BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Charlotte Zimmerman

Charlotte Zimmerman contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
physics.ed-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
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

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Online test administration results in students selecting more responses to multiple-choice-multiple-response items

Multiple-choice multiple-response (MCMR) items (i.e., multiple-choice questions for which more than one response may be selected) can be a valuable tool for assessment. Like traditional multiple-choice single-response questions, they are easy to score, but MCMR items can provide more information about student thinking by probing multiple reasoning facets in a single problem context. In this paper, we discuss differences in performance on MCMR items that result from differences in administration method (paper vs. online). In particular, we find a tendency for ``clickiness'' in online administration: students choose more responses to MCMR items when taking the electronic version of the assessment. Based on these findings, we recommend that online administration be compared only to other online administrations and not to paper administrations when comparing student results on MCMR items. These results also suggest that MCMR items provide a unique opportunity to probe differences in online and on-paper administration of low-stakes assessments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Exploring student facility with "goes like'' reasoning in introductory physics

Covariational reasoning -- reasoning about how changes in one quantity relate to changes in another quantity -- has been examined extensively in mathematics education research. Little research has been done, however, on covariational reasoning in introductory physics contexts. We explore one aspect of covariational reasoning: ``goes like'' reasoning. ``Goes like'' reasoning refers to ways physicists relate two quantities through a simplified function. For example, physicists often say that ``the electric field goes like one over r squared.'' While this reasoning mode is used regularly by physicists and physics instructors, how students make sense of and use it remains unclear. We present evidence from reasoning inventory items which indicate that many students are sense making with tools from prior math instruction, that could be developed into expert ``goes like'' thinking with direct instruction. Recommendations for further work in characterizing student sense making as a foundation for future development of instruction are made.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Online administration of a reasoning inventory in development

We are developing a new research based assessment (RBA) focused on quantitative reasoning -- rather than conceptual understanding -- in physics contexts. We rapidly moved administration of the RBA online in Spring 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We present our experiences with online, unproctored administration of an RBA in development to students enrolled in a large-enrollment, calculus-based, introductory physics course. We describe our attempts to adhere to best practices on a limited time frame, and present a preliminary analysis of the results, comparing results from the online administration to earlier results from in-person, proctored administration. We include discussion of online administration of multiple-choice/multiple-response (MCMR) items, which we use on the instrument as a way to probe multiple facets of student reasoning. Our initial comparison indicates little difference between online and paper administrations of the RBA, consistent with previous work by other researchers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Toward a valid instrument for measuring physics quantitative literacy

We have developed the Physics Inventory of Quantitative Literacy (PIQL) as a tool to measure students' quantitative literacy in the context of introductory physics topics. We present the results from various quantitative analyses used to establish the validity of both the individual items and the PIQL as a whole. We show how examining the results from classical test theory analyses, factor analysis, and item response curves informed decisions regarding the inclusion, removal, or modification of items. We also discuss how the choice to include multiple-choice/multiple-response items has informed both our choices for analyses and the interpretations of their results. We are confident that the most recent version of the PIQL is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring students' physics quantitative literacy in calculus-based introductory physics courses at our primary research site. More data are needed to establish its validity for use at other institutions and in other courses.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access