Learning By Doing: Capturing the STEM Students’ Experiences in Science Laboratory Experiments: A Lebenswelt
Volume 6 - Issue 4, April 2023 Edition
[Download Full Paper]
Author(s)
Maricel T. Gubat, MEd Krizha S. Romero, Lovely Catherine Joyce E. Implamado, Margarette Paula S. Baltazar, Eurica Isaiah O. Dorado, Alija Glaiehnn R. Manalili, Jherimae Lee V. Paguia, Salman L. Malic
Keywords
Laboratory Experiments, STEM, Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor
Abstract
Background: As the advancement of today’s technology, the important use of the school science laboratory has been greatly needed over the past years especially for the STEM students. Although other studies have gone over the importance of science laboratories, this paper presents a clear understanding of the lived experience of grade 12 students under the STEM strand in conducting experiments in the school science laboratory. Methods: This qualitative study utilized the phenomenological approach to fully understand the lived experiences of the Grade 12 STEM students concerning the central question: “How do laboratory experiments reinforce the academic development of STEM students?” The necessary data set was obtained through semi-structured interviews with twenty-seven (27) questions and formulated themes from the responses of the participants. Findings: Findings have shown the lived experiences of the Grade 12 Senior High School STEM students in conducting experiments in the school Science Laboratory. It comprises three major themes with three sub-themes each: Cognitive Application with the sub-themes Critical Thinking, Outcome-Based Approach, and Experiential Learning; Affective Implication with the sub-themes Personal Satisfaction, Collaboration, and Responsibility; and Psychomotor Intensification with the sub-themes Manipulation, Proficiency, and Adaptation. Conclusion: The students’ learning experiences in the school science laboratory had been impactful in the development of the three domains of learning in relation to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Students are able to nurture their cognitive, affective and psychomotor skills through the conduct of laboratory experiments. Recommendations: The researchers recommend that laboratory experimentation be given more emphasis in any Science course more than other performance tasks. To fill in the gaps in this study, it is suggested that the future researchers diversify the respondents’ profile by locale, age, and strand. In addition, the researchers recommended conducting further analysis of the students’ learning experiences on conducting science laboratory experiments.
References
[1]. Abas, R. A. J., & Marasigan, F. A. (2020). The implementation of the senior high school STEM curriculum and its impact on the academic performance of students. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1529(1), 012012. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1529/1/012012
[2]. Abdi, A., & Crippen, K. J. (2017). Evaluating the efficacy of an inquiry-based learning program in a science education center. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 458-484.
[3]. Abrahams, I., Reiss, M., & Sharpe, R. (2013). Developing manipulative skills in school science: A plea for a new emphasis. Journal of Biological Education, 47(4), 162-167. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2013.799501
[4]. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275-314.
[5]. Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2013). The Effects of Self-Explanation and Transactivity in L2 Science Learning with Immersive Virtual Laboratories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 22-43. doi: 10.1037/a0029579
[6]. Aksu, M., & Ergin, Ö. (2018). The effects of structured inquiry-based laboratory activities on students’ achievement in science process skills and attitude towards science. International Journal of Science Education, 40(6), 644-660.
[7]. Anderson, L. A., & Cavanagh, T. M. (2018). Collaborative group testing benefits high- and low-achieving students. Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), 89-104.
[8]. Asikainen, M. A., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2017). Students’ manipulation of scientific equipment: a phenomenographic study. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 939-954.
[9]. Aspers, P., & Corte, U. (2019). How to conceptualize and study lived experience. Qualitative Sociology Review, 15(4), 10-22.
[10]. Arslan, A., & Cigdemoglu, C. (2013). Exploring students' acquisition of manipulative skills during science practical work. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(3), 159-170.
[11]. Arshad, M., & Bano, A. (2015). Exploring students’ acquisition of manipulative skills during science practical work. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 1045-1055. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1424a
[12]. Aydin, S., & Boz, Y. (2018). The effect of laboratory activities on academic achievement and attitudes of middle school students towards science. International Journal of Science Education, 40, 877–892. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2018.1453351
[13]. Azmitia, R. (2011). The impact of laboratory activities on student enjoyment and engagement in science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 757-767.
[14]. Barros, A. G., Barros, D. B., & Gandra, M. (2019). The impact of laboratory experiments on students' scientific knowledge and skills: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(3), 353-367.
[15]. Basilio, J. A., Esteban, J. M. A., & Banua, J. R. M. (2018). The impact of hands-on laboratory activities in science education on senior high school students' sense of fulfillment and satisfaction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(2), 141-153.
[16]. Battista, M. T., & Clements, D. H. (1996). Laboratory experiences in science education: Bridging research and practice. National Science Teachers Association.
[17]. Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (2014). Towards scientific literacy: A teacher’s guide to the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. Routledge.
[18]. Berntson, G. G., Norman, G. J., Bechara, A., Bruss, J., Tranel, D., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). The insula and evaluative processes. Psychological Science, 23(2), 149-157.
[19]. Binning, K. R., Sullivan, L. A., & Lopatto, D. (2014). Envisioning the future of science undergraduate education. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 373-383.
[20]. Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: Tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions. John Wiley & Sons
[21]. Chang, C.-Y., Wu, W.-H., Wu, Y.-T., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2017). Science laboratory course and student engagement in real-life situations: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(1), 56-66.
[22]. Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., & Wyatt, T. M. (2014). Gender differences in the socialization of preschoolers' emotional competence. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2014(143), 21-37.
[23]. Dhindsa, H., Friesen, S., & Liu, Y. (2013). The challenges faced by science teachers in activating school laboratories. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(2), 74-83. https://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Challenges-Faced-by-Science-Teachers-in-Activating-School-Laboratories.pdf
[24]. Ennis, R. H. (2015). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities (pp. 13-26). Routledge.
[25]. Feldman Barrett, L. (2017). The theory of constructed emotion: An active inference account of interoception and categorization. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(1), 1-23.
[26]. Ferreira, J., & Morais, A. M. (2016). Digital leadership and professional development. In M. C. Penichet, M. D. Lozano, M. S. Rodríguez, & F. Buendía (Eds.), Advances in Human Factors in Training, Education, and Learning Sciences (pp. 171-181). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0770-6.ch009
[27]. Garrido, S. S., Souza, J. E. S., & Santos, S. R. (2012). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory and practice. Revista Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação, 20(77), 535-558. http://www.ijcrs.org/issue_image/IJCRS-3.03.04.pdf
[28]. Gericke, N., Drechsler, M., & Blume, E. (2022). Scientific practices in the laboratory: An explorative analysis of learning experiences of secondary school students. Research in Science Education, 52, 467–492. doi: 10.1007/s11165-021-00295-2
[29]. González-García, F. J., & Ibáñez-Martín, J. A. (2013). Digital leadership and professional development. In J. Keengwe, G. Onchwari, & J. Wachira (Eds.), Leadership in Technology Education: Enhancing Teaching and Learning (pp. 218-235). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-3666-6.ch011
[30]. Goñi, U., & Bilbao, A. (2013). Analysis of the influence of the teacher in laboratory practices. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(5), 612-618.
[31]. Gorghiua, L. M., & Santi, G. C. (2016). The role of relevance in learning: Can a personal connection really make a difference?. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, 5(1), 23-31.
[32]. Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B., & Armstrong, N. (2014). Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-20.
[33]. Guo, Y., Zhu, C., & Fan, X. (2015). The relationships among high school students’ science laboratory perceptions, science process skills, and scientific reasoning abilities. Research in Science Education, 45(5), 725-744.
[34]. Halpern, D. F. (2014). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 69(1), 1-13.
[35]. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2016). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 547-582.
[36]. Hess, D. J. (2010). Emotions in the history of ideas. In H. S. Reis & S. J. Sauter (Eds.), Handbook of emotion (pp. 207-223). Guilford Press.
[37]. Herrmann-Abell, C. F., Saldaña, C., & DeBoer, G. E. (2018). The importance of science laboratory experiences in the development of scientific reasoning skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(3), 443-460.
[38]. Hsu, L., Chiang, C., Hwang, G., & Chang, C. (2017). Investigating college students' attitudes, satisfaction, and confidence toward laboratory learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 150-160.
[39]. Hutcheson, F. (2017). Francis Hutcheson: Moral philosopher. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved January 27, 2022, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hutcheson/
[40]. Ibeh, M. O., & Ezeudu, S. A. (2013). What are career goals composed of? Professional fulfillment, social affection, self-actualization and economic success. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 26(4), 648-655. https://www.scielo.br/j/prc/a/pJWZgBzd4jyYwprTGLfVTWw/?lang=en
[41]. International Journal of Current Research and Science. (2017). Science laboratories in school: Research, theory, and practice. International Journal of Current Research and Science, 3(3), 30-35.
[42]. Iverson, J. M. (2010). Developing language in a developing body: The relationship between motor development and language development. Journal of Child Language, 37(2), 229-261.
[43]. Iyer, L. (2019). Developing well-informed and critical students through education. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v8n2p1
[44]. Jimoyiannis, A., Tsiotakis, P., & Roussinos, D. (2012). Effects of a laboratory approach on students’ conceptual understanding of chemical change. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 531-557.
[45]. Jovanovic, J., & King, R. B. (2019). The impact of laboratory activities on cognitive learning experiences in science education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 879-891.
[46]. Karpudewan, M. (2019). STEM integration in science laboratory activities: A review. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(3), 422-436.
[47]. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2012). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effect of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 23(10), 997-1003.
[48]. Kamal, A., Ali, A., & Iqbal, S. (2014). The challenges faced by science teachers in activating school laboratories. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(4), 87-91.
[49]. Karim, S., Ahmed, S., & Zaidi, J. H. (2017). Students’ engagement in the science laboratory: An empirical investigation in Pakistani high schools. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 267-292.
[50]. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
[51]. Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246-258.
[52]. Kim, M., & Lee, H. (2013). Identifying variables that predict students' conceptual learning of electrochemistry through a conceptual change approach. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(3), 309-318.
[53]. Kilinc, A., Aydin, S., & Aydin, A. (2020). The effect of laboratory activities on the satisfaction of pre-service science teachers. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(16), 110-116.
[54]. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2013). 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(2), 75-86. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.804395
[55]. Kontra, C., Lyons, D. J., Fischer, S. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Physical experience enhances science learning. Psychological Science, 26(6), 737-749. doi: 10.1177/0956797615572769
[56]. Kohnke, M. C., & Daubenmire, P. L. (1996). Assessment of lab work: A three-domain model (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor). Proceedings of the 1996 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Washington, DC. https://peer.asee.org/assessment-of-lab-work-a-three-domain-model-cognitive-affective-and-psychomotor
[57]. Lai, E. R. (2011). Collaboration: A literature review. Pearson Research Report.
[58]. Lee, J. (2017). An investigation of the relationships between students’ epistemological beliefs, conceptions of learning science, and science learning outcomes in
[59]. Lee, S. Y., & Kahveci, A. J. (2019). The impact of a science laboratory program on students' emotional engagement and motivation toward science learning. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(7), em1702.
[60]. Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799-823.
[61]. Linn, M. C., & Songer, N. B. (2012). Teaching thermodynamics to middle school students: What are appropriate cognitive demands? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(6), 668-694.
[62]. Liu, X., & Yerrick, R. (2010). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In D. G. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393-414). Routledge.
[63]. Llewellyn, D. (2012). Teaching high school science through inquiry and argumentation. Corwin Press.
[64]. Lopatto, D., Hauser, C., Jones, C. J., Paetkau, D., Chandrasekaran, V., Dunbar, D., ... & Stamm, J. (2018). A central support system can facilitate implementation and sustainability of a classroom-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) in genomics. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(2), ar20.
[65]. Ma, K. L., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). An introduction to text visualization techniques: From scatterplots to zoomable user interfaces. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(1), 1-31. https://web.stevens.edu/jnickerson/ACMComputingSurveys2006MaNickerson.pdf
[66]. Mendes, M. T., Costa, M. F., & Maia, J. D. (2019). Exploring manipulation and the role of materials in the promotion of scientific literacy through inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 49(3), 961-985.
[67]. Merrit, J. H. (2008). Psychomotor domain. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Encyclopedia of positive psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 750-754). Wiley-Blackwell.
[68]. Millar, J., & von Hippel, P. (2005). Adaptive strategies in biomedical research laboratories. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15(1-2), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-004-0201-8
[69]. Nascimento, J. C., Dias, J. R., Souza, F. R., & Silva, C. D. (2012). Professional fulfillment and challenges of the career in dentistry. Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clinica Integrada, 12(3), 381-385. https://doi.org/10.4034/PBOCI.2012.123.55
[70]. Neubauer, B. E., Witkop, C. T., & Varpio, L. (2019). How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), 90-97. doi: 10.1007/s40037-019-0511-6
[71]. Newell, K. M. (2016). Constraints on the development of coordination. Motor Control and Learning, 1, 27-63.
[72]. O’Connor, R. (2010). The role of emotions in learning: A study of the Irish science laboratory. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(3), 267-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.482205
[73]. Pratama, F. R., & Rusilowati, A. (2017). The impact of laboratory activities on students' cognitive skills in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(5), 545-555.
[74]. Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2013). The effects of technology-mediated inquiry-based learning environments on student argumentation skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 109-126.
[75]. Rodger, S. H., & Walker, E. (2018). Student responsibility and performance in undergraduate science laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(7), 1208-1216.
[76]. Rogala-Pewczyk, G. (2002). Adaptation as a specific kind of human accommodation to a particular environment. Roczniki Naukowe Ekonomii Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich, 89(2), 139-146.
[77]. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2018). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In Handbook of Moral and Character Education (pp. 295-312). Routledge.
[78]. Sánchez-Torrubia, M. G., & Perales-Palacios, F. J. (2020). Inquiry-based laboratory activities in primary education: Their impact on scientific thinking and the acquisition of scientific knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 442–453. doi: 10.1007/s10956-020-09856-9
[79]. Sarac, H. I. (2018). The importance of STEM education in the 21st century. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(9), 13-19. doi: 10.11114/jets.v6i9.3449
[80]. Scherer, K. R., & Moors, A. (2019). The emotion process: Event appraisal and component differentiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 719-745.
[81]. Schulz, R. M. (2020). Affection. In Dictionary.com. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/affection
[82]. Sellami, A., Al-Maadeed, S., & Bouridane, A. (2016). STEM education in Qatar: Challenges and opportunities. In 2016 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON).
[83]. Staver, J. R., & Lumpe, A. T. (2015). The impact of laboratory activities on student learning. The science teacher, 82(6), 24-30.
[84]. Takshak, S. (2013). Professional development of science teachers through ODL: The role of technology. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 96-107. https://pdf.sci
[85]. Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2012). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(2), 177-194.
[86]. Vincent, A., & Lunetta, V. (2003). Laboratory Learning Environments and Practical Skills Enhancement in Senior Secondary School Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 615-637. doi: 10.1002/tea.10083
[87]. Wagner, P. (2010). Motivational factors and teachers' professional development in science education: A literature review. Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 129-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.482205.
[88]. Williams, K. M., & Chen, X. (2021). Comparing virtual and hands-on laboratory manipulations in enhancing student understanding of photosynthesis. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(3), 656-662.
[89]. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878-903.
[90]. Yin, C. S., & Lin, J. Y. (2013). The role of school laboratory in science education: Philosophical, historical, psychological and pedagogical perspectives. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1144-1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.359
[91]. Yoon, S., Gürerk, Ö., & Jeon, S. (2015). Communication and group formation in economic experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 118, 215-226.
[92]. Zaghloul, A. R. (2001, June), Assessment Of Lab Work: A Three Domain Model; Cognitive, Affective, And Psychomotor Paper presented at 2001 Annual Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 10.18260/1-2--8931