Sapling's Digital Content Ecosystem

This week at the ACS Spring Meeting, we are introducing our new general chemistry eBook, Chemistry 5e by John Olmsted and Greg Williams. This book will be available under our new microcontent publishing model. We will be giving two talks at this conference:

• Tuesday, 9:15 AM, Disney's Grand California Hotel, Trillium B: Microcontent publishing: A new model for development and dissemination of educational support materials (p. TECH-99 of the on-site program, talk 1340)
• Tuesday, 3:30 PM - 6:00 PM, Anaheim Convention Center, Room 211A: Independent Online Homework and eBooks (a workshop on editing and earning royalties for content in our online homework and eBook system) (p. 29 of the on-site program)

For those of you unable to attend our sessions, this blog gives a brief overview of how things work.

If you have content you'd like to make available to your students, and you think instructors at other schools might like to use that same content, we'd like to let you get compensated for that effort. For questions, we'll pay a royalty based on the percentage of all questions in a course that you provide. In short, if you provide 50% of the questions used in a course, you'll get 50% of the available question royalty. Similarly, for eBook content, we'll pay a royalty based on the percentage of all eBook sections used in each course. The exact percentages can scale depending how much of the work you do, but the idea is to make it easy for people to mix-and-match content to fit their needs.

If you have content that you think would fit this model, let Brian Arneson know at publish@saplinglearning.com. We'll update the blog over the coming weeks with more details about what this means for your courses and how you can take advantage of this model, both as an author and as an instructor. Let us know in the comments if you have any questions you'd like us to answer in those posts.

Unconventional Wisdom: General Chemistry

There are some differences in style that we as chemistry instructors accept, or even embrace. For example, many of us point out to students that the groups of the periodic table can be numbered in multiple ways. Sure, we may have a personal preference, but we acknowledge that students are better off knowing all systems in the long run. During my time developing Sapling Learning's general chemistry library and accommodating more than 20 different textbooks, I've learned a few conventions that most of us assume are universal.

1. STP

In 1982 [PDF], IUPAC recommended that standard pressure be 1 bar (not 1 atm) and redefined STP as such in 1990 [PDF], which means standard molar volume is 22.7 L, not 22.4 L. A few books have adopted this convention (namely McQuarrie et al.), but most do not [PDF]. Since the difference would cause students to get different answers, we've maintained two different sets of questions on this topic in our library.

2. Units of K

IUPAC distinguishes between K_c, K_p, and the thermodynamic equilibrium constant. Whereas thermodynamic K must be unitless, some textbooks (namely McQuarrie et al.) assert that K_c and K_p need not be. Rather, they can have units such as M, M², atm^-1, or even unitless, depending on how the terms cancel. Since this would not affect answers, I figured it would be fine to expose students to both conventions (if they even notice). You may notice that equilibrium questions with the McQuarrie banner allow K_c and K_p to have units, whereas those with the Sapling banner always show K as unitless. Of course, if we hear from you that you'd prefer not to mix the conventions, we'd consider making two separate sets of questions like we did for STP.
Update: We've gone ahead and made alternate versions of the McQuarrie questions so that users of traditional textbooks can have a perfectly unitless K experience. If you're interested in learning more about McQuarrie's approach, please take a look at this preface [PDF] for the 4th edition of his textbook.

3. Units of ΔH_rxn (and similarly ΔS_rxn and ΔG_rxn)

Version A: kJ/mol	Version B: kJ
Averill Burdge Burrows Chang Laird McQuarrie Petrucci Spencer Whitten	Brown Brady Ebbing Gilbert Kotz McMurry Moore Olmsted Oxtoby Silberberg Tro Zumdahl

In some books (we call them "Version A" books) the coefficients from the chemical reaction are considered unitless, so ΔH_rxn comes out in units of kJ/mol (where the "per mole" is assumed to mean per mole of reaction). In other books (we call them "Version B" books) the coefficients from the chemical reaction have units of moles, so ΔH_rxn comes out in units of kJ, and that value is specific to the reaction as written (but also understood to be scalable per mole of reaction). Although this difference does not affect the students' answer in any way, some instructors strongly prefer one method over the other for pedagogical reasons. Thus, we went ahead and made separate sets of questions, one for each convention.

The table to the right is a non-comprehensive list of popular General Chemistry textbooks (first author only) classified by which version they use.

4. The Rydberg formula

The Rydberg constant is expressed differently from book to book.

If R_H = 2.18 × 10^–18 J, then the Rydberg formula is E = –R_H(1/n²) and 1/λ = –(R_H)/(hc) × (1/n²)

If R_H = 1.097 × 10⁷ m^–1, then the formula is 1/λ = –R_H(1/n²) and E = –R_Hhc(1/n²)

If R_H = 3.29 × 10¹⁵ Hz, then the formula is ν = –R_H(1/n²).

RH in J	RH in m–1	RH in Hz	RH not defined (value shown in formulas)
Chang Ebbing Moore Petrucci	Brown Gilbert Kotz McMurry McQuarrie Silberberg Spencer	Burrows Laird	Tro Zumdahl

Obviously students should know how to interconvert between energy, frequency, and wavelength, but it would be dangerous for a student to take R_H = 1.097 × 10⁷ and plug it into the equation E = –R_H(1/n²). So in Sapling Learning questions, we've been careful to put the value directly into all equations rather than using the symbol R_H. For example, a hint might show E = –(2.18 × 10^–18 J)(1/n²). Some textbooks also use this style for presenting equations and thus, refrain from defining R_H. The table above is the non-comprehensive breakdown of textbooks (first author only).

Do you have any concerns about these not-quite-convention conventions, or the way we handle them (particularly the units of K)? Let us know in the comments.

Sapling Learning Physics

Here at Sapling, we are always looking for ways to improve not just the software that runs our homework products, but also what subjects we can support with that software. Sapling's content team was initially comprised of chemists so they did what they know - write questions for chemistry courses. Since then our content team has expanded to include many science disciplines. In that vein, we are pleased to announce our newest addition - Sapling Learning Physics.

I am the team lead for our physics project and in charge of overseeing the development of the new content as well as representing Sapling physics at conferences and in meetings with professors. While in graduate school working on my physics PhD, I was a teaching assistant for many semesters. I got started with Sapling Learning in the same way as many of our current team members - as a contract author. When Sapling decided to start their physics project they brought me on full time.

We have a team of PhD level physicists developing our physics content, each with many years of teaching experience that has given them an understanding of common misconceptions held by students and what guidance will best help them learn how to work out these questions on their own. Together we are working towards an initial goal of 1200 items intended to cover both semesters of introductory level physics for both algebra and calculus based courses. These courses will be available for use starting in the fall semester of 2011.

When we develop content for new disciplines like this at Sapling, we always go through a pilot semester first. Pilots are usually arranged with professors who have previously expressed interest in a subject that we hadn't yet developed. These professors understand that the course is still in development but they have an interest in helping to develop new tools for teaching their students. Because our content is being completed while the course is in progress, these pilots are offered for free to the students in the course. In exchange, Sapling gets valuable student testing data as well as feedback from both students and professors that we will incorporate to make the courses even better for future semesters.

We currently have pilot courses starting for the 2011 Spring semester. If you would like to try out Sapling in your class for this spring, it is not too late to get everything set up. Additionally, if you are already committed to another online homework system and would like to compare Sapling to your existing system, we can set up a trial of a few homework assignments for you and your students.

If you are interested in learning more about Sapling Learning's physics offerings, we are exhibiting at the AAPT Winter Meeting that is going on right now in Jacksonville, FL. Or you can e-mail me directly at carl.knutson[at]saplinglearning.com.

Want More Questions? We Have You Covered

The central feature of SaplingLearning.com is the content used to build your online homework assignments and quizzes. We assembled a top-notch team to write that content, composed of the people who wrote much of the content for other online homework systems. While we tried to write everything you might need for your course, you may want to ask something we don't have. If so, we have three options available to you: content requests, editing existing questions, and writing questions from scratch.

Option 1: Content Requests
The first place to turn if you can't find the question you're looking for is your TechTA. Usually, they have provided a link on the right side of your course(s) with information about how to contact them (or you can just call or email them as normal). If you describe the question you want, they can usually get it to you within about a week (but the sooner you let them know you'll need the question, the better). They'll check whether we already have what you want (for example, maybe we already wrote it for a different subject or for a different instructor). If we don't have it, they'll write it for you. Note that this is generally handled on a first-come-first-served basis, so it's definitely best to figure out what you want as early in the semester as you can.

Option 2: Editing Existing Questions
If you just want to put your own touch on an existing question, you can edit any question in our content bank:

1. Open the assignment where you want to add the question (any assignment will do, but this way you can assign the question when you're done).
2. Find the question you want to edit in our library. Usually you can use the magnifying glass icon in Your Activity. If you can't find it that way, click the brown book on the left side of the activity to open the Library, then browse through the sources on the left to find it. Tip: You can click the arrow next to the title of a book, chapter, or section to drill deeper into the Library, and you can use the filters at the bottom of the Library to limit the question list down based on title or description.
3. With that question selected, click "Create a copy of a question and edit it" at the top of the window (the double-page icon pointed out at the start of this section). Your copy of the question will open in a new window.
4. Make the changes you desire. Check all of the tabs of the question in case your change affects them. It's probably a good idea to call your TechTA the first time you do this, so they can walk you through everything and make sure you understand what everything means. Note: The question saves every time you change to a new tab (from Question to Correct, for example).
5. Close the question, and reload the activity (your question will show up in the Library when you reload).
6. Add your copy of the question. Unless you changed something on the "Information" tab of your question, it's most likely saved in the same part of the book as the original question (so you can find it the same way you found the original question).
7. Very important: Double-click the question to view it as a student. ALWAYS do this to make sure the question works the way you think it does, no matter how certain you are. You might have missed something, and it's always possible you'll find a bug in our authoring. It's far better that you find mistakes before your students do.
8. Remove the original question.

You can also edit an existing question to create something brand new. This might be a good idea for your first few questions, so you can see how our feedback and variables work. In some cases, though, it might be easiest to start from scratch.

Option 3: Writing Questions from Scratch

If you can't find a question close to what you want (or you don't want to deal with the variables and feedback in existing questions), you can write a question from scratch. We have more information about this on our support website, but these are the basics:

1. Open the assignment where you want to add the question (any assignment will do, but this way you can assign the question when you're done).
2. Open the Library (using the brown book icon).
3. Click "Create a new question from scratch" (the blue + button at the top-right of the Library)
4. Write your question. Be sure to include a Solution (the answer), a Correct tab (the answer with tolerance), and at least a Default Incorrect tab (feedback your students will receive if they get the wrong answer). After you start your first question, it's a good idea to call your TechTA to make sure you didn't miss anything.
5. Close the question, and reload the activity (your question will show up in the Library when you reload).
6. Find your question in the Library. Unless you specified a location on the "Information" tab of your question, the question will appear in the "Your Questions" topic in the first section of the first chapter of every book in the Library.
7. Very important: Double-click the question to view it as a student. ALWAYS do this to make sure the question works the way you think it does, no matter how certain you are. You might have missed something, and it's always possible you'll find a bug in our authoring. It's far better that you find mistakes before your students do.
8. Add the question to your activity.

Any questions you write or edit will be available in any future courses you teach, but they are private to only you. We have plans to eventually allow you to submit your questions to your colleagues for use in their courses. If you think you would use that feature, or have any questions about authoring, let us know in the comments.

Improving Questions: Sapling’s Quality Control Process

Sapling Learning is committed to creating the highest quality content, but we also devote a considerable effort towards maintaining and improving the efficacy of the existing questions. This post covers what happens to a question after it is "live" (available for use in assignments).

There are two opportunities for question revision during a question's lifetime: revision prompted by instructor or student comments, and revision through periodic, statistical reviews. The types of question flaws caught in each instance tend to be very different in nature.

Occasionally a Tech TA or Sapling Support will receive an email or call from an instructor or student alerting us to a potential error with a question. The question may have a wording issue, the tolerances on the question may be too tight, or, rarely, the correct answer may be incorrectly coded. Regardless, the issue with the question is often specific and the action is immediate: we may remove the question from the assignment, or replace the question with a corrected version.

There can be other issues with a question that are more subtle, and that is why we perform periodic, statistical reviews. During these reviews, Sapling analyzes statistical data for the questions that we have written. The question statistics include information about how many students have viewed the question, the average number of attempts per student on the question, the average number of points each student got on the question, and the difficulty rating that the original question author projected the question to have.* For each difficulty rating (easy, medium, and hard) within a discipline, we look for outliers—that is, questions for which students have taken significantly more or less attempts or have received more or less points than average for that difficulty rating. Those questions are flagged, and we examine the questions to see if we can find anything that might cause the unusual behavior. Sometimes the incorrect feedback could be improved, sometimes an issue only occurs for some values of a randomly generated variable, and sometimes question tolerances are too tight. In the instances where we cannot find a flaw in the question, we consider giving the question a new difficulty rating.

Quickly addressing potential question flaws, regardless of how the flaw is brought to our attention is one way that we continuously improve our question bank.  However, there are always opportunities to make this process better. As an instructor, what would you like to see us do to improve our content? Are there any statistics, like average time spent on a question, that you feel we should analyze when determining what questions should be flagged for review?

* The number of attempts on a question and the number of points received for the question are not necessarily giving you the same information if a question has more than one part.