Survey of Physics Instructor Attitudes on Student Access to Problem
Solutions
by
Edw. S. Ginsberg
Physics Department
University of Massachusetts
Boston, MA 02125-3393
Regina M. Panasuk
College of Education
University of Massachusetts
Lowell, MA 01854
and
Simon George
Physics & Astronomy Dept.
California State University
Long Beach, CA 90840
Introduction
Problem solving seems to be an omnipresent component of current teaching and
assessment methods for introductory physics. There has been general agreement that the
application of basic concepts, within the context of solving problems, is an essential part of
the learning process, although creating effective problems is challenging. (Arons, 1990).
Every introductory physics text contains numerous problems designed for classroom
discussion, homework, or exams (e.g. Serway, 1998; Tipler, 1991; Wall & Wall, 1997, the
latter emphasizing problem solving in its title). The newer interactive pedagogies also retain
the importance of problem solving, through homework assignments, discussion sections, and
examinations (Mazur, 1997). A major fraction of the time expended by instructors during
discussion sections, or with students during office hours and tutorials, is devoted to revealing
and explaining the solutions to these problems. Students need to see the correct answers and
to study the logical steps for obtaining them. An experienced editor for a major textbook
publisher admits that most instructors, before adopting a particular textbook, desire for
themselves a copy of a complete solution manual to the end of chapter problems (D.
Humphrey, personal communication, 5 May 1995). However, allowing students to have
access to such a manual is a controversial issue.
One of the authors has made a complete solution manual available to students in several
recent classes, and found some interesting positive results. Students were less frustrated and
intimidated by problems. They found it easier to get help doing a problem, anywhere,
anytime, without having to ask for it. They worked on more problems, even many that were
not assigned. For most students, the negative consequences some colleagues predicted would
happen (less learning, copying without first trying, etc.) either didn't occur, or were
insignificant or outweighed by positive consequences.
A review of the educational research literature found nothing on the specific subject of
allowing students free access to solutions to the problems in their text, although there is much
on the general subject of immediate feedback (e.g. Slavin, 1994; Sisco & Hiemstra, 1991). In
order to better identify the specific pedagogical questions related to this topic, the attitudes of
physics instructors and students ought to be surveyed and examined. What are their beliefs,
are these beliefs reconcilable, and can they be tested against actual data from classroom
studies? To begin with, an opinion survey of introductory physics instructors was conducted,
as described in this paper. The gathering of this information is important because the
assumptions instructors make, both explicitly and implicitly, about the control of access to
the knowledge problem solutions represent, should be subject to reflection, since they have
implications for classroom dynamics, educational goals, and student outcomes. A parallel
opinion survey of introductory physics students was subsequently conducted, and will be the
subject of further research. Survey Instrument Since no effort was made to select
potentially cooperative respondents, and no inducement was offered for their participation,
the survey instrument was kept intentionally brief. It was designed to be completed in under
15 min. Four questions utilized a combination of Likert-scale and open-ended formats, so
that the respondent's answers could be readily summarized statistically, yet not be unduly
constrained. The open-ended question, about the consequences of completely free student
access to all problem solutions, was impartially phrased, and allowed for a maximum
diversity of answers in the respondents' own words. The fill-in question required just a single
numerical answer. Also queried were three bits of demographic information about the
respondents, their highest academic degree, the length of their teaching experience at the
introductory level, and the type of undergraduate program, two or four year, at their
institution. Space was included for name and address, at the respondent's option, and for
further comments. The full text of the questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix A.
Sample Selection and Demographics
Questionnaires were mailed to physics departments at 475 arbitrarily selected US and
Canadian colleges and universities. Institutions were chosen, by one of the authors, from the
AIP Directory of Physics and Astronomy Staff (1993). Although the list contained the
addresses of more institutions from areas with numerous colleges and universities, an effort
was made to include some from every state and province, as well as a mix of two and four
year colleges and universities. Physics, physics and astronomy, or physical science
departments with fewer than five members were not considered. This was the same procedure
as followed in previous surveys of teaching faculty in introductory physics courses (George,
1994).
