Biology student teachers’ ideas about purpose of laboratory work

The aim of this study is to establish biology student teachers ideas about the purpose of laboratory work. Nearly all the participants think that laboratory work is an important part of biology teaching. However, the analysis of the written answers shows that student teachers are generally focused on purposes relating to the verification of theoretical knowledge (64.6% of responses) and laboratory techniques (54.4% of responses). Furthermore, most of the student teachers ignore purposes related to scientific process skills. This is clearly shown by the fact that only 18.1% of the participants have mentioned purposes related to scientific process skills. These results confirm the results of previous studies on the subject (Kang & Wallace, 2005; Ottander & Grelsson, 2006). Purposes concerned with the verification of theoretical knowledge and laboratory techniques generally reflect the purposes of traditional laboratory instruction. This type of instruction is usually referred to as expository, deductive, or cook-book. This method is based on students following a recipe procedure in order to try out a pre-determined outcome in the laboratory (Cepni & Ayvaci, 2006; Domin, 2007). Although the process of scientific inquiry has been put forth as an important outcome of laboratory work (Lazarowitz & Tamir, 1994), it has been observed that student teachers do not regard this as an important goal. According to the ideas of the student teachers, the main goals of laboratory work cover purposes such as the verification of theoretical knowledge and laboratory techniques. According to most of the student teachers, the main outcome of laboratory work is the verification of theoretical knowledge and helping students carry out the experimental procedures defined in laboratory manuals. In order to eliminate these problems, it is necessary to place more emphasis on an inquiry-based laboratory approach in biology laboratory applications at the university level. According to Wyatt (2005), students acquire the necessary skills to conduct experiments, to measure practical parameters more accurately and to better evaluate the information on the experiment report through an inquiry-based laboratory approach. Research literature suggests that the primary source of failure in laboratory work is the instructional approach that shows up in higher education, namely didactic lectures and verification “cookbook” or “recipe” style laboratory experiences (Lawson et al., 2000). Inquiry-based instruction approaches are more powerful (Lord & Orkwiszewski, 2006).

The results of this study show that student teachers are not aware of the benefits of laboratory work on the students facing their own misconceptions. These results support the results of Ottander and Grelsson (2006). The scientific discussions held during the laboratory work help to define the misconceptions entertained by the students. Furthermore, laboratory work provides concrete experiences and opportunities for students to face their own misconceptions (Lazarowitz & Tamir, 1994).

Most of the student teachers ignored the relationship between laboratory work and the nature of science or developing positive attitudes towards science. As a matter of fact, it has been shown that students positive attitude towards science increases with laboratory work (Freedman, 1997). According to Kang and Wallace (2005), it is likely that teachers with naive epistemological beliefs will prefer the delivery of information as the prime teaching goal.

In order for practical work in the laboratory to be effective, the purposes need to be known well. Ottander and Grelsson (2006) have emphasized that when certain laboratory work is being planned, the goals, instructions and the assessment criteria should be considered holistically. Laboratory work at the post-graduate level must comprise scientific inquiry skills such as identifying problems, generating research questions, planning and conducting investigations, formulating and communicating (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2003).