From: gbutulis@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp48
Subject: Re: Using programmable calcs in exams
Date: 20 Dec 92 00:11:31 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <BzIyMw.LI3@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, gsdlee@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (G. Lee) writes:
> In article <19DEC199213241557@pavo.concordia.ca> dl_mill@pavo.concordia.ca (MILLER, DARREL L.) writes:
>>  I'm looking for some feedback on the attitude different universities have
>>to using calculators like the HP48 in examiniations.
>>  Over the past 2 years then number of HP's at Concordia University has 
>>probably tripled.  The problem is the teachers are really unaware of their
>>capabilities and view them as merely an expensive electronic crib sheet.  
>>Due to this there is much opposition from the professors to allow students
>>to use "programmable" calculators.
>>  I'm interested in hearing about experiences that other students have had 
>>relating to this.  Do other universities allow them, encourage their use or
>>maybe (god forbid) actually teach students how to use these tools?
>>
> 
> Just recently (this Fall) the EE department at the University of Waterloo 
> has decided to ban the use of all 'Programmable Calculators' during the exams.
> 
> The question was raised during one of the departmental meeting and 
> the profs UNANIMOUSLY voted to ban the use of 'Programmable Calculators'
> during the exams. Currently, it's only at the departmental level, but
> later it could be addressed at the Engineering Faculty Level.
> 
> One of the issues that prompted this action by the EE department was the
> fact that some students have programmed their calculators to do some of the
> calculation automatically. During the exams they simply use the program
> and write the final result on the exam paper without showing any intermediates
> steps. The prof who taught that course did not appreciate it, and did not give 
> them the full mark, but this incident has prompted the EE department to
> examine its policy on the use of Programmable calculators during exams.
> 
> Some of the arguments used by the EE department about this decision of banning
> 'ALL' programmable calculators are:
> 
> 1) It's impractical to keep up to date with a list of what calulators are
>    permissible and what others aren't considering that the maufacturers
>    of calculators come out with new models every few months.
> 
> 2) Some students use the programmable calculators as crib sheets, although 
>    the prof could go through all students and erase the memory of their 
>    calculators before the exams (don't laugh, I heard one prof actually
>    did it :) ), it's impractical.
> 
> 3) With the use of Programmable calculators, some students lose the concepts
>    of basic knowledge and rely on the programmable calculators.  
> 
> 4) The students who own a programmable calculator have an advantage over
>    students who only have simple basic function calculators in term of 
>    time. eg. In a Calculus course, a student who owns a graphic calulator
>    can use his calculator to draw a graph, which will give him at least
>    5-10 minutes advantage over another student who doesn't have one 
>    calculator and do it manually.
> 
> Personally, I think the programmable calculators should be allowed during the 
> exams, but I also realized that some students have been abusing it and 
> used it as crib sheet. However, I don't think that the majority should
> be punished because of the misuse by the minority.  
> 
> Some of my classmates (4th year EE students) are thinking of appeaing the 
> decision by the department ( those who have programmable calculators that
> is :) ).  If you have any suggestions or arguments that you think  
> might help our case, please post it to this newsgoup or send me an email. 
> Or if you have other arguments which support the decision to ban
> the programmable calculators, please post it to this newsgroup as well.
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> - Gary,  gsdlee@sunee.uwaterloo.ca 
> 


My two cents on the topic:

1. I agree with the use of any calculator on exams so long is the use is not
   tantamount to "cheating".

2. Problems can be easily designed as to take any pc more than 5 minutes to
   solve, yet be easily solvable to any student who knows the material.

3. In my courses, the points awarded for any exam problem are directly 
   proportional to the work shown (ie. no work, no credit).  The calc is a 
   great tool to check answers (like long, complicated matrices that I
   always screw up one step on).  They should also be allowed for aid in basic
   things (like quickly evaluating a current loop, especially when the answer
   is not the current of the loop itself, but something in the loop).  Note:
   if you show correct setup for the matrix, then write "done by calculator"
   and write the answer, that should be enough to demonstrate your knowledge.

4. Graphs, in my experience, take longer to set up on the calculator than to
   do by hand (unless extremely complex).  The calc is a great tool for
   checking it, though.

5. Students who don't have the benifit of a pc have done so by their own
   choice.  Those on finacnial aid could get a calc with that, those that 
   aren't have very probably chosen to buy a stereo instead (don't flame
   me for this; this is just my oppinion, not an absolute).  This oppinion
   does come from experience, though, as my luxury life went down the tubes
   for several months (I ate bologna sandwiches forever) to get mine.

6. My main reason for support of any calculator:  Not so long ago, I got a D
   in a calc 3 course.  Reason?  The prof didn't want to be bothered with
   checking whose calc was graphing and whose wasn't.  Ergo:  NO CALULATORS
   on exams.  Period.  I don't know my sin/cos tables, so I blew the exams.
   Exactly how much should we really be expected to commit to memory.  What is
   useful, and what could really be looked up in a common table?  I think that
   anyone that has the knowledge to write a program to help them do a problem
   has the knowledge to do the problem itself.

The views above are those of the author alone, have little to no basis in
reality, and may be totally wrong.

-Garrett

gbutulis@desire.wright.edu