Effects of Inquiry Demonstration and Laboratory Work on

Students’ Conceptual Understanding and Attitude to Analytical Chemistry Concepts

Jinky Marie T. Chua*
Cagayan State University, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan Valley, Philippines

*Corresponding Author
Jinky Marie T. Chua
Email: jchua@csu.edu.ph

ABSTRACT
A recent discussion on science teaching has been focusing on questions of whether inquiry demonstration is a
solution to the lack of reagents and equipment in school laboratories and whether learners develop better
understanding and attitude when they are physically involved in laboratory work. To contribute to this topic, the
present study exhausted literatures involving inquiry demonstration and physical manipulations on students’
understanding and attitude. The study explored studies on students' learning outcomes in the demonstration,
inquiry demonstration condition, hands on laboratory work, and traditional lecture. The results showed that the
instructional conditions affected students' learning of energy transfer in knowing and reasoning, but not in
applying. After controlling for students' prior knowledge, participants in the hands-on inquiry condition gained
less class content and demonstrated a lower ability of reasoning than those in the direct instruction condition.
Students did not differ in their ability to apply the learned content to real-life situations across conditions.

Keywords: Inquiry Demonstration; Laboratory Work; Conceptual Understanding; Attitude

INTRODUCTION
It has often been said that science is not really science unless it is accompanied by experimentation and
laboratory work. The laboratory is the focal point for the study of science in science high schools. However, in
the general run of high school in the Philippines, laboratory work where learners work individually, is seldom
observed. The large class sizes and inadequate equipment to go around preclude laboratory work in its traditional
meaning. However, there is a new meaning given to laboratory work by which a teacher can also have students
do inquiry on their own, guided by questions initiated by the teacher in discussion. Laboratory work with less
sophisticated equipment, but which engages students individually or in small groups is currently referred to as
practical work or hands-on activity.
Hands-on, inquiry-based investigation has been widely recommended for teaching science. This teaching
approach encourages students to conduct investigations and experiments and to follow scientific steps to find
answers and solutions for the proposed problems. Many science educational programs and projects have been
established to promote hands-on, inquiry-based science teaching in schools (Geier et al., 2008; Linn, Clark, &
Slotta, 2003; Songer, Lee, & Kam, 2002; Songer, Lee, & McDonald, 2003; Williams & Linn, 2002).
In recent years, this way of teaching science, however, has been challenged by researchers studying
human cognition from the cognitive load theory perspective. A discussion of these issues has led to a debate that
has involved many researchers and scholars around the world (Debate, 2007; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn,
2007; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Kuhn, 2007; Lee & Anderson, 2013; Schmidt, Loyens, Gog, & Paas,
2007; Sweller, Kirschner, & Clark, 2007; Tobias & Duffy, 2009).
The present study aims to investigate the effects of inquiry demonstration on students’ conceptual
understanding and attitude. The following section outlines some basics of cognitive load theory and lays out the
foundation for a discussion.
Inquiry-based science teaching involves supporting pupils to acquire scientific knowledge indirectly
by conducting their own scientific experiments, rather than receiving scientific knowledge directly from
teachers (Jerim et al, 2019).
It has long been recognised that science skills are important for technological innovation (Varsakelis,
2006) and economic growth (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2012). Many have argued that scientifically literate
young people are also better equipped to make choices and decisions that impact their lives and environment
(e.g. Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1991).

Based on the roles of the science laboratory in science teaching and learning, it implies that
schools without laboratories, where students can carry out biology, chemistry and physics practicals
would end up producing or graduating students who will have no knowledge of science practicals
required by the West African Examination Council (WAEC) and the National Examination Council
(NECO) to pass the senior school certificate examination. Consequently, these students will lack the
 requisite requirement qualification for courses like medicine, engineering, agricultural science and
any of the science related careers.
The chief examiners reports of WAEC and NECO, 2013, 2014 and 2015 indicate poor
performance of students in the sciences particularly chemistry.

DEFINING OF INQUIRY DEMONSTRATION AND LABORATORY WORK

Igwe (2003) stated that whatever the type of laboratory employed in science teaching, the same
laboratory experience should be attained, that is a participation in the series of experimental, observational and
demonstrating activities which provide opportunity for students to develop understanding of practical and
theoretical concepts through solutions of problems.
Omiko (2007) sees the laboratory as the heart of a good scientific programme which allows students in
the school to have experience which are consistent with the goals of scientific literacy. This implies that science
teaching and learning cannot be completely done in a secondary school where there is no equipped laboratory.
Ufondu (2009) observed that the laboratory is an indispensable organ of the school if effective teaching and
learning of the science subjects are to be achieved.
Udonfu (2009) and Omiko (2015) observed that the use of the laboratory in science teaching has the
following benefits: (1) Laboratory teaching makes the students/learners to learn about the nature of science and
technology in order to foster the knowledge of human enterprise of science and thus enhance the aesthetic and
intellectual understanding of the child. Dienye and Gbamanja (1990) opined that science is known to be a way of
doing certain things by the observation of natural phenomena, quantifying the observed thing, integration of such
quantities and interpretation of the results in order to make useful meaning out of the exercise. The students can
identify cause and effect relationships and in this process develop important skills. (2) Learning scientific inquiry
skills that can be transferred to other spheres of problem solving (that is acquisition of problem solving skills).
One of the basic goals of science education is to help students learn skills that can be applied to other life situations
in future. It thus follows that the exercise of transfer of such learning condition must have something in common
with the situation to which it will be applied. (3) Students learning to appreciate and infact, emulate the role of
the scientist through acquisition of manipulative skills. The students should be allowed to investigate by: (a)
Indirect observation of objects and materials for the acquisition of mental as well as manipulative skills, example
measuring substances, using weighing balances pictures, cylinder, etc. (b) Through multiple trials, students can
in the process of fiddling with materials and activities without stated theories arrive at useful conclusions. (c)
Given a known theory, students can be guided to observe some phenomena selected by the teacher and from such
observation make predictions that are likely to occur. (4) Developing interests, attitudes and values by considering
what science entails, it is clear that a field experience has the best potential for stimulating a life time interest in
science in the students when accorded the chance for personal experience by handling the real things. Students
interest in science increases as they yearn to investigate and explore more about their environment. According to
Hancy in Omiko (2007), eight (8) aspects of scientific attitudes exist all of which can be nurtured in the science
laboratory in the school. They are; (i) curiosity (ii) open mindedness (iii) objectivity (iv) intellectual honesty (v)
rationality (vi) willingness to suspend judgment (vii) humility (viii) reverence for life.
Laboratory activities have had a distinctive and central role in the science curriculum and
science educators have suggested that many benefits mount up from engaging students in science
laboratory activities (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Over the years, many have argued that science
cannot be meaningful to students without worthwhile practical experiences in laboratory. The National
Science Education Standards (11) and the 2061 project (13) reaffirm the
conviction that inquiry in general and inquiry in the context of practical work in science
education is central to the achievement of scientific literacy. Inquiry-type laboratories have the
potential to develop student’s abilities and skills such as: posing scientifically oriented questions (14 and
15), forming hypothesis, designing and conducting scientific investigations, formulating
and revising scientific explanations and communicating and defending scientific arguments.

Chemistry is essentially a laboratory activity oriented subject. No course in chemistry can

be considered as complete without including practical work in it. Laboratory activity, here, is
used to describe the practical activities which students undertake using chemicals and equipment
in a chemistry laboratory. The original reasons for the development of laboratory work in
chemistry education lay in the need to produce skilled technicians for industry and highly
competent workers for research laboratories (16 and 17).
In this research report it is important to understand that following terms are defined as
follows.
 Chemistry laboratory activities refer to the practical activities which students undertake
using chemicals and equipments in a chemistry laboratory (2, 20). Inquiry level is a multifaceted
activity that involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources
of information to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already
known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data;
proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results (25). Objective
in laboratory instructions is a term which refers to what to be taught, who is to be taught to, by
what means, and most importantly, what are the intended outcomes (22and 26).

Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world
and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also refers to
the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas.
Understanding of the process of scientific inquiry could perhaps be developed using a variety of
teaching approaches. Laboratory work can play an important role in developing students’
understanding of the process of scientific inquiry, their intellectual and practical skills (39).

Demonstration is a process of showing something to another person or group. Inquiry demonstration

is when demonstration is given inductively by a teacher asking several questions but seldom giving answers.
An inductive demonstration has the advantage of stressing inquiry, which encourages students to analyze and
make hypothesis based on their knowledge. Learner motivation os high in this strategy because they like riddles
and in an inductive demonstration, they are constantly confronted with riddles. Inviting students to inquire why
something occurs taxes their minds and requires them to think. Thinking is an active mental process. The only
way in which students learn to think is by having opportunities to do so. An inductive demonstration provides
opportunity because students’ answers to the teacher’s questions act as feedback. The teacher has a better
understanding of students’ comprehension of the demonstration. The feedback as a guide for further questioning
until the students discover the concepts and principles involved in the demonstration and the teacher is sure they
know its meaning and purpose.
Laboratory work is thought to be superior to teaching compared to demonstration because it involves
the individual directly in the learning process as well as imparting working skills, they learn to be efficient, self-
reliant, and analytical; to observe, manipulate, measure and reason, to use apparatus and most importantly to
learn on their own.
Demonstrations have these merits when compared to individual experiementation. Lower cost- less
equipment and fewer materials are needed for a demonstration in class. Availability of equipment. Certain
demonstrations require equipment not available in sufficient numbers for all students to use. Economy of time.
Often the time required to set-up equipment for a laboratory exercise cannot be justified for the educational
value received. A teacher can set-up the demonstration and use the rest of the time for other instruction. Less
hazard from dangerous materials. A teacher may more safely handle dangerous chemicals or apparatus requiring
sophisticated skills. Direction of the thinking process. In a demonstration, a teacher has a better indication of
the student’s thinking processes and can do much to stimulate the students to be more analytical in their
reasoning. Show the use of equipment. A teacher may want to show the students how to use and prevent damage
to expensive equipment.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Gardner (1978) suggested that demonstrations may enable learners to evoke the “wow”
experience. This consequently can increase their curiosity and enhance their reasoning abilities. In
addition, it may have an impact on students’ achievements (Gerber, Cavallo & Marek, 2001).
Moreover, there are occasions in which teachers' demonstrations are educationally more effective
than are students' own experimentations (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004, Lunetta, Hofstein & Clough,
2007). Although research on the effectiveness of demonstrations has been conducted since the
early 1960s, most of the studies were general, namely, comparing students using experimentations
with teachers' demonstrations, covering a wide range of topics and concepts. A number of research
papers reported clear benefits when demonstrations are used for teaching the sciences. In a study
on college introductory physics courses, Buncick, Betts, and Horgan (2001) found that
demonstrations encourage generalization because they promote active participation on the part of
the students. An elevated level of student attention and involvement in tasks has also been reported
for demonstrations carried out in high-school chemistry courses. For example, Meyar et al. (2003)
 have shown that demonstrations encourage student involvement, since they are less
teacheroriented and give students an opportunity to produce questions and to become more active
in the learning process. This in turn can motivate students to undertake an initial inquiry and also
provides a learning opportunity, because it helps create mental links between new and previous
learning. In addition, Meyar et al. reported that students can illustrate cognitive strategies by
observing the teacher as he thinks out loud while doing the demonstration and as he formulates
questions that lead to an explanation of the concepts in question. This may challenge students'
preexisting understanding and can encourage perceptual understanding.
The traditional teaching strategy of using a lecture-type approach may perhaps be favored
by those students who are in favor of the didactic methods of learning and who are considered
conscientious (Hofstein & Kempa, 1985; Kempa & Diaz, 1995). Demonstrations in use as a teaching
strategy may prove beneficial for students with different or special learning needs. It is assumed
that, when combined with traditional methods, demonstrations can be effective for low-achieving
students with high visual and spatial intelligence but with limited cognitive abilities (Meyer et al,
2003; Rade, 2009; Baddock & Bucat, 2008). Although considerable research has been conducted on
the use of demonstrations to teach chemistry, few studies have focused on how effective this
method is in promoting cognitive involvement. Hofstein et al. (2005) and Dkeidek, Mamlok-Naaman,
and Hofstein (2012) published a study on question asking as a tool for developing high-order
thinking skills in the chemistry laboratory. They showed that students in the Jewish sector in Israel
ask more questions than their Arab conterparts. This may result from a lack of knowledge in this
area, which in turn, may be one of the reasons why it has been so difficult to justify the allocation
of teacher time and resources for demonstrations. Furthermore, the use of demonstrations as a
teaching/learning technique has not been sufficiently studied in terms of how well it promotes,
challenges, and helps develop children's conceptual understanding.
In addition, demonstrations could be conducted by the chemistry teachers as a method of
triggering a discussion between groups of students, which can be termed cooperative learning. This
approach is an educational learning technique whereby students collaborate in small groups on a
certain task, project, or argumentation. Towns & Grant (1997) noted that in order to develop
significant learning, students must process information actively. Cooperative learning activities can
create an environment in which students actively pursue their tasks by sharing insights, ideas and
representations, providing feedback, and by teaching each other. The latter is also very consistent
with studies that show that demonstrations in science encourage generalization because they
promote active involvement by students and also enhance students' attention level. It may also be
beneficial to include elements of cooperative learning in demonstration lessons, in order to improve
students' understanding of what is taught (Eilks, Prins & Lazarowitz, 2013).
John Dewey, leader of the progressive education movement, advocated an investigative
approach and "learning by doing"
According to Domin’s taxonomy, the guided-inquiry laboratory is

fell into the category of discovery. Discovery labs take a heuristic approach in which the outcome

of experiment is predetermined by the teacher, but students don’t know the expected outcome; its

inductive nature help students develop a general understanding of the underlying concepts
by studying specific examples of a phenomenon.
Demonstration is characterized here as: teacher-guided illustration, through the use of
materials and procedures, of scientific principles (e.g. Bernoulli’s), concepts (e.g. osmosis), or laws
(e.g. Newton’s Law of Cooling).
 Teachers have unique opportunities in science to help students wonder about the exciting
natural world, experience and observe interesting objects and phenomena, explore meaningful
theoretical ideas, and grow in scientific understanding. The school science laboratory is a unique
resource that can enhance students’ interest, knowledge of science concepts and procedures, and
knowledge of important tools and skills that can develop new understanding. Experiences in the
school laboratory can also help students glimpse ideas about the nature of science that are crucial
for their understanding of scientific knowledge. These are among the reasons that laboratory
activities (practical activities in British Commonwealth parlance) have had a prominent place in the
science curriculum since early in the nineteenth century. A classical definition of school science
laboratory activities that would have been acceptable in the nineteenth and most of the twentieth
centuries is: learning experiences in which students interact with materials or with secondary
sources of data to observe and understand the natural world (for example: aerial photographs to
examine lunar and earth geographic features; spectra to examine the nature of stars and
atmospheres; sonar images to examine living systems).
For almost two hundred years, science educators have reported that laboratory activities
can assist students in making sense of the natural world (Edgeworth and Edgeworth, 1811; Rosen,
1954). Over the years, many have argued that science cannot be meaningful to students without
worthwhile practical experiences in the school laboratory. Unfortunately, the terms school
laboratory or lab and practical have been used, too often without precise definition, to embrace a
wide array of activities. Typically, the terms have meant experiences in school settings where
students interact with materials to observe and understand the natural world. Some laboratory
activities have been designed and conducted to engage students individually while others have
sought to engage students in small groups and in large-group demonstration settings. Teacher
guidance and instructions have ranged from highly structured and teacher-centered to open inquiry.
The terms have sometimes been used to include investigations or projects that are pursued for
several weeks, sometimes outside the school, while on other occasions they have referred to
experiences lasting 20 minutes or less. Sometimes laboratory activities have incorporated a high
level of instrumentation and at other times the use of any instrumentation has been meticulously
avoided.
Subsequently, in the science education reform era of the 1960s in both the United States
and the United Kingdom, major science curriculum projects developed “new” curricula intended to
engage students in investigation and inquiry as a central part of their science education. In that
period, major curriculum projects used the learning theories of Jerome Bruner, Robert Gagne, and
Jean Piaget to justify curricula emphasizing student inquiry and hands-on activities. Projects,
including those of the Physical Science Study Committee and the Biological Sciences Curriculum
Study in the USA and Nuffield in the UK, developed inductive laboratory activities as a fundamental
part of the science curriculum. In these projects the laboratory was intended to be a place for
inquiring, for developing and testing theories and assertions, and for practicing “the way of the
scientist.” George Pimentel (see Merrill and Ridgeway, 1969) noted that in the CHEMStudy project,
the laboratory was designed to help students gain a better idea of the nature of science and scientific
investigation.
Engaging students in laboratory inquiry, for example, has involved activities ranging from
highly structured laboratory experiences to open-ended investigations in which students explore a
question they may have articulated themselves. The nature of the guidance the teacher and the
curriculum materials provide for the students is very important to the learning that occurs.
Unfortunately, the guidance provided for students has often not been examined or described
carefully in studies of laboratory learning; careful reporting of the nature of that guidance is one
important factor in good research and development of laboratory work in science education.
Between the late 1960s and the 1980s hundreds of research papers and doctoral dissertations
investigated variables in settings associated with teaching in the school science laboratory. Bates
(1978) reviewed 82 studies on the role of the laboratory in secondary school science programs and
wrote that the question of what laboratories accomplish that could not be achieved by less
expensive and less-time consuming alternatives needed more research. He wrote (p. 74):

