Re: TA Problems

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

Perhaps you could take some of the labs developed by the PER groups and use
them.  The Real Time Physics labs do not require conclusions, but that could
be added.  The conclusion would then be having them tell you what ideas they
were learning.

Modeling has a good method of having the students do labs.  In the
conclusions the students have to explain the results.  The results end up
being discovering a physical principle or law.  Since they have to fit the
data they must always discuss the meaning of the slopes and intercepts, and
the meanings of the parameters.  Again the conclusion consists of explaining
what they learned.  Error analysis can come in when the intercept may not be
zero even though it is expected to be zero.

The Modeling approach also requires students to present their results and
explain to each other what they observed.  This is actually a conclusion
presentation.  However this may not be possible when the course is organized
into disconnected lectures, labs, and recitations.

The PER researchers have generally found that the traditional lab reports
are not that effective.  As a result they now use labs where the report can
be turned in at the end of the lab period.  The conclusions are imbedded
within the lab and form an integral part of the process of "discovering"
certain ideas.  The students then must think of the labs as part of the
teaching in the overall course, and not just another useless barrier.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> Subject: Re: TA Problems
>
> I'm all for creative, but like anything in life, sometimes you'll have to
> get down and dirty :)
>
> Frankly, the labs here don't help much...the neat ones that shine and
> glimmer are more successful...and then there are the ones that require
> quite
> a bit in thought and students get lazy and write those generics I talked
> about...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Whatcott" <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
> To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 7:54 AM
> Subject: Re: TA Problems
>
>
> > At 12:58 AM 1/30/2004, Fernanda, you wrote:
> > > I hope you enjoyed the AAPT meeting here in my home town of Miami!
> > >
> > > I had a question posted at APF and I thought you guys are probably the
> best
> > > ones to help me out on this one.
> > >
> > > http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=304
> > >
> > > I appreciate any constructive criticism!  And thanks in advance...
> > >
> > > Fernanda
> >
> > Fernanda seems to be fully subscribed to the physics education ethos.
> > Some of her charges - engineers, architects, it appears, are not.
> >
> > Why not?
> > It is possible that they endorse rather concrete and creative ideas.
> > They might not be so prepared to embrace the maths-intense models
> > that a physicist comes to know and like.
> >
> > It is no accident that competitive contests to build barrel hoists
> > and the like, from a constrained menu of balsa sticks, cotton thread and
> > model glue, feature so prominently in the Engineering school at MIT
> > and most other colleges. Students there will suck up a lot of beam
> theory
> > if it means they have a shot at winning a popular contest using
> objective
> > measures of merit.
> >
> > You can see this is a rather different paradigm than the replication of
> > defensible lab book entries from well-worn lab experiments.
> >
> > If you are still with me, you will see I am offering no solutions.
> >   Still, getting over the idea that 'abstract' means superior  may
> > permit more concrete routes to success.
> >
> >
> > Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!