A Critical Review of the Role of the Laboratory in - CiteSeerX

FD 206 445

AUTHiRTTTLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYPUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

SE 034 834

Blosser, Patricia E.A Critical Review of the Role of the Laboratory inScience Teaching.ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, andEnvironmental Education, Columbus, Ohio.National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, D.C.Dec 80400-78-0004166p.Information Reference Center (ERIC /IRC) , The OhioState Univ., 1200 Chambers Rd., 3rd Floor, Columbus,OH 43212 ($5.001.

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS College Science: *Educational Philosophy; Elementary

School Science: Elementary Secondary Education:Higher Education: *Literature Reviews; ScienceEducation: *Science Education History; ScienceEquipment: *Science Instruction: *ScienceLaboratories: Scientific Literacy; ScientificMethodology: Secondary School Science

IDENTIFIERS *Science Education Research

ABSTRACTThis critical review synthesizes information related

t, the use of the laboratory in science programs. Several approachesto the use and/or role of the laboratory in science teaching are°presented, including historical and research perspectives, opinionstatements, a review of current research, and suggestions for futureresearch. Concluding remarks, speculations, and recommendations alsoare made by the author about research related to the role of thescience laboratory. (CS)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ** from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

ERIC: Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics,Lnand Environmental EducationThe Ohio State University

College of Education1200 Chambers Road, Third Floor

CD Columbus, Ohio 43212r\i

G7LL

Patricia E. BlosserThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus, Ohio 43210

A CRITICAL REVIEW OFTHE ROLE OF THE LABORATORY IN

SCIENCE TEACHING

December 1980

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality

Points of view or opinions staled on this document do not necessarily represent official NIE

position oi policy

From time to time concerns re-emerge in the science educationcommunity. In the present circ*mstances of reduced funding foreducation, science teachers are often asked to defend the continueduse of the laboratory as an instructional approach. The ERICClearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Educationhas received requests for assistance in locating information whichmay be used as a basis for studying the problem. This criticalreview is produced in an attempt to synthesize information relatedto the use of the laboratory in science programs.

Your comments and suggestions for future publications areencouraged.

Patricia E. BlosserFaculty Research AssociateScience Education

Stanley L. HelgesonAssociate DirectorScience Education

This publication was prepared with funding from the NationalInstitute of Education, U.S. Department of Education undercontract no. 400-78-0004. The opinions expressed in thisreport do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies ofNIE or U.S. Department of Education.

INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE USE OF THE LABORATORY IN SCIENCE TEACHING:A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 4

THE ROLE OF THE LABORATORY IN SCIENCE TEACHING:A RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE 19

THE ROLE OF THE LABORATORY IN SCIENCE TEACHING:OPINION STATEMENTS 35

THE USE OF THE LABORATORY IN SCIENCE TEACHING:SOME CURRENT RESEARCH 52

SOME ADDITIONAL REMARKS ABOUT RESMRCH ONLABORATORY INSTRUCTION 92

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 105

SOME CONCLUSIONS AND SPECULATIONS ABOUT RESEARCHRELATED TO THE ROLE OF THE SCIENCE LABORATORY 108

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 126

BIBLIOGRAPHY 134

INTRODUCTION

In 1978, the National Science Teachers Association published the firstvolume in a proposed series entitled What Research Says to the ScienceTeacher, and edited by Mary Budd Rowe. This project, funded by the ERICClearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, wasdesigned as a response to the pressure for educational accountability. Itwas intended to help science teachers become aware of relevant educationalresearch and to encourage them to become involved in research. WhatResearch Says. . . was produced to bring to the attention of scienceteachers research findings that would help them as practicing teachers andto identify kinds of research that need to be done.

Six areas of concern to both science teachers and science educationresearchers were included in volume I. One of these areas was the role ofthe laboratory in secondary school science programs, reviewed by Cary C.Bates (1978), Bates concluded his review of 82 studies with the comment9 9

. .for the answer has not yet been conclusively found. . ." to thequestion: What does the laboratory accomplish that cculd not beaccomplished as well by less expensive and less timeconsumingalternatives?" (p. 75).

Such a conclusion is of little comfort or assistance to a scienceteacher working in a school system that is coping with rising inflation anddecreased school revenue. If educational research does not provide supportfor the role of the laboratory in science teaching, should the laboratorybe replaced by some other instructional method considered more efficient interms of time; less costly in terms of equipment, supplies, and facilities;less administratively burdensome in terms of both teacher and studentscheduling; and more promising in terms of student achievement gains? Thispresent review has been produced as yet another look at the role of thelaboratory in science teaching.

The Scope of the 1980 Review

The fact that yet another review has been produced in no way should hetaken to indicate that the one written by Gary Bates was unsatisfactory.This present review is broader in scope in that the Bates review wasfocused solely on secondary school science research. This 1980 reviewincludes research at the elementary, secondary, and college levels.

It differs also in that additional research reviews were analyzed togain a historical perspective both of research related to the sciencelaboratory and of the use of the laboratory as a teaching method inscience.

Sources Reviewed

Some of the materials reviewed were identified through a computersearch of the ERIC data base and include publications announced in bothResources in Education and Current Index to Journals in Education. Alsoreviewed were the Curtis Digest series, both the three volumes produced byFrancis D. Curtis and the three companion volumes produced by personsassociated with Teachers College (Boenig, 1969; Swift, 1969; Lawlor, 1970.)Additional related literature included relevant chapters from issues of theReview of Educational Research on science education as a special topic;reviews produced by personnel from the U.S. Office of Education; the annualreviews of research produced by the ERIC Clearinghouse for Science,Mathematics, and Environmental Education in cooperation with the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching; as well as reviews completedby individuals and published as journal articles or presented as papers atprofessional association meetings.

In addition, the yearbooks of the National Society for the Study ofEducation (N3SE) which were devoted to science education were also reviewedto identify opinion statements about the role of the science laboratory, aswere materials produced in connection with the science curriculumimprovement project efforts funded primarily by the National ScienceFoundation. A manual search of Dissertation Abstracts for the period of1960-1978 was also conducted to identify doctoral dissertations which mightnot have appeared in print as journal articles or research reports.

Journal articles and other documents were read in their entirety. Insome instances doctoral dissertations were reviewed in microfilm form or inpaper copy but, for the most part, information related to doctoral researchcame from the abstracts of the research as reported in DissertationAbstracts International.

Format of the Review

The information presented in this review will be directed toward theconsideration of two major topics that seem to appear in much of theliterature related to use of the -ritory in science teaching: why thelaboratory should be used in scienc, , and goals or objectives this use ishoped to accomplish.

Related to the first topic is a large amount of literature which canbest be characterized as opinion-based rather than research-based. Tied tothese opinions or assumptions are the goals and objectives scienceeducators consider desirable for science teaching and learning. Researchstudies on the role of the laboratory are focused on how well, if at all,these goals are attained by students as a result of experiences in thescience laboratory.

It seems logical, therefore, to look at the development of thelaboratory as an instructional method in science and then to consider whatleaders in science education have said about the use of the laboratory inscience at various periods of time. This should provide some insight aboutchanges, if any, in laboratory use as well as reasons given for this use.

Frequently educational practices become commonly used and then webegin to conduct research to justify their use, rather than conductingresearch to determine if the practice should be widely disseminated beforethe dissemination begins. To conform with reality, the discussion ofresearch related to the laboratory will follow the description of thedevelopment of the laboratory as a science teaching method.

Trends identifed from annual and topical reviews of research will bediscussed. Research reports from these reviews, as well as from journalarticles and abstracts of doctoral dissertations, will be analyzed. Theconcluding section will be focused on the identification of potentialresearch topics, if any exist. Welch, writing in the review of research inscience education focused on the secondary school level for the years1968-69 and discussing a research study comparing the use of the laboratorywith other methods of instruction, introduced the study with the phrase ".. .in what should probably be the last study of this type. . ." (Welch,1971a, p. 38). And, it may be that the role of the laboratory has beensufficiently researched, although the science education community may beless than happy with the data which have resulted.

THE USE OF THE LABORATORY IN SCIENCE TEACHING:A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Information on the development of the science laboratory as a methodof instruction came from several sources (Fay, 1931; Hurd, 1961; Johnson,1977; Moyer, 1976; Rosen, 1954; Woodburn and Obourn, 1965). In looking atchanges in science teaching that have occurred over the years, it is a goodidea to keep in mind three points that seem to summarize the history ofeducation: society keeps changing, schools lag behind changing socialneeds, and periodically we have "new- schools. Forces that produce changeare primarily those in democratic philosophy (Callahan and Clark, 1977).

Hurd, in his discussion of biological education in American schools1890-1960, identified eight types of events that influenced educationduring this period: (1) the closing of the frontier and the beginning ofurban industrial society, (2) growth of scientific professions and majorcontributions to scientific theory, (3) the acceleration of scientific andtechnological developments catalyzed by World War I, (4) the development ofthe industrial research laboratory, (5) the rise of automation and theeconomic depression of the 1930's, (6) World War II and the atomic age, (7)engineering and scientific advancements that symbolized the space age, and(8) the explosion of scientific knowledge during the decade of 1950-60(1961, p. 6).

Johr3on, writing of changes in science education 1850-1950, cited ninerevolutionary" changes: (1) the object method, (2) attempts to control

curricula, (3) science teachers organize and respond, (4) the nature studymovement, (5) the general science movement, (6) fpundation support forcurricular change, (7) toward principles and major generalizations, (8) thehuman needs emphasis, and (9) the nurture of future scientists (1977, pp.119-151).

Hurd's perspective relates to that of the changes in society thatinfluenced education while Johnson's discussion emphasized changes thattook place in science education in response to events and pressures.Woodburn and Obourn looked at science education over a period of time fromthe perspective of changes in school curricula, treating each scienceseparately (1965, pp. 165-260). The articles by Rosen (1954) and by Moyer(1976) relate to a much narrower topic in science eduation history: thephysics laboratory. Fay (1931) reviewed chemistry teaching in American highschools from 1800-1930.

The Emergence of the Laboratory in Science Teaching

Points of view on the purposes of education vary. Part of thisvariation is philosophical. Because of varying philosophies and points ofview, what people consider to be the function of the school varies. Soneviews of this function may be: (1) to transmit the culture, (2) totransform the culture, (3) to promote individual development, or (4) toattempt to take an eclectic position combining the first three views.

These differing poin.s of view, combined with the cycle of socialchangeschool response to social pressures resulting in changed schools,are evident in the teaching of science in American schools over the years.Emphases and trends change over time, only to reappear in modified form associal and economic conditions influence education.

1750-1880. There is no evidence that science was a part of thecurriculum in American schools during the era of the Latin Grammar schools.However, the curriculum in tne academies established for noncollegeboundstudents did include natural philosophy (a forerunner to physics) andastronomy. Science teaching had three aims: descriptive, utilitarian, andreligious. Wouldbe ministers studied science to understand God; wouldbemerchants, to understand the goods they sold.

In some science courses today, the utilitarian aspect is stillevident, with an emphasis on the practical applications of science. Thedescriptive emphasis also persists. The religious emphasis is less common.

Thward the end of this period, two pressures influenced education:pressure toward standardization among schools and pressure fnr free,universal secondary education based on broader curricular foundations thanacademies provided. Pressure for standardization led to restriction ofcourse offerings. Pressure for universal education led to variation basedon individual and local needs.

1880-1910. During this period there was a shift in the aims of theschools. Utilitarian and religious emphases gave way to training of themind -- drill on factual information = memory training. Faculty psychologyand the doctrine of formal discipline were popular.

Faculty psychology, although using psychological language, is really aphilosophy of education with a history tracing back to the Middle Ages(Good, 1956, p. 317). Mental faculties are supposed to be such capacitiesas the power to remember or to think or to "see a point." Facultypsychology was the dominant philosophy of education until the middle of the19th century and for some time after. People believed that as facultiesdeveloped, the objective powers were the first, followed by the powers offorming images and building an inner world, and eventually, as theindividual approached maturity, the capacity to deal with abstract truthsand higher generalizations developed.

High school chemistry teaching was also influenced by the aim ofmental discipline for which the laboratory method was unnecessary (Fay,1931, p. 1547). Chemistry textbooks were written by college professors,with the content organized logically rather than psychologically. It wasalso the influence of college faculty tnat resulted in the use of thelaboratory method in high school chemistry classes. College professors inAmerica were in turn influenced by European methods of science teaching,with Wolcott Gibbs of Harvard bringing to American education von Liege'semphasis on research. Chemistry was the first high school science course tomake any extensive use of the laboratory method (Fay, 1931, pp. 1548-1949).

By 1880, laboratory equipment was installed in some high schools.Chemistry instruction also changed in that chemistry textbook contentemphasized information on laws and theories. Fay wrote "By the end of thecentury the concept of mental discipline overshadowed every other objectivein high school chemistry; the laboratory in many cases almost entirelysuperseded the textbook. . ." (p. 1550).

Many people went to Germany to study physics and brought back with themthe German emphasis on "no final truth" and the use of the laboratory forimpersonal observations of factual phenomena (Rosen, 1954). These ideasseemed to combine well with the emphasis on object teaching as popularizedby the Oswego Normal School. Object teaching was intended to developaccuracy of observation and perception, helping pupils to form correctconcepts and developing skill in reasoning. Materials and lessons were tobe adapted to the stages of children's mental development (Good, 1956, p.217).

Object teaching was criticized as consisting of lessons lacking inconnection and for failure of an overall plan. The pressures forstandardization of curricula were, in part, responsible for the decline ofobjet teaching. It may also have taken on a more acceptable form as naturestudy. Some of the early ideas of nature study still exist today in ecologyand outdoor education.

While nature study and object teaching were in vogue in elementaryeducation, secondary education was influenced by college domination.Emphasis was placed on preparation for college, with little considerationfor the interests and needs of the learner. College domination andpressures for standardization both influenced secondary school scienceteaching.

For example, in 1878 a questionraire was sent to a large sample ofschools to determine whether they offered a physics course with laboratorywork and to determine the length of this course. Only 11 of the 607respondents used the laboratory in their physics classes and only 4 of the11 offered the course for an academic year. Frank Clark, of the Universityof Cincinnati, who analyzed these data for the United States Commissionerof Education, suggested that laboratory work should be an "essential andprominent feattre" of every course in the physical sciences, with the goalof. training the faculty of observation and teaching pupils the experimentalmethod of solving problems (Moyer, 1976, pp. 96-97). Moyer suggested thatClark's point of view was probably influenced by his background inchemistry, a science in which the instructional laboratory was fairly wellestablished by 1880.

A second study was commissioned in 1883 in an attempt to upgradesecondary school physics programs and to deal with what was considered aL,

undesirable duplication (and , ',versity) in high schools, normal schools,colleges, and unversities. There were 70 respondents to this questionnaireand they were in favor of standardization of course content. Anotherobjective of this survey was to determine the aims of physics teaching.Twentysix of 32 high school physics teachers responding thought the highschool physics course should be experimental, with experiments beinglargely qualitative. Laboratory work was favored but little tried.

1()

Charles Wead, a faculty member at the University of Michigan who wasdirecting the 1883 study, decided to develop a list of 47 "fundamentalexperiments that should never be omitted in a high school course" (Moyer,1976, p. 98). Wead frequently cited a high school physics textbook thatemphasized student experiments. The author of this textbook, Alfred Gage,justified the use of experiments in physics because of the success of theintroduction of student laboratory work in chemistry during the past 20year period (1862-1882). Gage reasoned that if laboratory work madechemistry more interesting to students, the same cause and effectrelationship should hold for high school physics (Moyer, 1976, p. 98).

When Harvard admission standards were revised in 1886, a decision wasmade to create a laboratory requirement in physics for secondary schoolstudents who wished to enroll at HarvarL. This may be interpreted asevidence both of college domination and of the move toward standardizationof the secondary school curriculum. Edwin Hall and his colleagues wereasked to specify what this requirment involved. They decided the laboratorycourse should have at least 40 experiments and should cover mechanics,sound, light, heat, and electricty. This turned out to provide too muchlatitude in the choice of experiments and it was decided to preparedetailed descriptions of the 40 experiments the physics course shouldinclude. This effort eventually led to the descriptive list which wasrevised and lengthened, in 1897, to include 61 experiments grouped intomechanics and hydrostatics, light, mechanics, heat, sound, and electricityand magnetism (Moyer, 1976, p. 99).

Hall maintained that laboratory instruction was essential because itprovided training in observation, supplied detailed information, andaroused pupils' interest--outcomes of laboratory instruction which arestill espoused and investigated in the 19701s.

While the move toward standardization of curriculum was under way,other changes were taking place in the American schools which hadimplications for science teaching. Enrollments were increasing. More andmore immigrants were coming to America. Prior to 1830, most immigrants werefrom northwestern Europe. These people pushed inland for farming land.During the 1880's, southern and eastern European countries providedimmigrants. These differed from their predecessors in several ways. Theytended to remain in eastern cities, and they also differed in religion,language, and customs.

While the laboratory was being added to high school physics, biologyin the secondary school was studied relative to its function and purpose.Prior to 1890, practically all secondary school students went to collegebecause only 3.87 of highschoolaged pupils were enrolled in secondaryschools. Hurd characterized the 1890-1900 period in biological education asone dominated by the use of tne laboratory manual, providing someindication that laboratory activities had been taking place in biology fora longer period of time than in chemistry and physics. Growth of laboratorywork received its strongest support, according to Hurd, from the mentaldiscipline theory rather than from any biological justification. Laboratorywork was seen, in all the science,, as an ideal procedure for training andexercising those faculties of the mind devoted to observation, will power,and memory until this idea was rejectcd after the turn of the century(Hurd, 1961, p. 18).

The influence of faculty psychology, with its emphasis on mentaldiscipline, was also evident in physics. G. Stanley Hall, an educator andpsychologist, criticized the overemphasis on exacting laboratory work inphysics and hypothesized that this emphasis had in part caused the declinein physics enrollment (from 25% to 20% of the high school pupils eligibleto take the course). Hall said the physics course did not consider thenature, needs, and interests of high school students; the laboratoryexperiments and textbooks were too quantitative and were too concerned withprecise measurements. Hall's criticisms were rebutted with the argumentthat quantitative experiments were the best means for training the mentalfaculties and for cultiya:ing the powers of observation (Moyer, 1976, p.102).

The National Education Association (NEA) continued to be involved inthe problems of lack of uniformity of high school curricula and in collegeadmission standards. In 1893, the Committee of Ten, convened by the NEA,issued a report which called for emphasis on secondary school scienceeducation for non-college-bound students and also encouraged the use oflaboratory work. In 1898 the science committee of the NEA recommended thathigh school science courses should contain four hours of laboratory work aweek, with all laboratory periods being two hours long, and two periods ofrecitation-demonstration instruction (Hurd, 1961, pp. 13-14).

The emphasis on science for the non-college-bound helped to promotethe development of a general biology course in the high school resultingfrom the unification of botany, human physiology, and zoology. It was hopedthat such a course would appeal to the average student and would emphasizethe scientific method and the de\2.1opment of problem-solving skills.

G. Stanley Hall, whose criticisms of high school physics teaching werediscussed earlier in this review, was an advocate of equal opnortunity forall students at the secondary level--stressing the right of all who came toschool to be offered something of value. Educational psychology as ex-pounded by Dewey, Thorndike, and Kilpatrick became popular and replaced themental discipline emphasis. The project method, with its emphasis onstudent interests and experience, began to influence teaching (Hurd, 1961,p. 28). 4

1910-1938. During this period the reaction against college preparationas, the chief function of the secondary school continued. There was somereversion in science teaching to descriptive-information, utilitarian aims.Part of this change was a result of the iapid rise in the secondary schoolpopulation and the need to accommodate these pupils. Many students enteredhigh school but did not continue to graduation. General science wasdeveloped as a ninch grade course in the hope that such a course wouldprovide more adequate preparation for biology and general orientation tohigh school science. Subject matter was concentrated in the physicalsciences. During the 1900-1910 decade the 6-3-3 form of school organizationwas set up and general science was introduced in the junior high school asa replacement for a course in physical geography. Demonstration was aprimary teaching method. Science courses with a "general" emphasisattracted high school students and enrollment in general science and

biology rose while enrollments in physics, physical geography, andphysiology dropped.

Even if there were more demonstration activities than laboratory workin general science, the laboratory was still in use in other science areas.In the report from the NEA's Commission on the Reorganization of SecondaryEducation, published in 1920, the use of the laboratory was criticized inrelation to the seven cardinal principles of secondary education. Thelaboratory was considered to contain too many experiments designed merelyto check on generalizations the student already perceived and to repeat thetextbook, often data were collected as an end in themselves and were notfurther used, many experiments were mint.. Ay quantitative and called forrefinements beyond the understandings of ne pupils, the laboratory and thescience classroom were separated both physically and intellectually, andnotebook-making and notebook records appeared to serve no real purpose(Hurd, 1961, p. 36).

The Commission recommended that the aim of laboratory instruction inscience should be to develop a consistent chain of significant ideasrelated to class work, with the laboratory serving to provide concreteexperiences; laboratory work should precede textbook assignments, undermost circ*mstances; laboratory work should not be an end in itself and,therefore, detailed microscope work, elaborate drawings, and excessivenotebook making were not encouraged (Hurd, 1961, p. 33).

In 1932, leaders in science education produced a yearbook for theNational Society for the Study of Education in which they advocated somechanges in science teaching. Entitled A Program for Teaching Science, thisyearbook contained a discussion of the contributions of educationalresearch to the solution of tLdching problems in the science laboratory(Chapter 7, pp. 91-108). Francis D. Curtis, who wrote this chapter,summarized the findings of studies in which the individual laboratorymethod of instruction was compared with the demonstration method by sayingthat each method offerer training in certain knowledges, skills, and habitsnot offered by the other method (Curtis in Whipple, 1932, p. 106).

The authors of the 31st NSSE yearbook, as A Program for TeachingScience is frequently called, advocated the establishment of a K-12 scienceprogram with science teaching focused on big ideas rather than on laws andthaories of pure science so that students could learn how to makeinterpretative generalizations. Thirty-eight generalizations were listed asbeing considered of such importance as to form the core of all scienceteaching in the public schools (Woodburn and Obourn, 1965, p. 173).

The depression years of this period also led people to questioneducational practices. Attention began to 1,e focused on the individualstudent and his/her personal, social, and economic welfare. The majorcriterion for content selection was the meeting of student needs. Schoolsbegan to take over parent functions of health information and consumereducation. Society demanded that the purpose of science in the high schoolcurriculum be justified.

In addition to the 31st NSSE yearbook, other national reports producedduring this period had implications for science teaching. In 1q38, severalpublications appeared related to science teaching. One, entitled Sciencein General Education, was produced by a group from the ProgressiveEducation Association. The chief contribution of this publication was theanalysis of the use of reflective thinking in the solution of problems andcontributions or science to broad areas of living. The use of thelaboratory was advocated for its opportunities in problem solving. Also in1938, the Educational Policies Commission of the NEA issued a goalsstatement advocating that American education should have a common set ofgoals; both elementary and secondary schools should develop programs thatwould fulfill the purposes of education in a democratic America.

A third 1938 publication was that of the National Association forResaerch in Science Teaching which was a report produced by the NARSTCommittee on Secondary School Science. This group had sent out aquestionnaire designed to identify "better" practices in secondary schoolscience teaching. The questionnaire went only to a selected group ofindividuals, 79 of whom responded. items reported received 95X agreement(or more). Those related to the science laboratory were "Laboratory work insecondary school science should be designed to teach pupils how to observe,how to come to independent conclusions on the basis of their ownobservations, and how to check their conclusion." (Hurd, 1961, p. 69).Respondents identified the need to use both demonstration and laboratory asinstructional methods and to closely correlate classroom and laboratorywork.

While individuals or groups were issuing reports, other persons werecriticizing these materials, complaining that there was too much emphasison what should be done and too little emphasis on how it should be dos ,even though some reports contained course outlines and sample teachingunits (Hurd, 1961, p. 72). The strongest criticism of individual activitywas that the student spent a large amount of time in the activity for verylittle educational return. Teacher demonstration appeared more economicalin terms of both time and money, especially since research evidenceindicated that students could learn facts by either method. As a result,some schools dropped the double laboratory period (Hurd, 1961, p. 73).

1938-1950. 'entified World War II and the advent of the atom4.c.a.w as two major .rences on the teaching of science in this period.Society hgan to recognize the growing importance of science in education.In 1942 4 committee representing 17 scientific and science teachingsocieties attempted to develop a philosophy for secondary school scienceinstruction. The committee's report, entitled Science Teaching for BetterLiving, was based, in part, on replies from 2,500 science teachers to aqt.stionnaire concerned with aims of science teaching. Science shouldstress problems of everyday living, the committee concluded. Thescientist's greatest contribution was considered to be his method and thisscientific metliod should be applied to personal and social problems (Hurd,1961, p. 77).

In 1947, the 46th yearbook of the National Society for the Study ofEducation was published. It was called Science Education in AmericanSchools. The role of the science laboratory was considered in Chapter 4,

which was focused on issues in the teaching of science. Issues were statedin the form of questions, with question 16 he4rtg "What are the purposes oflaboratory work?" The writers decry the over-use of verification in thescience laboratory, writing "Performing demonstrations or individualexperiments merely for the purpose of verifying facts or principles alreadyknown is rarely, if ever, justified. . ." (Henry, 1947, p. 51). "Theprimary purpose of experimenting is to secure evidence which nay revealanswers to problems. . ." with laboratory work preceding class discussimiof a topic or principle. The practice of carrying on experiments for shemere purpose of verification often emphasizes the antithesis of thescientific method." (Henry, 1947, pp. 52-53).

Question 18, "Is the observation of a demonstration experiment aseffective and valuable to a pupil as his performance of that experiment?"was followed by the remark that this issue has persisted for severaldecades. An article by Cunningham was cited to the effect that earlyresearch supporting the demonstration method was crude and that onlyretention of factual information was measured. Later research, looking atother outcomes, indicated ". . .that in certain important respects theindividual method is superior to the demonstration method."(Henry, 1947, p.54).

The authors conclude that because experimentation involves learning bydoing, there can be no substitute for this activity and, therefore, pupilexperimentation is an essential part of good science education. Theyconsidered the conclusions of Curtis about research on the individualmethod vs. demonstration, as stated in the 31st NSSE yearbook, still valid.

In a later section of this yearbook, the authors stated thatlaboratory work was at a minimum in junior high school science andidentified several factors that may account for this situation: researchshowing the lecture-demonstration method of instruction as superior forimmediate retention, class size too large for laboratory work, and a lackof science equipment (Henry, 1947, pp. 160-163). They suggested there was aneed to build a case for laboratory instruction based on the idea thatlaboratories provide practice in problem solving, the manipulation cif

apparatus, and the need for pupils to learn out-of-school uses of thescientific method (Henry, 1947, p. 164).

. Concerns for the school science laboratory were again evident in asection of Chapter 14 on "Special Problems of Science Teaching at theSecondary Level." In a subsection of this chapter, "The Role of theLaboratory in Teaching Science," the authors emphasized the need to avoidcookbook-type laboratories. Instead, the laboratory should provide pupilspractice in raising and defining worthwhile problems, with laboratoryactivities comlucted so that pupils learn the mearing and use of controlsin experimentation and gain practice in analyzing data from problemsituations so they learn to test hypotheses and interpret data. The authorsstressed the need to maintain the proper balance between teacher guidanceand student exploration. They dealt with the demonstration method byconceding that it is time-saving and a loss expensive way of completinglaboratory activities, but suggested that it be used mainly in problem-solving situations to challenge pupils rather than to illustrate thetextbook (Henry, 1947, pp. 236-238).

whichHurd characterized the latter part cf this time period as one in

The importance of laboratory work with experience in observationand experimentation was regarded as self-evident in science teach-ing. . . Experimentation develops skills and coordination inmanipulation; trains the powers of observation and providesopportunities for developing resourcefulness in the use ofphysical materials and instruments. Individual laboratorywork with its active participation is to be desired overpassive observation. (Hurd, 1961, p. 93)

He also said that the question of teaching secondary school science asscience for the scientist or for the citizen was never clearly answered(Hurd, 1961, p. 105).

1950-1970. In 1950 the National Science Foundation was established,with its major function that of improving education in the sciences. Toquote the act of Congress that established NSF, the foundation was designed

.to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for otherpurposes." (Woodburn and Obourn, 1965, p. 175). Again, social change led tothe time when a federal agency was created to become involved in thedevelopment of science courses and their administration.

Hurd described the 1950-1960 period as one of a crisis in scienceeducation and reappraisal, identifying such factors as the acceleratedgrowth of science and technology following World War II, the increase inscientific knowledge, the fact that more than 70% of all American youthwere in school and more were now considering higher education, and aconcern that the gifted and talented high school students were not beingintellectually challenged by their education. Enrollments in scienceincreased but the number of science teachers decreased. In 1958 theNational Defense Education Act made it possible for schools to purchasescience laboratory equipment (Hurd, 1961, pp. 108-110).

The third NSSE yearbook, Rethinking Science Education, was produced in1960 as the 59th yearbook of the Society. Its authors attempted to forecast"oncom4ng objectives' of science education. Although the statement "thereis.no one method of teaching science that can be considered unquestionablysuperior to all others" appeared in several places in this yearbook, therewas continued emphasis on laboratory teaching. In Chapter 13, "Facilities,Equipment, and Instructional Materials for the Science Program,"sub-heading: "Equipment for Science-Teaching," the place and function oflaboratory teaching and types of laboratory-teaching equipment andprocedures were discussed. The authors stated, "All science-teaching is, tosome extent, laboratory teaching. Children (and grownups, too), when theyget the chance seem naturally to want to try out things. . .Every classroomwhere science is taught should be a place for experimentation. . ." (Henry,1960, p. 246).

The authors stated that every laboratory exercise should have a

clear-cut educational purpose and identified five: (1) to add reality totextbook material, (2) to develop first-hand familiarity with tools,

121 6

materials, and techniques of science; (3) to allow students to demonstrateto themselves something they already know to be true; (4) to give studentsopportunities to pit their laboratory skills against par in seekingexperimental answers; and (5) to create opportunities wherein studentspredict events or cire,,..,tances and then design experiments to test theaccuracy of their predictions. The fifth purpose was considered the mostcogent reason for using science laboratory activities (Henry, 1960, pp.245-247).

In Chapter 18, the yearbook authors, in considering problems andissues in science education, dealt with the question that Hurd said was notclearly answered in the early 1950's: science for the scientist or for thecitizen? They asked the questions "Should the objectives of scienceteaching be the same for all students? for the potential scientist vs. thelayman? Should science be taught for its own sake or for social usefulness?What emphasis should be placed on technology as opposed to pure science?"They conceded that critics say that science teaching should be orientedtoward the intellectual processes (creative or intuitive thinking) andsuggested that the purposes of science teaching need to be clarified. Theyalso considered the roles that the scientist, the science teacher, thescience educator, and the layman should play in developing curriculumchanges in science. In addition, they raised the question of whether thereshould be a nationwide curriculum in science and, if so, who should serveon the planning committee?

In another section, focused on the problems of teaching in scienceeducation, the laboratory was again scrutinized. The authors concludedthat

Changing conceptions of the values and purposes of science-teachinghave tended toward an increasing emphasis upon laboratory work.The nature of the scientific enterprise is found in the methods bywhich problems are attacked. Therefore, more attention shouldbe directed to the processes or methods of seeking answers in thelaboratory rather than putting so much stress on finding exactanswers. More time should be spent by students in developinginsights as to how data may be processed and predictionsmade from them. (Henry, 1960, p. 334)

In 1963 the Office of scientific Personnel (OSP) of the NationalAcademy of Sciences produced a booklet entitled "Guidelines for Developmentof Programs in Science Instruction." The authors of this publicationidentified three basic elements to be considered it planning for thelaboratory: the student, the teacher, and the facilities and equipment.They wrote,

. . . the function (of t'e laboratory) has far more significancethan the practical appi cation of the lessons learned. . .

One of the important functions of the laboratory is the deepen-ing of a student's understanding that scientific and technolo-gical concepts and applications are closely related to his ownnatural environment. (OSP, 1963, p. 1)

In the laboratory students should be able to observe natural phenomenawith a discerning eye, make measurements and analyze data recorded, and

engage in free-ranging investigations that do not necessarily have a

predetermined end (OSP, 1963, p. 1).

The writers suggested that widespread misconception of the nature ofscience led to laboratory assignments that were merely exercises designedto verify laws or rules while others saw the laboratory as showing thepractical side of science, divorced from and having less prestige than thetheoretical parts of a science course. The essential nature of science asa continually evolving enterprise of the human mind depends uponcareful experimentation and upon more and more sophisticated work in thelaboratory (OSP, 1963, p. 3).

In the laboratory the student can be taught more readily to bediscriminating in observation, to evaluate evidence or data,and to sense the importance of care and skill in the taking ofmeasurements.

In the laboratory the student should develop the contemporaryview of the limitations of measurement, of inherent uncertainty,of the possibLYIty of actieving only better approximations asto what will ultimately be accepted as most likely values. Butwith this must be coupled an appreciation for the continuingutility of sucl measurement., 'oeca-se one can know the limitsof their applicaL.lity or of their exactness. Similarly, thecontinuing usefulness of certain scientific 'laws' can bedemonstrated through applica,ion even if they fail to accountfor all phenomena, for example, in the .icroscopic domain.(OSP, 1963, pp. 3-4)

The authors consider that --dies on learning processes haveimplications for C.-le role of the laboratol. in science teaching. In termsof transfer of training, the laboratory can provide students with anunderstanding of pronedures for scientific investigation, including controlof certain variables. careful observation -nd recording of data, and thedevelopment of conclusions. In terms of concepts cf 'readiness, motivation,and structure, work 4n the laborator must take into account differences inthe level of student development, ewrironmcnt, and experience. Anemotionally satisfying, successful learnln6 experience is one of thestrongest incentives for continLed learning. It is here that the laboratoryholds great potential. . ." (OSP, 1963, pp. 4-6).

The authors emphasised the need to p- side initial laboratoryexperiences to build or. previous ones whit l- result in studentinvolvement it an emotionally and intellectually satisfying ,anner (OSP,1963, p. 7).

Teacher, need to kuw how mat rial should be presented as well as whatstudents should ,earn. ". . . a preoccupation with the material andphysical : -nent,, or a laboratory will not guarantee effective learning.The attitua2, understanding, the knowledge, and the motivation of theteacher are central. However, even the best teacher must have facilitiesand equipment to teach effectively" (OSP, 1963, pp. 12-13). Again, (p. 38)"The most important element in any program of laboratory scienceinstruction is a well-prepared teacher."

14iu 13

Publications seldom, appear in printed form without a lengthy intervaldevoted to conceptualization, research and/or literature review, writing,and editing. Those publications resulting from committee work or from theefforts of a number of authors probably involve more tine in productionthan do others written by one person or by a limited number of individuals.Usually committee-developed publications involve an initial meeting orseries of meetings to get the problem identified, and may involveadditional meetings to react to the work in krogress.

Because this is the way things appear to happen, work was probablyunderway on the 59th NSSE yearbook in which future objectives of scienceeducation were forecast while other individuals ,Jere involved in sciencecourse improvement project work funded, for the most part, by the NationalScience Foundation (NSF). The development of curriculum materials by thePhysical Sciences Study Committee (PSSC), by the Biological SciencesCurriculum Study Committee (BSCS), and by other groups at both elementaryand secondary levels has been well documented in other publications andwill not be discussed here.

However, some discussion of the factors that caused these curriculumreforms to take place does appear relevant. Again we need to refer to thethree-stage model from the history of education:

society keeps changing,

schools lag behi-id changing social needs,so -- periodically --

we have new schools.

Prior to National Science Foundation involvement in science curriculumreform, forces existed that were pressing for such reform: (1) the need formore and better scientific and technical manpower, (2) the need for betterscience education for talented students, (3) the idea that better educationequals better economy, and (4) the increasing accumulation of knowledge,both in depth and amount.

Although this review focuses on the role of the laboratory in scienceteaching, it would be less than realistic to ignore the role of thetextbook in science curriculum. For some schools and teachers, the textbookis the curriculum. Reasons for this situation vary. Curriculum developmentis. not an easy process and teacher education preservice programs seldominclude experiences aimed at helping in-service teachers feel comfortablewith this task. It is a time-consuming task and, to be done well,necessitates that the persons involved be well equipped both in up-to-datecontent and instructional methodology.

Therefore, the role of the textbook in science teaching is animportant one. Numerous authors and committees have decried laboratoryactivities designed to verify the textbook. Now textbooks also deserve ;omeconsideration. Mayer, in the third edition of the Biology Teacher'sHandbook (1978), focused on biology textbooks but his remarks apply equallywell to those in other science courses.

Biology textbooks in the 1800's and the early 1900's "contained a massof disconnected facts and elementary generalizations that were presented

almost entirely as description. . ." (Mayer, 1978, 13. 3). However, thesebooks were written by scientists or their colleagues who knew the state ofthe discipline. Mayer commented that in 1915 more than 50% of the authorsof high school textbooks were listed in American Men of Science. By 1955,this number was less that 10% (1978, p. 3).

The years 1929-1957 were ones in which modifications of theconventional science textbook took place. These modifications reflected theconcern for the growing school population with its diversity of abilities,irr.:erests, backgrounds, and intentions of secondary school students (Mayer,1978, p. 4). Emphasis changed from that of disciplinary content and theknowledge required for admission to college to more _mphasis on what couldreadily be taught and the relations tip between secondary school sciencetextbooks and the working scientist was lost. Te"xtbooks reflected thepressures within and without the educational system rather than the currentstate of a science discipline. Many were written by staff editors ofpublishing companies who tailored their efforts to the type of textbook themarketing staff indicated would sell. Special interest groups also exertedpressures on publishers to include, or exclude, materials thac would make atextbook more salable to their communities.

In the mid-1950's there was dissatisfaction with American education ingeneral and secondary school science education in particular. The plea wasnot for a return to the college-preparatory emphasis of curriculummaterials in the 1910's but for information that reflected the currentstate of science (Mayer, 1978, pp. 4-6).

Lee and Peterson reported seven criticisms of traditional high schoolbiology courses in the 1960's: (1) they represented little of the scienceof biology, (2) they were out of date in terms of current theories andknowledge, (3) they were fragmented and lacked logical coherence, (4) theydid not present biology as a discipline, (5) they forced memorizationrather than requiring understanding, (6) laboratory work failed to portraythe investigative nature of biology, and (7) they were taught more as adogma than as an on-going science (1967, p. 67). Laboratory activitieswere illustrative rather than experimental and quantitative.

These criticisms applied to sciences other than biology. Rosen, in hisreview of the histcry of the physics laboratory which was published in19.54, reported that he stopped discussing the laboratory as it existed, fter 1910 because, even though some changes in practice had taken place,

. .theory behind the format of the high school laboratory work seemsto have undergone little further development" (1954, p. 194).

The NSF-funded curriculum projects involved an emphasis on studentinvestgationiind inquiry (or enquiry). Joseph J. Schwab's publication "TheTeaching of Science as Enquiry" in The Teaching of Science (1964) was aninfluential one. Schwab deplored the teaching of science as dog. i. Hedescribed science teaching practices as those designed to cause pupils toregard science as a rhetoric of conclusions rather than as fluid enquiry,to accept the tentative in science as certain, and to consider the doubtfulas undoubted. Science was, Schwab wrote, ". . .exhibited as a processexclusively of verification . . ."(Schwab, 1964, p. 29).

Schwab described factors affecting the curriculum as composed of fourclusters: (1) "milieu" factors--needs, demands, and conditions whichsocial structures impose upon their members, (2) "learner" factors, (3)ephemeral and perennial characteristics of teachers or the teachingprocess, and (4) subject matter factors. Schwab considered that there wereperennial projections and ephemeral conditions affecting each of these fourclusters, so there were really eight sets of factors working on thecurriculum.

In the 1950's and 60's the most powerful force on the sciencecurriculum came from the milieu cluster: the need for scientists, thecompetences required of political leadership, and *'. need for ascientifically literate public which would support science

Schwab considered that the science laboratory could easily beconverted to enquiry if some changes were made. A substantial amount ofwork in the laboratory should lead rather than lag behind the classroolphase of science teaching. The demonstrative function o the laboratoryshould be subordinated to two other functions -- to provide tangibleexperience of some of the problems dealt with, and of the difficulty ofacquiring data. The illustration of conclusions should be replaced by theillustration of problems. The laboratory also should provide occasions forand invitations to the conduct of miniature but exemplary programs ofenquiry. In both instances, the laboratory work should lead the classroom.

An adequately inquiring curriculum in science, according to Schwab,needs to have a substantial component of doubt, although publishers andteachers do not like to have this in science textbooks. Because standard-i7ed and widely used examinations play an important part in determiningcurriculum, a significant modification of existing texts and examinationswas needed.

Schwab said that teaching and learning skills for enquiry are notcommon in the schools; students seldom take an active role in learning.Therefore, a science teacher's first and major responsibility should be tohelp students learn to learn for themselves -- to know what questions toask of a report of enquiry, when to ask them, and ''here to find theanswers. Students learn this skill by doing, according Schwab. Teachersalso need to be skilled in the art of conducting a discussion of the typethat promotes enquiry. Teachers need to avoid having students do researchand then not deal with the problem of interpreting data.

Science course improveme projects at both elementary and secondarylevels reflect some of the poirts Schwab stressed in his paper. Theseprojects may be characterized as discipline-centered reforms, designed inlarge part to meet the needs of bright, science-oriented students. In usingthe curriculum materials students were expected to explore and discoverrather than to memorize. The laboratory became the context for givingstudents insights into the role played by experiment in uncovering newknowledge rather than being made up of cookbook exercises. The emphasiswas on scientific inquiry, both as a noun and a verb. Because scientistswere involved in the curriculum reforms, these materials presented a moreauthentic picture of scientific disciplines than textbooks had done forseveral decades.

Did the use of the laboratory as an instructional method really changein keeping with this emphasis? If it did, students should have beeninvolved in discovering for themselves rather than in completing activitiesdesigned to illustrate, describe, or verify. One method of determining whattakes place during the laboratory period is that of conducting research.Some science education research taking place in classrooms and laboratoriesis of the observational variety. Frequently what is observed is theclassroom .interaction, focusing primarily on teacher and student verbalbehaviors. In a few instances anthropological research has been done inscience classrooms, particularly as a part of the Case Studies funded bythe National Science Foundation and discussed in a later section of thisreview.

A more common approach to classroom research has been of thecomparative variety in which students receiving method A are compared withsimilar students receiving method B. Frequently one of these methods isreferred to as the "traditional" approach to the instruction in science.The reader is often left to his/her own devices in attempting to determinejust what took place in the traditional approach, even if the experimentaltreatment is described in detail (which does not always occur!).

The next section of this review is devoted to a discussion of researchon the role of the laboratory in science teaching as this was identifiedfrom a collection of reviews of research, as well as from individualresearch studies.

THE ROLE OF THE LABORATORY IN SCIENCE TEACHING:A RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE

A number of research reviews were studied in an attempt to identifytrends in science education research related to the use of the laboratoryas an instructional method in science. These reviews included the threeproduced by Francis D. Curtis (1931, 1931, 1938) as well as the threecompanion volumes produced by Boenig (1969), Swift (1969), and Lawlor(1970). In addition, reviews published in the journal Science Education, aswell as in special publications produced by personnel in the U. S. Officeof Education, were analyzed. The USOE reviews were done in cooperation withthe National Association for Research in Science Teaching. A more recentseries of cooperatively produced reviews of research is that of theNational Association for Research in Science Teaching and the ERICClearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. Thesereviews, spanning 1963-1979, were included in the analysis, as were issuesof the Review of Educational Research which were devoted to scienceeducation. Additional reviews by individuals or persons at a specificcollege or university include those by Blick (no date), who reviewedresearch in science education for the years 1937-1943 and followed thepattern of the Curtis Digests; Mepplink (no date) whose master's thesis wasan annotated bibliography of science education research published during1938-1960; a review completed by Lee and some colleagues at The Universityof Texas (1965) which focused on research studies in college science fromJuly 1963 to July 1964; a review by T. Wayne Taylor et al. coveringresearch in secondary school science for the years 1963-1966; and anarticle by Willard Jacobson (1974) entitled "Forty Years of Research inScience Education."

Research on the Laboratory, 1900-1950

Francis D. Curtis, who was responsible for the early reviews ofresearch in science education, published an article in The Science Teacherin 1950 in which he made a plea for the retention of individual laboratorywork. This article is of interest for several reasons. It was written aboutscience education research but directed to classroom teachers rather thanto science education researchers. Also, it provided an overview of theptoblem as seen by an individuEl who had been involved in doing research aswell as in reviewing it.

Curtis wrote that the idea that secondary school students should dolaboratory work came from the "scientific movement" and was influenced bycollege practices at the turn of the century. Increased school enrollmentwas also a factor. Enrollment in high schools increased so rapidly that,beginning about 1902, one high school was built every day for at least 30years. Increased numbers of students made it less than economical to doindividual laboratory work; so demonstrations were substituted.

This increase in school enrollment came at about the same time as therise of the educational research movement. People began studying therelative merits of individual laboratory and demonstration methods. In1918, the first such science education investigation, by Wiley, was

published. In the next nine years, 13 such studies were published. Datafrom these studies were interpreted as indicating that the demonstrationmethod was as effective as the individual method for learning. However,college and university teachers opposed the trend toward substantialreduction in laboratory work. Educational research was criticized for thelimited number of studies, the small number of subjects involved,inadequate statistical treatment, the general lack of reporting of thetechniques used, and the aims which the laboratory work was to achieve(Curtis, 1950, pp. 63-64).

In 1928 Horton's study of laboratory work, "Measurable Outcomes ofIndividual Laboratory Work in High School Chemistry," was well enough doneto be used by the authors of the Thirty-first NSSE Yearbook to say thatboth demonstration and individual laboratory work should be done, in thateach method supplements the other ". . .with unique and essentialcontributions." Curtis reported that "Horton's findings convincinglyestablished the real values of the individual method and effectivelydestroyed the assumed justification for its elimination. . .' (1950,p. 64).

However, the 1930's and the Depression arrived, along with a trend toreduce science from seven to five periods per week (three recitationperiods and two double laboratory periods). Administrators did not like thescheduling problems that double periods posed; teachers found it hard tointegrate laboratory work with class discussions when the laboratory workhad to be done at fixed periods; research did not support the use of doubleperiods over single, for science classes; and teachers of other contentareas did not like the idea that science got more tim..! in a student'sschedule (Curtis, 1950, p. 82).

Curtis also reported that the 46th NSSE Yearbook "championed"retaining the individual laboratory method in science in that learning bydoing was well exemplified in the process of experimentation. However, headmitted that ". . . for at least half a century, the individual method ofperforming laboratory experiments has been progressively losing ground. Insome courses and in many schools, it is facing complete elimination. . ."(1950, p. 82).

This 1950 article was actually a reiteration of some of theinformation Curtis had presented in the 31th NSSE Yearbook (1932) in whichhe discussed research relatek: to laboratory work grouped under the headingsof resourcefulness, reporting of laboratory exercises, laboratory drawings,correlating class work and laboratory experimentation, and the individualvs. the demonstration method of performing laboratory exercises. Additionalgroupings of research included performing laboratory exercises in pairs orin groups and laboratory teaching at the university level.

In chapter seven of the 31th NSSE Yearbook, Curtis identified what heconsidered to be the three most important objectives of laboratory work:(1) teaching the pupil to manipulate learn by doing (which wasdifferent from knowing)); (2) teaching the pupil to interpret experimentaldata; and (3) teaching the pupil the concept of the scientific method(1932, p. 100). In discussing the objectives of laboratory work, Curtis

2.1

cited a study by Horton involving high school chemistry classes, fromwhich it was concluded that

We need not expect individual laboratory work to assist thepupils in gaining abilities to succeed in written tests. . . If problem-solving ability and ability to do tasksin the laboratory are important, practice in doing similartasks in the laboratory by self-direction seems to attainthis end best. . .If ability to do experimentation or solveperplexities of a chemical nature is a desirable goal, prac-tice in this experimentation - not practice in watching someoneelse e periment - is necessary. . . (Curtis, 1932, p. 103).

Compar ng the individual laboratory method with the demonstrationmethod, Cur is came to six conclusions, or generalizations: (1) each methodoffered training in certain knowledge, skills, and habits not offered bythe other; (2) for economy of time and money, it was desirable to performmore laboratory exercises by the demonstration method than by theinAividual method; (3) at the beginning of the laboratory course, theteacher should make sufficient use of the demonstration method so pupilslearn the apparatus and some accepLed methods of experimentation and thenshoule allow students to work individually; (4) the time saved by use ofdemonstrations should be used for som_ other types of learning; (5)demonstrations should be used for dangerous activities (i.e., thoserequiring "delicate manipulation and accurate observation" and expensiveapparatus); and (6) teacher demonstrations should be used in moreelementary courses or with younger or less able pupils (Curtis, 1932, p.106).

Curtis Digests, Volume I. The research studies on which thesestatements were based probably came from research discussed in the firstvolume of the Curtis Digests (1971a). In this volume, seven studies weredescribed that relate in some manner to the use of the science laboratory;Mayman, Wiley, Phillip:, Cunningham (two studies), Kiebler, and Cooperiderare cited. These researchers reported the laboratory to be slightlysuperior" for permanent learning (Wiley) and purposes of delayed recall(Cooperider, Cunningham), valuable in familiarizing pupils with apparatusand methods of laboratory procedures (Phillips), and useful for sustaininginterest if experiments run for more than one day (Cunningham).

Curtis Digests, Volume II (1971b). Eight laboratory research studiesare discussed in the second volume of the Digests which was also firstpublished in 1931. Johnson, Walter, Pruitt, Anibal, Knox, Horton, Nash andPhillips, and Noll were the investigators cited. Pruitt and Anibal reportedthat the use of the laboratory method is superior to other methods forretention of information although Anibal's findings were less positive thanthose of Pruitt. Knox reported the laboratory method to be slightlysuperior relative to knowledge and method of attack (on problems) for the"average inferior pupil" (1971b, p. 298).

Horton's research involved the study of several problems. He wasinterested in determining the manipulative skills and habits involved inlaboratory work in high school chemistry and then in identifying the

relative importance of these skills and habits. Horton listed nine groupsof skills: (1) use of the Bunsen burner and heat, (2) setting up andconnecting apparatus, (3) handling glassware, (4) handling liquids, (5)handling solids, (6) handling gases, (7) measurements, (P) generallaboratory habits, and (9) miscellaneous, unclassified techniques. Hortonlooked for corresponding items in 15 widely used laboratory manuals anddeveloped a list of 102 items which he sent to 25 chemistry teachers torate the desirability of developing the skill into a habit.

Horton came up with an approved list of 55 items. Thirty-five of thesewere chosen by 75% or more of the respondents as deserving to be taught ashabits and the first three items on the list were chosen by allrespondents. These were (1) twist or screw a stopper into a tube, (2) twistor screw a glass tube into a rubber stopper, and (3) smooth the ends offreshly cut glass tubing (fire polishing).

Horton then conducted a study to determine the relative values of theindividual laboratory exercise and the demonstration exercise on writtentests and on individual performance of certain tasks in the laboratory.Results of both written tests and the performance test favored the classesusing the individual laboratory method (Horton in Curtis, 1971b, p. 305).Horton also reported a second study in which cognitive and psychom*otoroutcomes in chemistry were investigated. In this study, results alsofavored the individual laboratory method (as opposed to the demonstrationmethod). In a third study, Horton looked at the Influence of types of'directions (three types) compared to teacher demonstration on threeoutcomes: laboratory techniques, cognitive knowledge, and ability to solveproblems. This study lasted for 10 weeks of instruction. Horton reported nosignificant differences for any of the methods relative to achievement onthe written test. Pupils favored the individual laboratory as a method ofinstruction, however.

In Noll's research some reading or oral recitation was substituted forlaboratory work in general inorganic chemistry for college freshmen. Thesection having the greatest amount of laboratory work showed "fairlyconsistent superiority in general achievement" (Noll in Curtis, 1571b, p.401). However, Noll reported that there were other factors involved thatmay have contributed to this finding.

. Curtis Digests, Volume III (Curtis, 1971c). Three studies related tothe laboratory were discussed in this publication (Applegarth, Duel,Payne). Only one of these was a conventional comparative study, by Payne,in which he studied first-year college chemistry classes and found "nomarked differences" in the upper halves of the groups (individuallaboratory vs. lecture-demonstration) but that the demonstration methodwas favored for the lower halves of the groups and for the whole group.Although Payne's data favo.A the demonstration method, students reportedthe laboratory was more interesting (than was the demonstration method) andhelped them to remember better.

Applegarth and Duel both looked at the effects of time in thelaboratory. Applegarth's data indicated that the double period forchemistry could be shortened in terms of completion of experiments without

.64

sacrificing comprehension. Duel's research focused on college physicsclasses and the effect on knowledge of two hours of laboratory work ascompared to no laboratory work. He found no significant differences in meanachievement.

Curtis Digests, Volume IV (Boenig, 1969). Two studies related co thelaboratory were identified, and one of these is questionable in terms ofinclusion in this review `,_cause nothing in the report indicates thateither student group involved was engaged in laboratory activities. Barnardinvestigated zhe use of the lecturedemonstration method as compared to theproblemsolving method on cognitive achievement. While it may be assumedthat solving problems involves experimentation in the laboratory, this maynot be the case. Anyway, Barnard reported that the problemsolving methodwas statistically significant for biology survey students in problemsolving situations and for the development of scientific attitudes. Johnsonlooked at the question of whether making detailed drawings in the zoologylaboratory was of any value and concluded that tne time should be spent instudying material rather than in polishing drawings.

Review of Educational Research (RER), 1930-1950. Volume 1, Issue 4,published in October, 1931, covered research for the years 1928-1930(Breed, 1931). The authors wrote, "On the side of methods the value oflaboratory work is still a subject of debate. Experimental studies indicatethat the demonstration method yields better educational results than thelaboratory method, and is more economical from the standpoint of timeexpnditure, current expense, and capital outlay"(p. 293). In Volume 1,Issue 5, Powers (1931) contributed a chapter in which he cited threeinvestigators who did experiments in laboratory teaching and found that thedemonstration method was favored over the individual laboratory method ofinstruction, and five others who found no sign -scant differences in theuse of the two methods in terms of tests of information. He also discussedHorton's stud; in which no significant differences on subject matterattainment were iound but statistically significant differences were foundon tests constructed to measure abilities ". . . definitely exercised inthe laboratory. . ." (p. 385).

Volume 2, Issue 1, published in February, 1932, contains theinformation that, since 1923, 15 experiments on the high school level havebeen reported but

. . .The experimental technics used are open to serious criticism.Lecturedemonstration appears to engender informationalabilities when tested immediately, as well as the individuallaboratory method; but when retention of informationis tested some months later the differences favor consistently, but not with high statistical significance, theindividual laboratory method. (Engelhart, 1932, pp. 21-22)

The author concludes, "Although most, if not all, of these experiments aresubject to certain limitation'', the consistency of the findings probablyjustified the conclusion t,at demonstration lectures by a skillfulinstructor are satisfactory substitutes for a considerable portion of theusual individual laboratory exercises" (p. 23).

L23

No research relevant to the topic of this review was identified in theApril, in4, issue of the Review of Educational Research. The December,1934, issue contains a citation of Payne's study of college chemistry inwhich students were reported to make better progress when new topics wereintroduced by the lecture-demonstration rather than by the laboratory.

No relevant research was found in Volume 5, Issue 1, February, 1935;Volume 7, Issue 2, April, 1937; or Volume 7, Issue 5, December, 1937--allof which focused on science education research.

Volume 8, Issue 1, February, 1938 (Powers, 1938), contained acriticism of a study 1.)y Atkins related to objectives of laboratoryinstruction in general biology. It was said that the study had evidence ofa high degree of resourcefui^ess but no significant differences related tomethods and that there was a weakness in evaluation. The emphasis in thestudy was on methods of thinking but the instruments used to measure thisobjective were tests on information.

In Volume 12, Issue 4, October, 1942 (Powers and Edmiston, 1942), astudy was reported in which pupils who answered a series of studyquestions related to laboratory work had better test scores than those whowrote formal laboratory reports. The authors wrote ". . .In general thesuperiority of students having experimental activity programs over studentshaving traditional programs is reported as inconclusive for science andmathematics. . ." (1942, p. 364).

In Volume 18, Issue 4, October, 1948, covering research for the periodof May 1945-1948, Cunningham's review is cited (Richardson and Barnard, P.333). Cunningham reviewed 37 studies (6 doctoral dissertations, 18 master'stheses, and 13 articles) dealing with the problem of the lecture-demon-stration vs, the laboratory - and concluded that the data did notconclusively favor one method over the other. The desirability of themethod to be used should be determined by the objectives sought and theconditions under which the course was taught (p. 333). In chapter six ofthis issue, Burnett and Gragg discussed teacher education in science andcited an article by Richardson on the problems faced in the education ofscience teachers. One criticism of teacher preparation was that teachershad a very limited conception of the function of the laboratory in thelearning situation in science (p. 364).

Research on the Laboratory, 1950-1970

Curtis Digests, Volume V (Swift, 1969). This publication covers theyears 1948-1952 and overlaps the arbitrary division in this review.However, the studies cited which related to the laboratory were publishedin the 1950's. Boeck looked at the inductive-deductive approach as comparedwith the deductive-descriptive approach in high school chemistryinstruction. He found the inductive-deductive approach to be superior forknowledge of and ability to use the scientific method with accompanyingscientific attitudes.

J . 26

Martin's research was a status survey of high school biology teachingin the United States in 1949-1950. He reported

Laboratory work, used in instruction in 97.7% of the schools,was performed during regularly scheduled single or double periodsin 36.6% of the schools, during integrated laboratory-recitation periods in 35.2%, and with flexible schedulingin 28.2%. Small group experiments were used in 26.27 of theschools, individual laboratory work in 20.2%, pupils pairedfor experiments in 19.0%, teacher demonstration only in 15.5%,observations by pupils in the classroom in 5.9%, and pupildemonstrations in 2.2% . . (in Swift, 1969, p. 100).

Research by Smith was related to the laboratory in that he attemptedto determine experiments desirable for a course in general science in thejunior high school based on four criteria: (1) the experiment must be safe,(2) it must be simple enough to be comprehended by children in dull-normalgroups, (3) it must be capable of being performed with the usual, simpleequipment available, and (4) its performance must be practicable within a30-minute lesson period (in Swift, 1969, p. 156).

Curtis Digests, Volume VI (Lawlor, 1970). This volume containedstudies, completed during 1953-1957, fitting into one of three categories:experimental, analytic, or synthetic. All studies not fitting in one ofthese three categories were eliminated from this review. Five studiesrelated to the laboratory are cited. Three were completed by the sameinvestigator (Kruglak) who was much interested in laboratory performance inphysics. Kruglak investigated methods for construction, administration, andanalysis of paper-pencil tests designed to evaluate laboratory instructionin general college physics. He concluded that ". . .In general, all ofthese commonly used measur9s of scholastic aptitude are unreliable or verypoor predictors of performance test scores" (in Lawlor, 1970, p. 20).

Kruglak also explored the extent to which the ability to solve alahora.tory problem on paper related to the ability to solve the sameproblem with apparatus and materials. He compared essay and multiple choiceforms of a paper and pencil test with a performance test. Kruglak workedwith 83 premedical students and 82 engineering students, all of whom hadcompleted two quarters of college physics. One group took the performancetest and the essay test; the other, the performance test and the multiplechoice test. Students were given familiar laboratory problems, originallyunfamiliar problems, and a group of specific skills and techniques with theorder of the test and problem presentation randomized.

Kruglak failed to find any significant correlations among the threetypes of tests. The difference between the mean of the multiple choice testand the means of the other two tests was significant but there were nosignificant differences between essay and performance tests means. Certainpractice effects were found--the essay or the multiple choice test producedgreater differences in means of the performance test than the reverse, withthe effect of the multiple choice test being more pronounced than theessay. Familiar problems were easiest on the performance test and mostdifficult on the essay. Skills and techniques tested equally well on all

2!)

three forms. Except for skills rid techniques, the paper and pencil testswere, at best, only crude approximations of students' ability to deal withlaboratory materials and apparatus in the solution of problems. Themultiple choice test was probably the least suitable type of test forevaluati )riginality, Kruglak reported (in Lawlor, 1970, p. 21).

The third study by Kruglak daring this period was not reported in themain section of the Digest because statistical data were not reported inthe article analyzed for the review. This study involved the determinationof the effects of high school physics, sex differences, and the collegelaboratory on the scores of four laboratory paper-pencil tests in collegephysics.

Lahti investigated ie effectiveness of the laboratory in developingstudents' ability to use the scientific method and found no significantdifferences among the four methods studied (inductiAo-deductive,historical, theme, and standard).

Rosen's study (1954) involved tracing the development of the Americanhigh school physics laboratory from its beginning in the early 1800's toits domination of science teaching in 1910. (This information has beendiscussed in an earlier portion of this paper.)

USOE Reviews of Research. The review covering 1951 (Johnson, 1952)contains the citation of Kruglak's study on individual laboratory vs.

demonstration methods of teaching elementary college physics. An additionalstudy cited is one by Diamond who was interested in seeing if studentsgained anything from their experiences in chemistry laboratories:information, laboratory techniques, development of logical or scientificthinking, or the understanding of science. Diamond's sources of data werereference books, periodicals, and control grou^n, according to the USOEreview. Diamond reported little difference between laboratory anddemonstration methods relative to the learning and retention of chemistryfacts. He said 10 other investigators had found the demonstration method tobe superior but 11 had found in favor of the laboratory. Three, in additionto Diamond, found no significant differences. Diamond concluded that thefindings appeared to indicate that the laboratory method was better fordeveloping resourcefulness, techniques and manipulative ability. Thedemonstration method was better for immediate recall and the ability tothink logically.

The 1952 USOE review (Johnson, 1953) contained a citation to a studyby Kruglak in which he looked at the achievement of physics students withand without laboratory work. Three groups of 38 students each wereinvolved, one with individual laboratory activities, one withdemonstrations, and one without either the laboratory or demonstrations.All attended the same lectures and took the same tests. Test scores of thestudents having laboratory experience were superior to those of the othertwo groups although the laboratory experience did not significantlyinfluence their scores on paper-pencil tests.

In the 1953 USOE review (Brown, Blackwood, & Johnson, 1955) a study byLucow was described in which he investigated the use of the textbook vs.

the laboratory for teaching introductory high school chemistry to collegepreparatory and to general education students. Lucow reported that, forcollege preparatory students, both methods produced a statisticallysignificant increase in zariation but the laboratory produced the greaterincrease.

Review of Educational Research (RER), 1950-1970. In Volume 21, Issue4, October, 1951, one of the conclusions of a study by Nelson was reportedto be ". . .d) the roles of the textbook, laboratory work and field trips

the teaching of physical science have not yet been clarified." (`ceder,p. 255) A study by Anderson on achievement in chemistry, which was based ona survey of 17 teachers in 8 states, was described. Anderson found that, inhis limited sample, students achieved significantly more in chemistry whenthey received laboratory work rather than demonstrations and when they hadtwo double periods per week rather than five periods per week for bothclass and laboratory work. Anderson also surveyed biology teaching andreported that students achieved more in biology when the number oflaboratory hours received was in the upper quartile of the statedistribution (Burnett & Porowski, pp. 264-265).

Washton's survey of college general education courses in science wasalso reported in this issue. Of the 847 return to his questionnarie,Washton reported that 46% had science survey courses, most of which ran fortwo semesters and omitted laboratory instruction. Some institutions useddemonstrations in these classes, but many did not.

During this period of time the idea of the laboratory's primarypurpose in science appeared to be that of demonstrating facts and phenomenaalready learned -- to illustrate and show and not to experiment. In a studyby Forbes, six criteria for significant laboratory experiences wereidentified: (1) they should involve a cooperatively planned group proje "t;(2) students should experiment with concrete materials; (3) materialsshoul.i be observed and manipulated with the understanding of their generalposition in the environment, with some familiar element(s) for theindividual; (4) the procedures to be followed should be determined by thegroup, with a need to know the reasons for details; (5) the abilities andthe backgrounds of the group should be used in doing the experiment; and(6) the focus of attention should be on ideas contributed by the experienceto the association of ideas in which the problem or question occurred(Richardson, et al., pp. 286-287).

In Volume 27, Issue 4, October, 1957 (Smith & Washton), there was someidentification of studies related to the use of laboratory activities inthe elementary school section of the issue but insufficient details wereincluded for analysis. Two of these studies were aimed at the developmentof criteria for selecting laboratory experiences to be included in coursesin science for preservice elementary school teachers.

Lucow's study, described in a USOE review, was included in this RERissue. So was the report of a study by Smith to investigate the use ofexperiments in general science courses at the junior high school level. Alarge number of experiments were judged suitable for use with theindividual method, with move than half of these being suitable forindividual laboratory work.

A study by Miles on the organization and teaching of a high schoolphysical science course was mentioned and used as an indicator thatindividual laboratory experiences could be made suitable for thedevelopment of the understanding of basic principles of the physicalsciences.

Volume 31, Issue 3, June, 1961, contained a review of an article bySchwab in which he urged a reorientation to the role of the laboratory.Schwab suggested that the laboratory should be viewed as a place ". . .

where nature is seen 'more nearly in the raw' and where 'things seen' areused as occasions for the invention and conduct of programs of inquiry. . ." (Smith & Homan, p. 290). However, a study by Breukelman et al.which involved college biology sections produced ". . . no evidence thatstudents taught by the lecture-only method varied significantly inachievement from those taught by the lecture and laboratory method. . .'(Miles & Van Deventer, p. 305).

A study by Hilton on the evaluation of the laboratory in a physicalscience course for non-science majors was described. Feedback from studentsindicated they felt the laboratory was valuable, that it improved theirunderstanding of lecture topics, and that it illustrated experimentalproblem solving in which answers had to be based on evidence (p. 305-307).In this study there was no evaluation of the contribution of the laboratoryto the retention of knowledge of science principles or to the acquisitionof scientific attitudes and of problem-solving skills.

The third issue of Volume 34, produced in June, 1964, containedinformation about science education research completed during the 1960-1963period. In a discussion about NSF curricula, laboratory acitvities weredescribed as designed to be less illustrative and more investigative andquantitative than they had been. Laboratory work often preceded classdiscussion and was used to stimulate questions rather than to answer them(Hurd & Rowe, p. 287). Research studies began to be published in which someNSF curriculum project was compared with a more traditional way ofteaching. Such studies were criticized on the basis that ". . . validcomparisons of goal achievement cannot be made between two courses thathave no common goal. . ." -(p. 288).

Two research studies, both resulting in findings of no significantdifferences, were reported about the use of the laboratory. Oliver usedthree methods of teaching biology (lecture-demonstration, lecture-discussion-demonstration, and lecture-discussion-demonstration-laboratorywork) and measured the effects of these methods on factual 'informationacquired, overall achievement in biology, application of scientificprinciples, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Grassell looked atfilmed instruction vs. lecture-laboratory instruction.

Mattheis used two approaches to laboratory work in college sciencecourses for preservice elementary teachers. The control group was given"recipe" laboratory exercises while the experimental group worked onscience projects. The project laboratory was superior to the controllaboratory in producing gains in science knowledge for students whopretested high in science knowledge and interest, but the control

laboratory was superior for those students who pretested low in scienceknowledge and interest (Burnett, 1964).

An article by Michels, originally published in the American Journal ofPhysics, was discussed because of its ideatification of the characteristicsthe modern teaching laboratory should exhibit. According to Michels such alaboratory (1) should lead, whenever possible, to results not known inadvance by the student; (2) should lend itself to differing degrees ofprecision; (3) should demand, wheneyer possible, some theoretical analysis;(4) should involve apparatus that is as simple as possible so the studentcan understand the operation of the devices that he uses; and (5) at somestage of work, the laboratory situation should force the student to make achoice of procedures on the basis of the work already completed(Van Deventer, p. 335).

An interesting section in this issue contained some criticisms ofresearch on teaching methods, as discussed by Travers. He suggested thatthere was a need to start with a theory of learning in the classroom whichwould postulate specific changes in conditions of learning that would leadto changes in performance. Also, research tended to deal directly withphenomena rather than a selection that would (a) provide specialopportunities for throwing light on some broad problems of education or(b) allow generalizations to be made about the value of particularpractices for achieving specified goals (p. 379).

Volume 39, Issue 4, October, 1969, contained an analysis of thescience education literature for the period of Fall 1964-Winter 1969. Thefocus of this issue was topics of current significance in science andmathematics education. There was more consideration of broad questions andless reporting of specific studies as had been done in past issues.Laboratory work was mentioned, in a chapter by Robinson on thephilosophical and historical bases of science teaching in reference to itsuse in the NSF science course improvement projects, as the major device forteaching processes.

Science Education Reviews. Annual and topical reviews of research,produced primarily by persons associated with the U. S. Office ofEducation, were published in the journal Science Education in the 1950'sand early 1960's. These reviews were coordinated by members of theNational Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Reviewsidentified were as follows in volume 38(1), February, 1954, by Anderson(pp. 6-38), by Mallinson and Buck (pp. 58-81), and by Buck and Mallinson(pp. 81-101); in volume 38(5), December, 1954, by Anderson, et al., (pp.333-365); in volume 39(2), March, 1955, by Brown, Blackwood, and Johnson(pp. 141-156); in volume 39(5), December, 1955, by Smith, et al., (pp. 335-356), by Fraser et al., April, 1956, (pp. 357-371), and by Blackwood andBrown (pp. 172-389); in 40(3) by Mallinson (pp. 206-208); in 40(5)December, 1956, by Boeck, et al., (pp. 337-357), and by Fraser et al., (pp.363-387); in volume 41(5), December, 1957, by Obourn, et al., (pp.375-411); in volume 44(5), December, 1960, by Obourn and Boeck (pp.374-399); and in volume 46(2), March, 1962, Wheeler et al., (pp. 133-139).

Nine studies related to the laboratory were found in these ScienceEducation materials. Several of these studies (Kruglak, Lucow) have been

discussed earlier in this paper. Three studies contained findings insupport of the use of the laboratory: significant gains in science.attitudes were found only for the group using the individual laboratorymethod in general education physics in Balcziak-'s study [39(2):143 -1'4,April 19551. Lucow reported [39(2):149, April 19551 that the use of thelaboratory approach in high school chemistry classes produced statisticallysignificant increases in variation for the non-accelerated, non-collegepreparatory students. Lathi [41(5):394, December 1957] found theinductive-deduction or problem-solving use of the laboratory in a naturalscience class for non-majors was significantly superior in promoting theability to develop a line of attack for problem solving.

The authors (Obourn, et al, 1957) of the fifth annual review, indiscussing the research surveyed for this review, wrote

The effective use of the laboratory in college science hasbeen an almost perennial problem reflected in the researchliterature. . .When one considers that perhaps the mostunique thing about learning in science is the experiment,it is surprising to see that no studies are currentlyreported which deal with the experimental exercise as alearning situation in elementary science.

At the junior high school level the individual experiment hasalmost di appeared in favor of the pupil and/or teacher-demonstration . . . It is hoped that children in the elementaryschool will have a rich experience in direct learning throughexperimental exercises. . . (pp. 404-405).

ERIC/SMEAC-NARST Reviews and Related Reviews. Individuals at MichiganState University (Taylor et al., 1966) reviewed the science educationresearch literature which involved the secondary school level for the years1963-1965, They identified 195 titles, located 125 abstracts or articles,and discussed 57 studies in the body of the review. One of these, byCoulter (1966), involved a comparison of the inductive laboratory-inductivedemonstration method and the deductive laboratory. Another group of scienceeducators at The University of Texas (Lee et al., 1965) reviewed scienceeducation research al_ the college level for July 1963-July 1964.(Thirty-eight of the 59 studies identified were doctoral dissertations.)Twenty-four of the studies were selected for abstracting. Programmedinstruction was a popular topic of investigation. Schefler looked at thediscovery laboratory vs. the traditional laboratory and White investigatedthe biology knowledge of students who had no hours of laboratory, ascompared to four hours, per week. Most research was done with students infreshman-level college science courses.

The ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and EnvironmentallEducation (ERIC/SMEAC) in cooperation with the National Association forResearch in Science Teaching (NARST) took over the responsibilities of theannual review of research in science education, beginring with the years1965-1967, although a review of research on elementary school science for1963-64 was completed to tie in with the efforts of the Michigan State andTexas groups. This cooperative effort still continues, with the most recentreview for 1979 being in press at the time this paper is written.

The reviews for the years 1965-1969 are by educational levels, butbeginning with the 1970 review all thre4 levels have been combined into onereview. Authors for these reviews are chosen by the two groups involved(ERIC/SMEAC and NARST). These individuals are free to involve colleagues inthe production of the review and a:,,o may decide upon the approach theytake in reviewing the literature. Althcugh this allows for variation in thestyle of a particular review, methods of instruction, or instructionaltechniques and procedures, or some similarly titled section is usuallyidentifiable in each review. It is in these sections that research relatedto the use of the laboratory is most often located.

There were no additional studies related to the science laboratory inthe research for 1963-64 when the elementary level review was included.Cunningham and Butts (1970) commented that, ill their opinion, ". . .todetermine the adequacy of the effectiveness of an instructional procedure,the research design should include a treatment group and a comparison groupwith evidence of pre- and post-test gain . . ." (p. 1) but only one studythey reviewed did so.

The reviews for 1965-1967 showed no studies identified with the use ofthe laboratory by elementary pupils, three studies at the secondary levelthat involved comparing the laboratory with other methods of instruction(of 17 studies identified related to instructional procedures and classroomorganization), and eiglIt studies at the college level which involved theuse of the laboratory as compared with some other method. Westmeyer et al.(1969), in commenting on the "instructional procedures" studies at thesecondary level, wrote that there appeared to be interest in teachinginquiry in the laboratory via open-ended investigations but ".

. . there isnot yet a firm basis of concrete evidence supporting the effectiveness ofthis practice. . ." (p. 10).

Montean and Butzow (1970), in discussing the instruction research atthe college level, said

. . .It has been shown by most of these studies, that laboratorywork is not particularly helpful in achieving the courseobjectives of traditional courses as measured by the instrumentsused. If laboratory work is considered in more depth, partic-ularly if the kind of thinking which laboratory work is designed

. to produce is analyzed, then there is some evidence for thechoice of an inductive approach over an approach in thelaboratory designed for illustration or validation of principlespresented in the lecture. . . . (pp. 4-5).

The research reviewed for the years 1968-1969 shows the influence ofthe NSF science curriculum improvement projects. Studies in the instructionsection of the elementary level review were grouped under the headings ofproject acronyms: SAPA, SCIS, ESS. Four studies are cited that provide'vidence that children can generally achieve objectives of instruction ifobjectives and educational experiences are consistent with each other.Forty-eight studies were identified in the "instructional procedures"section of the secondary level review although these really were 43 in

number when duplicates were removed. Areas of research included open-endedvs. directed laboratories, expository-deductive vs. discovery-inductivelaboratories, and variation in the format of laboratory reports. Indiscussing one study involving a comparison of the use of the laboratorywith other instructional methods, the author of this review introduced itwith the comment ". . . in what should probably be the last study of thistype, . . ." (Welch, 1971, p. 38).

The college level review for 1968-1969 (Koran, 1972) reported studiesas either descriptive or experimental research. In the experimentalresearch section, two studies were reported which involved the comparisonof methods of laboratory instruction. Chanin looked at schedulingpatterns--three one-hour laboratory periods per week as compared with twoone-and one-half hour labs per week and found the shorter periodssignificantly better than the longer ones. Richardson reported on the useof an inquiry-discovery laboratory method with a control group. In all, tenstudies were cited that related in some way to the use of the laboratory.

The authors of the 1970 review commented that "tight definitions" ofinquiry teaching were absent in the research (Trowbridge et al., 1972, p.30). Studies relating to the use of the laboratory were found in the"methods of instruction" section as well as in the section entitled"laboratory practices." The reviewers concluded that, because of the smallnumber of studies identified, science educators were ". . . satisfied withthe present laboratory setup. . ." (p. 45). Seven studies were found in thecollege section, grouped as comparative studies: laboratory programs.

No studies involving the use of the laboratory were found in theelementary section of the 1971 review. In the secondary education section,a study by Egelston was cited as being a good example with much descriptivedetail. In the college section, the author devoted considerable discussionto the weaknesses of comparative research (Anderscn, 1973, p. 16).

Research completed in 1972 was viewed from the paradigm of Ausubel'slearning theory. A subsection in the instruction section did contain somereference to laboratory activities but most studies in this sectioninvolved the use of media and/or materials as the problem to beinvestigated. The author did cite an article by Hurd to the effect thatscience education is in need of a theory base for instruction and that,because we operate on a theoretical basis, instructional fads gounchallenged (Novak, 1973, p. 18-19).

The authors of the 1973 review emphasize Novak's contention, expressedin the 1972 review, that - since 1920 - most investigations which focusedon the impact of different instructional regimes resulted in no significantdifferences (Novak, 1973, p. 8) and say that such was generally the case inthe research published in 1973. They are not certain, however, that theyagree with Novak's desire for more steeping in learning theory (Rowe andDeTure, 1974, p. 5).

Herron et al (1974), in discussing research published in 1974,discussed the fact that an instructional system is complex and that most ofthe variables extant in the system hive been shown to affect learning under

3 t)

some set of conditions: teacher and szudent personalities, difficulty ofthe learning material(s), method of instruction, reading level of thematerials, and kind and amount of " aboratory activity. In the"implications" section of this review they reLmphasized the idea that wedo not know the set of conditions under which each of the variables studiedwill or will not have an influence. For example, the expository methodprobably is better when the material taught is so difficult that studentsare unlikely to discover important relationships on their own. Theyemphasize that thinking discovery learning is always good or bad is"simplistic."

The 1975 review, by Mallinson (1976), does not contain any citationsof laboratory studies until the college level is considered. Three studiesare discussed. King, using an audiotutorial biology laboratory vs. a

traditional biology laboratory, found a significant improvement in attitudetoward biology in the experimental group. Wheatley's study of a collegegeneral biology course showed that the experimental group scoredsignificantly higher on the items involving the higher levels of Bloom'staxonomy of the cognitive domain when they had completed more than onehalfof the special laboratory activities available to them. Rowsey,and Masonstudied the use of the r -entional lecture laboratory setup as comparedto an audiotutorial appr, 1 and found results significantly in favor ofthe audiotutorial group.

The authors of the 1976 review discussed problems inherent in studyingteaching methodology, some of which are beyond the control of theresearcher. It is difficult, if not impossible, to apply research resultsin a setting different from that of the original researcher relative tostudent achievement with respect to content. There is great variability inthe meaning of "achievement" and this variability reflects the lack of a

common theory base for the practice of and research in the profession ofscience education. The authors call for the beginnings of the establishmentof one or more theory bases for science education (Renner et al., 1977, p.34).

The 1977 research review looked at studies clustered on the basis ofthe research design involved: ex post facto, survey, or experimental. Nostudies on the use of the laboratory were discussed. This lack, combinedwith the 1976 review in which no studies on the role of the laboratory perse' were discussed, may indicate that science education researchers arebeginning to heed Welch's (1971) plea for the abandonment of comparativestudies involving the use of the laboratory. However, it may only indicatethat the author's biases in repotting and discussing research were suchthat laboratory studies did not merit discussion.

But, the laboratory reappeared in research published in 1978 (Gabel,et al., 1980). The studies cited under "laboratory approaches" in the 1978review were a mixed lot. Tamir reported on the actual use of high schooland college laboratories. Webber studied the effects on delayed retentionand consequent transfer in physics and found no significant differences.David looked at the use of lecturediscussion, inductive laboratory, andverification laboratory activities with fifth and sixth grade students andfound no significant differences in achievement but found the inductive

L 3 7

laboratory more effective in producing positive attitudes toward scienceand a better understanding of science. Spear reported on the use of thelecture-laboratory vs. lectureonly in college geology and found thelecture-laboratory group had 10% higher achievement scores. Lee attemptedto identify the role of laboratory instruction in biology and reported thatfive major functions were identified and affirmed.

Gabel et al., concluded that these studies showed that the laboratorywas not particularly effective in increasing students' knowledge of subjectmatter but that it did increase attitudes (p. 459).

Butts, in the 1979 review (in press), reported some investigationsfocused on the use of hands-on activities vs. textbook instruction inelementary school science. Story and Brown found a significant change instudent attitude with hands-on instruction, but Cohen reported nosignificant differences in a study designed to change cognitivedevelopment. Some research involving the use of the laboratory in secondaryschool science was reported, but the majority of the studies involvedcollege students. Butts concluded that, with college students, expositoryand hands-on strategies are both effective.

When science education research published during the last 15 years andsummarized in various reviews is considered, it is evident that Novak's(1973) characterization of research on the study of instruction as a"classic" area continues to be true. Although the emphasis may vary fromthat of the laboratory vs. some other method to the use of NSF science''curriculum materials vs. conventional programs and materials, researchersare still concerned with finding the most effective means of instruction.

Combined with the desire to find the most effective means ofinstruction is the long-held belief that the laboratory is an importantmeans of instruction in science. Further consideration of currrent researchon the role of the laboratory is found in a later section of this paper. Itseems logical next to take a look at opinion statements about the role ofthe laboratory in science teaching as these have been made by the scienceeducation community over the years, even when -- or, especially when --,these opinion statements are not airectly supported by research evidence.

THE ROLE OF THE LABORATORY IN SCIENCE TEACHING:

OPINION STATEMENTS

It is possible to find in the literature discussions of the sciencelaboratory that do not have a research base. Frequently these materialshave as their focus a listing of the objectives for science teaching, withthe identification of the role(s) the laboratory can play in theirachievement. Less frequently one may find an article in which the authorconsiders whether or not the laboratory should be retained. 'Usually sucharticle ends with the conclusion that the laboratory should be retainedbut that its present form needs to be modified in order to make it moreeffective or more in keeping with the current trends in science education.Even less common are articles whose authors suggest that laboratory coursesare a waste of time (Pickering, 1980).

In Favor of the Laboratory

Persons advocating the use of the laboratory as an instructionalmethod in science frequently support their position, not with researchdata, but with the idea that the laboratory will aid in the achievement ofeducational goals considered desirable: scientific literacy, knowledge ofthe scientific enterprise, and other worthy aims. Sometimes they suggestthat the times "call for" the use of the laboratory (Schwab's milieufactor).

The authors of the 59th NSSE Yearbook (Henry, 1960) wrote,

Changing conceptions of the values and purposes of scienceteaching have tended toward an increasing emphasis uponlaboratory work. The nature of the scientific enterpriseis found in the.methods by which problems are attacked.Therefore, more attention should be directed to the processesor methods of seeking answers in the laboratory rather thanputting so much stress on finding exact answers. More timeshould be spent by students in developing insights as to howdata may be processed and predictions made from them. (p. 334)

Hurd (1964), writing in Theory Into Action, produced by the NationalScience Tsachers Association's Curriculum Committee, said the goal ofscience teaching is to develop s entifically literate citizens. Accordingto Hurd

Laboratory and field work are central to the teaching of science.Learning from work in the laboratory and field is central to theteaching of science. It is here that the student relatesconcepts, theories, experimen*Q_ and observations as a means ofexploring ideas. While technical skill and precision areimportant outcomes of the laboratory, it is the meaning they havefor the interpretation of data that is more important.(pp. 13-14)

Students need to explore ideas, test theorie,, raise questions. They needto go beyond collecting data -- they need to formulate statements based ondata and test these statements against theory. ". . . The conclusion of anexperiment is found in the interpretation of data, and it is thisinterpretation that generates new questions, stimulates further inquiry,helps to solve problems, and leads to the refinement of theories." (p. 14)Apparently, these activities would help students develop intoscientifically literate citizens.

A knowledge of how a scientist goes about his/her work appears to bean objective closely related to that of scientific literacy. Experiencingthe methods scientists use, via laboratory activities, may lead to a morescientifically literate citizen. It may also lead to continued interest inscience as a career.

Another reason given for using the laboratory is that it is necessaryif students are to learn scientific content. (Many research studies aredevoted to testing for achievement.) Some remarks of Bentley Glass (1959)are relevant to this position. These comments are found in the minutes ofthe American Institute of Biological Sciences, Biological SciencesCurriculum Study meeting of the Committee on Innovation in LaboratoryInstruction. Glass suggested that the group needed to examine the truefunction of laboratory work for students and to consider why laboratorywork was initiated.

Glass said,

. . .Is laboratory work in honest fact necessary for a student toobtain a good grasp of biological concepts and principles and theobservations on which they are based? . . . There seem to be twoconceivable functions of laboratory work . . . The firstfunction of laboratory work was probably the principal one in theminds of Thomas Henry Huxley and Louis Aggasiz when theyintroduced it in biology. . . Their truth was a simple one:seeing is believiag. . .one looks squarely at the facts, theinfinitely varied phenomena of nature. Thus, the first functionof laboratory work was to present the evidence, to illustratefrom nature the basis of our biological concepts.

The second function of work in the laboratory is to conveysomething to the learner of the nature of science, of its methodand the spirit that pervades it. . . . in the scientific labora-tory the novice learns for himself how to ask questions of natureand how to obtain unequivocal answers (even though couched interms of probabilities rather than certainties).

. . (pp. 3-4)

Glass (1959) goes on to say thPt audiovisual aids, demonstrations, theopen laboratory, and photography may suffice to fulfill the descriptivefunction of the laboratory but ". . . For the other function somethingentirely different is needed and at the present time we have no certainknowledge of how long a period of work is needed to achieve this aim. . ."(p. 4)

He also suggests that it is not necessary to have laboratoriesparallel all lectures and class discussion topics. Glass (1959, pp. 4-5)makes the point that all scientists do not possess all skills, nor do theyknow all techniques or how tc operate all types of scientific instruments.Thus, the idea of laboratory blocks in biology concentrating on certaintopics was given support. It is interesting to see that the support forthis curriculum innovation was based not on research data but on personalopinion about what the science laboratory should he, or do.

Baillie, (no date), in a publication written for the Nebraska StateDepartment of Eiucation, propose, that laboratory work should be. used withdisadvantaged youth in the middle school. His main reason for proposinglaboratory work for this age and type of pupil is that such students canvery easily lose interest in school and school work. Being involved inlaboratory activities should stimulate interest in science and, it ishoped, interest in completing high school. The use of discovery activitiescapitalizes on the middle school child's natural curiosity about the world.Baillie le te, "The laboratory approach is crucial throughout the schoolyear, And its general nature should change from illustrative in the earlygrades, to investigative in the later grades. . ." (p. 6). The use oflaboratory work makes the pupil active rather than passive in the learningprocess.

Individuals involved in the development of the Human Sciences programalso cite the need for student involvement in learning. They stated (1973,p. 43) that Piaget advocated that children should be able to do their ownexperimenting and their own research. The essential element is that, inorder for a child to understand something, he/she must construct it forhimself/herself, he/she must re-invent it. Children need to be allowed todiscover for themselves rather than being taught something.

The Human Sciences writers criticize existing curricula,saying

. . .Most curricula for sixth, seventh, and eighth grade studentspresuppose they are capable of principled logical and moralthought. We find this presupposition inconsistent with knowledgeof human development, agreeing with Kohlberg that new curriculamust be formulated as tools for developing such thought

. processes. Most science curricula are organized in logicalsubject matter topics that reflect a choice of selected elementsof a discipline. Materls are designed to motivate and interestthe student in underst-Ading the subject matter. In a sense, thestudent's concerns and development are subsurvient to the subjectmatter organization . . . When the materials fail to motivate orinterest the student or when he fails to learn, theresponsiblities for failure are variously assigned to teachers,to students, and to parents. We suggest that the theoretical baseof traditional education produces failures as a consequence ofits assua,ptions. Fo amount of reform can eliminate studentfailure within th4s paradigm. (p. 51)

And they identify the following teaching and learning strategies to usewith middle school children: observing, questioning, describing,speculating, interpreting, valuing, choosing, verifying, and experimenting.

4 1

Outcomes and Objectives of Laboratory Work

Other authors talk in more specific terms of outcomes of laboratorywork or of specific objectives to be attained through the use of laboratoryer.periences.

Shulman and Tamir (1973, p. 1119), in their chapter in the SecondHandbook of Research On Teaching, grouped objectives sought through the useof the laboratory into five categories: (1) skills--manipulative, inquiry,investigative, organizational, communicative; (2) concepts--for example,hypothesis, theoretical model, taxonomic category; (3) cognitive abilities- -critical thinUing, problem solving, application, analysis, synthesis,evaluation, decision making, creativity; (4) understanding the nature ofscience--scientific enterprise, scientists and how they work, existence ofmultiplicit: of scientific methods, interrelationships betwten science andtechnology and among the various disciplines of science; and (5) attitudes- -for example, curiosity, interest, risk taking, objectivity, precision,confidence, persever,nce, satisfaction, responsibility, consensus,collaboration, and liking science.

Pella published an article in The Science Teacher (1961) in which hereported that he had analyzed high school science textbooks and laboratoryworkbooks and had also interviewed 140 teachers to identify the objectivesor functions of laboratory activities. Pella listed eight functions:

1) a means of securing information,

2) a means of determining cause and effect relationships,3) a means of verifying certain factors of phenomena,4) a means of applying what is known,5) a means of developing skill,6) a means of providing drill,7) a means of helping pupils learn to use scientific methods of

solving problems, and8) a means of carrying on individual research.

He also reported that he had reviewed courses of study or curriculumoutlines from 22 states or individual school systems for their objectivesfor teaching science and found seven that appeared in these materials.

According to Pella, these commonlyheld objectives were:

1) understanding science course content,2) learning methods of science,3) developing scientific attitudes,4) developing desirable social attitudes,5) stimulating interest in science,6) learning how to apply the princip es of science, and7) developing an appreciation for the growth and development of

scientific knowledge.

Pella concluded that, while these two sets of objectives appeared to berelated, the preqence or absence of the laboratory did not influence therealization of these goals. The laboratory can be used as a dispenser ofknowledge, serving for drill or verification, or asa place where knowledgeis discovered.

The teacher determines which function the laboratory fulfills in

instruction. To illustrate this, Pella developed a table in which he

described five different instructional situations (1961, p. 31).

Degrees of Freedom Available to the Teacher Using the Laboratory

Steps in Procedure I II III IV

1. Statement of Problem T T T T P

2. HypothesIs T T T P P

3. Working Plan T T P P P

4. Performance P P P P P

5. Data Gathering P P P P P

6. Conclusion T P P P P

T Teacher P Pupil

If a teacher's primary obAtive for using the laboratory is skilldevelopment, situations I or II would apply; if the methods of science areto be stressed, then situations IV or V should be used. A teacherconcentrating on promoting individual pupil research would use situationV.

If the teacher believes that the function of science class is to

transmit the factual heritage of a civilization, then the laboratory'sprimary use is a deductive one and laboratory work comes after the teacherhas lectured or the pupils have read the textbook. The laboratory thenserves for verification. If teaching is inductive and pupils are to

discover, laboratory activities come before any teacher lecture or readingabout a science topic or problem (Pella, 1961, 29-31).

An earlier publication about science education (NASSP Bulletin, 1953,pp. 102-103), written to be read by public school administrators, containedthe following listing of functions that the laboratory can serve -3 well asor better than any other learning activity:

1) skill development in critical thinking, problem solving;2) learning to observe rather than to look or see;3) the development of initiative, resourcefulness, cooperation;4) insight into the work of a scientist and the tole of the

laboratory in mankind's progress;5) improved under.tanding of basic concepts, principles, and

facts of science (by providing contact with actual equipmentand processes of science);

6) increased proficiency in generally useful skills: recording,organizing and analyzing information, making readings onmeasuring instruments, handling equipment;

7) development of interest in and curiosity about scienceprinciples and processes -- as an avenue to future sciencelearning.

The author does admit that these are not automatic or guaranteed outcomesof laboratory work.

6, 43

Another publication from the 1950's was the report of a conferencefocused on the theme "Educating a Chemist" (Andrews, 1957). In chapterthree of the conference report, the discussion was about pre-collegescience--what should the content be (facts vs. principles?). Conferenceparticipants felt that very little of what was taught in high school wasretained in college. (See a study by Brown in the "more recent research"section of this paper for another look at this problem.) Therefore,conference participants reasone1 that if students could acquire the abilityto solve problems in high school, perhaps this abilitly would remain withthem when they enrolled in college. And, if they had to use facts insolving problems, perhaps the facts would stick longer.

play.

Conference participants considered the role the laboratory should

. . .Our Conference had a strong conviction of the importance ofhaving laboratory periods in pre-college chemistry and thatlecture demonstrations are no substitutes. Moreover, to make thelaboratory meaningful, it must have sufficient equipment andfacilities for meaningful experiments. A double-period forlaboratory, an hour and a half to two hours instead of chopped upsingle periods, can be an essential factor in making thelaboratory meaningful.

What should the objectives of the laboratory be? The problemis very much like *hat of the objectives of the classsroom. Theacquisition of .cific skills, the learning of specificprocesses may not be too permanent; the improvement of generalskills may in the long 1,a1 be more important. In the middle teensthe power of observation of the unfamiliar should be ready to bedeveloped. Accurate note-taking and accurate computation shouldbe within the grasp of the student and will be a most valuableasset for future y'ars. Even the ability to push forward a littlebit into the unknown and to :Ly to make sense of it, should beready for development.

If there is to be a real incentive to produce thisinvestigative ability, the experiment in the laboratory at thislevel must be challenging . . . (p. 20)

By the mid-to-late 1960's the science course improvement projects werein use, even if on a limited basis, and the emphasis on enquiry (nrinquiry) was appearing in the literature. Some opinion statements reflectedthese influences. For example, Sund and Trowbridge produced a sciencemethods textbook entitled Teaching Science by Inquiry (1967). in it theywrote about skill development in the laboratory and classified skills as(a) acquisitive, (b) organizational, (c) creative, (d) manipulative, and(e) communicative. Each of these categories was further subdivided intomore specific skills.

Acquisitive skills included (1) listening, (2) observing, (3)searching for sources and acquiring library skills, (4) inquiring, (5)investigating, (6) gathering data, and (7) research. Organizational s!:ills

1..., \ 4'1

involved (1) recording, (2) comparing, (3) contrasting, (4) classifying,(5) organizing, (6) outlining, and (7) reviewing. Creative skills were (1)planning ahead; (2) designing a new problem, approach, device or system;(3) inventing; and (4) synthesizing. Manipulative skills were (1) using aninstrument, (2) caring for an instrument, (3) demonstration, (4)experimentatio-, (5) repair, (6) construction, and (7) calibration.Communicative skills consisted of (1) asking questions, (3) discussion, (3)explanation, (4) reporting, (5) writing, (6) criticism, (7) graphing, and(8) teaching to classmates (pp. 93-95).

Sund and Trowbridge advocated that junior high school students beinvolved in laboratory activities. They listed 15 knowledges and skillsthat laboratory work could help junior high school students develop:

1) understand the purposes of the laboratory in the study ofscience,

2) understand and become familiar with the simple tools of thelaboratory,

3) understand and use the metric system in simple measurementand computation,

4) attain the und.2rstaading necessary for the proper reportingof observations of an experiment,

5) keep neat and accurate records of laboratory experiments,6) understand the operation of simple ratios and proportions,7) understand the construction and reading of simple graphs,8) understand and use the simpler forms of exponential notation,9) understand the proper use and operation of the Bunsen burner,

10) use the slide rule for simple operations,11) understand and demonstrate the use of a trip balance,12) ability to work with glass tubing in performing laboratory

experiments,13) keeping glassware and equipment clean,

414) putting together simple equipment in performing laboratory

experiments, and

15) measuring accurately in linear, cubic, and weight units.(pp. 102-103)

Sund and Trowbridge also identified nine "safety skills" thatlaboratory work could develop in students:

1) ability to hardle glass tubing,2) ability to heat test tubes of chemicals,3) ability to handle acids,4) ability to test for the presence of noxious gases safely,5) ability to treat acid spillage or burns from caustic

solutions,

6) ability to operate fire extinguishers,7) ability to set up gas generators properly,8) ability to use standard carpenter tools, and9) ability to use dissecting equipment. (n. 106)

They listed, but did not elaborate on actual methods involved, 20 specificstudent laboratory activities that may be evaluated (p. 104); and, theyidentified eight goals for laboratory work;

1) to develop skills in problem solving through the identifi-cation of problems, collection and interpretation of data,and drawing conclusions;

2) to develop skills in manipulation of laboratory apparatus;3) to establish systematic habits of record keeping;4) to develop scientific attitudes;5) to learn scientific methods in the solution of problems;6) to develop self-reliance and dependability;7) to discover unexplored avenues of interest and investigation;

and

8) to promote enthusiasm for the subject of science. (pp.103-104)

A different set of objectives students could develop throughlaboratory work was also published in 1967 by Jeffrey as an article inScience Education based on his doctoral work. He stated that success in thelaboratory depends on something other than the ability to manipulatesymbols and that measurable outcomes to be achieved as a result oflaboratory experiences should be decided upon before the course begins sothe course syllabus can be organized correctly. Jeffrey proposed sixstudent performance objectives resulting from individual laboratory work.These consist of (1) vocabulary competence --the ability to translatesymbols into non-symbols quickly or vice versa (pictures into words orwords into objects); (2) observational competence -- recognition oflaboratory occurrences, distinguish like from unlike; (3) investigativecompetence, referring to (a) knowledge of capabilities of laboratoryequipment, (b) ability to design experiments to quantify characteristics,(c) ability to design experiments to separate substances, (f) ability toformulate hypotheses, (h) ability to predict effects of actions, (i)ability to search the literature, and (j) ability to use standardhandbooks; (4) reporting competence --record laboratory investigations andreport the results; (5) manipulative competence -- handle laboratoryequipment and supplies rapidly and sagely; and (6) laboratory discipline --self discipline, keeping an orderly laboratory, and exactness in reporting.(p. 187)

Jeffrey provided examples of ways in which these various competencescould be tested but admitted that laboratory discipline was harder to testfor than were the other five.

The student population with whom Jeffrey was ,oncerned were collegestudents enrolled in chemistry classes. Another author also concerned withcollege science wrote about the role of the laboratory in the generaleducation of non-science majors. Bradley (1968) emphasized the fact thatbeginning college science courses play two roles: a first course for majorsand a general education/culture course for non-majors. These roles are notalways compatible, Bradley said, and perhaps two separate courses areneeded. Science courses for non-majors should, or could, have several aims:information, the development of an interest in science, understanding ofrelationships of science to the environment and everyday life,understanding of the relationships of the sciences, and culture. Bradleyhighlighted several functions of laboratory work in general educationscience courses: (1) development of manipulative skill, (2) to aid memory,(3) to give the students the scientific manner of thought and training indrawing conclusions, (4) to provide opportunities for developing the sense

of perception and the acquisition of conce?ts, and (5) to develop powers ofobservation. (Bradley had culled these functions from a list of 43functions of the laboratory developed by Archer Hurd in 1929.) He thenasked 47 secondary school science teachers if these functions could bedeveloped without the laboratory. Thirty-three ._eachers said "No," 12 said"Maybe," and 2 had no opinion.

Bingman (1969), writing about the Inquiry Role Approach to teachinghigh school biology, identified three skills needed for this activity:(1) asking initial questions, (2) making observations, and (3) organizingobservations. He listed six factors common to all modes of inquiry(1) formulating a problem, (2) formulating hypotheses, (3) designing astudy, (4) executing a plan of investigation, (5) interpreting the data orfindings, and (6) synthesizing knowledge gained from the investigation.Bingman also listed 12 affective or atitudinal qualities of inquirybehaviors: (1) curiosity, (2) openness, (3) reality orientation,(4) risk-taking, (5) objectivity, (6) precision, (7) confidence, (8) per-severence, (9) satisfaction, (10) respect for theoretical structures,(11) responsibility, and (12) consensus and collaboration.

Hincksman published an article (1973) in which he asked severalquestions and then stated some conclusions related to the function of theschool laboratory. Hincksman asked: What is effective science learning?What are the contributions of Piaget, Bruner, and other learning theoriststo evaluating and understanding the function of the school laboratory? Whatdo present day educators consider to be the role of the school laboratory?He concluded, without ever explicitly stating the bases for hisconclusions, that (1) the school laboratory is essential for teachingstudents at the concrete operations stage; (2) laboratory demonstrations orexperiments are useful when teaching a difficult concept by reducing itfrom symbolic to iconic or even the enactive mode; (3) individuallaboratory experiences are necessary if the aim is to acquire skill inhandling scientific apparatus; (4) in the senior years of pre-collegeeducation, when cognitive stages are fully developed, the laboratory may belargely irrelevant except for the manipulative function; and (5) the schoollaboratory may be used in ways incidential to science teaching -- topromote social adjustment, to illustrate the learning conditions ofscientific work, and for motivation (pp. 85-86).

- Tamir (1976) claimed there are four major rationales for using thelaboratory in science teaching: (1) science involves highly complex andabstract subject matter which elementary students and some high schoolpupils fail to grasp without concrete objects and opportunities formanipulation, (2) laboratory work gives students an appreciation of themethods and spirit of science, (3) practical experiences promote thedevelopment of skills with a wide range of generalizable effects, and(4) students enjoy activities and practical work and consequently becomemotivated and interested in science (pp. 8-9).

Tamir classified the objectives of the laboratory into (1) skills,(2) concepts, (3) cognitive abilities, (4) understanding the nature ofscience, and (5) attitudes (pp. 9-10).

kJ, 4w

Lancaster, in his presidential address reported in EngineeringEducation (1978), stated that laboratories were needed in engineeringeducation to (1) obtain basic information, (2) provide students practice inhow to get data (choose objectives, devise methods, make measurements,record data, check results, decide if more data are needed), (3) acquaintstudent with the real world, and (4) develop the habit of criticalthinking. Citing Piaget, Lancaster said that knowledge begins with theassimilation of data from the environment. Understanding of a conceptoccurs when an individual thoroughly explores and interacts with thematerial and discipline of the concept. The learner needs to probe,disassemble, construct, and interact with material, to carry outexperiments with freedom of initiative. The student needs to enjoy what heis doing and to be rewarded for success. Teachers need to be interested inand enthusiastic about their subject and to also be interested in students.

White (1979), writing about the relevance of practical work tocomprehension of physics, in a British journal, says

. . . Rather there seems to be a settled faith in the value ofpractical work, a near religion to which we are preparad to donatelarge amounts of time and money . . . . only too often it becomesa matter of ritual, the purpose of which is lost. Then practicalwork is included in courses because it is expected, not for aparticular reason . . . (p. 384)

White is not a critic of practical or laboratory work. In fact he advocatesthe addition of three types of experiments to physics laboratory courses:(1) unusual experiments which engage emotions through being odd, dramatic,beautiful, or puzzling; (2) experiments intended to establish generalizedepisodes involving materials and events of common experience, with thepurposes of linking school subject matter and daily life and of providingexperiences whit', will be called into play in making subsequent informationcomprehensible; and (3) true problemsolving exercises which serve tointegrate the knowledge of physics.

Reif and St. John (1979) were also concerned with physics classes.They described a prototype college introductorylevel physics laboratorycourse which was developed because most students could not meaningfullysummarize the important aspects of an experiment they had just completed.Also, the students questioned whether or not the laboratory was worthwhilesince it was not particularly interesting or enjoyable.

Reif and St. John decided the laboratory should (1) teach some generalintellectual skills likely to be widely useful to students in their futurework, (2) teach skills practicingscientists commonly use but which moststudents do not possess, and (3) involve skills which can effectively betaught end practiced in a laboratory context.

They identified both basic and higherlevel skills. Basic skillsinclude (1) the ability to use operational definitions to relate symbolicconcepts to observable quantities (subsuming the ability to estimate ormeasure important physical quantities at various levels of precision), (2)the ability to estimate the errors of quantities obtained from measurements

(involving habitually applying some qualitative or semiquantitativestatistical Gptions), and (3) knowing and applying some generally usefulmeasuring techniques for improving reliability and precision (p. 950).

Higherlevel skills include (1) being able to describe and talk aboutan experiment in a form easily understandable to other people (especially,being able to summarize the most important ideas of the experiment and thento elaborate them to any desirable extent), (2) being able to remember thecentral ideas of an experiment over a significantlylong period of time,and (3) being flexibly able to modify the design or measurement proceduresof an experiment when confronted with slightly different conditions or.experimental goals (pp. 950-951).

In summary. The situation appeArs pretty much as White descritA itthe science educationcommunity does have a "settled faith" in the value oflaboratory work. Economic circ*mstances, critics, and some educationalresearch data interject an element of doubt.

Criticisms of the Laboratory

Criticisms of the use of the laboratory may be grouped intoadministrative and educational areas. Within the administrative area arethe criticisms and concerns that the use of the laboratory involvesexpenditures of both time and money. Money is needed for both facilitiesand equipment. Time is needed to make proper use of them. The concernsvoiced in the historical perspective portion of this publication continueto be heard into the present day. Providing double periods for scienceclasses so laboratory work can be done involves scheduling problems foradministrators and problems in perception of teacher load if teachers inother disciplines do not fully understand the various aspects of laboratoryteaching in science.

Another concern that is both administrative and educational relates tothe problem that Hurd identified: are we teaching science for the citizenor for the future scientist? Can these two goals be achieved within thesame science class? Some of the individuals wbo have written about generaleducation courses in college science appear to believe they cannot and thattwo types of science courses need to be offered. Secondary schools usuallydo not have the resources to offer science courses for those studentsplanning to major in science in college and another set for those who willnot go to college or who will not major in science if they do go. As aresult, junior high and middle school science courses usually have ascienceforthe citizen emphasis while senior high school science, possiblywith the exception of biology, becomes more tailored for the collegeboundstudent. However, senior high school science teachers are realistic enoughto admit that all of their students are not interested in science careersand that the emphasis in the science class and laboratory becomes that ofthe curriculum materials being used.

Even the advocates of the science laboratory have been critical of theuses to which the sciencelaboratory has been put. During the NSF sciencecourse improvement activity, and even prior to that time, there were

science educators who decried the emphasis on verification in the sciencelaboratory. The science course improvement project materials resulting fromthe NSF-funded projects and later materials that have been patterned afterthe NSF materials contain laboratory activities that are designed to beinvestigative rather than illustrative or verificational in nature.

Is a change in curriculum materials sufficient to bring about a changein instructional practices? Not necessarily. Even the advocates of thelaboratory emphasize that the key to success is an enthusiastic,well-prepared teacher. Even prior to the development of the NSF materials,Richardson was quoted by Burnett, in a 1948 issue of the Review ofEducational Research, as writing that teachers had a very limitedconception of the function of the laboratory in the learning situation.

Another critic of the way the science laboratory was being used isRasmussen (1970). In an article in Bioscience, Rasmussen criticized bothcollege science teachers and teacher educators. He claimed that high schoollaboratory work is no better than it is because formal science training (atthe college level) is ". . . more often . . . about science rather than inscience. . ." (p. 292), with very limited opportunities to reallyinvestigate ideas. Laboratory activities, according to Rasmussen, arelargely illustrative, non-investigative, and not particularly exciting.Laboratory achievement is usually evaluated separately from the sciencecontent of the course. "Operationally, he learns that the function of thelaboratory should be certification of statements made by the teacher or bythe textbook. . ." (p. 292). In science methods courses, the student doesnot get exposed to ideas about science. Instead, ". . . Most of all helearns by default, how to be bland and avoid any issues that are concernedwith value systems. . . ." (p. 293). When people become in-serviceteachers, they get handed a textbook plus a set of laboratory activitiesand their behavior is determined by the structure of the program they aresupposes to teach.

Rasmussen said that, in good science teaching, "the textbook supportsthe laboratory but in most present cases these roles are reversed." Hepointed out that the BSCS materials (lab blocks, patterns and processes,interactions of experiments and ideas) are not as successful as one mightwish ". . . due in large part to teacher reluctance to change their mode ofoperation" (p. 293).

Tamir (1976), in a report on the role of the laboratory in scienceteaching, identified 10 "arguments against excessive use of the laboratory"and cited the sources from which the statements came. Briefly, these 10criticisms are: (1) laboratory activities have little relevance to dailylife or problems in which students are interested, (2) there is lack ofknowledge about the effective use of laboratories in science teaching, (3)teachers are not competent to teach science and use the laboratoryeffectively, (4) overemphasis on laboratory activities may lead to anarrow view of science, (5) much laboratory time is spent on trivialexperiments, (6) the kinds of laboratory expe-iences students have willnot result in a respect for science (7) laboratory work in the publicschools reflects too much of the style of university laboratory courses,(8) demonstrations are better instructional methods for slow learners,(9) girls are less interested in conducting laboratory activities than are

ot)

boys, and (10) students can carry out a laboratory activity withoutintellectualizing what they are doing (pp. 4-5).

A recent article containing criticisms of the college sciencelaboratory was published in The Chronicle of Higher Education (1980). Muchof what Pickering said in this article has been said by other individualsat other times but his is a relatively succinct description of thesituation. Pickering said that laboratories are (1) very expensive, (2)not popular with students, and (3) timeconsuming for faculty.

Although people appear to agree on the need for laboratories fortraining scientists, the majority of students in laboratory courses do nothave this career goal. Administrators think that college faculty areholding on to an archaic goal: the professional school requirement. Facultymembers do not help their cause because they are not clear on what teachinglaboratories can/ought to do for their students. The laboratory is oftenasked to do jobs for which it is unsuited and its real strengths areignored.

Pickering (1980) identified two misconceptions about the use of thelaboratory in college science. Misconception one is that laboratoriessomehow "illustrate" lecture courses. This function is not possible in asimple, oneafternoon exercise, Pickering said, because "most scientifictheory is based on a large number of very sophisticated supportingexperiments" (p. 80). When a lecture topic can be illustrated, thisprobably can be done with a lecturedemonstration or with audiovisualaids.

Misconception two is that laboratories exist to teach "finger skills."Pickering claimed that very few of the techniques students learn in theircollege science laboratories will be directly usable in the careers theyplan. The importance of manipulative skills has been oversold, Pickeringargued. Many of the skills students learn in the laboratories are obsoletein science careers -- few biologists do dissections and few chemists dotitrations. Such skills are worth teaching only as tools to be mastered forbasic scientific inquiry and not. as ends in themselves (p. 80).

Pickering distinguished between lecture and laboratory courses bycontending that a good laboratory course should be an exercise in doingscience while a good lecture course has the objective of learning aboutscience. He viewed good laboratory teaching as being essentially Socratic,involving the posing of carefully defined questions to be asked of nature.The intellectual processes students should use are those of real scientificresearch so they come to see how difficult it is to obtain totallyunambiguous data. Such a laboratory course could easily be defended asfitting into a liberal educaP]ion, according to Pickering. Unfortunatelymost laboratory courses do not fit this model.

Pickering stated that laboratory courses do not live up to theirpotential for several reasons. It is not easy to teach a laboratory course.Much attention to detail !-, required and there are problems of organizationand management. In most college science courses, the teaching associatesteach the laboratory sections. Faculty members are not prepared for or

-........

comfortable with the role of managing teaching associates. As a result,teaching associates receive few rewards for good performance and are seldomdismissed for poor performance.

There are other problems. "Too few lab courses offer any sort ofconfrontation with the unknown. . . .The element of creative surprise isalmost completely missing. The results of an experiment should be ambiguousenough so that a student is compelled to think through the bearing of hisresults on the possible conclusions" (p. 80). Grading contributes to theproblem because students put their efforts where the rewards are.

As one reads Pickering's article it becomes obvious that he isarguing not for the abolition of laboratory courses in science but fortheir improvement.

The criticisms just described have been focused on laboratory coursesand the ways in which they are taught. Just as teachers and instructionalmethods have been criticized, so have the materials involved in scienceinstruction.

Part of an article on the nature of scientific enquiry, by MarshallD. Herron (1971), relates to the analysis of some of the science courseimprovement project materials to determine if they really involved whattheir developers advocated relative to scientific enquiry. Herron examinedCHEM Study, PSSC, and the Blue Version BSCS biology materials. ChemicalEducation Materials Study materials emphasize

the importance of accurate 'observation, controlled experi-mentation, and the development of 'models' which allow theobserved phenomena to be explained and permit related phenomenato be predicted (p. 196).

The overriding impression one receives from the CHEM Studymaterials is that truths or 'facts' about unchangingproperties of nature come to us from the phenomena. . .Thenet result is to deemphasize or ignore Schwab's distinctionbetween fluid and stable enquiry by centering the entire storyaround various aspects of the 'stable' variety. (p. 197)

- Herron examined 41 CHEM Study laboratory exercises for their contentand stated purpose. He grouped these 41 exercises into three majorcategories: (1) exercises through which the student was expected to"discover" certain specified principles or regularities in chemicalphenomena; (2) exercises involving inference or problem-solving behaviorand having no predetermined, unique solution; and (3) exercises said to"illustrate" or to "give the student the chance to observe, together withexercises intended to give the student practice in developing laboratorytechniques."

According to Herron, 24 of the 41 laboratory exercises (more than 50%)were of the illustrative demonstrative variety. Six were of the open-endedproblem-solving type, with four of the six occurring very late in thecourse. Herron found an identifiable generalization element in only 11 ofthe exercises (about 25%). He concluded, "In the light of this 'analysis, it

48c0

would appear that the 'discovery' rubric is misleading as applied to thelaboratory portion of these materials" (p. 198).

Herron characterized the Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC)materials as relying almost exclusively upon an implicit presentation ofscientific enquiry (p. 198) and picturing ". . . a universe governedthroughout by fixed and unchanging laws which it is the difficult businessof physics to uncover. . ." (p. 199). Laboratory activities are designed toestablish a pattern of movement from familiar to unfamiliar and most areintended to precede the textbook and class discussion.

Herron developed a device for analyzing laboratory materials based onthe levels of openness and permissiveness in an inquiring laboratory asspelled out by Schwab in "The Teaching of Science as Enquiry." Herronadded a zero level. Herron's model is similar to that of Pella (1961),illustrated earlier in this paper, and appears as follows:

Level Problem Methods Answers

Manual

Student

Manual

Student

Studelit

Manual

Student

Using this model, Herron analyzed 52 PSSC laboratory activities. Hejudged 38 (nearly 80%) to be at the 0 level, 11 at level 1, 2 at level 2,

and none at level 3. From these data, Herron concluded ". . . that studentsin PSSC physics courses are prc5ably never asked to attempt to formulate aproblem or hypothesis and rarely, if ever, asked to devise their ownprocedures for collecting relevant data (p. 201).

Herron, quoting from BSCS materials, identifies the goal of the BlueVersion of the course as that of helping the student "obtain someunderstanding of the nature of science as a vigorous interaction of factsand ideas" (p. 201). However, Herron says, these ideas are not theprevailing structures Schwab has in mind but refer to tentative solutionsor 'hypotheses which became theories if they stand up under repeatedtesting. Although laboratory work is a major part of the BSCS course, thereis a lack of emphasis on an ideational factor and, thus, the origin ofscientific problems is "shrouded in mystery" with ". . . no light shed onthe process through which problems are formulated . . " (p. 202)

The laboratory guide for the Blue Version of BSCS, contains 62 separateexercises, according to Herron. Many of these exercises have severalsubparts. In a school with only single periods for biology, about one-thirdof the school year would be spent in the laboratory, according to Herron's

calculations. Allowing for time taken from class for ocher schoolactivities (assemblies, etc.), the percentage of time for the laboratoryportion of the course is increased. Teachers are frequently motivated bythe belief they must cover the book and so Herron considers that suchcoverage and emphasis on enquiring activities are mutually exclusivepossibilities (p. 203).

Using his fourpoint scale model to analyze the BSCS laboratoryactivities in the Blue Version, Herron found 45 of the 62 activities to beat the 0 level (no openness), 13 at level 1, four at level 2, and none atlevel 3 (p. 203). He also reminded the reader that whether students everget to the level 1 or level 2 activities is dependent on the teacher.

Because the teacher, with his/her philosophy for teaching science, isthe deciding factor, Herron was interested in teachers' views of scientificenquiry and their perceptions of the courses they taught. ". . . By theintellectual milieu he fosters, by the conceptual contexts he engenders inthe minds of his students, indeed, by virtue of the topics he emphasizes(and tests for) and those he does not, he is in a position to eitheramplify or shortcircuit the purposes of those who developed the coursematerials" (p. 204).

Herron interviewed 49 teachers from 20 different states and oneteacher from Canada. Twentytwo had attended an institute designed toacquaint them with the "new" courses they were teaching; twentyeight hadnot. The sample included 17 physics teachers, 16 biology teachers, and 17chemistry teachers. Based on their responses, teachers were placed in oneof five categories: (1) exhibiting an almost total orientation toward thecontent of the textbook and showing a lack of concern for any otherdimension in the materials; (2) using terms such as "enquiry," "models," orthe "scientific method" but perceiving these terms as related mostly to theknowledge dimension of enquiry; (3) making fairly coherent but very generalreferences to scientific enquiry with total lack of reference to anyideational factorand the apparent absence of any systematic relationshipsbetween the variables they injected into the conversation; (4) verbalizingconcerning scientific enquiry comparable to the level of the materials theywere teaching; and (5) exhibiting the ability to view the science materialsin a larger context, to go significantly beyond the level of discussion ofthe course materials themselves. Only two teachers were placed in thisfifth category (pp. 206-208,.

Herron contended that his data ". . . raise serious questionsconcerning the effectiveness of reorientation programs for teachers inawakening potential users of curricular material to the importance andrelevance of a frequently stated curricular objective . that of bringingstudents to some level of competence in understanding the nature of

(p. 209).scientific enquiry . . . "

Herron described the 50 teachers in his sample as being impressed bythe fact that the impetus for the new science materials originated witheminent scientists. If such persons wen.: involved, why should the validityof the materials be doubted? Herron spoke of the "missionary zeal" towardthe materials. He also identified another factor that complicates the

c 4

picture. The new materials advocate investigation and enquiry in thelaboratory. Teachers attending institutes designed to prepare them to teachthese new materials are "lectured to" which renews their exposure tocollege (scieuc.e) teaching as "telling." Setting up a model in whichscience at the college level is taught by lectures and t' -,n expecting, theteachers to return to their classrooms and promote investigation bystudents appears highly questionable (p. 211).

In summary. It would seen that we face a large number of problems, oroae large problem with many aspects, relative to the role of the laboratoryin science. We must overcome, or work within, financial and timeconstraints; we must improve the preparation of science .teachers so theyare competent to use the laboratory effectively; we must be more criticalof the materials we use in teaching science; and we must adopt a teachingmodel other than the one by which we were taught science as collegestudents. What support, if any, does science education research completedin the last two decades provide?

THE USE OF THE LABORATORY IN SCIENCE TEACHING:

SOME CURRENT RESEARCH

Journal articles, research reports, papers presented at professionalassociation meetings, and abstracts from Dissertation AbstractsInternational were the sources of information used for this portion of thereview. As other reviewers have found, the majority of the research was ofthe doctoral dissertation variety. Several of the journal articles werealso based on dissertation research, resulting in duplication in thereporting. The educational levels involved were primarily secondary schooland college, with only a few of the studies reporting the involvement ofelementary school pupils.

Rather than arbitrarily taking the five categories of objectives forlaboratory teaching listed by Shulman and Tamir (1973) (i.e, skills,concepts, cognitive abilities, understanding the nature of science, andattitudes), the reviewer decided to look at the dependent variablesidentified in the studies to see if these might form natural clusters. Notsurprisingly, since some of the same studies were reviewed by Shulman andTamir for the "Second Handbook of Research on Teaching" (1973) as wereanalyzed for this publication, the clusters identified resemble the fivecategories listed earlier in this paragraph.

Investigators appeared to look at the influence of the laboratory on(1) achievement; (2) attitudes; (3) reasoning, critical thinking,scientific thinking, cognitive style--which could be termed "cognitiveabilities"; (4) understanding science; (5) science processes; (6)laboratory skills or manipulative skills; (7) interests; (8) dogmatism; (9)retention in a scieace course;,and (10) the ability to do independent work.

Several investigators looked at more than one dependent variable. Theidea seemed to be that if a population were available to be sampled and"treated" in some manner, it was wise to study as many variables aspossible. This is in contradiction to some of the earlier research on thelaboratory in which the reviewers expressed disappointment that only oneor two factors were studied per investigation. One of the objectives ofdoing this review, whether explicitly stated in the introductory section ornor, wks to identify those studies in which positive results were found."Positive" may be interpreted to mean in support of the use of thelaboratory and at a level of statistical significance. In order to maintainsome degree of objectivity, *hose investigations in which the resultsfavored some condition other than the use of the laboratory will also bereported. There seems to be little to gain in scrutinizing and describing,in this review, those studies in which no Agnificant differences werere carted. Results will be discussed as they relate to the dependentvariable being considered so the reader will find the same author beingcited in more than one portion of this section of the review if he/sheexamined more than one dependent variable.

TABLE I

VARIABLES INVESTIGATED RELATIVE TO THE USE OF THE LABORATORY IN SCIENCE TEACHING

Dependent Variable

Achievement

Attitude

Cognitive Abilities

Skills: laboratorymanipulative

Understanding Science

Science Processes

Interests

Independent Work

Retention in Course

Total Studies Favored Lab Favored Other NSD Mixed

87 8 4 72 3

32 5 1 21 5

25 7 2 14 2

19 6 0 11 2

11 2 0 7 2

8 1 -0 5 2

6 0 0 6 0

2 0 0 2 0

1 0 0 1 0

Results

Achievement

Even the eight investigations identified, in which results favoringthe laboratory were found, do not constitute overwhelming evidence in itsfavor when achievement is considered. Dickinson (1976) worked withcommunity college students enrolled in general education biolJgy in threesituations: lecture-laboratory, lecture-recitation, and lecture-only. It isassumed that only the group termed "lecture-laboratory" was involved in thelaboratory, as described within the confines of the abstract. When resultswere compared on the Nelson Biology Test and an investigator-designed test,the lecture-laboratory group scored higher on both tests than did thelecture-only group. The lecture-laboratory group did not significantlydiffer from the lecture-recitation group on the Nelson Biology Test and hadsignificantly different scores on the investigator-made test when SCATscores were used as the covariate.

Crozier (1969) worked with college general education science classes,using the laboratory vs. no laboratory. He found no significant ,differencesin achievement -- except for students who pretested below the median. Thesestudents acquired significantly more material with the laboratory. The useof the laboratory also helped male students develop the ability tointerpret data.

Gunsch (1972) used the curriculum Physical Science for Nonscient4sts(PSNS) with some freshmen enrolled in a physical science course andcompared their progress with that of other freshmen enrolled in theconventional lecture-demonstration physical science course. He reportedthat the PSNS students did better on the two investigator-designedachievement tests used in his study.

Toohey (1964) looked at the effects of a laborato v course in scienceas compared with a lecture course for ninth grade students enrolled ingeneral science or earth science. (The control group had no science.)Toohey reported definite advantages in learning and retention when earthscience was taught by the laboratory method. He advocated that, if generalscience were to be retained in the junior high school, it, too, should betaught by the laboratory method.

Napier (1969) and Lucow (in the 1953 USOE publication) bothi;vestigated the effects of the science laboratory as compared with the useof the textbook. Napier, working with high school biology classes, found nosignificant differences on factual knowledge between groups although therewere higher individual scores on measuring understanding of biologicalconcepts and the interpretation of biological data for the group using thelaboratory. Lucow worked with high school chemistry students, categorizingthem as college preparatory or general education. He reported that, for thecollege preparatory group, both methods produced statistically significantincreases in variation but the use of the laboratory produced greaterincreases.

Disinger (1971), in a study of the development of junior high schoolscience students in specified cognitive and affective areas, reported thatstudents appeared to learn more with laboratory activities than withoutthem. Anderson (1949), in a survey of a random sample of 56 high schools in

54 r)(.., /

Minnesota, reported that students in biology and chemistry did signifi-cantly better on the final examination in each subject if they wereenrolled in those schools classified in the upper one-fourth of the statedistribution of number of laboratory hours per student per year rather thanin the lower one-fourth.

Boghai (1'479) studied college chemistry classes in which thelaboratory preceded discussion vs. those in which the laboratory followedthe discussion. He found that having the laboratory first resulted insuperior achievement and that low aptitude students made significantlybetter academic progress under this method.

Steele (1975) looked at the effects of self-pacing in physics coursesfor non-science majors and reported that the scores of the students in theself-paced laboratory activities group were significantly different, at the.05 level, from those in the conventional approach to the laboratory.

Namek (1968) compared high school chemistry students enrolled in whathe termed an integrated approach to the laboratory vs. those in theconventional laboratory method and reported mean achievement scoressignificantly different in favor of the experimental group. Boeck conducteda study, reported in the fifth volume of the "Curtis Digests" (1971c), inwhich he compared the achievement of high school chemistry students usingthe inductive-deductive approach as compared with the deductive-descriptiveapproacn. He reported that the inductive-deductive method was superior inpromoting the knowledge of and ability to use the scientific method.

Four investigators studying at achievement found results which favoredsome method of instruction other than the laboratory. Townes (1976) lookedat college physical science classes in which data were collected by avicarious method in which the students saw 2x2 colored slides and listenedto cassette tapes as compared with other groups using the conventionallaboratory. The performance of the vicarious group exceeded that of theconventional group on all three criterion instruments used in the study.

M. 0. Smith (1972) also used a vicarious method of instruction in hisresearch with college physical science students. The vicarious method isnot described in the abstract of his research. Smith reported that thevicarious method of instruction was significantly more effective inpromoting achievement than was the conventional one.

A third investigator also used a method which might be termedvicarious although he did not call it that. Brosius (1965) worked with highschool biology students. One group viewed color sound films and the othergroup performed dissections on earthworms, crayfish, perch, and frogs. Thefilms were judged to be superior to the actual dissection activities inteaching factual knowledge.

Andriette (1970) looked at the effects of teacher-demonstration vs.small group laboratory methods on cognitive learning of above averageseventh grade students. He found no significant differences at theknowledge level cut the achievement at the comprehension level wassignificantly greater for the students in the teacher-demonstration group.

6 0

Another study In the achievement area deserves mention, not so muchfor the data reported from the experimental treatment as for theside-effects.

Baxter (1969) worked with general education physical science classes.Some received what he termed a subject-centered treatment; sons, ahistorical treatment; and some, the historical treatment plus thelaboratory. There were no significant differences in achievement. However,the students in the laboratory group thought the laboratory experiences hadhelped them to better understand the concepts and principles involved. And,the students who had not participated in the laboratory were of the opinionthat if they had had laboratory activities, they, too, would have beenbetter able to understand the concepts and principles. (Another example ofthe laboratory "mystique"?)

Although the various researchers purported to study the effects of onetreatment or another on achievement, there are so many differences amongstudies or the way in which they are reported, that generalizations are noteasy to come by. The most obvious one appears to come from the "negative"findings--vicarious experiences can promote some types of achievement aseffectively as laboratory activities can. Laboratory activities appear tobe helpful to those students who are rated as medium or low in achievementon pretest measures, at least in two studies [Boghai (1979), and Grozier(1969)]. _,'---

------

Attitudes

Ramsey and Howe (1969a,b,c) in a review of research on instructionalprocedures said that, when considering attitudes, we should be careful todistinguish between scientific attitudes and positiNe attitudes. Scientificattitudes are characterized by accuracy, intellectual honesty,open-mindedness, seeking cause and effect relationships, and the ability tosuspend judgment. Positive attitudes are feelings, opinions, emotions, andappreciations (p. 66). It was not always possible to determine which kindof attitudes investigators were studying in the research reviewed.

The feelings/emotions/opinions type of attitudes were probably thosemeasured by King (1975), who reported students had more favorable attitudestoward the audio-tutorial approach to college biology than those non-majorsin the traditional classes. Dickinson (1976) also looked for attitudechanges and found more favorable ones in students in lecture-laboratory andlecture-recitation classes than among students in the lecture-only classesin general education biology. Steele (1975) looked at attitudes towardscience instruction and found these to be significantly different for thestudents in the self-paced laboratory group in his study. Gunsch (1972)looked at attitude changes toward science and found more favorable changesamong PSNS students than among those students enrolled in the traditionalphysical science courses. Campbell (1978) found students in a personalizedsystem of instruction approach to beginning college physics had attitudesthat differed significantly from the control group in three of four areasand were not as likely to withdraw from the course as were the controlgroup students.

Johnson et al. (1974) looked at the effects of different teachingsituations on the attitudes of sixth grade students toward science. Theyfound that those students who used materials to answer questions developedmore positive attitudes about science than those who did not. Nosignificant loss of positive attitudes was found when the textbook wasmixed with materialsoriented laboratory activities, causing the authors toquestion whether the instructional pendulum has swung too far in terms ofall activities and the effect of activities on attitudes (p. 55).

Balcziak's study, reported by Brown and Blackwood (1955), containedthe statement that students made significant gains in "science attitude"only under the individual laboratory method, as compared with thedemonstration or demonstrationindividual laboratory work methods (pp.143-144). "Science attitude" is hard to classify using Ramsey and Howe'scategories.

Coulter (1966) talked about "scientific attitudes," which apparentlybelong in the first of Ramsey and Howe's two categories. He used threeinstructional methods: inductive laboratory experiments, deductivelaboratory exercises, and the demonstration of inductive experiments.Coulter found the inductive methods produced significantly greaterattainment of the attitudes of science. Allison (1973) looked at attitudestoward science, breaking these into intellectual and e,.,y>tional componentsand a total score. He found that students using inquiry laboratoryactivities in an introductory college chemistry course showed significantimprovement in their intellectual attitudes, although there were nosignificant differences in the total score or in the emotional component ofthe attitudes. Boeck, in the study previously mentioned in the Achievementsection, reported that the inductive deductive approach was superior forthe development of scientific attitudes.

Cravats (1969) investigated the use of laboratory exercises with lowIQ ninth grade students. Although he concluded that the teachers were themost significant factor in his study, Cravats also reported that thosestudents who had completed the laboratory activities developed betterattitudes toward school.

The disappointing study in this group is the one by Crozier (1969) whoworked with general education science for nonmajors. He reported that thestudents who did not have laboratory experiences improved in theirattitudes toward science while those enrolled in the laboratory sectionsdecreased in positive attitudes.

Considering the attitude studies with positive findings and those withmixed results again produces a lack of generalizations. More investigatorslooked at the feelingkind of attitudes than at scientific attitudes. Isthis a reflection of Hurd's verbalized dilemma about teaching science forthe citizen or for the scientist? Are these two aims really thatincompatible for the same class?

Cognitive Abilities

The cognitive abilities mentioned in the various research studies werereasoning, critical thinking, scientific thinking, and cognitive style. Afew researchers looked at cognitive development, according to Piaget,either to study the effect of laboratory activities on this development orto differentiate between formal operators and concrete operators in thescience laboratory.

Dorrance (1976) studied community college students enrolled in anintroductory biology laboratory course. Students received either a lectureand structured laboratory or lecture with structured demonstration, with alecture-only group serving as the control. The laboratory method ofinstruction proved superior to the demonstration method on a 40-item teston cognitive skills based on Bingman's (1969) (BSCS MOREL) analysis of theprocesses of science.

Holloway (1976), in a study of the effects of open-ended laboratorieson critical thinking abilities and attitudes toward science, reported thathe found significant differences in both variables. Unfortunately theabstract of his dissertation does not identify in whose favor thedifferences were.

Mandell (1967), Rogers (1972), Allison (1973), and Sorensen (1966),also investigated critical thinking. Mandell studied the use of collegebiology laboratories to uevelop or increase critical thinking. Studentswere either in a control group or in a critical thinking laboratory. Bothgroups increased in critical thinking, with the increase being significantfor the experimental group at the .10 level. The experimental sub-group,with IQ's below the mean, had significant gains in critical thinking,although a similar sub-group of control group students did not. Mandellsuggested that caution should be used in interpreting the results of hisstudy because of the low number of cases involved (17 in the control group,23 in the experimental). Rogers worked with 103 freshmen in a collegegeneral studies science course. The treatment Rogers used was not describedin the abstract of his study but it must have involved the use of thelaboratory as opposed to discussion, based on his problem statement as wellas on his conclusions. He concluded that if critical thinking were to bepromoted, laboratory investigations were significantly superior to thediscussion - centered instruction. Sorensen, working with 20 randomlyselected high school biology classes (with 10 of these randomly selected tobe the experimental group), found that the lab block classes constitutingthe experimental group exhibited significant growth in critical thinkingability at all IQ levels.

Allison compared the inquiry laboratory approach with a "structured"approach in an introductory college chemistry course. He found no signi-ixant differences between the experimental and control groups in criticalthinking skills. However, the students in the inquiry approach did exhibitsignificant improvement in critical thinking skills.

Palmer (1967) looked at the role of the laboratory in conceptuali-zation, using 36 students randomly selected from three classes studying theGreen Version of BSCS biology. These students were involved in a series of

, 63

structured interviews. Palmer reported that the laboratory did not directlycontribute to the acquisition of factual knowledge related to conceptuali-zation but that it did contribute significantly to those mental abilitiesand processes requisite to conceptualization. The laboratory appeared toplay an important role in developing mental abilities such as criticalthinking and reasoning.

Godomsky (1971) designed a study with three problems: to determinethe effectiveness of (1) experiments without explicit directions, (2)programming of prerequisite capabilities for each of four basicexperiments, and (3) using performance problems programmed for computerevaluation. One treatment group and three control groups were involved.Godomsky concluded, after studying student data from performance tests,that the designed laboratory instruction did increase students'problem-solving ability in physical chemistry and that the laboratory canbe a valuable instructional technique in chemistry if the experiments aregenuine problems without explicit directions.

Tamir and Glassman (1971) compared BSCS and non-BSCS students'performance on an inquiry-oriented performance laboratory test. They foundthat the BSCS students did significantly better, due mainly to superiorityin reasoning and self-reliance. The researchers concluded that BSCSstudents have a distinct advantage in solving open-ended problems usingexperimental procedures in the laboratory.

Campbell (1978) evaluated a Piagetian-based model for developingmaterials and instructing the laboratory portion of a beginning collegephysics course. Students (N=55) in two different states were involved.Although there were no significant differences in learning physics content,there was significant improvement in the use of more formalistic reasoningabilities for the students. Campbell's "learning cycle" model involvedthree separate but interrelated activities: exploration, conceptinvention, and concept application with 10 "laboratory interventionperiods."

Ward (1979) investigated the interaction among level of intellectualdevelopment, design of laboratory exercises, and comprehension of ideasrequiring either concrete or formal operations logic. Students inintroductory college chemistry for non-majors were randomly assigned totreatment or control groups, with the treatment group using instructionmaterials based on the learning cycle (not further described in theabstract). Formal students outperformed concrete students on both types oftest items: those requiring concrete thought and those requiring formalthought. The limited exposure to the learning cycle did not appear to

improve either student group on test items requiring formal thought. Wardexpressed the concern that intellectual development was an important factorin the design of general chemistry instruction. However, methods foraltering in:truction to make it amenable to concrete students and stillinclude all the concepts necessary in a first college course in science areyet to be developed.

Two investigators found results that did not support the laboratory inthe development of critical thinking ability. M. O. Smith (1972) found that

students who gathered data in college-level general physical science byvicarious experimentation were better in the development of criticalthinking ability than were those who performed conventional experimen-tation. Edgar (1969) worked with 6 teachers and 148 tenth grade collegepreparatory biology students in his analysis of the effects of labora-tory-centered instruction on the improvement of student critical thinkingskills and the development of positive student attitudes toward biology.(He found no significant differences related to attitude change.) Both theBSCS biology students and those in "conventional" biology showedsignificant improvement in critical thinking but the non-laboratory groupexhibited more improvement than did the laboratory group.

The same situation prevails in this cluster as in the two previousones: the majority of the studies reported no significant differences.However, combining those studies in which the researchers reportsignificAnt differences with those of mixed results does provide somesupport for the idea that laboratory activities can be used to helpstudents learn to think critically. Does this relate back to the facultypsychology idea or is it a part of being scientifically literate?

Laboratory Manipulative Skills

Two studies (Knox, Horton) that do not qualify as "recent" researchcontained reports on investigations of the variable of manipulative skills.These are reported in the second volume of the Curtis "Digests," firstpublished in 1931 and reprinted in 1971.

Within the last two decades several more researchers have looked atmanipulative skill development. Dorrance (1976) found the laboratory methto be superior to other methods in the acquisition of manipulative skillsby community college students enrolled in biology. Allison (1973) alsoworked with college students enrolled in an introductory chemistry course,and reported that the inquiry laboratory experiences were significantlymore effective than the structured approach in increasing laboratoryperformance skills.

Other investigators worked with secondary school students. Sherman(1969) investigated the relative effectiveness of two methods usinglaboratory -type activities in teaching Introductory Physical Science (IPS):a direct manipulative approach and an indirect non-manipulative approach.Eighth grade students of average and high ability were involved in thestudy. The experimental group saw a series of 2x2 colored slides of asequence of laboratory activities which the control group performed intheir classes. Sherman looked for changes in critical thinking abilities,understanding of science, academic achievement of knowledge and skills inIPS, and the development and expression of inLerest in science. The onlysignificant difference he found was that the control group, using thedirect manipulative approach, was significantly superior in selectedlaboratory skills demonstrated by their performance on a laboratory skillstest Sherman constructed. [Information on this well-designed study isavailable as a dissertation abstract, as a report from the WisconsinResearch and Development Center (1968), and as an article in School Scienceand Mathematics (Pella and Sherman, 19o9)).

Yagar, Engen and Snider (1969) conducted the study which Welch(1971c), in a NARSTERIC review, 'hoped was the last of its type (it wasnot). They worked with 60 students in grade 8 in the University of Iowalaboratory school. These students were studying the Blue Version of BSCS.The students were divided into three groups: one group did 50 of the 57experiments in the BSCS materials, one group used demonstrations (performedby the teacher or the students), and one group used discussion only. Allstudied the same content and took the same tests. Teachers changed groupsevery four weeks to counter any possible teacher effect. The investigatorslooked f-)r differences in critical thinking, understanding the nature ofscience, knowledge of general science and biology, and the ability to usebiology tools. The only variable on which ther' was significant differencewas that of mastery of laboratory skills. The laboratory group hadincreased their skill in laboratory manipulations as demonstrated byperformance in focusing a microscope under high and low power, the timeinvolved in constructing a manometer, and the ability to make coacervates.

Grosmark (1973) looked at the effects of increased laboratory time inhigh school chemistry. Students enrolled in regents chemistry in suburbanNew York City high schools were randomly assigned to one of two treatments.The experimental group performed an additional chemistry experiment eachweek, completed in each student's free time under a modular schedulingplan. Grosmark reported that performing an additional experiment each weekresulted in a significant difference in laboratory skills as shown byscores on a laboratory performance test.

Beasley (1979b) took an interesting approach to methods of increasingpsychom*otor performance. He looked at the effects of physical practice andthose of mental practice, working with students enrolled in introductorycollege chemistry. Although Beasley failed to find significant differencesamong his various treatment groups, he found that when each treatment groupwas compared to the control group, the treatment group was significantlybetter. He concluded that some form of planned practice of psychom*otorskills -- physical, mental, or physical and mental -- is likely to beassociated with superior laboratory performance.

Coulter (1966) compared the effects of inductive laboratoryexperiments, deductive laboratory exercises, and demonstrations on a numberof variables, one of which was laboratory techniques. Coulter found thatthe laboratory treatment groups were significantly different from thedemonstration group on a test of laboratory techniques. Most researcherswould have stopped there, but Coulter did not. He provided thedemonstration group with a fiveperiod laboratory technique instructioncourse and found the demonstration group to be as adept in laboratorytechniques as were the laboratory groups.

Apparently the opportunity to learn by doing does produce significantresults when manipulatil,e skills are investigated, as indicated by thestudies reviewed. However, Coulter's study provides some new questions forinvestigation: How much handson experience with laboratory materials andequipment is needed in order to equate groups? To produce a significantdifference?

6 ii

Understanding the Nature of Science

It science educators are concerned with producing scientificallyliterate citizens, it would seem that more researchers should beinvestigating methods for increasing students' understanding of the natureof science and of the scientific enterprise. Although 11 studies werelocated in which this variable was studied, this is a small number whencompared to the 85 studies on achievement.

Stekel (1971) compared the effectiveness of two different laboratoryprograms in college physical science: a traditional program with alaboratoty manual and a more flexible, open-ended program. In theopen-ended approach students selected their own problems related to ageneral topic, designed their own procedures, and completed an experiment.Stekel found a significant difference (p < .01), favoring the open-endedgroup, on the understanding of acticns or operations of scientists.

Whitten (1971) looked at the effects of changes in a general educationlaboratory physical science course. He found the experimental group madesignificant gains on the Test of Understanding of Science Processes (TOUS),parts I, III, and total, as well as on the Wisconsin Inventory of ScienceProcesses (WISP). When differences in ability, school achievement,background knowledge, or skill were covaried out, the experimental groupstill scored significantly higher on TOUS I, III, and total. Whittenconcluded that laboratory activities had made an important contribution tothe TOUS scores.

Sorensen (1966) reported that high school students who had performedtwo BSCS lab blocks (Plant Growth and Development, Animal Growth andDevelopment) exhibited significant growth in their understanding of scienceat all IQ levels.

Crawford and Backhus (1970), studying different approaches tolaboratory work in a survey science course for no

-majors, set 'ip threetreatments: scheduled laboratory, free laboratory ( tudents came when theywished within the times the laboratory was open), ad take-home laboratorykits. In the second experimental period of their s dy, the researchersfound that the free laboratory ana take-home labor ory groups scoredsignificantly higher than the scheduled laboratory stu ents on the TOUS.Crawford and Backhus speculated that the first two situations may haveemancipated the students to such an extent that they investigated furtherthan the researchers expected.

Other Variables Investigated

Science processes. Many investigations which include this variableshow the effect of the NSF science course improvement projects. Serlin(1977) talked about a discovery laboratory in college physics. In histerms, such a laboratory would emphasize hypothesizing, experimenting, andinferring rather than fact-gathering and principle verification. Serlinestablished three criteria for the discovery laboratory: (a) activities be

J i

matched to the developmental stage of the learner, (b) guidance be providedby the use_of advance organizers, and (c) further guidance be provided bydescribing the nature of science as a discovery activity for the students.Although Serltn's concern was for the improvement of physics laboratoriesfor undergraduates, he and a colleague worked with students in a calculuscourse which was a prerequisite for the undergraduate physics course.

Two experimental groups and one -ontrol group were involved. Studentswere provided practice in the procc=tses of science, problem-soling, andsetting up and applying standards of evaluation. With verbal SAT scoresused as a covariate, Serlin found that the discovery 1-Yoratory waseffective in 'ncreasicg students' science process skills (p=0,05).

Robertson (1972) attempted to identify differences between studentstaking Introductory F ,sical Science (IPS) and those in general science inthe manipulation of basic laboratory equipment, graphing data, and theinterrretation of data. He found no significant differences in themanipulative area. However, the IPS group was significantly better thanthe general science group three of the six times a table of data wasconstructed and graphed and significantly better all seven times data wereinterpreted in an experiment.

Hughes (1974) investigated the effect of computer-simulatedexperiments on attainment of science process skills by high school physicsstudents. Hughes used three groups: the laboratory group which did theexperiments in the traditional manner, the laboratory-computer group whichdid one trial experiment and then used computer simulations to get data foranalysis, and the computer group which got instruction sheets describingthe experiments but used simulations for their data. The laboratory groupand the laboratory-computer groups had higher mean process test scores thandid the computer group but these differences were not significant. Hughesconcluded that maximum benefits were realized from computer simulatedexperiments only after a first-hand laboratory experlience.

The study done by Hughes, combined with the study by Coulter (1966),again raises', le question of how much laboratory experience is necessary toproduce a desired change it psychom*otor skills or in use of the processesof science.

. interests. Although this is another assumption science educatorscherish (participation _a laboratory activities develops interest inscience or increases those interests already present), the six studiesrelated to this variable all produced no significant differences.

Abilit, to work independently. This area also failed to produceresults of significant differences, atthough Tamir and Glassman (1971)characterized BSCS students as being more self-reliant than were non-BSCSpupils. ,

Dogmatism. This variable might have been forced into the cognitivecluster or considered as an attitude, but it appears to differ from thosefactors and was treated separately. Sorensen (1966) found that the highschool biology students who had participated in the two BSCS laboratory

E; L.)

blocks became significantly less dogmatic, with the higher IQ students lessdogmatic than those of lower IQ. There was no significant change for thelecturedemonstration group in his study.

Retention in course. This, again, may be a function of attitudes.Campbell (1978) found that students in a beginning college physics coursebased on a Piagetian mcdel were less likely to withdraw before the end ofthe semester, but he did not indicate this finding was at a level ofsignificance.

In summary. If what we investigate is what we value, it would appearthat increasing achievement is of most worth. If that is true, it isunfortunate that few of the studies in which achievement was a dependentvariable contained results of significance in favor of the use of thescience laboratory. The next highest value appears to be placed ondeveloping attitudes -- in large part attitudes favorable to science ratherthan scientific attitudes. Third place appears to go to variables of thecognitive variety that differ from achievement -- ability to reason and, tothink critically as two examples of this area. Next we strive for thedevelopment of manipulative skills related to the laboratory, the area inwhich we appear to have the most likelihood of success. Eventually we worryabout whether the laboratory helps our students to understand thescientific enterprise -- an objective that might be assumed to rank higher,based on the concern for scientifically literate citizens and for pupilswho are expected to experience science as a pratticing scientist doesthrough involvement in enquiry. In all of these first five areas, "nosignificantdifference" studies predominate.

Another Look at the Research

Because the research does not provide overwhelri:ng support forteachers of various age groups who are faced with pressures to decrease, oreliminate, laboratory work and who wish to retain the laboratory- thedecision was made to look at the competition the laboratory faced invarious studies, as well as which instructional method "won." Thecomparative studies were divided into those in which the use of thelaboratory was compared with some other instructional method or methods,and those in which the "traditional" laboratory was compared with somemodification or version designed to improve instruction.

Laboratory vs. other methcd(s). Studies within this category have beenfurther classified, as follows:

a) Laboratory vs. no laboratory

Investigator Used Result

Holloway (1976) openended laboratory vs. NSD on attitudes,no laboratory thinking

Whitney (1965) no laboratory for one NSD on any of 11semester

variables

Investigator Used

Andriette (1970) small group laboratory

teacher-demonstration

King, C. R. (1969) laboratory vs. demonstra-tion

Crozier (1969)

Bailey (1965)

Rogers (1972)

Bradley (1963)

Strehle (1964)

'Ioohey (1964)

Cravats (1969)

Napier (1969)

Saunders &

Dickinson (1979)

Bybee (1970)

lecture-laboratory vs.lecture-only

laboratory vs. enriched

lecture-demonstration

laboratory vs. discussion

laboratory vs. lecture-demonstration

laboratory vs. lecture-discussion

laboratory vs. lecture

laboratory vs. textbook

lecture-laboratory vs.lecture-only

laboratory vs. nolaboratory

Result

teacher-demonstrationbetter at comprehen-sion

lab students "dobetter" on applica-tion of laboratoryexperiences

students without labimproved their atti-tude toward science;students pretestingbelow median acquiredsignificantly morematerial with lab

NSD on chemistryachievement

lab group significantlysuperior on criticalthinking

NSD on achieving theobjectives of generaleducation

NSD on achievement

lab group had definiteadvantage on learningand retention

students having lab workhad better attitudestoward school

neither method increasedfactual knowledge; labmethod "seemed" togenerate more studentinterest, enthusiasm

lecture-only least effec-tive method

NSD on achievement

Godomsky (1971) laboratory vs. no problem-solving abilitylaboratory was greater for

laboratory group

In this cluster, the use of the laboratory a,r'peared to help in thedevelopment of critical thinking (Rogers), in learning and retention(Toohey), and in generating more favorable attitudes toward school(Cravats), as well as in producing student interest and enthusiasm(Napier). It also helped students pretesting below the median to learnmore material (Crozier), as well as enabling students to apply laboratoryexperiences (C. R. King).

b) Laboratory vs. two other methods (which may or may not involve labwork)

Investigator

Doirance (1976)

Used

lecture-structured lab vs.lecture-structureddemonstration, lecture-only

Dickinson (1976) lect,Ire-laboratory vs.lecture-recitation,lecture-only

Paulsen (1979) lecture-delayed lab vs.lecture-laboratory,lecture-only

Baxter (1969) historical + laboratoryvs.

subject-centered,historical approaches

Coulter (1966) inductive laboratoryvs.

deductive laboratorydemonstrai:ion of inductiveexperiments

66il.

Result

lab method superior inacquisition formanipulative andcognitive skills

NSD on achievement,attitude

NSD for group comparisonon achievement;lecture-delayed labgroup had higher scoreon lab exam, highercourse grade

NSD on achievement,TOUS. Students in labgroup "thought" labhelped them; thosein other groupsthought the labexperiences wouldhave helped them

attitudes signifi-cantly differentfor two inductivegroups; lab groups

significantly betteron lab techniquestest (but, only 5sessions of lab workbrought demonstra-tion group to equaladeptness)

Blomberg (1974)

Costa (1974)

laboratory vs. reading+ lecture, audio-visual methods

laboratory vs. vicariousexperimentation,descriptive narrativemethods

Hughes, W. R. (1974) laboratory vs. laboratory+ computer, computersimulation only

Spreadbury (1969) laboratory vs. Suchmanquiry session, teacher-

demonstration

Dearden (1959) laboratory vs. demonstra-tion, workbook, report

Yager et al. (1969) laboratory vs. demonstra-tion, discussion

Raghubir (1979) laboratory-investigativeapproach vs. lecture-laboratory

NSD on achievement

NSD on TOUS, atti-tudes; all threemethods producedincreased achieve-ment

NSD on process testscores

NSD on achievement;on retention test,two groups lackinglaboratory didsignificantly better

NSD on knowledge,

attitude, scientificthinking

NSD on achievement,TOUS, criticalthinking, attitudetoward science.

experimental groupsignificantly betteron pre/post gainsfor cognitive fac-tors, associatedattitudes.

When investigators have several treatments to handle in the samestudy, more findings of no significant differences seemed to appear. Thelaboratory did appear to be of us in developing manipulative skills(Dorrance, Coulter, Yager et al.) but this difference may not have beencaused so much by the treatment as by the withholding of it, as Coulter'sfindings seem to indicate.

c) Laboratory via a specific curriculum project

Investigator Used Result

Gunsch (1972) PSNS vs. traditional lecture- PSNS students achieveddemonstration better, had more

favorable attitudes

Edgar (1969) BSCS vs. non-BSCS Non-BSCS group didbetter on criticalthinking measure

Sullivan (1972) IPS vs. "control classes" NSD for psychom*otor

abilities

Robertson (1972) IPS vs. general science NSD in manipulativeskills; IPS groupbetter at graphing,data interpretation

Johnson ESS vs. traditional text- students usinget al. (1974) book, textbook + materials materials had

significantly morepositive attitudesabout science thanthose using only thetextbook

This cluster would provide some support for the use of science curriculumimprovement projects if achievement of older stldents is desired (Gunsch).If process skills are an objective, then these materials are also helpful(Robertson). Project materials also engender positive attitudes (Gunsch,Johnson et al.). They do not appear to promote psychom*otor skills(Sullivan, Robertson) but this result may lie more with the physicaldevelopment of the student groups involved than with the materials used.(This last supposition is not based on a review of the research but on anumber of years of junior high school science teaching experience.)

d) Other variations

Investll,z'ator

Boghai (1979)

Reach (1977)

Simpson (1970)

Used Result

laboratory-discussionvs.

discussion- laboratory

theory-proving labvs.

skill development lab

workbook experiment vs.workbook or own experiment,no experiments

Emslie (1972) laboratory-theory vs.theory-laboratory

laboratory-firstpromotes supe-rior achievement,especially for lowaptitude students

theory-proving labfor learning, whenlab questions wereexcluded from theanalysis

NSD on any generaleducation objec-tives

NSD on achievement

Simpson & analytic vs. represen- NSD for academicallyCallentine (1971) tative drawings in talented pupils.

lab lower abilityseventh gradersdid better on subse-quent tests if theyhad used the analyticmethod

At first glance, one might think that the laboratory-discussion studyby Boghai and the laboratory-theory study of Emslie should have beenexpected to produce similar results. Although the two studies appear tohave a common element (i.e., sequencing of instruction) they differ ineducational level and content involved, as well as in actual methodologyemployed in instruction, evaluation, and data analysis.

Traditional laboratory vs. some modification. The researchers whosestudies are reported in this section did not appear to be questioningwhether or not the laboratory should be used but were interested indetermining if it could be modified so that its use would be moresuccessful in achieving certain outcomes. Again, studies within thiscategory have been placed in subgroups, as follows:

a) Laboratories involving some degree of student control of instruction

Investigator Used Result

King, T. J. (1975) audio-tutorial attitude toward biologymore favorable forexperimental group

Mitchell (1971) audio-tutorial NSD for knowledge, criti-cal thinking (studentsin experimental groupreported liking methodduring study but, later,recommended conventionallab method for futurestudents)

Within this cluster, eight researchers reported no significantdifferences while three reported results favoring the experimental group,with two of these three indicating the results were at a level ofsignificance.

b) Studies using some form of media (films, slides, film loops)

Investigator Used Result

BrosiuF (1965) color, sound films

films superior toconventional dis-session in teachingfactual knowledge,NSD on other variables

Driscoll (1974) color video labs

Hughes, J. E. (1972) lab method films

Sherman (1968) 2x2 colored films

Benzvi et al. (1976) filmed chemistryexperiments

Hamilton (1967)

Townes (1976)

single concept filmloops

2x2 colored slides,cassette tape

Calentine (1969) 2x2 colored slides +the microscope vs.microscope only

Dubravcic (1979) chemistry lab films

NSD on chemistry

achievement

NSD on achievement

significant differencefor lab group only onmanipulative skillsvariable

NSD on variables

NSD on two processskills (Students"seemed" morehighly motivated bylab instruction)

experimental groupsuperior on achieve-ment in physicalscience, competencein use of scienceprocesses

control group achievedsignificantly better

NSD on achievement

This cluster of studies appears to provide evidence that ifalternatives to conventional laboratory instruction are no better than theconventional methods, at least they are no worse. The study by Brosiuswould support the use of films as a substitute for dissection in biology aswould that of Townes for instruction in general education college physicalscience. In Calentine's report, he hypothesized that the experimental groupprobably did not have enough time to study both the microscope slides theywere manipulating and the colored projections of these slides and so choseto concentrate only on the actual slides rather than their projectedimages. In Sherman's study, it was reported chat the indirect manipulationIPS group of students also showed improvement in manipulative skills eventhough they were restricted to viewing 2x2 colored slides. However, themanipulative group's improvement was significantly greater than that of thenon-manipulative group.

c) Studies involving simulations

Investigator

Cavin (1977)

Used Result

computer simulations NSD in performance scores

Jones, J. E. (1973) computer simulations

Lunetta (1972) computer simulations

NSD in attitude scorestoward science course,toward the laboratory

all groups made signifi-cant increases from pre-to post-tests

Smith, M. 0. (1972) vicarious experimentation vicarious group scoredbetter on criticalthinking, achievement

In addition to the studies listed above, the study by W. R. Hughes(1974) also involved computer simulation. One of the three groups in theHughes study performed only one laboratory activity before spending therest of-the time working with computers. Hughes' concluding remarks seem toindicate that he considered that single experience important in enablingstudents to gain maximum benefits from computer simulations.

Cavin's study (1977) involved four pairs of simulated and conventionallaboratory experiments. Comparisons were made on :Ile basis of achievementon written tests, time required to do the experiment, time required to dothe calculations for the experiment, and - in one case performance on apractical test over the use of an instrument. She reported that althoughthere were no significant differences on the scores of the performancetest, the laboratory group took the performance test in significantly lesstime. Students who did the simulated experiment performed significantlybetter (than those in the lab) on some of the written achievement tests anddid the experiment in a shorter time in two cases.

Jones (1973) reported that, at the end of the experiment, theexperimental group of students had a significantly more positive attitudetoward using the computer as an instructional aid than did the controlgroup.

Lunetta (1)72) used two experimental groups and one control group inhis study. Group I used film loops and computer interactive dialogs. GroupII used film loops and simulated data and problem sheets. Group IIIperformed the PSSC experiments in the laboratory. All three groups learned,at a significant level, in this order: I, II, III. Group III spent themost time in instructional activities. Lunetta concluded that while hisstudy provided evidence that learning through the computer simulationdialogs was more effective and efficient than learning the same conceptswith real laboratory materials, the evidence did not indicate thatsimulations should replace all first-hand experience with real materials.He suggested that the computer had potential use for individualizinginstruction.

d) Studies emphasizing 1:,quiry/enquiry, discovery

Investigator Used Result-

Serlin (1977) discovery lab successful in increasingprocess skills

71P-1 .l0

Dawson (1975)

Mandell (1967)

Allison (1973)

Snyder (1961)

Sorensen (1966)

Charen (1966)

Egelston (1971)

Babikian (1971)

Hoff (1970)

guided decision-making

critical thinkinglab

inquiry lab

adding problemproject

use of BSCS labblocks

MCA open-endedexperiments

open, inductive,discovery unit

discoveryexpository,laboratory methods

enquiry vs. lecture-demonstration,directed approaches

NSD on critical thinking,knowledge of scienceprocesses

significant difference incritical thinking (.10)for experimental group

NSD on attitude, criticalthinking; significantlymore effective in increas-ing lab performance skills

NSD on achievement

significant growth in criticalthinking, understanding ofscience; significant decreasein dogmatism

significantly more than one-half the students involvedfavored open-ended experi-ments

significant differencesbetween groups on LearningEnvironment Irwentory

achievement scores higherfor expository and labgroups than for discoverygroup

NSD on achievement, retention

Even though these researchers used the terms inquiry, enquiry, anddiscovery, there were too many differences among the studies to permitcomparisons and generalizations.

e) Other variations on the theme

Investigator

Namek (1968)

Used

integrated lab vs.traditional approach

72'7~4

Result

mean achievement scoresin experimental groupsignificantly higher thanin traditional;NSD on understandingthe processes of science

Spears and unstructured labZollman (1977) vs. structured lab

Crosmark (1973) extended lab time

Smith, A. E. (1971) extended lab problem

Whitten (1971)

structured labs apneared tobenefit students who werenot formal operators

NSD on achievement,

attitude; additionaltime significantlyimproved lab skills

NSD on achievement,

attitude, understandingof science

modified course significant gain in TOUSscores

Campbell (1978) use of Piagetianbasedmodel of instruction

Ward (1979) use of learning style

significant improvement inuse of more formalisticreasoning abilities;NSD in learning physicscontent

formal operators outperformed concreteoperators

This cluster, by virtue of its miscellaneousness, contains very littlethat is common among studies. Three investigations did contain discussionsof cognitive development as described by Piaget (Spears and Zollman,Campbell, and Ward). In the Spears and Zollman study (1977), theunstructured laboratory approach involved the specification of objectives,with the procedures for attaining these objectives left up to the students.The researchers reported that students not at the formal operations levelcould not devise their own experiments to solve the problems posed. In

Campbell's study (1978) students were provided with learning cycles made ofthree separate but interrelated activities. This approach appeared to helpstudents at the concrete operations level move toward the formal operationslevel. Ward (1979) wrote of a "learning cycle" (not described in theabstract) and reported that a limited exposure to this learning cycle inthe laboratory did not appear to improve the performance of concrete orformal students on test items requiring formal thought.

What have we found in all this research that is of any value? Thisquestion cannot be answered without qualifying the response. What has beensaid by 416thers bears repeating: the interpretation of such studies isdependent upon the assumptions made about the purposes of laboratoryinstruction. If the acquistion and retention of factual knowledge isdesired, one procedure is probably as good as another.

However, if we believe that the student learns to understand thenature of science by "doing science," then involvement in investigation isnecessary. The student needs to be involved in planning experiments,

737

collecting and organizing data, formulating results, interpreting findings,and subjecting these to further study. Success in such activities shouldbe evaluated by some nethod other than an achievement test. (After Hurd,1961, p. 227)

In addition to examining assumptions and objectives, the reader needsalso to consider the problems involved in comparing teaching methods.

Problems of Research on Teaching Methods

McKeachie, writing in a chapter in the "Handbook of Research onTeaching" (Cage, ed., 1963), was concerned with discussing research onteaching at the college and university level. His comments are equallyrelevant for research at the elementary and secondary levels involvinginstruction. McKeachie said,

. . .Determining which of two teaching methods is more effectivelooks like a simple problem. Presumably, all that is necessary isto teach something by one method and then to compare the resultswith those obtained by teaching the same thing by another method. . .Unfortunately, there are pitfalls which enthusiasts for onemethod or another are likely to overlook. (p. 1122)

McKeachie identified ,ix such pitfalls (pp. 1123-1124):

(1) Taking a course taught by a new method may generate excitementor hostility. The Hawthorne effect influences teachers as wellas students. The treatment rarely lasts for more than onesemester. What happens after the excitement fades?

(2) There is a problem of establishing a suitable control group. Canone individual rez7lly teach using two different methods and nothave some aspect of one method influenCe the other? Is it possibleto get another individual to participate as a teacher and use themethod the study imposes?

(3) Conditions involved in the treatment may interfere with normalresults.

(4) Biased sampling may occur in that people who sign up for thetreatment are likely to be different from those who elect thetraditional course.

(5) Researchers need to consider the statistical methods used toanalyze the results. One should be careful to avoid concludingthat one method is more effective than the other when in realitythese methods do not differ significantly. It seems less likelythat the researcher will make the error of concluding there isno differ:",,, in ettectiveness when the two methods do not differsignificantly. There is also the problem of the choice of methodsof analysis: "weak statistics."

(6) There is also the problem of dealing with interactions amongteaching methods, student characteristics, teacher characteristics, or other variables.

McKeachie emphasized that the major problem in experimentalcomparisons of teaching methods is the criterion problem. He stated,

. .Undoubtedly, one reason for the many nonsignificant differences instudies of teaching is poor criterion measures. . ." (p. 1124) and warnedthat a careful definition of desirable outcomes does not solve thecriterion problem. The measuring instruments may not be appropriale for thetask to which they are applied. It is also possible that the instrumentsare appropriate but are not sufficiently-: sensitive to detect changesoccuring in the period of time involved ilithe study. 4

McKeachie also pointed out that seldom do researchers follow up thestudents who composed the experimental group to see if the treatment hasany other effects on these students in their other courses, on the faculty,or on the instructional program.

In discussing laboratory teaching at the college and university level,McKeachie reported (pp. 1144-1145):

Laboratory teachirg assumes that firsthand experience inobservation and manipulation of the materials of science issuperior to other methods of developing understanding andappreciation. Laboratory training is also frequently used todevelop skills necessary for more advanced study or research.

From the standpoint of theory, the activity of the student,the sensorimotor nature of the experience, and the individualization of laboratory instruction should contribute positively Colearning. Information cannot usually be obtained, however, by directexperience as rapidly as it can from abstractions presented orally orin print. . .Thus, one would not expect laboratory teaching to havean advantage over otner teaching methods in the amount of informationlearned. Rather we might expect the differences to be revealed inretention, in ability to apply learning, or in actual skill inobservation or manipulation of materials. Unfortunately, littleresearch has attempted to tease out these special types ofoutcomes. . .

Whether or not the laboratory is superior to lecturedemonstration in developing understanding and problemsolving skills probablydepends upon the extent to which understanding of concepts and generalproblem solving procedures are emphasized by the instructor in thelaboratory situation.

It would appear that McKeachie also recognized the importance of theteacher in determining the outcomes of instruction. Rasmussen (1970),mentioned in the "critics" section of this review, stated that inserviceteachers' behavior is determined by the structure of the program they areexpected to teach. It therefore seems appropriate to look at researchrelated to the objectives of using the laboratory in science teaching.

Research on Objectives for the Use of the Laboratory

Tamir (1976) describes four major rationales for the extensive use ofthe laboratory in science teaching (pp. 8-9):

1. science involves highly complex and abstract subject matter whichstudents who are not at the formal operations level of cognitivedevelopment grasp more readily if they interact with concreteobjects and have opportunities for manipulation,

2. proponents of enquiry argue that student participation in theactual collection of data and the analysis of real phenomena isan essential component of enquiry,

3. laboratory experiences are needed for the development of skillswith a wide range of generalizable effects, and

4. students enjoy laboratory activities and consequently becomemotivated and interested in science.

Tamir cites various authors as develops these rationales, but personsfamiliar with the literature will recognize the fact that many of the

_individuals cited are voicing personal opinions and assumptions rather thanresearch data supporting their contentions.

Shulman and Limit' (1973), in the Second Handbook of Research onTeaching (Travers, ed.), group objectives into five Categories: skills,concepts, cc ,nitive abilities, understanding the natur- of science, andattitudes. This classification is based on the literature review relativeto science education in the 1960's. Again, this literature is composed ofopinion articles as well as research reports; and, the research studiesfocused primarily on achievement of objectives rather than on theirconsideration of whether or not the objectives were desirable orattainable.

Shulman and Tamir wrote that they considered the ferment of scienceeducation of the Sixties to be characterized by four conceptions: (1) thestructure of the subject matter; (2) the learner, his capabilities,readiness, and motives - citing the influence of both Bruner and Piaget;(34 teaching and learning: intuition, intellectual risk, discovery, andinquiry; and (4) the technology of teaching, both hardware and software (inTravers, 1973, p. 1099). Their depiction of the, times and activities is anaccurate one. It also, however, serves to reinforce individuals such asHurd, Renner, and Novak who stress the need for a theory base or bases forscience education,

Did any researchers confine their activities to investigating theidentifi:.ation of objectives for science teaching? Four studies werelocated which dealt with this problem. Three were doctoral dissertations.Jeffrey (1967b) studied student performance objectives for the chemistrylaboratory. He classified these objectives into one of six areas ofcompetence: (1) vocabulary, (2) observational, (3) investigative, (4)reporting, (5) manipulative, and (6) laboratory aiscipline. As a p :t of

his dissertation research, Jeffrey proposed tests for three of these sixarea with the tests consisting of slides and films of the laboratory andcalling for written student responses.

Jensen (1973) was interested in establishing a list of acceptableterminal behavioral objectives for the non-major general b: logylaboratory. Jensen considered that such laboratories are taught byspecialists not really in tune with the students who take such courses. Asa result, the non-science majors are turned off and never take anotherlaboratory science course. Jensen limited the participants in his study toinstructors in Missouri institutions of education who teach a generalbiology laboratory course for non-majors.

Jensen prepared a questionnaire containing 85 terminal behavioralobjectives and asked respondents to react to each using a five-pointLikert-type scale of importance. From the responses received (50%), Jensenidentified 29 objectives that would be acceptable to a majority of theinstructors.

Lee (1978) surveyed the literature to identify objectives oflaboratory work in biology and located 120 functions. Using these functionsshe developed two instruments to measure perceptions about the role of thelaboratory. She worked with science educators, college biology teachers,teaching as,,uciates, and college students.

Lee reported that the participants in her study accepted the fivemajor funct:_ons of the laboratory identified in the literature:manipulative skills; processes of science; knowledge of subject matter,nature of science; and attitudes, interests, and values. Different groupsrated these functions differently in terms of importance. Students enrolledin the course for science majors, even if they were non-majors, consideredmanipulative skills more important than did their peers who were enrolledin a science course designed for non-majors. [This finding would seem tocoincide with Pickering's (1980) misconception number two: laboratoriesexist to teach "finger skills.")

Pella (1961) identified objectives by analyzing high school textbooksand laboratory workbooks and by reviewing curriculum outlines of courses ofstudy.

However, if we operate on the assumption thbt what actually goes on inclassrooms and laboratories is more important than the goals people saythey espouse, it seems logical to look for research in which teachingpractices are observed and reported.

Ll tir

Research on the Realities of the Science Laboratory

Much research on teacher behavior in science classrooms has beenreviewed elsewhere (Balzer et al., 1973) and will not be re-reviewed here.Included in this sectic.: of the paper are recent observational studies,completed since the teacher behavior review was published, as well as

survey studies related to teaching conditions and practices in science.

Observational studies. Egelston's study (1973) probably deserves amention here although it follows the pattern of the interaction processanalysis studies reported in the teacher behavior review. Egelstondeveloped a cell physiology and nutrition urit designed to promote thediscovery method of science teaching and investigated see what changesin teaching method and resultant behavior, learning, and climate wereproduced. Observers trained in the use of a modified Flanders system (17categories rather than Flanders 10) gathered data in the experimental andtraditional classrooms. Students were also asked to respond to theLearning Environment Inventory (LEI) near the end of the unit. Egelstonreported that, when the two student groups were equated for enteringbehavior, the control group surpassed the experimental, but that thereverse situation was true at the end of the unit. The two groups alsodiffered in perceptions of the socioemotional climate of the classrooms.

Egelston found the control group to score significantly hiCler onintimacy, satisfact'on, and diversity while the experimental group wascharacterized by apathy, formality, goal direction, and disorganization. (Areverse Hawthorne effect?) She concluded,

. . .The validity of the LEI appears questionable in the light ofsuch results. . . .When verbal behavior coding was analyzed,the experimental group used significantly more indirect behaviorbut displayed only slightly less direct behavior than the control. . .the amount of direct behavior was overwhelmingly large comparedto the small amount of indirect behavior in both groups. . .

(pp. 473-474).

Egelston did report that students in tie experimental group weredecidedly more independent but the reader does not know if "decidedly"indicates a level of significanr---therefore, it probably does not.

Further discussion of Walberg's Learning Environment Inventory isfound in a paper by Rentoul and Fraser (1978). These authors consider theLEI inappropriate for use in inquiry classrooms, contending that it wasdevelopi-t for use in conventional classrooms and with senior high schoolstudents. Rentoul and Fraser have developed the Individualized ClassroomEnvironment Questionnaire (ICEQ) based on Moos' work, wtich has beenreported more in the psychological literature than in education.

Their ICEQ instrument has five scales (personalization, participation,independence, investigation, differentiation) related to tnree dimensions(relationship, personal development or goat. orientation, system maintenanceand system change). Rentoul and Fraser claim that the ICEQ gets atstudents' perceptions of the actual classroom lean Log environment and

78 .

%../(1)

perceptions of their preferred learning environment. There are 10 items ineach scale. The ICN has been tested and can he understood by j,.:or highschool students. It can be administered in 20 minutes.

Fordham '1978) has also written about the influence of studentperceptions on learning. it is Fordham's contention that such perceptionsare influenced by the particular characteristics of the student. Studentbehavior (perceiving, renembering, or problem solving) is an outcome of therelationship between the student ,-.nd his learning environment. Using the"needs-press" model of Murray, Fordhan looked at achievement-orientedbehavior, intrinsic motivation, and students' level of cognitive readiness(prior development of those cognitive structures necessary for learning aparticular section of curriculum). Working with 17 fifth-form biologyclasses (274 students), Fordham concluded that it is necessary to examinethe nature of the interaction between the student and his/her learningenvironment before testing for the presence of effects of studentcharacteristics on perceptions of the classroom (p. 97).

Linn, Chen and Thier (no date) have reported on some work with middleschool students in science. Influenced by Bruner, the investigatorsassumed that learning is most likely to take place when students areinterested in what they are investigating and when_ the learning task ischallenging but not frustrating. This can be facilitated by allowingstudents to pick their learning task as well as the apparatus to accomplish*t. They also cite Piaget's work as indicating that mostupper-elementary-age children are quite concrete in their logical thinkingand thus are more likely to learn from concrete experiences than fromabstract descriptions of experiences.

Linn et al. worked with two fifth grade classes in an upper middleclass school. Pupils worked on science activities twice a week for nineweeks, forty-five minutes at a time. Staff observed that the students' useof apparatus was primarily exploratory. A concrete approach was used andvariables were investigated unsystematically. The pupils appeared unableto think ahead, to plan experiments, or to design controlled investigationsunder conditions of the apparatus but with no specific directions. Theywere not able to suggest activities without the help of a knowledgeableadult and were influenced by their peers in choices of activities andprocedures.

The researchers concluded that the social structure of the classroomand the fact that most rewards in the usual classroom come from the teacherinfluenced the behavior of these fifth grade students. They suggested thatpupils unaccustomed to working independently find the transition from groupto perso alized work difficult. Such pupils may need to be provided withan introduction to independent work. Also, methods for rewardingindependent work need to be established (p. 24).

Another investigator who also worked with intermediate grade studentswas Lancy (1976). He reported on a year-long project in an experimentalschool associated with the Learning Research and Development Center of theUniversit; of Pittsburgh. Lancy spent two hours a week in the school'sscience laboratory as a paitic.Lpant-observer. Lancy said that the science

laboratory was one of the favorite school settings for fourth and fifthgrade pupils. Students had class there once a week for 45 minutes, byhomeroom groups. They could also come there as a self-directed activity.When they did so, the pupils had to work on the science curriculum for 10minutes and then were free to do what they wanted.

Lancy reported that these pupils, even in the homeroom groups, workedas individuals or pairs. Their activities ranged from reading toinvestigation. The teacher in charge of the laboratory reported thatpupils gravitated to learning resources that involved manipulation ofmaterials and avoided those requiring a great deal of initiative or anyamount of reading (p. 9). Lancy characterized the science laboratory ashaving an atmosphere of movement and excitement not present in the otherschool settings.

Tamir, in an article entitled "How Are Laboratories Used?" (1977),investigated five problems: (1) differences in high school laboratoryexperiences at different grade levels, (2) the extent of inquiryorientation, (3) the characteristics of inquiry and non-inquiry teachers inthe laboratory, (4) the. characteristics of different college laboratories,and (5) how college and high school laboratories differed. Tamir modifiedSmith's earth science observation instrument for items related topre-lat,:ratory, laboratory, and post-laboratory. He looked at 18 highschool biology teachers and their classes (grades 9, 10, 11) and fourdifferent laboratories in Hebrew University (first year chemistry andphysiology, second year history, and physiology for medical school). Twodifferent observers were involved in this study.

Tamir reported that, in grades 9 and 10, one-fourth of the time wasspent in the pre-lab phase, two-thirds in the laboratory, and post-lab timewas rather short. In grade 11, the pre-lab was short and the post-labphase occupied one-third of the time. Be did not find a post-lab phase incollege laboratories and concluded that written reports substituted forthis. In high school biology, 11% of the total lab time was devoted toverification and 13% to investigation (p. 313). To obtain what he calledan "investigatory index," Tamir divided inquiry by investigation.

Tamir found that, in college laboratories, pre-lab time was positivelyrelated to the complexity of the task and negatively related to theavailability of previously prepared guidelines. There was a lowinvestigative index in the laboratory work for all four college laboratorycourses (p. 313), indicating the need for a critical look at undergraduatescience laboratories.

Other investigators also were interested in college science laboratoryinstruction. Shymansky and Penick (197q) reported the development of aninstrument termed SLIC (Science Laboratory Interaction Categories) devisedspecifically for use in science labiratoris. This instrument containsteacher categories and student categories. Behaviors are coded everythree-to-five seconds. Use of T-1.(7, tells an individual (1) the specificnature of the behavior being exhibited, (2) to whom a specific behavior isbeing directed, and (3) the sex of the student or teacher to whom thebehaviors are being directed.

Shymansky and Penick wrote, "The primary goal of the laboratoryexperience for the beginning science student should be to reinforce throughconcrete example and direct manipulation of materials the same basicconcepts presented as an abstraction in the lecture or text. . ." (p. 195)while Tamir wrote about verification laboratories and inquiringlaboratories.

According to Tamir, in the verification laboratory the teacheridentifies the problem to be investigated, relates the investigation toprevious work, conducts demonstrations, and gives direct instructions.Students repeat the teacher's instructions or may read aloud theinstructions from the laboratory manual. In the inquiring laboratory, theteacher asks the students to formulate the problems, relate theinvestigation to previous work, and state the purposes for theinvestigation. The students do all these tasks, as well as performing theinvestigation (p. 311). It would appear that the Shymansky and Penickinstrument has been designed primarily for use in what Tamir callsverification laboratories

Kyle et al. (1979) reported a study in which the Science LaboratoryInteraction Categories (SLIC) instrument was used to investigate andanalyze specific student behaviors in introductory and advancedlevelcollege 'science laboratories (botany, chemistry, geology, physics, zoology)at the University of Iowa. The researchers were interested in determiningwhat the students actually do and if behaviors differed among the sciences.Using tb-. SLIC in 10minute observations in a laboratory, 333 studentobservations were made.

Kyle and his colleagues found (1) students spent only onethird of theavailable time experimenting (21.9% in introductory laboratories, 43% inadvanced science course laboratories), (2) the behavior of asking questionsrarely occurred (2% for both introductory and advanced courses), and (3)significant differences were found in the amount of time students spentlistening to the instructor or to other students in introductory andadvancedlevel classes within science disciplines as well as amongdisciplines. The researchers concluded ". . . even at the college levelstudents are performing cookbooklike laboratories and students are notlearning the process skills of science but are learning about science. . ."(p. 549).

Fuhrman et al. (1978) have produced an instrument called theLaboratory Structure and Task Analysis Inventory (LAI). It is designed tofacilitate the analysis of laboratory investigations in secondary schoolscience. Its use can produce a quantitative picture of the kinds ofactivities required of a student in performing laboratory investigations.T-,s authors report that the instrument was NlOveloped in response to theneed for instruments designed specifically to test the quality of writtenlaboratory manuals (p. 6).

The ;978 version of the Laboratory Structure and Task AnalysisInventory is a modification of an instrument developed by Tamir and Lunettafor use with biological science materials. Further work involved the use

of the LAI with physics curricula and, later, chemistry. Although the LAihas been primarily used with laboratory handbooks, its developers considerit of potential usefulness with a wider range of curriculum materials.

Lunetta and Tanir (1978) used the LAI to examine laboratory activitiesfrom Project Physics aiid the Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC)materials, to check on Herron's contention that the science courseimprovement project materials did not always lend themselves to the goalsthe project developers advocated. They decided that the laboratory guidesfor the two courses were still lacking in instructions and questions thatmight stimulate such inquiry activities as the formulation of hypotheses,the definition of problems, and the design of experiments.

They identified what they considered to be six important deficiencieswhere student involvement, or its lack, was concerned: (1) no studentinvolvement in identifying and formulating problems or in formulatinghypotheses, (2) relatively few opportunities to design observation andmeasurement procedures, (3) even fewer opportunities to design experimentsand to work according to their own design, (4) lack of encouragement todiscuss limitations and assumptions underlying the experiments, (5) lack ofencouragement to share student efforts in laboratory activities when thisis appropriate, and (6) lack of explicit provisions for postlaboratorydiscussions to facilitate consolidation of findings and understanding(p.10).

Another type of observational analysis was described by Platts (1976).He reported the use of super-8 movie film to record activity during single

and double laboratory periods. Three schools, six teachers, and fivelaboratories were involved in his study. Platts looked at movement andclassified it as teachercentered or pupilcentered. He suggested thatusing this filmed system is a way to see what physical activity takes placein the laboratory a :.d to identify what portions of the lab room are mostfrequently used.

Survey studies. An earlier smallscale survey by Anderson (1949) wasreported in another section of this review. A more recent one, involvingbiology teachers, was reported by Beisenherz and Olstad (1980). Theydeveloped a questionnaire identifying 26 laboratory activities that mightbe done in high school biology. Items for the questionnaire were derivedfrpm an analysis of some of the more widely used high school biologyprograms. They surveyed teachers it the New Orleans and Seattlemetropolitan areas and asked them to tell if they used the laboratoryactivity. If they did not, the teachers were asked to indicate, from alist of eight reasons, why the laboratory activity was not rerformed.Beisenherz and Olstad reported that lack of materials and equipment and a

low priority of the laboratory topic were the most frequent reasons givenfor not doing an activity. They found that the Seattle teachers used morelaboratory activities than did the New Orleans teachers.

When the factors limiting biology instruction were consirlereal thefive most important factors were (1) lack of materials and equipment;--,(2)large number of students per class, (3) lack of facilities (tables,storage, gas, electricity, etc.), (4) lack of time during the school year

to achieve course goals and to utilize laboratories, and (5) lack ofteacher preparation time.

Two largerscale studies of science education practices in the UnitedStates are those produced by the Research Triangle Institute in NorthCarolina, under the direction of Dr. Iris Weiss (1978), and a case studiesproject operating under the direction of personnel at the University ofIllinois (Stake et al., 1978a,b). The national survey and the casestudies were both funded by the National Science Foundation in an effort toassess the status of science education, mathematics education, and socialscience education in the United States.

The national survey was designed to collect information to be used inanswering 11 questions. Questionnaires were mailed to superintendents,supervisors, principals, and teachers, with samples being selected using a

multistage stratified cluster design. The 11 questions were:

(1) What science courses are currently offered in schools?

(2) That local and state guidelines exist for the specification ofminimal science experiences for students?

(3) What texts, laboratory manuals, curriculum kits, modules, etc. arebeing used in science classrooms?

(4) What share of the market is held by specific textbooks at thevarious grade level= and subject areas?

(5) What regioncl patterns of curriculum usage are evident? Whatpatterns exist with respect to urban, suburban, rural, and othergeographic variables?

(6) What "handson" materials, such as laboratory or activitycenteredmaterials, are being used? What is the extent, frequency, andnature of their use by grade level and subject area?

(7) What audiovisual materials (films, filmstrips/loops, models) areused? What is the extent and frequency of their use by gradelevel and subject area?

(8) By grade level, how much time (in comparison to other subjects) isspent on teaching science?

(9) What is the role of the science teacher in working with students?How has this role changed in the past 15 years? Whatcommonalities exist in the teaching style/strategies/practices ofscience teachers throughout the United States?

(10) What are the roles of science supervisory specialists at the localdistrict and state levels? How are they selected? What are theirqualifications?

(11) How have science teachers throughout the United States beeninfluenced in their use of materials by federally fundedin-service training effcits in science?

Que :tions 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are particularly relevant to this review of therole of the laboratory in science teaching.

Science course improvement projects for elementary school studentshave emphasized a hands-on approach for science teaching, with studentsactively involved in the manipulation of materials rather than readingscience textbooks. Before a teacher can use or order curriculum materialsfor use, he/she must be aware that the materials exist. The nationalsurvey questionnaire contained a listing of 34 different science curricula,with 12 of these titles being for elementary school science.

Twenty-seven percent of the K-6 teachers reported they had not seenany of the science materials. In grades K-3, 29% of the teachers wereusing some of the elementary science materials, as were 31% of the teachersin grades 4-6. The three projects frequently reported in use were theScience Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS), Science-A Process Approach(SAPA), and the Elementary Science Study (ESS), in that order. Secondaryteachers were significantly more likely to be using federally fundedscience curricula than were elementary teachers.

Fifty percent of the biology teachers were using at least one of theBiological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) materials, 40% of the physicsteachers were using Harvard eroject Physics (HFP) or the Physical SciencesStudy Curriculum (PSSC) materials, and 25% of the chemistry teachers wereusing either the Chemical Bond Approach (CBA) or Chemical EducationMaterials Study (CHEM Study) materials.

Teachers were asked to identify instructional techniques from a listof 16 as to frequency of use: never, less than once a month, at least oncea month, at least once a week, or just about daily. The techniques were:

lecture,

discussion,

student reports or projects,library work,

student!; uorking at chalkboard,individual assignments,

students use hands-on manipulative or laboratory materials,televised instruction,programmed instruction,computer-assisted instruction,tests or quizzes,contracts,

simulations (role-play, debates, panels),field trips/excursions,guest speakers, andteacher demonstrations.

Techniques used almost daily in K-3 science instruction werediscussion (39% response), lecture (18%), and student projects or reports

(9%). Thirty percent of the K-3 teachers reported using laboratorymaterials at least once a week. Teachers of grades 4-6 reported almostdaily use of discussion (58), lecture (23%), 'fld individual assign-lents(13%). Twenty-five percent of the 4-6 teachers rep- -ted using laboratorymaterials at least once a week.

Films were used at least once a week by 17% of the K-3 teachers forscience lessons and at least once a week by 14% of the 4-6 grade teachers.These two teacher groups retorted that they also used filmstrips at leastonce a week: 127 of the K-3 teachers and 14% of the grade 4-6 teachers.

At the secondary level, two-thirds of the science classes usedlectures at least once a week, with 25% of the teachers indicating thelecture method was used daily. (Lectures were never used in 16;: of thescience classes.)

Laboratory work was done once a week in at least 48% of the scienceclasses, although 97, of the science teachers indicated that laboratory workwas never done. Wscussion was used by 85% of the teachers once a week ormore, and student reports or projects were used at least once a week by20% of the secondary school science teachers.

Given a list of 18 problems or factors affecting science instruction,science teachers identified as the four most important factors: (1) lackof materials for individualizing instruction, (2) insufficient funds forpurchasing equipment and supplies, (3) inadequate facilities, and(4) inadequate student. reading abilities.

In relation to the questions the Research Triangle survey was designedto answer, the investigators found, among the following results, that(1) the most extensive use of federally funded science curriculum materialswas in grades 7-12 and (2) the textbook still retained a central role inscience teaching, with lectures and discussions being the predominantteaching techniques, although 48% of the science classes used hands-onmaterials at least once a week with this use increasing with grade level.

Under the direction of Robert Stake at the University of Illinois, a

case study research project was completed which involved 11 high schoolsand their feeder schools. The sites were selected to provide informationfrom a variety of areas: rural and urban; east, west, north, and south;racially diverse; economically varied; innovative and traditional; andareas where new schools were being built and those where schools wereclosing. Field researchers acted as educational anthropologists, living inthe communities from 4-15 weeks and interacting with teachers, students,and parents. Their findings, while they encompass more of scienceeducation than he role of the laboratory, have implications for thisreview.

While the locations differed in important ways and each teacher madeunique contributions, there were some generalizations that could be madefrom the case studies. Nationally, science education was being given lowpriority, yielding to increasing emphasis on basic skills (reading and

computation). Science faculties worked hard to protect science courses forthe collegeho,,,;d. These courses were often kept small by prerequisitesand "tough" grading. Only occasional efforts were made to do more thanread about science in the elementary schools. Ninth grade biology andgeneral science courses flourished, although general education aims forscience instruction were not considered vital at am- grade level. Seldomwas science taught as scientific inquiry. Science, as well as mathematicsand social studies, was presented ,, what experts had found to be true.School people and parents were supportive of what was being chosen to betaught, although they complained occasionally that it was not taught wellenough. The textbook was seen as tLe authority on kno -ledge and guide tolearning. The teacher was the authority on social and academic decorum.Teachers worked hard to prepare their pupils for tests, subsequentinstruction, and the valueorientations of adult life. Although they wererelatively free to depart from the district syllabus or the community'sexpectations, teachers seldom exercised either freedom.

In discussing the findings related to science education, in thesummary of the case studies, the authors used the phrase which the :;STAreport has publicizea: The teacher is the key. They said, "What scienceeducation will be for any one child for any one year is most dependent onwhat the child's teacher believes, knows, and does--and doesn't believe,doesn't know, and doesn't do. For essentially all of the science learnedin school, the teacher is the enabler, the inspilation, and the constraint."(Stake & Easley, p. 19:1, 1978c). Some children learn scienceout of school but most do not. "For most, systematic science learningwill occur only if tne teacher can cope with the obstacles and is motivated to teach something of the knowlege and inquiry of the scientificdisciplines"(Stake & Easley, ,-,. 19:2, 1978c).

Decisions as to changing the science curriculum were largely in thehands of the teachers. While teachers could not always bring about thechanges a few would have liked, they regularly could stop the curriculumchanges they opposed, either at the district level or in the classroom.They were largely alone in a personal struggle to select and adaptavailable materials to educate a distressingly reticent student body. Therole teachers play in setting the purpose and quality of the scienceprogram was apparent in all case studies and reaffirmed in the nationaloverview.

As the student body grows smaller, the faculty grows older. Oldsolutions seldom fit new problems. Most teachers have trouble teaching atleast a few children. Teachers needed assistance of one kind or another.In most of the case study sites the inservice program was providing littleaid, partly because it was anemic and aimed elsewhere, partly because theteachers paid little heed to it; the inservice personnel seen were seldomoriented to helping teachers solve such difficult problems as keeping thelesson going or adapting subject matter to objectives for which it was notoriginally prepared. The teachers were apparently sometimes more on theirown than they wanted to be.

In school settings, greater emphasis was given to reading andarithmetic and to the results of minimum competency testing aimed at the

basics; less emphasis; was being given to science, nath, and sociol scienceconcepts and relationships. Teachers were willing to take trade-off,saying that youngsters would not understand complex ideas until they couldread them. . . . Teachers appeared to he fully convinced that improvementin all of education, including science education, was directly dependent onimprovement in Jeading. (Stake & Easley, p. 19:2-3, 1978c).

With perhaps an exception or two, in the case of environmentaleducation, there were essentially no interdisciplinary efforts in the casestudy schools. Most high school science departments were offering biologyfor all students and either chemistry or physics or both for the studentsgoing on to college. These latter two courses usually had an algebraprerequisite, which helped keep the course geared for the "faster"students. Laboratory work in several sites appearJO to be diminishing inimportance because of the expense, vandalism and other control problems,and the emphasis on course outcomes that would show up on tests. A generalscience course was a standard offering in junior high schools almosteverywhere.

Although there were a few elementary teachers with strong interest inand understanding of science, the number was insufficient to suggest thateven half of the nation's youngsters would have a single elementary schoolyear in which their teacher would give science a substantial share of thecurriculum and do a good job of teaching it (Stake & Easley, p. 19:3,1978c).

The science curriculum of the schools was, in operation more than bydefinition, taken to be a set of knowledges and skills rooted in tl,e

academic disciplines. It was to be shared in common by all students whowould undertake the study of science. Though it may emphasize convictionin one place and skepticism in another, it was to be seen as belonging tothe collective wisdom of men, a part of the culture, a property that existsoutside the individual learner.

The curriculum was not the arrangement of context and contracts sothat students would have optimum opportunity to extend their own meaningsof things--to learn those things that interested, challenged, or puzzledthem. It was course-and skill-centered, authoritarian, external; themotivation to learn was expected to be external (Stake & Easley, p. 19:4,1978c).

The predominant method of teaching science yas recitation,particularly in the junior high school. (Assign, recite, test, discuss.)The high school class was more likely to use some workbook exercises,possibly in groups at lab tables, but the emphasis was still on recitation,with the teacher in control, adding new information and sometimesdemonstrating. The textbook was the key to information.

Textbooks and other learning materials we not used to supportlearning and teaching; they were the instruments, f teaching and learning.Learning was a matter of developing skills, of hcquiring information, andthe guide and source was the textbook. Most of the time the scienceteacher asked students to tell what was in the reading assignment.Reading time during the period was common. Homework was not very common.

When people were interviewed about priorities in education, a largenumber said other things were more important than science. They did notwish to diminish the science program nor did they express a strong desireto have science programs upgraded. Seventy-five nercent of thesuperintendents, science teachers, and parent, said the lower priority forscience education would have a serious effect on the growth of technologyin our society, the economy in years ahead, and the quality of life in thiscountry. More than 80% said the schools should do something to reversethis trend.

The researchers found very little anti-science feeling. While peoplewanted a strong science program, they thought reading, vocational skills,writing ability, and remedial courses needed attention first (Stake et al.,1978b, p. 8).

The most common perception of the function of science education waspreparation for later training, for college, for work, or for increasedunderstanding of the environment. (Stake & Easley, 19:13, 1978c).

Barriers to improving science education at the local level wereidentified. The one largest Barrie- seen by all groups was studentbehavior, particularly student motivation. Financial barriers were oftenmentioned. Teachers indicate- dissatisfaction with materials that did notconform to their responsibilities for socializing youngsters. Manystudents found courses boring (Stake & Easley, 19:16, 1978c).

Schools were not intellectually stimulating places. There was a "loveit or leave it" attitude about much of education in 1977. "Teacher supportsystems" were weak and needed vitalization. A teacher having difficultycarrying out ordinary science teaching was seen to be without sufficientaid, though many agencies exist for the purpose of providing aid. Teacher:said their resource people largely did not know thu realities of theirclassroom situations. There was substantial need for pedagogical supportfor teachers. Many of the good ideas had not caught on.

The case studies resulted in the identification of some strengths,some problems, and some non-problems. Among the strengths were (1) thelarge responsibility given to the individual teachers to decide what willbe taught and how it will be taught, (2) the respect shown faculties ofscience and math by the general public, (3) the sincere regard teachershave for the well-being of students, (4) NSF institutes for in-servicetraining, (5) the intuitive understanding of knowledge youngsters have, (6)the vast array of resources for learning science that are available, and(7) a mellowin? of faculty attitude toward science and technology.

Problems include (1) diminishing school funding for instruction, (2)imini';hed concern for scientific ideas, (3) poor pedagogical support for

teachers, (4) insufficient support for opportunities to learn science outof school, (5) emphasis in the school program on preparation rather thanutilization, and (6) schools no longer providing a spokesman for science.

The case study researchers also identified some factors they termed"non-problems," defining these as those problems getting a more substantial

amount of attention than was justified in the opinion of she researchers.These include (1) differences in perception- of the objectives of theschools (diversity was considered to be a good point), (2) the quality ofreading and other basic performances of students was too low (the casestudy group sugge,ted that the schools need to educate people, not imposeminimum standards), (3) lack of articulatiot: (this may not be needed), (4)little interdisciplinary efforts (perhaps it is too difficult to teach inan interdisciplinary manner), (5) level of work in the schools was highlydependent on competition with an overemphasis on grades, and (6)diminishing respect for authority (it is healthy for people to bequestioning rather than submissive).

If science does not rank as a high priority in the school curriculum,if the emphasis is on recitation rather than on experimentation, if schoolsare not intellectually stimulating places, and if laboratory work isdeemphasized because of expense, vandalism, and other control problems,plus the emphasis on course outcomes that show up on tests, the case studyda',a serve to illustrate a bleak prospect for investigative laboratoryscience.

Added to this is the philosophical view of science as belonging to thecollective wisdom of men, a property that exists outside the individuallearner, a point of view which tends to promote the use of the laboratoryas a dispenser of knowledge rather than a place where knowledge isdiscovered, as Pella (1961) contrasted the situations.

A third large-scale survey was reported in "Science Education inNineteen Countries, International Studies in Evaluation I" by Comber andKeeves (1973). This study involved 20 countries although Israel did nottest in science (hence, the 19 in the title). Fifteen countries tested allthree student populations: 10-year-olds, 14-year-olds, and 18-year-olds.This study was a first attempt

(1) to devise cross-national measures of achievement in science,measures based on a systematic analysis of the curricula inparticipating countries; (2) to apply those measures to proba-bility samples of students for different countries and to deriveacceptably accurate national profiles of achievement; and (3) todetermine how these profiles relate to school, home, and national

. circ*mstances. (p, 299)

It was reported that home background was a good predictor of studentachievement but that its contribution varied considerably from country tocountry. Measurement of learning conditions within the school accOuntedfor enough variation in achievement to support the idea that schools dohave an impact on the learning of science. In terms of sex differences,boys generally did better than girls in science, with the gap being widest

ong the older students. Boys also showed more interest in science. Theathors remark that, for those persons believing that girls are not given

fair treatment in science, IEA findings "provide dramatic evidence of thescope of the problem" (p. 299).

LIIMIMMENIIM

In the beginning section of this review, when historical developmentsand their effects on sciehce education were diFcassed, one of the factorsmentioned was the increase in enrollment in the public schools. IEAresearchers were interested in looking at the effects of admitting a largerproportion of an age group to seconuary school. They viewed their data asindicating that the host students do as well or nearly as well in the lessselective school systems as in those that are more selective. (Perhaps itis possible to teach science fur the citizen as well as for the scientistand not handicap the scientist.) in fact, the less selective systems arereported to show less social bias in terms of father's occupation and endup with more students studying advanced science coursct: (p. 300).

The authors also report, ". . . Another important finding is the factthat, where used, practical tests were shown to measure abilities that wererather different from those measured by standard tests" (p. 300).

Related to this information about the laboratory were other findingsstated at 7arious points in the study report. For example, in sixcountries where students (10yearolds) reported they made obseivations anddid experiments in their school, the school's level of achievement inscience was higher Shan where students did not perform these activities.This evidence would appear to provide clear support for the use of

obseivation and experimental work in teaching science to children of thisage group (p. 212)

In four countries (of 13) where students responded positively to thequestion, 'We usually make up our own problems and design our ownexperiments," they performed less well on tests. This might suggest thatunstructured learning in science does not lead to as high a level ofachievement as does more structured learning (p. 212). Such a findingappears in contradiction to the emphasis in the federally funded sciencecurriculum improvement projects in the United States and the central ideain many of these materials that experience in planning investigationsshould' play an important role in the learning of science. However, thetests used in the IEA study did not assess the ability to plan scienceinvestigations so this dilemma cannot be resolved.

Relative to the 14yearold group, the most important factor for a

knowledge and understanding of science, after home background and type ofschool and program were taken into account, was tha. extent to whichstudents had the opportunity to study science. Exposure to scienceappeared to influence level of achievement (p. 236).

As mentioned earlier, an attempt was made to assess students'laboratory or rinipulative skills in science--their practical abilities,as the authors name them. Optional test3 of practical abilities requiringonly very simple and easily obtainable materials were produced. However,only two countries elected to use these practical tests. Even with thislimited sample, the point was reinforced that such tests measure quitedifferent abilities fo-m those assessed by more traditional tests, eventhose tests designed assess practical skills as far as possible withoutresort to actual ;apparatus. If students' firsthand experience is to

fail

become an essential feature of school science, then the further developmentof such practical tests is highly desirable if not imperative (p. 288).

Comber and Ke2ves admit,

It is clsappointing that no clear light is thrown on the problemsuppermost in the minds of many Science curriculum workers andteachers, namely the roles to be played by practical work and byinquiry methods. What evidence there is seems to suggest that inthe early stages controlled pratUcal work achieves better resultsthan more informal investigatiin, and that later in the Scienceprogram freer methods of inqaiiy do not necessarily bring beneficialresults (p. 296),

It would appear that the problem with which this review is concerned(the role of the laboratory and finding support for it) goes beondnational boundaries. It also seems evident even an international studydoes not produce definitive results. A few individuals have ventured tosuggest that the problem really does not lend itself to research. Morecounter with the argument that the research methodology, not the problem,is where the blame sould be placed. This next section of the revie4 willcontain information related to this topic.

SOME ADDITIONAL REMARKS ABOUT RESEARCHON LABORATORY INSTRUCTION

Research Design and Reporting

Many of the readers of this review will be familiar with the 13criticisms of science education research which Curtis stated in the secondvolume of his "Digests" (1971b) and which were repeated by Jacobson (1974)in his paper entitled "Forty Years of Research in Science Education." Forthose few who are not familiar, the criticisms were (1) failing to statethe problem definitely; (2) assuming the equivalence of experimental groupswithout taking adequate steps to ensure this equivalence; (3) securingequivalence of groups upon a basis other than that in terms of whichresults are measured; (4) failing to isolate the experimental factor; (5)delimiting too rigorously the teaching methods under investigation; (6)assuming the definitions of teaching methods under investigation to bestandard (i.e, commonly accepted); (7) failing to report the technique insufficient detail; (8) mingling findings and conclusions with details ofmethods; (9) evaluating on the basis of only one criterion, when thatcriterion is but a single element in a more complex process or situation;(10) employing crude subjective tests in measuring results; (11) makinggross errors in recording data; (12) including personal opinions among thefindings and introducing personal bias into the investigation; and (13)making sweeping generalizations from obviously insufficient data (Jacobson,1974, pp. 7-8).

Cunningham (1946) reviewed 25 years (1912-1943) of research on theproblem of laboratory work vs. lecture-demonstration. He reported that heconsidered 13 general questions in selecting and analyzing the studies.(1) Were the experimenters, and agencies to which the research work on thisproblem was submitted, reliable? Yes; (2) Have the problems of thesestudies been definitely and precisely stated at the beginning of eachundertaking? Not all were; (3) Have the separate specific problems oroutcomes of the various studies been definitely stated at the beginning ofeach report? For the most part, but--; (4) Were variables, that shouldhave been held constant, allowed in the experimental situation? Often; (5)Were variables, that should have been held constant, permitted in themethods of teaching used? Usually no; (6) What kind of data were obtainedin.these studies and how were they obtained? Generally, thrcugh the use ofwritten tests; (7) Were the data obtained under a variety of conditions?The amount of information about this varies, but, probably, yes; (8) Werethe data used in these studies valid? Usually there is evidence to supportthis; (9) Were the tests used in these studies reliable? Data are lacking;(10) How were the data handled? Statistical methods varied; (11) Whatresults did the experimenters report? These also varied, but includedretention (immediate or delayed), student interest, economy of time,laboratory resourcefulness, manipulative skills, etc.; (12) Have theexperimenters been reasonably modetate in their claims concerning theirfindings? For the most part; and (13) How have the studies, as wholes,been ranked by the critics? Results varied--for example, 7 were consideredvery good, 11 as intermediate, and 6 as inferior.

tf;

Kruglak and Wall (1959), who were interested in developing laboratoryperformance tests to be used in general physics classes at colleges anduniversities, also reviewed laboratory instruction research. In theirreview, they used five questions as guides: (1) Did the investigator makea sufficiently detailed report of his work so that it can be properlyappraised? (2) Did the investigator use the best contemporary experimentalprocedures and techniques? (3) Were the research data subjected to the bestanalytical treatment known at the time of the study? (4) Has theinvestigator been reasonably cautious in interpreting the data and drawingconclusions? and (5) Did the investigation make a contribution to thefield?

Kruglak and Wall suggested that research needs to be car/ied outrelative to (1) the formulation of general and specific objectives oflaboratory instruction, (2) the relationship between the laboratory andother areas of instruction, (3) the development and validation of tests inharmony with stated instructional objectives, and (4) experimentation andrigorous evaluation of novel laboratory instructional methods. Theyidentified some specific questions that might be considered: How useful arelaboratory performance tests as predictors of achievement in advancedlaboratory courses? in research laboratories? Which laboratory experiencesare better taught by the individual method and which by demonstrations?(p. 161).

The remarks of McKeachie (1963) concerning the difficulty ofconducting research on two different methods of instruction have beendiscussed earlier in this review. Writing in the sa.----, publication, Watson(ed. Gage, 1963) contributed a chapter on research on teaching science. Asubsection of Watson's chapter (pp. 1041-1044) was focused on laboratorywork. In it he discussed 16 studies and concluded that the whole area wasstill open for investigation. Watson said that the hypotheses studiedshould come from a careful analysis of the important operations of sciencewhich can be illustrated and practiced in the laboratory. Watsonidentified some variables that might be considered in this research: sex,car,ei aspirations, general IQ, prior laboratory experience, manualdexterity, and ability in solving problems in spatial relations. Hesuggested that researchers need to look at the nature of the task, themotivation of the student, and behavior patterns of the teacher in definingthe task and motivating students.

Boud, Dunn, and Kennedy (1980) published a short article in theJournal of Chemical Education, reporting that they based their article onan appraisal of more than 250 reports on laboratory teaching of chemistry,physics, and biology appearing in the literature between 1970-1977. Theyidentified three trends: (1) individualization of laboratory work, in theform of selfteaching packages and individualized computerassistedleatnilig techniques, occurring in the early stages of undergraduateteaching; (2) project work and participation in research is receivingincreased emphasis, with more emphasis on communityoriented and teambasedprojects; and (3) breaking down of administrative barriers betweenlectures, tutorials, and laboratory classes, also with some integration ofsubdisciplines.

These authors pointed out that the reports they reviewed varied in

detail included. They identified six areas which should be included inreports about laboratory teaching, and suggested that information should beincluded about:

(1) The aims of adopting the methods:

a) to solve specific problems associated with space, staff,apparatus.

b) to change the attitudes of students, to increase relevanceof the course, to make the subject more enjoyable.

c) to investigate the efficacy of particular approaches in thecontext c' course goals of curriculum constraints.

d) the relationship of these aims with the objectives of theparticular course.

(2) The context in which the innovation was applied:a) the numbers of students involved and the nature of the

particular course.b) the "normal" approach adopted to the teaching of the

particular segment.(3) The methods by which student performance was assessed:

a) particulatly as they relate to the stated aims ofintroducing the innovation.

b) an indication of the results of assessing student

performance if possible comparing these with a controlgroup or historical summary of previous performance patterns.

c) the results of pre and posttests or other assr smentprocedures.

(4) The approach adopted:a) including special features such as peer group assessment

and special relevance to the work situation.b) description of particular equipment, arrangement of

laboratory, space, facilities for staff interaction.c) number of staff, both academic and technical, required to

support the program.d) summary details of the experiments including any special

features of the materials or learning aids.(5) The evaluation procedures used to measure the impact of the

approach:a) an account of student attitudes and pero.eptions of the

approach and their opinions as to how the style ofteaching has operated.

b) an account of opinions of the staff involved as to thesuccess or otherwise of the technique.

c) an estimate of comparative costs of the new techniquecompared with the more "usual" approach to the teaching.This comparison should make some reference not only toequipment and materials but also to the level of academicand support staffing required.

(6) Similar approaches reported elsewhere by other authors:a) highlighting areas of similar and contrary experiences.b) emphasizing any modifications to standard models of

innovation which have resulted in improvements. (1980, pp.456-457)

This additional detail will be of use to persons interested in curriculumdevelopment as well as to those interested in research.

Stuit and Engelhart wrote "A Critical Summary of the Research on theLecture-Demonstration Versus the Individual-Laboratory Method of TeachingHigh School Chemistry" which was published in Science Education in October,1932. In their article the authors spent some time in identifying thefactors to be considered when setting up controlled experiments ineducation: specification of instructional procedures in detail, equivalentgroqps of pupils (IQ, study habits, chronological age, previous achievementin such subjects as physics, general science, mathematics, participation inextra-curricular activities, home environment, sex, race, physicalcondition), control of teacher factors (zeal, personality, preference formethod to be used), school size, administration and supervision, schoolorganization, school building, community attitude and interest as well assame sequence of topics, same time of day, time devoted to learningactivity. They also stressed that researchers should not let students knowthey are in an experimental situation. They suggested that theexperimental treatment should last at least a semester or preferably aschool year. They advocated the use of equivalent forms of an achievementtest in chemistry of known and high reliability for the initial and finaltesting. They also suggested that researchers test for such outcomes aslaboratory techniques and manipulative skills, abiding interest inchemistry, and scientific attitude. If possible, there should be a laterretest to measure retention.

Stuit and Engelhart (1932) then proceeded to identify and discussvarious experimental studies in light of (some of) the criteria theyimposed. They ended by citing conclusions favoring the use of thelaboratory; conclusions favoring the demonstration method; conclusions ofno significant difference, and general, overall conclusions. They reported(1) no method is considered best in every case; (2) in small schools wheremoney and space are not plentiful, the lecture-demonstration method seemsmost practicable; (3) written tests cannot test all outcomes of high schoolchemistry and tests of a manipulative variety for evaluating laboratory

merits of thelecture demonstration and individual-laboratory methods still seemsunsolved and as complex as ever. . ." (p. 391).

skills are needed; and (4) "The problem of the relative

. R. C. Bradley, Earp, and Sullivan (1966) wrote "A Review of FiftyYears of Science Teaching and its Implications," published in ScienceEducation. They reviewed elementary school science from 1920 to thepresent (presumably, 1965) in 10-year periods and highlighted what wastaught fir each decade.

In discussing elementary school science they wrote

The purpose of the elementary science program is to provide theopportunity for students to learn the processes or methods as wellas the content of Science. . . The science program should leadstudents to scientific self-activity and to think as scientiststhink; i.e., to identify problems, gather facts relevant to thesolutio:, of problems. . . A most significant form of learningcomes from the process of carrying forth an idea in experimentationand making adjustments so that experiment is successful.

. .

(p. 153).

They advocated a developmental approach in teaching elementary schoolscience--simple concepts to complex, from concrete objects to abstractideas.

In 1968, in Science Education, R. L. Bradley published an articleentitled "Is the Science Laboratory Necessary for General Education ScienceCourses?" He provided some historical background on the development oflaboratory instruction in college science and reviewed previous research inthis area. Using 10 questions modified from the 13 Cunningham (1946)reported using, Bradley examined studies related to what he termed generaleducation science.

In the conclusions section of his article, Bradley wrote

Although most of the data seem valid, the diversity of findingsappear to cast some doubt on the validity of the tests, the adequacyof the controls of such factors as instructor conditions, and the useof small unrepresentative groups and no retrial of experiments. Therealso seems to be no standard lecture- demonstration or laboratorymethod . . . . (p. 65).

Like Stuit and Engelhart, writing 36 years earlier, Bradley grouped hisconclusions into those in favor of the laboratory method, those in favor ofthe lecture-demonstration, and those of no significant difference. Hisgeneral overall conclusions also parallel those of Stuit and Engelhart, asfollows:

Bradley, 1968:

No one method can be considered superior in all cases.The objectives of science teaching, the ability levelof the students, and the facilities available shouldlargely determine the method used.

Stuit and Engelhart, 1932:

No method can be considered to be the best in everycase. The objectives of chemistry teaching, the pre-ference of the teacher, the nature of the pupil, anA thefacilities of the school will largely determine whichmethod should be used.

Bradley, 1968:

Where costs per student is a major concern, the lecture-demonstration method seems to offer the best advantages.

Stuit and Engelhart, 1932:

In small schools where money and space are not plentifulthe lecture-demonstration method seems to be most practicable.

Bradley, 1968:

The problem of the lecture-demonstration method versu: somekind of laboratory method still seems unsolved and as complexas ever. It appears that there should be mote careful experi-mentation involving careful control of ncu-experimental factors.More reliable testing is needed before any definitive answers canbe given. When experimentation has indicated that a particular

Jul

Bradley, 1968(cont'd):

method is superior in outcomes, the method must still beexamined in terms of the values of these outcomes relativeto the costs involved.

Stuit and Engelhart, 1932:

The problem of the relative merits of the lecture-demonstration and individual-laboratory methods still seemsunsolved and as complex as ever. More careful experimenta-tion, involving careful control of non-experimental factorsand reliable testing, is needed in order to justify anydefinite and final conclusion. When experimentation hasshown the relative superiorities of the methods in terms ofoutcomes, the methods should be evaluated in terms of thevalues attached to these outcomes. (Bradley, p. 66; Stuitand Engelhart, pp. 390-391)

"The more things change, the more they remain the same" appears to be anappropriate, even if trite, remark at this point.

If there are any generalizations to be drawn from this small sectionof the review, these appear to be that caution needs to be exercised in theselection and application of research methodology, more detail needs to beprovided in the reporting of research, and thus iar, definite and finalconclusions have yet to be found and communicated.

If At First You Don't Succeed

Nevertheless, researchers persist. The assumption that the laboratorycan, or does, must make a difference is so deeply ingrained in most of usthat we continue to investigate even when we are not heartened by theresults we find. Although it is not an article in which shortcomings ofresearch methodology or research reporting are discussed, a report by S. C.Brown (1958) is included here because it serves to illustrate this point.Brown, in an article published in the American Journal of Physics, reportedseveral studies (or one study with several sub-parts) done at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Personnel at MIT wanted to build on high school physics courses intheir MIT science program. They sent a questionnaire to 1-igh schools andpreparatory schools sending students to MIT to ask about their secondaryschool physics programs and got 1311 responses. MIT personnel looked forcorrelations with the laboratory grades of students who had had previous(equivalent) experiments in secondary school. Nine hundred MIT freshL,enstudents were involved in this investigation. Six MIT physics experimentswere found to be equivalent to those in secondary schools, with 300-400students having had these experiments. There were no statisticallysignificant differences in the laboratory grades of the two groups: thosewith equivalent experiments vs. those without.

So, another study was undertak.n -- to see if people recognizedlaboratcry apparatus. Students we Asked to name a piece of apparatus, totell what physical quantity it mea ured, and to provide a brief descriptionof how the experiment (using the apparatus) was performed. The researchers

1 IO

analyzed the data from the 700 students involved in this study and foundthey could have settled for only the first question. Only 41% of thestudents recognized they had studied the experiment using the apparatus.

Next the MIT researchers looked at 329 students who had had physics as

seniors in high school and 318 who had taken the course as juniors, to seeif they differed in recognition of apparatus. They found the recognitionrate to be 41% for those taking physics as seniors and 40%, for thosetaking it as juniors. They also tested 84 students who had not taken alaboratory course in physics. Their recognition rate was 30%, so thereseemed to be some advantage to having had a laboratory course in physics inhigh school.

It was decided to try the recognition test with MIT sophom*ores who hadcompleted the physics experiments during their freshman year. Theiraverage recognition score was 38%! Brown concluded,". . .knowledge aboutspecific experiments is not retained either at the high school or theuniversity level. . ." so '. . .design of experiments should be geared tooverall educational value rather than for specific training in details ofapparatus or experiments" (p. 335).

When graduates of preparatory schools were tested, their score was48%, statistically significant over the other freshmen, but still showingless than a 50% retention rate. The MIT researchers looked at the twogroups (public vs. prep school graduates) on the basis of their CEEBscores: those ranking in the 500 range and those in the 700 range. Theyalso looked at students within the two groups who had not done similarexperiments and the grades they made. No significant differences werefound relative to any of these situations.

From the questionnaire data the MIT researchers had learned that 120of the 1311 responding schools did not use commercial laboratory manualsfor physics. They then looked at the students who had graduated from theseschools, thinking that the teachers who would spend time and effort towrite their own laboratory manual must have made some impact on theirstudents. No significant differences were found for this group as comparedto other students on their MIT physics grades. ". . . only one correlationshcwed a significant trend. . ." in that, on strange and unusualexperiments, students from the teacherproducedlaboratorymanualclassesearned, on the average, a five percent higher grade than equivalentstudents who had used commercial manuals (p. 336).

The freshman class was interviewed at the end of the year by the MITlaboratory staff to see what they considered to be of educational value intheir high school physics laboratory, new that they had had a year ofcollege work. Nothing specific was identified. However, the majority ofthe freshmen thought that ". . . without an enthusiastic introduction tophysical scicices in their secondary school education, they would not havechosen science or engineering as a profession. . ." (p. 336).

Brown therefore concluded that the intellectual stimulation andscientific challenge of laboratory education at the secondary school levelis the most important single function of science. Laboratory education at

the university level must have as its goal the teaching of the scientificpoint of view and the intellectual challenge of the experimental methodrather than the training of students in particular or specific techniquesor in carrying out particular experiments.

This point of view seems to relate closely to that expressed by Welch(1976) when discussing declining test scores in science. Welch identifiedfive possible explanations for declining scores and then speculated thatthe test score decline might be due to an increase in the affectiveoutcomes of schooling. Using data, from 350 science classes, from studentscores on two affective measures (Science Attitude Inventory and LearningEnvironmental Inventory-Satisfaction), Welch reported statisticallysignificant gains on measures of class satisfaction and science attitude.He suggested that while students may be learning less science (as indicatedby achievement test scores), they are enjoying it more.

Perhaps we need to pay more attention to the affective aspects ofusing the laboratory in science teaching. However, researchers haveinvestigated attitudes as a dependent variable when the laboratory wasused, with no significant differences studies predominating. In additionthere is the problem, discussed earlier, of attitude toward science vs.scientific attitudes.

The Science Laboratory and Disadvantaged Students

As the enrollment of the schools has increased, subgroups of theschool age population have become centers of concern. In prior decades theAmericanization of immigrants was a focus of educators. Now one of theconcerns is for the education of disadvantaged students. Baillie's report(no date) mentioned earlier in this review is based on the premise thatdiscovery activities in science with active student participation willpromote interest in school and school work. However, he does not cite anyresearch support.

Bredderman (1979), in a paper presented at a meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, reported preliminary findings of a

meta-analysis of elementary school science process curriculum studies. Hesaid that disadvantaged students using process programs gained moreintellectually than did control groups. When process groups were comparedwith other groups using some combination of laboratory work with a

textbook, the advantage of the process outcomes was reduced almost to zero-- implying that the active involvement of the process approach or someother laboratory approach was the critical factor.

Two researchers worked with populations of older disadvantagedstudents. McKinnon (1976) reported a six-week summer program designed tohelp pre-engineering freshmen learn to think logically. Forty-threestudents were involved: 41 Blacks, 1 Chinese-American, 1 Chicano; with 5 ofthe 43 students being female. Pre-tests provided data showing that 28 ofthe 43 students were concrete operational in their thinking and 7 were atthe formal operational level. (Apparently the others were in sometransttional stage.)

9r1

The students were placed in a logic of science laboratory in whichthey were faced with situations they could not resolve with theunderstanding they presently had. Students were pre- and post-tested todetermine the effects of their laboratory experience. In the laboratorythey went through activities related to the conservation of volume,equilibrium in the balance, separation of variables, exrlusion of potentialvariables, and elimination of contradictions (tasks described by Inhelderand Piaget). Eleven of the students moved from concre,.e. to formal level.Twenty-eight of the 43 students exhibited positive growth in thinking (thiswas not elaborated in the article), while four decreased in this ability(p. 741).

McKinnon said that the students needed to interact with materialsnormally provided in a well-structured laboratory course. Their previouseducational experiences had been mostly passive activities with littleopportunity for critical thinking. In the logic of science laboratory theywere provided with an abundance of opportunities for interacting withmaterials and for verbalizing with other students and teachers. Suchexperiences resulted in a significant increase in the ability to thinklogically. McKinnon also reported that he had talked with the studentspre-testing at the formal operations level and found that, for thesestudents, with ". . . more extensive laboratory-oriented science courses,classroom interaction was better remembered, and more warmth toward theseactivities was exhibited. Where students had taken a course in which thelecture approach wAs used very extensively, their feelings toward bothsubject and teacher were generally negative" (p. 743).

McKinnon considered that his findings had implications for engineeringschools. These institutions need to re-orient their physics and chemistryclasses in order to modify a straight lecture approach. There is need forlonger periods for assimilation of information. Perhaps individualized orself-paced approaches are needed. Teachers need to be skilled inperceptive questioning. Laboratory activities should be designed to createdisequilibration.

1:2 emphasized that minority students need more time, benefitting froma self-pacing approach to instruction, as well as longer time for takingtests. They also need to have a greater emphasis placed upon step-by-stepproblem analysis and to have the same opportunities to interact withmaterials, the teacher, and other students as their advantaged peers have.McKinnon also suggested that high schools could improve the preparation ofminiority students for engineering education by appropriate careerguidance, as well as by realistic grading.

McDermott, Piternick, and Rosenquist (1980) have reported on a projectat the University of Washington designed to increase the number of minoritystudents qualifying for admission to health science programs. They contendthat minorities are under-represented in science-related professions as aresult of being academically disadvantaged in high school. Therefore,minorities cannot succeed in college courses requireo for science-relatedcareers. The University of Washington program involves a three-quartersequence in physics and one quarter of biology.

100

In the discussion of crucial instructional strategies, the authorsdescribe the role of the laboratory. Standard laboratory equipment andsimple materials are used to give students direct experiences which willserve as the basis for generalization and proper formation of scientificconcepts. Concepts are named after students have completed the laboratoryactivity.

McDermott et al., wrote rh.'t

Importance of a laboratory setting for instruction can hardly beoveremphasized. . . . for students whose reasoning skills are not yetfully developed, this is where scientific ideas should be introduced.The availability of concrete examples and the opportunity tomanipulate the systems under study allow the students to gainexperience on which to build the abstractions of science.

. . .

Moreover, the laboratory makes it possible for the students torelate representations such as graphs, diagrams, and verbal statementsto the real world. Activities in the laboratory can also provide a

focus for discussions among students, and between students andinstructional staff (p. 202).

These reports, combined with several reviewed earlier, provideevidence that experiences in which students manipulate materials can serveto enhance cognitive development in terms of reasoning skills.

Assessing the Contributions of the Laboratory

The literature reviewed in this subsection deals primarily with theassessment of psychom*otor skills. Kruglak and other authors were mentionedearlier as emphasizing the point that manipulative skills are more properlyassessed by some means other than paper and pencil tests. Kruglak ( 1955,1960) was particularly concerned with measuring the laboratory achievementof physics students. In an articlt_ published in 1955, Kruglak discussed astudy in which three versions of a laboratory skills test were used:essay, multiple choice, and performance. He reported a low correlationbetween the performance test and the paper and pencil tests. Kruglakconsidered that this fact indicated that the paper and pencil tests were,at best, only crude approximations of evaluation of the ability to dealwith laboratory materials and apparatus (p. 86).

In 1960 Kruglak submitted a report to the National Science Foundationdescribing the results of a project that NSF had funded. Kruglak hadproduced a book dealing with laboratory performance tests in collegephysics. This 165 page book was mailed to 1046 colleges and universitiesin the United States at which a general course in physics was offered.Copies (140) were also sent to science journals, apparatus makers, andcolleges not identified as being on the American Institute of Physics list.Kruglak also sent out a questionnaire asking for informar.tion on currentteaching practices in physics laboratories. He reported receiving repliesfrom more than 500 colleges and expressed the desire to carry out a similarstudy five years in the future. Kruglak said that it was most surprisingto find in many college science departments a most unscientific approach toscience teaching. He recommended that the National Science Foundation fundresearch in science teaching, particularly at the college level.

101

Robinson (1969) published an article about evaluating laboratory workin high school biology. He said that, despite the emphasis on laboratoryactivities in the NSF-funded science course improvement projects,assessment of curriculum effectiveness remained at the paper and pencillevel. However, he reported that teachers in one trial center for BSCSBlue Version materials had designed some new questions for a laboratorypractical examination. They found four kinds of activities common tostudent work in the BSCS Blue Version: performing various kinds ofmeasurements; naming or categorizing organisms, models, or apparatus;interpreting experiments; and seeing appropriate interrelationships ofphenomena and ideas. These four kinds of activities were used as aframework for a 20-item laboratory practical examination. After some pilotwork, the categories were revised into measuring, identifying, selecting,and computing (p. 236). These categories were discussed and the items eachcontains were described. The theme of the article appeared to be thatlaboratory exercises designed to teach science as inquiry are differentfrom the old illustrative exercises. Therefore, new items should be

designed to assess whether ,z not students have comprehended the nature, orstructure, of scientific knowledge.

Another practical examination in biology was reported by Tamir andGlassman (1971). Their article contains some reference to an earlierpractical examination with three parts: plant identification with a key,an oral examination on animals and plants, and a problem to be solved by anexperiment. The current version contains four added problems dealing withDNA replication in Euplotes, osmotic behavior and permeability in plantcells, the relationship of respiration to temperature in fish, and theeffect of enzyme concentration on the rate of starch hydrolysis. Whenresults of the practical examination were correlated with achievement inpaper and pencil matriculation tests and yearly school grade, the resultsindicated that the practical examination as a whole, as well as parts,apparently measured some aspects of achievement hardy measured by theteacher's grade or by paper and pencil tests (p. 308).

Tamir and Glassman discussed the criteria used for assessment:manipulation, self-reliance, observation, investigation, communication, andreasoning. The first two were assessed during the examination and theothers derived from the answers students gave. Then they decided to see ifthis inquiry-oriented laboratory test would discriminate between BSCS andnou-BSCS students: 60 12th grade students who had studied biology for fouryears and 142 BSCS students. They found the BSCS students performedsignificantly better than the non-BSCS students did, due mainly to thesuperiority of the BSCS students in reasoning and self-reliance. Tamir andGlassman concluded that BSCS students possess a distinct advantage insolving open-ended problems using experimental procedures in the laboratory(p. 314).

Venkatachelam and Rudolph (1974) reported on a laboratory examinationfor college chemistry which consisted of three parts: (1) two videotapedexperiments in which typical mistakes had been deliberately made (studentshad to spot these mistakes); (2) simple laboratory tasks in which skill,accuracy, and speed were evaluated; and (3) multiple choice questions on avariety of topics (e.g.) simple laboratory calculations, chemistry theorybehind some of the techniques used, inferences that could logically bedrawn from a set of experimental observations.

102

Eglen and Kempa (1974) were also interested in evaluating students'laboratory performance in chemistry. They were concerned not withdeveloping a practical examination but with assessment instruments. Theyreported on an experiment in which three types of assessment instrumentswere used with videotapes of students performing chemistry experiments.The instruments were open-ended, intermediate, and checklist in form. Themost variability was found in the use of an open-ended instrument.

Klopfer (1971), in the "Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluationof Student Learning," (Bloom et al., eds.), has prepared a table ofspecifications for science education (table 18-1) which contains columnsheaded "manual skills" and is divided into development of skills in usingcommon laboratory equipment and the performance of common laboratorytechniques with care and safety. Related to these columns are B.0,processes of scientific inquiry--observing and measuring; G.0, manualskills, related to manual skills involved in science laboratory work in theschools (p. 576).

Mitchell (1978) has written an article showing the use of anevaluation format, based on Klopfer's chapter, for evaluating inquiry incurriculum materials. Major headings in his scheme are processes ofscientific inquiry -- (1) observing and measuring; (2) seeing a problem andseeking to solve it; (3) interpreting data and formulating generalizations;and (4) building, testing, and revising a theoretical model. Mitchellsuggested that Klopfer's scheme may expect toe much of curriculum materialsby spreading the building, testing, and revising of a theoretical modelover too many (six) categories. Mitchell considered it possible tocondense these categories to four or even three.

Hofstein and Giddings (1980), in a technical report prepared for theUniversity of Iowa, have provided examples of paper and pencil tests whichcould be used to evaluate laboratory skills.

Little and deM Maclay (1978) have developed a manual er basic skillsin physics. They arc concerned with the identification of laboratory andworkshop skills relevant to the teaching of high school physics. They saythat teachers do not have a lot of physics knowledge, although there is alot of equipment available (thanks to government money) in Australia.Teachers need to be trained to use and maintain this equipment. Theirmanual of basic skills contains objectives for a psychom*otor skills testfor physics teachers. There are 10 objectives, each of which has a

cognitive component as well as a psychom*otor component.

Lunetta and Tamir (1979) emphasized that science teachers have moved,or should move. sway from laboratory activities that emphasizeillustration, demonstration or verification to those emphasizinghypothesizing, predicting, etc., as well as developing attitudes and skillsconsistent with the work of scientists an the understanding of scientificrelationships, concepts, and models. They presented a checklist of 24skills and behaviors they have culled from the literature and have relatedto the processes of scientific inquiry and problem-solving. Thesebehaviors are grouped as relating to planning and design, performance,analysis, and application. The authors illustrated how this checklist may

103

be used with a laboratory activity by using it on a laboratory activityfrom Harvard Project Physics and one from the Yellow Version of the BSCSmaterials. A three-category marking system is used: + if the studentbehavior is called for at least once in the activity, - if it is nevercalled for, and 0 if it is not possible to determine this. The physics andbiology activities are then discussed in terms of what the use of thechecklist can tell a secondary school science teacher about the activities.

Doran (1978) wrote that the question of how the laboratory can best beused is still not answered for inFtructional programs. He suggested thatif educators want to use the labrr to demonstrate how scienceoperates, they need to decide on the ' 2havior to be encouraged and then todesign objectives and activities to achieve these ends. However, theprecise relationship of student laboratory activities to the goals ofschool science courses is not clearly understood. Doran considelA thelack of a conceptual framework for evaluation of science laboratoryactivities one of the greatest deficiencies in the measurement of sciencelaboratory skills.

Doran posed the question: What skills are necessary for functioningin a science classroom laboratory setting? and proceeded to consider thisin relation to work by Nedelsky, Klopfer, Robinson, Thomas, Eglen andKempa, and Jeffrey. The information from Klopfer, Robinson, and Jeffreyhas been discussed at other points in this revie1,7 and will not be repeatedhere. Nedelsky has identified four stages underlying laboratory/performance tests: (1) laboratory knowledge, (2) understanding of theprocesses of measurement, (3) intuitive understanding of phenomena, and (4)ability to learn from experiments or observations.

Thomas has identified nine behaviors students follow in a laboratoryassignment. (1) understand and follow instructions, (2) formulate method,(3) organize work and work space, (4) manipulate equipment and ccllectdata, (5) record results accurately, (6) present results, (7) use ofstatistical methods, (8) discuss results and suggest follow-up work, and(9) survey the literature.

Eglen and Kempa identified four components of science laboratoryactivities: (1) methodical procedure, (2) experimental techniques, (3)manual dexterity, and (4) orderliness.

Based on this material, Doran concluded that cognitive, affective, andpsychom*otor elements are present in the necessary skills. He said that thedevelopment relative to the cognitive and affective domains has beengreater than that in the psychom*otor domain. However, the three domainsoverlap and interlock, with student behaviors being a combination ofelements from all the three domains. Doran spent some time in a discussionof the use of checklists or rating scales vs. laboratory practicalexaminations, pointing out that the National Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP) has given limited attention to manipulative exercises inits science test battery.

Doran concluded

The relative stress on manual skills development in science programsis still a moot question. Each science teacher will differ in

104

1 til j

the emphasis he gives to the st,Jents' equipment manipulation andlaboratocy techniques. Research into psychom*otor aspects ofscience laboratory objectives is woefully lacking. There arepresently no universally accepted criteria for describing astudent's science laboratory skills. . . (p. 407).

If Doran's review has been thorough and ccmprehensive and his view(that the question of how the laboratory can be used for instructionalprograms is still not answered) is a valid one, this is an area in whichmore science education research needs to be done.

105

I i 0

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Some Concerns from Current Literature

In addition to the areas of investigating the role of the laboratoryin cognitive development or in overcoming deficiencies in logical reasoningin minority disadvantaged students, there are other possible researchconcerns.

Hofstein and Lunetta (1980), in a paper prepared to accompany asymposium on the role of the laboratory in science teaching (presented atthe 1980 annual meeting of the National Association for Research in ScienceTeaching), have identified numerous areas. They consider that researchshould be done on specific conditions, methods, and strategies oflaboratory work and their effect on learning outcomes. They suggest thatdependent and independent variables should be more carefully monitored thanin past studies. Variables to be monitored include (1) teacher behavior,(2) student behavior, (2) content of laboratory manual and laboratoryactivities, (4) classroom environment, (5) student characteristics andabilities, (6) student attitudes toward a variety of relevant issues, (7)student manipulative abilities, (8) student conceptual understanding, (9)student inquiry skills, and (10) laboratory management variables (i.e.,)time allotted to laboratory work, availability of laboratory space andresources, and method of grouping students (pp. 28-29).

Hofstein and Lunetta advocated that "promising variables neglected inpast studies" should be investigated--the development of problem-solvingand logical skills, and positive attitudes toward science and toward thestudent'r perception of his ability to understand and to change hisenvironment.

Hofstein and Lunetta maintained that, at present, there areinsufficient data from well-designed studies from which to make unequivocalstatements on the role and effectiveness of laboratory work in scienceteaching (p. 28).

Some Concerns from the Studies Reviewed

Certainly, because achievement and the emphasis on accountability arepressures with which science teachers must deal, there is a need to designachievement tests which more closely approximate the cognitive outcomesscience laboratories of the investigative type can produce. It would bedesirable to be able to teach science without having to worry about gradesand grading but as long as grades are a primary method of communicating toparents and the general public how students are, or are not, progressing,we need to do more than cope with the situation.

Attitude studies were another type that received much attention in thescience education research literature. This area also produced a largenumber of no significant differences results. We need to clarify what wemean when we talk about attitudes--are we hoping to promote positivefeelings about studying science or are we attempting to produce studentswho think scientifically? If the second objective is the one we choose,

106

111

then we need to carefully delineate the behaviors by which we willdetermine whether or not scientific thinking is taking place. Then we willneed to identify or develop instruments to test for this.

The "cognitive abilities" cluster contained a diversity of studiesgrouped together because some aspect of learning and cognition wasinvestigated. Critical thinking and cognitive style are certainlydifferent types of tactors. As various reviewers have stated, we are inneed of adequate, descriptive information as well as onerationaldefinitions for the factors we investigate and report about.

The area of interests was not investigated in many research studiesidentified for this review. This was, to some degree, surprising becausemany science teachers, in conversation, express the belief that involvementin laboratory activities creates student interest in studying science.Perhaps the small number of studies is symptomatic of the ebb and flow ofinterest in research topics. Possibly, people are assuming that if

students hold positive attitudes toward science, interest will develop.Perhaps pressures to convince the general public that science is a "basic"have oversiadowed the interestpromoting types of objectives for laboratoryscience.

Whatever we ecamine--recent research or that reviewed in the Curtis"Digests" -- we have to concur with Hofstein and Lunetta that we haveinsufficient evidence upon which tc make unequivocal statements about therole and effectiveness of laboratory work in science teaching. The finalsection of this review will be devoted to the consideration of possiblefactors contributing to this situation.

107

1 1-t_ 90,,

SOME CONCLUSIONS AND SPECULATIONSABOUT RESEARCH RELATED TO THE ROLE OF THE SCIENCE LABORATORY

The figure shown on page 109 is this reviewer's attempt to depict thefactors that appear to be involved, directly or indirectly, in imestiga-tions into the role of the laboratory in science teaching. As McKeachie(1963) has said, it would appear to be a simple thing to compare oneinstructional method with another but it really is not.

Reasons for Teaching Science

One of the reasons for teaching science is influenced by one's view ofthe purposes of education which were briefly discussed earlier in thisreview: to transmit the culture, to transform the culture, to promoteindividual development, or to combine some elements of all of these into aneclectic view. This philosophical bias serves as a filter through whichinformation about the nature of the scientific enterprise is transmitted.In addition, the view of what constitutes the nature of science and thescientific enterprise appears to change over the years, with this viewbeing influenced by ways in which the general public reacts to science aswell as by the contributions of the scientific community to pure andapplied science.

The educational community is also involved because of pre-service andin-service teacher education programs and activities. In addition, scienceeducators and scientists are involved in the writing of textbooks andcurriculum materials to be used in science classes. Individuals such as C.P. Snow, Jacob Bronowski, and others have done much to communicate aboutscience to the non-scientist. Programs such as Bronowski's "The Ascent ofMan" and, more recently, "The Search for Solutions," "The Body inQuestion," "Cosmos," and "Hard Choices" have been shown on publictelevision during prime viewing hours.

Nevertheless, we have not apparently resolved what the aims of scienceteaching should be in terms of the population of the secondary schools.Hurd has written about teaching for the scientist vs. teaching for thecitizen. Much has been written about the desirability of having ascientifically literate citizenry. Publications produced by the NationalScience Teachers Association (NSTA) and by the Educational PoliciesCommission of the National Education Association relate to this concern.

In Theory into Action (Hurd, 1964) the NSTA Curriculum Committeepublished the organization's position at that time on curriculumdevelopment in science. In their discussion of the nature of science, thecommittee characterized th' scientific enterprise as having three aspects.

. . .The first consists largely in observation and description ofnature, and is sometimes called natural history. . . .The secondaspect of the scientific enterprise, science, begins with the first--with observation, with descriptive statements, with simple, causalrelationships derived from experiment. But it is important in scienceeducation to realize that the essence of science lies not so much inseeking out the detailed structure of nature as in trying to

108

GENTAAL

THE NATURE OF SCIENCE,THE SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE

POILIC__11] SCIENTYFIC co*kMUNITYEDUCATIONAL CO!DfT;ITY

(SCIENCE EDUCATORS)

REASONS FOR TEACHING SCIENCEfor the scientistfor the citizen

THE SCIENCE TEAZHER

Personal view of science, thescientific enterprise

Science content backgroundEducational methodologyPerception of community

expectationsView of the learner

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

Materials and facilitiesavailable

Time availableOther constraints

THE LEARNER

Needs, abilities, interestsCognitive styleCognitive developmental levelPast experiences in sciencePerceptions of teacher, science,

classroaa environment

OUTCOMES OF SCIE4CELABORATORY INSTRUCTION

AchievementAttitudes, interestsCognitive factorsProcess skillsManipulative skillsUnderstanding the nature of science

INSTRUMENTS, METHODS USED TO MEASURE OUTCOMESPaper - pencil tests

Laboratory practicalsChecklists, rating scalesOther observational instruments

LI:PORTED RESULTS or LESEARCli

1491 ,1

understand it. . . .As for the third aspect of the scientificenterprise, technology, the distinction between this activity and whatwe call science is probably more evident than that between naturalhistory and science, where the boundary is not nearly as sharp. Whilescience is an intellectual quest for understanding of naturalphenomena, technology is a practical effort to use and control thesephenomena. Technology yields the tangible products of science.

All three aspects of the scientific enterprise must be a part of thescience curriculum:1. descriptive science or natural history, because it provides the

basis for scientific inquiry and plays so prominent a role in achild's conventional experience;

2. science proper, because of its intellectual challenge, whichshould be a primary goal of scientific education; and

3. technology, because it serves so well to illustrate the practicalapplication of scientific principles and because of its impact onmodern society (pp. 43-44).

The committee wrote that it was clearly impractical to include each ofthe three categories to the same degree at all educational levels but thatstudents should understand the distinction among these activities.

In 1966, the Educational Policies Commission produced a small bookentitled "Education and the Spirit of Science," in which seven values wereidentified as underlying science; i.e.,

the longing to know and understand,questioning of all things,search for data and their meaning,demand for verification,respect for logic,

consideration of premises, andconsideration of consequences.

Another curriculum committee of the National Science TeachersAssociation produced yet another position statement for the organization.This was entitled "School Science for the 70's"(1971). This groupmaintained that producing a scientifically literate person was congruentwith the more general goals of education: learning how to learn, usingrational processes, building competence in basic skills, developingintellectual and vocational competence, exploring values in newexperiences, understanding concepts and generalizations, and learning tolive harmoniously within, the biosphere (p. 47). They also characterizedthe scientifically literate person as one who

1) uses science concepts, process skills, and values in makingeveryday decisions as he/she interacts with other people and withthe environment;

110

1 li-1. kJ

2) understands that the generation of scientific knowledge dependsupon the inquiry process and upon conceptual theories;

3) distinguishes between scientific evidence and nersonal opinion;4) identifies the relationshiop between facts and theory;5) recognizes the limitations as well as the usefulness of science

and technology in advancing human welfare;6) understands the interrelationships between science, technology,

and other facets of society, including social and economicdevelopment;

7) recognizes the human origin of science and understands thatscientific knowledge is tentative, subject to change as evidenceaccumulates;

8) has sufficient knowledgt,_ and experience so that he/she canappreciate the scientific work being carried out Ly others;

9) has a richer and more exciting view of the world as a result ofhis/her science education;

10) has adopted values similar to those that underlie science sothat he/she can use and enjoy science for its intellectualstimulation, its elegance of explanation, and its excitement ofinquiry; and

11) continues to inquire and increase his/her scientific knowledgethroughout his/her life (pp. 47-48).

Science in the schools should also be taught so that students becomeaware of the social aspects of science; so cLat they (1) perceive thecultural conditions within which science thrives; (2) recognize the need toview the scientific enterprise within the broad perspectives of culture,society, and history; (3) expect that social and economic innovaticns maybe necessary to improve man's condition; and (4) appreciate theuniversality of scientific endeavors (p. 48).

Bronowski has perhaps summed up all of these aims in a few sentencesin The Common Sense of Science (1958). He wrote,

There is no sense at all in which science can be called a meredescription of facts. It is in no sense, as humanists sometimespretend, a neutral record of what happens in an endless mechani-cal encyclopedia. . .science is not the blank record of facts,but the search for order within the facts. And the truth ofscience is not truth to fact, which can never be more thanapproximate, but the truth of laws which we see within thefacts. . . . (p. 130)

It is this behavior or conceptual set that we hope to achieve in ourscience students, although we have not said it this directly in positionpapers or statements of goals and objectives. The use of the laboratoryshould contribute to such an outcome.

The Role of the Science Teacher

After the three large-scale National Science Foundation-funded studieswere completed and published [the national survey (Weiss, 1978), the case

111

116

studies (Stake et al., 1978), and the literature review (Helgeson, et al.,1978)), numerous groups attempted to determine the common elements to befound in these studies. One publication that resulted from such a

synthesis attempt was produced by the National Science Teachers Associationand is entitled "The Teacher is the Key" (in What Are The Needs..., 1980).This title reflects this group's findings that what takes place in thescience classroom is controlled, either directly or indirectly, by theteacher.

If this is a valid assumption, and it would appear to be, then thescience teacher is an important variable influencing research studies onthe role of the laboratory. Even if the research involves audio-tutorialinstruction, such instruction is usualiy compared to more traditionalapproach which is assumed to have both lecture and laboratory components.Even in the audio-tutorial mode of instruction, some individual has chosenthe content to be emphasized and sequenced the instructional activities.

When we consider secondary school science, we need tc recall thecomments derived from the case studies: that what science education willbe for a student is dependent on that the student's teacher believes,knows, and does--or doesn't believe, doesn't know, doesn't do. Therefore,when a researcher comes along and asks a teacher to teach in a certainfashion, problems may arise. If the teacher is not carefully prepared touse the experimental materials and methods or uses them but does not findtheir emphasis consistent with his/her personal philosophy of teaching, itis unlikely that the experimental treatment will be carried out in all itsaspects as the researcher would wish.

The opposite effect may also occur. In fact this did, to some extent_take place with teachers using the federally funded science courseimprovement project materials. The Hawthorne effect, or the halo effect, ofbeing part of a trial testing of materials developed by teams ofscientists, teachers, and science educators generated a degree ofenthusiasm among teachers.

Some research studies of the role of the laboratoiy did take intoaccount some teacher variables but these were usually of the easilymeasured variety: age, sex, content background, years in teaching. What weneed also consider is the teacher's understanding of the nature of science,his/her perceptions of desirable objectives for science teaching, and viewsof the ways in which science teaching should take place. Some research ofall of these topics has taken place, as is evident from the classroominteraction studies involv_ the use of instruments such as the BiologyClassroom Activity Checklist (BCAC) of Kochendorfer (1967) or the BiologyLaboratory Activity Checklist (BLAC) of Barnes (1967), both developed as apart of research efforts to study the ways in which biology teachers usedBSCS materials. Second-and-third generation efforts have produced theScience Classroom Activities Checklist (SCACL) of Sagness (1970) or theChecklist of Assessment of Science Teachers (CAST) of Brown (1972). Anumber of these instruments have two versions (teacher perceptions andstudent perceptions) of what is taking place in the classroom.

1 1 2

It might be profitable to look more carefully at teacher perceptionsof science laboratory activities, as did Barnes, and compare this set ofdata with perceptions of the students.

Does the science teacher's content background make any difference inhis/her view of science and, if we may extrapolate, science teaching?Herron (1971) interviewed science teachers participating in a summerscience institute to get their perceptions of what scientific enquiry was.He reported

. . .the biology teachers as a group have more of a tendency atleast to talk about such abstractions as 'scientific method,''enquiry,' and 'open-ended' laboratory exercises. The physicsteachers, as a group, show a decidedly greater orientation towarddiscussions restricted mainly to content. They showed much lessconcern for problems related to the teaching of the nature ofthe scientific enterprise. A slight positive correlation was notedbetween the amount of teaching experience and level of response.That is, the more recent college graduates in our sample showeda greater tendency toward 'content orientation' than individualswith more teaching experience. (p. 208)

How generalizable are the differences Herron identifiel in his sample?What implications do Herron's findings have for the way teachers presentscience in the laboratory and foc the ways in which they interact withstudents? What influence do student perceptions have on outcomes ofresearch on the role of the science laboratory?

The Learner in the Science Laboratory

Certainly the student has been the focus of more laboratory researchthan has the teacher. Results are reported in terms of student gain scoreson some instrument or collection of instruments, or changes in studentattitudes or interests or some other student variable. Perhaps mostinvestigators have not pursued the question of student effects to thedepth, or variety, that Brown (1958) reported in the research with physicscourse and MIT students, but certainly student outcomes have been theconcern of laboratory research.

Classroom environment. In addition to the instruments named i theprevious subsection of this paper that include measures of studentperception of classroom activities, Parakh ( 1970, in Simon and Boyer,eds.) has developed an interaction system focused on the cognitivebehaviors of individual pupils in biology classes. This system is based onthe same theoretical foundation is Parakh's teacher-pupil interactionsystem, also for use in high school biology classes (in Balzer, Evans,Blosser, 1973). The categories it both systems deal with the cognitiveaspects of teacher and pupil behaviors (with only a minor emphasis onnon-verbal behaviors) and these are not unique to biology classes, e.g.,teacher demonstrates, teacher gives laboratory and substantive directions,etc.

Tamir (1977) reported an investigation in which he used a modificationof Smith's earth science observatiun system in chemistry, physiology,histolugy, and biologj classes and laboratories. It would appear thatscience educators already have available instruments that might be used to

measure verbal, and non-verbal, interaction in a laboratory setting. Theproblem appears to be more that of deciding on the appropriate instrument-.a specific one such as Parakh's or Smith's or a more general one such asthe Science Laboratory Interaction Categories system of Shymansky andPenick (1979). Researchers would be well advised to identify thetheoretical basis for the instrument they are considering before putting itto use in order to make certain they are using a system which will collectthe kind of data they wish to analyze.

In addition to the classroom interaction types of instruments, anotherinstrument used in several studies to determine learners' perceptions ofinstruction (Egelston, 1973; Rentoul and Fraser, 1978) is the LearningEnvironment Inventory (LEI). This instrument was developed by Walberg andAnderson (1968) as a part of the research related to Harvard ProjectPhysics. Some discussion of this research is contained in an ERIC/SMEACOccasional Paper on Harvard Project Physics by Welch (1971b). Walberg andAnderson describe the instrument as consisting of 105 items designed to

measure classroom climate in secondary schools. Students react to each itemon a five-dimensional scale from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree."The instrument's scales are Intimacy, Friction, Cliqueness, Apathy,Favoritism, Formality, Satisfaction, Speed, Difficulty, Coal Direction,Democratic, Disorganization, Diversity, and Environment.

Researchers associated with the University of Minnesota have reporteddata from administ:9tion of the Learning Environment Inventory (LEI).Welch, in a 1977 research paper, discussed a long-term study of thestability of learning environments. Using a stratified random sample of allsecondary schools it 15 states in the western two-thirds of the UnitedStates, Welch and others obtained data designed to answer these questions:are educational environments constant over time? do perceptions of scienceand mathematics environments differ? and do perceptions of junior andsenior high school students differ? The period of time involved thecomparison of data from 1972 and from 1976.

One science or mathematics teacher was randomly selected per schooland one class for each teacher was also randomly selected for response tothe LEI. Welch reported 53% participation in 1972 and 45% in 1976, withapproximately 50% repeaters. Data were obtained from 1121 classes, havingapproximately 22 students per class. A modification of the original LEI wasused in this research. The modified LEI instrument contained 10 seven-itemscales: Diversity, Formality, Friction, Coal Direction, Favoritism,Difficulty, Democratic, Cliqueness, Satisfaction, and Disorganization.

Statistically significant differences were found, suggesting thepresence of duration, curricular, and age effects. On some of the LEIscales, junior and senior high changes were different for science andmathematics. On Formality, Friction, and Diversity the senior high schoolstudent scores were lower than were those for junior high school students.

114

Science and mathematics differences were greater for older students (1977,(p. 10), with the science mean being higher. Welch interpreted the resultsas showing that 1976 students perceived their classes as more organized,formal, goal directed, and satisfying than did the 1972 students. Thisshift to an environment that is a more orderly or structured learningclimate, is, in Welch's opinion, a "more conservative" approach to scienceteaching (p. 11).

When science and mathematics class differences were considered,science classes were described, through the LEI, as being more diverse,disorganized, and formal, and possessing higher levels of friction,cliqueness, and favoritism than were mathematics classes. Mathematicsclasses were described as higher on goal direction, difficulty, anddemocracy. Science and mathematics classes rated equal on satisfaction(p. 12).

Welch considered that science classes with a substantial laboratorycomponent will vary considerably in subject matter and provide manyopportunities for social interaction. Therefore, it might be expected thatstudents will perceive such classes as more diverse and disorganized withgreater likelihood for cliqueness, friction, and favoritism to develop(pp. 12-13).

Senior high school students perceived their science classes as beingmore difficult, satisfying, and democratic than did junior high schoolstudents. Junior high school pupils saw their science classes asdisorganized, diverse, and formal with higher levels of friction,cliqueness, and favoritism. Again, it is possible that junior high schoolscience classes that are student-and activity-centered will exhibit lessstructure and greater social conflict and, therefore, be less satisfactorysituations as pupils perceive them. Welch remarked that this situationseems to go with the age group (junior high) which he described asvolatile. In 1976, as compared to 1972, junior high school studentsreported their science classes as more formal and less difficult.

What picture do the 1972-1976 comparisons reveal? There have beenchanges from 1972 to 1975, in a conservative direction. Science classes areperceived as being more formal, organized, and goal directed. Students aremore satisfied. Science which is activity-oriented allows for strongstudent interaction with possible outcomes of cliqueness, friction,favoritism, and disorganization. Because such factors do not appear to beemphasized in the 1976 LEI results, science classes may be aescribed ashaving a more traditional learning environment. Some of this change mayhave resulted from the emphasis on "the basics" or from the use of moreconventional textbooks.

Welch has provided some questions that might be investigated and whichinvolve the use of the LEI: why do students learn more in a classroomclimate perceived as difficult? to what extent are friction and cliquenessdeterrents to learning? how can we minimize the volatile climate of thejunior high school? what climate characteristics of science classes aredesired goals in and of themselves? and are there any LEI characteristicsthat could be used to explain declining science enrollments? (p. 18).

7Rentoul and Fraser (1978) discuss the use of Walberg's Learning

Environment Inventory (LEI) in science education research. They consider itless than appropriate for use in inquiry classrooms because, they write, itwas developed for use in conventional classrooms and with setor highschool students. They have developed the Individualized ClassroomEnvironment Questionnaire (ICEQ) which has five scales: personalization,participation, independence, investigatioa, .and differentiation. These arerelated to three dimensions: relationship, personal development or goalorientation, and system maintenance and system change.

The ICEQ instrument is designed to measure students' perceptions ofthe actual classroom learning environment and perceptions of theirpreferred learning environment, as well as teachers' perceptions of theseaspects. Rentoul and Fraser report that the instrument can be understood byjunior high school students and can be given in 20 minutes. Their paper waspresented at a meeting of Australian researchers (1978) which would accountfor the lack of use of this instrument to date in the United States.

Grades. When the learner is being considered in research on the roleof the laboratory, it is well to keep in mind McKeachie's remarks (1963)about determining which of two teaching methods is more effective. Much ofthe research on the role of the laboratory has involved groups of collegestudents enrolled in beginning science courses or in science courses fornon-majors. McKeachie makes the point that many college students are sograde-conscious that they will study on their own to make up for what theyperceive to be deficiencies in instruction--when these perceiveddeficiencies may be a part of the research treatment. How universal aphenomenon is this concern for a respectable grade and how much influencedoes this concern have on the outcomes of a research study? Certainly itmust be a factor in those investigations in which achievement is adependent variable.

Cognitive style. How much influence does a student's cognitive stylehave relative to laboratory activities? Cognitive style, as opposed tocritical thinking abilities or level of cognitive development, wasinvestigated by Pringle and Morgan (1978) in a study designed to determinethe influence of laboratory-oriented experiences in the Science CurriculumImprovement Study (SCIS) program on the stability of cognitive style(field-dependent vs. field-independent) of teachers. Although SCISmaterials are designed for elementary school students, Pringle and Morganworked with graduate students (in-service teachers) enrolled in a summerschool program. The investigators termed their study exploratory in natureand reported that it implied that when a teacher's cognitive style wasinfluenced significantly in the direction of field independence, theindividual's ability to construct learning experiences for perceptual andintellectual tasks might also be enhanced (p. 50). Can this be translatedinto suggestions for use in the secondary school science laboratory?

While some individuals consider cognitive style to refer primarily tofield dependence/field independence, others use cognitive style to meanlearning style. Learning styles appear to be a current concern for somecurriculum specialists and supervisors but little has been published about

1 1 6

the effects of learning styles in science education research. Dembo (1977)cites a publication by Dunn and Dunn to illustrate that learning stylediagnosis includes (1) time (when is student most alert?), (2) schedule(related to attention span), (3) amount of sound (that can be tolerated),(4) type of sound (that produces a positive response), (5) type of workgroup, (6) amount of pressure, (7) type of pressure and motivation, (8)place (where student works best), (9) physical environment ,end conditions,(10) type of assignments, (11) perceptual strengths and styles (kinds ofmedia and experiences), and (12) type of structure and evaluation (p. 54).Many of these elements relate to laboratory work and ray meritinvestigation.

Past experiences in science. Many of the laboratory investigationsreviewed for this publication involved college students who were enrolledin science courses of the general education/non-major variety. It seemslogical that such students have had little previous experience with scienceor that their previous experiences did not prove sufficiently satisfying tocause them to consider science as a major in college.

Frequently students are placed in courses, or treatments for researchstudies, which are of the investigative variety in terms of laboratoryactivities and their past experiences have not equipped them to functioneffectively in such open-ended situations. Even science majors aresometimes frustrated by such situations. A dissertation announced in theJuly, 1980, issue o: Dissertation Abstracts International relates to thissituation. Manteuffel (1980) worked with a general biology course at theUniversity of California at Berkeley. Students who enrolled in this coursefound themselves working in "investigative laboratories," a practice begunin 1969. Frequently students who completed the course were found to be bothfrustrated and lacking in basic inquiry skills. Manteuffel decided todevelop guidelines which students could use to obtain basic informationabout formulating and carrying out a research problem. More than 300students from Berkeley and from a community college and 50 instructorsparticipated in Manteuffel's study.

Manteuffel reported that she found that most students had had noprevious experience with independent investigations and that most did notknow how to formulate a focused research problem or design a controlled andfeasible investigation around a research problem. Many students wereuncomfortable with lack of guidance and relied heavily on peers orinstructors for ideas and answers. Students who used Manteuffel'sguidelines were more positive about the investigations than were those whodid not use these guidelines.

In the September, 1980, issue of Dissertation Abstracts Internationalanother study related to preparing students for laboratory work wasreported. Hartford (1980) attempted to teach students enrolled in highschool chemistry to ask questions in the context of laboratory experiments.Hartford considered improving the questioning skills of students asimportant as improving their teachers' questioning skills. He was alsointerested in determining if their level of cognitive development was afactor that needed to be considered relative to the development ofquestioning skills focused on problem-solving.

117

1')...,,

Students in the experimental treatment were exposed to unanticipatedor discrepant events in a laboratory setting. The conceptual conflict suchevents produced could be reduced by students seeking further informationthrough asking research questions, according to Hartford. ine experimentaltreatment lasted 12 weeks and involved printed lessons designed to teachstudents to ask research questions in response to observations they did notanticipate in their regularly scheduled laboratory experiments.

Hartford reoorted tha,, by analyzing the posttest scores of

unpretested students only, he found the experimental treatment effect to bestatistically significant, accounting for 14% of the variance of theposttest scores. Level of intellectual development (measured by thepaperandpencil Classroom Test of Formal Operations) had no effect onthese posttest scores.

It is unwise to generalize from these two recent dissertation studiesbut they do identify some approaches which are of interest in investigatingthe role of the laboratory and ways in which the laboratory may be usedmore effectively to produce desired changes in students.

Effects beyond the laboratory. As McKeachie (1963) pointed out, littlehas been done to investigate the effects of the laboratory on students interms of retention, in their ability to apply learning, or in the effectsthat having been enrolled in a laboratory course in science might have onstudents as they participate in other courses--either while taking the

laboratory course or in subsequent years of college. Because most researchis of the doctoral dissertation variety, the treatment is for a limitedtime and the effects of this treatment are observed and recorded over aneven more limited amount of time.

Although several authors have contributed more than one researchreport focus ' on the laboratory, none of them has been involved in

longterm research. The equivalent of an EightYear Study does not appearto yet exist in science education research.

The outcomes of laboratory instruction also need to be considered notonly in relation to the classroom environment but also in relation to theteacher and pupils. The materials used, as well as the instructionaltechniques, also influence these outcomes.

Curriculum and Instruction in the Laboratory

Much has been written about the investigative/discovery laboratory ascompared to the verification laboratory in science, for both secondaryschool and college students. The lengthy article by Herron (1971)illustrates the fact that even materials designed to be inquiryorientedmay be less open than their designers had intended.

In addition to the materials used, the methodology of instructionneeds to be considered. Ac iamir (1977) has pointed out, teachers differin their use of pre and postlaboratory activities and these differencescan he used to differentiate inquiry and noninquiry teachers in scielLcelaboratories.

Ifo .-.)

..., C

Tamir (1976) has also provided some possible assistance to teacherswho are concerned about building more student involvement into laboratoryactivities. This checklist (p.13) can be used to determine who (teacher,pupil) performs the following tasks related to the laboratory: (1)recognize and define problems; (2) formulate hypotheses; (3) predict; (4)design observation and measurement procedures; (5) design experiments; (6)carry out observations, measurements, and experiments; (7) record results;(8) transform results to standard format; (9) explain; (10) make inferencesand draw conclusions; (11) formulate generalizations and models; and (12)define limitations.

The use of this list, combined with the model Herron (1971) proposedfor determining the level of openness in laboratory activities, shouldenable a conscientious to :her to evaluate his/her approach to using thelaboratory in science and to make changes, if needed.

To again quote McKeachie (1963, p. 1145): "Whether or not thelaboratory is superior to the lecture demonstration in developingunderstanding and problem-solving skills probably depends upon the extentto which the understanding cf concepts and general problem-solvingprocedures are emphasized by the instructor in the laboratory situation."

In addition to considering both curriculum materials and instruction,the researcher also needs to recognize the limitations of the instrumentsused to obtain data.

The Outcomes of Science Laboratory Instruction and Their Measurement

No matter what the desired outcomes of laboratory instruction are- -increased achievement, more favorable attitudes toward science, improvedscientific attitudes, increase in level of cognitive development, increasein critical thinking skills, increase in science interest, improvedmanipulative or psychom*otor skills, increased understanding of science andthe scientific enterprise, or some other factor -- the appearance of theseoutcomes must be looked for and changes measured.

Outcomes of laboratory instruction in science have been measured withpaper and pencil tests, with laboratory practicals, with the use ofchecklists and rating scales, with classroom observational instrumentsfocusing on verbal or non-verbal interaction, or some combination of these.If the goals to be achieved are realistic, given the constraints withinwhich the study must be done, the researcher needs to make certain that themeasure used is sufficiently sensitive to detect significant changes thatoccur between the beginning and end of the treatment. Sometimes, there isno evidence that any teaching could affect the achievement of the goal asmeasured by the tests used (McKeachie, 1963, p. 1125).

In many studies investigator-designed tests or other instruments areused. Frequently information about reliability and validity, as well asthe methods used to obtain these measures, is sketchy. An even morefrequent lack is that of an explanation of the theoretical rationaleunderlying the instrument. These types of information are seldom found in

the abstract of a doctoral dissertation; frequently they are not providedin journal articles based on the dissertation research. Although there arespace constraints for journal articles, knowledge of validity andreliability information is useful for readers who wish to make intelligentjudgments concerning the data reported.

The effects of science laboratory experiences on achievement may bemeasured by the use of an investigator-designed test (pre-post, post-testonly) or by the use of a well-known test such as the Nelson Biology Test,to cite only one example. There was not enough commonality the in area ofachievement outcomes to permit generalizations other than those provided inan earlier section of this review. The same situation holds true for mostof the other areas: attitudes, interests, cognitive factors, processskills, manipulative skills, and understanding the nature of science.

However, three instruments were used in enough studies so that smallclusters were formed. These instruments were the Watson-Glaser CriticalThinking Appraisal, the Wisconsin Inventory of Science Processes(WISP), andthe Test on Understanding Science(TOUS).

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. According to informationin the Mental Measurements Yearbook, edited by Oscar K. Buros (1959), thesub-tests of this instrument ar.! designed to evaluate the ability to

interpret data, to draw correct influences, to draw appropriate deductions,to recognize assumptions, and to evaluate arguments. Such mentaloperations can be accomplished in many content areas that are not unique toscience. Is it possible then to develop these aspects of critical thinkingwithout having students participate in laboratory activities? Test itemsinvolve written material related to problems and issues to which peoplereact. Conducting a laboratory experiment may cause students to practicesome of these activities (interpreting data, drawing correct inferences,etc.). But, if the experiment is of the verification type or if thestudent is working in a Level 0 or Level 1 situation (according to Herron'smodel)--even in inquiry-oriented materials--then there is little or no needfor such mental activities to take place. The student just walks throughthe a-tivity.

Twelve investigators used the Watson-Glaser test in their researchrelated to the science laboratory. Two (Rogers, 1972; Sorensen, 1966)reported that students involved in their treatment groups made significantgains in their critical thinking scores. A third (Hoff, 1970) reportedthat the enquiry version group in a general education astronomy laboratorysetting had the (significantly) highest adjusted mean score on the criticalthinking test. Mandell's (1967) research prGvides a fourth report of gainsin critical thinking scores. Mandell used college biology laboratoryexperiments specifically designed to develop or increase critical thinkingabilities. He found that students having average or lower IQs showed amore significant gain in critical thinking after participating in the

especially designed laboratory activities than did the students whose IQswere above the mean. (These students also exhibited more gain in biologyachievement than did their peers with higher intelligence quotient scores.)Five (Dawson, 1975; Sherman, 1969; Stekel, 1969; Mitchell, 1978; Allison,1973) reported no significant differences. Two (M. 0. Smith, 1972; Edgar,1969) reported results favoring the non-laboratory groups. The abstract of

120

1,'5

Holloway's research (1976) contains the report of significant differenc s

in critical thinking but does not indicate in whose favor.

