Developed by W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman
| Purpose | To measure students’ self-reported beliefs about physics and their physics courses and how closely these beliefs about physics align with experts’ beliefs. |
|---|---|
| Format | Pre/post, Multiple-choice, Agree/disagree |
| Duration | 8-10 min |
| Focus | Beliefs / Attitudes (epistemological beliefs) |
| Level | Upper-level, Intermediate, Intro college, High school |
Sample questions from the CLASS:
A significant problem in learning physics is being able to memorize all the information I need to know.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
Knowledge in physics consists of many disconnected topics.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
Gold Star ValidationThis is the highest level of research validation, corresponding to all seven of the validation categories below.
Research Validation Summary
Based on Research Into:
- Student thinking
Studied Using:
- Student interviews
- Expert review
- Appropriate statistical analysis
Research Conducted:
- At multiple institutions
- By multiple research groups
- Peer-reviewed publication
Questions from the MPEX and VASS were taken as the starting point for the CLASS and modified then tested in student interviews. Questions were further revised with expert interviews. The “expert” answer to each question was determined by 16 physicists with extensive teaching experience who agreed to the answers for nearly all questions. Categories were created using reduced-basis factor analysis, where raw statistical categories and categories predetermined by researchers were combined iteratively. The CLASS was given to thousands of students and those with more experience in physics, had more expert-like beliefs. The CLASS has high reliability. CLASS scores were also correlated with other measures of learning. The CLASS has been administered at over 20 institutions with over 9000 students enrolled in many different course levels taught with differing teaching methods. Results have been published in over 45 peer-reviewed publications.
References
- W. Adams, K. Perkins, M. Dubson, N. Finkelstein, and C. Wieman, The Design and Validation of the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2004, Sacramento, California, 2004.
- W. Adams, K. Perkins, N. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. Finkelstein, and C. Wieman, New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2 (1), (2006).
- W. Adams, C. Wieman, K. Perkins, and J. Barbera, Modifying and Validating the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for Use in Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ. 85 (10), 1435 (2008).
- H. Alhadlaq, F. Alshaya, S. Alabdulkareem, K. Perkins, W. Adams, and C. Wieman, Measuring Students’ Beliefs about Physics in Saudi Arabia, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2009, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2009.
- S. Bates, R. Galloway, C. Loptson, and K. Slaughter, How attitudes and beliefs about physics change from high school to faculty, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7 (2), 020114 (2011).
- E. Brewe, L. Kramer, and G. O'Brien, CLASS Shifts in Modeling Instruction, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2008, Edmonton, Canada, 2008.
- E. Brewe, L. Kramer, and G. O'Brien, Modeling instruction: Positive attitudinal shifts in introductory physics measured with CLASS, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5 (1), 013102 (2009).
- J. de la Garza and H. Alarcon, Assessing Students' Attitudes In A College Physics Course In Mexico, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2010, Portland, Oregon, 2010.
- C. De Leone, C. Ishikawa, and R. Marion, Adaptation and Implementation of a Radically Reformed Introductory Physics Course for Biological Science Majors: Assessing Success and Prospects for Future Implementation, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2006, Syracuse, New York, 2006.
- L. Ding, A comparative study of middle school and high school students’ views about physics and learning physics, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2012, Philadelphia, PA, 2012.
- N. Finkelstein and S. Pollock, Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1 (1), (2005).
- E. Gire, E. Price, and B. Jones, Characterizing the Epistemological Development of Physics Majors, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2006, Syracuse, New York, 2006.
- K. Gray, W. Adams, C. Wieman, and K. Perkins, Students know what physicists believe, but they don’t agree: A study using the CLASS survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4 (2), 020106 (2008).
- L. E. Kost, S. J. Pollock, and N. D. Finkelstein, Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5 (1) 010101 (2009).
- L. Kost-Smith, S. Pollock, and N. Finkelstein, Gender disparities in second-semester college physics: The incremental effects of a "smog of bias", Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6 (2), 020112 (2010).
- B. Lindsey, L. Hsu, H. Sadaghiani, J. Taylor, and K. Cummings, Positive attitudinal shifts with the Physics by Inquiry curriculum across multiple implementations, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8 (1), 010102 (2012).
- A. Madsen, S. McKagan, and E. Sayre, How physics instruction impacts students’ beliefs about learning physics: A meta-analysis of 24 studies, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11 (1), 010115 (2015).
- S. McKagan, K. Perkins, and C. Wieman, Reforming a large lecture modern physics course for engineering majors using a PER-based design, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2006, Syracuse, New York, 2006.
- M. Milner-Bolotin, T. Antimirova, A. Noack, and A. Petrov, Attitudes about science and conceptual physics learning in university introductory physics courses, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7 (2), 020107 (2011).
- V. Otero and K. Gray, Learning to Think Like Scientists with the PET Curriculum, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2007, Greensboro, NC, 2007.
- V. Otero and K. Gray, Attitudinal gains across multiple universities using the Physics and Everyday Thinking curriculum, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4 (2), 020104 (2008).
- K. Perkins, W. Adams, S. Pollock, N. Finkelstein, and C. Wieman, Correlating Student Beliefs with Student Learning Using the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2004, Sacramento, California, 2004.
- K. Perkins, J. Barbera, W. Adams, and C. Wieman, Chemistry vs. Physics: A Comparison of How Biology Majors View Each Discipline, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2006, Syracuse, New York, 2006.
- K. Perkins and M. Gratny, Who Becomes a Physics Major? A Long-term Longitudinal Study Examining the Roles of Pre-college Beliefs about Physics and Learning Physics, Interest, and Academic Achievement, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2010, Portland, Oregon, 2010.
- K. Perkins, M. Gratny, W. Adams, N. Finkelstein, and C. Wieman, Towards characterizing the relationship between students' interest in and their beliefs about physics, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2005, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2005.
- V. Sawtelle, E. Brewe, and L. Kramer, Validation study of the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey at a Hispanic-serving institution, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5 (2), 023101 (2009).
- K. Slaughter, S. Bates, and R. Galloway, A longitudinal study of the development of attitudes and beliefs towards physics, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2011, Omaha, Nebraska, 2011.
- U. Wutchana, N. Emarat, and E. Etkina, Are Students’ Responses and Behaviors Consistent?, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2009, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2009.
- P. Zhang and L. Ding, Large-scale survey of Chinese precollege students' epistemological beliefs about physics: A progression or a regression?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9 (1), 010110 (2013).
PhysPort provides translations of assessments as a service to our users, but does not endorse the accuracy or validity of translations. Assessments validated for one language and culture may not be valid for other languages and cultures.
| Language | Translator(s) | |
|---|---|---|
| Arabic | H. Alhadlaq, F. Alshaya, and S. Alabdulkareem |  |
| Chinese | Lin Ding and Ping Zhang | |
| Finnish | Mervi Asikainen | |
| German | Christian Kautz, Hanno Holzhüter, and Felix Lehmann (This version is designed for an intro engineering class. Questions that don't make sense in a German engineering context have been removed.) | |
| Japanese | Michi Ishimoto and Hideo Nitta | |
| Portuguese | Eduardo Gama and Marta F. Barroso, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro | |
| Spanish | Genaro Zavala, Hugo Alarcon, and Angeles Domínguez | |
| Turkish | Derya Kaltakci | |
If you know of a translation that we don't have yet, or if you would like to translate this assessment, please contact us!
Download the CLASS answer key.
Download the CLASS scoring tool.
| Typical Results |
|---|
The figure below from Madsen et. al 2015 depicts CLASS and MPEX pre- and post-test scores and shifts for a variety of teaching methods. The CLASS and MPEX are similar in the way they measure students beliefs about physics and learning physics, so the scores for these tests have been combined. Further, there is less published data for the MPEX (n=1316) than the CLASS (n=9296), and there are teaching method categories with only one published MPEX study or none at all, so combining the data from the CLASS and MPEX allows us to draw more conclusions.
|
Coming soon: The PhysPort Assessment Data Explorer
Start learning more from your tests.
- Get 1-click statistics
- Compare to students like yours
- Get practical, personalized recommendations
The latest version of the CLASS for Physics, released in 2004, is version 3. There are also variations of the CLASS for chemistry, biology, astronomy and math, which are available at https://www.colorado.edu/sei/class. The German translation of CLASS is missing questions that don't make sense in a German engineering context, so there has 6 fewer questions than the English CLASS.
