An experimental test of an extended discretion laboratory approach for university general biology

This was an experiment to test the extended discretion laboratory approach (ED) versus a guided-inquiry (GI) approach for teaching biology in a university setting. It had previously been found productive in a high-school setting. The approach provides considerably less specific procedure for the students to follow than did a guided-inquiry approach and required relatively high independence. Four hundred sixty-nine students taking university introductory biology were randomly assigned to using either the ED learning approach or one characterized as guided inquiry for one semester. Three measures were taken to verify that instructional treatments followed the two approaches. All indicated qualitative and quantitative differences between ED and GI approaches in the direction predicted by the operational definitions. The criterion variables were (1) student scores on a multiple-choice laboratory exam, (2) student scores on laboratory reports, and (3) student scores on six laboratory quizzes given during the semester. The only criterion variable which showed significant differences between groups (laboratory-report scores) also showed significant group-by-instructor interaction. The hypothesis of no difference therefore stood unrejected for all criterion variables. Since the ED approach appears to produce equivalent learning gains in understanding of biology laboratory concepts compared to a guided-inquiry approach, this approach should still be considered for laboratory teaching, because it purports to train for discretionary use of resources during instruction in addition to the conventional development of laboratory concepts.

[1]  Gerald W. Lott.  The effect of inquiry teaching and advance organizers upon student outcomes in science education , 1983 .

[2]  J. Dudley Herron,et al.  Helping students understand formal chemical concepts , 1980 .

[3]  J. Bruner.  The Process of Education , 1960 .

[4]  P. Tamir.  Long-Term Evaluation of BSCS. , 1970 .

[5]  William H. Leonard.  Using the Extended Discretion Approach in Biology Laboratory Investigations. , 1980 .

[6]  D. Ausubel.  The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. , 1963 .

[7]  An experimental study of a BSCS-style laboratory approach for university general biology , 1983 .

[8]  William H. Leonard,et al.  Extending discretion in high school science curricula , 1985 .

[9]  J. Piaget,et al.  The Psychology of the Child , 1969 .

[10]  R. Yager,et al.  Effects of the laboratory and demonstration methods upon the outcomes of instruction in secondary biology , 1969 .

[11]  William C. Kyle,et al.  The effects of new science curricula on student performance , 1983 .

[12]  Vincent N. Lunetta,et al.  Inquiry‐Related Tasks in High School Science Laboratory Handbooks , 1981 .

[13]  J. Guthrie,et al.  Expository instruction versus a discovery method. , 1967, Journal of educational psychology.

[14]  Joseph J. Schwab.  Biology teachers' handbook , 1963 .

[15]  D. Zollman,et al.  The Influence of Structured Versus Unstructured Laboratory on Students' Understanding the Process of Science. , 1977 .

[16]  An experimental test of an extended discretion approach for high school biology laboratory investigations , 1981 .

[17]  Barry A. Kaufman.  Psychological implications of discovery learning in science , 1971 .

[18]  J. C. Egelston.  Inductive vs. traditional methods of teaching high school biology laboratory experiments , 1973 .

[19]  William C. Schefler,et al.  A Comparison Between Inductive and Illustrative Laboratories in College Biology , 1965 .

[20]  Ibrahim Q. Saadeh.  Direction of the New Science Curricula: An Appraisal and an Alternative. , 1973 .

[21]  W. Jacobson.  Approaches to science education research: Analysis and criticism , 1970 .

[22]  M. Herron,et al.  The Nature of Scientific Enquiry , 1971, The School Review.