journal of geological education

Dear Sir:

The experimental or "hands on" technique to science teaching seems to be spreading throughout science education today. According to this method, the student is put into an experimental situation where given equipment will theoretically result in the active induction of certain scientific concepts, hypotheses, and processes by means of the student's manipulative and intellectual abilities. The ultimate goal is to enable a student to envision and experience the scientific method of problem solving, this in lieu of being able to understand and remember factual aspects of science.

"Hands on" usually necessitates a laboratory exercise daily, with a few minutes of every period devoted to explanation of procedural difficulties or technicalities which may have resulted during the course of the period. If a textbook is used, it is usually one that is geared to this type of approach. If none of these texts are available the instructor generally organizes the program of study himself, and does not use the text, or relies upon it as a seldom used resource.

The students who experience this new technique generally enjoy it immensely. One will always find a percentage, small or large depending on locale, that do not want to participate in this type of activity. The students are given a minimum of directions, and are allowed to progress at their own rate. The students are the center of attention in the room, not the instructor, who exists strictly as a resource person in the class. From direct observations and discussions with teachers, I have found that students do gain part of the process of science, but gain virtually nothing of the large body of knowledge which has been and continues to be accumulating by means of the process of science.

When employing this technique, the instructor can deal with as few or as many different topics as he desires during the year. One usually selects those topics which are conducive to the method. For example, bacteriology would be chosen over genetics for a biology course, while in earth science, determinative mineralogy would preclude galactic structure.

The latter in each case are more theoretical than practical. Such topics can be held over for consideration late in the year, or dropped completely from the course, always at the discretion of the individual instructor; usually, few topics are covered during the year.

This then is the "hands on" technique, give or take personal modifications.

Many teachers are adopting this teaching method without first considering the implications of employing it.

An objective analysis is now in order.
Of prime importance, instructors favoring "hands on" argue that factual knowledge is vastly subordinate to the methods and procedures of scientists. They believe that the students will benefit because while factual subject matter is retained for only a short time span, the direct experience of scientific procedure will be remembered indefinitely. It is fairly widely known and accepted that, in general, only a small percentage of learned knowledge is actively retained. However, enough information is retained by average students to be beneficial to them when they take other science courses. Students having a "hands on' science course in one grade may encounter difficulties in successive science courses which depend in part on basic information already covered in an earlier course. I met such a situation early this year. when I was dealing with the source of energy in stars for an advanced earth science group Before explaining nuclear fusion as such I compared the energy production in a star to that liberated in an H-bomb. Immediately a flood of hands was raised, all to the effect of "What does happen in an H-bomb ?" When I checked further, the students said that they had never had anyone explain about A-bombs, H-bombs, and the like. They should have had something on that subject in either 7th or 8th grade. Instead, 7th and 8th grade science in this situation employs the "hands on" technique, with labs every day. Nuclear energy is never covered in these courses. since it does not readily fit in with direct student observation. It is rather difficult to experience the direct effects of an H-bomb in the classroom. Therefore. I devoted two full days of class time to explain the nature of radioactivity and principles of nuclear energy. Only with this background were the students able to comprehend the energy source of a star. incidentally, there were three students in that class who had been taught nuclear energy and exhibited a solid science background. I checked with each student individually, and I found that each of them had attended an-other school system the previous year. Further investigation revealed science programs at those schools of the traditional didactic type, and definitely not "hands on" in nature.

This is only one of the unforeseen problems that arises when the Õhands on' technique is followed by a more conventional teaching method. Many of the students even realize the deficiencies of this inductive method. When I asked my students ( over 90% total ) what they had done in 8th grade. They said that they performed experiments every day. They added that they learned no scientific of value to them. This is the prime objection that I have against this method.

European countries employ science courses lasting two or three years or more the Soviet Union requires over five years of biology for all students in high school. In that this day of more and more technology thel and scientific advancement, the new tendency in America is away from the study of scientific accomplishments and advancements completely. The polarity of opinion has certainly reversed: after 1957 and tide launch of Sputnik I by the USSR, American educators realized that not enough science was being emphasized, and an intensified program was enacted throughout the country. Today, the change of emphasis from knowledge to process of science is penecontemporaneous with the most startling scientific advances of all time, from the investigations investigation of space to the synthesis of DNA. Consequently, students will have accumulated very little knowledge by the time they have finished high school. This will definitely impede their efficiency in higher educational science courses, industrial technology, scientific research, which depend upon a thorough background of scientific information.

Another observation that one can make concerning "hands on" technique is that some students, if not a majority, perform the daily experiments only for their own enjoyment and entertainment; they neglect to see the purpose of the experiment, and fail to come to any conclusions about the results of the lab or understanding the scientific procedures involved.

In low ability groups with a permissive , disciplinary 'atmosphere, the only way to get the students to do any work and ultimately gain their interest is to have a relatively spectacular, entertaining lab everyday. Granted, any other teaching approach in such low discipline situations will be disastrous to the teacher involved, especially when the students have been allowed to have experiments every day for the last several years in science. In quasieducational environments science where little or no central office discipline is the case, the instructor resorts to this method in order to appease the students.

There are complete science courses available from various manufacturers which utilize the experimental approach. These include physics; chemistry; biology and earth science; and physical science

Some of the individual kits for student use, made of Styrofoam, plastic and wooden parts can cost as much as $15 or more each. Of course one can probably develop one's own equipment. In any case, a school system must expend considerable funds to get started on a typical commercial experimentally oriented program.

If an instructor employs the "hands on" method, lie should plan to cover as many different areas of his science as feasible during the course of the year. The number of areas covered will depend of course on the strengths and weaknesses of the instructor within that subject matter area. In general, far fewer topics are covered with this technique than traditional ones. Also, instructors favoring hands on believe that subject matter is irrelevant. They believe that one does not have to be trained, say, in chemistry to teach chemistry. A biology teacher could handle a chemistry class as well as or even better than the chemistry teacher, since content or subject matter is ignored in the experimental approach. In short, the hands on or experimental approach can be outlined as follows.

1. Experiments are given every day. follows
2. Students often avoid learning in favor of the entertainment aspects of the experiment.
3. Cost is high for proper materials.
4. Large deficiencies result from not covering a wider selection of topics in the course.
5. The method is often employed in low discipline situations.
6. Subject matter is neglected or subordinated.

The experimental approach is another scientific bandwagon that everyone is jumping on, just like the replacement of chemical biology for more traditional ecologically oriented biology back in the early and mid 60ÕsIt is the view of the writer and other science instructors that lecture. discussion. demonstrations, labs, and motion pictures is an individually proportionate blend is optimum. Time, alertness, and objectivity will eventually enlighten educators that the putative success of the hands on techniques is at best dubious.

Mark J. Valdambrini --- RHAM High School --- Hebron, CT

6 / 18s / 95
11 / 15w / 95