Abstract
Practical work is often noted as a core reason many students take on science in secondary schools (high schools). However, there are inherent difficulties associated with classroom practical work that militate against scientific inquiry, an approach espoused by many science educators. The use of interactive simulations to facilitate student inquiry has emerged as a complement to practical work. This study presents case studies of four science teachers using a virtual chemistry laboratory (VCL) with their students in an explicitly guided inquiry manner. Research tools included the use of the Inquiry Science Implementation Scale in a ‘talk-aloud’ manner, Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol for video observations, and teacher interviews. The findings suggest key aspects of practical work that hinder teachers in adequately supporting inquiry and highlight where a VCL can overcome many of these difficulties. The findings also indicate considerations in using the VCL in its own right.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrahams, I. (2009). Does practical work really motivate? A study of the affective value of practical work in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(17), 2335–2353.
Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969.
Abrahams, I. & Saglam, M. (2010). A study of teachers’ views on practical work in secondary schools in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 753–768.
Abrams, E., Southerland, S., & Evans, C. (2007). Inquiry in the classroom: necessary components of auseful definition. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the science classroom: realities and opportunities. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Adlong, W., Bedgood, D., Bishop, A., Dillon, K., Haig, T., Helliwell, S., et al. (2003). On the path to improving our teaching—reflection on best practices in teaching chemistry. Herdsa Conference Presentation and Publication, Canterbury.
Baggott, L., & Nichol, J. (1998). Multimedia simulation. A threat to or enhancement of practical work in science education? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 252–270). London: Routledge.
Blanchard, M., Southerland, S., Osborne, J., Sampson, V., Annetta, L., & Granger, E. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577–616.
Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction: critique sociale du jugement [Distinction: social critique of judgment]. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.
Brandon, P., Young, D., Pottenger, F., & Taum, A. (2009). The inquiry science implementation scale: development and applications. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1135–1147.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chadderton, C., & Torrance, H. (2011). Case Study. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Theory and methods in social research (2nd ed., pp. 53–60). London: Sage.
Cobern, W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Applegate, B., Skjold, B., Undreiu, A., et al. (2010). Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 81–96.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44.
Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2011a). A framework for teachers’ integration of ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469–1483.
Donnelly, D., O’Reilly, J., & McGarr, O. (2011b). The promotion of scientific inquiry in Irish post-primary schools through the use of a virtual chemistry laboratory: implications for teacher education. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), Nashville, TN, March 7–11.
Ermeling, B. (2010). Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 377–388.
Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.
Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: a review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69–95.
Gerard, L., Spitulnik, M., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Teacher use of evidence to customize inquiry science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1037–1063.
Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guthrie, G. (2010). Basic research methods. London: Sage.
Herrenkohl, L., Tasker, T., & White, B. (2011). Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of scientific inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 1–44.
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.
Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: a case study. International Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26, 47–62.
Ketelhut, D., & Nelson, B. (2010). Designing for real-world scientific inquiry in virtual environments. Educational Research, 52(2), 151–167.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.
Korthagen, F. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teacher and Teacher Education, 26, 98–106.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2009). Towards learning report. Retrieved 14 October 2010 from http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-Primary_Education/Senior_Cycle/Towards_Learning_an_overview_/Towards_learning_listening_to_schools.pdf.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nuthall, G. (2005). The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning: a personal journey. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 895–934.
Pantelidis, V. (1997). Keynote speech. In M. Bevan (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual Reality in Education and Training. Loughborough (pp. 7–12).
Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., et al. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP): reference manual (ACEPT Technical Report No. INOO-3). Tempe, AZ: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.
Quellmalz, E., Timms, M., Silberglitt, M., & Buckley, B. (2012). Science assessments for all: integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 363–393.
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W., & van der Veen, J. (2011). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers in Education, 58(1), 136–153.
Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., et al. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: the reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.
Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1050–1078.
Science Community Representing Education (SCORE) (2010). Practical work in science: a report and proposal for a strategic framework. Retrieved 14 April 2011 from http://www.score-education.org/media/3668/report.pdf.
Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab & P. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.
Solomon, J., Scott, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80, 493–508.
Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 549–560.
Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the teacher in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 221–243.
van der Valk, T., & de Jong, O. (2009). Scaffolding science teachers in open-inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 829–850.
Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: inevitable or not? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 199–216.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, C., & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: an examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936–960.
Webb, M. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705–735.
Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2008). From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109–130.
Yaron, D., Cuadros, J., Karabinos, M., Leinhardt, G., & Evans, K. (2006). Virtual laboratories and scenes to support chemistry instruction: lessons learned. In S. Cunningham, Y. George (Eds.), About invention and impact: building excellence in undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, (pp. 177–182). Washington, DC.
Zacharia, Z. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 120–132.
