Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 500–506 | Cite as

Science Laboratory Environment and Academic Performance

Article

Abstract

The study determined how students assess the various components of their science laboratory environment. It also identified how the laboratory environment affects students’ learning outcomes. The modified ex-post facto design was used. A sample of 328 randomly selected students was taken from a population of all Senior Secondary School chemistry students in a state in Nigeria. The research instrument, Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI) designed and validated by Fraser et al. (Sci Educ 77:1–24, 1993) was administered on the selected students. Data analysis was done using descriptive statistics and Product Moment Correlation. Findings revealed that students could assess the five components (Student cohesiveness, Open-endedness, Integration, Rule clarity, and Material Environment) of the laboratory environment. Student cohesiveness has the highest assessment while material environment has the least. The results also showed that the five components of the science laboratory environment are positively correlated with students’ academic performance. The findings are discussed with a view to improving the quality of the laboratory environment, subsequent academic performance in science and ultimately the enrolment and retaining of learners in science.

Keywords

Environment Integration Rule clarity Material environment Open-endedness Student cohesiveness 

References

  1. Adelson R (2004) Instruction versus exploration in science learning. PsychNet, American Psychological Association 35(6):34–47. http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/instruct.html
  2. Aladejana FO (2006) Concept of teaching. In: Ehindero OJ, Aladejana FO (eds) Introduction to the teaching profession. Literamed Publications Ltd, Lagos, pp 12–19Google Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bajah T (1983) Teaching integrated science creatively. Ibadan University Press, Ibadan, pp 51–59Google Scholar
  5. Bigge O (1993) Learning to teach in secondary school, 2nd edn. Susan Capel & Co., London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bredderman T (1983) The effects of activity-based elementary science programme on students’ outcomes and classroom practices. Rev Educ Res 53(4):499–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton RR, Stanley E (1968) The psychology of learning. Robert Bordger and A.E.M. Seaborne Penguin Books, pp 40–45Google Scholar
  8. Chin TY, Wong FL, Angela (2004) Pupils classroom environment perceptions, attitude and achievement in science at the upper primary level. J Curriculum Leadersh 40(2):34Google Scholar
  9. Combs AW, Snugg D (1995) Psychology applied to teaching, Biehler, 2nd edn. Houghton Mifflin Company, GA, USA, pp 23–67Google Scholar
  10. Dorman JP (1995) Associations between school-level environment and science classroom learning environment in secondary schools. Res Sci Educ 25(3):333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraser BJ (1986) Classroom Environment. Croom–Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Fraser BJ, O’Brien P (1985) Student and teacher perceptions of the environment of elementary school classrooms. Elem School J 85:567–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fraser BJ, Giddings GJ, McRobbie CJ (1993) Development and cross-national validation of a laboratory classroom environment instrument for senior high school science. Sci Educ 77:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goh SC, Young DJ, Fraser BJ (1995) Psychosocial climate and student outcomes in elementary mathematics classrooms: a multilevel analysis. J Exp Educ 64:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanley S (1994) On constructivism. Maryland collaborative for teacher preparation http://www.inform.umd.edu/UMS+State/UMD-projects/MCTP/Essays/Constructivism.txt
  16. Huitt W (2003) Constructivism. Educational psychology interactive. Valdosta State University, Valdosta. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/construct.html
  17. Hung FU, Chin AK (1988) Sharing of experiences-application of discovery method to teaching. Educ J 16(1):85–96Google Scholar
  18. Instructional Philosophy (2004) Classroom Environment. http://www.biologylessons.org/
  19. Mayer RE (2003) Learning and instruction. Pearson Education, Inc, Upper Saddle River, pp 287–288Google Scholar
  20. McRobbie CJ, Fraser BJ (1993) Association between student outcomes and psychosocial science environment. J Educ Res 87:78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Owokade OO (2006) Facilitating effective performance of students in mathematics, science and technology in secondary schools. Paper presented at the FGN-UNESCO Workshop for Inspectors, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria, Dec 2006Google Scholar
  22. Piaget J (1969) The Mechanism of perception. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Sherman LW (1995) A postmodern, constructivist and cooperative pedagogy for teaching educational psychology, assisted by computer mediated communications. In: Proceedings of CSCL 95’ Conference. http://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/Dhsiao/theories.html
  24. Silberman CE (1973) The open classroom readers. Random Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Turpin T, Cage BN (2004) The effects of an integrated activity-based science curriculum on student achievement, science process skills and science attitudes. Electron J Lit Sci 3:1–17Google Scholar
  26. Watson J (2000) Research designs, RGS 6035 http://www.ecourse.amberton.edu/grad/RGS6035E1/READ4.HTM
  27. Welch WW, Walberg HJ (1972) A national experiment in curriculum evaluation. Am Educ Res J 9:373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilson BG (1996) Introduction: what is a constructivist learning environment? In: Wilson BG (ed) Constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, pp 3–8Google Scholar
  29. Windschitl M (2002) Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: an analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural and political challenges facing teachers. Rev Educ Res 72(2):131–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wong AFL, Fraser BJ (1996). Environment attitude associations in the chemistry laboratory classroom. Res Sci Technol Educ 14:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quek CL, Wong AFL, Fraser BJ (1998, April). Teacher–student interaction among gifted chemistry students in Singapore secondary schools. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  32. Zandvliet DV, Buker L (2003) The Internet in B.C. classrooms: learning environments in new contexts. Int Electron J Leadersh Learn 7(15). http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume7/zandvliet.htm

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationObafemi Awolowo UniversityIle-IfeNigeria
  2. 2.Department of Special Education and Curriculum StudiesObafemi Awolowo UniversityIle-IfeNigeria

Personalised recommendations