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

Philip Eaton

Philip Eaton 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

5works
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

5 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
preprint2019arXiv

Using psychometric tools as a window into students' quantitative reasoning in introductory physics

The Physics Inventory of Quantitative Literacy (PIQL), a reasoning inventory under development, aims to assess students' physics quantitative literacy at the introductory level. The PIQL's design presents the challenge of isolating types of mathematical reasoning that are independent of each other in physics questions. In its current form, the PIQL spans three principle reasoning subdomains previously identified in mathematics and physics education research: ratios and proportions, covariation, and signed (negative) quantities. An important psychometric objective is to test the orthogonality of these three reasoning subdomains. We present results from exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and module analysis that inform interpretations of the underlying structure of the PIQL from a student viewpoint, emphasizing ways in which these results agree and disagree with expert categorization. In addition to informing the development of existing and new PIQL assessment items, these results are also providing exciting insights into students' quantitative reasoning at the introductory level.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access