• Lectures, demonstrations, and laboratory teaching methods appear equally effective in

transmitting science content;

• Laboratory experiences are superior for providing students skills in working with equipment;

• The laboratory appears to represent significantly different areas of science learning than content
acquisition;

• Some kinds of inquiry-oriented laboratory experiences appear better than lecture/ demonstrations
or verification-type laboratories for teaching the process of inquiry. However teachers need to be
skilled in inquiry teaching methods;

• Laboratories appear to have potential for nurturing positive students’ attitudes.

Based on their review of the laboratory literature Lazarowitz and Tamir (1994) joined the
long list of authors who indicated that the potential of the laboratory as a medium for teaching
science is enormous. They wrote that the laboratory is the only place in school where certain kinds
of skills and understanding can be developed. Yet, they are among those who have written that
much of what actually occurs in contemporary school laboratory work is not consistent with
important purposes of those laboratory activities (Kesidou and Roseman, 2002; Hart et al. 2000).
Hodson (2001) wrote that while unique outcomes for laboratory/practical work had been
articulated in the recent past, the nature of students’ experiences in the laboratory and related
assessment practices remained relatively unchanged.
INQUIRY DEMONSTRATION AND STUDENTS’ CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING
Using nationally-representative, linked survey and administrative data, we find little evidence that the
frequency of inquiry-based instruction is positively associated withteenagers’performance inscience
examinations. This finding is robust to the use of different measures of inquiry, different examinations/measures
of attainment, across classrooms with varying levels of disciplinary standards and across gender and prior
attainment subgroups (Jerrim et al, 2019).
There is therefore still considerable debate about whether inquiry is the best method for teaching
science. Empirical researchers have tried to address the debate using data. Critics ofinquiry-basedmethods point
totheresultsfrommeta-analyses which have shown positive causal effects of direct instruction (in which teachers
provide knowledge directly to students rather than helping them acquire knowledge through investigation) when
compared to ‘business as usual’ in a range of subjects (Stockard, Wood, Coughlin, & Rasplica Khoury, 2018)
and for science in particular (Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2011). Advocates of inquiry-based
teaching have in turn responded by arguing that the evidence for direct instruction isstrongest inmathematics
and point to science-specificmetaanalyses that have found inquiry-based methods to be more effective (Furtak
etal.,2012).
Thepresent research aimsto contribute to this debate by answering the following two research questions.
Research Question 1: Do young people who receive a higher frequency of inquiry-based science teaching have
higher levels of science achievement?
Thispaperaddsvaluetotheexistingliteratureinthreeways.
Third, many of the existing experimental studies use small samples or involve laboratory experiments
with limited ecological validity. In summary, our study is one ofvery few able to investigate theeffects ofinquiry
instruction as implemented by teachers in natural school settings using rich, longitudinal data including high-
stakes measures of science attainment.
 Another potential explanation for our results is that inquiry-based teaching methods may have more
impact upon ‘functional’ real-world science skills – i.e. those skills that PISA attempts to measure – rather than
performance on a curriculum-based test of scientific knowledge such as GCSEs.
Science teachers face important decisions about how to design instruction for their pupils. One
prominent school of thought, inquiry learning, holds that students learn science best by conducting experiments
to answer research questions. Thus, teachers should design opportunities for students to acquire knowledge
through investigations, rather than providing it to them directly. This research set out to provide new evidence
on the effectiveness of inquiry-based teaching, specific components of inquiry-based teaching and inquiry-based
teaching coupled with more or less guidance. The results indicate that inquirybased teaching has a very weak
relationship with attainment in science –andthatanypositiveeffectsareconfinedtomoderatelevelsofinquiry
combined with high levels of guidance. High levels of inquiry or unguided inquiry have no relationship with
attainment at all. These results are consistent with existing literature, which tends to find that inquiry is less
effective than more direct forms of instruction (Alfieri et al., 2011; Kirschner et al., 2006; Stockard et al., 2018)
except for in cases where the inquiry is highly guided (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007; Lazonder &
Harmsen, 2016).
A reasonable objection to many evaluations of inquiry-based teaching is that the outcome measures
used fail to capture the functional or real-world science skills which are, in part, what inquiryteaching aims to
inculcate in students.
This research has implications for the practice of science teaching. In particular, it suggests that science
teachers should not overuse inquiry methods. The limits apply to both of the dimensions of inquiry
identifiedbyRönnebeck etal.(2016) –inquiry activities shouldbe used in moderation and accompanied by high
levels of guidance. Teachers can achieve the latter by reducing the scope or number of decisions involved in
investigations conducted by pupils, modelling solutions or worked examples, or providing carefully timed
prompts and heuristics to direct pupils’attention towardsrelevant aspectsofthetasks (DeJong & Lazonder, 2014;
Rosenshine, 2012).

Based on the students’ responses in this interview, it can be concluded that teaching
electrolysis and oxidation-reduction via the demonstration method affected them very positively,
brought these subjects closer to their hearts, made studying them easier, increased the extent of
interest and attractiveness, and elevated the students' level of motivation and satisfaction.
DISCUSSION The above findings show that the use of demonstrations helps students to better
understand the subject of redox reactions and electrolysis in chemistry. Exposure to demonstrations
improves students' perceptions of their learning efficiency and the importance of the subject and
also enhances the students' achievements and their understanding of redox concepts. This result is
compatible with Sweeder and Jeffery’s (2013) finding that demonstrations, if planned properly, and
if they are effectively integrated into the learning of concepts, have potential to play an important
role in students developing a deep and rich understanding of chemical concepts. Demonstration
sessions were found to promote thinking skills and to enable students to think more creatively.
Based on their perception (attitude) questionnaire as well as the interviews, it is reasonable to
assume that the sessions helped them understand the redox and electrolysis processes beyond what
their textbook provided and enabled them to better assess and understand the uses of such
processes in their everyday life. Importantly, the students expressed interest in learning more about
redox and electrolysis processes.
The statistical analysis used in testing the first research hypothesis revealed that a significant
difference exists between those students who had been exposed to demonstrations when studying
concepts in science and those students who had not been exposed to them, with respect to their
perception of the efficiency and importance of the use of demonstrations. The first hypothesis was
therefore validated: exposure to demonstrations clearly improved students' perceptions of the
efficiency and importance of demonstrations. Thompson and Soyibo (2002) reported that their
experimental group's achievements were statistically significantly better than those of the control
groups in understanding electrolysis processes. The statistical analysis that tested the second
research hypothesis found a significant difference between students who had been exposed to
demonstrations when studying concepts in science and those students who had not been exposed
to demonstrations with respect to the comprehension of concepts; the second hypothesis was
therefore validated. It is in line with the finding of Price and Brooks (2012) who claimed that
demonstrations improve students' performance on practice assignments, laboratory investigations
and exams, as well as enhance student's understanding of concepts.
It is clear that students prefer the demonstration sessions and accept their use in chemistry
class. All the students who participated in the study, when asked whether they prefer studying by
demonstrations or by the traditional method, replied that demonstrations were preferable. A
number of students thought that in addition to demonstrations, lab sessions or manual activity
sessions could be useful as follow-up activities after the demonstration sessions. At any rate, they
agreed that even without manual activity sessions the demonstration lessons are superior to regular
lessons. Thus, we can conclude that demonstrations are useful for facilitating and developing
learning, since they promote student interest in the lessons and provide teachers with a greater
variety of pedagogical tools. Moreover, a statistically significant improvement was found in the
achievements and efficiency of those students who were exposed to demonstrations in the redox
and electrolysis reactions. We can explain that by the fact that demonstrations can make the lesson
livelier and make teaching and learning of science more enjoyable and interesting, leading to better
understanding. Therefore, we suggest extending this strategy to other subjects in chemistry as well
as to other disciplines.
Omiko (2015) stated that “hands-on experience encourages students to develop a spirit of
inquiry and allows them to acquire scientific skills and the right attitude to handle scientific tools
and materials. Science laboratory provides students with the richest experiences which they will
transfer to the society and their various places of work. It helps in providing the students the
opportunities to practice science as the scientist do. In order for the laboratory to be effective,
students need to understand not only how to do the experiment, but why the experiment is worth
doing, and what purpose it serves for better understanding of a concept, relation, or process.
Through action on the world, we generate sensory data which can either be assimilated into
existing schemas or require that these be changed to accommodate the new data, in order to re-
establish equilibrium between the internal and external realities. Through such action, we construct
a view of the objects that exist in the world, what they are made of and what can be made from
them, what they can do and what can be done to them. If Piaget is correct, then practical experience
of observing and (even more important) intervening in the world is essential for understanding.
Many science educators have, however, expressed significant doubts about the effectiveness
of practical work, as it is currently used, for teaching scientific knowledge. Hodson (1991), for
example, writes that: As practised in many schools, it [practical work] is ill-conceived, confused and
unproductive. For many children, what goes on in the laboratory contributes little to their learning
of science … At the root of the problem is the unthinking use of laboratory work. (p. 176)
Woolnough and Allsop (1985) and Osborne (1993) express similar doubts about the
contribution of practical work to students’ science learning.
In this study we explored whether the use of teachers' demonstrations significantly improves
students’ understanding of redox reactions compared with control group counterparts who were
not exposed to the demonstrations. The findings showed that the experimental group's
achievements and understanding of the subject were statistically significantly better than those of
their control group counterparts.
According to Chiappetta and Koballa (2002) and Shakhashiri (1992), well prepared and
properly presented demonstrations have the potential to enhance students' understanding of
chemistry concepts. Similarly, Hofstein and Lunetta (1982, 2004), in their comprehensive reviews,
came to the conclusion that demonstrations have the potential to enhance learning, motivation,
and attitudes.
Gardner (1978) suggested that demonstrations may enable learners to evoke the “wow”
experience. This consequently can increase their curiosity and enhance their reasoning abilities. In
addition, it may have an impact on students’ achievements (Gerber, Cavallo & Marek, 2001).
Moreover, there are occasions in which teachers' demonstrations are educationally more effective
than are students' own experimentations (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004, Lunetta, Hofstein & Clough,
2007).
In a study on college introductory physics courses, Buncick, Betts, and Horgan (2001) found
that demonstrations encourage generalization because they promote active participation on the
part of the students. An elevated level of student attention and involvement in tasks has also been
reported for demonstrations carried out in high-school chemistry courses. For example, Meyar et
al. (2003) have shown that demonstrations encourage student involvement, since they are less
teacheroriented and give students an opportunity to produce questions and to become more active
in the learning process. This in turn can motivate students to undertake an initial inquiry and also
provides a learning opportunity, because it helps create mental links between new and previous
learning. In addition, Meyar et al. reported that students can illustrate cognitive strategies by
observing the teacher as he thinks out loud while doing the demonstration and as he formulates
questions that lead to an explanation of the concepts in question. This may challenge students'
preexisting understanding and can encourage perceptual understanding.
Hofstein et al. (2005) and Dkeidek, Mamlok-Naaman, and Hofstein (2012) published a study
on question asking as a tool for developing high-order thinking skills in the chemistry laboratory.
They showed that students in the Jewish sector in Israel ask more questions than their Arab
conterparts. This may result from a lack of knowledge in this area, which in turn, may be one of the
reasons why it has been so difficult to justify the allocation of teacher time and resources for
demonstrations. Furthermore, the use of demonstrations as a teaching/learning technique has not
been sufficiently studied in terms of how well it promotes, challenges, and helps develop children's
conceptual understanding.
Exposure to demonstrations improves students' perceptions of their learning efficiency and
the importance of the subject and also enhances the students' achievements and their
understanding of redox concepts. This result is compatible with Sweeder and Jeffery’s (2013) finding
that demonstrations, if planned properly, and if they are effectively integrated into the learning of
concepts, have potential to play an important role in students developing a deep and rich
understanding of chemical concepts.
Demonstration sessions were found to promote thinking skills and to enable students to
think more creatively. Based on their perception (attitude) questionnaire as well as the interviews,
it is reasonable to assume that the sessions helped them understand the redox and electrolysis
processes beyond what their textbook provided and enabled them to better assess and understand
the uses of such processes in their everyday life. Importantly, the students expressed interest in
learning more about redox and electrolysis processes.
The first hypothesis was therefore validated: exposure to demonstrations clearly improved
students' perceptions of the efficiency and importance of demonstrations. Thompson and Soyibo
(2002) reported that their experimental group's achievements were statistically significantly better
than those of the control groups in understanding electrolysis processes. The statistical analysis that
tested the second research hypothesis found a significant difference between students who had
been exposed to demonstrations when studying concepts in science and those students who had
not been exposed to demonstrations with respect to the comprehension of concepts; the second
hypothesis was therefore validated. It is in line with the finding of Price and Brooks (2012) who
 claimed that demonstrations improve students' performance on practice assignments, laboratory
investigations and exams, as well as enhance student's understanding of concepts.
It has been hypothesized that inquiry-based laboratory activities in which the student
examines an interesting problem could enhance the attainment of many of these abilities. A
research study conducted by Kaplan (1967) showed student pretestposttest gains on Burmester's
Inventory resulting at least in part from the use of a laboratory manual designed to teach explicit
aspects of scientific thinking. A careful study reported by Reif and St. John (1979) showed that
students in a college-level physics laboratory course based on inquiry training developed highlevel
skills more successfully than did students in a conventional physics laboratory course.
The research has failed to show simplistic relationships between experiences in the
laboratory and student learning. This revelation should not be especially surprising considering the
complexity of human learning; much more information and study are needed to clarify the
relationships that do exist. It is unreasonable to assert that the laboratory is an effective and
efficient teaching medium for achieving all goals in science education. On the other hand, sufficient
data do exist to suggest that laboratory instruction may play an important part in the achievement
of some of these goals. Appropriate laboratory activities can be effective in promoting logical
development and the development of some inquiry and problem-solving skills. For example, they
can assist in the development of manipulative and observational skills and in understanding
scientific concepts. They also can promote positive attitudes, and they provide opportunities for
student success and foster the development of skills in cooperation and communication.
Students’ learning

process seems to have been changed from direct assimilation to conceptual change as

learning activities were progressed. Students proved to achieve well factual knowledge

which are required elements of the intended conceptual structure from the inquiry

laboratory. However, the overall efficiency of inquiry laboratory for conceptual

understanding was lower than expected because majority of the students failed to build

the well organized conceptual structure under an overarching concept.

Indeed, using laboratory has many advantages. It helps students build up their

understanding of scientific concepts, science inquiry skills, and perceptions of science by doing

sciences. The science laboratory also provides a setting in which students are centered and work

cooperatively in small groups to investigate scientific phenomena (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004). Tobin
(1990) wrote that “Laboratory activities appeal as a way of allowing students to learn with

understanding and, at the same time, engage in a process of constructing knowledge by doing

science” (p. 405).

Just because physically

involved doesn’t mean cognitively active. The focus of school lab should be on learning by

thinking, not learning by doing.

The
process of analysis is precisely what defines a guided inquiry learning environment in which

students have the opportunity to develop their thinking skills and conceptual understandings. It is

also critical to have a knowledgeable laboratory instructor who can mediate students’ thinking

skills development and knowledge acquisition for a guided inquiry to be successful (Monteyne &

Cracolice, 2004).
Open inquiry is desirable to develop the abilities to inquiry. However, when

understanding requires careful attention and logical development, especially when the teacher is

responsible for the learning of 30 or more students, guided inquiry is best (NRC, 2005). Besides,

the ability and cognitive developmental level of students should be taken into consideration when

specific type of laboratory instruction is chosen (Charlton, 1980; Colburn, 2000; Vosniadou et al.,

2001). Guided-inquiry laboratory was reported to be advantageous for embracing students of

diverse abilities and cognitive developmental stages (Ault, 2002; Charlton, 1980). In fact, both

students and teachers alike need time to gradually make a transition from the traditional type

activities and lectures to inquiry-based instruction. The more familiar the activity, materials, and

context of the investigation, the easier it is for students to learn through inquiry (Colburn, 2000).

Particularly, when students are not familiar with chemical experiments in inquiry-based

laboratory, the chemistry lab should be structured with clear and safe instructions that increase

their chance of success (Monteyne & Cracolice, 2004). In brief, since the students in this study

lack experience with inquiry and deal with chemicals, the guided inquiry-based laboratory is

suitable choice for my instructional mode.

If guided inquiry laboratory activities are integrated
into an effective teaching strategy, they support students in their conceptual changes
because
investigation involves the interaction of content and process (NRC, 2005). Observing is not
enough to produce conceptual change, and background knowledge is required to make sense
of
new observations. It may appear to be more about process because what students observe
is a
function of when, how, and with what tools we choose to observe. However, what students
observe is also a function of what they expect to observe, and how they interpret their
observation
are clearly influenced by what they already know and believe about the physical world (NRC,
2005).
In terms of the strengths and limitations of the inquiry-based laboratory for the
students’ conceptual understanding, I found the following things.
• The inquiry laboratory helped the students obtain factual knowledge which were
the learning objectives of the activities. 94% of the students on average gave
correct answers on the four formative tests and 90.11 of the students on average
chose the correct answers on the summative tests. The students explained that the
activities allowed them to have new first hand experiences, and thereby to be
motivated to participate in the learning activities that they were able to
understand the new knowledge.
• The inquiry laboratory was ineffective to promote the conceptual understanding
given the fact that they failed to build a well-organized conceptual structure under
the overarching concept (Concept 1). Many students didn’t realize the priority of
their concepts about metal. As a result, they stated not only Concept 1 but also
other factual chemical properties as a definition of metal from a chemist’s
perspective (see Appendix D). Only 38 out of 158 students realized the
overarching concept until Activity 2 was finished. Moreover, 19 students
maintained the desirable conceptual structure by the time the delayed posttest was
taken. According to the students’ explanation, they didn’t understand the meaning
of the series of activities. They had to have more background knowledge for the
activities. They needed more time to discuss the meaning with the teacher.
Efficiency of Inquiry laboratory for the students’ conceptual understanding
Although the students successfully acquired the elements for the conceptual
understanding from the activities, many of them didn’t achieve the ultimate goal of the
instruction, their conceptual understanding.
Why was the instruction not successful to achieve conceptual understanding? This
demonstrates a significant limit of inquiry laboratory as discovery learning. Although the
students were able to analyze the data and derive simple conclusions to build the content
knowledge (or p-prims about metals’ chemical properties), the target concepts should be
derived from the generalization of those p-prims. However, the knowledge processing of
generalization required the students’ effort to seek for the overarching concept from
apparently fragmented factual knowledge. Obviously, many of the students didn’t try to
find out the target concepts and prioritize their knowledge. According to Chan, Burtis
 and Bereiter (1997), the level of knowledge processing activity exerts a direct effect on
conceptual change. In other words, students’ active learning attitude is importance in the
process of conceptual change.
A student succinctly stated, “Inquiry laboratory
is good for acquiring scientific investigation skill and developing reasoning ability, but
inefficient for learning content knowledge. I prefer to conduct an experiment after
listening to the teacher lecture regarding the same topic to build knowledge.”
Over the years several researchers have suggested that the laboratory is not only a unique
resource for teaching and learning but also a unique vantage point for observing students’ ideas and
for assessing this understanding. Some evidence exists that students’ abilities in the laboratory are
only slightly correlated with their achievement in the sciences as measured by conventional paper
and pencil tests (Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004). These findings have suggested that students’
performance, understandings, and perceptions of the science laboratory learning environment
should be assessed using instruments and strategies that are more closely aligned with the unique
activities and goals for learning associated with the school laboratory.
The importance of learning attitude in conceptual change
Chan, Burtis and Bereiter (1997) examined how students process scientific information
that contradicts what they believe, and assessed the contribution of this knowledge
processing
activity to conceptual change. Two major processes were identified in their research: direct
assimilation, which involved fitting new information with what was already known, and
knowledge building, which involved treating new information as something problematic that
needed to be explained. They elaborated a knowledge-processing activity scale to evaluate
individuals’ reactions to the processing of contradictory information. It consisted of the
following
five levels:
1. Subassimilation: new information is reacted to at an associative level;
2. direct assimilation: new information is either assimilated as if it was something already
known or excluded if it does not fit with prior beliefs; 3. surface-constructive: new information is
comprehended, but its implications for one’s beliefs are not considered;
4. implicit knowledge building: new information is treated as something problematic that
needs to be explained;
5. explicit knowledge building: new information is accumulated for constructing coherence
in domain understanding (p. 12).

They found that the level of knowledge processing activity exerted a direct effect on
conceptual change and that this activity mediated the effect of cognitive conflict. Knowledge
 building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change explains the previous equivocal
research
findings about the effect of anomalous data. It also highlights the importance of students’
active
learning attitude in the process of conceptual change.
INQUIRY DEMOSTRATION AND STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES
It is clear that students prefer the demonstration sessions and accept their use in chemistry class. All the
students who participated in the study, when asked whether they prefer studying by demonstrations or by the
traditional method, replied that demonstrations were preferable. A number of students thought that in addition
to demonstrations, lab sessions or manual activity sessions could be useful as follow-up activities after the
demonstration sessions. At any rate, they agreed that even without manual activity sessions the demonstration
lessons are superior to regular lessons.
Thus, we can conclude that demonstrations are useful for facilitating and developing learning, since
they promote student interest in the lessons and provide teachers with a greater variety of pedagogical tools.
Moreover, a statistically significant improvement was found in the achievements and efficiency of those
students who were exposed to demonstrations in the redox and electrolysis reactions. We can explain that by
the fact that demonstrations can make the lesson livelier and make teaching and learning of science more
enjoyable and interesting, leading to better understanding. Therefore, we suggest extending this strategy to other
subjects in chemistry as well as to other disciplines.
The current study provided evidence that, if planned properly, demonstrations can serve as an effective
platform for enhancing students’ understanding of certain chemistry concepts as well as increase their
motivation and interest to learn chemistry.
We operate in an era in which many attempts are made to develop pedagogical interventions with the
goal in mind of enhancing students' interests in attitudes towards learning science in general, and chemistry in
particular

