How important are labs for learning science?

Semester-long independent projects. You need killer TAs to do it right, but that is the best way to do a lab.

This came out of an independent project. The bottom figure of this came out of an independent project. Sophomore core course for biology majors. They forgot all their dissection and cookbook experiments, but years after, they all remember their projects.

I've already come down in favor of doing away with lab courses. Because the ones I'm familiar with have all been horrible.

It would be great to give undergraduates a feeling for how experiments are done. But that's much more effectively accomplished by having them do something project-oriented (whether it be real research or something more purely pedagogical) than to step through a sequence of pre-prepared labs. Which, I may have mentioned, are always horrible.

I think that too much of a premium has put on brute force effort in our undergrad and graduate teaching experiences. There is actually a lot that a merely warm body can accomplish in a lab, however rigorous theoretical experience tends to come mostly from course work and I would say this is lacking from many graduate schools and certainly from undergraduate training. This is kind of a sore spot for me because I feel like I appear to be somewhat successful but I feel woefully untrained in actual science even though I quite well know my way around a lab.

I'm an undergraduate engineering student. I've found that, in general, labs are time-consuming and don't help me learn theory. For mastery of a subject, labs are largely useless--at least, for me. Well-done labs can be useful for gaining practical information about how to use the equipment. I wouldn't know how to use an oscilloscope or build a circuit without a lab. However, I think my physics labs were largely useless, though some were cool.

I think that if people running the labs made sure that the equipment actually works, labs would be far more useful and pleasant. Much of my time in lab is spent trying to figure out what's wrong with the equipment, finally calling over a TA who can't fix it either, and trying to scrounge up another piece of equipment to use.

By far the most engaging intro labs I had were physics. This was because we had to design all of the protocols ourselves, based on the equipment available and the theories we had learned in lecture up to that point. I can no longer recall the formula for moment of inertia, but I vividly remember spinning my lab partner, with barbells in her outstretched arms, in order to determine hers.

Labs are also good for showing why a particular theory is actually pertinent to the actual physical world in which we exist. And they address core competencies that practicioners are expected to have. As a geologist, people are constantly asking me "what kind of rock is this?" But that question is extremely hard to answer using theory alone.

I never ended up taking a single science class after high school other than math (unless you count the history of physics class I sat in on for most of a semester a few years ago in grad school), but in thinking much more about philosophy of science, and talking to my boyfriend (who is a chemist) I've come to have a much greater appreciation for so much of what was going on in those science classes I did have as an undergrad. And now I wish I could do some of those labs again, now that I've got more of a perspective to see why those experiments were interesting the first time they were done. It's too bad that they're forced on unwilling high school and early college students, rather than people who have more of a perspective to have an interest in them.

I think this may be a problem of emphasis; if you're made to feel a failure for not getting the expected outcome from 'classic' experiments or standard techniques, then it will be frustrating and counterproductive. But with the right attitude you can often learn a lot from these 'failures'. Back when I flirted with Cell Biology, every lab I did uniformly went horribly wrong - but this also meant that I had to do a lot of thinking about why they went horribly wrong, which often meant that I came out understanding the experiment and processes involved much better (and I did surprisingly well in the evil end-of-year practical exam). Likewise, in my Physics practicals there was a huge concentration on identifying the sources of, and quantifying, random and systematic error - something which I've been highly appreciative of ever since.

So, if the emphasis is on more than getting the 'correct' result, I don't think that it's a bad thing to learn that these things are difficult to get right; otherwise people don't really learn what doing science is actually like.

Of course, some subjects face more challenges than others in this area; Geology labs are not so much experimental as observational and interpretative - the only way you can really do experimental geology is with an extended project.

Most of the complaints here seem to be by scientists about their intro level courses, which are not necessarily the kinds of courses the nonscience people are taking to fulfill their science credits. I know at the small liberal arts school that I teach at, we offer those 100 level courses for nonscience majors that very rarely see a science person in them.

If you're trying to get nonscientists interested in taking science courses, standing up in front of them and talking on and on means a significant portion of their brain just turns off. Now, put them in the lab and make them actually do something we've talked about in class, and they are involved and talking about it and it becomes much more real to them. That being said, I often take a different approach in these courses than "apply the scientific method to this topic," and I'm teaching in Biology rather than physics, so maybe it's a little easier to do there.

Whenever we brought undergraduates into any research lab (i.e., independent study or work study), we always assumed that they needed to learn every technique. The labs don't teach technique, and they certainly don't teach what doing 'actual' research is like.

I think that the subject makes a difference. I can see how one could learn a lot about physics without ever stepping in a lab, I never learned much in any physics lab I took. In general chemistry the only labs that helped me were the ionic crystal lab and rate reaction lab; however, I don't think I would have made it through organic without the labs. I learned more in the labs then I did in lecture, that is where it all came together. I don't think one can really teach biology without labs in at least some of the classes. Labs in biology (and geology) often involve investigating the subject you are talking about in lecture, dissections, studying structures under a microscope, going into the field and identifying plants, finding and identifying animals, etc.. Things one could never really cover in a lecture, and you had better pay attention because the lab practical will be coming up soon and they are usually harder then the lecture exams.

Undergraduate labs should not be about training undergrads to be lab techs, every lab is different and need techs with different skills. Undergraduate labs for science majors should be about teaching the students science and getting them comfortable working in a lab. Undergraduate labs for non-majors should be for keeping their attention and getting basic concepts through like osmosis, behavior of salts in solutions and other simple concepts that a majors student should be able to grasp without a lab but where a lab may really help a non-science major.

Labs do take a lot of resources, both time and budget, but doing science takes time and budget so I don't think one can train scientists without lab classes. Sure we could hire a professor or two at the CC I am at if we cut out all the labs but would we actually teach more or just offer more options with less content.

Good labs are essential motivation for me. After spending too long following theory and extrapolating, I start to wonder how real any of this is. There's only so far I can go out on a limb from a familiar and secure trunk before I have nagging doubts about what I'm doing.

But then comes an experiment where I personally test some of the predictions and... holy shit, it actually works! Then, I feel much more confident about what I've learned and can take the next step forward. Things like the dependence of Johnson noise on temperature and bandwidth, and 90 degree phase shift at resonance, and how Bode plots can predict stability and oscillation. They were all a little mysterious at first, but after seeing them happen in front of me, and having the chance to play, I can reason about them without being distracted my doubts.

Now, as I've done this more, there's also an increase in how far from experimental evidence I'm comfortable going. So the theory learned is superlinear in the number of experiments conducted. But it's still nice to see experimental validation occasionally.

Thinking about it, the doubts aren't quite that what I'm being taught is wrong, but that what I'm not being taught is important. Pretty much all of science depends on simplified models. Some effects are important, and worth calculating, and others are insignificant and can be ignored. Real systems are affected by all sorts of things, and you can spend eternity calculating minor factors which turn out to e imperceptible.

The thing I appreciate the chance to see is "the real world actually behaves a lot like the simplified model we've been discussing in class". The simplifications are actually justified, and we haven't forgotten anything important.

How they got to be engaging was by presenting us with laboratory problems for which we needed to work out our own strategies, protocols, follow-ups and interpretations -- in other words, we had moved away from cookbook land.

I'm totally in accord with this view. Too much of the thinking about teaching seems to have to do with shoving as much information into students minds as possible. Learning information has nothing to do with developing skills. I think how science is taught needs a big overhaul, but in terms of attitude and approach and expectations of what students learn.

It's too bad there is such a disconnect between the subject experts who are expected to teach subjects and the education experts who study how to teach effectively.

