Most introductory physics instructors administer several quizzes and/or exams each term. Instructors are willing to invest the significant time it takes to develop, administer, and grade these assessments because they believe that regular assessments help students learn. However, instructors also believe that students do not make full use of the learning potential of these assessments. For example, in an interview study, six college physics instructors were asked how they expect their students to utilize an instructor solution after a test. All said they expect students to compare the instructor solution with their own and learn from any mistakes made. However, the instructors all thought that most students do not do this sort of comparison and only look at solutions superficially, if at all.1

1.
E.
Yerushalmi
,
C.
Henderson
,
K.
Heller
,
P.
Heller
, and
V.
Kuo
, “
Physics faculty beliefs and values about the teaching and learning of problem solving. I. Mapping the common core
,”
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
3
(
2
),
020109
(
2007
).
2.
K. A. Harper, R. W. Brown, and M. Finnerty, “A treatment for post‐exam syndrome,” paper presented at the AAPT Winter Meeting, Miami Beach, FL (2004).
3.
Note that this is similar to that described in
K. D.
Pinkerton
, “
Learning from mistakes
,”
Phys. Teach.
43
,
510
513
(Nov.
2005
).
4.
Readers can download a copy of the “Detailed Description of Quiz Correction Assignment” at
http://ftp.aip.org/cgi‐bin/epaps?ID=
E-PHTEAH-47-013909.
For more information on EPAPS, see http://www.aip.org/pubservs/epaps.htm.
5.
P.
Black
and
D.
Wiliam
, “
Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment
,”
Phi Delta Kappan
80
(
2
),
139
148
(Oct.
1998
).
6.
National Research Council, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999).
7.
E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2003).
8.
A.
Elby
, “
Another reason that physics students learn by rote
,”
Am. J. Phys.
67
(
7
),
S52
S57
(July
1999
);
D.
Hammer
, “
Two approaches to learning physics
,”
Phys. Teach.
57
,
664
670
(Dec.
1989
).
9.
E. F.
Redish
,
J. M.
Saul
, and
R. N.
Steinberg
, “
Student expectations in introductory physics
,”
Am. J. Phys.
66
(
3
),
212
224
(March
1998
).
10.
D.
Maloney
,
T.
O'Kuma
,
C. J.
Hieggelke
, and
A.
Van Heuvelen
, “
Surveying students' conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism
,“
Am. J. Phys.
69
(
7
),
S12
S23
(March
2001
).
11.
R. R.
Hake
, “
Interactive‐engagement vs. traditional methods: A six‐thousand‐student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,”
Am. J. Phys.
66
,
64
74
(Jan.
1998
).
12.
Although we were unable to find peer‐reviewed data for CSEM gains in innovative physics courses, the SCALE‐UP website (Ref. 13) reports CSEM gains of <g> = .20 to <g> = .29 for the innovative SCALE‐UP course.
13.
R. Beichner, “Conceptual Learning,” SCALE‐UP website; http://www.ncsu.edu/per/SCALEUP/ConceptualLearning.html.
This content is only available via PDF.

Supplementary Material

AAPT members receive access to The Physics Teacher and the American Journal of Physics as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.