Students’ Interaction and Its Relationship to Their Actions and Verbalized Knowledge during Chemistry Labwork

Michael Skoumios, Nicolaos Passalis

Department of Primary Education, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece.
Science Laboratory Center of Rhodes, Rhodes, Greece.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2013.41001                

Abstract

The present study focuses on the interaction of students during chemistry labwork and investigates its relationship with students’ actions that are related to the context of labwork and verbalized knowledge expressed by them. At first, labguides for chemistry labwork were designed and were implemented in three groups of 16-year-old students. The labwork process was videoed in each group of students. Each part of the half-minute videos was analyzed. The analysis identified the types of students’ interaction, the categories of their actions that are related to the context of labwork and the categories of their verbalized knowledge throughout the labwork. It emerged that there is a relationship among the types of students’ interaction, the categories of their verbalized knowledge and the categories of their actions that are related to the context of labwork. The results of this study affect the designing of labwork activities so that they can become more effective.

Keywords

Science Education; Chemistry Learning; Labwork; Students’ Interaction

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Abrahams, I., & Millar, R., (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1945-1969. doi:10.1080/09500690701749305
[2]	Becu-Robinault, K. (2002). Modelling activities of students during a traditional labwork. In D. Psillos, & H. Niedderer (Eds.). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 51-64). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[3]	Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55. doi:10.1002/sce.20286
[4]	Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Gunstone, R. F., & Loughran, J. J., (1999). Helping students learn from laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45, 27-31.
[5]	Bisdikian, G., & Psillos, D. (2002). Enhancing the Linking of theoretical Knowledge to physical phenomena by real-time graphing. In D. Psillos, & H. Niedderer (Eds.). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 193-204). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[6]	Blalock, H. M. (1987). Social statistics, Singapore City: McGraw-Hill.
[7]	Buty, C., Tiberghien, A., & Le Maréchal, J.-F. (2004): Learning hypotheses and an associated tool to design and to analyse teachinglearning sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 579-604. doi:10.1080/09500690310001614735
[8]	Buty, C. (2002). Modelling in geometrical optics using a microcomputer. In D. Psillos, & H. Niedderer (Eds.). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 231-242). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[9]	Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perez, J. A. (1998). The social construction of knowledge: Social marking and socio-cognitive conflict. In U. Flick (Ed.), The psychology of the social (pp. 77-90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[10]	Driver, R. H., Asoko, J., Leach, E., Mortimer, P., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom, Educational Researcher, 23, 5-12.
[11]	Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse, Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. doi:10.1080/03057260208560187
[12]	Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399-483. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
[13]	Erickson, B., & Nosanchuk, T. (1985). Understanding data. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
[14]	Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Refocusing the chemistry lab: A case for laboratory-based investigations. Australian Science Teacher Journal, 41, 26-32.
[15]	Giddings, G. J., Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1991). Assessment and evaluation in the science laboratory. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.). Practical science (pp. 167-178). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
[16]	Gunstone, R. F. (1991). Reconstructing theory from practical experience. In B. E. Woolnough, (Ed.), Practical science (pp. 67-77). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
[17]	Hodson, D. (1991) Practical work in science: Time for a reappraisal. Studies in Science Education, 19, 175-184. doi:10.1080/03057269108559998
[18]	H?gstr?m, P., Ottander, C. & Benckert, S. (2010). Labwork and learning in secondary school chemistry: The importance of teacher and student interaction. Research in Science Education, 40, 505-523. doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9131-3
[19]	Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201-217.
[20]	Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V, N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 88, 28-54. doi:10.1002/sce.10106
[21]	Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory—A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 47-62. doi:10.1080/0950069032000070342
[22]	Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Naaman-Mamlok, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 791-806. doi:10.1002/tea.20072
[23]	Hucke, L. & Fischer, H. E. (2002). The link of theory and practice in traditional and in computer-based university laboratory experiments. In D. Psillos, & H. Niedderer (Eds.). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 205-218). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[24]	Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94-130). New York: Macmillan.
[25]	Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B, & Higgins, E. T. (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 585-612. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.003101
[26]	Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In K. Tobin, & B. Fraser (Eds.). International handbook of science education (pp. 249-264). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4940-2_16
[27]	Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007), Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In N. Lederman, & S. Abel (Eds,), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393-441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[28]	McComas, W. E. (1997). The nature of the laboratory experience: A guide for describing, classifying and enhancing hands-on activities. CSTA Journal (spring), 6-9.
[29]	Millar, R., Tiberghien, A. & Le Maréchal, J. F. (2002). Varieties of labwork: A way of profiling labwork tasks. In D. Psillos, & H. Niedderer (Eds.). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 9-20). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[30]	Nakhleh, M. B., Polles, J., & Malina, E. (2002). Learning chemistry in a laboratory environment. In J. K. Gilbert et al., (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 69-94). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[31]	Niedderer, H., Tiberghien, A., Buty, C., Haller, K., Hucke, L., Sander, F., Fischer, H. E., Schecker, H. V., Aufschnaiter, S., & Welzel, M. (1998). Category Based Analysis of Videotapes from labwork (CBAV)—the method and results from four case studies. Working paper 9 from the European project labwork in science education (Targeted Socio-Economic Research Programme, Project PL 95-2005).
[32]	Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Interactive patterns and convergence of meaning during student collaborations in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 634-658. doi:10.1002/tea.20211
[33]	Osborne, J. (1993). Alternatives to practical work. School Science Review, 75, 117-123.
[34]	Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035
[35]	Pickering, M. (1980). Are lab courses a waste of time? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 19, 80.
[36]	Psillos, D., & Niedderer, H. (2002). Issues and questions regarding the effectiveness of labwork. In D. Psillos, & H. Niedderer (Eds.). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 21-30), Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[37]	Roth, W.-M. (2006). Learning science: A singular plural perspective. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
[38]	Rop, C. J. (1998). Student perspectives on success in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 221-237.
[39]	Roychoudhury, A., & Roth, W.-M. (1996). Interactional processes in a constructivist physics lab. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 423-445. doi:10.1080/0950069960180403
[40]	Sampson, V. (2009). The impact of argument-driven inquiry on three scientific practices. The Annual International Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Garden Grove, CA: National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
[41]	Sander, F., Schecker, H., & Niedderer, H. (2002). Computer tools in the lab—Effects linking theory and experiment. In D. Psillos, & H. Niedderer (Eds.). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 219-230). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[42]	Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab, & P. Brandwein (Eds.). The Teaching of Science, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[43]	Skoumios, M. (2009). The effect of sociocognitive conflict on students’ dialogic argumentation about floating and sinking. The International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4, 381-399.
[44]	Skoumios, M., & Hatzinikita, V. (2008). Investigating the structure and the content of pupils’ written explanations during science teaching sequences focused on conceptual obstacles. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 1, 135-155.
[45]	Skoumios, M., & Passalis, N. (2010). Chemistry laboratory activities: The link between practice and theory. The International Journal of Learning, 17, 101-114.
[46]	They?en, H. V., Aufschnaiter, S., & Schumacher, D. (2002). Development and evaluation of a laboratory course in physics for medical students. In D. Psillos, & H. Niederrer (Eds.). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 91-104). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[47]	Tiberghien, A. (2000) Designing teaching situations in the secondary school. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds). Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 27-47). Buckingham: Open University Press.
[48]	Tiberghien, A., Veillard, L., Le Maréchal, J. F., Buty, C., & Millar, R. (2001). An analysis of labwork tasks used in science teaching at upper secondary school and university levels in several European countries. Science Education, 85, 483-508. doi:10.1002/sce.1020
[49]	Tobin, K. G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403-418. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb17229.x
[50]	Toothacker, W. S. (1983). A critical look at introductory laboratory instruction. American Journal of Physics, 51, 516-520. doi:10.1119/1.13220
[51]	Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in science. Time for a reappraisal. In J. Wellington (Ed.). Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 3-15). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203267059