Research in Science Education

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 353–363

Laboratory learning environments and practical tasks in senior secondary science classes

  • Darrell Fisher
  • Allan Harrison
  • David Henderson
  • Avi Hofstein


Laboratory work is seen as an integral part of most science courses; however, a significant proportion of laboratory activities remain highly prescriptive and fail to challenge many secondary science students. This study of senior high school biology, chemistry and physics laboratory environments drew data from student responses to theScience Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI) and a curriculum analysis of the implemented laboratory tasks. The study involved 387 biology, chemistry and physics students in 20 classes in Tasmania, Australia. The curriculum analysis was based on Lunetta and Tamir’sLaboratory Structure and Task Analysis Inventory and theLaboratory Task Analysis. The study found that the SLEI did differentiate between the three subject areas and that theLaboratory Structure and Task Analysis Inventory confirmed the more open-ended nature of the school physics in vestigations evident from students’ responses to the SLEI.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Australian Academy of Science. (1990).Biology, the common threads. Part 1. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  2. Bucat, R. B. (Ed.). (1983).Elements of chemistry (Vol. 1,2). Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  3. Fisher, D. L., Henderson, D. G., & Fraser, B. J. (1997). Laboratory environments and student outcomes in senior high school biology.The American Biology Teacher, 59, 214–219.Google Scholar
  4. Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.),Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493–541). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.).The international handbook of science education (pp. 527–564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Fraser, B. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Giddings, G. J. (1993). Development and cross-national validation of a laboratory classroom environment instrument for senior high school science.Science Education, 77, 1–24.Google Scholar
  7. Fuhrman, M., Lunetta, V. N., & Novick, S. (1982). Do secondary school laboratory texts reflect the goals of the “new” science curricula?.Journal of Chemical Education, 59, 563–565.Google Scholar
  8. Haertel, G. D., Walberg, H. J., & Haertel, E. H. (1981). Socio-psychological environments and learning: A quantitative synthesis.British Educational Research Journal, 7, 27–36.Google Scholar
  9. Hegarty, E. H. (1978). Levels of scientific enquiry in university science laboratory classes: Implications for curriculum deliberations.Research in Science Education, 8, 45–57.Google Scholar
  10. Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry.School Review, 79 171–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.Google Scholar
  12. Kent, H. A., & Fisher, D. L. (1997, March).Associations between, teacher personality and classroom environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  13. Lunetta, V. N., & Tamir, P. (1979). Matching lab activities with teaching goals.The Science Teacher, 46, 22–24.Google Scholar
  14. McRobbie, C. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1993a). Associations between student outcomes and psychosocial science environment.Journal of Educational Research, 87, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McRobbie, C. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1993b, November).A typology for university and school science laboratory classes. Paper presented the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Perth.Google Scholar
  16. Nunnally, J. (1967).Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Tamir, P., & Lunetta, V. N. (1978). An analysis of laboratory inquiries in the BSCS yellow version.The American Biology Teacher, 40, 353–357.Google Scholar
  18. Tamir, P. (1991). Practical work in school science: An analysis of current practice. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.),Practical science: The role and reality of practical work in school science. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Taylor, P., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B. J. (1995, April).CLES: Classroom learning environments under transformation: A constructivist perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Teh, G., & Fraser, B. J. (1994). An evaluation of computer-assisted learning in terms of achievement, attitudes and classroom environment.Evaluation and Research in Education, 8, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wong, A. F. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1995). Cross-validation in Singapore of the science laboratory environment inventory.Psychological Reports, 76, 907–911.Google Scholar
  22. Woolnough, B. E. (1991). Practical science as a holistic activity. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.),Practical science: The role and reality of practical work in school science (pp. Xx-xx), Milton Keyes, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wubbels, T., Creton, H., Levy, J., & Hooymayers, H. (1993). Themodel for interpersonal teacher behavior. In T. Wubbels, & J. Levy (Eds.),Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 13–28). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Science Research Association 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darrell Fisher
    • 2
  • Allan Harrison
    • 2
  • David Henderson
    • 2
  • Avi Hofstein
    • 1
  1. 1.The Weizmann Institute of ScienceIsrael
  2. 2.Science and Mathematics Education CentreCurtin University of TechnologyPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations