Re: [Phys-l] simulations, was ADVICE ON LAB EQUIPMENT

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

It turns out that labs or simulations are very powerful ways of stimulating
students to deeply think about the physical situations.  As such they can be
used to dispel deeply imbedded misconceptions.  Indeed, Hake Socratic Dialog
labs show very high gain, although they do not expose students to
sophisticated equipment.

Validation labs have been shown to be extremely ineffective in helping
students with difficulties in understanding, but inquiry labs or simulations
are effective.  Of course simulations when used with students at the lower
levels are not programmed by the students, but are rather used as labs.  As
such they are not theoretical tools.  Indeed simulations can show things
that lab equipment can not measure, so they can help students with
conceptual difficulties.

One of the possible uses of a canned simulation or a lab is to have students
do a problem, then check it using the simulation or lab.  The simulation is
much quicker and students can go through this process several times.

If students are taught without labs, then they never gain the concrete
physical experience that is necessary to dispel misconceptions.  This is the
essence of the learning cycle.  First they must have concrete experience,
then theoretical explanation, then application.  When this is done both the
content and the ability to think rise.  This has been shown by Karplus,
Renner and Lawson to name a few.  So limiting labs to verification for
budding scientists will prevent the students from learning physics well.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


> In my opinion, the main purpose of exposing students to a physics lab
> -- I am thinking about students who are not going to become  physicists
> or engineers -- is to show how theories are objectively validated.
> These students are not sophisticated enough to appreciate power of
> simulations. Simulations, in my mind, are theoretical tools.