ERIC EJ886169: Science Laboratory Experiences of High School Students across One State in the U.S.: Descriptive Research from the Classroom

2008·0.49 MB·English

by  ERIC

Todd Campbell, Chad Bohn
Science Laboratory Experiences of
High School Students Across One
State in the U.S.: Descriptive
Research from the Classroom.
This study examined the science laboratory experiences of high school
students in Utah.
Introduction proclamations regarding the effectively … requires direct
The National Research Council’s importance of laboratory experiences, involvement with phenomena
(2005) publication America’s Lab stating: and much discussion of how to
Report: Investigations in High School The American Chemical Society interpret observations.
Science provided the impetus for is similarly committed to quality Both NSTA and the NRC
this study. In the NRC report, the laboratory experiences: their believe that quality laboratory
experiences of high school students Guidelines for the Teaching of experiences provide students
nationally are described along with High School Chemistry states with opportunities to interact
recommendations for improving and “the laboratory experience directly with natural phenomena
supporting these experiences. Since must be an integral part of and with data collected by others.
the NRC report was published and any meaningful chemistry Developmentally appropriate
this research project was initiated, program. ACS recommends that laboratory experiences that
science laboratory experiences for approximately thirty percent integrate labs, lecture, discussion,
students have received still greater of instructional time should be and reading about science are
prominence in the U.S. as leaders devoted to laboratory work.” essential for students of all ages
of the National Science Teachers and ability levels. (Froschauer,
The American Association for
Association (NSTA) testified to 2007, p. 2)
the Advancement of Science
the U.S. House of Representatives
Project 206 Designs for Science Beyond this testimony and the belief
Subcommittee on Research and
Literacy states “Learning science in the importance of science laboratory
Science Education. Linda Froschauer,
experiences for students expressed
current NSTA President, articulated
by the ACS, AAAS, and the NRC,
the organization’s strong commitment
At a time when science the NSTA has recently revised and
to laboratory experiences stating
education is continually published a new position statement
that “Science educators are firmly
titled The Integral Role of Laboratory
committed to the role of the laboratory being shaped by research
Investigations in Science Instruction.
in the teaching and learning of in teaching, learning, and
This position statement states:
chemistry, physics, biology, and earth cognition, science laboratory
For science to be taught properly
sciences” (Froschauer, 2007, p. 2). experiences seem poised as
and effectively, labs must be
Froschauer further emphasized the
the vehicle through which
an integral part of the science
importance of laboratory experiences
reform efforts are most
curriculum . . .NSTA strongly
by referring to leading science and
readily facilitated. believes that developmentally
science education organizations
36 Science educator
appropriate laboratory for ensuring the quality of these
investigations are essential for experiences. This research sought to
Not only have leading
students of all ages and ability address this deficiency by employing
national science education
levels … both quantitative and qualitative
organizations called for
methods to illuminate students’
Inquiry-based laboratory
inquiry instruction, they have
experiences in science laboratories, as
investigations at every level
well as the perceived needs of teachers gone so far as to recognize
should be at the core of the
facilitating them. Just as Utah science and promote student inquiry
science program and should be
woven into every lesson and education leaders saw this research in the science classroom
as the initial step in the process of
concept strand (NSTA, 2007). as a central strategy for
helping committed science teachers
instruction at all grade
This research was initiated and
continually improve laboratory
conducted in Utah where science experiences, it can also serve to focus levels.
education leaders have expressed a and direct other states and nations in
commitment to science laboratory appraising and improving their own
experiences aligned to those articulated events, ask questions, construct
students’ experiences.
by these leading science organizations. explanations, test those explanations
Science Laboratory Literature
Utah is not unique in its interest in against current scientific knowledge,
science laboratory experiences for At a time when science education is and communicate their ideas to
students. Most other states nationally, continually being shaped by research others” (NRC, 996, p. 2). Research
as well as most nations globally, have in teaching, learning, and cognition, into teaching and learning, as well as
long been proponents of science science laboratory experiences seem leading national science education
laboratory experiences. poised as the vehicle through which organizations, support a shift in
While the National Research reform efforts are most readily science instruction that moves away
Council’s (2005) report provides facilitated. Historically, science from laboratory experiences that
important information about science laboratory experiences have been illustrate, demonstrate, and verify
laboratory experiences occurring in seen as venues for illustrating, known concepts, and moves towards
schools nationally and guidance for demonstrating, and verifying known inquiry experiences (AAAS, 993;
improving these experiences, the concepts and laws (Hofstein & Chang & Mao, 999; Ertepinar &
review of the research evidence for Lunetta, 982; NRC, 2005). While this Geban, 996; Hakkarainen, 2003;
synthesizing this report was drawn historical vision for science laboratory NRC, 996; NRC, 2005; NSTA, 998;
from the following three strands: ) experiences was tied to the beliefs Schwartz, Lederman , & Crawford,
cognitive research, 2) research into about teaching and learning practiced 2004). Not only have leading national
stand alone labs, and 3) research at that time, these same approaches science education organizations
projects sequencing laboratory are out of step with current research called for inquiry instruction, they
experiences within the science on teaching, learning, and design have gone so far as to recognize and
instructional unit. Very few research principles that have revealed promise promote student inquiry in the science
projects have been undertaken on for increasing the effectiveness of classroom as a central strategy for
a large scale spanning a significant laboratory experiences. instruction at all grade levels (AAAS,
geographic area to provide an account Reform efforts in science education 993; NRC, 996; NRC, 2005; NSTA,
of the actual experiences of high emphasize engaging students in 998, NSTA 2007). This shift has
school students. The science education experiences as opposed to rote been fueled by research into inquiry
leaders of Utah recognized the limited demonstrations. This is facilitated instruction which has revealed great
amount of data available to describe through engaging students in inquiry promise for increasing students’
the actual experiences of high school experiences. The National Science understanding of science (Chang &
students, and more specifically, the Education Standards describes inquiry Mao, 999; Ertepinar & Geban, 996;
lack of data available in Utah that could experiences as those that allow Hakkarainen, 2003), understanding
be used to plan supportive initiatives students to “describe objects and of the nature of science (Schwartz,
Spring 2008 Vol. 17, no. 1 37
Lederman , & Crawford, 2004), drawn from a stratified random sample.
and increasing students’ interest and The stratified random sample was used
Teacher interviews revealed
attitudes toward science (Cavallo & in an effort to obtain as representative
little about students
Laubach, 200; Chang & Mao, 999; a sample of (9-2) science teachers
framing research questions
Paris, Yambor, & Packard, 998). across the state as possible, given
or designing their own
The National Research Council’s the resources and budget available.
(2005) report heightened the science experiments. District size, diversity, and the
education communities’ focus on socioeconomic status of the students
laboratory experiences. This report served were the three factors used to
called for increased focus on these likely to increase the effectiveness stratify the forty school districts found
experiences with regard to the type of laboratory experiences, the design in Utah. More specifics of the sampling
of experiences most often afforded principles typically employed did not can be found in Table . After schools
to students. While care was taken align with research on cognition and were categorized and placed in Table 
to refrain from using this report learning. according to these three characteristics,
as a means of condemning those Based on this literature and the the sample was obtained by randomly
involved in ensuring that effective recognized need for an appraisal selecting two districts from each cell.
laboratory experiences are provided of the actual science laboratory This facilitated the selection of 2
to high school students, many of the experiences of high school students, districts. Within each selected district,
findings that emerged presented a the following questions guided the two schools serving 9-2 students were
less than satisfactory assessment of research completed in Utah: randomly selected. Up to five teachers
current conditions. The following are . What are the experiences of high were randomly selected as possible
highlights of this less than satisfactory school students in science labora- participants and requests were made
assessment: tories across the state? for a classroom observation of one
class period while selected teachers
• The quality of laboratory experiences 2. What differences in science labo-
is poor for most students … access ratory experiences, if any, are oc- were facilitating science laboratory
to any type of laboratory experience curring between schools serving experiences.
is unevenly distributed. differing racial, ethnic, and socio- Because all schools serving students
with 9-2 students were included in
• Most students, regardless of race or economic groups?
the random selection process, in the
level of science class, participate in a
3. What are the perceived needs for
end 2 districts participated. Within
range of laboratory experiences that
improving science laboratory expe-
these districts, 5 high schools,  K-
are not based on design principles
riences for our state’s high school
2 School, and 3 junior high schools
derived from recent research in
students?
participated.
science learning. (NRC, 2005,
The second group of participants
p. 197) Research Method
for the research was drawn from a
Traditional approaches to science Both quantitative and qualitative
request to all 9-2 science teachers
laboratory experiences were offered methods were chosen for this
in Utah to participate. This second
as an explanation for these less research. These methods were
group completed a questionnaire/
than satisfactory conditions. These deemed fit for this inquiry because
needs assessment that was used to
traditional approaches were described a straight forward description of the
triangulate the findings from classroom
as experiences that, among other phenomena being studied—science
observations and teacher interviews
things, are rarely designed to integrate laboratory experiences—was desired
emerging from the stratified sampling.
learning of the content of science with (Sandelowski, 2000).
Data emerging from this second group
learning about the process of science The Context and Participants
were also used in conjunction with the
(NRC, 2005). Not only have traditional Two groups of participants were
teacher interviews to reveal teachers’
laboratory experiences focused on selected to participate in this research.
perceived needs for improving science
instructional strategies that are less The first group of participants was
laboratory experiences.
38 Science educator
Table 1: District Categorization and Numbers of Districts in each Category
Small (Less than 12,200 Students) Large (Greater than 12,200 Students)
Low Diversity (Greater than 85% White Student Population)
High Socioeconomic Student
Population
10 Disticts 7 Districts
(Less than 39% Free-Reduced
Lunch)
Low Socioeconomic Student
Population
15 Districts 0 Districts
(Greater than 39% Free-
Reduced Lunch)
High Diversity (Less than 85% White Student Population)
High Socioeconomic Student
Population
2 Districts 0 Districts
(Less than 39% Free-Reduced
Lunch)
Low Socioeconomic Student
Population
2 Districts 4 Districts
(Greater than 39% Free-
Reduced Lunch)
Research Methods and 2000) was used by the research reliability with the RTOP through
Instruments project team members to complete trial ratings of videocassettes from
classroom observations. The RTOP is classrooms instructed by teachers not
Classroom Observations and
an instrument constructed to measure participating in the project. Inter-rater
Teacher Interviews
“reformed” teaching as described reliability was established at two stages
Classroom observations and
by the national science standards in the project, once before beginning
teacher interviews were used to
documents (AAAS, 989; NRC, 996). classroom observations and again at
illuminate the high school students’
The theoretical constructs guiding the the halfway point in the classroom
experiences in science laboratories
design of the instrument, along with observation window. At each stage
across the state and any differences in
reliability and validity information and inter-rater reliability was determined
these experiences occurring between
results of an exploratory factor analysis to be at or greater than .80.
schools serving differing racial,
of the RTOP, can be found in Piburn Teacher interviews were completed
ethnic, and socioeconomic groups.
et al. (2000). Because the RTOP was by the three research project team
The teacher interviews were also used
created using the national standards members using a teacher interview
to reveal teachers’ perceived needs
documents in science, it was found protocol constructed to guide the
for improving science laboratory
to be aligned to the recommendations interviews. All forty teachers, who
experiences for high school students.
for improving science laboratory agreed to participate in the classroom
The forty teachers drawn from the
experiences in the National Research observations, participated in the
stratified random sample participated
Council’s (2005) report. teacher interviews.
in these classroom observations.
To become familiar with the RTOP Questionnaire/Needs Assessment
Once classrooms were selected, the
three research project team members instrument, the research project team The Questionnaire/Needs
completed the classroom observations members participated in a one day Assessment was used to triangulate
training session with a competent
and teacher interviews. findings regarding the high school
The Reform Teaching Observation trainer/researcher experienced in students’ experiences in science
Rubric (RTOP) (Piburn, Sawada, using the instrument. The three project laboratories across the state, and
Falconer, Turley, Benford, & Bloom, team members established inter-rater any differences in these experiences
Spring 2008 Vol. 17, no. 1 39
occurring between schools serving racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic emerging from the initial analysis
differing racial, ethnic, and groups. This was completed by first were revisited to detect any differences
socioeconomic groups. Additionally, determining whether or not statistically among groups.
it was used in conjunction with the significant differences occurred Credibility of Analysis
teacher interviews to reveal teachers’ between classrooms observed based Peer examination occurred at each
perceived needs for improving science on the three factors investigated stage of data analysis (Merriam, 998).
laboratory experiences for high school (district size, district socioeconomic For all stages of qualitative analysis
students. The Questionnaire/Needs groups served, and district diversity described, two researchers from the
Assessment was delivered online as the indicators). Descriptive statistics and research project team worked together
online survey URL was sent through results of these statistical analyses in analysis to achieve agreement on
email invitation to teachers from 39 of were determined for each of the three the emerging themes.
the 40 school districts or 693 (9-2) factors, while a series of independent-
Questionnaire/Needs Assessment
science teachers. Of the 679 teachers samples t-tests were also conducted for
After the Questionnaire/Needs
that were sent the request to participate each outcome variable from the RTOP
Assessments were completed, the
and whose e-mails were not returned, for each of the three factors.
results were analyzed by the online
2 teachers participated. This number
survey instrument with the exception
represented a 3% response rate for the
of the two open ended questions in
instrument (2/679). This response
Many teachers have some the survey. The open-ended questions
rate, while not high, is considered
reservations about the completed as part of the instrument
acceptable with 3% being the
extent to which they feel were analyzed to identify emerging
average rate for online surveys (DIIA,
themes. As with the teacher interview
prepared to lead students in
2007). It is also important to note that
analysis, peer examination occurred
teachers from 32 of the 39 districts laboratories, to emphasize
in the thematic analysis of the open-
surveyed did participate, signifying a science process alongside
ended questions (Merriam, 998).
high proportion of the districts were science content.
included. Findings and Discussion
Data Analysis The research findings and discussion
Teacher Interviews
of the findings are presented for each
RTOP In illuminating the high school
research question.
Descriptive statistics of RTOP students’ experiences in science
scores from all classroom observations laboratories across the state and Research Question 1: What are the
were first used to reveal the students’ revealing teachers’ perceived needs experiences of high school students
science laboratory experiences across for improving science laboratory in science laboratories across the
the state. The scores for the RTOP experiences for high school students, state?
were then separated into the different data emerging from the teacher The experiences of high school
subscales of the RTOP to reveal more interviews were first analyzed to students were first revealed through
about students’ experiences. Statistical detect themes present from the forty the findings of the Classroom
analysis was then completed to reveal teachers as a whole. In determining Observations using the Reformed
whether statistically significant whether any differences in these Teaching Observation Protocol
differences occurred when comparing experiences occurred between districts (RTOP) The RTOP findings are
the different subscales of the RTOP. serving differing racial, ethnic, and described as the extent to which
Because the RTOP was used as socioeconomic groups, the interviews students were engaged in classrooms,
a key indicator for revealing high were then separated into groups facilitated in a manner aligned with
school students science laboratory based on the three factors being national standards documents. The
experiences, comparisons of scores investigated (district size, district RTOP instrument allows for scores
were used to investigate the extent socioeconomic groups served, and from 0-00, with 0 not aligning to
to which differences occurred district diversity indicators). After standards documents and 00 aligned
between schools serving differing groups were separated, the themes to standards documents.
40 Science educator
Table 2: Descriptive statistics for the entire sample:
Mean Median SD n Max Min
RTOP total score 53.46 54 17.21 40 88 20
LESSON DESIGN 8.53 7 3.92 40 17 3
PROPOSITIONAL 14.1 14 3.51 40 19 4
PROCEDURAL 8.45 7.5 4.12 40 18 2
COMMUNICATIVE 9.85 10 3.68 40 16 3
S/T RELATIONS 12.55 13.5 4.62 40 20 3
Table 3: Percentage of teachers within specific ranges of scores for the RTOP
Score Range Number of Teachers in Range Percentage of Teachers in Range
1 – 33 points n = 14 35%
34 – 65 points n = 21 52.5%
66 – 100 points n = 5 12.5%
Table 2 reveals the descriptive To complete this analysis, a one- The classroom observations and
statistics for the sample as a whole. way within-subjects (or repeated- teacher interviews collectively
This table is followed by information measures) ANOVA was conducted to provided insight into the experiences
about the percentage of teachers’ total compare scores from the five RTOP of high school students in science
score for the RTOP found for the subscales within the same teachers. laboratories across the state. The
different ranges of scores: between Results indicated a significant overall classroom observations revealed
) -33, 2) 34-65, and 3) 66-00. (See effect, F(4, 56) = 50.48, p < .000. that students’ experiences in science
Table 3.) Results of follow-up tests indicated laboratories were somewhat aligned
To learn more about the RTOP that means from all pairs of subscales with reformed teaching as described
results found and the experiences differed significantly from each other by the standards documents
of students in the classroom, the except for the comparison between (AAAS, 989; NRC, 996). This
results were divided into the different Procedural and Lesson Design was evidenced in an average score
subscales of the instrument to subscale scores. See Figure  below. approximately midway between
elucidate any differences
which were occurring F igFuigruer e1 :1 : AAvveerraaggee s csocroerse fso rf eoarc eha scuhb sscuables coaf ltehe o RfT tOhPe (R20T pOoPin t(s2 p0o spsoibinlet)s possible)
between the factors
16.00
important in reformed
14.00
teaching: ) Lesson
12.00
Design, 2) Propositional,
10.00
3) Procedural, 4) n
a 8.00
Communicative, and 5) e
M
6.00
S/T Relations. These
subscale scores were 4.00
then compared to reveal 2.00
whether or not statistically 0.00
sbsecixegoitsnrwteiesfedi ec.onan n tpt hader itfisfcueibrpseacnnaclteesss’ LESS O N DESIG N PR OPOSITIO NAL PR O CEDURAL C O M M UNICATIVE S/T RELATIO NS
Spring 2008 Vol. 17, no. 1 4
reformed teaching and what might The teacher interviews also revealed
be considered more traditional that high school students were
Typically the traditional
facilitation. It is important to note not engaging in framing research
laboratory experience
that more teachers (35% with RTOP questions, or commonly found
is seen as a venue for
score between -33 compared to designing experiments. The interviews
illustrating, demonstrating,
2.5% with RTOP scores between did reveal that students are executing
66-00) were observed facilitating and verifying known experiments, gathering and analyzing
instruction more aligned with concepts and laws. data, and constructing arguments,
traditional approaches to instruction. but these experiments were designed
When parsing the RTOP average by the teacher. The questionnaire/
scores to compare classroom of a learning community, that values needs assessment revealed findings
experiences in the areas measured a variety of solutions to problems, similar to those emerging from both
by the different subscales, Figure and that often takes its direction from the classroom observations and the
 reveals a much higher average ideas generated by students” (Piburn teacher interviews. Teacher interviews
score for propositional knowledge et al. , 2000, p. 8). This subscale was revealed little about students framing
when compared to other subscales found diminished in comparison to the research questions or designing
associated with reformed teaching. propositional knowledge subscale and their own experiments. The results
The average scores for lesson approximately equal to the procedural from the classroom observations
design and procedural knowledge knowledge division of the Content whereby lesson design and procedural
were approximately the same and subscale. Teacher interviews revealed knowledge subscales were found to
the lowest of all subscales. When that most teachers used science be lowest on average were consistent
compared, a statistical difference laboratory experiences for more of with the teacher interview findings.
