The communication of laboratory investigations by university entrants

The purpose of the study reported here was to analyse the ways in which unversity entrant science students carry out and communicate experimental activities and to identify a model to explain characteristic communication practices. The study was prompted by a need to inform the development of an int...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of research in science teaching 2000-10, Vol.37 (8), p.839-853
Main Authors: Campbell, Bob, Kaunda, Loveness, Allie, Saalih, Buffler, Andy, Lubben, Fred
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic Achievement
Cognitive Processes
Communication (Thought Transfer)
Conceptual Change
Curriculum subjects: programmes and methods
Educational sciences
Exact and natural sciences
Foreign Countries
Higher Education
Physics
Science Education
Science Laboratories
Scientific Concepts
South Africa
Teaching methods
Writing (Composition)
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The purpose of the study reported here was to analyse the ways in which unversity entrant science students carry out and communicate experimental activities and to identify a model to explain characteristic communication practices. The study was prompted by a need to inform the development of an introductory laboratory course. The students studied shared an educational background characterised by a lack of experience with laboratory work and scientific writing. Seven groups of three students were studied. The investigative strategies of these groups were observed. Laboratory reports were used to identify the ways in which students communicated these strategies. Data are presented that show a discrepancy between the strategies used and those reported. The results suggest that: (i) students' perceptions of the purpose of a laboratory task influence their decisions on what to report; (ii) understandings of laboratory procedures greatly influence their decision on what to report and on how much detail to include in a report and; (iii) knowledge of discourse rules contributes to effective reporting. It is concluded that students' communication of an investigation results from the differential operation of various perceptual filters that determine both the procedural and discourse elements of their reports. It is recommended that the communication of science should be taught explicitly and alongside the procedures and concepts of science. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 37: 839–853, 2000
ISSN:0022-4308
1098-2736
DOI:10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<839::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-W