Creative Education
2013. Vol.4, No.1, 1-8
Published Online January 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.41001
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 1
Students’ Interaction and Its Relationship to Their Actions and
Verbalized Knowledge during Chemistry Labwork
Michael Skoumios1, Nicolaos Passalis2
1Department of Primary Education, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece
2Science Laboratory Center of Rhodes, Rhodes, Greece
Email: skoumios@rhodes.aegean.gr, passniko@otenet.gr
Received November 22nd, 2012; revised December 28th, 2012; accepted January 9th, 2013
The present study focuses on the interaction of students during chemistry labwork and investigates its re-
lationship with students’ actions that are related to the context of labwork and verbalized knowledge ex-
pressed by them. At first, labguides for chemistry labwork were designed and were implemented in three
groups of 16-year-old students. The labwork process was videoed in each group of students. Each part of
the half-minute videos was analyzed. The analysis identified the types of students’ interaction, the catego-
ries of their actions that are related to the context of labwork and the categories of their verbalized
knowledge throughout the labwork. It emerged that there is a relationship among the types of students’
interaction, the categories of their verbalized knowledge and the categories of their actions that are related
to the context of labwork. The results of this study affect the designing of labwork activities so that they
can become more effective.
Keywords: Science Education; Chemistry Learning; Labwork; Students’ Interaction
Introduction
Labwork is an important and vital part of science education.
However, despite the importance attached to labwork, there has
been a lot of debate as to its effectiveness (Abrahams & Millar,
2008; Hodson, 1991; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Osborne, 1993;
Toothacker, 1983; Wellington, 1993). Research on the effec-
tiveness of labwork in school practice is restricted. It has been
pointed out that there is need for further study into the labwork
process so that the learning outcomes can be improved (Abra-
hams & Millar, 2008; Skoumios & Passalis, 2010). The interac-
tion of students, their actions that are related to labwork context
and the verbalized knowledge they express during chemistry
labwork are the object of the present research paper.
Theoretical Framework
Labwork holds a central position in science curricula since
early in the nineteenth century. A classical definition of school
science labwork is: learning experiences in which students in-
teract with materials or with sources of data to observe and
understand the natural world (Lunetta, Hofstein, & Clough,
2007). Several researchers support that the students benefit
from their involvement in this process (Abrahams & Millar,
2008; Garnet, Garnet, & Hackling, 1995; Lunetta, 1998; Hög-
ström, Ottander, & Benckert, 2010; Hofstein & Lunetta, 1982;
Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Hucke & Fischer, 2002; Lazarowitz
& Tamir, 1994; Millar, Tiberghien, & Le Maréchal, 2002;
Pickering, 1980; Tobin, 1990). Research data proves that lab-
work can significantly contribute to the fulfillment of science
education objectives. More specifically, it can be more effective
in helping students to construct new knowledge (Gunstone,
1991; Högström et al., 2010; Tiberghien, Veillard, Le Maréchal,
Buty, & Millar, 2001; Tobin, 1990) and develop science skills
(Giddings, Hofstein, & Lunetta, 1991; Hofstein, Navon, Kipnis,
& Mamlok-Naaman, 2005; Högström et al., 2010). It can also
help the development of students’ psychomotor skills (manipu-
lative and observational skills) (Hofstein & Lunetta, 1982;
Tobin, 1990). In addition, it can promote students’ positive
attitudes towards science (Hofstein, Shore, & Kipnis, 2004;
Hofstein & Lunetta, 1982; 2004; Lazarowitz & Tamir, 1994)
and provide the students with opportunities to develop skills
that are related to cooperation and communication (Lazarowitz
& Tamir, 1994).
Despite the contribution of labwork to the fulfillment of sci-
ence education objectives, several researchers have questioned
about the effectiveness of labwork (Abrahams & Millar, 2008;
Hodson, 1991; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Osborne, 1993;
Toothacker, 1983; Wellington, 1993). They claim that labwork
in schools is frequently poorly organized, causes confusion, and
is not productive, while quite a lot of students consider that
what takes place in the laboratory has a minimal contribution to
science learning (Hodson, 1991). Osborne (1998) claims that
labwork “only has a strictly limited role to play in learning
science and that much of it is of little educational value” (p.
156). Furthermore, it is argued that the students are focused
more on completing labwork than on learning from labwork
(Berry, Mulhall, Gunstone, & Loughran, 1999; Rop, 1998).
It has been pointed out that there is need for further study on
the relationships among labwork, students’ written and verbal-
ized knowledge, students’ actions that are related to labwork
context, interaction of students and science learning (Abrahams
& Millar, 2008; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Högström et al.,
2010; Nakhleh, Polles, & Malina, 2002; Skoumios & Passalis,
2010).
In this direction, research has been conducted in which vid-
eos from physics labwork carried out by students were analyzed.
More specifically, students’ actions-concerning the labwork
context, such as working with the labguide, manipulating appa-
M. SKOUMIOS, N. PASSALIS
ratus, doing measurements and verbalized knowledge, while the
students were carrying out labwork, were classified into cate-
gories so that the relationship between actions and verbalized
knowledge could be studied (Becu-Robinault, 2002; Bisdikian
& Psillos, 2002; Buty, 2002; Hucke & Fischer, 2002; Sander,
Schecker, & Niedderer, 2002; Theyßen, Aufschnaiter, &
Schumacher, 2002). The analysis used the category-based
analysis of videotapes method (CBAV), which is based on the
work of Niedderer, Tiberghien, Buty, Haller, Hucke, Sander,
Fischer, Schecker, Aufschnaiter and Welzel (1998). Despite the
specific differentiations in the above research results, a first
common finding was that during labwork the students to a great
extent do not use the principles and laws they have been taught
in science class. Labwork “was effective in getting students to
do what is intended with physical objects, but much less effec-
tive in getting them to use the intended scientific ideas to guide
their actions and reflect upon the data they collect” (Abrahams
& Millar, 2008: p. 1945). A second common finding is that
manipulating apparatus and materials and taking measurements
are students’ prevailing actions, which take up most of their
time (between 50% - 80% of time), while the contribution of
their actions to enabling them to link practice with theory is
minimal. This relationship is considered a measure of effec-
tiveness of a labwork activity (Psillos & Niedderer, 2002).
With regard to chemistry labwork, Skoumios and Passalis
(2010) investigated the relationships between the categories of
students’ actions that are related to chemistry labwork context
and the categories of students’ verbalized knowledge. In par-
ticular, they studied the contribution of different labwork con-
texts to the amount of students’ verbalizations of chemistry
knowledge. It was realised that there is a relationship between
the categories of verbalized knowledge and the categories of
actions that are related to labwork context. The students who
used the labguides in order to write answers to given questions
tended to verbalize chemistry knowledge. On the other hand,
the students that confined themselves to manipulating apparatus
tended to express technical knowledge (knowledge more re-
lated to technical apparatus). Also, the contribution of students’
actions of taking measurements and using labguides and calcu-
lations to verbalizing chemistry knowledge is limited.
However, apart from students’ actions and the verbalized
knowledge they expressed during labwork, the research has
also focused on the role of interactions among students who
work in groups carrying out laboratory activities. Roychoud-
hury and Roth (1996) detected three types of interaction in
groups of students carrying out laboratory activities: “symmet-
ric”, “asymmetric” and “shifting asymmetric”. In “symmetric”
interaction the students participate in the discourse similarly,
while in “asymmetric” interaction one student monopolizes the
discourse or the actions and the rest of the students have a
minimal participation. In “shifting asymmetric” interaction one
student expresses his/her ideas for a longer period than the
other students and then another student continues this role. On
the whole, “symmetric” interaction among students is consid-
ered more productive, as it provides the students with more
opportunities for knowledge co-construction (Oliveira & Sadler,
2008).
Students’ actions, discourse among the students, and the type
of interaction during labwork define to a great extent the learn-
ing results (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994;
Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Roth, 2006). Although the relation-
ship between students’ actions and verbalized knowledge dur-
ing labwork has been investigated, there is no research on the
relationship among students’ interaction, actions and verbalized
knowledge.
Objective and Research Questions
The present paper is focused on the interaction among stu-
dents carrying out chemistry labwork in groups and aims at
studying the relationship among their interaction, actions that
are related to chemistry labwork context and verbalized
knowledge during chemistry labwork. In particular, the present
study aims to answer the two following research questions:
1) Is there any relationship between students’ interaction and
their actions when they are carrying out chemistry labwork?
2) Is there any relationship between students’ interaction and
their verbalized knowledge when they are carrying out chemis-
try labwork?
Method
Design of the Stu dy and Participants
The research was conducted in three stages. In the first stage,
a group of teachers prepared labguides that included chemistry
labwork. In the second stage, the labguides were distributed to
three groups of 16-year-old students, who came from three
Greek high schools and participated in the local preliminary
competition European Union Science Olympiad (EUSO). The
students had been chosen by their school teachers on the basis
of their performance in science learning. Every group included
three students. The first (Group I) and the third (Group III)
groups comprised two girls and one boy, while the second
group (Group II) three girls. The labwork was carried out in a
high school laboratory and was videotaped. In the third stage,
students’ labguides were marked and the videos were analyzed
(see “Data Collection and Analysis”).
Before proceeding with the labwork, special permission was
obtained from the schools’ principals and the teachers of the
classes. Also, the participating students and their parents were
provided with information about the nature, the purposes, the
content, the experimental activities, the expected duration, the
procedures of the labwork and its evaluation, and their consent
was obtained.
Chemistry Laboratory Activities
The following delineate the chemistry activities the students
carried out in a high school laboratory.
1) Preparation of 100 mL of C = .1 M NaOH Solution
The students were provided with a certain amount of solid
NaOH, 500mL deionized water, and all the necessary equip-
ment for the preparation of a water solution. At first, they had
to calculate the mass (in gr) of the solid NaOH they needed and
then to carefully weigh it. Finally, they proceeded to the prepa-
ration of the C = .1 M NaOH solution using the equipment
provided.
2) Identification of pH Range of An Unknown Solution
The students were provided with two acid-base indicators, i.e.
phenolphthalein and methyl orange, test tubes, and an unknown
solution. They were also given the pH range of each indicator
and the corresponding color change. By mixing the two indica-
tors with samples of the unknown solution, the students were
able to find the pH range of the unknown solution.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
2
M. SKOUMIOS, N. PASSALIS
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 3
3) Four Unlabeled Bottles
Four bottles of water solutions (without labels) were pro-
vided to the students. The possible contents of the bottles were
solutions of AgNO3, NaCl, KI and Ca(NO3)2. The students
mixed various combinations of the four solutions and were
asked to deduce which bottle contains which solution by ob-
serving any precipitation reactions that might occur upon mix-
ing.
Data Collection and Analysis
The research data included the labguides of the student
groups and the videos with the labwork carried out by the three
groups of students. The duration of the videos was 135 minutes.
A regards the interaction of students during the labwork, the
data analysis showed three types of interaction in line with the
context proposed by Roychoudhury and Roth (1996): “sym-
metric”, “asymmetric” and “shifting asymmetric” (Table 1).
Each part of the half-minute videos was classified into one of
the three above types of interaction.
Students’ actions during labwork are coded using seven
categories. This system of categories is derived inductively
from the data. Its application provides results concerning the
time devoted to different laboratory activities. Table 2 shows
the CBAV categories for labwork context (Niedderer et al.,
1998). In this study the category “interaction with a third per-
son” is not used, because there was no interaction between
students and teachers during the laboratory activities.
The CBAV method was developed primarily to examine
labwork for evidence of students linking theory to practice. As
explained above, Niedderer et al., (1998) therefore developed
categories for verbalizing different kinds of knowledge, such as
chemistry knowledge or technical knowledge. Table 3 gives
the CBAV categories used for verbalizations of knowledge
during labwork. In the present study, apart from the categories
in Table 2, the category “other” (O) was also used in order to
involve students’ verbal discourse that is not related to the
above categories, or the absence of oral discourse.
The above categories of students’ interaction, verbalized
knowledge and actions were measured every half a minute
throughout the projection of the videos.
The video analysis was carried out by two independently
working researchers and the percentage of agreement between
the two researchers was 96% for all interaction categories, 94%
for verbalized knowledge categories, and 97% for the catego-
ries of students’ actions. The disagreements that arose during
the video analysis were settled through discussion.
In order to investigate the relationship between students’ in-
Table 1.
Types of students’ interaction during labwork, and their descriptions.
Types of interaction Description
“Symmetric” (S) The students participate (on the basis of their ideas and actions) similarly and the work is carried out collectively
by all the members of the group. No student monopolizes the discourse or the actions.
“Shifting asymmetric” (SA)
One or more students carry out actions or express their ideas for longer periods than in symmetric interaction.
More specifically, a student directs the interaction for quite a long time, which means that from this point of view
the interaction is asymmetric. The same role is later assumed by another student.
“Asymmetric” (A) A student monopolizes the discourse or the actions, while the others have minimal participation.
Table 2.
Categories of students’ actions concerning the labwork context, and their descriptions.
Categories of actions Description
“Other” (O) Activities not at all related to the lab
“Interaction with a third person” (3.P)The third person can be the teacher, the tutor, other students, or similar
“Labguide” (LG) Using the labguide
“Paper and pencil” (PP) Using paper and pencil. Students write or read in their own protocol
“Manipulation of apparatus” (MA) Using apparatus and devices. Carrying out experimental set up or preparing a measurement
“Measurement” (ME) Resources used are apparatus and paper and pencil
“Calculation” CL) Using a (pocket) calculator or a special software like Excel for this purpose or doing a direct calculation with
paper and pencil
Table 3.
Categories of students’ verbalized knowledge during labwork, and their descriptions.
Categories of verbalized knowledge Description
“Technical knowledge” (KT) Students use knowledge more related to technical apparatus. Often related to the handling of apparatus.
“Chemistry knowledge” (KC) Students use chemistry knowledge, e.g. words referring to chemistry.
“Technical knowledge and chemistry
knowledge” (KTC) Students use chemistry knowledge and technical knowledge together.
“Mathematical knowledge” (KM) Students use in their statements formulas or other mathematical knowledge.
