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, 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.

Figure 1

Structure of research questions and subquestions for triangulation.

Figure 2

A concept map summarizing the key relationships between the student interview themes and the dimensions of the research questions. Red, green, and blue nodes indicate overarching themes broadly related to peer interactions, TA interactions, and lab structure, respectively. Each arrow corresponds one of the specific themes listed in Table 3.

Figure 3

Labatorial and traditional lab pretest score distributions.

Figure 4

Schematic of hierarchical summarization framework.

Figure 5

A concept map summarizing the key relationships between the TA interview themes and the dimensions of the research questions. Red, green, and blue nodes indicate overarching themes broadly related to peer interactions, TA interactions, and lab structure, respectively. Each arrow corresponds one of the specific themes listed in Table 7.

Figure 6

Raw compilation of occurrences of conceptual gain and difficulty for labatorial and traditional lab students in lab 4 across data sources. The number of stars in a cell represents the number of times signs of conceptual gain or loss were identified in the corresponding data source (column). The different colors are used as a means of quickly identifying occurrences of corresponding concepts (rows) in the different quadrants. For the “scores” column, the letter P/F is used to denote whether the score (XX%) is from a post-test or final exam.

Figure 7

Refined compilation of occurrences of conceptual gain and difficulty for labatorial and traditional lab students in lab 4. The notation used is the same as that in Fig. 6. The colors again are used as a means of quickly identifying occurrences of corresponding concepts (rows) in the different quadrants, but the specific colors chosen are arbitrary, and so there is no connection to the colors used in Fig. 6.