was found between all subscales what the NRC (2005) report describes When teachers were asked in the
except lesson design and procedural as “secondary applications of concepts questionnaire/needs assessment
knowledge. previously addressed by the teacher” whether students [in their classrooms]
These findings reveal a strong (NRC, 2005, p. 25). design procedures for testing their own
commitment and emphasis on The NRC (2005) report also predictions, estimations or hypothesis
propositional knowledge—one of revealed that laboratory experiences in science laboratory experiences,
two division of the RTOP Content were rarely designed to integrate seventy-four percent responded
subscale—that assessed “the quality learning of the content of science seldom or sometimes. While the report
of the content of the lesson” (Piburn with learning about the process of here by teachers may be a little more
et al., 2000, p. 8). When comparing science. The findings from this study than what was revealed in classroom
the propositional knowledge to the revealed little difference in this area observations and in teacher interviews
other smaller division of the content throughout the state as was reflected as far as the extent to which students
subscale, procedural knowledge, in several teachers’ response to the are engaged in design, it is consistent
this commitment and emphasis question: Please explain how science in revealing that students do not
was diminished. This procedural content and process are emphasized engage in question framing and design
knowledge division of the content in the science unit, “I am not sure to the extent suggested in standards
subscale revealed the quality of “the what you mean by emphasizing documents aligned to reformed
process of inquiry” (Piburn et al., 2000, science process.” When teachers did teaching and leading to attainment of
p. 8) experienced by students. discuss process, the strategy most science laboratory goals.
The Lesson Design subscale of often employed involved the scientific Research Question 2: What
the RTOP was designed to assess method. An emphasis questioned in differences in science laboratory
“the model for reformed teaching. science education literature, due to experiences, if any, are occurring
It describes a lesson that begins a possible misrepresentation of the between schools serving differing
with recognition of students’ prior nature of science linked to the scientific racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic
knowledge and preconceptions, that method (McComas, 2004; Schwartz, groups?
attempts to engage students as members Lederman , & Crawford, 2004).
42 Science educator
Because the RTOP was used as was no significant difference between science laboratory experiences.
a key indicator for revealing high scores of teachers from districts When asked directly, teachers, for
school students’ science laboratory serving students from high and low the most part, revealed confidence in
experiences, comparisons of scores socioeconomic groups on the Lesson the level of preparation they received
were used to investigate the extent Design subscale. in science content (seventy-four
to which differences were occurring While no differences where found percent prepared or very prepared),
between districts serving populations when comparing districts with respect ability to lead students in science
characterized by differing sizes, to size or diversity differences, laboratory experiences where students
diversity characteristics, and findings revealing difference based on are using laboratories tools and
socioeconomic status. socioeconomic differences are cause procedures, making observations,
Three comparisons were made to for attention. Because evidence has and gathering data (eighty-seven
determine whether or not statistically been gathered to support a relationship percent confident or very confident),
significant differences occurred between increased RTOP scores and and in assessing students in science
between ) classrooms observed in student academic performance (Piburn laboratory experiences (eighty-three
large districts compared to small et al., 2000, p. 24), there is need for percent confident or very confident).
districts, 2) districts serving students additional attention to ensure that
with low socioeconomic groups students from districts serving lower
compared to districts serving students socioeconomic groups are not being
in higher socioeconomic groups, and underserved by their experiences in Research into teaching and
3) districts serving student populations the science classroom. learning as well as leading
with low diversity compared to Research Question 3: What are national science education
districts serving student populations the perceived needs for improving organizations support a shift
with high diversity. A series of science laboratory experiences for
in science instruction away
independent-samples t-tests were high school students?
from laboratory experiences
conducted for each outcome variable Both the questionnaire/needs
from the RTOP. assessment and teacher interviews that illustrate, demonstrate,
Results of the comparisons were used to reveal science teachers’ and verify known concepts
indicated that there were ) no perceived needs for improving science and toward inquiry
significant differences between laboratory experiences for high school experiences.
teachers from large and small school students. The discussion of these is
districts, 2) significant differences organized according to the following
between teachers from districts categories: ) Teacher Preparation
serving students from high and for Laboratory Experiences, 2) While sixty-six percent of the
low socioeconomic groups, and 3) Laboratory Facilities, Equipment, and teachers revealed that they felt
no significant differences between Safety, and 3) Other influences and prepared or very prepared because
teachers from districts serving student information about science laboratory of the science process knowledge
populations with high diversity versus experiences. they received in their undergraduate
low diversity student populations. education, thirty-six percent of the
Teacher Preparation for
Where significant differences were teachers expressed that they felt either
Laboratory Experiences
found between teachers from districts unprepared or only somewhat prepared.
