No abstract

The purpose of the investigation was to compare the learning outcomes of the conventional and the demonstration methods in the general physics laboratory. The achievement criteria were two pencil-paper tests on mechanics theory and laboratory and two laboratory-performance examinations. The analysis of variance and covariance techniques was used to study the effects of the methods, the instructor, and the interactions between methods and instructors. The effects of the following variables were partialled out: scores on the ACE Psychological Examination, scores on a mathematics test, and grades on a pre-test corresponding to each of the four criteria. It was found that the means on one of the performance tests were significantly higher for groups taught by the conventional method. No statistically significant differences in the means traceable to the two methods were found on the other three criteria. No statistically significant differences in the means of the four criteria were traceable to the differences in the four instructors or the interactions between the instructors and methods. The conventional method appeared to be more effective in teaching the simple manipulatory techniques, the understanding of instrumental set-ups, and the skill in solving simple problems using apparatus and materials of the elementary laboratory.

No abstract

A simple way of viewing Brownian motion using a laser is described.

Two general physics laboratory groups were compared in achievement with a group enrolled in the same course without laboratory. The achievement was measured by two pencil-paper examinations and two laboratory performance tests. The analysis of variance and covariance method was used to hold constant three measures of initial differences among students. There were no statistically significant differences between the means of the groups on the mechanics theory test. The laboratory groups were significantly better than the no-laboratory group on all tests dealing with laboratory work.