Researcher profile

Brian D. Thoms

Brian D. Thoms contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Three research-based approaches to the design of physics activities

A variety of activities are commonly used in college physics courses including lab, tutorials, and studio curricula. Instructors must choose among using research-based activities, designing their own activities or modifying existing activities. Instructors' choices depend on their own goals and the goals of activities from which they are choosing. To assist them in developing or modifying activities for their situation, we examine research-based activities to determine their goals and the features of the activities associated with these goals. Since most activities ask students to perform tasks to assist them in learning, sixty-six activities from eleven different research-based curricula were coded for student actions. The coding scheme containing forty-nine codes in ten categories was developed from a subset of activities, interviews with some of the activity designers, and recommendations from the American Association of Physics Teachers 2014 lab report. The results were examined using k-means cluster analysis revealing three design clusters. We label these clusters Thinking like a Scientists, Learning Concepts, Building Models. These three clusters reflect diverse design goals. In the Thinking like a Scientist cluster, activities emphasize design of experiments by students, discussion, error analysis, reasonableness checking, supporting claims, and making assumptions or simplifications. The Learning Concepts cluster focuses on prediction of results and experimental observations. The Building Models cluster emphasizes discussion and answering physics or math questions that do not use collected data. This work connects common features appearing in physics activities with the goals and strategies of the designers. In this way it may provide instructors with a more straightforward way to creat activities which achieve their desired outcomes.

preprint2016arXiv

Exploring University Students' Engagement with Online Video Lectures in a Blended Introductory Mechanics Course

The advent of MOOCs has stimulated interest in using online videos to deliver content in university courses. We examined student engagement with 78 online videos that we created and were incorporated into a one-semester blended introductory mechanics course at the Georgia Institute of Technology. We found that students were more engaged with videos that supported laboratory activities than with videos that presented lecture content. In particular, the percentage of students accessing laboratory videos was consistently greater than 80 percent throughout the semester while the percentage of students accessing lecture videos dropped to less than 40 percent by the end of the term. Moreover, students were more likely to access the entirety of a laboratory video than a lecture video. Our results suggest that students may access videos based on perceived value: students appear to consider the laboratory videos as essential for successfully completing the laboratories while students appear to consider the lecture videos as something more akin to supplementary material. We found there was little correlation between student engagement with the videos and the performance in the course. In addition, an examination of the in-video content suggests that students focus more on concrete information that is explicitly required for assignment completion (e.g., actions required to complete laboratory work, or formulas/mathematical expressions needed to solve particular problems) and less on content that is considered more conceptual in nature. The results of the study suggest ways in which instructors may revise courses to better support student learning.

preprint2014arXiv

Peer Evaluation of Video Lab Reports in an Introductory Physics MOOC

Assessing student performance becomes challenging when course enrollment becomes very large (~10^4 students). As part of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in introductory physics offered by Georgia Tech in 2013, students submitted video reports on mechanics labs. Peer evaluation of these reports provided the primary method for evaluating student laboratory work. This paper describes the methods developed and used to guide students in evaluating each other's video lab reports. We also discuss how students' peer evaluation behavior changed with different interventions provided in the course.

preprint2013arXiv

The Initial State of Students Taking an Introductory Physics MOOC

As part of a larger research project into massively open online courses (MOOCs), we have investigated student background, as well as student participation in a physics MOOC with a laboratory component. Students completed a demographic survey and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation at the beginning of the course. While the course is still actively running, we have tracked student participation over the first five weeks of the eleven-week course.

preprint2012arXiv

Understanding Student Computational Thinking with Computational Modeling

Recently, the National Research Council's framework for next generation science standards highlighted "computational thinking" as one of its "fundamental practices". 9th Grade students taking a physics course that employed the Modeling Instruction curriculum were taught to construct computational models of physical systems. Student computational thinking was assessed using a proctored programming assignment, written essay, and a series of think-aloud interviews, where the students produced and discussed a computational model of a baseball in motion via a high-level programming environment (VPython). Roughly a third of the students in the study were successful in completing the programming assignment. Student success on this assessment was tied to how students synthesized their knowledge of physics and computation. On the essay and interview assessments, students displayed unique views of the relationship between force and motion; those who spoke of this relationship in causal (rather than observational) terms tended to have more success in the programming exercise.