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education/National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
  24. J. Kozminski, H. Lewandowski, N. Beverly, S. Lindaas, D. Deardorff, A. Reagan, R. Dietz, R. Tagg, M. EblenZayas, J. Williams et al., AAPT recommendations for the undergraduate physics laboratory curriculum, Phys. Teach. 53, 253 (2014).
  25. A. Bandura, Human agency in social cognitive theory, Am. Psychol. 44, 1175 (1989).
  26. N. Holmes, B. Keep, and C. E. Wieman, Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010109 (2020).
  27. J. A. Schmidt, J. M. Rosenberg, and P. N. Beymer, A person-in-context approach to student engagement in science: Examining learning activities and choice, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 55, 19 (2018).
  28. E. Jeffery, K. Nomme, T. Deane, C. Pollock, and G. Birol, Investigating the role of an inquiry-based biology lab course on student attitudes and views toward science, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15, ar61 (2016).
  29. D. R. Dounas-Frazer, J. T. Stanley, and H. Lewandowski, Student ownership of projects in an upper-division optics laboratory course: A multiple case study of successful experiences, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020136 (2017).
  30. E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, C. Walsh, and N. Holmes, Direct measurement of the impact of teaching experimentation in physics labs, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011029 (2020).
  31. H. A. Schweingruber, M. L. Hilton, and S. R. Singer, America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School science (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2006).
  32. K. Henige, Undergraduate student attitudes and perceptions toward low-and high-level inquiry exercise physiology teaching laboratory experiences, Adv. Physiol. Educ. 35, 197 (2011).
  33. D. C. Owens, T. D. Sadler, A. T. Barlow, and C. Smith-Walters, Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices, Res. Sci. Educ. 50, 253 (2020).
  34. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Stump, K. Hubenig, and N. Holmes, Restructuring physics labs to cultivate sense of student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020128 (2021).
  35. B. M. Zwickl, T. Hirokawa, N. Finkelstein, and H. Lewandowski, Development and results from a survey on students views of experiments in lab classes and research, presented at PER Conf. 2014, Portland, OR, 10.1119/perc.2013.pr.083.
  36. J. M. Aiken and H. Lewandowski, Data sharing model for physics education research using the 70 000 response Colorado learning attitudes about science survey for experimental physics dataset, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020144 (2021).
  37. N. Holmes and H. Lewandowski, Investigating the landscape of physics laboratory instruction across North America, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020162 (2020).
  38. D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, Students’ attitudes toward experimental physics in a conceptual inquiry-based introductory physics lab, Can. J. Phys. 100, 292 (2022).
  39. N. Sulaiman, A. Werth, and H. Lewandowski, Students’ views about experimental physics in a large-enrollment introductory lab focused on experimental scientific practices, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010116 (2023).
  40. A. Werth, C. G. West, N. Sulaiman, and H. Lewandowski, Enhancing students’ views of experimental physics through a course-based undergraduate research experience, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020151 (2023).
  41. M. F. Fox, J. R. Hoehn, A. Werth, and H. Lewandowski, Lab instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic: Effects on student views about experimental physics in comparison with previous years, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010148 (2021).
  42. B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, Correlating students’ beliefs about experimental physics with lab course success, presented at PER Conf. 2015 College Park, MD, 10.1119/perc.2015.pr.087.
  43. B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, Impact of instructional approach on students’ epistemologies about experimental physics, presented at PER Conf. 2016 Sacramento, CA, 10.1119/perc.2016.pr.092.
  44. B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, Research-based assessment of students’ beliefs about experimental physics: When is gender a factor?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020130 (2016).
  45. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Developing skills versus reinforcing concepts in physics labs: Insight from a survey of students’ beliefs about experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010108 (2017).
  46. B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, Improvement or selection? A longitudinal analysis of students’ views about experimental physics in their lab courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 023101 (2017).
  47. C. Walsh, H. Lewandowski, and N. Holmes, Skills-focused lab instruction improves critical thinking skills and experimentation views for all students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010128 (2022).
  48. M. Lovelace and P. Brickman, Best practices for measuring students’ attitudes toward learning science, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 12, 606 (2013).
  49. I. A. Halloun, Student views about science, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, Educational Research Center, Lebanese University (American Institute of Physics Press, College Park, MD, 2001).
  50. B. R. Wilcox, B. M. Zwickl, R. D. Hobbs, J. M. Aiken, N. M. Welch, and H. Lewandowski, Alternative model for administration and analysis of research-based assessments, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010139 (2016).
  51. F. Wilcoxon, Individual comparisons by ranking methods, in Breakthroughs in Statistics: Methodology and Distribution (Springer, New York, 1992), pp. 196–202.
  52. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Routledge, New York, 2013).
  53. B. Thompson, What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect sizes, Educ. Res. 31, 25 (2002).
  54. B. Thompson, Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and confidence intervals for effect sizes, Psychologie 44, 423 (2007).
  55. A. Wildt, Analysis of Covariance (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1978).
  56. A. Gelman, Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2007).
  57. S. Holm, A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, Scand. J. Stat. Theory Appl. 6, 65 (1979).
  58. M. Aickin and H. Gensler, Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research results: The Bonferroni vs Holm methods, Am. J. Public Health 86, 726 (1996).
  59. G. Van Rossum, F. L. Drake et al., python Reference Manual (Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam, 1995), Vol. 111.
  60. R Core Team, r: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R foundation for statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2020).
  61. D. L. Hahs-Vaughn and R. G. Lomax, An Introduction to Statistical Concepts (Routledge, New York, 2020).
  62. G. A. Miller and J. P. Chapman, Misunderstanding analysis of covariance, J. Abnorm. Psychol. 110, 40 (2001).
  63. D. Clark and M. C. Linn, Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 451 (2003).
  64. S. C. Andersen, M. K. Humlum, and A. B. Nandrup, Increasing instruction time in school does increase learning, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 7481 (2016).
  65. G. Geschwind, M. Alemani, M. F. Fox, P. Logman, E. Tufino, and H. Lewandowski, Development of a global landscape of undergraduate physics laboratory courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020117 (2024).
  66. V. Adlakha and E. Kuo, Critical issues in statistical causal inference for observational physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020160 (2023).
  67. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, How physics instruction impacts students’ beliefs about learning physics: A meta-analysis of 24 studies, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010115 (2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020151– Published 5 December, 2025
  • Received 22 July 2025
  • Accepted 12 November 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation