Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 16, Issue 1, Article 9 (Jun., 2015) Ping Wai KWOK Science laboratory learning environments in junior secondary schools Previous Contents Next

Discussions

Student Cohesiveness

The Student Cohesiveness scale describes the extent to which students know, help and are supportive of one another. The results showed that the situations described in the items took place quite often.  Results using class mean as the unit of analysis were similar to those using individual as the unit. When teachers were asked to comment about the Student Cohesiveness, they felt that students should generally get along well with each other. They did not think that there was any problem for the students to get to know each other in the class because students spent much time together in the schools. In Hong Kong the students stay together for the whole year for all subjects. They have a fixed seating plan in the classroom as well as in the laboratory. The grouping of students in the laboratory is also fixed. They have lots of time staying together throughout the year. No wonder they know each other so well! With this class structure, students are easy to cultivate close bonds with their classmates. This high level of cohesion had the potential for cooperative learning in small groups in scientific investigations (Hofstein & Lunetta, 1982; Lazarowitz & Tamir, 1994), and the benefits of positive social interactions in inquiry learning were reported in a number of research studies (Okebukola & Ogunniyi, 1984; Lazarowitz & Karsenty  1990; DeCarlo & Rubba, 1994; Tobin, 1990). Although high cohesion among students is common in Hong Kong schools, some teachers do not seem to take such an advantage into their teaching as suggested by the low scores on the Open-Endedness scale in this study.

Open-Endedness

The Open-Endedness scores were the lowest of all the scales in SLEI. Similar findings were reported in Taiwan, Korea and Singapore (Tsai 2003; Lee & Fraser 2002; Wong & Fraser 1996). It was common that students just followed laboratory work instructions of the worksheet, or did some observations for which teachers had already explained or described to them in detail (Hodson, 1990; Hofstein & Lunetta, 1982; 2004). The use of laboratory activities by the teachers was affected by their epistemological belief. If the teachers’ view of science as a body of factual knowledge and students as receivers of such knowledge from teachers, it was likely that the purposes of the laboratory work were to demonstrate and verify scientific principles (Kang & Wallace, 2005). Although the science curriculum emphasizes the investigative inquiry approach; the current secondary science students are the first generation of students engaging in such learning process. Thus it is of no surprise that their science teachers, who have little inquiry learning experience, still possess a traditional view of science education with which laboratory activities are only the recipe-driven tasks.

Another reason for the low score in the Open-Endedness scale is that students lack the basic laboratory skills and knowledge to perform open-ended inquiry work. Teachers may not have confidence in students to conduct independent investigative work. Similar concerns were raised in a study in junior secondary science laboratory class in Taiwan (Tsai, 2003). In an interview, a teacher recalled his experience in doing an unauthorized experiment when he was a student:

Teacher A: I was playing with a battery and wanted to see what happened when the battery was short-circuited. The teacher reprimanded me of hurting myself and damaging the battery.

When he was asked whether he would tolerate his students doing the same thing in his class, he replied firmly.

Teacher A: I would not allow my students to do so in the laboratory because I am responsible for the safety of my students.

Another teacher followed up Teacher A’s answer and responded.

Teacher B: If the class size is as small as about 20 students I would allow students to do some exploration by themselves. I have confidence in enforcing safety precautions for a small class size in the laboratory. However, under the current normal class size of 40, I would ask the students to do the experiments under strict instructions. My main concern is also safety.

Without adequate knowledge and skills, accidents could happen to students. The risk of laboratory accidents outweighs the benefit of open-ended inquiry approach of science learning.

Teacher C voiced out another reason for not allowing an open-ended inquiry learning in his laboratory classes.

Teacher C:  There is insufficient time for open investigations because we have to keep the same pace with other classes taught by other teachers. We have to follow the schedule and cover the same contents so that a common examination could be administrated to all classes.

