European Journal of Educational Sciences, EJES June 2015 edition Vol.2, No.

2 ISSN 1857- 6036

LABORATORY EXERCISE OR LECTURE:

MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATION

Barry R. Thompson, PhD

Georgia Regents University, U.S.A.

Abstract
A study was recently conducted in a suburban middle school
regarding two teaching strategies. Ninety-three eighth grade students were
administered a pretest regarding classification as related to taxonomy. Thirty
of the students conducted an inquiry lab concerning classification. They then
participated in a class discussion regarding the material. The remaining thirty
students first participated in a class discussion regarding classification, they
then completed the laboratory exercise. A posttest was administered at the
conclusion of the unit and a retention test was administered four months
later. Statistical analysis through the use of t-tests indicates a statistically
significant performance difference on the scores of the posttest. No
significant difference was found when comparing the respective retention
test scores.

Keywords: Inquiry, laboratory, taxonomy

Introduction
Laboratory Exercise or Lecture: What Should Come First in Science
Classes?
How one learns best is a universal question which many have
devoted their research lives to solving. Pedagogy is often taught with the
idea that students have various learning styles such as auditory, visual, etc.
(Dunn, et.al., 1995). Instructional variety in the classroom will help to
address the various ways students learn such as the use of hands-on activities
balanced with class discussions in order to best address the respective
learning styles of their students in conjunction with preparing the students
for evaluation. Standardized tests have become the evaluation procedure of
choice with the advent of national and state standards therefore, teachers
have the obligation to instruct in a manner that best results in increased
learning by their students as measured by standardized tests.
In addition to learning styles, theories such as the use of inquiry in
the classroom increased greatly during the decade of the 1960’s thanks in

1
 European Journal of Educational Sciences, EJES June 2015 edition Vol.2, No.2 ISSN 1857- 6036

part to the launch of Sputnik, which caused a great deal of curricular concern
in the United States. New science curricula were designed that stressed
inquiry and process, using hands-on laboratory experiences as a means to
facilitate learning. The resulting standardized test scores related to these
curricula were analyzed in the 1980’s comparing the results of students who
had participated in the proper use of the inquiry science curricula
(Shymansky, Kyle, & Alport, 1982; Shymansky, 1984). The achievement
test scores of those original students increased and attitudes became more
positive. Several of these programs (Science Curriculum Improvement
Study, Science A Process Approach, Biological Science Curriculum Study)
were successful in using the process approach in order to increase learning
for a variety of age groups.
Further research results have indicated conflicting outcomes
regarding pedagogical techniques. Odubunmi, Olagunqu and Balogun (1991)
found that when comparing the lecture versus laboratory teaching method,
the cognitive achievement scores of low ability students were significantly
higher for pupils instructed using the laboratory activities. There was,
however, no significant difference in test scores when comparing high ability
students and teaching method. In another study, Staver (1984) tested
traditional teaching-vs-inquiry based learning. This researcher concluded
that the methods of teaching had no significant impact on students’ test
scores.
Calude, C., Calude, E., & Queen, M. (2012). Inductive
Complexity of P versus NP Problem (Extended Abstract). Lecture Notes in
Computer Science. (7445), 2-9.
Calude, C.S. ;
Calude, E. ;
Queen, M.S.
Title: Inductive Complexity of P versus NP Problem (Extended Abstract)
Source: Lecture notes in computer science. no. 7445, (2012): 2-9
Additional Info: Springer-Verlag,
Issue Id: Unconventional Computation and Natural Computation
Alt Journal: Key Title: Lecture notes in computer science
Standard No: ISSN: 0302-9743 CODEN: LNCSD9
OCLC No: 3719235
BL Shelfmark: 5180.185000
Article Type: Article
Database: ArticleFirst

Conversely, Saunders (1987) found that hands-on learning was more

effective for student learning than was traditional lecture. It was also found

2
 European Journal of Educational Sciences, EJES June 2015 edition Vol.2, No.2 ISSN 1857- 6036

that supplementary inquiry activities had a significant positive effect on the

achievement of females, indicating an interaction between gender and
teaching strategy (Marshall & Dorward, 2000).
The study was conducted in Australia to determine whether inquiry
or lecture is better for college students (Jones, Holland, & Oldmeadow,
2008). The participants included 49 college students. The same students were
exposed to both the inquiry and the lecture method and the results indicated a
significant improvement with the inquiry approach at the .001 level. They
also found they could cover more content using the lecture method.
Another study was done at the collegiate level regarding the
correlation between attendance at laboratory experiences and grades (Moore,
2008). This was a longitudinal study lasting for years and involving 1697
students. The researcher found that the students’ respective grades declined
progressively as the students missed one or more labs. Studies done with
collegiate level students seem to indicate benefits of hands-on experiences
and inquiry learning.
Saunders (1987) conducted his research in 4th and 6th grade science
classes. His findings indicated hands-on learning was better for student
learning than traditional lecture type learning. Additionally, Chang (1999)
whose participants included 600 junior high school students, found that
students in the inquiry-group instruction classes had significantly higher
achievement scores than the students in the traditional group instructional
classes.
These researchers exposed different respective groups of students to
different teaching approaches, lecture vs. lab, and lecture vs. inquiry. This
creates the need for a study where the same students, as opposed to different
classes of students, are taught the same material using different methods.
This eliminates the potential confounding variable, different groups of
students. Each classroom of pupils may react differently to various learning
methods. These researchers also used achievement and gender as variables.
A study now needs to be conducted whereby a common variable, such as
socio-economic status can be compared to achievement.
Research also indicates that even students who scored well on
standardized tests are often unable to successfully integrate or contrast
memorized facts with real-life applications outside the school room (Yager,
1991). Studies on authentic assessment showed that an educational
intervention based on the theory of successful intelligence improved school
achievement, both on performance assessment measuring analytical,
creative, and practical achievements and on conventional multiple-choice
memory assessment.
Educators are beginning to acknowledge the importance of honoring
the principles of authentic assessment. These principles require teachers to

3
 European Journal of Educational Sciences, EJES June 2015 edition Vol.2, No.2 ISSN 1857- 6036

focus on approximating authentic real-world tasks in the subjects under study

and on higher-order thinking skills, all while using assessment as a means for
continual student improvement. This gives the student a better learning
experience, and increases the chances that what they have learned will be of
use to them beyond their current classroom. According to research,
traditional assessment tools are often not helpful in assisting students to
improve, to understand, or synthesize what they have learned (Wilson,
1994).
Findings from teacher questionnaires indicates that teachers feel that
students achieve high scores in science knowledge and maintain or develop
positive attitudes towards science when students are provided with
opportunities that use real-world scenarios to make connections between
what they learn in science class and what they do in life (Brunkhorst, 1992).

Method
The implications of the research data indicate a need for more
research. Many different variables, such as socio-economic status, must be
explored in order to determine what teaching procedure is preferable for any
respective group of students. The population was seventh grade students in a
suburban, middle to upper class environment.. The students had previously
been randomly assigned to specific science classes, and the teaching strategy
was randomly chosen for each class.
There were four classes randomly assigned to each condition. All
four classes were taught in the same science classroom by the same teacher
and included standard furniture for a lecture/lab setting. There were 26
standard-sized desks for middle school students evenly spaced throughout
the room. In addition, there were lab stations for groups of four students. The
materials for the laboratory exercise were spread evenly around the
lab.These materials included are a variety of organisms from the animal
kingdom. Examples included various lizards, shells, bones, etc., and other
organic matter which represented many phyla. There is a teacher work
station at the front of the room which includes a sink and a gas jet. The
station was designed in order for the instructor to do a demonstration that the
whole class can see. The station was therefore raised at a higher level than
the student lab tables and was designed so the instructor would stand while
doing a demonstration. Each teaching condition was designed to eliminate
confounding variables such as a room change or change in instructor.
The teacher had previously taught several years and was working on
her Masters degree. The teacher decided to incorporate both hands-on and
lecture instructional procedures into the unit. She assessed content
knowledge at two intervals during the experiment and compared the results.
The students were assessed twice during the study. They were administered a

4
 European Journal of Educational Sciences, EJES June 2015 edition Vol.2, No.2 ISSN 1857- 6036

pretest, and a posttest. Pretests were administered one week before the
beginning of the study. The posttests were administered on the day following
completion of the study. Both the prestest and the posttest were worth 100
points.
Results were calculated from the scores of 60 high school students.
The students were enrolled in a sophomore biology class in an urban high
school. Sixty-five percent of the participants were on free or reduced
lunches. The racial status was 60% minority.
One week before the unit on classification was taught, the student
teacher administered a pretest to each biology section. This test assessed
their pre-knowledge of the material that would later be presented. The
students were taught the process of classification through the use of a lab
before the lecture for two class sections, while the lecture was presented
before the lab for the other two. Following one week’s worth of teaching
using lecture, lab, and review, a posttest was administered that dealt with the
material that had been covered in the unit. The classes’ posttest scores were
compared to pretest scores. The number and percent change for each
individual and each class was calculated. Totals were also calculated for the
classes that had undergone the same respective procedure. Furthermore, a t-
test was used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference
noted between the performances of the classes based on whether they had lab
or lecture first.
Further assessments were conducted to evaluate the amount of
content retained by the participants. Three of the four classes included in the
pre and posttests were given the assessment instrument four months after the
posttests were administered. These scores were then compared with the
posttest scores in order to determine whether the teaching procedure
impacted the amount of content retained over time.
The content addressed in this experiment involved classification and
Kingdoms. The student teacher designed an inquiry laboratory experience
whereby the students constructed hypotheses regarding the relationships
between a collection of artifacts. The students were given such materials as
lizards, shells, bones, etc., and asked to classify them and justify their
decisions. The student teacher also designed a lecture/class discussion
regarding the evidence concerning classification and the characteristics used
for classification. Two classes designed their own classification schema, then
the student teacher led a class discussion regarding the content. The student
teacher conducted a lecture/class discussion first with the two remaining
classes, then those classes completed the inquiry lab. All students took part
in both the inquiry lab and the lecture/class discussion with the only variable
being whether they had lecture first or lab first.

5
 European Journal of Educational Sciences, EJES June 2015 edition Vol.2, No.2 ISSN 1857- 6036

Results
A t-test was run on the data in order to compare the lab first versus
the lecture first teaching strategy. The two classes that were involved in a
class discussion before the laboratory experience had statistically
significantly higher (.05 level) posttest scores than those who were involved
in an inquiry lab before the class discussions (see Table I). A t- test was also
used in order to assess the results of the scores on the retention test. The class
means decreased for every class resulting in no significant difference on the
retention scores between the lab first and lecture first groups.
Table I. Means, Standard Deviations, and t-Value Regarding Lab First vs. Lecture First
Test Group Mean SD t
Pretest Lecture First 12.6 2.70
Lab First 11.6 3.58
Posttest Lecture First 18.6 3.34
Lab First 16.6 4.5 9.5*
* significant at the .05 level

Conclusion
The implications of the results can lead to many future research
questions. The results of the posttest indicate that it is better to lecture before
having the students complete a laboratory experience. The results of the
retention test indicate two things. First, there is no resulting significant
difference over time between using an inquiry lab before or after a lecture on
cognitive achievement as measured by the student teacher’s instrument.
Second, those that took part in the lecture/class discussion first, forgot more
than those in the other group.
These results indicate that it is better to lecture before having the
students do a hands-on experience when addressing the content in this unit in
an urban high school in the southeast. Several confounding variables may
potentially have caused these results. The students in the class that had the
highest scores on the posttest and had a class discussion before the lab had
higher class means than the other three classes on every test that had been
previously administered during the year. Further research must be conducted
in order to determine if there was an interaction between the respective
classes and the teaching strategy. Another potential confounding variable
was time of day. The two classes that had the class discussion first were later
in the day than the two classes that conducted the lab first. Further research
must be conducted in order to determine whether there was an interaction
between the time of day and the teaching procedure.
A third area for further research involves the attitudes of the students.
Perhaps they enjoyed discovering the material for themselves. This cannot be
measured on a cognitive achievement test so future researchers could

6
 European Journal of Educational Sciences, EJES June 2015 edition Vol.2, No.2 ISSN 1857- 6036

administer both an instrument that measures attitude and an instrument that

measures achievement.
Attitude may have also played a part in the decreases in scores on the
retention tests. The students knew that they were not going to be graded on
their performance on the retention test, whereas they knew that they were
going to be graded on the posttest. Therefore they may have just guessed on
the retention test resulting in the dramatic decrease in scores.
Teaching procedures are sometimes dependent upon the content
being covered. Clearly the students can learn content that might be addressed
on a standardized test by doing an inquiry experiment. The recent experiment
conducted by a student teacher indicates that a lecture or class discussion
strategy should be carried out before a laboratory experience. While every
teacher has their own strengths and every class has its own personality, we
believe we have students who can learn content through inquiry and lab
experiences as well as through lecture, and in our opinion, students can learn
better through a good lab experience versus a lecture.

References:
Chang, C.Y. (1999). Comparison of Taiwan science students’ outcomes
with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. Journal of Educational
Research, 92 (6), 340-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597617
Dunn, Rita, et.al. (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn
Model of learning-style preferences. Journal of Educational Research. 88
(6), 353-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1995.9941181
Freedman, M.P. (1997). Relationships among laboratory instruction, attitude
towards science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 34 (4), 343-357.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199704)34:4<343::AID
TEA5>3.0.CO;2-R
Gega, P. C. & Peters, J. M. (1998). Concepts and Experiences in Elementary
School Science. 3rd edition. Merrill Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
(10), 1121-1131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660311006
Jones, V. S., Holland, A. J., & Oldmeadow, W. (2008). Inductive teaching
method—an alternate method for small group learning. Medical Teacher,
30(8), e246-249. doi: 10.1080/01421590802259274
Marshall, Jill A., & Dorward, James T., (2000). Inquiry experiences as a
lecture supplement for preservice elementary teachers and general education
students. American Journal of Physics, 68 (7), S27-S35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.19516
Moore, R. (2008, January-February). Are Students' Performances in Labs
Related to Their Performances in Lecture Portions of Introductory Science
Courses? Journal of College Science Teaching, 66-70.

7
 European Journal of Educational Sciences, EJES June 2015 edition Vol.2, No.2 ISSN 1857- 6036

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=4962#
Odubunmi, Olagunju, & Balogun, T.A. (1991). The effect of laboratory and
lecture teaching methods on cognitive achievement in integrated science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (3), 213-224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280303
Saunders, W.L., & Shepardson, D. (1987). A comparison of concrete and
formal science instruction upon science achievement and reasoning ability of
sixth grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24 (1), 39-51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240105
Shymansky, J. A. (1984). BSCS programs: Just how effective were they?
The American Biology Teacher, 46 (1), 54-57. http://www.jstor.
org/stable/4447773
Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C., Jr., & Alport, J.M. (1982, November-
December). How effective were the hands-on programs of yesterday?
Science and Children, 14-15.
Staver, J.R., & Pascarella, E.T. (1984). The effect of method and format on
the responses of subjects to a Piagetian reasoning problem. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 21 (3), 305-314.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210307