R. Ben-Zvi. A. Hofstein, and D. ~ a m u e i Science Teaching Department Weizmann Institute of Science Rehovot, Israel and R. F. Kempa University of ~ e & e Staffordshire. England
I
II I
The Attitude of High School Students towards the Use of Filmed Experiments
In a previous communication to this Journal.' we reported on a study into the educational effectiveness.of filmed experiments as an alternative to student-based laboratow work in the context of high school chemical education. l he main result of the study was that the attainment of cognitive ahilities and of laboratory-oriented prohlem-solving skills was not significantly affected by the instructional approach used to experimental work. Merely in the area of routine manipulative skills did direct experience of laboratory work lead to higher accomplishment than exposure t o vicarious laboratory experiences. For a full appraisal of the educational usefulness of filmed experiments as an alternative to "live" laboratory experience, it is necessarv to consider not onlv comitive and osvchomotor skills developed in students, butalsotheir reactioh and attitudes towards the alternative teaching medium. Very little information is as yet available on how students view the merits, or otherwise, of filmed experiments. Slahough, in 1959, reported a positive attitude of students towards such vicarious e x p e r i e n ~ e But . ~ this conflicts with the findines of other workers, such as Watson3 who in 1963 concluded that film teaching over long periods leads to a loss of interest and the development of negative attitudes towards science. Admittedly, Watson's conclusion concerns situations in which conventional teachine is supplanted entirelv bv mediumbased instruction, and therefore exact conditiok of com~arabilitvdo not obtain. Even so. since in our ~reviouslvreborted study the exposure of the k ~ m - ~ r tofilmed ou~ experiments had extended over nearlv five months. the appearance .. o i i t n effect similar to that repwttd I)? Watson could nut he ruled uut. .\nother finrliny nlwut the eflrrt ul'a media-hased apprimrh to chemicnl rducatiun alw uttrarred the inrcrr,t of the prrsent in!,~stlgaturs.'l'his was Carpenter and Greenhill's conclusion that students feel that less is learned from filmed or televised instruction than from conventional teaching,4 despite the fact that such feeling may he unjustified in the light of actual achievements. T o examine the reactions and attitudes towards the different approaches to laboratorv work utilized in our studv. .. .. a questionnaire survey was conducted among the participants to ascertain their: (1) perception of certain aims and ohiectives of lahoratory work at;d of ;he extent to which these had been nchieved by the different in~tructionalapproaches used and (2) preference for different modes of instruction in chemistry. Procedure
The study involved 330 Grade-I0 students drawn from six Israeli high schools. During the first few months of their chemical education program, approximately half of the stu-
dents had reeularlv undertaken laboratow work as ~rescrlbed in the curric~lumfollowedby them, whiie the other half had been exoosed to filmed experiments. In all other resoects. . . the courses were identical. Tests to examine the cognitive and osvchomotor outcomes resulting from the differkt instructional approaches were administered at the end of the experimental teaching period, as was a survey questionnaire containing 49 ~ikert-t$k items designed to sample students' opinions of and reactions to the format of lahoratory instruction received by them. Results and Discussion
Each of the experimental situations which students encountered either directly or vicariously in the course of the studv involved them in two basic common activities: the col1erti;m of qualitative or quantitative data and observations, and their interpretation and evaluarion. Hoth erouns of students reportedthat these activities had been found uniformly easy, irrespective of approach. They also stated that the set of experiments or films had helped them extensively to understand the chemical concepts to which they related. When examining students' reactions towards certain reasons which might justify the use of filmed experiments in preference to student-based laboratory work, distinct biases emerged on the part of the two groups, as is seen from Table 1. Students with direct experience of laboratory work appeared less willing to accept reasons relating to the time requirement for experimental work or the shortage and cost of equipment as justifying the introduction of vicarious lahoratory experience than their film-group counterparts, although they conceded that complicated experiments may well be presented by film. It may be that only limited significance can be attached to this finding in view of the fact that each group reasons d in the lieht of its own . . assessed the ~ r o ~ o s e experience. ~ e v e r t h e l ~ sthe s , data indicate that different experiences lead to different dispositions. Table Z5summarizesstudents'opinions of certain objectives of laboratory work and of the degree to which they were attained by them through exposure to the two instructional modes. Also included in the table are students' ratings of the potential value of teacher demonstrations as an alternative to either direct or vicarious experiences of laboratory work. A number of interesting points emerge. There is C I & I ~ no Table 1. Students' Views on Possible Reasons for Use of Filmed Experiments ar an Alternative t o Personalized Laboratorv Work
Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations ( i n brackefrl ExperimenfsGroup
Suggested Rearon
Significance of difference
between
FilmGroup
groups
'Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein,A,, Samuel, D., and Kempa, R. F., J. CHEM.
EDUC., 63,518 (1976). 2Slabough,W. A,, J. CHEM. EDUC., 36,588 (1959). Watson, F. G.,"Handbook of Research on Teaching," (Editor Gage, N. L.),Rand McNalb, Chicago, 1963, pp. 1031-59. 4Carpenter,C. R.,and Greenhill, L. P., "An Investigation ofclosed Circuit Television for Teaching University Courses," Instructional Research Project, Penn. State University, Research Report 2,1958. SForbrevity's sake, the results of t-tests on the data in Table 2 have not been listed. AU comparisons described here as implyingdifferences between the two groups are statistically significant at p = 0.01 or better.
Experiment is complicated Experiment is time-consuming Equipment is too c o ~ t l y Equipment is hard t o find Equipment is aelicate and easily broken Student experimentation may give erroneous r e w l t ~
N.S.
p=
0.001
p
= 0.001 p = 0.001
N.S. N.S.
Rating scale: 1 = disagree strongly t o 5 =agree strongly.
Volume 53, Number 9, September 1976 / 575
Table
2. Students' Views an the Importance of Various Objectives of Laboratory Work and on Their Attainment by Different Instructional Modes Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations (in brackets) Experimens-Group Film-Group Attainment by Attainment by Attainment by Attainment by Ideal e~~erimenfal teacher Ideal filmed teacher lm~orfance work demanrfrafionr Importance demonrtrations demonrtrationr
Obiecfive
1) he development of manipulative rkillr 2) T h e development of abrervational rkillr 3) ~ e a c h i n ghow to draw inferences and c~nclusionsfrom experiments 4) Explaining and illustrating the theoretical basis of an experiment 5) The develoDment o f orderly habits in experim&tal work 61 T o provide information and experience for the development o f chemical theory 7 ) T h e promotion of interest in t h e study of chemistry 8) he development of the ability to plan experiment5 for solving chemical Problems nating scaler:. for ideal importance 1 = of no importance to 5 =very important; fo! attainment ratings 1 = none at all t o 5 = extensive.
difference between the two groups in their perception of the ideal importance of the various objectives of laboratory work. ~ h a t e v i the r degree of importance may he at which the objectives were rated, it would appear that this is unafferted hy the different experiences of lahorauwy work undergone hy the srudcnts' perceptions of the ideal two g r ~ u p s Presumably, . value of laboratory work is shaped through their total chemical experience The mean ratincs given by hoth groups to imponanre of ohsen,arim:rl skills and interpreta~ionalal~ilitiesare distinctly -higher ~ ~ - - than ~ - - those for most other obiectives, including the one relating to manipulative skills. ~ h &to, some extentrmust be taken ...-~ - -as - a reflection of the emphasis associated with experimental work within the cheiistry course as a whole. 1t is, however, interesting to note that students' opinions about the motivating and interest-generating role of practical work is fairlv neutral. &mparing the perception of the two groups of the extent to which the various objectives were attained by the different approaches to laboratory instruction, i t is seen that filmed experiments were invariably rated as being less effective than personal laboratory experience. This is particularly pronounced (and understandably so) for the "manipulative skills" area, expressed by objectives 1and 6, hut applies equally well to the attainment of cognitive objectives, e.g., the drawing of inferences from exneriments and the understandine of ~ - ~ chemical theory. he data already reported show this view to he without foundation: the attainment levels of the film-mouo - . and the experiments-group were practically identical. At the time a t which the ratings were made, students were unaware of the essential equivalence of the two instructional approaches in terms of their educational effectiveness. I t is possible that, had the film-group been aware of this fact, their ratings might have been substantially modified in a positive direction. This is an issue which merits examination. However, in the absence of such feedback, it is evident that the prolonged use of filmed instruction, even in a limited context, oroduces a neeative disoosition on the Dart of students to this form of instruction. \Vhcther rhe development o t a ncga~ire attitude towards filmed lahoraton. instruction does ultimately lead to a reduction in learning &ins by students was not examined in the present investigation. However, the possibility of this happening cannot be ruled out and would, if confirmed, impose limitations on the extent to which filmed laboratory instruction may be acceptable as an alternative to personalized laboratory work. Major differences also appear between the two groups in their judgment of the educational effectiveness of teacher demonstrations of practical work, compared with their ratings of live and vicarious laboratory work, respectively. The experiments-group generally rated the value of personalized ~
~~~
~~~
~
~
~
~~
~
~
~
576 / Journal of Chemical
ducat ion
Table 3.
Students' Preferences for Different Modes of Instruction ~ e a n Ratings and standard Deviarionr (in brackezrl Experlmans~ film^ Group Group
Mode of Instruction Personalized experimental Teacher demonstrations Group dilCUIsionl ~i~me demonstration9 d ~ecturer
work
4.18 (1.04) 3.38 (0.95) 3.32' 2.38
ii.061 (1.10)
4.06 id.96) 3.61 (1.08)
3.18 (1.151 3.08 (1.14)
nating scale: 1 = strongly dislikid to 5 = much liked.
laboratory work to be distinctly greater than that of demonstrations, although equivalence of the two modes was assumed in relation to the attainment of the "cognitive" objectives 3, A ."A
".
fi
The fiim-group's uniformly higher rating of the educational value of teacher demonstrations compared with filmed demonstrations is surprising. Since, in terms of content and visual presentation, the two forms of demonstration most be considered largely equivalent, the reason underlying this differential rating may lie in the extent to which they allow students to be "involved" in the instructional Drocess and to interact with the teacher through cquestioningand feedback of information. Filmed demonstrations certainlv offer less scoDe for this than "live" demonstrations. This hvoothesis is supported bv the results of an examination of students' preferences for different instructional procedures to which they were exposed in their chemistry course. These are shown in Table 3. The preference order for the modes of instruction received by both groups in common is identical: the appeal of teachers' demonstrations and group discussions is nearly equal, but both are distinctly preferred to lectures. Filmed experiments which, like lectures, involve essentially "reception-learning," are rated a t a similar level as Ie~tures.Personalized experimental work, howewr, is much preferred even to teacher demonstrations and group discussions, possibly because it allows the highest degree of student involvement and participation in the educational process. The present data are also substantially in agreement with Watson's finding, referred to above, that long exposure to fh teaching results in a loss in interest on the students' part. The mean ratings of item 7 (Table 2) signify that students find personalized laboratory more effective in promoting their interest in the study of chemistry than the vicarious experiences of laboratory work provided by means of film. Indirectly, this is confirmed by the low appeal of such experiences in comparison with laboratory-based work.
Concludons
In this study we have been concerned with an examination of students' reactions t o the use of filmed experiment as an alternative to personalized laboratory work, in the context of a high school chemistry program. While previously reported results indicate that the two approaches are equally effective in terms of the cognitive and, to a considerable extent, psychomotor outcomes resulting from them, i t is clear from the present data that this does not apply to students' perceptions of the approaches and their liking for them. Students rate the educational value of the medium-hased approach to laboratory work as heing distinctly less than that of personalized experimental work; likewise, they give a low preference order to filmed experiments among different modes of instruction
experienced by them. Our results confirm and, to some demee, extend the findinas of other workers who have reported s&i& attitudinal effec& to he associated with film and TV teaching. There clearly exists a problem concerning the long-term acceptability of a medium-based approach to teaching,even if this is employed in only a limited section of students' total educational experiences. However, findings of this nature reached in comparison with "conventional" teaching aooroaches. should not be .. used to judge medium-based approaches tad harshly. The authors are convinced that thev have a ereat deal to offer. especially in situations where the implementation of "conventional" a ~ ~ r o a c h eDroves s difficult or imoossihle for whatever reasons may eiist.
-
-
Volume 53, Number 9. September 1976 / 577
