THE ROLE OF THE SCIENCE LABORATORY IN A TECHNOLOGICALLY ORIENTED SCIENCE CURRICULUM

Transcription

1 THE ROLE OF THE SCIENCE LABORATORY IN A TECHNOLOGICALLY ORIENTED SCIENCE CURRICULUM By S. O. DARAMOLA ABSTRACT The present paper describes the science laboratory as a unique source of teaching and J. learning in science education. The laboratory is an indispensable aspect of science teaching because the laboratory provides students with opportunities to engage in processes of investigation and inquiry. The laboratory also gives the students appreciation of the spirit and methods of science, it promotes problem-solving, analytic and generalization ability. It provides students with some understanding of the nature of science. However, the paper is concerned that over the years most of the studies which have examined the role of the laboratory in science education have failed to establish the superiority of the laboratory over any of the other conventional methods of teaching science. Despite the non-significant findings of these studies, the author still believes that laboratory work is essential for the production of practical scientists. To improve the status of science laboratories in Nigerian schools, the paper suggests the effective use of science laboratory committees in schools. As an interim measure, the paper suggests that established schools might begin operating model science laboratories which other schools might imitate when funds and personnel become available. INTRODUCTION According to Ozoro (1982) Science and Technology have advanced very

2 far and the pace of growth is so fast that any nation that wishes to attempt to catch up, must make a very systematic and determined effort to set the pace at which to proceed. Scientific and Technological manpower development should not depend on chance in view of the crucial role which science and technology play in modern economic development and national well-being. Perhaps, it is in view of the above statement that the science curriculum planned for the New National Policy on Education is based on learning science for practical applications. It is important to note that developing countries like Nigeria should aim at providing basic needs for all her citizens. Such basic needs will certainly include food, housing, clothing, adequate medical care and proper education. To cater for these basic needs adequately will mean running through almost the whole range of modern science and technology. For example, providing adequate food involves development of agriculture including pest control over crops, a thorough knowledge of soil science, fertilization, irrigation, farm mechanization, food processing, storage, preservation and organising effective transportation. Adequate housing will entail providing cement or alternatives to cement, roofing sheets, timber products, structural steel etc. Clothing will require textile technology, using natural and artificial fibres, chemistry of dyes, petrol-chemicals to provide artificial fibres etc. Good medical care would involve building hospitals and clinics, procuring drugs, medical equipment of various types and consumables such as lint, dressing etc. Proper education will require buildings, well trained personnel, science and technical equipment, paper and stationery, electricity and other essential facilities necessary for well organized education. Put in another form, all the basic needs of the society will call for acquisition of skills and understanding of modern technologies. But, to acquire skills in modern technologies, a thorough knowledge and understanding of related science is essential. In other words, schools would have to organize their science teaching at all levels of education in such a way that students 'Do' science instead of merely learning science. Doing science implies going into the science laboratories to carry out scientific investigation. The Beginning Laboratory Work in Science Instruction:

3 According to Abdullahi (1979) the study of science had become systematized before the invention of instruments which were designed especially for scientific purposes. Liley (1951) observed that there were no instruments designed for the study of science before Before then, most of the scientific instruments found in the laboratories were borrowed from practical crafts and craftsmen whose apparatus were found then to be superior to those used by the scientists of the period. Before the inclusion of laboratory instruction as an integral part of science teaching, there was a tradition whereby famous community scientists arranged demonstration lectures that usually attracted 'men of culture'. Eminent pioneer Scientists like Lavoisier ( ). Priestly ( ), Cavendish ( ), Dalton ( ) and Berzeluis ( ) converted their homes into laboratories where demonstration lectures were held on regular basis (Abdullahi, 1979). In exceptional cases, however, private laboratories were made accessible to a few prospective scientists who used these laboratories for their individual laboratory experiences. Gay Lussac, Vanguelin and Thenard were among the few scientists who provided working space in their laboratories to promising scientists. The establishment of regular laboratory instruction in science teaching was credited to Liebeg ( ) who made laboratory work available for postgraduate study in science. Nevertheless other scientists recognized to have offered laboratory instruction in German Universities as early as the nineteenth century include Stromeyer, Fucks and Fisher (Abdullahi, 1979). By the nineteeth century the study of science had become popular world wide and laboratory instruction was introduced in different parts of the world. In fact, as early as 1859, The Principal of CMS Grammar School Lagos, Nigeria claimed the availability of some mechanical instruments to illustrate the sciences" (Ajayi, 1963). Ever since laboratory instruction has been recognised as an indispensable aspect of science teaching. Today, no reputable school in Nigeria will not make efforts to run well established laboratories for the teaching of science. The Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching:

4 As early as the nineteenth century, Laboratory work had been recognized by science teachers as well as researchers in science education as one of the most distinctive feature of science instruction. In fact, Griffin (1892), wrote: "The Laboratory has won its place in school; its introduction has proved successful. It is designed to revolutionize science education. Pupils will go out from our laboratories able to see and do". Traditionally, the science laboratory had been viewed as an organizational setting where science students observed and manipulated materials which demonstrated certain aspects of the subject matter which had been learned in class, primarily through textbooks, lectures and discussions. In the years following 1910 the Progressive Education Movement of the U.S.A. had a major impact upon the nature of science teaching in general and on the role of the laboratory work in particular. For instance, John Dewey, leader of the Progressive Education Movement, advocated an investigative approach and "learn by doing". During the progressive era, textbooks and laboratory manuals began to acquire a more applied, utilitarian orientation. Nevertheless, while the Progressive Education Movement was gaining momentum, debate about the proper role of laboratory work was also developing. Over the years, many studies had been carried out to assess the relative effectiveness of laboratory and demonstration approaches to science learning. Most of these studies failed to establish any superiority of the laboratory over any of the other conventional methods of teaching science when assessments were based on Paper and Pencil achievement tests (Bates, 1978; Ben Zvi and Kempa, 1976; Chester, 1938; Coulter, 1966; Cuningham, 1946; Goldstein, 1937; Kruglak, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955a, 1955b, 1956, 1958; Kruglak and Godwin, 1955; Mallinson, 1947; Pella and Sherman, 1969; Robinson, 1969; Yager, Englen and Snider, 1966). However, some of the studies on the effectiveness of the science laboratory had revealed that students who had regular laboratory sessions tended to develop a range of manipulative skills (Bates, 1978; Ben Zvi and Kempa, 1976; Robinson, 1969; Yager, Englen and Snider, 1969). In view of the alleged non-significant effects of the science laboratory work on students' cognitive development, some educators (mainly science educators) started to criticize laboratory work: for its considerable preparation time by the science teachers; for the huge financial outlay involved in setting up a standard science

5 laboratory; for usurping a substantial amount of school space; for the hazards involved in carrying out laboratory activities. At this point in time, of course, data are insufficient from well-designed studies from-which to make unequivocal statements on the role and effectiveness of the science laboratory in science teaching. Records had revealed that research studies carried out on science laboratory effectiveness had often compared one method of laboratory work to many conventional methods of classroom teaching over relatively short periods of time. Most of these research studies had reported non-significant results, Other flaws identified in the past research studies include: poor comparison of students without paying attention to the characteristics of the students concerned and failing to describe the nature of the laboratory instruction involved; measuring variables which were often a subset of important dependent and independent variables. For instance, important variables that ought to be monitored in laboratory research studies include: 1. teacher behaviour 2. student behaviour 3. content of laboratory manual and laboratory activities 4. classroom environment 5. students' manipulative abilities 6. students' conceptual understanding 7. students' inquiry skills 8. laboratory management variables: (a) time alloted to laboratory work (b) availability of laboratory space and resources method of grouping students. What is, therefore, urgently needed is improved research design which will focus attention on specific conditions, methods and strategies of laboratory work and on their effects on science learning outcomes. Despite the non-significant results reported by past researchers, some science educators and associations still claim that laboratory experiences are indispensable in the science teaching-learning processes (Craig, 1927); The Science Masters Association, 1953). With the shift of emphasis from were acquisition of knowledge to other important objectives which stressed the process approach of science, the laboratory method acquired a central role in

6 science teaching, not as a means for demonstration and confirmation, but, rather as the core of the science learning process. A list of laboratory objectives as reflected in the views of (Bingman, 1969; BSCS group, 1963; Novak, 1963; Novak, 1970a; Pella, 1961; Romey, 1969; and Wilson, 1962) include: manipulative skills; cognitive abilities such as critical thinking, problem solving etc; attitudes towards science such as curiosity, interest, risk taking etc and understanding the nature of science. Contemporary science educators such as (Schwab, 1962; Hurd, 1969 and Lunetta and Tamir, 1978) had expressed views that the major uniqueness of the laboratory lies in providing students with opportunities to engage in processes of investigation and inquiry. According to Ausubel (1968), the laboratory "gives the students appreciation of the spirit and method of science, it promotes problem-solving, analytic and generalization ability. It provides students with some understanding of the nature of science". Some other review of the literature revealed the following goals for laboratory instruction in science education. (a) to arouse and maintain interest, attitude and curiosity in science. (b) to develop creative thinking and problem solving ability. (c) to promote aspects of scientific thinking and the scientific method. (d) to develop conceptual understanding (e) to develop practical abilities. Anderson, (1976), in his own write up summarized the goals of laboratory work in the following four main domains: 1. to foster knowledge of the human enterprise of science so as to enhance student intellectual and aesthetic understanding. 2. to foster science inquiry skills that can transfer to other spheres of problemsolving. 3. to help the student appreciate and in part emulate the role of the scientist. 4. to help the students grow both in appreciation of the orderliness of scientific knowledge and also in understanding the tentative nature of scientific theories and models. However, in more specific terms, Jeffrey (1967) identified six areas which are associated with laboratory work:

7 1. Communication including identification of laboratory equipment and operations. 2. observation - recording of observations and detecting errors in techniques. 3. investigation - accurate recording of measurable properties of an unknown substance. 4. Reporting - preparation and maintenance of suitable laboratory records. 5. manipulation - skills in working with laboratory equipment. 6. discipline - maintenance of an orderly laboratory and observation of safety procedures. With respect to the process of practical work in science education, Kempa and Ward (1975) highlighted four major phases which include: 1. planning and designing of an investigation in which the student predicts results; formulates hypotheses and designs laboratory procedures; 2. carrying out of the experiment in which the student makes decisions about investigative techniques and manipulates materials and equipment; 3. observation of particular phenomena. 4. analysis, application and explanation in which the student processes data, discusses results, explores relationships and formulates new questions and problems. In designing an inquiry - oriented laboratory examination for Israeli biology students, Tamir, (1974) focussed attention on the following criteria: manipulation, self-reliance, observation, experimental design, communication and reasoning. Science Laboratory and Technologically oriented science curriculum As mentioned earlier in this paper, a technologically oriented science curriculum is a programme which aims at preparing students who will be capable of handling the basic technological needs of their countries. In other words, technologically oriented science curriculum teaches science for practical applications. The science curriculum advocated in the National Policy on Education in Nigeria by Ozoro (1974) is technologically oriented. Ozoro (1974) advocated that some form of meaningful science and introductory technology should be taught in the secondary schools. The National Policy on Education,

8 (1981, page 29) among many of its various proposals, recommends that science and technology will continue to be taught in an integrated manner in the schools to promote appreciation by students of the practical implications of basic ideas. Also, the National Policy on Education (1981, p.28) advocates the production of practical persons who will be useful for the anticipated technological take off in Nigeria. However, meaningful science learning will be possible when appropriate practical experiences are provided for the learners. It is in view of the above argument that the provision of adequate laboratories becomes mandatory in the Nigerian secondary schools. Hitherto only a few reputable schools can afford well equipped laboratories for science teaching. Many schools provide laboratory spaces which are not equipped, other schools teach science without using laboratories. For instance, a study carried out by Daramola in 1980 on how frequently science students use basic science related equipment revealed that: Out of 170 Form Five students whose schools were located in urban areas of Kwara State, 18% of the students claimed that they had never used a metre-rule while 48% of the 134 non-urban students interviewed replied that they had never used a metre-rule. Thirty-five percent (35%) and fifty-two percent (52%) of the urban and the non-urban students respectively claimed that they had never used a stop-watch while those who admitted that they had never used a beam-balance were 30% and 43% of the urban and non-urban students respectively. The findings revealed further that out of 170 Form Five urban students interviewed, as high as 67% of them claimed that they had never used Galvanometers and ammeters while 75% of the 134 non-urban students interviewed admitted that they had never used galvanometers and ammeters. Also 35% of the urban students and 43% of the non-urban students claimed that they had never used Lenses and mirrors. It was disheartening to note that 14% of the urban students and 38% of the non-urban students admitted that they had never handled thermometers (Daramola, 1982, p. 151). The foregoing revelations suggest that science students, even in their final year, are not familiar with the basic science related equipment. If students leave school without learning how to use the common scientific equipment, then it will be mere illusion to expect such students to understand the sophistication of modern technology. If the ideology of the National Policy on Education with particular reference to science instruction is to be effectively implemented, something must be done to improve the standard of the laboratories in the Nigerian secondary

9 schools. Providing standard laboratories for all secondary schools in Nigeria will definitely involve a huge financial out-lay for the various governments concerned. At a first thought, one is tempted to conclude that it is impossible for governments to provide standard laboratories for all the existing secondary schools in the country, especially, when one considers the present economic crunch of the country. However, at a second thought, when one considers it that money invested in education is money invested for the future development of the nation, then no meaningful educational projects can be considered to be too expensive for the governments to execute. It is in the light of the above argument that the present author suggests to the various governments that each secondary school should be given adequate funds to run well equipped and adequately staffed laboratories. In fact, the author feels that no secondary school should be allowed to present candidates for WASC Examinations in science subjects unless there is sufficient evidence that the students have been exposed to regular laboratory sessions for the last two years of the school certificate programmes and that the science laboratories are inspected annually by the appropriate examination bodies who are to certify that schools have met the basic requirements recommended by the examining bodies. Suggestions on How to run Effective Science Laboratories in the Nigerian Secondary Schools. Earlier in this paper, the author suggests that every Nigerian secondary school should have well equipped science laboratories. But, one thing is to erect buildings for science laboratories and procure equipment in such buildings, it is another thing to manage the science laboratories effectively. The management and organization of science laboratories still poses basic problems in Nigerian schools. For example, most of the science laboratories lack competent personnel. What is perhaps urgently needed in the Nigerian schools today is a reformation of the organizational patterns of the science laboratories. For instance, every school which runs a science laboratory should be advised to set up an active Science Laboratory Committee which should include the following members: 1. The school principal or his representative 2. The Head of Science Department 3. Science subject Heads (where such an arrangement exists) 4. The chief Technician or Technologist or Senior Laboratory Assistant

10 5. An expert on Science Laboratory designs and lay-out to serve as a consultant. 6. An expert on school science equipment to serve as a consultant. The duties of the Science Laboratory Committee should include the general organization and management of the laboratories with respect to: (a) Layout of the school laboratory (b) Ordering, stocking and storing of laboratory equipment (c) Laboratory time allocation and the number of laboratories required in a given school. (d) financial resources, stock-acquisition and control (e) security, protection against wastage of resources and supplies. (f) periodic inspection of supplies and services. Definitely the above arrangements will pose a lot of challenges to the governments in terms of finances and personnel, more so when it has been suggested that every secondary school in the country should benefit from the new arrangement. Perhaps, an immediate alternative arrangement that might be used to minimize the difficulties anticipated above is to allow the established schools to use their science laboratories as models which other schools can imitate when funds become available. REFERENCES Abdullahi, A. Laboratory Instruction and Safety in Science Teaching. Journal of the Science Teachers' Association of Nigeria, 1979, vol. 17, No. 3, pp Ausubel, D.P. Educational Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Bates, G.R. The role of the Laboratory in Secondary school science programmes. In M.B. Rowe (Ed.), What Research Says to the Science Teacher. 1978, vol. 1, National Science Teachers' Association, Washington, D.C. Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A., Kempa, R.F. and Samuel, D. The effectiveness of filmed experiments in high school chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 1969, vol. 53, pp Bradley, R.L. Is the Science laboratory necessary for general education in

11 science courses? Science Education, 1965, vol. 52pp Daramola, S.O. Factors Influencing Enrolments in Physics in the Upper Forms of High Schools of Kwara State, Nigeria. (Doctoral Dissertation, The New York University, 1982). Kruglak, H. Achievement of Physics Students with and without laboratory work. American Journal of Physics, 1953, vol. 21, pp Pella, M.O. and Sherman, J. A Comparison of Two methods of utilizing laboratory activities in teaching the course IPS. School Science and Mathematics. 1969, vol. 69, pp Tamir, P. An Inquiry-oriented laboratory examination. Journal of Educational Measurement. 1974, vol. II, pp Watson, F.G. Purposes of Practical work paper presented at the Oxford Conference, University of Oxford, England, Yager, R.H., Englen, H. and Snider, B. Effects of the Laboratory and Demonstration. Methods upon the outcomes of Instruction in Secondary Biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1969, vol. 6, pp