M. SKOUMIOS, N. PASSALIS
teractions and verbalized knowledge, the frequencies of the
types of students’ interactions and the categories of their ver-
balized knowledge were recorded and compared. So as to in-
vestigate any differentiations between students’ interactions and
their actions that are related to labwork context, the types of
students’ interactions and the categories of their actions were
also recorded and compared. Furthermore, any associations
were investigated through the x2 test. The determination and
interpretation of the associations were based on the values of
the x2 test and the standardized residuals (Blalock, 1987;
Erickson & Nosanchuk, 1985). Thus, the size of x2 test (taking
into account the degrees of freedom of the particular table)
serves as a mean to detect the existence of an association. As
Blalock (1987) argues, the sum of the squares of the standard-
ized residuals provides a good approximation of the value of x2
test for a contingency table. Furthermore, it becomes evident
that cells with large standardized residuals contribute most to
the size of x2 test, thus being responsible (that is to say the
source) for the existence of the association between the vari-
ables represented by the dimensions of the table. Therefore, if
one establishes the existence of associations on the basis of x2
test, a very meaningful way to interpret these associations is
provided by the examination of the size of standardized residu-
als for each cell (the standardized residual for a cell shows the
standardized difference between observed and expected value
for this cell) (Blalock, 1987).
Results
Students’ Interaction
Table 4 presents the frequencies and percentages of the types
of interaction among students during chemistry labwork for all
the student groups. It is evident that the interaction among the
students is “symmetric” for quite a long time during the lab-
work. However, the interaction among the students is “shifting
asymmetric” or “asymmetric” for most of the labwork.
Students’ Act ions
Table 5 presents the frequencies and percentages of the
Table 4.
Categories of types of interactions among during labwork: frequencies
(N, N%).
Types of interaction N N%
S 107 39.6
SA 89 33.0
A 74 27.4
categories of students’ actions concerning the labwork context
for all the student groups. It is evident that for quite a long time
during the labwork the students manipulate the apparatus and
materials found on their laboratory counter or fill in the lab-
guide of the respective labwork activity. The students devote
less time to taking measurements or studying the labguide in-
structions.
Students’ Verbalized Knowledge
Table 6 presents the frequencies and percentages of the
categories of students’ verbalized knowledge for all the student
groups. The categories “chemistry knowledge” and “technical
knowledge and chemistry knowledge” are indications of a link
between theory and practice. The percentage of labtime here is
54.2%. The percentage of “technical knowledge” during
labtime is also high (41.9%). Finally, there is a particularly low
percentage of “mathematical knowledge” during labtime.
The Relationship between Students’ Interaction and
Actions
Table 7 presents the frequencies and percentages of the types
of interaction among the students for each category of students’
verbalized knowledge. It is evident that when the interaction
Table 5.
Categories of students’ actions during labwork: frequencies (N, N%).
Categories of actionsN N%
O 6 2.2
LG 51 18.9
PP 80 29.6
MA 81 30.0
ME 44 16.3
CL 8 3.0
Table 6.
Categories of students’ verbalized knowledge during labwork: fre-
quencies (N, N%).
Categories of verbalized knowledgeN N%
O 6 2.3
KT 113 41.8
KC 84 31.1
KTC 57 21.1
KM 10 3.7
Table 7.
Types of students’ interactions and categories of their actions during labwork: frequencies (N, N%).
Categories of actions
O LG PP MA ME CL
Types of interaction
N (N%) N (N%) N (N%) N (N%) N (N%) N (N%)
S 4 (3.7) 16 (14.9) 43 (41.3) 17 (15.9) 22 (20.6) 5 (4.7)
SA 1 (1.1) 13 (14.6) 27 (30.3) 30 (33.7) 17 (19.1) 1 (1.1)
A 1 (1.4) 22 (29.7) 10 (13.5) 34 (45.9) 5 (6.8) 2 (2.7)
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
4
M. SKOUMIOS, N. PASSALIS
among the students of a group is “symmetric”, then students’
actions are mainly included in the category “paper and pencil”
for a great part of their time. When the interaction among the
students of a group is “shifting asymmetric”, then students’
actions are mainly included in the categories “paper and pencil”
and “manipulation of apparatus” for a great part of their time.
However, when the interaction among the students of a group is
“asymmetric”, then for a great part of students’ time the actions
are mainly included in the category “manipulation of appara-
tus”.
In addition, it is evident that there is a statistically significant
correlation between the types of interaction (“symmetric”,
“shifting asymmetric” and “asymmetric”) and the categories of
students’ actions, (“labguide”, “paper and pencil”, “manipula-
tion of apparatus” and “measurements”) (x2 = 36.36, df = 6, p
< .0001). This correlation is due to the following students’ ten-
dencies (see Table 8).
When the interaction among the students is “symmetric”,
the students tend to complete the labguide instead of ma-
nipulating apparatus and materials found on their lab
counter.
On the other hand, when the interaction among the students
is “asymmetric”, the students tend to read the instructions
for carrying out labwork and to manipulate the apparatus
and materials found on their lab counter instead of com-
pleting the labguide and taking and processing measure-
ments.
The Relationship between Students’ Interaction and
Verbalized Knowledge
Table 9 presents the frequencies and percentages of the types
of interaction among the students for every category of their
verbalized knowledge. It is evident that when the interaction
among the students of a group is “symmetric”, then in a great
part of students’ time the knowledge is mainly included in the
categories “chemistry knowledge” and “technical and chemistry
knowledge”. However, when the interaction among the students
Table 8.
Frequencies of the types of students’ interaction and categories of stu-
dents’ actions concerning the labwork context and the respective stan-
dardized residuals.
Categories of actions
Types of
interaction LG PP MA ME
S 16 [.80] 43 [+2.24] 17 [2.52] 22 [+1.26]
SA 13 [1.04] 27 [.04] 30 [+.47] 17 [+.53]
A 22 [+2.09] 10 [2.59] 34 [+2.43] 5 [2.06]
of a group is “shifting asymmetric” or “asymmetric”, then in a
great part of students’ time the verbalized knowledge is mainly
included in the category “technical knowledge”.
In addition, it is evident that there is a statistically significant
correlation between the types of interaction (“symmetric”,
“shifting asymmetric” and “asymmetric”) and the categories of
students’ verbalized knowledge (“technical knowledge”,
“chemistry knowledge” and “technical and chemistry knowl-
edge”) (x2 = 23.97, df = 4, p < .0001). This correlation is due to
the following tendencies of the students (see Table 10).
When the interaction among the students is “symmetric”,
the students tend to formulate statements including knowl-
edge that combines the used apparatus and materials with
the concepts of chemistry instead of formulating statements
including knowledge that refers exclusively to the used ap-
paratus and materials.
On the other hand, when the interaction among the students
is “asymmetric”, the students tend to formulate statements
including knowledge that refers to the used apparatus and
materials instead of formulating statements including
knowledge that combines the used apparatus and materials
with the concepts of chemistry.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study aimed to investigate the interaction among the
students and its relationship with their verbalized knowledge
and actions when they are carrying out chemistry labwork in
conditions of competition. Three groups of students (16 years
old) carried out chemistry laboratory activities and the entire
process was videoed. Each part of the half-minute videos was
analyzed and the analysis allowed the detection of the types of
interaction among the students, the categories of their actions
and the categories of their verbalized knowledge during the
labwork.
As for the type of students’ interaction, the results of the
study show that during chemistry labwork most of the time was
occupied by “symmetric” and “shifting asymmetric” interaction
among the students. In other words, the students either partici-
Table 10.
Frequencies of the types of students’ interaction and categories of stu-
dents’ verbilized knowledge and the respective standardized residuals.
Categories of verbalized knowledge
Types of
interaction KT KC KTC
S 30 [2.12] 35 [+.68] 34 [+2.10]
SA 38 [+.18] 23 [.61] 22 [+.46]
A 47 [+2.29] 22 [.14] 5 [2.96]
Table 9.
Types of students’ interactions and categories of their verbalized knowledge during labwork: frequencies (N, N%).
Categories of verbalized knowledge
O KT KC KTC KM
Types of interaction
N (N%) N (N%) N (N%) N (N%) N (N%)
S 4 (3.7) 30 (28.0) 35 (32.7) 34 (31.8) 4 (3.7)
SA 2 (2.2) 38 (42.7) 23 (25.8) 22 (24.7) 4 (4.5)
A 0 (.0) 47 (63.5) 22 (29.7) 5 (6.8) 0 (.0)
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 5
M. SKOUMIOS, N. PASSALIS
pated similarly in the discourse or one student formulated
his/her ideas for a longer period than the others and then an-
other student took up this role. The relatively high percentages
of “symmetric” and “shifting asymmetric” interactions, as
compared with the percentage of “asymmetric” interaction,
could be attributed to the fact that the labwork is carried out in
conditions of competition. In the ordinary conditions of the
school context the above percentages may be slightly different.
With regard to the time budget the students devoted to
working with the different contexts of chemistry labwork, it
emerged that most of their time was spent in the “manipulation
of apparatus” and in “paper and pencil”. A reasonable amount
of time was spent in using the labguide “to point what to do”
and in taking measurements. These findings befit research
findings for physics labwork (Becu-Robinault, 2002; Buty,
2002; Hucke et al., 2002; Sander et al., 2002; Theyßen et al.,
2002). It is noting that in the present study the percentage of
time spent in using “paper and pencil” (e.g. for writing answers
to given questions) is comparatively higher than the corre-
sponding percentage in physics labwork activities, where much
of the time is spent in the interaction between the teacher and
the students (Becu-Robinault, 2002; Buty, 2002; Hucke et al.,
2002; Sander et al., 2002; Theyßen et al., 2002). The above
differentiation may be attributed to the absence of interaction
between the students and the teachers during chemistry labwork
as well as to the chemistry activities themselves. Moreover, in
this study the time the students spend in activities not at all
related to the lab is considerably shorter, as compared with the
corresponding time spent in physics labwork. This differenta-
tion may be attributed to the conditions of competition during
chemistry labwork. Some physics or chemistry labwork activ-
ties need a lot of time for setting up the apparatus and less time
for making measurements, while other activities need little time
for setting up the apparatus and more time for measurements.
Of course, these differences are dependent on the degree to
which the setup has been prepared before the students come to
the lab, how many problems arise, and how many or what kind
of measurements are required in the labguide (Niedderer et al.,
1998).
As regards the verbalized knowledge the students formulate
while carrying out the labwork, it emerged that for most of their
time the students formulated statements that included knowl-
edge related exclusively to the used apparatus and materials,
without making any mention of chemistry concepts. This means
that the students proceeded with the labwork without necessar-
ily linking practice with theory (Millar et al., 2002) or without
“transferring” from the “domain of objects and observables” to
the “domain of ideas” (Tiberghien, 2000). The above finding is
in line with the results of other research, according to which the
link between practice and theory is difficult to be achieved
(Becu-Robinault, 2002; Hucke & Fischer, 2002; Sander,
Schecker, & Niedderer, 2002; Theyßen, Aufschnaiter, &
Schumacher, 2002). The percentage of the categories “chemis-
try knowledge” and “technical knowledge and chemistry
knowledge” is higher than the respective percentage of time in
other studies (Becu-Robinault, 2002; Buty, 2002; Hucke et al.,
2002; Niedderer et al., 1998; Sander et al., 2002; Theyßen et al.,
2002). This could be interpreted as meaning that to link theory
to practice as an objective might be fostered better in some
cases in labs when the students are in competition (as in this
study).
The results of the present study show that the type of interac-
tion among the students is related to students’ actions during
the labwork. In particular, students’ “symmetric” interaction is
related to the completion of the labguide, while the “asymmet-
ric” interaction is related to the study of the instructions for
carrying out the labwork and the manipulation of the apparatus
and materials found on the lab counter. Therefore, it emerged
that when the students participate (with regard to their verbal-
ized knowledge and actions) similarly and the work is carried
out collectively by all the members of the group, then for most
of their time they tend to be engaged in completing the labguide
and not only in reading the instructions and manipulating the
apparatus. The completion of the labguide by the students evi-
dences that the labwork is carried out without problems.
In addition, the type of interaction among the students is re-
lated to the verbalized knowledge they expressed during the
labwork. More specifically, there was a link between students’
“symmetric” interaction and the formulation of statements that
include knowledge combining the used apparatus and materials
with chemistry concepts. Moreover, there was a link between
students’ “asymmetric” interaction and the formulation of
statements that include knowledge referring exclusively to the
used apparatus and materials. Therefore, it emerged that when
the students participate (with regard to their verbalized knowl-
edge and actions) similarly and the work is carried out collec-
tively by all the members of the group, then they tend to for-
mulate statements combining the used apparatus and materials
with chemistry concepts. This link is both an essential objective
of the labwork and a finding in line with research results which
showed that the active and similar participation of the students
in the discourse promotes dialogical argumentation and the
construction of concepts by them (Berland & Reiser, 2009;
Engle & Conant, 2002; Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004;
Sampson, 2009).
It should be pointed out that the present study involved only
three groups of students and this is a restriction with regard to
its results. A more comprehensive understanding of the rela-
tionships among students’ interactions, verbalized knowledge
and actions, when the students are carrying out chemistry lab-
work, should include more groups of students.
Research has proven that the labguide and the way it directs
the students affect what the students perceive as important
(Becu-Robinault, 2002; Högström et al., 2010) and the overall
process of carrying out the labwork (Hucke & Fischer, 2002;
Lunetta, 1998; Millar et al., 2002). In order to increase the time
during which the students are in “symmetric” interaction, it is
necessary to enrich the labguide with appropriate questions that
will encourage the discourse among the students and will pro-
mote collective actions. For example, the students should be
encouraged to focus their attention on ideas formulated by their
peers and suggest answers taking into account these ideas. In
addition, it is necessary that the students be encouraged to for-
mulate questions, object to views, suggest alternative ideas,
justify their own or their peers’ views and organize the dis-
course. In this direction, the use of actions based on socio-cog-
nitive conflict processes could make a useful contribution
(Doise, Mugny, & Perez, 1998; Levine, Resnick, & Higgins,
1993; Skoumios, 2009). However, further research is required
so that the effect of such actions on students’ interactions, ac-
tions and verbalized knowledge can be investigated.
