Source author record

Gerd Kortemeyer

Gerd Kortemeyer appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works
1topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

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

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2025arXiv

The Boiling-Frog Problem of Physics Education

It is astonishing how rapidly general-purpose AI has crossed familiar thresholds in introductory physics. Comparing outputs from successive models, GPT-5 Thinking moves far beyond the plug-and-chug tendencies seen earlier: on a classic elevator problem it works symbolically, notes when variables cancel, and verifies results; attempts to prompt novice-like behavior mainly affect tone, not method. On representation translation, the model scores 24/26 (92.3%) on TUG-Kv4.0. In a card-sorting proxy using two of my comprehensive finals (60 items), its categories reflect solution method rather than surface features. Solving those same exams, it attains 27/30 and 25/30, with most misses in ruler-based ray tracing and circuit interpretation. On epistemology, five independent CLASS runs yield 100\% favorable, indicating a simulated expert-like stance. Framed as a "boiling frog" problem, the paper argues for a decisive jump: retire credit-bearing unsupervised closed-response online assessments; grade process evidence; use paper, whiteboarding; shift weight to modeling, data, and authentic labs; require transparent, citable AI use; rebuild problem types; and lean on research-based instruction and peer learning. The opportunity is to foreground what AI cannot substitute for: modeling the world, arguing from evidence, and making principled approximations.

preprint2015arXiv

A New Item Response Theory Model for Open-Ended Online Homework with Multiple Allowed Attempts

Item Response Theory (IRT) was originally developed in traditional exam settings, and it has been shown that the model does not readily transfer to formative assessment in the form of online homework. We investigate if this is mostly due to learner traits that do not become apparent in exam settings, namely random guessing due to lack of diligence or dedication, and copying work from other students or resources. Both of these traits mask the true ability of the learner, which is the only trait considered in most mainstream unidimensional IRT models. We find that indeed the introduction of these traits allows to better assess the true ability of the learners, as well as to better gauge the quality of assessment items. Correspondence of the model traits to self-reported behavior is investigated and confirmed. We find that of these two traits, copying answers has a larger influence on initial homework attempts than random guessing.

preprint2014arXiv

An Empirical Study of the Effect of Granting Multiple Tries for Online Homework

When deploying online homework in physics courses, an important consideration is how many attempts should be allowed in order to solve numerical free-response problems. While on the one hand, the maximum number of attempts should be large enough to allow learners mastery of the concepts and disincentivize copying, on the other hand, too many allowed attempts encourage counter-productive problem-solving behavior. In a study of an introductory calculus-based physics course for scientists and engineers which had different numbers of allowed attempts in different semesters, it was found that except for the initial tries, students are not making productive use of later attempts, and that in fact higher numbers of allowed attempts lead to less successful homework completion.

preprint2014arXiv

Extending Item Response Theory to Online Homework

Item Response Theory becomes an increasingly important tool when analyzing ``Big Data'' gathered from online educational venues. However, the mechanism was originally developed in traditional exam settings, and several of its assumptions are infringed upon when deployed in the online realm. For a large enrollment physics course for scientists and engineers, the study compares outcomes from IRT analyses of exam and homework data, and then proceeds to investigate the effects of each confounding factor introduced in the online realm. It is found that IRT yields the correct trends for learner ability and meaningful item parameters, yet overall agreement with exam data is moderate. It is also found that learner ability and item discrimination is over wide ranges robust with respect to model assumptions and introduced noise, less so than item difficulty.

preprint2012arXiv

An empirical approach to interpreting card-sorting data

Since it was first published 30 years ago, Chi et al.'s seminal paper on expert and novice categorization of introductory problems led to a plethora of follow-up studies within and outside of the area of physics [Chi et al. Cognitive Science 5, 121 - 152 (1981)]. These studies frequently encompass "card-sorting" exercises whereby the participants group problems. While this technique certainly allows insights into problem solving approaches, simple descriptive statistics more often than not fail to find significant differences between experts and novices. In moving beyond descriptive statistics, we describe a novel microscopic approach that takes into account the individual identity of the cards and uses graph theory and models to visualize, analyze, and interpreting problem categorization experiments. We apply these methods to an introductory physics (mechanics) problem categorization experiment, and find that most of the variation in sorting outcome is not due to the sorter being an expert versus a novice, but rather due to an independent characteristic that we named "stacker" versus "spreader." The fact that the expert-novice distinction only accounts for a smaller amount of the variation may explain the frequent null-results when conducting these experiments.