Nav: Home

Research reveals 'shocking' weakness of lab courses

January 03, 2018

ITHACA, N.Y. - With the new emphasis on hands-on, active learning throughout higher education, lab courses would seem to have an advantage - what could be more active than doing experiments? But surprising new research reveals traditional labs fall far short of their pedagogical goals.

In a paper published Jan. 2 in Physics Today, "Introductory Physics Labs: We Can Do Better," Natasha Holmes, Cornell assistant professor of physics, and Nobel laureate Carl Wieman of Stanford University report on their analysis of nine introductory physics laboratory courses at three institutions, taught by seven instructors and involving almost 3,000 students. The labs were all designed to support student learning of the associated lecture course content. Because the lab sections were optional, the researchers could compare outcomes with a control group of students who did not take the lab courses.

The results were so consistent, and so abysmal, that the researchers call it "shocking." They write that "with a high degree of precision, there was no statistically measurable lab benefit. ... None of the mean effects was larger than 2 percent statistically; they were all indistinguishable from zero."

Even when the researchers restricted their analysis to exam questions that didn't require quantitative calculations, but only conceptual reasoning that should have been enhanced in a lab course, they got the same results for the lab benefit: zero.

Lab courses are supposed to enable students to see how physics principles work in real life; conducting experiments should help them understand physics better and reinforce classroom instruction. Why is this not happening?

"Although one may think that labs are inherently active, our research shows that in traditional labs students may be active with their hands but they're not really active with their brains," says Holmes. "Following rote procedures to get a proscribed outcome at the end isn't doing a whole lot."

In extensive interviews with students, Holmes and Wieman write that they found, "the only thinking the students said they did in structured and content-focused labs ... was in analyzing data and checking whether it was feasible to finish the lab in time."

In a typical lab activity, "the relevant equations and principles are laid out in the preamble; students are told what value they should get for a particular measurement or given the equation to predict that value; they are told what data to collect and how to collect them; and often they are even told which buttons to press on the equipment to produce the desired output," write the researchers.

Students in traditional labs, therefore, don't need to think about physics content but only how to correctly follow the instructions. But, write Holmes and Wieman, "overcoming obstacles and learning from failure are vital skills for every experimental scientist... Also important [is] having the time both to reflect on those decisions and their outcomes and to fix and improve the experiments iteratively."

The innovative lab design that Holmes and Wieman offer as one alternative in their paper - structured quantitative inquiry labs (SQILabs) - emphasize iterative experimentation, decision-making and developing quantitative critical thinking skills. While SQILab activities give students a limited and realistic goal, the students decide how to conduct the experiment and interpret the data. They have the opportunity to troubleshoot, revise and test models, and try new things.

The researchers found that SQILab activities are more enjoyable for students and decrease their sense of frustration when things don't go as planned. The students were also less likely to manipulate the data for a desired result.

"Rather than being seen by students as pointless and frustrating hoops that have to be jumped through, introductory physics labs can instead offer rewarding intellectual experiences," conclude Holmes and Wieman.

Cornell University

Related Learning Articles:

Learning with light: New system allows optical 'deep learning'
A team of researchers at MIT and elsewhere has come up with a new approach to complex computations, using light instead of electricity.
Mount Sinai study reveals how learning in the present shapes future learning
The prefrontal cortex shapes memory formation by modulating hippocampal encoding.
Better learning through zinc?
Zinc is a vital micronutrient involved in many cellular processes: For example, in learning and memory processes, it plays a role that is not yet understood.
Deep learning and stock trading
A study undertaken by researchers at the School of Business and Economics at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) has shown that computer programs that algorithms based on artificial intelligence are able to make profitable investment decisions.
Learning makes animals intelligent
The fact that animals can use tools, have self-control and certain expectations of life can be explained with the help of a new learning model for animal behavior.
Learning Morse code without trying
Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have developed a system that teaches people Morse code within four hours using a series of vibrations felt near the ear.
The adolescent brain is adapted to learning
Teenagers are often portrayed as seeking immediate gratification, but new work suggests that their sensitivity to reward could be part of an evolutionary adaptation to learn from their environment.
The brain watched during language learning
Researchers from Nijmegen, the Netherlands, have for the first time captured images of the brain during the initial hours and days of learning a new language.
Learning in the absence of external feedback
Rewards act as external factors that influence and reinforce learning processes.
New learning procedure for neural networks
Neural networks learn to link temporally dispersed stimuli.

Related Learning Reading:

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Jumpstarting Creativity
Our greatest breakthroughs and triumphs have one thing in common: creativity. But how do you ignite it? And how do you rekindle it? This hour, TED speakers explore ideas on jumpstarting creativity. Guests include economist Tim Harford, producer Helen Marriage, artificial intelligence researcher Steve Engels, and behavioral scientist Marily Oppezzo.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#524 The Human Network
What does a network of humans look like and how does it work? How does information spread? How do decisions and opinions spread? What gets distorted as it moves through the network and why? This week we dig into the ins and outs of human networks with Matthew Jackson, Professor of Economics at Stanford University and author of the book "The Human Network: How Your Social Position Determines Your Power, Beliefs, and Behaviours".