Lab Survey PDF

This article was downloaded by: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network]
On: 13 July 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 783016864]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Science Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283
Student Perceptions of the Value of Physics Laboratories
Christopher Deacona; Allyson Hajekb

a
Department of Physics, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Newfoundland, Canada b Memorial
University of Newfoundland, Instructional Development Office, Newfoundland, Canada
First published on: 12 July 2010
To cite this Article Deacon, Christopher and Hajek, Allyson(2010) 'Student Perceptions of the Value of Physics
Laboratories', International Journal of Science Education,, First published on: 12 July 2010 (iFirst)
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2010.481682
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.481682
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Science Education

2010, 135, iFirst Article
RESEARCH REPORT
Student Perceptions of the Value of

Physics Laboratories
Christopher Deacona* and Allyson Hajekb
Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 11:51 13 July 2010
aDepartment
of Physics, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Newfoundland, Canada;

University of Newfoundland, Instructional Development Office,
Newfoundland, Canada
bMemorial
0cdeacon@mun.ca
Dr.
000002010
ChristopherDeacon
International
10.1080/09500693.2010.481682
TSED_A_481682.sgm
0950-0693
Original
Taylor
2010
00
&
and
Article
Francis
(print)/1464-5289
Francis
Journal of Science
(online)
Education
Science instruction literature provides us with goals for laboratory instruction and guidelines for
designing and implementing science labs in the post-secondary setting. How well are we doing in
our attempt to provide a meaningful and positive learning experience for our students? This paper
describes the results of a study to determine whether students view the lab component of secondyear physics courses at a mid-sized Canadian University as a valuable learning experience. The
results of a survey, administered over six semesters and completed by 168 students, indicate that
students do acknowledge the value of labs. The results also identify the factors that influence the
students perceptions of value in physics labs. This paper discusses the four factors found to have
the greatest influence on students perceptions of the value of labs: (1) the pressure to complete an
experiment within the allotted time, (2) the information provided on the lab instruction sheets, (3)
the help provided by lab staff and graduate teaching assistants, and (4) the students level of
preparedness.
Keywords: Physics education; Survey; University

The unique contribution of practical work in science instruction should be its ability to
aid in the development of conceptual thinking, stir the imagination, whet the appetite
and hone the methodological sharpness of those taking part in the experimental
experience. (Anderson, 1976)
Introduction
Laboratory work has been an integral component of post-secondary science courses
for many years and offers students a potentially rich learning experience (Byers,
2002). Kirschner and Meester (1988) define lab work to be a subset of all practical
*Corresponding author. Department of Physics, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St
Johns, Newfoundland, Canada. Email: cdeacon@mun.ca
ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/10/00000135
2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2010.481682
2 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

work performed in the laboratory, which may include demonstrations and computer
simulations in addition to hands-on experimental work. While there continues to be
a widespread belief that lab work is necessary in order for students to gain a conceptual understanding of the scientific disciplines and to develop a wide range of practical
skills, there is no universal guide as to the objectives of introductory practical lab work
(Kirschner & Mester, 1988). In addition, educators have identified several challenges
associated with lab work and, given the time and resources necessary, many are
questioning whether learning outcomes can be achieved more effectively and efficiently by other means.
Domin (1999, 2007) identifies four styles of lab instruction: expository, discovery,
inquiry, and problem-based. The expository style of instruction is evident in most firstyear labs where the result is known in advance, the experimental procedure is standard,
and minimal data analysis is required. In senior-level laboratory courses, students
encounter an inquiry or problem-based style where experiments are more open-ended
and complex. With considerably less supervision than previously encountered,
students must determine the best procedure to conduct the investigation and are
encouraged to question their results and show limitations of theory. If implemented
properly, Domin says that students will acquire knowledge and develop a rich understanding of concepts, models, and theories. In this study, we focus on discovery-style
laboratories at the second-year level. The challenge for students at this level is to efficiently conduct the experiment and to appropriately interpret the results obtained.
Goals of Lab Work

Several authors, for example, Shulman and Tamir (1973) (as cited in Hofstein &
Lunetta, 1982), Hofstein and Lunetta (1982), Boud, Dunn, and Hegarty-Hazel
(1986), Bernstein (2002), and Reid and Shah (2007), have identified the goals of
laboratory instruction. They involve the development of practical skills and knowledge and provide an opportunity to make science real. The American Association
of Physics Teachers (AAPT) has also issued a list of goals pertaining to the introductory physics laboratory (AAPT, 1997). According to all these authors, a good lab is
one which promotes effective learning and meets the objectives while making the
laboratory experience interesting and enjoyable. The challenge for educators is to
decide which concepts must be learned and which skills must be developed and
then to design a laboratory experience consistent with the identified objectives. We
identify the following five goals for our laboratories which are consistent with the
observations of these authors:
(1) Increase knowledge of physics
(2) Develop practical abilities
(3) Arouse and maintain interest, attitude satisfaction, and open-mindedness in
physics
(4) Develop creative thinking and problem-solving ability
(5) Promote scientific thinking and provide practice in the experimental methods
The Value of Physics Laboratories
An alternative approach is described by von Aufschnaiter and von Aufschnaiter

(2007) who state that the purpose of a laboratory is to provide structured practical
activities which promote the development of conceptual understanding, rather than
connecting pre-existing theory to practice. Rather than searching for good experiments that demonstrate a specific concept, these researchers promote laboratory
instruction that focuses on good learning experiences, where students can discover
the concepts from their activities. Giving students the opportunity to discover rules
on their own enables them to develop an understanding of what the scientific
approach is about.
Student Perceptions of Learning in the Physics Laboratory

Value, or value added, refers to the enhancement that students achieve (to knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes) as a result of their educational experience.
Bennett (2001) defines value added as the difference between students attainments
when they have completed their education and what they had already attained at the
beginning. Laboratory work is considered to have value since students are expected
to have gained additional knowledge and practical skills which they did not have at
the beginning of the course.
The value of laboratories has been studied by several workers, for example,
Borrmann (2008), Rigano and Ritchie (1994), and White (1996), who report that
laboratory work is enjoyable and has promoted student interest in science (Hofstein
& Lunetta, 2004). Cronholm, Hoog, and Martenson (2000) examined student attitudes towards experiments in biochemistry and found that students who performed
well appreciated the learning value of the laboratory exercises, especially in techniques
which are not easily learned from a text book. In a study of the chemistry teaching
laboratory at Perdue University, Polles (2006) includes social interaction, teamwork,
and interaction with the teaching assistant (TA) as additional indicators of value.
Polles research confirmed that the laboratory was a positive learning experience which
helped students learn course content and teach necessary laboratory skills.
A recent survey by Hanif, Sneddon, Al-Ahmadi, and Reid (2009) also showed
that students enjoy laboratory work in physics. While viewing it as challenging, the
majority of students in Hanif et al.s survey believed that laboratory work provided
them with an opportunity to understand theory and provided them with analytical
and problem-solving skills. Hanif et al.s work confirm Johnstone, Watt, and
Zamans (1998) finding that using pre-lab exercises encourages a positive attitude in
students towards their work in the physics laboratory. Students also gave positive
responses such as fun, enjoyable, and interesting, but wanted more time to
perform the experiments and wanted detailed demonstrations and instructions.
Shortcomings of Traditional Laboratories
von Aufschnaiter and von Aufschnaiter (2007) restate the commonly accepted opinion that laboratory work allows students to connect concepts from class to practical

