THEWORLD BANK

Discussion Paper

EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERIES

Report No. EDT s 1I

Role and Educational Effects|of Pradical Activifies in

Science Education

Wadi D. Haddadin collaboration with

George I. :Za'rour

December 1986

Education and Training Department Operations Policy Staff

The views presented here are those of the author(s), and they should not be interpreted as reflecting those of the World Bank.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

ABSTRACT

This paper surveys the literature on the role and educationaleffec;.s of practical activities in science teaching. Two issues areinvestigated: (a) the validity of the assumptions on which the natureand functions of practical activities in science teaching have beendetermined, and (b) the effects of a variety of practical activities ondifferent components of the educational'process mainly at the secondarylevel. In particular, the paper Seeks current educational thinking an.dresearch findings at the pre-university levels regarding the followingquestions:

(a) What is the relationship between curriculum objectives andpractical activities in science teaching?

(b) What is the effect of the nature of science on the nature androle of practical activities?

(c) What are the psychological and pedagogical considerationsunderlying practical activities? and

(d) What is the relationship between different modes and degreesof practical activities (,individual experimentation, grouplaboratory activity, demonstration, etc.) and diiferenteducational ,outcomes (skills, attitude, achievement)?

Discussion Paper

Education and Training Series

Report No. EDT51

ROLE AND EDUCATIONAL EFFECTSOF PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

Wadi D. Haddad

in collaboration withGeorge I. Za'rour

(consultants)

Policy DivisionEducation and Training Department

December 1986

The World Bank does not accept responsibility for the views expressed herein,w.^hich are those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bankor its affiliated organizations. The findings, interpretations, and conclusionsare the results of research or analysis supported by the Bank; they do notnecessarily represent official policy of the Bank.

Copyright ( 1986 The Internationai Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank

Table of Contents

Page No.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................i - iii

I. DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROLE OF PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES ........ 1 - 2

II. THE STATE OF PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES. ...................... 3 - 4

III. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM ....................... 5 - 6

IV. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ................................... 6 - 7

V. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE CURRICULUMOBJECTIVES AND PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES ..................... 8 - 13

VI. EFFECTS OF NATURE OF SCIENCE ON ROLE OFPRACTICAL AC-TIVITIES .................................. 13 - 17

VII. PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS .............. 18 - 20

VIII. COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES ............. 20 - 26A. Modes.of Practical Activities.................... .20 - 22B. Practical Activities Versus Expository Teaching.. 22 - 23C. Comparative Effects in the Non-Cognitive Domains. 23 - 25D. Individualized Instruction ................. a ......- 25E. Are the Effects of Practical Activities.Elusive?. 25 - 26

IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................................. 26 - 32

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................ 33 - 42

ANNEX 1: SCIENCE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT PROJECTSIN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ...................... 43 - 45

FIGURE 1: STRUCTURING THE TACTICS AND STRATEGIESOF SCIENCE ................................... 12

FIGURE 2: TIME-ENERGY-FACILITIES IN RELATIONSHIPTO STRUCTURING .............................. 12

FIGURE 3: MINOR CYCLE ................................. 14

FIGURE 4: MAJOR CYCLE ................................. 15

FIGURE 5: RECEPTION AND DISCOVERY LEARNING CONTINUUMAS DISTINCT FROM ROTE LEARNING AND MEANINGFULLEARNING CONTINUUM ........................... 29

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

i. Practical activities have always been associated with scienceeducation as a prerequisite for effective teaching. This universalacceptance is based on the assumptions that practical activities:(a) fulfill the objectives of science teaching, particularly, those ofinquiry and discovery, (b) are derived from the experimental nature ofscience, (c) are justified on psychological and pedagogical grounds.,and (d) have'superior effects on educational outcomes that areempirically established. The purpose of this paper is to investigatethe validity of these assumptions and to examine the effects of avariety of practical activities on different components of theeducational process, mainly at the secondary level.

Curriculum Objectives

ii. Science curriculum objectives have evolved over time from thesimple acquisition of knowledge to scientific inquiry, problem-solving,development of scientific attitudes, and finally, the application ofscience to the needs of society. With the shift of emphasis fromacquisition of knowledge to other objectives that stress the process ofscience, the role of practical activities (mainly the laboratory)evolved from a means of demonstrating and verifying certain aspects ofthe subject matter to becoming the major source of data for conceptformation and the conveyer of the methods and spirit of science.

iii. The objectives now sought via practical activities, pose anumber of issues. First, the scope and variation of these dbjectivesare out of proportion with the limited experience and exposutre providedby practical activities, no matter how efficiently and effectively theyare carried out. Second, a number of objectives are not exclusivelylimited to practical activities as they are equally claimed byexpository methods and secondary inquiry techniques (described in para.67), while others seem to be equally related to other disciplines andeven to out-of-school influences. Third, the fulfillment of the aboveobjectives is not guaranteed by the presence of practical activities,or enhanced by their frequency. Finally, conventional practicalactivities fail to contribute to the humanistic objectives of sciencein relating science to real-life situations.

Nature of Science

iv. Practical activities in science teaching derive their raisond'etre to a large extent from the very nature of science: science isempirical and experimental, and, therefore, science teaching must beempirical and experimental, to reflect the nature and methods ofscience. It is true that the process of science includes empiricalactivities and experimental settings to collect facts, test relations,and verify predictions from laws and theories. But science is notlimited to this domain; it includes major components that arenon-empirical, namely, conceptual schemes, assumptions or beliefs,social organization of the scientific enterprise, and elements ofinteraction between science and society.

v. This broad conception of the nature of science suggestsseveral implications for the role of practical activities: (a)practical activities, by their nature, are restricted to the empiricalaspects of the scientific enterprise, and, therefore, cannot provide abalanced and comprehensi.ve view of science; (b) while practicalactivities hardly contribute to the process of formulation of concepts,laws and theories, they can have a significant role in demonstratingdeductions from laws and theories, as well as in illustrating theoriesby models; and (c) the restricted role of practical activities can beachieved by a small number of demonstrations and experiments which canbe simple enough as not to -raquire sophisticated equipment or a highdegree of manipulative skills.

Psychological and Pedagogical Considerations

vi. Psycho-pedagogical rationales for emphasis on practicalactivities in science focus on learning, heuristics of discovery andmotivation. A review of recent studies in these areas reveal thefollowing indications. First, concrete experiences are necessary forstudents at the concrete stage of development. It follows that ascience course based on practical activities is justifiable at theprimary level. But adolescents who have moved well into the stage offormal operations should be able to think abstractly without the needof referral to objects to aid them in conceptualizing or abstracting.Second, learning by discovery is not a necessary condition formeaningful learning, and expository teaching and" perception learningcan be meaningful. Third, practical activities cannot be the basis forconcept formation in science because of their liriited nature, but theycan help in turning the abstract into the concrede. Fourth, whilepractical activities may aid in testing alternative solutions and intraining for specific scientific skills, they may be useless or evenharmful in teaching some aspects of the heuristics of discovery andproblem-solving. Finally, practical activities are certainly not theonly means to evoke curiosity and perhaps not the best to maintain itat the adolescent level.

Comparative Effects of Practical Activities

vii. It has been assumed that practical activities in scienceteaching are more effective than other modes of delivery in terms ofboth cognitive and noncognitive performance of students. However, theresults of an extensive body of research indicate that, in general,practical activities (demonstrations and laboratory exercises) provideno measurable advantage over other modes of instruction except in thedevelopment of certain manipulative laboratory skills. Since researchhas failed to show simple relationships between practical activitiesand student learning, the new wave in research is focusing on specificconditions and strategies of laboratory work and their effects onlearning outcomes.

Conclusion

viii. While practical activities in science teaching seem to beimportant for primary school pupils at the concrete stage ofdevelopment, and for low ability students who depend on concreteexperiences, their role in other instances is not as apparent. Infact, this paper suggests, within the limitations of the tentativenessof the theories of psychology and empirical research, that thefulfillment of the broad objectives of science teaching requires anintegrated strategy that encompasses the different elements ofeducational inputs in which practical activities play a limited role.Within this strategy, the primary channel for transmitting the contentof science is a qualified teacher who uses meaningful expositorymethods of teaching and a well-written textbook. On the other hand,the primary role of demonstration is to illustrate scientific Lacts andlaws, concretize concepts, and raise curiosity. Likewise, the role ofthe laboratory is limited to the primary responsibility of transmittingcertain aspects of the nature of scienc4 and the heuristics of learningand problem-solving.

ix. This conclusion has certain implications. First, practicalactivities need to be selective and restricted to:areas that cannot betreated by more cost- and time-effective modes of dlelivery. Second, toachieve their role, practical activities do not nec,essarily requirehighly sophisticated equipment and structured settings. Finally, therestricted role of the laboratory has an effect on the planning ofphysical fac-ilities of a school,- as .there are cases. where theproportion of time, in a science course, allotated 'to formal laboratoryactivities is pnnecessarily high.

x. Even in areas where practical activities seem to have acomparative advantage, other types of less expensive activities arebeing pioneered: (a) to promote inquiry and appreciation of the natureof science, a "secondary inquiry technique" has been introduced basedon narration, discussion and reporting of inquiries; (b) to illustratethe broad and multi-dimensional nature of science, case histories havebeen developed; and (c) simulating games provide students withopportunities for vicarious experiences at low cost.

I. Development of the Role of Practical Activities

1. Practical activities have always been associated with scienceeducation as a prerequisite for effective teaching. These activities aredistributed over a broad matrix defined by the nature of the activity, thedegree of teacher and/or student participation, the place of performance,and the type of materials utilized. Such activities thus include differentmodes of demonstrations, experiments, field trips, individual research, andsimulation.

2. Although the place of practical activities has been alwaysreserved during the different stages of curriculum change in science, theirfunction and nature have significantly evolved. When science was presentedas "nature study," practical activities were justified on the basis thatall avenues of the senses should be utilized in teaching-about objects.'"Everything shall be presented to as many senses as possible, namely,visible things to the sight, audible things to hearing, odorous things tothe smelling-sense, sapid things to the taste, tangible things to thetouch, and when things have reference to more senses than one, they shouldbe presented to all these senses." (Comenius as quoted in Nelson and Kelly,1963). In the conventional content-oriented science programs, practicalactivities assumed a wider role: providing information, determining causeand effect relationships, verifying factors and phenomena, applyingtheoretical knowledge, developing skills, and cultivating scientificmethods of solving problems (Pella, 1961).

3. With the advent of the new science curricula in the 1960s and theshift of emphasis from "product" to "process,." practical activitiesacquired a central place as the major medium for the processes of inquiryand discovery. This science curriculum movement which started in theUnited States and Europe became extremely contagious, and a large number ofdeveloping countries either adapted these programs or started similarcurriculum development projects employing the same philosophy and approach.The Ninth and Tenth Reports of the International Clearinghouse On Scienceand Mathematics Curricular Developments (Lockard, 1975 and 1977) assummarized in Annex 1 reveal the extent to which developing countries inall regions are emphasizing the experimental side of science. Theexpansion of this approach is partly due to the accepted notion thatscience is culture-free and what is good for the technologically advancedcountries must be quickly adopted by the developing countries for their ownbenefit without any feeling of guilt or inferiority, and partly to thecultural ties with former colonial powers and the influence of bilateralaid agencies and international organizations.

4. At the primary level three major science programs were developedin the United States, namely, S-APA or "Science -- A Process Approach",SCIS or Science Curriculum Improvement Study, and ESS or Elementary ScienceStudy. S-APA was organized around 13 thinking processes used byscientists, SCIS was built around a dozen broad concepts reflecting thenature of modern physical and life science, and ESS constructed 56 units ofinstruction on topics appealing to children's curiosity about some aspectsof their environment. Gega (1976) points out that the most dramatic changeof these curriculum projects was the intent to turn the learner into anactive hands-on investigator with the teacher as a guide or facilitator.However, the impact of secondary curriculum projects on developing

-2-

countries seems to be greater. For instance, the BiologicalJSciencesCurriculum Study (BSCS) materials were adapted and/or adopted in 63countries and, in 1974, these materials existed in 21 languages (Hurd,1976). Similarly, CHEM Study (a chemistry program) had, by the end of1968, authorized translations into Chinese, French, Gujarati (in India),Hebrew, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, Thai andTurkish. Also, an unauthorized Russian translation appeared in 1968. Manyparts of Canada,. India, New Zealand and Australia are using the originalEnglish language edition. Moreover, CHEM Study films are being widely usedinternationally in English or other languages (Merrill, 1969). By 1967there trere 18 foreign editions of the PSSC (Physical Science StudyCommittee) text and laboratory guide in 15 languages (Haber-Schaim,1967).Similarly, the "Integrated Science" approach that was initiated in Europeand the United States, and later promoted by Onesco, is now adopted in alarge number of countries in the different regions of the world (Unesco,1977). The Nuffield science program -- developed in the United Kingdom-- is also used in a number of Commonwealth countries and has influencedscience curriculum changes in many other countries.

5. The emphasis of recent science curriculum projects worldwide hasbeen on increasing the importance of practical activities at all levels.A study of Annex 1 shows that the majority of the science curriculumdevelopment projects in all regions call for an approach in teaching whichemphasizes inquiry, discovery, and problem-solving. The method ofpresentation invariably calls for the utilization of practical activities.For.instahce, country reports submitted to the Asian Centre of EducationalInnovatiqn for Development, indicated the emergence of the following commontrends:

(a) Stress on first-hand experiences by pupils in the learningprocess and emphasis on the inquiry approach.

(b) Picking out some topics or areas of the existing curriculumwhich lend themselves to an activity approach and preparingsupporting materials for teachers for developing an inquiryapproach to teaching science. (Unesco/Asia, 1975)

Indge (1977) also reports that in most Commonwealth countries "syllabusdevelopment has been accompanied by a search for more effective means ofteaching, with stress being placed on the learning of practical skills andon promoting a general understanding of the methods ard processes ofscience." As a result, the laboratory, instead of its traditional role ofverification and confirmation of an idea, has assumed the role ofintroducing, exploring, and suggesting problems. In other words, thelaboratory is a place where the many aspects of "scientific inquiry" areintroduced, developed and practiced, and where students are activelyinvolved in doing science and "role-playing" the scientists.

-3-

II. The State of Practical Activities

6. The worldwide emphasis on practical activities as a medium tolearn science by "sciencing" is faced with a contrastive predominantclassroom picture of science.taught by hearing and reading, in bothdeveloped and developing countries. In a survey of science teaching in thepublic schools of different regions in the United States during the 1970-71school year, Nelson (1973) found thatithe predominant form of sciencematerials was single textbooks or locally prepared materials and thatscience course improvement projects were used by a range of 17 to30 percent of teachers. Regarding the method of instruction, 58 percent ofthe teachers indicated that lecture-discussion was the most frequent methodfollowed. Citing research by Ivany, analyzing teaching around the UnitedStates of PSSC physics, Project Physics, and "modern-traditional" courses,Rowe (1975) points out that with the "exception of those in ProjectPhysics, almost all teachers used direct modes of teaching -- in other'words, physics teachers do a lot of lecturing." Similarly, Goodlad (1977)reports on the basis of a study of 158 classrooms in 67 schools that"in spite of the prevailing assumption that sweeping curricular,organizatfiojal, and instructional changes had occurred during the precedingdecade, they found out that textbooks predominated as the medium ofinstruction; telling and questioning, usually in total class groups,constituted;the prevailing teaching method; the inquiry or discoveryapproach to learning was seldom evident; there was little individualizationof instruc'tion; and an astonishing amount of time was taken up in control,classroom routines, and what appeared to be scarcely more than busy work.The language arts dominated the curriculum, with both science and socialstudies instruction characterized more by textbooks, workbooks and orallanguage than by experiments, irojects, and exploration of problems orissues arising out of the phenomena of these fields." Citing from Stakeand Easley's Case Studies in Science Education, Butts (1982) states thatthe hands-on "approach to science places a very heavy demand on the teacherand is rarely observed." Moreover, Anderson (1981) states that "while thelaboratory approach to teaching science is widely espoused, the results ofthese these studies [major studies supported by the National ScienceFoundation] do not indicate that laboratory science is practiced to theextent sometimes believed." Similarly Blosser (1983) points out that datafrom national surveys show that "laboratory work and/or hands-on scienceactivities are used less frequently than science educators would desire..."Penick and Yager (1986), after describing the current conditions of scienceeducation conditions of science education gathered from a variety ofsources, conclude that "there is virtually no evidence of science beinglearned by direct experience." Similarly,.regional reports describing thestatus status of science teaching in developing countries bemoan the factthat status of science teaching in developing countries bemoan the factthat in spite of all the curricular innovations teachers find it easier torevert to the traditional methods of lecturing and employing the textbookas the basic medium of instruction (e.g. Unesco, 1971; Unesco/Asia, 1977).

7. The "theoretical" mode of science teaching is usually attributedto lack of facilities, equipment, and materials. In Asia, for instance,all of the 12 developing countries served by the Unesco Regional Officeconsider lack or inadequacy of physical facilities and materials as themajor obstacle to the implementation of the new science courses thatrequire practical activities conducted by pupils in small groups

-4-

(Unesco/Asia, 1977). Similarly, the reports of 17 Middle Eastern countriespresented in a Unesco regional conference in Cairo in 1971, revealed that13 countries considered shortage of laboratory facilities as one of themajor problems facing science teaching, three countries failed to mentionthe status of the availability of material, and only one country felt ithad an adequate supply of equipment and laboratory materials (Unesco,1971).

8. Provision of equipment, by itself, is not sufficient to introducea basic change in the strategies of science teaching. In many instanceswhere equipment is available, it is underused or misused. There are manycases of available but unused equipment and materials because teachers lacktraining or interest, or because equipment is not suitable. Reporting on astudy involving all Maryland public secondary schools in operation in thespring of 1968, Latham (1970) indicated that 25 percent of the programsspent 10 percent or less instructional time in laboratory investigations.The mode was 20 percent. The differences in laboratory facilities did notcontribute significantly to explaining the variance in laboratory time. Onthe other hand, the relationship between time spent in laboratoryinvestigations and the quantity of equipment available was weak. Indiscussing science education in national development, Sheila Haggis (1972)of Unesco observes that even in the poorer parts of Nigeria there is likelyto be a science laboratory of some sort and that expensive, importedscience apparatus lies idle for lack of suitable maintenance.

9. Even when equipment and materials are available and used,practical activities are, in-many cases, inappropriately conductea.Demonstrations fail to demonstrate the desired physical phenomena, andexperiments are little more than cookbook exercises in which the studentsfollow a given recipe to transfer, and sometimes fake, information from atextbook to a workbook. In the process the student is given the problem,procedure, equipment list, pattern of work, and even conclusions. Evenafter student-centered curricula were introduced in the United States,Brandwein (1969) found that most of the laboratory activities continued tobe teache--dominated. In the vast majority of cases (ca. 95 to 99 percent)where the laboratory was used in instruction, the laboratory materials wereprepared in advance to the end that a satisfactory conclusion would bereached within the time limit of the laboratory period. "That is to say,the laboratory 'experiment' was not an 'experiment' at all -- but andexercise... In fewer than 5 percent of the schools was a single studentgiven the opportunity to experiment in the sense of the term used here.Inquiry -- as the relentless pursuit of a hypothesis in proof or disproof-- was generally not practiced." He gives the following practical reasonsfor the lack of attainment of inquiry or process objectives: (a) one needsto hold equipment and space beyond the single teaching p-riod in which aninvestigation may be initiated, (b) the teaching schedule and loadprohibits the inclusion of procedures which permit inquiry teaching, and(c) lecturing is a resort for an overloaded teacher because it is lessdemanding than discovery.

-5-

III. Nature of the Problem

10. The problem seems to be one of implementation of the experimentalmode of science teaching, i.e. bridging the gap between the acceptance ofpractical activities as synonymous with science education and the actualsituation of shortage of materials and lack of use or inappropriate use ofavailable physical facilities and materials. Derived from this conflictare the problems of cost of equipment, maintenance, capability of teachersto use the discovery method, student and teacher time needed for practicalactivities and, not the least, the potential discipline problems that arespecific to practical activities (Harbeck, 1976).

11. It is true that experimentation has been such a part of sciencethat it is difficult to conceive a science education program withoutpractical acftivities. This universal acceptance is based on theassumptions that practical activities: (a) fulfill the objectives ofscience teaching, particularly, those of inquiry and discovery, (b) arederived from the experimental nature of science, (c) are justified onpsychological and pedagogical grounds, and (d) have superior effects oneducational outcomes that are empirically established.

12. These assumptions are now being challenged and the problem haspartly shifted from that of implementation coupled with a feeling ofeducational guilt that provisions are not adequately made for practicalactivities in science teaching, to a genuine questioning of the role ofthese activities and their cost- and time-effectiveness. It is no longer ablasphciny to question the importance and function of experimentation andlaboratory activities in science teaching. In- his review of 'research onteaching science, in the first Handbook of Research on Teaching,Fletcher Watson (1963) recognized the special emphasis placed on first-handexperience with phenomena by the United States science curriculum revisioncommittees. While he agreed with the apparent importance of thisexperience, he warned that "without clear empirical evidence of what sortsof experiences result in what subsequent behaviors, or enhanced behaviors,in pupils, we are of necessity proceeding on faith. This is hardly thestrongest basis on which to convince school administrators and schoolboards that the investments needed will produce desired results." In thesecond Handbook of Research on Teaching, a decade later, Shulman and Tamir(1973) recognized the central role that the laboratory acquired as a resultof the shift of emphasis from acquisition of knowledge to objectivesstressing the processes of science. However, they hasten to add that "thisshift in the role of the laboratory has not been based on empiricalevidence but rather on opinions of leading personalities, often scientistswho took part in the design of the new curricula." They also refer tomajor controversies about the proportion of the time devoted to thelaboratory activities. After raising questions regarding the effectivenessby which the new roles assigned to the laboratory are being carried out,they state that "if anything remains nearly certain about the laboratory asboth planned and practiced, it is that the laboratory is still far frombecoming a center of inquiry in the typical science teaching program."Similarly, Norman Booth (1975), in discussing the impact of scienceteaching on secondary education in the British schools, questions theassumptions of learning by doing in the light of the heavy expenditureimplications:

-6-

"All the projects subscribe heavily to the 'I understand whenI do' theory of science education, and for most of the time -this means I understand a generalization, and I add to myappreciation of a concept, when I have performed a chain ofexperiments (or done practical work, which is not necessarilythe same thing), the results of which I can see to beaccountable in terms of the generalization or concept.Applied through a science course this involves the teacher,who often has less than adequate assistance, in a heavy loadof work preparing apparatus and equipment, and even more insupervising lessons. If, in addition, the teacher has tomodify and adapt the project materials for the reasonsmentioned earlier, it is not to be wondered at that manyteachers need firm evidence that it really is worth all the

- effort."

"The 'I do, I understand' principle applied overall-inevitably involves the local authorities in heavyexpenditure, and they too are not only entitled to ask, butmust ask, for evidence that the gains justify the additionalcosts... In the meantime we must remember that the great

.majority of the pupils to whom science is taught in schoolwill not afterwards be in a position to "do" science, and yetwe need them to continue and expand their understanding of itthroughout their lives..."

13. The notion that problem-solving and laboratory experiences areinherettly and necessarily meaningful is also.questioned. Ausuk*.l (1964),in strong terms, makes the assertion that "as the terms 'laboratory' and'scientific method' became sacrosanct.. .students were coerced intomimicking the externally conspicuous but inherently trivial aspects ofscientific method. They wasted many valuable hours collecting empiricaldata which, at the very worst, belabored the obvious, and the very best,helped them rediscover or exemplify principles which the teacher could havepresented verbally and demonstrated visually in a matter of minutes.Actually, they learned precious little subject matter and even lessscientific method from this procedure." In addition, practical activitiesare considered as artificial situations which use specialized materialsthat are very simple and idealized compared to the actual world of science,and are isolated from real-life problems, situations and events (Ahmed,1977).

IV. Purpose of the Study

14. The purpose of this study is to investigate: (a) the validity ofthe assumptions on which the nature and functions of practical activitiesin science teaching have been decermined, and (b) the effects of a varietyof practical activities on different components of the educational processmainly at the secondary level. In particular, the study seeks currenteducational thinking and research findings at the pre-university levelsregarding the following questions:

-7-

(a) What is the relationship between curriculum objectivesand practical activities in science teaching?

(b) What i-.rt:he effect of the nature of science onthe natu-re and role of practical activities?

(c) What are the psychological and pedagogicalconsiderations underlying practical activities?

(d) What is the relationship between different modesand degrees of practical activities (individualexperimentation, group laboratory activity,demonstration, etc.) and different educationaloutcomes (skills, attitude, achievement)?

The procedure included a computer search of the Educational ResourcesInformation Center (ERIC), a wide survey of the Education Index anddissertation abstracts, and a study of policy publications in scienceeducation. The emphasis was mainly on publications dated after 1960. Asexpected, the literature was rich in dealing with certain aspects of theproblems, while other aspects were barely touched upon. Moreover,available research is overwhelmingly related to the United States and otherdeveloped countries, although special efforts were made to study literaturerelated to developing countries. The relative applicability of-controlledexperiments, the commonality of science curriculum development projects,and the conscious effort to relate the analysis of results to developingcountries, may make up for the deficiency in the documentation data base.

V. Relationship Between Science Curricu-lum Obiectives and Practical--Activities

15. In contrast with the classical objectives of science educationthat were restricted to the "products" of science -- facts, laws,theories -- within the cognitive domain, the new worldwide scienceeducation movement (paras. 3-5) expanded the science curriculum objectivesto include the effective domain of the learner (scientific attitudes) andthe "'processes" of science (scientific methods). In the United States theFifty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education(Hurd and Johnson, 1960) stressed "process" or 'inquiry" as a majorobjeccive of science teaching. The National Science-Teachers Associationin 1961 considered the following long-range objectives of science teaching:(a) a basic knowledge of the scientific enterprise; (b) an increase in themathematical, observational and experimental skills; (c) understandingrelated to the interrelations of science and society; and (d) increasedunderstanding of the concepts and theories which describe and unify thefields of science. The Revised Science Objectives3 for the 1972-73 NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (1972) included the following: commonapproaches to scientific inquiry; fundamental techniques associated withinquiry; and knowledge of simple science equipment.

16. The British N*uffield Science Teaching project formulated its aimsfor science teaching not on the basis of what the young people need whenthey are studying science, but when they are grown up. and out in the world.Therefore, "we need not try to equip everyone with a complete survey ofscientific knowledge - but we need to give an understanding of science andits contributions to the intellectual, spiritual and physical aspr.-cts of,our lives" (Rogers, 1966). -

17. Similar objectives have been adopted by developing couneries, asseen from the science curriculum projects (Annex 1). In addition, countryreports of Middle Eastern countries to the Unesco meeting in Cairo (Unesco,1971) explicitly state the objectives of science education in terms of"helping the child to acquire scientific approach in investigating hisexperiences" at the primary level and "the familiarization of pupils withthe methods used by scientistBs" at the secondary level. In Asia "there isgreater stress on firsthand experiences by pupils in the learning processwith emphasis on inquiry and the discovery approach. Greater concern isalso visible for the 'processes of science' " (Unesco/Asia 1977). In theReport (2968) of the Regional Workshop on Unesco/UNICEF - Assisted Projectsin Science Education in Asia held in Bangkok and attended by 14 Asiancountries, the aims of education which can be achieved through the teachingof science included: to help the child attain a critical and inquiringmind, and to lead to the acquisition of psychomotor and mental skills aswell as the development of desirable attitudes.

18. In the affective domain there are great expectations from scienceteaching. Many countries consider the development of scientific attitudesa major educational objective (Unesco, 1971). In a recent Commonlwealtheducation conference, science was singled out as a subject that can play aparticular role in the development of individuals "wno think in a rationaland non-dogmatic way, are prepared to test evidence, and are open tochange" (Commonwealth Secretariat, 1977). In the United States, theEducational Policy Commission of the National Education Association (NEA)(1966) considered the promotion of the spirit of science as a major goal of

education. "What is being advocated here is not the production of morephysicists, biologists, or mathematicians, but rather the development ofpersons whose approach to life as a whole is that of a person who thinks --a rational person." The characteristics of this spirit are: (a) longingto know and to understand, (b) questioning of all things, (c) search fordata and their meaning, (d) demand for verification, (e) respect for logic,(f) consideration of premises, and (g) consideration of consequences.Diederich (1967) defined the scientific attitude in terms of the followingcomponents: skepticism, faith in the possibility of solving problems,desire for experimental verification, precision, a liking for new -things,willingness to change opinions, humility, loyalty to truth, objectivity,aversion to superstition, liking for scientific explanations, desire forcompleteness of knowledge, suspended judgment, distinguishing betweenhypotheses and solutions, awareness of assumptions, judgment of what isfundamental and of general significance, respect for theoreticalstructures, respect for quantification, acceptance of probabilities, andacceptance of warranted generalizations.

