Notes from discussion on Sept. 29th.

Here is the article, Goals of the Introductory Physics Laboratory
http://www.aapt.org/Resources/policy/goaloflabs.cfm

I'll 'third' the credibility point. Strange as it may sound, I don't have much issue with an RWSL-type approach to labs. But my colleagues in the resident education business and I tend to be more concerned about knowing if "student x" is really doing the work or farming it out. At some level this is a concern for large face-to-face courses, too. But if you see a different person taking an exam, for example, than you saw in recitation or lab, it's pretty obvious. When considering on-line courses, this is a real hang-up for most faculty that teach in-residence courses. And it can be hard to figure out what process is used by any particular on-line course/campus to take care of this Many, but not all, institutions seem reluctant to discuss this. It often appears (whether true or not) that either (a) they haven't thought about it really hard, and just "trust" the students, or that (b) they have it so well under control that they don't think about mentioning it. Answers that sound a lot like (a) are pretty unsatisfactory and serve to turn faculty away from on-line courses. Might it be possible to come up with some recommendations or best practices for ensuring the identity of those submitting work in the course?

This last point is well taken and applies to RWSL and kits as well, in fact to all remote interactions, either online teaching or labs. I think that a final test of the course should be face-to-face and should consist of paper-pencil and lab work.
Thanks,
Irene

Simple Pendulum, Lab 7

“along with the relations for arc length and angular acceleration” introduce here alpha as angular acceleration.

Grammar: “You must include techniques reduce the experimental error” should say to reduce

“Measure the diameter of both of the large spherical lead fishing weights as precisely
as you can with the meter stick. Measure both of their masses.” There is no indication in the equipment list of the use of two lead fishing bob.

(final review thoughts from Bernd, copied from email of Aug. 6)
• I think institutions will be more prone to articulate online labs that are 50% kit/hands-on, 50% RWSL (rather than 100% RWSL)
• The student lab notebook and formal report with be important evidence towards whether the labs are accepted.
• For me, the bottom line in articulating this lab would be if I feel the student could succeed in my second semester lab. This would be based on evidence of student’s overall first semester’s lab work. The NANSLO lab scripts, as they stand, do not provide this evidence.
• It is not clear how concerned receiving institutions will be on credibility of who actually did the lab and what help was received. I suspect Physics depts. will give some initial leeway, up until a service appears on a website to complete online labs for students at a price (hell, I might even set this up to make the point). Then all credibility will immediately be lost. This needs to be addressed early on.

Hi Irene, sorry to be responding late to your question.

By all means, please add your comments as soon as they occur to you! The best place for your feedback is underneath each specific lab. To find those, look at the top of this page, click on the link to the lab, & look for the 'comments' space (similar to this area on this page) below each lab.

Hope this is clear
Gina

Hi All,
Shall we keep our comments until September 3rd, or there is a place to discuss each lab in particular? BTW I find Paul's answers to Bernd questions very relevant, as make clear NANSLO role as pioneering something relatively new (RWSL) in education.
Cheers, Irene