See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241728738

Laboratory work: The teachers' perspective

Article  in  Journal of Biological Education · June 2006

DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2006.9656027

CITATIONS READS

84 3,451

2 authors:

Christina Ottander Gunnel Grelsson

Umeå University Umeå University
52 PUBLICATIONS   1,328 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   889 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Understanding disengagement with societal concerns in engineering education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gunnel Grelsson on 07 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Teachers’ views of labwork | Ottander and Grelsson

Laboratory work: the teachers’ perspective

Christina Ottander and Gunnel Grelsson
Umeå University, Sweden

We describe a case study of an in-service professional development project with four experienced biology teachers in two
upper secondary schools. The objective was to better understand the role of laboratory work (labwork) in science education
with a special emphasis on assessment. Research questions include the following: 1. What does the teacher want to
achieve with the labwork and how do the students perceive it? 2. How do biology teachers assess labwork? 3. How did the
in-service project motivate teachers to change their assessment methods? 4. Are the assessment criteria in the Swedish
national syllabus applicable to labwork? Data were collected during a semester-long in-service project. Laboratory instruction
sheets were collected and analysed both with respect to intended learning outcome and assessment skills. Questionnaires
to teachers and students about the intended learning outcome were carried out after different experiments. Finally, teachers
were interviewed concerning the role of labwork and their assessment methods and also their reflections on the results of
the in-service project. The teachers realised that their assessment methods require more transparency to become effective.
The interpretation of intended learning outcomes of experimental work differs between students and teachers.
Key words: Labwork practice; Labwork assessment; Teachers’ reflections; Upper secondary school; Labwork instructions

Rationale and objectives laboratory contexts require more attention. Understanding

This paper addresses the role of laboratory work (labwork) these goals and results will determine the type of the assess-
in science education with a special emphasis on assessment. ment to use when the science learning processes are empha-
Labwork in science education has been discussed for several sised. When students are tested in practical skills (i.e. plan-
decades. Teachers, researchers, and policy makers are con- ning and carrying out experiments and investigations), the
vinced about its value for understanding science (Jenkins, science outcome is distinctly separate from what can be tested
1999; Psillos and Niedderer, 2002). The role of labwork and by conventional pen and paper tests (Brown, 1998; DeTure
field studies has been elaborated by Lunetta (1998). The et al, 1995; Tamir et al, 1992a).
purpose of labwork in science education includes helping In this report, we focus on some of the results of an in-
students learn science through the acquisition of conceptual service professional development project. The objective was
and theoretical knowledge, and helping them learn about sci- to increase the knowledge and understanding of the practice
ence by developing an understanding of the nature and of labwork. Analyses of the intended learning outcome and
methods of science. Labwork also enables students to do sci- the assessment options were included.
ence using the protocols of scientific inquiry. The increased The research questions studied were as follows:
support for purposeful learning complements scientific the- • What does the teacher want to achieve with the labwork
ories and how to apply them. Furthermore, labwork should and how do the students perceive it?
stimulate the development of analytical and critical skills and • How do biology teachers assess labwork?
create interest in science. • How did the in-service project motivate teachers to
There is concern about the effectiveness of labwork in change their assessment methods?
helping students understand various aspects of scientific • Are the assessment criteria in the Swedish national syllabus
inquiry (Lazarowiz and Tamir, 1994; Schwartz, Lederman and applicable to labwork?
Crawford, 2004). Often, teachers desire to develop students’
higher order thinking skills – e.g. critical thinking; however, Research design and methods
their assessment practices do not reflect these more global Four experienced teachers of biology and natural science
achievement goals (Bol and Strage, 1996). It is well known were involved in an in-service professional development
that the assessment model used influences how and what project run by the authors of this paper. A research project
students learn (Boud, 1995). We do not know how teachers was connected to this project and some of the teachers’
assess labwork skills or whether all labwork is included in classes were chosen for study.
their assessment. Moreover, we do not know how the assess-
ment criteria are applied. What the teacher wants to achieve Context
with labwork and what students actually learn in different The four teachers and their classes were chosen to carry out

Volume 40 Number 3, Summer 2006 JBE 113

Ottander and Grelsson | Teachers’ views of labwork

a project for the purpose of understanding and initiating Research setting

improvement in experimental practice and the development For nine months, data were collected from the in-service
of teachers’ competence in assessing labwork. This project was project. Laboratory instruction sheets (lab sheets) were col-
conducted at two upper secondary schools where the teachers lected for empirical analysis over three months. This resulted
involved worked. The in-service professional development in 12 different exercises covering 25 experimental tasks,
project started in September 2003 and continued for one which altogether covered six different themes. The objectives
semester. listing in the collected labsheets were analysed both with
The purpose of the in-service project was to improve the respect to the intended learning outcome and what skills could
competence of teachers’ ability to assess laboratory skills. be assessed. A questionnaire modified after Thibergien et al
The teachers explored their own practice within a community (2001) was used to explore the conception of the intended
of learners (cf. Brown, 1992). The teachers helped plan the learning outcome after each labwork session (Table 1). Both
seminars, reflected on their methods, and collaborated on teachers and students answered the questionnaire about the
labwork planning. The teachers were given an opportunity to intended learning outcome of the labwork. The teachers
critically examine how they and others assess labwork. They were responsible for handing the questionnaire to the students
also discussed research literature on this issue during four after each practical session. Also, each laboratory instruction
seminars. Discussions centred on the teachers’ reactions to was analysed with respect to intended learning outcome
research-based literature and the investigations of their own independent of the authors. In the questionnaire, the scale of
school methods of experimental work. The teachers kept a importance had five levels. However, during the analysis the
personal journal during the study. scale was reduced to three levels. Informal observation studies
with field notes from the researchers were done in four class-
Participants and the Swedish school context rooms.
Each of the four teachers involved in the project had more The analysis of what skills could be assessed was based on a
than 15 years of teaching experience in Swedish upper sec- classification of the skills to be used in the assessment of lab-
ondary schools. They worked in two different and relatively work according to Swedish national standards (Grelsson and
large upper secondary schools (Teacher 1, female, school A; Ottander, 2005). This classification was developed after
Teacher 2, female, school B; Teacher 3, male, school A; analysing literature concerning assessment of labwork tasks
Teacher 4, male, school B). and theories of assessment processes (Shepard, 2000; Tamir
The project deals with the assessment of labwork in biology et al, 1992 a and b; Solano-Flores et al, 1999).
and science. The national syllabus for upper secondary Results from the questionnaire and the lab sheet analysis
schools in Sweden stresses subject knowledge, scientific were presented and discussed with the teachers at the end of
inquiry, and the nature of science. Inquiry has to be seen as the in-service project. Three months after the project ended
both an instructional approach and a learning outcome. One semi-structured interviews with the four teachers took place.
of the goals in biology education is that students should The interviews lasted for 45-65 minutes, were audio-recorded,
develop their ability to work experimentally and in field- and repeatedly reviewed. The interview covered the teachers’
work. This includes formulating and understanding biological assessment methods for experimental work, their goals for
questions as well as planning and carrying out experiments the labwork, and their reflections on the outcome of the dis-
(National Agency for Education 2000; see also Ottander and cussions during the project and the results from the different
Grelsson, 2005). questionnaires.
The assessment system in Swedish upper secondary schools
assumes that teachers examine their own classes. According to Results
the Swedish National Agency for Education, a teacher should All the teachers believed that labwork was an important part
use various forms of assessment (oral and written) on several of biology and science courses. In addition, they noted that
occasions. For written tests the approach is flexible: teachers the main goals of labwork were to connect theory to practice
either give several tests during a course or one final test. (i.e. familiarise the students with scientific objects and phe-

Table 1. The classification model for labwork (modified after Millar, Tiberghien and Le Maréchal, 2002; Thibergien et al, 2001). This model
was also used as a questionnaire to students and teachers about intended learning outcome. The question was What will this lab-work help
the student to achieve?

To help students to Tick how important

1 = not important
5 = very important

1 2 3 4 5
Content a) identify objects and phenomena
b) learn a fact (or facts) and concepts
c) find patterns and relations. Learn relationships
d) learn a theory or a model

Process e) learn how to use laboratory instruments

f) learn how to carry out a standard procedure
g) learn how to plan an investigation
h) learn how to process data
i) learn how to use data to support a conclusion
j) learn how to communicate the results of lab-work

114 JBE Volume 40 Number 3, Summer 2006

 Teachers’ views of labwork | Ottander and Grelsson

nomena) and to stimulate interest and enjoyment. Another familiar with objects and phenomena. Only three of the lab-
goal was to teach laboratory skills and techniques. According work tasks contained exercises where students had to manip-
to one teacher, labwork also allows students to confront and ulate empirical data. None of the labwork tasks investigated
challenge their misconceptions and provides opportunities for contained data processing such as pooling of data in the class.
informal discussions about the theories, models, or concepts. Students were seldom asked to make generalisations and dis-
They all said that the informal discussions during labwork cuss relevance of the results. Also, students were almost never
are important to consolidate knowledge. asked to pose the question to be investigated, formulate a
hypothesis to test, or plan the experimental procedure.
Assessment of labwork In the discussion about what could be assessed through
Two of the teachers had not paid much attention to the labwork, one question concerned which curriculum goals were
assessment of labwork. The other two had tried to formalise actually covered in specific labwork tasks. Another was
the assessment procedure, but had abandoned their efforts as which labwork skills could in fact be assessed by a particular
too time-consuming. According to the teachers’ personal lab exercise. In the Swedish standards, five assessment criteria
journals and the formal interview, they became aware of the – (1) planning experiments, (2) carrying out experiments, (3)
restrictions of their present assessment methods when they interpretation of results, (4) evaluation of results, and (5)
realised that only labwork resulting in a lab-report was assessed. presentation (report or performance) – are primarily con-
Furthermore, the students were always given an opportunity nected with labwork (National Agency for Education, 2000).
to improve the lab-report. These assessment criteria can be described by different skills
In biology classes, the students wrote lab-reports for (Figure 1) that should be assessed according to the standards
almost half of the labwork done. Most of the labwork done (for further details see also Grelsson and Ottander, 2005).
in science classes was only presented orally. The teachers An analysis of the collected lab sheets showed that it was not
only commented on the results and not the laboratory skills possible to assess all of these skills regularly (Figure 1). For
when the labwork were presented orally. There was an agree- example, almost none of the tasks in the lab sheets gave an
ment with the students regarding how the lab-report should opportunity for students to develop skills to plan experi-
be written, but no standards or grading criteria for the assess- ments (number one in Figure 1). The skills included in the
ment of labwork were used. Nobody used the grading struc- assessment criteria numbers 2-5 are represented in most of
ture in the syllabuses. Furthermore, performance assessment the lab sheets.
had little effect on the final grade. To pass the course the stu- When analysing the intended learning outcome of the lab-
dent had to participate in the experimental exercise, but the work tasks (Table 1), we found that the teachers and students
performance only mattered if the student had borderline interpreted the goals differently in some respects. One exam-
grades. ple, from an exercise where the students studied different
cells under the microscope, is shown in Figure 2. Obvious
Analysis of instruction sheets differences in interpretation were that many students found
The main objective of the tasks, as reflected in the laboratory (c) “Find patterns and relations” and (d) “Learn a theory or
manuals provided, was to help students identify and become model” as important goals while the teachers’ goal was (e) to

Figure 1. Description of skills in grading criteria: (1) Plan experiments, (2) Carry out experiments, (3) Interpret results, (4) Evaluation, (5)
Presentation (report or performance).

Skills possible to assess in 12 laboratory exercises (25 tasks)

1a. Hypothesis/prediction
1b. Define variables
1c. Studies of literature
1d. Theories/ideas
1e. Design procedure & experiment
1f. Choice of methods
2a. Use of instructions
Description of skills

2b. Measure
2c. Choice/use of equipment
2d. Collection/documentation of
2e. Maintain order
2f. Observe safety procedures
3a. Analysis of results
3b. Interpretation of results
3c. Analysis of limitations
3d. Analysis of assumptions
4a. Evaluation of results
4b. Evaluation of methods
4c. Evaluation of sources of error
4d. Ev of limitations & assumptions
4e. Evaluation of conclusions
5a. Descr. of questions/hypothesis
5b. Description of methods
5c. Description of results
5d. Discussion
5e. Conclusions
5f. Synthesis

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Proportion of tasks (%)

Volume 40 Number 3, Summer 2006 JBE 115

Ottander and Grelsson | Teachers’ views of labwork

Laboratory exercise – The Cell Laboratory exercise – The Cell

12
8
10
No. of students (N=13)

No. of students (N=13)

8
6
6

4 4

2
2 S3
S3 0
S2
e f
S2 g S1
0 h
i Importance
a S1 j
b
c
Process goal
d
Importance
Content goal

Figure 2. The teachers’ and the students’ classification of learning outcome of a specific experiment. The students’ interpretations are summed
in piles. The teachers’ goals indicated in dark grey.
S1 (plain bar) = Not very important (1 and 2 from the questionnaire pooled)
S2 (dotted bar) = Intermediate
S3 (striped bar) = Very important (4 and 5 pooled)
(a) Identify objects and phenomena, (b) Learn a fact (or facts) and learn a concept, (c) Find patterns and relations, learn relationship, (d) Learn
a theory or model, (e) Learn how to use laboratory instruments, (f) Learn how to carry out a standard procedure, (g) Learn how to plan an inves-
tigation, (h) Learn how to process data, (i) Learn how to use data to support a conclusion, (j) Learn how to communicate the results of labwork.

“Learn how to use laboratory instruments” (Figure 2). sacrifice these in order to meet assessment goals of student
Often the students chose several goals as important. The performance. Teacher 3 expressed this as following: “I find it
teacher, however, chose fewer goals. This was more often the important to use the opportunity to get to know the stu-
case for female students and especially in respect to the con- dents, to show that I care about them.”
tent goals. Other examples were seen in three different The teachers were much more active in discussions when
recipe-like activities where more than two-thirds of the students results from questionnaires and observations were presented
thought that (g) “Planning an investigation” was an important compared to when literature was discussed. All the teachers
goal. “How to process data” (h) was differently interpreted in believed that labwork prepared students with labwork skills
some other labwork. and techniques. The classroom observations, informal discus-
In one of the observed lab sessions, the teacher’s intended sions, and lab sheet analyses, however, show that teachers
learning outcome was: “Learn how to use laboratory instru- (e.g. Teacher 4) did not provide the opportunity to practise
ments”. However, all the manuals for the equipment had these as much as they thought (cf. ‘Analysis of instruction
been removed. The teacher’s reason for removing them was sheets’ above). One example concerned the use of the micro-
that the students never used the manuals. scope. The students were never told that they should learn
how to use the microscope, and Teacher 4 said that he con-
Teachers’ reflections tinued to help them find what to see over and over again.
Both at the beginning of the in-service professional develop- In the formal interviews three months after the in-service
ment project and during the interviews, the teachers expressed project ended, the teachers mentioned how important it was
the view that labwork had three main goals: confirm theory, to make the intended learning outcomes more apparent to
give practical skills, and stimulate interest. The process of scien- the students. How they planned to achieve this differed
tific inquiry was not mentioned, but it is important according (Table 2).
to the goals in the syllabuses (National Agency for Education,
2000). During seminars and interviews, questions about Discussion/Conclusions
ways to increase the level of scientific inquiry in experimental All the teachers stressed that labwork is important in science
work were raised by the authors. All the teachers realised education, especially for understanding theory and stimulating
that it was incompletely covered. They did not have time to interest (cf Jenkins, 1999).
fulfil this goal since there is too much content to cover in the Even though the process of scientific inquiry is important,
courses. All the teachers mentioned in the final interview according to curriculum goals (National Agency for Education,
that they would try to involve the students in the planning of 2000), and has been put forward as an important outcome of
the labwork. Pre-labwork discussions were one of the sugges- labwork (e.g. Lazarowitz and Tamir, 1994), the teachers in
tions from Teacher 3. this study did not regard it as an important goal. According
Teachers wanted to use a transparent assessment model to the teacher interviews, the main goal of labwork was to
which would provide guidance for the students. However, two connect theory to practice, stimulate interest and enjoyment,
of the teachers expressed concern because they thought that and practise laboratory skills and techniques. The main
assessing students would cause more stress for the students. intended learning outcome, as reflected in the lab manuals
Furthermore, they thought it would inhibit discussion during provided, was to help students identify objects and phenomena
the experiments. All the teachers emphasised that the labo- and become familiar with them (cf Figure 1).
ratory work had important social goals that were just as Similar results have been found in other countries (cf
important as the scientific goals. They were not willing to Tiberghien et al, 2001; Coquidé, 2003; Tweedy and Hoese,

116 JBE Volume 40 Number 3, Summer 2006

 Teachers’ views of labwork | Ottander and Grelsson

Table 2. Teachers’ expressions of intentions to change labwork practice after the in-service professional development project (based
on interviews).

Intention to change labwork practice

Teacher 1 Will mainly formalise the assessment. Want clear assessment criteria (standards) so as to be a fairer grader.
Teacher 2 Will refine the instructions in cooperation with teachers at the school. Do not want assessment of hands-on skills – believe
that it will make the laboratory exercises more stressful for students.
Teacher 3 Will use more pre-lab discussions about goal and strategies in the science studies classroom.
Teacher 4 Was reminded of the importance of labwork and will consider the different laboratory exercises more thoroughly.

2005). According to Kang and Wallace (2005) teachers with since they believed it would influence how and what students
naive epistemological beliefs are likely to pursue the delivery learned. Still, two of the teachers felt it would cause more stress
of information as a primary instructional goal. Some of the on the students, a situation that they believed contradicted
labwork in the category ‘identify objects and phenomena’ were the goal of stimulating enjoyment.
presented as ‘delivering information’. Teacher 3 stressed that The difference between teachers’ and students’ interpreta-
labwork should give students opportunities to have informal tions of the intended learning outcomes can be explained in
discussions about the theory, model, or concept studied. several ways (Figure 2). One is that the instructions from the
These informal discussions are very important in science teachers, and the lab sheets, are not focussed on the goals, but
education (Sutton, 1998). A more formal assessment of lab- on what the students are expected to do. It could also be
work would inhibit the discussions during the experimental explained by the fact that the scientific language is not familiar
exercises and disadvantage the students according to to the students. For a student, ‘patterns and relations’ can be
Teachers 2 and 3. The teachers also pointed out that informal viewed more literally and be important when using a micro-
discussions of a more social character between teacher and scope to compare different cell types. However, to decide which
students during labwork were important. of the explanation models is the most plausible, student
This study found that labwork skills are neither assessed interviews are required.
on a regular basis nor tested on special occasions in the two
schools investigated. The analysis of the lab sheet tasks showed Educational implications
that the students are not given more than occasional oppor- The project has made it possible for practitioners and
tunities to plan experiments and field studies (Figure 1), researchers to share knowledge in a community of learners.
although it is a goal according to the syllabus. Most of the lab The empirical studies made it possible for the participants to
sheets included clear instructions of both the methods and reflect on experimental practice. Such reflections are likely
procedures. This means that planning is rarely practised or to have more impact on future practice than just reading the
assessed. The criteria for carrying out experiments (i.e. practi- literature.
cal skills), interpretation, evaluation, and presentation of results All the teachers realised, through the empirical studies, the
(Figure 1) are all satisfactorily represented – not in all tasks but importance of making the intended learning outcome of dif-
enough to give basic data sufficient for a reliable assessment. ferent laboratory exercises more apparent to the students.
The results from the teacher interviews show that the One recommendation resulting from this study is that goals,
teachers basically assess how the students present their labwork instructions, and assessment criteria of experimental exercises
in lab reports. Because the students always have an opportu- must be treated together when planning the labwork. Since
nity to improve the lab report, the assessments were mainly the instruction style of an experiment influences the learning
to provide guidance. However, a lab report assessment does environment (Domin, 1999) and the assessment model used
not cover students’ skills in carrying out an experiment. This influences what students learn (Boud, 1995), a more formal
type of assessment might be enough for student counselling assessment procedure in the classroom may make the students
or formative assessment, but should not be recommended as more aware of how they can improve their learning with the
a basis for grading. An experienced teacher would probably help of experiments (Shepard, 2000; Brookhart, 2001). If
do a correct assessment, but it is important to verbalise what labwork instructions and formalised assessment models are
is important about labwork in order to give the students the developed, they may provide a better basis for assessment
opportunity to develop special qualities and to make the and grading of students. Another step towards such a goal
assessment criteria more transparent. Since the assessment of a would be to increase the teachers’ knowledge and experi-
lab report does not include students’ practical skills (according ence of formalised labwork assessment. It is also important
to the teachers, practical skills are never discussed with the that the goals of content knowledge and assessment practice
students), only the criteria concerning interpretation, evalua- are apparent to the students and that the laboratory manuals
tion, and presentation of results are satisfactorily included in are formulated so that these goals are communicated to the
such an assessment. The results also show that most labwork students.
at upper secondary school does not include higher cognitive The curriculum states that labwork should include inquiry
challenges. skills: identifying problems, generating research questions, plan-
The student performance and result of the lab report only ning and conducting investigations, and formulating, com-
mattered if the student’s grade from written exams was border- municating, and defending explanations (National Agency
line. Whether this is due to the teachers’ lack of confidence in for Education, 2000; Lunetta and Hofstein, 2003). This study,
undertaking the assessment task or to heavy workload, cannot however, shows that most labwork does not cover this goal.
be deduced from this study. All the teachers wanted an Thus, labwork in school should require more inquiry including
assessment model that would be transparent for the students, planning and design (Tweedy and Hoese, 2005).

Volume 40 Number 3, Summer 2006 JBE 117

Ottander and Grelsson | Teachers’ views of labwork

When a new teacher assessment scheme was implemented Hofstein A and Lunetta V N (2003) The laboratory in science edu-
in Hong Kong, the teachers were concerned about the lack of cation: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education,
88, 28-54.
resource material and training (Yip and Cheung, 2005). As
Millar R, Tiberghien A and Le Maréchal J-F (2002) Varieties of lab-
mentioned previously, Swedish teachers are used to examining work: a way of profiling labwork tasks. In: Psillos D and Niedderer
their own students, but the assessment system is not centrally H (Eds) Teaching and learning in the science laboratory. Dordrecht:
administered in natural sciences. Support for assessment is Kluwer Academic Publ. 9-20.
available through an IT-based test bank (Grelsson and National Agency for Education (2000) Natural science programme.
Programme goal, structure and syllabuses. Gy 2000:14. Stockholm.
Ottander, 2005). Tests of practical skills are not yet available
National Agency for Education. 175pp
although they are under development. (www.skolverket.se/sb/d/493). Retrieved 28.12.2005.
Ottander C and Grelsson G (2005) Teachers’ view of learning out-
References come and assessment of laboratory work in swedish upper second-
Bol L and Strage A (1996) The contradiction between teachers’ ary biology classes. In: Ergazaki M, Lewis J and Zogza V (Eds)
instructional goals and their assessment practices in high school Trends in biology education research in the new biology era. Patras.
biology courses. Science Education, 80, 145-163. Patras University Press. 287-301.
Boud D (1995) Assessment and learning: contradicting or comple- Psillos D and Niedderer H (2002) Issues and questions regarding the
mentary. In: Knight, P. (Ed.) Assessment for learning in higher edu- effectiveness of labwork. In: Psillos D and Niedderer H (Eds).
cation. London. Kogan Page. 35-48. Teaching and learning in the science laboratory. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Brookhart S M (2001) Successful students’formative and summative Academic Publ. 21-30.
uses of assessment information. Assessment in Education, 8, 153-169. Shepard L A (2000) The role of assessment in a learning culture.
Brown A L (1992) Design experiments: theoretical and method- Educational Researcher, 29, 4-14.
ological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom Schwartz R S, Lederman N G and Crawford B A (2004) Developing
settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 (2), 141-178. views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit
Brown C R (1998) An evaluation of two different methods of assess- approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and sci-
ing independent investigations in an operational pre-university entific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645.
level examination in biology in England. Studies in Educational Solano-Flores G, Jovanovic J, Shavelson R J and Bachman M (1999)
Evaluation, 24, 87-98. On the development and evaluation of a shell for generating sci-
Coquidé M (2003) What biology teachers say about labwork as part ence performance assessment. International Journal of Science
of biology education. In: Lewis J, Magro A and Simonneux L (Eds) Education, 21, 293-315.
Biology Education for the Real World. Proc of the IVth ERIDOB Sutton C I R S (1998) New perspectives on language in science. In:
Conference, Toulouse. Tobin K G and Fraser B J (Eds), International Handbook of Science
DeTure L R, Fraser V J and Doran R L (1995) Assessment and inves- Education I. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
tigation of science laboratory skills among year 5 students. Tamir P, Dorant R L and Chye Y O (1992a) Practical skills testing in
Research in Science Education, 25, 253-392. science. Studies in Educational Evaluation 18, 263-275.
Domin D S (1999). A review of laboratory instruction style. Journal Tamir P, Doran R L, Kojima S and Bathory Z (1992b) Procedures
of Chemical Education. 76, 543-547. used in practical skills testing in science. Studies in Educational
Grelsson G and Ottander C (2004) The test bank in biology – assess- Evaluation, 18, 277-290.
ment of experiments and field investigations. In: Palm T (Ed), Tiberghien A, Veillard L, Le Maréchal J-F and Buty C (2001) An
Proceedings of the third international SweMaS conference Umeå, analysis of labwork tasks used in science teaching at upper second-
October 14-15. Department of Educational Measurements, Em ary school and university levels in several European countries.
48, Umeå university, Umeå. 111-119. Science Education, 85, 483-508.
Jenkins E W I E (1999). Practical work in School Science. In Leach Tweedy M E and Hoese W J (2005) Diffusion activities in college
J and Paulsen A (Eds) Practical Work in Science Education: Recent laboratory manuals. Journal of Biological Education, 39, 150-155.
Research Studies. Roskilde. Roskilde University Press. Yip D Y and Cheung D (2005) Teachers’ concerns on school-based
Kang N-H and Wallace C S (2005) Secondary science teachers’ use assessment of practical work. Journal of Biological Education, 39,
of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals and 156-162.
practices. Science Education, 89, 140-165.
Lazarowiz R and Tamir P (1994) Research on using laboratory Christina Ottander (corresponding author) is senior lecturer
instruction in science. In: Gabel D. (Ed.): Handbook of research on in the Department of Mathematics, Technology and Science
science teaching and learning. NY. Macmillan. 94-128. Education, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden.
Lunetta V N (1998) The school science laboratory: Historical per- Email: [email protected]. Gunnel Grelsson is
spectives and centers for contemporary teaching. In: Fraser B J and test developer in the Department of Educational
Tobin K G (Eds), International handbook of science education. Measurements, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden.
Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Email: [email protected]

The Journal of Biological Education is seeking additional members

for its Editorial Board.
Duties include attendance at meetings held three times a year at the Institute’s London
headquarters and a commitment to increasing the effectiveness of biological education through the Journal.

Interested individuals should submit a letter of application and a c.v. in the first instance to the Production
Editor, Journal of Biological Education, Institute of Biology, 9 Red Lion Court, London EC4A 3EF.

118 JBE Volume 40 Number 3, Summer 2006

View publication stats