Comparison of labatorials and traditional labs: The impacts of instructional scaffolding on the student experience and conceptual understanding

Traditional, template physics labs are often associated with student dissatisfaction and superficial applications, and are known to leave students with fragmented knowledge. An alternative known as labatorials, a conceptually driven approach to labs, has been proposed. In a number of studies, labato...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Franco La Braca, Calvin S. Kalman
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: American Physical Society 2021-04-01
Series:Physical Review Physics Education Research
Online Access:http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010131
id doaj-e0f33239461a4e109aec0a198a12c046
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e0f33239461a4e109aec0a198a12c0462021-04-26T15:56:52ZengAmerican Physical SocietyPhysical Review Physics Education Research2469-98962021-04-0117101013110.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010131Comparison of labatorials and traditional labs: The impacts of instructional scaffolding on the student experience and conceptual understandingFranco La BracaCalvin S. KalmanTraditional, template physics labs are often associated with student dissatisfaction and superficial applications, and are known to leave students with fragmented knowledge. An alternative known as labatorials, a conceptually driven approach to labs, has been proposed. In a number of studies, labatorials have been shown to work well. However, what has been missing is a study comparing labatorials to traditional labs. In this study, labatorials are compared with traditional labs in terms of students’ learning experience and the quality of their conceptual learning. Additionally, we identify the scaffolding mechanisms that impact these elements. In the context of Concordia University’s introductory experimental mechanics course, we collect data spanning semistructured student and teaching assistant (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. This is attributed to three primary forms of scaffolding inherent to the design of labatorials: peer scaffolding, instructor scaffolding, and scaffolding by the activity worksheet. In contrast, 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. These conclusions are supported by the students’ differing performance and understanding exhibited in different types of questions; 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.http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010131
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Franco La Braca
Calvin S. Kalman
spellingShingle Franco La Braca
Calvin S. Kalman
Comparison of labatorials and traditional labs: The impacts of instructional scaffolding on the student experience and conceptual understanding
Physical Review Physics Education Research
author_facet Franco La Braca
Calvin S. Kalman
author_sort Franco La Braca
title Comparison of labatorials and traditional labs: The impacts of instructional scaffolding on the student experience and conceptual understanding
title_short Comparison of labatorials and traditional labs: The impacts of instructional scaffolding on the student experience and conceptual understanding
title_full Comparison of labatorials and traditional labs: The impacts of instructional scaffolding on the student experience and conceptual understanding
title_fullStr Comparison of labatorials and traditional labs: The impacts of instructional scaffolding on the student experience and conceptual understanding
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of labatorials and traditional labs: The impacts of instructional scaffolding on the student experience and conceptual understanding
title_sort comparison of labatorials and traditional labs: the impacts of instructional scaffolding on the student experience and conceptual understanding
publisher American Physical Society
series Physical Review Physics Education Research
issn 2469-9896
publishDate 2021-04-01
description Traditional, template physics labs are often associated with student dissatisfaction and superficial applications, and are known to leave students with fragmented knowledge. An alternative known as labatorials, a conceptually driven approach to labs, has been proposed. In a number of studies, labatorials have been shown to work well. However, what has been missing is a study comparing labatorials to traditional labs. In this study, labatorials are compared with traditional labs in terms of students’ learning experience and the quality of their conceptual learning. Additionally, we identify the scaffolding mechanisms that impact these elements. In the context of Concordia University’s introductory experimental mechanics course, we collect data spanning semistructured student and teaching assistant (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. This is attributed to three primary forms of scaffolding inherent to the design of labatorials: peer scaffolding, instructor scaffolding, and scaffolding by the activity worksheet. In contrast, 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. These conclusions are supported by the students’ differing performance and understanding exhibited in different types of questions; 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.
url http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010131
work_keys_str_mv AT francolabraca comparisonoflabatorialsandtraditionallabstheimpactsofinstructionalscaffoldingonthestudentexperienceandconceptualunderstanding
AT calvinskalman comparisonoflabatorialsandtraditionallabstheimpactsofinstructionalscaffoldingonthestudentexperienceandconceptualunderstanding
_version_ 1721507517149741056