What is possible for students to perceive or discern in a laboratory depends on the measurement technology used, even when the object of learning is the same¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer2·q1
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? A phenomenological affordance analysis of three labs studying the same motion in an inclined plane confirms that what is possible to perceive or discern depends on the technology used. → Jonte Bernhard 2018
Evidence¶
Jonte Bernhard 2018¶
Jonte Bernhard. (2018). What matters for students' learning in the laboratory? Do not neglect the role of experimental equipment! Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9469-x
q1 · i? · qualitative · r2
A comparative phenomenological inquiry (RQ1) of three regular labs in Swedish university courses, analysing the affordances of photogates, tape timer and probeware for studying uniformly accelerated motion in an inclined plane, summarised in Tables 2 and 3, confirming that "what is possible to perceive or discern depends on the technology used".
"Table 2 summarises the affordances of the measurement technologies used for studying motion in an inclined plane applied in the three cases, and confirms that what is possible to perceive or discern depends on the technology used."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Students' courses of action differed by instrumentation: photogate and tape-timer groups centred on numbers and dots with motion concepts rare, while probeware groups centred on motion concepts — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Photogates do not determine the sign of velocity, cannot show zero velocity with non-zero acceleration at the turning point, and afford the Δv/Δx rather than the Δv/Δt definition of acceleration — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Probeware affords measurement of acceleration at the cart's highest point after an upward push, permitting the fallacy that acceleration is zero there to be addressed — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- The tape timer affords study of downward motion only, so the direction of acceleration and the acceleration at the turning point cannot be addressed — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Material arrangement of artifacts (strips centered and ordered by length, worksheets held close) affords and stabilizes the initial pattern of activity; later decentralization enables new patterns — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
technology-determines-discernible-critical-features-labs |
title |
What is possible for students to perceive or discern in a laboratory depends on the measurement technology used, even when the object of learning is the same |
description |
What is possible for students to perceive or discern in a laboratory depends on the measurement technology used, even when the object of learning is the same |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — jonte-bernhard-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.