EFFECTIVENESS of the INDIVIDUAL LABORATORY METHOD in SCIENCE COURSES THOMAS MORSE BARGER Illinois State Normal University. Normal, Illinois
B
Y THE "individual laboratory method" is established at the University of Pennsylvania in 1835. meant the performance of experiments, dissec- President Eliot, of Harvard University, has stated: tions, or investigations by the students in- "When I was a student at the Harvard College (about dividually, following directions printed in a laboratory 1850) there was not a single laboratory open to the guide, given upon mimeographed sheets, written upon students on any subject, either chemistry, physics, or the blackboard, or presented orally by the instructor. biol~gy."~The foundation of the Rensselaer PolyWhen completed, the exercise is "written up" by the technic Institute in 1825, the Lawrence Scientific student and handed to the instructor, who reads and School in 1847, Sheffield, at Yale, in 1860, and the approves, or hands it back for correction. The re- Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1862, all quirements for "writing up" an experiment vary with served to hasten the establishment of laboratories, as the instructor, some requiring a detailed account of the each of these encouraged laboratory demonstrations materials used, a drawing of the apparatus, a descrip- and individual work by the s t ~ d e n t s . ~ I t was not until the late 1880's and the early 1890's tion of the method of procedure, a computation of results from the data taken, and answers to pertinent that laboratory work in the sciences was quite generally questions asked in the directions given. Some instruc- adopted by the universities and colleges of the country. tors demand that the results obtained fall within an The early years of the present century witnessed the allowed per cent. of error. Other teachers are much less installation of laboratories and laboratory work in a exacting in their requirements, expecting only a draw- great majority of our high schools. The biological sciences were the first to become well ing of the apparatus used, or the dissection made, and answers to the questions asked, with a computation of established and it was a common sight in our secondary schools to see the students laboribusly dissecting anglethe results from the data. The effectiveness of any method of instruction is worms, crayfish, locusts, and the like. In botany it was best determined by comparing its results with those ob- much the same, dissecting of roots, stems, leaves, and tained by use of some other method. The results of flowers, then tracing the plants from family down to several other methods of laboratory instruction have species and memorizing the accompanying Latin names. been compared, more or less scientifically, with those of Much of the course in physiology,consisted in learning the individual laboratory method. Three of these the names and locations of the bones of the body, the which are in use at the present time +we the lecture- muscles, and internal organs with their functions. The demonstration, the group-experiment or lecture-labora- courses in physics and chemistry were quite similar, tory, and the class-participation methods. These will much detail being given to exact laboratory determinations with the purpose in view of obtaining results be described as they are discussed later in the paper. which would be withm an allowed per cent. of error. HISTORICAL Then came the period of reaction with its accompanying I t will be of interest to review briefly the progress of results, which will form the thesis of this paper. the adoption of the individual laboratory method in the schoolsbf this country. THESIS E. R. Downing, in the Juurnal of Higher Education, During the period of the almost universal adoption states: "Amos Eaton in the Academv at Albanv. of the individual laboratory method the aim of educaN. Y., Griscom, in a private boys' schooiin New ~ o ; k tion, in the minds of the instructors, seemed to be City, and Holbrook in the Agricultural Seminary a t specialization, or the mastery of the subject for the Derby, N. H., were using the laboratory method as subject's sake alone. Early in the present century early as the third decade in the 19th century. Ap- many teachers and a few of our leading educators parently the efforts of these men were fruitless. Its began to question the validity of such an aim for general introduction did not occur until about seventy education. Among other common practices, the laboTears later."' The first chemical laboratory was a NOLL, V. H., "Science teaching on the college level," Nat. ' DOWNING, E. R.,-"Methodsin science teaching," 3. Higher Soc. for thq Study of Educ., 3lst Year Book, Part I. Public
-
Educ..2,316-20 (June. 1931).
.
School Publlshmg Co Bloomington, Ill ,1032, pp. 30524.
ratow method in science courses became the target for their;iticisms. As early as 1900, Professor F. D. Barber, of the Illinois State Normal Universitv,. at Normal. Ill.. had .~ begun to question the effectiveness of this method with his classes in physics and chemistry. He soon had reduced the individual laboratory work to comparatively few experiments which required relatively simple apparatus. The other experiments were performed by the demonstration or the lecture-demonstration method which had been the accepted procedure of science teachers before the wave of individual lahoratory work had swept over the country. Mr. Barber maintained that his students mastered the work as well or better by using the latter method and they did it in much less time, thus permitting them to cover more subject matter. Kiebler and Woodya deiine the demonstration as a method where "the instructor, with the aid of one or more students, demonstrates the experiment and the students get its import through observation and disaission rather than through actual performance." The same preliminary preparation is made by the class and the same after procedure follows as when the individual laboratory method is used. About this time other 'men in Merent parts of the country were making like investigations and arriving a t the same conclusions. But it was not until 1918 that an attempt was made to compare these two methods scientifically. This investigation was made .in the McGuffy High School, of the Miami University, by W. H. Wiley.4 The investigation was quite faulty when viewed scientifically and it gives the careful reader the impression that the author performed the experiment with a pre-formed conclusion of what the results would be. It finds the individual lahoratory method superior to the lecture-demonstration. Since 1918 there have been more than twenty investigations made that have been printed, besides numerous others whose authors have not cared to offerthem for publication. The printed investigatiods are listed by Downing' and also by Payne,=and they ~ $ not 1 he repeated here. There are but three of these whose findings favor the individual laboratory method. These were made by Wiley,' Horton,%and Hurd.? Hurd's investigation was made with classes in human anatomy, and one may understand that in such work individual performance may be advisable. The conclusions of other investigators all show-the
.
-
a RIBBLBR, E. W. AND WOODY, C., "The individual laboratory versus the demonstration method in teaching physics." J. Educ. Research. 7 , 5 M (Jan., 1923). ' WUEY,W. H.,"An experimental study of the methods in teaching high-school chemistry," J. Edzrc. PsycW., 9, 181-98 (Apr., 1918). "AYNE.~. F.."Theleeture-demonstrationandindividuallahoratory methods compared," J. &EM. EDIJC.,9, 932-9 (May, 1 ~2.12)
HORTON, R. E., "Measurable outcomes of individual lahoratory work in high schwl the-try." Teachers College, Columbia University, Bureauof Publication, New York City, 1928. HWRD, A. W., "Problems of science teaching at the college level," Univ. of Minn. Press, Minneapolis. 1929.
'
superiority of the lecture-demonstration method in the immediate and delayed retention of information, the general appreciation of the acquisition of knowledge, the time saved, and in cost. Payne, in his investigation, states that as much can be accomplished by the lecture-demonstration in two-thuds of the time and at a cost of only one-fifteenth as much for apparatus as by the laboratory method.' To acquire technic in the handling of apparatus, the individual laboratory method seems to be superior. The question which arises here is whether the aim of secondary education is to prepare laboratory technicians. But other methods of science instruction have been placed in competition with the laboratory method. Professor J. M. Jameson, of Gerard College, Philadelphia, Pa., states that he has supplanted the individual laboratory method by the group experiment or lecturelaboratory method of in~truction.~He has used this method for a number of years with his classes and has thoroughly convinced himself of its superiority over the conventional laboratory method, in the acquisition of knowledge by the students, in the saving of time, and in the redudion in cost. This method is a variation of the lecture-demonstration in that the work is performed in the laboratory by groups working a t a single piece of apparatus, the instructor passing from group to group to make suggestions and to give help when needed. The entire class may form the group if desired. Complicated pieces of apparatus may be set up before class time by some member or by the instructor. The last method to be considered which has been used to supplant the individual laboratory has been called the class-participation methort.. It is the writer's own method which has been used since 1915, with what he considers the greatest success. He has used this method with both high-school and college classes in physics. It may be considered another variation of the lecture-demonstration, but the writer believes it embraces the best in both the lect'ye-demonstration and the individual laboratory methods. It may be used in the laboratory or at the lecture table. The experiment is assigned a day in advance and the students have supposedly mastered the theory involved and know the steps in the procedure. The apparatus to be used is set up before class time by the instructor or by some member of the class. When the class assembles, a brief quiz covering the steps in the procedure is given. Suppose that Boyle's Law is to be tested. After making sure that the class comprehends the procedure, the fust step is taken and two students are asked to take the readings. Then the second step is taken and another two students take the readings. This continues until all the readinzs have been made, which brinm into active from eight to twelve of the class participation in the performance of the experiment. Of course each member of the class records the data as taken. Throughout the procedure questions are asked J-SON, J. M., "Artificial crutches in traditional science
-
teaching." Sch. Sci. Math., 31,408-16 (Apr., 1931).
by students and teacher and all points of doubt are made clear. If time permits, the results are computed from the data by each student and these are compared. If time does not permit, the computation of the results is made at home and used in the recitation on the following day. The writer bas checked this method against the individual laboratory method in many ways and with many classes, not with his own students alone, but with those who had taken part of their work with other instructors. The results have shown its superiority in the acquisition of information and its retention, in the appreciation of the knowledge gained, in the time saved, and in the cost for apparatus. He also has the testimony of nearly a thousand students as to its superiority. H i student teachers, who go out to teach physics, are thoroughly familiar with this method and they enthusiastically adopt it in their teaching. Another advantage of this method is that it permits experimentation or recitation work to be given whenever the progress in the work demands it. Neither is limited to certain days of the week or to particular rooms. CONCLUSION
in our schools, the impression that some of these subjects are difEcult and that others are dry and uninteresting, and the method used in presenting the subject matter. The individual laboratory method is not wholly inferior and many of the investigations which have been made, showing its inferiority, are open to criticism. F. A. Riedel points out some of their weaknesses to be the shortness of time covered by the investigation, the inexperience of the one making the investigation, the limited number of experiments used, the narrow limits of the subject matter covered, the same investigation not performed by more than one person, and all the data involved not shown in the report so that it might be checked.'O But the fact that the conclusions of the great majority of these investigations agree, and the f a d that these conclusions are in practical agreement with the opinions of instructors who have made similar studies over a long period of years, with the varying classes as they came, would seem to give considerable weight to them. Isn't it true that the point of view of the aim of education is changing and that another method of presentation of science subjects is better suited t o the changing point of view? The aim in presenting a course and the method employed by the instructor have a close relationship. Until our science instructors concede that the aim of secondary education is to produce happier and more appreciative citizens, the methods used by them will be of the specialization type. But until the colleges and universities, which are producing the teachers for our secondary schools, accept the same aim for education, progress in methods of more effective science teaching will be slow. That some of our hstitutions of higher learning are changing their points of new relative to the aim of science teaching is evidenced by the fact that Indiana and Purdue Universities are using the ledure-demonstration method in the beginning science courses, Princeton University inaugurated this procedure in 1931,' and the University of Minnesota has reduced its hours of individual laboratory work and is introducing the demonstration method. The conclusions amved at by the tests and investigations referred to briefly in this paper certainly offer a challenge to all institutions which are preparing teachers of science to go out into our secondary schools.
Before the individual laboratory method is pronounced wholly ineffective in science courses, there are a number of factors to be taken into consideration. It made its appearance before this country was entirely out of the formal discipline period of its educational development. The aim of the college at that time was to produce scholars, rather than good citizens with a broad understanding and a fuller appreciation of their environment. The method was handed down bodily to the secondary schools, and science teach in^- in these institutionshas paid the penalty since then. 1;. D. Barber made a studv in 1915 in which he determined the percentage of loss or gain of pupils electing the science subjects in the high schools of the United States in 1910. These results were appalling to many. They showed a loss in all subjects except chemistry, agriculture, and domestic economy, some of tke losses being as large as 59%. R. K. Watkins reports a similar study of more recent date.9 This report states that the number of pupils enrolling in the natural sciences in the high schools of this country since 1910 shows a decided fallimg off as follows: in 1910, 82%; in 1928, 61%. The decreases in the physical sciences from 1910 to BIBLIOGRAPHY 1928 have been as follows: in physics, from 14.6% to 6.9%; in physical geography.from 19% to 3%; chem- Books: istry, showing a slight gain from 6.89Yc to 7.1% BROWNECL, H. m WADE, F. B.. "The teaching of science and the science teacher," Century Co., New York City, Watkins states: "Enrolments in chemistry are prac1925. 369pp. tically at a standstill. Physics enrolments are still BUCKINCHAM, B. R.. "Research for teachers," Silm, Burdett & Co., Chicago, 1926. 380 pp. declining somewhat." Doubtless many factors have CURTIS,F. D., "A digest of investigations in teaching of helped to bring about the conditions stated above. A science in elementary and secondary schools," P. Blakiston's few of these are the introduction of the vocational Son & Co., Inc., Philadelphia, 1926,333 pp. CURTIS,F. D., "Some contributionsof educational research to subjects, a greatly increased and less selected enrolment
'WArms, R.
K., "Instruction in physical science in the secondary schools," Nat. Soc. for the Study of Educ., 3lst Year Book, Part I. Public School Publishing Co., Bloomington. IU.. 1932, pp. 243-80.
the solution of teaching in the science laboratory." Nat. Soc. RIEDEL,F. A,, ''What, if anything, has really been p r o d lo
as to the relative effectiveness of demonstration and laboratory methods in science?" Sch. Sci. Math., 27, 512-9, 62W31 (May, June. 1927).
for the Study of Educ., 31st Year Book, Part I. Public School Publishing Co., Blwmington, Ill., 1932, pp. 91-108. Huno, A. W., "Problemsof science teachingat thecollegelevel," Univ. of Minn. Press, Minneapolis. 1929. MANN,C. R., "The teaching of physics." Macmillan Co., 1912, 289 pp. NOLL,V. H.. "Science teaching on thecollege level." Nat. Soc. for the Study of Educ., 3lst Year Book, Part I. Public School Publishing Co.. Bloomington. Ill.. 1932, pp. 305-24. P O ~ E R SS. , R., "Some criticisms of current practices in the teaching of science in elementary and secondary schools," Nat. Soc. for the Study of Educ., 31st Year Book. Part I. Public Schwl Publishing Co., Blwmington, Ill., 1932, pp. 13-26. S m r m . A. AND HALL ., E. H.. "The teaching of chemistry and physics in the secondary school," Longmans. Green & Co., New York City, 1902. 371 pp. Twrss, G. R., "Principles of science teachiug,"Macmillan Ca., 1917,458 pp. WATXINS,R. K., "Instruction in physical science in the seeondary schools," Nat. Sac. for the Study of Educ., 31st Year Book, Part I . Public School Publishing Co., Bloomington, Ill., 1932, pp. 243-80.
Pamghlets: CARPBNT~R, W. W., "Certain phases of the administration of high school chemistry." Teachers College, Columbia University, Bureau of Publication, New York City, 1925. GLENN,E. R. AND WALKER,J., "Bibliography of science teaching in secondary schools," U. S. Bureau of Educ. Bull., No. 13,1925,pp. 1-161. HORTON, R. E., "Measurable outcomes of individual laboratory work in high school cheniistry," Teachers College, Columbia University, Bureau of Publication, New York City, 1928. MONROE,W. S. AND AsnER, 0.. "A bibliography of bibliographies." Bureau of Educ. Research, Bull. No. 36, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill., 1927. 60 pp. MONROE,W. S. AND OTHERS, "Ten years of educational research, 19181927," Bnreau of Educ. Research. Bull. No. 42, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill., 1928, pp. 1 3 5 0 .
Periodicals: ANIBEL, F. G., "Comparative effectiveness of the lecturedemonstration and the individual laboratory methods." J. Educ. Research, 13,355-65 (May, 1926). BRADT,W. E. AND GERWE,R. D.. "More effective individual laboratory instruction in general inorganic chemistry," J. CBM. EDUC.,8,1574-80 (Aug., 1931). C~ITTUM.J. W., "Adapting organic laboratory work t o the student."ibid., 8,2408-10 (Dec., 1931).
DOTVNING, E. R., "Methods in science teaching," J. Higher Educ., 2,316-20 (June, 1931). DOWNING, E. R., "A comparison of the lecture-demonstration and the laboratory methods in instruction in science," Sch. Rev., 33,688-97 (Nov., 1925). GERARD.R. W.. "An exueriment in education." J. Cmar. ~ n u c . 8,1144-53 ; (~une,!931). G n r ~ n ,N. M., "A prelimmary report on the progress and encouragement of science instruction in American colleges and universities. 1912-1922.'' Sck. Sci. Math... 26.. 75344: 87241; 931-40 ioct.. NOV.,'D~~., 1926). G ~ N T O RH., P , "Checking and grading laboratory drawings," ibid., 31,8468 (Oct.. 1931). HURD,A. W., "Suggestions on the evaluation of teaching procedures in high school physics," ibid., 27, 5 2 M (May. 1097)
JAMESON, J. M., "Artificial crutches in traditional science teaching," ibid., 31,408-16 (Apr., 1931). JOHNSON, P. 0.. "A comparison of the lecture-demonstration, group laboratory experimentation, and individual laboratory experimentation methods of teaching high school biology," J.Educ. Research, 18,103-11 (Sept., 1928). KIEBLER, E. W. AND WOODY, C., "The individual laboratory versus the demonstration method of teaching physics." ibid., 7,50-8 (Jan.. 1923). KNox, W. W., "The demonstration method versus the laboratory method in teaching high school chemistry," Sch. Rev.,35,376-86 (June. 1927). MAYMAN, J. E., "An experimental investigation of the book method, lecture method, and the expenmental method of teaching elementary science in elementary schools," New York City Bureau of Educ. Research, 1912. NICHOLS,M. L., "Getting the student to use his own intellect," Science. 74,1523 (Aug. 7.1931). PAYNE,V. F.. "The lecture-demonstration and the individual laboratory methods compared," J. CHEM.EDUC.,9, 932-9 (May. 1932). PHILLIPS,T. D., "A study of notebook and laboratory work as a n effective aid in science teaching," Sch. Reu., 28, 451-3 (June, 1920). RIBDEL,F. A,, ''What, if anything, bas really been proved as to the relative effectiveness of demonstration and laboratory methods in science?' Sch. Sci. Math., 27, 512-9, 62031 (May, June. 1927). WALTER,C. H., "The individual laboratory method of teaching physics when no printed directions are used," ibid., 30, .. 42+32 (Apr.. 1930). WILE,, W. H., "An experimental study of methods in teaching hinh school chemistry." J. Educ. Psychol., 9, 181-98 (Apr., 1G8). S. R., "The collection and weation of knowledge." WILLIAMS, J. HighwEduc., 2,415-9 (Nov.. 1931).
