ABSTRACT:The laboratory has been given a central and distinctive role in science education, and science educators have suggested that rich benefits in learning accrue from using laboratory activities. Twenty years have been elapsed since we published a frequently cited, critical review of the research on the school science laboratory (Hofstein & Lunetta, Rev. Educ. Res. 52(2), 201 -217, 1982). Twenty years later, we are living in an era of dramatic new technology resources and new standards in science education in which learning by inquiry has been given renewed central status. Methodologies for research and assessment that have developed in the last 20 years can help researchers seeking to understand how science laboratory resources are used, how students' work in the laboratory is assessed, and how science laboratory activities can be used by teachers to enhance intended learning outcomes. In that context, we take another look at the school laboratory in the light of contemporary practices and scholarship. This analysis examines scholarship that has emerged in the past 20 years in the context of earlier scholarship, contemporary goals for science learning, current models of how students construct knowledge, and information about how teachers and students engage in science laboratory activities.

The laboratory has been given a central and distinctive role in science education, and science educators have suggested that there are rich benefits in learning from using laboratory activities. At this time, however, some educators have begun to question seriously the effectiveness and the role of laboratory work, and the case for laboratory teaching is not as self-evident as it once seemed. This paper provides perspectives on these issues through a review of the history, goals, and research findings regarding the laboratory as a medium of instruction in introductory science teaching. The analysis of research culminates with suggestions for researchers who are working to clarify the role of the laboratory in science education.

No abstract

No abstract

While early approaches to curriculum evaluation focused upon student cognitive growth as the primary criterion of success or failure, more recently educators have recognized the importance of a number of other criteria. What are the effects of the curriculum upon student attitude, cognitive preference, and intellectual development? What are the effects of the curriculum upon the development of problem-solving skills and upon interpersonal communication skills? Some researchers now examine classroom transactions in attempting to assess the effects of curricula on a broader array of student outcomes. A third powerful and more economical approach to curriculum evaluation is content analysis. While analysis of the content of curriculum materials does not provide direct data on student growth, it does enable the researcher to ascertain the relationship between the actual materials and the stated goals of the curriculum developers and others. The purpose of this paper is to review and compare the results of content analysis studies of laboratory handbooks of selected high school science curricula. Brief comments are offered on implications of the reviewer's findings.Hurd (1 969) observed that in the laboratories (1 940-1960) "freedom to explore was replaced by specific directions on what to observe, measurements were frequently reported as data or as conclusions, and there was always the 'right' answer to the experiment." The developers of "new" science curricula in the 1960's appeared to be united in their conviction that the major function of the laboratory was to convey the method and spirit of scientific inquiry, to provide students with opportunities to investigate, to inquire and to find things out by themselves. This emphasis is in marked contrast to using the laboratory primarily as a place to illustrate, demonstrate, and verify known concepts and laws.