Responses from a total of 249 individuals, including 233 at 104 identifiable institutions,
were eventually returned. (Actually, optional names and addresses were supplied by only 135
respondents, but by checking postmarks and grouping questionnaires returned in the same
envelope, additional institutions were identified.) The geographical distribution of responses,
from 22% of the institutions selected, showed no discernible bias, & the absolute number of
individual responses, equal to 52% of the number of mailed requests, was comparable to
previous surveys (George, 1994).
The majority of individuals responding to the survey were Ph.D's working at four year
institutions, with ten or more years teaching experience at the introductory level. In brief,
79% had doctoral, 12% had master's, and 4% had bachelor's highest degrees; 88% worked at
four year and 7% at two year institutions; 71% had 10 or more, 15% had 4 to 9, and 9% had
1 to 3 years introductory-level teaching experience; 5% reported no information; 56%
belonged to all three majority sub-categories. A summary of the number of responses in all
categories, and possible combinations of sub-categories, is given in Table 1. Since few of the
sub-categories contain more than 25 responses, or about 10% of the respondent sample, it
was decided to analyze all the responses as a whole, and forego an analysis of variance in this
study.
Table 1
Number of Responses for Demographic Categories.
--
Years of
Experience
Bachelor's
Degree
Master's
Degree
Doctoral
Degree
No information
1-3 years:
0
0
0
0
0
2 yrs. of
college
23
0
7
16
0
4 years of
college
0
0
0
0
0
Subtotal
23
0
7
16
0
---------------
---------------
---------------
---------------
---------------------
2 yrs. of
college
2
1
0
1
0
4 years of
college
35
3
4
28
0
No
information
0
0
0
0
0
Subtotal
37
4
4
29
0
---------------
---------------
---------------
---------------
---------------------
2 yrs. of
college
16
0
5
11
0
4 years of
college
161
5
15
139
2
1
0
0
1
0
178
5
20
151
2
--------------4-9 years:
--------------10 years or
more:
No
information
Subtotal
---------------
---------------
---------------
---------------
---------------
---------------------
2 yrs. of
college
0
0
0
0
0
4 years of
college
1
0
0
1
0
No
information
10
0
0
0
10
Subtotal
11
0
0
1
10
---------------
---------------
---------------
---------------
---------------------
2 yrs. of
college
18
1
5
12
0
4 years of
college
220
8
26
184
2
No
information
11
0
0
1
10
Subtotal
249
9
31
197
12
No
information:
--------------Totals:
Numerical Results A statistical summary for Questions #1 to #4 is given in Table 2 and in
Figure 1. The numerical response on the Likert-scale of 1 to 5 was used as the variable.
Table 2. Averages and Correlations for Questions #1 to #4.
Question
No. of
Answers
Average &
Standard
Deviation
Correlations
of
Questions
1-4
-
-
-
1.00
-0.37
-0.30
-0.44
1.00
+0.43
+0.42
1.00
+0.45
#1
246
3.52 +/1.48
#2
240
342 +/1.49
#3
245
2.77 +/1.20
#4
240
3.14 +/1.24
1.00
Figure 1. Percent response distributions for Likert-scale Questions #1 to #4.
The averages of this variable indicate general agreement with the statements in Questions
#1, #2, and #4, and disagreement in Question #3. The distributions shown in Figure 1 qualify
the description based on average alone, and further differentiate the type of beliefs held by
instructors, particularly as revealed in the responses to the first pair of questions compared to
the second pair. The response to Question #3 might more accurately be described as negative
neutrality. Questions #1 and#2 show bi-modal distributions, with local maxima at the
extremes of the Likert scale, whereas those for Questions #3 and #4 are slightly asymmetric,
uni-modal distributions, with one nearly central maximum. In other words, more instructors
believe that student access to solutions to assigned problems should be restricted (agree with
#1); that access to unassigned problems should not (agree with #2); that free access might not
encourage students to do more problems (disagree with #3), but that no access does cause
students to give up sooner (agree with #4). Opinion is somewhat unevenly divided between
those who favor restricting student access to problem solutions, and those who do not, with
relatively few undecided (#1 & 2). When it comes to beliefs about the effects such
restrictions have on students, there is a centrist view, with tapering degrees of opinion on
either side (#3 & 4). The central opinion is in agreement with the statement that no access to
solutions causes students to give up sooner on problems (#4), but is near neutrality on
whether free access encourages students to do more problems (#3).
The correlations for responses to Questions #2, #3, and #4 are positive among themselves,
but are negative when taken with responses to Question #1 (see Table 2). In other words,
instructors who believed most in restricting access to solutions to assigned problems, tended
to feel the same way about unassigned problems, and that free access would not encourage
students to do more problems, but would cause them to work less hard on the ones they did
(agree with #1, disagree with #2, 3, & 4). Instructors favoring unrestricted access to solutions
to unassigned problems, tended to feel that free access would encourage students to do more
problems and cause them to give up less quickly (agree with #2, 3, & 4). Some of the reasons
given by respondents for such correlations are discussed below.
The single numerical response requested in Question #6 was the respondent's estimation of
the ideal percentage of end-of-chapter problems that ought to be included in a student
solution manual available for purchase along with the text. Responses varied on a continuum
scale from 0% to 100%. Some interpretive judgment was necessary in tabulating them, since
not all respondents answered with a single number; sometimes a range was specified, for
example, "_< 20%", "20 &plusmn; 15%", or "50 - 100%". The average of the 232 responses,
probably of interest to college textbook publishers, was 41%. Most respondents specified
one of three percentages, namely 50%, 0%, or 100%, with most of the rest choosing one of
four others between 20% and 40%, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Percent response distribution for Question #6.
Narrative Results Non-numerical data included 244 responses (or 98% of the total)
recorded to Question #5, the only totally open-ended one. Some type of written comment
was supplied along with the numerical answers for most of the combination Likertscale/open-ended questions (76% for Question #1, 71% for Question #2, 72% for Question
#3, and 74% for Question #4). Additional comments, on the reverse side of the question
page, were voluntarily supplied by 54 respondents (or 22%), and 135 (or 54%) opted to write
in their name and address. Only two questionnaires were returned with no written comments
whatsoever. This indicates a reasonable degree of involvement for those who completed the
survey instrument.
Remarks written by respondents, in description or explanation of an answer to a particular
question, frequently applied to other questions as well. For this reason, a systematic attempt
to categorize comments question by question was deemed repetitive. The most inclusive
question was #5, the only totally open-ended one, and the one with the greatest number of
written comments. Therefore, this question was selected as the focus of efforts towards a
systematic characterization of instructors opinions about the subject of the survey in general.
Frequently cited opinions not within the range of responses to Question #5, and samples of
comments or excerpted remarks, are noted afterwards.
The 244 responses to Question #5 varied considerably in focus, specificity, and length, so
that objective, logically consistent, and mutually exclusive categories could not be readily
formulated. The question asked generally about the "result" of unrestricted access. Some
responses focused on the consequences for teaching methods or the instructor's
responsibilities, while others focused on learning outcomes or the student's behavior. Another
group of responses mainly characterized the overall effect, in varying degrees of detail, as
pedagogically good or bad. Finally, many responses were partially of one type and partially
of another (these were sometimes double counted), while others were of neither type. The
percentage of the total number of responses to Question #5 in each of the subjective
categories used for tabulation is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Percentage of Comments to Question #5 of Various Types.
Type of comment
Instructor-Focused: Impact grading and/or
source of homework problems
Student Focused:
22%
-
Stimluate copying and memorization vs.
independent thinking
21%
Irrestistible tempatation not to struggle with
problem
11%
Foster illusion of knowledge
4%
Over-all effect on learning:
-
Non-specific/negative (i.e. detrimental)
14%
positive (i.e. beneficial)
11%
neutral (i.e. irrelevant)
4%
Specific to caliber of the student
9%
Raise homework grades, reduce exam scores
5%
Not categorized
9%
The instructor-focused category included about 22% of the total responses to Question #5.
These mentioned one or both of the following likely "results". First, unrestricted student
access to problem solutions would impact the standard practice of assigning homework for
credit. (The standard practice is to collect and grade student's written answers to assigned
problems from the text, for inclusion in determining the course grade.) Responses suggested
that this practice would have to be modified or abandoned. Second, alternative sources of
problems would have to be found, presumably with solutions unavailable to students, if, as
assumed in most of these responses, the standard practice of assigning homework for credit
were to be maintained. Responses suggested that instructors would be forced to devise
original problems or switch to another text.
Examples of responses in this category are:
"If they [i.e. solutions] are not restricted, the use of homework [i.e. graded problems] would
have to be rethought. However, I'm not certain that the current system is best for student
learning, so rethinking may not be bad.",
"...it would be the end of giving students credit for homework.", "Using them for grades
would be meaningless [however] students need the motivation of grades to study effectively.",
"It will force the professors to come up with their own problems. Otherwise, homework as a
useful exercise (which in general it is) will be a thing of the past.",
"I would have to make up other problems to assign for homework, or simply switch to
another text.", "It would require ... professors to use some imagination in creating their own
problems for graded homework...".
In the student-focused category of responses to Question #5, behavior of the following types
was predicted to be the "result" of unrestricted access. First, more copying or memorizing of
the available solutions, and less independent thinking, by students, was mentioned in about
21% of the total responses. Second, roughly 11% of responses suggested that students would
be tempted to not exert their maximum effort struggling with, or working independently on,
the problems. Third, slightly over 4% of responses warned that students might obtain a false
sense of security from freely available solutions, acquiring only the illusion of knowledge.
Examples from this category of responses are:
"There would be no point in assigning problems to be handed in, since students would simply
copy the solutions. Students would memorize the solutions, expecting to see the same
problems on exams." "Many, if not most, of the students would copy the solutions without
thinking about the problems."
"Blatant copying.",
"... most would submit to the temptation to rely heavily on the answers, rather than [on] their
own initiative.", "I think students must struggle a little with the [homework] and that they
shouldn't have their own copy of all [the] solutions. If they did, this struggle wouldn't occur."
"Few ... students would exert the effort to do the problems and thus learn the material,"
"[Free access] Would encourage a false understanding ... based on an attitude of 'I followed
how it was done in the solution manual, therefore I understand it and can do it on a test."
In the overall-effect category for Question #5, the non-specific responses characterized
unrestricted access as generally detrimental, beneficial, or irrelevant to student learning.
Approximately 14% of the total responses foresaw a negative effect, 11% a positive effect,
and 4% no appreciable effect. About 9% of the total responses suggested results which
differentiated between good students, who would be helped, poor students, who would be
hurt, and indifferent students, who would be unaffected by free access to solutions. Roughly
5% predicted specifically (and perhaps sarcastically) that homework grades would improve,
although a majority of these coupled this rise with a fall in exam scores or the level of
conceptual understanding.
A few examples from this category of responses are:
"Lower test scores, lower achievement, lower levels of understanding, much reduced critical
thinking/problem solving skills."
"Less frustration and a more positive attitude of students towards goals of instruction, maybe
a more responsible behavior in regard to their own learning." "No effect.", "Some will
simply copy; some will use the solutions properly, after trying the problem. In seeing many
problems (more than can be presented in class), the students must, on the whole, learn
more." "Homework scores would go up, but test scores would go down."
Many written responses to Question #1 alluded to the standard practice of assigning,
collecting, and grading homework problems, mentioned above, as a rationale for restricting
student access to solutions. Typically, such restrictions involved posting the solutions to
assigned problems on a bulletin board (actual, or an archival or electronic equivalent), at
appropriate times (after homework was collected or returned), in a manner which
discouraged the circulation of hard-copies among students. Because the selection of assigned
problems varies from year to year, and from instructor to instructor, this implied, for many
respondents, that access to the solutions to unassigned problems must also be restricted, thus
contributing to the negative correlation between the Likert-scale variables in Questions # 1
and #2. However, recognizing the positive contribution readily available solutions can have
for student learning outcomes, some respondents favored restricting access to only assigned
problems, so the correlation is weak.
Examples of comments on either side of this correlation are:
"Students will accumulate files of problem solutions. This restricts which problems I can
assign next semester."
"Any extra work the students want to do, even if it's just examining other solutions, is
good!".
Respondents who favored making the solutions to unassigned problems available to
students, in answer to Question #2, tended to comment affirmatively in answer to Questions
#3 and #4, for example:
"...Making solutions freely available encourages students to try more problems and to discuss
solutions with their instructor."
"Even if they work backward, they've learned something."
"Lack of validation frequently turns them back and causes them to give up.".
Conversely, respondents who disagreed with allowing access to unassigned problem
solutions, in Question #2, tended to disagree with the statements in Questions #3 and #4, for
example:
" Students will usually do the minimum possible...", "The more materials they have access to,
the less they use."
"Having solutions causes them to seek help before they have fully thought through a
problem.".
Both these types of responses contributed to positive correlations among the Likert-scale
responses to Questions #2, #3, and #4. There were many neutral answers to Question #3,
expressed in comments like "In theory [perhaps] - but they [i.e. students] are busy enough
to make it a non-issue.", and many responses of neither type, so these correlations among
Questions #2, #3, & #4 were also weak.
There were a number of comments to Question #6, regarding the ideal percentage of end of
chapter problems suitable for inclusion in a salable student solution manual. Many were
written by the plurality who chose 50% in Figure 2.
These comments recognized the diversity of opinion on all of the issues raised by the
questionnaire, and suggested 50-50 as a workable compromise, acceptable to everyone.
For example: "...the solution is obvious - each textbook should have twice the [usual]
number of problems ... and then print solutions to 50% [for students]. That way, the
instructor can take his or her pick! There are good pedagogical reasons for each choice - the
right mix depends on the instructor's teaching style, [the] ability of the students, [and the]
character of the course. Since publishers don't pay much for worked problem solutions, it
won't add much to the cost of the book."
There were also comments that represented the extreme 0% and 100% choices in Figure 2,
such as: "Students do not learn physics by seeing how someone else solves a problem.
Solutions should not be commercially published ... Students should not have access to any
end-of-chapter problems. They should ... consult with TA's and other instructors to get their
solutions checked.", and "I think it important to convince students that they get the most out
of working a problem if they resist peeking at the answer until they've exhausted completely
their ideas. But, at that point, getting to see the light, especially at 2 AM, should relieve
frustration and give them an incentive to test themselves against the next challenge."
A
more general impression of respondent attitudes might better be conveyed by simply listing
or excerpting written comments, without their specific association with particular items on
the questionnaire. Often, comments were perceptive, provocative, or witty, in spite of an
apparent preponderance of expressions of low expectation for student behavior and learning
outcomes, and an occasional moralization. A subjective sampling, including some gems, is
given in Appendix B. Conclusion The attitudes of this survey's sample of 249 physics
instructors, concerning student access to solutions to end of chapter problems in a required
textbook, can be summarized as follows:
* Opinion is polarized on the questions of
restricting student access to solutions for assigned problems, and not restricting those for
unassigned problems. Majorities of instructors agree with both of these practices, but sizable
minorities disagree with one. Common rationales given for restricting access are that
problems are assigned for credit, and that students must be forced to think on their own.
Contrary beliefs supporting free access are that students learn from correct examples, and that
they need every available help.
* Opinion is more evenly divided on the questions of
whether free access to solutions encourages students to do more problems, and to give up
less quickly. More instructors disagree with the former of these statements, and agree with
the latter. A typical belief is that students lack the time or motivation for working on
problems, regardless of their access to solutions, but that their work is less frustrating when
access is available.
* Opinion concerning the result of unrestricted student access to
problem solutions is wide ranging. Many instructor focused responses mentioned adverse
effects on the source and grading of homework problems. Many student focused responses
predicted increased copying and memorization, but decreased learning and understanding.
Attitudes on the over-all effect on student learning ranged from detrimental, to beneficial, to
irrelevant.
* Opinion about the ideal percentage of problem solutions, suitable for
inclusion in a salable student solution manual, is indicated by the 41% average response, but
a complex distribution was displayed. The most popular fraction, favored by 31% of the
respondents, was one half (or 50%), but 27% of the respondents split, three to four, between
all or none (i.e. 100% or 0%). Discussion Preliminary indications suggest that some of the
following issues may tentatively be of interest for further study and examination:
* For most instructors of introductory physics, problem solving serves a dual purpose of
enhancement and assessment of learning. Students are believed to grasp the full meaning and
usefulness of physical concepts only by being able to apply them in solving contrived
problems. Access to correct solutions to problems, illustrating physical reasoning from
perhaps several viewpoints, is a part of the learning process which cannot be omitted.
However, when the same problems are simultaneously used to evaluate and grade students,
this access to solutions is restricted. It may be that a careful distinction should be made
between these aspects of problem solving so as to avoid sending mixed messages to students.
* Problem solving is viewed as providing general educational or character-building
benefits, besides just helping students to understand the concepts of physics. How to analyze
a complex situation, how to apply effective methods of quantitative reasoning, perhaps how
to struggle to overcome an intellectual challenge, and the value of hard work, are all worth
learning. Such goals might have contributed to the moralistic flavor of some respondents'
comments on the survey instrument, and their attitude towards student access to problem
solutions. To what extent these objectives should be included and acknowledged in an
introductory physics course is probably worthy of some attention.
* Many instructors believe that the control of knowledge represented by problem
solutions, and the responsibility for dispensing it, is primarily their prerogative. Predictably,
many students may believe differently, and resent this. Perhaps allowing students to exercise
more responsibility for knowledge, and their own way of learning it, warrants further
consideration.
* Many comments written by instructors expressed rather low expectations for student
behavior regarding the utilization of problem solutions. Such negative attitudes may be
communicated to students, unintentionally or not, and become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Rethinking how to project more positive attitudes to students may improve their learning
outcomes, as well as their general reaction to physics. Acknowledgment The authors
gratefully acknowledge grants, for printing and mailing expenses, from Harper Collins
College Publishers and the College of Arts and Sciences at U Mass - Boston. We also
individually thank the 249 physics instructors who contributed their time and opinions
participating in our survey.
References
1993-1994 Directory of Physics and Astronomy Staff (1993).Woodbury, NY: American
Institute of Physics.
Arons, Arnold B. (1990). A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
George, Simon (1994). Update on the Status of the One-Year, Non-Calculus Physics
Course. The Physics Teacher, 32, 344-346.
Mazur, Eric (1997), Peer Instruction: A User's anual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Serway, Raymond A. (1998). Principles of Physics, 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Saunders
College Publishing.
Sisco, Burton & Hiemstra, Roger (1991). Individualizing the Teaching & Learning
Process. In Michael W. Galbraith, editor,
Facilitating Adult Learning. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co.
Slavin, Robert E. (1994). Educational Psychology, 4th edition. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Tipler, Paul A. (1991). Physics for Scientists & Engineers, 3rd edition. New York: Worth
Publishers.
Wall, J. D. & Wall, E. (1997). Introductory Physics: A Problem Solving Approach. San
Francisco: Analog Press.
Appendix A. Survey Instrument
-------------------------------------------------------------------------SOLUTION MANUAL INSTRUCTOR SURVEY - FALL'95
INSTRUCTIONS (PLEASE READ). The following statements
and questions refer
to the teaching of a one-year introductory physics
course, using the
end-of-chapter problems in a required textbook.
Indicate your answers by
circling the appropriate number on the scale from 1 to
5 (1 = strongly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree,
strongly agree),
and by writing comments in your own words.
5 =
1. Student access to the solutions to the assigned
problems
1 2 3 4 5
should be restricted. Please explain if, how, and why
they
should be restricted.
2. Student access to the solutions to unassigned
problems
1 2 3 4 5
should not be restricted. Please explain.
3. Free access to solutions encourages students to do
more
1 2 3 4 5
problems, even in addition to those assigned. Please
comment
on your answer.
4. Having no access to solutions causes students to
give
1 2 3 4 5
up sooner, rather than work harder, in solving
problems.
Please comment.
5. What do you think would be the result of allowing
students to have
free access to the solutions to all of the end-ofchapter problems in a
required text?
6. Currently, textbook publishers sell Student Solution
Manuals
containing 20% to 50% of the problems. What do you
think is the ideal
percentage? (Use a scale from 0% to 100%.)______
THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING. PLEASE FILL IN THE
INFORMATION REQUESTED ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS PAGE and RETURN TO YOUR DEPT.
CHAIR, OR THE
ADDRESS INDICATED.
------------------------------------------------------------------------RESPONDENT INFORMATION
(This survey is CONFIDENTIAL, in that no information
will be presented
in such a way that could permit the identification of
any individual
respondent.)
Years of experience teaching at the college
introductory level.
1 to 3 years____
4 to 9 years____
years____
none____
10 or more
Is yours a two-year or four-year institution?
2-year____
4-year____
What is your highest academic degree?
Bachelors___
Masters____
Name and address (OPTIONAL)
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
Doctorate____
Further comments:
PLEASE ANSWER ALL ITEMS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS PAGE,
and RETURN THIS
SURVEY TO YOUR DEPT. CHAIR, OR TO:
Edw. S.
Ginsberg
U. Mass. Boston
/ Physics Dept.
100 Morrissey
Blvd.
Boston, MA
02125-3393
-------------------------------------------------------------------------Appendix B. Selected Respondent Comments and Excerpted
Remarks
* "Today's students seem to give up a little too
easily. Sooner or
later, they have to learn to deal with a challenge..."
* "Students should be encouraged not to view solutions
until after they
have made a reasonable attempt. Counsel [them] on use,
but leave [them]
free access."
* "Given an answer, many students will go to great
lengths to obtain
that answer, in any manner possible. The approach seems
to become 'How
do I get this answer?', rather than 'How do I solve
this problem?'."
* "... Nothing worthwhile comes easily. I don't know
why there are
student solution manuals available, other than because
publishers make
more money and physics teachers are ... too lazy to
grade student
homework themselves."
* "...I deplore the trend toward publishing even
partial solution
manuals for students. The point of physics problems is
to challenge
student understanding and to build the student's
confidence... Textbooks
contain plenty of worked-out examples ..., maybe too
many. Students ...
want instant gratification, quick answers, and
absolutely no risk.
Thinking is a risky operation; the answer doesn't
always come right
away."
* "What's to explain? [It is] ... a wonderful aid for
learning when
students study by doing unassigned problems. ... We
grade on the layout
and presentation of problem solutions ... How well they
communicate how
they solved the problem is given more emphasis than
having the correct
answer. ... The emphasis in my course is shifting to
lab work, and just
solving lots of problems is not as important to me as
it used to be."
* "... I want students to struggle with [obtaining the]
answer, realize
they have a problem, and then see the answer when they
come to class.
..."
* "Human nature will always defeat good intentions!"
* "Students must be supplied with acceptable models of
how to solve
problems. They cannot develop these strategies on their
own ...[but]
learn ... by modeling 'expert' methods."
* "... Success is only meaningful if failure is a
possibility."
* "Students must repeatedly hit their heads against
difficult problems.
After trying, they should then be shown. The art of
teaching is to
determine the perfect period for the iterative
process."
* "... when problem solutions are available, students
will lean on them
instead of figuring things out - there will be less
learning. There are
no 'solution sets' for real problems. Students need to
learn how to
work through hard stuff."
