Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distractions in the School Science Laboratory

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, I make a case for the potential educative worth of distractions for learning science in the school laboratory. Distractions are operationalized as experiences lying outside the main purpose of the laboratory activity, thereby diverting students’ attention from that purpose. Through a practical epistemology analysis, I examined in close detail the conversations of three groups of high school students trying to explain how a real galvanic cell works. The three groups experienced the same two distractions, (1) a nonworking light-emitting diode and (2) negative readings on a voltmeter. The analysis reveals how one of the groups, through a series of contingencies, successively made the two distractions continuous with the main purpose of the activity. In the remaining two groups, no such continuity was established. The results show that (a) experiences initially being distracting, perplexing, and confusing may indeed acquire significance for the students’ possibilities of coping with the main purpose of the activity but that (b) the outcome is highly contingent on the particular experiences drawn upon by the students to cope with the distractions. Consequently, I discuss ways in which teachers may turn distractions encountered in laboratory activities into educative experiences for more than a few lucky students.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Benner, D., & English, A. (2004). Critique and negativity: towards the pluralisation of critique in educational practice, theory and research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38(3), 409–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., & Lundberg, B. K. S. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billett, S. (2009). Conceptualizing learning experiences: contributions and mediations of the social, personal, and brute. Mind, Culture & Activity, 16(1), 32–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1996a). Democracy and education. In L. Hickman (Ed.), Collected works of John Dewey, 1882–1953: the electronic edition (Middle Works, volume 9). Charlottesville: InteLex Corporation. original work published 1916.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1996b). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. In L. Hickman (Ed.), Collected works of John Dewey, 1882–1953: the electronic edition (Later Works, Volume 8). Charlottesville: InteLex Corporation. original work published 1933.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1996c). Experience and education. In L. Hickman (Ed.), Collected works of John Dewey, 1882–1953: the electronic edition (Later Works, Volume 13). Charlottesville: InteLex Corporation. original work published 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1996d). Logic: the theory of inquiry. In L. Hickman (Ed.), Collected works of John Dewey, 1882–1953: the electronic edition (Later Works, Volume 12). Charlottesville: InteLex Corporation. original work published 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: a situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, A. R. (2005). Negativity and the new in John Dewey’s theory of learning and democracy: towards a renewed look at learning cultures. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 8(1), 28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P.-O. (2008). Describing and analyzing learning in action: an empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning science. Science Education, 92(1), 141–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P.-O. (2009). Beyond explanations: what else do students need to understand science? Science Education, 93(6), 1026–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogstrom, P., Ottander, C., & Benckert, S. (2010). Lab work and learning in secondary school chemistry: the importance of teacher and student interaction. Research in Science Education, 40(4), 505–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, B., & Wickman, P.-O. (2007). The roles of aesthetic experience in elementary school science. Research in Science Education, 38, 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, A.-M., & Wickman, P.-O. (2011). A pragmatist approach to learning progressions. In B. Hudson & M. A. Meyer (Eds.), Beyond fragmentation: didactics, learning, and teaching (pp. 47–59). Leverkusen: Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81(5), 533–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Brown, C., & Crawford, T. (2000). Experiments, contingencies, and curriculum: providing opportunities for learning through improvisation in science teaching. Science Education, 84(5), 624–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., McDonald, S., & Wickman, P. O. (2012). Science learning and epistemology. In K. Tobin, B. J. Fraser, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P., & Huisman, W. (1998). ‘Dry laboratories’ in science education: computer-based practical work. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 665–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T., Kuutti, K., & Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont’ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. Mind, Culture and Activity, 5(1), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Östman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: the interplay between teachers’ epistemological moves and students’ practical epistemology. Science Education, 90(1), 148–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longfield, J. (2009). Discrepant teaching events: using an inquiry stance to address students’ misconceptions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 266–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundegård, I., & Wickman, P.-O. (2007). Conflicts of interest: an indispensable element of education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 13(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunetta, 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. 393–441). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: what practical work in science education is really for. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: which way now? (pp. 16–31). London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlander, A. A., & Wickman, P.-O. (2011). Bodily experiences in secondary school biology. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(3), 569–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piqueras, J., Wickman, P.-O., & Hamza, K. M. (2011). Student teachers’ moment-to-moment reasoning and the development of discursive themes. In E. Davidsson & A. Jakobsson (Eds.), Understanding interactions at science centers and museums: a sociocultural perspective. New York: SensePublishers B.V.

  • Ritchie, S. M. (1998). The teacher’s role in the transformation of students’ understanding. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 169–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, T. (2006). ‘Unpacking’ Scaffolding: identifying discourse and multimodal strategies that support learning. Language & Education: An International Journal, 20(3), 211–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welzel, M., & Roth, W.-M. (1998). Do interviews really assess students’ knowledge? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, R. T. (1991). Episodes, and the purpose and conduct of practical work. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science (pp. 78–86). Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. T. (1996). The link between the laboratory and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 761–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickman, P.-O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: a study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88, 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickman, P.-O. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: Learning and meaning-making as situated talk and action (teaching and learning in science series). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002a). Induction as an empirical problem: how students generalize during practical work. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 465–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002b). Learning as discourse change: a sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86, 601–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden

    Karim M. Hamza

Authors
  1. Karim M. Hamza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karim M. Hamza.

Additional information

This study is part of the project “How Can Teachers Aid Students towards Scientific Reasoning” funded by the Swedish Research Council.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hamza, K.M. Distractions in the School Science Laboratory. Res Sci Educ 43, 1477–1499 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9316-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9316-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation