Re: [Phys-l] format for lab reports

[trappe@physics.utexas.edu]

That's a good starting place.  What I'm looking for is "best practice"  
for introductory physics lab reports, perhaps delineated by (1)  
science/engineering majors, (2) general physics, (3) conceptual  
physics. (one or all types)

The problem I am having is swinging the pendulum too far in either the  
rigid old school format, or the wishy-washy free form format.   
Somewhere in this is grade administration, which probably led to the  
standard lab report format, in the first place.

Of course my cynicism is akin to the discussion on "scientific method"  
some time back.  thanks, Karl

Quoting John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>:

> On 11/04/2009 12:14 PM, trappe@physics.utexas.edu wrote:
>
> > I recall, from my own indoctrination, the standard format found in the
> > lab textbook of the 60's. Generally, it included:  objective, method,
> > data sheet, results, analysis and interpretation, etc.  Sometimes it
> > included apparatus and a discussion as to how it worked.
> >
> > Beyond its historical significance, it rarely fits the research or
> > research paper reality, so I am curious how we continue to justify it.
> >   As an experimental physicist, I did NOT use such a report format for
> > anything.  Is it still in use by engineering companies, as our
> > continued use in intro labs would suggest?
>
> I detect some well-founded skepticism.
>
> > If its an extinct dinosaur, what has replaced it for lab evaluation?
> > Or, is that why we still see it?
>
> Dinosaur?  Not even.  More like a 500 kg flying unicorn.
> Never existed and never will.
>
> Some possibly-constructive suggestions:
>   *) Look at published papers that you think are well
>    written, and take them as a model.
>
>   *) Use common sense.  Say what you did in plain English.
>    Anticipate what questions the reader will have, and
>    write down the answers.
>
>    In particular, I find it helps to start by explaining
>    it very informally, by grabbing a colleague and
>    telling the story, and interactively answering any
>    questions that come up.  After doing this about ten
>    times, I know what sort of explanation works and
>    what doesn't, so I am ready to start writing.
>
>   *) Take a look at some of Tufte's work.  Everybody
>    seems to agree that half of what Tufte says makes
>    sense, and the other half is forgettable ... but
>    they don't always agree on which parts are which.
>
>    Particularly relevant to the current topic is his
>    screed on the abysmal engineering reports that led
>    up to the Challenger disaster.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l