activity. However, these authors found that university students rarely talked about
physics concepts or hypotheses before carrying out an experiment and typically
searched for a formula to best suit their measurements, leading to a result that looks
OK.
Many authors have criticized the use of cookbook labs (von Aufschnaiter and
von Aufschnaiter, 2007; White, 1996; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004) because they do
not engage students in thinking about the larger purposes of their investigation.
While students try to follow the guidelines, they rarely show an understanding of the
relevant concepts. Pickering (1988) (as cited in White, 1996) reports that organic
chemistry labs have degenerated into cooking, because they require students merely
to create a product rather than solve a puzzle. Furthermore, cookbook experiments
do not trigger sensory patterns which can be memorized and reused in new situations. Without this sensory stimulation, students may report that the experiments
are boring, or do not work (Reiner & Gilbert, 2004). Also, assessment of students
practical knowledge and abilities tends to be neglected, and thus students do not
perceive laboratory experiences to be important in their learning.
Current research suggests that many students engage in laboratory activities without a clear sense of the purposes of their investigation. In addition, the quantity of
information presented in the laboratory guide can distract from the main goals of the
experiment itself. If students do not have a concept that relates to the presented
content, they are not likely to understand the concept demonstrated by the experiment (von Aufschnaiter & von Aufschnaiter, 2007). Laboratory activity should not
focus explicitly on scientific concepts at the beginning, but on structured discoveries
which provide the opportunity for students to discover physics rules for themselves.
This approach, according to the authors, will give students the ability to develop an
intuitive understanding of what a scientific approach is about and, equally important, to experience how it feels to be a knowledge creator rather than a knowledge
consumer.
Hofstein and Lunetta (2004) report that there has been a substantial paradigm
shift in thinking about the ways in which learners construct their own scientific
knowledge and understanding. There is a need to provide students with frequent
opportunities for feedback, reflection, and modification of their ideas. Moreover,
there is a growing sense that learners learn by solving real and meaningful problems.
The laboratory can provide such opportunities for students if the teacher provides
meaningful investigations upon which they can construct scientific concepts within a
community of learners in their classroom.
Group work can also be beneficial in promoting a positive learning environment.
The science laboratory provides a setting in which students can work cooperatively
in small groups. The social environment is usually less formal than in a conventional
classroom and thus the laboratory offers opportunities for cooperation among
students and the teacher. The effectiveness of group work as a learning tool has been
studied by Roychoudhury and Roth (1996) who found that most students enjoyed
working together since they could share a task and could collaboratively construct
the meaning of a concept. However, there were occasional problems with free
riders or complaints from students who received no apparent credit from their coworkers for their contributions.
The Research Question

The need to assess the students perceptions in the science laboratory was
approached by Fraser and Giddings (1995) who developed the Science Laboratory
Environment Inventory. This instrument consists of two 35-question surveys, one
which asks about the actual lab experience and one which asks about the
preferred experience. The surveys focus on the social aspects, the physical space,
the amount of independence and structure provided, and the relationship between
the material covered in the labs and the classes.
We undertook this study to determine whether students view the lab component of
second-year physics courses as a valuable learning experience and to identify factors
that contribute to a positive perception of the lab experience. We did not evaluate
students perceptions of the physical and social aspects of the labs, nor did we evaluate whether the overall goals or specific learning objectives for each lab were
achieved. Rather, the study focused on the students perception of whether the labs
contributed to their understanding of physics concepts and their practical lab/
experimental skills, their level of interest and enjoyment in participating in labs, and
the resources available to assist students in the successful completion of the lab
experiments.
The Research Context
The Department of Physics offers two second-year courses with a weekly three-hour
laboratory component, Physics 2053: Fluids and Thermal Physics and Physics 2055:
Electricity and Magnetism. Students taking these courses will have completed 10
experiments (in topics such as mechanics, electrical circuits, and optics) in introductory-level courses. Each of the second-year courses requires students to complete
approximately nine labs designed to introduce a variety of physics topics and experimental techniques important for success in these and higher level courses (see
Appendix 1). The need for adequate preparation is emphasized in an introductory
lab session in which expectations for student participation are reviewed and the
experiments which will be performed during the semester are outlined. The benefits
of good preparation and the suggested steps for preparation are stressed.
In each lab session, approximately 20 students work in pairs on one of seven
different experiments being conducted in the lab simultaneously. The Department
of Physics does not have enough equipment for all students to work on the same
experiment. As a result, the order in which students perform experiments is not
synchronized with classroom lectures and students may not have had a theoretical
introduction to the concepts explored in the lab. During the second week of classes,
a schedule identifying the experiment that each pair will conduct during each session
is posted on the laboratory web site.

No bound manual is provided. Instead, notes for each experiment are available on
the lab web site. Consistent with discovery-style labs, the notes contain background
information and guidance for doing the experiment, but they are not detailed stepby-step or cookbook-style instructions. The notes are designed to encourage creative
and independent thinking, develop an ability to work in unfamiliar situations, and
improve problem-solving skills. Domin (1999) suggests that students who discover
for themselves attach more meaning to the information and retain it better.
Students have access to a network of 18 computers that allow unrestricted
Internet access and the ability to run programmes such as Kaleidagraph1 and
Mathematica2 for data analysis. A lab instructor and two graduate TAs are present
in the lab and available for help during each session.
In the allotted three-hour lab time slot, students are expected to set up apparatus,
collect and analyse data, and submit a written lab report containing four sections:
objective, data and results, analysis, and conclusionas per guidelines provided on
the lab web site. Although students work in pairs, they are expected to submit
individually written reports in their laboratory notebooks at the end of the session.
The TAs are responsible for marking the lab reports which are assigned a value of
15% or 20% towards the final course grade.
Methodology
Participants
The survey was completed by 168 (41%) of 410 students registered in Physics 2053
and Physics 2055 for six semesters from Fall 2003 to Winter 2006. They were made
aware of the survey through announcements in class and in the lab. Participation
was voluntary and on the students own time.
Procedure
Data collection. Observations, surveys, and interviews have been used to evaluate
the effectiveness of laboratories (Pike, 1991; Hein & Irvine, 1999; Hunter, McCosh,
and Wilkins, 2003; Polles, 2006). We developed a survey consisting of an average of
20 questions. Question types included statements on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, multiple response questions, and
open-ended questions which allowed students to respond in their own words (see
Appendix 2). The questionnaire retained this format for each semester; however,
some questions were reworded for clarity, added for obtaining more information, or
removed when the response provided no relevant or new information.
The survey was available online using the WebCT3 learning management system
for a four-week period ending on the final day of exams. Students could access the
survey at any time and although they logged in to the WebCT system using
their StudentWeb username and university student ID number, all responses were
anonymous. While the survey administrators could see which students had
completed the survey, they could not identify an individual students response.
Data analysis. All the data from each semester were imported from WebCT into a
spreadsheet. Quantitative feedback was tabulated for each semester, and the total
responses for the survey period were obtained for each of the questions asked. Data
were analysed using Statistics Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. In
the initial analysis of the qualitative data from open-ended questions, we coded
responses according to the subject of each comment. Seventeen subjects were identified, and within each subject group, responses were subdivided into positive,
negative, and neutral comments. The number of responses in each group and the
occurrence of key words were used to determine the significant factors that impacted
the students experience in the labs. The 17 groups of responses were organized
into three broader categories for discussion purposes (motivation, resources, and
preparation) and a miscellaneous category.
Observations
The survey data revealed three areas in which individual factors influence the
students perception of the physics labs: student motivation, resources, and
preparation.
Motivation. The factors that influence students motivation to stay on task and
complete the experiment to the best of their ability are: ratio of time and effort
versus marks, benefits related to increased knowledge and skills in physics, interest and enjoyment, relevance of the lab experiment to the course material and
everyday life, and level of difficulty of experiments.
Resources. The following resources were identified as important in assisting
students in their preparation for and successful completion of the lab experiments:
adequate assistance from the lab instructor and TAs, sufficient information and
guidance on lab instruction sheets, clear expectations for and constructive feedback on written lab reports, apparatus in good working condition, and computers
and software for data analysis.
Preparation. Activities undertaken by the student on his/her own as well as the
activities of the course and lab instructors are important factors in determining
the students ability to successfully complete the lab experiment and write up in
the allotted time.
Motivation
Benefits. To check whether students realized the achievement of the goals to
develop conceptual understanding and intellectual and practical abilities, we asked
students to indicate their degree of agreement with the statements: The labs
contributed to my knowledge of physics (Question 3) and The labs helped improve
my lab skills and techniques (Question 4). In addition, the open-ended question,
What did you like about the labs? (Question 21), prompted many students to
describe the ways in which they benefited from the labs.

Results, shown in Tables 1 and 2, indicate that most students realized benefits of
the lab which related to both their knowledge of the discipline and their lab skills.
Sixty-six per cent of the total number of respondents indicated agreement or strong
agreement with the statement related to increased knowledge of physics and 69%
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement regarding improved lab skills. There
was no statistical difference in results between semesters in Table 1; however, the
percentage of students who strongly agree with the statement in Table 2 increased
between Fall 2003 and Fall 2004, but decreased in later semesters.
Table 1.
Extent to which students agreed with the statement: The labs contributed to my
knowledge of physics
The labs contributed to my knowledge of physics
Fall 2003
Winter 2004
Fall 2004
Winter 2005
Fall 2005
Winter 2006
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Respondents (n)
20
31
21
28
0
14
60
52
53
20
47
59
13
0
21
12
25
14
0
7
3
24
19
10
7
7
3
16
6
3
15
29
34
25
36
29
Notes. The numbers are given as a percentage of the total number of responses for each semester. A
one-way ANOVA was used to compare data between semesters. There was a significant F value of
2.625 at p < 0.05. However, subsequent Bonferroni post-hoc tests showed no significant
differences between each semesters data.
Table 2.
Extent to which students agreed with the statement: The labs helped improve my lab
skills and techniques
The labs helped improve my lab skills and techniques
Fall 2003
Winter 2004
Fall 2004
Winter 2005
Fall 2005
Winter 2006
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Respondents (n)
13
31
41
20
6
7
47
41
50
40
61
52
27
14
6
8
14
10
7
10
3
28
11
24
7
3
0
4
6
7
15
29
34
25
36
29
4.002 at p < 0.05. Subsequent Bonferroni post-hoc tests showed significant differences between
Fall 2004, Winter 2005, and Winter 2006 semesters.
In response to the open-ended question, What did you like about the labs?, there
were over 40 positive comments which related to the benefits of seeing theory in
action and the practical applications of physics. The following comments are a
sample of those received:
Gave one the chance to apply the physics concepts that were discussed in class to real
and practical situations.
They helped me learn a lot about physics and how they relate to everyday things.
They provide a hands-on application the classes lack and also give a good primer for
how to handle yourself when doing real lab work.
Interest or enjoyment. In order to gauge whether the labs were successful in arousing
and maintaining interest and satisfaction, during the last two semesters of the survey
period, we asked students to indicate their level of agreement with the statement,
The physics labs were interesting (Question 5). Of the 65 respondents, 43%
indicated some level of agreement, 35% selected Neutral, and 22% disagreed with
the statement. From the open-ended questions about likes, dislikes, and suggestions
for changes or improvements, we received 33 positive comments which used the
words interesting, fun, enjoy(ed/able), or great. The following are a sample:
Most of the labs were fun, good hands-on experiments.
I enjoyed the hands-on aspect of the labs.
The labs were a great learning experience.
All the labs were interesting and relevant to course material.
Relevance. By the end of the course, we expect students to see the relationship
between material covered in lectures and experiments conducted in the lab. In addition, as White (1979) recommends, we attempt to provide experiments that link
theory and practice in order to solve real-life problems. There were 15 comments
directly relating to the relevance of the lab experiments to the course lecture
material. Of these, nine comments supported the opinion that labs were relevant and
six suggested they were not. We concluded that the relevance of the experiments,
while important, was not a major factor in determining the students level of motivation or satisfaction.
Difficulty. Survey results identified two major areas of difficulty: (1) completing the
lab experiment and report write up in the allotted time, and (2) understanding the
purpose and theory of labs when related material was not covered in class lectures
beforehand. Statements about the inadequate length of the lab session or the
amount of work to be completed in the time slot were frequently accompanied by
statements expressing feelings of frustration, pressure, and stress. Forty comments
used the words rushed, pressure, stress, or scramble in describing how they felt
about the labs. Thirty-three of these explicitly stated that there was not enough time
in one lab slot to complete the experiment and the written report. For example:

They were often too long; there was way too much pressure to get them done by the end
of the lab period.
It was impossible to complete the experiment, do the lab write-up neatly, and include
what was necessary for a good mark I found myself rushing the analysis of my data
and conclusions every week.
The required experiments, analysis, and write-up required far too much time to
complete, so the labs were rushed, stressful, and a bad learning environment.
As evidence of their learning, students are required to write up and submit a report
at the end of each session. Survey Question 9 asked students to indicate when the
deadline for the submission of the written report should be. Response choices were
the end of the lab session, the day after the lab session, and one week after the
date of the lab session. The results are shown in Table 3. Over half selected the day
after, with a slightly smaller number selecting a week later. The number of students
who preferred to submit at the end of the lab session ranged from a minimum of 3%
in Winter 2004 to a maximum of 20% in Fall 2005. These results are consistent
with the fact that a majority of students reported that they could not complete the
experiment and write a detailed report in the three-hour time slot.
Students who reported that they could not complete the experiment and report in
the allotted time also expressed dissatisfaction with the work they did because they
felt rushed. As a result, the labs were stressful for many students. Twenty-six of these
students commented that their understanding of the physics concepts being explored
was negatively affected by the need to rush. A sample of these comments follows:
The time constraints do not allow time to think about and properly analyse the data.
The majority of the student body in this course plays a game of beat the clock every
week, trying to get the lab done and handed in within three hours. This results in learning nothing and the goal ends up being to get it donewhether or not anything is
learned is irrelevant.
So much work has to be done and I have no time to actually think about what I am
doing.
Table 3.
Students preferred deadline for submitting their completed lab reports

