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

Steven Pollock

Steven Pollock contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
physics.ed-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
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

3 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Characterizing and monitoring student discomfort in upper-division quantum mechanics

We investigate student comfort with the material in an upper-division spins-first quantum mechanics course. Pre-lecture surveys probing students' comfort were administered weekly, in which students assigned themselves a "discomfort level" on a scale of 0--10 and provided a written explanation for their choice. The weekly class-wide average discomfort level was effectively constant over the semester, suggesting that the class found no single unit especially jarring nor especially easy. Student written responses were coded according to their reported source of discomfort---math, math-physics connection, physics, and notation. The relative prevalence of these categories varied significantly over the semester, indicating that students find that different units present different challenges, and also that some of these challenges fade in importance as the semester progresses. Semi-structured interviews with students in a similar quantum mechanics course at a different institution provided additional context and insight into these results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Student behavior and test security in online conceptual assessment

Historically, the implementation of research-based assessments (RBAs) has been a driver of education change within physics and helped motivate adoption of interactive engagement pedagogies. Until recently, RBAs were given to students exclusively on paper and in-class; however, this approach has important drawbacks including decentralized data collection and the need to sacrifice class time. Recently, some RBAs have been moved to online platforms to address these limitations. Yet, online RBAs present new concerns such as student participation rates, test security, and students' use of outside resources. Here, we report on a pilot study addressing these concerns. We gave two upper-division RBAs to courses at five institutions; the RBAs were hosted online and featured embedded JavaScript code which collected information on students' behaviors (e.g., copying text, printing). With these data, we examine the prevalence of these behaviors, and their correlation with students' scores, to determine if online and paper-based RBAs are comparable. We find that browser loss of focus is the most common online behavior while copying and printing events were rarer.We found no statistically significant correlation between any of these online behaviors and students scores. We also found that participation rates for our upper-division population went up when the RBA was given online. These results indicates that, for our upper-division population, scores on online administrations of these RBAs were comparable to in-class versions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Constructing a Multiple-Choice Assessment For Upper-Division Quantum Physics From An Open-Ended Tool

As part of an ongoing investigation of student learning in upper-division quantum mechanics, we needed a high-quality conceptual assessment instrument for comparing outcomes of different curricular approaches. The 14 item open-ended Quantum Mechanics Assessment Tool (QMAT) was previously developed for this purpose. However, open-ended tests require complex scoring rubrics, are difficult to score consistently, and demand substantial investment of faculty time to grade. Here, we present the process of converting open-ended questions to multiple-choice (MC) format. We highlight the construction of effective distractors and the use of student interviews to revise and validate questions and distractors. We examine other elements of the process, including results of a preliminary implementation of the MC assessment given at Cal Poly Pomona and CU Boulder.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access