What do you think?
Rate this book
America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science
Laboratory experiences as a part of most U.S. high science curricula have been taken for granted for decades, but they have rarely been carefully examined. What do they contribute to science learning? What can they contribute to science learning? What is the current status of labs in our nation's high schools as a context for learning science? This book looks at a range of questions about how laboratory experiences fit into U.S. high schools: What is effective laboratory teaching? What does research tell us about learning in high school science labs? How should student learning in laboratory experiences be assessed? Do all students have access to laboratory experiences? What changes need to be made to improve laboratory experiences for high school students? And, how can school organization contribute to effective laboratory teaching? With increased attention to the U.S. education system and student outcomes, no part of the high school curriculum should escape scrutiny. This timely book investigates factors that influence a high school laboratory experience, looking closely at what currently takes place and what the goals of those experiences are and should be. benefit from a better understanding of the need for laboratory experiences to be an integral part of the science curriculum and how that can be accomplished.
235 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 2005
About the author
National Research Council
6,266 books43 followersThe National Research Council (NRC) functions under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM). The NAS, NAE, IOM, and NRC are part of a private, nonprofit institution that provides science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter signed by President Abraham Lincoln that was originally granted to the NAS in 1863. Under this charter, the NRC was established in 1916, the NAE in 1964, and the IOM in 1970. The four organizations are collectively referred to as the National Academies.
The mission of the NRC is to improve government decision making and public policy, increase public education and understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in matters involving science, engineering, technology, and health. The institution takes this charge seriously and works to inform policies and actions that have the power to improve the lives of people in the U.S. and around the world.
The NRC is committed to providing elected leaders, policy makers, and the public with expert advice based on sound scientific evidence. The NRC does not receive direct federal appropriations for its work. Individual projects are funded by federal agencies, foundations, other governmental and private sources, and the institution’s endowment. The work is made possible by 6,000 of the world’s top scientists, engineers, and other professionals who volunteer their time without compensation to serve on committees and participate in activities. The NRC is administered jointly by the NAS, NAE, and the IOM through the NRC Governing Board.
The core services involve collecting, analyzing, and sharing information and knowledge. The independence of the institution, combined with its unique ability to convene experts, allows it to be responsive to a host of requests.
The portfolio of activities includes:
* Consensus Studies: These comprehensive reports focus on major policy issues and provide recommendations for solving complex problems.
* Expert Meetings and Workshops: By convening symposia, workshops, meetings, and roundtables, the NRC connects professionals as well as the interested public and stimulates dialogue on diverse matters.
* Program and Research Management: At the request of state and federal agencies, the NRC manages and evaluates research programs, conducts program assessments, and reviews proposals.
* Fellowships: The NRC administers several postdoctoral fellowship programs.
Free Scientific Information: Publishing more than 200 reports and related publications each year, the institution is one of the largest providers of free scientific and technical information in the world. Most of it is now on the Web at www.nap.edu.
The mission of the NRC is to improve government decision making and public policy, increase public education and understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in matters involving science, engineering, technology, and health. The institution takes this charge seriously and works to inform policies and actions that have the power to improve the lives of people in the U.S. and around the world.
The NRC is committed to providing elected leaders, policy makers, and the public with expert advice based on sound scientific evidence. The NRC does not receive direct federal appropriations for its work. Individual projects are funded by federal agencies, foundations, other governmental and private sources, and the institution’s endowment. The work is made possible by 6,000 of the world’s top scientists, engineers, and other professionals who volunteer their time without compensation to serve on committees and participate in activities. The NRC is administered jointly by the NAS, NAE, and the IOM through the NRC Governing Board.
The core services involve collecting, analyzing, and sharing information and knowledge. The independence of the institution, combined with its unique ability to convene experts, allows it to be responsive to a host of requests.
The portfolio of activities includes:
* Consensus Studies: These comprehensive reports focus on major policy issues and provide recommendations for solving complex problems.
* Expert Meetings and Workshops: By convening symposia, workshops, meetings, and roundtables, the NRC connects professionals as well as the interested public and stimulates dialogue on diverse matters.
* Program and Research Management: At the request of state and federal agencies, the NRC manages and evaluates research programs, conducts program assessments, and reviews proposals.
* Fellowships: The NRC administers several postdoctoral fellowship programs.
Free Scientific Information: Publishing more than 200 reports and related publications each year, the institution is one of the largest providers of free scientific and technical information in the world. Most of it is now on the Web at www.nap.edu.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 4, 2009
I'm reading this as part of a class - I've been writing reaction papers on each chapter. I'm going to use selected parts of my reaction papers as a review.
Chapter 1 -This chapter reinforced my belief in the need for strong interdisciplinary and integrated scientific education. This chapter challenged my idea of the primary goal of science education. In my high school, physics and chemistry were both considered to be classes for college bound students, with physics primarily for those who might go into scientific careers. I have unconsciously adopted a bias in favor of science as college preparatory work as opposed to being essential knowledge for everyone.
Chapter 2 - I was surprised at how much curriculum choice influenced instructional methods and saddened to hear that NSF-funded programs are not widely used (although I’m slightly skeptical of NSF reviews of NSF curriculum). The research on undergraduate achievement which showed that addressing fewer topics in more depth in high school physics classes resulted in higher grades in undergraduate physics courses makes logical sense to me based on my prior conceptions. I am also not surprised that state assessment methodologies result in more focus on content mastery and less on laboratory experiences and instructional techniques, although it was interesting to read about the New York and Vermont experiments with performance assessments.
Chapter 3 - I am surprised that the typical laboratory experience is still the most common model in high schools. I am also impressed with the increased understanding across all subgroups shown by some of the integrated instructional units. I am curious about the results of scaling them to larger populations. Additionally, two relatively minor comments struck me as being noteworthy. On page 89, it is stated that “Students tend to adjust their observations to fit their current beliefs rather than change their beliefs in the face of conflicting observations.” I had not considered how deeply student perceptions could influence cognitive processes. From page 93: “Some research on typical laboratory experiences indicates that girls handle laboratory equipment less frequently than boys.” This has been a personal trait I have noticed throughout my life. I still have to consciously force myself to be more adventuresome with laboratory equipment, a skill that seems to come naturally to some classmates.
Chapter 4 -I was discouraged to find that laboratory experiences are so isolated from the classroom. I also was surprised by the limited range of some of the experiences, with the pendulum experiment being one example. It seems so obvious that the second method (where students pick variables to explore, identifying the dependent and independent variables, and then analyzing the results) would provide a much better learning experience. I also was struck by the description of the permeable membrane experiment. Trying to simultaneously measure two variables is complex and probably causes many students to completely miss the point. I remember some of my undergraduate experiences being this way. We had little time, and a complex, cookbook list of things to do. It was often not until I was writing the report afterword that I understood why or what I was doing. I was also struck by the study of three high school teachers (page 130). The unengaged teacher who spent most of his time at his desk had students who more frequently engaged in discussion and in the laboratory activity than the other two. Although none of these teachers was ideal, I was surprised by which one was most effective.
Chapter 1 -This chapter reinforced my belief in the need for strong interdisciplinary and integrated scientific education. This chapter challenged my idea of the primary goal of science education. In my high school, physics and chemistry were both considered to be classes for college bound students, with physics primarily for those who might go into scientific careers. I have unconsciously adopted a bias in favor of science as college preparatory work as opposed to being essential knowledge for everyone.
Chapter 2 - I was surprised at how much curriculum choice influenced instructional methods and saddened to hear that NSF-funded programs are not widely used (although I’m slightly skeptical of NSF reviews of NSF curriculum). The research on undergraduate achievement which showed that addressing fewer topics in more depth in high school physics classes resulted in higher grades in undergraduate physics courses makes logical sense to me based on my prior conceptions. I am also not surprised that state assessment methodologies result in more focus on content mastery and less on laboratory experiences and instructional techniques, although it was interesting to read about the New York and Vermont experiments with performance assessments.
Chapter 3 - I am surprised that the typical laboratory experience is still the most common model in high schools. I am also impressed with the increased understanding across all subgroups shown by some of the integrated instructional units. I am curious about the results of scaling them to larger populations. Additionally, two relatively minor comments struck me as being noteworthy. On page 89, it is stated that “Students tend to adjust their observations to fit their current beliefs rather than change their beliefs in the face of conflicting observations.” I had not considered how deeply student perceptions could influence cognitive processes. From page 93: “Some research on typical laboratory experiences indicates that girls handle laboratory equipment less frequently than boys.” This has been a personal trait I have noticed throughout my life. I still have to consciously force myself to be more adventuresome with laboratory equipment, a skill that seems to come naturally to some classmates.
Chapter 4 -I was discouraged to find that laboratory experiences are so isolated from the classroom. I also was surprised by the limited range of some of the experiences, with the pendulum experiment being one example. It seems so obvious that the second method (where students pick variables to explore, identifying the dependent and independent variables, and then analyzing the results) would provide a much better learning experience. I also was struck by the description of the permeable membrane experiment. Trying to simultaneously measure two variables is complex and probably causes many students to completely miss the point. I remember some of my undergraduate experiences being this way. We had little time, and a complex, cookbook list of things to do. It was often not until I was writing the report afterword that I understood why or what I was doing. I was also struck by the study of three high school teachers (page 130). The unengaged teacher who spent most of his time at his desk had students who more frequently engaged in discussion and in the laboratory activity than the other two. Although none of these teachers was ideal, I was surprised by which one was most effective.
Displaying 1 of 1 review