A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE ROLE OF LABORATORY PRACTICAL WORK IN SCIENCE TEACHING IN

NIGERIA

BY

ISAAC OLAKANMI ABIMBOLA

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to sensitize science teachers and educators on the need to rethink the
traditional role usually accorded laboratory practical work in science teaching. The historical
evolution of the use of laboratory work in science teaching it-as traced to the early scientists. Then,
the paper examined how the laboratory method first found favour with some science educators and
how others later experienced disillusionment. Some initial suggestions were made that could replace
or minimize the use of the laboratory method of teaching science.

Introduction

The use of the laboratory method of teaching science has become a dogma among science
educators and teachers. On the one hand, they extolled the importance of the use of the laboratory
method in science teaching while on the other hand, they only pay "lip service" to its use in practice.
Science teachers do not usually find it convenient to make laboratory work the centre of their
instruction. They usually complain of lack of materials and equipment to carry out practical work. At
the same time, it is possible that some of these materials and equipment may be locked up in the
school laboratory store without teachers being aware of their existence. The conditions under which
many teachers function do not engender any enthusiasm to use the laboratory method of teaching
science even where they know that these materials and equipment are available. Class size in urban
schools is getting larger and this does not usually encourage teachers to use the laboratory method
to teach science. In some states of the country, teachers go for months without salary owing to
shortage of funds. Science teachers who fall in this category cannot reasonably be expected to give
off their best to their students.

Higher institutions in Nigeria charged with the responsibility of training science teachers at all levels,
are increasingly turning out teachers without requisite laboratory experience. A common reason
usually given is shortage of laboratory facilities. Such trained science teachers usually lack the
necessary confidence to conduct practical classes with their students. It is only accreditation
exercises that are improving this situation in Colleges of Education and Universities at present.
Such governments see, to have given up on their capacity to equip all school laboratories. They have
therefore resorted to designating selected schools as "science schools" that they equipped with their
meager resources. They usually used the traditional help received from the Federal Government in
equipping school laboratories for these science schools. The condition of the national economy
continues to deteriorate without any sign of improvement in sight. Is it not time to get realistic with
our science teaching? I think it is high time we started.

The purpose of this paper is to sensitize science teachers on the need to look for alternatives to the
traditional laboratory method of teaching science. First, I traced the historical evolution of the use of
laboratory work in science to the early scientists' use of the experimental method. Second, I
searched for answers to the question of why science educators think that the laboratory method
should take a centre stage in science teaching. Third, I then provided evidences to illustrate, what I
consider, a quiet disillusionment among some science educators concerning the role of laboratory
work in science teaching. Fourth, I affirmed that the disillusionment is real. Then, I made some
suggestions that could free science teachers and examination bodies from the dogma of laboratory
work.

Origins of Experimental Science

The use of laboratory method in science teaching originated from the ideas of early scientists. The
l7th Century is very significant in this respect. Mendelson (1982) has characterized the Century as
the century of "The Scientific Revolution." This characterization is so because, according to Westfall
(1971), "it was in the 17th Century that the experimental method... became a widely employed tool
of scientific investigation" (p.115). The general feeling of disillusionment among scientists with
earlier methods precipitated this trend. (Butterfield, 1957; Westfall, 1971). The feeling of
disillusionment had to do with results of scientific investigations that did not match the efforts put
into them. The scientists of the time blamed the method of conducting science, for the low output.

Taylor (1963) claimed that "the idea of experimental science began to have influence about 1590"
(p.90) when scientists started basing their work on deliberately contrived experiments. According to
him. "Galileo Galilei (1564-1643) was the first to employ the modern scientific method in the
fullness" (p.91) in physics and astronomy. Before then, Westfall (1971) stated that Galen's writing on
physiology contained examples of experimental investigation. Westfall also claimed that Robert
Grosseteste of the medieval school. and the logicians based at the University of Padua, Italy, in the
l6th Century, also discussed the precursors of hypothetico-deductive method.

However, it was in the 17th Century that scientists paid the greatest attention to the scientific
method that led to a revolution in science. The sheer number of persons that paid attention to
method then indicated the need for an acceptable method of conducting science. Francis Bacon
(1561-1626) was perhaps the first in the 17th Century to formulate a series of steps to account for
the scientific method in his hook Novum organum (The New Instruments, 1620), (Taylor, 1963). The
book was a reaction to Aristotle's treatise in logic referred to as Organum. Bacon based his method
on the inductive method of objective observation and experimentation without any preconceptions.
Rene Descartes' (1569-1650) Discourse on Method based on mathematical reasoning and deduction
closely followed Bacon's book. Westfall (1971) has credited Robert Boyle with perhaps the best
statement of the experimental method that focused on "the activity of investigation that
distinguishes the experimental method of modern science from logic" (p. 115). Pascal, Gassendi, and
Newton also wrote on scientific method (Westfall, 1971). The emphasis on method during this
period paid off with the several discoveries and inventions in the 17th Century and beyond, thereby
giving the impression, albeit unintentionally, that science is synonymous with its method.

Importance of Science Practical Work

In Shulman and Tamir's (1973) review of research on science teaching, they identified three
rationales generally advanced by those that supported the use of the laboratory in science teaching.
The rationales included: (1) The subject matter of science is highly complex and abstract, (2)
Students need to participate in enquiry to appreciate the spirit and methods of science, and (3)
Practical work is intrinsically interesting to students. Shulman and Tamir also compiled a list of
objectives of using laboratory work in science teaching. The list included the teaching and learning of
skills, concepts, attitudes, cognitive abilities, and understanding the nature of science. Also, there is
hardly any science method's book that does not usually list the objectives of science laboratory work
(see, Abdullahi, 1982; Collette & Chiappetta, 1984). All science curricula in Nigeria list practical
activities that should go with each curriculum item listed. The current West African Examinations
Council (WAEC) syllabus (WAEC, 1988) in use in 1996, recommended that the teaching of all science
subjects listed in the syllabus should be practical based, perhaps, to demonstrate the importance it
attached to practical work in science. Thus, several decades of emphasizing the assumed importance
of laboratory work in science teaching have elevated the importance to the level of a dogma.
Thomas (1972) and White and Tisher (1986) are of this opinion. This position is, perhaps, why Yager
(1981) thought that science educators should treat laboratory work as the "'meal'-the main course"
(p. 201) rather than an "extra" or "the desert after a meal" (p.201). Also, Bajah (1984) said, "All
science teachers and students know that practical work is the 'gem' of science teaching" (p.44).

This dogma about the importance of laboratory work originated from the views of a few American
educationists in the early sixties that extolled the importance of laboratory work in science teaching.
Notable among these personalities are Bruner (1961), Gagne’ (1963), and Schwab (1960), They all
extolled the virtues of teaching science as a process of inquiry or discovery. Before them, Dewey
(1938) advocated learning by doing through his "project method" that he considered as a method of
organizing the school curriculum on a scientific basis. Another American, Charles Pierce (Peirce,
1877, 1958) who advocated the use of the method of science as a mode of inquiry to satisfy our
doubts, in turn, influenced him. The ultimate goal of these advocates of practical work was to train
students in the ways of practising scientists so that students could become good scientists in the
future. The surprise by which the former Soviet Union took the Americans, and, perhaps, the world,
in launching the Sputnik into space in 1957, motivated their positions. Emphasis in science teaching
at this time shifted from the products of science, what science to teach and learn, to the processes
of science, i.e., how we teach and learn science (Bates, 1978). According to Shulman and Tamir
(1973), this shift in emphasis lacked empirical evidence because the influence of the educationists
mentioned above formed the basis of the shift. As a result of this influence, and the need to match
the Soviet feat, the Americans commissioned and executed several curriculum development
projects. Such curriculum development projects included the Biological Science Curriculum Study,
started in 1959-, Chemical Bond Approach, started in 1958, Physical Sciences Study Committee,
started 1956, and Science: A Process Approach, started in 1967, etc. They were all laboratory based.
These curriculum development activities, with emphasis on laboratory work, spread to Nigeria, and
elsewhere in the world.

Doubts About the Importance of Laboratory Work

Research into the role of laboratory work in science teaching has a long history. Blosser (1981) put
the beginning date at the 1930's. These research efforts into the role of laboratory work in science
teaching reached, their peak in the 1960's and 1970's during the curriculum development years.
Abimbola (1981), Bates (1978). Blosser (1981, 1983), and Shulman and Tamir (1973) carried out
reviews of research in this area. All of them concluded that science education researchers failed to
provide conclusive evidence to support the view that using the laboratory method of teaching
science is superior to other methods, at least, as measured by paper and pencil achievement tests.
This conclusion is perhaps what prompted Leonard (1981) to exclaim that "Laboratory instruction is
on trial" (p.445)- Also, the 1980-81 Board of Directors of the National Science Teachers Association
(NSTA) in the U-S- recognized that there were widespread doubts about the importance of the
laboratory in the seventies (Klein. Yager. & McCurdy, 1982), The Board thereafter put out a position
statement in support of laboratory method of teaching science as follows:

The National Science Teachers Association endorses the necessity of laboratory experiences for
teaching and learning in science. Adequate support for materials, equipment, and teacher time is
available for schools to maintain quality science instruction. Such a quality program is critical in
today's age of science and technology (Klein, Yager, & McCurdy, 1982, p.20. (emphasis in original)

Also, the Board commissioned various persons to write position statements to support the use of
laboratory work at different levels of education and all the position statements appeared in one
issue of The Science Teacher 49(2), 20-23. For instance. Tafel (1982) wrote for the Middle/junior
School; Perez (1982) wrote for the high school; Bybee (1982) wrote for the "Basics" movement;
Lunetta (1982) wrote from the curriculum perspective; Hurd (1982) wrote from the teaching
perspective and Bates (1982) wrote from the research perspective.

The purpose of this section is to briefly provide examples of conclusions from the reviews mentioned
above, part of which generated the reactions of the Board of Directors of the NSTA. For instance, in
Abimbola's (1981) review of conceptions of discovery in science held by educators and philosophers
of science, he concluded that the conceptions of discovery in science held by major schools of
philosophy of science then, did not influence the "teaching by discovery" and "discovery learning"
slogans. According to him, "the studies reviewed provided little elucidation about the efficacy of the
discovery method of teaching and learning (p. 103). The discovery method of teaching and learning
has as its main focus, the use of laboratory work in science teaching and learning.

Bates (1978), too, in a review of the role of the laboratory in secondary school science programs,
concluded that despite seventy five years of studies in this area, the consistent conclusion is that
"laboratory experiences neither help nor hinder student achievement - at least as measured by
standard paper and pencil tests of subject matter" (p.68). Specifically, he found, among other things,
that "lecture, demonstration, and laboratory teaching methods appear equally effective in
transmitting science content" (p.74). Nonetheless, he found laboratory experiences to be "superior
for providing students' skills in working with equipment" (p.74) and in maintaining students' interest
in science. These are important objectives to achieve in science teaching and learning. However,
how many of the skills acquired from laboratory work do students use in real life situations? Put
differently, how does the lack of possession of these skills adversely affect the functioning of
individuals in their daily life activities?

Shulman and Tamir (1973) upheld some of Yager, Englen, & Snider's (1969) conclusions about the
need to question the central role of the laboratory in science teaching. They thought that science
teachers could obtain desirable learning outcomes with limited laboratory experiences. Also, they
concluded that, a verbal, non-laboratory approach might be best for some teachers and students.
Some students may find laboratory activity a sheer waste of their time. They finally emphasized the
need to structure some new courses that would deemphasize laboratory work without de-
emphasizing the nature of science. We can achieve this restructuring of courses by giving equitable
attention to the teaching of science concepts and principles, science process skills, and scientific
attitudes without over emphasizing one over the others that was the case in the science
programmes of the sixties and seventies. All this goes to show that the disillusionment is real.

In any case, studies in Nigeria and abroad have shown, too, that this disillusionment is real. For
instance, studies have shown that science teachers themselves did not attach much importance to
laboratory work as they usually found the slightest excuse to avoid them. However, if they attach
importance to it there is no research evidence to support this importance (Abimbola, 1988; Bajah,
1984; Daramola, 1982, 1985, & 1986; Ndu, 1980: & Weiss, (1978). Important evidence, at least in
Nigeria, that many science teachers are either not doing practical work at all or not doing enough
practical work to give their students the confidence that they would pass their Senior School
Certificate Examinations in science, is the extra-mural laboratory class being established in urban
centres in Nigeria. Students that attend these classes must be missing something in their school
laboratory work that they think they can find in the extra-mural classes. Also, the importance
attached to laboratory activities did not match government provision of laboratory materials and
equipment because they arc expensive to buy. There is therefore the need to explore alternatives to
laboratory activities that would still preserve the nature of science.

Alternatives to Laboratory Work

Continuing to accord a central role to laboratory work in science teaching does not seem reasonable
and feasible any more in the developing countries. I therefore intend to explore some alternatives to
laboratory work for science teaching. Teachers that cannot do away with laboratory work can record
on video tape well-planned demonstration experiments that they can later show to their students at
appropriate times, Modern day secondary school students are likely to enjoy watching a video
recording than carrying out laboratory work. This practice would save teachers and administrators
some money and effort because it requires a one-time investment of money without further
expenses on many consumable items.
Most traditional laboratory activities are gradually being banned in the developed countries either
because of their health hazards or because of special interest groups. For example, animal dissection
that used to be the core of biological experiments is gradually being phased out because of the
influence of animal right activists, despite the spirited defence of animal use in the guidelines issued
by the National Association of Biology Teachers (1980). The introductory statement of the guidelines
goes thus: "Living things are the subject of biology and their direct study is an appropriate and
necessary pan of biology teaching" (p.426). Computer simulations of dissection experiments are
gradually becoming popular with schools. Interactive computer activities are gradually replacing
laboratory experiments, thanks to the evolution of multimedia computer programs. Computer
programs are also available for problem-solving exercises in the major sciences. The acquisition of
computers by schools requires a one-time investment of money. The computers are also useful for
other purposes apart from being used as an alternative to actual practical work. Computer
simulations can only approximate the real feeling of working with live animals. However, for the
knowledge gained by students from such an activity, the difference between the two activities is not
likely to be significant.

The West African Examinations Council has already tried the "alternative to practical" form of
examination with the Ordinary Level G.C.E., without many complaints. This form of examination
requires candidates to answer questions on laboratory practical work off hand without having to do
any laboratory work involving concrete specimens. This form of examination has not only saved the
Council much money on the administration of laboratory practical examinations, it has also saved it
time and effort usually expended on such examinations. Since most science teachers teach most
practical lessons by the lecture method, they can go an additional step by examining their students
using an "alternative to practical" method. My proposal is that if students listened and understood
the teacher's lesson, they should be able to pass such examinations very well. The West African
Examinations Council could therefore extend its "alternative to practical" examination method to all
its otherwise laboratory practical-based examinations.

Bloom (1956) has said that most of the subject matter content of most disciplines is informational.
That is, the content involves the teaching and learning of basic concepts, laws and theories related
to that discipline. The objective stated for any unit of instruction has been found to be generally in
the ratio of the cognitive domain, 50%; the psychomotor domain, 25% and the affective domain
25%. If this proportion is so, and if students are able to master the cognitive component of their
lessons, it should have transfer value on the affective and psychomotor domains. Abimbola &
Danmole (1995) have recommended the use of content analysis method by concept maps to help
students to understand the conceptual knowledge in science. Abimbola (1996) has also
recommended the use of concept maps in constructing some of the items in nationally conducted
examinations. Since teachers use some laboratory activities in science to elucidate what they had
taught in science classes, if their students can achieve proper understanding of concepts and
principles by using concept maps or other means, will the same goal of elucidation not have been
achieved in a cheaper and perhaps, more effective way?

Conclusion
I have attempted in this paper to take a critical look at the traditional importance usually associated
with the use of laboratory %work in science teaching and to question whether the status quo should
continue. First, I traced the origin of laboratory work to the 16th Century and how it blossomed in
the 17th Century thereby causing a scientific revolution. Second. I provided information on why
educators, and science educators, in particular, usually think that laboratory work is crucial in the
teaching and learning of science. Third, I provided evidences that I thought caused some science
educators to doubt whether the usual importance ascribed to laboratory work in science teaching is
not misplaced. The assertions of importance do not carry corresponding evidential support- In fact,
results of some of the studies seemed to suggest that the use of laboratory work in science teaching
did not make much difference in students' learning outcomes. Finally, I made some preliminary
suggestions about what science teachers could use in place of laboratory work that would still
preserve the nature of science and improve students' achievement in science.

REFERENCES

Abdullahi, A. (1982) Science teaching in Nigeria, Ilorin: Author

Abimbola, I. O. (198 1). Discovery teaching and learning in science education: A critique based upon
the conceptions of discovery held by philosophers of science. M.S. research paper, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706. U.S.A.

Abimbola, I.O. (1988). An assessment of the provision of science infrastructural facilities in the
secondary schools of Kwara State, Unilorin Pedagogue, 5, 5-15.

Abimbola, I.O. (1996). Advances in the development and validation of instruments for assessing
students' science knoi0edge. Paper presented at the National Conference on Educational
Assessment held at the Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja, Lagos, 9-13 September, 1996.

Abimbola, I.O. & Danmole, B.T. (1995). Origin and structure of science knowledge: Implications for
concept difficulty in science. Ilorin Journal of Education, 15, 47-59.

American Association for the Advancement of Science, (1967), Science-A process approach,
Washington D.C.: Ginn & Co.
 

Bajah, S.T. (1984). Continuous assessment and practical work in science teaching: A plea for
pragmatism. Journal of the Science Teachers' Association of Nigeria, 22(2), 43-48.

Bates, G.C. (1978). The role of the laboratory in secondary school Science programs, in M.B. Rowe
(Ed.), What research says to the science teacher, vol. I (Pp. 55-82). Washington, D.C.: National
Science Teachers Association.

Bates, G.C. (1982). The importance of the laboratory in school science: A research perspective. The
Science Teacher, 49&(2), 22-23.

Bloom, B. S, (Ed.), (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives - Handbook 1: Cognitive, domain, New
York: David McKay.

Blosser, P. E. (1981). A critical review of the role of the laboratory in science teaching. Columbus,
Ohio: Eric/CSMEE.

Blosser, P.E. (1983). What research says: The role of the laboratory in science teaching. School
Science and Mathematics, 83(2), 165-169.

Bruner, J. (196 1). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(l), 21-32.

Butterfield, H. (1957). The origins of modern science: 1300-1800, New York: The Free Press.

Bybee, R.W. (1982). The science laboratory in secondary schools: Support from the basics. The
Science Teacher, 49(2), 21.

Collette, A.T., & Chiappetta, E.L. (1984). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools, St.
Louis. Missouri: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing.

 
Daramola, S.O. (1982). Factors influencing enrollments in physics in the upper forms of high schools
of Kwara State, Nigeria. Doctoral thesis, The New York University, New York,

Daramola, S.O. (1985), The role of the science laboratory in a technologically oriented science
curriculum, Ilorin Journal of Education, 5, 52-58.

Daramola, S.O. (1986), Teachers' influence on students' choice of science subjects. Journal of Science
Teachers' Association of Nigeria, 24(1&2), 188-199.

Dewey, J. (1938), Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

Gagne', R.M. (1963). The learning requirements for enquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
1, 144153.

Hurd, P.D. (1982). The laboratory in secondary school science teaching: A teaching perspective. The
Science Teacher, 49(2), 21-22.

Klein, S.E., Yager, R.E. & McCurdy, D.W. (1982). The laboratory is vital in science instruction in the
secondary school. The Science Teacher, 49(2), 20-23.

Leonard, W. H. (198 1). Laboratory instruction is on trial. The American Biology Teacher, 43(8), 445-
447.

Lunetta, V.N. (1992). The role of the laboratory in secondary science teaching: A curriculum
perspective. The Science Teacher, 49(2), 2 1.

Mendelsohn. E. (1982), Science, history of. In Grolier, Inc., The new book of knowledge, 17, 60, 77,
Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier.

National Association of Biology Teachers, (1980), NABT guidelines for the use of live animals at the
pre-university level. The American Biology Teacher, 42(7), 426-427.
 

Ndu, F.O.C. (1980). Planning and organization of practical work in biology in secondary schools,
Journal of the Science Teachers' Association of Nigeria, 19(2), 49-60,

Ogunniyi, M.B. (1977). Status of practical work in ten selected secondary schools of Kwara State.
Journal of the Science Teachers' Association of Nigeria. 16(l), 3647.

Perez, L. (1982). Laboratory teaching in high school science. The Science Teacher, 49(2), 20-2 1

Pierce, C.S. (1877). The fixation of belief Popular Science Monthly, 12, 1-15,

Peirce, C.S. (1958). The fixation of belief In P.P. Weiner (Ed.), Charles S. Pierce: Selected writings
(Values in a universe of chance), (91-112). New York: Dover Publications.

Schwab, J1 (1960). What do scientists do? Behavioural Science, 5, 1-27,

Shulman, L.S. & Tamir, P. (1973). Research on teaching in the natural sciences. In R.M.V. Travers
(Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Tafel, M. (1982). Role of the laboratory for science in the middle/junior high school. The Science
Teacher, 49(2), 20.

Taylor, F.S. (1963). A short history of science and scientific thought. New York: W.W. Norton.

Thomas, K.W. (1972), The merits of continuous assessment and formal examination in practical
work. Journal of Biological Education. 6, 314-318.

Weiss, I.R. (1978). Report of the 1977 national survey of science, mathematics, and social studies
education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

 
West African Examinations Council. (1988). Regulations and syllabuses for the senior school
certificate examination (Nigeria)- 994-1996, Lagos: Author

Westfall, R. S. (197 1). The construction of modern science. New York: John Wiley.

White, R.T., & Tisher, R. P. (1986). Research on natural sciences. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching, 3rd ed. (pp. 874-905). New York Macmillan.

Yager, R.E. (1981), Guest editorial - The laboratory in science teaching: Main-course or desert? In
L.W. Trowbridge, R.W. Bybee, & R.B. Sund (Authors), Becoming a Secondary school science teacher
(pp. 201-201). Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Yager, R.E. Englen, H.B., & Sniders, B.C. (1969). Effects of the laboratory and demonstration methods
upon the outcomes of instruction in secondary biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6,
76-86.

___________________

The Author

Dr. I. O. Abimbola is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Curriculum studies and Educational
Technology, University of Ilorin, Ilorin. Nigeria.