Zacharia, Z., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (IRCSET) for funding this research and would also like to thank the Chemcollective at Carnegie-Mellon University for their support of the project. The authors would like to thank the teachers and students who participated in this research. Finally, the authors would like to thank the reviewers for their feedback on the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1. Description of Inquiry
Notes for the Teacher
Teaching Methodology
The lesson is intended to be carried out in a way that closely aligns to an inquiry approach, and as the problem is already set, it would be best described as a guided inquiry approach (see Table 4 below). The data collection methods and the interpretation of results are intended to be left up to the students as much as possible. However, this will depend on student ability/previous knowledge, and the teacher will need to make a judgement call as to how much scaffolding each individual student would need (if any) from observing the conversation between groups of students. Certain students may make connections with the right teacher questioning or with additional time to think things through. Ultimately, the guiding observational question for the teacher throughout the lesson should be “How often are the students making decisions?”
There are many limitations of a physical lab in that they can be messy, resource-intensive, and time-consuming, e.g. a teacher could spend 20 min getting a lab ready and another 20 min cleaning it. These reasons, more than anything, restrict the pedagogical decision making of the teacher. As a result, a teacher’s approach to practical work can often be narrowed to ensuring that issues of physicality and manipulation are adhered to, e.g. issues relating to students having the right glassware, not breaking glassware, not wasting chemicals, making careful additions, etc. There is little if anything a teacher can do to overcome these restraints of the physical laboratory. Thus, practical work in many instances follows a ‘cookbook’ format. This therefore allows the teacher little engagement with students on the higher order aspects of experimental work during actual practical work, e.g. why would you use this particular apparatus, why would you use this concentration, why would you carry out the experiment more than once?
The virtual lab gives time to the teacher to observe, reflect, and give feedback. Issues of safety and cost concerns are removed, and this allows students to more greatly question their experimental design, e.g. why am I using a 25 ml conical flask, why am I using this particular concentration, why does the indicator cause a colour change? In a guided inquiry approach, the role of the teacher is to encourage these types of questions within the classroom activity, but not to give the answer to the students directly. The teacher should ask further questions in response to these questions, e.g. why would you not use a 25-ml conical flask over a 10-ml conical flask, what do you think is the purpose of using a particular concentration, why not think about the properties of the solutions involved in the titration? The teacher could also ask the students to consider these questions in groups and to try to reach an answer through discussion. However, if the teacher finds that the guided inquiry approach does not work for certain students after additional questioning and/or group discussion, a structured inquiry approach may be necessary, e.g. the teacher gives the student an explanation of why the vinegar samples must be diluted and why a particular indicator should be used. Again, it is important to note that the teacher must make a judgement call on which approach is most appropriate.
It would be important at the start of the lesson for the teacher to make their teaching approach very explicit to the students as it takes them time to be encultured into this approach of challenging the logic of their experimental design. Teachers can then enable collaboration, encourage the students, and ensure learning throughout the lesson (see Table 5). At the end of the lesson, the teacher could spend the 10–15 min evaluating the lesson with the students, e.g. from having observed different students doing the problem, the teacher could highlight different approaches and look for students to discuss which approach would be better and why.
Appendix 2. Inquiry Science Implementation Scale (Brandon et al. 2009)
Q. | When you teach chemistry, how frequently do you: |
1. | Demonstrate the use of a new instrument? |
2. | Have students write the problem or activity before doing an experiment? |
3. | Review relevant concepts and skills that were learned in previous lessons? |
4. | Introduce new vocabulary words? |
5. | Ask students to identify and define words? |
6. | Ask students to make predictions about an experiment? |
7. | Check to ensure that students understand new procedures before beginning an experiment? |
8. | Discuss how everyday situations directly relate to experiments that students are currently or will be conducting? |
9. | Check students’ designs for safety before allowing them to conduct their experiments? |
10. | Monitor small group progress during experiments? |
11. | Encourage students to collaborate within their groups? |
12. | Circulate and interact with students whilst they are conducting experiments? |
13. | Discuss variations in data collected by students following their experiments? |
14. | Have students share their predictions with the class? |
15. | Have students share their data or findings with the class? |
16. | Challenge students to consider the effects of errors on groups’ results? |
17. | Compare and contrast students’ explanations of findings? |
18. | Question students as they conduct their experiments? |
19. | Connect new information with students’ personal lives (interests, home environment, community, culture, etc.)? |
20. | Connect current events and other subjects with current science concepts, skills, and investigations? |
21. | Use questioning strategies to respond to students’ questions about experiments? |
22. | Have students ask questions about the scientific phenomena addressed during experiments? |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Donnelly, D., O’Reilly, J. & McGarr, O. Enhancing the Student Experiment Experience: Visible Scientific Inquiry Through a Virtual Chemistry Laboratory. Res Sci Educ 43, 1571–1592 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9322-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9322-1