serving students from high and low Our research in this area was Similar findings were revealed when
socioeconomic groups significantly informed by both asking teachers the teachers were asked to identify their
higher scores on the RTOP total extent to which they felt comfortable confidence in leading students in
score, and Propositional, Procedural, regarding certain aspects of facilitating science laboratory experiences where
Communicative, and S/T Relations science laboratories and by responses students pose the question, design and
subscales were observed (p < .05) offered by teachers when given an carry out the procedures to master
for the districts serving higher opportunity to share openly whatever science core content, and intended
socioeconomic groups, while there they felt was important to facilitate learning outcomes. Sixty-four percent
Spring 2008 Vol. 17, no. 1 43
expressed they felt confident or very Teachers did however, on some levels, themes coming from teachers was a
confident, and thirty-four percent seem cognizant of the importance of lack of funding for science laboratory
expressed that they felt unconfident inquiry laboratories as there were experiences. While class size was not
or somewhat confident. These findings requests for help from the State Office a concern for all teachers, at least a
suggest that, while not all teachers of Education in identifying these types quarter of those interviewed expressed
revealed this, many teachers have some of laboratories that are connected to concern, stating that they felt class
reservations about the extent to which the Core Curriculum. size issues were resulting in increased
they feel prepared to lead students in safety risks for students, and issues
Laboratory Facilities, Equipment,
laboratories, to emphasize science with space for students to participate
and Safety
process alongside science content. in science laboratory experiences.
Eighty-two percent of the teachers
This was further revealed as teachers Additionally, sixty-five percent of
responding to the questionnaire/needs
responded to the open-ended question, the teachers responding to the needs
assessment either taught in a science
“Is there any additional information assessment identified class size as the
classroom, whereby the science
you prefer to add regarding science factor which reduces their ability to
laboratory facilities were integrated
laboratory experiences?” Teachers effectively supervise students engaged
as part of the classroom, or had a
expressed a concern for lack of in these experiences.
separate laboratory classroom that
pre-service and in-service training
Other influences and information
they used. Nine percent of the teachers
for facilitating inquiry laboratory
about science laboratory
reported not teaching in a science
experiences. This concern was also
experiences
classroom. Information about the
illuminated as some interviewed
facilities available to teachers was This section reflects on teachers’
teachers revealed feeling unsure about
augmented by statements shared beliefs about the influence of the Utah
what was meant by “science process,”
about whether they felt the laboratory State Office of Education (USOE)
and the fact that most teachers relied
facilities available inhibited or on science laboratory experiences of
predominantly on the scientific method
enhanced the laboratory experiences students, as well as additional findings
as the mechanism for emphasizing
of their students. Forty-seven percent not addressed in other sections. When
science process in science laboratories.
of the teachers reported feeling that teachers were asked to describe the
Teachers also revealed in interviews,
their facilities enhanced or slightly influence they felt the core curriculum
that for the most part, students are
enhanced students’ experiences. had on the science laboratory
not engaged in framing research
Thirty-seven percent of teachers experience offered to students, forty-
questions or designing experiments.
reported feeling their facilities either eight percent of teachers reported
While other possible explanations
slightly inhibited or inhibited their feeling the core supported (supportive
might underlie teachers not engaging
students’ experiences. A concern for or very supportive) these experiences,
students in framing research questions
facilities, equipment, and safety also with only twenty-percent who felt
and designing experiments, a lack
emerged, as teachers described their like the core was not supportive of
of understanding of science process
administrative support of science lab experiences (very unsupportive
or belief in its importance, might be
laboratory experiences as insufficient or unsupportive). It is interesting to
connected to teachers not prioritizing
in both funding for equipment and note that a large percentage (thirty-two
these activities for students. Instead,
supplies. A concern for too many percent) expressed a neutral opinion.
teachers were found focusing science
students and too little space which may This provides interesting information
laboratories more on what Hofstein and
lead to safety concerns, also emerged. the USOE might use to reflect upon
Lunetta (982) described as traditional
These concerns were also found in a as the extent with which science
laboratory experience used as a venue
portion of the teachers interviewed laboratory experiences are valued, is
for illustrating, demonstrating, and
who were offered an opportunity at the reassessed. While USOE funding of
verifying known concepts and laws.
end of the interview to share additional this research signals a commitment
This focus, found in this research, is
information about science laboratory to science laboratory experiences, this
not attuned to science process as much
experience. One of the emerging commitment may not be as evident to
as it is directed toward science content.
44 Science educator
teachers across the state as is depicted Sixty-two percent of teachers felt laws. The NRC (2005) recognized
in the large percentage of neutral the time allotted for preparation of these same problems as traditional
responses. science laboratory experiences during laboratory experiences were seen as
When teachers were asked to their regular workday was inadequate “secondary applications of concepts
express the extent to which the state (inadequate or somewhat inadequate). previously addressed by the teacher”
accountability system is supportive This opinion also surfaced in the (NRC, 2005, p. 25). This same
of science laboratory experiences teacher interviews. Finally, minimal emphasis was found in this state
for students, only sixteen percent preparation time was expressed as a with more than half of the teachers
of teachers felt it was supportive problem by teachers and should be interviewed stating that they use labs to
(supportive or very supportive). considered as a possible factor related reinforce the ideas and concepts that the
Thirty-seven percent of teachers felt to the quality and amount of science students are learning from bookwork,
the state accountability system was laboratory experiences offered to lectures, movies, and other learning
not supportive (very unsupportive or students. activities. Research into teaching and
unsupportive) of these experiences. learning as well as leading national
Discussion
Approximately half (forty-eight science education organizations
percent) of the teachers expressed support a shift in science instruction
Students’ Experiences
a neutral opinion to this question. away from laboratory experiences
The National Research Council’s
Teacher interviews revealed a small that illustrate, demonstrate, and verify
(2005) report, America’s Lab Report:
portion of teachers who believed known concepts and toward inquiry
Investigations in High School Science,
that the large amount of content in experiences (AAAS, 993; Chang
provided an assessment of the
the core inhibited the amount of & Mao, 999; Ertepinar & Geban,
current state of science laboratory
time they felt could be devoted to 996; Hakkarainen, 2003; NRC,
experiences for high school students
laboratory experiences. These findings 996; NRC, 2005; NSTA, 998;
across America. This research focused
also support the need for continued Schwartz, Lederman , & Crawford,
on the current state of science
reflection from the USOE as the 2004,). Inquiry, as described in the
laboratory experiences for high school
commitment to laboratory experiences National Science Education Standards
students across Utah. This current
is considered alongside the message allows students to “describe objects
research revealed that student’s
that is being conveyed by teachers and events, ask questions, construct
science laboratory experiences were
through their perception of the extent explanations, test those explanations
focused more on the learning of
to which accountability is aligned to against current scientific knowledge,
science content exclusively, neglecting
this emphasis. and communicate their ideas to
learning about the process of science.
Teacher interviews revealed that others” (NRC, 996, p. 2). Students
This was evidenced through classroom
a majority of did feel supported in in Utah were not found engaging
observations when significantly
offering laboratory experiences to in science laboratories in a manner
higher scores for the propositional
students. When comparing factors consistent with this definition of
knowledge content subscale division
connected to feelings of support to inquiry. Students were found carrying
were found when compared to the
those connected to feelings of not out experiments, collecting data,
procedural knowledge division,
being supported (offered by a smaller and drawing conclusions from their
and through teacher interviews that
portion of teachers interviewed), data, but they were not found asking
revealed confusion on behalf of some
administration believing in the value questions or framing questions or
teachers when asked about process, or
of laboratory experiences, making designing experiments. The question
most teachers focusing solely on the
funding available for such experiences, emerging from this research is,
scientific method as science process.
ensuring that facilities are provided for “To what extent do students loose
Hofstein and Lunetta (982)
science laboratories, and maintaining the established benefits of inquiry
noted that typically the traditional
class sizes in which laboratory experiences when these experiences
laboratory experience is seen as a
experiences are feasible, were factors are truncated, distilled, or limited to
venue for illustrating, demonstrating,
that influenced these feelings. carrying out laboratories that have been
and verifying known concepts and
Spring 2008 Vol. 17, no. 1 45