Is solution-manual type studying as big of a flaw as I think it is?

In summary: It's really a confidence thing. I was able to teach myself physics from a text, I was able to teach myself geometry from a text, and I was able to teach myself calculus from a text. All I needed was a boost. I'm sure you can understand the feeling.In summary, the conversation discusses the challenges of studying mathematics at a higher level and the tendency to rely on solutions manuals rather than truly understanding the material. The suggestion is made to take courses without solutions manuals or to self-study by working through problems without checking the answers. The individual also mentions their success in learning from solutions manuals in the past and their confidence in teaching themselves various subjects.
  • #1
ktheo
51
0
I am pretty close to finishing my undergrad degree in math, and I am really starting to realize as my classes get more demanding, conceptual, loaded, whatever, that the style in which I have cultivated studying is not going to keep working. I very, very rarely read the texts. I realize this isn't a good thing. I have done a lot of applied math in my undergrad, but not a lot of pure, and I think that's where I am finding the trouble starting.

How do I condition myself out of looking at solutions or finding ultra-similar problems and replacing things? Really I would call what I do as backward studying. I've never really been in a situation where I approached a question being honest with myself that I wasn't going to just fly for the solution, and I haven't conditioned myself to the whole "problem solving" cycle where you review theorem/definition, find an approach, try question etc. Any tips?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
  • #3
lisab said:
There was a lively discussion on this some weeks ago in this thread -

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=708986

The consensus was, I think, that it can be a problem but not necessarily. In other words there was no strong consensus :smile:.

Interesting. Thanks that was a good read. As one person pointed out, obviously it's a different thing to be simply copying answers and seeing answers and working backwards. I am definitely trying to back off seeing solutions and give myself a little "thinking" time. But then I get to the issue that made me want to ask this question. I'm doing some low-level set theory stuff, and having generally an applied math background and having only taken a few abstract classes, when I get to some questions, I am just totally stumped.

Ask me to prove something I've seen before and I have no problem doing it, and I know why I'm doing it and how. But if I see a new question, I'm often stumped. Not so much when it comes to similar questions, but for example, when I went from the introductory stuff of set theory into cartesian products then into relations. I still don't know how to approach the relations questions, but I can still go back and prove most of the basic set theory rules and laws by either using arbitrary inclusions or breaking it down through formal logic and boolean algebra... but I don't know how to harness that "cumulative expansion" into the next topics. I had a very similar problem to this in analysis and I would rather not re-live it.
 
  • #4
The goal in mathematics is to have an intuitive understanding of how things work - this allows you to tackle new kinds of problems. Thus you need to study the text (or lecture notes), and be able to work out for yourself how to do a problem.

Cribbing from solutions manuals is not studying and hardly prepares you for actual work.

How to break these bad habits? Take a course which has not solutions manuals - an upper level proof-based course in abstract algebra, or linear algebra. Or take a course from the physics department - analytical mechanics requires only first year physics but teaches a lot of mathematical techniques.

Course work isn't the only way to learn - if you are self-motivated you can back up and re-teach yourself the material from your earlier courses, working problems and only checking answers after you are done. You can really move pretty fast in such a detailed review - but you won't have any spare time while you are doing this.
 
  • #5
UltrafastPED said:
The goal in mathematics is to have an intuitive understanding of how things work - this allows you to tackle new kinds of problems. Thus you need to study the text (or lecture notes), and be able to work out for yourself how to do a problem.

Cribbing from solutions manuals is not studying and hardly prepares you for actual work.

How to break these bad habits? Take a course which has not solutions manuals - an upper level proof-based course in abstract algebra, or linear algebra. Or take a course from the physics department - analytical mechanics requires only first year physics but teaches a lot of mathematical techniques.

Course work isn't the only way to learn - if you are self-motivated you can back up and re-teach yourself the material from your earlier courses, working problems and only checking answers after you are done. You can really move pretty fast in such a detailed review - but you won't have any spare time while you are doing this.

Ive taken both group theory and abstract linear algebra (arbitrary fields, linear maps, etc etc). Although they didn't have solution manuals, I would say I still studied in a similar way; find a similar problem with fully worked solutions, work it backwards, and learn it like that, as opposed to what I would consider the traditional (better?) method of laying out theorem/definition/lemmas/whatever and trying to build the house brick by brick. I guess the issue is really just discipline and being willing to spend the time. I'd love to take a physics course - sadly that's completely unrealistic for me at this point haha.
 
  • #6
Perhaps yout future career will be in reverse engineering, or fixing problems in other people's code, or as an editor. You do have a useful skill ... you should look into cryptography, especiajjy the code breaking side! :)
 
  • #7
People learn differently. I actually found that I learned best from solutions initially when studying for olympiad level physics - sometimes common techniques come up, and you need to learn to master those. After I had a good grasp of those, it was like my horizons were widened and I could think of new techniques on my own. So solution studying isn't worthless - just don't do it all the time!
 

FAQ: Is solution-manual type studying as big of a flaw as I think it is?

What is a solution manual?

A solution manual is a guide that provides step-by-step solutions to problems found in a textbook. It is often used by students to check their work or to help them understand a concept better.

Is using a solution manual considered cheating?

It depends on the context. If a teacher specifically prohibits the use of solution manuals during exams or assignments, then using it would be considered cheating. However, if the manual is used as a study aid to supplement learning, it is not considered cheating.

Does relying on solution manuals hinder critical thinking skills?

It can potentially hinder critical thinking skills if it is used as the sole source of learning. It is important for students to also attempt problems on their own and use the solution manual as a reference or guide if they get stuck.

What are the benefits of using a solution manual?

Using a solution manual can help students understand difficult concepts and improve their problem-solving skills. It can also save time when studying and provide a source of practice problems for students to work on.

Are there any alternatives to using a solution manual?

Yes, there are alternative study methods such as working with a study group, seeking help from a tutor or teacher, and practicing problems from other sources. These methods can also help improve critical thinking skills and enhance understanding of the subject material.

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
554
Replies
7
Views
698
Back
Top