[Phys-L] Re: Whither Introductory Physics Labs? (was Lab Reports - was Human Error)

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>]

At 04:16 PM 5/6/2005,  Richard Hake, you wrote:

> In response to my post, Mike Edmiston wrote:
>
> "Contrary to comments by Uretsky and Hake, I think my labs and lab
> reports are teaching exactly what I think they are teaching."
>
> Perhaps Mike did not read my post carefully. I wrote:

//

>  Jack Uretsky replied to
> Mike Edmiston's  complaint  [like this]
>
> "Perhaps your labs are not teaching what you think they are teaching.
> That is why both Hake and I went to totally different lab formats."
>
> The above quote "Perhaps your labs are not teaching what you think
> they are teaching," is by Uretsky, NOT Hake.

///

> Richard Hake


Forgive my commenting on the evident insensibility to the
personal equation shown above:  when one [no matter who]  says,
"perhaps action A is not having the effect you think"
        it is NOT a sufficient riposte to say " I think it is..."

This would be a fruitless matter of opinions, no more.
  However, there is a method available to test opinions scientifically.
It is by objective testing via validated instruments.

Ah yes;  we see such instruments mentioned, discussed, debated.
But can we also see learned opinions supported by such measures too?

Yours, more in sorrow than in ire
:-)

Brian
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l