The culture of examination oriented learning is deeply rooted in the mind of Hong Kong people (Chan 1996, p. 96). Learning approaches which may lead to unfairness and cause inconvenience for markings in examinations are discouraged. The examination factor, which impedes the implementation of inquiry approach, also exists in countries like Lebanon, Australia and Taiwan (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004). Newton, Driver, and Osborne, (1999) also pointed out that time constraints, pressure in implementing the curriculum and parents’ expectation discouraged teachers in England from adopting innovations in their science lessons. Thus Hong Kong teachers are not untypical. They share the same concerns with their counterparts in other countries.

Integration

Results showed that the extent of integration between laboratory activities and theory classes was either “Sometimes” or “Often”. Although the score in the preferred environment was statistically significantly higher than the score in the actual environment, the difference was small and the students’ expectation was comparatively less pronounced than that of the Open-Endedness scale. From my previous experience in visiting schools, I observed that some teachers tended to talk about theories or principles first and arrange the activities at a later time. Students sometimes got lost during the introduction of the theories because they had not seen the experiments and the phenomena. The approach of “theory first and verification later” was a rather traditional mode of science teaching in Hong Kong (Holbrook, 1990). This was usually how the teachers learned science in their old school days. It is the past learning experience that shapes how teachers teach (Holbrook, 1990).

The timetable arrangement might also make the integration less favourable. In Hong Kong, schools allocate at least about 40 to 60% of science class periods in laboratory. This is based on the common practice for schools using a six-school-day cycle timetable, i.e. having 2 to 3 laboratory classes out of the 5 class periods.  In the interview, teachers wished that there was a better integration between theory and experimental activities, but they also admitted that there was not much they could do about scheduling more laboratory time for the science classes. It was usually handled by the school administrators. Teachers have to cope with the constraint by separating the theory and laboratory activities.

Rule Clarity

In this Rule Clarity scale, students were asked about the extent to which behaviour in the laboratory is guided by formal rules. The scores of the actual and preferred environments were closer to “Often” than “Sometimes” on the scale rating. Students preferred slightly less formal rules though the difference between the actual and preferred environments was small. From my previous experience in visiting schools, I observed that students were excited when they were given the apparatus. Some unmotivated students played around with the apparatus and tried different things which were not instructed by the teachers. In some other lessons, students wanted to have more freedom in working in the laboratories and to explore their own interest in science experiments. Teachers generally tended to be rather strict in enforcing classroom regulations and safety rules because they anticipated serious consequences of laboratory accidents. If the students were often required to follow the rules because of the safety concerns, they perceived the laboratory as a very restrictive environment. Then the learning activities tended to be not open-ended and this was not favoured by the students. So a less preferred Rule Clarity scale rating was probably related to high expectation in Open-Endedness. It was already discussed in the Open-Endedness section that teachers expressed great concerns about laboratory safety. Poor discipline in laboratories increased chances of accidents. No wonder teachers would like students to be obedient in the laboratories, particularly in a class of a size about 30 students.

In general laboratory and classroom discipline is well maintained in Confucian-Heritage cultures societies like Hong Kong and Taiwan (Aldridge & Fraser, 2000; Thomas, 2006). Disruptive behaviour is not tolerated. However as the western values such as individualism are gradually taking root in Hong Kong, students are demanding more personal freedom to do what they want and beginning to challenge the authoritative image of teachers (examples in Thomas, 2006). The dilemma found in this study was that students preferred less formal rules imposed in the laboratories and teachers would feel uneasy and be afraid of losing control. This was also one of the reasons why science teachers in England resisted innovations in science lessons (Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999). Maintaining a well-disciplined learning environment with an atmosphere that was neither too strict nor too much personal freedom require teachers to have good classroom management skills and the cooperation of self-disciplined students. This is particularly important for adopting the inquiry learning approach in the laboratory. However, such perfect match is not always achieved.

Material Environment

The extent to which the laboratory equipment and materials were adequate was rated closer to “Often” than “Sometimes” in the actual and preferred environments. Students expected an even better environment than what they had at present. This might be due to the comparison with other school facilities such as libraries and computer rooms. Laboratories were usually set up when the school was built and comparatively they were old facility in school. More importantly, traditional secondary science laboratories and the standard secondary equipment pool were designed in the 1980s when inquiry learning approach had not been introduced in the curriculum. Equipment and facilities in laboratories in some schools should be upgraded to facilitate the learning of science through open-ended inquiry.

During the teacher interviews, teachers seemed to have complaints about the management and running of the laboratory.  All the teachers in the interviews reported that less resource had been allocated for managing the laboratories than for the computer rooms or the libraries, because the local education policy is inclined towards languages and information technology in learning and teaching (EC, 1996; EC, 1997; CDC 2000; EDB 2014). It was not easy to obtain resources in upgrading and replacing damaged equipment in laboratories.. In some schools that I visited during my teaching practice supervision duty, I noticed that some laboratories were neat and tidy although it did not have modernized setting like that in a computer room or a well-lighted library. Some other laboratories were stuffed with lots of equipment and students’ projects which had been accumulated over the years. Probably there was not enough storage space in schools and the students’ projects were kept for display in parents’ days or other school functions.

In Hong Kong, laboratory technicians are hired in every school to support the daily laboratory operation and to reduce the heavy workload of teachers. However laboratory technicians are not only responsible for the work in the laboratories but they have to help out other duties assigned by their supervisors, commented by the teachers in the interview. Teachers sometimes could not get the faulty equipment replaced immediately or replenish materials during laboratory activities as the laboratory technicians were sometimes performing duties elsewhere in the school. A teacher commented that a principal who was a former Head of the Science Department in the school thought that it was more cost-effective if laboratory technicians could also serve in other areas such as computer rooms. Hence the laboratory technical support was being diverted to other functions in the school. To handle different open-ended experiments in the laboratory session, laboratory technicians should play a more important role to assist the teacher in the learning and teaching processes. Such human resources are important in promoting the inquiry science learning approach.

Teachers’ concerns

Interviews with teachers showed that the teachers also preferred a positive learning environment in the laboratories. They valued student cooperation and support, clear instructions, disciplined students and a well-managed laboratory. Even though the teachers think that a positive learning environment is good for science learning, there was little done by the teachers in providing such environment. The dilemma and barriers faced by the teachers may be explained in terms of the technical dimension, the political dimension, and the culture dimension proposed by Anderson (1996, 2002).

In the technical dimension, the main concerns of the teachers were the material environments and safety in the laboratories. They had complaints about the laboratory management. The safety concern also led the teachers to take extra steps in enforcing classroom discipline for which students usually did not prefer. Space constraint in some old laboratories limited the diversity of activities conducted.

Solving these problems in the technical dimension may also solve the problems identified in the political dimension. For example, one teacher said that if the class size is smaller, about 20, he could handle the safety concern and would allow more freedom for students to explore. Small class size means more teachers are needed. The increase in staffing of a school would have long term financial implications to the government budget. There are usually fewer disciplinary problems for students of high academic levels, but the discipline is relatively poor in schools with a large number of low academic achievers. Teachers can do little to change that situation because the intake depends on the reputation of the schools as well as the government placement policy (Yung, 1997) which allocates students to different secondary schools according to their academic achievement in primary schools. In general, there is no funding problem for the routine operation of the laboratory because the government provides recurrent funding for the laboratory operations. However the quality of technical support varies greatly among schools and it depends on the management of the school (see examples in Material Environment).

In the cultural dimension, the high cohesion among students commonly found in Hong Kong could have been a positive factor for inquiry investigative approach. However, Chinese students are needed to be trained with more self-study skills and to cultivate the practice of regulating their own learning. The Hong Kong education system is examination-oriented which resembles the Confucian-Heritage culture societies (Biggs, 1990; Morris, 1985; Chan 1996, p. 96). Fairness in examination must be maintained because of high stakes in students’ future study and career path. Thus uniformity in teaching and learning opportunities is part of the practice to ensure fairness. The rigid assessment culture, such as centralized subject tests and examinations for all classes at the same grade level, discourages teachers from adopting an open-ended approach in their teaching. It is difficult to up-root this culture. Resistance to change in the assessment culture also comes from many parents and school principals (Holbrook, 1990).

The SLEI instrument

In this study, we translated the SLEI into Chinese and used it in Hong Kong junior secondary schools to assess the students’ perceptions of the actual and preferred laboratory learning environments. The adaptation of the SLEI to this study raised some issues which may need to be taken into account in future studies using the SLEI.

Reliability

Results of this study revealed that some of the items in the SLEI caused low reliability of the scales in the translated SLEI version. These items fell into two categories: negatively worded items and items of which students were contextually unfamiliar.

It was mentioned in previous sections that negatively worded items were causing low reliability of the scales and this effect appeared to be more pronounced in cross-cultural study. The positively and negatively worded items in a unidimensional scale were often found to form separate factors (Marsh, 1996; Dunbar et al., 2000). This had the effect of reduction of reliability. When these items were removed, the reliability was restored. Thus researchers using SLEI in the future may consider using positively worded items only and bidirectional response pattern (Barnette, 2000).

The low reliability of some of the scales might also be caused by students’ difficulty in understanding the unfamiliar concepts and situations. This may be due to cultural and contextual differences. One example is an item in the Open-Endedness scale, “In my laboratory sessions, other students collect different data than I do for the same problem” (Open-Endedness scale; item 12 in SLEI). Some students told their teachers that they were confused when reading this item, as they might not have such kind of experience in the process of learning science. Another item in the SLEI which students found puzzling was that “the laboratory class is run under clearer rules than their other classes” (Rule Clarity scale; item 34 in SLEI). These students were used to follow the instructions and rules set by the teachers. They were not yet ready to judge whether the rules were clear or not. If the experiments did not work out properly, they might think that it was their own fault, not because the rules or the instructions were not clear. Particularly for students at the junior secondary level, they have not yet developed a critical mind to judge the clarity of the rules. Another example was that some students were not sure of the meaning of an item “using theory from their regular science class sessions during laboratory activities” (Integration scale; item 18 in SLEI). The word “theory” is an abstract concept. The junior secondary science curriculum in Hong Kong puts more emphasis on science skills and the basic phenomena. Students have not learned many theories yet. Tsai (2003) also reported low reliability in the Open-Endedness scale and suggested that unfamiliarity with the nature of Open-Endedness may be the cause of low reliability. Results of this study seemed to support Tsai’s suggestion.

The cognitive ability of junior secondary students is in the early adolescence stage. Their ability to relate abstractions or hypotheses is starting to increase (Fischer & Bullock, 1984; Eccles, 1999). It was likely that some students with different levels of cognitive development may find some of these items unfamiliar and difficult to understand. Therefore if the instrument is to be used in junior secondary level, the items needed to be re-phrased using words or situations which students could easily comprehend.

Correlation among the scales

It was found that a correlated five-factor model fitted the data better than an orthogonal five-factor model. The model fit suggested some correlations existed among the five scales. Mean correlation with other scales, which was used as a measure of discriminant validity, also showed some correlations among the scales. An underlying factor was suspected to be a possible reason behind that interaction. Previous studies (e.g. Fraser, McRobbie & Giddings, 1993; Henderson, Fisher & Fraser 2000; Lee & Fraser 2002) reported that SLEI measures distinct aspects of the laboratory learning environment. Their orthogonal factor analysis vindicated that the scales were distinct. Although their studies mentioned that there were somewhat overlapping among the scales, this argument was not elaborated.   Further studies are needed to clarify and identify the underlying causes of the correlation.

Despite the above problem, the results supported a priori five-factor structure of the Chinese version of SLEI in the data. Internal consistency of the scales was satisfactory and the five scales were also able to differentiate students’ perceptions in different classes. The results showed a profile similar to the studies in other culturally connected countries in Taiwan (Tsai, 2003), Korea (Lee & Fraser, 2002) and Singapore (Wong & Fraser, 1996). This gave further support that SLEI is an effective means in measuring the laboratory learning environments.

 

---

Copyright (C) 2015 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 16, Issue 1, Article 9 (Jun., 2015). All Rights Reserved.