Wisconsin Inventory of Science Processes. This test was developed byWayne !lch as his dissertation project (no date). It is sometimesrefert,d to as the Science Process Inventory (SPI) but the more widelyused, later version is the wibconsin Inventory of Science Processes (WISP).This instrument is designed to measure a student's understanding ofscientific processes. Welch analyzed books by Beveridge (The Art of

Scientific Investigation), Conant (Science and Common Sense), Kemeny (A

Philosopher !,00ks at Science), Lachman (The Foundations of Science), Nash(The Nature of -tue Natu:al Sciences), and Wilson (An Introduction to

Scientific Research), looking for elements of scientific processes.Elements that appeare- in three or more of the six references were used todevelop instrument items (Welch, no date). A revised version of the

instrument was used in the evaluation study of Harvard Project Physics.

Six researchers used this instrument in their research on the effectsof science laboratory work. [A seventh researcher (Rogers, 1972) used aProcesses of Science Test.] Two (Dawson, 1975; Cannon, 1976) reportedfindings of no significant difference. One (M. 0. Smith, 1972) reportedresults favoring the non-laboratory group. Three (Spears and Zollman,1977; Stekel, 1971; and Whitten, 1971) reported significant increasesin the understanding of science as indicated by the instrument.

The research reported by Spears and Zollman (1977) focused on the useof laboratories intended to provide students with experiences that wouldaid in understanding the processes of science as well as the content ofscience. Students were paced in either a structured laboratory situation(detailed procedures were provided) or in an unstructured one (objectivewas specifieu but procedures were decided by the student). Using theintellectual model of Piaget, Spears and Zollman hypothesized that if

students were not at the .level of formal operations, they could not he

expected to devise and understand the process of science, aformal-operational procedure (p. 34). Students in unstructuredlaboratories were given the problem and told what equipment was availablebut they had to decide for themselves about how to take data, how much datato take, how to treat the data, how to interpret the results, how to

present the results, etc. (p. 34).

The Inventory of Science Processes was given both as a pre-test,during the first week of the semester, and as a post-test, during the lastweek. Pre-test score, laboratory grade, and lecture instructor were usedas covariates in the data analysis. Adjusted post-test scores werecomphred as to type of laboratory involvement. When the adjusted scoreswere analyzed, no differences were found for the components of the SPI:assumptions, nature of outcomes, and ethics and goals. Significantdifferences (.05) did occur in the fourth component, activities, withstudents in the structured laboratory scoring higher in this area.(P. 36).

Spears and Zollman speculated that, because many of the students inthe unstructured laboratory were not at the formal operations level, they

121

126

were intellectually unprepared to perform the activities of scientistswhile those in the structured laboratory were led through these activitiesmany times. The structured laboratory provided examples of activities ofscientists, causing the students to learn better the process of science(pp. 36-37).

However, as the investigators point out (p. 34), this research leavesunanswered the question of whether laboratory involvement itselfcontributes to an understanding of the process of science. Another pointto be considered is whether or not the process of science is unchanging.The references from which Welch developed test items were published in the1950's and 1960's. Spears and Zollman (1977) identified four components ofthe test: assumptions, nature of outcomes, ethics and goals, andactivities. If the process of science has not changed, it seems thatpublic perception of the component "ethics and goals" has changed over theyears. Citizens are no longer so willing to consider science as amoral.Does this change in public perception have any implications for the use ofthe instrument in secondary school and college science classes? Thecrucial question is probably the one which Spears and Zollman reported theydid not investigate: whether laboratory involvement itself contributes toan understanding of the process of science. Data from the study by M. 0.Smith (1972) indicated that "vicarious experimentation" was more effectivethan conventional laboratory work in physical science for the nonsciencemajors involved in his study.

Test on Understanding Science. A third, frequently used, instrumentwas the Test on Understanding Science (TOUS), developed by Cooley andKlopfer (1963). The opening statement of the test directions reads "Thisis a test of your general knowledge about science, scientists, and the waysin which scientists do their work" (Form W, 1961). This instrument wasdeveloped for use in the History of Science Cases (HOSC) for High c,7hoolsInstruction Project, Harvard University, and a description of itsdevelopment is available in a journal article (Cooley and Klopfer, 1963).

Eighteen themes, grouped into three areas, were identified by Cooleyand Klopfer as important components of an understanding of science andscientists. These are shown below, as listed in the journal article(p. 74).

. Area I. Understanding about the scientific enterprise1. Human element in science2. Communication among scientists3. Scientific societies4. Instruments5. Money6. International character of science7. Interaction of science and society

Area II Understanding about scientists1. Generalizations about scientists as people2. Institutional pressures on scientists3. Abilities needed by scientists

Area III Understandings about the methods and aims of science1. Generalities about scientific methods

1 2 2

2. Tactics and strategy of sciencing3. Theories and models4. Aims of science5. Accumulation and falsification6. Controversies in science7. Science aid technology8. Unity and interdependence of the sciences (1963, p. 74)

In the four dissertation studies in which use of the TOUS wasreported, three researchers (Baxter, 1969; A. E. Smith, 1971; Sherman,1969) reported no significant differences. The fourth reported that thestudents in the experimental group (a revised, general education,laboratory course in physical science) exhibited significant gains in TOUSscores, even when differences in ability, scholastic achievement,background knowledge, or skill were covaried out of the analysis, andconcluded that the laboratory exercises had made an important contributionto student knowledge as tested by the TOUS instrument (Whitten, 1971).

However, the question persists: Does a science course have to containa laboratory component for students to exhibit gain scores on the TOUS?The project for which the test was developed included laboratoryexperiments. The method by which these experiments was carried out wasdetermined by Cie teacher and could involve the whole class, could be doneas demonstrations, or could be done as projects by some students (Klopfer,1960, p. 1-4). Klopfer urged the teachers using the HOSC guide to allowtheir students to participate in experiments similar to the ones actuallydone by the participants in the particular science case being studied.However, the HOSC method had as its primary emphasis enabling students tolearn about science and scientists and not as a vehicle for learningscience subject matter (Klopfer, 1960, p. 1-4), nor (one may assume) as avehicle for learning laboratory skills.

A more promising approach may be to design an instrument specificallyto detect the impact of the role of the laboratory on possible changes inunderstanding of the nature of science. None of the three instruments justdiscussed (WatsonGlaser, LISP, TOUS) was developed primarily to evaluatethe role of the laboratory on critical thinking, on understanding of theprocess of science, or on knowledge of science, scientists, and the ways inwhich scientists work.

When studies focused on psychom*otor skills or manipulative abilities(Pickering's "finger skills") useful in the science laboratory areconsidered, it is not surprising that they failed to fall into clustersbased on instruments used. Because much of the research consisted ofabstracts of dissertations as reported in Dissertation AbstractsInternational, the information on instruments and/or methodology was brief.Many researchers reported the use of a laboratory performance test thatthey had designed. Some evaluated performance in a laboratory activity(actual observation or analysis of a videotape of the technique); otherslooked at precision of results obtained. (Is it not possible to obtainreasonably accurate results with a lessthanadequate technique?) Oneinvestigator (Sullivan, 1972), working with ninth grade students, specified

123

1 28

that he evaluated motor coordination, manual dexterity, and fingerdexterity, Others were more global in their descriptions.

Do the purposes for which laboratory activities in science are usedvary with the educational level of the students? Information from the NSFcase studies project (Stake et al; 1978) indicates that instruction inscience is viewed differently in elementary and secondary schools. Inelementary schools, science is fun and for all students. In secondaryschools, science is perceived as being difficult and for the intellectuallyelite. Certainly college science courses appear to be of two types: forthe major and for the purpose of general education of non-science majors.

Much of the research on the role of the laboratory involved collegestudents enrolled in general education-type science courses. Is this theeducational population we should be studying? Presumably it is and forreasons other than those of having a sufficiently large number of studentsinvolved for data analysis purposes. If the scientific establishment is tocontinue to function, it must be adequately funded. Funding is needed bothfor research and for education of prospective scientists and technicians.And, directly or indirectly, the general public has to approve suchfunding.

Another question is: Do we use laboratory activities for differentpurposes in high school science classes than in college science classes?Or, do we treat high school science students as miniature versions ofcollege students majoring in science? Perhaps the approach varies withthe secondary school science course being considered. Junior high schoolor middle school science and high school biology appear to have more of a"general education" flavor than do chemistry and physics. Perhaps, also,this brings us back again to Hurd's concern of science for the scientist orscience for the citizen. If the purposes for which we teach sciencediffer, do the behaviors and outcomes we look for and the methods we use tomeasure these outcomes also differ?

The review of the literature did not result in the identification ofany studies in which the researcher asked teachers "Why do you teachscience?" or "Why do you use laboratory activities in science?" Glovinsky(1962) investigated the status and extent of non-laboratory science co'irsesin large American public school systems. He sent a 22-item questionnaireto.87 systems and received usable data from 76 of these, representing 45states, and more than 700,000 science students, and more than 20,000science classes. Laboratory work was used by 13,000 classes while 7,000were of Cie non-laboratory variety. Glovinsky reported that the mostcommon non-laboratory courses were general science, physiology, physicalscience, and physiography, with the oldest non-laboratory course oeinggeneral science. Non-laboratory courses appeared to have originatedbecause of lack of laboratory space. Many non-laboratory courses weredesigned for the slow learner.

The lack of laboratory space is a problem that often is not easilysolved. However, providing non-laboratory courses for slow learners seemscontradictory to current views about learning and instruction in whichdirect involvement with concrete objects is advocated.

124

One needs to keep in mind that Clovinsky's research was completed in1962. However, the national survey completed by personnel at the ResearchTriangle (Weiss, 1978) is more recent. Data from this national surveyindicate that only 48% of the science classes used manipulative or hands-onactivities in science at least once a week. In addition, 9% of the scienceclasses never used manipulative materials and another 14% did so less thanonce a month (p. 107).

Perhaps we need to focus more closely on that portion of Weiss'ssample of science teachers who used hands-on manipulative or laboratorymaterials at least once a week (35%) or just about daily (130) to determinewhat factors encourage or permit this approach to science teaching. Whatvariables can be identified as being important: teacher preparation,participation in NSF institutes, personality factors, personal educationalphilosophy, administrative support, curriculum being used, communityexpectations, or other?

For years we have been concerned, in science education research, aboutthe role of the laboratory. From national survey data we can see that thelaboratory is not very important, judging by frequency of use, to 44% ofthe science teachers surveyed. Before the laboratory can make a

difference, it has to be used.

While we are conducting research, we probably should also check on the44% who us manipulative materials or the laboratory once a month or less(and perhaps also try to check on the 8% who did not respond). Whatproblems do they face or what barriers do they perceive that cause them toneglect this instructional technique in their science classes? Do thecauses stem from the immediate situation, from their pre-service training,or from a combination of factors? Do they consider laboratory experiencesas being necessary for their science students? If so, for what reasons?How do the reasons these teachers give for teaching science and the goalsthey hold for their students differ from those of the teachers who makefrequent use of the laboratory (at least once a week or more often)? Dothey fail to use laboratory activities because they have never used them?Or have they had problems with discipline and are therefore reluctant toallow students the freedom to move about the room and talk that laboratoryactivities permit? Or are there other reasons for the non-use? Case studydata (Stake et al., 1978) provide information that laboratory work isdaemphasized because of expense, vandalism, and other control problems,along with an emphasis on course outcomes that show up on tests. However,"deemphasis" indicates a change in emphasis. We need also to be concernedabout those science teachers who have never emphasized the use of thelaboratory in their instruction.

1 2 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

The use of the laboratory for teaching science has been a concern ofthe science education community for many years. Researchers have beeninvestigating the contributions of the laboratory to education in scienceever since the 1930's, if not earlier. Despite this long histor of

investigation, science educators are unable to provide a large amount ofevidence in support of the contention that laboratory work should coutintiein science classes, based on its contributions to various aims of scienceeducation. There is a large amount of opinion literature in favor of theuse of the laboratory, with most of the authors assuming that the necessityof laboratory work is obvious and that what we need to be concerned aboutis how to improve upon what we are already doing.

There are critics of the use of the laboratory, both within andoutside of the science education community. Administrators and teachers ofother disciplines consider the laboratory expensive in terms of equipment,facilities, and teacher and pupil scheduling. Some science teachersconsider the laboratory to be a problem in terms of time and effortinvolved in preparation and maintenance, as well as by lack of funds interms of classroom management. They perceive themselves to be handicappedby lack of funds to buy materials when the need arises, as well as to

repair and replace equipment and supplies and maintain the facilities.There is evidence that elementary school teachers do not feel well-preparedto teach science and their administrators do not consider themselvescapable of providing teachers with assistance in the area of science.Scientists and science educators decry the use of cookbook-type,

-4fication laboratories and advocate laboratory activities that aredesigned to convey to pupils the nature of science, its methods, and thespirit that pervades science.

While science teachers arc being told that such goals for scienceInstruction are important, they are also confronted with the pressures ofthe "back to the basics" movement, which appears to translate as moreemphasis on educational accountability. Being accountable appears to mean,to many systems, an increase in achievement test scores of pupils. Most ofthe assessment of achievement takes place in the form of paper and penciltests, usually of the multiple-choice variety. These test questions maynot measure, accurately if at all, the kinds of objectives cf scienceteaching that are promoted by laboratory experiences.

There is a long history of college domination of secondary schoolscience--including the role of the laboratory, dating from the influence ofGerman university science methodology in chemistry teaching and Harvard's"Descriptive List" in physics -- through the involvement of scientists inthe science course improvement project activities funded by the NationalScience Foundation in the 1950's and 1960's. Although the science courseimprovement project materials emphasize inquiry and active involvement withconcrete materials (especially for elementary school pupils), secondaryteachers report lecture and discussion as the most frequently used teachingtechniques, with less than half of the science teachers sampled in the

126

131

national survey (Weiss, 1978) inoicating they use laboratory activities ormanipulative materials once a week. Time for science in the elementaryschool is decreasing. At both elementary and secondary levels, thetextbook appears to be the curriculum.

If these findings from the three large studies funded by the National-Science Foundation are correct, where is the expidence for collegedomination in the 70's and 80's? It still appears in high school sciencecourses in chemistry and physics Ln the emphasis on preparation for collegescience. Biology still appears to have a general education aspect to it,although advanced biology courses probably also reflect the

preparationforcollegescience aspect of high school science teaching.

What appears to be emphasized in many high school science courses isscience content rather than the spirit of the scientific enterprise. Adescription of what appears to take place in social studies classrooms fitsthe situation in science classrooms as well:

The teachers' view of the textbook as authoritativeundoubtedly stands in the way of their involving studentsin inquiry. But that is not the only factor. The handson,experiencecentered learning of many inquiryoriented curriculais seen as too demanding of students; too much is often expectedof students at their level of intellectual developement and,probably even more important, selfdiscipline. From such astance, inquiry teching is nonproductive. Time is wasted whenstudents are allowed to formulate problems and pursue their ownanswers; and the few hours for instruction are too precious tobe squandered in that way. There is so much coutent to belearned.

(What are the Needs. . .,1980, p. 8)

If the accumulation of content is the primary objective for teachingscience, it is no wonder that laboratory activities are not used more oftenand that those activities that do take place are more frequently of theverification/illustration type rather than activities con eying the natureand spirit of science. Nor should it surprise anyone that the results ofpaper and pencil tests designed to assess the retention of cognitiveinformation do not provide much support for the use of the laboratory.

Some of the individuals who advocate the use of the laboratory inscience teaching appear to hold the idea that laboratory work is valuablefor transfer of training. Through laboratory activities, students willcome to understand the procedures of scientific investigation, includingthe control of certain variables, careful observation and recording ofdata, and the development of conclusions. Five major types of outcomeshave been identified as resulting from participation in laboratoryactivities: the development of skills, concepts, cognitive abilities,understanding the nature of science, and attitudes (Shulman and Tamir,1973).

A panel representing the scientific community provided an additionalset of contributions of laboratory work (report of the panel representingthe National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences in

127 132

What are the Needs. . ., 1980). They wrote that laboratory work (1)provides personal experiences for students to get answers to questions, (2)provides information almost impossible to convey in textbooks, (3) requiresactivity of students in a time when many young people lead increasinglypassive lives, (4) results in scientific observations and experiments thatfrequently show the limitations and uncertainties of scientific procedures,and (5) is fun for most students because it enables them to he independent,active discoverers (p. 95).

If we believe that laboratory work produces such contributions, whyare we unable to do a better job of gathering evidence that supports ourbelief? Responses to this question vary. Some of these responses, andrelated speculations, will be discussed in the recommendations section thatfollows.

Recommendations

To rephrase the question: If we believe so strongly in the value oflaboratory activities in science courses, why are we unable to identify alarge number of research studies in support of our belief? Factorscontributing to this s ition may be lumped into one of two categories:those dealing with the .echanics of conducting research and those dealingwith the complexity of the real world of the schools in which the researchtakes place.

Factors related to research. These factors are not new or differentand have been discussed before, by many persons. A recent discussion waspresented by Hofstein and Lunetta in their position paper for the 1980meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching(NARST).

Most of the research has been of the dissertation variety. As such,it usually represents an individual's first attempt at research and mayexhibit one or more of the following defects:

Inadequate research design

Inappropriate statistical treatment of data

Relatively small sample

Relatively limited amount of time involved in treatment

Incomplete reporting of experimental treatment(s)

Inadequate description of "traditional" method or ofthe activities of the control group

Use of inappropriate instruments to measure changes, results

Lack of description of aptitudes, abilities of students involved

Failure to determine, and make appropriate use of, previouslaboratory experiences (both amount and kind) of students

128 133

Lack of consideration of teacher behavior, classroom learningenvironment, materials, and other resources involved in theteaching-learning situation

(Readers who wish additional discussion of the topic of problems related toresearch on teaching methods may wish to review the material cited fromMcKeachie on pages 74 to 75 in this review or the section entitled "SomeAdditional Remarks about Research on Laboratory Instruction" pp. 92-105.)

Again, because much of the research is conducted by graduate studentsas a dissertation requirement, research on the role of the laboratory tendsto be of the one-shot-study variety. Follow-up studies are lacking andonly a few of the studies involve post-testing for retention after anextended period of time has separated the treatment and the post-test. And,as McKeachie pointed out, the researchers seldom follow up the experimentalgroup students to determine if the treatment resulted in changes in othercourses or in the program of studies they follow.

It is possible to say, as Hofstein and Lunetta did (1980, p. 3),. . .as of yet there is insufficient data to make sweeping generalizations

on the optimal role of the laboratory in science teaching." While this maybe true (How much data do we need to merit the "sufficient" criterion?),the statement does not provide guidance to persons wishing to investigatethe role of the laboratory.

It is also possible that the data exist but that there is a problem oftranslation or communication between sub-groups within the scienceeducation research community. When the literature was reviewed for relevantcitations, terms such as "laboratory activities," "science laboratories,""laboratory experiments," and "laboratory procedures" were used to identifydocuments and journal articles. In some of these documents and articles,there is discussion of the value of concrete experiences or hands -enscience activities, especially for those students not yet at the levei offormal operations, as described by Piaget. However, the researchers who aremost interested in cognitive development, as characterized by Piaget and bylearning theorists, present papers at sessions of professional meetings toan audience of their peers who have similar interests, while at other,concurrent sessions of these same meetings other researchers are presentingpapers about research on teaching or instruction to their peers who havesimilar interests in instruction research. What needs to take place iscommunication between these sub-groups so that it is possible to identifyareas of concern that both share and to locate information about techniquesor findings in one area that can be profitably translated into the scope ofthe other sub-group.

Recommendations related to the mechanics of research. Whatrecommendations should be made to researchers? A number of these have beenimplied in the preceding discussion.

o Researchers should be familiar with--and avoid committing--thoseerrors in research design and methodology elaborated by Curtis(1971b) (see page 95 in this review).

129

134

Researchers should be wary of the pitfalls related to research onteaching methods identified by McKeachie (1963) (see page 74 in thisreview).

Researchers need to make certain the instruments they use to measureoutcomes are valid, reliable, and appropriate for their purposes.They need to make certain there is a valid and logical connectionbetween the instructional procedures being used and the test(s)chosen to measure the effect(s) of these procedures.

Research needs to be done to develop more appropriate instrumentsfor measuring the various possible outcomes of laboratoryinstruction. Just as Kruglak worked to develop laboratoryperformance tests for use in college physics classes, other scienceeducators need to focus on laboratory performance tests for theother sciences and to develop such instruments at a levelappropriate for use with middle/junior high school and senior highschool science classes.

Long-term studies need to be done to determine the effects oflaboratory instruction. This may not be possible with a collegestudent population but such studies could be done as pupils movethrough their secondary education.

Researchers interested in the effect of science laboratory work onattitudes need to make a clear distinction concerning the type ofattitudes being studied, i.e., attitudes toward science orscientific attitudes.

More research needs to be done concerning the effects of laboratoryactivities in science on the performance of minority students aswell as on the performance of students classified as low-average orbelow-average in intelligence.

More research needs to be done in which the classroom climate andinstructional materials involved (textbooks, laboratory manuals,etc.) are studied to determine what effects these factors have onthe outcomes of laboratory instruction.

Communication channels need to be developed not only betweenresearchers and classroom teachers but between the varioussub-groups of researchers.

Those involved in research on the role of the laboratory need tomake certain that the objectives they postulate for laboratory workare both achievable and measurable within the constraints of theresearch design.

Research needs to be done in which such factors as students'preferred learning styles, locus of control, self-image areinvestigated related to their relationship to the outcomes of

laboratory instruction.

More research needs to be done with elementary school pupils in

activity-oriented science programs t- determine whether or not suchexperiences have any lasting influence as these students do, or donot, elect to take science at the secondary school level.

Research needs to be done to determine if participation inlaboratory science courses has any spill-over effects whicl-

influence students' behavior in their other courses.

Factors related to the schools. Data from the NSF studies,particularly from the national survey by Weiss (1978) and the case studiesby Stake et al. (1978) show that laboratory work and/or hands-on scienceactivities are used less frequently than science educators would desire.Teachers talk of student apathy and of problems involved in managinglaboratory activities, as well as in maintaining science facilities andreplacing equipment and supplies. The use of laboratory instruction and theinquiry approach appear to be diminishing. While laboratory-centeredscience courses are more difficult to teach than are those involvingprimarily teacher lecture and demonstration, the emphasis on accountabilityand the push for back-to-the-basics should not be used as convenientscape-goats for de-emphasizing laboratory work. Teachers and schools doneed to be held accountable. Schools need to be intellectually stimulatingplaces for both teachers and students.

Frequently the need to be accountable has been translated as the needfor an increase in test scores. However, complex ideas and relationshipsare difficult to test in a multiple-choice format and so the areasemphasized are those which can be measured by such tests. Over-reliance onthose aspects of the curriculum (in science or in any other subject) thatcan be most readily expressed in simple numerical scores sets limits onwhat is to be learned (What are the Needs. . ., 1980, p. 113).

Objectives for teaching science are broader than just the accumulationof a store of factual information (some of which rapidly becomesout-dated). Critical Oinking, problem solving, and getting a feeling forthe nature of science and the scientific enterprise should be a part of thegoals for teaching science. What happens to such goals and objectives whentests are written?

This problem was discussed at a conference on research and testing(Tyler and White, 1979). Tyler and White (p. 39) spoke to this point whenthey oiscussed science, citing some examples of science objectives; e.g.,

I) to understand certain basic scientific concepts and generalizationsand use them in observing and explaining natural phenomena,

2) to carry out inquiries seeking to understand puzzling naturalphenomena,

3) to make reasonable interpretations of data about natural phenomenaobtained from experiments,

131

1 3 6

4) to know and use dependable sources of information relating toscience, and

5) skill in the use of scientific instruments and other apparatus.

In discussing problems of testing, teaching, and learning, Tyler and Whiteidentified two assumptions that, in their opinion, continue to confuse andimpede the improvement of educational testing; i.e., (1) the notion thateducational objectives of schools and colleges are chiefly skills, and (2)the assumption that the student's attainment of the important educationalobjectives can be appraised by the use of paper and pencil tests.

Tyler and White do not consider either assumpticl to be tenable.According to them, the notion that a single test score can appraise eitherthe program or the student is an absurd conception. It should be obviousthat % paper and pencil test is unlikely to indicate the attainment of someof the goals they specified (pp. 39-41). Tyler and White have suggestedthat, in test construction, it is necessary to identify and define eachmajor educational objective students are expected to attain. However,often only the content to be covered is identified and not what thestudents are to do with the content.

This discussion can be related to the role of the laboratory throughthe finding that much of the research in this area has focused on themeasurement of cognitive gains -- through the use of paper _nd penciltests. If one is in agreement with Tyler and White's argument, it is notsurprising that these studies did not result in positive findings at alevel of significance.

Recommendations related to the schools. Teaching is a complexactivity. Individuals, both teachers and students, bring to theteachinglearning situation factors and variables that ace not alwayssubject to the control of the experimenter. However, when they havemeasured for intelligence, aptitude, or some other variables and appliedthe appropriate statistical analyses to the data, researchers frequentlyact as if they have a tightly controlled educational experiment. This isprobably naive.

As this review was being prepared, one of the questions which cameto mind was whether F fence teachers and science education researchersassumed different outcomes for the use of the laboratory. Do high schoolscience teachers and science educators make different uses of sciencesubject matter? How frequently are science teachers made real partners inthe research enterprise?

Research needs to be done to determine the amount of congruencebetween science teachers and science education researchersrelative to the anticipated outcomes for the use of thelaboratory in science classes.

Not only do researchers need to communicate the implicationsof their research for classroom practice, they also need

132

to work to make science teachers partners in their researchrather than only the objects of study.

Research needs to be done to determine the effects of barriers,real or perceived, to the use of science laboratory activitiesor handson science programs on the implementation and use ofsuch activities and programs.

Research needs to be done to determine if the speculation thatinquiry teaching is not appropriate for all students isvalid in terms of students' level of cognitive develcpment,ability to exercise selfdiscipline, etc.

Research needs to be done to develop methods fot assessingtne outcomes of laboratory instruction that are not measurableby paper and pencil tests.

Research needs to be done to identify laboratory activities thatwill enable average and belowaverage students to gain anunderstanding of science principles and processes underlyingthe technology with which they are familiar.

Research needs to be done to identify or to develop activitiesand mechanisms for use in teacher education programs (preserviceand inservice) that will enable science teachers to develop skillsin improvising so they are able to teach laboratorycenteredscience courses, even when faced with lack of funds for purchaseof materials and equipment.

and, finally,

RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE TO FIND OUT "WHAT PRACTICES AREEFFECTIVE WITH WHAT STUDENTS FOR WHAT PURPOSE UNDERWHAT CONDITIONS. 7." (What are the Needs. . .,1980, p. 177)

rather than continuing to attempt to prove that method X is superior tomethod Y.

1 3 3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Advisory Council on College Chemistry. "Alternatives and Supplements tothe Introductory Laboratory." Report of a Conference of the GeneralChemistry Committee. Washington, D.C., 1966. (Mimeographed.)

Allison, Robert D. "An Investigation into the Attitudes toward Science ofCollege Chemistry Students as a Function of Laboratory Experience."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 33: 7, p. 3422A, January, 1973.

American Association for the Advancement of Science Cooperative Committeeon the Teaching of Science and Mathematics. The Effectiveness ofScience Teaching, a forum held in cooperation with 1947 meeting ofthe American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago.

Anderson, Kenneth E. "An Annual Review of Research in Science Teaching,"Science Education 38(1): 6-38, February, 1954.

Anderson, Kenneth E. "Science Instruction and the Laboratory," SchoolScience & Mathematics XLIX (430): 367-370, May, 1949.

Anderson, Kenneth E., et al. "Second Annual Review of Research in ScienceTeaching." Science Education 38(5): 333-365, December, 1954.

Anderson, Ronald D. Review of Research in Science Education for the Year1971. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics andEnvironmental Education Research Review Series. science Paper 10,April, 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 077 775)

Anderson, Ronald D. "Using the Laboratory to Teach the Nature of Science,"The American Biology Teacher 30: 633-636, October, 1968.

Andrews, Donald H., Educating a Chemist. Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniversity, 1957.

Andriette, W. R. "Differences in Retention Between Populations of SeventhGrade Science Students Taught by Two Methods of Instruction: SmallGroup Laboratory and Teacher Demonstration." Dissertation Abstracts,

. Vol. 31: 6, p. 2753A, 1970.

Appleman, Ronald E. "A Comparative Study of the Cognitive Effects of theUse of Take Home Laboratory Materials on Student Achievement inCollege Level Physical Science Classes." Dissertation Abstracts,Vol. 28: 12, p. 4927A, June, 1968.

Atkin, J. Myron "Science in the Elementary School" Review of EducationalResearch 34(3): 263-272, June 1964.

Babikian, Yeghia. "An Empirical Investigation to Determine the RelativeEffectiveness of Discovery, Laboratory, and Expository Methods ofTeaching Science Concepts," Journal of Research in Science Teaching8(3): 201-209, 1971.

1 3 '4

I,133

Bailey, Orris G. "A Comparison of Achievement in the Concepts of Funda-mentals of Chemistry of Eleventh-Grade Senior Physical ScienceStudents Taught by Laboratory Versus Enriched Lecture-DemonstrationMethods of Instruction." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 26:3, p. 1442A,September, 1965.

Baillie, John H. Laboratory Experiences for Disadvantaged Youtn in theMiddle School. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 035 687)

Baker, Glenn E. "A Comparison of the Problem-Solving Method of ProjectConstruction and Conventional Methods in Teaching the Laboratory ofa College Course in Beginning Electricity." Dissertation Abstracts,Vol. 27: 10, p. 3354A, April, 1967.

Balzer, A. L., T. P. Evans, and P. E. Blosser. A Review of Research onTeacher Behavior Relating to Science Education. Columbus? OH: ERICClearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education,1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 087 638)

'Barnes, George, and George B. Barnes. "Students' Scores on Piaget-TypeQuestionnaires Before and After Taking One Semester of CollegePhysics," American Journal of Physics 46(8): 807-809, August,1978.

Barnes, Lehman W. Jr. "The Nature and Extent of Laboratory Instructionin Selected Modern High School Biology Classes." DissertationAbstracts, Vo. 27(9): p. 2931A, March, 1967.

Barnes, Lehman E., and Addison E. Lee. "The Development of a StudentChecklist to Determine Laboratory Practices in High School Bio106,..(Mimeographed, no date.)

Barnes, Marjorie R P. "An Experimer1Lal Study of the Use of ProgrammedInstruction in a Univerct:y Physical Science Laboratory."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 30: 5, p. 1907A, 1969.

Basmajian, Ronald K. "The Relationship between Piagetian CognitiveMaturity and Scholastic Success of Students Enrolled in an Audio-Tutorial Biology Program." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 39: 1,p. 210A, July, 1978.

Bates, Gary C. The Role of the Laboratory in Secondary School SciencePrograms," in What Research Says to the Teacher, ed. Mary Budd Rowe,Vol. I: 55-82, Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Associa-tion, 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 148 628)

Baxter, Kimball W. "A Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of ThreeMethods of Teaching a General Education Physical Science Course."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 30:2, p. 482-A, August, 1969.

Beasley, Warren F. "The Effect of Physical and Mental Practice of Psycho-motor Skills on Chemistry Student Laboratory Performance."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 39: 9, p. 5428A, March, 1979a.

135

140

Beasley, W. F. "Laboratory Psychom*otor Skill Development Using Physicaland Mental Practice Strategies," Research in Science Education (8):135-144, 1978.

Beasley, Warren F. "The Effect of Physical and Mental Practice of Psycho-motor 'skills on Chemistry Student Laboratory Performance," Journalof Research in Science Teaching 16(5): 473-479, 1979b.

Beisenherz, Paul C., and Roger G. Olstad. "The Use of Laboratory Instruc-tion in High School Biology," The American Biology Teacher 42(3):166-168, 175, March, 1980.

Belanger, Maurice. "Learning Studies in Science Education." Review ofEducational Research 39(4): 377-395, 1971.

Belanger, Maurice. "Methodology of Educational Research in Science andMathew,tics." Review of Educational Research 34(3): 374-390, June,1964.

Ben-Zvi, R., A. Hofs-_ein, D, Samuel, and R. F. Kempa. "The Attitude ofHigh School Students towards the Use of Filmed Experiments," Journalof Chemical Education 53(9): 575-576, Sept., 1976.

Berger, Toby E. "Evaluation of an Environmental Science Laboratory Curri-culum." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 33: 8, p. 4196A, Feb., 1973.

Beun, J. A. "Experiences With a Free Undergraduate Laboratory," AmericanJournal of Physics 39 (11): 1353-1356, Nov., 1971.

Bingham, N. Eldred and Joe Y. West. "Arms and Purpose of Science Teaching"Review of Educational Research 18(4): 297-314, October, 1948.

Bingman, Richard M. "Inquiry Objectives in the Teaching of Biology."Vol. I(2). Sept., 1969. Kansas City, MO: Mid-continent RegionalEducational Laboratory. (Position Paper.) (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 037 343)

Blackwood, Paul E. and Kenneth E. Brown. "Science Education ResearchStudies-1954." Science Education 39(5): 372-389, December, 1955.

Blick, David 1. "Digest of Investigations in the Teaching of Science,"1937 -1543. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut. (Mimeographed,no date.)

Blomberg, Karin J. "A Study of the Effectiveness of Three Methods forTeaching Science in the Sixth Grade." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol.35: 6, p. 3290, Dec., 1974.

Boeck, Clarence H. et al. "Fourth Annual Review of Research in ScienceTeaching." Science Education 40(5): 337-357, December, 1956.

Boenig, Robert W. Research in Science Education 1938 through 1947.New York: Teachers College Press, 1969.

136

Boghai, Davar M. "A Comparison of the Effects of Laboratory andDiscussion Sequences on Learning College Chemistry." Disserta-tion Abstracts, Vol. 39: 10, p. 6045A, April, 1979.

Boud, D. J., J. G. Dunn, and T. Kennedy. "Trends in the Teaching ofLaboratory Work," Journal of Chemical Education 57(6); 456-457,June, 1980.

Bradley, R. C., N. W. Earp, and Troy Sullivan. "A Review of Fifty Yearsof Laboratory Work," Science Education 50(2): 152-155, 1966.

Bradley, Robert H. "Is the Science Laboratory Necessary for GeneralEducation Science Courses?" Science Education 52(1): 58-66, Feb.,1968.

Bradley, Robert L. "Lecture Demonstration vs. Individual Laboratory Workin a Natural Science Course at Michigan State University." Disserta-tion Abstracts, Vol. 23: 12, p. 4568, June, 1963.

Brandwein, Paul, Jerome Metzner, Evelyn Morholt, Anne Rose, and WalterRosen. "Teaching High School Biology." A Guide to Working withPotential Biologists, Washington, D.C.: American Institute ofBiological Sciences, Biological Sciences Curriculum Study BulletinNo. 2, 1962.

Bredderman, Ted. "A Meta-Analysis of Elementary School Science ProcessCurriculum Studies, Preliminary Report." Paper presented at theannual meeting of American Educational Research Association, SanFrancisco, CA, April, 1979.

Breed, Frederick S. "Spelling, Handwriting, Social Studies, CharacterEducation, Geography, and Natural Science." Review of EducationalResearch 1(4): 276-293, October, 1931.

Briggs, Leslie J. and David Angell. "Programed Instruction in Scienceand Mathematics." Review of Educational Research, Vol. 34(3):354-373, June, 1964.

Bronowski, J. The Ccmmon Sense of Science. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1958.

Brosius, Edward J. "A Comparison of Two Methods of Laboratory Instruc-tion in Tenth-Grade Biology." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 26: 6,p. 3170A, 1965.

Brown, Kenneth E., Paul E. Blackwood, and Philip G. Johnson. "ScienceEducation Research Studies-1953." Science Education 39(2): 141-156, March, 1955.

Brown, Sanborn C. "Do College Students Benefit from High School Labora-tory Courses?" American Journal of Physics 26: 334-337, 1958.

137

142

Brown, William R. "Teacher Competencies and Characteristics in a SciencePreservice Teacher Education Project." Unpublished Doctor's disserta-tion, The Ohio State University, 1972. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 059 864)

BSCS "Human Sciences: A Developmental Approach to Adolescent Education."Boulder, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 1973. (ERICReproduction Service No. ED 079 107)

Buck, Jacqueline V. and George G. Mallinson. "Some Implications of RecentResearch in the Teaching of Science at the Elementary School Lew..."Science Education 38(1): 81-101, February, 1954.

Burnett, R. Will. "Academic and Professional Preparation ScienceTeachers." Review of Educational Research 34(3): 313-321,June, 1964.

Burnett, R. Will and Lillian Gragg. "Teacher Education in Science andMathematics." Review of Educational Research 18(4): 364-367,October, 1948.

Burnett, R. Will and Theodore Porowski. "Instructional Procedures inScience." Review of Educational Research 21(4): 264-278.October, 1951.

Buros, Oscar K., ed. The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook. HighlandPark, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1959.

Bybee, Rodger W. "The Effectiveness of an Individualized Approach to aGeneral Education Earth Science Laboratory," Science Education54: 157-161, 1970.

Calentine, Robert L. "A Comparative Study of Two Laboratory TeachingMethods." Final report, CORD Project. River Falls, WI: WisconsinState University, December, 1969. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 053 985)

California State Department of Education. "Science Curriculum Developmentin the Secondary Schools." Report of the Statewide Advisory Committeeon Science Instruction in the High School. Sacramento, CA: StateDepartment of Education, April, 1964.

Callahan, Joseph F., and Leonard H. Clark. Foundations of Education,Planning for Competence. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.,1977.

Campbell, Thomas C. "An Evaluation of a Learning Cycle InterventionStrategy for Enhancing the Use of Formal Operational Thought byBeginning College Physics Students." Dissertation Abstracts,Vol. 38: 7, p. 3903A, 1978.

Cannon, Richard A. "A Comparison of Two Laboratory Methods InvestigatingInterest and the Understanding of the Process of Science in a GeneralEducation Physical Science Course." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 36:7, p. 4379A, 1976.

138 14

Cavin, Claudin S. "A Study of Some Conputer Simulated Experiments in aCollege General Chemistry Laboratory Course." Dissertation Abstracts,Vol. 38(5): 2683A, November, 1977.

Charen, George. "Laboratory Methods Build Attitudes." Science Education50(1): 54-57, 1966.

Clark, George M. "Life Sciences in the Middle School." Boulder, CO:Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Center, Special PublicationNo. 7, 1969.

Cooley, W. and Leopold E. Klopfer. "The Evaluation of Specific EducationalInnovations," Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1: 73-80, 1963.

Comber, L. C., and J. P. Keeves. Science Education in Nineteen Countries,International Studies in Evaluation I. New York: John Wiley & Sons,Inc., 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 081 639)

Conway, Thomas E. "An Experimental Study Comparing Achievement andPreference Between a Traditional Method and a Programmed GeneralBiology Laboratory." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 28: 4, p. 1338A,1967.

Costa, Joseph J. "A Comparison of Achievement and Attitudes in CollegeChemistry Classes Having Direct Laboratory, Vicarious Laboratory orWritten Descriptive Narrative Laboratory Experiences." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 34: 7, p. 3903, 1974.

Coulter, John C. "The Effectiveness of Inductive Laboratory, InductiveDemonstration, and Deductive Laboratory Instruction in Biology."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 26(8): 4494A, February, 1966a.

Coulter, John C. "The Effectiveness of Inductive Laboratory-InductiveDemonstration, and Deductive Laboratory in Biology." Journal 017Research in Science Teaching 4: 185-186, 1966b.

Cravats, Monroe. "A Study of the Value of Laboratory Exercises in a

General Science Class of Low I.Q. Students in New York City."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 27: 7, p. 2133A, 1969.

Crawford, Eugene and DeWayne Backhus, "The Effect of the Laboratory onthe College Students' Understanding and Knowledge of PhysicalScience." Final Report, Project No. 8-F-075. Emporia, KS: KansasState Teachers College, 1970. (ERIC Document Peproduction ServiceNo. ED 042 609)

Cunningham, Harry A. "Lecture Demonstration Versus Individual LaboratoryMethod in Science Teaching--a Summary," Science Education 30(2):70-82, March, 1946.

Cunningham, John, and David P. Butts. A Summary of Research in ScienceEducation for the Years 1963-1964, Elementary School Level. Columbus,

1 3 9

OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and EnvironmentalEducation Research Review Series. Science Paper 5, January, 1970.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 040 304)

Curtis, Francis D. A Digest of Investigations in the Teaching of Sciencein the Elementary and Secondary Schools, New York: Teachers CollegePress, 1931, reprinted 1971,--.

Curtis, Francis D. "Curriculum Investigations at the Elementary-andSewondary-School Levels: Science," Review of Educational Research4(2): 165-167, April, 1934.

Curtis, Francis D. "Curriculum Investigations: Science," Review ofEducational Research 7(2): 162-164, April, 1937.

Curtis, Francis D. Second Digest of Investigations in the Teaching ofScience. New York: Teachers College Press, 1931, reprinted 1971b.

Curtis, Francis D. "Teaching of Science in Grades I through VI," Reviewof Educational Research 12(4): 369-374, October, 1942a.

Curtis, Francis D. "Teaching of Science in Grades VII, VIII, and IX,"Review of Educational Research 12(4): 375-384, October, 1942b.

Curtis, Francis D. Third Digest of Investigations in the Teaching ofScience. New York: Teachers College Press, 1938, reprinted 1971c.

Curtis, F. D. "Some Contributions of Educational Research to the Solutionof Teaching Problems in the Science Laboratory," A Program forTeaching Science, 31st Yearbook of the National Society for the Studyof Education, Part I, ed. G. M. Whipple. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press, 1932.

Curtis, Francis D. "Individual Laboratory Work Must Be Retained," TheScience Teacher 17(2): 63-64, 82, 84, 86, April, 1950.

Damewood, Judith C. "Evaluation of a Physical Science Course for Pros-pective Elementary Teachers in Terms of Competence Attained in theProcesses of Science." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 32: 6, p. 3112A,

' 1971.

Dawson, Joel C. "An Investigation of the Effects of Two SpecificInstructional Strategies--Guided-Decision-Making and Conven-tional Direction-Follpwing--on Critical Thinking Performanceand Knowledge of the Processes of Science of Students Engagedin a College Biology Laboratory Course." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 36: 6, p. 3538A, 1975.

Dearden, Douglas M. "An Evaluation of the Laboratory and SupplementaryTeaching Techiques Used in a College General Biology Course."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 20: 6, p. 2097A, 1959.

Dembo, Myron. Teaching for Learning: Applying Educational Psychology inthe Classroom. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Co., 1977.

140

1,15

Dettrick, Graham W. "The Performance of 9 to 12 Year Old Children onPrimary, Secondary and Multiplicative Classification Tasks: Implica-tions for Teaching and Curriculum Design," Research in ScienceEducation 8: 205-211, 1978.

Dickinson, Donald H. "Community College Students' Achievement andAttitude Change in Lecture 001y, Lecture-Laboratory Approach toGeneral Education Biological Science Courses." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 36: 9, p. 5908A, 1976.

Disinger, John F. "Student Development, Teacher Characteristics, andClass Characteristics in Junior High School Science." UnpublishedDoctor's dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1971. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 107 460)

Doran, Rodney L. "Assessing the outcomes of Science LaboratoryActivities," Science Education 62(3): 401-409, 1978.

Dorrance, Robert W. Jr. "Cognitive and Manipulative Skills as Outcomesof General Biology Laboratory Instruction." Dissertation Abstracts,Vol. 37: 1, p. 212-213A, 1975.

Downing, Elliot R. "A Comparison of the Lecture-Demonstration and theLaboratory Methods of Instruction in Science," School Review 33: 688-697, 1925.

Driscoll, Jerry A. "Development and Evaluation of Instructional TelevisionLaboratories for General Education Chemistry." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 35: 4, p. 2071, 1974.

Dubravcic, Milan. "Practical Alternatives to Laboratory in a BasicChemistry Course," Journal )f Chemical Education 56(4): 235-237,April, 1979.

Dyrli, Odvard Egil. "Should We Scrap Lab-Centered Science Programs?"Learning 39: 34-35, February, 1981.

Edgar, Irvin T. "A Study of the effects of Laboratory Centered Instruc-tion on Student Critical Thinking Skills and Attitudes in Biology."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 29: 11, p. 3910A, 1969.

Educational Policies Commission. Education and the Spirit of Science.Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1966.

Egelston, Judy C. "Inductive vs. Traditional Methods of Teaching HighSchool Biology Laboratory Ex?eriments," Science Education 57(4):467-477, 1973.

Egelston, Judy C. 'An Observational Investigation of Classroom BehaviorUnder the Inductive and Traditional Methods of Teaching High SchoolBiology Laboratories." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 32: 2, p. 818A,1971.

1 4 1

146

Eglen J. R., and Kempa R. F. "Assessing Manipulative Skills in PracticalChemistry," The School Science Review 56(195): 261-273, December,1974.

Emslie, Charles M. "Teaching Furth and Sixth Grade Science Using Labora-tory-Theory and Theory-Laboratory Sequence Methods of Instruction."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 32: 11, p. 6237A, 1972.

Engelhart, Max D. "Physical and Biological Sciences," Review of Educa-tional Research 2(1): 21-28, February, 1932.

Fay, Paul J. "The History of Chemistry Teaching in American High Schools,"Journal of Chemical Education 8(8): 1533-1562, August, 1931.

Fix, William T., and John W. Renner. "Chemistry and the Experiment in theSecondary Schools," Journal of Chemical Education 56(11): 737-740,November, 1979.

Fordham, Adrian. "The Interaction of Student Characteristics and ScienceTeaching on Student Perception of the Learning Environment," Researchin Science Education 8: 89-98, 1978.

Francis, Ernest E. "An Analysis of Achievement in a College BiologyAudio-Tutorial Program." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 37: 9,

p. 5727A, 1977.

Fraser, Thomas P. et al. "Review of Recent Research in the Teaching ofScience at the College Level." Science Education 39(5): 357-371,December, 1955.

Fraser, Thomas P. et al. "Symposium: Needed Research in Science Education"Science Education 40(5): 363-387, December, 1956.

Furhman, M., V. Lunetta, S. Novick, and P. Tamir. "The LaboratoryStructure and Task Analysis Inventory (LAI): A User's Handbook."Technical Report 14, Iowa City: Science Education Center, TheUniversity of Iowa, August, 1978. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 166 002)

Gabel, Dorothy, Martin H. Kagen, and Robert D. Sherwood. "A Summary ofResearch in Science Education-1978." New York: John Wiley & Sons,Science Education 64(4): 429-568, September, 1980.

Gagne, Robert M. "The Learning Requirements for Enquiry," Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching 1: 144-153, 1963.

Gallagher, James J. A Summary of Research in Science Education for theYears of 1968-1969 Elementary School Level. Columbus, OH: ERICClearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental EducationResearch Review Series. Science Paper 6, no date. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 005 099)

1 /4 2

Glass, Bentley. Remarks on the examination of the true function oflaboratory work for the student. Minutes of the AmericanInstitute of Biological Sciences Biological Sciences CurriculumStudy meeting of the Committee on Innovation in LaboratoryInstruction, August 5-8, 1959. Columbus, OH: SMEAC InformationReference Center, NSF Archives. (Mimeographed.)

Glovinsky, Sanford J. "The Status and Extent of Non-Laboratory ScienceCourses in the Science Education Program of Secondary Schools inSelected Major School Systems of the United States." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 23: 3, p. 952, 1962.

Godomsky, Stephen F. Jr. "Programmed Instruction, Computer-AssistedPerformance Problems, Open-Ended Experiments and Student Attitudeand Problem Solving Ability in Physical Chemistry Laboratory."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 31: 11, p. 5873A, 1971.

Good, H. G. A History of American Education. New York: The MacmillianCo., 1956.

Grosmark, Jay W. "The Relationship Between Achievement and LaboratorySkills to the Number of Experiments Performed by the High SchoolChemistry Student." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 34: 6, p. 3176,1973.

Grozier, Joseph E. Jr. "The Role of the Laboratory in DevelopingPositive Attitudes Toward Science in a College General EducationScience Course for Nonscientists." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 30:6, p. 2394A, 1969.

Gunsch, Leonhardt M. "A Comparison of Students' Acnievement and AttitudeChanges Resulting from a Laboratory and Non-Laboratory Approach toGeneral Education Physical Science Courses." Dissertation Abstracts,Vol. 33: 2, p. 6290, 1972.

Haley, Suzanne B., and Ronald G. Good. "Concrete and Formal OperationalThought: Implications for College Biology," The American BiologyTeacher 38: 407-412, 430, October, 1976.

Halyard, R. A., B. M. Pridemore, and C. B. Carpenter. "An Analysis ofan Individualized Biology Laboratory in a Junior College." (Mimeo-graphed, no date.)

Hamilton, Donald K. "The Relative Merits of Two Teaching Methods inImproving the Skills of Observation and Inference-Making of Seventhand Eighth Grade Science Students." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 27:10, p. 3340A, 1967.

Hammack, Jerry K. "A Comparative Study of the Effects of Self-Paced andLecture Laboratory Instruction or Achievement in General StudiesBiology." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 35: 7, p. 4187-4188A, 1975.

Haney, Richard, Donald Neuman, D. Clark, and C. Smith. A Summaryof Research in Science Education for the Years of 1965-1967,

143

Elementary School Level. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghousefor Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education ResearchReview Series. Science Paper 2, December, 1969. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 038 5',4)

Hartford, Frederick Wm. "Laboratory-Related Development of ResearchQuestioning Skills in Chemistry Students and Their Dependence UponPiagetian Intellectual Development." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 41(3): p. 1011A, September, 1980.

Hegarty, Elizabeth. "Levels of Scientific Enquiry in UniversityScience Laboratory Classes: Implications for CurriculumDeliberations," Research in Science Education 8: 45-57, 1978.

Helgeson, Stanley L., Patricia E. Blosser, and Robert W. Howe. TheStatus of Pre - College Science, Mathematics and Social StudiesEducation (195,-1975 Edition). Washington D.C.: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office. Science Education No. 78-73 (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 153 876)

Henry, Nelson B. Science Education in American Schools, 46th Yearbookof the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 194/.

Henry, Nelson B. Rethinking Science Education, 59th Yearbook of theNational Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press, 1960. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 012 233)

Herron, J. Dudley, H. H. Jaus, Van Neie, T. Luce, and T. O'Heroa. "ASummary of Research in Science Education 1974." Science Education,New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975.

Herron, Marshall D. "The Nature of Scientific Enquiry," The School Review79: 171-212, 1971.

Hincksman, N. G. "The Function of the School Laboratory." The AustralianScience Teachers Journal 60(19): 81-86, December, 1973.

Hittle, David R. "Directed Discovery, Form of Presentation, and LaboratorySchedule for Nonscience Students in the Freshman ChemistryLaboratory." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 30: 10, p. 4292A, 1970.

Hoff, Darrel B. "A Comparison of a Directed Laboratory Versus an EnquiryLaboratory Versus a Nonlaboratory Approach to General EducationCollege Astronomy." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 31: G, 2755A, 1970.

Hofstein, Avi, Ruth Ben-Zvi, and David Samuel. "The Measurement of theInterest in, and Attitudes to, Laboratory Work Amongst Israeli HighSchool Chemistry Students." Science Education 60(3): 401-411, 1976.

Hofstein, Avi, and Geoffrey Giddings. "Trends in the Assessment ofLaboratory Performance in High School Instruction." Technical Report

144

1d1

20, Iowa City: Science Education Cent:r, The University of Iowa,February, 1980.

Hofstein, Avi, and V. N. Lunetta. "The Role of the Laboratory in ScienceTeaching: Research Implications." Paper presented at the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching annual meeting, Boston,MA, April, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 188 912)

Holcomb, Charlie M. "The Effect of Degrees of Direction in the QualitativeAnalysis Laboratory on Retention of Learning," Journal of Research inScience Teaching 8(2): 165-169, 1971.

Holloway, Dennis Jr, "A Study of the Effects of the Thirteen CollegesCurriculum Program Open-Ended Laboratory Experiences on the CriticalThinking Abilities and Attitudes Toward Science of College Freshmen."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 36: 7, p.222A, 1976.

Hughes, James E. "A Comparison of Lab Method Films with TraditionalInstruction in the Introductory Physics Laboratory." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 32: 7, p. 3814, 1972.

Hughes, William R. "A Study of the Use of Computer Simulated Experimentsin the Physics Classroom." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 34: 8,p. 4910A, February, 1974.

Humphreys, Alan H. "A Critical Analysis of the Use of Laboratories andConsultants in Junior High School Science Courses." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 23: 5, p. 1623, 1962.

Hurd, Paul DeHart. "Biological Education in American Secondary Schools1890-1960." Washington, D.C.: American Institute of BiologicalSciences, Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, No. 1, 1961.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 010 991)

Hurd, Paul DeHart. Theory Into Action. Washington, D.C.: NationalScience Teachers Association, 1964. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 011 000)

Hurd, Paul DeHart, and Mary Budd Rowe. "Science in the Secondary School,"Review of Educationa. Research 34(3): 286-297, June, 1964.

Jacobson, Willard J. "Forty Years of Research in Science Education."Paper presented at the 47th annual Meeting of the National Associa-tion for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, Illinois, April, 1974.

Jeffrey, Jack C. "Evaluation of Science Laboratory Instruction," ScienceEducation 52(2): 186-194, March, 1967a.

Jeffrey, Jack C. "Identification of Objectives of the Chemistry Laboratoryand Development of Means for Measuring Student Achievement of Some ofThese Objectives." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 28: 5, p. 1732A,1967a.

1 4 5

.17,0

Jensen, Gary Dean. "The Development and Evaluation of Some Behaviora._Objectives for the Laboratory of a Non-Major College Level Course inGeneral Biology." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 33: 12, p. 3115A,

1973.

Johansen, Gerard T. Sr. "Analogue Models in the Laboratory Exercise: One

Method for Teaching to Think." Paper presented at the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching annual meeting, Boston,MA, April, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 186 253)

Johnson, Lloyd K., E. S. Obourn, and P. E. Blackwood. Research in theTeaching of Science (covers 1959-1963.) Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Health Education and Welfare, 1965. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 011 844)

Johnson, Philip G., ed. Science Education Research Studies - 1957.Washington, D.C: Office of Education Report No. 0E-Cir2.-334-111,February, 1952. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 011 846)

Johnson, Philip G. Science Education Research Studies 1952.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Education, Report No. 0E-334-IV, June,1953. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 011 846)

Johnson, Philip G. "Some RevoluLionary Changes in Science Education:1850-1950," Science Education: Past or Prologue, ed. Robert L.Steiner, p. 118-151. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science,Mathematics and Environmental Education, November, 1977.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 150 019)

Johnson, Philip G. "Some Developments in Science Teaching and Testing."School Science and Mathematics L(437): 187-199, March, 1950.

Johnson, Roger C. "Three Presentation Modes of Mechanics Experiments inCollege Physics." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 33: 7, p. 3425A, 1973.

Johnson, Roger T., F. L. Ryan, and Helen Schroeder. "Inquiry and theDevelopment ,-f Positive Attitudes," Science Education 58(1): 51-56,1974.

Jo/es, James E. "Computer-Simulated Experiments in High School Physics andChemistry." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 33: 8, p. 4200, 1973.

Jungwirth, E., A. Dreyfus, N. Umiel, and J. Broza. "How to Realize theEducational Potential of Laboratory Work in Genetics," Journal ofBiological Education 14(1): 29-35, 1980.

Kempa, R. F., and J. E. Ward. "The Effect of Different Modes of TaskOrientation on Observational Attainment in Practical Chemistry,"Journal of Research in Science Teaching 12(1): 69-76, 1975.

Kent, Richard B. "The Effect of Laboratory Procedure and Ability Groupingon Achievement in an Introductory Chemistry Laboratory." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 29: 8, p. 2608A, 1169.

15146

King, Charles R. "Implications of Literature and Comparison of Two Labora-tory Teaching Methods in General College Biology for Non-BiologyStudents: Demonstration Method and the Individual Laboratory Method."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 30: 2, p. 621A, August, 1969.

King, Thomas J. "A Study of the Effects of a Traditional and an Audio-tutorial Biology Laboratory on the Attitudes of Junior CollegeStudents Toward Biology." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 36: 4,p. 2122A, 1975.

Kline, Arlyn A. "A Study of the Relationship Between Self-Directed andTeacher-Directed Eighth Grade Students Involved in an Open-EndedSupplementary ESCP Laboratory Block," Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 8(3): 21,3-271, 1971.

Klopfer, Leopold E. "Evaluation of Learning in Science," Chapter 18,Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning,eds. Bloom, B. S., J. T. Hastings, and G. F. Madaus. New York:McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971.

Klopfer, Leopold E., and William W. Cooley. "The History of Science Casesfor High Schools in the Development of Student Understanding ofScience and Scientists," Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1:33-47, 1963.

Flopfer, Leopold E., et al. "History of Science Cases for High SchoolsTeachers' Guide for Case 3, The Discovery of Bromine." (Mimeographed)1960.

Kochendorfer, Leonard H. "A Comparative Study of the Classroom Practicesand Teaching Rationale of High School Biology Teachers Using DifferentCurriculum Materials." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 27(9): p. 2947A,March, 1967.

Kochendorfer, Leonard P., and Addison E. Lee. "The Development of aStudent Checklist to Determine Classroom Teaching Practices in HighSchool Biology." Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (Mimeo-graphed, no date.)

KOARU, John J. Jr. A Summary of Research in Science Education for theYears 1968-1969 College Level. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghousefor Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, ResearchReview Series, Science Paper 8, August, 1972. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 085 218)

Kruglak, Haym. "Measurement of Laboratory 'achievement. Part III. Paper-Pencil Analogs of Laboratory Performance Tests," American Journal ofPhysics 23: 82-87, 1955.

Kruglak, Haym. "Preparation and Publication of Laboratory Test Items forCollege Courses in General Physics." Report submitted to the NationalScience Foundation. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University,June, 1960.

147

Kruglak, Haym and Clifford Wall. "Laboratory Performance Tests for GeneralPhysics." Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, 1959.

Kyle, Wm. C. Jr., J. E. Penick, and J. A. Shymansky. "Assessing andAnalyzing the Performance of Students in College ScienceLaboratories." Journai of Research in Science Teaching 16(6):545-551, 1979.

Lancaster, Otis E. "Do We Believe in Laboratories," Engineering Education68(4): 289, 294, January, 1978.

Lancy, David F. The Beliefs and Behaviors of Pupils in an ExperimentalSchool: The Science Lab. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh,1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 127 400)

Lawlor, Elizabeth P. Research in Science Education 1953 through 1957.New York: Teachers College Press, 1970.

Ledbetter, J. C. "The Effects of Instrumentation of Freshman ChemistryLaboratory on Achievement and Interest in Chemistry." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 39: 8, p. 3195A, 1970.

Lee, Addison E. "Inventory Evaluation Potential - The BSCS LaboratoryBlock Program." Austin, TX: Science Education Center. (Mimeo-graphed, no date.)

Lee, Addison E. et al. Research Studies in College Science from July 1963to July 1964. Austin, TX: University of Texas, Science EducationCenter, 1965. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 011 836)

Lee, Addison E., and Glen E. Peterson, eds. Laboratory Blocks in theTeaching of Biology. Special Publication No. 5. Boulder, CO:Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 1967.

Lee, Janice T. "The Role of the Laboratory in Introductory College BiologyCourses." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 39: 5, p. 2855A, 1978.

Lee, Janice T. "The Role of the Laboratory in Introductory CollegeBiology Courses." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, North

. Carolina State University, 1978.

Lerch, Robert D. "Au Evaluation of the Divergent Physics Laboratory,"Science Education 57(2): 153-160, 1973.

Linn, Marcia C., Benjamin, Chen; and Herbert D. Thier. "Personalizationin Science: Preliminary Investigation at the Middle School Level."AESOP, Lawrence Hall of Science. Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia. (Mimeographed, no date.)

Lisonbee, Lorenzo, and Bill J. Fullerton. "The Comparative Effect ofBSCS and Traditional Biology on Student Achievement." Reprintfrom School Science and Mathematics, p. 594-598, October, 1964.

Little, Lawrence G., and Rob W. DeM Maclay. "Skills and Skills Testsin Experimental Physics," Research in SciencL Education 8: 145-156,1978.

Lucow, William H., and Kenneth E. Anderson. "The Methodology of Educa-tional Research in Science and Mathematics," Review of EducationalResearch 31(3): 331-340, June, 1961.

Lunetta, Vincent N. and P. Tamir. "An Analysis of Laboratory Activitiesin Two Modern Science Curricula: Project Physics and PSSC."Paper presented at National Association for Research in ScienceTeaching annual meeting, Toronto, April, 1978. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 184 816)

Lunetta, Vincent N., and P. Tamir. "Matching Lab Activities withTeaching Goals," The Science Teacher 46(5): 22-24, 1979.

Lunetta, Vincent N. "The Design and Evaluation of a Series of ComputerSimulated Experiments for Use in High School Physics." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 33: 6, p. 2785A, 1972.

Mallinson, George G. "A Summary of Research in Science Education-1975."Special issue of Science Education, New York: John Wiley & Sons,1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 148 602)

Mallinson, George G., and Jacqueline V. Buck. "Some Implications andPractical Applications of Recent Research in the Teaching of Scienceat the Secondary-School Level," Science Education 38(1): 58-81,February, 1954.

Mallinson, Jacqueline B. "What Have Been the Major Emphases in Researchin Elementary Science During the Past Five Years?" Science Education40(3): 206-208, April, 1956.

Mandell, Alan. "A Study of the Effect of Laboratory Experiences UponCritical Thinking Ability in a College Biology Course." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 27: 8, p. 2401A, February, 1967.

Manteufel, Mary S. "A Naturalistic and Experimental Study of the Processes. Used by Undergraduate General Biology Students in Formulating and

Conducting Investigations." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 41(1):p. 189A, July, 1980.

Marlow, Loran D. "The Development and Assessment of an Audio-VisualTutorial Laboratory Program Serving College-Level IntroductoryEarth Science." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 34: 9, p. 5993A, 1974.

Matala, Dorothy C., and C. G. McCollum. "Science in the ElementaryGrades," Review of Educational Research 27(4): 311-328, October,1957.

Mayer, William V. Biology Teachers' Handbook, 3rd edition. New York:John Wiley & Sons, 1978.

149

151

McClurgh, James E. "The Development and Experimental Evaluation of anOpen-Scheduled Auto-Tutorial Geology Laboratory." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 32: 3, p. 1358A, 1971.

McDermott, Lillian C., L. K. Piternick, and M. L. Rosenquist. "HelpingMinority Students Succeed in Science, II. Implementation of aCurriculum in Physics and Biology," Journal of College ScienceTeaching p. 201-205, March, 1980.

McKeachie, W. J. "Research on Teaching at the College and UniversityLevel," Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage.Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1963.

McKinnon, Joe W. "Encouraging Logical Thinking in Selected Pre-Engineering Students," Engineering Education 66(7): 740-744,April, 1976.

Meder, Elsa M. "The Science Curriculum," Review of Educational Research21(4): 249-263, October, 1951.

Michels, Walter C. "The 'Open Ended' Laboratory--Its Successes andProblems." Remarks from a panel discussion at Michigan StateUniversity, Oakland, February 10, 1962. NSF Archives titledocument. (Mimeographed.)

Miles, Vaden W., and W. C. Van Deventer. "The Teaching of Science at theCollege and University Level." Review of Educational Research 31(3):305-313, June, 1961.

Miller, Dorothy D. "The Effect of an Experimental A lroach to ScienceInstruction on the Achievement of Certain Sixth Grade Students."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 28: 4, p. 1212A, 1967.

Milson, James L. "Evaluation of the Effect of Laboratory-OrientedScience Curriculum Materials on the Attitudes of Students withReading Difficulties," Science Education 63(1): 9-14, 1979.

Mitchell, D. A. "The Production of Criteria for Evaluating ScienceCurriculum Materials with Specific Reference to Criteria forInquiry and the Application cf these Criteria to ChemistryCurriculum Materials," Research in Science Education 8: 59-69,1978.

Mitchell, Donald W. "A Comparative Study of Auto-Tutorial and"onventional Laboratory Approaches in College Biology." Disserta-tion Abstracts, Vol. 32: 4, p. 1882A, 1971.

Montean, John and John Butzow. A Summary of Research in Science Educationfor the Years of 1965-1967, College Level. Columbus, OH: ERICClearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental EducationReview Series. Science Paper 8, March, 1970. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 062 214)

150

l55-

Moyer, Albert E. "Edwin Hall and the Emergence of the Laboratory inTeaching Physics," The Physics Teacher 14(2): 96-103, Februiry, 1976.

Murphy, Glenn W. "A Study of the Relative Effectiveness of Content andProcess Centered Biology Laboratories for College Freshmen."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 31: 4, p. 1587A, 1970.

Namek, Yakub R. "The Effect of Tntegrated Laboratory Work on Achievementin Secondary School Chemistry." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. ?S:11, p. 4538A, 1968.

Napier, Edgar C. "A Laboratory Method of Instruction for Teaching Biologyto Disadvantaged Southern Youth." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 30: 6,p. 2262A, 1969.

National Association of Secondary-School Principals. "Science in SecondarySchools Today." The Bulletin of the National Association ofSecondary-School Principals, 37(191): 6-207, January, 1953.

National Catholic Educational Association. "Teaching Science in theCatholic High School" 22(2), July, 1964. Catholic High SchoolQuarterly Bulletin.

National Science Foundation. Early Adolescence Perspectives and Recom-mendations to the National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C.:National Science Foundation, September, 1978. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 168 900)

National Science Teachers Association, Committee on Curriculum Studies:K-12. "School Science Education for the 70's," The Science Teacherp. 46-50, November, 1971.

Newman, Robert L. "A Focus on Problems of National Interest in the CollegeGeneral Chemistry Laboratory: The Effects of the Problem-OrientedMethod Compared with those of the Traditional Approach." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 33: 11, p. 6068A, 1973.

Niedfeldt, Kenneth H. "Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Types ofLaboratory Activities in High School Chemistry Classes Using the CHEMProgram." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 29: 12, p. 4387A, 1969.

Novak, Joseph D. A Summary of Research in Science Education-1972.Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics andEnvironmental Education. December, 1973. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 090 055)

Obourn, Ellsworth S. et al. "Fifth Annual Review of Research in ScienceScience Education 41(5): 375-411, December, 1957.

Obourn, Ellsworth S., and Clarence H. Boeck. "Sixth Annual Review ofResearch in Science Teaching." Science Education 44(5): 374-399,December, 1960.

Obourn, Ellswortn S., P. E. Blackwood, and M. J. McKibben. Research inthe Teaching of Science, July 1957-July 1959. Washington, D.C.:

U. S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, 1962. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 011 835)

Office of Scientific Personnel. Guidelines for Development of Programs inScience Instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences,National Science Research Council, 1963. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 011 001)

Osborne, Roger. "Using Student Attitudes to Modify Instruction inPhysics," Journal of Research in Science Teaching 13(6): 525-531,1976.

Packard, Harry B. "The Design and Analysis of Laboratory Experiences forHigh School Physics." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 23: 12, p. 4623,1963.

Palmer, Ray A. "The Development of Selected Concepts by Students in BSCSBiology." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 27: 11, p. 3782A, May, 1967.

Parakh, Jal S. "Verbal Pupil-Behavior Category System," Mirrors forBehavior II, eds. Anita Simon and E. Gil Boyer. Philadelphia, PA:Classroom Interaction Newsletter c/o Research for Better Schools,Inc., pp. 62-1 - 62-5, 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 042 937)

Paulsen, Maryanne A. "Effects of Three Instructional Approaches (Lecture-Only, Lecture-Laboratory, and Lecture-Delayed Laboratory) on Commu-nity College Students' Achievement in a General Education Environ-mental Science Program," Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 39: 9,p. 5358A, March, 1979.

Pella, Milton O. "The Laboratory and Science Teaching." The ScienceTeacher 28(5): 29-31, September, 1961.

Pella, Milton 0., and Jack Sherman. "A Comparison of Two Methods ofUtilizing Laboratory Activities in Teaching the Course IPS,"School Science and Mathematics 69(4): 303-314, April, 1969.

Peterson, Rita, and Gaylen R. Carlson. "A Summary of Research inScience Education-1977." Special issue of Science Education,New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.

Pickering, Miles. "Are Lab Courses a Waste of Time?" From columnentitled "Point of View," The Chronicle of Higher Educationp. 80, February 19, 1980.

Platts, C. V. "Recording Science Lessons on Cine Film and the Analysisof Such Records," School Science Review 58(202): 5-11, September,1976.

Powers, Samuel R. "Science,"February, 1935.

Powers, Samuel R. "Science,"February, 1938.

Review of Educational Research 5(1): 70-74,

Review of Educational Research 8(1): 60-66,

Powers, Samuel P.., and David J. Buick. "Teaching of Science in SeniorHigh School and Junior College." Review of Educational Research15(4): 301-309, October, 1945.

Powers, Samuel R., and Vivian Edmiston. "Overview of the Period,"Review of Educational Research 12(4): 363-368, October, 1942.

Pringle, Rhodell, and Ashley G. Morgan. "The Effects of Laboratory-Oriented Experiences in SCIS on the Stabilicy of Cognitive Styleof Teachers," Journal of Research in Science Teaching 15(1):47-51, 1978.

Raghubir, Karran. "The Laboratory-Investigative Approach to ScienceInstruction," Journal of Research in Science Teaching 16(1):13-17, 1979.

Rainey, Robert G. "The Effects of Directed Versus Non-Directed Labora-tory Work on High School Chemistry Achievement." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 24: 1, p. 146A, 1963.

Ramsey, Gregor A., aad R. W. Howe. "An Analysis of Research Related toInstructional Procedures in Elementary School Science," Scienceand Children pp. 25-36, April, 1969.1.

Ramsey, Gregor A., and R. W. Howe. "An Analysis of Research nn Instruc-tional Procedures in Secondary School Science, Part I - Outcomesof Instruction," The Science Teacher pp. 62-70, March, 1969a.

Ramsey, Gregor A., and R. W. Howe. "sal Analysis of Research on Instruc-tional Procedures in Secondary School Science, Part II - Instruc-tional Procedures." The Science Teacher pp. 72-81, April, 1969c.

Rasmussen, F. A. "Matching Laboratory Activities with BehavioralObjectives," Biological Science 20(5): 292-294, March 1, 1970.

Reach, Roy W. "A Comparison of Two Methods of Conducting a Basic CircuitAnalysis Engineering Technology Laboratory Course in an Ohio Two-YearTechnical College." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 38(5): 2531A,November, 1977.

Reif, F., and M. St. John. "Teaching Physicists' Thinking Skills in theLaboratory." American Journal of Physics 47(11): 950-957, November,1979.

Renner, John W., M. R. Abraham, and D. G. Stafford. "A Summary of Researchin Science Education-1976." Special issue of Science Education, NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 157 798)

Rentoul, A. J., and B. J. Fraser. "Measuring Perceptions of Inquiry andOpen Learning Environments," Research in Science Education 8: 79-88,1978.

153

Requa, Lyle K. "An Analysis of Two Methods of Teaching Biological SciencesLaboratory." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 27: 12, p. 4173A, 1967.

Richardson, John S. et al. "Materials in the Teaching of Science." Reviewof Educational Research 21(4): 279-289, October, 1951.

Richardson, John S., and J. Darrell Barnard. "Methods and Materials in theTeaching of Science." Review of Educational Research 18(4): 323-336,October, 1948.

Richmond, P. E. "Who Needs Laboratories?" Physics Education 14(6):349-350, September, 1979.

Robertson, Harold F. "A Study of the Effect Introductory Physical ScienceProduces in Students' Abilities in Selected Areas of Physics."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 33: 4, p. 1542, October, 1972.

Robinson, James I. "Evaluating Laboratory Work in High School Biology,"The American Biology Teacher 31: 236-240, April, 1969.

Robinson, James T. "Philosophical and Historical Bases of ScienceTeaching." Review of Educational Research 39(4): 459-472, October,1969.

Rogers, Ralph. "A Comparison of Two Methods of Science Instruction in a

College General Studies Program: A Laboratory-Centered Approach anda Group Discussion Approach." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 32: 8,p. 4252, February, 1972.

Rosen, Sidney. "A History of the Physics Laboratory in the American PublicHigh School (to 1910)," American Journal of Physics 22: 194-204,1954.

Ross, Jean F. 'Genetics Instruction: Audio-Tutorial Laboratory ApproachCompared to Traditional Methods." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 39:1, p. 212A, 1978.

Rowbotham, Noel D. "The Comparison of an Auto-Tutorial Laboratory and aTraditional Laboratory in Physical Science." Dissertation Abstracts,Vol. 30: 7, p. 2730A, 1970.

Rowe, Mary Budd, ed. What Research Says to the Science Teacher, Vol. I.

Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1978.

Rowe, Mary Budd, and Linda DeTure. "A Summary of Research in ScienceEducation 1973." Special issue of Science Education, New York:John Wiley & Sons, 1974. (ERIC Document Rerroduction Service No.ED 113 140)

Rowsey, Robert E. "A Comparative Study of Two Methods cf Instruction in aUniversity Animal Biology Course: Audio-Tutorial with ConventionalLecture-Laboratory." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 34: 6, p. 3182A,1973.

154.,

1::;1

Rozolis, James T. "A Comparison of Traditional High School Biology Coursesand the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Program of Courses,"Bioscience pp. 315-323, May, 1967.

Sagness, Richard L. "A Study of Selected Outcomes of a Science Pre-ServiceTeacher Education Project Emphasizing Early Involvement in Schools ofContrasting Environmental Settings." Unpablished Doctor's disserta-tion, The Ohio Stdte University, 1970. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 052 994)

Saunders, W. L., and D. H. Dickinson. "A Comparison of Community CollegeStudents' Achievement and Attitude Changes in a Lecture-Only andLecture-Laboratory Approach to General Education Biological ScienceCourses," Journal of Research in Science Teaching 16(5)" 459-464,1979.

Schwab, Joseph J. "The Teaching of Science .s Enquiry." The Teaching ofScience, Cambtidge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964.

Science Education: Accomplishment and Needs, A Working Paper. Columbus,OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and EnvironmentalEducation, December, 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 171 571)

Seal, Charles W. "Two Methods of Teaching a General Biology Course in aCommunity College: Audio-Tutorial with Conventional Lecture-Labora-tory." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 37: 9, p. 5729A, 1977.

Serlin, Ronald C. "The Effects of a Discovery Laboratory on the ScienceProcess, Problem-Solving, and Creative Thinking Abilities of Under-graduates." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 37: 9, p. 5729, 1977.

Shaver, Paul M. "A Study of the Effectiveness of an Independent StudyProgram for a Beginning Course in Earth Science." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 31: 1, p. 310A, 1970.

Sherman, Jack E. "The Relative Effectiveness of Two Methods of UtilizingLaboratory-Type Activities in Teaching Introductory Physical Science."Dissertation Abstracts, vol. 29: 12, p. 4391A, 1969.

Sherman, Jack E. "The Relative Effectiveness of Two Methods of UtilizingLaboratory-Type Activities in Teaching Introductory Physical Science."Technical Report No. 65. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.Wisconsin Research & Development Center for Cognitive Learning,November, 1968.

Shulman, Lee S., and Evan R. Keislar. Learning By Discovery: A CriticalAppraisal. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1966. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 015 504)

Shulman, Lee S., and Pinchas Tamir. "Research on Teaching in the NaturalSciences," in Second Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. Robert M.W. Travers. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1973.

155

Shymansky, James A., and John E. Penick. "Use of Systematic Ooservationsto Improve College Science Laboratory Instruction," Science Education63(2): 195-203, 1979.

Simon, Anita, P.,,e, E. Gil Boyer. Mirrors for Behavior II. Volumes A and B.Philadelphia, PA: Classroom Interaction Newsletter c/o Research forBetter Schools, Inc., 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 042 937

Simpson, Faril. "The Effect of the Laboratory in Achieving General Educa-tion Objectives in a College Physical Science Course." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 30(7): 2915A, January, 1970.

Simpson, Joyce K., and Jerry L. Gallentine. "Representational VersusAnalytic Drawings in the Laboratory," The American Biology Teacher33(7): 419-420, October, 1971.

Smith, Alden E "An Experimental Study of the Use of an Extended Labora-tory Problem in Teaching College General Biology to Non-Majors."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 32: 3, p. 1403A, 1971.

Smith, Herbert A., and Guy B. Homman. "The Academic and ProfessionalPreparation of Teachers of Science." Review of Educational Research31(3): 289-295, June, 1961.

Smith, Herbert A., and Nathan S. Washton. "Science in the SecondarySchools." Review of Educational Research 27(4): 343-355, October,1957.

Smith, Herbert E., et al. "Third Annual Review of Research in ScienceTeaching." Science Education 39(5): 335-356, December, 1955.

Smith, Melvin O. "A Comparison of Two Laboratory Methods for the Teachingof General Physical Science at the College Level: VicariousExperimentation Versus Conventional Experimentation." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 32: 9, p. 5116, 1972.

Snyder, Jack R. "Effect of Adding the Problem Solving Project Techniqueto a Lecture Laboratory Method in Teaching College Biology."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 21: 9, p. 2639A, 1961.

Sorensen, LaVar L. "Change in Critical Thinking Between Students inLaboratory-Centered and Lecture-Centered Patterns of Instructionin High School Biology." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 26: 11,p. 6567A, 1966.

Spears, Jacqueline, and Dean Zollman. "The Influence of Structured VersusUnstructured Laboratory on Students' Understanding the Process ofScience," Journal of Research in Science Teaching 14(1): 33-38, 1977.

Spreadbury, Wendall N. "A Comparison of Three Methods of Tn,;truction inScience Relative to the Interpretation of ExperimentJ. Data."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 30: 3, p. 1058A, 1969.

156

1.6 i

IIN=1.

Stake, Robert E., Jack Easley, et al. Case Studies in Science EducationVolume I: The Case Reports. Washington, D.C.: U. S. GovernmentPrinting Office. Science Education No. 78-74, 1978a. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 166 058)

Stake, Robert E., Jack Easley, et al. Case Studies in Science EducationVolume II: Design, ONerview and General Findings. Washington, D.C.:U. S. Government Printing Office, 1978b. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 166 059)

Stake, Robert and Jack Easley. "Case Studies in Science EducationExecutive Summary (Chapter 19), in The Status of Pre-College Science,Mathematics, and Social Studies Educational Practices in U.S.Schools: An Overview and Summaries of Three Studies. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, July, 1978c.

Steele, Robert W. "Development and Evaluation of an Individualized Self-Paced Physics Course for Non-Science Majors." Dissertation Abstracts,Vol. 35: 7, pp. 4274-4275A, 1975.

Stekel, Frank D. "Development of a More Flexible Physical Science Labora-tory Program for Non-Science Majors with Superior High School ScienceBackgrounds." Whitewater, Wisconsin State University Whitewater. TheWisconsin State Universities Consortium of Research Development, June,1969. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 053 987)

Stekel, Frank D. "The Effects of Increasing the Student Involvement in aCollege Physical Science Laboratory Program." Dissertation Abstracts,Vol. 31: 1, p. 5880A, 1971.

Stollberg, Robert and Theodore Benjamin. Planning for Excellence in HighSchool Science. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Associa-tion, 1961.

Strehle, Joseph A. "The Comparative Achievement of Seventh Grade Explora-tory Science Students Taught by Laboratory Versus Enriched Lecture-Demonstration Methods of Instruction." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol.25: 4, p. 2386, 1964.

Strait, Dewey B., and Max D. Engelhart. "A Critical Summary of the Researchon the Lecture-Demonstration Versus the Individual-Laboratory Methodof Teaching High School Chemistry," Science Education 16(5): 380-391,October, 1932.

Sullivan, Daniel J. "An Exploratory Study of Specific Psychom*otorAbilities in Selected Secondary Science Laboratory Oriented Classrooms of Detroit, Michigan." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 33: 5,p. 2090, 1972.

Sund, Robert B., and Leslie W. Trowbridge. Teaching Science by Inquiry.Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1967.

157

Sundberg, Randell L. "The Effectiveness, Upon Students Majoring inElementary Education, of Three Different Experimental Problem-Solving Processes for the College Physics Laboratory." Disserta-tion Abstracts, Vol. 32: 1, p. 270A, 1971.

Sutton, Traver C. "Laboratory Work is Essential," School Science andMathematics XLIX(430): 351-358, May, 1949.

Swift, J. Nathan. Research in Science Education 1948 through 1952.New York: Teachers College Press, 1969.

Tamir, Pinchas. "How are Laboratories Used?" Journal of Research inScience Teaching 14(4): 311-316, 1977.

Tamir, Pinchas. "The Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching."Technical Report No. 10. fowa City, IA: The University of Iowa,November, 1976.

Tamir, Pinthas. "Nurturing the Practical Mode in Schools," School Review83: 499-506, May, 1975.

Tamir, Pinchas. "The Practical Mode - A Distinct Mode of Performance inBiology," Journal of Biological Education 6: 175-182, 1972.

Tamir, Pinchas, and F. Glassman. "A Practical Examination for BSCSStudents: A Progress Report," Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 8(4): 307-315, 1971.

Taylor, Wayne, et al. Review of Research Studies in Science Education.East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 1966. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 021 235)

Thornton, John W. The Laboratory: A Place to Investigate. Washington,D.C.: Commission on Undergraduate Education in the BiologicalScience, Publication No. 33, April, 1972. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 064 112)

Thorsland, Martin N. "Formative Evaluation in an Audio-Tutorial PhysicsCourse with Emphasis on Intuit..ve and Analytic Problem SolvingApproaches." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 32: 9, p. 4931A, 1972.

Toohey, Jack V. "The Comparative Effects of Laboratory and LectureMethods of Instruction in Earth Science and General Science Classes."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 24: 8, p. 3247, 1964.

Townes, James H. "An Experimental Comparison of Two Laboratory Approachesfor Teaching General Physical Science at the College Level: VicariousLaboratory Method and Conventional Laboratory Method." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 36: 11, p. 7176A, 1976.

Travers, Robert M. W. ed. Second Handbook of Research on Teaching.Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1973.

158 163

Trowbridge, Leslie W., J. R. Anderson, and J. E. Rahn. A Summary ofResearch in Elementary, Secondary, and College Levels of ScienceEducation for 1970. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science,Mathematics and Environmental Education, Research Review Series.Science Paper 9, September, 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 085 219)

Tyler, Ralph W., and Sheldon H. White. Testing, Teaching and Learning.Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,and National Institute of Education, October, 1979. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 181 080)

Uricheck, Michael J. "The Effect of Verbal Interaction on the Achievementof Specific Skills in the Introductory College Chemistry Laboratory."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 32: 3, p. 1362A, 1971.

Vander Wal, Judson M. "The Relationships Between Two Methods ofTeaching College Biology in Achievement and Attitude." Disserta-tion Abstracts, Vol. 34: 1, p. 215A, 1973.

Van Deventer, W. C. "The Teaching of Science at the College and UniversityLevel." Review of Educational Research 34(3): 334-346, June, 1964.

Venkatachelam, Chaya, and R. W. Rudolph. "Cookbook Versus CreativeChemistry," Journal of Chemical Education 51(7): 479-482, July, 1974.

Walberg, Herbert J., and Gary T. Anderson. Learning Environment Inventory(1967-68 Edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Harvard Pro-ject Physics, 1968. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 131997)

Walsh, Robert G. "The Keller Plan in College Introductory PhysicalGeology: A Comparison with the Conventional Teaching Method."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 37: 7, p. 4257A, 1977.

Ward, Charles R. "Designing General Chemistry Laboratory Experiments forthe Enhancement of Cognitive Development." Dissertation Abstracts,Vol. 39: 9, p. 5424A, 1979.

Watson, Fletcher G. "Research on Teaching Science," Handbook of Researchon Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1963.

Weiss, Iris R. Report of the 1977 National Survey of Science, Mathematics,and Social Studies Education. Washington, D.C.: U. S. GovernmentPrinting Office. Science Education No. 78-72, 1978. (ERIC DocumentReproduct!.on Service No. ED 152 565)

Welch, Wayne A. A Long Term Study of the Stability of Learning Environ-ments. Research Paper No. 6. Minneapolis, MN: The University ofMinnesota, November, 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 161 685)

159

Welch, Wayne W. "The Development of an Instrument for InventoryingKnowledge of the Processes of Science." (Mimeographed, no date.)

Welch, Wayne W. Review of the Research and Development Program of HarvardProject Physics. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Education, Mathematics ,end Environmental F,ducation, Occasional PaperSeries. Science Paper, December, 1971b. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 059 887)

Welch, Wayne W. Five Years of Evaluating Federal Programs -- Implications

for the Future. Research Paper No. 22, Minnesota Research andEvaluation Project, College of Education. Minneapolis, MN: The

University of Minnesota, April, 1976.

Welch, Wayne W. A Summary of Research in Science Education for the Yearsof 1963-1969, Secondary School Level. Columbus, OH: ERIC

Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education,Research Review Series. Science Paper i, June, 1971a. (ER1C DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 052 051)

Westmeyer, Paul, William R. Snyder, and William S. LaShier, Jr. A Summaryof Research in Science Education for the Years 1965-1967, SecondaryLevel. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics

-and Environmental Education, Research Review Series. Science Paper1, September, 1969. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED035 775)

What are the Needs in Precol,ege Science, Mathematics, and Social ScienceEducation? Views from the Field. Washington, D.C.: National ScienceFoundation. Science Education No. 80-9, 1980. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 193 051)

Wheatley, John H. "A Scheme for Evaluating the AudioTutorial BiologyJ.aboratory in the Cognitive and Affective Domains." DissertationAbstracts, Vol. 33: 9, p. 4971A, 1973.

Wheeler, Betty L. et al. "Research in Science Teaching at the ElementaryGrade Levels." Science Education 46(2): 133-139, March, 1962.

White, Richard T. "Relevance of Practical Work to Comprehension ofPhysics," Physics Educatio'i 14(6): 384-387, September, 1979.

Whitney, Chester B. "The Effect of General College Physics LaboratoryInstruction on Selected Student NonAcademic Characteristics."Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 26:6, p. 3198A, December, 1965.

Whitten, Maurice M. "Changes in Understanding of the Nature of Scienceand in Critical Thinking Resulting from Two Different Physical ScienceCourses." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 32: 3, 1363A, 1971.

Wilbur, Norma J. L. "The Science Laboratory as a Learning Environment:An Exploratory Investigation." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 38: 3,

p. 1262A, 1977.

160 lop-14,1)

Woodburn, John H., and Ellsworth S. °bourn. Teaching the Pursuit ofScience. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1965.

Yager, Robert E., Harold B. Engen, and Bill C. F. Snider. "Effects of theLaboratory and Demonstration Methods Upon the Outcomes of Instructionin Secondary Biology," Journal of Research in Science Teaching 6:76-86, 1969.

Yett, James W., and Joseph F. X. McCarthy. "Do High School ChemistryStudents Really Learn Lab Skills?" Journal of College ScienceTeaching pp. 100-101, November, 1977.

Yett, James William Jr. "Relationship Between Success in General CollegeChemistry Laboratory and Secondary School Chemistry LaboratoryExperience." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 37: 2, p. 905, 1976.

Zingaro, Joseph S. "An Experimental Comparison Between Two Methods ofTeaching College Sophom*ores the Interrelationship of PhysicochemicalPrinciples in Physical Science." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 27:4, p. 1004A, 1966.

1 6 1

A Critical Review of the Role of the Laboratory in - CiteSeerX - [PDF Document] (2024)