Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] format for lab reports



The format of the lab reports should be designed for pedagogical purposes to
help the student learn the concepts. So one should look at what the various
PER groups have found.

The formats actually vary widely. Hake's Socratic Dialog labs depend on
having students keep a lab book which is graded and regarded, but as far as
I know there are NO formal reports. He does have published directions for
the students to follow. Workshop Physics relies on a set of worksheets where
students find and record results and then answer questions based on the
results. Real Time Physics does the same thing. McDermott Tutorials are
similar to RTP and WP, but not officially labs. Modeling also does not have
a lab book or a "formal" report. It is the most extreme in that the
students first brainstorm the relevant variables, and then make measurements
to determine the equations or relationships. They start with blank paper
and graph paper. They turn in the results with some interpretation such as
the meaning of various things. They have no cookbook directions unlike WP
and RTP.

All of these produce high gains. Then you can go to phet.colorado.edu and
look at their published papers on how students interact with simulations and
how they learn from them. And they have found that simulations can produce
better learning than physical labs.

The one thing that has found to be inimical to learning is the traditional
cook-book lab where the students have been told the answer before they do
the experiment. It may not be the cook book nature of the lab that inhibits
the learning, but rather the expectation that they are just verifying the
answer. But the Modeling style lab may produce better self reliance and may
ultimately help the student more, but there is no firm evidence that this
style increases the learning. In either case the full formal report most
probably does inhibit learning because they students focus on the style
rather than the substance. So full formal reports probably should be only
occasionally done, with more informal reports the norm.

Actually the important factor is that the labs precede the lecture if any
and that students should find out what is going on. Then the lecture or
mini-lecture can amplify the results, and then finally students do
applications based on the lab results. This is the scientific learning
cycle, and is known to improve learning and student thinking. The latter
papers are published in JRST and there are quite a few by Karplus, Renner
and Lawson plus Shyare and Adey. Shayer and Adey do not mention the
learning cycle, but they use it quite effectively.

Most formal lab reports really do not prepare one for writing a thesis. I
can not comment on industrial lab reports, but because few students go into
science as a profession either in academia or industry, training them to do
industry style lab reports is not really necessary. It is necessary to have
the lab help them understand the concepts, by presenting concept BEFORE
definition or term development. Arons has written on this as he was part of
the "learning cycle" generation.

There certainly are other objectives which one might see from labs. The
ability to measure accurately, record data in an organized manner, the
ability to do graphs by hand, the ability to write equations... The last
one is actually very critical because math in general does not teach
students to write equations. Solving equations is all well and good, but I
can purchase a calculator that solves most any equation I wish. But only
people can write equations based on evidence or on word problems. So
Modeling emphasizes writing and interpreting the final equations. The
ability to be organized comes with time, and experience, but especially not
by filling in slots in already made up data tables.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX