Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Learn in and from the Chemistry Laboratory

  • Chapter
Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook

Abstract

Laboratory activities have long had a distinctive and central role in the chemistry curriculum as a means of making sense of the natural world. For many years chemistry educators have suggested that many benefits accrue from engaging students in the science laboratory. The wide written array of literature illustrates that, the laboratory provides a unique mode of instruction, learning, and assessment. This chapter provides a theoretical overview justifying learning in and from the laboratory in chemistry education and discussing its educational potential. The theoretical discussion is followed by a more practical part that deals with various approaches to the chemistry laboratory, the teachers ' behaviour in the laboratory, assessment of students ' achievement and progress, and other related organisational and educational variables.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abrahams, I. (2011). Practical work in secondary science: A minds-on approach. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1945–1969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. (2010). Effective practical work in primary science: The role of empathy. Primary Science, 113(May/June), 26–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1990). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. R., & White, R. T. (1996). Metacognitive strategies in the classroom. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 190–200). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J.W., & Woolnough, B.E. (1982). Practical work in 11-13 science: The context, type and aims of current practice. British Educational Research Journal, 8, 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science: A guide to recent research and its applications. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A., Samuel, D., & Kempa, R. F. (1976). The attitude of high school students towards the use of filmed experiments, Journal of Chemical Education, 53, 575–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Gunstone, R., & Loughran, J. (1999). Helping students learn from laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 45, 27–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P. (2008). Strategic decisions: Ambitions, feasibility and context. Educational Designer, 1, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryce, T. G. K., & Robertson, I. J. (1985). What can they do? A review of practical assessment in science. Studies in Science Education, 12, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrel & E. H. Van Zee (eds,). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. (pp 20–46) Washington: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerini, B., Murray, I., & Ambrosio, A. L. (2003). Student Review of the science curriculum. Major findings. London: Planet Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charen, D. (1966). Do laboratory methods stimulate critical thinking? Science Education, 54, 267–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Carlo, C. L., & Rubba, P. A. (1994). What happens during high school chemistry laboratory sessions? A descriptive case study of the behaviors exhibited by three teachers and their students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 5(2), 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Fuccia, D., Witteck, T., Markic, S., & Eilks, I. (2012). Current trends in practical work in German science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8, 59–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., Sasson, I., Kaberman, Z., & Herscovitz, O. (2004). Integrating case-based computerized laboratories into high school chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 9, 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R. (1975). The name of the game. School Science Review, 56(197), 800–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000), Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 329–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (eds.) (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilks, I. (2000). Promoting scientific and technological literacy: Teaching Biodiesel. Science Education International, 11(1), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilks, I. (2002). “Learning at Stations” in secondary level chemistry lessons. Science Education International, 13(1), 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilks, I., Nielsen, J. A., & Hofstein, A. (2012). Learning about the role of science in public debate as an essential component of scientific literacy. In C. Bruguière, P. Clément, & A. Tiberghien (eds.), Book of selected presentations, ESERA Conference Lyon 2011. Dordrecht: Springer (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauber, M., & Rayner-Canham, G. (2004). The Remsen demonstration “Nitric acid acts upon copper: A colorful slice of chemistry history.” In B. Shmaefsky (ed.), Favorite demonstrations for college science (pp. 99–104). Arlington: NSTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific inquiry. School Review, 79, 171–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70(256), 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. (2012). Learning in and from science laboratories. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & K. McRobbie (eds.), International handbook on science education (pp. 189–207). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2011). High-school students’ attitudes toward and interest in learning chemistry. Education Quimica, 22, 90–102.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Ben-Zvi, R., & Samuel, D. (1976). The measurement of the interest in, and attitudes to laboratory work amongst Israeli high school chemistry students. Science Education, 60, 401–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2002). Third report. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katchevich, D., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Hofstein, A. (2010). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NARST, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, J. F. (1963). Practical work in school science. Leicester: Leicester University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory – Exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 2527–2558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2005). Inquiring the inquiry laboratory in high school. In R. Pinto & D. Couso (eds.), Contributions from science education research (pp. 297–306). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 601–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., Mamlok, R., & Hug, B. (2001). Modern content and the enterprise of science: Science education in the twentieth century. In L. Corno (ed.), Education across a century: The centennial volume (pp. 205–238). Chicago: NSSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1999). Metacognitive development. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (eds.), Child psychology: Handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 259–286). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115–142.

    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. 393–431). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In K. G. Tobin & B. J. Fraser (eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249–262). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R. W., Freeman, J. G., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1998). Professional development of science teachers. In K. G. Tobin & B. J. Fraser (eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 667–680). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, R. J., & Ridgway, D. W. (1969). The CHEMStudy story. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R. (1989). What is the scientific method and can it be taught? In J. J. Wellington (ed.), Skills and processes in science education (pp. 47–62). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (eds.) (1999). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner, N., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (1987). Variables that affect students’ enrolment in science courses. Research in Science & Technological Education, 5, 201–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Quoted in S. Hidi & J. M. Harackiewicz, Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council) (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) (2004). NSTA position statement: Scientific inquiry. www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx.

  • Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okebukola, P. A. (1986). An investigation of some factors affecting students’ attitudes toward laboratory chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 86, 531–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepardson, D. P., & Pizzini, E. L. (1991). Questioning levels of junior high school science textbooks and their implications for learning textual information. Science Education, 75, 673–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. D., & Tamir, P. (1973). Research on teaching in the natural sciences, In R. M. W. Traves (ed), Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (1980). Teaching children in the laboratory. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (1999). Envisionment in practical work. Helping pupils to imagine concepts while carrying out experiments. In J. Leach & A. Paulsen (eds), Practical work in science education – Recent research studies (pp. 60–74). Roskilde: Roskilde University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taitelbaum, D., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Carmeli, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). Evidence-based continuous professional development (CPD) in the inquiry chemistry laboratory (ICL). International Journal of Science Education, 30, 593–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. J. (ed.) (1975). Practical work in sixth form science. Oxford: University of Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiberghien, A. (2000). Designing teaching situations in the secondary school. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 27–47). Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • TIMSS (Third International Mathematics and Science Study). (1999). International Science Report. timss.bc.edu/.

  • Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trowbridge, L. S., Bybee, R. W., & Powel-Carlson, J. (2004). Teaching secondary school science, 8th Edition (chapter 14, pp.195–207). Columbus: Merill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. T., & Mitchell, I. J. (1994). Metacognition and the quality of learning. Studies in Science Education, 23, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 145–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U. (1987). The fostering of question-asking capability. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 510–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Avi Hofstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mira Kipnis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ian Abrahams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bremen, Germany

    Ingo Eilks

  2. Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel

    Avi Hofstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., Abrahams, I. (2013). How to Learn in and from the Chemistry Laboratory. In: Eilks, I., Hofstein, A. (eds) Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation