Matching laboratory learning goals to evaluation of student performance: A standards-based approach

Abstract

Undergraduate science education is often expressed in an abysmally poor physical environment. Laboratory eaperiences-the heart of any science-are often relegated to rote exercises that are designed to consume minimal resources whether these he time, space, equipment, or personnel. Laboratory experiences should expose the student to critical thinking, planning, analyses, and synthesis and should develop a sense of the integrity of data aa well as the uncertainty of measurements. The development of such characteristics occurs through active doing as opposed to passive observing.

Assessing Investigative Skill Development in Inquiry‐Based and Traditional College Science Laboratory Courses

“…The extent to which laboratory work can help students develop their investigative skills depends upon which instructional method (approach) is selected. For many years the verification , or cookbook, approach has been used extensively, despite the fact that it emphasizes laboratory techniques while de‐emphasizing investigative skill development (Abraham et al 1997; Beasley, 1991; Hilosky et al 1998; Lagowski, 1989; Laws, 1996). In this approach students are given a predetermined laboratory outcome (expected results), which they are to verify by following a step‐by‐step procedure, by filling in blanks on data sheets, and by answering a set of questions that usually query knowledge of facts or calculation algorithms.…”

“…In this approach students are given a predetermined laboratory outcome (expected results), which they are to verify by following a step‐by‐step procedure, by filling in blanks on data sheets, and by answering a set of questions that usually query knowledge of facts or calculation algorithms. This deductive approach encourages only “rule‐governed behavior” (Beasley, 1991); however, it remains popular among laboratory instructors because it consumes minimal resources in terms of time, space, equipment, and/or personnel (Lagowski, 1990). Conversely, the inquiry approach maximizes demands for these resources in addition to the expectation that students discover and develop their own investigative skills (Huber & Moore, 2001).…”

“…Instructors can select whichever approach matches the level of laboratory competence (Beasley, 1991; Meester & Maskill, 1995) they expect their students to develop. Each of these four instructional approaches can be placed on a continuum of laboratory competence that ranges from the verification method (Level I or II), which can develop primarily manipulative skills (i.e., technique), to the other three methods that demand higher levels of investigative skills (Meester & Maskill, 1995).…”

“…Each of these four instructional approaches can be placed on a continuum of laboratory competence that ranges from the verification method (Level I or II), which can develop primarily manipulative skills (i.e., technique), to the other three methods that demand higher levels of investigative skills (Meester & Maskill, 1995). Guided inquiry can be classified at Level III (Beasley, 1991), because although it gives students a stepwise procedure to follow, they are expected to gather and analyze evidence to generate their own conclusions and to discover underlying chemical principles. Meanwhile, problem‐based instruction satisfies the criteria for Level IV (Beasley, 1991), because it demands that students generate their own procedure based upon cues given in the statement of the problem to be solved (DeMeo, 1997; Meester & Maskill, 1995).…”

“…Guided inquiry can be classified at Level III (Beasley, 1991), because although it gives students a stepwise procedure to follow, they are expected to gather and analyze evidence to generate their own conclusions and to discover underlying chemical principles. Meanwhile, problem‐based instruction satisfies the criteria for Level IV (Beasley, 1991), because it demands that students generate their own procedure based upon cues given in the statement of the problem to be solved (DeMeo, 1997; Meester & Maskill, 1995). The open inquiry method combines the separate demands imposed by guided inquiry and problem‐based forms of instruction (Level IV+), because students must use an inductive approach in which they generate their own procedure and then discover underlying chemical principles.…”