19. While the above curriculum objectives may reflect an emphasis onthe discipline of science and possibly a touch of scientism, there is anequally strong concern to teach the humanistic aspects of science "as themost important function that science education can perform" (Lehman, 1967).This position is also taken in some of the inquiry-oriented curricula suchas the BSCS: "The writers believe that secondary school science should bepresented as an aspect of the humanities.... The high school is not theplace to begin the training of biological scientists." (BSCS, 1964).Science education becomes, therefore, a component o.f a common literacy inwhich one 1nows science as par; of the culture as one knows history, thefine arts, or literature together with a reasonable understanding of theenvironment that provides one with a sense of security regarding hiseveryday observations (Shamos, 1966). Scientific literacy encompasses adeep appreciation of science (Nuffield Physics, 1966), an understanding ofthe'interaction between science and society and the social image of thescientist (Haddad, 1974) and, on the emotional level "a growing up, areunifzcation of dependency and passivity in favor of readiness to rely onone's own resources," (Schwab, 1960). In his presidential address to the1976 meeting of the British Association of Science Education, Bullock(1976) argued for the "need to develop scientific literacy not only toproduce future scientists but much more in order to prodtuce an informedpublic opinion capable of understanding at least in some degree whatscientists are doing."

20. The curriculum reform of the 1960s made the teaching of sciencefor its own excitement and intellectual satisfaction a worthy objective.A decade later a second wave of curriculum reform developed which attemptedto relate learning to real-life problems. "Where physics teachers wereonce content to enliven the teaching of their subject by having students'do physics' rather than read about it, now they are striving to helpstudents 'do something useful with physics,' like unscrambling a trafficjam or designing a better security system..." (National ScienceFoundation, 1974). In these new efforts, we can begin to discover thebroad outlines of an approach to curriculum-making that relates theteaching of 'disciplines' to the needs of society. Under the topic ofScience, Technology, and Society: New Goals for Interdisciplinary ScienceTeaching, Paul Hurd (1975) calls for a new perspective for the teaching of

-10-

science -- a perspective which involves establishing links between thenatural and the social sciences. In the process, Hurd restores totechnology its important function and role in science teaching after it wasexcluded in the major science curricular developments of the 1960s. Healso views decisionmaking as assuming an important function when he states:"learning how to form decisions in a science/societal context is a goalwhich relates the effective and cognitive objectives of science teaching asthey actually function in the lives of students..." He also states thatthe science curriculum developers of the 1970s see the "need for skills andsystems by which students can use the derived knowledge of science forresolving relevant personal and societal problems." Simhilarly, the placeand relevance of science-technology-society (STS) topics in the curriculutawere recognized in the recommendations and positions of the Exeter IIConference (Brinckerhoff and Yager, 1986) because of the mismatch betweenthe science conventionally taught in high schools and the complex,bewildering world in which students live. Many of the STS issues, however,were considered interdisciplinary and cannot be handled adequately Byscience teachers alone. Furthermore, infusion of STS material in thescience curriculum should not be at the expense of traditional goals ofscience education (scientific knowledge, methods of inquiry, and careerexploration).

21. What are the implications of the different curriculum objectivesfor the role of practical activities? .In the conventional curriculumschemes that present science as a body of knowledge (with variedorganizational structures), practical activities, whether developed by theteacher or selected from a laboratory manual, are meant to teach skills,motiva,te, and provi4e concrete opportunities to demonstrate abstractscientific concepts and relationships that had been or will be learnedthrough lecturing and/or reading. A similar set of aims were reported byLynch and Ndyetabura (1983) based on a survey of the literature and localvalidation by an advisory steering committee in Tasmania (Australia). Theseobjectives can be fulfilled with a structured set of demonstrations andlaboratory exercises that are subject-related, and synchronized with the"theoretical" component of the course but not necessarily integrated withit.

22. The shift of emphasis from acquisition of knowledge to scientificinquiry and problem-solving makes practical activities indispensable, whilethey were previously complementary. Although the laboratory takes theadditional role of being the major source of data for concept formation andthe main medium for practicing the processes of science, it also continuesto serve the functions stated in para. 21. To fulfill the "process"objective of science teaching the mode rather than the substance ofpractical activities gains significance. Attention is directed to thepractice of scientific methods rather than finding exact answers,.and tothe development of insights for data collection and processing rather thanfor fact finding. However, one of the implications of the emergingcurriculum objectives referred to in para. 20 is that portions of futurescience'curricula dealing with Science-Technology-Society issues are likelyto require approaches to the solutions of problems that do not necessarilytake place in the science laboratories.

23. This inquiry mode characterizes the laboratory with distinct.features. First, the student is exposed to the different facets of thescientific enterprise through an array of experiments. "A few of theelements of scientific inquiry that need to be systematically introducedthroughout science laboratory work are: (i) the variety, characteristics,and limitations of experimental designs; (ii) the relationship betweenexperimental options and the nature of the data obtained; (iii) therelationships between observed data, experimental results, and theinferences based on the data and results; (iv) the tools of measurement andtheir influence on experimental accuracy; (v) the use of data in generatinghypotheses and defining questions and, conversely, the use of hypotheses toguide data collection; (vi) the use of theories and models in interpretingdata and in making predictions; and (vii) the analyzing, ordering, anddisplaying of data in precise and valid ways." (NSTA, 1964) Second, thelaboratory experiences tend to be highly unstructured by the teacher andactivated by the student. While the ultimate is the complete absence -ofinstructions, operating framework or procedures, there is always a certainamount of structuring dictated-by a multitude of constraints. Degrees ofstructuring and their relationship to time-energy-facility continuum appearin Figures 1 and 2 (Novak, 1963). Third, the laboratory leads theclassroom phase of teaching science, rather than demonstrates or verifieswhat is already learned. Fourth, the practical and theoretical aspects of.the science teaching are integrated as complementary modes of inquiry.Discussion, .lecturing, and reading create the need for experimentation.Experiments are also followed by important discussions in which results arechecked and compared, and through which theories are hypothesized. Finally,the inquiring activities do not require a standardized set of equipment ora-special organizational s.etting. It should be noted, however, that thereare questions now raised about the general applicability of the inquirymode. Reporting for the 'Inquiry in School Science' Group of ProjectSynthesis, Synthesis, Welch (1981) states that "not all students should beexpected to attain competence in all inquiry outcomes. Such an expectationruns counter to what is known about student abilities and interests andignores the influence of the schools and community environment. In fact,for some students and in some environments it may be appropriate not toexpect any inquiry related outcomes at all!..." Moreover, Tamir andLunetta (1981), after analyzing the laboratory handbooks of six high schoolscience curricula, concluded that only limited opportunities are providedfor high level activities such as developing and testing hypotheses ordesigning experiments and actually performing them. "The analysis impliesthat students commonly work out as technicians following explicitinstructions and concentrating on the development of lower level skills..."

-1 2-

Fizure 1: STWCTVG = TME TACTICS AID STRA IES OF SCIEXCS

Apoercrottve Mlan. Proolem, Proca%urt, Equiont AmbLaW andData Organization Oeihnested

Problem, ProceJre, Eouioment AsmmbJa and Oa=Orranization Oelineated

Problem, Procecure, and EquiommntADamblage Otiinead

Problem and ProcedureDelineated

ProblemDelineated

0% 50 10so

% STRUCTURINGSource: Novak, 196 3.

,ijrj2: TE->N-FC-A I:S 1 RZ ONS= TO STRUCTU.G

Text-Centeed, Hig;hly-Strctured Lab100%e

ZIFTEDNESS

C i TIME

ENERGY w

C FACJLITIES

OEECTIVEs

5elf EnerI"oek. UnstdI.,rured L;abSource: N.ovakc, 19 3 .

-13-

24. This type of practical activities is assumed to contribute also tothe development of scientific attitudes (para. 18), provided the generalclassroom and laboratory atmosphere is consistent with the spirit ofscience and the teacher/student relationship reinforces such a spirit.This means that students need to develop a personal contact with scientificwork. There is, however, no guarantee that the special attitudinal skillsdeveloped within the context of science can be generalized to other schoolsituations, and ultimately to everyday life. Even professional scientistswho are more exposed to the spirit of science do not consistently exhibitsuch a transfer of attitudes. This does not stop the "doing of science"from at least modestly.aiming at developing in students the attitude that"science is delightful, interesting, powerful; science is great thinkingand clever doing; science makes sense" (Rogers, 1966).

VI. Effects of Nature of Science on Role of Practical Activities

25. Practical activities in science teaching derive their raisond'etre to a large extent from the very nature of science: science isempirical and experimental and therefore science teaching must be empiricaland experimental, to reflect the nature and methods of science. Thus,according to some educators, "the principal function of the laboratory isnot to transmit subject matter content or to demonstrate principle ofscience on an audio-visual basis, but to teach scientific method" (Ausubel,1964); As practical activities reflect the nature of science, it isassumed that they provide students with experiences similar to those of ascientist on the basis that "intellectual'activity anywhere is the samewhether at the frontier of knowledge or inia third-grade classtoom... thedifference is in degree, not in kind., The schoolboy learning physics is aphysicist, and it is easier for him to leatn physics behaving like aphysicist than doing something else" (Bruner, 1960). It is also assumedthat children through inquiry can discover and formulate explanations whichstrive for the same universality and unification of concepts achieved byscientists. An assessment of this position necessitates a look at thenature of science and its implications for the extent and type of practicalactivities and the issues raised by such a relationship.

26. The nature of science is dynamic and there is no one simple recipeor procedure that fully describes the scientific activity. There are,however, a number of recognizable processes or operations that characterizethis activity. Einstein repeatedly emphasized that science must start withfacts and end with facts, no matter what theoretical structures are builtin between (Kemeny, 1959). Science is therefore cyclic. There is a minor,and most common, cycle of formation of laws, and a major cycle of formationof theories (Haddad and others, 1971).

27. The minor cycle may be represented by the schematic diagram inFigure 3. Facts are collected by the process of observation described interms of concepts of science such as color, weight, acidity, index ofrefraction, etc., and limited to factors considered pertinent to theproblem under investigation. To make his observations more reliable andcommunicable, a scientist presents them in the form of classificationschemes or measurements. One should, however, differentiate between directobservation statements and instrumental observation statements. Although

-14--

the direct observation statements (those made by the unaided senses)present few problems, some do require a specialized language system fortheir verification. Gardner (1975) points out that cross-cultural evidenceindicates that the syntax of direct observation statements is embedded inthe language system of the observer. "We observe selectively, and what weselect to observe is strongly influenced by our cultural heritage, ourlanguage sustem, and our theoretical inclinations." Instrumentalobservations play a major role in modern science as exemplified by the useof microscopes, amplifiers, thermometers, Geiger counters, and radiotelescopes. The theory of the instrument needs to be understood in orderto be sure that the observation is not an artifact of the instrument.

Figure 3: MINOR CYCLE

LAWS DEUCT1ON PR0IC2'IOS

CONt!TAL

EMI.ICAL

z i

FACTS FACTS

Sourea: Haddad, and others, 1971; Zamfry, 1959.

28. Scientists try to generalize from individual facts into relationsor laws by the process of induction. "Although the syntax of laws is boundup with the problem of induction, this should not be taken to imply thatscientists actually use inductive reasoAing to arrive at law-statements.The notion that scientists patiently gather piles of evidence which theythen put together inductively to form a law is absurd, despite its frequentassertion in school science texts... It is far more reasonable topostulate that the law was irnvented by some creative mental act, and thatthe clear statement of the law, and the definitions of the terms in itemerged together" (Gardner, 1975).

29. When a relation has been devised to fit the observed facts,special cases and various consequences can be deduced, by applying therules of formal logic and the great power of mathematical notations andmethods. Such calculated predictions can be tested or verified againstfacts by an experimental setting. Through this process the laws of scienceare subject to modifications, improvement, and extensions to accommodatenew experimental facts.

-15-

30. "A scientist is not satisfied with observation and formulation ofrelations. He wishes to explain as many of the related natural phenomena as hecan in terms of mental constructs called theories" (Haddad and others, 1971),through a major cycle similar to the minor cycle in structure except that itoccurs less frequently (Figure 4). While many theories can be hypothesizedby the creative act of induction, preference is usually given to thesimplest one that explains the greatest number of related facts andrelations. Theories are not tested by direct experiments, but rather bythe verification of deduced consequences or predictions. Many theorieswere modified when the experimental data consistently contradicted thepredicted data. Theories are, therefore, scientific explanations ormodels -- such as the energy levels of the atoms, charged particles, thekinetic molecular theory -- that explain empirical facts and deducedrelations. "They are not, however, mirror images of the real world -- amisconception that we have too often inistilled in the student's mind. Whena new explanation emerges, students tend to feel cheated -- they weretaught 'incorrectly'. We hear, even from teachers, that there are "Noright answers in science anymore." This isn't true. There are, and alwayshave been, right answers -- but for the time and data available. If viewedcorrectly, the ambiguity and fluidity of science become tolerable and evenchallenging." (McLeod, 1976).

Figure 4: MAJOR CYCLE

THEORY DEDUCTION PREDICTIONS

CONCEPTUAL z

o -3- z

0:E? IRICAL

FACTS, FACTSRELATIONS

Source: Haddad and others, 1971; Kemeny, 1959.

-16-

31. The nature and function of experimentation in science 'aresometimes misconceived and exaggerated. Not all the processes of scienceare empirical. In fact, the nature of science includes major componentsthat are non-empirical, namely, (a) conceptual schemes, (b) assumptions,(c) social organization of the scientific activity, and (d) interactionbetween science and society.

32. The conceptual component runs parallel with the empirical one aslucidly depicted in Figures 3 and 4. While experimentation is a necessarybasis for knowledge, it is never the whole of knowledge since science isalso a culture that involves reasoning and imagination. What is observedis a function of the conceptual schemes applied. Moreover, theseconceptual schemes provide guidance without which experimentation remains"an affair of wild and almost pointless fluttering -- a thing in manyrespects irrelevant to the true progress of understanding -- sometimes themost capricious and fantastic part of the scientific program" (Butterfield,1950). While Barber (1952) attributes the dynamics of modern science to aproper interweaving 'of conceptualization and experimentation, Kuhn (1972)and Toulmin (1972) go a step further to consider concepts and not methodsof inquiry as the core of rational thought and consequently the rationalbasis for science.

33. The assumptions of science are also non-empirical fundamentalbeliefs on which the scientific enterprise (empirical and conceptual) isbased. Some of these assumptions are: (a) the reality of time, space, andmatter; (b) the quantifiability of matter; (c) the intelligibility of theunivierse; (d) determinism or causality; and (e) consistency of the. universe(Haddad and others, 1971).. While the "truth" o f these assumptions isanalytical and cannot be established experimentally, they justifyexperimentation by implying faith that an experiment, when repeated by thesame or different observers, yields similar results, and that given effectsare produced forom some definable causes.

34. The third non-experimental component of science, namely, thesocial organization, is derived from the perspective that "science is morethan disembodied items of guaranteed knowledge and more than a set oflogical procedures for achieving such knowledge." It is "fundamentally asocial activity -- a set of behaviors taking place in human society"(Barber, 1952). This component has at least four dimensions:professional, structural, communal, and individual. The professionaldomain intcludes the social climate for discovery and invention and themorality of scientific activities. At the structural level the main issueis that of determination of source of authority and the tendency forinternal anti-authoritarianism as described by Infeld when he disagreedwith Einstein: "It seems presumptuous that I would dare to differ withEinstein on any subject, but I know that there is nothing so dangerous inscience as blind acceptance of authorities and dogmas. My own mind mustremain for me the highest authority" (Infeld, 1941). Communal traits,include the concept of universalism of possession of rational knowledgewhich implies a communality of property of scientific knowledge and liberalexchange of new ideas anr' innovations. At the individual level is thebalance between the ideals of commitment and emotional detachment, whichdoes not mean an absence of personal conflicts, individual crises, andstrong emotions, or a suppression of personal feelings, enthusiasms, andfervent convictions.

-17-

35. A corollary of the social nature of science is the existence ofinteraction between the scientific enterprise and society. There are at leastsix areas of mutual influence:

(a) Social, involving the lives of individuals andgroups in areas like health, safety, leisure,employment, and social progress;

(b) Economic, dealing with finance, production, andmanagement;

(c) Moral, involv.ing principles or standards andhabits, of conduct;

(d) Religibus, comprisi.ng issues of religion andreligious institutions;

(e) Military, dealing with arms, wars, and security;

(f) Political, involving civic duties, rights of citizens,responsibilities and activities of governments, andnational interests (Haddad, 1974).

36. Ons last issue with the nature of science is that scientificactivities not only go beyond experimentation but also beyond structured;science itself. On the one hand, "every human society has, at the veryleast, a collection of rational.empirical knowledge, or relativelyun-' -eloped science. This kind of knowledge, which we may think of as1ew Lyonic science, out of which more matute science may grow, constitutes a'large part of what is usually thought of as common sense" (Barber, 1952).,On the other hand, the mode of thought of science "relates also toquestions men usually ask and answer for reasons which they think aretotally unscientific" (Fischer, 1971). In referring to a framework for theconstruction of science courses for the primary stage, Presst (1976) pointsout that consideration of the "development of the use of scientific skills,particularly the basic skills (observing, communicating, classifying,predicting, inferring, measuring, using space-time relationships, and usingnumbers), must lead to the realization that some of these skills can bedeveloped by using content that is not usually thought of as science..."Some of these skills are essential everyday skills in addition to beingessential scientific skills, and the approach of the scientist to problemsis the approach people use all the time in trying to reduce thecomplexities of everyday life to understandable proportions. Presst istherefore of the opinion that for the development of scientificunderstanding it may be much sounder to provide plenty of opportunitiezs todevelop and use basic skills than any amount of doing innumerable littleexperiments or trying to guess what is supposed to be discovered.

VII. Psychological and Pedagogical Considerations

37. Psycho-pedagogical rationales for emphasis on practical activitiesin science focus on learning, heuristics of discovery and problem-solving,and motivation. In the area of nature of learning and the learner, themain support for practical activities is derived from Piagetiandevelopmental psychology. A review of Piagetian research by Howe andJohnson (1975), seems to support the contention that young children shouldbe given firsthand experiences with the natural world in order to help themform concepts and that the developing child must manipulate or physicallyinteract with objects to ensure optimum growth towards logical or formaloperations. At the preschool age, the experiences of the child are mostlyperceptual,. The next stage is that of concrete operations and startsapproximately at the age of six and extends to the age of about 12 or muchlater according to more recent studies (Towler and Wheatley, 1971; Lawsonand Renner, 1974 and 1975; Lawson and Blake, 1976). During this stage, thechild is able to assimilate data from a concrete experience and arrange andrearrange them in his head but he needs to resort to experimentation ortrial and error when dealing with abstractions. Intellectual developmentculminates in the stage of formal operations. As Lawson and Renner (1975)state it, " Formal operational thinkers are capable of reasoning withverbal elements alone and there is no direct need for objects. It shouldbe pointed out, however, that for this type of thought to occur it must bedeveloped through the use of objects." Similar developmental levels aresuggested by Bruner (1961), but with different names -- enactive, ikonic,and symbolic levels. In the enactive level, the child manipulatesmaterials directly. At the ikonic level, a person deals with mental imagesof objects but does not manipulate them directly, while at the synAbolidlevel a person strictly manipulates symbols rather than objects or theirmental images.

38. In reviewing the results of a number of recent studies includingone of their own, Lawson and Renner (1975) found out that generally onlyabout 50 percent of samples of high school biology students and samples ofcollege students have acquired formal reasoning skills on the administeredtasks. Haley and Good (1976) have also reviewed many studies and foundthat the use of formal thought patterns in college students varies from11 percent to 61 percent depending on the type of tasks and the particularstudent population.

39. The immediate implication of Piagetian psychology is thatmanipulation of materials and objects is a must for students at theconcrete stage of development. It follows that a science course based onpractical activities at the primary level should be encouraged worldwide.On the other hand, an adolescent who has moved well into the stage offormal operations is supposed to be able to think abstractly and is freedfrom the necessity of referral to objects to aid him in conceptualizing orabstracting. Consequently, the need for practical activities andlaboratory work should diminish as the adolescent increasingly showsevidence of attaining the formal operational stage. While this raises aquestion regarding the relatively high percentages of high school andcollege students who are judged to be still at .ie concrete operationalstaae, it is hypothesized that the proportion of such students is muchsmaller in countries where only a very small selected proportion of an agegroup are enrolled in schools and colleges.

19-

40. Ausubel's theory of cognitive learning, unlike Piagetiandevelopmental psychology, considers that the acquiring of a hierarchicallyorganized framework of specific concepts permits the learner to make senseof an experience. Therefore, "the most important single factor influencinglearning is what the learner already knows" (Ausubel, 1968). Ausubel alsomakes a strong distinction between rote and meaningful learning. Whilerote learning results in an arbitrary, verbatim incorporation of newknowledge, meaningful learning involves the assimilation of new knowledgeby relating it to relevant existing concepts in the learner's cognitivestructure. This process differs from Piagot's concept of assimilation inthat it is continuous and does not occur or,, the basis of "stages" ofdevelopment but rather as a result of growing differentiation andintegration of specifically relevant conceDts in cognitive structure.Meaningful learning can thus be facilitated by the use of advancedorganizers on which new knowledge is anchored. In support of this theory,Novak (1977) synthesizes the results of a number of studies using modifiedPiagetian clinical interview techniques and concludes the following: (a)"The data...support a model of cognitive development that is not 'stage'dependent but rather dependent on the framework of specific concepts andintegratiL'ns between these concepts acquired during the active life span ofthe individual;" (b) a signif:icant proportion of children considered at theconcrete level could demonstrate highly formal reasoning; and (c) a smallproportion of children, after specially designed concept-orientedaudio-tutorial lessons, can acquire and use highly formal operations toexplain phenomena.

41. The role of-practical. activities as-an appropriate framnework fortraining in the heuristics 'of discovery an; problem-solving is based onBruner's theory of learning by discovery (Bruner, 1961). One learns theworking heuristics of discovery only through the exercise of problem-solving and the effort of discovery. "The more one has practice, the morelikely is one to generalize what one has learned into a style of problemsolving or inquiry that serves for any kind of task one may encounter."This approach entails certain difficulties. First, it fails to provide anorderly growth of knowledge, since "the unsophisticated scientific mind isonly confused by the natural complexities of raw, unsystematized empiricaldata" (Ausubel, 1964). A second difficulty lies in the feasibility oftraining for creativity, problem-solving, and critical thinking. Finally,practical activities at the stage of formal thinking (usually adolescence)are helpful in testing solutions but may be harmful by fixating thelearner's attention on salient aspects of the concrete situation, andinhibiting mental processes that are at the core of ali spontaneouselaboration and creativity (Kreitler and Kreitler, 15g4).

42. Practical activities are also considered as a major factor ingenerating curiosity and interest in science. Maw and Maw (1961) foundthat children with a high level of curiosity either learn more in a givenperiod of time, or retain more of what they learned. There seems to be,however, no basis to assign a stronger stimulating effect to practicalactivities than to underlying concept development. A study by Kreitler andKreitler (1974) revealed four distinct types of curiosity: manipulative,perceptual, conceptual, and curiosity about the complex. Whs-e concreteactivities play a significant role in arousing the first two types, thelatter two types require content that his conceptual relevance and

-20-

ideational scope. For instance, Berlyne (1954), in a study of curiosityfound that prequestion%ing had a positive effect on curiosity and learning,which ties up with Ausubel's theory of advanced organizers.

VIII. C2pa^ative Effects of Practical Activities

43. A large number of studies have been conducted to test the effectsof practical activities on cognitive, affective, and psychomotor outcomes.These studies fall roughly into one or more of the following categories:(a) comparative studies of modes of practical activities, such aslaboratory'versus demonstration, or inductive versus deductiveexperimentation; (b) comparative studies of modes of instruction, wherebyat least one of them includes practical activities such as expositoryversus laboratory method-; (c) studies emphasizing the effect of practicalactivities on non-cognitive skills; and (d) practical activities andindividualize i instruction.

A. Modes of Practical Activities

44. The literat-ure of the early decades of the century reveals aparamount interest in the problem of determining-the relative effectivenessof lecture/demonstrations and individual laboratory work in the teaching ofscience. Reviews of the literature by Curtis (1931) and Riedel (1927'concluded that either method was equally effective,in most respects.Cunningham (1946), on the basis of over 30 studies relevant to theteacher-demonstration versus individual laboratory controversy, concludedthat "general ability in scientific thinking is so complicated -- made upof so many different steps withocertain safeguards necessarily surroundingeach step that both methods can probably be used to advantage..." It wasalso reported in the Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for theStudy of Education that a "review of the research in which the relativeeffectiveness of various methods of teaching science are comapared leads tothe conclusion that there is no one method of teaching science that can beconsidered unquestionably superior to all others' (Carleton and others,1960).

45. MW5re recent studies reinforce the sau,e conclusions. Bailey (1964)compared ackiievement in the concepts of fundamentals of chemistry ofeleventh-grade senior-physical science students taught by laboratorytechniques versus those taught by enriched lecture-demonstration methods ofinstruction. Enrichment devices used were programmed materials, overheadtransparencies, filmstrips, films, and models. He concluded that the useof laboratory methods in an elective physical science course failed toyield a significantly higher mastery of scientific concepts than didenriched lecture-demonstrations (mastery was defined as achievement on astandardized test). He also concluded that the use of the enriched.jecture-demonstration method appeared to be especially effective amonglower achievers. Oliver (1965) made a comparative study of three me..hodsof teaching high school biology: (a) lecture-discussion,(b) lecture-discussion and demonstrations, and (c) lecture-discussion anddemonstrations in combination with laboratory exercises. He concluded thatrandomly selected high school biology students responded equally well (nosignificant differences) with respect to acquisition of factual informationin biology, to overall achievement in biology, and to the application ofscientific principles in biology. Pella and Sherman (1969) were concerned

with determining the relative effectiveness of two methods of utilizinglaboratory activities in teaching the Introductory Physical Science course(IPS), the direct manipulative approach, and the indirect non-manipulativeapproach. No significant differences were noted in test scores related tocritical thinking skills, understanding of science, academic achievement,and the development and expression of interest in science. A significantdifference in favor of the manipulative method (involving pupil contactwith apparatus) was found in a measure reflecting the development ofselected laboratory skills. Sigel and Raven (1970) studied specificallythe effect of manipulation on the acquisition of the compensatory conceptsof speed, force, and work. They divided 120 fourth-graders into threetreatment groups. One group did not receive instruction, the secondmanipulated the objects, and the third group observed the manipulation.Both experimental groups achieved significantly better results onpost-tests of relationships than the control. In other words, there was nosignificant difference between the manipulation and the demonstrationgroup. Similarly, Yager and others, (1969) conducted a comprehensive studyto compare laboratory, demonstration, and discussion techniques. Nosignificant differences were found among the three approaches on tests ofunderstanding science? critical thinking, attitude, and achievement.However, the laboratory method was found to be more effective on a test oflaboratory skills. The conclusion was that no measurable advantages couldbe attributed to the laboratory approach over the demonstration anddiscussion modes of instruction except in the development of laboratoryskills. Kilburn (1972) compared the effdcts of two treatments: (a) guideddiscovery teaching with maximum emphasis on demonstration experiment, filmsasas substitutes for field experiences, and the use of models and dverhead-transparencies as substitutes for real organisms. The ten-weekinstructional unit involved 2 seventh-grade classes and emphasized thestudy 23 seventh-grade classes and emphasized the study of insects andecology. No significant differences were found on tests of scienceachievement and retention. However, there were significant differences inthe knowledge of the processes of science favoring the teacher-centeredtreatment characterized by demonstrations, films, and the use of mode'ls.Finally, Louwerse (1982) compared specific outcomes of instruction betweenindividual student inquiry/laboratory experiments and teacherdemonstrations of such experiments in secondary school chemistry and humananatomy and physiology courses, and found no significant differencesregarding effects on achievement, attitudes toward science, and processskills.

46. The comparative effects of modes of practical activities onretention were investigated by Andriette (1970). The comparison was madebetween groups of seventh-grade students taught by two methods: smallgroup laboratory in which students planned and carried out activities, andteacher-demonstration in which students observe~d but never participated inthe planning or execution of the activity. It was found that nosignificant difference existed at the knowledge level on tests administeredten weeks after the treatment. At the comprehension level, teacherdemonstration groups did significantly better on one unit and equally wellon another unit.

47. A number of recent studies have involved comparisons of studentsemploying the traditional-deductive laboratory approach with students usingan open-ended-inductive laboratory method. Studies by Charen (1970) of

-22-

high school chemistry students and Marin (1968) of physics students foundno difference between students taught by the traditional-deductive methodand students using the open-ended-inductive laboratory approach inachievement, critical thinking, and other areas tested. However, studiesby Tamir and Glassman (1971), Egelston (1973), and Van Deventer (1970)found significant differences in the cognitive and affective domainsfavoring the groups taught by the individualized-open-ended method.Furthern.ore, studies by Sherwood and Herron (1973) and Forgy and Bakken(1976) involving the course Interdisciplinary Approaches to Chemistry (IAC)found that students favored the individualized laboratory program. Forgyand Bakken also point to increased enrollment, improved attitude towardscience. and other positive factors since the individualized IAC wasintroduced.

48. Grosmark (1973) conducted a study with the purpose of determiningthe effectiveness of doubling the laboratory experiments and time in thelaboratory on student achievement, performance on laboratory skills, andattitude toward high school chemistry. Each week students in theexperimental group performed an additional experiment on the same topic asthe basic experiment performed by all. The additional experiments wereperformed during the students' free time in a situation where students hadabout 30 percent free time, on the average, because of .modular flexiblescheduling. The results of the study indicate that the additionalexperiments and time in the laboratory did not bring about any change inachievement or attitude. Theie were indications, however, of improvedlaboratory skills as a result of the additional weekly experiments.

B.' Practical Activities versus Expositbry Teaching -

49. Several studies have dealt with expository teaching followingAusubel's ideas (para. 40). An example of these studies is that ofBabikian (1970) who inivestigated the relative effectiveness of discovery,laboratory, and expository methods of teaching science concepts at thejunior high school level. In the expository method of learning, "thedecisions concerning the mode, the pace, and the style of exposition areprincipally determined by the teacher as the expositor; students are simplylisteners." In this study, the teacher, using the expository method,verbally presented the science concepts to the learners and the statementof concept was followed by examples for further clarification. Questionsand discussions were allowed, but no audio-visual materials were usedexcept the chalkboard. The laboratory method that was followed was similarto the expository method except that procedural instructions were presentedin a printed laboratory manual for the verification of the concepts aridnecessary equipment was provided for such verification. In the discoverymethod, the concept was not stated, but the studen;s were given proceduralinstructions to discover the concept for themselves. It was found out thatboth the expository and the laboratory methods were significantly moreeffective than the discovery method for: overall achievement,verbalization of concepts, recognition of concepts, and application ofconcepts to numerical problems. Furthermore, the expository method was aseffective as the laboratory method for: overall achievement,verbalization, recognition, transfer, application to numerical problems,discovery, and retention of concepts. Moreover, students found all threemethods interesting but most of them considered the expository method theeasiest, the clearest, .and the best method for teaching science. Grabber(1975) studied the comparative effectiveness of the deductive-expository

-23-

and the inductive-discovery methods, and found no significant difference interms of the students' understanding of the ideas of science or theircognitive process skills. However, the deductive-expository method wassuperior when long-term retention was the criterion. Blomberg (1974)compared the effectiveness of three methods: laboratory, reading-lecturing, and audio-visual, in teaching science to sixth-graders. Nosignificant differences among the three teaching methods were apparent.

50. Similar results were reached when a mode of instruction involving ipractical activities was compared with the textbook-recitation mode. At the:elementary level, Carpenter (1963) compared the "Textbook Recitation Method"(teaching the material by reading and discussing a basic textbook) of teachingscience with the "Problem Method" (classroom experimentation and demonstration).He concluded that elementary pupils learn factual matter in science more readilywhen the "Problem Method" is used. Further analysis of the data reflected thatthe slower learners (bottom 25 percent in terms of general academic achievement)learned significantly better from the activity:type method. The differencebetween the two teaching methods was not statistically significant for the goodacademic achievers. Vanek (1974) also compared the effect of the use of ESSscience teaching materials and a textbook approach on classificatory skills,science achievement, and attitude. She found that.the teaching method did notcontribute to a significant difference in science achievement or cognitivedevelopment.

51. The relationship between experience and concept development wasstudied by Butts. (1962). In investigating the degree tp which childrenconceptualize from science experiences he found that no change in concept

funderstanding takes place "solely as the result oftindijidua! independentmanipulation of the data of science experiences." -Vejdovec (1973) alsocompared the effects of the process approach through Science--A ProcessApproach and a content approach, on the achievement of fifth-graders for aperiod ot five years. Analysis of the data showed that there were nosignificant differences between the groups in favor of one or the otherapproach in teaching elementary science. However, there was an interactionto the effect that low-intelligence students benefited more from theprocess approach than from the content approach. This is complicated bythe finding that the significance was primarily caused by the greaterachievement of low-intelligence, process-taught girls. As was'presentedearlier, Carpenter (1963) found out that the activity-type method wasparticularly effective with the slower-learning children. These resultsapparently relate to the hypothesis (para. 39) that low ability studentsare more dependent on concrete experiences than higher ability students.

C. Comparative Effects in the Non-cognitive Domains

52. Some of the studies cited above included components dealing withthe effect of practical activities on non-cognitive outcomes such assensory-motor skills, attitudes, critical thinking, and creativity. Inaddition, certain studies concentrated primarily on these dimensions.Ramsey and Howe (1969) refer to a number of studies in which attitudechange was found, although the change was not specifically sought. Theycite a study by Coulter who found that "inductive methods of teachingproduced significantly greater attainment of scientific attitudes and morepositive attitude to instruction than did deductive methods." On the basisof this and other references, they conclude that "it seems that an

-24-

inductive problem-solving, laboratory-centered approach can be expected toproduce significant positive changes in student attitudes." In anotherstudy aimed at decermining which laboratory practices contribute most to anunderstanding of the methods and aims of science, and an improvedscientizic attitude, Waltz (1970) found out that: (a) none of thebehavioral practices investigated contributed to a better attitude towardscience; and (b) none of the practices contributed to a betterunderstanding of the methods and aims of science. Novick and Duvdvani(1976) compared students involved with traditional curricula and thosestudying the new curricula (the Israeli version of BSCS, CHEM Study, and/orPSSC all of which are crommitted to improving attitudes toward science) andconcluded that "the expected improvement in science attitudes resultingfrom exposure to the new curricula has not been realized." In studying theeffect of open-ended experiments on attitudes towards science, Leanneck(1967) compared open-ended experimentation in the teaching of junior highschool general science versus laboratory exercises structured to verifyscientific principles and concepts and utilizing the same amount oflaboratory time as the other method. Both groups of students were aboveaverage in intellectual ability and reading comprehension. Based on theevidence collected from this study, open-ended experiments did not seem tohave any effect in enhancing the development of attitudes of studentstoward science. Furthermore, there was no significant difference betweenthe two groups on a test of laboratory skills. White and Tisher (1985)refer to a study by Milson in which "giving,students with readingdifficulties the chance to work in the science laboratory improved theirattitude to science class and to the laboratory, but not to the scienceteacher,.the topic, or the school."

53. Regarding problem-solving skills, ,Nasca (1965) investigated theeffect of three methods of presenting laboratory exercises withinprogrammed materials on the abilities of junlor high school students inscience problaJm-solving. The three methods of presentation were: actualperformance of laboratory activities, reading about activities, andobserving a teacher demonstrate the activities. It was found that themethod of presentation had no significant effect upon the specific orgeneral abilities in problem-solving of eighth-grade students in thescience topics of work and energy. Sorenson (1966),investigated thechange in critical thinking as a result of laboratory-centered andlecuture/demonstration-centered patterns of instruction in high schoolbiology in ten classes per method. The results showed a significant changein critical thinking and understanding of science only by students in thelaboratory-centered classes.

54. In the psychomotor domain, some studies cited earlier indicatedthe expected advantage of the manipulative approach over the demonstration,non-manipulative approach to practical activities regarding the developmentof specialized laboratory skills (Pella and Sherman, 1969; Yager andothers, 1969; Lenneck, 1967). Moreover, an increase in the frequency oflaboratory experiments improves the acquisition of these skills (Grosmark,1973). In an exploratory study of specific psychomotor abilities inselected secondary science classrooms of Detroit, Michigan, Sullivan (1972)compared ninth-grade students having the laboratory-oriented sciencecourse, IPS, with students not having such a course. His interest was inobserving any differences in the rate of development of certain psychomotorabilities (motor coordination, manual dexterity, finger dexterity). His

-25-

analysis of covariance revealed no relationships reaching the .05 level ofsignificance and all null hypotheses were not rejected. It is worthy tonote that, in all cases, the sample tested in the research project scoredlower than the national sample of the same age that was used to standardizethe tests.

D. Individualized Instruction

55. The inability of the science curriculum programs of the 1960s toimprove student attitudes toward science (Burkman, 1974; Dickson, 1972;Yager, 1976) was a major criticism. One aspect of this criticism was thatthese science curricula were designed for the above average student and didnot take into account the interest and abilities of average.and belowaverage students (Dickson, 1972). This generated the impetus for thecommencement of such programs as ISCS (Intermediate Science CurriculumStudy) and ISIS (Individualize,d Science Instruction System) which provideindividualized instruction at the seventh- to ninth-grade and the tenth- totwelfth-grade levels, respectively (Burkman, 1974). Both of these programsfollow a model of a "linear mainstream flow" of the core content withbranches into remedial or skill acquisition areas and into high interest orenrichment areas. By allowing the student to proceed at his own pace,these programs aim to provide mastery of content and skills for allstudents and to give those that are above average higher experiencesthrough advanced "excursions." Such programs emphasize a laboratory-centered approach assuming that a concrete, hands-on strategy will allowthe maximum-amount of content learning for that maj6rity of students whoare at the Piagetian concrete operational level of development (para. 39).Another laboratory-centered project, SPS (Studies in the Physical Sciences)provides elementary students with an audio-tutorial system ofindividualized instruction (Butzow, 1973). This system, using tapes andfilm loops, has been shown to allow students more time for study, therebyincreasing their retention of content (Kuhn, 1972).

56. Although Kuhn (1972) considers individualized instruction anunquestionable trend in science education, few studies have attempted to testthe validity of its ambitious goals of self-directedness. Of thes,e studies,James (1972) compared student outcome between classes which experiencedindividualized and group science instruction. He found no significantdifference in the achievement of the two groups. Shymansky (1976) collecteddata that suggested that lengthy one-to-one 'teacher-student interactions mayactually distract the student and result in reduced productivity and learningeffectiveness.

E. Are the Effects of Practical Activities Elusive?

57. In spite of the above research results, recent literaturecontinues to reflect positions and affirmations by science educators andprofessional associations that laboratory work has definite positivecontributions. The 1980-81 Board of Directors of the American NationalScience Teachers Association (NSTA) unanimously adopted a PositionStatement (1982) endorsing "the necessity of laboratory experiences forteaching and learning in science." Blosser (1980) raises the followingquestion: "If we believe that laboratory work produces such contributions,why are we unable to do a better job of gathering evidence that supports

-26-

our belief?" Blosser attributes this situation to factors dealing with thecomplexity of the real world of the schools in which the research takesplace. Moreover, Lunetta et. al. (1981) pointed out that "researchershave not comprehensively examined the effects of laboratory instructionupon student learning and growth; thus, we simply don't know enough aboutthe importance and/or effects of laboratory teaching..." They advocate theutilization of evaluation procedures that are appropriate to reflect theobjectives of laboratory work. In addition, Bates (NSTA PositionStatement, 1982) underscored the diversity of laboratory experience, "alldiffering significantly in function, structure, expected outcomes, andmethods of assessment," concluding that it is difficult to interpretresearch concerning the laboratory because of the "failure of almost allstudies to define explicitly what is meant by the 'laboratory' ."

IX. Summary and Conclusions

58. The general acceptance of practical activities as a central partof science education is based on the assumptions that practical activities:(a) fulfill the objectives of science teaching, particularly those ofinquiry, discovery, and scientific thinking, (b) are derived from theexperimental nature of science, (c) are justified on psychological andpedagogical grounds, and (d) have superior effects on cognitive andnoncognitive outcomes. The examination of these assumptions has led to thefollowing conclusions.

59. Science curriculum objectives have evolved over time from thesimple acquisition of knowledge to scierntific inquiry, problem-solving,development of scientific attitudes, and finally, the application ofscience to the needs of society. With the shift of emphasis fromacquisition of knowledge to other objectives that stress the process ofscience, the role of practical activities (mainly the laboratory) evolvedfrom a means of demonstrating and verifying certain aspects of the subjectmatter to becoming the major source of data for concept formation and theconveyer of the methods and spirit of science.

60. The objectives now sought via practical activities pose a numberof issues. First, the scope and variation of these objectives are out ofproportion with the limited experience and exposure provided by practicalactivities, no matter how efficiently and effectively they are carried out.The imbalance can be easily detected from the summary of stated laboratoryobjectives reviewed by Shulman and Tamir (1973):

Skills: e.g., manipulative, inquiry, investigative,organizational, communicative;

Concepts: e.g., hypothesis, theoretical model, taxonomiccategory;

Cognitive abilities: e.g., critical thinking, problem-solving, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation,decisionmaking, creativity;

-27-

Understanding the nature of science: e.g., the scientificenterprise, the scientists and how they work, the existenceof multiplicity of scientific methods, the interrelationshipbetween science and technology and among the variousdisciplines of science; and

Attitudes: e.g., curiosity, interest, risk taking,,objectivity, precision, confidence, perseverance,satisfaction, responsibi'lity, consensus and collaboration,liking science.

Second, a number of objectives are not exclusively limited to practicalactivities as they are equally claimed by expository methods and secondaryinquiry techniques (described in para. 67), while others seem to be equallyrelated to other disciplines and 'even to out-of-school influences. Third,the fulfillment of the above objectives is not guaranteed by the presenceof-practical activities, or enhanced by their frequency. The crucialelement is their nature, mode, and characteristic: conditions that aredifficult to implement and monitor.

61. in'addition to the above, regular practical activities fail tocontribute to the humanistic objectives of science in relating science toreal-life situations (para. 20). In this regard, a laboratory experiment(even the inquiry type) appears as "simple, sometimes elegant, nearlyalways work&, and has a generally accepted result" (Hurd, 1975). Thesocietal ob"ectives of science teaching imply basic modifications in themode and fiunctions of practical activities along the following lines:

(a) Afintegration of scidnce and technology sizce 'the "lookingat'complex phenomena involving both man-made and naturalsituations is likely to cultivate a scientific attitude andan understanding of the relationships involved" (Ahmed,1977).

(b) A focus on broad-based problems which require gathering andprocessing of information from a variety of resources (Hurd,1975).

(c) An emphasis on environmental activities involving fieldobservation, exploration, and experimentation.

(d) An application of the functional, rather than the analytical,approach in the performance of an activity. For instance, inrural areas attention will be focused on problems such asfood, nutrition, health, sanitation, and crop protection(Ahmed, 1977).

(e) A broadening of the setting and facilities used in practicalactivities.

62. The second assumption is that science teaching reflects the verynature of science as being empirical and experimental. It is true that theprocess of science includes empirical activities and experimental settingto collect facts, test relations, and verify predictions from laws and

theories. But science is not limited to this domain. It includes majorcomponents that are non-empirical, namely, conceptual schemes, assumptionsor beliefs, social organization of the scientific enterprise, and elementsof interaction between science and society.

63. The nature of science in its broad context suggests severalimplications for the role of practical activities in science teaching:

(a) Practical activities are, by their nature, restricted to alimited sector of the scientific enterprise, namely, theempirical processes, and therefore cannot provide a balancedand comprehensive view of science.

(b) Experimentation has a limited role in the collection ofscientific facts (observation, classification, andmeasurement) provided these processes are guided byconceptual schemes.

(c) In the process of induction for the formulation of conceptsand laws (Figure 3), the role of experiments is negligible.Since the formation of a concept or a relation requiresobservation of a wide range of events, performing anexperiment hardly contributes to this process. "Contrary tocommon educational practice and expectation, experiments donot facilitate the formation of concepts" (Kreitler andKreitler, 1974).

(d) Practical activities can have a significant role indemonstrating deductions from laws or theories. In this casea demonstrAtion follows the formation of a concept and helpsturn the abstract into the concrete. On the other hand,experiments can illustrate the process of verification inboth the minor and major cycles (Figures 3 & 4). However,due to the level of sophistication and margin of experimentalerror, these experiments cannot be considered as part of theactual cycle for the establishment of the credibility of alaw or theory.

(e) While practical activities have no role in the formulation oftheories, some theories can be demonstrated by models asuseful tools of illustration and not as replicas of reality.

(f) Practical activities cannot provide the opportunity toretrace the steps of a scientist. Moreover, the goals of ascience student are not the same as the goals of a scientist(Ausubel, 1964).

(g) The restricted role of practical activities can by achievedby a small number of demonstrations and experiments which canbe simple enough as not to require sophisticated equipment ora high degree of manipulative skills.

-29-

64. The third assumption is that practical activities in sciencereflect the nature of learning and the heuristics of discovery andproblem-solving. On the basis of psychological theories of cognition andlearning as well as research findings, certain conclusions may beformulated. First, as Karplus (1964) states, "the concrete experiencesmust be presented in a context that helps to build a conceptual framework.Then, and only then, will the early learning form a base for theassimilation of experiences that come later, experiences that may involvedirect observation or the report of observations made by others." Second,learning by discovery is not a necessary condition for meaningful learning,and expository teaching and perception learning can be meaningful. Third,practical activities cannot be the basis for. concept formation in sciencebecause of their limited nature and because "ultimately, the relevantconcept has to exist as an abstract concept if it is to be fullyoperational or nmaneuverable in the mind" (Lovell, 1971). They can,however, help "in turning the abstract into the concrete. In this role,when performed - or imagined - after the essentiial phases of conceptformation have been completed, the experiment may fulfill also theillustrative function, suggested by the concept formation methods, and thefunction of concretization required by the expository method of teaching"(Kreitler and Kreitler, 1974). Fourth, while practical activities may aidin testing alternative solutions and in training for specific scientificskills, they may be useless or even harmful in teaching some aspects of theheuristics of discovery and problem-solving. Finally, practical activitiesare certainly not the only means to evoke curiosity and perhaps not thebest to maintain it at the adolesceht level. Figure 5 shows schematicallythe different possibilities.

Figure 5: RECEPTION AND DISCOVERY LEARNING CONTINUUM AS DISTINCTA FROM ROTE LEARNING AND MEANINGFUL LEARNING CONTINUUM

Meaningful Clarification of Well-designed ScientificLearning relationships audio-tutorial research,

between concepts instruction new music orarchitecture

Lectures on most Most routinetextbook "research" orpresenLations intellectual

production

School laboraLory work

School laboratory work

Rote Multipiic~ation Applying formulas Trial & errorLearning tables to solve problems ,puzzle"solutions

ReceDtion Guided AutonomousLearning Discoverv DiscovervT Learning Learning

SourA:e; Novak, 1977.

-30-

65. The final assumption is that practical activities in scienceteaching are more effective than other modes of delivery in terms of thecognitive and noncognitive perfcrmance of students. The results of anextensive body of research indicate that, in general, practical activities(demonstrations and laboratory exercises) provide no measurable advantageover other modes of instruction exzept in the development of certainmanipulative laboratory skills. Similarly, Blosser (1980), an the basis ofan extensive review of the literature, states that we have "insufficientevidence upon which to make unequivocal statements about the role andeffectiveness of laboratory work in science teaching."

66. While practical activities in science teaching seem to beimportant for elementary school puplls at the concrete stage ofdevelopment, and for low ability scudents who depend on concreteexperiences, their role in other inatances is not as apparent. In fact,earlier discussions in this paper seem to suggest, within the limitationsof the tentativeness of the theories of psychology and empirical research,that the fulfillment of the broad objectives of science teaching requiresan integrated strategy that encompasses the different elements ofeducational inputs in which practical activities play a limited role.Within this strategy, the primary channel for transmitting the content ofscience is a qualified teacher who uses meaningful expository methods ofteaching and a well-written textbook. On the other hand, the primary roleof demonstration is to illustrate scientific facts and laws, concretizeconcepts, and raise curiosity. Likewise, the role of the laboratory islimited to the primary responsibility of transmitting certain aspects ofthe nature of science and the heuristics of leTarning and problem-solving.

67. This conclusion has certain implications. First, practicalactivities need to be selective and restricted to areas that cannot betreated by more cost- and time-effective modes of delivery. Hence,students should not use many valuable hours in the laboratory collectingand manipulating data to "discover" principles that could be presented bythe teacher or read in a book in a matter of minutes. Similarly,laboratory activities should not be used to illustrate concepts whereteacher demonstration may be as effective but less consuming in time andmoney. Second, to achieve their role, practical activities do notnecessarily require highly sophisticated equipment and structured settings.There is so much in the world of nature and technology that students canobserve, analyze, and experiment with that schools do not need to relysolely on kits and standard materials. Reporting for the biology workinggroup of Project Synthesis and in reference to equipment, supplies, andfacilities Hurd (1981) states that "The desired biology program does notplace a demand on acquiring new equipment, supplies, or facilities. What isrequired is the greater use of the natural environment, communityresources, and the students themselves as object of study." Finally, therestricted role of the laboratory has an effect on the planning of physicalfacilities of a school, as there are cases where the proportion of time, ina science course, allocated to formal laboratory activities isunnecessaril- high.

-31-

68. Even in areas such as inquiry and appreciation of tihe nature ofscience, where practical activities are expected to hava an advantage overother modes of teaching, other types of activities are being pioneered.A certain technique of secondary inquiry has been introduced (Schwab, 1960)in which three patterns of methods are employed. First, narration is usedto introduce a dramatic phenomenon, formulate a problem, describe resultsof experiments, and reach the climax theory that is meant to explain thatphenomenon. Second, through discussion, alternative formulations ofproblems and experimental patterns are reviewed and assumptions,principles, and interpretations are debated. Finally, actual reports ofinquiries and original papers are employed to provide a first-hand contactwith scientific reporting.

69. While certain components of the scientific enterprise can beillustrated by practical concrete activities, a wider array of techniquesand "activities" has been developed to promote an understanding of thebroad and multi-dimensional nature of science. One technique is to usecase histories in science, which use a historical narrative to illustratethe different aspects of the nature of science, as well as to teachspecific concepts. Case studies permit the exploration of the multi-faceted nature of science: concepts, processes, assumptions, socialorganization, interaction with society, and technological implications.Sarton (1952), a historian of science, states that the history of science"can be used to fulfill the main purpose of our teaching, to wit, toexplain the meaning of science, its functions, its methods, its logical,psychological and social implications, its deep humanity..." Harvard CaseHistories in Experimental Science, (Conant, 1957) History of Science Cases(Klopfer, 1964) and Harvard Project Physics (Holton, 1967) are examples ofsuch an approach. It is interesting to note'that.a study.by Oliver showsthat teaqhin.g through "History of Science Cases" resulted in significantgains on the Test on Understanding Science compared to control groups.(Ramsey and Howe, 1969). Another sechnique is to supplement a regularscience course with original research papers. "Among the many rewards tobe gained from the student's first-hand contact with original scientificwriting are the genuine excitement in seeing fundamental discoveriesthrough the eyes of their discoverers, the humanizing enrichment inbecoming acquainted with the personalities of great scientists..." (Baumeland Berger, 1965). A third technique is to provide students with simulatedsituations or vicarious experiences in how a scientist goes about solvingproblems. A typical case requires the student to outline an experiment,make hypotheses, interpret (and not collect) data, and draw conclusions.These activities can be changed into active involvement by using them tosuggest open-ended experiments. Such activities under the title"Invitations to Inquiry" have been developed by BSCS (1963).

70. Finally, simulating games provide students with opportunities forvicarious experiences at low cost. The National Science TeachersAssociation of the United States published a book entitled Games for theScience Classroom: An Annotated Bibliography. It lists information about130 games that met the criteria for inclusion. In presenting the rationaleat the beginning of the book, it is stated that "numerous game theoristsclaim that simulation gaming cani teach factual knowledge to includespecific terms, concepts, facts, or relationships between items. Forexample, certain science games may be designed to teach the names of labequipment, the concept of food chains, the processes associated with

-32-

science in general, or the relationships of the cell organelles with theirfunctions... Games do provide students with opportunities to utilize theknowledge learned in an active manner." It is also stated that "manytheorists also maintain that students may increase their critical-thinkingand decision-making skills during the play of certain types of games."(Hounshell & Trollinger, 1977). From the descriptions presented one mayconclude that games lend themselves quite well to the teaching-learningsituation at the elementary level especially since they arelnterdisciplinary in nature, requiring the utilization of skills fromlanguage, social studies, math, and science. They may also include manyprocesses of science such as observing, classifying, inferring,interpreting data, .uestioning, and predicting.

71. Ellington and Percival (1,977) have referred to a great deal ofinterest and enthusiasm regarding the potential contribution of simulationin the teaching of the pure sciences. After presenting a rationale to theeffect that science teaching has so far failed to realize its non-cognitiveobjectives, they suggest the.use of simulation games to supplementtraditional science teaching methods. One of the two simulation games thatwere examined by the authors, The Amsyn Problem, uses the chemical industryas a means for developing skills in problem-solving, decisionmaking, andfor inculcating attitudes such as the realization and appreciation thatscience has limitations in solving certain types of problems. Thisspecific role-playing simulation exercise has been used' with uppersecondary and college students. Lunetta&and Hofstein (1981), in a paper toclassify and define different modes of simulation Jin science teaching andto review research and procedures for proper use of simulation techniques,described simulation as '"the process of interacting with a model thatrepresents reality.!' They discus'sed six modes ,of simulation that areappropriate for use in science teaching along a static-dynamic continuum.At one end, students collect data from science texts, projected images offilms or film loops. At the other end, students are asked to develop theirown model to simulate a phenomenon or system. Although Lunetta andHofstein point out that there is a need for careful research into theeffectiveness of simulations, they view simulations as providing "vicariousexperiences that can facilitate the understanding of topics that are toocomplex, dangerous, expensive, or time-consuming to bring into thelaboratory or the classroom." From another angle, the role of computers inteaching certain aspects of science that have traditionally been expectedof the science laboratory has not been adequately developed (Rowe, 1979;Lehman, 1985).

72. Before concluding this paper, reference should be made to a newdevelopment in research about the laboratory, in which research questionsemphasize what actually goes on in the laboratory rather than the outcomesof the laboratory work. Studies involving detailed investigations aboutstudents' actions and perceptions in the laboratory are expected tocontribute to a greater understanding of the role of the laboratoryactivities in learning (White and Tisher, 1986). Similarly, in theirreview of the history, goals, and findings of research regarding thelaboratory as a medium of instruction, Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) pointedout that the "research has failed to show simplistic relationships betweenexperiences in the laboratory and student learning." They then suggestthat research "must now be done on specific conditions and strategies oflaboratory work, on their effects on a range of learning outcomes, and ontheir interactions.."

-33-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahmed, Tais. "Science Education in the Rural Fnvironment" Bulletin of theUnesco Regional Office,for Education in Asia (June 1977), pp. 183-192.

Anderson, R.D. "Physical Science Education", in N.C. Harms and R.E. Yager(eds.) What Research Says to the Science Teacher, Vol. 3. Washington,D.C.: National Science Teachers A,ssociationi, 1981, pp. 33-52.

Andriette, W.R. "Differences in Retention Between Populations of Seventh GradeScience Students Taught by Two Methods of Instruction: Small GroupLaboratory and Teacher Demonstrations" Dissertation Abstracts 31(06)(1970), p. 2573.

Ausubel, David P. "Some Psychological and Educational Limitations of Learningby Discovery" The Arithmetic Teacher (May 1964), pp. 290-302.

-. Educational Psycholog: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968.

Babikian, Y. "The Relative Effectiveness of Discovery, Laboratory, andExpository Methods of Teaching" Ph.D. Dissertation. Los Angeles:University of California, 1970.

Barber, Bernard. Science and the Social Order. New York: Collier Books, 1952.

Bailey, O.G. "A Comparison of Achievement in the Concepts of Fundamenta4_s ofChemistry of Eleventh-Grade Senior Physi,cal Science Students Taught byLaboratory Versus Enriched Lecture-Demonstration Methods of Instruction"Dissertation Abstracts 26(03) (1964), p. 1442.

Bates, G.C. "The Role of the Laboratory in Secondary School Science Programs" inM.B. Rowe (ed.) What Research Says to the Science Teacher Vol. 1. IWashington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1978, pp. 55-82.

Baumel, Howard B. and J. Joel Berger. "Teaching from Research Papers: AnApproach to Teaching Science as a Process" The Science Teacher (April1965), pp. 29-311

Berliner, D.C. and N.L. Gage. "The Psychology of Teaching Methods" in N.L.Gage, (ed.). The Psychology of Teaching'Methods--The Seventy-fifthYearbook of the NSSE, Part I. Chicago: The National Society for the Studyof Education, 1976, pp. 1-20.

Berlyne, Daniel. "An Experimental Study of Human Curiosity" British Journal ofPsychology 45 (1954), pp. 254-265.

Biological Science Curriculum Study (Joseph Schwab and others); BiologyTeacher's Handbook. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963.

-. High School Biology BSCS Green Version Teacher's Guide. Chicago:Rand McNally and Company, 1964.

-34-

Blomberg, K.J. "A Study of the Effectiveness of Three Methods for TeachingScience in the Sixth Grade" Dissertation Abstracts 35(06) (1974),p. 3290.

Blosser, P.E. "What Research Says: The Role of the Laboratory in ScienceTeaching." School Science and Mathematics 83(2) (1983), pp. 165-169.

- -. A Critical Review of the Role of the Laboratory in ScienceTeaching. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Center for SMEAC, 1980.

Boothe, N. "The Impact of Science Teaching Projects on Secondary Education"Education in Science 63 (Junq 1975), pp. 27-30.

Brandwein, P.F. "Observations on Teaching: Overload and the Methods of.Intelligence" The Science Teacher 36(2) (1969), pp. 38-40.

Brinckerhoff, R.F. and Yager, R.E. (eds.) Exeter II Conferences. Washington,D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1986.

Bruner, J.S. "The Act of Discovery" Harvard Education Review 31(1) (1961),pp. 21-32.

Burkman, E. "New Directions for the High School Science Program" The ScienceTeacher 39(2) (1972), pp. 42-44.

Bullock, L. "Science--A Tarnished Image?" The School Science Review 57(201)(1976), pp. 621-627.

Butterfield, Herbert. The Origins of Modern Science 1300-1800. New York:The Macmillan Company, 1950.

Butts, D.P. "The Degree to Which Children Conceptualize from ScienceExperiences" Dissertation Abstracts 23(07) (1962), p. 2418.

" iScience Education" -in Mitzel, H.E. (ed.) Encyclopedia ofE&szcational Research Fifth Edition. New York: The Free Press (MacLillan)1982, pp. 1665-1675.

Butzow, J.W. "Individualizing Physical Science" Science Education 57 (1973),pp. 493-497.

Carleton, R. and others. In N.B. Henry (ed.). Rethinking Science Education: TheFifty-ninth Yearbook of the NSSE - Part I. Chicago: The National Societyfor the Study of Educacion, 1960, pp. 152-171.

Carpenter, R. "A Reading Method and an Activity Method in Elementary ScienceInstruction" Science Education 47 (1963), pp. 256-258.

Charen, G. "Do Laboratory Methods Stimulate Critical Thinking?" ScienceEducation 54 (1970), pp. 267-261.

Commonwealth Secretariat. Report of the Seventh Commonwealth EducationConference. London: 1977..

Conant, J.B. Science and Common Sense. New Haven: Yale University Press,1951.

-35-

- -(ed.). Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science. Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1957.

Cravats, M. "A Study of the Value of Laboratory Exercises in a General ScienceClass of Low IQ Students in New York City" Dissertation Abstracts 29(07)(1968), p. 2133.

Cunningham, H.A. "Lecrure Demonstration Versus Individual Laboratory Method inScience Teaching--A Summary" Science Education 30 (1946), pp. 70-82.

Curtis, F.D. A Digest of the Investigations in the Teaching of Science.Philadelphia: Blakiston's Sons and Company, 1926, 1931, 1939.

Deiderich, Paul B. "Components of the Scientific Attitude" The Science Teacher(February 1967), pp. 23-24.

Dickson, W.P. "Elitism in Science Education Research" Journal of Research inScience Teaching 9(2) (1972), pp. 175-176.

Dorn, W. "Simulation Versus Models: Which One and When?" Journal of Researchin Science Teaching 12(4) (1975), pp. 371-377.

Education Policies Commission. Education and the SDirit of Science. Washington,D.;C.: National Education Association, 1966.

Egelston, J. "Inductive Versus Traditional Methods of Teaching High SchoolBiology Laboratory Experiments" Science Education 57 (1973), pp. 467-477.

Ellington, H.I. and F. Percival. "Education 'Through' Science UsingMulti-disciplinary Simulation-Games" Programmed Learning and EducationalTechnology 14(2) (1977), pp. 117-126.

Fischer, R.B. Science, Man and Society. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company,1971.

Forgy, E.L. and M.E. Bakken. "Individualized Chemistry Through IAC -- TheRacine Experiment" Journal of Chemical Education 53 (1976), pp. 309-317.

Gardner, P.L. "Science and the Structure of Knowledge" in P.L. Gardner (ed.).The Structure of Science Education. Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia:Australia Pty. Ltd., 1975.

Gayley, M. "Development of Inquiry Through Television in First Grade Science"Dissertation Abstracts 31(09) (1971), p. 4576.

Gega, P.C. "Directions--Elementary School Science" Teacher (November 1976),pp. 59-61.

Glovinsky, S.J. "The Status and Extent of Non-Laboratory Science Courses in theScience Education Program of Secondary Schools in Selected Major SchoolSystems of the United States" Dissertation Abstracts 23(03) (1962),p. 952.

Goodlad, J.I. "'What Goes On In Our Schools?" Educational Researcher 6(3)(1977), pp. 3-6.

-36-

Gould, C.D. "Practical Work in Sixth-form Biology" Journal of BiologicalEducation 12(1) (1978), pp. 33-38.

Grabber, A.H. "An Investigation of the Comparative Effectiveness ofDeductive-Expository and Inductive-Discovery Teaching Strategies inAcquisition and Retention of Science Concepts, Principles and Processes"Dissertation Abstracts 35(04) (1975), p. 1157.

Grassel, E.M. "An Evaluation of Educational Films in the Teaching of HighSchool Physics in Oregon" Dissertation Abstracts 21(04) (1960), p. 820_

Grosmark, F.W. "The Relationship Between Achievement and Laboratory Skills tothe Number of Experiments Performed by the High School Chemistry Student"Dissertation Abstracts 34(06) (1973), p. 3176.

Haver-Schiam, U. "The PSSC Course" Phys cs Today (March 1976), pp. 26-31.

Haddad, Wadi D. and others. Physical Science: A Source Book for Teachers.Beirut: Ministry of National Education, 1971.

- - . "Interaction Between Science and Society in the Arabic Press ofthe Middle East" Science Education, 58(1) (1974), pp. 35-49.

A Haggis, Sheila. "Science Education in National Development" The Science Teacher39(2) (1972), pp. 49-51.

Haley, S.B. -and R.G. Hood. "Concrete and Formal Operational Thought:Implications for Introductory Biology" American Biology Teacher 38(7)(1976), pp. 407-412.

Harbeck, M.B. (ed.). Second Sourcebook for Science Supervisors. Washington,D.C.: National Science Supervisors Association (an affiliate of NationalScience Teachers Association), 1976.

Henry, N.W. "Objectives for Laboratory Work" in P.L. Gardne' (ed.). TheStructure of Science Education. Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia: AustraliaPty. Ltd., 1976, pp. 61-75.

Hofstein, A. and Lunetta, V.N. "The Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching:Neglected Aspects of Research." Review of Edu-ational Research 52(2)(1982), pp. 201-217.

Holton, Gerald. "Harvard Project Physics" Physics Today (March 1976),pp. 31-34.

Hounshall, P.B. and I.R. Trollinger. Games for the Science Classroom: AnAnnotated Bibliography. Washington, D.C.: National Science TeachersAssociation, 1977.

Howe, A. and J. Johnson. "Intellectual Development and Elementary Science: SomeImplications from Piagetian Research" Science and Children 13(2) (1975).

Hurd, Paul D. "Science, Technology, and Soc.iety: New Goals forInter-disciplinary Science Teaching" The Science Teacher 42(2) (1975).

-37-

--- -. "Biology Education", in N.C. Harms and R.E. Yager (edt..). WhatResearch Says to the Science Teacher, Vol. 3 Washington, D.C.: NationalScience Teachers Association, 1981, pp. 12-32.

Hurd, Paul D. and P.G. Johnson. "Problems and Issues in Science Education" inHenry, N.B. (ed.). Rethinking Science Education. The Fifty-ninth Yearbookof the NSSE - Part I. Chicago: The National Society for the Study ofEducation, 1960, pp. 329-338.

- ----. "An Exploratory Study of the Impact of BSCS Secondary SchoolCurriculum Materials" The American Biology Teacher 38(2) (1976),pp. 79-85.

Indge, W.J.E. "The Potential for- Local Manufacture of School Science Equipmentand Related Problems" in Commonwealth Secretariat. Low-Cost ScienceTeaching Equipment. London: Commonwealth Secretariat, 1977.

Infeld. Leopold. Quest: The Evolution of a Scientist. New York: Doubleday,1941.

James, R.K. "A Comparison of Group and Individualized Instructional Techniquesin Seventh-Grade Science" Journal of Research in Science Teaching 9(1)(1972), pp. 91-96.

Jones, J5E. "Computer-Simulated Experiments in High School Physics andChemistry" Dissertation Abstracts 33(08) (1972), p. 4200.

Karplus, R. "The Science Curriculum Improvement Study" Journal of Res'earch inScience Teaching 2(4) (1964), pp. 293-303.

Kemeny, John G. A Philosopher Looks at Science. New York: Ban NostrandReinhold Company, 1959.

K-ilburn, R.E. "A Study of the Effects of Two Types of Science InstructionalMaterials on Student Achievement, Perceptions, Retention and ExtensionalLearning" Dissertation Abstracts 33(03) (1972), p. 1308.

Klopfer, Leopold E. "The Use of Case Histories in Science Teaching" SchoolScience and Mathematics (November 1964), pp. 660-666.

--. "Evaluation of Learning in Science" in B.S. Bloom and others,(eds.). Handbook of Formative and Summative Evaluations of StudentLearning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Kreitler, H. and S. Kreitler. "The Role of the Experiment in Science EducationInstructional Science 3 (1974), pp. 75-88.

Kuhn, D. "A Study of Information Acquisition in Individualized Instruction"Science Education 56 (1972), pp. 539-545.

Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University ofCh5cago Press, 1962.

-38-

Latham, J.W. "Factors Associated with the Per Cent of Science InstructionalTime Spent in Laboratory Investigations in the Maryland Public SecondarySchools" Dissertation Abstracts 31(06) (1970), p. 2756.

Lawson, A.E. and A. Blake. "Concrete and Formal Thinking Abilities in HighSchool Biology Students as Measured by Three Different Instruments"Journal of Research in Science Teaching 13(3) (1976), pp. 227-236.

-------- and J.W. Renner. "A Quantitative Analysis of Responses to PiagetianTasks and Its Implications for Curriculum" Science Education 58(2)(1974), pp. 545-559.

----. "Piagetian Theory and Biology Teaching" The American BiologyTeacher 37(6) (1975), pp. 336-343.

Lehman, David L. "Current Thinking in Adolescent Psychology: Implications forTeaching Science in High School" The Science Teacher (February 1976),pp. 13-16.

Lehman, J.R. "Survey of Microcomputer Use in the Science Classroom" SchoolScience and Mathematics, 85(7) (1985), pp. 578-83.

Lenneck, D. "Open-Ended Experiments in Junior High School Science: A Study ofTheir Effect on the Acquisition of Science Information, Laboratory Skillsand Attitudes Towards Science" Dissertation Abstracts 28(08) (1976),p. 3074.

Lockard, J.D. "Science Curriculum Developments in Foreign Countries" The* Science Teacher 37(7) (1970), pp. 22-25.

- -(ed.). Science and Mathematics Curricular DevelopmentsInternationally. College Park, Maryland: 1956-1974 Science TeachingCenter, University of Maryland, 1.975.

- -(ed.). Twenty Years of Science and Mathematics CurriculumDevelopment. College Park, Maryland: The International Clearinghouse ofthe University of Maryland, 1977.

Louwerse, F.H. "A Comparison of the Effects of Individual Student Experimentsand Teacher Demonstration of Experiments on Selected Learning Outcomes inSecondary School Science." Dissertation Abstracts International 43 (1982),p. 1915A.

Lovell, K. The Growth of Basic Mathematical and Scientific Concepts inChildren. London: University of London Press, 1971.

Lucas, A.M. and D.G. Chisman. A Review of British Science Curriculum Prolects.Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Information Analysis Center for SMEAC, 1973.

Lunetta, V.N. and A. Hofstein. "Simulations in Science Education" ScienceEducation, 65(3) (1981), pp. 243-252.

- -, A. Hofstein & G. Giddings. "Evaluating Science Laboratory Skills"The Science Teacher (January 1981), pp. 22-25.

-39-

Lynch, P.P. and Ndyetabura, V.L. "Practical Work in Schools: -An Examination ofTeachers' Stated Aims and the Influence of Practical Work According toStudents" Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20(7) (1983)pp. 663-671.

Marin, M. "A Comparison of the Performance of High School Physics Scudents UsingClosely Directed Experiments with that of Students Using Qpen EndedExperiments" Dissertation Abstracts 29(02) (1968), p. 515.

Martin, W.E. and others. "Facilities, Equipment, and Instructional Materialsfor the Science Program" in N.B. Henry (ed.). Rethinking ScienceEducation. The Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the NSSE - Part I. Chicago: TheNational Society for the Study of Education, 1960, pp. 229-257.

Maw, Wallace, and E.W. Maw. "Information Recognition by Children with High andLow Curiosity" Educational Research Bulletin 40 (November 1961),pp. 197-201.

McGuire, C. "Simulation Technique in the Teaching and Testing of Problem-SolvingSkills" Journal of Research in Science Teaching 13(2) (1976), pp. 89-100.

McLeod, R.J. "Tell Us Teacher--What is the Real Answer?" The Science Teacher43 (2) (1976), pp. 23-24.

Merrill, R.J. "The Science Curriculum, The Science Teacher and NSTA" TheScience Teacher 38(5) (1971), pp. 36-39 and 66-67.

- - - and D.W.,Ridgway. The CHEM Study Story. San F'rancisco:W.H. Freeman and Company, 1969.

Nasca, D.F. "Effect of Varied Presentations of Laboratory Exercises WithinPrograraned Materials on Student Ability to Apply Scientific Principles toProblem Situations" Dissertation Abstracts 27(03) (1965), p. 709.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. Science Objectives for 1972-73Assessment. Denver, Colorado: National Assessment of EducationalProgress, 1972.

National Science Foundation. "Current Activities and the Task Ahead" Report ofthe NSF PES/MIDS Project Directors' Meeting, September, 1974.

National Science Teachers Association. Planning for Excellence in High SchoolScienc'e. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1961.

- -. Theory Into Action. Washington, D.C.: National Science TeachersAssociation, 1964.

Nelson, Bessie E. "A Survey of Science Teaching in the Public ElementarySchools of the New England, the Mideast, and the Southwest Regions of theUnited States During the 1970-71 School Year" Dissertation Abstracts34(08) (1973), p. 4913.

Nelson, P.A. and G.B. Kelley. "The Use of Audiovisual Materials in ElementarySchool Science" Science Education 47(5) (1963), pp. 495-505.

-40-

Novak, Alfred. "Scientific Inquiry in the Laboratory" The American BiologyTeacher (May 1963), pp. 342-346.

Novak, Joseph D. "An Alternative to Piagetian Psychology for Science andMathematics Education" Science Education 61(4) (1977), pp. 453-477.

Novick, S. and D. Duvdvani. "The Relationship Between School and StudentVariables and the Attitudes Toward Science of Tenth-Grade Students inIsrael" Journal-of Research in Science Teaching 13(3) (1976), pp. 259-265.

NSTA Position Statement. "The Laboratory is Vital in Science Instruction in theSecondary School." The Science Teacher 49(2) (1982), pp. 20-23.

Nuffield Physics. Teacher's Guide I. London: Nuffield Foundation, 1966.

Ohrenberg, R.J. "The Effect of Laboratory and Simulated Activities Upon theAchievement and Retention of Sixth Grade Students Receiving Instruction onthe International System of Units" Dissertation Abstracts (1976),p. 5514A.

Oliver, M. "The Efficiency of Three Methods Of Teaching High School Biology"The Journal of Experimental Education 33(3) (1965), pp. 289-300.

Pella, M.O. "The Use of Laboratory Activities in Teaching General Science"School Science and Mathematics 52 (1552), pp. 119-125.

- --and J. Sherman, "A Comparison of Two Methods Utilizing LaboratoryActivities in Teaching the Course IPS"-School Science and Mathematics 69(1969), pp. 303-314.

-- and others. "The Use of the White Films in the Teaching ofPhysics" Science Education 46 (1962), pp. 6-21.

Penick, J.E. & Yager, R.E. "Science Education: New Concerns and Issues" ScienceEducation 70(4) (1986), pp. 427-431.

Presst, Brenda. "Science Education--A Reappraisal - Part II" The School ScienceReview 58(203) (1976), p. 203-209.

Ramsey, G.A. and R.W. Howe. "An Analysis of Research on InstructionalProcedures in Secondary School Science" The Science Teacher 36(3)(1969), pp. 62-70.

Riedel, F.A. "What, if Anything, Has Really Been Proved as to the RelativeEffectiveness of Demonstration and Laboratory Methods in Science?" SchoolScience and Mathematics 27 (1927), pp. 512-519 and 620-631.

Rogers, E.M. "The Aims of Science Teaching" in Nuffield Physics I. London:Longmans, 1966.

Rowe, M.B. "What's Wrong With Physics - Or Physics Teachers? The Science Teacher42(7) (1975), pp. 21-22.

Sarton, George. Horus: A Guide to the History of Science. New York: RonaldPress Company, 1952.

-41-

Schwab, Joseph. "Enquiry, The Science Teacher and the Educator" The ScienceTeacher (October 1960), p. 6-11.

Seidner, C.J. "Teaching with Simulation and Games" in N.L. Gage (ed.). ThePsychology of Teaching Method. The Seventy-fifth Yearbook of the NSSE.Part I. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education,pp. 217-251.

Shamos, M.H. "The Role of Major Conceptual Schemes in Science Education" TheScience Teacher 33 (1966), pp. 27-30.

Sherwood, R.D. and J.D. Herron. "Effect on Student Attitude: IndividualizedIAC Versus Conventional High School Chemistry" Science Education 70(1973) pp. 471-474.

Shulman, L.S. and P. Tamir. "Research on Teaching in the Natural Sciences" inR.M.W. Travers (ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching (second edition).Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973, pp. 1098-1148.

Shymansky, J.A. "How is Student Performance Affected by the One-to-OneTeacher-Student Interactions Occurring in an Activity-Centered ScienceClassroom?" Journal of Research in Science Teaching 13(3) (1976),pp. 259-265.

Sigel, B.D. and R. Raven. "The Effect of Manipulation on the Acquisition of theCompensatory Concepts of Speed, Force, and Work" Journal of Research inScience Teaching 8(4) (1970), pp. 373-378.

Sorenson, L.L. "Change in Critical Thinking Between Students inLaboratory-Centered and Lecture-Demonst Patterns ofInstruction in High School Biology" Dissertation Abstracts 26(11) (1966),p. 6567.

Sullivan, D.J. "An Exploratory Study of Specific Psychomotor Abilities inSelected Secondary Science Laboratory-Oriented Classrooms of Detroit,Michigan" Dissertation Abstracts 33(05) (1972), pp. 2090.

Sund, Robert B. and Leslie W. Trowbridge. Teaching Science by Inquiry.Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill Publishing Company, 1967.

Tamir, P. and V.N. Lunetta. "Inquiry Related Tasks in High School LaboratoryHandbooks" Science Education 65(5) (1981), pp. 477-484.

Tamir, P. and F. Glassman. "A Practical Examination for BSCS Students: AProgress Report" Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(4) (1971),pp. 307-315.

Toulmin, S. Human Understanding, Volume I: The Collective Use and Evolution ofConcepts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972.

Towler, J.O. and G. Wheatley. "Conservation Concepts in College Students: AReplication and Critique" Journal of Genetic Psychology 188 (1971),pp. 265-270.

Unesco Regional Office for Education in the Arab States, Science Education.Cairo: Unesco Regional Office for Education in the Arab States, 1971.

-42-

Unesco Regional Office for Education in Asia. Draft Final Repo+i of theRegional Workshop on Unesco/UNICEF/Assisted Projects in Science Educationin Asia. Bangkok: Unesco Regional Office for Education in Asia, 1968.

--- Science in Basic Functional Education. Bangkok: Unesco RegionalOffice for Education in Asia, 1975.

--. Science in Basic Functional Education. Bangkok: Unesco RegionalOffice for Education in Asia, 1977.

Vanek, E.A.P. "A Comparative Study of Selected Science Teaching Materials (ESS)and a Textbook Approach on Classificatory Skills, Science Achievement, andAttitudes" Dissertation Abstracts 35(03) (1974), p. 1522.

Van Deventer, W.C. "Evaluating Students' Understanding of Ideas in Junior HighSchool Science" The Science Teacher 37(8) (1970), pp. 51-54.

Vejdovec, W.E. "The Effects of Two Science Curriculum Approaches on theAchievement of Science Knowledge of Elementary Students" DissertationAbstracts 34(10) (1973), p. 6477.

Voelker, A.M. Research on Science Concept Learning: An Analysis. OccasionalPaper Series--Science Paper II. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Center for SMEAC,March, 1973.

Waltz, M.F. "Chemistry Laboratory Behaviors Affecting Scientific Understandingand Attitude Development" Dissertation Ab-stracts 31(05) (1970), p. 2210.

Watson, Fletchsr G. "Research on Teaching Science" in N.L. Gage (ed.). Handbookof Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand MacNally, 1963, pp. 1031-1059.

Welch, W.W. "Inquiry in School Science", in N.C. Harms and R.E. Yager (eds).What Research Says to the Science Teacher, Vol. 3. Washington, D.C.:National Science Teachers Association, 1981, pp. 53-72.

White, R.T. and Tisher, R.P. "Research on Natural Sciences." M.C. Wittrock(ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching (third edition). New York:MacMillan, 1986, pp. 874-9b5.

Yager, R.E. "Secondary Science Assessment: 1975 Assessment" High SchoolJournal 59(5) (1976), pp. 198-207.

- -and others. "Effects of the Laboratory and Demonstration MethodsUpon the Outcomes of Instruction in Secondary Biology" Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching 6 (1969), pp. 76-86.

-43-

sC=cz cURzcmTxx - F= l ZCTaN DZV=P=G COCU =

eiCi Ur *f ?rje: s1 ,e t Z

UA? A?R!C-- rn by InUt taee h -U -

la 5S3 34± W -PlreSW 6- LSS

rb"ts> 9-^omtrari;i~.ta9ta $ee CtleUj 1L.z

ZLiNiJ,clas

cuimaihLa

Bea Af r1.c. 5ecndary Al L5-1 -U4 ?Joe (VSSP) Chmmscr;

PbyeAAI

mb e IIAI.yy: - L ; .

er? teor"a Lbr£a:ry

LWUY tw;ra. (LZ1UFI ~assw,ty UA'eomcruxias

*MXU Ahi1d, tCaeeuiu&e ILGIei; Li- W 1=e12vcad Labweisery;,L"M£e.e Fiejet: (SI37 Oaan6tay; TieLd-

UgtnM ArRTC.A

ieSine Zainaa ruTr 6-Li 7saate' a; -DiY-t Airl" (WA) 0ac?y.:r"Its

PbyWicaa

teiz fit SJlcs laapmtad LL tarrrL"Agrac"

-tra%we Arum -LevL Slaa 3,41"I

Vz ALZI* 4,LaeJ i±.la -L - -

AfW1AAR P'r1AXy 5c4Amet prett tling17 5La - L-;(AM) ULM*a

N1.I 241 3ate±AL Rmsetae .1lLoyu: -; La.z- 71.1Acma±tl P" setes Chascry; Am4Lzr,ftyeua Latcersceg

Coaepc"aal;

SLasi Lm CuC. CAsu ASir*TCd SUIAa )tien;yr L1-L tugrat:e; Lab.wremv;(CU,) Chmm:ry; L z FL4;

Sourca: Iro acn derived fom Nin:h and Tenth Revo-s of theInter.ac:cmal Clearimmcouse Science and Mat,enacCScsC.Z:-C "um ZevsIovenc .CU,a:C, i9,7 an1 7

-44-

rW*A AaAt .4PiU

ft7.1*l Selwa (T1il O9:±.) "i±4 14, L.5fowr SW %&lowd Ube ?1e14;

(FPS?) CMe u ri Iformta slso UeA:J lila,DicpJi- awt

Yaw, Yaw- Sc e 5 a1. uSiloy; 6-15 -1a tab

ftysZ; lategrd; Drastr=I114wasary poes

Ly latearateA Scsace for Wa.Laea SeAioed .1-14 IaawrXa.d;t Labors7;Lw Se:r oa y S4:beo..I Pr.o*u; Doseatice

Cose.pcua1;

Kals7sta Meals 11al.gy, Q:m1a'ty, 11ol0.5; 15-17 D1.aS1imis- L.JwMat*ory;ftwyLe ?"je.ot C±ecry; e mravT Field;

?byuics C4uecusel; D- De±t..

NA14"ei, Neowra Gce.ra. Sc±.aw 11167: 1-17 'aer- Laboratory:ivdp1lizary;. u :rac±Cosegteal;Iaq.±ry

lisle" ; 1 Sm a : LS-17 Lab-at7;

QwaUtry; 4u.1ftysics

1*aa.sr. The winaar P7.t Project (79) Sc.o La - bratoey

siLgap.. L2r Seondary S4iasce liUol; I. 14 - Laboratory;Cuas.al D.'lopint rje C- nm.Lcry; ha;ld ;(LU) 7bysioe; Dowszra:1.e;

INYirw- Ssiou1ecion;vestal al.via±os

kisesc

Soeoas alads S.lome Lula.ds/Ua.eco Primary LoazaraeAd 3-1)4'S&isG.e (SIZA) ciceocs

"Le I a:sviree-

lS1 ses;

Z16cary

T1md The Ias:±tuca for the Pr.wcJ*u Blaolri. 61 o;rectd; -borscory;of taachii4u science and O~Me"stcy; Conecpcunl; Field.Tecuwalogy (121T) ?'¶7UICs; Lqiy . DcmLecra:1ad

(s2U) ctera;

Sc~eien..

Sclence

-45-

Ma *E PrlaL=A~.

za-^w ftelms f6c tZw~Tos "g " !wwA4y

la t ug h sAr s

fflit (7SJ CXA"eSt ?ULA;F

faze s Las ScsIseLa 'Atuba S4asme"S

timust *

kM hVfft (AtW) twt? rs<Sd

Kqs ils ?r.Isa few LteJ cgs" cono"t"I- L1Abwcsy7

ana &wu Seans.

!.a lwuela tt oc"la *swu; 3-LI Prwmemt-c Mratzia

JilsLufw*:w,m,s?u S?le

1z, Iis. ?aJa.s

ts A427t

Israel ~ iLs""Liselke Psulsa ~siaz7 12.6 m-L7.. 7

Zara au I "indw "rs1an ?"Isu? Lk-LaLqla ara

- rt ~ aas la elef Il.L IAmL? eias- fXfor swuwLamme $

Priam lab c &Lsws 8 hZoace? -T scLd;

Isal - w.eatPbe Prur ftlasL ALGU - wai.FtrV 5ein4a 5 tr

A

L*-. ms1a. ?lri sla t ISeaI: 5 - t-

Labin Pr aea LaeI w 1wje Zserrc S-L - ~ Leeaay

Lagawgs"e Se1 Z.1m Lasgracad LI-I - L.evctyPra3aes (UP) Sel. r7tsi: