I am surprised (and frankly, a little concerned) about how introductory
physics labs are shifting towards computer based experiments. I have always
tried to adhere to the KISS philosophy. For example, to show students linear
relationship of a simple resistor (ohm's law), I want to use a DC power
supply, a resistor with pretty colored stripes (or a length of resistance
wire) a voltmeter and an ammeter, a pencil and graph paper.
But I am feeling pressured to use a complete PC, a PASCO 750 interface with
its accompaning software, a power amplifier, a rheostat.... And of course a
printer to give the students a copy of the graph the software makes.
I am concerned that physics educators are feeling pressure to computerize
for the sake of computerizing. When I ask my professors why we need the
computer to do "Ohm's Law", I do not get answers based on physics or
pedagogy, but rather on apperances. "Other schools are doing it this way",
or "the students expect to see computers in today's labs. They consider us
backwards if they are not there."
Now, I think computers have a place in these labs. Computers are especially
useful to collect and analyze big repetitive data sets, and using a spread
sheet to analyze such data is good experience for students in a wide range
of fields. But I really DON'T see many other educational advantages. And
they often violate my KISS philosophy, which I feel is the cornerstone to
good science.
Students and instructors often spend more time getting the
software/interface up and running than doing physics, and often these
complex computer-based set-up force teacher and student to do the experiment
the ONE way that the software expects. It is often difficult to EXPERIMENT
with the experiments.
I'd like to read the comments of others on this trend.