Developing the lab curriculum requires reflection on the goals we hold for it, taking stock of our current offerings and how they advance those goals, and consideration for what improvements can be made. Limited resources of faculty and student time, not to mention material resources, require making trade-offs and compromise in the goals that can practically be achieved. My mental picture of the ideal lab curriculum is a stable set of lab offerings based on a commonly agreed on set of goals and priorities among goals and designed in light of the current state physics education research. The set would nevertheless have enough flexibility to adapt to different circumstances and individual assessments of appropriate trade-offs, and be revised based on our experience in the specific context of our teaching as well as new knowledge in the field of physics education research.

Goals for the laboratory

Perhaps a place to start for our goals would be along the lines of the list published by the American Association of Physics Teachers. These build on a set of goals for the introductory lab.

Their goals are briefly summarized as follows:

• Constructing knowledge — collect, analyze, and interpret real data from personal observations of the physical world to develop a physical worldview.
• Modeling — develop abstract representations of real systems studied in the laboratory, understand their limitations and uncertainties, and make predictions using models.
• Designing Experiments — develop, engineer, and troubleshoot experiments to test models and hypotheses within specific constraints such as cost, time, safety, and available equipment.
• Developing technical and practical laboratory skills — become proficient using common test equipment in a range of standard laboratory measurements while being cognizant of device limitations.
• Analyzing and visualizing data — analyze and display data using statistical methods and critically interpret the validity and limitations of these data and their uncertainties.
• Communicating Physics — present results and ideas with reasoned arguments supported by experimental evidence and utilizing appropriate and authentic written and verbal forms.

Another possibly helpful statement of goals specifically for the advanced lab was developed by the Physics Education group at CU Boulder, available here.

In addition to the purely experimental focus of the above goals, we should include large devotion of time in the introductory labs toward discussion and problem solving.

Current offerings

The following is a list of of the labs in our current manual. Labs that are described in the manual, but not included as currently taught are in the lower section.

The labs cover a wide range of physics content including mechanics, optics, E & M, and modern physics. Analytical techniques include single variable statistics, error estimation and error propagation, interpolation and extrapolation, linearization of data, and linear and non-linear regression, through the use of computational tools, Excel, Matlab, Python. Communication includes written lab reports and oral presentations, using MS Word, Latex typesetting, and PowerPoint.

Possible Improvements

Some of my criticisms and suggestions for improvement are as follows. What else should be included?

• Increase creativity in experimental design

  In lab offerings represented in our current manual there is very little if any student input in the problems to explore, the methods to gather data, or the analysis methods. I’d suggest providing much more opportunity for experimental design beginning with a little in the introductory labs and building more in the modern and advanced lab.

• Increase motivation for communication

  Our current set of manuals suppose that the main method of evaluation is by written reports, and this is the only type of communication style exercised. Because the methods, purpose, and expected result are given to the student, the report is a contrived exercise in writing for a hypothetical reader who doesn’t know them. Based on this critique, I suggest moving toward evaluations that focus on ascertaining the learning of the student (post-lab questions, oral checkout). I also suggest increasing the variety of communication types practiced; in addition to lab reports, lab notebooks, experimental proposal, peer review, poster, oral presentation.

• Change approach to error analysis

  The manuals currently introduce students to statistical methods of estimating uncertainty and then go on to apply it in situations that are not valid (N < 3 for example). In introductory classes, they go into the complication of the mathematical details of error analysis that few students grasp or appreciate, yet the level of uncertainty of the uncertainty is such that nuances like adding errors in quadrature seldom make a difference. They use terminology like “error,” “systematic error,” and “statistical error.” I suggest changing our terminology and approach to something similar to what is done at the University of Cape Town. The method is according to the “GUM” standards (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement), which is characterized by Type A estimates of uncertainty (statistical in nature) and Type B estimates (some other estimate). This is apparently now an international standard terminology.

• Repetition and practice

  Of course the techniques used in making analysis will vary depending on the situation, but it seems like repetition of using similar equipment and similar analysis techniques helps reinforce learning. I suggest looking for ways be more consistent about what techniques are being practiced from week to week, so that after a while students stop being surprised when, for example, they have to plot their data and use a slope to find a value rather than any individual data point.