Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Masteringphysics.com



I used it in a first-semester calc-based course for two years. The
first year, most of the students complained that some of the "hints"
were too vague or it gave them zero points when they were "mostly
correct". So, the second year I told students that for the
end-of-chapter problems they could use masteringphysics *or* hand in the
homework (for the tutorials they had to use masteringphysics). In
addition, I told them they if they did both, I'd use the higher of the
two grades (I only had about 30 students).

I no longer had any complaints. In addition, 95% of the students used
masteringphysics instead of handing in the homework (for those that did
the homework). Part of the reason for this, perhaps, is that the grades
for the handed-in homework were not necessarily better than the
masteringphysics scores, even when students completed the handed-in
homework *after* doing the masteringphysics online. Athough those
students knew the correct answer, they typically had other mistakes,
like incorrect units, mathematical errors, improper graphs and
equations, etc., that lowered their score (keep in mind that the online
version tended to use different "numbers" than the end-of-chapter
version).

I liked that the masteringphysics gives them instant feedback and that I
no longer had to spend time grading. However, I was surprised by how
well someone could do on the on-line homework and still not really
understand what they were doing. Maybe it was reinforcing
plug-and-chug.

I also suspect more people were copying since copying was less obvious
when doing it on-line.

----------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University
570.422.3428 rcohen@po-box.esu.edu http://www.esu.edu/~bbq

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf
Of Donald Smith
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:02 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Masteringphysics.com

Grfeetings,

We used it in in a very large intro course at the University
of Michigan that I was involved with (a team of five teachers
and about 300 students) in 2004. This was mechanics for
engineers, calc-based. I thought it was fantastic. It took
the students a while to master the syntax of the software,
but once they got that, the program was startlingly flexible,
did a very good job of identifying *what* mistakes the
students had made, and then shunted the students off into a
step-by-step tutortial that helped them explore why they made
the mistake and how to do it better. I was really rather
startled at how good it was at interpreting what they had written.
Interestingly enough, the next semester, I was involved in a
similarly large algebra-based E&M course for life-science
majors, and they hated it. They wanted to go back to
software that only accepted numbers as answers, and could
only tell you whether it was right or wrong, not why or how
you made your mistakes. That baffled me.

I don't use it anymore, because now I have classes with more
like 4-20 students, and I would rather spend more time on
thier writing skills and how well they can explain their
thought processes, but if you have a large group to which you
simply cannot devote that much one-on-one time, I thought
mastering physics was really phenomenally close to having a
tutor standing over your shoulder, giving you tips and
nudges, rather than just telling you right or wrong.

I can only presume they've improved it since 2004. I would
hope. :-) I also seem to remember it was very flexible in
how you could configure it, too.

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Ed Seppa
<ekseppa@optonline.net> wrote:

I am considering purchasing a subscription to Masteringphysics.com,
the web-based homework assignment and tutorial system, for
use in my
AP Physics B course.