Page 1 ED 188 912 DOCOME,NT PtiUME SE 031 334 AUTHOR Hdfstein, Ail.: Lqnetta,,Vincent, N ...

40 Pages·2011·0.83 MB·English

PtiUME
DOCOME,NT
SE 031 334
ED 188 912
Hdfstein, Ail.: Lqnetta,,Vincent, N.
AUTHOR
,
.
,The Role df the Laboratory in Science Teaching:
TITLE
Research Implications.
.
.Apr BO
PUB' DATE
the
40p.: Paper presented at the &nnual meetin-g of
:
NOTE
Teaching
National rissociation for Research in Science
(53rd, Boston, MA, Apnil 11-13, 19801.
t
-I-
OF01/PCO2 Plus: Postage.
EDPS PRICE
Curriculum Evaluation: *EdIcational Research:
DESCPIPTORS
*Evaluation Needs: *Latorat!ories; Learning Theories:'
Research Problems: Science Education: *Science
Instruction: Studerit Evaluation: *Teaching Mefhods
ABSTRACT
The research related to laboratory work in science
history of the
irstruction is reviewed in this position paper. The
nineteenth century,/and
laboratory is'outlined from its roots in the
the"goals of the laboratory are enumerated from a review of the
regarding the..
literature. Research findings are critically ana1yz?,41
effectiveness of laboratory Instruction ard suggestions are made
'for
'overcoming the limitations'observed in the studies to date. Specific
potential relevance for.reseavch or
areas identified as having high
revieved, and sugdestions
teaching and,learning in the labofatory are
dlarification of the role of the laboratory
are synthesized for +he
in science'education.
(GS1
Aft
'9
4
****************** ************************************
are the best that can be made
*
by ED
R'OproAuctions suppli
^
*
* "
*
from the- riginml dtScument.
Jr
REPRODUCE THIS
"PERMISSION TO
U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
GRANTED BY
MATERIAL HAS BEEN
EDUCATION &WELFARE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
as.
EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS OE tN REPRO
DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED T ROM
THE PERSON OR ORGANIZAT ION ORIGIN
ATINC. IT POINTS OT VIEW OR OPINIONS
STATE() DO NOT NEC( SSARIt Y NT-PR(
RESOURCES
TO THE EDUCAtIONAL
SENT OF F RIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OT
EDUCATION POSITION OR POI
(ERIC)."
Y
INFORMATION CENTER
THE ROLE OF THE LABORATORY IN SCIENCE TEACHING:
RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
Avi Hofstein
Department of Science Teaching
InstiAte of Science
,The Weizmann
Rehovot, Israel
and
Vincent N. Lunetta
Science Education Center
The Uni'vers,ity of Iowa
52242
Iowa City, Iowa
'P sition paper for a symposium organized
Association
y the authors at the National
i
[
Boston,
r Research in Science Teaching,
o
April, 1980.
/
ik
/
t
,
/
i
IDI
2
1
1
1
I
FORWARD
organizer for a ,sympo-
This position paper has been prepared as an
presented
sium on Research on the Laboratory in Science Teaching to be
4.
in Sciente
at the convention of the National Association for Research
Participants in
Teaching on April 12, 1980 at Bostim, Massachusetts.
the symposium are:
V. Lunetta, The Univer,pety of Iowa
Introduction:
P. Tamir, The Hebrelli University, JerUsalem
The Practical Mode:
1
R. Raven, SUNY at Buffalo
tntellect;ual Development:
A. Hofstein, The Weizmann Institute, Rehovot
Affective Domain:
J. Shymansky, J. Penick,
Teacher-Student-Curriculum Interactions:
The University of Iowa
W. Welch, The Univeristy of
Synthesis and Future.Researa:
Minnesota
for
The authors wish to thank all of the symposium contributors
Helpful comments
their participatiOn and for their helpful comments.
Walberg, The University of Illi-
were also received frw Professor H.
..
nois at Chicago Circle, on the implications of Learning Environments.
position paper and made
Professor Pinchas Tamir reviewed the entire
extensive comments that were especially helpful.
4.
Introduction
,
Practices of
Standards and
In 1970 tbe Commis ion of Professional
.1
for
Teachers Association thought that the case
the Nationall,Scienc
-
4
need much argument (Ramsey
school science laboratOries too obvious to
"That.,t.he experience possible for students
They wrote
and Howe, 1969).
integral part of any science
in the laboratory situation shoulorbe an
What
in,sciAce teaching.
course has come to have a wide acceptance
these may be
the best kinds of experiences are, howeverwand how
conventional.classwoA, has not been objectively
blended with more
direction based on research is
evaluated to the extent that clear
educators
Less than ten years later, some
available for'teachers."
1
for Oe laboratory in
and the role of laboratory work, and the case
Self-evident as it once seemed (Bates;
science instruction is not as
distinctive feature of sci-
Yet, the liboratorrhas long been a
1978).
review \\
the primary goals of this paper are to
ence education. 'Thus,
conducted thus far and to suggest'
the research studies.that have been
More specific objectives are:
further research that may be.needed.
of the laboratory in
To briefly review the history and goals
1.
science teaching;
fi,ndings regarding
To review and critically analyze research
2.
instlructiqn;
the effectiveness of laboratory
in
e limitations observed
fo\r overcoming
To suggest methods
3.
the studies to date;
high potential reikvance for
To suggest specific dimensions of
4.
the laboratory;
research on teaching and learning in
2
researchers working
To provide a synthesis of suggestions for
5.
laboratory in science education.
to clarify the role of
activities are defined:
For the purpose of this 15aper, laboratory
in which students interact with mater-
as contrived learning experiences
within a school.
ials to observe phenomena in a laboratory classroom
---
of structure speci-
The contrived experiences may have different levels
include,phases
fied by the teacher or laboratory handbook, and they may
and application as
of planning and design, analysis and"fhterpretation
Laboratory activities are nor-
well as the central performance phase.
,
di in small groups and our def-
mally performed by students individually
1
.
Specific character-
demonstFations.
inition does not include large-group
,
it apart from verbal learning
istics of laboratory work that normally set
of information
physical objects, the gathering
are the manipulation of
observation of properties and rela-
An a naturalistic setting, and the
tionships by individual learners.
work over
tiCal work in the laboratory witfi other methods of practical
compared inductive labor-
For example, Coulter (1966)
the past decades.
demonstrations in high schpol biology.
atory expepments with inductive
s,
namely, "laboratory group",
Yager, et al., (1969) compared three groups,
Lunetta
group" in biology.
"demonstration group", and a "discussion
computer-simulation group in
(1974) compared a coritrol group to 4
laboratory group to a
physics, and Ben-Zvi, et al., (1976a) compared a
Most of thFte research
in chemistry.
group viewing filmed experiments
between the instructiona
studies have showri no significant differences
(
critical thinking, and in
methods in student achievement, attitude,
measured by standard paper/and-
knowledge of the processes of science as
eg
44
1
3
Research findings reported by Yager, et al., (1969)
pencil tests.
advantage over
showed that a laboratory approach provided no measurable
other modes of filstruction exCept for..the development of laboratory
learn-
Since many studies comparing the effects of laboratory
skills.
in non-
ing with more conventional forms of instruction have resulted
1969;
significant differences, somekcience-educato'rs (Yager, et al.,
s4ously.questioned the need and
Bates, 1978; and Welch, 1979) have
On the.other hand, serious deficien-
effectiveness of laboratory work.
when
cies in the studies that have been conducted are often apparent
in a
original reports are scrutinized. .Furthermore, Stephens (1967)
400
'instructional techniques'
review of educational research, has written that
There is
as.they aid it.
in general, s.eem to hinder learning as often
tihere is insufficient data to make sweep-
reason to surmise that as of yet
.
he laboratory in science teaching.
ing generalizations on the optimal role of
Science laboratory requirements are currently of special concern
%
ihe expense of equipment and materials;administrative prob-
ibecause6f
.',
Yet, the
schedules.
slems, and the time they consume in busy Cou se
1.
justified if
effort and expense irolved in laboratory teaching may be
successful in achieving'
it can be(shown that such teaching is uniquely
Bates (1978) concluded his review of
important educational objectives.
the research literature with the following summary:
"Teachers who believe that the laboratory accomplishes
something special for their students would do well to
and
consider carefully what those outcomes might be,
If it is nothing else,
then find ways to measure them.
for
this paper is an'invitation to systematic inquiry,
What does
the answer has'not been conclusively found:
acComplished
the laboratorir accomplish that could not be
eXensive and less time-consuming alter-
as well by less
'
.
natives?"
/7
)
4
4
Assessing the nature and goals of science tobaching is especially.
with
important now since "there has been incrAsing dissatisfaction
uncertainty
present outcomes of education in the sciences and growing
in making
about usefulness of science as a vehicle to assist people
decisions on issues dOnfronting contemporary society" (Yager, 1979).
research
While the Nationar'Science Foundation is sponsoring several
science
projects (e.g., Project Synthesis) to explore new horizons in
education, it is also-the time to examine more carefully the role of
the laboratory in school science iristruction.
from
We are already facing a trend in which there is a retreat
.
student-centered sciende activities resulting in a decline of time and
This is a
experiences in the science laboratory (Gardner, 1979).
educators who have generally considered
worrisome trend for many scienc
1
central instructional
the science laboratory to be an important or even
well be the failure of
One of the reasons for this trend may
medium.
valup of laboratory work as
existing research studies to support the
learning.
a medium for effective science
A
er
Brief History and Goals*
of school sci-
The history of laboratory work as an integral part
The labor-
into the nineteenth century.
ence learning'has roots running
used to.in r olve students
atory in the science classroom has long been
'
In 1892 Griffin
in concrete experiences with'objects and contepts.
"The laboratory has won itp place in
wrote (cited by Rosen, 1954):
.
1
P.: ftrhe Role of
Certain parts of this section are based on Tamir,
*
Report No.1O, Science
the laboratory in science teaching", Technical
Iowa, 1976.
Education Center, The University of Iowa, Iowa City,
5
It is designed to revo-
sckool; its introduction has proved successful.
Pupils will go out from our laboratories able to
lutionize education.
In the years following 1910, the progressive education
see and do."
.movement had a major impact upon the nature of science teaching in general
John Dewey, leader
and on the role oflpboratory woik in particular.
-
advocated an investigative ap-
o'f the progressive education movement
During,this period textbooks and lab-
proach and "learning by doing."
4
orientation,
oratory manuals began to acquire- a more applied, utilitarian
Nevertheless, while the progressive.education movement was,gaining mo-
mentum, debate about the proper role of laboratory work wAs also devel-
activi-
laVoratory
oping. -The arguments raised against extensive stu'ent
resolved many
ties included the fact that laboratory activities had not
These arguments included the
important problems of science teaching.
following assumptions;
(
lab-
Few teachers in secondary schools are wmpetent to use the
1)
oratory effectively;
Too much emphasis on laboratory activity leads to a narrow
2)
.conception of science;
1
rivial;
Too many experiments are
3)
Laboratory work in schools is often remote and.unrelated to
4)
?ir
14
the capabilities and needs of the children.
lab-
While some criticized laboratory work, however, others claimed that
of Sci-
-oratory experience$ were indispensible (Craig, 1927, and report
e"
In' the period following World War I,
ence Masters Association, 1953).
t
and
illus-
laboratory activities came to be used largely for confirming
.
learned from the teacher or the textbook.
informatit
trating
The "new" science Curricula of the 1960's resulted in several depar-
_ _
,
,
4
.
/
In "the new curric-
tures from tradition in the role of laboratory work.
development
ula which siress the processes of science and emphasize the
of higher cognitive Skills, the laboiwtory has acquired a central role,
.
not.just as a place for demonstration and confirmation but rather as the
Contw-
(Shulman and Tamir, 1973).
core of the science learning process'l
and Tamir, 1978; Hurd, 1969; and
porary science educators (e.g., Lunetta
of the
Schwab, 1962) have expressed the view that the major uniqueness
laboratory lies,in providing students with opp-ounities to engage in
Accorc4
to Ausubel (1968) the
processes of investigation and inquiry.
"gives the students appreciation of the spirit and method
laboratory
.
. .
generalization
of science, it promotes problem-solving, analytic and
4
ft
pf
It provides students with some understandiag of the nature
ability.
science."
A review orthe literature revealed the following goals for labora-
toryinstructimint.science education:
I'd arous00411 maintain interest, attitude, and curioslaly in
1.
science;
To develop creative thinking and problem-solving ability;
2.
To promote aspects of scientific thinking and the scientific
3.
method;
To develop conceptual understanding;
4.
To develop practical abilities.
5.
Anderson (1976) summarized the goals of laboratory work in the fol-
lowing four main areas:
enterprise of _science so as
To foster knowledge of the human
1.
understanding;'
to enharice student intellectual and aesthetic
a
7
To foster science inquiry skills that can transfer to other
2.
spheres of problem-solving;
,
pari emulate the role of
To help the student appreciate and in
3.
the scientist;
To help the student grow both in appreciation of the orderliness
4.
fs entific knowledge and also in understanding the tentative
scientific theories and models.
nature o
Analysis of Past Research Studies
Standardized i struments which were not designedspecifically to
outcomes/6f laboratory work have often been used to assess learn-
measur
These instruments should not be expected to discriminate
ing outcomes.
between various laboratory instructional treatments, or to measure some
"Because.he (the re-
.of the important effectvf laboratory learning.
searcher) was so very certain that what he was about to do would drastic-
.,
choosehis
ally affect student learning,.he did not,bother to carefully
(Welch,
criteria to represent accurately what he expected to happen"
Researchers in science edudation have often been more concerned
1971).
than.with the validitY of the instrumenta-
with the nature of treatments
Sufficient,time has not.'
tion 'used to measure outcomes of their studies.
reliable instill-
been invested in the design and preparation of valid and
.
examined in studies on the
ments for many of the variables purportedly
....effectiveness of laboratory instructibn.
is.the Wat-
One of the many examples of inadequate instrumentation
(W.G.C.T.A., 1961) which has little
son-Glazer, Critical Thinking Appraisal
with laboratory
or nothing to do with science teaching in general nor
The Watson-Glazer Critical Thinking Appraisal was
,work in particular.
10