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

N. G. Holmes

N. G. Holmes contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
physics.ed-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
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

7 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Group roles in unstructured labs show inequitable gender divide

Instructional labs are being transformed to better reflect authentic scientific practice, often by removing aspects of pedagogical structure to support student agency and decision-making. We explored how these changes impact men's and women's participation in group work associated with labs through clustering methods on the quantified behavior of students. We compared the group roles students take on in two different types of instructional settings; (1) highly structured traditional labs, and (2) less structured inquiry-based labs. Students working in groups in the inquiry-based (less structured) labs assumed different roles within their groups, however men and women systematically took on different roles and men behaved differently when in single- versus mixed-gender groups. We found no such systematic differences in role division among male and female students in the traditional (highly-structured) labs. Students in the inquiry-based labs were not overtly assigned these roles, indicating that the inequitable division of roles was not a result of explicit assignment. Our results highlight the importance of structuring equitable group dynamics in educational settings, as a gendered division of roles can emerge without active intervention. As the culture in physics evolves to remove systematic gender biases in the field, instructors in educational settings must not only remove explicitly biased aspects of curricula but also take active steps to ensure that potentially discriminatory aspects are not inadvertently reinforced.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Preliminary evidence for available roles in mixed-gender and all-women lab groups

Group work during lab instruction can be a source of inequity between male and female students. In this preliminary study, we explored the activities male and female students take on during a lab session at a university in Denmark. Different from many studies, the class was majority-female, so three of the seven groups were all female and the rest were mixed-gender. We found that students in mixed-gender groups divide tasks in similar ways to mixed-gender groups at North American institutions, with men handling the equipment and women handling the computer more often. We also found that women in single-gender groups took on each of the available roles with approximately equal frequency, but women in single-gender groups spent more time on the equipment than students in mixed-gender groups. We interpret the results through poststructual gender theory and the notion of `doing physics' and `doing gender' in physics labs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Ready Student One: Exploring the predictors of student learning in virtual reality

Immersive virtual reality (VR) has enormous potential for education, but classroom resources are limited. Thus, it is important to identify whether and when VR provides sufficient advantages over other modes of learning to justify its deployment. In a between-subjects experiment, we compared three methods of teaching Moon phases (a hands-on activity, VR, and a desktop simulation) and measured student improvement on existing learning and attitudinal measures. While a substantial majority of students preferred the VR experience, we found no significant differences in learning between conditions. However, we found differences between conditions based on gender, which was highly correlated with experience with video games. These differences may indicate certain groups have an advantage in the VR setting.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Sense of agency, gender, and students' perception in open-ended physics labs

Instructional physics labs are critical junctures for many STEM majors to develop an understanding of experimentation in the sciences. Students can acquire useful experimental skills and grow their identities as scientists. However, many traditionally-instructed labs do not necessarily involve authentic physics experimentation features in their curricula. Recent research calls for a reformation in undergraduate labs to incorporate more student agency and choice in the learning processes. In our institution, we have adopted open-ended lab teaching in the introductory physics courses. By using reformed curricula that provide higher student agency, we analyzed approximately 100 students in the introductory-level lab courses to examine their views towards the open-ended physics labs. Between the start and the end of the semester, we found a statistically significant shift in students' perceptions about the agency afforded in lab activities. We also examined students' responses to "Which lab unit was your favorite and why?". The analysis showed that majority of the students preferred Project Lab, which had the highest student agency and coding analysis showed that "freedom" was the most frequent response for students' reason for picking Project Lab. Finally, we also examined student views across gender and found no significant gender effect on students' sense of agency.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Student evaluation of more or better experimental data in classical and quantum mechanics

Prior research has shown that physics students often think about experimental procedures and data analysis very differently from experts. One key framework for analyzing student thinking has found that student thinking is more point-like, putting emphasis on the results of a single experimental trial, whereas set-like thinking relies on the results of many trials. Recent work, however, has found that students rarely fall into one of these two extremes, which may be a limitation of how student thinking is evaluated. Measurements of student thinking have focused on probing students' procedural knowledge by asking them, for example, what steps they might take next in an experiment. Two common refrains are to collect more data, or to improve the experiment and collect better data. In both of these cases, the underlying reasons behind student responses could be based in point-like or set-like thinking. In this study we use individual student interviews to investigate how advanced physics students believe the collection of more and better data will affect the results of a classical and a quantum mechanical experiment. The results inform future frameworks and assessments for characterizing students thinking between the extremes of point and set reasoning in both classical and quantum regimes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

What do equitable physics lab groups look like in light of inchargeness?

In physics labs, students experience a wide range of equitable and inequitable interactions. We developed a methodology to characterize different lab groups in terms of their bid exchanges and inchargeness. An equitable group is one in which every student's bids are heard and acknowledged. Our analysis of equitable and inequitable groups raises questions about how inchargeness and gender interact to affect the functionality of a lab group.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

Confirming what we know: Understanding questionable research practices in intro physics labs

Many institutions are changing the focus of their introductory physics labs from verifying physics content towards teaching students about the skills and nature of science. As instruction shifts, so too will the ways students approach and behave in the labs. In this study, we evaluated students' lab notes from an early activity in an experimentation-focused lab course. We found that about 30% of student groups (out of 107 groups at three institutions) recorded questionable research practices in their lab notes, such as subjective interpretations of results or manipulating equipment and data. The large majority of these practices were associated with confirmatory goals, which we suspect stem from students' prior exposure to verification labs. We propose ways for experimentation-focused labs to better engage students in the responsible conduct of research and authentic scientific practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access