Worst instructional tool of all time

[undrcvrbro]

I'm a student in AP Physics C right now, and my teacher is using this program called "www.webassign.net"[/URL]. Absolutely horrible. All of my class and his normal physics classes hate it, but the man refuses to change to just plain old book work!

Anyone ever used this program or similar ones? What do you think of it? Positives and Negatives?

 

[engineer23]

My major issue with WebAssign is that you can't receive partial credit. The answer is either completely right or wrong.
You also have to be careful about rounding during intermediate steps of the problem. When I had physics courses that used webassign, you usually had to be accurate to three decimal places in the final solution or the problem would be marked incorrect.
It certainly makes homework grading easier for the instructor though.

 

[DavidHarmon]

At my school they also use webassign, its the only form of assesment they use, and also is the only form of homework they set, the majority of my year agrees that its pointless, as large portions of what is set for us is not relevant to our physics A-level.

The worst problem is the fact that the teachers now no longer teach us properly and expect us to learn of webassign. I think if used properly it could probably be a lot more usefull but on its own its just pointless.

 

[undrcvrbro]

exactly

The worst problem is the fact that the teachers now no longer teach us properly and expect us to learn of webassign. I think if used properly it could probably be a lot more usefull but on its own its just pointless.

Agreed. It seems there's been too much dependence lately on technology as a teaching tool. As you said, if used correctly(as only a supplement to a good lecture, and not a teaching tool itself), then Webassign could be useful for everyone.

I can't believe they make you use that for EVERYTHING. I only needed it for physics, but I would most likely kill myself if I was in your predicament.

 

[Monocles]

My school uses something similar, MasteringPhysics, but I have to say that I really like it.

 

[jtbell]

You also have to be careful about rounding during intermediate steps of the problem.

Um, why are you rounding at all during intermediate steps? Doesn't your calculator have any memory registers?

 

[Ben Niehoff]

The worst aspect of tools like these is that the instructor can unintentionally create impossible problems. For example, even though the final answer may need only 3 significant digits, the details of the calculation might be such that far more digits are required to reach the final answer accurately; I had numerous occasions in college where such tools required in intermediate accuracy beyond the means of a standard calculator.

Generally, the numbers given in the problem statement are randomized (so that each student is given a slightly different problem). If the instructor is careless in coding the randomizer, nonsense can result. Case in point:

In my freshman engineering course, we were doing a section on statics. The professor set us a problem, via the web, as follows:

A helium balloon is tethered to the ground via three tethers, which are anchored at three points in the XY plane: (x1,y1), (x2,y2), (x3,y3). The balloon has a net buoyant force of F and is hovering in equilibrium over the point (x0,y0). (All specific numbers are randomized.) Find the tension in each of the three ropes, and the unit vectors along which each of these tensions act.

That's all well and good, except the vast majority of students (myself included) kept coming up with negative tensions, no matter how we tried to calculate them. We brought this up with the professor, and he told us we must have done it wrong, because "You can't push a rope" (he repeated this rather dogmatically). Sure, you can't push a rope, but you can write bad code for a problem that involves unphysical rope-pushing...

What had happened (and I had to demonstrate this with rigorous mathematics to the professor before he would back down and re-grade the problem) is that the random number generator was not taking into account the physics of the problem. All four points P1, P2, P3 and P0 were chosen independently. This meant that, the majority of the time, the point P0 was actually chosen such that it was outside the triangle formed by P1, P2, and P3. This would mean that, unless there were a wind pulling the balloon in that direction, at least one of the ropes must be in compression rather than tension in order to hold the balloon in place.

Thus, most of the class had actually done the problem correctly. They got an absurd result because the problem was coded to give them an absurd physical situation.

Moreover, this guy had required about 10 significant digits on the three unit vectors in Part B. I think what actually happened is that the code must have been checking for strict equality, using floating-point numbers, instead of using a small error bounds. Thus, it was often impossible to satisfy the precision required to get any points. (I remember quite often in this class that students would have to enter 10-12 digits in their answers all the time, and for no reason other than the professor was paranoid about cheating and guessing).

 

[Poop-Loops]

Used Webassign for first year physics homework and exams. Never had any problems with it, really.

 

[stewartcs]

My major issue with WebAssign is that you can't receive partial credit. The answer is either completely right or wrong.
You also have to be careful about rounding during intermediate steps of the problem. When I had physics courses that used webassign, you usually had to be accurate to three decimal places in the final solution or the problem would be marked incorrect.
It certainly makes homework grading easier for the instructor though.

Once you graduate and start real work you won't get partial credit either, so get used to being completely right or completely wrong.

CS

 

[stewartcs]

The worst problem is the fact that the teachers now no longer teach us properly and expect us to learn of webassign. I think if used properly it could probably be a lot more usefull but on its own its just pointless.

Your teacher does not actually have lessons prepared? Are you required to go to an actual class?

WebAssign is primarily an assesment tool.

CS

 

[mr_coffee]

When I was taking physics that's what he used as well is web assign, hard stuff~

 

[DaveC426913]

omg, I'm so glad I'm past an education that uses such a tool. If I had to contend with this kind of thing it would drive me crazy - it would be easier to see the flaws than to do my homework. I'd probably do what Ben did, in an attempt to prove the tool is harmful.

 

[jtbell]

this guy had required about 10 significant digits on the three unit vectors in Part B. I think what actually happened is that the code must have been checking for strict equality, using floating-point numbers, instead of using a small error bounds.

I was thinking of your typical freshman-physics problem in which the input data is given to three significant figures. Students who don't know how to use a calculator properly tend to do each step separately, and round off each intermediate result to three sig figs, which usually causes a small (sometimes not so small!) error at the three-sig-fig level when they get to the end. The situation you describe is different, and I agree it's unreasonable.

 

[kdv]

I am a teacher and I don't want to use webassign. I give them problems and I marked them myself, giving points not only for the answer but also for their solutions. I care more about how they solve a problem than their final answer, actually. Someone may get completely the wrong numerical answer but still get most of the points because most of the steps are correct.

 

[robphy]

I am a teacher and I don't want to use webassign. I give them problems and I marked them myself, giving points not only for the answer but also for their solutions. I care more about how they solve a problem than their final answer, actually. Someone may get completely the wrong numerical answer but still get most of the points because most of the steps are correct.

Out of curiosity...
How many students do you have?
How many problems per assignment? and How many assignments per week?
Can you sense if students are really doing the problems? or just copying from someone else?

 

[stewartcs]

Someone may get completely the wrong numerical answer but still get most of the points because most of the steps are correct.

I think that's great for exams, but for homework, which is generally a smaller percentage of the total course grade, WebAssign works well by reducing the load on the instructor.

CS

 

[Locrian]

Once you graduate and start real work you won't get partial credit either, so get used to being completely right or completely wrong.

CS

That may be true, but so is the contrary - in much of the real work early physics students will be doing (mostly engineering, really), if they don't include their work and process of thought carefully, what they did has no value. Webassign continues a secondary school obsession with the final result, but the process can be as or more important to a company.

Webassign might be an assessment tool, but it isn't a good one for physics.

At least it gives professors and grad students more time to do research. . . but the fact that the students are paying more for this instead of less is just criminal.

 

[Asphodel]

Funny enough, I'm right now using WebAssign. It's the third(!) such online homework product I've used, and they all have the same issues. Somehow I had the mistaken impression that my tuition was for something other than finding ways to fob me off on a computerized kludged-together quiz board.

 

[kdv]

Out of curiosity...
How many students do you have?

When I was paid full time I was going crazy during the semester, working over 60 hours a week because of all the marking. So I paid a voluntary pay cut and am now working 75% of a full load, which means that I can get all my work done in a more reasonable 40 hours or so, leaving me some time to do research.

Last semester I taught one course and had 59 students.
I understand that in large classes, the prof can't mark everything. But I would think that then the school should have graders. I just feel that the students gain a lot by seeing their solutions corrected as opposed to having only their final result marked.

I end up marking a couple of hours every day (seven days a week), on average. That does not include the lab reports ;-) I had to find some tricks to cut down the time to mark. A lot of time used to be spent writing the same comments over and over again. So a trick I use now is that when I see a mistake that I know wil be frequent, I start a list of comments (like A=you use the wrong angle for the tension, B=you rounded off too much, etc). When I mark I simply write the letters and post on my office door the key for the comments. That saves a huge amount of time. I still have to write something when someone makes a mistake completely different than anything else I have seen, but that's the exception.

How many problems per assignment? and How many assignments per week?

I give about 5 problems an assignment. One assignment a week except the weeks of tests (when I assign practice problems and make solutions available).

Can you sense if students are really doing the problems? or just copying from someone else?

Good question. It's impossible to tell, except when I see some mistakes exactly repeated. I get the impression that maybe 10 % copy directly from others. But I know they will get penalized atthe tests, which are worth more.

The vast majority make a honest effort and they learn quite a bit from seeing the whole work corrected.

 

[TVP45]

Once you graduate and start real work you won't get partial credit either, so get used to being completely right or completely wrong.

CS

You must not hang around the FEA guys (Well, in order to get it to mesh, I had to assume the wing was a homogeneous sphere).

 

[stewartcs]

Webassign continues a secondary school obsession with the final result, but the process can be as or more important to a company.

Overall, in successful companies, the ones who make the decisions don't care about the calculation details; all they need and want to know is what the result is so they can make informed decisions for the overall benefit and vision of the company. It is implied that you know what you are doing and how to get the correct answer by virtue of your position just as it is implied that they know what decision to make for the long term health of the company by virtue of theirs.

The actual formal process, or guidance, set forth by the company on how to come to the correct answer is definitely important. Unfortunately, many companies do not implement them. Additionally, the process will generally give some latitude to the person doing the work. This can induce deviations from the process intent (e.g. errors in your calculation). So again the responsibility of obtaining the correct answer lies with the person doing the work even though they have a process to follow.

. . . but the fact that the students are paying more for this instead of less is just criminal.

I agree completely with that statement. You have to pay more for them doing less.

CS

 

[stewartcs]

You must not hang around the FEA guys (Well, in order to get it to mesh, I had to assume the wing was a homogeneous sphere).

That sounds more like an approximate model in order to bound your solution problem rather than obtaining a "correct" answer.

CS

 

[engineer23]

You're right about there being no partial credit in the real world (well except in CFD and FEA)...
One of my professors used to quip, "If I calculate the trajectory wrong and we miss the moon, do I still get partial credit?"

 

[Poop-Loops]

Actually, I liked Webassign. It told you when you were wrong, so you could rethink your answer. I hate turning something in while unsure and only finding out 2 weeks later that I was wrong.

 

[jtbell]

You must not hang around the FEA guys (Well, in order to get it to mesh, I had to assume the wing was a homogeneous sphere).

That's almost as bad as the classic "spherical cow of uniform density."

 

[mgiddy911]

without partial credit I would have failed Real Analysis with a 0%, no exageration.

 

[DavidHarmon]

Your teacher does not actually have lessons prepared? Are you required to go to an actual class?

WebAssign is primarily an assesment tool.

CS

Im currently 17 and doing my first year of A-levels, so I am basicly learning the fundementals.

The main problem is that each of the classes is taught different material in different orders, meaning not everyone knows the same content. As the webassign questions are the same for everyone taking physics it means that often a lot of the questions that come up are ones that haven't been covered before. This leads to the teachers rushing through it with us to try and prepare us for webassign, meaning it is not learned correctly.

One of my physics tutors has even suggested that webassign is meant so that we can go and learn some of the content of the course on our own. To me this seems slightly wrong as it is likely that people will go away and learn an incorrect method of going about solving questions. Particularly as at A-level we are meant to be learning the fundementals.

Also if there are questions we are unsure about, googling for equations is not going to help and is no way to learn physics.

 

[stewartcs]

This leads to the teachers rushing through it with us to try and prepare us for webassign, meaning it is not learned correctly.

I would suggest asking more question while they try to rush through it to ensure that you understand what is going on. Don't be afraid to raise your hand and ask for clarification. A lot of the subsequent concepts in physics require you to understand the previous concepts first.

CS

 

[DavidHarmon]

I do ask questions, i just think that they are relying far to heavily on webassign, using it as much more of a teaching utility rather than an assesment utility.

 

[TVP45]

That sounds more like an approximate model in order to bound your solution problem rather than obtaining a "correct" answer.

CS

And, I didn't even go near the SPICE guys. Did you ever read any of Bob Pease's columns (the really OF from National Semiconductor)?

 

[TVP45]

I took a Statistics course on a program similar to webassign (at least what i think it is) last year and generally fared OK, but I really do worry about any science student being able to learn without lots of hands-on experiment. Does it have any provision for reaching students with auditory or kinesthetic learning styles?

 

[Locrian]

Overall, in successful companies, the ones who make the decisions don't care about the calculation details; all they need and want to know is what the result is so they can make informed decisions for the overall benefit and vision of the company.

We have very different experiences, likely due to being in different situations. The firm I worked at intended to patent successful work. To do so (and to make it stick!) required careful record keeping.

I am having a hard time accepting that the scribbled nonsense I'm getting from the students, followed by a goofy, usually incorrect, circled number apparently meant to be the answer, is a healthy way to solve problems in real life situations.

On the other hand, I have to admit. . . repeated requests followed by threats that are followed by poor grades haven't changed the students habits. What else can I do to motivate them? In the end it is well understood in the department that we're supposed to pass at least 95% of them, and really it's a huge ordeal if they don't all get through. They seem aware of this. Further, they seem more than happy to pay whatever it costs, and don't balk for a moment at the money their parents are dropping on the business.

So why do I care? I do feel strongly about the situation, but I suspect I should just let my reservations about the system drift away for, oh, 18 or so years. . .

 

[mathwonk]

this comment, sadly, is all too true and too common.

but do not despair. there are excellent students in every class. do not be discouraged by the poor ones, the lazy, the uninterested, ...keeping ones enthusiasm and high standards preserves the quality of your course for those who can appreciate them.still you must survive, so manage to mute the outcry from the hoi polloi in some way that allows you still to rest at night.

 

[CPL.Luke]

for lower level physics and math the requirement that students show a of there work is bordering on the ludicrous, when the problem takes all of 2 steps to solve and uses formulas that arefresh in the minds of the students.

I remember on some assignments being asked t solve 20 or so problems that were all variations of the same problem, again the derivatives, integrals and algebra could be done in ones head, while writing down the occasional intermediate step, for some graders I've seen the required number of steps in order to get credit get to the point where you would have to write down the result of applying the distributive property.

If your curious as to why smart students become disinterested it is because of that practice being overly enforced in the lower level courses.

at my school the department hires a certain number of undergraduate (or grad students who want extra cash) graders who essentially are given the solutions from the professor and are told how to grade, if a student feels their solution is correct or they weren't graded fairly most profs will hear them out.

although for the lower division courses they usually rely on programs like web assign, I refuse to use those or show silly steps in a problem, as once you get to the upper division courses the textbooks are going to start jumping through multiple manipulations at a time and if you can't kep up with that you'll fall behind.

one interesting trend I've noticed among physics majors is that the ones who do very well in the upper divisions are the ones who did poorly in the lower divisions, these are the people who won't take notes in class, and the ones who usually answer the most questions.

similarly if a prof pulls out a powerpoint for any physics or math class for any reason other than to show graphs or things like that I won't go to the class, as it may make it easier for the professor to show derivations, but I could get that out of the book much faster and more easily.

One good use of technology however is the publishing of lecture notes by a professor on a website, Some don't like doing this as they think it discourages people from coming to class, however going to the class your free from having to take notes (why rely on something that you wrote in the course of an hour, when you can use what the lecturer used to give the lecture, and spent several hours preparing)
partial credit is important when numerics are given as calculators can be used incorrectly and such, also in upper division when the problems can take a few hours f constant manipulation to get, bu of course its good to be able to get the answer right every time.

 

[Asphodel]

but do not despair. there are excellent students in every class. do not be discouraged by the poor ones, the lazy, the uninterested, ...

keeping ones enthusiasm and high standards preserves the quality of your course for those who can appreciate them.

Managing to avoid converting the former into the latter seems to be the greater challenge.

 

[TVP45]

for lower level physics and math the requirement that students show a of there work is bordering on the ludicrous, when the problem takes all of 2 steps to solve and uses formulas that arefresh in the minds of the students.

For what it's worth. In many industry projects, all important steps must be shown in calculations. A fairly simple FEA, say a shaft in torsion, will usually result in a 6-10 page backup which might be paper or digital. Obviously, things like the distribution property don't count as a step, but even simple formulas are typically shown. In the case of very obvious points, the calculation may show an eyeball. You cannot imagine the nightmare (or expense) of having a product fail and being unable to explain why. I'm a genuine OF but I consider the loss of dimensional analysis in many schools as a catastrophe.

When I took E&M, it was under a fellow who had Jackson as his adviser, and there was a set of problems - maybe 40 or 50 - that Jackson had never solved and none of his students had either (apparently). We worked on some of these and had available copies of previous student's efforts. I think only one problem got finished during the two semesters, but several went from maybe 50% to 60% or 70%. Then our efforts were filed away for the next round. So, there is value in partial work, but only with good documentation.

 

[stewartcs]

We have very different experiences, likely due to being in different situations. The firm I worked at intended to patent successful work. To do so (and to make it stick!) required careful record keeping.

Internal record keeping to backup your "correct answer" is definitely important, especially when filing patents. Regardless, you still want a correct answer - in any industry.

I am having a hard time accepting that the scribbled nonsense I'm getting from the students, followed by a goofy, usually incorrect, circled number apparently meant to be the answer, is a healthy way to solve problems in real life situations.

You should have a hard time accepting incorrect answers as they are incorrect! When I say "correct answer" I don't mean some random selection of a multiple choice question that just happens to be right. I mean actually doing the work an arriving at the correct answer using whatever tools you have learned throughout your educational process.

CS

 

[TVP45]

Internal record keeping to backup your "correct answer" is definitely important, especially when filing patents. Regardless, you still want a correct answer - in any industry.



You should have a hard time accepting incorrect answers as they are incorrect! When I say "correct answer" I don't mean some random selection of a multiple choice question that just happens to be right. I mean actually doing the work an arriving at the correct answer using whatever tools you have learned throughout your educational process.

CS

You make a good point. At the end of the day, only correct answers (not necessarily the same as exact ones) count. Without knowing you, I believe I would be able to trust your work simply because of your attitude.

 

[mr_coffee]

I remember freshman year in physics mechanics, we would have our whole floor doing the web works and one person would take turns submitting the answers, in the end we almost all got perfects on all the homeworks but it was about 20 of us all working together hah, fun times.

Usually the testers were the kids who didn't do any of the work, but still wanted answers so they would be our test dummies.

Its interesting, it might have been the school or the professor or the fact that I took half the course over again but the first time around I took physics E&M i had a 40% average, then I took it again, with a different professor not using web works, and I had a 98% average after my final, I was #1 in my class. He was a good professor and actually taught us things.

 

[G01]

Mastering Physics is used at my school, and I am not a fan. When I tutor, I realize that many problems students have are with Mastering Physics and not the physics itself. For instance, as mentioned above, rounding errors are common losses of points with mastering physics, but is a point deduction for rounding really called for, especially if you still understood the physics in the problem?

 

[mgiddy911]

I agree with G01's comment, in that the various computer/online grading/homework things like webassign and mastering physics do not do a good job of evaluating the physics that you know. What they do do well is tell you that you rounded wrong or forgot to carry the four. Interestingly enough, my freshmen professor for physics always encouraged us to round things to make calculation easy. In the mechanics portion he said to use g=10 m/s because its simply easier than 9.8. He could do all sorts of math in his head, but he sued a lot of rounding and approximation, rarely did he says the answer is exactly 12.486 ohms..