Brian Whatcott compared my advice (for when to use what equipment) to
medical practice.
My first reaction is this is not a good comparison. When a doctor is
treating a sick person, the goal is to cure the patient. When physics
teachers assign a particular lab experiment we do not share a common fixed
goal even for experiments that look almost identical.
Yes, we share the overall goals of (1) learning physics principles, (2)
learning how to use particular pieces of equipment, (3) learning how to
acquire data, (4) learning how to interpret data, (5) learning how to write
good reports, etc.
But for any given lab, a particular one of these goals might dominate our
expectations for what can be accomplished. If I think it is important that
the students learn how to use digital multimeters, at least one of my labs
better use these meters. If all my electricity labs use computer-based data
acquisition and the students never touch digital multimeters then I stand
little chance of succeeding at my goal of getting students familiar with
these meters.
On of my early air-track labs has a primary goal of looking at errors and
error analysis. I have them collect some data in a manner that is not very
reproducible, then have them collect the same type of data in a much more
reproducible manner. When we are collecting the "poor data" we
intentionally are not using the best equipment and methods.
Therefore I have to look at all the things I want the students to
experience, and I have to decide which lab is the best way to experience
which equipment and/or technique. As I mentioned in my first posting, I
have a few rules of thumb, but I exercise a fair amount of judgment. I
think this is legitimate, and in his regard I think Brian's complaint is out
in "left field."
On the other hand, look how often I said or implied "what I want the
students to know" or "what I want the students to experience" or "I think
the students should have experience with such and such." What if I am all
wet? What if I have lousy goals? Maybe I'm a bad scientist.
Brian can legitimately argue that our overall goals (some of which are
itemized above) might be best achieved by everyone using only one common
"best" approach if we had sufficient educational research to determine the
best approach. Then we could publish one lab manual for calculus-based
physics (or whatever) complete with model numbers of the equipment used
and/or complete with which computer program to use. Brian can also
legitimately argue that we should be able (with sufficient research) to
choose one set of ranked topics and skills... and any physics teacher who
teaches to a different set of topics and skills is a quack and should be
tarred and feathered and run out of town.
For myself, I would rather equate science (and also teaching) to being an
artist. If the act of doing science and/or the act of teaching ever gets
reduced to a formula that any reasonably competent person can follow, then I
am ready to quit my current vocation and become an artist. I want to use my
creativity. Sure, I'll listen to what educational researchers are saying,
but I still want to decide the best approach for me to use. Especially in
the public schools, especially in grades K-8, I am seeing teaching and
curriculum being reduced to a formula to try to achieve good scores on
standardized exams. Sorry... I just don't buy it. Seems to me we are
trying to reduce life into some sort of common denominator. I don't view
life that way.
By the way, I think medical doctors still refer to it as "the art of
medicine." But that's a whole other discussion.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D. Phone/voice-mail: 419-358-3270
Professor of Chemistry & Physics FAX: 419-358-3323
Chairman, Science Department E-Mail edmiston@bluffton.edu
Bluffton College
280 West College Avenue
Bluffton, OH 45817