Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Simulated Labs for General Physics Course



I generally agree with John and particularly like his diagram.

My objections to simulations substituting for labs are more philosophical in nature and not based on pedagogical efficacy. Physics is a real world experimental science, there should be laboratories involved that deal with real world *stuff* in a course that purports to be a basic physics course. Anything less is a perversion or "profoundly wrong" as John said. The purpose of the laboratory portion of the course is not only for its efficacy in conveying concepts.

If the PER research says that simulation is better at getting concepts across than labs (and more research needs to be done on this question before I consider the question resolved) then the simulations should be used as part of the lecture portion of the course (in a traditionally organized course.); not as a substitute for the lab. (Possibly as part of the lab and not a substitute.)

My very opinionated two cents.

Joel

_________________________

Joel Rauber, Ph.D 
Professor and Head of Physics
Department of Physics
South Dakota State University
Brookings, SD 57007
Joel.Rauber@sdstate.edu
605.688.5428 (w)
605.688.5878 (fax)

3) However, in the aforementioned three-way lattice, I do not
see simulation as a substitute (50% or otherwise) for real
experimentation. In fact, I tend to see simulation as a
subcategory of theory, not of experiment.

science
/ \
/ \
theory experiment
/ \
/ \
algebra simulation


You can maybe draw a faint, dotted, secondary line connecting
experiment to simulation, but this is IMHO a small correction
term, small compared to the primary line that shows simulation
as a subcategory of theory.