Abstract

Traditional, cookbook physics labs are often associated with student dissatisfaction and superficial applications, and are known to leave students with fragmented knowledge. As an alternative, we examine labatorials, a conceptually driven approach to labs. In particular, we develop labatorials to compare with traditional labs in terms of students’ learning experience and the quality of their conceptual learning. In the context of Concordia University’s introductory experimental mechanics course, we collect data spanning semi-structured student and TA interviews, class observations, TA surveys, post-test and final exam scores and responses, and student writing products. Upon analysis and triangulation, we find that due to the scaffolding present in labatorials, students typically exhibit a high degree of collaboration and engagement with the material in a low-pressure environment, which allows students to focus on the learning. Students in traditional labs have a tendency to rely on step-by-step instructions and focus on avoiding errors, which may inhibit their conceptual learning. Although the average final exam scores of the labatorial and traditional groups exhibit no significant difference (p = 0.196), differences do exist for certain question types; namely, traditional lab students tend to perform better on questions involving standardized processes or simple, memorization-based calculations, while labatorial students tend to perform better on conceptual questions.