Students’ opinions on the educational value of physics laboratories: a cross-sectional survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physics laboratories are currently under pressure to reform because of the growing evidence that students are not learning effectively in the lab. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on what the most important goals for the laboratories should be or how to implement them. With the overall value and purpose of physics laboratories in question, we have set out to determine the opinions of the students themselves. How valuable do students perceive physics labs to be, what skills do they find useful in the lab, and what kinds of lab technologies do they prefer? We accomplished this through a nationwide cross-sectional online survey of physics majors, at both undergraduate and graduate levels, receiving responses from a total of 445 students from 20 post-secondary Canadian institutions. The present survey shows that students recognize the usefulness of many laboratory aspects. However, despite the best intentions of educators, there are a few components that students do not find as useful.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it