* "My guess is that it doesn't matter. Good students
will still work
hard and do well, and poor students will continue to
scrape by, no
matter what is done."
* "Students never do more problems."
* "Having solution manuals for sale is a publisher's
money making
scheme, regardless of ... [its] effect on learning."
* "... Easily available solutions short-circuits the
thinking process.
..."
* "Students need challenge, but they also need access
to full solutions.
Getting stuck for two hours is not efficient or
conducive of learning."
* "... Who needs someone to solve problems for which
the answer is
already known?"
* "We don't even give our graduate teaching assistants
access to
solution manuals. It breeds very, very bad habits that
have to be broken
if students are to succeed in a career."
* "We had a problem this year, in that the bookstore
ordered some of
these solution manuals and marked them as
'recommended', even though no
faculty member had requested them. We didn't find out
about it until the
students started complaining ... [when the supply] had
run out. Then we
had to deal with the fact that only ... [some] of the
students had
access to them. In the future, I will give preference
in textbook
selection to ones that don't have a Student Solution
Manual."
* "Solutions available - students memorize solutions
and techniques of
solutions, ... Solutions not available - student[s]
unable to do
problem, mental block."
* "The lazy, undisciplined, immature students should be
protected from
themselves."
* "A further erosion of the needed work ethic."
* "... [it is a] naïve assumption that students at the
intro. level
really want to learn. It is true that some do, but
regrettably, they are
few. ... I have concerns over free access to solutions.
This does not
mean that I want textbook publishers to abandon
solution manuals
(especially for instructors) ..."
* "I also rather disapprove of sending teaching faculty
manuals of
solutions to go with a textbook. If the instructor
needs one, there is
something seriously wrong!"
* "We currently do this [i.e. provide free access to
all solutions] at
... [a large southern university]. It seems to work out
well. ... If no
access ... [is provided] you must have an excellent
free tutoring
service in place."
* "I do not like the current practice of giving
students solutions to
end-of-chapter problems. It is too difficult to assign
homework that
way. You are grading on how well they copy, not ... [on
whether] they
understand the material. Also, I don't have time to
make up my own
supplementary problems without answers ..."
* "Free access allows students to read , not do ,
problems, giving a
false sense of understanding. No access causes students
to interact
with other students or faculty in pursuit of a correct
answer."
* "We do this [i.e. provide free access to all
solutions] in our first
year course. Students use the these solutions to guide
their problem
solving."
* "The free market system will make solutions
available, if students
want them. If an instructor wants to restrict access,
he/she should
simply write new problems. ... [As a result of free
access] students
would pester the instructor less. On homework
assignments, students
would fudge their answers in order to make it appear
(to [the] grader)
that they did it right."
* "...I Xerox, therefore I know..."
* "... I am a strong believer in giving the students
the answers, but
not the entire solution. If solutions are given, there
is too great an
incentive to look when encountering the slightest
difficulty."
About the authors...
Edward S. Ginsberg
Associate Professor of Physics
Office Address: Dept. of Physics, U. Mass. Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA
02125-3393
Tel. 617-287-6059, FAX 617-287-6053
Degrees & Institutions: AB, ScB, Brown University; MS, PhD, Stanford University.
Regina M. Panassuk
Assistant Professor of Mathematics and Science Education
Office Address: College of Education - West Campus, U. Mass. Lowell, 1 University Ave.,
Lowell, MA 01854
Degrees & Institutions: BS (electrical engineering), St. Petersburg Institute of Electrical
Engineering; MS (mathematics), St. Petersburg Pedagogical
University; PhD (mathematics education), St. Petersburg University.
Simon George
Professor of Physics
Office Address: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Calif. State Univ., 1250 Bellflower Blvd.,
Long Beach, CA 90840
Degrees & Institutions: BS, University of . Travancore; MS, University of. Saugar; PhD,
University of British Columbia.
To get to the top of this page, click here.
To get back to the current issue of the EJSE, click here.
To get back to the EJSE's Archive page, click here.