Re: Computer Interfaces in the Physics Lab

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

But at least one thing is not the same. In the old days we were
instructed to be very careful in labs, not to "turn switches"
unless we knew what the consequences would be (in terms
of safety for the equipment etc.). Simulated experiments,
on the other hand, never break and never kill. Students are
often encouraged to "try and see what happens".

The same objection could be raised for the flight simulators.
Presumably they are used very successfully to train pilots.
We too must try to find a healthy combination of real and
simulated. Likewise for the experiments in which simple
instruments are "used directly" versus those in which
"another layer of black boxes" is added. Yes, simplicity
is worth preserving, especially in the introductory  courses.
Perhaps a rule of "no more that 25% of computer-based
labs" could be established for the first physics course.
Ludwik Kowalski

David Bowman wrote:

> I too, think it is best to try to have as few black boxes as possible
> between the physics and the students when it comes to introductory labs.
> But as much as I tend to agree with the comments of Mike, Ken, Wes, &
> Rick concerning the simple-is-best philosophy for learning elementary
> physics concepts in the lab, and as much as I, too, chafe at the pressure
> to automate everything in the labs, nevertheless, I should point out that
> stopwatches, ammeters, and voltmeters are *themselves just as much*
> black boxes to the students as are fancy computers, interfaces, sensors,
> and
> software.  This is even more the case now that these devices tend to have
> those digital displays with quartz oscillators and MOSFET front ends
> rather than the old analog mainsprings, clockworks, and D'Arsonval
> movements.  At least in the old days it was possible for the student to
> understand in principle how the experimental apparatus worked, certainly
> by the end of the course, if not actually when those apparatus pieces
> were first introduced to them.  Now the students have no hope of
> understanding anything about how the apparatus works unless we work
> very hard to keep our 30+ yr old museum piece equipment in working
> shape, even then it is a struggle for the students to really understand
> how
> that and old equipment works--but at least its conceivably possible.
>
> So whether we like it or not it seems that the students will have to
> do their learning of the laws of nature in the laboratory with the
> aid of black boxes that work by magic.  So how much more harm will
> a computer do (other than aiding in math illiteracy)?  The war is lost.