Model comparison is at the heart of all scientific methodologies. Progress is made in science by constructing many models (possibly of different complexities), testing them against measurements, and determining which of them explain the data the best. It is my observation, however, that in many introductory physics labs we provide students with the materials and methods to verify the “correct” model of the experiment they are performing, e.g. measuring “g” or verifying the period of a pendulum. In this way, we do our students a disservice and don’t allow them to experience the richness and creativity that constitutes the scientific enterprise. Limiting the lab to the “correct” model can have its uses—for example, getting the students to practice the proper methods to measure lengths and times or to support the specific theory covered in the lecture portion of the class. However, when students perform these labs, they come to view these activities as repetitive and mechanical, reinforcing the notion that science concerns not the true exploration of nature but simply the verification of what we already know. By verifying what we already know, the laboratory experience does not improve overall understanding and can mislead students about the methods of science overall.

1.
Natasha G.
Holmes
and
Carl E.
Wieman
, “
Introductory physics labs: We can do better
,”
Phys. Today
71
(
1
),
38
45
(
Jan.
2018
).
2.
N. G.
Holmes
and
D. A.
Bonn
, “
Quantitative comparisons to promote inquiry in the introductory physics lab
,”
Phys. Teach.
53
,
352
355
(
Sept.
2015
).
3.
Patrik
Vogt
and
Jochen
Kuhn
, “
Analyzing free fall with a smartphone acceleration sensor
,”
Phys. Teach.
50
,
182
183
(
March
2012
).
4.
Paul
Gluck
, “
Air resistance on falling balls and balloons
,”
Phys. Teach.
41
,
178
180
(
March
2003
).
5.
Norman F.
Derby
,
Robert G.
Fuller
, and
Phil W.
Gronseth
, “
The ubiquitous coffee filter
,”
Phys. Teach.
35
,
168
171
(
March
1997
).
6.
Derrick E.
Boucher
, “
A perspective on motion sensors and free-fall
,”
Am. J. Phys.
83
,
948
951
(
Nov.
2015
).
7.
Loo Kang
Wee
,
Kim Kia
Tan
,
Tze Kwang
Leong
, and
Ching
Tan
, “
Using Tracker to understand ‘toss up’ and free fall motion: A case study
,”
Phys. Educ.
50
(
4
),
436
(
2015
).
8.
Angus M.
Brown
, “
A step-by-step guide to non-linear regression analysis of experimental data using a Microsoft excel spreadsheet
,”
Comput. Methods Programs Biomed.
65
(
3
),
191
200
(
2001
).
9.
Matthew
Newville
,
Till
Stensitzki
,
Daniel B
Allen
,
Michal
Rawlik
,
Antonino
Ingargiola
, and
Andrew
Nelson
, “
Lmfit: Non-linear least-square minimization and curve-fitting for Python
,”
Astrophys. Source Code Lib.
(
2016
).
10.
William
Harper
, “
Newton’s methodology and Mercury’s perihelion before and after Einstein
,”
Philos. Sci.
74
(
5
),
932
942
(
2007
).
11.
Richard A
Young
, “
Improving the data analysis for falling coffee filters
,”
Phys. Teach.
39
,
398
400
(
Oct.
2001
).
12.
Joshua B.
Tenenbaum
,
Charles
Kemp
,
Thomas L
Griffiths
, and
Noah D.
Goodman
, “
How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction
,”
Sci.
331
(
6022
),
1279
1285
(
2011
).
13.
David J.
Spiegelhalter
,
Nicola G.
Best
,
Bradley P.
Carlin
, and
Angelika
Van Der Linde
, “
Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit
,”
J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Stat. Method.)
64
(
4
)
583
639
(
2002
).
14.
The global climate continues to warm rapidly
,” https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-pause.htm, accessed April
2019
.
15.
Richard B.
Kidd
and
Stuart L.
Fogg
. “
A simple formula for the large-angle pendulum period
,”
Phys. Teach.
40
,
81
83
(
Feb.
2002
).
16.
Rajesh R.
Parwani
, “
An approximate expression for the large angle period of a simple pendulum
,”
Eur. J. Phys.
25
(
1
),
37
(
2003
).
AAPT members receive access to The Physics Teacher and the American Journal of Physics as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.