lab fees mostly labor? IHE

[polly_mer]

Yeah, Pscientist is correct.  Basic errors made by beginners in science class would be essentially the same as those made by beginners in a language class.   Without reasonably quick correction by the teacher, they can grow, and become entrenched.

Teaching scientific thinking is not at all like teaching language.  One of the most useful things for general science education is making mistakes and recovering.

Following the recipe perfectly to get the predetermined answer is not the point of non-major intro labs.  The research assistant collecting data for a specific hypothesis better follow the protocol to the letter. 

The lab student learning the math underlying the observation that balls roll faster down a steeper slope doesn't need nearly the same attention to detail and will likely learn more by exploring the 'wrong' avenues.

[kaysixteen]

Random points:

1) so exactly how much serious interaction does the beginning-level online lab course student need, with a prof, or even TA. and how often?  And how do we judge this?

2)  the analogy to language learning is imperfect, as of course these are widely different subject areas.  But my point is not invalid, namely, that if errors are not quickly corrected by some educational authority figure, they will become hardened and grow... unless the student(s) somehow figure out that they have made a mistake themselves.  They may figure out this if, for some stunning reason, a student did something as dumbass as microwaving beans in hopes that that'd make em grow, but that analogy is, well...Theoretically, the point of second language instruction is to attain fluency in said second language, though, of course, most 101-level undergrad courses are not really going to be the entree to such efforts, most professors do not expect it, and most students, even those not required to take the language, or even a foreign language, ultimately do not make an attempt to become anything like fluent, but it is the theoretical ultimate goal, at least.  I do not know what the ultimate goal of 101 lab courses is, but at least some of the students are supposed to really learn the skills in such labs, prefatory to doing more advanced work in the subject or in some related scientific endeavor, so we just cannot trust that they will figure out all the errors themselves, and zoom on forward to brilliant success, without that professorial oversight.

[marshwiggle]

Random points:

1) so exactly how much serious interaction does the beginning-level online lab course student need, with a prof, or even TA. and how often?  And how do we judge this?

This varies a lot by student. The best students have read the lab beforehenad, come in, do everything, and go and write it up all without possibly ever asking aquestion. At the other end of the spectrum, some don't read, skip over stuff in the lab, and basically want the TA/instructor to walk them through it (or better, just tell them what to write down.)

The point is that the former is what you're trying to move them towards.

2)  the analogy to language learning is imperfect, as of course these are widely different subject areas.  But my point is not invalid, namely, that if errors are not quickly corrected by some educational authority figure, they will become hardened and grow... unless the student(s) somehow figure out that they have made a mistake themselves.  They may figure out this if, for some stunning reason, a student did something as dumbass as microwaving beans in hopes that that'd make em grow, but that analogy is, well...Theoretically, the point of second language instruction is to attain fluency in said second language, though, of course, most 101-level undergrad courses are not really going to be the entree to such efforts, most professors do not expect it, and most students, even those not required to take the language, or even a foreign language, ultimately do not make an attempt to become anything like fluent, but it is the theoretical ultimate goal, at least.  I do not know what the ultimate goal of 101 lab courses is, but at least some of the students are supposed to really learn the skills in such labs, prefatory to doing more advanced work in the subject or in some related scientific endeavor, so we just cannot trust that they will figure out all the errors themselves, and zoom on forward to brilliant success, without that professorial oversight.

The better the lab is written, the more likely they will be to at least realize that things don't add up when they try to do the analysis. Then they can ask meaningful questions.

[polly_mer]

Random points:

1) so exactly how much serious interaction does the beginning-level online lab course student need, with a prof, or even TA. and how often?  And how do we judge this?

Professors study this.  It's part of discipline-based education research in how people learn specific topics in specific fields.  I am most familiar with research in physics, chemistry, engineering, and k-8 math for in-person courses.

If the goal is to teach scientific thinking, then the research indicates that the best path is to set up some guidelines for an investigation, put the students in groups of 3-5, and let the students do most of the work together with a lot of group discussion.

The professor/TA/LA should ask the occasional guiding question to get a group back on a good track, not lead the discussion during lab.  If the situation warrants, the expert should plan for a whole group guided discussion on a specific line of thinking during the next 'lecture' period that will draw on student direct experience during the lab.