The deadline for the submission of the lab experiment write-ups should be:
Winter 2004
Fall 2004
Winter 2005
Fall 2005
Winter 2006
End of the lab

session
Day after the lab

session
One week after the date

of the lab session
Respondents (n)
3
6
12
20
14
66
53
72
54
66
31
41
16
26
21
29
34
25
36
29
Note. The numbers represent the percentage of respondents for each semester. This question was
not asked in the Fall 2003 survey.
11
I found that I did not always have enough time to fully understand the lab and get the
report done in the time that was given.
Several students commented on the difficulty in using unfamiliar lab apparatus

and six recommended a tutorial or introductory session on how to set up and use the
equipment. Six comments related directly to the level of difficulty of the physics
concepts applied or to the design of the experiments.
Timeeffortmarks ratio. Moore (2003) found that lab attendance is strongly correlated with overall academic performance in the course. In the courses surveyed, the
number of hours spent in the lab each week is approximately equal to the number of
hours spent in the classroom. Since time on task is one of Chickering and Gamsons
(1987) seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education, we were
curious about whether students thought the weight of the laboratory mark was
appropriate for the time and effort they put into completing the labs and whether
they received a fair mark.
The weight of the lab mark for the courses surveyed was either 15% or 20% of the
total course mark as determined by the course instructor. We asked students if this
was appropriate or whether it should be greater or less than the assigned value
(Question 1). For courses where the lab contributed 15% towards the final course
mark, 28% of students indicated that the value of the labs should be greater.
Fourteen per cent of students in courses where the lab contributed 20% towards the
course mark indicated that the value should be greater. Six of 10 comments about
the value of the labs suggested that the amount of time or effort required justified
greater weight towards the course mark.
Students were asked to indicate their level of agreement to the statement: I was
fairly marked on my lab report. Sixty-four per cent agreed or strongly agreed with
this statement, 22% were neutral, and 14% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Of the
17 comments received about the fairness of marking, eight were related to the
consistency of marking by the TAs and five related to the students perception that
the marker was hard or picky.
Of the factors related to student motivation to stay on task and complete the lab
to the best of their ability, benefits related to increased knowledge of physics
through application and improvement of practical lab skills were the greatest
positive factors. Difficulty as it relates to the students ability to complete the
experiment and report write up in the allowed time was the greatest negative factor
in this group.
Resources
A number of resources are available to students to assist them in understanding and
completing the experiment. These include a textbook, experimental apparatus,
computers and software, instruction sheets, report writing and marking guidelines,
written feedback on lab reports, and help provided in the lab by staff and TAs. We

asked students to rate the helpfulness of each resource and provided opportunity for
them to give qualitative feedback.
Textbook. We did not investigate the degree to which the course textbook assisted
in the students ability to complete the labs.
Experimental apparatus. The Department of Physics provides the necessary
equipment for students to perform each experiment and endeavours to keep the
equipment in good working condition. On occasion, apparatus may fail due to
normal wear and tear, or misuse. When this happens, students, understandably, get
frustrated and anxious about time wasted. Only 10 students made a negative
comment on the condition of the lab apparatus, and we therefore conclude that the
quality and condition of experimental apparatus was not a significant factor in the
students lab experience.
Computers and software. The physics labs are equipped with computers and software to assist students in their data analysis. Mathematica was used for the first two
semesters of the survey period and Kaleidagraph was used in the remaining four
semesters. While Kaleidagraph received fewer negative comments than Mathematica, the use of these was perceived by some students to be a major challenge and
sometimes cited as a reason for failing to complete the lab on time. While documentation and instructions for using the software were available online, comments such
as the one below suggest that some students were overwhelmed by many features of
the software:
Without proper instruction as to how to use <software>, there is no possible way for us
as students to know how to use this program to our best advantage. There are many
ways to get a certain answer from <software>, some more efficient than others, but
without proper instruction as to how to perform these tasks, we cannot be expected to
perform them from simply reading the help menu.
However, the total number of comments received related to the computers and
software available (24 positive; 26 negative) suggests that this did not have a significant negative impact on the students overall experience in the lab during the study
period.
Lab instruction sheets. The lab instruction sheets provide background information
on the theory and methods to be used for each experiment. In an effort to encourage
students to develop their critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, no complete
step-by-step instructions for conducting the experiment are provided. One student
got it right when he/she wrote: The lab guide sheets were a great help. They didnt
tell you any answer; just kind of helped you figure it out along the way. However,
many students believed the instruction sheets to be too vague or unclear. Forty
13
comments suggested that the instruction sheets could be improved to better assist
students in understanding the lab and what was required of them. Students wanted
more diagrams and more detailed information on how to use the equipment and
conduct the experiment. Below is a sample of these comments:
There should be clearer instructions on how to set up the circuits and perform the
experiments for those students who have never seen this type of equipment before.
The lab guide sheets could have used some more information and theory, especially
since most of the material was NOT covered in class before the lab.
More details on the lab handout regarding procedure and purpose would be excellent.
It would be nice to have some diagrams and more detailed explanation on how the
equipment is actually used.
The lab guides were sometimes vague and hard to follow.
The instruction sheets were identified as one of the major factors which influenced
students perceptions of the lab. Approximately 56% of the students responded that
the instruction sheets were, to some degree, helpful (Question 13), but it is clear that
students would like more detailed directions for doing experiments than are
currently provided.
Expectations for and feedback on written lab report. The physics lab web site provides
marking guidelines to assist students in understanding the requirements of the written report and to assist TAs in their marking role. They describe how marks are
allotted for items such as organization, graph plotting, calculations, and interpretation. Few comments were written on the marking guidelines as they relate to helping
students understand the expectations for the written lab report. When asked to
indicate the level of helpfulness of the marking guidelines (Question 13), 74%
responded that the guidelines were helpful or somewhat helpful, 6% responded
very helpful, and 20% responded not helpful. Consequently, understanding the
expectations for writing the lab report was not seen to be a factor that contributed
negatively to the students overall experience.
Feedback is essential to the learning process and may take a variety of forms.
Providing constructive written feedback on the students lab reports is a task
expected of the TAs as they mark the reports. In response to the statement: I
received constructive feedback on my lab report (Question 11), 58% of students
indicated agreement or strong agreement. Twenty-three percent responded
Neutral and 19% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Assistance in the labs. The survey asked students to indicate their level of agreement
with the statement: Adequate help was provided during the lab session
(Question 7). Table 4 shows that 63% of the responses either agree or strongly agree
with this statement. The ANOVA results suggest a significant difference between
semesters, and a Bonferroni post-hoc test shows a significant difference between Fall

Table 4.
Extent to which students agreed with the statement: Adequate help was provided
during the lab session
Adequate help was provided during the lab session
Fall 2003
Winter 2004
Fall 2004
Winter 2005
Fall 2005
Winter 2006
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Respondents
(n)
27
31
38
12
6
3
33
45
50
50
56
31
13
21
6
8
8
21
13
3
6
12
8
21
13
0
0
28
19
24
15
29
34
25
36
29
7.839 at p < 0.05.
2004, Winter 2005, and Winter 2006 data. This may be attributed to a number of
factors including the presence or absence of the course instructor in the lab and the
personal qualities of the individual TAs assigned for those semesters.
Four surveys (Fall 2004Winter 2006) specifically asked for comments on the
help received in the labs (Question 8). The number of comments received in
response to this prompt was combined with comments from all surveys related
to TAs received in open-ended questions about likes, dislikes, and suggestions
for improvement. The total number of comments on the help provided by TAs
was significant and provided evidence that students rely greatly on the availability and helpfulness of TAs and recognized the potential positive contribution
TAs can make to their overall lab experience. Students provided 111 written
comments in response to the open-ended question inviting comments on the
help provided in the labs. Of these, 37 were positive, complementing the TAs,
while 51 were negative. There were 23 comments of a more general nature that
identified the qualities of a TA which students considered necessary in the lab.
Four dominant themes emerged from the comments: friendliness, physics knowledge, availability, and language and communication skills. These are discussed
below.
Friendliness of the TAs. The friendliness of the TAs attracted the greatest number
of positive comments (30), for example:
Instructors were very friendly, and were easy to approach if you had a problem.
I like how the lab instructors were very friendly and helpful they dont get frustrated
when you dont understand something.
It was great! They always tried to help, and usually made me laugh too.
15
Some students named individual TAs who had left a favourable impression,
showing that students were able to relate to and establish a productive mentoring
relationship with TAs. In contrast, 15 negative comments were received from
students who felt that the TAs were not friendly or helpful.
The physics knowledge of the TAs. It is expected that TAs should be familiar with
the underlying physics theory behind each experiment. The physics knowledge of the
TAs did not appear to be an issue relative to their ability to help set up the equipment
and explain how to do the lab. There were four positive comments only, including:
The help provided during the labs was very good. For the most part, there was always
someone there to help with the setting up of the lab and the theory behind it.
The instructor and lab assistant knew the lab exercises well and were effective in
answering any questions I had.
Eight negative comments suggested that the TAs did not fully understand the lab
and could not provide satisfactory help, for example:
The instructors were not well versed in all aspects of the lab, they could not answer
some of my questions very effectively.
Some students said that they had been given conflicting information by different
TAs. Because there could be several ways of doing an experiment, individual TAs
may have suggested their preferred method, leading to confusion among the
students. Since only 12 comments were received relating to the TAs knowledge of
the physics, we conclude that their knowledge of physics concepts and the experimental design and apparatus alone did not negatively impact the students level of
satisfaction.
The availability of the TAs. A students perception of the availability of the TAs is
dependent on the amount of time that student has to wait before getting help. Nineteen responses indicated a perception that TAs were not available when needed.
There were only three positive comments. Although the ratio of students to assistants (lab instructor plus TAs) is approximately 10 to 1, a common request was to
provide more TAs so that students do not need to wait for assistance, for example:
There should be more lab instructors, so that the ones that are there are not overwhelmed with all of the students questions. Also, so they can rotate and take breaks if
need be while there is still enough instructors left to handle the students in the lab for
that time period. There should be adequate help when questions come up. It was very
hard to adjust, but would have been much easier if there had been more and better help
available.
The language and communication skills of the TAs. Negative comments (nine)
about the communication skills of TAs related to difficulties in understanding those
for whom English was not their native language. For example:

One of my TAs didnt speak English very well I found it VERY hard to get my
questions answered because either the TA didnt understand me, or I didnt understand
him.
As testament to the important role TAs play, some students acknowledged that
without help, they might have failed the lab component of the course:
The help provided during the lab was very helpful the labs would have been difficult
without the help.
If it wasnt for the help I received during the lab period, I would have failed most of the
labs. Thank you!
Preparation
In the Fall 2003 survey, we asked if students had read the lab instruction sheet prior
to coming to the lab session. Out of 15 respondents, 11 reported that they had read
the instruction sheet while four did not. In subsequent surveys, this question was
revised to obtain more detailed information about how the students prepared for the
lab sessions. We asked students to indicate how they prepared by selecting from a
number of options (Question 2).
Table 5 summarizes the amount of preparation that students had done prior to
coming to the lab. While between 23% and 65% of students report that they read
the lab instruction sheet prior to coming to the lab, 53% of the total number of
students during the survey period report that in addition to reading the lab
instruction sheet they also prepared by reviewing their class notes and/or the textbook and/or discussing the lab with someone else. The number of students who
reported not doing any preparation for the labs did not exceed 10% (Winter 2006
semester).
Because there is insufficient equipment for multiple setups of a single experiment, some students will not have covered relevant material in class prior to
conducting an experiment. Twenty-nine student comments provided in response
to the question, What did you dislike about the physics labs? related to the
difficulty experienced when concepts, key to conducting and understanding the
lab, were not covered in the lectures beforehand. The following comments
illustrate this difficulty:
If the lab experiments were to reflect the theory that was being learned in lecture, they
would be much more effective.
Usually the material in the labs are ahead of the lectures, so the material is unknown
and difficult to understand during a lab.
[Labs] should be developed in a way that the professor has at least covered the material
before you are asked to do a lab on that topic, since not every student can learn physics
by reading the book.
Perhaps the labs should match the in-class lectures more effectively. We could then
have more time conducting the experiment and less time getting help from the lab
instructors.
32
65
36
23
28
4
0
4
0
7
Read
notes/
textbook
0
0
4
0
0
Ask
someone
43
9
44
51
38
Note. The numbers represent the percentage of respondents for each semester.
Winter 2004
Fall 2004
Winter 2005
Fall 2005
Winter 2006
Read instruction
sheet
Read instruction
sheet plus one
other
preparation
activity
14
24
12
20
17
Read instruction
sheet plus more
than one other
preparation
activity
Table 5. Methods used by students to prepare for the laboratory
7
3
0
6
10
Did not
prepare
28
34
25
35
29
Respondents (n)

17

Johnstone et al. (1998) assert that pre-lab exercises increase understanding and
performance in lab experiments. Pre-lab exercises help students focus on important
information, encourage lab preparation and planning, and increase understanding
by reducing information overload in the lab (Reid & Shah, 2007). When asked
whether they agree with the recommendation to implement a pre-lab quiz as part of
the lab component, 72% of respondents in the last two semesters of the study period
indicated that they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the recommendation.
This is not surprising since most students view a pre-lab quiz as adding extra work to
their already heavy loads. Only nine students indicated any degree of agreement.
These students acknowledged the benefit of a pre-lab exercisequestions that help
you prepare for the lab, not only with theory but with method, so we know what to
expect when entering the lab, and force students to prepare for labs.
Among the comments from students were a variety of suggestions about resources
or activities that may be developed to help students prepare for and successfully
complete labs. In order of frequency, these included: more detailed instruction
sheets, more help from TAs, lecture topics synchronized with experiments,
introductory labs on setting up circuits and using the oscilloscope, a lecture on
writing lab reports, pre-lab talks, pre-lab quizzes or questions, access to a sample lab
report, and return of the lab notebook in sufficient time to review feedback and
begin the write up for the upcoming experiment.
Discussion
The survey was initially designed as a project to obtain feedback from students about
the value of their experience in the lab. The data from that first survey prompted us
to refine and continue to administer the survey in subsequent semesters to gain a
more comprehensive understanding of the students lab experience and of the
factors that contribute to their perception of value. Future research would be
conducted with a survey administered after a validation process involving faculty
members and lab staff, and a pilot test with a randomly selected group of secondyear physics students.
Our survey has identified four factors that significantly contribute to the students
level of satisfaction with the second-year physics labs. Related to the students motivation, an appropriate amount of time to complete the experiment and write a lab
report was the factor with the greatest impact. The information on instruction sheets
and the help provided by lab staff and TAs were identified as the two resources that
most contributed to the students overall satisfaction. Finally, the preparation
students must do on their own, which may be impacted by the lack of synchronization between course and laboratory topics, influences the students ability to
successfully complete the lab. The results related to the information provided on the
instruction sheets and the allotted time to complete the experiment are consistent
with Hanif et al.s (2009) observations.
Ideally, students should start their experiment promptly and remain focused on
the task, confident in their ability to perform the experiment and learn from it. The
19
total number of survey comments received about an overall lack of time which
resulted in an increased pressure to complete the lab and report and associated feelings of stress were significant and concerning. Waiting for help from TAs, vague
instructions, malfunctioning equipment, and lack of familiarity with the data analysis
software have been cited as problems taking up precious time in the labs. The
combined number of comments identifying these specific problems is small relative
to those that identified a general lack of time as a source of stress and a negative
factor in their ability to understand the physics concepts being explored.
While students would prefer to submit their written lab report on the day following the lab session or later, previous experience has resulted in undesirable
outcomes. These include students spending unreasonable amounts of time on the
report, reports being submitted with little or no additional work done, and late
submissions. Also, students expected the TAs to be available to provide additional
help beyond their scheduled hours of work. A possible solution to this time-management problem is to identify the type, frequency, and duration of activities in the lab
that lead to delays and other problems which result in frustration, stress, and work
that is unsatisfactory or unfinished. We could then work with students to develop
strategies to help them stay focused and organized, thus minimizing unproductive
time in the lab and allowing the report to be submitted on time.
Those who approach the lab with the attitude of going through the motions will
find themselves frustrated by the intentional lack of step-by-step instructions
provided in the lab instruction sheets. These sheets are a guide only and are
designed to engage students in problem solving and critical thinking, one of the goals
of laboratory instruction. The students desire for more detailed instructions may
reflect a reluctance to take responsibility for their own learning. It is hoped that with
a greater emphasis on individual pre-lab preparation, students may become more
successful with the current level of detail provided. A review of the lab instruction
sheets may identify alternate wording or diagrams to better communicate the goals
and required tasks for the experiments and thus address comments about clarity and
the need for appropriate diagrams.
The help provided by lab staff and TAs is a topic which attracted the greatest
amount of feedback and confirms that good quality TA help is important in
maximizing the benefit that students obtain from their lab work. It is essential, therefore, to ensure that the Department pays attention to the calibre of TAs hired to
assist in the lab. Apart from their knowledge and skills in the discipline, it is important to ensure that the TAs have strong interpersonal skills and can communicate
clearly. A high priority will be placed on TA training and the encouragement of TA
participation in professional development opportunities. The School of Graduate
Studies has teaching development programmes specifically designed for graduate
assistants. Two of these programmes are the Graduate Program in Teaching and
Teaching Opportunities for Graduate Students, which provides graduate students
with progressively more challenging teaching opportunities. Future surveys would
indicate whether TAs possess the necessary skills and would assess the impact of
professional development undertaken.