Moreover, the labguides should not be as detailed and the
experimental settings do not in all cases need to be as complete
as they usually are. Planning and designing activities should be
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
6
M. SKOUMIOS, N. PASSALIS
taken into consideration as an essential goal of the labwork
(Hucke & Fischer, 2002). Laboratory activities include both
guided and open-ended activities. The skills required for guided
activities are as follows: following instructions, using instru-
ments, collecting and analyzing data, comparing graphs, and
writing scientific reports with conclusions. Open-ended activi-
ties require posing questions, raising scientific hypotheses,
planning the work, examining assumptions, searching for sci-
entific background references, and drawing conclusions. Based
on the work of Schwab (1962) and Herron (1971), McComas
(1997) described how “openness”—the degree to which stu-
dents make decisions about the problem, the procedure and/or
the answers—is often scarce during laboratory activities. At
bottom level, the labguide decides the question or problem the
students will investigate, how the students will conduct the
investigation, and the validity of the investigation results. The
students make a few decisions—other than deciding whether
they got the “right answers”. On the other hand, at top level the
students decide what to investigate, how to investigate it, and
how to interpret the results generated. In the present study, the
labguide of the labwork belongs in the first category. It would
be interesting to study students’ interactions, actions and ver-
balized knowledge and the relationships among them as they
raise the degree of openness of the learning environment, and
compare them to the results of the present study.
This study contributes to the research on the effectiveness of
labwork because its findings shed light on the effect the type of
interaction among the students of a group has on the verbalized
knowledge they express and the actions they perform while thy
are carrying out chemistry labwork. Further study on the rela-
tionship among students’ interactions, verbalized knowledge
and actions, while they are carrying out physics and biology
labwork, as well as a comparison between the respective results
and the results of the present study is deemed necessary.
REFERENCES
Abrahams, I., & Millar, R., (2008). Does practical work really work? A
study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learn-
ing method in school science. International Journal of Science Edu-
cation, 30, 1945-1969. doi:10.1080/09500690701749305
Becu-Robinault, K. (2002). Modelling activities of students during a
traditional labwork. In D. Psillos, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching
and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 51-64). Dordrecht: Klu-
wer Academic Publishers.
Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and
explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55. doi:10.1002/sce.20286
Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Gunstone, R. F., & Loughran, J. J., (1999).
Helping students learn from laboratory work. Australian Science
Teachers Journal, 45, 27-31.
Bisdikian, G., & Psillos, D. (2002). Enhancing the Linking of the-
oretical Knowledge to physical phenomena by real-time graphing. In
D. Psillos, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the sci-
ence laboratory (pp. 193-204). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers.
Blalock, H. M. (1987). Social statistics, Singapore City: McGraw-Hill.
Buty, C., Tiberghien, A., & Le Maréchal, J.-F. (2004): Learning hy-
potheses and an associated tool to design and to analyse teaching-
learning sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 26,
579-604. doi:10.1080/09500690310001614735
Buty, C. (2002). Modelling in geometrical optics using a microcom-
puter. In D. Psillos, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in
the science laboratory (pp. 231-242). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perez, J. A. (1998). The social construction of
knowledge: Social marking and socio-cognitive conflict. In U. Flick
(Ed.), The psychology of the social (pp. 77-90). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Driver, R. H., Asoko, J., Leach, E., Mortimer, P., & Scott, P. (1994).
Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom, Educational Re-
searcher, 23, 5-12.
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argument-
ation discourse, Studie s i n Sc i en c e E du ca t io n , 38, 39-72.
doi:10.1080/03057260208560187
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering
productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument
in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20,
399-483. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
Erickson, B., & Nosanchuk, T. (1985). Understanding data. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Refocusing the
chemistry lab: A case for laboratory-based investigations. Australian
Science Teacher Journal, 41, 26-32.
Giddings, G. J., Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1991). Assessment and
evaluation in the science laboratory. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.).
Practical science (pp. 167-178). Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
Gunstone, R. F. (1991). Reconstructing theory from practical experi-
ence. In B. E. Woolnough, (Ed.), Practical science (pp. 67-77). Mil-
ton Keynes: Open University Press.
Hodson, D. (1991) Practical work in science: Time for a reappraisal.
Studies in Science Education, 1 9 , 175-184.
doi:10.1080/03057269108559998
Högström, P., Ottander, C. & Benckert, S. (2010). Labwork and learn-
ing in secondary school chemistry: The importance of teacher and
student interaction. Research in Science Ed ucation, 40, 505-523.
doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9131-3
Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in
science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 52, 201-217.
Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V, N. (2004). The laboratory in science edu-
cation: Foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
doi:10.1002/sce.10106
Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school
chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an
inquiry-type laboratory—A case study. International Journal of Sci-
ence Education, 26, 47-62. doi:10.1080/0950069032000070342
Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Naaman-Mamlok, R. (2005).
Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions result-
ing from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 42, 791-806. doi:10.1002/tea.20072
Hucke, L. & Fischer, H. E. (2002). The link of theory and practice in
traditional and in computer-based university laboratory experiments.
In D. Psillos, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the
science laboratory (pp. 205-218). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers.
Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory in-
struction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on
science teaching and learning (pp. 94-130). New York: Macmillan.
Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B., & Higgins, E. T. (1993). Social found-
ations of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 585-612.
doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.003101
Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical per-
spectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In K. Tobin, & B.
Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp.
249-264). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4940-2_16
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007), Learning and
teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research,
theory, and practice. In N. Lederman, & S. Abel (Eds,), Handbook of
research on science education (pp. 393-441). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
McComas, W. E. (1997). The nature of the laboratory experience: A
guide for describing, classifying and enhancing hands-on activities.
CSTA Journal (spring) , 6-9.
Millar, R., Tiberghien, A. & Le Maréchal, J. F. (2002). Varieties of
labwork: A way of profiling labwork tasks. In D. Psillos, & H.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 7
M. SKOUMIOS, N. PASSALIS
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
8
Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory
(pp. 9-20). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Nakhleh, M. B., Polles, J., & Malina, E. (2002). Learning chemistry in
a laboratory environment. In J. K. Gilbert et al., (Eds.), Chemical
education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 69-94). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Niedderer, H., Tiberghien, A., Buty, C., Haller, K., Hucke, L., Sander,
F., Fischer, H. E., Schecker, H. V., Aufschnaiter, S., & Welzel, M.
(1998). Category Based Analysis of Videotapes from labwork
(CBAV)—the method and results from four case studies. Working
paper 9 from the European project labwork in science education
(Targeted Socio-Economic Research Programme, Project PL 95-
2005).
Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Interactive patterns and con-
vergence of meaning during student collaborations in science. Jour-
nal of Research in Science Te a c h i n g , 45, 634-658.
doi:10.1002/tea.20211
Osborne, J. (1993). Alternatives to practical work. School Science Re-
view, 75, 117-123.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of
argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
41, 994-1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035
Pickering, M. (1980). Are lab courses a waste of time? The Chronicle
of Higher Education, 19, 80.
Psillos, D., & Niedderer, H. (2002). Issues and questions regarding the
effectiveness of labwork. In D. Psillos, & H. Niedderer (Eds.),
Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 21-30), Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Roth, W.-M. (2006). Learning science: A singular plural perspective.
Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
Rop, C. J. (1998). Student perspectives on success in high school
chemistry. Journal of Research in S ci en ce Te ac hi ng , 3, 221-237.
Roychoudhury, A., & Roth, W.-M. (1996). Interactional processes in a
constructivist physics lab. International Journal of Science Edu-
cation, 18, 423-445. doi:10.1080/0950069960180403
Sampson, V. (2009). The impact of argument-driven inquiry on three
scientific practices. The Annual International Conference of the Na-
tional Association o f Research in Science Teaching (NAR ST). Garden
Grove, CA: National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
Sander, F., Schecker, H., & Niedderer, H. (2002). Computer tools in the
lab—Effects linking theory and experiment. In D. Psillos, & H.
Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory
(pp. 219-230). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab, &
P. Brandwein (Eds.), The Teaching of Science, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Skoumios, M. (2009). The effect of sociocognitive conflict on students’
dialogic argumentation about floating and sinking. The International
Journal of Environmental and S c ie nce Education, 4, 381-399.
Skoumios, M., & Hatzinikita, V. (2008). Investigating the structure and
the content of pupils’ written explanations during science teaching
sequences focused on conceptual obstacles. Themes in Science and
Technology Education, 1, 135-155.
Skoumios, M., & Passalis, N. (2010). Chemistry laboratory activities:
The link between practice and theory. The International Journal of
Learning, 17, 101-114.
Theyßen, H. V., Aufschnaiter, S., & Schumacher, D. (2002). Develop-
ment and evaluation of a laboratory course in physics for medical
students. In D. Psillos, & H. Niederrer (Eds.), Teaching and learning
in the science laboratory (pp. 91-104). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Tiberghien, A. (2000) Designing teaching situations in the secondary
school. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds). Improving science
education: The contribution of research (pp. 27-47). Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Tiberghien, A., Veillard, L., Le Maréchal, J. F., Buty, C., & Millar, R.
(2001). An analysis of labwork tasks used in science teaching at up-
per secondary school and university levels in several European coun-
tries. Science Education, 85, 483-508. doi:10.1002/sce.1020
Tobin, K. G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pur-
suit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Sci-
ence and Mathematics, 9 0 , 403-418.
doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb17229.x
Toothacker, W. S. (1983). A critical look at introductory laboratory
instruction. American Journal of Physics, 5 1, 516-520.
doi:10.1119/1.13220
Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in science. Time for a reappraisal.
In J. Wellington (Ed.). Practical work in school science: Which way
now? (pp. 3-15). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203267059