Thanks to all who replied to my request for feedback on the above topic. I
appreciate your comments and feel that I have learned some useful things
from them.
Here is my summary of what I heard:
1) The majority opinion is that simulations can help conceptual
understanding but are not a substitute for labs. Doing real labs provides
experience and develops skills necessary for a technical career. (However,
one of you pointed out that there is an article on the PhET web site http://phet.colorado.edu/en/research ("Can Computer Simulations Replace Real
Equipment in Undergraduate Laboratories?", N. D. Finkelstein, K. K. Perkins,
W. Adams, P. Kohl, and N. Podolefsky, PERC Proceedings, 2004) which states
that students doing an electrical simulation were better able to later build
a real electric circuit than students first doing a conventional lab.) More
research in this area is needed in my opinion.
2) Several feel that simulations could be useful for pre-lab/post-lab
purposes (perhaps to point out the important differences between the
idealized simulation and the real life lab) or as a makeup lab when time or
equipment was not available.
3) Several feel that the ideal beginning general physics course would have
three components:
- theory (with math)
- simulations/visualizations
- traditional labs
With the simulations/visualizations mostly supporting theory in helping
conceptual understanding but all three components mutually interacting and
reinforcing one another. According to one member, Princeton is already
doing No. 3, and it could be even more suitable for community college open
enrollment students.
I myself like No. 3 and had even suggested a small scale (pilot) version of
it to the full time faculty last semester. I suggested that we try it with
just one of the conventional labs (projectile launching) to see how it
worked. I believe I will make the suggestion again.
Thank you all,
Don
Dr. Donald G. Polvani
Retired Engineer
Northrop Grumman Corp.