The new science programs for the secondary school assume the importance of the laboratory as a means for students to gain greater understanding of and experience with ~cience.l-~ The relative effectiveness of laboratory and demonstration approaches was a popular research area during the 1 9 3 0 '~.~-~ Most of these studies failed to establish that the laboratory approach was superior to the teacher demonstration procedure. As a result the laboratory was deemphasized, especially in general education science courses during the 1940's. However, achievement tests were the only measures used to determine the outcomes of instruction. These tests were largely contentcentered where there was a premium placed upon mastery of information.With the great interest in science instruction and science courses following World War I1 caused by the harnessing of nuclear power and the space race, the laboratory in the secondary school appeared once more as a central feature of the traditional science offerings. To practicing scientists and to well-trained, modern, and reflective science teachers, the laboratory is considered to be of central importance in characterizing science. In the national programs of evaluation that have been conducted it appears that research workers have ignored a basic question concerning the effects of the laboratory upon learning science.Two recent studies conducted by two independent investigators have produced conflicting results. Coulter reports little significant difference in use of laboratory when compared to teacher demonstrations in biology instruction.1° In this case the course of study and the same teacher were involved. I n a much larger study conducted by Sorenson 20 sections of biology students were studied.ll Ten sections experienced a lecture approach and ten a laboratory approach. Sixteen teachers were involved. The laboratory group displayed significantly greater growth in terms of critical thinking and understanding science and greater change in dogmatism. The lack of control of the teacher variable leaves the design of this study in question, especially in view of recent reports by Yager.lz' l 3 In a study appearing in 1947, Mallinson reports no difference in terms of achievement in general biology when two groups experienced the laboratory and a lecturedemonstration approach, re~pective1y.l~ Mallinson called for more research utilizing more careful controls. This study attempts to incorporate into the design the necessary controls. The ProblemWhat are the relative differences and the specific outcomes of instruction when secondary students study biology with a discussion approach only (called nonlaboratory group) with a discussion-demonstra-76

A significant task for students completing their high school education is determining what they will do during the next stage of their lives. For some, choosing an occupation and finding their first full-time job will be the major immediate challenges. For others, choosing a college and selecting a particular course of study will constitute the major decisionmaking goals at this stage. Clearly, no matter which path students choose to follow beyond high school, this is a time for important career decisions to be weighed and implemented.Despite the fact that these decisions, like most in life, are not irrevocable, they do carry with them a certain amount of pressure. This pressure is generated by expectations-sometimes unrealistic-of parents and educators as well as by a spectrum of peer-group anxieties tied to an unfortunate lack of reality testing.Counselors, by virtue of their central role and function in this area, are charged with helping students gather information, explore options, and consider alternative plans during this stage of career decision making. Teachers, parents, and friends playa part in this process, although their involvement is often a function of circumstance rather than prescription. Certain experiences, such as interesting classes, extracurricular and outof-school activities, and the results of various tests also often have a role in influencing the outcome of this transitional stage. Richard]. Noeth is director of admissions and guidance programs, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey. Harold B. Engen is an associate professor ofcounselor education, University ofIowa, Iowa City. Patricia E. Noeth is an information analyst, ERIC Clearinghouse, Educational Testing Service, Princeton. 240 THE VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE QUARTERLY

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract