Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How Should Students Learn in the School Science Laboratory? The Benefits of Cooperative Learning

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

Abstract

Despite the inherent potential of cooperative learning, there has been very little research into its effectiveness in middle school laboratory classes. This study focuses on an empirical comparison between cooperative learning and individual learning in the school science laboratory, evaluating the quality of learning and the students’ attitudes. The research included 67 seventh-grade students who undertook four laboratory experiments on the subject of “volume measuring skills.” Each student engaged both in individual and cooperative learning in the laboratory, and the students wrote individual or group reports, accordingly. A total of 133 experiment reports were evaluated, 108 of which also underwent textual analysis. The findings show that the group reports were superior, both in terms of understanding the concept of “volume” and in terms of acquiring skills for measuring volume. The students’ attitudes results were statistically significant and demonstrated that they preferred cooperative learning in the laboratory. These findings demonstrate that science teachers should be encouraged to implement cooperative learning in the laboratory. This will enable them to improve the quality and efficiency of laboratory learning while using a smaller number of experimental kits. Saving these expenditures, together with the possibility to teach a larger number of students simultaneously in the laboratory, will enable greater exposure to learning in the school science laboratory.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alghamdi, R., & Gillies, R. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning in comparison to traditional learning (small groups) on EFL learners’ outcomes when learning English as a foreign language. Asian Social Science, 9(13), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydin, S. (2011). Effect of cooperative learning and traditional methods on students’ achievements and identifications of laboratory equipments in science-technology laboratory course. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(9), 636–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordenstein, S. R., Brothers, C., Wolfe, G., Bahr, M., & Minckley, R. L. (2010). Using the Wolbachia bacterial symbiont to teach inquiry-based science: a high school laboratory series. The American Biology Teacher, 72 (8),478–72 (8),483.

  • Cavalier, J. C., & Klein, J. D. (1998). Effects of cooperative versus individual learning and orienting activities during computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun-Yen, C., & Song-Ling, M. (1999). The effects on students’ cognitive achievement when using the cooperative learning method in earth science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 99(7), 374–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clyde, F. H. (1998). Why isn’t cooperative learning used to teach science? Bioscience, 48 (7), 553–48 (7), 559.

  • Emmer, E. T., & Gerwels, M. C. (2002). Cooperative learning in elementary classrooms: teaching practices and lesson characteristics. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, M. (2015). An empirical study on the application of cooperative learning to English listening classes. English Language Teaching, 8(3), 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiung, C. M. (2010). Identification of dysfunctional cooperative learning teams based on students’ academic achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiung, C. M. (2011). Identification of dysfunctional cooperative learning teams using taguchi quality indexes. Journal of Engineering Educational technology, 14(3), 152–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiung, C. M. (2012). The effectiveness of cooperative learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W. (2014). Cooperative learning in twenty-first century. Anales de Psicología, 30 (3),841–30 (3),851.

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: overview and meta analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(1), 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W. (1996). Writing collaborative laboratory reports in ninth grade science: three case studies of social interactions. School Science and Mathematics, 96(4), 178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köse, S., Sahin, A., Ergün, A., & Gezer, K. (2010). The effects of cooperative learning experience on eight grade students’ achievement and attitude toward science. Education, 131(1), 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leikin, R., & Zaslavsky, O. (1999). Cooperative learning in mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 92(3), 240–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, T. R. (2001). 101 reasons for using cooperative learning in biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 63(1), 30–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lv, Y. (2014). Cooperative learning: an effective approach to college English learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(9), 1948–1953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, S., & Kulshrestha, A. K. (2014). Implementation of cooperative learning in science: a developmental-cum-experimental study. Education Research International , 431542. doi:10.1155/2014/431542.Article ID

  • Nicholl, T. A., & Lou, K. (2012). A model for small-group problem-based learning in a large class facilitated by one instructor. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(6), 117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olubu, O. M. (2015). Effects of laboratory learning environment on students learning outcomes in secondary school chemistry. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8(2), 507–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olufunke, B. T. (2012). Effect of availability and utilization of physics laboratory equipment on students’ academic achievement in senior secondary school physics. World Journal of Education, 2, 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, C., & Wu, H. (2013). The cooperative learning effects on English reading comprehension and learning motivation of EFL freshmen. English Language Teaching, 6(5), 13–27. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n5p13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piccinini, N., & Scollo, G. (2006). Cooperative project-based learning in a web-based software engineering course. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(4), 54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuerell, S. (2010). Virtual Warrensburg: using cooperative learning and the internet in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 101(5), 194–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shumow, L., Schmidt, J. A., & Zaleski, D. J. (2013). Multiple perspectives on student learning, engagement, and motivation in high school biology labs. The High School Journal, 96(3), 232–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spektor-Levi, O. (2011). The nature of matter. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, Bonus Publishing (in Hebrew).

  • Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strommen, E. (1995). Cooperative learning: technology may be the Trojan horse that brings collaboration to the classroom. Electronic learning, 14(6), 24–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: the development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Wang, C. Y., Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Hwang, F. K., Chang, H. Y., Wu, Y. T., Chiou, G. L., Chen, S., Liang, J. C., Lin, J. W., Lo, H. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). A review of research on technology-assisted school science laboratories. Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 307–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadin, A., & Or-Bach, R. (2008). Fostering individual learning - when and how. Inroads, ACM SigCSE Bulletin, 40(4), 83–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadin, A., & Or-Bach, R. (2010). The importance of emphasizing individual learning in the “collaborative learning era”. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 185–194.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hemdat Hadarom College, POB 412, Azata Educational Campus, 80200, Netivot, Israel

    Ayala Raviv, Sarit Cohen & Ester Aflalo

Authors
  1. Ayala Raviv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarit Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ester Aflalo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayala Raviv.

Additional information

This study was undertaken with the assistance of the Research Authority at Hemdat Hadarom College.

Appendix: Description of the Four Experiments

Appendix: Description of the Four Experiments

  1. 1.

    Experiment 1: Addressed the measurement of the volume of a solid in the form of a cuboid. The students were given cubes from which they made a cuboid and measured its volume. The structured experiment sheets instructed the students to name the experiment, define its goal, and describe the tools used and their method. They were also required to answer the following questions: How many dimensions does the cuboid have?

    How did you calculate the volume of the cuboid and what units of measurement did you use to determine the volume of the cuboid? Calculate the volume of a cuboid whose dimensions are width 5 cm, length 10 cm, and height 4 cm.

  1. 2.

    Experiment 2: Addressed the measurement of the volume of liquid. The students were asked to measure various volumes of water using measuring cups of different volumes. They were given three cups with the volumes 10, 20, and 100 cu.cm3. They were required to determine the measuring range of each cup and the measurement units, and to plan a way of calculating the volume that could be contained in each cup. They also had to determine what was the most appropriate measuring cup for measuring 90 cu.cm3 ,9 cu.cm3, and 19 cm3 of water. They were required to execute the experiment, enter the findings in a comparative table, and draw conclusions. In their conclusions, they were also asked to state two common properties of all three measuring cups and three differences between the cups.

  2. 3.

    Experiment 3: Addressed the measurement of liquid in different containers. In the previous experiment, the students learned how to measure the volume of a liquid. In this one, they examined whether a volume of liquid remains constant. When we transfer liquid from one container to another, does its volume change? The students were given 50 ml of water and three containers: a 250-ml chemical cup, a 100-ml measuring cup, and a 200-ml conical bottle. They were required to plan an experiment answering the above-mentioned questions. They were asked to define the goal of the experiment, write down the method using the containers and materials available to them, describe the results, and draw conclusions.

  3. 4.

    Experiment 4: Addressed the measurement of volume of solids of a defined geometrical shape and without a defined geometrical shape. The students were given three items: a wooden cube, a stone, and a piece of modeling clay. They were also given a tape measure, a measuring cup, and water. They were required to suggest ways of measuring the volume of the three items. After they wrote down the experiment method and the tools and materials needed for the measurement, they presented their proposal to the teacher and received approval to execute the measurement. They then wrote down the results and their conclusions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raviv, A., Cohen, S. & Aflalo, E. How Should Students Learn in the School Science Laboratory? The Benefits of Cooperative Learning. Res Sci Educ 49, 331–345 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9618-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9618-2

Keyword

Search

Navigation