Laboratory work in biology teaching at slovene secondary schools

Authors

  • Andrej Šorgo
  • Tatjana Verčkovnik
  • Slavko Kocijančič

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14720/abs.50.2.15064

Keywords:

Biology, education, laboratory work, secondary schools, teachers’ attitude

Abstract

Between years 2005 and 2006 was conducted a research based on extended questionnaire about implementation of computer-based laboratory into Science teaching. One of the specific goals was to find out preliminary data about status of laboratory exercises in teaching biology. Our interest was in sources of teachers’ manuals, which style of laboratory work prevails, how often teachers include laboratory work in their teaching, the way in which exercises are performed and teacher’s attitudes toward such work. Answers from 70 teachers (about 40% of Slovene secondary school biology teachers) were received. Based on the answers of the questionnaire we can conclude that teachers have generally positive attitudes toward laboratory work, and they include into teaching most of the prescribed laboratory exercises. Not so positive are the findings that a large part of the exercises is presented to the students as demonstrations, and expository style is preferred. Into the future efforts should be done to transfer expository labs into inquiry and problem-based laboratory work. If the situation stayed unchanged the function of laboratory work will be only in function of presentation and clarification of concepts. The influence of such work in the domain of so called higher educational goals would be minimal or nonexistent. If the intention is to improve Biology teaching then the prescribed curriculum should be changed in the way that more timeis given to few topics. On the other hand teachers need more in-service trainings in didactics of problem-based teaching.

References

ABRAHAM M. R. 1989. Research on instruction strategies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 18: 185–187.

ABRAHAM M. R. 1992. Instructional strategies designed to teach science concepts. In: F. LAWRENZ, K. COCHRAN, J. KRAJCIK and P. SIMPSON (eds), Research matters to the Science Teacher, monograph, number 5 (Kansas State University,Manhattan, KS: National Association for Research in Science Teaching): 41–50.

BAJD B., ARTAČ S. 2002. Nekateri vidiki postopnega prehajanja tradicionalnega poučevanja k procesnemu. Sodobna pedagogika, 53, 2: 108–122.

BLAŽIČ M., IVANUŠ – GRMEK M., KRAMAR M., STRMČNIK F. 2003. Didaktika. Visokošolski učbenik. Visokošolsko središče, Inštitut za raziskovalno in razvojno delo. Novo mesto, 426 str.

BUTLER KAHLE J., ANDERSON A., DAMNJANOVIC A. 1991. A comparison of elementary teacher attitudes and skills in teaching science in Australia and the United States. Journal of Research in Science Education, 21, 1: 208–216. ComLab-2. Computerised laboratory in science and technology teaching – part 2. http://e-prolab.com/comlab/index.html (3. jan. 2007).

DOMIN D. S. 1999. A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 4: 543–547.

DUGGAN S., GOTT R. 2002. What sort of science do we really need? International Journal of Science Education 24,7: 661–679.

ESCHENHAGEN D., KATMANN U., RODI D. 1998. Fachdidaktik Biologie. 4th ed. Aulis Verlag Deubner. Koeln: 496 str.

GABRŠČEK S., URŠIČ M., VILHAR B. 2005. Izzivi naravoslovno tehničnega izobraževanja: zaključno poročilo. Ljubljana: CPZ International, center za promocijo znanja d o. o.: Pedagoški Inštitut, Ljubljana. 190 str.

GALLAGHER S. A.; STEPIEN W. J. (1995) Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science & Mathematics. 95 (3):136 – 147.

HODSON D. 2003. Time for action: science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education 25,6: 645–670.

JENKINS E. 2003. School Science: Too Much, Too Little, or a Problem with Science Itself? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 3, 2: 269–274.

JOHNSTONE A.H., AL-SHUAILI A. 2001. Learning in the laboratory; some thoughts from the literature. University Chemistry Education 5: 42–51.

KOŠMELJ B. 1983. Uvod v multivariantno analizo. Univerza v Ljubljani.

LAGOWSKY J.J. 2005. A chemical laboratory in a digital world. Chemical Education International 6, 1: 1–7.

LAVONEN L., AKSELA M., JUUTI K., MEISALO V. 2003. Designing a user-frienly microcomputer-based laboratory package through the factor analysis of teacher evaluations. International Journal of Science Education 25, 12: 1471–1487.

LINN M.C., HYDE J. S. 1989. Gender, Mathematics, and Science. Educational Researcher, 18. 8: 17–27. Letno poročilo – splošna matura (2006). http://www.ric.si (27.april 2007)

MA W., YUEN A. 2002. Gender Differences in Teacher Computer Acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 3, 365–382.

MICHAEL J. 2006. Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education 30: 159–167.

OSBORNE J., SIMON S., S. COLLINS 2003. Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 9: 1049–1079.

SELWYN N. 1997. Students’ attitudes toward computers: validation of a computer attitude scale for 16–19 education. Computers and Education. 1:35–41.

ŠORGO A. 2004. Računalniško podprt laboratorij pri pouku biologije v programu gimnazije. Magistrsko delo. Univerza v Ljubljani. Biotehniška fakulteta. Oddelek za biologijo.

ŠORGO A. 2005. Računalniško podprt laboratorij pri pouku biologije v programu gimnazije. Modeli poučevanja in učenja. Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo. Ljubljana.

ŠORGO A., HAJDINJAK Z. 2006. Specialna anatomija gimnazijca ali kaj je v meni. Vzgoja in izobraževanje, 37, 5: 43–51.

ŠORGO A., KOCIJANČIČ S. 2006a Demonstration of biological processes in lakes and fish ponds through computerised laboratory practice. The International Journal of Engineering Education 22, 6: 1224–1230.

ŠORGO A., KOCIJANČIČ S. 2004b. Teaching basic engineering and technology principles to pre-university students through a computerised laboratory. World transactions on engineering and technology education, 3(2): 239–242.

TRANTER J. 2004. Biology: dull, lifeless and boring? Journal of Biological Education, 38, 3, 104–5.

VERČKOVNIK T. 2000. Biologija v prenovljeni šoli. Acta Biologica Slovenica. 43,3: 21–32.

Downloads

Published

01.07.2005 — Updated on 01.12.2007

Issue

Section

Original Research Paper

How to Cite

Šorgo, A., Verčkovnik, T., & Kocijančič, S. (2007). Laboratory work in biology teaching at slovene secondary schools. Acta Biologica Slovenica, 50(2), 113-124. https://doi.org/10.14720/abs.50.2.15064

Similar Articles

1-10 of 72

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.