I am a chemistry major right now (going into biology for grad school), and I must say that most of the lab classes I took were pretty much useless. I don't know if it's because they were structured badly, taught badly, or whether it's just endemic to lab classes, but I didn't learn much in the way of experimental techniques (except for very, very basic things like how to use a sep funnel and how to pipette), they didn't integrate well with the lecture courses, and I had to relearn everything anyway, down to the basics, when I started doing research in an organic chemistry lab. I think part of the problem was that the way techniques were done in the undergraduate labs was very different from the way the techniques were done in research labs (probably due to cost, space, and safety constraints), but consequently it taught us very little useful knowledge about the actual science that goes on in the world.

There only good lab class I ever took was graduate lab course, which was essentially like a bunch of mini lab rotations. There were six different projects in six different research labs that was supposed to teach not only how to use different techniques in biophysics (optical microscopy and micromanipulation, magnetic tweezers, FRET, microrheometry, and so on), but also challenged us to get some preliminary results, as these projects were on things that had never been done before. I learned a lot and really enjoyed it. I think the main thing that made it succeed was that I was learning in a very small group in research labs setting, working with the grad students, post-docs, and professors who were experts in these techniques. I started to grasp both the power and the limitations of certain experimental techniques, which would inform my ability to interpret experiments from the literature. It succeeded in a way that none of my other lab classes did.

As a someone who was a laboratory TA for first-year chemistry for eight years (three years while working as a research assistant and five years during my Ph.D.) in a mid-sized Canadian university I've a couple comments about the labs at least in first year.

At our university the laboratory component was not directly linked to the lecture component of the course. You had to pass both to complete the course and they served different purposes. Much of first year lab time is spent introducing students to the tools and skills that they need to understand and use later in their academic careers. Before you can do those complex and interesting problem-solving labs in second, third and fourth year you have to learn the ropes in first year. This includes learning to handle glassware safely, to work relatively independently, to struggle through problems and to come to the laboratory prepared. Due to restraints in high-school few students have had the opportunity to get these skills before they get to University so we have to drill them in during first year. Think of first-year labs as the time you spend with your learner's license before you are allowed to drive alone. It is amazing to see the difference in confidence, skill and preparation between the first and last week in the lab course. So to all the commentors saying that labs don't teach you theory, I would argue that, in first year at least, that is not their role.

The other, equally important role of laboratories in larger schools is to provide students with mentors and help for their studies. In first year chem the prof may have 150+ students in his/her class. The lab is the one opportunity where students can get individual attention and help. I spent more of my office hours helping students with their class-work then I did helping them with their lab-work. Maybe in a small school this wouldn't be the case but in the larger schools this is one of the few places where one-on-one teaching can reasonably happen.

I once went to a talk by Carl Wieman, who claimed that there was empirical evidence showing that most lab courses are educationally ineffective. In my personal experience, labs are the single biggest reason why many students in my university decide not to continue with a physics major (often switching to math instead and restricting themselves to pure theory physics electives). Maybe those in favour of labs think it's a good thing to 'weed' these people out.

Oh, and I have the same experience as Janet: labs come in addition to traditional lectures in a single course, so I effectively have five times the workload for a typical lab-based physics course compared to a philosophy course. And while I never emerge from a philosophy course not having learnt anything, I estimate that I learnt nothing from about half of my physics courses. Perhaps it's just bad implementation on the part of my university, but I suspect bad implementation is more the norm than satisfactory or even good implementation. Which suggests that perhaps there is something inherent in the traditional system which makes it difficult to implement it well.

I've posted about this at least twice today at Uncertain Principles. It's so outrageous that I find effort is needed to stay calm. I've decided not to answer with mere anecdotes about Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, or Biology labs I've taken and/or taught.

Steve Gimbel: "[E]verything I know about physics, I learned from my theory classes."

I have to say that it makes me wonder:

(1) How much DOES Steve Gimbel know about physics?

(2) How bad must his Lab teachers have been?

(3) Does he believe that every student has the same learning style?

(4) Does he believe that every teacher has the same teaching style?

(5) Does he appreciate how important Laboratory experience was to many of the greatest theorists? For instance, Albert Einstein's early lab time, before he was able to set that aside in favor of gedankenexperiments?

It's hard for me to address such an absurd claim by Steve Gimbel as if were a genuine proposition, and not some half-assed political ploy, or pig-ignorant rant. It is about as "provocative" as throwing a black widow spider into a facukty lounge.

As a physics TA back in the 70's, I aquired a distinctly negative impression of the value of the laboratory experience from the perspective of one whose back is to the chalk board.

To GET that TA, of course, I spent 4 years with my face to the chalk board in laboratories. And I loved it. But I was a science major, and a hands-on kind of learner who expected that it was not the principle but the care in technique, observation and recording that I was learning. God! if I needed to SEE gravity work to accept its operation I should have taken up philosophy!

Not at all the same however for 15 or 20 pre-med weenies who just want to be at the beach or anywhere but in a basement purgatory called "kinetics and electrostatics" with some geek who possesses the teaching finesse of a farmer but holds the key to that "easy A" they need for their science requirement.

The little shits broke things I had never even managed to scratch. I resorted to writing simulations of the experirments so they could effectively run them a hundred times to get a feel for the behavior of the underlying equations..which after all, were what they would be tested on.

In the end, it all worked out ok...I became a software engineer based on all the programming I had secretly enjoyed more than the teaching and probably have made a much better living because of it.

i'm gonna disagree with most folks on here.

i had a great introductory laboratory experience in general chemistry and then the upper labs were not so good. but again, it has to do with how "cook book" the lab is. the lab course was taught by someone who was DEDICATED to teaching us students how to be scientists, not just read instructions. teaching us to be comfortable in a lab using equipment, thinking up problems. and by the end of the lab we were. granted, most of us spent about 10hrs per week in the lab and another 10 outside learning to interpret our results, and understanding the science behind what we were doing. and all of this for zero credit (the lab course being an "extension" of the lecture from which we learned nothing and for which we earned four credits).

but...it takes a dedicated teacher and dedicated students. even tho it was a "general chem" course it was an advanced one that you had to take an exam to get into. it was the best lab course i ever took.

and i also had some good bio lab experiences.

in fact, my only bad undergrad lab experience was in physics.

the school i'm at now (doing my phd work) there is virtually no undergrad bio and no biochem labs--they take the tack of the kids should learn lab skills/science by doing undergrad research. well, guess what? that doesn't work any better than bad lab courses because the prof/postdoc/grad student basically has to spell out every step of what they are supposed to do in that case too.

I'm going to take a middle ground here. As a professor at a small liberal arts school, I agree with Steve that we have too many labs. Some labs are necessary. Some labs are absolutely essential. But we overdo it because it's the paradigm that we use. If everyone else is doing a huge lab, then so should I. I feel that at my school, the lab courses are so involved that it prevents the students from doing more independent projects, and it occupies so much faculty time that we cannot direct more independent student work.

But, to say that labs aren't necessary (which I realize that Steve isn't saying that) is going too far. A few well designed lab courses in a curriculum are very essential, but the difficulty is assessing the balance, both for the students and the faculty. As I said, at my school, pretty much every upper division course has a lab, and I feel that some of the reason is equity in faculty workload. If some of us don't have a lab, then either we have a lighter teaching load, or we have to teach a completely different prep.

It would be great if we could have a few, really well-designed labs in our curriculum, and then free up student and faculty time to direct more independent work. Unfortunately, at my school, I just don't see that happening any time soon due to politics.

I have a CCLI grant from the NSF to do this very thing: www.convertingcookbooks.missouri.edu

Collaborators welcome.

Ah, Geology 101 lab, where one learned, inter alia, that it was a slam dunk to identify halite by taste and limestone by the application of a little dilute HCl. Of course there had to be one student on the lab exam who dropped HCl on anything and everything, no matter how un-carbonate-like, and then everyone downstream got to taste HCl on the most likely halite sample.