This page is intended for use in the review, commentary and approval process.
Laboratory Reporting and Analysis Manual
Back to Physics Lab Index
Step #1, Review Laboratory Reporting and Analysis Manual.
Step #2, Indicate your level of satisfaction with this lab next to your name in the chart below.
1 - This lab supports first semester physics as defined by the physics panel
2 - This lab supports first semester physics but there are a few issues for the panel to discuss (leave comment for discussion)
3 - This lab supports the 80%-20% rule used to develop NANSLO open course content, however would require significant revision for localization if it were to be used at our institution
4 - This lab does not support first semester physics as defined by the physics panel
Step #3, provide any comments you feel are critical to the approval of the lab in the Comments field.
Step #4, add your initials when you have signed off on the lab.
| Discipline Panel Member |
Level of Satisfaction: 1, 2, 3, 4
|
Initials Here |
Mohamed Chakhad
|
|
|
Irene Grimberb
|
|
|
Lynette Hoerner
|
|
|
Jesse Huguley
|
|
|
Todd Ruskell
|
|
|
| Takashi Sato |
|
|
Bernd Simson
|
|
|
Tim Slater
|
|
|
Robert Wilson
|
|
|
Comments (2)
Gina Bennett said
at 11:24 am on Aug 26, 2011
(additional general comments from Bernd, from Aug. 6 email)
Here are a few of my thoughts on the Physics lab scripts
• I find the labs are generally well written. However, some labs have a very high expectation of students (I think my students would have difficulty without substantial help). And some others are much lower (too low?), leading the student through activities as opposed to conducting an experiment.
• Acceptability of labs for me is more based on what a student does in their notebook. It is not obvious what the student notes would be with most of the labs based on the lab scripts. How these labs articulate will depend more on what is done overall rather than the individual labs themselves.
• In general, there needs to be more emphasis on uncertainties in the lab scripts, especially as the experiments are conducted without supervision. Labs would only be acceptable if they are conducted with uncertainties, including uncertainties in the error analysis and conclusions.
• I think learning goals should be laid out for each lab so the instructor has an idea what to teach in the lab
• Labs need to be sequenced more from easier, beginning lab through to advanced, with each lab building on lab concepts learnt. There needs to be an expected learning sequence. For instance, data uncertainty to error analysis to significance of a result.
• I would suggest each lab have a clearly defined objective that ultimately involves answering with a value (not simply “to study …”). This helps a student with a clear goal to work towards and try to answer. This can be as simple as “To what degree does … support what theory predicts” (also not easy to answer well)
Gina Bennett said
at 11:23 am on Aug 26, 2011
(comments copied from Bernd's Aug. 6 email)
Lab Reporting and Analysis Manual
o Manual could use more on data/result difference
o p17 Measurement, Limited precision: Converting all angles to radians is not a good idea. Lab work is done in units of convenience and then quoted as reporting requires.
o p36 Graphing: I would include how easily analytical approaches to determining linear fits (linear regression) can break down. Important to emphasize to view data trends graphically for producing reasonable fits. Good example of this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anscombe's_quartet
You don't have permission to comment on this page.