And then there are research labs - the undergrads who seek opportunities to work in them get to experience the real mccoy.
I kind of enjoyed the one I had like this.
The scripted labs that Dude is talking about is what I found less than interesting.
Of course-- BUT... in looking at Dude's post:
Labs are scripted, and they're designed to reinforce or challenge your mastery of concepts that have already been formally taught. The real world doesn't work that way, because it has zero regard for what you've learned. It's perfectly comfortable behaving in ways that directly contradict your certainties.
That's untrue. Well, the labs
are scripted... and they ARE intended to reinforce particular concepts. However, the real world STILL doesn't care about the script, and most undergraduate students don't go through a whole program without learning that the hard way at some point. THAT is what makes the lab experience (as opposed to simulations or demonstrations) valuable. Because it
allows the student to make mistakes/errors-- and to problem solve as a result-- or to rely on the safety net of the instructor to help them do so. It's a very controlled framework, though, because of the scripted nature of the laboratory exercises, which is important in those first baby steps to open-ended problem solving.
Simple materials and less-than-anally-retentive procedural detail
always produce interesting results in a teaching lab. Always. Because invariably, there are a few students who don't do what was intended. Now, at that point, it is incumbent on the instructor to DO something with that... which is why I think that many people who have been through those scripted labs at an engineering-type institution, or one that doesn't place highly skilled
teachers into those labs may have not learned much in the process, since, well... in those situations, the answer is usually just a shrug and dump, or for the instructor to quietly tell the student "here, use Jim's data." It becomes a missed learning opportunity.
But that's not the fault of the
structure of those classes. It's a failure in the educator in charge of them-- it's lazy.
That's when those introductory laboratory classes become nothing more than "training" (which is what Dude was referring to, in my opinion-- since that kind of environment is little more than a mindless "follow the directions. Bleat after step 2," kind of 'learning' environment). Note that I drew a distinction between learning and training.
