Tuesday, July 1, 2025

Sunal, Dennis W.; Wright, Emmett L. & Sundberg, Cheryl. (Eds.) (2008). The Impact of the Laboratory and Technology on Learning and Teaching Science K-16. Reviewed by Keith S. Taber, University of Cambridge

Sunal, Dennis W.; Wright, Emmett L. & Sundberg, Cheryl. (Eds.) (2008). The Impact of the Laboratory and Technology on Learning and Teaching Science K-16. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Pp. xi + 295       ISBN 978-1-59311-744-3

Reviewed by Keith S. Taber
University of Cambridge

November 20, 2008

This edited collection is part of a series of books on Research in Science Education that is edited by two of the editors of the present volume (Sunal and Wright). This volume comprises ten chapters, organised as an introductory chapter and three sections. "Practical work" is often seen by students as one of the defining (and most motivating) characteristics of school science education in many countries. However, it is well known that the enjoyment level and obvious activity do not always translate into the intended learning, or indeed a deep engagement with the principles the "practicals" are meant to exemplify (Millar, 2004). There are not many books, however, that tackle this topic, so this new volume is welcome.

Many of the contributors to the present volume are based in the U.S., but other authors work in Turkey and the Middle East. The book is presumably, therefore, not intended to apply only to science education in the U.S., despite the title. (I suspect the term "K-16" will be off-putting or even meaningless to science teachers in many countries). However, references to specific U.S. documents such as the No Child Left Behind Act and The [sic] National Science Education Standards demonstrate that the authors assume that readers will at least be familiar with the U.S. context. This attitude is found, for example, in the introductory discussion (Sunal, Sunal, Sundberg, & Wright, 2008) of the shifts between laboratory work and teaching science through textbooks and lectures. The historical sketch is based purely in terms of U.S. schools. So, for example, in the English context, most secondary (high school) science teaching has taken place in laboratories for some decades, but the amount of hands-on practical work in most schools decreased considerably at the start of the 1990s with the introduction of a National Curriculum (DES/WO, 1988) that shifted the balance away from a previous focus on science processes, to prioritising learning content for high stakes tests. This is at odds with the chronology given here. Similarly, where Sunal et al. describe an increased focus on inquiry (in the U.S.), the range of practical work in English classrooms was widely curtailed by the adoption of a specific (limited and oversimplified) curricular model of scientific enquiry as the basis of assessing students’ practical ability in science (Taber, 2008).

There is a missed opportunity here, when it is realised that the development of ‘standards-based’ curriculum can have such different effects in diverse national contexts. With an international move to adopt "constructivist" informed curricula and pedagogy, there would be much to learn, for example, from including a consideration of developments in, for example, Aotearoa /New Zealand (Ministry of Education, 1993). The A/NZ curriculum has been subject to intense criticism (Matthews, 1993), just as have constructivist approaches in the U.S. (Cromer, 1997; Scerri, 2004); but it offers, at least in principle, the possibility of a very inclusive, student-centred science learning experience (Bell, Jones, & Car, 1995; Coll, 2007).

One immediate issue that is suggested by the title is the decision to include in the same volume reference to laboratory work and the use of technology. One would suspect that these themes are each well worthy of a book. The editors take an inclusive view of "technology" as not just computers and associated information technology, but rather a wider notion that can include various laboratory equipment. So in the introductory chapter, Sunal, Sunal, Sundberg & Wright give measuring temperature with either an electronic sensor or a standard thermometer as being examples of the use of technology in science teaching. In a later chapter, educational technology is considered as any tool, equipment, or device that facilitates student learning (Davies, Sprague, & New, 2008), and by this measure could pedantically include a chalkboard or the student’s own ball-point pen. Nonetheless, separating the two themes into separate books might well have given space for contributions from the many parts of the world not represented here, and broadened the perspectives made available to readers.

Indeed, there is a deeper issue here that rewards further exploration. Technology can enable or enhance laboratory work, and it can offer useful learning opportunities, but it can also be used to substitute for practical work. Choosing to consider "technology" as a single category―so that conical flasks and computers; syringes and simulations; cobwebs and the world wide web, all fall under this heading―seems to conflate rather different kinds. Anything that facilitates active learning is to be encouraged in principle, but there is a likelihood that the shift in the type of technology available could well lead to parallel changes in the profile of activities found in many classrooms. As one example, recent shifts in the English curriculum have led to changes in the types of "coursework" to be included in school leaving science examinations (or "exit exams" as they are referred to in the U.S.). In particular, practical investigations will be widely replaced by literature reviews largely based on web searches. Whether this is in itself a desirable change is arguable―and there has been some controversy about the curriculum changes (Gilland, 2006) ―but it seems clear that such a development is only possible because of the widespread availability of computers in schools.

One very annoying feature of the book is in the section introductions, which are utterly repetitive and provoke an unpleasant sense of déjà vu. So the reader is told on page 73 that the “section [on laboratory work] begins in chapter 4 with a description by Billie Eilham of the impact of long-term laboratory enquiry on student understanding of ecology”. The next paragraph, later on the same page, informs us that in “chapter 4, Eilham describes the impact of long-term laboratory inquiry on student understanding of ecology”. Two pages later, we are told that “Part II begins with a case study on the impact of long-term laboratory experiences on student understanding of ecology….” A similar pattern is followed in introducing other chapters. This is surely taking the teachers’ maxim "tell them what you are going to tell them; then tell them; and then tell them what you have told them" too far. The volume therefore has limitations, and some irritating quirks. Despite this, there is much of interest and value to be found among the contributions.

The first section concerns the development and use of laboratory work in science teaching and comprises just two chapters. Chapter 2 offers an account of "design principles for laboratory instruction," based on advice from a US National Research Council report (Sandoval, 2008). This chapter explores problems in setting up effective learning opportunities and discusses key principles for planning laboratory work. This chapter offers important ideas for all science teachers. The other chapter in the first section considers the issue of providing suitable laboratory facilities in elementary schools (Hanuscin, 2008) which whilst important, will be of less direct interest to many potential readers.

The book’s second section on the status and impact of laboratory work comprises four chapters. The first of these (with apologies to readers who feel they may have read this before) considers the use of long-term inquiry in learning about ecology (Eilam, 2008). The author describes an innovative approach to teaching that offers students long-term engagement with a learning context seldom found in school science. This was an interesting account, but describes an approach that would seem unlikely to be feasible with the resource levels of many schools, particularly in light of the pressures on teachers to "cover" the curriculum. Where students are expected to learn about a dozen different major topics each year, having three hours a week for a whole school year to teach a single topic is not possible. This is unfortunate as extended engagement may ultimately be a more effective basis for deep learning. The appendix to this chapter refers to “solar energy” being “invested in the chemical bonds of the organic matter, mainly sugar” in the cells of leaves (p.103), and how the sun’s energy is “captured in the complex bonds of the organic molecules” (p.104). It is surprising that none of the editorial team spotted these statements that seem to reflect the common alternative conception found among high school level students that chemical bonds act as "stores" of energy.

Chapter 5 offers an account of student perceptions of laboratory learning (Ozkan, Cakiroglu, & Tekkaya, 2008). This is an interesting study based on data collected in Turkey where laboratory work is more limited and much less open-ended than is common in the U.S. This offers an interesting comparison with Eilam’s contribution. The next chapter turns to an account of an approach to writing about practical work to encourage reflection (Gay, 2008). This is another U.S. study, but this time based in university teaching laboratories. The final chapter in this section presents a study based on physics teaching at grade 10, using the Vee heuristic (Daoud & BouJaoude, 2008). Unlike its ubiquitous stable-mate, the concept map (Novak & Gowin, 1984), the Vee heuristic does not seem to have been widely adopted in science education. This is an account of an experimental study in a Lebanese context, which found that although the Vee heuristic did not lead to significant improvements in physics learning, it did seem to have a positive impact on students’ attitudes toward the subject. This section, then, provides a range of interesting reading about aspects of practical work in learning science.

The final section exlpores the status and impact of technology in science education. The first of three chapters considers the integration of technology into science teaching with a focus on inquiry (Davies et al., 2008). The chapter itself focuses on an evaluation study in the context of problem-based learning in sixth grade science. However, this is prefaced by a useful introduction to the theme. The authors note that they found the technology became most useful once students were familiar enough with it for it to be “almost invisible to the learning process” (p.222). This is probably a quite general, and almost unavoidable, principle, which should be considered whenever new technology is introduced, especially where it involves considerable outlay, disruption, or special training. The next chapter shifts the focus from school laboratories and classrooms to informal or "free-choice" learning (Ucko & Ellenbogen, 2008). The authors consider the use of technology in contexts such as museums, but they also consider the implications of their review for classroom learning. The volume’s final contribution concerns teacher education, both initial teacher preparation and continuing professional development (Wilson, 2008). The chapter includes a review of twelve studies following a range of methodological approaches. One obvious, but nonetheless notable, conclusion is that science educators need to be proficient in new technologies before they can model them effectively in their own work in teacher education.

Overall, then, the book comprises a set of chapters covering a range of important topics linked to the central themes of laboratory work and technology in science teaching. Some of the chapters focus on particular studies, but most include useful reviews and have formal reference lists as would be expected in a primarily "academic" volume. The section introductions are less useful, and the absence of an index for the book is a major limitation. This would have been much more useful to most readers than the seven pages of author’s biographic details, and its absence makes the book of little use for general reference. That said, despite its limitations, the book contains a good deal of interesting information relating to its themes, and will be of considerable value to anyone undertaking science education research in these areas. The book also contains a good deal of potentially useful advice to practitioners, although it does not seem to have been written and compiled with classroom teachers in mind. In summary, this book would be a valuable contribution to any science education library.

References

Bell, B., Jones, A., & Car, M. (1995). The development of the recent National New Zealand Science Curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 26, 73-105.

Coll, R. K. (2007). Opportunities for gifted science provision in the context of a learner-centred national curriculum. In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Science Education for Gifted Learners (pp. 59-70). London: Routledge.

Cromer, A. (1997). Connected knowledge: science, philosophy and education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Daoud, T., & BouJaoude, S. (2008). The effect of the Vee heuristic on students' meaningful learning in physical laboratories. Pp. 167-200 In D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright & C. Sundberg (Eds.), The Impact of the Laboratory and Technology on Learning and Teaching Science K-16 (pp. 267-287). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.

Davies, R. S., Sprague, C. R., & New, C. M. (2008). Integrating technology into a science classroom: an evaluation of inquiry-based technology integration. Pp. 202-237 in D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright & C. Sundberg.

DES/WO. (1988). Science for ages 5 to 16. London/Cardiff: Department for Education and Science/Welsh Office.

Eilam, B. (2008). Long-term laboratory enquiry: promoting understanding of ecology. Pp. 77-109 in D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright & C. Sundberg.

Gay, A. (2008). Investigating process-based writing in chemistry laboratories. In D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright & C. Sundberg (Eds.), The Impact of the Laboratory and Technology on Learning and Teaching Science K-16 (pp. 135-166). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.

Gilland, T. (Ed.). (2006). What is Science Education for? London: Academy of Ideas.

Hanuscin, D. L. (2008). The use of specialized facilities for laboratory science instruction in elementary schools. In D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright & C. Sundberg (Eds.), The Impact of the Laboratory and Technology on Learning and Teaching Science K-16 (pp. 57-70). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.

Matthews, M. R. (1993). Constructivism and science education: some epistemological problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(1), 359-370.

Millar, R. (2004, 3-4 June 2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Paper presented at the High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.

Ministry of Education. (1993). Science in the New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington.: Learning Media.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ozkan, S., Cakiroglu, & Tekkaya, C. (2008). Students' perceptions of the science laboratory learning environment. Pp. 111-134 in D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright & C. Sundberg.

Sandoval, W. A. (2008). Design principles for effective laboratory instruction. Pp. 35-70 in D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright & C. Sundberg.

Scerri, E. R. (2004). Philosophical Confusion in Chemical Education Research: Constructivism and Chemical Education. The author replies. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(2), 194.

Sunal, D. W., Sunal, C. S., Sundberg, C., & Wright, E. L. (2008). The importance of laboratory work and technology in science teaching. Pp. 1-28 in D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright & C. Sundberg.

Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2-3), 179-218.

Ucko, D. A., & Ellenbogen, K. M. (2008). Impact of technology on informal science learning. Pp. 239-266 in D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright & C. Sundberg.

Wilson, C. A. (2008). The impact of technology on science preservice preparation and in-service professional development. Pp. 267-287 in D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright & C. Sundberg.

About the Reviewer

Keith S. Taber
University Senior Lecturer in Science Education
Science Education Centre
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
184 Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 8PQ
United Kingdom
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html

Keith Taber trained as a graduate teacher of chemistry and physics, and taught sciences in comprehensive secondary schools in England. He moved into further education where he taught physics and chemistry to A level, science studies to adult students, and research methods on an undergraduate education program. He acted as the mentor for trainee science teachers on placement at the college. Whilst working as a teacher he earned his masters degree for research into girls under-representation in physics and his doctorate for research into conceptual development in chemistry. He joined the Faculty of Education in 1999. Dr. Taber was the RSC (Royal Society of Chemistry) Teacher Fellow for 2000-1, undertaking a project on Challenging Chemical Misconceptions. He was the CERG (Chemical Education Research Group) Lecturer for 2000. He writes a column (Reflections on Teaching and Learning Physics) for the journal Physics Education. He led the Cambridge project on teaching about ideas and evidence in science for the National KS3 Strategy.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Strong-Wilson, Teresa. (2008). <cite>Bringing Memory Forward: Storied Remembrance in Social Justice Education with Teachers. </cite> Reviewed by Patricia H. Hinchey, Pennsylvania State University

Strong-Wilson, Teresa. (2008). Bringing Memory Forward: Storied Remembrance in Social Justice Education with Teachers. Ne...