The laboratory in science

The Laboratory in Science
Education: Foundations
for the Twenty-First Century
AVI HOFSTEIN
Department of Science Teaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science,
Rehovot 76100, Israel
VINCENT N. LUNETTA
Science Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA 16802, USA
Received 23 June 2002; revised 10 January 2003; accepted 25 January 2003
ABSTRACT: The laboratory has been given a central and distinctive role in science educa-
tion, and science educators have suggested that rich beneﬁts in learning accrue from using
laboratory activities. Twenty years have been elapsed since we published a frequently cited,
critical review of the research on the school science laboratory (Hofstein & Lunetta, Rev.
Educ. Res. 52(2), 201–217, 1982). Twenty years later, we are living in an era of dramatic
new technology resources and new standards in science education in which learning by
inquiry has been given renewed central status. Methodologies for research and assessment
that have developed in the last 20 years can help researchers seeking to understand how
science laboratory resources are used, how students’ work in the laboratory is assessed,
and how science laboratory activities can be used by teachers to enhance intended learning
outcomes. In that context, we take another look at the school laboratory in the light of con-
temporary practices and scholarship. This analysis examines scholarship that has emerged
in the past 20 years in the context of earlier scholarship, contemporary goals for science
learning, current models of how students construct knowledge, and information about how
teachers and students engage in science laboratory activities. C 2003 Wiley Periodicals,
Inc. Sci Ed 88:28–54, 2004; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI 10.1002/sce.10106
INTRODUCTION
Twenty years ago, we published a frequently cited review entitled “The Role of the
Laboratory in Science Teaching: Neglected Aspects of Research,” in the Review of Ed-
ucational Research (Hofstein & Lunetta, 1982). We reported that for over a century, the
laboratory had been given a central and distinctive role in science education, and science
educators have suggested that there are rich beneﬁts in learning that accrue from using
laboratory activities. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, some educators began to seriously
question both the effectiveness and the role of laboratory work, and the case for the lab-
oratory was not as self-evident as it seemed (see, for example, Bates, 1978). Our 1982
Correspondence to: Vincent N. Lunetta; e-mail: vnl@psu.edu
C 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

LABORATORY IN SCIENCE EDUCATION 29
review provided perspectives on the issue of the science laboratory through a review of the
history, goals, and research findings regarding the laboratory as a medium for instruction
in introductory science teaching and learning. We wrote
Science educators (e.g., Schwab, 1962; Hurd, 1969; Lunetta & Tamir, 1979) have expressed
the view that uniqueness of the laboratory lies principally in providing students with op-
portunities to engage in processes of investigation and inquiry.
The 1982 review raised another issue regarding the definition of the goals and objectives
of the laboratory in science education. A review of the literature revealed that by and large
these objectives were synonymous with those defined for science learning in general. Thus,
we suggested that it is vital to isolate and define goals for which laboratory work could make
a unique and significant contribution to the teaching and learning of science. We wrote that
while the laboratory provides a unique medium for teaching and learning in science (p. 212)
researchers have not comprehensively examined the effects of laboratory instruction on
student learning and growth in contrast to other modes of instruction, and there is insufficient
data to confirm or reject convincingly many of the statements that have been made about the
importance and the effects of laboratory teaching. The research has failed to show simplistic
relationships between experiences in the laboratory and student learning.
Our 1982 review identified several methodological shortcomings in the science education
research,thatinhibitedourabilitytopresentaclearpictureregardingtheutilityofthescience
laboratory in promoting understanding for students. These shortcomings included
• insufficient control over procedures (including expectations delivered by the labora-
tory guide, the teacher, and the assessment system);
• insufficient reporting of the instructional and assessment procedures that were used;
• assessment measures of students’ learning outcomes inconsistent with stated goals
of the teaching and the research; and
• insufficient sample size in many studies, especially in quantitative studies.
Ten years later, Tobin (1990) prepared a follow-up synthesis of research on the effectiveness
of teaching and learning in the science laboratory. He proposed a research agenda for
science teachers and researchers. Tobin suggested that meaningful learning is possible in
the laboratory if the students are given opportunities to manipulate equipment and materials
in an environment suitable for them to construct their knowledge of phenomena and related
scientific concepts. In addition, he claimed that, in general, research had failed to provide
evidence that such opportunities were offered in school science. Four years later, Roth
(1994) suggested that although laboratories have long been recognized for their potential
to facilitate the learning of science concepts and skills, this potential has yet to be realized.
TWENTY YEARS LATER: NEW PROBLEMS, OPPORTUNITIES,
AND SOLUTIONS
In 2002, as this paper is written, we are in a new era of reform in science education.
Both the content and pedagogy of science learning and teaching are being scrutinized, and
new standards intended to shape meaningful science education are emerging. The National
Science Education Standards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996) and other science
education literature (Bybee, 2000; Lunetta, 1998) emphasize the importance of rethinking

30 HOFSTEIN AND LUNETTA
the role and practice of laboratory work in science teaching. This is especially appropriate
because in recent decades we have learned much about human cognition and learning
(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). In addition, learning by inquiry (NRC, 2000) is
posing challenges for teachers and learners (Krajcik, Mamlok, & Hug, 2001). Inquiry refers
to diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world, propose ideas, and explain and
justify assertions based upon evidence derived from scientific work. It also refers to more
authentic ways in which learners can investigate the natural world, propose ideas, and
explain and justify assertions based upon evidence and, in the process, sense the spirit of
science.
We have based this analytical review of the literature associated with laboratory/practical
work in science education, in part, on our review published twenty years earlier (Hofstein
& Lunetta, 1982). In this review, we examine changes in the relevant scholarship dur-
ing the intervening 20 years. In the 1980s, multiple reports were published by prominent
groups and authors identifying “crisis” and calling for reform in science education (see,
for example, Harms & Yager, 1981; Hurd, 1983; Kyle, 1984; Press, 1982; Yager, 1984). In
addition, in the first half of that decade, meta-analysis studies were published that examined
the effectiveness of science education curricula developed during the 1960s; for example,
Shymansky, Kyle, and Alport (1983) conducted a meta-analytic investigation on students’
performance in science resulting from schooling using the science curricula developed in
the 1960s. Although their study showed some positive effects of these curricula on stu-
dents’ science learning, the impact was limited because of shortcomings in dissemination
and implementation of these curriculum projects.
In the 20 years since our 1982 review was published, the science education community
has substantially expanded knowledge of students’ understanding of science concepts and
of the nature of science. There has also been a substantial paradigm shift in thinking about
the ways in which learners construct their own scientific knowledge and understanding. In
addition, substantive developments in social science research methodologies enable much
richer examination of laboratory and classroom processes and of students’ and teachers’
ideas and behaviors. Furthermore, throughout the past 20 years the exponential growth of
high-technology tools has powerful implications for teaching, learning, and research in the
school laboratory.
Used properly, the laboratory is especially important in the current era in which inquiry
has re-emerged as a central style advocated for science teaching and learning (NRC, 1996,
p. 23):
Inquiry is a multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions;
examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning
investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using
toolstogather,analyze,andinterpretdata;proposinganswers,explanations,andpredictions;
and communicating the results. Inquiry requires identification of assumptions, use of critical
and logical thinking, and consideration of alternative explanations.
The term inquiry has been used in multiple ways in the science education literature. It has
been used somewhat broadly to refer to learning science in classrooms and labs in which the
students and their teachers explore and discuss science in a “narrative of enquiry” context. As
the science education field develops, it is increasingly important to define and use technical
terms like inquiry in the learning of science with greater precision and consistency, and
progress to these ends is visible in recent scholarship.
The National Science Education Standards in the United States and other contemporary
science education literature continue to suggest that school science laboratories have the

potential to be an important medium for introducing students to central conceptual and
procedural knowledge and skills in science (Bybee, 2000). Hodson (1993) emphasized that
the principal focus of laboratory activities should not be limited to learning specific scientific
methods or particular laboratory techniques; instead, students in the laboratory should use
the methods and procedures of science to investigate phenomena, solve problems, and
pursue inquiry and interests. Baird (1990) is one of several persons who has observed that
the laboratory learning environment warrants a radical shift from teacher-directed learning
to “purposeful-inquiry” that is more student-directed.
In preparing the current review the authors consulted several databases to identify the
most appropriate studies and reviews addressing issues associated with teaching and learn-
ing in the school science laboratory. This review examined associated science projects,
investigations, and practical activities both inside and outside school walls, when such
activities were perceived as formal elements of the school science curriculum. In the pro-
cess, the authors conducted searches of published papers (1982–2001), the ERIC database
(1982–2001), dissertation abstracts (1982–2001), and presentations in NARST confer-
ences (1995–2001). In particular, we considered reviews that had been published on the
subject of practical work in the intervening years: Blosser (1983), Bryce and Robertson
(1985), Tobin (1990), Hodson (1993), and Lazarowitz and Tamir (1994).
In this review, we define science laboratory activities as learning experiences in which
students interact with materials and/or with models to observe and understand the natural
world. As noted earlier, the review focuses on developments that have occurred since our
1982 review of research on the laboratory was published. Principal sections and issues
included in this review are as follows:
• Learning science in the laboratory with special attention to scholarship associated
with models of learning, argumentation and the scientific justification of assertions,
students’ attitudes, conditions for effective learning, students’ perceptions of the
learning environment, social interaction, and differences in learning styles and cog-
nitive abilities.
• Goals for learning, discrepancies, and matching goals with practice with special at-
tention to: goals for learning, students’ perceptions of teachers’ goals, teachers’
expectations and behavior, the laboratory guide, incorporating inquiry empowering
technologies, simulations and the laboratory, assessing students’ skills and under-
standing of inquiry, and the politics of schooling.
• Teacher education and professional development.
• Synthesis and implications.
LEARNING SCIENCE IN THE SCHOOL LABORATORY
Models of Learning and Their Application
The 1982 paper was written near the end of two decades during which Piagetian theory
(Karplus, 1977) had served as a principal model for interpreting the nature of science
learning and for developing science teaching strategies and curriculum. In reviewing the
literature we wrote (Hofstein & Lunetta, 1982) that it was difficult to identify a simple
relationship between students’ science achievement and their work with materials in the
laboratory. During the 1980s the centrality of Piagetian models diminished and attention
was increasingly focused on a developing constructivist view of learning.
Several studies had shown that often the students and the teacher are preoccupied with
technical and manipulative details that consume most of their time and energy. Such

preoccupation seriously limits the time they can devote to meaningful, conceptually driven
inquiry. In response, Woolnough (1991) wrote that for these reasons, the potential contri-
bution of laboratory experiences to assist students in constructing powerful concepts has
generally been much more limited than it could have been. Such comments have been made
often throughout the past 20 years.
Tobin (1990) wrote that “Laboratory activities appeal as a way of allowing students
to learn with understanding and, at the same time, engage in a process of constructing
knowledge by doing science” (p. 405). This important assertion may be valid, but current
research also suggests that helping students achieve desired learning outcomes is a very
complex process. According to Gunstone (1991), using the laboratory to have students
restructure their knowledge may seem reasonable but this idea is also na¨ıve since devel-
oping scientific ideas from practical experiences is a very complex process. Gunstone and
Champagne (1990) suggested that meaningful learning in the laboratory would occur if stu-
dents were given sufficient time and opportunities for interaction and reflection. Gunstone
wrote that students generally did not have time or opportunity to interact and reflect on
central ideas in the laboratory since they are usually involved in technical activities with
few opportunities to express their interpretation and beliefs about the meaning of their in-
quiry. In other words, they normally have few opportunities for metacognitive activities.
Baird (1990) suggested that these metacognitive skills are “learning outcomes associated
with certain actions taken consciously by the learner during a specific learning episode”
(p. 184). Metacognition involves elaboration and application of one’s learning, which can
result in enhanced understanding. According to Gunstone, the challenge is to help learners
take control of their own learning in the search for understanding. In the process it is vital
to provide opportunities that encourage learners to ask questions, suggest hypotheses, and
design investigations—“minds-on as well as hands-on.” There is a need to provide students
with frequent opportunities for feedback, reflection, and modification of their ideas (Barron
et al., 1998). As Tobin (1990) and Polman (1999) have noted, in general, research has not
provided evidence that such opportunities exist in most schools in the United States, or, for
that matter, in other countries.
A constructivist model currently serves as a theoretical organizer for many science educa-
tors who are trying to understand cognition in science (Lunetta, 1998), i.e., learners construct
their ideas and understanding on the basis of series of personal experiences. Learning is
an active, interpretive, iterative process (Tobin, 1990). Moreover, there is a growing sense
that learning is contextualized and that learners construct knowledge by solving genuine
and meaningful problems (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Polman, 1999; Roth, 1995;
Wenger, 1998; Williams & Hmelo, 1998). Experiences in the school laboratory can provide
such opportunities for students if the expectations of the teacher enable them to engage
intellectually with meaningful investigative experiences upon which they can construct
scientific concepts within a community of learners in their classroom (Penner, Lehrer, &
Schuble, 1998; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993). A social constructivist framework has special
potential for guiding teaching in the laboratory. Millar and Driver (1987) were among those
who recommended the use of extended, reflective investigations to promote the construction
of more meaningful scientific concepts based upon the unique knowledge brought to the
science classroom by individual learners. An assumption is that when students interact with
problems that they perceive to be meaningful and connected to their experiences, and when
teachers are guided by what we know about learning, the students can begin to develop
more scientific concepts in dialogue with peer investigators.
Research has also suggested that while laboratory investigations offer important opportu-
nities to connect science concepts and theories discussed in the classroom and in textbooks
with observations of phenomena and systems, laboratory inquiry alone is not sufficient

to enable students to construct the complex conceptual understandings of the contempo-
rary scientific community. “If students’ understandings are to be changed toward those of
accepted science, then intervention and negotiation with an authority, usually a teacher, is
essential” (Driver, 1995). Van den Berg, Katu, and Lunetta (1994) reported that hands-on
activities with introductory electricity materials in clinical studies with individual students
facilitated their understanding of relationships among circuit elements and variables. The
activities provided clear tests of the validity of the subject’s ideas. “Frequently they led
to cognitive conflict. However, the carefully selected practical activities alone were not
sufficient to enable the subject to develop a fully scientific model of a circuit system.” The
findings suggested that greater engagement with conceptual organizers such as analogies
and concept maps could have resulted in the development of more scientific concepts in
basic electricity. Several researchers including Dupin and Joshua (1987) have reported sim-
ilar findings. When laboratory experiences are integrated with other metacognitive learning
experiences such as “predict–explain–observe” demonstrations, etc. (White & Gunstone,
1992) and when they incorporate the manipulation of ideas instead of simply materials and
procedures, they can promote the learning of science.
Pursuing that theme in Designing Project-Based Science: Connecting Learners Through
Guided Inquiry, Polman (1999) conducted an extended case study of a teacher who created a
collaborative learning community and provided his high school students with opportunities
to “learn by doing” authentic science in a science classroom. The teacher was guided by
constructivist pedagogy giving special attention to collaborative visualization. Polman’s
analysis provides detailed information about the teacher’s strategies and behaviors while
implementing a Project-Based Science model. Polman discussed the teacher’s efforts to
organize and support his students in various stages of inquiry learning such as in asking
researchable questions and in gathering, analyzing, and presenting data to construct and
justify scientific responses to those questions. Polman also discussed the difficulty and
complexityofchangingpracticesbydescribingconflictsthatemergedwhentheteacher,who
was the subject of the study, challenged conventional approaches to teaching and learning
science. He demonstrated how the structural and cultural realities of the school complicated
the enactment of pedagogical innovation in general and the Project-Based Science model,
in particular. Polman suggested that teachers who wish to foster science learning through
projects and inquiry must play a complex role in discourse with their students.
While there have been substantial developments in scholarship that can guide the de-
velopment of teaching and curriculum, that scholarship has had only marginal impact on
schools. In a summary of five studies that focused on Project-Based-Learning, Williams
and Hmelo (1998) wrote (p. 266)
Althoughseveraldecadesofresearchhavegivenusastrongtheoreticalbasisaboutthenature
of learning and the value of problem-based methods, this information has had relatively
small impact on education practices. We do not, as yet, have a widely accepted theory of
instruction or carefully thought out manageable methods of implementation consistent with
constructivist theory.
To acquire a more valid understanding of these important issues, science educators need to
conduct more intensive, focused research to examine the effects of specific school laboratory
experiences and associated contexts on students’ learning. The research should examine
the teachers’ and students’ perceptions of purpose, teacher and student behavior, and the
resulting perceptions and understandings (conceptual and procedural) that the students
construct. Research and development projects like those conducted by Polman (1999) and
by Krajcik et al. (2000) offer examples of what is needed.

Argumentation and the Scientific Justification of Assertions
Developing assertions about the natural world in school science and then justifying those
assertions with data collected in investigations within or beyond the science classroom
walls is considered increasingly to be an important element of school science learning
(see, for example, Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999; Zeidler, 1997). The National Science
Education Standards (NRC, 1996) also indicates the importance of engaging learners in
describing and in using observational evidence and current scientific knowledge to construct
and evaluate alternative explanations “based on evidence and logical argument” (p. 145).
Engaging in scientific argumentation assists students in constructing meaningful science
concepts and in understanding how scientists develop knowledge of the natural world.
Driver, Newton, and Osborne (2000) have written that weighing and interpreting evidence,
thinking about alternatives, and assessing the viability of scientific claims are essential
elements of scientific argumentation and of school science. These experiences are part of
students’ “enculturation” into science. “Argumentation is particularly relevant in science
education since a goal of scientific inquiry is the generation and justification of knowledge
claims, beliefs, and actions taken to understand nature” (Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez,
& Duschl, 2000). As elaborated later in the Inquiry Empowering Technologies section of
this review, new technology tools such as Progress Portfolio (Loh et al., in press) can help
students negotiate, support explanations and assertions about relationships, connect their
findings to driving questions in their investigations, and struggle with the significance of
their data (Land & Zembal-Saul, in press). Examining and elaborating the nature of scientific
argumentation in general, the utility of engaging students in these processes, and the most
appropriate ways to engage students in meaningful argumentation in the laboratory and
school science are contemporary domains for research in science education that should
have important implications for science teaching and curriculum.
Students’ Attitudes
Several studies published in the 1970s and early 1980s reported that students enjoy
laboratoryworkinsomecoursesandthatlaboratoryexperienceshaveresultedinpositiveand
improved student attitudes and interest in science. Shulman and Tamir (1973) wrote “We are
entering an era when we will be asked to acknowledge the importance of affect, imagination,
intuition and attitude as outcomes of science instruction as at least as important as their
cognitive counterparts” (p. 1139). Nevertheless, beginning in the 1980s, the pendulum of
scholarly research attention within the science education literature moved away from the
affective domain and toward the cognitive domain in general and toward conceptual change
in particular. Two comprehensive reviews that were published in the early 1990s (Hodson,
1993; Lazarowitz & Tamir, 1994) did not discuss research focused on affective variables
such as attitudes and interest. Nevertheless, the science education literature continues to
articulate that laboratory work is an important medium for enhancing attitudes, stimulating
interest and enjoyment, and motivating students to learn science. The failure to examine
effects of various school science experiences on students’ attitudes is unfortunate since
experiences that promote positive attitudes could have very beneficial effects on interest
and learning. The failure to gather such data is especially unfortunate in a time when
many are expressing increasing concerns about the need for empowerment of women and
underrepresented minority people in pure and applied science fields.
Conditions for Effective Learning
In the 1982 review, we pointed out the importance of examining the uniqueness of the
science laboratory learning environment in research. We wrote (p. 212)

Since creating a healthy learning environment is an important goal for many contemporary
science educators, there is a need for further research that will assess how time spent in
laboratory activities and how the nature of students’ activities in the laboratory affect the
learning environment.
The science laboratory is central in our attempt to vary the learning environment in which
students develop their understanding of scientific concepts, science inquiry skills, and per-
ceptions of science. The science laboratory, a unique learning environment, is a setting in
which students can work cooperatively in small groups to investigate scientific phenomena.
Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) and Lazarowitz and Tamir (1994) suggested that laboratory
activities have the potential to enhance constructive social relationships as well as positive
attitudes and cognitive growth. The social environment in a school laboratory is usually less
formal than in a conventional classroom; thus, the laboratory offers opportunities for pro-
ductive, cooperative interactions among students and with the teacher that have the potential
to promote an especially positive learning environment. The learning environment depends
markedly on the nature of the activities conducted in the lab, the expectations of the teacher
(and the students), and the nature of assessment. It is influenced, in part, by the materials,
apparatus, resources, and physical setting, but the learning environment that results is much
more a function of the climate and expectations for learning, the collaboration and social
interactions between students and teacher, and the nature of the inquiry that is pursued in
the laboratory.
Students’ Perceptions of the Laboratory Learning Environment
The need to assess the students’ perceptions in the science laboratory was approached
seriously by a group of science educators in Australia (Fraser, McRobbie, & Giddings,
1993), who developed and validated the Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI).
This instrument, consisting of eight learning environment scales, was found to be sensitive
to different approaches to laboratory work, e.g., high inquiry or low inquiry and different
science disciplines such as biology or chemistry, etc (Hofstein, Cohen, & Lazarowitz, 1996).
The SLEI has been used in several studies conducted in different parts of the world.
One comparative study examined students’ perceptions in six countries: United Kingdom,
Nigeria, Australia, Israel, United States, and Canada (Fraser & McRobbie, 1995). Fraser,
McRobbie, and Giddings (1993) in Australia, found that students’ perceptions of the labora-
tory learning environment accounted for significant amounts of the variance of the learning
beyond that due to differences in their abilities. In Israel, in the context of chemistry and bi-
ology learning, Hofstein, Cohen, and Lazarowitz (1996) used a Hebrew version of the SLEI.
They compared students’ perceptions of the actual and preferred learning environment of
laboratories in chemistry and biology classes. They found significant differences between
chemistry and biology laboratory environments in two scales, namely, integration, which
describes the extent to which the laboratory activities are integrated with nonlaboratory
activities in the classroom and open-endedness, which measures the extent to which the
activity emphasizes an open-ended approach to investigation. Differences were also found
in comparing the students’ perceptions of the actual and preferred learning environments.
A more recent study conducted in Israel by Hofstein, Levi-Nahum, and Shore (2001) in the
context of learning high school chemistry showed clearly that students who were involved in
inquiry-type investigation found the laboratory learning environment to be more open-ended
and more integrated with a conceptual framework than did students in a control group.
If positive students’ perceptions of the science laboratory learning environment, i.e.,
cooperative learning, collaboration, and developing a community of inquiry are among the

important intended outcomes of school laboratory experiences, then these outcomes should
be assessed by teachers as a regular part of course evaluation. The science laboratory
learning environment inventory could be used by teachers as one part of action research
intended to examine the effects of a new laboratory teaching approach or strategy and as part
of improving instruction. Researchers can also use this instrument for more summative-type
studies in which they examine effects of different kinds of teaching in the laboratory on
students’ perceptions of the learning environment.
Social Interaction
Science educators increasingly perceive the school science laboratory as a unique learn-
ing environment in which students can work cooperatively in small groups to investigate
scientific phenomena and relationships. Hofstein and Lunetta (1982), Lazarowitz and Tamir
(1994), and Lunetta (1998) suggested that laboratory activities have the potential to enable
collaborative social relationships as well as positive attitudes toward science and cognitive
growth. As noted earlier in this paper, the more informal atmosphere and opportunities
for more interaction among students and their teacher and peers can promote positive so-
cial interactions and a healthy learning environment conducive to meaningful inquiry and
collaborative learning. The laboratory offers unique opportunities for students and their
teacher to engage in collaborative inquiry and to function as a classroom community of
scientists. Such experiences offer students opportunities to consider how to solve problems
and develop their understanding. Through collaboration, they can also come to understand
the nature of an expert scientific community. These are among the learning outcomes now
thought to be very important in introductory science.
The importance of promoting cooperative learning in the science classroom and labo-
ratory received substantial attention during the 1980s (e.g., Johnson et al., 1981; Johnson
& Johnson, 1985; Lazarowitz & Karsenty, 1990) as a way to engage diverse students in
collaboration with others in inquiry and to develop a classroom community of scientists.
Large numbers of studies demonstrated distinct benefits in students’ achievements and pro-
ductivity when cooperative learning strategies were utilized in the classroom-laboratory.
In the intervening years, research intended to examine the effects of student collabora-
tion and the development of “classroom community of scientists” has been increasingly
visible. Okebukola and Ogunniyi (1984) compared groups of students who worked co-
operatively, competitively, and as individuals in science laboratories and found that the
cooperative group outperformed the other groups in cognitive achievement and in pro-
cess skills. Similarly, Lazarowitz and Karsenty (1990) found that students who learned
biology in small cooperative groups scored higher in achievement and on several inquiry
skills than did students who learned in a large group class setting. Several papers have
reported that the more informal atmosphere and opportunities for more interaction among
students and their teacher and peers can promote positive social interactions and a healthy
learning environment conducive to meaningful inquiry and collaborative learning (DeCarlo
& Rubba, 1994; Tobin, 1990). More recently Land and Zembal-Saul (in press) reported
that
By prompting learners to articulate and connect their experimental findings back to the larger
driving questions . . . learners negotiated and struggled with explaining the significance of
the data . . . prompting explanation and justification and reflective social discourse.
While promoting and examining reflective social discourse is an important and promising
area for further research in science education, observations of science laboratory classrooms

