Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education
Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

SINTA

2.396

Impact

Gscholar

11

H-Index

Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

Quantum Learning Boosts Higher-Order Thinking: Enhancing Critical Thinking and Written Argumentation in Secondary Physics

Andrew David
Papua New Guinea University of Technology ROR
Papua New Guinea
andrewdavid@gmail.com
Kaia Eguta
Papua New Guinea University of Technology ROR
Papua New Guinea
Kim A Gargar
Science High School-Main Campus
Philippines
Share

  • Learning method on critical thinking skills and written argumentation skills of high school students simultaneously in physics learning, to determine whether this student-centered approach is effective in improving higher-order thinking skills in secondary education.

    Methodology: This study employed a quasi-experimental non-equivalent control group pretest–posttest design at Kandrian Secondary School. Purposive sampling was used to select 60 eleventh-grade students divided into experimental and control groups. Instruments included essay tests based on Facione’s Delphi Report and Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern (TAP), assessed using analytic rubrics. Data were analyzed using SPSS through N-gain, Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Levene’s Test, independent and paired samples t-tests, and Cohen’s d.

    Main Findings: The experimental group demonstrated significantly higher improvements in critical thinking and written argumentation skills compared to the control group. N-gain scores were in the moderate category for the experimental class and low for the control class. Independent samples t-test results showed significant differences (p < 0.05), while paired samples t-tests confirmed significant pretest–posttest gains. Cohen’s d indicated a large effect size of Quantum Learning on both competencies.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study is novel in empirically examining the simultaneous impact of Quantum Learning on both critical thinking and written argumentation skills at the senior high school level. It integrates cognitive and argumentative competencies within a single instructional intervention, advancing existing knowledge by providing combined evidence of effectiveness in a resource-limited secondary education context.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    A. David, K. Eguta, and K. A. Gargar, “Quantum Learning Boosts Higher-Order Thinking: Enhancing Critical Thinking and Written Argumentation in Secondary Physics”, Sch. Jo. Phs. Ed, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 23–31, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v7i1.2826.

    More Citation Formats

  • 153
    Abstract views
    104
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. A. Okada, G. Panselinas, M. Bizoi, R. Malagrida, and P. L. Torres, “Fostering transversal skills through open schooling with the CARE-KNOW-DO framework for sustainable education,” 2024. doi: 10.3390/su16072794. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072794
    2. M. R. Sarita and A. W. Wisudawati, “Enhancing 21st century skills in students with special needs through STEM learning,” JTK (Jurnal Tadris Kim., vol. 9, no. 2 SE-Articles, pp. 209–219, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.15575/jtk.v9i2.38883. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15575/jtk.v9i2.38883
    3. C.-Y. Hsu and T.-T. Wu, “Application of business simulation games in flipped classrooms to facilitate student engagement and higher-order thinking skills for sustainable learning practices,” 2023. doi: 10.3390/su152416867. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202311.0082.v1
    4. J. Gottschling, F. Krieger, and S. Greiff, “The fight against infectious diseases: The essential role of higher-order thinking and problem-solving,” 2022. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence10010014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10010014
    5. E. Yuwanti, S. R. Sari, and A. Rusdiani, “Innovative pedagogical strategies in education 4.0: A literature review on preparing students for the digital era,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Progress. Educ. Dev., vol. 14, no. 4, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.6007/IJARPED/v14-i4/26692. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v14-i4/26692
    6. A. Fisher, “Robert H. Ennis (1996), Critical Thinking,” Argumentation, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 48–51, 2000, doi: 10.1023/A:1007850227823. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007850227823
    7. P. A. Facione, “Critical thinking : A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction executive summary “ The Delphi Report,” Calif. Acad. Press, vol. 423, no. c, pp. 1–19, 1990, [Online]. Available: http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/DEXadobe.PDF
    8. R. S. Bowen, “Student perceptions of ‘critical thinking’: insights into clarifying an amorphous construct,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 725–741, 2022, doi: 10.1039/D2RP00097K. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RP00097K
    9. P. Ninghardjanti, M. C. Umam, A. Subarno, W. Winarno, N. R. Langgi, and J. Widodo, “Evaluating the impact of AI on the critical thinking skills among the higher education students by combining the TAM model and critical thinking theory,” Front. Educ., vol. Volume 10, 2025, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1719625. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1719625
    10. S. Ahzari and A. Akmam, “Analyzing students’ critical thinking as a basis for developing interactive physics multimedia with generative learning and cognitive conflict strategies,” J. Pendidik. Fis., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 163–176, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.26618/jpf.v13i2.17702. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26618/jpf.v13i2.17702
    11. X. Ma, Y. Zhang, and X. Luo, “Students’ and teachers’ critical thinking in science education: are they related to each other and with physics achievement?,” Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 734–758, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1080/02635143.2021.1944078. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1944078
    12. V. Giri and M. U. Paily, “Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of critical thinking,” Sci. Educ., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 673–690, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11191-020-00120-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00120-y
    13. S. D. Kolstø, V. H. Paulsen, and I. Mestad, “Critical thinking in the making: students’ critical thinking practices in a multifaceted SSI project,” Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 499–530, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11422-024-10217-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-024-10217-3
    14. N. J. Alsaleh, “Teaching critical thinking skills : Literature review,” Turkish Online J. Educ. Technol., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 21–39, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1239945.pdf
    15. S. Hanscomb, Critical Thinking: The Basics. London: Routledge, 2023. doi: 10.4324/9781003247944. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003247944
    16. J. Osborne, S. Erduran, and S. Simon, “Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 994–1020, Dec. 2004, doi: 10.1002/tea.20035. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
    17. O. Noroozi, “The role of students’ epistemic beliefs for their argumentation performance in higher education,” Innov. Educ. Teach. Int., vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 501–512, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1080/14703297.2022.2092188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2092188
    18. L. Casas-Quiroga and B. Crujeiras-Pérez, “Epistemic operations performed by high school students in an argumentation and decision-making context: Setrocia’s alimentary emergency,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 42, no. 16, pp. 2653–2673, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2020.1824300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1824300
    19. S. E. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511840005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005
    20. S. Alsop, “Thinking and meddling with boundaries: Critical reflections on Matthew Weinstein’s narrative of street medics, red-zones and glop,” Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 53–63, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11422-014-9643-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9643-7
    21. V. Sampson and D. B. Clark, “Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions,” Sci. Educ., vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 447–472, May 2008, doi: 10.1002/sce.20276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
    22. D. Kuhn, The Skills of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. doi: DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511571350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571350
    23. OECD, “PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education,” Paris, 2023. doi: 10.1787/53f23881-en. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
    24. E. J. Theobald et al., “Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 117, no. 12, pp. 6476–6483, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1916903117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
    25. S. Freeman et al., “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8410–8415, Jun. 2014, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
    26. L. Darling-Hammond, L. Flook, C. Cook-Harvey, B. Barron, and D. Osher, “Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development,” Appl. Dev. Sci., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 97–140, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
    27. A. Carvalho, S. J. Teixeira, L. Olim, S. de Campanella, and T. Costa, “Pedagogical innovation in higher education and active learning methodologies – a case study,” Educ. + Train., vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 195–213, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1108/ET-05-2020-0141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2020-0141
    28. V. L. Dara and C. Kesavan, “Analyzing the concept of participatory learning: Strategies, trends and future directions in education,” Kybernetes, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 3882–3915, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1108/K-12-2023-2581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2023-2581
    29. J. Osborne, “Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse,” Science (80-. )., vol. 328, no. 5977, pp. 463–466, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1126/science.1183944. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
    30. J. A. Fredricks, P. C. Blumenfeld, and A. H. Paris, “School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 59–109, Mar. 2004, doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
    31. L. Mebert et al., “Fostering student engagement through a real-world, collaborative project across disciplines and institutions,” High. Educ. Pedagog., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 30–51, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1080/23752696.2020.1750306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2020.1750306
    32. N. Sartania, S. Sneddon, J. G. Boyle, E. McQuarrie, and H. P. de Koning, “Increasing collaborative discussion in case-based learning improves student engagement and knowledge acquisition,” Med. Sci. Educ., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1055–1064, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s40670-022-01614-w. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-022-01614-w
    33. D. Kuhn, “Critical thinking as discourse,” Hum. Dev., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 146–164, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1159/000500171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000500171
    34. P. J. A. C. van der Zanden, E. Denessen, A. H. N. Cillessen, and P. C. Meijer, “Fostering critical thinking skills in secondary education to prepare students for university: teacher perceptions and practices,” Res. Post-Compulsory Educ., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 394–419, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1080/13596748.2020.1846313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2020.1846313
    35. C. Morris, J. Deehan, and A. Macdonald, “Written argumentation research in English and science: a scoping review,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, May 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2356983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2356983
    36. M. Aarar and C. Pérez Valverde, “Enhancing evidence-based writing and critical thinking skills of high school students by implementing a debating-via-zoom approach,” 2025. doi: 10.3390/educsci15091204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091204
    37. Y. E. Loaiza, J. R. Zona, and M. F. Rios, “Critical thinking and teacher training in secondary education,” 2025. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence13030037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13030037
    38. C. Saiz and S. F. Rivas, “Critical thinking, formation, and change,” 2023. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11120219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11120219
    39. M. Bulus, “Sample size determination and optimal design of randomized/non-equivalent pretest-posttest control-group designs,” Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilim. Derg., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 48–69, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.17984/adyuebd.941434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17984/adyuebd.941434
    40. N. Kohan, N. Navabi, M. K. Motlagh, and F. Ahmadinia, “Designing and evaluating ECG interpretation software for undergraduate nursing students in Iran: a non-equivalent control group pretest-posttest design,” BMC Nurs., vol. 23, no. 1, p. 827, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s12912-024-02472-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02472-0
    41. S. Syahrial et al., “Content analysis of student learning videos for teacher professional education programs based on Gagne’s learning theory,” J. Ilm. Pendidik. Profesi Guru, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 552–563, 2024, doi: 10.23887/jippg.v7i3.84354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23887/jippg.v7i3.84354
    42. K. Kamid, R. Rohati, H. Hobri, E. Triani, S. Rohana, and W. A. Pratama, “Process skill and student’s interest for mathematics learning: Playing a traditional games,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 967–988, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.29333/iji.2022.15352a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15352a
    43. K. Kamid, S. Winarni, R. Rohati, W. A. Pratama, and E. Triani, “Student team achievement division learning model and student process skills,” J. Ilm. Sekol. Dasar, vol. 6, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 1–10, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.23887/jisd.v6i1.42456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23887/jisd.v6i1.42456
    44. T. N. Trisahid, D. Kijkosol, and C. Corrales, “Optimization of biology learning on excretory system material through contextual teaching and learning approach,” J. Acad. Biol. Biol. Educ., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 82–91, 2024, doi: 10.37251/jouabe.v1i2.1165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37251/jouabe.v1i2.1165
    45. N. Harefa and L. S. L. Purba, “Problem solving skills improvement and the impact on students’ learning outcomes: Learning based e-project,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1567, no. 2, p. 022038, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1567/2/022038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1567/2/022038
    46. I. Wayan Distrik, Z. A. Imam Supardi, B. Jatmiko, and Yuberti, “The effects of multiple representations-based learning in improving concept understanding and problem-solving ability,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1796, no. 1, p. 012044, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1796/1/012044. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1796/1/012044
    47. S. A. Khozaei, N. V. Zare, H. K. Moneghi, T. Sadeghi, and M. M. Taraghdar, “Effects of quantum-learning and conventional teaching methods on learning achievement, motivation to learn, and retention among nursing students during critical care nursing education,” Smart Learn. Environ., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 18, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40561-022-00198-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00198-7
    48. K. H. Gülkesen, F. Bora, N. Ilhanli, E. Avsar, and N. Zayim, “Cohen’s d and physicians’ opinion on effect size: a questionnaire on anemia treatment,” J. Investig. Med., vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 814–819, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1136/jim-2021-002031. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jim-2021-002031
    49. P. J. Woods and Y. Copur-Gencturk, “Examining the role of student-centered versus teacher-centered pedagogical approaches to self-directed learning through teaching,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 138, p. 104415, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104415
    50. Q. Wang and G. E. Newell, “Teaching and learning argumentative writing as critical thinking in an EFL composition classroom,” Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact., vol. 51, p. 100891, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2025.100891. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2025.100891
    51. C. Rapanta, “Can teachers implement a student-centered dialogical argumentation method across the curriculum?,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 105, p. 103404, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103404