Research on Science Laboratory Activities: In Pursuit of Better Questions and Answers to Improve Learning

403

Research on Science LaboratoryActivities: In Pursuit of BetterQuestions and Answers to ImproveLearningKenneth TobinDepartment of Curriculum & InstructionFlorida State UniversityTaHahassee, Florida 32306

For a great many years, laboratory activities have been regarded as animportant and almost sacred part of science education. By many scienceeducators, the laboratory is viewed as the essence of science, a philosophy thatoften is enshrined in legislation and policy at state and district level. Yet theevidence suggests that laboratory activities fall short on achieving the potentialfor enhancing student learning with understanding (Hofstein & Lunetta, 1982;Stake & Easley, 1978; Tobin & Gallagher, 1987). Laboratory activities promiseso much in terms of students being able to solve problems and constructrelevant science knowledge. Tamir and Lunetta (1981) indicated that the mainpurpose of the laboratory in the science curricula of the 1960s was to promotestudent inquiry and allow students to undertake investigations. They notedthat this emphasis was in marked contrast to using the laboratory primarily asa place to illustrate, demonstrate, and verify known concepts and laws.According to Hofstein and Lunetta (1982), laboratory activities can beeffective in promoting intellectual development, inquiry, and problem-solvingskills. Further, they claimed that laboratory activities could assist in thedevelopment of observational and manipulative skills and in understandingscience concepts. But from all accounts, laboratory activities often are notable to accomplish the desired outcomes. Novak (1988) described the problemsgraphically:

The science laboratory has always been regarded as the place wherestudents should learn the process of doing science. But summaries ofresearch on the value of laboratory for learning science did not favorlaboratory over lecture-demonstration . . . and more recent studies alsoshow an appalling lack of effectiveness of laboratory instruction . . . Ourstudies showed that most students in laboratories gained little insighteither regarding the key science concepts involved or toward the processof knowledge construction.

Despite widespread acceptance of the importance of laboratory activities inthe science curriculum, research on teaching and learning in laboratory

School Science afid MathematicsVolume 90 (5) May/June 1990

404 Science Laboratory Activities

activities is not substantial. In the past 20 years, numerous reviews have beenequivocal on the purpose and effectiveness of laboratory activities in science.Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) concluded their review with the suggestion thatthe right questions probably have not been asked to focus research onlaboratory activities. That assertion is taken seriously in this review, andefforts are made to identify a research agenda for science teachers andresearchers to pursue. The review draws on epistemology, research on learningmathematics and science, and investigations of cooperative learning, as well askey studies of science laboratory activities. The following sections of the paperreview and synthesize literature pertaining to teaching and learning withunderstanding in laboratory activities.

Constructivism and Learning

Learning is defined as the construction of knowledge as sensory data aregiven meaning in terms of prior knowledge. Learning always is an interpretiveprocess and always involves construction of knowledge. Von Glasersfeld(1987, 1988) indicated that constructivism can be traced to the eighteenthcentury and has been a persistent, though not dominant, epistemology sincethat time. Von Glasersfeld (1988) stated:

Giambattista Vico [in 1710] . . . deliberately and explicitly renounced thetraditional contention that knowledge should reflect the world in an"objective" ontological way and he declared that human reason could(and should) contemplate and govern the world of human experience andnot the world as God might have made it. (p. 2)

Von Glasersfeld extended Vice’s ideas in a theory known as radicalconstructivism. He explained the radical components of his epistemology inthe following way:

. . . knowledge cannot aim at (ttruth’’ in the traditional sense butconcerns the construction of paths of action and thinking that an

unfathomable ^reality" leaves open for us to tread. The test ofknowledge, therefore, is not whether or not it accurately matches theworld as it might be "in itself"�a match which, as the skeptics havereiterated, we could never check out�but whether or not if fits thepursuit of our goals, which are always goals within the confines of ourown experiential world, (p. 2)

A common reaction of educators to constructivism is to claim "there isnothing new in what is being suggested. We didn’t use the label, but we havebeen following a constructivist approach since the 1960s." While this assertionis undoubtedly correct in some cases, it certainly is not the case in manyprojects and textbooks. Novak (1988) stated that:

It is now generally recognized that the major effort made in the 1950sand 1960s to improve secondary school science education has fallen far

School Science and MathematicsVolume 90 (5) May/June 1990

Science Laboratory Activities 405

short of expectations . . . Although many obstacles stood in the way ofrevolutionary improvement of science education, at least one obstacle wasthe obsolete episfemology that was behind the emphasis on "inquiry1*oriented science . . . The view of science presented was more consonantwith . . . empiricist or posifivisf views than with more valid constructivistviews. Experiments were shown to be ways to "prove" or "falsify"hypotheses rather than a method to construct new conceptual-theoreticalmeanings, (pp. 79-80)

Constructivism implies that students require opportunities to experiencewhat they are to learn in a direct way and time to think and make sense ofwhat they are learning. Laboratory activities appeal as a way of allowingstudents to learn with understanding and, at the same time, engage in aprocess of constructing knowledge by doing science.

Problem Solving

Wheatley (1988) described problem-solving in constructivist terms as what isdone when it is not clear what needs to done to arrive at a solution. Thus, forsomeone to have a problem to solve, they first need to be perplexed. Thesalient feature of this definition of a problem is that teachers cannot prescribeproblems for learners. All that teachers can do is allocate tasks to becompleted; it is for learners to determine whether or not tasks becomeproblems. Von Glasersfeld (1988) also emphasized that students determinewhether or not tasks are perceived as problems. He stated:

problem situations themselves, given that they do not exist independentlyin an objective environment, are seen, articulated, and approacheddifferently by different cognizing subjects, (p. 12)

If the tasks are well chosen, some learners from a class will undoubtedly beperplexed by them and \\’\\\ set about to identify solutions. Equally surely,other students will, for a variety of reasons, not find given tasks problematic.These reasons include lack of motivation to learn, failure to construct theintended meanings of words and characters used to describe tasks, and beingable to identify solutions almost immediately. In each of these instances,specific students will not engage in problem-solving despite the intentions ofteachers and curriculum designers.

Problem-solving has appeal in science because learners are providedexperiences which approximate those of scientists engaged in constructingknowledge of science. Problem-solving may or may not involve laboratoryactivities. On the one extreme, students might solve problems by engaging inthought experiments, while at the other extreme, equipment from thelaboratory might be involved. With little difficulty, however, laboratoryactivities can be planned to emphasize problem solving. To what extent dolaboratory activities deal with problem-solving in the sense described byWheatley? Are students given tasks from which problems emerge? Do



classroom contexts allow individuals to pursue solutions until they aresatisfactorily resolved? An analysis of tasks prescribed by teachers in fiveyears of interpretive research in science classrooms in Australia and the USindicate that such tasks were never observed in either the intended orimplemented curriculum (Tobin & Gallagher, 1987). In addition, cooperativelearning activities were rare.

Cooperative Learning

In a review of over a thousand studies dating back to the late 1800s,Johnson and Johnson (1985a) reported that cooperative learning experiencestend to promote more learning than competitive or individualistic learningexperiences and are linked with higher self-esteem. When compared tocompetitive and individualistic activities, cooperative learning experiences tendto promote higher motivation to learn, produce more positive attitudes towardlearning experiences and teachers, and result in stronger perceptions thatstudents care about learning and assisting one another. Johnson and Johnson(1985b) also noted the value of structuring learning activities so that studentscan resolve controversies during their interactions. The resolution ofcontroversies resulted in students sharing ideas with one another and workingtogether to obtain a final solution to a problem. The authors noted thatresolution of controversies was preferred to engaging in debate, and bothstrategies were superior to working alone.Few studies in science have investigated the collaborative processes within

groups and examined the negotiation of meaning that occurs. Wheatley,Cobb, and their colleagues have undertaken studies of the social constructionof knowledge in mathematics classes (e.g., Cobb & Wheatley, 1988; Cobb.Yackel, Wood, Wheatley, & Merkel, 1988) and advocate cooperative learningin groups together with whole-class discussions in which students share whatthey have learned in small groups. The emphasis in the activities is onnegotiating meaning and arriving at consensuses. Students making sense ofwhat they are learning is given highest priority, and rote learning ofprocedures and facts to obtain correct solutions is not encouraged. Similarstudies of students learning in groups have not been undertaken in scienceeducation in the same intensive manner. Although studies of cooperativelearning in the context of science education abound (e.g., Johnson & Johnson,1985a, b), the focus of these studies has not been so specifically on thelearning process. Systematic research on the manner in which cooperativelearning can be employed in laboratory activities is a priority in scienceeducation. It is frequently assumed that students do work cooperatively whenplaced in groups, however, no studies were identified which had investigatedhow students collaborate and assist one another to learn in laboratoryactivities.



Student Involvement in Laboratory Activities

Since the curricula innovations of the 1960s, the emphasis in laboratoryactivities has been providing students with hands-on experiences. Relativelyless attention has been directed to the negotiation of meaning. Theunderstandings that emerge from laboratory activities depend on direct andvicarious experiences and negotiations of meaning as learners engage to solveproblems and make sense of what they do. Experiences with phenomena andevents provide opportunities for students to construct images to whichlanguage can be assigned at a later time. Social collaboration enablesunderstandings to be clarified, elaborated, justified, and evaluated. Incorrectunderstandings can be recognized as such. Time for reflective thinking iscrucial, even when psychomotor skills are the main goals of an activity. Thisassertion was clearly illustrated by Beasley (1979) who found that mentalrehearsal of the steps in a procedure enhanced the learning of technical skillsrequired in volumetric analysis. An interesting implication of Beasley’s studywas the comparable effectiveness of mental and physical practice.

Studies of interactions between teachers and students in laboratory activitiescan focus on processes such as the assignment of language to concepts,negotiation of meaning, and arriving at consensuses; however, earlier studiesof laboratory activities have not been based upon a radical constructivistepistemology. The focus has not been on the development of meaning inlaboratory activities.

Several studies compared student achievement in activities whichincorporated pre- and post-laboratory discussions with achievement inactivities in which such discussions were absent. These studies gave littleemphasis to the purposes of laboratory activities, the content being developed,and the complex nature of interactions between teachers and students. Studiesconducted by Isom and Rowsey (1986), Raghubir (1979), and Nelson andAbraham (1976) provide support for discussion in conjunction with pre- andpost-laboratory activities but do not provide insights into the interactive andcooperative strategies that must emerge if discussions are to be effective infacilitating learning. How do students use knowledge from a laboratoryinvestigation to negotiate meaning in a cooperative learning group? Thestudies that are most needed involve close examination of the negotiationprocess in classes where students know what they are expected to do and aremotivated to learn. How students construct and reconstruct ideas, test themwith their peers, and transform them as a result of negotiation is not wellunderstood in the context of science education. In addition, it is not only ofinterest to know that post-laboratory activities are beneficial, we need to knowwhat form such discussions ought to take if students are to arrive at anegotiated consensus at the whole-class level.

Research on wâit time has highlighted the importance of providing teachersand students time to think during verbal interactions. In a series of studies in



middle school science classes, Tobin (1987) indicated that pre- and post-laboratory discussions can enhance learning when students and teachers areprovided with time to think about questions and answers. Students achieved ata higher level when teachers paused for an average of three seconds beforespeaking or calling on someone to speak. The results suggest that wait timepauses are used by teachers and students for relevant cognitive processing.Although the wait time findings have been impressive, many questions remainto be answered. For example, does it make sense for teachers and students touse a long wait time in all contexts? And why don’t teachers and students usea long wait time, even when they say they are convinced of its value forlearning?How students engage in laboratory activities also influences how and what

they learn. Unfortunately, most studies of classrooms have shown thatstudents do not have many opportunities for direct experience withphenomena. Several studies suggested a pattern of teacher structured activitieswith students watching and listening for most of the lesson (Newton & Capie,1982; Tobin, 1986; Tobin & Capie, 1982). For example, Tobin and Capie(1982) reported that middle school students were covertly engaged for morethan 50% of the allocated time; engaged in overt planning and data processingtasks for only 2% and 5% of the time, respectively; and were off-task forapproximately 30% of the allocated time. The findings indicate thatsummative achievement and retention were each related to the proportion oftime engaged in planning and data processing tasks. Whereas studentsundoubtedly can learn by watching and listening, the results suggest thathigher achievement is associated with getting involved in a more overt manner.Although teachers can use the above findings as an argument for increasing

the amount of overt engagement for students in laboratory activities, causalarguments are not actually warranted. The results are consistent with anhypothesis that overt engagement in learning tasks enhances learning. Theresults are also consistent with other hypotheses. It is entirely likely that highachieving students engage to a greater extent than low achieving students inlaboratory activities (Tobin & Gallagher, 1987). Tobin and Gallagherdescribed how a relatively small number of target students can monopolizeinteractions in whole-class settings and act as a steering group for the teacherwho uses their involvement as a gauge to determine whether or not the class isready to move on to another topic. Detailed investigations of learning inclassrooms are necessary to provide insights into the types of laboratoryactivities that enhance learning with understanding. In conducting suchstudies, we should expect to find that no one approach will be ideal for alllearners.There have been many studies that showed that male students get more

involved in science laboratories than female students (e.g., Kelly, 1987; Tobin& Garnett, 1987). Kahle (in press) described how a relatively small group ofmale students dominated interactions with equipment in laboratory activities.



Not only did males monopolize the use of equipment and opportunities tolearn, they sometimes contaminated reagents and otherwise interfered withequipment and materials, thereby minimizing opportunities for others to learnin the intended manner. Undoubtedly the reasons for males and femalesengaging in different ways in laboratory activities are based on cultural factorswhich extend beyond learning in science classrooms. However, such factorscannot be ignored. Science teachers can take active measures to reverse trendsassociated with differential involvement of males and females in scienceactivities, and adopt proactive measures to increase engagement of femalestudents in laboratory activities and facilitate learning.Many studies compared the performance of students in laboratory activities

with the performance of similar groups of students engaged in alternativeactivities. For example, Renner and his colleagues incorporated a learningcycle in science activities. The first phase of the learning cycle involvesexploration "to allow students to experience the concept to be learned beforelanguage or other identifying labels are attached to it" (Renner, Abraham, &Birnie, 1985, p. 303). In the second phase of the learning cycle, known asconceptual invention, students are led, usually by a teacher, to identify aconcept and assign language to it. Conceptual expansion, the third phase ofthe learning cycle, allows the invented concept to be used in ways such asperforming additional experiments and reading about the applicability of aconcept. Renner, Abraham, and Birnie (1985) compared student achievementand attitudes towards physics in an investigation in which some studentscollected their own data and others were given second-hand data from whichto learn. Students who experienced data collecting activities liked physicsbetter and achieved at a higher level than students who worked withsecond-hand data; however, the authors cautioned:

The active experimentation experienced in the learning cycle is not theverification laboratory so often encountered. The findings of this researchjust referred to, therefore must not be interpreted to mean that laboratoryexperience in general will necessarily increase the permanency of learning.(pp. 322-323)

As well as providing support for use of the learning cycle, the findings ofRenner and his colleagues raise numerous questions. Should teachers utilizethe learning cycle as a basis for implementing all science lessons? Is thelearning cycle the best way to facilitate learning with understanding? Whatshould teachers and students do in activities based on the learning cycle? Canthe learning cycle be implemented inappropriately? What teacher and studentroles are most salient in laboratory activities incorporating the learning cycle?And why did students fail to learn with understanding in activities involvingthe use of second hand data?

Studies on learning technical skills also raise more questions than areanswered (e.g., Vann, May, & Shugars, 1981a, b; Yager, Engen, & Snider,



1969). Many of these studies compared one approach with another,disregarding many of the contextual factors that make a difference in theteaching and learning of science. Can it be assumed that all laboratoryactivities are equally conducive to learning psychomotor skills? Is a highlystructured environment always better than a non-structured environment? Thestudies reviewed did not probe learning environments in laboratory activities,document what worked and what did not, or seriously consider variationsneeded for learning different skills.The manner in which students are grouped directly affects the opportunities

students have to learn. Several studies have highlighted the problems teachersface in managing students in laboratory activities (e.g., Gallagher & Tobin,1987). Teachers have difficulty coping with management of disruptivebehavior and the learning needs of approximately 30 students in a laboratorysetting. The extent to which students are cooperative and motivated to learnobviously makes a difference to the efficacy of laboratory activities. Dostudents understand their roles in laboratory activities? Can studentscommunicate with peers to identify a problem, reach agreement on the natureof the problem, design strategies for solving the problem, agree on thosestrategies, and implement a plan to collect and analyze data? Thesecommunication skills, which are craved by business and industry leadersaround the United States (e.g., Florida Chamber of Commerce, 1989), aresomewhat elusive in most classes. Students cannot be placed in groups with anexpectation that productive outcomes will occur. Collaboration is a role moststudents will have to learn, and studies of laboratory learning ought notassume that students organized into groups are learning cooperatively.

Is it possible for students to work independently of the teacher in laboratoryactivities? Leonard, Cavana, and Lowery (1981) investigated the importanceof providing students with discretion in learning in high school laboratoryactivities. Students were able to select procedural options commensurate withpersonal interests, goals, and their own discretionary abilities. Leonard et al.noted:

// appears that tenth-grade biology students ... are capable of usingdiscretion to a greater extent and with greater rewards than is presentlybeing allowed. Students in this study were found to be able to learn ontheir own discretion for periods of 10-15 minutes at the beginning of theschool year and for at least three class periods later in the school year.. . . When teacher expectations were increased, students adjusted to theseexpectations. Students also adjusted successfully to seeking teacher helpless frequently and only at specific times during laboratory investigations.(p. 503)

The study by Leonard suggests that teachers might be able to ease themanagement problems and enhance science learning by providing studentsopportunities to learn independently. If students do pursue solutions to



problems independently of the teacher, the teacher is free to become afacilitator of learning and focus on those students who are in need ofassistance.

Assessment of Learning in Laboratory Activities

There is considerable evidence to suggest that assessment can focus learningactivities in science classrooms (e.g., Stake & Easley, 1978; Tobin &Gallagher, 1987). How teachers assess students and what they assess has amajor impact on the implemented curriculum. In most instances, test-drivensystems result in classroom activities which emphasize rote learning of sciencefacts and rote learning of algorithms to solve exercises similar to those whichare included on the test. Alberts, van Beuzekom, and de Roo (1986) alsorecognized the powerful driving force of examinations when they advocatedthe separation of the summative assessment of practical achievement fromformative assessment. They argued that adherence to such a policy mightassist in overcoming the extent to which assessment focuses the curriculumand thereby determines what is valued by students and subsequently learned.Close attention needs to be given to other assessment issues as well. What dostudents learn from laboratory activities, and how can students represent theirknowledge? How should knowledge constructed in laboratory activities beassessed?

In ideal circumstances, an assessment scheme should provide students withopportunities to represent what they know about identified aspects of science.At the classroom level, teachers are encouraged to use a variety of methods toassess student knowledge acquisition. These methods include traditional penciland paper methods, personal oral interviews, and performance tests. Thedesirability of using a range of techniques is based on an assumption thatmuch of the knowledge acquired in a hands-on and minds-on science programis tacit and has not been verbalized. Accordingly, although students can applycertain knowledge when they do science, they cannot necessarily reproducethat knowledge in verbal form on a pencil and paper test or in a discussionwith the teacher. A paradox associated with this point was emphasized in areview of practical assessment in science. Bryce and Robertson (1985) notedthat:

. . . the paradox is obvious. Many teachers place great value in science asa practical subject. The practical nature of the subject is commonlyregarded as an important source of pupil motivation. Science is taught inlaboratories and teachers spend a considerable amount of time insupervising practical work. Yet the bulk of science assessment istraditionally non-practical, (p. 1)

OIsen (1973) highlighted the difficulty of assessing the knowledge gainedfrom a laboratory because of the tacit nature of the skills acquired. Abousiefand Lee (1965) concluded that practical tests revealed abilities different from



those required for written tests but that different kinds of practical testsassessed different abilities. Kelly and Lister (1969) reinforced this point withthe observation that practical work involves abilities both manual andintellectual which are in some measure distinct from those used in non-practical work. Kelly and Lister noted: "we have evidence that not only arethe abilities measured by written papers different, but that different practicaltests produce different measurements." Comber and Keeves (1973) reportedthat practical tasks measured quite different abilities from those assessed bythe more traditional tests, even those designed to assess practical skills withoutusing actual apparatus. Grobman (1970) considered the use of written tests tobe highly inappropriate in the assessment of either complex laboratoryexperiments or basic laboratory tasks. Finally, Tamir (1972) stated thatpractical testing situations are mandatory for the practical mode. Tamirnoted: "Since practical skills are seen as being valid only in the context ofinvestigation, practical tests should involve real investigations" (p. 181).A priority for research is the use of alternative assessment tasks (i.e., not

multiple choice pencil and paper items) to determine what students havelearned from laboratory activities. What have students learned and how canthey apply their knowledge to solve problems? To what extent is knowledgelearned in laboratory activities inter-connected with prior knowledge? Howcan practical assessment tasks be incorporated into district and state levelassessments of science achievement? These questions are just a sample ofthose that teachers and researchers need to investigate as many states endeavorto implement strategies to reform science education (e.g., Florida, Michigan).Because of the demonstrated driving force of assessment on the curriculum, itis imperative that methods of assessment be reformed at the same time thatapproaches to teaching and learning science are being changed.

Teachers as Researchers

One solution to the problem of research findings failing to influencepractice is to involve teachers in conducting the research, that is to involveteachers in: formulating problems, questions, and plans; data collecting,analysis and interpretation; and dissemination of the findings. Traditionally,teachers have only been involved in research as subjects; however, if teacherswere involved in all phases of a study, it is possible they would select forinvestigation problems that were of relevance to the improvement of teachingand learning. Furthermore, the thought and reflection associated withconducting research is likely to catalyze changes in beliefs, knowledge, andclassroom practices.

Interpretive research (Erickson, 1986) is a term used to describeethnographic studies in which answers are sought to broad questions which areposed in an endeavor to make sense of a given environment. The questions ofinterpretive research often are not conducive to quantified answers as thesituations under investigation may not be wêll understood and the main



problem is to make sense out of what is going on. When interpretive researchtechniques are applied in educational environments, there is a strongpossibility that the study will reveal insights that previously have been elusive.The broad questions of interpretive research can be applied to the persistentproblems of education. Before any degree of focusing is possible, it isnecessary to find out what is happening in the specific contexts that apply in agiven study. Having determined what is happening in the areas of interest, it isthen possible to formulate more specific questions and seek data to confirmand refute assertions that emerge from the analysis and interpretation of data.As data are collected and interpreted, greater insights into what is happeningenable research questions to be brought into sharper focus and suggest whatadditional data need to be collected to ensure that the answers obtained areconvincing and representative of what happens in the environment. Whenteachers undertake research they can focus on questions that concern them.Answers can lead to changes in the learning environment and ultimately toimproved learning of students.

Several groups (e.g., Casanova, 1989; Kyle & Shymansky, 1988; Swift,1989) have illustrated advantages of teachers conducting research in their ownclassrooms in collaboration with teams of university researchers. I use theconcept of teacher as researcher in much the same way as Casanova (1989)who advocated to "make the integration of research and practice the normrather than the exception" (p. 47). By conducting research in classrooms, it ishypothesized that teachers produce knowledge about learning in a mannerwhich facilitates utilization of the findings of the research conducted on-siteand similar research published in the literature.

Teacher/researchers can investigate what works in laboratory activities andwhat does not work. The cognition which accompanies discussions andarguments over interpretations of data is likely to drive understandings aboutteaching and learning to new levels. Do students know what is expected ofthem in laboratory activities? The research suggests that many do not. W^hyshould students be more interested in fulfilling their social agendas rather thanundertaking and completing laboratory tasks as intended? Why do studentsmess around with equipment and materials rather than employ materials tosolve problems and learn science? And why do so many female students standback when equipment is to be used? Research has given some insights intowhat happens in laboratory activities, but we desperately need to know whythese phenomena occur. Knowing why is a prerequisite to change. Iflaboratory activities are to fulfill their potential, there is a priority to findanswers to questions such as those listed above. Asking questions and seekinganswers can provide a context for teachers to reflect on teaching and learningpractices, analyze and discuss alternative teaching strategies, and identifydesirable changes and procedures for implementing change.The teacher/researcher becomes a reflective practitioner who creates

knowledge about teaching and learning in laboratories as a product of thepractice of teaching. A major advantage of this approach is that teachers can



diagnose and solve problems in their own class, working alone orcollaborating with colleagues. Solutions to such problems offer an advantageof being potentially applicable to the classes in which the research wasconducted and to influence the practices of other teachers within the schooland in situations which approximate the conditions which applied in the study.This approach avoids the undesirable situation in which a researcher, whousually is external to the school, diagnoses problems and makes suggestions toovercome them.

Conclusions

Theory and research suggest that meaningful learning is possible inlaboratory activities if all students are provided with opportunities tomanipulate equipment and materials while working cooperatively with peers inan environment in which they are free to pursue solutions to problems whichinterest them. A crucial ingredient for meaningful learning in laboratoryactivities is to provide for each student opportunities to reflect on findings,clarify understandings and misunderstandings with peers, and consult a rangeof resources which include other students, the teacher, and books andmaterials. The teacher’s most important role is to facilitate learning bymaintaining an environment in which students can make sense of what theyare doing and receive challenges and assistance as required. Yet most teachersseem to be preoccupied with management in laboratory activities (Gallagher &Tobin, 1987).The studies reported in the literature are not all that useful in providing

insights into teacher and student roles in laboratory activities; however,constructivism as an epistemology does provide direction for what teachersand students should do in laboratory activities, and research on cooperativelearning suggests how meaningful learning activities might be managed. Whatis needed are investigations of how students engage, construct understandings,and negotiate meanings in cooperative groups. We need more answers toquestions of the type: What is happening in cooperative groups? And why isit happening that wây? We need to move beyond studies that compare methodA and method B. It should be clear to all that meaning can be constructed inalmost any setting and that almost any setting can be adapted to improvelearning with understanding. Teachers should be the professionals to makedecisions relating to which activities are best suited to particular goals. Whatresearch can and should do is provide theories which are grounded in practice,to guide teachers in establishing and maintaining environments conducive tolearning. We need to know how to structure learning situations for the rangeof purposes teachers have for laboratory activities. Interpretive researchmethodologies are well-suited to obtaining answers to such questions.

Substantive changes in laboratory learning are unlikely to occur unlessteachers and students change the manner in which they conceptualize theirroles in science classes. At the present time, most teachers do not understand



the role of laboratory activities as a means of allowing students to solveproblems and thereby construct knowledge of science. Verificationlaboratories are common and usually take the form of cookbook activities. Tochange the type of activity encountered in the laboratory will necessitate achange in the culture of the science classroom. Students will have to adoptnew roles and make sense of them before they can be expected to beproductive learners in problem-solving activities. How can students worktogether to learn from one another? What is involved in sharing? Negotiating?Forming consensuses? Evaluating assertions from peers? Similarly, teachersalso will need to identify the salient roles to be undertaken in problem-solvinglaboratories and formulate a facilitation role. For many teachers, the role willbe new. In the past, it has been assumed that teachers and students willimplement reforms in the manner intended by curriculum designers, however,history has shown that this rarely is the case. More often than not, teachersadapt the curriculum to fit their own beliefs about what ought to be done inscience classes. Teachers do what makes sense to them in the givencircumstances. If changes are to be sustained, then teachers will needassistance to change their beliefs about what ought to be done in sciencelaboratory activities.

Researchers in science education need to explore the processes involved instudents assisting one another to learn. Many of the assumptions that havebeen made about learning need to be challenged as new ways of engagingstudents are explored. For example, if elementary students are motivated tolearn and get involved in solving a problem, there appears to be no reason tostop them after they have been engaged for an hour or longer. Young studentssoon learn how to assist one another to learn, how to share, how to disagreeand argue about possible solutions, and how to arrive at consensuses.Intensive studies of children learning science in laboratory activities areessential. Teacher-researchers are the logical inquirers in such studies. Theyknow the children, the classroom, and the contexts in which learning isembedded. University scholars need to be involved as well since they oftenhave the skills to plan, implement, and interpret research. New methodologiesshould be employed in the pursuit of the right questions to ask and answersthat will appeal to science teachers throughout the world. Interpretive research(Erickson, 1985) appeals as one approach that can provide the questions andanswers we seek. As we move into the 1990s, it is important to break awayfrom the oversimplified questions that have dominated research in the past 50years. The continuing problems of learning science demand fresh approachesto research on learning science and to the practices adopted by teachers asthey implement science curricula. Teachers cannot continue to work inisolation from researchers and treat their findings with suspicion and disdain,and researchers cannot continue to seek answers to questions which are notproblematic for practicing teachers. Collaboration between teachers andresearchers is essential if we are to avoid a situation where the next review of



research on science laboratory learning also indicates that the wrong questionsare getting asked and answered.

References

Abousief, A. A., & Lee, D. M. (1965). The evaluation of certain sciencepractical tests at secondary school level. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 35, 41-49.

Alberts, R. V. J., van Beuzekom, P. J., & de Roo, I. (1986). The assessmentof practical work: A choice of options. European Journal of ScienceEducation, 5, 361-369.

Beasley, W. F. (1979). The effects of physical and mental practice ofpsychomotor skills on chemistry student laboratory performance. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 7C?(5), 473-479.

Bryce, T. G. K., & Robertson, I. J. (1985). What can they do? A review ofpractical assessment in science. Studies in Science Education, 12, 1-24.

Casanova, U. (1989). Research and practice: We can integrate them. NEAToday, 7(6), 44-49.

Cobb, P., & Wheatley, G. (1988). Children’s initial understandings of ten.Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 10, 1-28.

Cobb. P., Yackel, E., Wood, T., Wheatley, G.. & Merkel, G. (1988).Research into practice: Creating a problem solving atmosphere. ArithmeticTeacher, 36(\), 46-47.

Comber, L. C., & Keeves, J. P. (1973). Science education in 19 countries.New York: John Wiley.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C.Wittrock, (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Edition) (pp.119-161). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Florida Chamber of Commerce. (1989). Rise to the challenge. Improving mathand science: A business agenda. Tallahassee: Author.

Gallagher, J. J., & Tobin, K. (1987). Teacher management and studentengagement in high school science. Science Education, 77(4), 535-555.

Grimmett, P. P., & Erickson, G. L. (Eds.). (1988). Reflection in teachereducation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Grobman, H. (1970). Developmental curriculum projects: Decision points andprocesses. Itasca, 1L: Peacock Publishers Inc.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in scienceteaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research,52(2), 201-217.

Isom, F. S., & Rowsey, R. E. (1986). The effect of a new prelaboratoryprocedure on students’ achievement in chemistry. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 23, 231-235.

Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1985a). Student-student interaction:Ignored but powerful. Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 22-26.



Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985b). Classroom conflict: Controversyversus debate in learning groups. American Educational Research Journal,22, 237-256.

Kahle, J. B. (1990). Real students take chemistry and physics. In K. Tobin,J. B. Kahle, & B. J. Fraser, Windows into science classrooms: Problemsassociated with high level cognitive learning in science. Falmer Press.

Kelly, A. (Ed.) (1987). Science for girlsl Milton Keynes: Open UniversityPress.

Kelly. P. J.. & Lister, R. E. (1969). Assessing practical ability in NuffieldA-level biology. London: English University Press.

Kyle, W. C., Jr., & Shymansky, J. A. (1988). What research says . . . aboutteachers as researchers. Science and Children, 26(3), 29-31.

Leonard, W. H., Cavana, G. R., & Lowery, L. F. (1981). An experimentaltest of an extended discretion approach for high school laboratoryinvestigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 497-504.

Nelson, M. A., & Abraham, E. C. (1976). Discussion strategies and studentcognitive skills. Science Education, 60, 13-27.

Newton, R. E., & Capie, W. (1982, April). Effects of engagement quality onintegrated process skill achievement in grade 7 and 8 science students ofvarying ability levels. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.

Novak, J. D. (1988). Learning science and the science of learning. Studies inScience Education, 75, 77-101.

OIsen, D. R. (1973). What is worth knowing and what can be taught? SchoolReview, 52, 27-43.

Raghubir, K. P. (1979). The laboratory investigative approach to scienceinstruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16, 13-18.

Renner, J. W., Abraham, M. R., & Birnie, H. H. (1985). The importance ofthe form of student acquisition of data in physics learning cycles. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 22, 303-325.

Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. A. (1978). Case studies in science education (Vols 1& 2). Urbana: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluationand Committee on Culture and Cognition, University of Illinois atUrbana-Champagne.

Swift, N. (1989). Models of collaborative research: University faculty andclassroom teachers as partners and peers. Oswego: University of New Yorkat Oswego.

Tamir, P. (1972). The practical mode: A distinct mode of performance,Journal of Biological Education, 6, 175-182.

Tamir, P., & Lunetta, V. N. (1981). Inquiry-related tasks in high schoolscience laboratory handbooks. Science Education, 65(5), 477-484.

Tobin, K. (1986). Student task involvement and achievement in process-oriented science activities. Science Education, 70(1), 61-72.



Tobin, K. (1987). Applications of wait time in learning. Review ofEducational Research, 57(1), 69-95.

Tobin, K., & Capie, W. (1982). Relationships between classroom processvariables and middle-school science achievement. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 74(3), 441-454.

Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school scienceclassrooms? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 549-560.

Tobin, K., & Garnett, P. (1987). Gender related differences in classroomprocesses in science activities, Science Education, 77(1), 91-103.

Vann, W., May, K. N., & Shugars, D. A. (1981a). Acquisition ofpsychomotor skills in dentistry: An experimental teaching method. Journalof Dental Education, 45(9), 567-575.

Vann, W., May, K. N., & Shugars, D. A. (1981b). Teaching the acquisition ofpsychomotor skills in dentistry: A replication study. Journal of DentalResearch, 60, 511.

von GIasersfeld, E. (1988, July-August). Environment and communication.Paper presented at the sixth meeting of the International Committee ofMathematics Education, Budapest, Hungary.

von GIasersfeld, E. (1987). The construction of knowledge. Seaside CA: TheSystems Inquiry Series, Intersystems Publication.

Wheatley, G. (1988). Problem centered learning. Tallahassee: Florida StateUniversity.

Yager, R. E., Engen. H. B., & Snider, B. C. F. (1969). Effects of thelaboratory and demonstration methods upon the outcomes of instruction insecondary biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 76-86.


Documents

Research on Science Laboratory Activities: In Pursuit of Better Questions and Answers to Improve Learning