Seeing the real world: Comparing learning from verification labs and traditional or enhanced lecture demonstrations

TL;DR

This paper compares verification labs, traditional, and enhanced lecture demonstrations in physics education, analyzing their instructional features and impacts on student learning, and suggests rethinking lab goals towards experimentation skills.

Contribution

It provides a detailed comparison of different instructional methods in physics education and proposes a shift in lab objectives based on their distinct learning outcomes.

Findings

Verification labs and demonstrations have different impacts on learning.

Instructional features like prediction, cognitive load, and engagement influence outcomes.

Reconsidering lab goals can enhance experimentation skills and beliefs.

Abstract

Instructors in introductory physics courses often use labs and demonstrations to reinforce that the physics equations introduced in lectures and textbooks describe what actually happens in the real world. The surface features and instructional learning goals of such labs and demonstrations may seem quite similar (predict-observe-explain). Nonetheless, physics education research has found very different impacts of these instructional methods on students' physics content knowledge that depend critically on several instructional characteristics. In this paper, we disentangle the research by comparing details of the learning methods in verification labs, traditional lecture demonstrations, and enhanced lecture demonstrations. We discuss possible mechanisms for the measurably different learning outcomes by dissecting the activities according to the role of prediction, cognitive load, and engagement. We use this characterization to motivate rethinking the goals of labs towards experimentation skills and beliefs, rather than for verifying physics content.