The degree to which students are prepared to participate in an experiment will
impact their understanding of its purpose, their ability to complete it on time, and
their enjoyment. When a concept is not taught in the classroom prior to conducting
an experiment on that concept, students are more challenged to understand the
theory and methods used. Students need to be aware of the importance of preparation. While Table 5 shows the majority of students prepare for labs by reading the
lab instruction sheets, we need to encourage more than a cursory review. Instructors
must emphasize, on regular basis throughout the semester, the need to: (1) review
their previous lab report and marker comments; (2) check the online lab schedule to
find out what experiment they will perform next; (3) carefully read the lab instruction sheet; (4) identify the main concepts, methodologies, and purpose of the lab;
and (5) review relevant textbook sections and class notes, and if necessary, discuss
the experiment with a peer, or lab or course instructor to fill in the gaps in their
understanding.
Though there was an overwhelmingly negative response from students regarding
the implementation of pre-lab quizzes, because research has shown that pre-lab
exercises have a positive impact on students performance, we will use pre-lab
quizzes in future semesters. By conducting a similar survey following the implementation of pre-labs and comparing data to the current survey data, we will determine
the impact that this preparatory activity has on lab completion rates and level of
enjoyment.
This survey has reassured us that labs fulfil a need in the curriculum of the
Department of Physics and that students acknowledge the academic benefits of
participating in the weekly lab sessions. It has identified factors, unrelated to the
physics content, that impact the students level of enjoyment. These factors are a
starting point for further study and the development of strategies to increase student
satisfaction with the physics lab experience.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank S. Pippy, Centre for Institutional Analysis and
Planning, Memorial University of Newfoundland, for assistance with SPSS and
interpretation of the ANOVA output.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
Kaleidagraph is a product of Synergy Software.

Mathematica is a product of Wolfram Research Inc.
WebCT is a product of Blackboard Inc.
References
AAPT (American Association of Physics Teachers). (1997). The goal of introductory physics
laboratories. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www.aapt.org/Policy/goaloflabs.cfm
21
Anderson, R. O. (1976). The experience of science: A new perspective for laboratory teaching. New
York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press (Cited in Hofstein and Lunetta (1982)).
Bennett, D. C. (2001). Assessing quality in higher educationPerspectives. Liberal education.
Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NKR/
is_2_87/ai_88581415
Bernstein, G. H. (2002). The role of the lab TA. IEEE Potentials, 21(3), 3638.
Borrmann, T. (2008). Laboratory education in New Zealand. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, 4, 327335.
Boud, D., Dunn, J., & Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1986). Teaching in laboratories. Guildford: Society for
Research into Higher Education & NFER-Nelson.
Byers, W. (2002). Promoting active learning through small group laboratory classes. University
Chemistry Education, 6, 2834.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 37.
Cronholm, T., Hoog, J.-O., & Martenson, D. (2000). Student attitudes towards laboratory exercises
in medical biochemistry. Medical Teacher, 22, 3033.
Domin, D. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76,
543547.
Domin, D. S. (2007). Students perceptions of when conceptual development occurs during laboratory instruction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 140152.
Fraser, B. J., & Giddings, G. J. (1995). Evolution and validation of a personal form of an instrument for assessing science laboratory classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 32(4), 399422.
Hanif, M., Sneddon, P. H., Al-Ahmadi, F. M., & Reid, N. (2009). The perceptions, views and
opinions of university students about physics learning during undergraduate laboratory work.
European Journal of Physics, 30, 8596.
Hein, T. L., & Irvine, S. E. (1999). Technology as a teaching and learning tool: Assessing student
understanding in the introductory physics lab. American Society for Engineering Education
Annual Conference, Session 2380, Charlotte, NC.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected
aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201217.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the
twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 2854.
Hunter, C., McCosh, R., & Wilkins, H. (2003). Integrating learning and assessment in laboratory
work. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4, 6775.
Johnstone, A. H., Watt, A., & Zaman, T. U. (1998). Students attitude and cogitative changes to a
physics lab. Physics Education, 33, 2229.
Kirschner, P. A., & Meester, M. A. M. (1988). The laboratory in higher science education:
Problems, premises and objectives. Higher Education, 17, 8198.
Moore, R. (2003). Students choices in developmental education: Is it really important to attend
class? Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 20(1), 4252.
Pickering, M. (1988). A physical chemist looks at organic chemistry lab. Journal of Chemical
Education, 65, 143144.
Pike, G. R. (1991). The effects of background, coursework, and involvement on students grades
and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 32, 1530.
Polles, J. S. (2006). The chemistry teaching laboratory: The student perspective. Ph.D. thesis, Purdue
University.
Reid, N., & Shah, I. (2007). The role of laboratory work in university chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8, 172185.
Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2004). The symbiotic roles of empirical experimentation and thought
experimentation in the learning of physics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(15),
18191834.
Rigano, D. L., & Ritchie, S. M., (1994). Students thinking in a chemistry laboratory. Research in
Science Education, 24, 270279.
Roychoudhury, A., & Roth, W.-M. (1996). Interactions in an open-inquiry physics laboratory.
International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 423445.
von Aufschnaiter, C., & von Aufschnaiter, S. (2007). University students activities, thinking and
learning during laboratory work. European Journal of Physics, 28, S51S60.
White, R. T. (1979). Relevance of practical work to comprehension in physics. Physics Education,
14, 384387.
White, R. T. (1996). The link between the laboratory and learning. International Journal of Science
Education, 18(7), 761774.
Wieman, C., & Perkins, K. (2005). Transforming physics education. Physics Today, 58(11), 3641.
23
Appendix 1. List of Laboratory Experiments

Physics 2053: Fluids and Thermal Physics
The Thermistor
Summary: Students measure the resistance of a thermistor as a function of temperature and plot the data. Values for the constants A and B are determined by fitting the
data to the exponential function R = AeBT.
Learning goals:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Measure resistance using digital multimeter

Plot a graph using Kaleidagraph
Describe the relationship between resistance and temperature
Calculate numerical constants associated with the thermistor
Phase Change in Water

Summary: The phase change from ice to liquid water is studied by two methods. The
first uses a triple point cell to show that the phase change occurs with no change in
temperature, while the second method allows the latent heat of fusion of ice to be
determined.
Learning goals:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Measure temperature using a thermistor

Identify three phases of water in equilibrium
Demonstrate Latent Heat
Calculate the value of the Latent Heat of fusion for ice
The Kelvin Temperature Scale

Summary: Students use a modified form of the constant volume gas thermometer to
accurately measure temperature. The accuracy of the calibration is checked by
determining the temperature of boiling water, liquid nitrogen, and solid carbon
dioxide. Because the apparatus expands and contracts with changes in temperature,
a correction is applied to the calculated temperatures.
Learning goals:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Use a triple point cell

Explain what is meant by fixed point
Explain what is meant by absolute zero
Calculate temperature based on the relation between pressure and temperature

Viscosity of Water
Summary: Poiseuilles law is used to determine the viscosity of water by measuring
the flow of water along a capillary tube.
Learning goals:
(1) Measure flow rate

(2) Determine pressure from the height of a water column
(3) Calculate viscosity from the slope of a straight line graph
Viscosity of Sugar Solution
Summary: A rotating cylinder is used to determine the viscosity of sugar solution.
The total drag depends on the applied torque. The algebra is more complex than for
the water experiment, and some manipulation of the data is required before the
viscosity can be determined.
Learning goals:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Describe the relation between torque and rotation

Explain the role of viscosity
Manipulate the algebraic formula for viscosity into a form suitable for plotting
Determine viscosity from the slope of a straight line graph
The Bernoulli Equation

Summary: The Bernoulli equation is used to compare the measured and predicted
flow rates of water though two short tubes of different diameter. A discrepancy
between the two flow rates allows students to calculate the coefficient of discharge
and discuss the effect of friction in the tubes.
Learning goals:
(1) Measure flow rate
(2) Apply the Bernoulli equation to calculate the predicted flow rate from the
heights of two water columns
(3) Explain the role of the coefficient of discharge
Linear Expansion
Summary: The coefficient of linear expansion is determined for different metals by
measuring the change in length which occurs when steam is passed through tubes
of copper, stainless steel, and aluminium. A thermistor is used to measure
temperature.
25
Learning goals:
(1) Measure small distances
(2) Obtain temperatures from the resistance of a thermistor
(3) Demonstrate that different materials have different expansion coefficients
Isothermal and Adiabatic Processes
Summary: The gas laws are investigated by studying the variation of pressure and
volume of air under isothermal and adiabatic conditions.
Learning goals:
(1) Operate apparatus interfaced to a computer for the acquisition of temperature,
volume, and pressure data
(2) Plot graphs of pressure versus volume and obtain the appropriate mathematical
relation
(3) Illustrate the difference between isothermal and adiabatic compression
Thermal Radiation: Stefans Law and radiative properties of surfaces
Summary: These two experiments demonstrate the fourth power law relationship
between power and radiation. In Stefans law a light bulb is illuminated using a
variable power supply. The variation of power with temperature is plotted to establish the fourth power law. The fourth power law is not obeyed at low filament
temperatures and should be apparent from students graphs. In radiative properties
of surfaces, a metallic cube is heated electrically and the thermal radiation from its
faces is measured using a sensor which is connected to a computer. It is shown that a
polished surface emits less radiation than a matt surface, and leads to a discussion of
black-body radiation.
Learning goals:
(1) Operate apparatus interfaced to a computer for the acquisition of current, volume,
and temperature data
(2) Plot graphs and obtain the appropriate power law
(3) Demonstrate the behaviour of a black body
The Stirling Engine: The heat engine
Summary: This experiment uses many of the physics concepts discussed in the
course to explain the relation between heat, work, energy, power, and efficiency.
Students generate a graph to show the pressure and volume changes which occur
(the Carnot cycle) and use a spreadsheet to calculate the work done per cycle, and
hence the efficiency of the heat engine.

Learning goals:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Use the heat engine to show the relationship between heat and work
Show how apparatus can be interfaced to computers for data acquisition
Plot graphs of pressure versus temperature
Use a spreadsheet for data analysis
Physics 2055 Laboratory

This laboratory consists of a sequence of experiments designed to demonstrate
properties of electrical circuits. Each experiment requires students to construct a
simple circuit on a solderless breadboard, take appropriate measurements of voltage,
current, frequency, etc., and plot a suitable graph. The graph may follow a straight
line or a more complicated mathematical function. The experiments are performed
in sequence, with the expectation that students will have mastered the skills required
in one experiment before continuing to the next.
Introduction to the Lab
Summary: Students construct simple electrical circuits to become familiar with the
equipment which will be used in future lab sessions.
Learning goals:
(1) Measure voltage, current, and resistance using a digital multimeter
(2) Construct and debug simple electrical circuits on a breadboard
Linear and Nonlinear Resistors
(The instruction sheet for this experiment is provided at the end of this section.)
Summary: Students construct a series circuit consisting of a power supply and a
resistor. By varying the current and measuring the voltage across the resistor, its
resistance can be determined. Substituting the resistor for a light bulb shows
students that Ohms Law no longer holds.
Learning goals:
(1) Construct a simple series circuit and know how to measure voltage, current, and
resistance
(2) Verify Ohms law by plotting graphs of current versus voltage
(3) Explain how the functional relation for a resistor and a light bulb differ
Kirchhoffs Circuit Laws
Summary: Students construct a simple electrical network and use Kirchhoffs laws to
calculate the various currents in the circuit and compare these with measured values.
27
Learning goals:
(1) Construct a more complicated circuit on the breadboard
(2) Formulate and solve circuit equations to calculate current using a spreadsheet or
other software
Charge and Discharge of a Capacitor

Summary: Students determine the time constant for an RC circuit by measuring the
time required for the capacitor to completely charge and also to completely
discharge from a fully charged state. The experiment is repeated using a light bulb in
place of a capacitor, and students are encouraged to think about how the capacitor
acts as either a gate or a filter.
Learning goals:
(1) Plot graphs of voltage versus time to determine the time constant for the circuit
(2) Explain the role of the time constant in an RC circuit
(3) Explain how the flow of charge affects the brightness of the light bulb
Introduction to the Oscilloscope
Summary: Students use the oscilloscope to measure voltage and frequency, in preparation for subsequent experiments.
Learning goals:
(1) Measure AC and DC voltages using the oscilloscope
(2) Explain the difference between amplitude, peak to peak voltage, and rms
voltage
(3) Identify and distinguish between sine, square, and triangular waveforms
(4) Compare the suitability of an oscilloscope versus a digital multimeter as a
measuring device
(5) Explain why a multimeter fails at high frequency
The Diode
Summary: This is very similar to the first experiment, with the resistor replaced by a
diode. Students show that the current in a forward biased diode obeys an exponential power law, while a reversed biased diode does not conduct. The behaviour of a
diode under ac conditions is also studied.
Learning goals:
(1) Define what is meant by forward bias and reverse bias
(2) Identify when a diode is conducting by observing an ac trace using an oscilloscope

