Do your teachers allow for any use of open book/notes for tests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter land_of_ice
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Teachers
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
55 replies · 12K views
land_of_ice
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
What level of math are you in,
also, is it at a 2 year college or a university?
How about other math classes (after trigonometry) ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have had tests like this, there isn't much of a difference except that you have to study differently and the examinator need to put more effort into the questions.
 
I'm currently in calc III at a 2 year college, I've had many no calculator tests and also take home open book, classmate, and the teacher gives hints. I would take the no calculator tests any day over open book. Open book tend to be really open and sometimes its hard to nail down exactly what the teacher wants, especially when trying to figure out a new concept. Many times this involves proving all the aspects around the proof. Solving straight direct problems is much easier.
 
I've had close book and notes, open book no notes, no book open notes, etc. Also, you'll see take home exams every now and again. But this all depends on your professor. However, the VAST majority of my exams so far have been typical closed-everything exams in class for about an hour.
 
Personally, I like the idea of a take-home exam which is more difficult than the average homework set and in which you're only required to solve n-1 out of n problems, or something like that. It's more challenging and much, much more rewarding and far less stressful than an in-class exam for which you're worried about memorizing all the "right" stuff.

From talking to my professors about this same thing, I get the impression it's actually more difficult to write a take home exam or an exam for which students are allowed to use notes. I suppose it's because the questions have to be different altogether; not just harder, but conceptually harder, because all the formulas and basic facts are at your fingertips. Again, I prefer this because it forces you to learn all the material rather than memorize the test-able material.
 
Newtime said:
Personally, I like the idea of a take-home exam which is more difficult than the average homework set and in which you're only required to solve n-1 out of n problems, or something like that.

In theory, I like this idea. Unfortunately, I have seen enough examples (at a number of universities where I have taught)) of students cheating (they get somebody else to solve problems for them) on take-home exams that I will not give take-homes.
 
I just finished my first year of math at university. I've only had math courses (calc, linear algebra, abstract algebra, analysis I+II, probability&statistics, differential geometry, discrete math) and all my written exams have been open-book 3.5-4.5 hours (this semester I will also have some take-home 36h exams, and I have had a few oral exams).

I prefer the open-book format as closed-book tests often result in people preparing by memorizing a number of facts, while open-book tests result in people preparing by trying to understand the material, common techniques and how the results are derived. Open-book also often results in more creatively challenging questions as the test-creators know not to test if you know your basic facts, but rather whether you understand them thoroughly and can apply them.

At most of my exams I haven't needed to open my book, but it's nice to know I have the possibility in case I forget whether a theorem requires a function to be n-times differentiable or n-times continuously differentiable, and whether we need differentiability at the end-points of a closed interval. In case of a closed-book exam I would have spend a significant time making sure I really could remember the technical details.
 
George Jones said:
In theory, I like this idea. Unfortunately, I have seen enough examples (at a number of universities where I have taught)) of students cheating (they get somebody else to solve problems for them) on take-home exams that I will not give take-homes.

I could see this happening quite often. You would think that the only people who are in upper level math/physics courses are there because they want to be and are willing to work but I guess there will always be those looking for a shortcut.
 
George Jones said:
In theory, I like this idea. Unfortunately, I have seen enough examples (at a number of universities where I have taught)) of students cheating (they get somebody else to solve problems for them) on take-home exams that I will not give take-homes.

Cheating is one of my concerns, as well.

Even so, I believe that establishing an effective learning environment requires an element of trust; for example, the students must trust me not to ridicule their 'stupid' questions in class. And to some degree, I should trust them to be honest. So far, it's worked.

But as Newtime mentioned, take-home exams are much more difficult to write, for the exact reason mentioned- I have to account for the immense amount of material they have access to. In-class open-book (or allowing a 'cheat-sheet') tests are easier to write.

Maybe I'll let the class vote, and unless there is a clear majority (take-home vs. in-class), I'll default to in-class open-note. The faculty I've talked to tell me that students rarely open the book- the book is more like a security blanket and relieves some test anxiety.
 
Most of my classes have 1 to 2 hour exams where I'm allowed to bring in one 8.5 x 11 piece of paper with anything I want written on it, front and back. I like this format. They're also normally small enough to finish in half the time allotted if you're very quick with solving each problem. This size reduces stress, allows good students to check and recheck their work, and allows bad students to sit and think for a while.
 
Andy Resnick said:
So far, it's worked.
What exactly do that mean?
 
Andy Resnick said:
I'm considering changing the format of my exams to open-note or even take-home (Intro Physics I, II). I'm curious to hear what the students think- do you have a preference, and why?

(IMO)They will cheat. I think take-home exams are only suitable for grad students or upper year undergrads.
 
nicksauce said:
(IMO)They will cheat. I think take-home exams are only suitable for grad students or upper year undergrads.

Perhaps. One way to reduce cheating among each other is to introduce a true curve grading scale. Therefore, if you help another student by doing his homework or his take home test, you hurt yourself. You can never prevent them, however, from posting on physics help forums or from having a family member or friend not in the class to help them.
 
xcvxcvvc said:
Perhaps. One way to reduce cheating among each other is to introduce a true curve grading scale. Therefore, if you help another student by doing his homework or his take home test, you hurt yourself. You can never prevent them, however, from posting on physics help forums or from having a family member or friend not in the class to help them.
That could also lead to punishment of those who choose not to cheat, so I don't think a true curve grading scale is such a good idea.
 
Andy Resnick said:
I haven't had a problem with student cheating, even when they have an opportunity to do so.
How do you know?
 
Andy Resnick said:
The faculty I've talked to tell me that students rarely open the book- the book is more like a security blanket and relieves some test anxiety.

I can attest to this being absolutely true, at least within my circle of friends/classmates.

nicksauce said:
(IMO)They will cheat. I think take-home exams are only suitable for grad students or upper year undergrads.

I very much agree.
 
Andy Resnick said:
Why? Do you think one student population have a greater desire to cheat over another?

I don't know what nicksauce has to say, but since I agreed with him I'll give my two cents: yes I do. In my classes, many of those in lower level math and physics courses are there because they have to be and don't care at all about learning the material; they just want the grade.
 
Andy Resnick said:
I'm opposed to 'grading on a curve'. I feel it adds an element of competition that distracts from focussing on learning the material.
Exactly, and not only that, if you think about it it's unfair and doesn't paint a real picture of students' knowledge even if you do see tests as being able to show this true knowledge. You could have a hundred extremely apt students who would all be the best minds in the country, some scoring 100%, some 99% etc., but those that'd score, say, "only" 95% would get a D just because there're people that did a bit better. You could also get the opposite result where all students were subpar, but you'd give out A's regardless, since some would be less subpar. Therefore I'm completely opposed to curve grading, as well, because it leads to grades contingent on relative and not absolute knowledge.
 
Ryker said:
Exactly, and not only that, if you think about it it's unfair and doesn't paint a real picture of students' knowledge even if you do see tests as being able to show this true knowledge. You could have a hundred extremely apt students who would all be the best minds in the country, some scoring 100%, some 99% etc., but those that'd score, say, "only" 95% would get a D just because there're people that did a bit better. You could also get the opposite result where all students were subpar, but you'd give out A's regardless, since some would be less subpar. Therefore I'm completely opposed to curve grading, as well, because it leads to grades contingent on relative and not absolute knowledge.

Ok, but there is still a human on the other end of the algorithm (the professor) who should have enough sense in that scenario to reward all students with an A. Further, you're applying the theory to a single class, too small of a sample to count. Instead, any reasonable professor applying a curve does so with all past students he's ever had, and while on the journey to acquiring such a history as to make his algorithm less quirky, he has the sense of a human being to iron out to rough spots.
 
nicksauce said:
(IMO)They will cheat. I think take-home exams are only suitable for grad students or upper year undergrads.

At one university where I taught, a couple of grad students were caught cheating on a take-home exam (not for my class).
George Jones said:
I have given open-notes quantum mechanics exams to graduate students: four hours, do any four of five questions.

I caught a grad student cheating on this type of exam. A student, whose first language was xxxx, came to the exam with a text that had an unmarked cover and asked "Can I use this xxx-to-English dictionary during the exam?" I replied, "Sure."
Andy Resnick said:
Even so, I believe that establishing an effective learning environment requires an element of trust; for example, the students must trust me not to ridicule their 'stupid' questions in class. And to some degree, I should trust them to be honest.

This was a small grad class, and I thought that I had established good relationships with all the students, so I trusted him, and I didn't check the book until after the exam started, when his use of it made me suspicious. The book was an advanced quantum mechanics text written in xxxx. I was deeply hurt that this student had abused the trust that I had placed in him, and had made an outright lie to me (face-to-face) in order to try and cheat.

Also, we (the Mentors) have caught students trying to use Physics Forums to cheat on upper level/grad take-homes.

So, occasionally, grad student cheat too.
 
This discussion is interesting- on one hand, most students (at least the ones posting) like open-note tests because it's a better measure of their comprehension. On the other, some people claim this encourages cheating (presumably by *others* :) .

Edit: George posted while I was composing... George, your experiences must have been frustrating. But, how can we discourage cheating while not penalizing the honest students? I don't think you would prefer to turn the classroom into a maximum-security observation prison...

What if test questions could be designed to make cheating *more effort* that knowing the material in the first place?
 
Andy Resnick said:
This discussion is interesting- on one hand, most students (at least the ones posting) like open-note tests because it's a better measure of their comprehension. On the other, some people claim this encourages cheating (presumably by *others* :) .

Edit: George posted while I was composing... George, your experiences must have been frustrating. But, how can we discourage cheating while not penalizing the honest students? I don't think you would prefer to turn the classroom into a maximum-security observation prison...

What if test questions could be designed to make cheating *more effort* that knowing the material in the first place?

How can you do that? How can you make it harder to cheat than to know the material if cheating means you have someone who knows the material doing your exam?
 
It's a bit disheartening to hear that people (even grad students who presumably want to do research in the area) cheat on take home exams.

Take-home exams are pretty common at my university and I have never heard of anyone cheating. I suspect and hope only a very small minority of the students try cheating, and it will affect them negatively later on so I don't really feel cheated personally.

But, how can we discourage cheating while not penalizing the honest students? I don't think you would prefer to turn the classroom into a maximum-security observation prison...
I know this is not directed at me, but I want to share my thoughts anyway.

At my school it's common for a class to have either an in-class test or weekly assignments which are awarded a pass/fail mark. Any student with a hope of passing should be able to earn pass on these (in the case of weekly assignments often it's only required that 80% of assignments are awarded pass). If a student fails this they will not be eligible to participate in the final exam and will be given a fail grade for the course. If they pass they will get to participate in the exam and get a real grade, but the pass/fail stuff has no influence on the grade. This both forces students to keep up with coursework and not just cram at the end, and it makes it much harder to cheat without acquiring at least some mastery of the subject (you have to be a dedicated cheater to have someone else help you cheat on a weekly basis). This is by no means foolproof and I suspect the reasoning behind it is to keep students engaged in the subject rather than to avoid cheating.

Personally I would try to trust students even if some don't deserve it. If you want to give a take-home exam give it. If someone wants to cheat he will cheat, but he will only really cheat himself (assuming you don't judge on a curve). If the class is small enough that you know your students personally and someone turned in something you consider suspicious (for instance if someone who barely understands the basic concepts submits a perfect answer to a hard assignment), then you can invite that person to a talk about the exam. Not in an accusatory manner, but just talk about the problems his approaches and thoughts. It should be apparent whether he cheated. If he did you can take the appropriate actions. If not you can congratulate him on his good performance.

If you really feel that cheating is a problem, then I would just do a normal test (open- or closed book) that is supervised. It really isn't that much worse, but personally I feel that instructors should be able to trust their students (and vice versa) in a university-setting.
 
Newtime said:
I don't know what nicksauce has to say, but since I agreed with him I'll give my two cents: yes I do. In my classes, many of those in lower level math and physics courses are there because they have to be and don't care at all about learning the material; they just want the grade.

Exactly this.
 

Similar threads

Programs Need Opinions On Majors/Minors (Update from last year's post)
  • Roku
  • · Replies 1 ·
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Physics? Astrophysics? Engineering? I don't know what to do
  • J Goodrich
  • · Replies 2 ·
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
New, on a physics hiatus, , really any physics psychologists?
  • kingbobras6am
  • · Replies 2 ·
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Meet a Mentor: Mark44 - Get to Know Your Wonderful Mentors
  • Greg Bernhardt
  • · Replies 11 ·
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
11