Since I teach at a college, I get a fair amount of junk mail from publishers’ representatives wanting to sell me … or force me to make my students buy … their educational doo-dads. Here’s one from my inbox this morning.
Dear Professor […]:
In a recent message to you, we noted that in a general chemistry class recently taught at the University of North Texas, students who completed more than 90% of the OWL problems assigned earned an average grade of 89.3%—while students who did not follow the assignments earned an average grade of 66.3%. With results like these, it’s no wonder OWL [Online Web-based Learning] is the most popular chemistry learning system in use today.
They’re trying to sell me an “online homework” system. I’ve been incorporating web content into my courses for a decade now, and one thing that my students have always had trouble with was web-based chemistry problem sets. Chemistry problems just don’t lend themselves easily to input into a computer – for instructors or for students.
(And besides, I already have plenty of online content for my courses, all free to my students…)
But the real reason this e-mail caught my eye is the sales pitch [emphasis mine]:
[…] students who completed more than 90% of the OWL problems assigned earned an average grade of 89.3%—while students who did not follow the assignments earned an average grade of 66.3%.
You don’t say! Students who complete nearly all of their practice assignments actually make better grades? There’s a shocker.
But why should this revelation make me want to force this product onto my students? I observe the same sort of pattern whether I have assignments on the web or on paper. The students who make higher grades generally spend more time with the material and complete more of their practice assignments.
The problem is getting students to spend time with the material. I somehow doubt that this product runs on an Xbox 360!