From Separation to Partnership in Science Education: Students, Laboratories, and the Curriculum

  • Marcia C. Linn
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 156)

Abstract

This paper examines the role of the science laboratory in science learning. By examining historical views of students, laboratories, and the curriculum, it describes growing understanding of the context in which science laboratories are likely to be effective.

Historically, those concerned with laboratories in science have gone from “separation” to “partnership.” Separation characterizes early interest in science education because the various individuals concerned with science education worked separately. Initially, curriculum materials were developed primarily by natural scientists. For example, Millikan (1906) wrote a precollege physics textbook. At the same time, precollege educators who utilized those textbooks had little interaction with those who created the textbooks. Laboratories played many roles, ranging from vocational to motivational.

The period starting in the 1950s is characterized by the interaction between those concerned with science education, especially natural scientists and precollege professionals. Recently, a number of partnerships have been formed that involve experts in all areas concerned with science education. These partnerships are particularly apparent in efforts to incorporate Microcomputer Based Laboratories (MBLs) into the curriculum. Modern partnerships typically involve experts in natural science, experts in technology, expert precollege professionals, and leaders in pedagogy.

Initially, researchers compared laboratories to demonstrations and, for many goals, found no advantage for student-conducted investigations. In the 1960s natural scientists, inspired by Bruner and Piaget, designed laboratories to engage students in active learning. Students could conduct experiments like scientists. These experiences motivated students but did not necessarily contribute to understanding of science. Recently, MBLs have added the tools of scientists to the laboratory. Projects involving partnerships with science teachers, cognitive scientists, natural scientists, and technology experts have designed laboratories that engage students in knowledge integration. In partnership projects the goal of emulating the experiences of research scientists by providing a science laboratory is often realized. Students participate in a community of investigators, use powerful scientific tools, and investigate problems of their own choosing.

The trend from separation to partnership has been gradual. Naturally, there are examples of interactions and partnerships throughout the history of science education. Yet the predominant early theme was separation, and an emerging theme is partnership. The separation period continued to about 1950. The interaction period predominated from 1950 to 1975. The partnership period began to emerge in the late 1970s (for further discussion, see Linn, Songer, & Eylon, in press).

Although these trends are apparent in many science topic areas, this paper takes examples from physical science, since MBLs have been used most extensively there. Many of the comments and examples from the physical sciences apply to other sciences, although unique aspects of other sciences also deserve scrutiny.

Keywords

Science Laboratory Heat Energy Science Curriculum Knowledge Construction Curriculum Material 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agogino, A.M. & Linn, M.C. (1992 May-June). Retaining female engineering students: Will early design experiences help? [Viewpoint Editorial]. In M. Wilson (ed.), NSF Directions, 5(2), pp. 8–9Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J.S., A. Collins, et al. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 18(1): 32–41Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J.S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: NortonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruner, J.S. (1968). Processes of cognitive growth: Infancy. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Burbules, N.C. & Linn, M.C. (1988). Response to contradiction: Scientific reasoning during adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burbules, N.C. & Linn, M.C. (1991). Science education and the philosophy of science: Congruence or contradiction? International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calfee, R. (1981). Cognitive psychology and educational practice. In D.C. Berliner (ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 3–73) (Vol. 9). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research AssociationGoogle Scholar
  8. Champagne, A.B., Klopfer, L.E., & Gunstone, R.F. (1982). Cognitive research and the design of science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 17(1), 31–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, A. & Brown, J.S. (1988). The computer as a tool for learning through reflection. In H. Mandl & A.M. Lesgold (eds.), Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 1–18). New York: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11, 38–39Google Scholar
  11. Cunningham, H.A. (1924). Laboratory methods in natural science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 24, 709–715, 848–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham, H.A. (1946). Lecture method versus individual laboratory method in science teaching: A summary. Science Education, 30, 70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cureton, E.E. (1927). Junior high school science. The School Review, 35,767–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Curtis, F.D. (1926). A digest of investigations in the teaching of science in the elementary and secondary schools. York, PA: Maple Press Co.Google Scholar
  15. Curtis, F.D. (1931). Second digest of investigations in the teaching of science. York, PA: Maple Press Co.Google Scholar
  16. diSessa, A. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In D. Gentner & A.L. Stevens (eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. diSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  18. diSessa, A. (1992). Images of learning. In E. De Corte, M.C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving. NATO ASI Series F, Vol. 84. Berlin: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  19. Dull, C.E., Metcalfe, H.C., & Williams, J.E. (1960). Modern physics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, IncGoogle Scholar
  20. Eckert, P. (1990). Adolescent social categories: Information and science learning. In M. Gardner, J.G. Greeno, F. Reif, A.H. Schoenfeld, A. diSessa, & E. Stage (eds.), Toward a scientific practice of science education (pp. 203–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  21. Eylon, B. & Linn, M.C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 251–301Google Scholar
  22. Eylon, B. & Linn, M.C. (in press). Models and integration activities in science education. In E. Bar-On, Z. Scherz, & B. Eylon (eds.), Designing intelligent learning environments. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing CorporationGoogle Scholar
  23. Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M.C. (1990). Learning scientific reasoning skills in microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 173–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hewitt, P.G. (1987). Conceptual physics: A high school physics program (Teacher’s ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  25. Karplus, R. (1975). Strategies in curriculum development: The SCIS Project. In J. Schaffarzick & D.H. Hampson (eds.), Strategies for curriculum development. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing CorpGoogle Scholar
  26. Karplus, R. & Thier, H.D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science: Science Curriculum Improvement Study. Chicago: Rand McNally & CoGoogle Scholar
  27. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  28. Laws, P.W. (1986, June). Workshop physics. [Proposal to the Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education], Carlisle, PA: Dickinson CollegeGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawson, A.E. (1985). A review of research on formal reasoning and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 569–617MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis, E.L. (1991). The process of scientific knowledge acquisition among middle school students learning thermodynamics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis, E.L. & Linn, M.C. (1994). Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults, and experts: Implications for curricular improvements. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 657–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Linn, M.C. (1983). Content, context, and process in adolescent reasoning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3,63–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Linn, M.C. (1986). Science. In R. Dillon & R.J. Sternberg (eds.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 155–204). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Linn, M.C. (1992). The computer as learning partner: Can computer tools teach science? In K. Sheingold, L.G. Roberts, & S.M. Malcolm (eds.), This year in school science 1991: Technology for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  35. Linn, M.C. & Burbules, N.C. (1993). Construction of knowledge and group learning. In K. Tobin (ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 91–119). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)Google Scholar
  36. Linn, M.C., diSessa, A., Pea, R.D., & Songer, N.B. (1994). Can research on science learning and instruction inform standards for science education? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(1), 7—15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Linn, M.C. & Songer, N.B. (1991). Cognitive and conceptual change in adolescence. American Journal of Education, 99(4), 379–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Linn, M.C., Songer, N.B., & Eylon, B. (in press). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. In R. Calfee & D. Berliner (eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. Riverside, NJ: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  39. Linn, M.C., Songer, N.B., Lewis, E.L., & Stem, J. (1993). Using technology to teach thermodynamics: Achieving integrated understanding. In D.L. Ferguson (ed.), Advanced educational technologies for mathematics and science (pp. 5–60) (Vol. 107). Berlin: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Millikan, R.A. & Gale, H.G. (1906). A laboratory course in physics for secondary schools. Boston: Ginn and CompanyGoogle Scholar
  42. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (1978). Three national assessments of science: Changes in achievement 1969–77. Denver: Education Commission of the StatesGoogle Scholar
  43. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (1988). The science report card: Elements of risk and recovery: Trends and achievement based on the 1986 national assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing ServiceGoogle Scholar
  44. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. London: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  45. Papert, S.A. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  46. Pella, M.O. (1976). Guest editorial: Sixty years of science education. Science Education, 60(4), 433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Physical Sciences Study Committee (1960). Physics. Boston: D.C. HeathGoogle Scholar
  48. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: National Universities PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Raizen, S.A. (1991). The state of science education. In S.K. Majumdar, L.M. Rosenfeld, P.A. Rubba, E.W. Miller, & R.F. Schmalz (eds.), Science education in the United States: Issues, crises and priorities (pp. 25–45). Philadelphia: The Pennsylvania Academy of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  50. Rossiter, M.W. (1982). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University PressGoogle Scholar
  51. Rutherford, F.J., Holton, G., & Watson, F.G. (1970). The Project Physics course handbook. New York: Holt, Rinehart & WinstonGoogle Scholar
  52. Songer, N.B. (1989). Promoting integration of instructed and natural world knowledge in thermodynamics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  53. Songer, N.B. & Linn, M.C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stollberg, R. & Hill, F.F. (1965). Physics: Fundamentals and frontiers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin CompanyGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomas, M. (1993). Thermal Model Kit [software]. Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  56. Thorndike, E.L. (1910). The contribution of psychology to education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7, 1–14Google Scholar
  57. Thornton, R.K. & Sokoloff, D.S. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58,858–867 (Appendix B)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review; 20, 158–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Welch, W.W. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back. In D.C. Berliner (ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 282–308). Washington, DC: American Educational Research AssociationGoogle Scholar
  61. West, L.H.T., Pines, A.L., & Sutton, C.R. (1984). In-depth investigations of learners’ understandings of scientific concepts and theories. In A.L. Pines & L.H.T. West (eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  62. White, B.Y. & Frederiksen, J.R. (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 24(1), 99–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcia C. Linn
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaUSA

Personalised recommendations