| 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] |
Jack Uretsky disagreed with me about the value of lab reports. I would love
to be convinced lab reports are not worthwhile because I could then stop
grading them. Currently
I spend more time grading lab reports than any other activity associated
with the classes I teach. I can think of all kinds of other things I could
do with that time.
So why do I still assign and grade lab reports? There are many reasons;
some more valuable than others. I 'll list and describe some of the
reasons.
First, let me state from the start that I realize not everyone can do what I
do. If my class sizes were larger, I could not keep up with the grading
unless I had graduate assistants (which I don't have). In schools that do
have graduate assistants, these assistants typically are not capable of
grading the way I grade, and that means some of the benefits of lab reports
are lost, but some benefits are retained.
[1] I have often heard variants of the adage, "the best way to learn
something is to explain it to someone else." I think most teachers have
experienced this themselves. You learn a lot of physics (or any subject) in
your first couple years of teaching. You not only learn new things, but
also learn about misconceptions you yourself had. The pace of learning by
explaining may slow down, but even after 33 years of teaching general
physics I still learn new things or see old things in a new way.
This point [1] is clearly the most important in my mind. I apologize if my
previous posts have led readers to believe I view that the most important
aspect of lab reports is teaching students how to write reports. Many years
of grading several hundred reports every semester have made it clear to me
that many students don't understand the physics behind most of the lab
projects. Therefore they don't understand why they bothered to do this
experiment, and they certainly don't understand what their data mean or what
they should do with their data.
Jack mentioned "discussion labs" and I am aware that some teachers have
discussions rather than written reports. I have both. Discussions about
the lab during class time are valuable, and some students get understanding
at that point. But discussions in class allow students to be more passive,
and many take advantage of that. They listen, and think they get it, but
they are passive enough that they aren't really getting it. This even
happens when you break the class into smaller groups.
I believe the most valuable lab discussions occur when I am working
one-on-one with a student who is brave enough and also takes the time to
come to my office to ask questions like...
"What am I supposed to do with this data set?"
"Do I need a graph in this lab report?"
"I can't make any sense out of this. Do I have bad data?"
Some students who won't come to me will go to other students with these
questions. This is also very valuable except for a couple pitfalls. [A]
The helper might be as much in the dark as the asker. [B] The helper may
help too much, practically doing the analysis for the asker. That not only
can move into academic dishonesty, it also means the asker is not learning
as much since the helper is doing the work. The problem students are the
ones who have habitually engaged in academic dishonesty for practically
their whole academic lives. They're not trying to learn; they're trying to
get by. They can't "get by" by coming to me because I won't do the work for
them, and I'll ask them more questions than they ask me. Unfortunately,
some good students who could provide good help end up doing too much for the
asker because it's the simplest and fastest way to get rid of the asker.
Nonetheless, I encourage students to consult with each other about their lab
reports because the benefits probably outweigh the risks.
So why not have the discussions only, and forego the written report?
Because each student hands in a report with her name on it and signs a
pledge that she and her lab partner acquired the data themselves, and the
data have not been fabricated or altered, and she did not plagiarize the
work of other students or published sources in the writing of the report,
and she understands and could repeat the analysis by herself. This process
increases the likelihood that each student is an active participant in lab
rather than a passive participant, and that increases the understanding of
the physics... and that's the primary goal of the lab report. Yes, there
are cheaters. But the tone of the assignment is clear. Each student is
turning in a written document that they claim represents their work. If it
is indeed their work, and they did it well, then they had to figure out what
the experiment was about, how to analyze the data, how to interpret the
results, and how to communicate this effectively. Each honest student is
forced to attempt this process. This process greatly aids the learning of
the physics. That's the goal.
[2] Here is another adage... "No one knows you have done something if you
don't communicate what you have done." This might not be important for
self-motivated people who get a lot of personal satisfaction from things
they have done. And I certainly would not want to imply that personal
satisfaction from doing and learning is a bad thing, because I think
self-motivation is a necessary component of "life-long learning." If people
only do things so they can reap recognition and praise from others, that's a
sad condition.
Still, communication of what you have done is an important aspect of life in
general as well as vocation. We certainly have more means of communication
available to us today than we had even a few years ago. This probably means
that writing has diminished in importance, but writing is far from dead.
Jack Uretsky said, "A readable lab report tells a story, hopefully in an
interesting way. Preparation for this kind of writing occurs in classes
devoted to composition and creative writing." For Jack's first sentence I
can say, "right on!" Jack's second sentence make me sad. At an institution
of higher education I think all professors should have some concern for the
whole aspect of a student's education. As physicists we are well aware that
we need to bear some of the burden for teaching mathematics. We don't leave
that job entirely to the math department. We should also be aware that we
can't leave writing to the English department alone. I'll admit I am a
little shocked these days that I can't leave the job of teaching good
manners to the parents nor to the campus-life staff. That being the case, I
guess I'll assume some of that burden also. If someone misbehaves in class,
or I observe a student being rude in the library or on the sidewalk, I'll
have a discussion with that student. I'd rather not have to do this, but I
would much rather not let it go. I am not just a physics teacher.
The idea of "writing across the curriculum" (WAC) is an old idea. I'm not
sure how old, but I know it was discussed in the 1960s. It's probably more
prevalent in the liberal-arts colleges and than in the technical schools,
but I know some large universities have tried to get all professors to
participate in WAC.
Some people believe the primary purpose of WAC is so students can learn the
techniques and jargon of writing in the various disciplines; especially
their own disciplines. I don't buy this. As I described in point [1], I
think it is mostly the other way around. In order to write well you need to
have something to say. It's pretty hard to have something to say if you
don't understand what you're trying to write about. Okay... I know that
doesn't seem to stop a lot of people from saying or writing a ton of
garbage, so GIGO (garbage-in garbage-out) certainly happens. But one aspect
of WAC is to reduce GIGO.
So part of WAC is point[1]. But I think the main part of WAC is simply to
help students become better writers in general. Studying rules such as
subject-verb agreement, misplaced modifiers, objects of preposition, etc.
will not make you a good writer. You need lot's of practice writing, and
it's much better if someone critiques your writing. Sure the English profs
do that. But they can't do it alone.
If I only occasionally had to correct grammar, or mark misspelled words, or
rephrase a sentence/paragraph for better clarity... then I would be willing
to say the students don't need my critique of their writing. If only! I
can't believe the writing I'm seeing. And I don't see freshmen. This means
the students writing reports for me have already passed Freshman
Composition. That means my science majors have already passed the last
writing course they will ever take. Knowing this is the case, am I to
believe the best way to deal with it is ignore it? That is, should I just
not bother to have them write for me? Is it okay for me to let science
majors graduate from college if they can't (or won't) write a paragraph
without multiple errors in it?
I can't bring myself to say, "Teaching writing is not my job." I teach
physics. I teach math. I teach how to use spreadsheets. I teach how to
make meaningful graphs. I teach time management. I teach manners. And I
most certainly teach writing.
[3] Taking the time to figure out what needs to be said, then writing it,
then reading it and rewriting as necessary, then proofreading... is a
process. It involves critical thinking, reflection, attention to detail,
perseverance, time management. All students need practice at this. Don't
we want this for our physics students?
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Chair, Division of Natural and Applied Sciences
Bluffton University
1 University Drive
Bluffton, OH 45817
419.358.3270 (office)
edmiston@bluffton.edu
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l