-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Edmiston
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 5:26 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] format for lab reports
[1] When I observe that a teacher or a department switches from formal
reports to some sort of worksheet or guided response sheet, further
investigation often elicits comments about the time and difficulty grading
formal lab reports. I am very suspicious that the change is made for this
reason rather than for better student learning.
A commonly heard statement goes something like, "you don't really understand
something until you have to explain it to someone else." One can make the
claim that a guided-response worksheet is in fact explaining it to someone
else, but I believe it is at a much lower level than having to write without
prompts.
______________________________________________
[Bob LaMontagne]
Mike - I'll send you a batch to grade if you think they are much easier :-)
I would prefer that a student leave the lab understanding what the lab was about than to have the student try to figure it out on their own - and probably get it wrong - while writing a formal lab a week after the lab. The point of the lab is to teach physics. I read the answers the students put on the lab sheet and I don't let them leave the lab until they come up with answers that are satisfactory. The best learning comes right at the moment of the activity.
__________________________________________________
[3] The idea that physics class it the place to concentrate on physics
concepts rather than more broad liberal education strikes me as a trend I
see in many disciplines. The idea is, "just let me focus on my thing, and
don't bother me with stuff that is not my thing." It's an extension of the
relevance question of, "Why do I need to learn this? I will never use this
in my intended career."
I admit that a liberal-arts education is becoming more and more difficult to
sell. But I still firmly believe in it.
[4] Faculty in non-science disciplines have told me that they can usually
tell which students have already taken some lab science because students who
have written formal lab reports are better writers. This is because the
successful lab-science veterans have learned to organize their thoughts in
more logical fashion and can write a more clear and convincing paper.
Although creative writers also need clear thought and the ability to
organize the writing in a compelling manner, it appears it is more difficult
to teach this if the material is fiction.
_____________________________________________________
[Bob LaMontagne}
I had tears in my eyes laughing about this part. When curriculum reform makes its rounds every 10 years or so the main theme is "a liberal-arts education" and how wonderful it is. I personally feel it is or I wouldn't be at Providence College. However, why is it always the scientists who have to bend their techniques to accommodate the writing, "critical thinking", etc., that the non-science faculty see as so important? When have these people included science or 'quantitative reasoning" in their classes? - It's always left to us. The implementation of a Liberal Arts curriculum seems to be a one way street.
This is probably not going to be seen as politically correct, but here goes: The reason why our students who do labs with us are constantly getting compliments on their writing skills is because they are smarter, more disciplined, and more organized than the rest of the students on campus. I have non-science seniors in my core courses (like meteorology, astronomy) who cannot write a coherent sentence after 4 years of college. That's simply not allowed in the sciences - we correct every grammatical error and vague phrasing. But, it goes beyond that - our science majors just don't tend to write that poorly in the first place.
____________________________________________________