You are here
My lab studies teaching and learning in physics and other science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses. We study research questions such as how students acquire skills or content knowledge, how different course environments affect students’ motivation or their persistence in physics (or other STEM fields), or how they develop an understanding of the nature of science and scientific measurement. We spend considerable time worrying about how we know what outcomes are being achieved and what mechanisms are responsible those outcomes. We use both qualitative (e.g. observations, interviews, and focus groups) and quantitative methods (e.g. test scores, instances of pre-defined actions or activities) to explore the many possible variables that affect student learning and their experiences in physics and STEM courses.
- Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics (LASSP)
Our largest research focus is on the efficacy of hands-on laboratory courses. Our research questions in this area focus on: How do we know what labs are achieving (assessment)? What teaching methods improve outcomes (pedagogy)? By probing these two research questions, we also aim to better understand what labs should be aiming to achieve (learning goals).
Assessment: We are currently developing a closed-response instrument (like a multiple-choice test) to assess students’ critical thinking skills as related to introductory physics lab courses. This is a 5+ year project that involves feedback cycles of data collection (through interviews, open-response written questions, expert feedback, and eventually closed responses), statistical validation and reliability measures, and improvements. There are also several additional ongoing assessment projects aiming to understanding what students are getting out of our lab courses.
Pedagogy: We conduct both small and large scale experiments to test the impacts of different teaching methods on student learning, attitudes and motivation, and skills development. Small scale projects include evaluating a single learning activity in an interview or classroom setting. Larger scale projects include redesigning an entire course or course sequence using new or evidence-based teaching methods to achieve different learning outcomes.
Other interests: Our lab also explores student reasoning and understanding more broadly. A significant focus has been on student understanding of statistics, data analysis, and measurement uncertainty. We are also interested in understanding how and why students choose and persist in their major of study. This area focuses especially on underrepresented groups in STEM. Lastly, we are also interested in exploring the relationship between coursework and student research experiences. Given their well-documented benefits, understanding the mechanisms and characteristics of undergraduate research experiences could help inform other classroom teaching (especially labs).
I am currently accepting new graduate students.
Holmes, N.G., Wieman, C., & Bonn, D.A. (2015) Teaching critical thinking. Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, 112(36), 11199-11204, 10.1073/pnas.1505329112
Holmes, N.G. & Wieman, C.E. (2016) Examining and contrasting the cognitive activities engaged in undergraduate research experiences and lab courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020103
Holmes, N.G. & Bonn, D.A. (2015) Quantitative comparisons to promote inquiry in the introductory physics lab. The Physics Teacher, 53, 352.
Wieman, C. & Holmes, N.G. (2015) Measuring the impact of an instructional laboratory on the learning of introductory physics. American Journal of Physics,83(11), 972-978
Day, J., Stang, J.B.,Holmes, N.G., Khumar, D., & Bonn, D.A. (2016) Gender gaps and gendered action in a first-year physics laboratory.Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.12, 020104
Holmes, N. G., Martinuk, M. “Sandy”, Ives, J., & Warren, M. (2013). Teaching Assistant Professional Development by and for TAs. The Physics Teacher, 51(4), 218. doi:10.1119/1.4795361.
Holmes, N.G., Park, A.K., Day, J., Bonn, D.A., & Roll, I. (2014) Making the failure more productive: scaffolding the invention process to improve inquiry behaviors and outcomes in invention activities. Instructional Science, 42(4), 523-538
Roll, I., Holmes, N, Day, J., & Bonn, D.A. (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science, 40, 691-710.