Working Through the McDermott Tutorial System
The McDermott Physics Education Group at the University of Washington built a tutorial-based curriculum that treats introductory physics differently than most standard textbooks. Instead of presenting formulas first and asking students to plug numbers into them, the tutorials start with a sequence of questions designed to surface misconceptions and guide students toward a conceptual understanding of the material. When you work through these tutorials with the accompanying homework solutions, you are engaging with material that has been classroom-tested for decades. I first encountered this system around 2008 when a colleague recommended it for a remedial mechanics course. The initial impression was that the homework solutions were just answer keys, but that is not what they are. Each solution includes reasoning steps that mirror the tutorial's pedagogical intent, which means simply reading through them without doing the work first will not help you learn the material.
Understanding McDermott Tutorials Introductory Physics Homework Solutions
These solutions correspond to the tutorial worksheets distributed in UW Physics 114 and Physics 115, the algebra-based and calculus-based introductory courses respectively. The solutions are organized by tutorial topic, covering areas like kinematics, Newton's laws, energy, momentum, electric fields, and circuits. What makes them distinct from typical solution manuals is that they often show multiple valid approaches to a problem, including the kind of qualitative reasoning the tutorials are designed to cultivate. The original PDF versions are available through the University of Washington's Physics Education Group website. Some tutorials are hosted on the UW PER group page, and certain solution sets have been mirrored on academic repositories. The most reliable way to access them is through the University of Washington's public course pages or their PER Publications archive. Here is the thing most people miss when they start using these solutions. The tutorial questions are deliberately arranged so that each step builds on the previous one, often introducing a subtle constraint or edge case that changes how you should approach the problem. I remember working through the momentum conservation tutorial where one of the intermediate questions involved a collision between objects of equal mass where one was initially at rest. The expected result seemed straightforward until you actually traced through the vector components carefully. I had initially written the answer as a simple scalar equation, which was marked wrong because the tutorial specifically asked students to demonstrate that the angle between the two outgoing velocity vectors was 90 degrees in the elastic case. The solution walkthrough showed that you need to combine both momentum conservation and kinetic energy conservation equations and then use a dot product argument to prove the orthogonality. Writing it out fully took about three lines of vector algebra, but getting there required actually following the tutorial's scaffolding rather than skipping ahead to the final answer.
Another common issue I ran into involved the electric field tutorials, specifically the ones dealing with continuous charge distributions. The homework solutions assume you are comfortable setting up integrals in different coordinate systems, but many students entering the course have only recently finished calculus and struggle with the transition from point charges to distributed charge. The tutorial solutions address this by walking through the setup step by step, but if you are rushing through them you will gloss over how they choose the differential element and justify the limits of integration. I found it useful to keep a separate notebook where I redrew the charge distribution diagrams and explicitly wrote out the expression for dq before attempting the integral. This habit cut my working time on those problems roughly in half compared to trying to set everything up in my head. The solutions are not without their limitations. They were written primarily for the University of Washington course structure, which means the notation and problem sequencing may not align perfectly with other textbooks or courses using adapted versions of the tutorials. Some of the later tutorial sets on topics like quantum physics and modern physics are less thoroughly developed than the core mechanics and electromagnetism sets. You may also find that certain solution steps are abbreviated, assuming the reader has already worked through the tutorial questions independently. If you are using these solutions to check your work, the most effective approach is to attempt each tutorial question on your own first, even if your initial answer is wrong. Write down your reasoning clearly, then compare it against the solution. The value is in spotting where your reasoning diverged from the expected path, not in confirming that your answer matches. When your answer matches but your reasoning is fundamentally different, that is actually more important to notice because it means you arrived at the right result through flawed logic, which will catch up to you on a harder problem.
Get the Full Details
For students who want supplemental practice beyond the tutorial worksheets, pairing these solutions with standard problem sets from textbooks like Knight's Physics for Scientists and Engineers or Young and Freedman can fill gaps, particularly in calculation-heavy areas where the tutorials tend to emphasize conceptual reasoning over computational speed.
