Olle Eskilsson and Gustav Helldén
Kristianstad University, Sweden
This paper presents an investigation of the role of different elements in chemistry labwork and how these elements can contribute to a better understanding of science phenomena and to the development of a more positive attitude to science. This investigation is an exploratory study on the interaction between students and between students and teacher performed in two science classrooms. The interaction in a science laboratory is dependent on the language that students and teachers use. Language and conversation are according to Lemke (1990) the most important mechanism we have for developing, testing and communicating knowledge.
The present study is carried out from a view of learning that involves both social interactions between students and between students and teachers, as well as an individual construction of knowledge. That means that higher mental processes in the individual derive from social life.
The introduction of new science concepts is a subtle process that is dependent on fruitful conversation (Leach & Scott, 2003).
We have found that science teachers at the secondary level regard labwork with hands-on activities as the heart of science teaching. On the other hand there is a discussion among science education researchers if practical work does help students to understand science better, and if students participating in science lab-work develop more positive attitudes towards science (Hodson, 1993). We have learnt from a previous research project on labwork at the primary level, that lab-work creates a classroom atmosphere with a rich communication and improves student’s ability to talk science (Eskilsson & Helldén, 2003).
One problem with practical activities is that students look upon work in a laboratory as doing experiments. If so there is a risk that students do not see the links between theoretical schoolwork and practical work (White, 1996).
From the above theoretical perspective we set up a study of concrete situations during students’ lab-work in chemistry. We use interactions in the classroom based on Ann L.
Brown’s (1992) reciprocal teaching strategy. The reciprocal teaching groups are designed to help students to monitor their comprehension.
The aims of this study are to answer the following research questions:
1.
What is the role of interaction between teacher and students and between students during lab-work?
2.
How does communication during lab-work contribute to science learning?
3.
What are the teacher’s and the students’ view of the interaction?
This study is carried out with sixty 14-15-year-old students and the topics for the labwork studied are acid-base concepts, and foodstuff chemistry.
The study consists of two instructional units. In the 1 st
unit we study students’ ordinary work in laboratory lessons and in the 2 nd
we have interventions based on Brown’s ideas about

reciprocal teaching (1992). In this intervention the students work in groups of three, where one of them is chairperson, one is secretary, and one prepares a report to another group that has not done the same experiments. All the three students in a group take part in the labwork.
We carry out interviews with the students and the teachers after each of the two units.
We use camcorder supplemented with tape-recorder in each lab group to document the discussions in the groups. When analyzing the discussions in the groups, these discussions are divided into sequences. In each sequence the students are discussing one separate part of the lab work activity. These sequences are analyzed using a revised SOLO-taxonomy (Biggs &
Collis, 1991).
Table 1 Categories used in this study according to a revised SOLO-taxonomy
Category in the present study SOLO-category by
Biggs and Collis
Unistructural U1/ about the experimental procedure
U2/ relevant concepts
U3/ concrete aspects of phenomena
M4/ more than one relevant concepts in a relevant way but no integration
R5/ two or more concepts well integrated in a relevant way
R6/ all data is integrated
Multistructural
Relational
We choose about 10 cuts from the videotapes illustrating the discussions in the groups during labwork and during the reporting to another group. In interviews with the teachers we asked them to comment on what happens in these cuts.
The data in this study originates from analysis of a/ interviews with the students, b/ the interviews with the teachers, c/ students’ talk during the lab work, and d/ students’ reporting from their experiments to another group.
Interviews with the students
The students mean that they learn a lot during the laboratory lessons because they like it. They describe how they learn science and how to cooperate. Most of the students talk about many advantages with the method used in the second instructional unit: e.g. learning to listen to classmates, explaining experiments stimulates understanding.
Some students do not remember what they have done in the laboratory lesson but when the interviewer asks follow-up questions all of them can tell about the lesson. They focus on one relevant domain, and only simple connections can be made. Half of the students can use their knowledge when talking about the experiments from the laboratory.
Interviews with the teachers
During the interviews the teachers comment on some video-cuts from the lessons. These comments have been categorized as comments about experimental procedure, about students’ activities, about interaction between students and teachers, and about learning situations and learning processes.

When analyzing the teachers’ comments three categories are found to be more frequent, comments on student’ activities, interaction, and learning situations. One of six comments is about learning processes. Teacher I focuses student’ activities and teaching situations.
Teacher II mostly comments on learning situations and processes. Teacher III talks about communication and processes. One fourth of the comments from teacher I and II are about communication.
Students’ talk during the labwork
When students are doing labwork they talk about what they are doing and then they often use science knowledge and science concepts. In the analysis of these discussions, from the tapes, we use the revised SOLO-taxonomy in table 1.
Six of the nine groups have increasing quality of their science talk during the experiments.
Students often talk about the experimental procedure when they start each sub-experiment.
They use words and concepts introduced in the laboratory lesson as well as in earlier lessons.
Explaining to another group that has not done these experiments
In many groups there are lots of discussions and questions. Only a few sequences categorised as unistructural are found. The categories corresponding to structures of higher quality are more common than during the lab work discussions. The intervention with ideas from Brown
(1992) seems to stimulate students’ ability to use science knowledge. All groups but one have relational categories. Almost 40% of all the statements are analysed in relational categories.
The quality of the students’ use of science knowledge is higher in their presentations than in the lab work discussions. The students seem to be surer in the use of their knowledge. In seven of the presentations there is at least one sequence analyzed as relational according to the
SOLO-taxonomy. In six of them the quality of the discussions are increasing during the presentation.
The intervention stimulates students’ discussions during labwork. Almost all students mean that the preparation for the presentation and the work with the written report stimulates their learning in science. The students talk science during the practical work. When they ask for help they are prepared and can discuss with the teacher. The students´ understanding is improved as a consequence of interaction and communication between students and between students and the teacher.
The teachers’ analysis of the video-sequences from the lessons contains both comments on students’ interaction and learning and reflections on their teaching. The teachers mean that they learn a lot from this analysis.
Our analysis of the group-discussions shows several examples of students talking science, and the use of a revised SOLO-taxonomy points towards an increasing quality in these discussions. The findings in our study are in accordance with Leach &Scott (2003) and
Lemke (1990).
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1991). Multimodal Learning and the Quality of Intelligent
Behaviour. In H. A. H. Rowe (Ed.), Intelligence: Reconceptualisation and
Measurement (pp. 27-76). Hillsdale. N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 2 (2), 141-178.
Eskilsson, O., & Helldén, G. (2003). A Longitudinal Study on 10-12-Year-Olds´ Conceptions of the Transformations of Matter. Chemistry Education: Research And Practice, Vol.
4.
(No. 3), 291-304.
Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking Old Ways: Towards A More Critical Approach To Practical
Work In School Science. Studies in Science Education, 22 , 85-142.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and Sociocultural Views of Learning Science in
Science Education. Science & Education, 12 (1), 91-113.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, learning and values . Norwood: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
White, R. T. (1996). The link between the laboratory and learning.
International Journal of
Science Education, 18 (7), 761-774.