essay on science lab in school

Call Us - 800-545-8816, we ship and install nationwide

• Exploring the Role of Science Laboratories in Modern Schools

It is essential to foster a deep and enduring passion for science among students in the ever-evolving landscape of education. The role of science laboratories in modern schools is essential if we want to equip the next generation with the skills and knowledge necessary to tackle ever-increasing global challenges.

Establishing well-equipped science laboratories and chemistry laboratories within modern schools is an important aspect of achieving this goal. In these laboratories, students absorb theoretical knowledge and actively engage in hands-on experiments on modern laboratory equipment, which propels them into the realm of scientific exploration.

This article delves into the diverse significance of school science laboratories in contemporary educational settings, arguing for their indispensable inclusion in schools to foster a new generation of curious minds. We’ll also compare laboratory instruction methods of past and contemporary schools.

The Role of Science Laboratories in Modern Schools

In modern schools, science laboratories play a crucial role in providing students with hands-on experiences and practical applications of scientific concepts. The role of science laboratories in schools includes cognitive, practical, and affective aspects that help students learn and grow. Here are some key roles:

1. Experiential Learning

Laboratories provide students with the opportunity to engage in experiential learning, enabling them to observe, experiment, and discover scientific principles on a firsthand basis. This hands-on approach helps students understand and remember concepts better than learning only in theory.

2. Theoretical Knowledge Application

The students will be able to apply theoretical knowledge gained in science classrooms to real-world scenarios in laboratories. Laboratories provide students with the opportunity to witness and experience the practical application of the theoretical concepts taught in the classroom. This helps students understand scientific concepts and see their relevance in practical situations.

3. Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving

Science laboratories teach students how to think critically and solve problems by guiding them through experiments, looking at data, and making conclusions. These skills are essential for success in scientific fields and are transferable to various aspects of life.

4. Practical Skills Development

Laboratory work encourages the development of various skills, such as observation, measurement, data analysis, and interpretation. Students learn how to use scientific equipment, do experiments, make observations, and record data. These abilities are highly valuable in both academic and professional settings.

5. Encouragement of Curiosity and Interest

Lab environments stimulate students’ curiosity and interest in science by providing a dynamic and interactive environment. Engaging in experiments can spark a passion for scientific inquiry and discovery. Students are encouraged to ask questions, design their own experiments, and explore the world of science beyond the confines of textbooks.

6. Preparation for Higher Education and Careers

Practical experience in modern laboratories prepares students and equips them with the skills required for more advanced science courses and other advanced studies and careers in STEM-related fields that include science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

7. Safety Awareness

Understanding and following safety guidelines are essential skills that learners can carry into various scientific and workplace contexts, and not only in laboratory settings. The controlled environment of laboratories allows students to learn about and practice safety protocols.

8. Teamwork and Collaboration

Interpersonal skills are valuable in both academic and professional settings. Many laboratory activities involve group work, which is an ideal way to foster teamwork, communication, and collaboration among students.

9. Technology Integration

By incorporating cutting-edge technologies in learning experiences, modern science laboratories allow students to interact with advanced equipment and tools. This exposure helps them stay abreast of technological advancements in the various scientific fields.

10. Assessment of Understanding

The activities of learners in laboratories allow science and chemistry teachers to assess students’ understanding of scientific concepts in a practical context. This form of assessment complements traditional testing methods.

Effective laboratory learning includes effective synthesis. A strong foundation in research skills is often linked to effective synthesis. This includes the ability to find relevant information, assess its credibility, and incorporate it into your synthesis.

In short, with clever lab planning , science labs in modern schools help students learn better by making learning fun and engaging. This helps them understand science better and prepares them for future studies and careers.

The Role of Science Laboratories in Schools — 20th Century vs. 21st Century

Laboratory activities have been a part of the science curriculum for a long time as a way to understand the natural world. Since the 19th century, when schools began systematic science education, the role of the laboratory has emerged as a distinctive aspect of chemistry education. This is also explored in a 2021 DOI publication of Teaching and Learning in the School Chemistry Laboratory, by Avi Hofstein and Muhamad Hugerat.

Case studies show that, after the First World War, scientific knowledge needed rapid expansion. Laboratory work primarily involved verifying and illustrating information previously acquired through lectures or textbooks.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, published a journal of research in 2006: The America’s Lab Report : Investigations in High School Science, Washington, DC. The report states, “Historically, laboratory experiences have been separated from the flow of classroom science instruction and often lacked clear learning goals.”

Effective pedagogy considers the needs, interests, and abilities of learners, aiming to create an engaging and supportive learning environment. The role of science laboratories in American schools has evolved significantly from the previous century to the 21st century. Curriculum development is driven by educational research and advancements in technology.

Researchers aim to bring about changes in educational philosophies, improved learning outcomes, and a more in-depth understanding of effective science teaching methods. Here’s a comparison between the roles of science labs in schools from the previous century and those in modern schools:

Science Laboratories in 20th Century Schools

• Limited Technology Integration: In the previous century, laboratory teaching of high school chemistry and science experiments in science laboratories often relied on basic equipment and manual measurement tools. This was due to limited access to advanced technologies.
• Replication of Experiments: Science teachers emphasized reinforcement of theoretical knowledge rather than encouraging independent inquiry. They focused on replicating known experiments and validating established scientific principles.
• Teacher-Centric Approach: Teaching science in laboratories was often teacher-centric, with instructors demonstrating experiments to explain the science process to students. Learner experience was more passive, observing rather than actively participating in the experimental process.
• Isolation of Disciplines: Interdisciplinary approaches were not common. Laboratories were organized into specific scientific disciplines, with clear distinctions between physics, chemistry, and biology.
• Limited Access to Resources: Schools had limited access to resources and materials for experiments. Learners typically had to share equipment, and laboratories were not always well-equipped.
• Paper-Based Documentation: Students used laboratory notebooks for data recording and analysis on paper, and analyzing the results was a manual process.

Science Laboratories in 21st Century Schools

• Advanced Technology Integration: Science laboratories in modern schools allow more sophisticated and dynamic experiments. They integrate advanced technologies, including computer simulations, digital data collection tools, virtual reality, and other interactive resources.
• Inquiry-Based Learning: The modern learning environment focuses on fostering critical thinking and problem-solving skills. There is a shift towards inquiry-based learning, encouraging students to formulate questions, design experiments, and draw conclusions.
• Student-Centric Approach: Modern laboratories are designed to be more student-centric and collaborative. The learners are actively engaged in hands-on activities, working in groups to explore and discover scientific concepts.
• Comprehensive Approaches: The fact that students may engage in experiments that bridge multiple scientific disciplines reflects the interconnected nature of scientific knowledge.
• Global Access to Resources: Global connectivity enhances the range and depth of experiments that students can explore. With the internet, modern schools have access to a wealth of online resources, databases, and virtual labs.
• Digital Documentation and Analysis: Digital platforms have replaced traditional methods of data recording and analysis. Learners with access to modern science laboratories can easily share and collaborate on results by using computer software for analysis, and then present the results in digital formats.
• Focus on Real-World Applications: Practical laboratory work in modern schools emphasizes the application of scientific methods and concepts to real-world scenarios. This approach helps students visualize the relevance of their learning beyond science classrooms.
• Safety and Ethics: Modern laboratories are increasingly concerned with safety and ethical considerations. Schools place a high priority on establishing a secure setting and informing students about the ethical implications of their experiments.
• Global Collaboration: With advancements in communication technologies, students can collaborate on scientific projects with peers from around the world. This promotes a global perspective on scientific inquiry.

In summary, the role of science laboratories in schools has undergone a transformative shift from the previous century to the 21st century. Modern laboratories employ technology, place emphasis on student involvement, promote inquiry-based learning, and promote interdisciplinary approaches to equip students for the challenges of an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

Science Laboratories for All Ages

Introducing children to science lab work from early elementary school age can be beneficial for their overall development. However, the nature of science and the complexity of lab activities and the approach should be age-appropriate. The most important consideration when it comes to science learning is the cognitive and motor skills of learners at different stages of their education, as well as each student’s ability.

Here’s a breakdown of the use of science labs for various educational levels:

1. Early Elementary School (Grades K-2)

• Exploration and Observation: Kids of this age group are all about observation and exploration. Simple hands-on activities might involve basic materials like water, sand, and simple tools to stimulate curiosity.
• Sensory Experiences: Engage young learners in sensory experiences. Let them feel different textures, observe changes in materials, and explore basic cause-and-effect relationships as a part of the learning process.
• Play-and-Learn Experiments: Emphasize the joy of discovery by doing safe, age-appropriate experiments that involve play. Include mixing colors, observing plant growth, and exploring magnetism with simple magnets.

2. Late Elementary School (Grades 3-5)

• Introduction to Lab Equipment: Introduce basic laboratory tools and equipment, such as microscopes, rulers, and thermometers. Teach proper handling and safety procedures.
• Basic Experiments: Include more structured experiments that involve measurement, data recording, and basic analysis. For example, learners might measure the growth of plants under different conditions. This could form the basis of practical work in a science laboratory.

3. Middle School (Grades 6-8)

• Hands-On Inquiry: Emphasize hands-on inquiry-based learning. Students at this level should learn process skills, start formulating hypotheses, design experiments, and analyze data more independently.
• Introduction to Laboratory Reports: Teach learners how to create basic lab reports. including components like hypothesis, procedure, results, and conclusions. Emphasize clear communication of scientific findings.

4. High School (Grades 9-12)

• Advanced Experimentation: Provide opportunities for high school students to explore topics in greater depth and complexity. Teach them to do more advanced experimentation in physics, chemistry, biology, and other specialized fields.
• Research Projects: Encourage independent research projects, allowing students to delve into specific scientific topics of interest on their own or in groups. This fosters a sense of ownership and passion for scientific inquiry, while also teaching them the value of collaboration, often contributing to the more positive attitudes of learners.

5. Secondary School Education (Post-High School)

• Specialized Labs: Offer specialized labs with sophisticated equipment and methodologies for secondary school science students pursuing advanced studies in specific scientific disciplines.
• Research Opportunities: Provide opportunities for students to engage in original scientific research, collaborate with professionals, and learn how to contribute to the scientific community.
• Real-World Applications: Emphasize the application of scientific principles to real-world issues. Advise students on securing internships in science programs, partnerships with industry, or community-based research projects.

As students progress through different educational levels, the use of science labs should evolve as well. The early exposure to age-appropriate, hands-on activities lays the foundation for further, more complex experimentation and research, and visualization of real-world differences they can make.

The goal is to cultivate a curiosity for science, develop critical thinking skills, and prepare students for future academic and professional pursuits in safe environments .

The role of science laboratories in modern schools goes far beyond the confines of traditional classrooms. These laboratories offer dynamic spaces where curiosity and students’ interest are sparked, hypotheses are tested, and a profound understanding of scientific principles is cultivated.

As we stand at the threshold of a future brimming with technological advancements and complex global challenges, the investment in science laboratories is an investment in the intellectual capital of our youth. Schools that foster an environment that encourages scientific literacy, hands-on exploration, and critical thinking prepare students for academic success and empower them to become active contributors to scientific advancements that will shape our world.

We should encourage science laboratories in schools, recognizing them as crucibles of inspiration and innovation that will propel society forward into the future, guided by the inquisitive minds they help to inspire. The school science laboratory experiences can play an integral part in student attitudes toward science and ultimately contribute to students’ achievements later in life.

Recommended Posts

Lab Counters: Selecting the Best Materials and Design for Your Workspace

The Top Lab Equipment for Science Educators

Innovative Designs for Science Laboratory Tables

Clinical Laboratory Construction: Building for the Future of Medicine

• ‹ Prev
• Next ›

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 prolog, 1.1.2 the history of the laboratory in chemistry education, 1.1.3 research-based ideas related to learning in and from the science laboratory: 60 years of development of goals, practice and research, chapter 1: the role of the laboratory in chemistry teaching and learning.

• Published: 05 Nov 2021
• Special Collection: 2021 ebook collection Series: Advances in Chemistry Education Research
• Open the Chapter PDF for in another window
• Get permissions
• Cite Icon Cite

Teaching and Learning in the School Chemistry Laboratory, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2021, ch. 1, pp. 1-15.

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

This chapter deals with the historical aspects of teaching and learning in the high school chemistry laboratory. Based on an intensive review of the literature, the changes in goals and objectives of the chemistry laboratory over the years are presented. In general, three periods related to students’ practice in the chemistry laboratory, namely the early 1960s to the early 1980s, the mid-1980s to the end of the 1990s, and from 2000 until today are covered. These periods are discussed in detail in terms of educational characteristics, goals and effectiveness.

The American Chemical Society (ACS) in an undated declaration, describes the role of the laboratory in chemistry learning as follows:

Chemistry is a laboratory science and cannot be effectively taught without a robust laboratory experience for students at both the middle and high school levels. The identification, manipulation, and general use of laboratory equipment are integral parts of the subject. A school laboratory should have equipment to conduct meaningful demonstrations and experiments… The laboratory environment must be accessible to all students and maintained with safety in mind. Teachers should use safety measures to protect students and themselves during any investigation. With appropriate accommodations, students with limited strength or mobility can participate in the laboratory experience. Instruction that is student-centered and emphasizes the role of laboratory demonstrations and experiments is the best method to ensure students develop the essential skills of science.

Throughout this book we use the terms practical work, which is common in the UK and Germany, and laboratory work, common in the USA, interchangeably. A precise definition is difficult, as this in-school practice embraces an array of activities, but the terms generally refer to experiences in school settings in which students interact with equipment and materials or secondary sources of data to observe and understand the natural world ( Hegarty-Hazel, 1990 ). For the purpose of this book, laboratory activities are defined as contrived learning experiences in which students interact with materials and equipment to observe phenomena. This book focuses on teaching and learning in the high school chemistry laboratory. In chemistry learning, the laboratory provides opportunities to ‘learn by doing’ to make sense of the physical world. Since the 19th century, science educators have believed that laboratory instruction is essential because it provides training in observation, prompts the consideration and application of detailed and contextualized information, and cultivates students’ curiosity about science. This quote from Ira Ramsden (1846–1927), who wrote his memories as a child experiencing a chemical phenomenon, perfectly illustrates that belief:

While reading a textbook of chemistry, I came upon the statement, ‘nitric acid acts upon copper’…and I [was] determined to see what this meant. Having located some nitric acid, I had only to learn what the words ‘act upon’ meant… In the interest of knowledge, I was even willing to sacrifice one of the few copper cents then in my possession. I put one of them on the table; opened the bottle marked ‘nitric acid’ poured some of the liquid on the copper; and prepared to make an observation. But what was this wonderful thing which I beheld? The cent was already changed, and it was not a small change either. A greenish blue liquid foamed and fumed over the cent and the table. The air…became colored dark red… How could I stop this? I tried by picking up the cent and throwing it out of the window…I learned another fact; nitric acid…acts upon fingers. The pain led to another unpremeditated experiment. I drew my fingers across my trousers and discovered nitric acid acts upon trousers. I tell it even now with interest. It was revelation to me. Plainly the only way to learn about such remarkable kinds of action is to see the results, to experiment to work in the laboratory. H. Getman, “The Life of Ira, “Exocharmic Reactions” in Bassam Z. Shakhashiri, Chemical Demonstrations Remsen”; Journal of Chemical Education : Easton, Pennsylvania, 1940; pp 9–10; quoted in Richard W. Ramette: A Handbook for Teachers of action is to see the results, to experiment, to work in the laboratory.

Laboratory activities have long had a distinct and central role in the science curriculum as a means of making sense of the natural world. Since the 19th century, when schools began to teach science systematically, the laboratory has become a distinctive feature of chemistry learning. After the First World War, and with rapidly increasing scientific knowledge, the laboratory was used mainly as a means of confirming and illustrating information previously learnt in a lecture or from textbooks. With the reform in science education in the 1960s in many countries ( e.g. , CHEMStudy in the USA and Nuffield Chemistry Program in the UK), the idea of practical work was to engage students in investigations, discoveries, inquiry and problem-solving activities. In other words, the laboratory became the core of the science learning process ( Shulman and Tamir, 1973 ). Based on a thorough review of the literature, these latter authors suggested the following classification of goals for laboratory instruction in the sciences:

To arouse and maintain interest, attitude, satisfaction, open-mindedness and curiosity.

To develop creative thinking and problem-solving ability.

To promote aspects of scientific thinking and the scientific method.

To develop conceptual understanding.

To develop practical abilities (for example, designing an experiment, recording data and analyzing and interpreting results obtained from conducting an experiment).

Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) , suggested a method of organizing these goals to justify the importance of laboratory teaching and learning, under the headings: cognitive, practical and affective.

The laboratory has long played a central and distinctive role in chemistry education. It has been used to involve students with concrete experiences of concepts and objects. The role of the science laboratory, according to Romey (1968) in the years 1918–1960 is illustrated in Figure 1.1 .

The role of the science laboratory 1918–1980.

Almost 40 years ago, Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) reported that for over a century, the laboratory had been given a central and distinctive role in science education, with science educators suggesting that rich benefits in learning are accrued from using laboratory activities. However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some educators began to seriously question both the effectiveness and the role of laboratory work, and the case for the laboratory was not as self-evident as it had once seemed ( e.g. , Bates, 1978 ). The 1982 survey conducted by Hofstein and Lunetta provided a perspective on the issue of the science laboratory through a review of the history, goals and research findings regarding the laboratory as a medium for instruction in high school science teaching and learning.

Science educators ( Lunetta and Tamir, 1979 ) have expressed the view that the laboratory's uniqueness lies principally in providing students with opportunities to engage in processes of investigation and inquiry. The review conducted by Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) raised another issue regarding the definition of the goals and objectives of the laboratory in science education. The review of the literature revealed that these objectives were synonymous with those defined for science learning in general. Thus, they suggested that it is vital to isolate and define goals for which laboratory work could make a unique and significant contribution to the teaching and learning of science. They also wrote that while the laboratory provides a unique medium for teaching and learning in science, researchers had not comprehensively examined the effects of laboratory instruction on student learning and growth, in contrast to other modes of instruction and there was insufficient data to convincingly confirm or reject many of the statements that had been made about the importance and effects of laboratory teaching. In other words, the research had failed to show simple relationships between experiences in the laboratory and student learning. The 1982 review identified several methodological shortcomings in science education research that were inhibiting our ability to present a clear picture of the effectiveness of the science laboratory in promoting understanding for students. Twenty years later, Hofstein and Lunetta (2004) delineated the following series of problems and shortcomings in the research regarding the educational effectiveness of the science laboratory:

Insufficient control over procedures (including expectations delivered by the laboratory guide, the teacher, and the assessment system).

Insufficient reporting of the instructional and assessment procedures that were used.

Assessment measures of students’ learning outcomes being inconsistent with the stated goals of the teaching and the research.

Insufficient sample size in many studies, particularly in quantitative ones.

Support for these assertions had been presented by Tobin (1990) , who prepared a follow-up synthesis of the research on the effectiveness of teaching and learning in the science laboratory. He proposed a research agenda for science teachers and researchers and suggested that meaningful learning is possible in the laboratory if the students are given opportunities to manipulate equipment and materials in an environment suitable for them to construct their knowledge of phenomena and related scientific concepts. In addition, he claimed that, in general, research had failed to provide evidence that such opportunities were offered in school science.

The National Science Education Standards (NSES) (National Research Council [ NRC], 1996 ) defined such learning activities ( e.g. , inquiry) as:

The diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Scientific inquiry also refers to the activities through which students develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world (p. 73).

As already noted, science educators have long suggested that many benefits accrue from engaging students in science laboratory activities ( Tobin, 1990 ; Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004 ). Tobin (1990) , for example, wrote that:

Laboratory activities appeal as a way of allowing students to learn with understanding and at the same time engage in the process of constructing knowledge by doing science (p. 405).

Similarly, Nakhleh et al. (2002) wrote that:

The laboratory is often a neglected area of teaching, but the laboratory has also been a frustrating area for research. Research on learning in the laboratory has been complicated by the complex nature of the environment, the plethora of goals, and the seeming non-impact of laboratory work on the types of understanding that we test in exams (p. 71).

In the curricular-type projects developed during the 1960s, the laboratory was intended to be a place for inquiry, and the development and testing of theories, and to provide students with the opportunity to ‘practice being a scientist’. Many research studies (summarized, for example, by Bates, 1978 ; Hofstein and Lunetta, 1982 ) were conducted with the aim of exploring the effectiveness of the laboratory for attaining the many objectives (both cognitive and affective) that had been suggested over the years in the science education literature. This traditional list of objectives included:

Understanding of scientific concepts.

Interest and motivation.

Attitude toward science.

Practical scientific skills and problem-solving abilities.

Scientific habits of mind.

Understanding the nature of science (NOS).

The opportunity to do science.

Over the years, hundreds of papers and essays have been published with the goal of exploring and investigating the uniqueness of the science laboratory in general, and particularly its educational effectiveness. In addition, it was widely believed that the laboratory provides the only place in school where certain kinds of skills, abilities and understanding can be developed ( Lazarowitz and Tamir, 1994 ; Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004 ). In other words, the laboratory has been suggested to provide a unique mode of instruction, learning and assessment.

Precisely what kind of objectives and aims are to be attained in the laboratory include the teacher's goals, expectations, and subject and pedagogical content knowledge, as well as the degree of relevance to the topic, the students’ abilities and interests and many other logistical and economic considerations related to the school setting and facilities (see Figure 1.1 ).

It should be noted that some of these goals, such as ‘enhancing learning of scientific concepts’ coincide with the broad goals for science education that are not necessarily laboratory based. The teacher should be able to judge whether the laboratory is the most effective learning environment for attaining a certain objective while teaching a certain topic. Teachers should be aware that there has been a great deal of discussion and numerous research studies on which goals are, in fact, better achieved through laboratory instruction than through other instructional (pedagogical) approaches ( Hofstein and Lunetta, 1982, 2004 ; Lunetta et al. , 2007 ). Many research studies and essays that were cited in Hofstein and Lunetta's (1982) review criticized the tradition of conducting experiments without clear purposes or goals. In addition, they revealed a significant mismatch between teachers’ goals for learning in the science laboratory and those that were originally defined by curriculum developers and the science education milieu.

In summary, based on the important publication related to science laboratories entitled America's Lab Report, published by the NRC (1996) , it is suggested that:

The science learning goals of laboratory experiences include enhancing mastery of science subject matter, developing scientific reasoning abilities, increasing understanding of the complexity and ambiguity of empirical work, developing practical skills, increasing understanding of the nature of science, cultivating interest in science and science learning, and improving teamwork abilities. The research suggests that laboratory experiences will be more likely to achieve these goals if they (1) are designed with clear learning outcomes in mind, (2) are thoughtfully sequenced into the flow of classroom science instruction, (3) integrate learning of science content and process, and (4) incorporate ongoing student reflection and discussion (p. 13).

In their review of the literature regarding practical work in science teaching and learning, Hofstein and Kind (2012) identified three periods in the 60 years of developing goals, practice, and research: the 1960s to the 1980s, the 1980s to the mid-1990s and the end of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century.

1.1.3.1 The 1960s to the 1980s: Unfulfilled Ideals

This period is associated with many curriculum projects that were developed to renew and improve science education. The projects began in the late 1950s with a focus on updating and reorganizing content knowledge in the science curricula, but reformists soon turned their attention to science process as a main aim and organizing principle for science education, as expressed by Klainin (1988) in Thailand:

Many science educators and philosophers of science education ( e.g. , in the USA: Schwab, 1962 ) regarded science education as a process of thought and action, as a means of acquiring new knowledge, and a means of understanding the natural world (p. 171).

The emphasis on the processes rather than the products of science was fueled by many initiatives and satisfied different interests. Some educators wanted a return to a more student-oriented pedagogy after the early reform projects which they thought paid too much attention to subject knowledge. Others regarded science process as the solution to the rapid development of knowledge in science and technology: mastering science processes was seen as more sustainable and therefore a way of preparing students for the unknown challenges of the future. Most importantly, developments in cognitive psychology drew attention to reasoning processes and scientific thinking. Psychologists such as Bruner, Piaget and Gagne helped explain the thinking involved in the science process and inspired the idea that science teaching could help develop this type of thinking in young people.

Although this development was found in its explicit form in the USA, it was soon echoed in many other countries ( Bates, 1978 ; Hofstein and Lunetta, 1982 ). Everywhere, laboratory and practical work became the focus. Kerr (1963) , in the UK, suggested that practical work (in chemistry education) should be integrated with theoretical work in the sciences and should be used for its contribution to provide facts through investigations and, consequently, to arriving at the principles related to these facts. This became a guiding principle in the many Nuffield curriculum projects that were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Science education research interest in practical work during this period is clearly demonstrated by Lazarowitz and Tamir (1994) in their review on laboratory work. They identified 37 reviews on issues of the laboratory in the context of science education ( Shulman and Tamir, 1973 ; Hofstein and Lunetta, 1982, 2004 ; Bryce and Robertson, 1985 ). These reviews expressed a similarly strong belief regarding the potential of practical work in the curriculum, but also recognized important difficulties in obtaining convincing data (based on research) on the educational effectiveness of such teaching and learning. Not surprisingly, the only area in which laboratory work showed a real advantage (when compared to the non-practical learning modes) was the development of manipulative laboratory skills to attain practical goals ( Hofstein and Lunetta, 1982 ). However, for conceptual understanding, critical thinking and understanding the NOS, there was little or no difference. Lazarowitz and Tamir (1994) suggested that one the reason for this relates to the use of inadequate assessment and research procedures. Quantitative research methods were not adequate for the research purpose but, at the time, qualitative research methods were generally disregarded in the science education community. Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) identified several methodological shortcomings in research designs: insufficient control over laboratory procedures (including laboratory manuals, teacher behavior and assessment of students’ achievement and progress in the laboratory), inappropriate samples and the use of measures that were not sensitive or relevant to laboratory processes and procedures. Another issue was that teaching practice in the laboratory did not change as easily to an open-ended style of teaching as the curriculum projects suggested. Rather, teachers preferred a safer ‘cookbook’ approach ( Tamir and Lunetta, 1981 ). Johnstone and Wham (1982) , relating to the chemistry laboratory, claimed that educators underestimated the high cognitive demand of practical work on the learner. During practical work, the student must handle a vast amount of information pertaining to the names of equipment and materials, instructions regarding the process and the collection of data and observations, thus overloading the student's working memory. This complicates laboratory learning, rather than providing a simple and safe way to learn.

Adding to this rather ominous picture, however, are some research studies and findings during this period that came to influence later developments. One area that was researched quite extensively concerns intellectual development . Renner and Lawson (1973) and Karplus (1977) (based on Piaget, 1970 ) developed the learning cycle , which consisted of the following stages: exploration , in which the student manipulates concrete materials; concept introduction , in which the teacher introduces scientific concepts; and concept application , in which the student investigates further questions and applies the new concept to novel situations. Many interpreters of Piaget's work ( e.g. , Karplus, 1977 ) inferred that work with concrete objects (provided in practical experiences) is an essential part of the development of logical thinking, particularly at the stage prior to the development of formal operations. Another important contribution was made by Kempa and Ward (1975) , who suggested a four-phase taxonomy to describe the overall process of practical work in the context of the chemistry laboratory: (1) planning an investigation (experiment), (2) carrying out the experiment, (3) observations and (4) analysis, application and explanation. In Israel, Tamir (1974) designed an inquiry-oriented laboratory examination in which the student was assessed on the bases of manipulation, self-reliance, observation, experimental design, communication and reasoning. These could serve as an organizer of laboratory objectives that could help in the design of meaningful instruments to assess outcomes of laboratory work. In addition, these had the potential to serve as a basis for continuous assessment of students’ achievements and progress and for the implementation of practical examinations ( Tamir, 1974 ; Ben-Zvi et al. , 1976 ).

1.1.3.2 Mid-1980s to 1990s: The Constructivist Influence

From the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, practical work was challenged in two different ways. One was related to an increasing awareness among science education researchers of a failure to establish the intended pedagogy in the reform projects from the previous period. This was expressed by Hurd (1983) and Yager (1984) , who reported that laboratory work in schools tended to focus on following instructions, getting the right answer, or manipulating equipment. Students failed to achieve the intended conceptual and procedural understanding. Very often, students failed to understand the relationship between the purpose of the investigation and the design of the experiments ( Lunetta et al. , 2007 ). In addition, there was little evidence that students were provided with opportunities and time to wrestle with the NOS and its alignment with laboratory work. Students seldom noted the discrepancies between their own concepts, their peers’ concepts and the concepts of the science community ( Eylon and Linn, 1988 ; Tobin, 1990 ). In summary, practical work meant manipulating equipment and materials, but not ideas.

The other challenge involved the theoretical underpinning of laboratory work. The process approach was challenged by a new perspective on science education known as constructivism . The constructivist era started in the late 1970s with increasing criticism of Piaget's influence on science education. New voices argued that too much attention was being paid to general cognitive skills in science learning and that science educators had missed the importance of students’ conceptual development ( e.g. , Driver and Easley, 1978 ).

The effects of this criticism can be followed in the UK in the aftermath of the Nuffield curriculum reform projects, which contributed to a strong foothold for the science laboratory. Beatty and Woolnough (1982) reported that 11- to 13-year-olds typically spent over half of their science lesson time doing practical activities. This was also the period of the Assessment of Performance Unit (APU), a national assessment project within a process-led theoretical framework ( Murphy and Gott, 1984 ) that later influenced the national curriculum and its aligned assessment system. In the 1980s, researchers began to question this practice and its theoretical underpinning considering the philosophical and sociological accounts associated with constructivism ( Millar and Driver, 1987 ). The argument was that the entire science education community had been misled by a naïve empiricist view of science, referred to by Millar (1989) as the Standard Science Education (SSE) ( NRC, 1996 ) view. The SSE view presented science as a simple application of a stepwise method and further related those steps to both intellectual and practical skills. In other words, by having the right skills and by applying ‘the scientific method’, anyone could develop scientific knowledge. With the rejection of this view of science inquiry, science educators needed an alternative, but finding this took some time and required a series of developments.

Two different attempts to develop alternative theoretical platforms appeared on the UK scene in the late 1980s to early 1990s. The first attempt took its inspiration from Polanyi's (1958) concept of ‘tacit knowledge’. This approach had similarities to the process approach but rejected the possibility of identifying individual processes ( Woolnough and Allsop, 1985 ). Rather, it was claimed that science is like ‘craftsmanship’ and that investigations should be treated like a ‘holistic process’ based on understandings that cannot be explicitly expressed. The belief was that inquiry at school with a trained scientist ( i.e. , the teacher) developed this craftsmanship and made students generally better problem solvers ( Watts, 1991 ). Retrospectively, we can see this approach as avoiding the challenge of identifying what it really means to do science by rendering the process hidden and mysterious.

The other theoretical approach also continued to regard science as a problem-solving process, but avoided the mistake made in previous theories of focusing too strongly on skills. Gott and Duggan (1995) claimed that the ability to do scientific inquiry was fundamentally based on procedural knowledge ( i.e. , the required understanding in knowing how to do science). When scientists carry out their research, they have a toolkit of knowledge about community standards and what procedures to follow to satisfy them. The aim of science inquiry is partly to find new theories, but also to establish evidence of a theory being ‘trustworthy’. They therefore claimed that students should be taught procedural understanding along with conceptual understanding, and then get practice in problem solving based on these two components.

At the end of this second period, constructivism was well established in science education. The teaching of skills and procedures of scientific inquiry had lost much of its status as science educators paid more attention to conceptual learning. One influential idea was the use of Predict–Observe–Explain (POE) tasks ( Gunstone and Baird, 1988 ). In these tasks, observations in the laboratory were used to challenge students’ ideas and help them develop explanations in line with the correct scientific theories. Gunstone (1991) and White (1991) also made other statements about the constructivist message for science laboratory teaching the claim that all observations are theory laden. This means that doing practical work does not guarantee adopting the right theoretical perspective. Students need to reflect on observations and experiences considering their conceptual knowledge. Tobin (1990) wrote that: “Laboratory activities appeal as a way of allowing students to learn with understanding and, at the same time, engage in the process of constructing knowledge by doing science” (p. 405). To attain this goal, he suggested that students be provided with opportunities in the laboratory to reflect on findings, clarify understandings and misunderstandings with peers, and consult a range of resources that would include teachers, books, and other learning materials. He claimed that such opportunities rarely exist because teachers are so often preoccupied with technical and managerial activities in the laboratory. Gunstone and Baird (1988) pointed to the importance of metacognition to bring about such and similar opportunities. White (1991) also argued that the laboratory helps students build ‘episodic’ memories that can support later development of conceptual knowledge.

1.1.3.3 The 1990s to Today: A New Era of Change—New Goals for the Science Laboratory

In the last 20 years, we have seen major changes in science education. These have been due, in part, to globalization and rapid technological development, which call for educational systems with high-quality science education to be competitive at an international level and develop the knowledge and competencies needed in modern society. In the USA, we have seen developments regarding ‘standards’ for science education ( NRC, 1996, 2005 ), which provide clear support for inquiry learning as both content and higher-order learning skills that include, in the laboratory context, planning an experiment, observing, asking relevant questions, hypothesizing, and analyzing experimental results ( Bybee, 2000 ). In addition, we have observed a high frequency of curriculum reforms internationally. A central point has been to make science education better adapted to the needs of all citizens ( American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1995 ) (for details on higher-order learning and thinking skills, see Chapter 6 in this book).

It is recognized that citizens’ needs include more than just scientific knowledge. In everyday life, science is often involved in public debate and used as evidence to support political views. Science also frequently presents findings and information that challenge existing norms and ethical standards in society. For the most part, it is cutting-edge science and not established theories that are at play. For this reason, it does not help to know textbook science; rather, it is necessary to have knowledge about science. Citizens need to understand principles of scientific inquiry and how science operates at a social level ( Millar and Osborne, 1998 ). The natural question, of course, is to what degree, and in what ways, can the science laboratory help provide students with this type of understanding?

Another area of change in the recent period has been the further development of constructivist perspectives into sociocultural views of learning and of science. The sociocultural view of science emphasizes the social construction of science knowledge. Accordingly, scientific inquiry is seen to include a process in which explanations are developed to make sense of data, and then presented to a community of peers for critique, debate, and revision ( Duschl and Osborne, 2002 ). This reconceptualization of science from the individual to social perspective has fundamentally changed the view of experiments as a way of portraying the science method. Rather than seeing the procedural steps of the experiment as the scientific method, according to Driver et al. (1996) , practical work is now valued for its role in providing evidence for knowledge claims. The term scientific method, as such, has lost much of its value ( Jenkins, 2007 ).

All these changes have obvious relevance for practical work. Rather than training science specialists, the laboratory should now help the average citizen understand about science and develop skills that will be useful in evaluating scientific claims in everyday life. Rather than promoting the scientific method, the laboratory should focus on how we know what we know and why we believe certain statements rather than competing alternatives ( Grandy and Duschl, 2007 ). The sociocultural learning perspective also provides reasons to revisit group work in the school laboratory. Most importantly, the current changes have finally produced an alternative to the science process approach and the SSE view, Millar (1989) established 50 years ago. We now find a new rationale for understanding science inquiry and how this can be linked to laboratory work in schools.

The main goal of this chapter was to argue and demonstrate that the laboratory in science education is a unique learning environment ( Hofstein, 2004 ; Lunetta et al. , 2007 ). If designed in an articulated and purposeful manner with clear goals in mind, it has the potential to enhance some of the more important learning skills, such as learning by inquiry, metacognition and argumentation ( Hofstein et al. , 2004 ; Hofstein and Kind, 2012 ).

• Campaigning and outreach
• News and events
• Awards and funding
• Privacy policy
• Journals and databases
• Locations and contacts
• Membership and professional community
• Teaching and learning
• Help and legal
• Cookie policy
• Terms and conditions
• Get Adobe Acrobat Reader
• Registered charity number: 207890
• © Royal Society of Chemistry 2023

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science (2006)

Chapter: 1 introduction, history, and definition of laboratories, 1 introduction, history, and definition of laboratories.

Science laboratories have been part of high school education for two centuries, yet a clear articulation of their role in student learning of science remains elusive. This report evaluates the evidence about the role of laboratories in helping students attain science learning goals and discusses factors that currently limit science learning in high school laboratories. In this chap-

ter, the committee presents its charge, reviews the history of science laboratories in U.S. high schools, defines laboratories, and outlines the organization of the report.

CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE

In the National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368, authorizing funding for fiscal years 2003-2007), Congress called on NSF to launch a secondary school systemic initiative. The initiative was to “promote scientific and technological literacy” and to “meet the mathematics and science needs of students at risk of not achieving State student academic achievement standards.” Congress directed NSF to provide grants for such activities as “laboratory improvement and provision of instrumentation as part of a comprehensive program to enhance the quality of mathematics, science, engineering, and technology instruction” (P.L. 107-368, Section 8-E). In response, NSF turned to the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. NSF requested that the NRC

nominate a committee to review the status of and future directions for the role of high school science laboratories in promoting the teaching and learning of science for all students. This committee will guide the conduct of a study and author a consensus report that will provide guidance on the question of the role and purpose of high school science laboratories with an emphasis on future directions…. Among the questions that may guide these activities are:

What is the current state of science laboratories and what do we know about how they are used in high schools?

What examples or alternatives are there to traditional approaches to labs and what is the evidence base as to their effectiveness?

If labs in high school never existed (i.e., if they were to be planned and designed de novo), what would that experience look like now, given modern advances in the natural and learning sciences?

In what ways can the integration of technologies into the curriculum augment and extend a new vision of high school science labs? What is known about high school science labs based on principles of design?

How do the structures and policies of high schools (course scheduling, curricular design, textbook adoption, and resource deployment) influence the organization of science labs? What kinds of changes might be needed in the infrastructure of high schools to enhance the effectiveness of science labs?

What are the costs (e.g., financial, personnel, space, scheduling) associated with different models of high school science labs? How might a new vision of laboratory experiences for high school students influence those costs?

In what way does the growing interdisciplinary nature of the work of scientists help to shape discussions of laboratories as contexts in high school for science learning?

How do high school lab experiences align with both middle school and postsecondary education? How is the role of teaching labs changing in the nation’s colleges and universities? Would a redesign of high school science labs enhance or limit articulation between high school and college-level science education?

The NRC convened the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision to address this charge.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The committee carried out its charge through an iterative process of gathering information, deliberating on it, identifying gaps and questions, gathering further information to fill these gaps, and holding further discussions. In the search for relevant information, the committee held three public fact-finding meetings, reviewed published reports and unpublished research, searched the Internet, and commissioned experts to prepare and present papers. At a fourth, private meeting, the committee intensely analyzed and discussed its findings and conclusions over the course of three days. Although the committee considered information from a variety of sources, its final report gives most weight to research published in peer-reviewed journals and books.

At an early stage in its deliberations, the committee chose to focus primarily on “the role of high school laboratories in promoting the teaching and learning of science for all students.” The committee soon became frustrated by the limited research evidence on the role of laboratories in learning. To address one of many problems in the research evidence—a lack of agreement about what constitutes a laboratory and about the purposes of laboratory education—the committee commissioned a paper to analyze the alternative definitions and goals of laboratories.

The committee developed a concept map outlining the main themes of the study (see Figure 1-1 ) and organized the three fact-finding meetings to gather information on each of these themes. For example, reflecting the committee’s focus on student learning (“how students learn science” on the concept map), all three fact-finding meetings included researchers who had developed innovative approaches to high school science laboratories. We also commissioned two experts to present papers reviewing available research on the role of laboratories in students’ learning of science.

At the fact-finding meetings, some researchers presented evidence of student learning following exposure to sequences of instruction that included laboratory experiences; others provided data on how various technologies

FIGURE 1-1 High school science laboratory experiences: Role and vision. Concept map with references to guiding questions in committee charge.

contribute to student learning in the laboratory. Responding to the congressional mandate to meet the mathematics and science needs of students at risk of not achieving state student academic achievement standards, the third fact-finding meeting included researchers who have studied laboratory teaching and learning among diverse students. Taken together, all of these activities enabled the committee to address questions 2, 3, and 4 of the charge.

The committee took several steps to ensure that the study reflected the current realities of science laboratories in U.S high schools, addressing the themes of “how science teachers learn and work” and “constraints and enablers of laboratory experiences” on the concept map. At the first fact-finding meeting, representatives of associations of scientists and science teachers described their efforts to help science teachers learn to lead effective labora-

tory activities. They noted constraints on laboratory learning, including poorly designed, overcrowded laboratory classrooms and inadequate preparation of science teachers. This first meeting also included a presentation about laboratory scheduling, supplies, and equipment drawn from a national survey of science teachers conducted in 2000. At the second fact-finding meeting, an architect spoke about the design of laboratory facilities, and a sociologist described how the organization of work and authority in schools may enable or constrain innovative approaches to laboratory teaching. Two meetings included panel discussions about laboratory teaching among groups of science teachers and school administrators. Through these presentations, review of additional literature, and internal discussions, the committee was able to respond to questions 1, 5, and 6 of the charge. The agendas for each fact-finding meeting, including the guiding questions that were sent to each presenter, appear in Appendix A .

The committee recognized that the question in its charge about the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of science (question 7) is important to the future of science and to high school science laboratories. In presentations and commissioned papers, several experts offered suggestions for how laboratory activities could be designed to more accurately reflect the work of scientists and to improve students’ understanding of the way scientists work today. Based on our analysis of this information, the committee partially addresses this question from the perspective of how scientists conduct their work (in this chapter). The committee also identifies design principles for laboratory activities that may increase students’ understanding of the nature of science (in Chapter 3 ). However, in order to maintain our focus on the key question of student learning in laboratories, the committee did not fully address question 7.

Another important question in the committee’s charge (question 8) addresses the alignment of laboratory learning in middle school, high school, and undergraduate science education. Within the short time frame of this study, the committee focused on identifying, assembling, and analyzing the limited research available on high school science laboratories and did not attempt to do the same analysis for middle school and undergraduate science laboratories. However, this report does discuss several studies of student laboratory learning in middle school (see Chapter 3 ) and describes undergraduate science laboratories briefly in its analysis of the preparation of high school science teachers (see in Chapter 5 ). The committee thinks questions about the alignment of laboratory learning merit more sustained attention than was possible in this study.

During the course of our deliberations, other important questions emerged. For example, it is apparent that the scientific community is engaged in an array of efforts to strengthen teaching and learning in high school science laboratories, but little information is available on the extent

of these efforts and on their effectiveness at enhancing student learning. As a result, we address the role of the scientific community in high school laboratories only briefly in Chapters 1 and 5 . Another issue that arose over the course of this study is laboratory safety. We became convinced that laboratory safety is critical, but we did not fully analyze safety issues, which lay outside our charge. Finally, although engaging students in design or engineering laboratory activities appears to hold promising connections with science laboratory activities, the committee did not explore this possibility. Although all of these issues and questions are important, taking time and energy to address them would have deterred us from a central focus on the role of high school laboratories in promoting the teaching and learning of science for all students.

One important step in defining the scope of the study was to review the history of laboratories. Examining the history of laboratory education helped to illuminate persistent tensions, provided insight into approaches to be avoided in the future, and allowed the committee to more clearly frame key questions for the future.

HISTORY OF LABORATORY EDUCATION

The history of laboratories in U.S. high schools has been affected by changing views of the nature of science and by society’s changing goals for science education. Between 1850 and the present, educators, scientists, and the public have, at different times, placed more or less emphasis on three sometimes-competing goals for school science education: (1) a theoretical emphasis, stressing the structure of scientific disciplines, the benefits of basic scientific research, and the importance of preparing young people for higher education in science; (2) an applied or practical emphasis, stressing high school students’ ability to understand and apply the science and workings of everyday things; and (3) a liberal or contextual emphasis, stressing the historical development and cultural implications of science (Matthews, 1994). These changing goals have affected the nature and extent of laboratory education.

By the mid-19th century, British writers and philosophers had articulated a view of science as an inductive process (Mill, 1843; Whewell, 1840, 1858). They believed that scientists engaged in painstaking observation of nature to identify and accumulate facts, and only very cautiously did they draw conclusions from these facts to propose new theories. British and American scientists portrayed the newest scientific discoveries—such as the laws of thermodynamics and Darwin’s theory of evolution—to an increas-

ingly interested public as certain knowledge derived through well-established inductive methods. However, scientists and teachers made few efforts to teach students about these methods. High school and undergraduate science courses, like those in history and other subjects, were taught through lectures and textbooks, followed by rote memorization and recitation (Rudolph, 2005). Lecturers emphasized student knowledge of the facts, and science laboratories were not yet accepted as part of higher education. For example, when Benjamin Silliman set up the first chemistry laboratory at Yale in 1847, he paid rent to the college for use of the building and equipped it at his own expense (Whitman, 1898, p. 201). Few students were allowed into these laboratories, which were reserved for scientists’ research, although some apparatus from the laboratory was occasionally brought into the lecture room for demonstrations.

During the 1880s, the situation changed rapidly. Influenced by the example of chemist Justus von Liebig in Germany, leading American universities embraced the German model. In this model, laboratories played a central role as the setting for faculty research and for advanced scientific study by students. Johns Hopkins University established itself as a research institution with student laboratories. Other leading colleges and universities followed suit, and high schools—which were just being established as educational institutions—soon began to create student science laboratories as well.

The primary goal of these early high school laboratories was to prepare students for higher science education in college and university laboratories. The National Education Association produced an influential report noting the “absolute necessity of laboratory work” in the high school science curriculum (National Education Association, 1894) in order to prepare students for undergraduate science studies. As demand for secondary school teachers trained in laboratory methods grew, colleges and universities began offering summer laboratory courses for teachers. In 1895, a zoology professor at Brown University described “large and increasing attendance at our summer schools,” which focused on the dissection of cats and other animals (Bump, 1895, p. 260).

In these early years, American educators emphasized the theoretical, disciplinary goals of science education in order to prepare graduates for further science education. Because of this emphasis, high schools quickly embraced a detailed list of 40 physics experiments published by Harvard instructor Edwin Hall (Harvard University, 1889). The list outlined the experiments, procedures, and equipment necessary to successfully complete all 40 experiments as a condition of admission to study physics at Harvard. Scientific supply companies began selling complete sets of the required equipment to schools and successful completion of the exercises was soon required for admission to study physics at other colleges and universities (Rudolph, 2005).

At that time, most educators and scientists believed that participating in laboratory experiments would help students learn methods of accurate observation and inductive reasoning. However, the focus on prescribing specific experiments and procedures, illustrated by the embrace of the Harvard list, limited the effectiveness of early laboratory education. In the rush to specify laboratory experiments, procedures, and equipment, little attention had been paid to how students might learn from these experiences. Students were expected to simply absorb the methods of inductive reasoning by carrying out experiments according to prescribed procedures (Rudolph, 2005).

Between 1890 and 1910, as U.S. high schools expanded rapidly to absorb a huge influx of new students, a backlash began to develop against the prevailing approach to laboratory education. In a 1901 lecture at the New England Association of College and Secondary Schools, G. Stanley Hall, one of the first American psychologists, criticized high school physics education based on the Harvard list, saying that “boys of this age … want more dynamic physics” (Hall, 1901). Building on Hall’s critique, University of Chicago physicist Charles Mann and other members of the Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teaching launched a complete overhaul of high school physics teaching. Mann and others attacked the “dry bones” of the Harvard experiments, calling for a high school physics curriculum with more personal and social relevance to students. One described lab work as “at best a very artificial means of supplying experiences upon which to build physical concepts” (Woodhull, 1909). Other educators argued that science teaching could be improved by providing more historical perspective, and high schools began reducing the number of laboratory exercises.

By 1910, a clear tension had emerged between those emphasizing laboratory experiments and reformers favoring an emphasis on interesting, practical science content in high school science. However, the focus on content also led to problems, as students became overwhelmed with “interesting” facts. New York’s experience illustrates this tension. In 1890, the New York State Regents exam included questions asking students to design experiments (Champagne and Shiland, 2004). In 1905, the state introduced a new syllabus of physics topics. The content to be covered was so extensive that, over the course of a year, an average of half an hour could be devoted to each topic, virtually eliminating the possibility of including laboratory activities (Matthews, 1994). An outcry to return to more experimentation in science courses resulted, and in 1910 New York State instituted a requirement for 30 science laboratory sessions taking double periods in the syllabus for Regents science courses (courses preparing students for the New York State Regents examinations) (Champagne and Shiland, 2004).

In an influential speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1909, philosopher and educator John Dewey proposed a solution to the tension between advocates for more laboratory

experimentation and advocates for science education emphasizing practical content. While criticizing science teaching focused strictly on covering large amounts of known content, Dewey also pointed to the flaws in rigid laboratory exercises: “A student may acquire laboratory methods as so much isolated and final stuff, just as he may so acquire material from a textbook…. Many a student had acquired dexterity and skill in laboratory methods without it ever occurring to him that they have anything to do with constructing beliefs that are alone worthy of the title of knowledge” (Dewey, 1910b). Dewey believed that people should leave school with some understanding of the kinds of evidence required to substantiate scientific beliefs. However, he never explicitly described his view of the process by which scientists develop and substantiate such evidence.

In 1910, Dewey wrote a short textbook aimed at helping teachers deal with students as individuals despite rapidly growing enrollments. He analyzed what he called “a complete act of thought,” including five steps: (1) a felt difficulty, (2) its location and definition, (3) suggestion of possible solution, (4) development by reasoning of the bearing of the suggestion, and (5) further observation and experiment leading to its acceptance or rejection (Dewey, 1910a, pp. 68-78). Educators quickly misinterpreted these five steps as a description of the scientific method that could be applied to practical problems. In 1918, William Kilpatrick of Teachers College published a seminal article on the “project method,” which used Dewey’s five steps to address problems of everyday life. The article was eventually reprinted 60,000 times as reformers embraced the idea of engaging students with practical problems, while at the same time teaching them about what were seen as the methods of science (Rudolph, 2005).

During the 1920s, reform-minded teachers struggled to use the project method. Faced with ever-larger classes and state requirements for coverage of science content, they began to look for lists of specific projects that students could undertake, the procedures they could use, and the expected results. Soon, standardized lists of projects were published, and students who had previously been freed from rigid laboratory procedures were now engaged in rigid, specified projects, leading one writer to observe, “the project is little more than a new cloak for the inductive method” (Downing, 1919, p. 571).

Despite these unresolved tensions, laboratory education had become firmly established, and growing numbers of future high school teachers were instructed in teaching laboratory activities. For example, a 1925 textbook for preservice science teachers included a chapter titled “Place of Laboratory Work in the Teaching of Science” followed by three additional chapters on how to teach laboratory science (Brownell and Wade, 1925). Over the following decades, high school science education (including laboratory education) increasingly emphasized practical goals and the benefits of science in everyday life. During World War II, as scientists focused on federally funded

research programs aimed at defense and public health needs, high school science education also emphasized applications of scientific knowledge (Rudolph, 2002).

Changing Goals of Science Education

Following World War II, the flood of “baby boomers” strained the physical and financial resources of public schools. Requests for increased taxes and bond issues led to increasing questions about public schooling. Some academics and policy makers began to criticize the “life adjustment” high school curriculum, which had been designed to meet adolescents’ social, personal, and vocational needs. Instead, they called for a renewed emphasis on the academic disciplines. At the same time, the nation was shaken by the Soviet Union’s explosion of an atomic bomb and the communist takeover of China. By the early 1950s, some federal policy makers began to view a more rigorous, academic high school science curriculum as critical to respond to the Soviet threat.

In 1956, physicist Jerrold Zacharias received a small grant from NSF to establish the Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC) in order to develop a curriculum focusing on physics as a scientific discipline. When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics launched the space satellite Sputnik the following year, those who had argued that U.S. science education was not rigorous enough appeared vindicated, and a new era of science education began.

Although most historians believe that the overriding goal of the post-Sputnik science education reforms was to create a new generation of U.S. scientists and engineers capable of defending the nation from the Soviet Union, the actual goals were more complex and varied (Rudolph, 2002). Clearly, Congress, the president, and NSF were focused on the goal of preparing more scientists and engineers, as reflected in NSF director Alan Waterman’s 1957 statement (National Science Foundation, 1957, pp. xv-xvi):

Our schools and colleges are badly in need of modern science laboratories and laboratory, demonstration, and research equipment. Most important of all, we need more trained scientists and engineers in many special fields, and especially very many more competent, fully trained teachers of science, notably in our secondary schools. Undoubtedly, by a determined campaign, we can accomplish these ends in our traditional way, but how soon? The process is usually a lengthy one, and there is no time to be lost. Therefore, the pressing question is how quickly can our people act to accomplish these things?

The scientists, however, had another agenda. Over the course of World War II, their research had become increasingly dependent on federal fund-

ing and influenced by federal needs. In physics, for example, federally funded efforts to develop nuclear weapons led research to focus increasingly at the atomic level. In order to maintain public funding while reducing unwanted public pressure on research directions, the scientists sought to use curriculum redesign as a way to build the public’s faith in the expertise of professional scientists (Rudolph, 2002). They wanted to emphasize the humanistic aspects of science, portraying science as an essential element in a broad liberal education. Some scientists sought to reach not only the select group who might become future scientists but also a slightly larger group of elite, mostly white male students who would be future leaders in government and business. They hoped to help these students appreciate the empirical grounding of scientific knowledge and to value and appreciate the role of science in society (Rudolph, 2002).

Changing Views of the Nature of Science

While this shift in the goals of science education was taking place, historians and philosophers were proposing new views of science. In 1958, British chemist Michael Polanyi questioned the ideal of scientific detachment and objectivity, arguing that scientific discovery relies on the personal participation and the creative, original thoughts of scientists (Polanyi, 1958). In the United States, geneticist and science educator Joseph Schwab suggested that scientific methods were specific to each discipline and that all scientific “inquiry” (his term for scientific research) was guided by the current theories and concepts within the discipline (Schwab, 1964). Publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn, 1962) a few years later fueled the debate about whether science was truly rational, and whether theory or observation was more important to the scientific enterprise. Over time, this debate subsided, as historians and philosophers of science came to focus on the process of scientific discovery. Increasingly, they recognized that this process involves deductive reasoning (developing inferences from known scientific principles and theories) as well as inductive reasoning (proceeding from particular observations to reach more general theories or conclusions).

Development of New Science Curricula

Although these changing views of the nature of science later led to changes in science education, they had little influence in the immediate aftermath of Sputnik. With NSF support, scientists led a flurry of curriculum development over the next three decades (Matthews, 1994). In addition to the physics text developed by the PSSC, the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) created biology curricula, the Chemical Education Materials group created chemistry materials, and groups of physicists created Intro-

ductory Physical Science and Project Physics. By 1975, NSF supported 28 science curriculum reform projects.

By 1977 over 60 percent of school districts had adopted at least one of the new curricula (Rudolph, 2002). The PSSC program employed high school teachers to train their peers in how to use the curriculum, reaching over half of all high school physics teachers by the late 1960s. However, due to implementation problems that we discuss further below, most schools soon shifted to other texts, and the federal goal of attracting a larger proportion of students to undergraduate science was not achieved (Linn, 1997).

Dissemination of the NSF-funded curriculum development efforts was limited by several weaknesses. Some curriculum developers tried to “teacher proof” their curricula, providing detailed texts, teacher guides, and filmstrips designed to ensure that students faithfully carried out the experiments as intended (Matthews, 1994). Physics teacher and curriculum developer Arnold Arons attributed the limited implementation of most of the NSF-funded curricula to lack of logistical support for science teachers and inadequate teacher training, since “curricular materials, however skilful and imaginative, cannot ‘teach themselves’” (Arons, 1983, p. 117). Case studies showed that schools were slow to change in response to the new curricula and highlighted the central role of the teacher in carrying them out (Stake and Easley, 1978). In his analysis of Project Physics, Welch concluded that the new curriculum accounted for only 5 percent of the variance in student achievement, while other factors, such as teacher effectiveness, student ability, and time on task, played a larger role (Welch, 1979).

Despite their limited diffusion, the new curricula pioneered important new approaches to science education, including elevating the role of laboratory activities in order to help students understand the nature of modern scientific research (Rudolph, 2002). For example, in the PSSC curriculum, Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Jerrold Zacharias coordinated laboratory activities with the textbook in order to deepen students’ understanding of the links between theory and experiments. As part of that curriculum, students experimented with a ripple tank, generating wave patterns in water in order to gain understanding of wave models of light. A new definition of the scientific laboratory informed these efforts. The PSSC text explained that a “laboratory” was a way of thinking about scientific investigations—an intellectual process rather than a building with specialized equipment (Rudolph, 2002, p. 131).

The new approach to using laboratory experiences was also apparent in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study. The study group drew on the developmental psychology of Jean Piaget to integrate laboratory experiences with other forms of instruction in a “learning cycle” (Atkin and Karplus, 1962). The learning cycle included (1) exploration of a concept, often through a laboratory experiment; (2) conceptual invention, in which the student or

TABLE 1-1 New Approaches Included in Post-Sputnik Science Curricula

teacher (or both) derived the concept from the experimental data, usually during a classroom discussion; and (3) concept application in which the student applied the concept (Karplus and Their, 1967). Evaluations of the instructional materials, which were targeted to elementary school students, revealed that they were more successful than traditional forms of science instruction at enhancing students’ understanding of science concepts, their understanding of the processes of science, and their positive attitudes toward science (Abraham, 1998). Subsequently, the learning cycle approach was applied to development of science curricula for high school and undergraduate students. Research into these more recent curricula confirms that “merely providing students with hands-on laboratory experiences is not by itself enough” (Abraham, 1998, p. 520) to motivate and help them understand science concepts and the nature of science.

In sum, the new approach of integrating laboratory experiences represented a marked change from earlier science education. In contrast to earlier curricula, which included laboratory experiences as secondary applications of concepts previously addressed by the teacher, the new curricula integrated laboratory activities into class routines in order to emphasize the nature and processes of science (Shymansky, Kyle, and Alport, 1983; see Table 1-1 ). Large meta-analyses of evaluations of the post-Sputnik curricula (Shymansky et al., 1983; Shymansky, Hedges, and Woodworth, 1990) found they were more effective than the traditional curriculum in boosting students’ science achievement and interest in science. As we discuss in Chapter 3 , current designs of science curricula that integrate laboratory experiences

into ongoing classroom instruction have proven effective in enhancing students’ science achievement and interest in science.

Discovery Learning and Inquiry

One offshoot of the curriculum development efforts in the 1960s and 1970s was the development of an approach to science learning termed “discovery learning.” In 1959, Harvard cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner began to develop his ideas about discovery learning as director of an NRC committee convened to evaluate the new NSF-funded curricula. In a book drawing in part on that experience, Bruner suggested that young students are active problem solvers, ready and motivated to learn science by their natural interest in the material world (Bruner, 1960). He argued that children should not be taught isolated science facts, but rather should be helped to discover the structures, or underlying concepts and theories, of science. Bruner’s emphasis on helping students to understand the theoretical structures of the scientific disciplines became confounded with the idea of engaging students with the physical structures of natural phenomena in the laboratory (Matthews, 1994). Developers of NSF-funded curricula embraced this interpretation of Bruner’s ideas, as it leant support to their emphasis on laboratory activities.

On the basis of his observation that scientific knowledge was changing rapidly through large-scale research and development during this postwar period, Joseph Schwab advocated the closely related idea of an “inquiry approach” to science education (Rudolph, 2003). In a seminal article, Schwab argued against teaching science facts, which he termed a “rhetoric of conclusions” (Schwab, 1962, p. 25). Instead, he proposed that teachers engage students with materials that would motivate them to learn about natural phenomena through inquiry while also learning about some of the strengths and weaknesses of the processes of scientific inquiry. He developed a framework to describe the inquiry approach in a biology laboratory. At the highest level of inquiry, the student simply confronts the “raw phenomenon” (Schwab, 1962, p. 55) with no guidance. At the other end of the spectrum, biology students would experience low levels of inquiry, or none at all, if the laboratory manual provides the problem to be investigated, the methods to address the problem, and the solutions. When Herron applied Schwab’s framework to analyze the laboratory manuals included in the PSSC and the BSCS curricula, he found that most of the manuals provided extensive guidance to students and thus did not follow the inquiry approach (Herron, 1971).

The NRC defines inquiry somewhat differently in the National Science Education Standards . Rather than using “inquiry” as an indicator of the amount of guidance provided to students, the NRC described inquiry as

encompassing both “the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 23) and also students’ activities that support the learning of science concepts and the processes of science. In the NRC definition, student inquiry may include reading about known scientific theories and ideas, posing questions, planning investigations, making observations, using tools to gather and analyze data, proposing explanations, reviewing known theories and concepts in light of empirical data, and communicating the results. The Standards caution that emphasizing inquiry does not mean relying on a single approach to science teaching, suggesting that teachers use a variety of strategies, including reading, laboratory activities, and other approaches to help students learn science (National Research Council, 1996).

Diversity in Schools

During the 1950s, as some scientists developed new science curricula for teaching a small group of mostly white male students, other Americans were much more concerned about the weak quality of racially segregated schools for black children. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Topeka, Kansas Board of Education was in violation of the U.S. Constitution because it provided black students with “separate but equal” education. Schools in both the North and the South changed dramatically as formerly all-white schools were integrated. Following the example of the civil rights movement, in the 1970s and the 1980s the women’s liberation movement sought improved education and employment opportunities for girls and women, including opportunities in science. In response, some educators began to seek ways to improve science education for all students, regardless of their race or gender.

1975 to Present

By 1975, the United States had put a man on the moon, concerns about the “space race” had subsided, and substantial NSF funding for science education reform ended. These changes, together with increased concern for equity in science education, heralded a shift in society’s goals for science education. Science educators became less focused on the goal of disciplinary knowledge for science specialists and began to place greater emphasis on a liberal, humanistic view of science education.

Many of the tensions evident in the first 100 years of U.S. high school laboratories have continued over the past 30 years. Scientists, educators, and policy makers continue to disagree about the nature of science, the goals of science education, and the role of the curriculum and the teacher in student

learning. Within this larger dialogue, debate about the value of laboratory activities continues.

Changing Goals for Science Education

National reports issued during the 1980s and 1990s illustrate new views of the nature of science and increased emphasis on liberal goals for science education. In Science for All Americans , the AAAS advocated the achievement of scientific literacy by all U.S. high school students, in order to increase their awareness and understanding of science and the natural world and to develop their ability to think scientifically (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989). This seminal report described science as tentative (striving toward objectivity within the constraints of human fallibility) and as a social enterprise, while also discussing the durability of scientific theories, the importance of logical reasoning, and the lack of a single scientific method. In the ongoing debate about the coverage of science content, the AAAS took the position that “curricula must be changed to reduce the sheer amount of material covered” (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989, p. 5). Four years later, the AAAS published Benchmarks for Science Literacy , which identified expected competencies at each school grade level in each of the earlier report’s 10 areas of scientific literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993).

The NRC’s National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) built on the AAAS reports, opening with the statement: “This nation has established as a goal that all students should achieve scientific literacy” (p. ix). The NRC proposed national science standards for high school students designed to help all students develop (1) abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry and (2) understandings about scientific inquiry (National Research Council, 1996, p. 173).

In the standards, the NRC suggested a new approach to laboratories that went beyond simply engaging students in experiments. The NRC explicitly recognized that laboratory investigations should be learning experiences, stating that high school students must “actively participate in scientific investigations, and … use the cognitive and manipulative skills associated with the formulation of scientific explanations” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 173).

According to the standards, regardless of the scientific investigation performed, students must use evidence, apply logic, and construct an argument for their proposed explanations. These standards emphasize the importance of creating scientific arguments and explanations for observations made in the laboratory.

While most educators, scientists, and policy makers now agree that scientific literacy for all students is the primary goal of high school science

education, the secondary goals of preparing the future scientific and technical workforce and including science as an essential part of a broad liberal education remain important. In 2004, the NSF National Science Board released a report describing a “troubling decline” in the number of U.S. citizens training to become scientists and engineers at a time when many current scientists and engineers are soon to retire. NSF called for improvements in science education to reverse these trends, which “threaten the economic welfare and security of our country” (National Science Foundation, 2004, p. 1). Another recent study found that secure, well-paying jobs that do not require postsecondary education nonetheless require abilities that may be developed in science laboratories. These include the ability to use inductive and deductive reasoning to arrive at valid conclusions; distinguish among facts and opinions; identify false premises in an argument; and use mathematics to solve problems (Achieve, 2004).

Achieving the goal of scientific literacy for all students, as well as motivating some students to study further in science, may require diverse approaches for the increasingly diverse body of science students, as we discuss in Chapter 2 .

Changing Role of Teachers and Curriculum

Over the past 20 years, science educators have increasingly recognized the complementary roles of curriculum and teachers in helping students learn science. Both evaluations of NSF-funded curricula from the 1960s and more recent research on science learning have highlighted the important role of the teacher in helping students learn through laboratory activities. Cognitive psychologists and science educators have found that the teacher’s expectations, interventions, and actions can help students develop understanding of scientific concepts and ideas (Driver, 1995; Penner, Lehrer, and Schauble, 1998; Roth and Roychoudhury, 1993). In response to this growing awareness, some school districts and institutions of higher education have made efforts to improve laboratory education for current teachers as well as to improve the undergraduate education of future teachers (National Research Council, 2001).

In the early 1980s, NSF began again to fund the development of laboratory-centered high school science curricula. Today, several publishers offer comprehensive packages developed with NSF support, including textbooks, teacher guides, and laboratory materials (and, in some cases, videos and web sites). In 2001, one earth science curriculum, five physical science curricula, five life science curricula, and six integrated science curricula were available for sale, while several others in various science disciplines were still under development (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 2001). In contrast to the curriculum development approach of the 1960s, teachers have played an important role in developing and field-testing these newer

curricula and in designing the teacher professional development courses that accompany most of them. However, as in the 1960s and 1970s, only a few of these NSF-funded curricula have been widely adopted. Private publishers have also developed a multitude of new textbooks, laboratory manuals, and laboratory equipment kits in response to the national education standards and the growing national concern about scientific literacy. Nevertheless, most schools today use science curricula that have not been developed, field-tested, or refined on the basis of specific education research (see Chapter 2 ).

CURRENT DEBATES

Clearly, the United States needs high school graduates with scientific literacy—both to meet the economy’s need for skilled workers and future scientists and to develop the scientific habits of mind that can help citizens in their everyday lives. Science is also important as part of a liberal high school education that conveys an important aspect of modern culture. However, the value of laboratory experiences in meeting these national goals has not been clearly established.

Researchers agree neither on the desired learning outcomes of laboratory experiences nor on whether those outcomes are attained. For example, on the basis of a 1978 review of over 80 studies, Bates concluded that there was no conclusive answer to the question, “What does the laboratory accomplish that could not be accomplished as well by less expensive and less time-consuming alternatives?” (Bates, 1978, p. 75). Some experts have suggested that the only contribution of laboratories lies in helping students develop skills in manipulating equipment and acquiring a feel for phenomena but that laboratories cannot help students understand science concepts (Woolnough, 1983; Klopfer, 1990). Others, however, argue that laboratory experiences have the potential to help students understand complex science concepts, but the potential has not been realized (Tobin, 1990; Gunstone and Champagne, 1990).

These debates in the research are reflected in practice. On one hand, most states and school districts continue to invest in laboratory facilities and equipment, many undergraduate institutions require completion of laboratory courses to qualify for admission, and some states require completion of science laboratory courses as a condition of high school graduation. On the other hand, in early 2004, the California Department of Education considered draft criteria for the evaluation of science instructional materials that reflected skepticism about the value of laboratory experiences or other hands-on learning activities. The proposed criteria would have required materials to demonstrate that the state science standards could be comprehensively covered with hands-on activities composing no more than 20 to 25 percent

of instructional time (Linn, 2004). However, in response to opposition, the criteria were changed to require that the instructional materials would comprehensively cover the California science standards with “hands-on activities composing at least 20 to 25 percent of the science instructional program” (California Department of Education, 2004, p. 4, italics added).

The growing variety in laboratory experiences—which may be designed to achieve a variety of different learning outcomes—poses a challenge to resolving these debates. In a recent review of the literature, Hofstein and Lunetta (2004, p. 46) call attention to this variety:

The assumption that laboratory experiences help students understand materials, phenomena, concepts, models and relationships, almost independent of the nature of the laboratory experience, continues to be widespread in spite of sparse data from carefully designed and conducted studies.

As a first step toward understanding the nature of the laboratory experience, the committee developed a definition and a typology of high school science laboratory experiences.

DEFINITION OF LABORATORY EXPERIENCES

Rapid developments in science, technology, and cognitive research have made the traditional definition of science laboratories—as rooms in which students use special equipment to carry out well-defined procedures—obsolete. The committee gathered information on a wide variety of approaches to laboratory education, arriving at the term “laboratory experiences” to describe teaching and learning that may take place in a laboratory room or in other settings:

Laboratory experiences provide opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with data drawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models, and theories of science.

This definition includes the following student activities:

Physical manipulation of the real-world substances or systems under investigation. This may include such activities as chemistry experiments, plant or animal dissections in biology, and investigation of rocks or minerals for identification in earth science.

Interaction with simulations. Physical models have been used throughout the history of science teaching (Lunetta, 1998). Today, students can work

with computerized models, or simulations, representing aspects of natural phenomena that cannot be observed directly, because they are very large, very small, very slow, very fast, or very complex. Using simulations, students may model the interaction of molecules in chemistry or manipulate models of cells, animal or plant systems, wave motion, weather patterns, or geological formations.

Interaction with data drawn from the real world. Students may interact with real-world data that are obtained and represented in a variety of forms. For example, they may study photographs to examine characteristics of the moon or other heavenly bodies or analyze emission and absorption spectra in the light from stars. Data may be incorporated in films, DVDs, computer programs, or other formats.

Access to large databases. In many fields of science, researchers have arranged for empirical data to be normalized and aggregated—for example, genome databases, astronomy image collections, databases of climatic events over long time periods, biological field observations. With the help of the Internet, some students sitting in science class can now access these authentic and timely scientific data. Students can manipulate and analyze these data drawn from the real world in new forms of laboratory experiences (Bell, 2005).

Remote access to scientific instruments and observations. A few classrooms around the nation experience laboratory activities enabled by Internet links to remote instruments. Some students and teachers study insects by accessing and controlling an environmental scanning electron microscope (Thakkar et al., 2000), while others control automated telescopes (Gould, 2004).

Although we include all of these types of direct and indirect interaction with the material world in this definition, it does not include student manipulation or analysis of data created by a teacher to replace or substitute for direct interaction with the material world. For example, if a physics teacher presented students with a constructed data set on the weight and required pulling force for boxes pulled across desks with different surfaces, asking the students to analyze these data, the students’ problem-solving activity would not constitute a laboratory experience according to the committee’s definition.

Previous Definitions of Laboratories

In developing its definition, the committee reviewed previous definitions of student laboratories. Hegarty-Hazel (1990, p. 4) defined laboratory work as:

a form of practical work taking place in a purposely assigned environment where students engage in planned learning experiences … [and] interact

with materials to observe and understand phenomena (Some forms of practical work such as field trips are thus excluded).

Lunetta defined laboratories as “experiences in school settings in which students interact with materials to observe and understand the natural world” (Lunetta, 1998, p. 249). However, these definitions include only students’ direct interactions with natural phenomena, whereas we include both such direct interactions and also student interactions with data drawn from the material world. In addition, these earlier definitions confine laboratory experiences to schools or other “purposely assigned environments,” but our definition encompasses student observation and manipulation of natural phenomena in a variety of settings, including science museums and science centers, school gardens, local streams, or nearby geological formations. The committee’s definition also includes students who work as interns in research laboratories, after school or during the summer months. All of these experiences, as well as those that take place in traditional school science laboratories, are included in our definition of laboratory experiences.

Variety in Laboratory Experiences

Both the preceding review of the history of laboratories and the committee’s review of the evidence of student learning in laboratories reveal the limitations of engaging students in replicating the work of scientists. It has become increasingly clear that it is not realistic to expect students to arrive at accepted scientific concepts and ideas by simply experiencing some aspects of scientific research (Millar, 2004). While recognizing these limitations, the committee thinks that laboratory experiences should at least partially reflect the range of activities involved in real scientific research. Providing students with opportunities to participate in a range of scientific activities represents a step toward achieving the learning goals of laboratories identified in Chapter 3 . 1

Historians and philosophers of science now recognize that the well-ordered scientific method taught in many high school classes does not exist. Scientists’ empirical research in the laboratory or the field is one part of a larger process that may include reading and attending conferences to stay abreast of current developments in the discipline and to present work in progress. As Schwab recognized (1964), the “structure” of current theories and concepts in a discipline acts as a guide to further empirical research. The work of scientists may include formulating research questions, generat-

ing alternative hypotheses, designing and conducting investigations, and building and revising models to explain the results of their investigations. The process of evaluating and revising models may generate new questions and new investigations (see Table 1-2 ). Recent studies of science indicate that scientists’ interactions with their peers, particularly their response to questions from other scientists, as well as their use of analogies in formulating hypotheses and solving problems, and their responses to unexplained results, all influence their success in making discoveries (Dunbar, 2000). Some scientists concentrate their efforts on developing theory, reading, or conducting thought experiments, while others specialize in direct interactions with the material world (Bell, 2005).

Student laboratory experiences that reflect these aspects of the work of scientists would include learning about the most current concepts and theories through reading, lectures, or discussions; formulating questions; designing and carrying out investigations; creating and revising explanatory models; and presenting their evolving ideas and scientific arguments to others for discussion and evaluation (see Table 1-3 ).

Currently, however, most high schools provide a narrow range of laboratory activities, engaging students primarily in using tools to make observations and gather data, often in order to verify established scientific knowledge. Students rarely have opportunities to formulate research questions or to build and revise explanatory models (see Chapter 4 ).

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The ability of high school science laboratories to help improve all citizens’ understanding and appreciation of science and prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers is affected by the context in which laboratory experiences take place. Laboratory experiences do not take place in isolation, but are part of the larger fabric of students’ experiences during their high school years. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 describes recent trends in U.S. science education and policies influencing science education, including laboratory experiences. In Chapter 3 we turn to a review of available evidence on student learning in laboratories and identify principles for design of effective laboratory learning environments. Chapter 4 describes current laboratory experiences in U.S. high schools, and Chapter 5 discusses teacher and school readiness for laboratory experiences. In Chapter 6 , we describe the current state of laboratory facilities, equipment, and safety. Finally, in Chapter 7 , we present our conclusions and an agenda designed to help laboratory experiences fulfill their potential role in the high school science curriculum.

TABLE 1-2 A Typology of Scientists’ Activities

TABLE 1-3 A Typology of School Laboratory Experiences

Since the late 19th century, high school students in the United States have carried out laboratory investigations as part of their science classes. Since that time, changes in science, education, and American society have influenced the role of laboratory experiences in the high school science curriculum. At the turn of the 20th century, high school science laboratory experiences were designed primarily to prepare a select group of young people for further scientific study at research universities. During the period between World War I and World War II, many high schools emphasized the more practical aspects of science, engaging students in laboratory projects related to daily life. In the 1950s and 1960s, science curricula were redesigned to integrate laboratory experiences into classroom instruction, with the goal of increasing public appreciation of science.

Policy makers, scientists, and educators agree that high school graduates today, more than ever, need a basic understanding of science and technology to function effectively in an increasingly complex, technological society. They seek to help students understand the nature of science and to develop both the inductive and deductive reasoning skills that scientists apply in their work. However, researchers and educators do not agree on how to define high school science laboratories or on their purposes, hampering the accumulation of evidence that might guide improvements in laboratory education. Gaps in the research and in capturing the knowledge of expert science teachers make it difficult to reach precise conclusions on the best approaches to laboratory teaching and learning.

In order to provide a focus for the study, the committee defines laboratory experiences as follows: laboratory experiences provide opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with data drawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models, and theories of science. This definition includes a variety of types of laboratory experiences, reflecting the range of activities that scientists engage in. The following chapters discuss the educational context; laboratory experiences and student learning; current laboratory experiences, teacher and school readiness, facilities, equipment, and safety; and laboratory experiences for the 21st century.

Abraham, M.R. (1998). The learning cycle approach as a strategy for instruction in science. In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education . London, England: Kluwer Academic.

Achieve. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts . (The American Diploma Project.) Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans . Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy . Washington, DC: Author.

Arons, A. (1983). Achieving wider scientific literacy. Daedalus , 112 (2), 91-122.

Atkin, J.M., and Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher , 29 , 45-51.

Bates, G.R. (1978). The role of the laboratory in science teaching. School Science and Mathematics , 83 , 165-169.

Bell, P. (2005). The school science laboratory: Considerations of learning, technology , and scientific practice . Paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/July_12-13_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html .

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2001). Profiles in science: A guide to NSF - funded high school instructional materials . Colorado Springs, CO: Author. Available at: http://www.bscs.org/page.asp?id=Professional_Development|Resources|Profiles_In_Science [accessed Sept. 2004].

Brownell, H., and Wade, F.B. (1925). The teaching of science and the science teacher . New York: Century Company.

Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process of education . New York: Vintage.

Bump, H.C. (1895). Laboratory teaching of large classes—Zoology. [Letter to the editor]. Science, New Series , 1 (10), 260.

California Department of Education. (2004). Criteria for evaluating instructional materials in science, kindergarten through grade eight . Available at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/sc/cf/documents/scicriteria04.pdf [accessed Nov. 2004].

Champagne, A., and Shiland, T. (2004). Large-scale assessment and the high school science laboratory . Presentation to the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, June 3-4, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/June_3-4_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed Jan. 2004].

Davies, K. (2001). Cracking the genome: Inside the race to unlock human DNA . New York: Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1910a). How we think . Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.

Dewey, J. (1910b). Science as subject-matter and method. Science, New Series , 31 , 122, 125.

Downing, E.R. (1919). The scientific method and the problems of school science. School and Society , 10 , 571.

Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In L.P. Steffe and J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 385-400). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., and Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science . Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.

Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science , 17 , 397-434.

Dunbar, K. (2000). How scientists think in the real world: Implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21 (1), 49-58.

Duschl, R. (2004). The HS lab experience: Reconsidering the role of evidence, explanation, and the language of science . Paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, July 12-13, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/July_12-13_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed Nov. 2004].

Gould, R. (2004). About micro observatory . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Available at: http://mo-www.harvard.edu/MicroObservatory/ [accessed Sept. 2004].

Gugliotta, G. (2004). Space sugar a clue to life’s origins. The Washington Post , September 27.

Gunstone, R.F., and Champagne, A.B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 159-182). London, England: Routledge.

Hall, G.S. (1901). How far is the present high-school and early college training adapted to the nature and needs of adolescents? School Review , 9 , 652.

Harvard University. (1889). Descriptive list of elementary physical experiments intended for use in preparing students for Harvard College . Cambridge, MA: Author.

Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1990). Overview. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum . London, England: Routledge.

Herron, M.D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79, 171-212.

Hilosky, A., Sutman, F., and Schmuckler, J. (1998). Is laboratory-based instruction in beginning college-level chemistry worth the effort and expense? Journal of Chemical Education , 75 (1), 103.

Hofstein, A., and Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education , 88 , 28-54.

Hollis, J.M., Jewell, P.R., Lovas, F.J., and Remijan, J. (2004, September 20). Green Bank telescope observations of interstellar glycolaldehyde: Low-temperature sugar. Astrophysical Journal , 613 , L45-L48.

Hull, D. (1988). Science as a process . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Karplus, R., and Their, H.D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science . Chicago: Rand McNally.

Klopfer, L.E. (1990). Learning scientific enquiry in the student laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 95-118). London, England: Routledge.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Linn, M. (2004). High school science laboratories: How can technology contribute? Presentation to the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. June 3-4, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/June_3-4_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed April 2005].

Linn, M.C. (1997). The role of the laboratory in science learning. Elementary School Journal , 97 (4), 401-417.

Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Longino, H. (1994). The fate of knowledge in social theories of science. In F.F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge (pp. 135-158). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Lunetta, V. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching . In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249-262). London, England: Kluwer Academic.

Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science . New York: Routledge.

Merton, R.K., and Barber, E. (2004). The travels and adventures of serendipity . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mill, J.S. (1963). System of logic, ratiocinative and inductive. In J.M. Robson (Ed.), Collected works of John Stuart Mill . Toronto: University of Toronto Press (Original work published 1843).

Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science . Paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, June 3-4, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/June3-4_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed April 2005].

National Education Association. (1894). Report of the Committee of Ten on secondary school studies . New York: American Book Company.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards . National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium . Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation, Center for Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation. (1957). Annual report . Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1957/annualreports/start.htm [accessed Nov. 2004].

National Science Foundation. (2004). An emerging and critical problem of the science and engineering workforce . Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsb0407/start.htm [accessed Sept. 2003].

Penner, D.E., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 7 , 429-449.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy . London, England: Routledge.

Roth, W.M., and Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 30 , 127-152.

Rudolph, J.L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education . New York: Palgrave.

Rudolph, J.L. (2003). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education , 87 , 64-79.

Rudolph, J.L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of the “scientific method” in American schools. History of Education Quarterly , 45(2), 341-376.

Schwab, J.J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In P.F. Brandwein (Ed.), The teaching of science (pp. 1-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schwab, J.J. (1964). The structure of the natural sciences. In G.W. Ford and L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 31-49). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.B., and Woodworth, G. (1990). A re-assessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curriculum of the sixties on student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 20 , 387-404.

Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C., and Alport, J.M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 20 , 387-404.

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

Thakkar, U., Carragher, B., Carroll, L., Conway, C., Grosser, B., Kisseberth, N., Potter, C.S., Robinson, S., Sinn-Hanlon, J., Stone, D., and Weber, D. (2000). Formative evaluation of Bugscope: A sustainable world wide laboratory for K-12 . Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Special Interest Group on Advanced Technologies for Learning, April 24-28, New Orleans, LA. Available at: http://bugscope.beckman.uiuc.edu/publications/index.htm#papers [accessed May 2005].

Tobin, K. 1990. Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics , 90 (5), 403-418.

Welch, W.W. (1979). Twenty years of science education development: A look back. Review of Research in Education , 7 , 282-306.

Whewell, W. (1840). Philosophy of the inductive sciences, founded upon their history . London, England: John W. Parker.

Whewell, W. (1858). The history of the inductive sciences, from the earliest to the present time (3rd edition). New York: Appleton.

White, B.Y., and Frederiksen, J.R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction , 16 (1), 3-118.

Whitman, F.P. (1898). The beginnings of laboratory teaching in America. Science , New Series , 8 (190), 201-206.

Woodhull, J.F. (1909). How the public will solve the problems of science teaching. School Science and Mathematics , 9 , 276.

Woolnough, B.E. (1983). Exercises, investigations and experiences. Physics Education , 18 , 60-63.

Laboratory experiences as a part of most U.S. high school science curricula have been taken for granted for decades, but they have rarely been carefully examined. What do they contribute to science learning? What can they contribute to science learning? What is the current status of labs in our nation�s high schools as a context for learning science? This book looks at a range of questions about how laboratory experiences fit into U.S. high schools:

• What is effective laboratory teaching?
• What does research tell us about learning in high school science labs?
• How should student learning in laboratory experiences be assessed?
• Do all student have access to laboratory experiences?
• What changes need to be made to improve laboratory experiences for high school students?
• How can school organization contribute to effective laboratory teaching?

With increased attention to the U.S. education system and student outcomes, no part of the high school curriculum should escape scrutiny. This timely book investigates factors that influence a high school laboratory experience, looking closely at what currently takes place and what the goals of those experiences are and should be. Science educators, school administrators, policy makers, and parents will all benefit from a better understanding of the need for laboratory experiences to be an integral part of the science curriculum—and how that can be accomplished.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Become an Insider

Sign up today to receive premium content.

Kimberly Mecham is Director of St. Thomas School’s Center for Leadership and Innovation, near Seattle.

STEM Labs Inspire Students, Power Innovation in K-12 Schools

Wylie Wong is a freelance journalist who specializes in business, technology and sports. He is a regular contributor to the CDW family of technology magazines.

St. Thomas School near Seattle hopes to encourage students to develop a passion for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) by starting them young and engaging them with cool, new learning spaces featuring robots and 3D virtual reality computers.

The independent private school in Medina, Wash., starts using technology in prekindergarten and weaves technology into every subject from fourth to eighth grade. The school’s computer science curriculum, for example, starts in preschool with simple wooden robots, allowing students to learn the fundamentals of coding and become confident creating with technology at an early age.

Even though the school equips every student with a Microsoft Surface tablet, it has built two dedicated spaces to bolster STEM education : a computer lab for robotics and coding; and a zSpace lab full of 3D virtual reality computers that allow students to study human anatomy, dive into a volcano and explore the solar system.

“Studies show that the earlier you introduce STEM education , the more children become interested in those subjects,” says Kimberly Mecham, director of St. Thomas School’s Center for Leadership and Innovation. “We are seeing more of an interest from our students in creating, building and being curious about things. A lot of kids are engaged, including girls, and that’s our goal.”

Schools and districts are investing in STEM education to provide students the skills they need to thrive in their future careers, from technical skills to critical thinking, ­problem-solving, creativity, communication and collaboration.

Many schools are building dedicated high-tech learning spaces to start or invigorate their STEM programs. Advanced manufacturing labs, for example, provide hands-on learning experiences where students can design products on computers and build those products with 3D printers, laser cutters and other computer-connected equipment .

“Having a dedicated space for access to advanced technology and a space where students feel empowered to engage in high-level problem-solving is critical for student development in the 21st century,” says Michael Stone, director of innovative learning for the Public Education Foundation, a nonprofit that aims to transform public education in Tennessee and has helped build digital fabrication labs in schools with the assistance of corporate and state grants.

“It’s creating a student-centered, student-driven space,” Stone adds. “Silicon Valley corporations have moved away from cubicles to creating collision spaces where ideas can come to life. If that works at companies like Google and Apple, the same mindset should be in schools.”

Critical Thinking Spaces Spark Opportunities for All

Through STEM education, schools are teaching the design thinking concept of understanding a problem, creating a solution, testing and iterating on it, and once perfected, sharing it with the world. While the ultimate goal is to attract students into STEM careers because the U.S. has a shortage of skilled workers in fields such as engineering and computer science, the skills students learn from STEM are applicable to everything they do, educators say.

“It’s about being able to critically think and have them productively struggle and fail, learn from that and work through the problems. It’s really an authentic way of learning,” says Susan Ramsey, science coordinator at Charlottesville City Schools in Virginia.

In an effort to inspire its 4,300 students, particularly underrepresented groups such as girls and people of color, to explore STEM, the district has ­created a welcoming and creative environment for every student who wants to take part.

“Our students don’t have to fill out applications to join the programs. We don’t look for the ‘best and the brightest.’ We are looking for anyone with an interest,” says Ramsey, who in recent years has beefed up the district’s STEM program to include all grades. “We tell students, ‘If you want to be in engineering, you can be in engineering.’ ”

That commitment includes building state-of-the-art labs at its middle and high schools, where students can work on projects as part of their engineering courses or after-school clubs.

The 7,200-square-foot Sigma Lab at Charlottesville High School is a flexible learning space that includes a computer lab and an advanced fabrication lab with network-connected 3D printers, CNC machines and laser cutters, where students can design and build products such as prosthetic limbs and quadcopters. The space also includes informal collaborative spaces with soft armchairs and ­glass-walled project rooms with tables, whiteboards and interactive displays, so students can work on projects together.

Tech Infrastructure and Support Allows for Classroom Innovation

The district equips students in grades three through 12 with Chromebooks , but to access software necessary for STEM activities, such as computer-aided design programs and Adobe Creative Cloud , the IT department needed high-powered Windows-based computers, says Jeff Faust, the district’s technology director. Charlottesville standardized on Lenovo ThinkCentre All-In-One desktop computers in its middle and high school tech labs .

At the Sigma Lab, the computers link to a video wall of 12 large, interconnected NEC LED displays, which allow teachers to show video clips, snippets of software code or students’ computer screens.

Schools need a robust network to support a high-tech STEM lab, Faust says. The district built a dedicated 1-gigabit-per-second LAN for the Sigma Lab , which is backhauled to the 10Gbps network core at district headquarters. The IT staff also placed the computer and video wall’s network traffic in its own virtual LAN to ensure the equipment had ample bandwidth.

“We wanted to protect video traffic and make sure it’s as high quality as ­possible,” he says.

The IT department has installed Cisco Meraki wireless access points throughout the district, including inside the lab. With Wi-Fi, students can also use their Chromebooks to work and ­collaborate in the project rooms, Faust says. In fact, the IT staff created a special service set identifier on one of its APs so students can connect lab computers wirelessly to robotic devices.

Robots and Virtual Reality Provide Hands-On Experience

At St. Thomas School, Mecham says that even though students are issued Microsoft Surface devices, it’s important to provide them with a dedicated computer lab for two reasons: High-powered desktop computers give students the performance they need for video editing and other specialized software , and large touch-screen monitors provide students more real estate on which to do work.

First- to eighth-grade students use the lab’s 19 Dell desktops not only for video production, but also for robotics and coding. “It makes it easier for them to split their screen to code and read directions or research things on the internet,” she says.

The room is made to be flexible. The computers are on the sides with tables in the middle where students can work on their robots. Sometimes they push the tables into different configurations (or push them out of the room altogether) so they can work on the floor and create obstacle courses for their robots, Mecham says.

Preschoolers use wooden robots that are programmable with blocks that have simple commands, such as forward, stop or turn left. Older students work with more sophisticated robots. Humanoid robots, for example, are ­programmable using drag-and-drop commands or with Python or another programming language.

The robots are easy to support. While students can connect some robots to the wireless network, they can also send instructions to their robots by connecting wirelessly on their tablets through Bluetooth, Mecham says.

The virtual reality lab, designed for third to eighth graders, features 12 3D VR computers and several 3D printers on carts. Students, working in pairs, wear 3D glasses and use a stylus to pick things up and see objects from every angle. They can take virtual fieldtrips to museums and design objects that they then print on the 3D printers , she says.

Discovery Center Lets Educators and Students Explore

In Potomac, Md., the Bullis School opened its dream STEM building last September. The independent K–12 school with 800 students nearly doubled its classroom space with the opening of its $25 million Discovery Center , a 70,000-square-foot state-of-the-art building with more than 20 classrooms and science labs, a makerspace, a fabrication lab, a digital media studio and telepresence hall.

The facility allows Bullis School to expand its STEM course offerings, says Faith Darling, the school’s STEM director.

“We were bursting at the seams, and this creates flexible learning spaces that allow for more sophisticated learning experiences,” she says.

Each room uses Crestron control panels to control lights and projectors. One computer lab features 3D VR computers. The digital media classroom includes eight high-end Dell laptops with Adobe Creative Suite for students to edit video, as well as a sound studio and a wall painted green to serve as a green screen. The makerspace areas include robotics and 3D printers, says Jamie Dickie, Bullis School’s tech­nology director.

The Discovery Center, which has a wireless network built with Aruba equipment, includes some unique classroom spaces. For example, the X Classroom is a math classroom that has four tables configured in an X, so there is no front or back to the room. This setup encourages collaboration and project-based learning . At the end of each table are video screens, allowing students to plug in their computers and display their work.

“You can share with a large group or focus on smaller group work,” Dickie says. “People don’t associate math with project-based learning, but we want that to be our approach.”

Designing and building the Discovery Center required school leaders to explore what kinds of technologies were available and how teachers might actually use them. An important philosophy, Darling says, is that technology should support the program — don’t just purchase ­technology for technology’s sake.

“It’s making sure that technology is not the thing that takes over. The priority is the pedagogy and ensuring that we have the technology to support what we are trying to accomplish,” she says.

Overall, creating dedicated STEM spaces in schools is important to a sizable and growing portion of a district’s student body, says Charlottesville’s Faust. “It goes back to what a student said to us: ‘If you are an athlete, you join a sports team. If you are a performing arts student, you have theater, visual arts or music. But where is the place for geeks?’ ” he recalls. “The STEM lab is an avenue to reach students who want to express themselves creatively but not through athletics or music.”

• Blended Learning
• Personalized Learning

Related Articles

Unlock white papers, personalized recommendations and other premium content for an in-depth look at evolving IT

Copyright © 2024 CDW LLC 200 N. Milwaukee Avenue , Vernon Hills, IL 60061 Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Advertisement

How Should Students Learn in the School Science Laboratory? The Benefits of Cooperative Learning

• Published: 13 July 2017
• Volume 49 , pages 331–345, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• Ayala Raviv 1 ,
• Sarit Cohen 1 &
• Ester Aflalo 1  

3454 Accesses

22 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Despite the inherent potential of cooperative learning, there has been very little research into its effectiveness in middle school laboratory classes. This study focuses on an empirical comparison between cooperative learning and individual learning in the school science laboratory, evaluating the quality of learning and the students’ attitudes. The research included 67 seventh-grade students who undertook four laboratory experiments on the subject of “volume measuring skills.” Each student engaged both in individual and cooperative learning in the laboratory, and the students wrote individual or group reports, accordingly. A total of 133 experiment reports were evaluated, 108 of which also underwent textual analysis. The findings show that the group reports were superior, both in terms of understanding the concept of “volume” and in terms of acquiring skills for measuring volume. The students’ attitudes results were statistically significant and demonstrated that they preferred cooperative learning in the laboratory. These findings demonstrate that science teachers should be encouraged to implement cooperative learning in the laboratory. This will enable them to improve the quality and efficiency of laboratory learning while using a smaller number of experimental kits. Saving these expenditures, together with the possibility to teach a larger number of students simultaneously in the laboratory, will enable greater exposure to learning in the school science laboratory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Social Learning Theory—Albert Bandura

A Historical Review of Collaborative Learning and Cooperative Learning

Using technology to make learning fun: technology use is best made fun and challenging to optimize intrinsic motivation and engagement

Loukia David & Netta Weinstein

Alghamdi, R., & Gillies, R. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning in comparison to traditional learning (small groups) on EFL learners’ outcomes when learning English as a foreign language. Asian Social Science, 9 (13), 19–27.

Google Scholar  

Aydin, S. (2011). Effect of cooperative learning and traditional methods on students’ achievements and identifications of laboratory equipments in science-technology laboratory course. Educational Research and Reviews, 6 (9), 636–644.

Bordenstein, S. R., Brothers, C., Wolfe, G., Bahr, M., & Minckley, R. L. (2010). Using the Wolbachia bacterial symbiont to teach inquiry-based science: a high school laboratory series. The American Biology Teacher , 72 (8), 478–72 (8),483.

Cavalier, J. C., & Klein, J. D. (1998). Effects of cooperative versus individual learning and orienting activities during computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46 (1), 5–17.

Article   Google Scholar  

Chun-Yen, C., & Song-Ling, M. (1999). The effects on students’ cognitive achievement when using the cooperative learning method in earth science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 99 (7), 374–379.

Clyde, F. H. (1998). Why isn’t cooperative learning used to teach science? Bioscience , 48 (7), 553–48 (7), 559.

Emmer, E. T., & Gerwels, M. C. (2002). Cooperative learning in elementary classrooms: teaching practices and lesson characteristics. The Elementary School Journal, 103 (1), 75–91.

Han, M. (2015). An empirical study on the application of cooperative learning to English listening classes. English Language Teaching, 8 (3), 177–184.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundation for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88 , 28–54.

Hsiung, C. M. (2010). Identification of dysfunctional cooperative learning teams based on students’ academic achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 99 (1), 45–54.

Hsiung, C. M. (2011). Identification of dysfunctional cooperative learning teams using taguchi quality indexes. Journal of Engineering Educational technology, 14 (3), 152–162.

Hsiung, C. M. (2012). The effectiveness of cooperative learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 101 (1), 119–137.

Johnson, D. W. (2014). Cooperative learning in twenty-first century. Anales de Psicología , 30 (3),841–30 (3),851.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: overview and meta analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22 (1), 95–105.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38 (5), 365–379.

Keys, C. W. (1996). Writing collaborative laboratory reports in ninth grade science: three case studies of social interactions. School Science and Mathematics, 96 (4), 178.

Köse, S., Sahin, A., Ergün, A., & Gezer, K. (2010). The effects of cooperative learning experience on eight grade students’ achievement and attitude toward science. Education, 131 (1), 169–180.

Leikin, R., & Zaslavsky, O. (1999). Cooperative learning in mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 92 (3), 240–246.

Lord, T. R. (2001). 101 reasons for using cooperative learning in biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 63 (1), 30–38.

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71 (3), 449–521.

Lv, Y. (2014). Cooperative learning: an effective approach to college English learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4 (9), 1948–1953.

Mehta, S., & Kulshrestha, A. K. (2014). Implementation of cooperative learning in science: a developmental-cum-experimental study. Education Research International , 431542. doi: 10.1155/2014/431542 .Article ID

Nicholl, T. A., & Lou, K. (2012). A model for small-group problem-based learning in a large class facilitated by one instructor. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76 (6), 117.

Olubu, O. M. (2015). Effects of laboratory learning environment on students learning outcomes in secondary school chemistry. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8 (2), 507–525.

Olufunke, B. T. (2012). Effect of availability and utilization of physics laboratory equipment on students’ academic achievement in senior secondary school physics. World Journal of Education, 2 , 5.

Pan, C., & Wu, H. (2013). The cooperative learning effects on English reading comprehension and learning motivation of EFL freshmen. English Language Teaching, 6 (5), 13–27. doi: 10.5539/elt.v6n5p13 .

Piccinini, N., & Scollo, G. (2006). Cooperative project-based learning in a web-based software engineering course. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9 (4), 54–62.

Scheuerell, S. (2010). Virtual Warrensburg: using cooperative learning and the internet in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 101 (5), 194–199.

Shumow, L., Schmidt, J. A., & Zaleski, D. J. (2013). Multiple perspectives on student learning, engagement, and motivation in high school biology labs. The High School Journal, 96 (3), 232–252.

Spektor-Levi, O. (2011). The nature of matter. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, Bonus Publishing (in Hebrew).

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69 (1), 21–51.

Strommen, E. (1995). Cooperative learning: technology may be the Trojan horse that brings collaboration to the classroom. Electronic learning, 14 (6), 24–35.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: the development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, C. Y., Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Hwang, F. K., Chang, H. Y., Wu, Y. T., Chiou, G. L., Chen, S., Liang, J. C., Lin, J. W., Lo, H. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). A review of research on technology-assisted school science laboratories. Educational Technology & Society, 17 (2), 307–320.

Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38 (3), 321–341.

Yadin, A., & Or-Bach, R. (2008). Fostering individual learning - when and how. Inroads, ACM SigCSE Bulletin, 40 (4), 83–87.

Yadin, A., & Or-Bach, R. (2010). The importance of emphasizing individual learning in the “collaborative learning era”. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21 (2), 185–194.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hemdat Hadarom College, POB 412, Azata Educational Campus, 80200, Netivot, Israel

Ayala Raviv, Sarit Cohen & Ester Aflalo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayala Raviv .

Additional information

This study was undertaken with the assistance of the Research Authority at Hemdat Hadarom College.

Appendix: Description of the Four Experiments

Experiment 1: Addressed the measurement of the volume of a solid in the form of a cuboid. The students were given cubes from which they made a cuboid and measured its volume. The structured experiment sheets instructed the students to name the experiment, define its goal, and describe the tools used and their method. They were also required to answer the following questions: How many dimensions does the cuboid have?

How did you calculate the volume of the cuboid and what units of measurement did you use to determine the volume of the cuboid? Calculate the volume of a cuboid whose dimensions are width 5 cm, length 10 cm, and height 4 cm.

Experiment 2: Addressed the measurement of the volume of liquid. The students were asked to measure various volumes of water using measuring cups of different volumes. They were given three cups with the volumes 10, 20, and 100 cu.cm 3 . They were required to determine the measuring range of each cup and the measurement units, and to plan a way of calculating the volume that could be contained in each cup. They also had to determine what was the most appropriate measuring cup for measuring 90 cu.cm 3 ,9 cu.cm 3 , and 19 cm 3 of water. They were required to execute the experiment, enter the findings in a comparative table, and draw conclusions. In their conclusions, they were also asked to state two common properties of all three measuring cups and three differences between the cups.

Experiment 3: Addressed the measurement of liquid in different containers. In the previous experiment, the students learned how to measure the volume of a liquid. In this one, they examined whether a volume of liquid remains constant. When we transfer liquid from one container to another, does its volume change? The students were given 50 ml of water and three containers: a 250-ml chemical cup, a 100-ml measuring cup, and a 200-ml conical bottle. They were required to plan an experiment answering the above-mentioned questions. They were asked to define the goal of the experiment, write down the method using the containers and materials available to them, describe the results, and draw conclusions.

Experiment 4: Addressed the measurement of volume of solids of a defined geometrical shape and without a defined geometrical shape. The students were given three items: a wooden cube, a stone, and a piece of modeling clay. They were also given a tape measure, a measuring cup, and water. They were required to suggest ways of measuring the volume of the three items. After they wrote down the experiment method and the tools and materials needed for the measurement, they presented their proposal to the teacher and received approval to execute the measurement. They then wrote down the results and their conclusions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Raviv, A., Cohen, S. & Aflalo, E. How Should Students Learn in the School Science Laboratory? The Benefits of Cooperative Learning. Res Sci Educ 49 , 331–345 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9618-2

Download citation

Published : 13 July 2017

Issue Date : April 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9618-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cooperative learning
• Individual learning
• School science laboratory
• Students’ attitudes
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Answering your popular school science lab questions

School science labs are a crucial learning space for students to gain and develop relevant skills and experience. Providing such learning environments helps improve learning success and student attainment. But there are many elements to consider with school science labs.

We’ve got all the answers to your popular science lab questions to help your school provide a learning environment that benefits science learning.

Discover how to design a successful learning space for STEM

Do all schools have science labs?

Most schools will have science labs for teaching science. Access to school science labs allows students to participate in practical exercises and experiments to support their learning. In the UK, it is estimated each secondary will have an average of six science labs.

Why do we need a biology laboratory in school?

Biology laboratories in schools are essential for allowing students to learn through experimentation and practical exercises. A biology lab provides the opportunity for experiments such as dissections, microscopic observations, and photosynthesis/plant growth observations.

What are the steps to build a biology lab?

Some of the steps involved in building a biology lab include:

• Set a purpose/goal for the lab.
• Decide on the location, layout, and arrangement.
• Assign a budget for the build.
• Acquisition and installation of FF&E.
• Installation of safety features and tests.

Why do science labs have modern equipment?

Like advances in technology, science equipment also improves and advances. Sticking with old, outdated, or existing equipment can become less efficient and reliable over time. Science labs upgrade to modern equipment for greater reliability, accuracy, and safety.

What are the components of a school laboratory?

There are many components and elements of a school lab design . Some of the essential components of a school science lab includes:

• Flexible learning spaces, for both theoretical and practical learning, can adjust to fit the needs of a given lesson.
• Environment, such as natural light, temperature, and air quality, can all impact student learning.
• Arrangement and layout of the furniture and tables so students can always hear and see the teacher.
• Space utilisation and limiting the number of hazards/safety risks, such ease of moving items to and from science technician rooms.

What is needed for practical science in the classroom?

Practical science in the classroom requires a range of equipment and resources, including safety equipment, science supplies and tools, access to technology, curriculum materials, collaboration tools, time and room set-up, and professional development.

What can a learner experience in a science classroom?

By providing science classrooms for students, learners can have hands-on practical experiences that allow them to develop skills and expertise in scientific concepts and principles. It also allows students to work together and collaborate.

What are some good objectives for science labs?

The first stage of designing science labs for schools is to set a clear goal or objective for what you want the learning space to achieve. Some examples of objectives for school science lab design include skill development, investigation and discovery, and developing scientific reasoning.

Why should schools have science laboratory equipment?

Science laboratory equipment is a crucial element of a successful school science lab. By providing science laboratory equipment, you allow students to perform experiments. Partaking in practical experiments improves understanding and knowledge of scientific concepts.

How do you maintain school science labs?

Maintaining a science lab helps keep all equipment, furniture, and fixtures in great shape. To maintain a science lab, cleaning all exterior surfaces daily, doing a weekly deep cleaning of all equipment, and regularly cleaning microscopes are recommended. Regular testing is also recommended to ensure safety.

What are some safety rules in a science lab?

Ensuring safety in a school science lab is a top priority. Safety rules that every school should follow include:

• No eating or drinking
• Wearing PPE
• Tucking in loose clothing
• Good hygiene practice
• Keeping focused
• Using suitable storage containers

What are the functions of a fume cupboard in the laboratory?

A fume cupboard is an essential piece of equipment for chemistry science labs. A fume cupboard is used for science experiments that produce dangerous air-borne substances, such as gas, smoke, or vapours.

Why are students taught science through experiments?

Practical experiments should be within every school’s science curriculum as they allow students to develop skills, experience, and understanding. Practical exercises provide a chance for students to apply and enhance theoretical knowledge.

What are some tips for buying lab furniture?

Two of the biggest tips for buying lab furniture are quality and the needs/aims of the learning space. Other factors or tips to consider when purchasing lab furniture include budget, ergonomics, comfort, practicality, flexibility, and maintenance.

What are the most important design elements for school science labs?

There are many design elements for a school science lab. However, some of these elements are more important than others and will require extra consideration. Design elements, such as safety, efficiency, flexibility, comfort, and aesthetics, are the most important.

How does safety matter in terms of lab design?

During practical exercises, there are many potential safety risks and hazards. Fall hazards, chemicals, burns, and air pollution are all potential safety hazards. Safety should be at the forefront of a lab design, such as the lab layout, to minimise the risk of accidents or injury.

How important is the interior design in school science labs?

The interior design of a school science lab is crucial to improving student’s learning. An effective lab interior design will consider functionality, safety, compliance, and maintenance to ensure the safest and best possible learning environment.

What kind of science tools might you use in a laboratory?

Some of the standard and popular tools in science you might use in a laboratory include:

• Funnels and bottles
• Bunsen burners
• Microscopes
• Burettes and pipes
• Clamps and stands

What are the components of school science labs?

A school science laboratory may have three components to support learning and practical experiments. These are research or theoretical learning areas, storage for frequently used equipment, and lab benches to conduct experiments.

What happens in a physics lab?

A physics science lab is designed specifically for the physics science discipline to provide students with hands-on experiences. A physics lab may include additional scientific equipment not found in other labs, such as lasers, oscilloscopes, and circuit boards.

What are the features of a chemistry laboratory?

A chemistry lab will have several features specific to teaching this science discipline. Some elements include fume cupboards, fire extinguishers, an eye washing station, gas valves for Bunsen burners, and chemical glassware.

Did we answer all your questions on school science labs? Whether you have an existing lab that needs upgrading/maintenance or are in the process of designing new science labs, there are bound to be questions that will arise. The answers above will help your school provide the best possible modern learning environment for science subjects.

Discover the importance of technology in STEM learning spaces

Join our mailing list

Join our mailing list and keep up to date with all the latest news and information.

Importance of Science Labs in Education

For many people, the high school or middle school science lab is a core memory. Whether it was learning the basics of chemistry through the interactions of acids and bases or dissecting a frog, science labs are a vital part of education.

School science labs are more than just a memory, though– they are an important part of the educational experience at all levels. 

Why Teach Lab Science?

Science is the study of facts and the way we interact with the world. Learning about the scientific method teaches children how to ask questions and gather the evidence needed for the most complete answer. Comprehensive science education lets students learn how to develop ideas, discover the world around them, and ask challenging questions about our place in that world.

In most educational philosophies, learning about science simply isn’t enough. To fully understand the experiential nature of science, students need the space to do their own experiments, learn how to conduct research, and practice scientific learning through trial and error.

In academic school labs , students are active learners, not just passive recipients of knowledge. 

Labs provide students with various opportunities to learn and experiment, which plays a crucial role in the ongoing intellectual development of students at any academic level. Science labs give students the time, space, and resources to explore and experiment. 

Early Elementary Science Lab Learning

From the very start of a child’s educational journey, science labs can play an important role in educational development. At the kindergarten to second-grade levels, kids are beginning to grasp the idea that actions have consequences. Simple experiments work best for kids at this age level and they will need a lot of help to complete them.

An ideal science lab for elementary students has lots of safe equipment. Only the most basic chemicals are appropriate, like baking soda and vinegar.

Experiments that teach kids about color, light, and sound can help them explore their world. Doing science experiments benefits these kids by letting them be creative and not just receive answers, but find answers.

Because of the nature of elementary education, most science at this level is done in the classroom instead of a separate lab space. Students at this age level benefit greatly from consistent instruction, and getting up and going to a lab can be disruptive.

Early elementary teachers can take advantage of the time they spend with their students by having a designated science corner or an in-classroom lab.

Late Elementary Science Lab Learning

Students in grades 3-5 are just as curious as early elementary students but are better equipped to ask more articulate questions about their world. They are interested in exploring the relationships between living things and their environments, which means that new biological concepts like metamorphosis and the life cycle will start to resonate with them.

Like early elementary school students, late elementary school students typically use a single classroom instructional model for most academic subjects, including science. Keeping lab equipment in the classroom will help expose students to the types of equipment they’ll be seeing more regularly in the next stage of their academic careers.

The ideal science lab or science classroom for late elementary school students can be a little more complex than lab equipment for younger students, but not by much. Safety is still a huge concern, as little fingers aren’t the most coordinated.

Both stages of elementary school science should focus on introducing good safety practices like close-toed shoes, eye protection, and gloves where appropriate. Lab science lets these students learn about procedures and safety, as well as how their actions impact things around them.

Middle School Science Lab Learning

By middle school, students will be much more comfortable with the idea of transitioning learning spaces and instructors, so at this stage, it becomes much more feasible and enjoyable to have a separate classroom as a dedicated science lab space. Doing experiments in a science lab fosters independent learning, as well as interdependence and peer learning through working with lab partners. 

Students at the middle school level are also more capable of grasping bigger, more complex concepts about the interrelatedness of various processes and how elements work in a biological or chemical system. They are more responsible and mature enough to handle glassware and run some experiments with less hands-on direction from the instructors. 

The ideal middle school science lab is a standalone room where students have the space to conduct more complicated experiments, particularly in regard to basic chemistry. Dissections, light microscope work, and even introductory cell biology are appropriate for a middle school science lab. Depending on the size of the school, it may make sense to have dedicated chemistry and biology labs. 

High School Science Lab Learning

By high school, students will have developed the capability to analyze systems more thoroughly and understand more advanced concepts. High school students typically need less time with an individual concept, and instruction at this level relies on building on the basic concepts towards a more advanced understanding of the principles of various sciences.

High school science is designed to give students a solid foundation in understanding the natural world, but also to help students discover if a career in science is right for them. The hands-on education they get in the lab is vital to nurturing the next generation of science professionals, and the high school lab sciences should be as engaging as possible.

At this level, science labs can be more specialized. As the complexity of the science taught in the lab goes up, so does the level of specialization within the lab. High school chemistry and biology are advanced enough that they really do need to be taught in separate rooms with their own special set of equipment. 

Secondary Education Science Lab Learning

When students get to college, the world of science specialization blossoms. Where most high schools offer biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science, colleges can offer highly specialized versions of these courses that are tailored to the demands of the scientific professions. Labs are where future scientists learn how to take experiments further than they did in high school, and where they may find themselves really designing and running experiments of their own for the first time. 

Each branch of science needs its own labs at the college stage, and many classes have designated lab space just for that one course’s lab needs. A microbiology lab has different requirements than an organic chemistry lab , and so there’s no one way to build university labs. Instead, lab designers need to consider the program’s specific needs, as well as the needs of the students.

Designing An Educational Science Lab

We can’t overstate the importance of science labs in education. If you’re planning on renovating existing lab space or building a new lab at any educational level, OnePointe Solutions can help. You will need ergonomic, durable chairs or stools that can support lots of people with varied body types. You will need durable countertops that can stand up to years of prolonged use. You will need cabinetry that can safely store chemical reagents or biological materials, and you will need workstations that allow your students to work successfully.

At OnePointe Solutions, our specialty is lab design. No matter what your school’s science lab needs are, we can help! Contact us or call us at (866) 612-7312 to schedule a free consultation today.

Questions? Concerns? Want to start today? Get in touch. 866.612.7312

What makes a great school science laboratory?

STEM subjects are on the rise in schools – the Department of Education reported an increased uptake of 78,000 in this year alone. For science subjects, this means that it’s now more important than ever to offer high-quality learning spaces for students.

Commercial lab specialists, InterFocus , take a closer look at what exactly makes a great school science laboratory.

Flexible spaces

Multi-purpose science labs that can support different disciplines are important. Biology, chemistry, physics – these subjects require different materials, facilities and teaching methods, and therefore have different requirements for a laboratory environment.

Lightweight furnishings and non-fixed pieces of equipment can help create a flexible classroom which can be altered and changed before or during a lesson. As curriculums and class sizes continue to change and grow, it is important that all science laboratories can accommodate this.

Open lines of communication

The traditional classroom set-up of rows of students in front of a teacher can negatively impact lines of communication. It is no secret that more disruptive and less dedicated students will immediately head for the back rows of classrooms where their behaviour can be hidden more easily. However, when potentially hazardous materials are in play, this is less than ideal.

It can be beneficial to completely restructure the science laboratory to support clear and open lines of communication. If built from scratch, the laboratory could benefit from being designed in a square shape with larger but fewer rows of students lined up in front of the teacher. If restructuring a current classically-designed laboratory which is longer than it is wide, it may be preferable to reposition the teacher along one of the longer walls rather than in the traditional position.

Alongside the open lines of communication, science laboratories can benefit from simple lanes of access for students and faculty. This can simplify the transition between solo learning and group projects – again better accommodating both theoretical and practical learning methods.

Impetus on practical learning

Although Ofqual have made some moves recently which seem to diminish the importance of practical learning in secondary school sciences, many respected bodies remain adamant that simply concentrating on theoretical learning will not adequately prepare students who are planning on taking the subject into further education or as a vocation.

Developing students’ practical skills can help aid and abet their theoretical understanding – ensuring the students are better prepared for theoretical examinations and further studies. Creating a science laboratory that can accommodate a wide range of practical lessons across all science disciplines is central to improving and expanding students’ understanding of the principles.

While ticking boxes and hitting grade targets are hugely important, it is also vital that students are provided with a well-rounded and comprehensive education in the scientific disciplines. This can help nurture a love of the sciences within the next generation which may be lost with stale teaching techniques.

Comprehensive storage

With only a few hours a week dedicated to the sciences in the vast majority of school curriculums, it is vital that this time is invested properly to ensure the students receive maximum benefit – giving them the greatest chance of significant and measurable academic progress. This makes it important that minimal time is spent on setting up a lesson – necessitating comprehensive and efficient storage options.

Making it quicker and easier to access all important materials and pieces of equipment will mean that more time can be dedicated to lessons.

Here at InterFocus, we stress the importance of adequate storage: “More and more schools are developing dedicated storage rooms for their science laboratories to simplify the process of all classes and course leaders procuring the equipment they require for the upcoming lesson.”

Positive environment factors

The Clever Classrooms research from the University of Salford revealed that the environmental factors of a classroom can have significant impact upon the learning and academic progress of students. The report revealed that progress could be improved by as much as 16 per cent in just one year with considered implementation of positive air quality, décor and natural light.

These environmental factors can be incredibly simple to implement throughout all classrooms. A high level of natural light is particularly important in science classrooms, with a well-lit room central to accurately reading the results of practical experiments. Natural light also offers a number of wellness benefits to the students and faculty alike.

Centralised safety features

The hazardous nature of science laboratories means that safety measures must be carefully considered and intelligently implemented. This is particularly pertinent for younger classes, who may not fully appreciate the potential hazards of the materials they are using. It is important, therefore, to ensure that a fully-trained teacher or course leader has control over the safety features at all times.

A centralised switch to turn off gas taps and electronics in the science laboratory can reduce the risk of students accidently putting their welfare and the welfare of others at risk. It is becoming increasingly popular for new science laboratories to implement an emergency stop button or thread on or around the course leader’s desk – allowing them to take decisive action when necessary.

Improved, durable materials

The standard materials used for school desks have evolved significantly over the years. Instead of wooden desks, which have long proven to be fire risks and susceptible to damage, many progressive schools are now implementing desks made of improved, durable materials.

Modern materials such as Velstone, Staron, Hi-Macs, Trespa and Avonite have all been designed to offer effective durable support to classrooms. These high strength desks can support practical and theoretical learning without showing the same signs of wear and tear as older, less-developed materials.

Current technology

The Tablets for Schools movement best exemplifies the benefits of providing up-to-date technology in the classroom for students. Implementing technology which children are familiar with can help encourage participation and support interaction. The widely-accepted tablet technology can help students feel comfortable and better understand their learning medium.

Ofcom revealed last year that one in three school-age children now have their own tablet device, ensuring quick adaption if and when the technology is implemented in the classroom. Additionally, wifi-connected tablet devices can help students conduct their own primary research, accessing almost limitless avenues of information.

Beneficial technological advances in the classroom extend further than tablets and computer devices. Wildly popular video game Minecraft is now being used in classrooms all around the world, educating students in physics, geology, technology and more. Again, this is a great example of imparting knowledge using a medium with which many students will be comfortable.

It is vitally important that the teachers and course leaders are also comfortable with these changing and evolving technologies and all aspects of the science laboratory. Full and comprehensive utilisation of all the features of a science laboratory can create a truly progressive learning environment for students.

InterFocus is the leading UK manufacturer of laboratory furniture, providing lab solutions for schools, industries and healthcare. For more information, visit: www.mynewlab.com

Further reading:

A blueprint for a better classroom – Does the design of a classroom affect children’s learning? We may intuitively feel it to be so, but for the first time, research has confirmed the positive impact factors such as good lighting, careful colour choices and a sense of ownership can have on achievement. Hannah Sharron reports.

Privacy Overview

• Work with us
• Directories
• Become a member

Search form

You are here, what kind of laboratory is a school science laboratory an ‘inquiry’ sceptic’s view.

By Barend Vlaardingerbroek

Issue 369 | Page 105 | Published Jun 2018

Description

A school science laboratory is a teaching laboratory where novices are introduced to the workings and technology of science by carrying out prescribed, supervised activities

More from this issue

Teaching strategies for the rearrangement of scientific equations

Hot to teach rearrangement of scientific equations.

Knowing is only the first step: strategies to support the development of scientific understanding

Girls into Global STEM

An EU-funded project with a focus on developing methodologies to counter gender disparities in STEM uptake in secondary schools.

Home — Application Essay — Science School — Northwestern Science School: In the Lab of Discovery

Northwestern Science School: In the Lab of Discovery

• University: Northwestern University

About this sample

Words: 610 |

Published: Jan 26, 2024

Words: 610 | Pages: 1 | 4 min read

Venturing into the intricate realms of science has been a captivating journey of discovery and fascination for me. As I set my sights on higher education, my aspirations are succinctly reflected in the Northwestern University Science School supplement essay . This essay encapsulates not only my passion for scientific inquiry but also my commitment to pushing the boundaries of knowledge within the vibrant community at Northwestern.

Say no to plagiarism.

Get a tailor-made essay on

'Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned'?

My fascination with science ignited during my early years, as I marveled at the wonders of the natural world. From the complexity of biological systems to the elegance of mathematical equations, every discovery fueled my curiosity and set me on a path of intellectual exploration. This profound interest evolved into a relentless pursuit of understanding the fundamental principles that govern our universe.

The prospect of joining the esteemed Northwestern University Science School is a beacon illuminating my academic journey. Northwestern's commitment to fostering a dynamic and collaborative scientific community aligns seamlessly with my belief that breakthroughs occur at the intersection of diverse perspectives. It is this collaborative spirit that I aim to contribute to and thrive within as I delve into advanced scientific studies.

My scientific journey has been marked by hands-on exploration and research endeavors. One project that stands out is my investigation into [Project Name], where I delved into [specific details of the project]. This experience not only enhanced my technical skills but also underscored the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration, a principle deeply ingrained in Northwestern's scientific approach.

The Northwestern University Science School supplement essay provides glimpses into my commitment to scientific excellence. Through research experiences, academic pursuits, and extracurricular involvement, I have sought to cultivate a holistic understanding of science. Northwestern's emphasis on fostering well-rounded scientists, equipped not only with technical expertise but also with a broader perspective, resonates profoundly with my own aspirations.

Northwestern's distinguished faculty, renowned for their contributions to various scientific fields, present an unparalleled opportunity for me to learn from the best. The prospect of engaging with mentors who have shaped the landscape of scientific research is not only exciting but also a testament to Northwestern's commitment to nurturing the next generation of scientific leaders.

Beyond the classroom, I am eager to immerse myself in the vibrant scientific community at Northwestern. The myriad of student organizations, research opportunities, and collaborative initiatives beckon me. I envision not only contributing to ongoing scientific endeavors but also actively participating in the rich tapestry of scientific discussions and discoveries that define Northwestern's scientific community.

The Northwestern University Science School supplement essay is not just a reflection of my past experiences; it is a declaration of intent to contribute meaningfully to the scientific dialogue within the Northwestern community. As I anticipate the challenges and opportunities that Northwestern presents, I am excited about the potential for personal and scientific growth within this intellectually stimulating environment.

Reflecting on my journey, I am reminded that science is not just a subject of study; it's a dynamic process of exploration and inquiry. The Northwestern University Science School is not just an institution of learning; it is a crucible for scientific discovery and innovation. I am eager to contribute to and thrive within this environment, where curiosity knows no bounds, and breakthroughs are forged through the collective pursuit of knowledge.

Keep in mind: This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

In conclusion, the Northwestern University Science School supplement essay serves as a testament to my passion for scientific inquiry and my aspirations to contribute to the scientific community at Northwestern. I am ready to embrace the challenges, engage with the opportunities, and embark on a transformative journey towards advancing scientific knowledge and shaping the future of scientific exploration.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science School

+ 125 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Are you interested in getting a customized paper?

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Science School

The University of Michigan has always been a dream destination for me, and I believe that it is the perfect place for me to pursue my academic and career goals. The university's reputation for academic excellence, coupled with [...]

The prestigious reputation of Duke University, the excellent faculty and resources available to students, and the vibrant campus community all made it clear to me that this was the right place for me to pursue my academic and [...]

As I stand before the gates of Harvard University, I cannot help but feel an overwhelming sense of excitement and anticipation for the journey that lies ahead. The reason I chose to apply to this prestigious institution is [...]

I've always been attracted to the University of Georgia as someone who is passionate about science. The opportunity to study at a school with a strong research program and diverse course offerings is what inspired me to choose [...]

From the moment I learned about Brown University, I knew it was the perfect place for me. Brown's commitment to academic excellence, its vibrant campus culture, and its renowned faculty make it the ideal environment for me to [...]

As a prospective college student, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to apply to Brown University's Science, Technology, and Society department. As a young student, I have been consistently captivated by the ways in which [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

My School Laboratory Essay

Our school laboratory essay.

We are living in the world of science and technology. So, the need to understand scientific concepts and theories is extremely great. In response to this dire need, facilities for the study of physical sciences have been given great extension in both the higher and lower centers of education. But to understand the modern scientific concepts we can not do without a well-equipped laboratory. It‘s necessary that an educational institute has a good laboratory to cater to the needs of the students.

Our school is well known for imparting quality education, especially in science stream. The credit for this fame goes to our expert science teachers and the available sophisticated fine laboratory.

Our school laboratory is located in the third storey of the school building. It comprises of three separate halls specified for three main branches i.e. Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. Each hall is quite spacious (big) to accommodate fifty students at a time. The halls are well ventilated and have a very good lighting arrangement. These are well electrified to meet the students, demands. The system is designed to cater for individual and group work.

Please enable JavaScript

Our laboratory is equipped with the most modern, standard and sophisticated equipment. The apparatuses are available in abundance. The chemicals and specimens available are always fresh and latest. Every scientific concept is clarified in the laboratory by our highly educated teachers. Occasionally, expert scholars and scientists are invited to demonstrate the latest concepts. It has helped in developing a scientific approach among young scholars.

I wish our laboratory be given further development and expansion so that it proves a source of inspiration for other educational institutions to establish such ideal laboratories.

2 thoughts on “My School Laboratory Essay”

• Pingback: Essay Writing: Types, Components/Format , Characteristics and Samples - Smart eNotes
• Pingback: How to Write a Paragraph - Smart eNotes

Have something to say Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from Smart English Notes

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Science: Sample for Students in 100,200 Words

• Updated on  
• Oct 28, 2023

Science, the relentless pursuit of knowledge and understanding, has ignited the flames of human progress for centuries. It’s a beacon guiding us through the uncharted realms of the universe, unlocking secrets that shape our world. In this blog, we embark on an exhilarating journey through the wonders of science. We’ll explore the essence of science and its profound impact on our lives. With this we will also provide you with sample essay on science in 100 and 200 words.

Must Read: Essay On Internet   

What Is Science?

Science is a systematic pursuit of knowledge about the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis. It aims to understand the underlying principles governing the universe, from the smallest particles to the vast cosmos. Science plays a crucial role in advancing technology, improving our understanding of life and the environment, and driving innovation for a better future.

Branches Of Science

The major branches of science can be categorized into the following:

• Physical Science: This includes physics and chemistry, which study the fundamental properties of matter and energy.
• Biological Science : Also known as life sciences, it encompasses biology, genetics, and ecology, focusing on living organisms and their interactions.
• Earth Science: Geology, meteorology, and oceanography fall under this category, investigating the Earth’s processes, climate, and natural resources.
• Astronomy : The study of celestial objects, space, and the universe, including astrophysics and cosmology.
• Environmental Science : Concentrating on environmental issues, it combines aspects of biology, chemistry, and Earth science to address concerns like climate change and conservation. 
• Social Sciences : This diverse field covers anthropology, psychology, sociology, and economics, examining human behavior, society, and culture.  
• Computer Science : Focused on algorithms, data structures, and computing technology, it drives advancements in information technology. 
• Mathematics : A foundational discipline, it underpins all sciences, providing the language and tools for scientific analysis and modeling.  

Wonders Of Science

Science has numerous applications that profoundly impact our lives and society: Major applications of science are stated below:

• Medicine: Scientific research leads to the development of vaccines, medicines, and medical technologies, improving healthcare and saving lives.
• Technology: Science drives technological innovations, from smartphones to space exploration.
• Energy: Advances in physics and chemistry enable the development of renewable energy sources, reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
• Agriculture: Biology and genetics improve crop yields, while chemistry produces fertilizers and pesticides.
• Environmental Conservation : Scientific understanding informs efforts to protect ecosystems and combat climate change.
• Transportation : Physics and engineering create efficient and sustainable transportation systems.
• Communication : Physics and computer science underpin global communication networks.
• Space Exploration : Astronomy and physics facilitate space missions, expanding our understanding of the cosmos.

Must Read: Essay On Scientific Discoveries  

Sample Essay On Science in 100 words

Science, the bedrock of human progress, unveils the mysteries of our universe through empirical investigation and reason. Its profound impact permeates every facet of modern life. In medicine, it saves countless lives with breakthroughs in treatments and vaccines. Technology, a child of science, empowers communication and innovation. Agriculture evolves with scientific methods, ensuring food security. Environmental science guides conservation efforts, preserving our planet. Space exploration fuels dreams of interstellar travel.

Yet, science requires responsibility, as unchecked advancement can harm nature and society. Ethical dilemmas arise, necessitating careful consideration. Science, a double-edged sword, holds the potential for both salvation and destruction, making it imperative to harness its power wisely for the betterment of humanity.

Sample Essay On Science in 250 words

Science, often regarded as humanity’s greatest intellectual endeavor, plays an indispensable role in shaping our world and advancing our civilization.

At its core, science is a methodical pursuit of knowledge about the natural world. Through systematic observation, experimentation, and analysis, it seeks to uncover the underlying principles that govern our universe. This process has yielded profound insights into the workings of the cosmos, from the subatomic realm to the vastness of space.

One of the most remarkable contributions of science is to the field of medicine. Through relentless research and experimentation, scientists have discovered vaccines, antibiotics, and groundbreaking treatments for diseases that once claimed countless lives. 

Furthermore, science has driven technological advancements that have reshaped society. The rapid progress in computing, for instance, has revolutionized communication, industry, and research. From the ubiquitous smartphones in our pockets to the complex algorithms that power our digital lives, science, and technology are inseparable partners in progress.

Environmental conservation is another critical arena where science is a guiding light. Climate change, a global challenge, is addressed through rigorous scientific study and the development of sustainable practices. Science empowers us to understand the impact of human activities on our planet and to make informed decisions to protect it.

In conclusion, science is not just a field of study; it is a driving force behind human progress. As we continue to explore the frontiers of knowledge, science will remain the beacon guiding us toward a brighter future.

Science is a boon due to innovations, medical advancements, and a deeper understanding of nature, improving human lives exponentially.

Galileo Galilei is known as the Father of Science.

Science can’t address questions about personal beliefs, emotions, ethics, or matters of subjective experience beyond empirical observation and measurement.

We hope this blog gave you an idea about how to write and present an essay on science that puts forth your opinions. The skill of writing an essay comes in handy when appearing for standardized language tests. Thinking of taking one soon? Leverage Edu provides the best online test prep for the same via Leverage Live . Register today to know more!

Amisha Khushara

Hey there! I'm a content writer who turns complex ideas into clear, engaging stories. Think of me as your translator, taking expert knowledge and making it interesting and relatable for everyone.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Essay on Science for Students and Children

500+ words essay on science.

Essay on science:  As we look back in our ancient times we see so much development in the world. The world is full of gadgets and machinery . Machinery does everything in our surroundings. How did it get possible? How did we become so modern? It was all possible with the help of science. Science has played a major role in the development of our society. Furthermore, Science has made our lives easier and carefree.

Science in our Daily Lives

As I have mentioned earlier Science has got many changes in our lives. First of all, transportation is easier now. With the help of Science it now easier to travel long distances . Moreover, the time of traveling is also reduced. Various high-speed vehicles are available these days. These vehicles have totally changed. The phase of our society. Science upgraded steam engines to electric engines. In earlier times people were traveling with cycles. But now everybody travels on motorcycles and cars. This saves time and effort. And this is all possible with the help of Science.

Secondly, Science made us reach to the moon. But we never stopped there. It also gave us a glance at Mars. This is one of the greatest achievements. This was only possible with Science. These days Scientists make many satellites . Because of which we are using high-speed Internet. These satellites revolve around the earth every day and night. Even without making us aware of it. Science is the backbone of our society. Science gave us so much in our present time. Due to this, the teacher in our schools teaches Science from an early age.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Science as a Subject

In class 1 only a student has Science as a subject. This only tells us about the importance of Science. Science taught us about Our Solar System. The Solar System consists of 9 planets and the Sun. Most Noteworthy was that it also tells us about the origin of our planet. Above all, we cannot deny that Science helps us in shaping our future. But not only it tells us about our future, but it also tells us about our past.

When the student reaches class 6, Science gets divided into three more subcategories. These subcategories were Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. First of all, Physics taught us about the machines. Physics is an interesting subject. It is a logical subject.

Furthermore, the second subject was Chemistry . Chemistry is a subject that deals with an element found inside the earth. Even more, it helps in making various products. Products like medicine and cosmetics etc. result in human benefits.

Last but not least, the subject of Biology . Biology is a subject that teaches us about our Human body. It tells us about its various parts. Furthermore, it even teaches the students about cells. Cells are present in human blood. Science is so advanced that it did let us know even that.

Leading Scientists in the field of Science

Finally, many scientists like Thomas Edison , Sir Isaac Newton were born in this world. They have done great Inventions. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. If he did not invent that we would stay in dark. Because of this Thomas Edison’s name marks in history.

Another famous Scientist was Sir Isaac Newton . Sir Isaac Newton told us about Gravity. With the help of this, we were able to discover many other theories.

In India Scientists A..P.J Abdul was there. He contributed much towards our space research and defense forces. He made many advanced missiles. These Scientists did great work and we will always remember them.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Essay on Science Laboratory

Science Laboratory

Science is a practical subject, teaching of which cannot be done properly only in theory form. For proper education of science, it is necessary to conduct various kinds of experimental works, which are practical in nature.

These practical functions cannot be carry out in absence of scientific apparatus and equipments. The place where various kinds of scientific apparatus and equipments are arranged in systematic manner is called science laboratory.

Science laboratory is central to scientific instructions and it forms essential component of science education.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

It is in this place that various kinds of practical works are carry out by the students. Without proper and well- equipped science laboratory, it is not possible to carry out the science teaching process effectively in any school or educational institution.

Students learn to handle various apparatus and to think independently in the laboratory, because of which it is considered to be one of an important place. When students carry out various kinds of experiments, then they draw conclusions from their studies, which raise their level of self confidence and develop scientific attitude among them.

These are considered to be main objectives of science teaching, for which it is considered by experts that without a well equipped and organised scientific laboratory, there cannot be any proper teaching of science. Students should be encouraged by the science teacher to make active parts in various experimental processes, as most of the achievements of modern science are due to the application of experimental methods.

If students get information or knowledge by playing active role in learning process then they gets permanent kind of information, because of which at school stage, practical work is considered to be more important for the students.

Although it has proven by the above discussion that science laboratories play very important functions, for which they are considered to be much important, but still need and importance of science laboratories can be explained in the following points:

i. In laboratory, it is possible to keep various scientific instruments and chemicals in safe and secure conditions, as without them, it is not possible to carry out any kind of experiment in any way.

ii. If there is proper of well equipped and properly arranged laboratory in the school, then students will get encouraged by it to take active part in the experimental processes as in such kind of laboratory, a congenial kind of atmosphere exist, which promote the interest of students in practical works.

iii. With the help of well equipped and organised laboratory, science teacher will get help in developing the scientific attitudes among the students to considerable extent.

iv. All the students have to carry out experiments collectively in the laboratory as often there is shortage of such facilities in schools. With such functions, spirit of co-operation and team work gets developed among the students and they begin to appreciate the work done by others. Not only this, through this, they also begin to appreciate the views and ideas of others, which help them in becoming successful in future life.

v. When students themselves get the opportunity to take part in experimental processes, then their area of experiences get widen and their level of intuitiveness also gets developed, as a result of which, they become people with wide mentality and open-mindedness.

Related Articles:

• What is Laboratory Method of Teaching Science?
• What are the Merits and Demerits of Laboratory Method of Teaching Science?
• What is the Importance of Practical Work in Science?
• Designing and Furnishing of Lecture cum Science Laboratory Room

University High School Wins Regional Science Bowl at NASA’s JPL

The 2024 National Science Bowl regional competition hosted by JPL included 21 schools, with this team from Irvine’s University High School taking first place.

After months of preparation, more than 100 students competed at the fast-paced annual academic competition hosted by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

For the second year in a row, a team from Irvine’s University High School claimed victory at a regional competition of the National Science Bowl, hosted Saturday, Feb. 3, by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California.

More than 100 students from 21 schools in Los Angeles and Orange counties competed in the academic challenge, which marked JPL’s 32nd year as host. Fullerton’s Troy High won second place, and Arcadia High placed third.

Teams from University High have triumphed at the event several times in recent years . The school also won this year’s regional Ocean Sciences Bowl, hosted last month by JPL.

In National Science Bowl competitions, students have mere seconds to answer multiple-choice questions on topics including biology, chemistry, Earth science, physics, energy, and math. Four students and one alternate compose each team, with a teacher serving as coach.

Get the Latest JPL News

Student teams spend months preparing, both studying and practicing their technique with the bowl’s “Jeopardy!”-style buzzers. Dozens of volunteers from JPL help make sure the contest runs smoothly. It all comes down to a surprisingly intense event.

“There’s so much energy, it’s a thrill to watch,” said JPL Public Services Office manager Kim Lievense, who’s been coordinating the competition for the lab since 1993. “I just love seeing the students’ concentration and commitment, and knowing how rewarding it is for volunteers as well.”

University High is now eligible to compete against winners from dozens of other regional competitions across the country at the national finals tournament, held in Washington April 25-29.

Run by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, the National Science Bowl is one of the nation’s largest academic science competitions. More than 344,000 students have participated since the competition began in 1991.

News Media Contact

Melissa Pamer

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

626-314-4928

[email protected]

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Reference List: Textual Sources

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Basic Format for Books

Edited book, no author, edited book with an author or authors, a translation.

Note : When you cite a republished work, like the one above, in your text, it should appear with both dates: Plato (385-378/1989)

Edition Other Than the First

Article or chapter in an edited book.

Note : When you list the pages of the chapter or essay in parentheses after the book title, use "pp." before the numbers: (pp. 1-21). This abbreviation, however, does not appear before the page numbers in periodical references, except for newspapers. List any edition number in the same set of parentheses as the page numbers, separated by a comma: (2nd ed., pp. 66-72).

Multivolume Work

Articles in periodicals.

APA style dictates that authors are named with their last name followed by their initials; publication year goes between parentheses, followed by a period. The title of the article is in sentence-case, meaning only the first word and proper nouns in the title are capitalized. The periodical title is run in title case, and is followed by the volume number which, with the title, is also italicized. If a DOI has been assigned to the article that you are using, you should include this after the page numbers for the article. If no DOI has been assigned and you are accessing the periodical online, use the URL of the website from which you are retrieving the periodical.

Article in Print Journal

Note: APA 7 advises writers to include a DOI (if available), even when using the print source. The example above assumes no DOI is available.

Article in Electronic Journal

Note :  This content also appears on Reference List: Online Media .

As noted above, when citing an article in an electronic journal, include a DOI if one is associated with the article.

DOIs may not always be available. In these cases, use a URL. Many academic journals provide stable URLs that function similarly to DOIs. These are preferable to ordinary URLs copied and pasted from the browser's address bar.

Article in a Magazine

Article in a newspaper.

• Anniston/Gadsden

US News best high school rankings 2024: These are Alabama’s top 25

• Updated: Apr. 23, 2024, 9:13 a.m. |
• Published: Apr. 23, 2024, 6:35 a.m.
• Williesha Morris | [email protected]

Homewood High School is the state’s top-ranked traditional public school according to U.S. News & World Report’s 2024 rankings. Two magnet programs in Montgomery and Huntsville also are highly ranked by the news agency.

Montgomery’s Loveless Academic Magnet Program (LAMP) ranked number 21 out of all public high schools in the country. It was the only Alabama school to break the top 100.

“The 2024 Best High Schools rankings offer a starting point for parents to understand a school’s academic performance, whether it’s a prospective school or one that their child is already attending,” said LaMont Jones, managing editor of education at U.S. News. “Accessible data on our high schools can empower families across the country as they navigate today’s educational environment and plan for the future.”

U.S. News’ public high school rankings are based on student test scores in for math, reading and science. Top-ranked schools also had “strong underserved student performance, college readiness and curriculum breadth, as well as high graduation rates. College readiness specifically measures participation and performance on Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate exam,” according to the news press release.

The top public high school in the country is BASIS Charter School in Peoria, Arizona, according to the rankings.

Check out the full list of high school rankings from U.S. News and World Report.

Of course, there are many ways to assess a school’s quality and performance. You can see which Alabama schools earned an ‘A’ on the state’s report card here .

National rankings

In addition to overall rankings, U.S. News ranked top STEM, charter and magnet schools nationwide.

Mountain Brook High School is ranked 87 and is the only Alabama high school to crack the top 100 nationwide. Last year it was ranked 103.

Two Alabama schools were ranked in the top 100 of magnet programs nationally, with LAMP at No. 9. Huntsville’s New Century Technology High School is ranked at 60 nationwide. Last year New Century was ranked at 80.

Alabama’s Top 25 High Schools

For the fourth year in a row, U.S. News has ranked Montgomery’s LAMP as the best high school in Alabama. Three Shelby County schools are in the top 25 this year. Madison City and Hoover City have two high schools in the top 25. All but four of the schools were in the top 25 last year. One school jumped from No. 58 to 20.

Here are Alabama’s top 25 high schools, counting down to number one. An asterisk (*) indicates the school is new to U.S. News’ top 25 ranking for 2024.

#25 – Chelsea High School, Shelby County Schools

*Rank in 2023: 32

#24 – Helena High School, Shelby County

Rank in 2023: 21

#23 – Madison County High School, Madison County Schools

*Rank in 2023: 42

#22 - Winfield High School, Winfield City Schools

*Rank in 2023: 44

#21 - Russellville High School, Russellville City Schools

Rank in 2023: 18

#20 – T.R. Miller High School, Brewton City Schools

*Rank in 2023: 58

#19 - W.P. Davidson High School, Mobile County

Rank in 2023: 15

#18 - Ramsay High School, Birmingham City Schools

Rank in 2023: 23

#17 - Auburn High School, Auburn City Schools

Rank in 2023: 10

#16 - Booker T Washington Magnet High School, Montgomery Public Schools

Rank in 2023: 16

#15 - Huntsville High School, Huntsville City Schools

Rank in 2023: 17

#14 - Hartselle High School, Hartselle City Schools

Rank in 2023: 20

#13 - Arab High School, Arab City Schools

Rank in 2023: 13

#12 - Bob Jones High School, Madison City Schools

Rank in 2023: 11

#11 - Hoover High School, Hoover City Schools

Rank in 2023: 14

#10 - Oak Mountain High School, Shelby County

Rank in 2023: 9

#9 - Brewbaker Tech Magnet High School, Montgomery Public Schools

Rank in 2023: 7

#8 - Hewitt-Trussville High School, Trussville City Schools

Rank in 2023: 12

#7 - Spain Park High School, Hoover City Schools

Rank in 2023: 6

#6 - James Clemens High School, Madison City Schools

Rank in 2023: 8

#5 - Vestavia Hills High School, Vestavia Hills City Schools

Rank in 2023: 5

#4 - Mountain Brook High School, Mountain Brook City Schools

Rank in 2023: 2

#3 - Homewood High School, Homewood City Schools

Rank in 2023: 3

#2 - New Century Technology High School, Huntsville City Schools

Rank in 2023: 4

#1- Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School, Montgomery Public Schools

Rank in 2023: 1

More stories from the Ed Lab

• Federal rule bars transgender school bathroom bans in Alabama, other states; not final word
• Child care crisis holds back moms without college degrees: ‘I really didn’t want to quit my job’
• Birmingham high school students win prize in national documentary competition
• Alabama House approves $9.3 billion education budget

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.