Intervening at the first sign of a misconception during discussion to be the correcting authority tends to fail at teaching the scientific thinking and to fail at teaching the correct fact.  The worst way to get people proficient even at even the body of knowledge is to lecture on the facts and correct on the standalone facts.

TAs who came up through the cookbook labs tend to be bad at helping students do the labs beyond how to work a particular piece of equipment.  Undergrad learning assistants who participated in the guided explorations are much better at teaching the thinking and helping other students reason through the logic to get the right facts.

For those who will major and need specific skills, the online/at-home labs are insufficient in most cases.  Those folks should wait until a bubble situation is available to do the standard in-person labs.  Even then, there's usually only someone in the vicinity to help with equipment operation and to intervene in case of a looming health/safety emergency, not to ensure that a factual misconception is immediately corrected.

Out in the world, a technician follows a given process to collect the data with the expertise being in equipment and technique.

A professional scientist asks the questions to be answered to establish what's possible.

A professional engineer asks, with our current knowledge of what's possible, what is reasonable to try to fix this problem.

Knowing just the facts without the method of thinking means one cannot be a professional scientist or engineer at even the BS level.  The hardest lesson to teach is how to correct themselves through true experimentation where no one knows the answer.  That self correction towards true new knowledge is the whole job of a professional scientist and engineer.

[the_geneticist]

Polly's post is an excellent description of why we teach the process of science.  We don't need students to demonstrate known results, we want them to learn how to approach a problem.  Science is partially what we know, but very much HOW we know it. 

For novices, the process is much more important than the product.

[Aster]

For those who will major and need specific skills, the online/at-home labs are insufficient in most cases.  Those folks should wait until a bubble situation is available to do the standard in-person labs.  Even then, there's usually only someone in the vicinity to help with equipment operation and to intervene in case of a looming health/safety emergency, not to ensure that a factual misconception is immediately corrected.

Out in the world, a technician follows a given process to collect the data with the expertise being in equipment and technique.

+1
Technical training is a critical component for nearly all laboratory-based courses in my discipline.
That training is necessary for the course itself.
That training is necessary for the co-requisite lecture class associated with the laboratory course.
That training is necessary because those skillsets are prerequisites for more advanced courses in a student's degree plan.
That training is necessary because those are the exact types of skillsets that employers are expecting and requiring for graduated students to be hired and to work in their field.

In the vast majority of cases, neither the appropriate equipment nor the hands-on supervision/training on that equipment can be substituted with a toy kit shipped to a student's home for them to futz with in their kitchen. In some situations, use of a home kit may even do more harm than good, by giving students the false impression that they are receiving useful training when they are not.

[polly_mer]

The bean example keeps going through my mind so I'm sharing with all of you.

A kid who wants to microwave a bean plant to see if it will grow faster might be applying good scientific thinking, even though being incorrect.  Why?

Bean plants need light to grow.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum.  Visible light is a different wavelength than microwaves, but it's not a different type of thing.

While a lot of time being exposed to microwaves will cook the plant, which is bad, that's probably the result of too much energy just like too much water is bad.

Microwaves have less energy per photon than visible light, so maybe giving a lower amount of energy at a go might avoid over-emerging the plant to result in an overall better growth rate.

[sprout]

The bean example keeps going through my mind so I'm sharing with all of you.

A kid who wants to microwave a bean plant to see if it will grow faster might be applying good scientific thinking, even though being incorrect.  Why?

Bean plants need light to grow.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum.  Visible light is a different wavelength than microwaves, but it's not a different type of thing.

While a lot of time being exposed to microwaves will cook the plant, which is bad, that's probably the result of too much energy just like too much water is bad.

Microwaves have less energy per photon than visible light, so maybe giving a lower amount of energy at a go might avoid over-emerging the plant to result in an overall better growth rate.

Stellar example of how the analysis of what you do can be more important than what you do!

[kaysixteen]

Awright, uncle.  You convinced me.   Thanks for enlightening me.

[polly_mer]

Awright, uncle.  You convinced me.   Thanks for enlightening me.

Now go forth and spread the word that of importance of scientific thinking over just memorizing facts and doing cookbook labs.