Introduction to AC: The RC circuit
Summary: Students construct a simple series circuit consisting of a resistor and a
capacitor. The power is provided by an ac waveform generator.
Learning goals:
(1) Show how frequency affects the impedance of the capacitor

(2) Describe the difference between a low pass filter and a high pass filter
(3) Define the concept of phase
RL Filter Circuits
Summary: Students construct a simple series circuit, as above, with the capacitor
replaced by an inductor. By observing the signal across the inductor, and plotting
gain as a function of frequency, students can calculate the value of the inductor and
its associated resistance.
Learning goals:
(1) Show how the voltage across an inductor varies with frequency
(2) Plot a straight line graph and calculate the inductance from its slope and resistance from the intercept
Resonance in LCR Series Circuit
Summary: Students construct a series circuit consisting of an inductor, capacitor,
and resistor. The resonant frequency is obtained from a graph of gain versus
frequency, as well as the phase change which occurs as the frequency is increased
past resonance.
Learning goal:
(1) Show the variation of gain and phase in a series LCR circuit
Sample Instruction Sheet for Physics 2055 Experiment, Linear and Nonlinear Resistors
Department of Physics and Physical Oceanography
Physics 2055 Laboratory
Introduction
The current in an electrical circuit depends on the magnitude of the source voltage
and the resistance of the various components. The voltage drop across a linear
component is given by Ohms law:

V = IR
29
(1)
but for a nonlinear component, Ohms law does not apply. In this experiment you
will study the different behaviours of a regular resistor and a light bulb.
Procedure
(1) Construct the series circuit shown, using V = 12 volts dc. Rx is an unknown
resistance and R1 is a variable decade resistance box. Starting with R1 = 0 ,
measure the voltage across Rx and the current in it. By increasing R1 in suitable
steps obtain a series of voltage and current values, and plot a graph of VRx versus
IRx.
Figure 1.
A simple series circuit to study Ohms Law
Figure 1.
A simple series circuit to study Ohms law
VR x
(2) From your graph, verify that the resistor obeys Ohms law and hence determine
a value for Rx. What is the uncertainty in Rx? Check your result by measuring its
value using a DMM.
(3) How does the resistance of the voltmeter affect the voltage reading across a
particular resistor? Does it matter if the voltmeters resistance is low (few k), or
large (M)? Explain your answer.

Nonlinear Resistors
(1) Nonlinear conductors such as semiconductors, thermistors, and diodes do not
have a constant resistance. Instead, we can write the voltage drop as a function
of current in the form:
V = AI n
(2)
where A is a constant.
(2) Replace the resistance Rx by a light bulb and obtain a data table which shows the
voltage drop across the bulb and the current. Plot this data and explain why you
think the graph displays this behaviour.
(3) Use the laboratory computers to determine values for n and A, and discuss the
significance of these results.
Appendix 2. Second-Year Physics Lab Survey

Question 1
The lab component of the course should be worth ________________ of the overall
course mark.
a. less than 20%
b. 20%
c. more than 20%
Question 2
Prior to coming to the lab session, I prepared for each lab experiment by doing the
following (check all that apply):
a. reading the lab guide sheet
b. reading my class notes and/or textbook
c. asking someone about the lab experiment
d. I did not prepare
Question 3
The labs contributed to my knowledge of physics.
a. Strongly agree
e. Strongly disagree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
31
Question 4
The labs helped improve my lab skills and techniques (data analysis, report writing,
etc.).
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
Question 5
The physics labs were interesting.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
Question 6
I recommend the lab component include a pre-lab quiz that would be part of the lab
mark and would be submitted prior to each lab session.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
Question 7
Adequate help was provided during the lab session.
a. Strongly Agree
e. Strongly Disagree
b. Agree
Question 8
Additional comments on the help provided during labs:
Question 9
The deadline for the submission of lab reports should be
a. the end of the lab session
b. the day after the lab session
c. one week after the date of the lab session

Question 10
If you selected b or c in response to Question 8, please explain why you believe more
time is required to complete the lab report.
Question 11
I received constructive feedback on my lab report.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
Question 12
I was marked fairly on my lab report.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
Question 13
How helpful to you were the following:
Matching pairs:
Lab guide sheets
Lab web site (physics.mun.ca/cdeacon)
Marking guidelines
WebCT access to grades
Question 14
The radio project helped me connect course work with a practical application.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
33
Question 15
The radio project was interesting and enjoyable.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
Question 16
Additional comments regarding the resources listed above in Question 13:
Question 17
Use of the lab computers (check all that apply):
a. assisted in completion of the labs
b. enhanced my understanding of the underlying physics of each lab
c. helped develop my computer skills
d. was equally shared between lab partners
e. was the primary responsibility of one lab partner
Question 18
Kaleidagraph is used for data analysis in the physics labs. Rate the degree to which
you agree or disagree with the following statements about Kaleidagraph.
Matching pairs:
Kaleidagraph is relevant and useful for completing
the lab experiments.
Kaleidagraph is easy to learn.
I can use Kaleidagraph effectively and efficiently.

Question 19
Additional comments about Kaleidagraph:
Question 20
The physics lab computers have the necessary software to complete each lab experiment. What other software would be helpful to have on the computers for use during
the lab session or at times when the lab is free?
Question 21
What did you like about the labs?
Question 22
What did you dislike about the labs?
Question 23
Please provide your suggestions for changes or improvements in the lab sessions.
35

Lab Survey PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lab Survey PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network]

On: 13 July 2010

International Journal of Science Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

Student Perceptions of the Value of Physics Laboratories

Christopher Deacona; Allyson Hajekb

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

International Journal of Science Education

Student Perceptions of the Value of

of Physics, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Newfoundland, Canada;

Keywords: Physics education; Survey; University

2 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

Goals of Lab Work

The Value of Physics Laboratories

An alternative approach is described by von Aufschnaiter and von Aufschnaiter

Student Perceptions of Learning in the Physics Laboratory

4 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

The Value of Physics Laboratories

The Research Question

6 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

The Value of Physics Laboratories

8 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

The Value of Physics Laboratories

10 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

Students preferred deadline for submitting their completed lab reports

End of the lab

Day after the lab

One week after the date

The Value of Physics Laboratories

Several students commented on the difficulty in using unfamiliar lab apparatus

12 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

The Value of Physics Laboratories

14 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

Adequate help was provided during the lab session

The Value of Physics Laboratories

16 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

Table 5. Methods used by students to prepare for the laboratory

The Value of Physics Laboratories

18 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

The Value of Physics Laboratories

20 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

Kaleidagraph is a product of Synergy Software.

The Value of Physics Laboratories

22 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

The Value of Physics Laboratories

Appendix 1. List of Laboratory Experiments

Measure resistance using digital multimeter

Phase Change in Water

Measure temperature using a thermistor

The Kelvin Temperature Scale

Use a triple point cell

24 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

(1) Measure flow rate

Describe the relation between torque and rotation

The Bernoulli Equation

The Value of Physics Laboratories

26 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

Physics 2055 Laboratory

The Value of Physics Laboratories

Charge and Discharge of a Capacitor

28 C. Deacon and A. Hajek

(1) Show how frequency affects the impedance of the capacitor