Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 1029–1050 | Cite as

The Nature of Laboratory Learning Experiences in Secondary Science Online

  • Kent J. Crippen
  • Leanna M. Archambault
  • Cindy L. Kern
Article

Abstract

Teaching science to secondary students in an online environment is a growing international trend. Despite this trend, reports of empirical studies of this phenomenon are noticeably missing. With a survey concerning the nature of laboratory activities, this study describes the perspective of 35-secondary teachers from 15-different U.S. states who are teaching science online. The type and frequency of reported laboratory activities are consistent with the tradition of face-to-face instruction, using hands-on and simulated experiments. While provided examples were student-centered and required the collection of data, they failed to illustrate key components of the nature of science. The features of student-teacher interactions, student engagement, and nonverbal communications were found to be lacking and likely constitute barriers to the enactment of inquiry. These results serve as a call for research and development focused on using existing communication tools to better align with the activity of science such that the nature of science is more clearly addressed, the work of students becomes more collaborative and authentic, and the formative elements of a scientific inquiry are more accessible to all participants.

Keywords

Online science Learning with laboratory Virtual schooling 

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H-l. (2004). Inquiry in science education: international perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419. doi: 10.1002/sce.10118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1023/a:1015171124982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archambault, L. M. (2011). The Practitioner’s Perspective on Teacher Education: Preparing for the K-12 Online Classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 73–91.Google Scholar
  5. Archambault, L. M. & Crippen, K. J. (2009). K-12 Distance Educators at Work: Who’s Teaching Online Across the United States. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 363–391.Google Scholar
  6. Arzi, H. J. (2003). Enhancing science education though laboratory environments: More than walls, benches, and widgets. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. I, pp. 595–608). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (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. doi: 10.1002/sce.20390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braun, H., Coley, R., Yue, J., & Trapani, C. (2009). Exploring what works in science instruction: A look at the eighth-grade science classroom (pp. 46): Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, T. (2001). Virtual schools: Trends and issues. Phoenix: WestEd/Distance Learning Resource Network.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, D. B., Touchman, S., Martinez-Garza, M., Ramirez-Marin, F., & Skjerping Drews, T. (2012). Bilingual language supports in online science inquiry environments. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1207–1224. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, A., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Discourse about ideas: monitoring and regulation in face-to-face and computer-mediated environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1), 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Combs, A. W. (1982). Affective education or none at all. Educational Leadership, 39(7), 494–497.Google Scholar
  13. Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Im, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Constructing reality: a study of remote, hands-on, and simulated laboratories. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 14(2).Google Scholar
  14. Corter, J. E., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2011). Process and learning outcomes from remotely-operated, simulated, and hands-on student laboratories. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2054–2067. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642. doi: 10.1002/tea.20157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dalgarno, B., Bishop, A. G., Adlong, W., & Bedgood, D. R., Jr. (2009). Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory as a preparatory resource for distance education chemistry students. Computers & Education, 53(3), 853–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dawley, L., Rice, K. & Hinck, G. (2010). Going Virtual! 2010: The status of professional development and unique needs of K-12 online teachers. White paper prepared for the North American Council for Online Learning. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  19. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Donovan, S. M., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  23. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2005, February). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. Paper presented at the Inquiry Conference on Developing a Consensus Research Agenda, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.Google Scholar
  24. Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Reid, S., & LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: a study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: its role in the understanding of evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 791–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hilbert, M., & Lopez, P. (2011). The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science, 332(6025), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hodson, D. (1996). Practical work in school science: Exploring some directions for change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 755–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. IAP. (2003). IAP statement on science education. Retrieved 4/2, 2012, from http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13923.aspx.
  33. Jara, C. A., Candelas, F. A., Torres, F., Dormido, S., Esquembre, F., & Reinoso, O. (2009). Real-time collaboration of virtual laboratories through the Internet. Computers & Education, 52(1), 126–140. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011). Teaching lab science online: Resources for best practices, tools, and technology: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  35. Jona, K., Adsit, J., & Powell, A. (2008). Goals, guidelines, and standards for student scientific investigations: North American council for online learning.Google Scholar
  36. Kang, N.-H., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140–165. doi: 10.1002/sce.20013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kennedy, K. & Archambault, L. M. (2012). Offering Pre-service Teachers Field Experiences in K-12 Online Learning: A National Survey of Teacher Education Programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 185–200.Google Scholar
  38. Kennedy, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2010). Development and support of online teachers: the roles of mentors in virtual schools. Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom, 2(3), 37–42.Google Scholar
  39. Kennepohl, D., & Shaw, L. (Eds.). (2010). Accessible Elements: Teaching Science Online and at a Distance. Athabasca University: AU Press.Google Scholar
  40. Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koballa, T. R., & Glynn, S. M. (2006). Attitudinal and Motivational Constructs in Science Learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 75-102): Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Laferrière, T., Lamon, M., & Chan, C. K. (2006). Emerging e-trends and models in teacher education and professional development. Teaching Education, 17(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: a conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Lindsay, E. D., & Good, M. C. (2005). Effects of laboratory access modes upon learning outcomes. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 48(4), 619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lunnetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 393-442): Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Manfreda, K. L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Hass, I., & Vehovar, V. (2008). Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rate. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 79–104.Google Scholar
  49. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). Classroom characteristics and instruction TIMSS 2003 International Science Report (pp. 281–321). Lynch School of Education, Boston College: International Assoication for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  50. Martinez, M. E., & Peters Burton, E. E. (2011). Cognitive affordances of the cyberinfrastructure for science and math learning. Educational Media International, 48(1), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (2002). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  53. NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  54. NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  55. NRC. (2006). America's lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  56. NSTA. (2007). The integral role of laboratory investigations in science instruction. Retrieved 4/2, 2012, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/laboratory.aspx.
  57. Orgill, M. (2007). Phenomenography. In G. M. Bodner & M. Orgill (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks for research in chemistry/science education (pp. 132–151). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
  58. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Pyatt, K., & Sims, R. (2012). Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science labs: attitudes, performance and access. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 133–147. doi: 10.1007/s10956-011-9291-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Queen, B., Lewis, L., & Coopersmith, J. (2001). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2009-10 NCES 2012-008. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statictics.Google Scholar
  61. Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K–12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425–448.Google Scholar
  62. Riffell, S., & Sibley, D. (2005). Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate biology courses: an evaluation of a hybrid course format. Computers & Education, 44(3), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Russell, D. W., Lucas, K. B., & McRobbie, C. J. (2004). Role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in thermal physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: the role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221–245. doi: 10.1023/a:1016569117024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Setzer, J. C., & Lewis, L. (2005). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2002-03 NCES 2005-010. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statictics.Google Scholar
  68. Shih, T., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from Web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20(3), 249–271.Google Scholar
  69. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2005). A synthesis of new research on k-12 online learning. Naperville: Learning Point Associates.Google Scholar
  72. Srinivasan, S., Pérez, L., Palmer, R., Brooks, D., Wilson, K., & Fowler, D. (2006). Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 137–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students’ ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 199–212. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. van Rooij, S. W. (2009). Adopting open-source software applications in U.S. higher education: a cross-disciplinary review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 682–701. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Watson, J., & Ryan, J. (2007). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning. Evergreen: Evergreen Consulting Associates.Google Scholar
  77. Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2011). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: an annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen: Evergreen Education Group.Google Scholar
  78. Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zacharia, Z. C. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zacharia, Z. C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students’ conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1021–1035. doi: 10.1002/tea.20260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kent J. Crippen
    • 1
  • Leanna M. Archambault
    • 2
  • Cindy L. Kern
    • 3
  1. 1.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA
  3. 3.University of Nevada Las VegasLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations