In my post about K12 science, I made passing reference to the difficulties of doing high school science at home. The difficulty lies partly in the nature of science as a collaborative field, partly in the technical trouble of doing lab-science at home, without the specialized equipment and supplies that a classroom can provide.
I’ve been doing a little more research on lab science, in part because I want to make sure that I do an adequate job with Son #3, who has not just a scientific mind, but a theoretically inclined scientific mind. And also because I’m deep into transcript-keeping, now that I’ve got one child all the way through high school, a second in the middle, and a third preparing for it.
Which led me to the discovery that there is no official agreement on what a lab science actually is. Have a look at this 2007 transcript from the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, House of Representatives.
The first excerpt that caught my eye:
In 2005 the National Research Council published America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science, a study which looked at the role laboratory learning can have for the country’s high school students, the current situation of laboratory learning, and what can be done to improve these often unproductive programs….The NRC report found that the laboratory science programs in high school classrooms are in disarray, and certain factors seriously hamper efforts to improve them. The NRC report committee concluded that there exists no commonly agreed upon definition of laboratories in high schools amongst researchers and educators. Without agreement on a definition of what constitutes a laboratory exercise, research and the accumulation of knowledge on specific methods to improve the experience for student is undirected, difficult to classify, and difficult to draw conclusions from.
And then there is this, which (perversely) makes me feel slightly better about our kitchen-table experiments:
…the NRC committee noted that laboratory experiences expose students to the complexity and ambiguity of real empirical work. These concepts cannot be taught in lectures or textbooks. Students must interact directly with scientific phenomena to appreciate this aspect of science.
Unfortunately, the typical laboratory experience for most of the country’s high school students is poor. Studying the current situation in the classroom, the NRC report committee concluded that teachers often implement laboratory exercises that are not synchronized to the classroom lecture, do not have clear learning goals, neglect student feedback and discussion, or are not designed to integrate the learning of science material with the learning of scientific process. Teachers are rarely provided adequate pre-service training or in-service professional development to lead these exercises.
So what should a laboratory science look like?
The NRC report provided the following definition:
Laboratory experiences provide opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with data drawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models and theories of science.
I admit I’m a little thrown by this definition. I see why the parenthetical “or with data drawn from the material world” is in there — a lab exercise might have you analyzing information from a database rather than going out and collecting the information yourself — but it does tend to obscure the distinction that (I think) is being drawn–between the physical world itself, and information about the physical world (which you could get from a textbook. Or a data base). For those of us doing science with our kids at home: are we doing lab science anytime we’re doing analytical work, even if that analytical work is all paper based? Or is something more hands-on required?
I read through the expert testimonies, hoping for some further insight, but I found a lot of “Let’s make science education better!” and not a lot of meat. A few concrete mentions of lab work I found
What we do in the lab is we give people a tub of water, they slosh it back and forth. They make observations, they make measurements, they draw conclusions based on that, so that we don’t have to assume that the only people who have an understanding of this are the ones who were lucky enough to vacation at the beach in some part of their lives. We need these kinds of experiences in order to level the playing field of all the students.
(Arthur Eisenkraft, Distinguished Professor of Science Education, University of Massachusetts)
Let me also add a parenthetical note about why laboratory instruction is so essential today. A hundred and fifty years ago, over 90 percent of the people in this country lived on farms. And I don’t know how many present have lived on a farm or worked on a farm. I grew up in a farming community, and every child who grows up on a farm learns physics by using the equipment on a farm. Today, only a small fraction of our population is on the farm, approximately two percent. That means 98 percent of our population is likely not experiencing the use of physics and physical equipment before they get into the schools, particularly high school, so it is essential for us to give them that experience that used to come with ordinary life, but no longer does.
(Representative Vernon J. Ehlers)
An instructive laboratory exercise doesn’t need to be costly, dangerous, or steeped in convoluted instructions and incomprehensible scientific concepts. With a laboratory balance, a package of toy balloons, and a three dollar package of dry ice, I have conducted the following exercise in an ordinary classroom and illuminated a couple dozen students about the nature of gas behavior, the function of proportionality constants, the implication of significant figures, and the importance of group work.
Before conducting the exercise, the students break into groups of three and each group receives a balloon. The groups are instructed to record the mass of the balloons before the instructor places approximately one gram of dry ice into the balloons. The groups then tie off the end of their balloons before recording the mass of the balloons containing the dry ice. After the dry ice has completely sublimed and the balloons are completely inflated the groups are instructed to measure and record the circumferences of the balloons.
With the mass of the dry ice and the circumference measurements, students are instructed to 1) calculate the volume of the balloons using the proper numbers of significant figures, and 2) determine the value of the proportionality constant in the equation relating the volume to the mass of dry ice. Another sample of dry ice in a weighed balloon is given to each group. Using the derived equations, each group is instructed to calculate the expected volume their balloon should produce. Finally, the calculated volumes are compared to the resultant volumes.
(Jerry Mundell, Cleveland State University)
I do believe that most teachers know the value of the experiences of working with data, and if they are not able to have the students experience collection of data and analysis on their own, then they probably provide them with datasets, and they provide them with experiences that can be as closely matched to those that they would have in a laboratory experience, without actually having the manipulatives and being able to participate in that kind of experience.
(Linda K. Froschauer, President, National Science Teachers’ Association)
I wish this gave me a clearer vision of what these experts have in mind as the difference between textbook-based science learning and lab-based science learning (although I do realize that searching a House subcomittee report for a “clearer vision” of anything is an act of unfounded optimism).
Makes me feel way better about all our failed experiments. Here I thought (have been told) that my dd isn’t going to get the full “experience” of science since she isn’t in a regular school with a “real” lab and “serious”, trained professionals teaching her (there are two public school teachers in our family).
I would go a bit further and say that trying to find a clearer vision of anything from a government subcommittee is *ahem* insane.
<3
As a scientist and educator, it’s easier for me to parse through all of the above quotes than for the average person. America’s Lab Report puts forth the definition you quote, seven goals for science labs, and four goals for integrating the lab experience into a science course. All are important, of course. However, in contrasting what happens in non-lab learning with what should happen in lab-based learning, three of the seven goals stand out. They are (and I paraphrase slightly):
1. Understanding the nature of science (NOS).
2. Developing scientific reasoning skills.
3. Appreciating the complexity and ambiguity of the work scientists do.
The third was singled out in the report as being unavailable without lab work. I would add that the first two will be more readily achieved with good lab work by a large margin over books, lectures, demonstrations, etc. I also note that the school setting makes good labs difficult to design and do because of the limited space and time. A student may have a sudden insight and lack the time to pursue it in a regular school. Homeschoolers have an advantage here if they recognize the opportunity when it arises. In a traditional school, the ability to assign science labs as homework would also allow more exploration.
Note particularly that the definition definitely excludes the use of simulations for science lab experiences. As for the non-lab aspects of a science course, simulations are very much in play. This distinction is important because most people are neither scientists nor science educators, and many companies now attempt to pass of their simulations as substitutes for lab experience.
We now have at least three new tools for delivering real lab experience to students in a virtual sense. They are large scientific databases, remote robotic labs, and prerecorded real experiments. More may appear in the future. None are simulated. All are real.
The parenthetical portion of the definition purposely leaves the door open for future technological developments that can deliver real science without physical contact with apparatus. The Mars Rover program provides an extreme example of real science without direct or even immediate contact with experimental apparatus or material.
Although the report does not provide guidelines, I believe that a reasonable proportion of science lab work should involve physical contact and that the proportion can be scaled down as students advance in years and sophistication. That’s a good thing because the difficulty of providing equipment and materials inexpensively and safely escalates as students advance in years and sophistication. The three means mentioned above can make up the remainder of lab experience.
Typical school science often does not allow for exploration, experiment design, discovery, or making the types of mistakes that engender true learning. It’s very important that students have the opportunity to inquire, explore, and discover. It’s also important that the exploration use the real world just as scientists do. That way, they have imperfect data to analyze and must think harder. Science does not consist of memorizing a bunch of words, laws, formulas, and procedures. Science is a process. To appreciate that process and understand science requires doing the process and doing it many, many times.
Each new generation of scientists must also go through this same learning in order to understand what their craft is all about. The content of science grows continually and sits there ready for the next generation. However, the process of science does not change. It is decidedly non-intuitive and must be learned anew by each new scientist. A good science course extends at least a reasonable amount of that learning to every young person so that they may better understand the world in which they live and better contribute to their society no matter what their calling.
Harry Keller –
If you come back to this thread, would you please read Susan’s thread on “We Need Alternatives,” in which she discusses the need for home educators to host workshops on academics and teaching (rather than parenting and religion). After you read it, please let us know when and where you will be podcasting your own seminar on science education, because I (for one) would love to learn about teaching science from you for several hours. Seriously. I’m signing up now.
Secondly, could you please explain what you meant by simulation v. real lab experience? Could you give an example of each? Thanks!
I will say that it is possible to do some very good home labs if you’ve got an adventurous teacher and a small group of students. One of my friends and homeschool mentors is doing physics labs this year after chemistry last year and biology the year before. She invited a bunch of her kids’ homeschooled highschool aged friends for a total group of around 10.
For biology they disected four different animals from worm to fish. Chemistry lacked some of the specific experiences like titration but gave ample example of what happens when you don’t follow the directions carefully.
We moved so I didn’t get to go help with physics lab, but at least one experiment involved an elevator, ten kids and an analog scale (to measure the acceleration of the elevator).
Something that I’ve realized is missing from much of the science progression in schools is a simple willingness to look around at ones environment and try to winkle out how it works. Maybe we’ve spent too much time steeping in entertainment that ignores physical reality (from gravity defying fight sequences to repeating three trees over and over as scenery). I find working with scouts from middle school and high school that they have trouble actually seeing two different types of trees as different, a lack of perception that carries over into clouds, birds, rock formations and geology. I think that homeschooling’s ability to feed curiosity about the world may be an even stronger point than acquainting students with bunsen burners and metric scales.
Lab science is playing. Wondering. Trying things out to see what works. And then puttering around some more to figure out WHY it works.
I think there are two big issues in this playing-for-big-kids world. Time and safety.
I hear you about the “group” thing with the sciences. But I think that it’s over-rated at the high-school level. When I was in school, we had lab partners because they didn’t have enough equipment for all of us to do the work on our own. That and the fact that 1/2 the class wanted to do the lab and the other 1/2 just wanted to copy off of us. Perfect system to pair them up. :-) So I’m not really sure that I buy into the notion that high school students need to do a lot of partner lab work. Even at the college level most of the lab work that I did would have been a more powerful learning experience if I had been required to do it by myself. We weren’t really doing anything “collective.” We were all doing the same thing. (A whole room full of undergrads doing Lab # 27 on Tuesday the 5th)
So I actually think homeschoolers are at an advantage over the public school when it comes to a solo lab experience. I only have one chemistry student at a time. So she gets to use all of the equipment; she doesn’t have to share with anyone. Neither does she have anyone to hide behind. It’s a solo show; either she knows what’s going on or she has to figure it out. :-) Yes, sometimes she calls for a dim-witted assistant if she needs an extra pair of hands. Little brothers are great for holding things etc; he’ll do ANYTHING to get out of outlining a history chapter. :-) And the companionship is always nice. I tend to hang out and chat with them while they do labs; it makes it more fun.
The issues as I see them? Lab work takes time and equipment. Time to FIND the equipment. Time to order the equipment. List, lists, lists. What have we got? How many beakers do we really need? What is a burette and do we really need a brush to clean it? What is it for? Do we have anything laying around here that we could use instead? We can get HCL at the hardware store – muriatic acid; it’s one aisle over from the root killer otherwise known as pure copper sulfate. Where is copper on the Periodic Table? And what is a sulfate? And why would THAT kill roots? And when we don’t HAVE any? Who wants to walk through the park to the hardware store and get it? Can you say, “THAT takes time!” Pure magnesium sulfate is at the CVS hiding in the Epsom salts container. And potassium hydrogen tartrate is tucked inside my kitchen cupboard under the cream of tarter label. All of this is a terrific learning experience. No one doing the work but the student and the momma. We’re looking up what we don’t know. We’re finding out. We trudging around to gather this stuff – which is ultimately best. Not everything in the world comes in a small white bottle with a uniform label. We’re making it happen. And we are learning how to be problem solvers. Physics? Did you know that a LEGO train car running on tracks on an inclined board makes a great vehicle for studying acceleration? But you have to LOCATE all of the parts at the back of a teen’s closet when you are supposed to be doing educational-type things. Now just gotta pick up one of those machines that bangs out dots on the white tape at regular intervals. And when the dots aren’t dark enough, we get creative. I could SWEAR that I had an entire package of fresh carbon paper for this purpose. Where is it???? Son is scribbling madly on a piece of paper with a fat pencil and shouting out orders to the dim-witted assistant about how he can rotate the disc on the recorder as the project proceeds to keep the carbon fresh. “Got it, mom!” Problem solving.
Where was I? Time! Time to pour over everything and organize allllll of the bits into bins when it arrives. And then the TIME to use it all! Lab just takes longer than an hour. It does. It always does. And it should. My brother-in-law is a Pharm D. He is involved in AIDS research. It takes time to plan a drug trial, execute it, and study and organize the data in a way that makes sense and is honest. So in order to do labs well here, we have to set aside 2-3 hours. A great learning experience. But certainly not a neat-n-tidy forty-five minute experience with thirty minutes of filling in blanks to generate a “lab report.” If we are going to take the time to drag out alllllll this equipment and set it up, you can bet that we are going to do more than the cookbook lab in the book. We are going to generate an additional hypothesis. “So, what would happen if?” We are going to try to find a way to test that hypothesis. And then we are going to take pictures with the camera and learn how to use Excel and Pages and Numbers to generate charts and graphs that show what we discovered. It’s fun to insert the pictures where they go in the reports. (Actually all of that helps them understand what they have seen. I think the writers say that clear writing is clear thinking. A bit like that.) Anyway – we do allllllllll of that to keep “lab” from being just another exercise in busy, busy, busy with little-to-no memorable, ta-da moments! They need those pegs. Lab generates pegs. It’s just easier to remember how a precipitate forms when you’ve seen one form. Cool! I can tell you about a chicken, but five minutes in its cackling presence and you won’t forget – 1,000 words and all that. :-)
And the other biggie: safety. I just can’t believe how boring and ho-hum science has become. OK – not interested in turning my daughter into Ms. Curie. But come on. I can NOT believe what is being passed off as chemistry lab. What a boring, nothing experience. If you want me to understand what a mole is, I am going to have to work with more than two drops of this and four drops of that. And how much is in a “drop” anyway. What a ridiculous way to measure anything. A drop? There is nothing scientific about a drop! If you want me to understand what a precipitate is, I am going to have to be able to SEE it! There is nothing memorable about a murky liquid in the bottom of a micro-plate. If you want me to believe the value for the acceleration of gravity then give me equipment that will help me actually calculate it for myself. And when my calculations give me 9.40 m/s^2, inspire me to ask WHY everyone else gets 9.81. What could I do differently with this LEGO train car? Scratch your head, child! And is it possible that your silly way of holding up a protractor to measure the angle between the board and the slanting kitchen floor isn’t the best method? Perhaps a little of that dusty trig might be a better way to derive a more accurate angle? Can’t you see the mother grinning as she throws out the leading questions and waits a FULL 20 minutes for the kid to “think” of that! :-)
Darn. I’m back to time. I was supposed to be addressing safety. We’ve had our share of potential physics issues. Safety is probably a bigger issue with chemistry because I’m just not as confident there. But I’m determined to DO chem lab with my daughter. That dropper method business that my poor son worked through last year was a waste of time. So I’m involved. Very. I might mention that you can not melt magnesium ribbon in a crucible without a very HOT flame. We’ve tried multiple things. Ds says that we need to try a propane torch. Home depot trip tomorrow to find an affordable propane torch that I can keep track of: ds claims that there are hundreds of uses for a torch. Be VERY afraid. :-) Where is my dad when I need him???? 300 miles is just too, too far. (He is the man who helped my ds launch liter soda-bottles with rocket engines after they lost all the rockets in the woods when my ds was seven.) He has ALL of this “stuff” and he’s willing to use it. :-)
So lab science takes time. Real lab science shouldn’t come in a box – because that’s not real. Digging, puttering, and wondering is required. But when you do that, you generate pegs that will last.
Lab science takes monitoring. Lab science is playing for big kids with big kid rules. And sometimes they don’t act so big, so we loop back to the monitoring thing.
I’m picking up a small Arduino start-up set for older ds next week; he’s taking electronics with lab and a totally separate computer programming course this year. Momma’s about to suggest that we merge the two. Should be fun. :-) (I’m guessing that both course will take a giant leap forward in the “Oh!” direction!) Do we have the time to play with it? Heck no! Should we make the time? You tell me! ;-)
Peace,
Janice
A drop? A parcipitate?
Hey folks, I’m wonderin’ what really IS gravity? And how about heat, what exactly is that? And have we even seen protons, electrons and neutrons?
Black hole, really? We sure?
Time, space, matter – what ARE they?
;)Sandra
I remember several years ago when I was talking to a cousin about homeschooling – she gave some common concerns about homeschooling and then added, “How will you ever do science labs? You won’t have access to a hood!” I stared at her blankly for a minute and then changed the subject. You see, I had not been exposed to a “real lab” until college, despite attending a couple of different high schools. For most homeschool parents, what you can do at home will easily meet or exceed what lab experiences your child might have in your local high school. You may have to spend some time and money, but a good lab experience is attainable.
I was homeschooled until high school (after which I went to public) and I agree with this article: science labs were definitely a time to “goof off” with friends.
However, some of my fondest memories were made during those “goof off” sessions, so I’m torn here! One of the girls assigned to be my lab partner during high school biology became my dearest and closest friend (and later Godmother to my firstborn) because of the time we spent bonding over our fun bio experiments (including dissecting the worm, which we named after a boy who had broken hear heart, thereby making the dissection less repulsive!). Such sweet memories! :)
I’ll definitely spread the word about this very insightful article, but darn it, I’m *still* on the fence about homeschooling through high school! :(
Thank you for continuing to write and muse about science, and for letting people reply. I am learning so much through these articles and responses.
No time to read other posts. Just wanted to say that the biggest hindrance for me personally when I began college science labs had nothing to do with manipulating the equipment. It was my total ineptitude with using the metric system. When I was growing up, we were barely taught the metric system and rarely used it. And high school labs were a joke, mostly. Too little time and not enough supplies. One shot to get it right and kapoof! it’s gone. Veeeery frustrating to me …. who would have liked to sit all day and REALLY experiment with the stuff! :)
Are we looking at what colleges mean when they say “lab science” in their requirements? If so, then I think it depends on the college. Some mean “know how to design an experiment to prove something”. Some mean “be familiar with a standard body of demonstrations and experiments”. Some mean “know how to use laboratory equipment and procedures”. Some mean a combination of those. The ubiquitous, rather unhelpful advice given on the homeschooling board applies: check with the colleges themselves. Otherwise, if we are just looking at what it means to be well-educated, then I think it depends where the child’s interests lie. If the child wants to become a scientist, then I think you need to find some way of covering all three. Otherwise, I think reading some history of science could probably substitute for the second, being an active, hands-on type person who has used a variety of equipment to make and do things for the third, and designing some experiments of ones own for the first.
I have solved the problem this way (just in case it helps anyone):
My mother was a biologist. Because of that, I am aware of how little I myself am able to teach proper laboratory procedures to my children. Yes, I know that you can swirl a carboy (don’t even know how to spell the word LOL) to empty it more quickly, I know how to unstopper a bottle one-handed, I know how to pinch a crease in the edge of a piece of paper and tap it to get all of a powder that one is weighing off of it, and a few other tricks like that, but I also know that there must be many more that I don’t know and therefore can’t teach. We have a few items of equipment, like a balance and a microscope and a multimeter, but there are many pieces of equipment that we don’t have. I concluded that I am not able to teach my children laboratory equipment and procedures at home. The local community college will have to do that. I’m not sure they do it well there, but since my children aren’t interested in finding a summer job as a lab technician, it will have to do.
I’m hoping that community college will also cover “be familiar with a standard body of demonstrations and experiments”, that and the bit of science history in their textbooks.
I’m focusing on the “know how to design an experiment to prove something” part. My husband is an engineer who has to do this all the time to prove medical products safe. He says that it doesn’t take long to learn lab procedures, but it takes longer for his young engineers to learn to design an experiment to test something and he wishes they already knew how to do that when they arrived. Besides, this is something we can do and do fairly well at home by substuting natural history for biology. Naturalists use the outdoors as their laboratories and we have lots of outdoors. Their writings are also of more interest to teenagers than those of chemists, so it is easier to read about other experiments. (I also think that finding out about squirrels is more likely to be remembered than the chemistry of digestion or other biological details, more likely to enrich my children’s lives.) Naturalists often use equipment that they have built themselves, another my husband says he wishes his new engineers had experience with.
I think the point about farms and teenagers who do things versus teenagers who watch things was a good and useful warning, but I didn’t find the rest of the information very informative. I don’t think it matters, either, how they define lab sciences because until they can convince students not to taste the chemicals or heat tools in the bunsen burners and leave them for unsuspecting friends to pick up or put acid on the stools so people’s pants will disintegrate, it is a moot point. Also, laboratories eat up a lion’s share of the resources, a share that schools are currently putting towards technology and computers. Schools will have to decide that they are more important than technology and computers before they will devote so much money to them.
Nan
The Kitchen Table Math blog (for those who afterschool because of reform math curriculum) is having a similar discussion, about how science ought to be taught K-12, and what the purpose of lab science is: http://kitchentablemath.blogspot.com/2009/12/teaching-how-science-works-by-steven.html?showComment=1260427255190, mostly from the perspective of scientists. I’d love to hear your thoughts as well.
Thanks for posting this. It has helpful sources. One to watch for future ideas as these bright scientists hammer out a theory and resources for better science ed.
Sandra – stuck in bed with a fever and determined to redeem the time.
Hmm……..how does modern “lab science” fit with the more classical course of natural philosophy? And the Trivium/Quadrivium distinction?
I think lab science can be a distraction to the useful, and in my opinion more pertinent, goal of developing appreciation for learning the nature of science. I think lab science today puts the cart before the horse for most kids. For all of our measuring, weighing and converting, I think we have lost a wise sense of balance and proportion in the modern K-12 educational paradigm, and inserting large amounts of lab science into the general curriculum is a case in point.
For most kids.
It brings kids into the mode of specialization before they have mastered tools of learning. We give it a deified autonomy, introducing and expanding it outside of its philosophical base. It would be funny if it were not so hilarious. General appreciation for science’s relationship to her philosophical siblings is the best road for most high school students to take. Lab science as it is performed in most settings today, perpetuates fragmentation rather than unity and inadvertently gives it a more authoritative voice than it deserves.
Our kids did the typical hs science route through physics, with lab, but they spent far more time and attention on philosophy and theology. We cut most lab folllow up in half, and much of the homework problems, too. We are not scientists, but we would be natural philosophers.
Sandra
There was a day in 4th grade when I asked to go out into the hall for a drink of water. I got my drink, then walked to the end of the hallway. I stood looking out the window in the door—looking, longing to go OUT that door, down the sidewalk, into the woods to explore. I wanted to wade in the creeks that ran all through the town. I wanted to make charcoal sketches of squirrels and pine trees. I wanted to be out in all kinds of weather, learning, observing, turning over rocks and rotting logs. I wanted to find treasures and have a “Nature Collection:
A fallen bird’s nest, with the eggs still in it
Pressed autumn leaves
Sea shells and shore sand
Drift wood
Various types of tree bark
Rocks, rocks, and more rocks
A blue jay feather
Dried weeds and seeds
One hundred bright green acorns, all with CAPS
I actually did have all these things, and more. We were a family that always gardened and canned (you can learn so much science from gardening and canning). We always had several types of pets (dogs, cats, hamsters, birds, fish, and a lonely hermit crab). We cut and split our own wood and burned it in our wood stove. We were a family that camped in tents several times each year. Tent camping teaches you where NOT to pitch your tent (think “tree roots”). We canoed, built campfires, cooked outside. We sat up late at night and marveled at the starry country sky. We went fishing and crabbing and wild berry-picking. We built snow forts when it snowed, and waded in the creeks on hot summer days. We went for walks in the woods, up mountain trails, and along the beach. All of this put us right in the middle of the natural world—up close and personal. I loved it! We didn’t live on a farm, either. My parents facilitated a nature-loving lifestyle in the gritty suburbs of New Jersey! (Thank you, Mom and Dad.)
I wanted to experiment, to take apart things. Actually, I did do this, not without repercussions. My poor parents used to wonder where the wind-up clocks disappeared to year after year. I learned a lot from those clocks, but getting the springs back in was tricky. I did (years later) admit to taking apart my mother’s accordion (to see how it worked on the inside) and then inadvertently putting it back together UPSIDE-DOWN. I still hear about that one, and I still say it would have been cheaper for them to have bought me some LEGOS.
The longing to run out the school door stayed with me, though, past fourth grade, past middle school and junior high school, and into high school (could this be why I’m a home schooler?). IMO, high school lab science as we did it was a complete waste of our time and the community’s money. Who can even say what we were supposed to be learning from the contrived “experiments?” We simply followed the steps—already outlined—to get through them. For me, at least, there was no thinking required. It was like following a recipe for cookies. To this day, I have no idea what we did in those classes.
I do remember (vividly) my personal ant collection, which I worked on during second grade, all on my own initiative. Oh, how I loved those ants! I loved looking at them work, build, and transport. I loved their beauty and fragile strength. My observation of ants motivated me to read about them, not the other way around. When I was seven years old, I was an ant expert!
If we define “science with lab” according to what the typical high schools do, I think it’ll be a waste of time and money. Lab science doesn’t necessarily mean having a lab kit with little labeled bottles and a Bunsen burner. Personally, I think that canning or freezing what you grow in your garden is a GREAT lab, LOL! You get (a) composting, soils, soil nutrients, soil testing; (b) seeds and plants; (c) the water cycle, seasons, weather; (d) weeds, parasites, beneficial insects; (e) pollination and reproduction; (f) vegetable/fruit nutrients; (g) pressure-cooking and temperature concepts; and (h) good eating—all in one fell swoop!
Buy a microscope and learn how to prepare your own slides. Then you can see whatever you want. Invest in a telescope, one that you can easily set up and actually use. Get a good pair (or two) of binoculars and go outdoors to use them. Buy or make weather equipment and study your area’s weather. But don’t try to make your labs look like what schools do, unless you can do it well.
One other point about science education in the US—on the whole, Americans do not learn to DRAW (this is not true in many other nations). Lack of skill and confidence in drawing is a hindrance in many areas, but especially in science when designing labs, recording observations, differentiating species, and illustrating reports. Sebastian rightly said that our students need training in learning how to see, BEFORE we expect them to do observational science. Instruction and practice in how to draw would provide this. If we want to be able to focus our “lab experiences” on the science content, let’s work on drawing instruction during the grammar stage.
My original college degree was a BS in Biology with a minor in Chemistry. I worked for a year as a quality control chemist for a large consumer products company, then I attended medical technology school (hospital laboratory testing) and worked five years as a med tech in a rapid-service lab, performing mainly blood chemistries, hematology work-ups, and coagulation studies. Then I returned to school again, took accounting classes, passed the CPA exam, and worked for, at that time, a Big 8 accounting firm until I had my 3rd child and quit altogether.
Now I homeschool my three youngest – a high school sophomore son, and 2nd and 4th grade daughters. My oldest son always attended public school, graduated from our local magnet HS, and is now in college. My second son attended public school until 12 weeks into ninth grade, when we decided homeschool would be a better choice for him. My daughters have never been to school.
When we decided to pull our second son out of school, he was in honors biology at the magnet school. At that point, he had done two labs – one for each six week grading period. For the first lab, the class had observed straw under a microscope. For the second, they drew a poster of the Kreb’s cycle, a group project that took place in the lab classroom. I wish now that we had paid more attention to what our first son was actually taught in school, but back then we just sent him to what we thought was the best school available and assumed they were teaching him something. Now I know that one lab session per six weeks, which may or may not involve actual lab work, is the accepted schedule for honors biology here.
When Andrew began homeschool, he joined a homeschool co-op biology class (six kids total) taught by a homeschool mom of teens who also works weekends as a NICU nurse. They met for two hours every Tues morning, and every class period was lab work. They spent the fall on microscope work, and in the spring dissected everything from worms to fish to squid to sheep’s eyes to hearts, lungs,and kidneys (of I’m not sure what) to fetal pigs – pretty much anything she could get from the scientific supply store or the Asian and Mexican markets. They finished the year with botany. He thought she was great, and loved all her stories about the babies, and about crime shows on TV. There was absolutely no comparison between his experience in her class and what he would have had in public school with his class of 35. We covered the textbook and tests at home, she did labs and gave lab quizzes in class. Had he remained in school, he would have spent the first six weeks after Christmas break studying evolution, and the 2nd six weeks on ecology. That makes fully one third of his class devoted to what in my opinion are more political topics than biological topics. I spent four years in college, and another 13 months in med tech school, studying biology and almost all of it was observational science – I don’t recall spending much time at all on either of those topics in undergrad, and absolutely none in med tech school. So that looks like a major waste of time for a high school student if the objective is to teach science (of course, it isn’t).
This year Andrew is taking chemistry with another homeschool tutor. She has a masters in Chemistry and was a tenured public school teacher before she had her own children. She has taught now for eleven years. He attends class for two hours on Thurs, and again, each class period consists of a lab and also lecture over the week’s assignments. There are 14 students in the class. This class requires very little input from me – she emails daily assignments each Thurs afternoon, and every other Fri there is a test which I moniter at home. He likes this class also – he thinks she is cool, and very smart, and he has several friends in the class. He will most likely be the student chosen to represent her class at Christian Brothers University’s chemistry competition in February.
In addition to his tests and homework, he also has a prelab write-up and a postlab due each week. Yes, the lab exercises are very much cook-book style chemistry. I would just like to say that, in my experience, many if not most science fields are primarily cook-book jobs. Nobody ever, in college, in the industrial lab, or in the hospital lab, allowed me, much less “encouraged” me to be “creative” or to “think outside the box”, as some of the other respondants seem to think is necessary in science education. The first priority in any lab environment is always safety, physical safety for the worker, and legal safety for the employer. The last thing in the world that I want my kids to do is to get the idea that they can get “creative” with their chemistry labs. There is an element of creative thinking in research science, but it comes only after a great deal of very repetitious, routine, and careful work, and seems to be mainly limited to advanced PhDs. Had I known that when I was in school, I probably never would have considered a career in science. I guess that’s my main point here – we shouldn’t be trying to give our kids an unrealistic idea of what real science careers are all about. And also that we shouldn’t be at all afraid that our homeschool science options might not measure up to what the public schools are offering – in our experience there is no comparison.