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 school 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 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. Science educators, school administrators, policy makers, and parents will all 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.
254 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 2005
1 person want to read
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