today continue to suggest, more often than not, that little attention is given to promoting
collaboration, group/community process, and reflective discourse.
Differences in Learning Styles and Cognitive Abilities
In general, there has been only limited effort to engage students with diverse abilities,
experiences, and needs in sharing their ideas and in collaborative inquiry. Tobin (1986)
wrote that the difficulty of tailoring laboratory activities to the needs of diverse students
caused some teachers to avoid laboratory investigations, particularly when working with
students having low motivation and skill. Dreyfus (1986) made a serious (and rare) attempt
to redesign science laboratory activities to be used with mixed ability classes. He suggested
that teachers could design investigations to be used effectively by students with different
levelsofrelevantknowledgeandwithdifferentcognitiveabilities.Hesuggestedthatteachers
who are well informed about their students’ abilities should be able to select appropriate
approaches and levels of sophistication to align these with their students’ needs and abilities.
Tailoring school experiences for students with different backgrounds, knowledge, and levels
of cognitive ability is especially important in an era in which achieving scientific literacy
for all students has become a major goal. Scientific literacy is a central goal, for example, in
Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science
[AAAS], 1993) and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) not just in the
United States but in the education literature of UNESCO and many other countries as well.
At the same time, it is also important for introductory science courses to provide powerful
experiences that will encourage and enable students who are so inclined to move toward
the frontiers of the pure and applied sciences with well-developed knowledge and skills.
The notion that instructional procedures in science education should be matched to learn-
ers’ characteristics to maximize the effectiveness of teaching and learning has been widely
accepted in the science education scholarly literature, if not in school practice, for many
years. In the past 20 years special attention has been given to assessing and developing stu-
dents’ conceptual understanding and other cognitive variables. Simultaneously, less atten-
tion has been given to examining variables that influence students’ interests and motivation.
Hofstein and Kempa (1985), based on a study conducted in Israel by Adar (1969), postu-
lated that a relationship exists between a student’s motivational pattern and characteristics
(reasons for learning) and his or her preference for certain instructional techniques in the
science classroom or laboratory. Kempa and Diaz (1990) probed this relationship. Their
study revealed a number of strong relationships between motivational traits and instructional
preferences. They found that students they characterized as conscientious preferred more
formal learning environments while others, more motivated by curiosity, enjoyed learning
more open-ended situations such as in inquiry laboratory activities. Doing practical work
was appealing to the conscientious students, but only when those experiences involved ex-
plicit instructions, guidance, and closure. On the other hand, students they characterized
as sociable displayed a distinct preference for group discussions. Other students whom
they characterized as achievers preferred more individualized or whole class instructional
situations. These relationships and other findings suggested the importance of rethinking
and reshaping the work of students in the science laboratory to engage students in ways
consistent with their diverse experiences, knowledge, and cognitive preferences, perhaps
through small group collaboration and inquiry or occasionally through independent inquiry.
This suggestion is highly consistent with Teaching Standard ‘A’ (NRC, 1996, p. 30):
Teachers of science plan an inquiry-based science program for their students. In doing this,
teachers: . . . select science content and adapt and design curricula to meet the interests,

knowledge, understanding, abilities, and experiences of students . . . and work together as
colleagues within and across disciplines and grade levels.
GOALS FOR LEARNING, DISCREPANCIES, AND MATCHING GOALS
WITH PRACTICE
Goals
In the 1982 review, we wrote that laboratory activities offer important experiences in
learning science that are unavailable in other school disciplines. For well over a century,
laboratory experiences have been purported to promote key science education goals includ-
ing the enhancement of students’:
• Understanding of scientific concepts
• Interest and motivation
• Scientific practical skills and problem solving abilities
• Scientific habits of mind (more recent)
• Understanding of the nature of science (more recent)
In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) published A Nation
at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. This frequently cited report (in the 1980s
and 90s) offered recommendations for schooling in the United States that promoted the
movement toward National Standards. Recommendations included those noted above and
emphasized that high school science should provide graduates with experiences in
• methods of scientific inquiry and reasoning and
• application of scientific knowledge to everyday life.
Often the goals articulated for learning in the laboratory have been almost synonymous with
those articulated for learning science more generally. Hodson (2001) claimed that in the
past 30 years the motives for laboratory/practical work have remained unchanged although
relative priorities may have shifted somewhat (see also Gayford, 1988; Hegarty-Hazel,
1990; Tamir, 1990).
To guide teaching and learning, it is very important for both teachers and students to be
explicit about the general and specific purposes of what they are doing in the classroom.
Explicating goals for specific students’ learning outcomes should serve as a principal basis
upon which teachers design, select, and use activities; the goals can also serve as the most
important bases for assessment of students and of the curriculum and teaching strategies. To
these ends, it is important to acquire information and insight about what is really happening
when students engage in laboratory activities, i.e., we need to examine what the students
are perceiving in the light of important goals for science learning.
Students’ Perceptions of Teachers’ Goals
Chang and Lederman (1994) and others (e.g. Wilkenson & Ward, 1997) have found that
often students do not have clear ideas about the general or specific purposes for their work
in science laboratory activities. Other studies have shown that students often perceive that
the principal purpose for a laboratory investigation is either following the instructions or
getting the right answer. They may perceive that manipulating equipment and measuring
are goals but fail to perceive much more important conceptual or even procedural goals.

Students often fail to understand and to question the relationship between the purpose of
their investigation and the design of the experiment they have conducted, they do not connect
the experiment with what they have done earlier, and they seldom note the discrepancies
between their own concepts, the concepts of their peers, and those of the science community
(see for example, Champagne, Gunstone, & Klopfer, 1985; Eylon & Linn, 1988). To many
students, “a lab” means manipulating equipment but not manipulating ideas.
Mismatches often occur between teachers’ perceived goals for practical work and stu-
dents’ perceptions of such activities (Hodson, 1993, 2001; Wilkenson & Ward, 1997). Since
there is evidence that the goals of instruction are more likely to be achieved when students
understand those goals, Wilkenson and Ward concluded that teachers should be much more
attentive to helping students understand the general goals of the laboratory work. Since
specific objectives are often different from one laboratory investigation to another, students
should be helped to understand the purposes for each investigation in a prelab session and
to review those purposes in postlab reporting and discussion. To complicate matters further,
Hodson (2001) observed that often teachers do not do in laboratories what they say they
intend to do. Thus, there can also be a mismatch between a teacher’s rhetoric and classroom
behavior that can send mixed messages to students and other observers.
Teachers’ Expectations and Behavior
Tobin and Gallagher (1987) found that science teachers rarely, if ever, exhibit behavior
that encourages students to think about the nature of scientific inquiry and the meaning
and purposes for their particular investigation during laboratory activities. On the basis of a
comprehensive study on implementation of the laboratory in schools in British Columbia,
Gardiner and Farrangher (1997) found that although many biology teachers’ articulated
philosophies appeared to support an investigative, hands-on, minds-on approach with au-
thentic learning experiences, the classroom practice of those teachers did not generally
appear to be consistent with their stated philosophies. As noted in the preceding section,
Hodson’s observations of the mismatch between teacher’s rhetoric and practice, also com-
plicates obtaining valid and reliable information based only upon teachers’ self-reports.
Several studies have reported that very often teachers involved students principally in rel-
atively low-level, routine activities in laboratories and that teacher–student interactions
focused principally on low-level procedural questions and answers. Marx et al. (1998) re-
ported that science teachers often have difficulty helping students ask thoughtful questions,
design investigations, and draw conclusions from data. DeCarlo and Rubba (1994) reported
similar findings in chemistry laboratory settings.
Earlier, Shymansky and Penick (1978) had written
Teachers are often confused about their role in instruction when students are engaged in
hands-on activity. Many teachers are concerned about an adjustment they may have to make
in their teaching style to facilitate hands-on programs as well as how students will react to
increased responsibility and freedom.
Often teachers do not perceive that laboratory activities can serve as a principal means of
enabling students to construct meaningful knowledge of science, and they do not engage
students in lab activities in ways that are likely to promote the development of science con-
cepts. They may not perceive that they can manage lab activities in ways that are consistent
with contemporary professional standards. In addition, many teachers do not perceive that
helping students understand how scientific knowledge is developed and used in a scientific
community is an especially important goal of laboratory activities for their students.

As noted in other sections of this review, several researchers have continued to observe
that many science teachers do not utilize or manage the unique environment of the school
laboratory effectively. Conditions are especially demanding in science laboratories in which
the teacher is to act as a facilitator who guides inquiry that enables students to construct more
scientific concepts. Contemporary teaching standards place a heavy burden on the science
teacher. Inquiry-focused teaching now rests on the constructivist notion that learning is a
process in which the student actively constructs her or his own ideas that are linked with
other ideas in increasingly complex networks. The constructivist model, when practiced, is
a relatively radical departure from traditional teaching and learning practice. Teachers are
often not well informed about these new models of learning (Cohen, 1990; Polman, 1999)
and their implications for classroom teaching and curriculum. While excellent examples of
teaching can be observed, the classroom behaviors of many teachers continue to suggest
the conventional belief that knowledge is directly transmitted to good students and that it
is to be remembered as conveyed.
In addition, many teachers lack experience with assessment methods aimed at assessing
their students’ understanding and performance in the science laboratory (Yung, 2001). As a
result, in many cases, students’ final grades do not include a component that directly reflects
their performance in laboratory work and their understanding of that work. Furthermore,
Brickhouse and Bodner (1992) reported that students’ concerns about their grades has a
strong influence on teachers’ practices. More specifically, they suggested that some teachers
will emphasize goals for learning and use teaching techniques that are aligned with students’
ability to earn high grades.
The need for meaningful, long-term professional development for science teachers on
these issues and for better communication between the science education research commu-
nity and the community of science teachers is abundantly clear. These important issue are
discussed further in the Teacher Education and Professional Development section later in
this review.
The Laboratory Guide
In most school laboratory activities, the student’s laboratory guide, handbook, or work-
sheet, sometimes delivered in electronic form, continues to play a central role in shaping
the students’ behaviors and learning. The guide focuses students’ attention on the questions
to be investigated and on what is to be done, observed, interpreted, and reported. It plays
a major role in defining goals and procedures. Lunetta and Tamir (1979) developed a set
of protocols for analyzing student laboratory activities, which they used in the 1980s to
analyze several secondary school science laboratory programs systematically. Similar pro-
tocols were used more recently in Australia by Fisher et al. (1999). The analyses continue
to suggest that to date, many students engage in laboratory activities in which they follow
recipes and gather and record data without a clear sense of the purposes and procedures
of their investigation and their interconnections. In addition, the quantity of information
presented in the laboratory guide is often so substantial, according to Johnstone and Wham
(1982), that the details can distract the learner from the main goals of the practical task. Con-
sistent with the findings of Lunetta and Tamir (1979) and others, students are seldom given
opportunities to use higher-level cognitive skills or to discuss substantive scientific knowl-
edge associated with the investigation, and many of the tasks presented to them continue to
follow a “cookbook” approach (Roth, 1994).
Our 1982 review also reported that there were vast differences in the learning strategies
implicit in different laboratory guides that were bound to influence students’ learning. The
nature of the instructions and especially of the evaluation shapes the expectations, purpose,

and behaviors of the students in laboratory activities. Gathering and analyzing such infor-
mation is a very important element of research in the laboratory that should be included in
research reports. At this writing, the recommendations of science education standards and
reform documents appear to have had only marginal influence on the development and pub-
lication of laboratory guides, practical assessment, and on the school laboratory practices
that follow. In fact, the almost simultaneous emphasis on conventional paper and pencil
assessment (not performance assessment) has almost certainly had a negative effect (Bryce
& Robertson, 1985; Lazarowitz & Tamir, 1994). Nevertheless, there are some notewor-
thy exceptions such as the resources developed and implemented in the Learning through
Collaborative Visualization project and the Detroit urban science initiative project and re-
ported by Fishman et al. (2001), Polman (1999), and others. These projects have developed
curriculum and teaching strategies that incorporate constructivist pedagogy enhanced by
appropriate computer and communication technology tools; they have also incorporated
formative and summative research to inform and assess development and teaching in the
projects.
Incorporating Inquiry Empowering Technologies
“Inquiry empowering technologies” can assist students in gathering, organizing, visual-
izing, and interpreting data. Students can use probes to gather many data points rapidly.
They can also use new technology tools to gather data across multiple trials and across
long time intervals (Friedler, Nachmias, & Linn, 1990; Krajcik et al., 2000; Dori & Barak,
2001; Lunetta, 1998). By using associated software they can examine graphs of relation-
ships generated in real time as the investigation progresses, and examine the same data in
spreadsheets and in other visual representations. When inquiry empowering technologies
are properly used by teachers and students to gather and analyze data, students have more
time to observe, to reflect, and to construct conceptual knowledge that underlies the labo-
ratory experiences. In addition, the associated graphics offer visualization that can enhance
students’ understanding. When students have the time, and when the activity is valued by
the instructor (and by the evaluation system), they can examine functional relationships and
the effects of modifying variables; they can also make and test predictions and explana-
tions. Such experiences also offer opportunities that may help students to perceive a more
complete inquiry process rather than discrete, perhaps disconnected, segments of the pro-
cess. Furthermore, incorporating appropriate high technology tools can enable students to
conduct, interpret, and report more complete, accurate, and interesting investigations. Such
tools can provide a medium for communication, for student–student collaboration, and for
the development of a community of learners in the laboratory-classroom and beyond.
Zembal-Saul et al. (2002) reported that “while engaging in an original science investi-
gation Progress Portfolio [software] assisted prospective teachers in developing elaborated
explanations that were grounded in evidence and . . . [in exploring] alternative hypotheses.”
The Progress Portfolio (Loh et al., in press) software was designed “to promote reflective
inquiry during learning in data-rich environments. Inquiry empowering software can also
“provide scaffolding to support scientific practice and can be integral in new inquiry prac-
tices” (Reiser, Tabak, & Sandoval, 2001). These tools can also assist students in supporting
assertions they are making about explanations and about relationships among variables
with data-based evidence. As mentioned earlier, using such tools, prompted “learners to
articulate and connect their experimental findings back to the larger driving questions” and
to negotiate and struggle with explaining the significance of their data. It also prompted re-
flective social discourse that resulted in explanation and justification (Land & Zembal-Saul,
in press).

During the past 20 years there have been many optimistic claims about the potential of
technology tools to enhance learning, but only a limited amount of objective information
has been gathered to this date regarding the effectiveness of these technologies on important
learning outcomes. This domain of research is a very important area for scholarly study
needed to shape the development of state-of-the-art technology tools and teaching strategies
that can facilitate more meaningful and holistic science learning.
Simulation and the Laboratory
Lunetta and Hofstein (1991) noted that interacting with instructional simulations can
help students understand a real system, process, or phenomenon. They suggested that
within school settings, both practical activities and instructional simulations can enable
students to confront and resolve problems, to make decisions, and to observe the effects.
Whereas laboratory activities are designed to engage students directly with materials and
phenomena, simulations can be designed to provide meaningful representations of inquiry
experiences that are often not possible with real materials in many science topics. In such
cases, simulations engage students in investigations that are too long or too slow, too dan-
gerous, too expensive, or too time or material consuming to conduct in school laboratories.
Research findings on effective ways to use simulations are far from conclusive. However,
it is well established, in general, that engaging students in appropriate simulations takes
considerably less time than engaging them in equivalent laboratory activities with materials.
Until carefully conducted research provides further information, it is reasonable to assume
that teaching and learning practices that have been shown to be effective in promoting
more effective laboratory experiences will also tend to be appropriate for students who are
exploring simulations.
We observe that some school administrators and teachers make decisions to use simula-
tions with students instead of hands-on practical experiences (such as dissections) because
the simulations are thought to be less troublesome or less expensive. Other teachers may
elect to use simulations in lieu of dissections to avoid “wasting life,” or they may let students
and their parents decide on the basis of their religious or moral views. It is probable that
the learning that will result from engaging in a well-conducted dissection or other practical
experience will be quite different from the learning that will result from a good simula-
tion. While resources and ethical and cultural issues and resources are important elements
in the school/community environment, decisions about when to have students work with
simulations instead of equivalent activities in the laboratory should be made principally on
the basis of the intended learning outcomes and informed by research on learning and the
positions of appropriate professional societies. The intersections of laboratory activities and
simulations warrants special attention by science educators at this nascent and important
time in the development of new simulation technologies appropriate for school science.
Assessing Students’ Skills and Understanding of Inquiry
In the 1982 review, we criticized much of the research on the laboratory because it failed
to assess learning outcomes that one might assume would be developed and enhanced in
laboratory activities. Assessments of students’ performance and understanding associated
with the science laboratory should be an integral part of the laboratory work of teachers and
students. Assessment tools should examine the students’ inquiry skills, their perceptions
of scientific inquiry, and related scientific concepts and applications identified as impor-
tant learning outcomes for the investigation or the series of investigations. Since 1982,
knowledge about how to assess learning in the school science laboratory has increased

substantially, and new techniques and media that can support the assessment of students’
practical skills and associated understanding have been developed. In Israel, for example,
Tamir, Nussinovitz, and Friedler (1982) developed a standardized practical test in biology
that includes 21 assessment categories. Each year novel “experiments” are developed for
that Israeli test, and the students’ performance is assessed using the 21 categories. In the
United States, Doran et al. (1993) developed and validated a test to assess the laboratory
skills of students completing high school science courses (chemistry, biology, and physics).
Their aim was to develop an authentic and alternative assessment method to measure out-
comes of school science programs, including inquiry and activity in the laboratory. In their
tests, students had to design an investigation, collect and analyze data, and formulate ﬁnd-
ings. The students’ visual representation and interpretation of their quantitative data was
incorporated in the analysis.
Several observational assessment methods were developed in the 1970s and 1980s (e.g.,
Eglen & Kempa, 1974; Ganiel & Hofstein, 1982; Hofstein et al., 2001; Tamir, 1972). Using
certain criteria, the researchers or teachers unobtrusively observe and rate each student
during normal laboratory activities. They assess students according to the following broad
phases of activity: (1) planning and design, (2) performance, (3) analysis and interpreta-
tion, and (4) application. (For a more detailed description of the assessment methods, see,
Giddings, Hofstein, & Lunetta, 1991; Hofstein, 1988; Lunetta & Tamir, 1979.)
Recent developments in the use of new technology tools that are now beginning to be
used in science classrooms have high potential to help researchers and even busy teachers
to monitor students’ work and ideas. Progress Portfolio (Loh et al., in press) software,
referenced in the Inquiry Empowering Technologies section earlier in this paper, is one
exampleofsoftwareusedbystudentsthatcanprovideteacherswithrelativelyeasyelectronic
access to student performance data to be included in assessing a student’s development and
progress. Teachers can also use that kind of information as formative assessment to inform
their teaching and their interactions with students.
The new practical assessment resources and strategies can be used by researchers and
busy teachers to assess learning associated with inquiry and laboratory performance. Devel-
opment and use of assessment resources is also a very important area for further discipline-
focused research in science education. Such research could also serve as a foundation for
developing assessment protocols for teachers to use effectively in their own classrooms
without expending large quantities of their very limited time. In addition, such assessment
protocols should provide feedback for teachers to improve the effectiveness of their own
teaching. That feedback, of course, could also be used to help students understand how they
are progressing as learners. Gitomer and Duschl (1998, p. 803), wrote:
The most promising efforts in assessment reform are those that address directly the rela-
tionship of assessment and instruction, specifying precisely how assessment can be used to
support improved instructional practice.
If we truly value the development of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are unique to
practical work in science laboratories, appropriate assessment of these outcomes must be
developed and implemented continuously by teachers in their own laboratory-classrooms.
The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) indicates that all the student’s
learning experiences should be assessed and that the assessment should be authentic. At-
tention to such standards, however, has promoted testing that has generally not incorporated
the assessment of performance and inquiry, although there have been a few noteworthy ef-
forts to do that. Researchers, teachers, and testing jurisdictions whose goal is to assess
comprehensively the learning that takes place in school science generally, or in school

laboratories more specifically, should use appropriate assessment tools and methodologies
to identify what the students are learning (conceptual as well as procedural). The effects of
such experiences on students’ interest and motivation should also be assessed.
In summary, data gathered in many countries has continued to suggest that teachers
spend large portions of laboratory time in managerial functions, not in soliciting and prob-
ing ideas or in teaching that challenges students’ ideas, encouraging them to consider and
test alternative hypotheses and explanations. In addition, most of the assessment of students’
performance in the science laboratory continues to be confined to conventional, usually ob-
jective, paper and pencil measures. More sensitive measures of students’ understanding
of laboratory methodologies, the hypotheses and questions they generate from the lab ex-
periences, and the practical skills they exhibit have all too often been neglected (Bryce
& Robertson, 1985; Hofstein, Shore, & Kipnis, in press; Tamir, 1989; Van den Berg &
Giddings, 1992; Wilkenson & Ward, 1997). In this era when standards and external tests of
students’ achievement are increasingly popular, it is na¨ıve to think that students’ and teach-
ers’ behavior and practices will shift toward inquiry and the development of meaningful
practical knowledge until such outcomes become more visible in the tests that increas-
ingly drive what teachers, parents, and students think is important, and thus what they
choose to do. The policy makers who control the testing programs and those who prepare
the tests must be part of more functional efforts to improve the effectiveness of school
science.
The Politics of Schooling
In the United States, and in many other countries, scientists in higher (tertiary level)
education have been very influential in the design and implementation of science curricula
(Fensham, 1992, 1993). Yet, studies of freshman level university courses in the natural
sciences showed that these courses had changed only slightly in style from university
coursesofferedinthe1960s.Furthermore,teachinginuniversitylevelcourseshasapowerful
influence on the education, socialization, and subsequent behavior of science teachers at
secondary and elementary school levels. Fensham claimed that the dominant perception of
university science faculty members has been that the principal goal of secondary school
science education is to prepare students for success in the university level science. “Thus,
the content and knowledge of worth for senior secondary sciences is to be determined by
the knowledge and expression of it that is now well established as the content of freshman
science courses in chemistry, biology and physics” (pp. 61–62). He wrote that the attitude
of many university scientists toward the science curriculum inhibited the implementation
of many of the new science education goals, strategies, and foci such as science for all,
inquiry, applications, and science–technology–society. In addition, competent secondary
science teachers have had limited voice and power to shape curriculum and policy decisions
in school science. Policy decisions are often made at state (or in the United States at district)
levels where people with expertise in science teaching have had very limited voice.
TEACHER EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The school science laboratory continues to be perceived as a unique environment for
teaching and learning science in a social setting that includes interactions with materials
and data, interactions between and among students, their teacher, and sources of “expert”
information. Nevertheless, as noted throughout this review, researchers have continued
to observe that many science teachers do not utilize or manage this unique environment
effectively. In the section entitled Teachers’ Expectations and Behavior, we noted that

conditions are especially demanding in science laboratories in which the teacher is to
act as a facilitator who guides inquiry that enables students to construct more scientific
concepts. . . . Teachers are often not well informed about new models of learning and their
implications for teaching and curriculum. While excellent examples of teaching can be
observed, the classroom behaviors of many teachers continues to suggest the conventional
belief that knowledge is directly transmitted to good students and that it is to be remembered
as conveyed.
That said, many preservice and in-service courses in science and in science teaching and
learning provide very limited direct experience, if any, through which the teachers can
develop the skills needed to organize and facilitate meaningful, practical learning experi-
ences for students in the school science laboratory (Tamir, 1989). Tamir wrote that policy
makers often assume that participating in science laboratory work in university courses
during their preparation provides them with knowledge and skills sufficient to teach suc-
cessfully in school science laboratories. While that assumption appears to be widely held,
it is not consistent with a growing array of formal and informal data on teachers’ concep-
tual and pedagogical knowledge and teaching practices (Loucks-Horseley & Matsumoto,
1999). Yung (2001) and others, for example, reported that many teachers lack experience
with methods enabling them to assess their students’ understanding and performance in
the science laboratory. Thus, students’ grades often do not reflect their performance in the
laboratory work or their understanding of that work.
Appropriate long-term professional development has been suggested increasingly as
one of the important ways to help teachers develop professional understandings, beliefs,
roles, and behaviors (Tobin, 1990). This can be accomplished, in part, by implementing
the science teachers’ professional development standards that are central elements within
the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). Long-term and continuous pro-
fessional development aimed at enhancing science teachers’ content knowledge and their
pedagogical content knowledge (Gess-Newsome, 1999; Shulman, 1986) can help teach-
ers develop higher levels of pedagogical and content knowledge, skills, and confidence to
construct effective learning environments that include substantive and meaningful science
laboratory experiences. In this era of exponentially expanding knowledge of science and
pedagogy, such development should be a continuous process across the professional lifetime
of a teacher. The literature has suggested that inconsistencies between teachers’ goals and
behaviors and limitations in teachers’ skills, in this case in the school laboratory, should be
addressed carefully in long-term professional development programs designed to develop
the understanding, knowledge, and skill of professional teachers.
Strategies to be included in professional development include those described by Loucks-
Horsley et al. (1998) as action research in which teachers examine the nature and effects
of their own teaching. This can include investigating the effectiveness of certain teaching
strategies or curriculum modifications. In the latter, teachers adapt and tailor a certain learn-
ing unit to match the abilities and needs of their students, a process labled as curriculum
development and adaptation (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998). These strategies for profes-
sional development are teacher-based and informed by relevant scholarship. The teaching
strategies and curriculum material are developed and assessed by teachers with the support
and guidance of consultants from academic institutions or curriculum-development centers.
Good professional development can increase each teacher’s ownership of specific instruc-
tional approaches and learning units. In addition, it can promote the idea that professional
teachers are responsible for the progress of the students in their classes. Kennedy (1998)
wrote that when teachers undergo learning experiences that engage them in meaningful
inquiry, they can become more effective in involving their own students in similar inquiry

experiences. The power of placing lead teachers in central roles in the development of
curriculum materials and teaching strategies is also very visible in the series of research
and development projects conducted by Krajcik et al. (2000) and Fishman et al. (2001)
in the city of Detroit and in other sites. The visible success of that series of projects in
promoting inquiry, meaningful practical activities, and student use of new technology tools
in difficult urban school environments is especially noteworthy. Unfortunately, however, at
present there are very few projects of this kind, magnitude, and commitment.
As noted throughout this paper, the need for meaningful, long-term professional devel-
opment for science teachers on these and many related issues in science education and
the need for better communication between the science education research community
and the community of science teachers has become abundantly clear. Greater interaction
has been inhibited, in part, by contemporary institutional structures that separate science
teachers from the scientific community, from the science education research community,
from meaningful professional development in science and in science pedagogy, and from
participating in policy making as competent professionals. Reducing the institutional and
cultural barriers that inhibit communication between these several science education com-
munities and developing appropriate professional development and engagement systems is
a very important task for policy makers and for members of those communities. To these
ends, policy makers, teacher associations, departments of education, and schools need to
collaborate and to set aside sufficient time and resources to enable that professional growth
and empowerment guided by school realities and by relevant scholarship to occur. Policy
changes, implementation, and careful research on the process are needed to achieve the
very important ends that have been articulated.
WHERE WE ARE IN 2002: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
In summarizing the 1982 review of research on laboratory work, we wrote (p. 213)
Researchers must examine the goals of science teaching and learning with care to identify
optimal activities and experiences from all modes of instruction that will best facilitate these
goals. . . . There is a real need to pursue vigorously research on learning through laboratory
activities to capitalize on the uniqueness of this mode of instruction for certain learning
outcomes.
While there is little doubt that substantial progress has been made in identifying teacher
behaviors and other variables that can promote meaningful learning consistent with con-
temporary standards, these comments are also valid at this writing 20 years later. That said,
the assumption that laboratory experiences help students understand materials, phenomena,
concepts, models, and relationships, almost independent of the nature of the laboratory ex-
perience, continues to be widespread in spite of sparse data from carefully designed and
conducted studies. A more recent assertion is that laboratory experiences can help stu-
dents develop ideas about the nature of a scientific community and the nature of science.
During the past 20 years substantial new knowledge has been developed about cognitive
development, the learning of science, and the nature of science. This new knowledge has
fueled many ideas about ways the introductory sciences should be taught to promote un-
derstanding. In addition, significant changes in computer technologies offer substantive
new tools and resources for empowering teaching and learning science that can comple-
ment experiences in the school laboratory. Moreover, more sensitive social science research
methodologies have been developed that enable science education researchers to examine

more carefully the ideas of students and their teachers and the effects of a variety of learn-
ing environment variables on the development of students’ concepts, skills, motivation, and
attitudes.
There is no doubt that in the 20 years since the publication of the 1982 review (Hofstein &
Lunetta, 1982), there has been substantive growth in understanding associated with teaching,
learning, and assessment in the school science laboratory work. At the beginning of the
21st century, when many are again seeking reform in science education, the knowledge that
has been developed about learning based upon careful scholarship should be incorporated
in that reform. The “less is more” slogan in Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS,
1993, p. 320) has been articulated to guide curriculum development and teaching consistent
with the contemporary reform. The intended message is that formal teaching results in
greater understanding when students study a limited number of topics, in depth and with
care, rather than a large numbers of topics much more superficially, as is the practice in
many science classrooms. Well-designed science laboratory activities focused on inquiry
can provide learning opportunities that help students develop concepts and frameworks of
concepts. They also provide important opportunities to help students learn to investigate,
to construct scientific assertions, and to justify those assertions in a classroom community
of peer investigators in contact with a more expert scientific community. To attain such
important but demanding goals, the education system must provide time and opportunity
for teachers to interact with their students and also time for students to perform and reflect
on complex, investigative tasks.
Clearly, serious discrepancies exist between what is recommended for teaching in the
laboratory-classroom and what is actually occurring in many classrooms. Researchers need
to examine and understand why large numbers of “good teachers” have not been using au-
thentic and practical assessment on a regular basis. Such understanding should then shape
research on classroom practice, the development of assessment techniques, teacher pro-
fessional development, and further research studies. No doubt, the issues are complex, but
explanations may lie in differences in the perceptions of teachers and researchers. For ex-
ample, teachers may perceive they do not have the time or skill required to implement such
assessment methodologies successfully. Reluctance may also originate in the beliefs teach-
ers hold about what students should be learning in laboratory experiences, how students
learn, what they need to do to achieve important learning outcomes, and what they need
to perform successfully on external examinations. Building on relevant scholarship, future
research in science education should produce information that informs the development
of strategies, protocols, and resources for teaching and for the professional development
of teachers. Questions to be addressed include how to assess students’ learning efficiently
and effectively when they are engaging in inquiry and practical work, how to engage stu-
dents with different skills and knowledge in practical experiences that result in meaningful
learning, and how to promote a more effective laboratory learning environment.
During the past 20 years, we have expanded our knowledge about circumstances that
inhibit and promote conceptual learning in science classrooms and in the science labora-
tory. Factors that continue to inhibit learning in the school science laboratory include the
following:
• Many of the activities outlined for students in laboratory guides continue to offer
“cook-book” lists of tasks for students to follow ritualistically. They do not engage
studentsinthinkingaboutthelargerpurposesoftheirinvestigationandofthesequence
of tasks they need to pursue to achieve those ends.
• Assessment of students’ practical knowledge and abilities and of the purposes of
laboratory inquiry tends to be seriously neglected, even by high stakes tests that

purport to assess science standards. Thus many students do not perceive laboratory
experiences to be particularly important in their learning.
• Teachers and school administrators are often not well informed about what is sug-
gested as best professional practice, and they do not understand the rationale behind
such suggestions. Thus, there is a high potential for mismatch between a teacher’s
rhetoric and practice that is likely to influence students’ perceptions and behaviors in
laboratory work.
• Incorporating inquiry-type activities in school science is inhibited by limitations in
resources (including access to appropriate technology tools) and by lack of sufficient
time for teachers to become informed and to develop and implement appropriate
science curricula. Other inhibiting factors include large classes, inflexible scheduling
of laboratory facilities, and the perceived foci of external examinations.
The nature and the sources of these problems need to be examined carefully and recom-
mendations for policy and practice need to be based upon the findings of that research.
There are important opportunities to pursue research and development building on what
we know and on the scholarship of the past in order to enhance the effectiveness of science
education. Special opportunities identified in this review include developing and assessing
teaching strategies, assessment tools, and resources that are effective in helping teachers
and students to attain important learning goals that
• engage students with different abilities, learning styles, motivational patterns, and
cultural contexts;
• engage students in using inquiry empowering tools and strategies; and
• engage students in justifying assertions on the basis of scientific evidence.
More particularly, this review of the scholarly literature in science education suggests the
following implications:
• Goals for students’ learning outcomes must drive what is done by curriculum devel-
opers and by teachers in the classroom and the laboratory.
• Effective teaching engages, builds upon, and enhances students’ knowledge (concep-
tual and procedural), attitudes, perceptions, culture, etc.
• Local and external assessment of students’ learning and attitudes must be consistent
with the goals for learning outcomes.
• Classroom-based research and development associated with curriculum and teach-
ing is important in helping science teachers and students achieve important science
learning outcomes.
• Appropriate teacher professional development, informed by relevant scholarship, is
important in helping teachers to become more effective in science teaching.
In a time of increasingly rapid change in science and technology, competent teachers must
continue to be informed about contemporary professional issues across a professional life-
time. Developing appropriate institutional structures that enable and promote such pro-
fessional development is a very important task that needs attention, not only by teachers
and their professional associations but by education policy makers at every level of school
administration and government.
Finally, it is disappointing to note the continuing limitations in systematic scholarship
associated with such a central medium as the laboratory in science education. There is new

information about limitations in the effectiveness of school science education; there also
continue to be important reasons to believe that
• school laboratory activities have special potential as media for learning that can
promote important science learning outcomes for students;
• teachers need knowledge, skills, and resources that enable them to teach effectively
in practical learning environments. They need to be able to enable students to interact
intellectually as well as physically, involving hands-on investigation and minds-on
reflection;
• students’ perceptions and behaviors in the science laboratory are greatly influenced
by teachers’ expectations and assessment practices and by the orientation of the
associated laboratory guide, worksheets, and electronic media; and
• teachers need ways to find out what their students are thinking and learning in the
science laboratory and classroom.
New, more appropriate research methodologies and technology resources are now avail-
able to support research on how to help students and teachers attain the goals for science
learning that data show have been difficult to achieve. In addition, it is important to provide
support for teachers (including time and opportunities) to collaborate with colleagues in the
science education research community so as to understand, develop, and teach in ways that
are consistent with contemporary professional standards. Competent professional teachers
have important roles to play in the continual renewal and development of science education
standards and in supporting and doing related classroom-based research that can shape
science-teaching practices. Empowering professional teachers in these roles and encourag-
ing relevant research on central issues like supporting and assessing the effectiveness of the
school science laboratory are very important next steps that warrant attention from profes-
sional societies, higher education, school administrators, and teacher certification bodies.
REFERENCES
Adar, L. (1969). A theoretical framework for the study of motivation in education. Jerusalem: The
Hebrew University. (In Hebrew.)
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Baird, J. R. (1990). Metacognition, purposeful enquiry and conceptual change. In E. Hegarty-Hazel
(Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 183–200). London: Routledge.
Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, D. J.
(1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem and project-based learning.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271–311.
Bates, G. R. (1978). The role of the laboratory in secondary school science programs. In M. B.
Rowe (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Science
Teachers Association.
Blosser, P. (1983). The role of the laboratory in science teaching. School Science and Mathematics,
83, 165–169.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of
convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471–485.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educa-
tional Researcher, 18, 32–41.

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.
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). Wasington, DC: American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985). Instructional consequences of students’
knowledge about physical phenomena. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure
and conceptual change (pp. 61–68). New York: Academic Press.
Chang, H. P., & Lederman, N. G. (1994). The effect of levels of cooperation with physical science
laboratory groups on physical science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32,
167–181.
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 64, 1–35.
DeCarlo, C. L., & Rubba, P. (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, 37–47.
Doran, R. L., Boorman, J., Chan, F., & Hejaily, N. (1993). Alternative assessment of high school
laboratory skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1121–1131.
Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual & physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception
and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 61–74.
Dreyfus, A. (1986). Manipulating and diversifying the levels of difficulty and task sophistication of
one and the same laboratory exercise. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 17–26.
Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.),
Constructivism in education (pp. 385–400). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in
classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Dupin, J. J., & Joshua, S. (1987). Analogies and ‘modeling analogies’ in teaching: Some examples
in basic electricity. Science Education, 73(2), 791–806.
Eglen, J. R., & Kempa, R. F. (1974). Assessing manipulative skills in practical chemistry. School
Science Review, 56, 737–740.
Eylon, B., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspec-
tives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 251–301.
Fensham, P. J. (1992). Science and technology. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on
curriculum (pp. 789–829). New York: Maxwell Macmillan International.
Fensham, P. J. (1993). Academic influence on school science curricula. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
25, 53–64.
Fisher, D., Harrison, A., Henderson, D., & Hofstein, A. (1999). Laboratory learning environments
and practical tasks in senior secondary science classes. Research in Science Education, 28, 353–
363.
Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Blumenfeld, P. (2001). Creating scalable and
sustainable technology innovations for urban education. Paper presented at the Annual Meet-
ing of the American Educational Meeting Association, Seattle, WA. (Available at http://hi-ce.
eecs.umich.edu/index.html.)
Fraser, B., & McRobbie, C. J. (1995). Science laboratory classroom environments at schools and
universities: A cross-national study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1, 289–317.
Fraser, B., McRobbie, C. J., & Giddings, G. J. (1993). Development and cross-national validation of
a laboratory classroom instrument for senior high school students. Science Education, 77, 1–24.
Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. C. (1990). Learning scientific reasoning skills in micro-
computer based laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 173–191.
Ganiel, U., & Hofstein, A. (1982). Objective and continues assessment of student performance in the
physics laboratory. Science Education, 66, 581–591.
Gardiner, P. G., & Farrangher, P. (1997). The quantity and quality of biology laboratory work in
British Columbia high schools. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching (NARST) Meeting, Oak Brook, IL.

Gayford, C. (1988). Aims, purposes and emphasis in practical biology at advanced level: A study of
teachers’ attitudes. School Science Review, 69, 175–186.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge an introduction and orientation. In J.
Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3–20).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Giddings, G. J., Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1991). Assessment and evaluation in the science
laboratory. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science (pp. 167–178). Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Gitomer, D. H., & Duschl, R. A. (1998). Emerging issues and practices in science assessment. In
B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 791–810).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gunstone, R. F. (1991). Reconstructing theory from practical experience. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.),
Practical science (pp. 67–77). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Gunstone, R. F., & Champagne, A. B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E.
Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 159–182). London:
Routledge.
Harms, N., & Yager, R. E. (1981). What Research Says to the Science Teacher (Vol. II). Washington,
DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1990). The student laboratory and the science curriculum: An overview. In E.
Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 3–26). London:
Routledge.
Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in
school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85–142.
Hodson, D. (2001). Research on practical work in school and universities: In pursuit of better ques-
tions and better methods. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Research in Chemical
Education, University of Aveiro, Aviero, Portugal.
Hofstein, A. (1988). Practical work and science education. In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and
dilemmas in science education (pp. 189–217). London: Falmer Press.
Hofstein, A., Cohen, I., & Lazarowitz, R. (1996). The learning environment of high school students
in chemistry and biology laboratories. Research in Science and Technological Education, 14, 103–
115.
Hofstein, A., & Kempa, R. F. (1985). Motivating aspects in science education: An attempt at an
analysis. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 221–229.
Hofstein, A., Levi-Nahum, T., & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry-
type laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environments Research, 4, 193–207.
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.
Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (In press). Providing high school chemistry students with
opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory—A case study. International
Journal of Science Education.
Hurd, P. D. (1969). New directions in teaching secondary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Hurd, P. D. (1983). Science education: The search for new vision. Educational Leadership, 41, 20–
22.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing
science”: Arguments in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic learning (2nd ed.), Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Maruyama, G., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 89, 55–63.
Johnstone, A. H., & Wham, A. J. B. (May 1982). The demands of practical work. Education in
Chemistry, 71–73.
Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 14, 169–175.

Kempa, R. F., & Diaz, M. (1990). Motivational traits and preferences for different instructional modes
in science. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 195–203.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). The relevance of content in in-service teacher education. Paper Presented at
the Annual Meeting AERA, San Diego, CA.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, B., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technolog-
ical supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstrell & E. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into
inquiry: Science learning and teaching (pp. 283–315). Washington, DC: American Association for
the Advancement of Science Press.
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: University of Chicago Press. 100th Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education.
Kyle, W. C. (1984). Curriculum development projects of the 1960s. In D. Holdzkom & P. B. Lutz
(Eds.), Research within reach: Science education (pp. 3–24). Washington, DC: National Science
Teachers Association.
Land, S., & Zembal-Saul, C. (In press). Scaffolding reﬂection and revision of explanations about light
during project-based learning: An investigation of progress portfolio. Educational Technology
Research and Development.
Lazarowitz, R., & Karsenty, G. (1990). Cooperative learning and student academic achievement,
process skills, learning environment and self-esteem in 10th grade biology. In S. Sharan (Ed.),
Cooperative learning, theory and research (pp. 123–149). New York: Praeger.
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 (pp. 94–130). New York:
Macmillan.
Loh, B., Reiser, B. J., Radinsky, J., Edelson, D. C., Gomez, L. M., & Marshall, S. (In press).
Developing reﬂective inquiry practices: A case study of software, the teacher, and students.
In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from
everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (Also available at
http://www.ls.sesp.northwestern.edu/sible/.)
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional devel-
opment for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers
of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 258–
271.
Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and centers for contem-
porary teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lunetta, V. N., & Hofstein, A. (1991). Simulations and laboratory practical activity. In B. E.
Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science (pp. 125–137). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Lunetta, V. N., & Tamir, P. (1979). Matching lab activities with teaching goals. The Science Teacher,
46, 22–24.
Marx, R. W., Freeman, J. G., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1998). Professional development of
science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education
(pp. 667–680). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond process. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33–62.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative
for educational reform (1983). Washington, DC: The National Commission on Excellence in
Education.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school
science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

Okebukola, P. A. O., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (1984). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic lab-
oratory interaction patterns: effects on students’ performance and acquisition of practical skills.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 875–884.
Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design
based modeling approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 7, 429–449.
Polman, J. L. (1999). Designing project-based science: Connecting learners through guided inquiry.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Press, M. B. (1982). The fate of school science. Science, 216, 1055.
Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., & Sandoval, W. A. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for
scientiﬁc inquiry. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-ﬁve years
of progress. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (Also available at http://www.letus.org/bguile/index.html.)
Roth, W. M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 31, 197–223.
Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic
contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 127–152.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.),
The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Re-
searcher, 15, 4–14.
Shulman, L. D., & Tamir, P. (1973). Research on teaching the natural sciences. In R. M. W. Travers
(Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1098–1140). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W. C., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of the new science curricula on
student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387–404.
Shymansky, J. E., & Penick, J. E. (1978). Teachers’ behavior does make a difference in the hands-on
science classroom. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for the Education
of Teachers of Science (AETS).
Tamir, P. (1972). The practical mode a distinct mode of performance. Journal of Biological Education,
6, 175–182.
Tamir, P. (1989). Training teachers to teach effectively in the laboratory. Science Education, 73,
59–69.
Tamir, P. (1990). Evaluation of student work and its role in developing policy. In E. Hegarty-Hazel
(Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 242–266). London: Routledge.
Tamir, P., Nussinuvitz, R., & Fridler, Y. (1982). The design and use of practical tests assessment
inventory. Journal of Biological Education, 16, 42–50.
Tobin, K. G. (1986). Student task involvement and achievement in process-oriented science activities.
Science Education, 70, 61–72.
Tobin, K. G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities. In pursuit of better questions and
answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403–418.
Tobin, K. G., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school science-classrooms. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 19, 549–560.
Van den Berg, E., & Giddings, G. J. (1992). Laboratory practical work: An alternative view of
laboratory teaching. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.
Van den Berg, E., Katu, N., & Lunetta, V. N. (1994). The role of ‘experiments’ in conceptual change.
Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teach-
ing, Anaheim, CA.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
Wilkenson, J. W., & Ward, M. (1997). The purpose and perceived effectiveness of laboratory work in
secondary schools. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 43–55.
Williams, S. M., & Hmelo, C. E. (1998). Guest editors’ introduction. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 7, 265–270.

Woolnough, B. E. (1991). Setting the scene. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science (pp. 3–9).
Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Yager, R. E. (1984). The major crisis in science education. School Science and Mathematics, 84,
189–198.
Yung, B. H. W. (2001). Three views of fairness in a school-based assessment scheme of practical
work in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 985–1005.
Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education,
81, 483–496.
Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding pre-
service science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection.
Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437–463.

The laboratory in science

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to The laboratory in science (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

The laboratory in science