Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology
Alternative learning models for resolving arguments in science laboratory work: Selection, integration, and implementation of generic components
Adisu Daniel 1 * , Shimles Assefa 1, Desta Gebeyhu 1, Lemma Tadesse 2
More Detail
1 Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
2 Arbaminch University, Ethiopia
* Corresponding Author
Open Access Full Text (PDF)
ARTICLE INFO

Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2023 - Volume 5 Issue 2, pp. 41-61
https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202312594

Article Type: Review Article

Published Online: 20 Aug 2023

Views: 251 | Downloads: 235

ABSTRACT
To investigate the present trends and gaps in science/physics laboratory work, a thorough literature review was conducted. Additionally, list the typical generic elements seen in science lab projects. Create alternative learning models as well to direct the choice, incorporation, and application of general science/physics laboratory session components. Additionally, to modify pedagogies, particularly guided-discovery, and to present alternate techniques of triangulating with other generic components of laboratory works and of deriving and choosing study variables. The study used a variety of techniques. First, a quick introduction to science and science/physics education, educational theories, and four fundamental learning theories, with an emphasis on how these relate to science laboratory practice.
KEYWORDS
In-text citation: (Daniel et al., 2023)
Reference: Daniel, A., Assefa, S., Gebeyhu, D., & Tadesse, L. (2023). Alternative learning models for resolving arguments in science laboratory work: Selection, integration, and implementation of generic components. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 5(2), 41-61. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202312594
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Daniel A, Assefa S, Gebeyhu D, Tadesse L. Alternative learning models for resolving arguments in science laboratory work: Selection, integration, and implementation of generic components. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. 2023;5(2), 41-61. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202312594
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Daniel A, Assefa S, Gebeyhu D, Tadesse L. Alternative learning models for resolving arguments in science laboratory work: Selection, integration, and implementation of generic components. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. 2023;5(2):41-61. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202312594
In-text citation: (Daniel et al., 2023)
Reference: Daniel, Adisu, Shimles Assefa, Desta Gebeyhu, and Lemma Tadesse. "Alternative learning models for resolving arguments in science laboratory work: Selection, integration, and implementation of generic components". Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology 2023 5 no. 2 (2023): 41-61. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202312594
In-text citation: (Daniel et al., 2023)
Reference: Daniel, A., Assefa, S., Gebeyhu, D., and Tadesse, L. (2023). Alternative learning models for resolving arguments in science laboratory work: Selection, integration, and implementation of generic components. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 5(2), pp. 41-61. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202312594
In-text citation: (Daniel et al., 2023)
Reference: Daniel, Adisu et al. "Alternative learning models for resolving arguments in science laboratory work: Selection, integration, and implementation of generic components". Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, vol. 5, no. 2, 2023, pp. 41-61. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202312594
REFERENCES
  • Adisu, D. & Abebaw, L. (2021).The effects of some selected demographic characteristics on in-service teachers’ views of nature of science and process skills. Brazilian Journal of Education, Technology and Society (BRAJETS), 14(3), 471-487.
  • Adisu, D., Shimeles, A., & Desta, G. (2021a).The association of pedagogies and selected covariates with pre-service teachers’ learning outcomes and motivation in physics laboratories. Asian Journal of Advances in Research, 7(2), 6-27.
  • Adisu, D., Shimeles A, & Desta, G. (2021b). The effects of modified guided-discovery and some selected covariates on students’ learning outcomes and motivation in physics laboratories. International journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 12(4), 2037.
  • Arya, W., Cholis, S., Abdur, Rahman A., & Swasono, R.(2018). Modified guided discovery model: A conceptual framework for designing learning model using guided discovery to promote student’s analytical thinking skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 10(28), 012153.
  • Baloyi, W., Meyer. E, & Gaigher, E. (2017). Influence of guided inquiry based Laboratory activities on outcomes achieved first year physics [Paper presentation]. SAIP2015, Department of Physics, University of Pretoria.
  • Bandura, A. (1977). A Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of Behavioral change. Physiological review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191
  • Barza, A. (2012). The effect of using met cognitive strategies embedded in explicit-reflective nature of science instruction on the development of pre-service science teachers’ understanding of nature of science [Unpulished master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
  • Bell, R. L. (2008). Teaching the nature of science through process skills. Pearson Education.
  • Bianchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The Many Levels of Inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26-29.
  • Bicknell-Holmes, T. & Hoffman, P. S. (2000). Elicit, engage, experience, explore: discovery learning in library instruction. Reference Services Review, 28(4), 313-322.
  • Blanchard, M. R., Annetta, L. A., & Southerland, S. A.(2008). Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning verses traditional science teaching methods in middle school and high school laboratory setting [Paper presentation]. Annual conference of the national association of research in science teaching, Baltimore, MA.
  • Bloom, B. S. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Longmans.
  • Bohr, N. (1934). Atomic Theory and the Description of Human Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.
  • Boland, A., Cherry, M. G, & Dickson, R. (2014). Doing a systematic review: A student's guide. Sage.
  • Bonwell, C. C. (1998). Active Learning: Energizing the Classroom. Active Learning Workshops .
  • Boud, D. J., Dunn, J., Kennedy, T, & Thorley, R. (1990). The aims of science laboratory courses: Survey of students, graduates and practicing scientists. European Journal of Science Education, 2(4), 415-428.
  • Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Education Review, 31(1), 21–32.
  • Burns, J. C., Okey, J. C., & Wise, K. C. (1985). Development of an Integrated Process Skill Test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220208
  • Bush, G. (2006). Learning about learning: from theories to trends. Teacher Librarian, 34(2), 14-19.
  • Cibik, A. S. (2016). The effect to Project-based History and nature of science practices on the nature of science scientific knowledge, International journal of environment & science education, 11(4), 453-472.
  • Clough, M. P. (2011). The story behind science: Bringing science and scientists to life. Science education, 20, 701-717.
  • Cole, W., Katherine, N., Quinn, C., & Holmes, N. G. (2019). quantifying critical thinking: Development and validation of the physics lab inventory of critical thinking. Physical Review on Physics Education Research, 15, 010135.
  • Day, J. & Bonn, D. A. (2011). Development of the concise data processing assessment. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 7(1), 010114.
  • Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037.
  • Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. Plenum Press.
  • Dedes, C. (2005). The mechanism of vision: Conceptual similarities between historical models and children’s representations. Science & Education, 14(7-8), 699-712
  • Dedes, C., & Ravanis, K. (2008). History of science and conceptual change: The formation of shadows by extended lights sources. Science & Education, 18(9), 1135-1151.
  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. MacMillan.
  • Dewey, J. (1997). My pedagogic creed. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 17-23). Routledge.
  • Doran, L. (1978).Assessing the outcomes of Science Laboratory Activities. Science Education, 62(3) 401-409.
  • Draper, R. J. (2002). School mathematics reform, constructivism, and literacy: A case for literacy instruction in the reform-oriented math classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(6), 520-529.
  • Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of learning for Instruction. Pearson Education.
  • Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press.
  • Freeman, W. H. (1997). Readings on the Development of Children. Print.
  • French, D. (2006). Don’t confuse inquiry and discovery. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(6), 58-59.
  • Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B., & Armstrong, N. (2009). Effects of Inquiry-based Learning on Students’ Science Literacy Skills and Confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), Article 16.
  • Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2002). Problems with the Assessment of Performance in Practical Science: which way now? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 183-201.
  • Gott, R. (1988). The assessments of Practical work in science. Prentice Hall.
  • Gurinder, S. (2014). Review of research on school science laboratory work with special emphasis on physics education [Report]. Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education.
  • Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in science. International Journal of Science Education,7(256000), 33-34.
  • Hodson, D. (1991). Practical work in science: time for re-appraisal. Studies in Science Education 19,175-84.
  • Hodson, D. (1992). Assessment of practical work: some considerations in philosophy of science. Science & Education, 1(2), 115–144.
  • Hodson, D. (1993). Rethinking old ways towards more critical approaches to practical works in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 85-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057269308560022
  • Hodson, D. (2002). Is this really what scientists do? Seeking a more authentic science in and beyond the school laboratory. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: which way now? (pp. 93-108). Routledge.
  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of educational research, 52(2), 201–217.
  • Hofstein, A, & Lunetta, V. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88,28-54.
  • Holmes, N. G. & Bonn, D. A. (2013). Doing science or doing a laboratory? engaging students with scientific reasoning during physics laboratory experiments. In Engelhardt, P., Churukian, A., & Jones, D. (Eds.), PERC Proceedings (pp.185-188). American Association of Physics Teachers
  • Johnson, J. A., Musial, D., Hall, G. E., Gollnick, D. M., & Dupuis, V. L. (2008). Foundations of American education: Perspectives on education in a changing world. Pearson Education Inc.
  • Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Evaluating constructivist learning. Educational Technology, 28(11), 13-16.
  • Jordan, A. Carlile, O. & Stack, A. (2008). Approaches to learning: a guide for teachers. Open University Press.
  • Karelina, E., Etkina, M., RuibalVillasenor, D., Rosengrant, A., Van Heuvelen, D., & Hmel Silver, C. (2007). Design and none design laboratory: does transfer occur?. AIP Conference Proceedings, 951(1), 92–95.
  • Khaparde, R., & Pradhan, H. (2009). Training in experimental physics through problems and demonstrations. Penram International Pub.
  • Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.
  • Kruglak, H. (1958). Evaluating laboratory instruction by use of objective type tests. American Journal of Physics, 26(1), 31-32.
  • Lederman, J. S. (2011). Levels of inquiry and the 5 E’s learning cycle model. National Geographic School Publishing.
  • Lee, J. T. (1978). The role of the laboratory in introductory college biology courses [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. North Carolina State University, Carolina.
  • Lena, H. M. (2013). An explanation of learning theories and their application in the classroom: A Critical Perspective [Unpublished master’s thesis]. North Central College, Naperville.
  • Levitt, N. (1999). Prometheus Bedeviled: Science and the Contradictions of Contemporary Culture. Rutgers University Press.
  • Mandrin, P., & Preckel, D. (2009). Effect of similarity-based guided discovery learning on conceptual performance. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3), 133-145.
  • Marsh, K. (1992). Key concepts understanding curriculum. The Falma Press.
  • Marshall, D. S., & Gregory, J. M. (1994). Creating effective investigative laboratories for undergraduates. BioScience, 44(10), 698–704
  • Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
  • McDermott, L. C. (2013). Improving the teaching of science through discipline-based education research: An example from physics. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 1-12.
  • Mekbib, P., Mesfine, T., Mulegeta, A., & Kassa, M. (2018). Challenges of science teacher education in low-income nation-the case of Ethiopia [Paper presentation]. ESERA2017 Conference, University of Limerick, Limerick.
  • Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work teaching and learning of science. University of York.
  • Ministry of Education. (2018). Ethiopian education development: Roadmap (2018-30). Education Strategy Center.
  • Moller, A., & Myles, P. (2016).What makes a good systematic review and meta-analysis? British Journal of Anaesthesia, 117(4), 428-430.
  • Moreira, M. (1980). A non-traditional approach to the evaluation of laboratory instruction in general physics courses. European Journal of Science Education, 2(4), 441-448.
  • Mosca, J. & Howard, L.(1997). Grounded learning: Breathing life into business education. Journal of Education for Business, 73, 90-93.
  • National Academy of Sciences. (2008). Science, evolution and creationism. The National Academies Press.
  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2006). Three (3) laboratory experiences and student learning america's lab report: investigations in high school science. The National Academies Press.
  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
  • Nigussie, A., Mohammed, S., Yimam, E., Wolde, W., Akalu, N., Seid, A., Shiferaw, G., Teka, T., & Mulaw, S. (2018). Commenting on effective laboratory teaching in selected preparatory schools, North Shewa Zone, Ethiopia. Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 13(14), 543-550.
  • OFQUAL. (2009). GCSE controlled assessment regulations for science. Author.
  • Oli, N. (2014). Ethiopian students' achievement challenges in science. Education: implications to policy formulation. African Journal of Chemical Education, 4(1), 2-18.
  • Osborne, J., Duschl, R., & Fairbrother, R. (2002). Breaking the mould? Teaching science for public understanding. King’s College.
  • Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. Grossman.
  • Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basics Books.
  • Pritchard, A. (2009). Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom. David Fulton Publishers.
  • Ramarian, U. (2016). Understanding the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on inquiry-based science education at townships schools in South Africa. Journal of research in science teaching, 53(4), 598-619.
  • Rotfeld, H. (2007). Theory, data, interpretations, and more theory. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(2), 376-380.
  • Rummel, E. (2008). Constructing cognition. American Scientist, 96(1), 80-82.
  • Schank, R. & Cleary, C. (1994). Engines for education. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Schunk, D. (2012). Learning theories: an educational perspective. Pearson.
  • Sharif, A., & Hasan, A. (2012). The effects of Guided-inquiry instruction on students’ achievement and understanding of the nature of science in environmental biology course [Doctoral dissertation]. British University, Dubai.
  • Shield, G. (2000). A critical appraisal of learning technology using information and communication technologies. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(1),71-79.
  • Shimeles, A. (2010). A content analysis of undergraduate physics laboratory manuals. Arivali Boolks International.
  • Shulman, L. & Pinchas, T. (1973). Research on teaching in the natural sciences. R. M.W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 7-22). Rand McNally & Co.
  • Skinner, B. F. (1974). Walden Two Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. Sternberg, R. Applying psychological theories to educational practice. American Education Research Journal, 45(1), 150-166.
  • Solbes, J., & Traver, M. (2003). Against a negative image of science: History of science and the teaching of physics and chemistry. Science & Education, 12, 703–717.
  • Sudarmani, R, & Pujianto, A. (2018). Lesson learned: improving students’ procedural and conceptual knowledge through physics instruction with media of wave, sound, and light. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1097, 012033.
  • Tamir, P., & Glassman, F. (1971). A practical examination for BSCS students: A progress report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(4), 307-315.
  • Terry, W. S. (2009). Learning and memory: Basic principles, processes, and procedures. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
  • Theysohn, G. & Jodl, H. J. (1983). Testing Laboratory Performance. Americn Journal of Physics, 51(6), 516-520.
  • UNESCO PROAP. (2001). The training of trainers manual for promoting scientific and technological literacy (STL) for all. Author.
  • Volkwyn, T. S., Allie, S., Buffler, A. & Lubben, F. (2008). Impact of a conventional introductory Laboratory course on the understanding of measurement. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 4(1), 010108.
  • Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28, 46-65.
  • Weegar, M., & Pacis, D. (2012). Comparison of two theories of learning. Behaviorisms and constructivism as applied to face-to face and online learning [Paper presentation]. CASA Eleader Conference, Prague.
  • Wilson, E. O. (1999). The natural sciences. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge.
  • Wilson, M. (2005).Constructing measures: An item response modelling approach. Erlbaum.
  • Woolnough, B. E. (1991). Practical Science. Open University Pres.
  • Yadav, B. & Mishra, S. K. (2013). A study of the impact of laboratory approach on achievement and process skills in science among is standard students. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(1), 1-6.
  • Yacoubian, H. A., & Boujaoude, S. (2010). The effects of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities’ on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1229-1252.
  • Yalcinoglu, P. & Anagun, S. S. (2012). Teaching nature of science by explicit approach to the preserves elementary science teachers. Elementary Education Online, 11(1), 118-136.
  • Zudonu, O. C. & Njoku, Z. C. (2018). Effect of laboratory instructional methods on students’ attitudes in some chemistry concepts at senior secondary school level. Global Scientific Journals, 6(7), 46-49.
LICENSE
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.