Re: Computer Interfaces in the Physics Lab

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

Herb Gottlieb wrote:

> It is very dangerous to agree 100% with any educational
> theory or research conclusions.

Standards to assure objectivity do exist (double blindness
of researchers, large samples, reproducibility of results,
etc.) and they apply to all disciplines. Evaluation of my
teaching, for example, should be done by somebody else
because I can not be objective in self evaluations. Were
such standards respected by those whose work is said
to demonstrate that computer-based labs are more effective
than traditional labs?

I said I agree 100% with John's statement that

> ... The key is the engagement of the student. A computer is
> not the only way to engage students in what they are doing,
> but it is one possible way that has been shown to work well.

not with his claim that educational research conducted so far
can lead to a valuable conclusion. I admire people like John
who are so creative in showing us what is possible, and people
from Vernier, who make it possible. But all this has nothing
to do with objective evaluations.

Perhaps such evaluations are not possible. Perhaps they are
too costly. But without them a decision based on personal
intuition is justifiable. That is why returning to the topic each
year is desirable. At least we can know what other people
think, in light of their accumulating experience.
Ludwik Kowalski