This spoof lab report (via
Pharyngula) is hilarious. There have been so many times I've wanted to do a writeup like that.
Which is a good lead-in to my long-threatened diatribe on why lab classes usually stink.
It's accepted wisdom that learning by doing is the best way to learn. Of course this makes sense; learning by listening clearly fails most of the time. And it's true a lot of the time - for example, my dad told me to loosen screws by turning them counterclockwise, and I listened, but I didn't really
remember until the time I tried turning clockwise, with the help of a wrench. The screw stripped, and major embarrassment ensued. And I never forgot again. (Of course, "righty tighty lefty loosey" also had a lot to do with that - now I poise my screwdriver, think "mustn't strip the screw - how does that rhyme go?" and THEN turn.)
In theory, of course lab classes should be key to learning science. So... how come most of my lab classes have been crap, and I don't remember learning anything from the majority of the labs? How come the experiments that worked were usually the ones I knew the outcomes of? How come I came out of lab with an image of science as a boring slog punctuated by moments of intense frustration, rather than the boring slog punctuated by moments of discovery that I know (from reading Sagan, if nothing else) must exist?
I couldn't figure this out for a long time, and thought maybe I just wasn't that good at science. However, while I don't claim to be a Newton (though at least I'm not an alchemist), I'm evidently fairly intelligent, so if I'm not learning from labs (and I don't see many other people learning from them either) maybe there's something wrong with the lab courses.
A few months ago, I realized that freshman physics lab has very little in common with real science. (Possibly I'm the only person who was shocked by this.) If you popped back several hundred years, picked up Newton, and stuck him in, say, a quantum mechanics lab, he'd have very little idea what he was looking at. Then, if you gave him a typical lab manual and a difficult-to-understand TA and told him to conduct experiment #4, he'd probably be just as confused as the average freshman.
Newton, having never seen a particle accelerator [1] or even heard of subatomic particles, wouldn't know what he was supposed to be doing. He'd have no clue what the normal workings of the accelerator would be, what pushing Button X would do, how to use the plotting software (OK, he wouldn't have seen a computer either), what theories he was supposed to be testing, or what the possible outcomes of the experiment might be. He'd be stuck following the step-by-step instructions of the lab manual, which, if you've ever read a lab manual, tend to be more like step-by-jump. Then when he got confused he could ask the TA (if said TA were anywhere to be found), and probably wouldn't be able to understand the response. Maybe the TA would take pity and show him how to do the experiment - maybe, if he was really lucky, he'd even get results. Of course, he'd be screwed when it was time to write the lab report, since (again) he'd have no clue what he was talking about. (He'd probably also get marked off for writing in Latin.)
I don't doubt that, given Newton's prodigious intelligence, he'd be able to pick up quantum mechanics pretty easily. And, if he were stuck in a lab with suitable tools, he'd probably come up with the theory independently (he seems to have been good at that). But what he'd want to do, I think, is talk to other scientists, learn about the theories we've come up with in the past couple hundred years, gain an understanding of quantum mechanics, and then head back to the lab to test the many hypotheses I'm sure he'd come up with. (Oh, and he'd probably ask for a demonstration of the equipment too.)
This illustrates what I think is the problem with lower-level science labs. You're dumped in there with equipment you don't understand, trying to follow instructions you don't understand, in order to explore theories you don't understand. Obviously, you can't understand everything - otherwise there would be no experiments - but science is generally not done by random flailing. The "hypothesis" portion of the scientific method implies some level of familiarity with the material - and in order to do an experiment, you must have some idea of what might happen. Chemists don't just pour random chemicals together; they pour together chemicals they know, in order to find out what happens, or chemicals they don't know, in order to find out what they are. (And they certainly don't do it with equipment they don't understand - ooh, explosions!)
My current organic chemistry lab is run fairly well. We actually learn about the theories before we do our experiments - we don't know everything; the lab manual says something like "the mechanism of this reaction is unknown" at several points. But we do have an idea of which chemicals we're using and why - we know what the theory predicts will happen. And now that I have some understanding of chemistry, and know how to use the lab equipment, it would be possible for me to form my own hypotheses and perform my own experiments.
There were a few good labs in my biology classes last spring, too. The action potential ones were particularly good - first we learned about action potentials, then we practiced with models, then we made predictions and tested them on frogs. At that point, we knew what was going on, so when it didn't go as planned we were able to think of reasons why, rather than just blindly continuing to plow through the steps in the lab manual. And I think back to those labs when I'm trying to recall details of threshold voltages and such. Sorry to say, I can't recall much at all from my physics labs. Except when we took the magnets to the computer monitors to make pretty colors - that was fun.
I think that lab courses ought to start out simply, with demonstrations of the equipment. Then, when it's time to demonstrate concepts, make sure that technical considerations don't get in the way of the actual experiment. (I'm recalling a Monte Carlo simulation from P1 - it had something to do with evaluating the experimental results, but we couldn't make the simulation work, so the experiment kind of fell by the wayside.) Provide help and explanations - real scientists can ask colleagues for help; why make the students struggle blindly?
In general, labs should be an opportunity to explore and solidify - don't think they'll help students understand concepts if they're clueless. Experiments will help thoughts click, and often provide a hook on which to hang concepts, but if the students don't know what they're doing as they conduct the lab, all you'll get will be disgruntled future English majors.
[1] or whatever they have in quantum mechanics labs - or do they even have quantum mechanics labs as such? I don't know but it doesn't really matter.
# : 5:17 PM : :