BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Matthew A. Kohlmyer

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

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
physics.ed-ph

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

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

4 published item(s)

preprint2012arXiv

Comparing large lecture mechanics curricula using the Force Concept Inventory: A five thousand student study

The performance of over 5000 students in introductory calculus-based mechanics courses at the Georgia Institute of Technology was assessed using the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). Results from two different curricula were compared: a traditional mechanics curriculum and the Matter & Interactions (M&I) curriculum. Post-instruction FCI averages were significantly higher for the traditional curriculum than for the M&I curriculum; the differences between curricula persist after accounting for factors such as pre-instruction FCI scores, grade point averages, and SAT scores. FCI performance on categories of items organized by concepts was also compared; traditional averages were significantly higher in each concept. We examined differences in student preparation between the curricula and found that the relative fraction of homework and lecture topics devoted to FCI force and motion concepts correlated with the observed performance differences. Limitations of concept inventories as instruments for evaluating curricular reforms are discussed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Implementing and assessing computational modeling in introductory mechanics

Students taking introductory physics are rarely exposed to computational modeling. In a one-semester large lecture introductory calculus-based mechanics course at Georgia Tech, students learned to solve physics problems using the VPython programming environment. During the term 1357 students in this course solved a suite of fourteen computational modeling homework questions delivered using an online commercial course management system. Their proficiency with computational modeling was evaluated in a proctored environment using a novel central force problem. The majority of students (60.4%) successfully completed the evaluation. Analysis of erroneous student-submitted programs indicated that a small set of student errors explained why most programs failed. We discuss the design and implementation of the computational modeling homework and evaluation, the results from the evaluation and the implications for instruction in computational modeling in introductory STEM courses.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Fostering Computational Thinking

Students taking introductory physics are rarely exposed to computational modeling. In a one-semester large lecture introductory calculus-based mechanics course at Georgia Tech, students learned to solve physics problems using the VPython programming environment. During the term 1357 students in this course solved a suite of fourteen computational modeling homework questions delivered using an online commercial course management system. Their proficiency with computational modeling was evaluated in a proctored environment using a novel central force problem. The majority of students (60.4%) successfully completed the evaluation. Analysis of erroneous student-submitted programs indicated that a small set of student errors explained why most programs failed. We discuss the design and implementation of the computational modeling homework and evaluation, the results from the evaluation and the implications for instruction in computational modeling in introductory STEM courses.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2009arXiv

A Tale of Two Curricula: The performance of two thousand students in introductory electromagnetism

The performance of over 2000 students in introductory calculus-based electromagnetism (E&M) courses at four large research universities was measured using the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment (BEMA). Two different curricula were used at these universities: a traditional E&M curriculum and the Matter & Interactions (M&I) curriculum. At each university, post-instruction BEMA test averages were significantly higher for the M&I curriculum than for the traditional curriculum. The differences in post-test averages cannot be explained by differences in variables such as pre-instruction BEMA scores, grade point average, or SAT scores. BEMA performance on categories of items organized by subtopic was also compared at one of the universities; M&I averages were significantly higher in each topic. The results suggest that the M&I curriculum is more effective than the traditional curriculum at teaching E&M concepts to students, possibly because the learning progression in M&I reorganizes and augments the traditional sequence of topics, for example, by increasing early emphasis on the vector field concept and by emphasizing the effects of fields on matter at the microscopic level.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access