Fix and Renner (1979) used Piaget's (1970) model and Karplus' (1977) learning cycle as a basis
for teaching certain concepts in high school chemistry in Oklahoma. Their method involved
extensive exploration with laboratory materials followed by the invention of explanations for the
observations made. They reported that as a result of this laboratory-centered chemistry curriculum,
the enrollment in chemistry doubled and student scores on the ACT chemistry subtest increased
over 10 years. The work reported by Fix and Renner may have been an important advance in science
teaching because the program made a well-developed attempt to match curricula to students'
intellectual development. On the other hand, it would be unwise to generalize broadly on the basis
of the data reported in this study, without extending the study to other samples. Furthermore, it is
difficult to discern from the published account of this study how much of the reported improvement
in achievement is actually due to work with materials in the laboratory and how much is due to
other variables that are unrelated to laboratory investigation.
Perkins (1993) advised that teaching for understanding should
be focused on what the teacher gets the students to do rather than what the teacher does.
Furthermore, studies based on constructivism showed the importance of active learning
and reflective teaching (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer & Scott, 1994). Cognitive
research, particularly the theory of conceptual change, suggested that science instruction be improved
by building students’ conceptual understanding (Bruer, 1994; Duit &
Treagust, 2003; Gardner, 1993).
The findings of this study showed that many secondary schools surveyed in the three Education Zones
in Ebonyi State of Nigeria (Abakaliki, Onueke, And Afikpo) agreed that the use of the chemistry laboratory
develops scientific attitudes, such as (honesty, Patience, skepticism, among others) in students towards the
learning of chemistry. This finding is in agreement with the finding of Igwe (2003), who observed that one of
the ways of developing scientific attitudes which include, curiosity, open-mindedness, appraisal of results,
humility, patience, honesty, skepticism and accuracy in children is through engaging in practical work. Usually,
practical work in secondary schools serves as extension of the students’ knowledge, which sometimes confirms
or disabuses their current ideas. Omiko (2007) in stating the functions of the laboratory in science teaching
observed that the use of the laboratory develops interest, good attitudes and values in students.
Igwe (2003) where he stated that the use of the laboratory is the most widely acclaimed strategy for
laboratory inquiry instruction. It helps to develop students’ ability to organize and classify information, give
self-satisfaction and reward to students especially on successful execution of a project or investigation, retain
facts more permanently, especially when such facts and information are collected by the students themselves
through investigation.
There is some evidence that experience of carrying out extended practical projects can provide students
with insights into scientific practice and can increase interest in science and motivation to continue its study
(Jakeways, 1986; Woolnough, 1994).
Attitude and interest. Developing favorable attitudes toward science has often been listed as one of the
important goals of science teaching. Generally, writers have assumed that the availability of a wide variety of
instructional materials will enable teachers to vary classroom procedures, to avoid monotony, and to arouse
interest and attention. Smith, Walberg, Poorman, and Schagrin (1968), Selmes, Ashton, Meredith, and Newal
(1969), Ben-Zvi, Hofstein, Samuel, and Kempa (1976b), Hofstein et al. (1976), and Raghubir (1979) found, for
example, that students enjoy laboratory work in some courses and that it generally results in positive and
improved attitudes toward, and interest in, the sciences.
In a research study conducted by Ben-Zvi et al. (1976a), chemistry students were asked to rate the
relative effectiveness of instructional methods. Students reported that personal laboratory work was the most
effective instructional method for promoting their interest and learning when contrasted with teacher
demonstrations, group discussions, filmed experiments, and lectures. Similar results were obtained by Bybee
(1970) in comparing laboratory versus lecture demonstrations in a collegelevel earth science course. Charen
(1966) and Smith et al. (1968) found that laboratory work enhanced student attitudes toward learning chemistry.
Johnson, Ryan, and Schroeder (1974) compared three groups of sixth grade science students: (1) a group who
learned science from a textbook; (2) a group that used a textbook and lab materials; and (3) an activity-centered
group that worked primarily with materials. They found that students who interacted with concrete materials
developed significantly more positive attitudes toward learning science than those who studied from books
alone. Thus, it seems that the laboratory can strongly affect attitude.
The reviews by Bates (1978) and Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) cited several studies indicating that
students enjoy laboratory work in some courses and that laboratory experiences have resulted in positive and
improved student attitudes and interest in science. Among the studies reviewed, Hofstein et al. (1976) reported
that students in Israel rated their personal involvement in the chemistry laboratory as the most effective
instructional method for promoting their interest in chemistry when contrasted with teacher demonstrations,
presentations, and classroom discussions.
Other studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s made similar claims. Ben-Zvi et al. (1977), for example,
reported that chemistry students’ personal involvement in chemistry laboratory investigations had been the most
effective medium in their chemistry classes for promoting their interest in chemistry when contrasted with
teacher’s demonstrations, filmed experiments, classroom discussions, and teachers’ lectures. In a study that
examined why students’ enrolled in optional advanced high school chemistry courses, one of the key reasons
offered was their experience with practical activities in the chemistry laboratory (Milner et al., 1987). These
results are similar to findings reported in the USA (Charen, 1966; Johnson et al., 1974; Raghubir, 1979). In
Nigeria, Okebukola (1986), using the Attitude toward Chemistry Laboratory Questionnaire (Hofstein et al.,
1976), reported that greater participation in chemistry laboratory activities resulted in improved students’
attitudes toward chemistry learning in general and towards learning in the chemistry laboratory in particular.
Nevertheless, some science educators continued to report studies indicating that laboratory work is an
important medium for enhancing attitudes, stimulating interest and enjoyment, and motivating students to learn
science (e.g., Freedman, 1997; Thompson and Soyibo, 2002). In 2004, the Attitude toward Chemistry
Laboratory Questionnaire was administered in a study in which two groups of students were compared (Kipnis
and Hofstein, 2005). The first student group performed inquiry-type chemistry investigations while the second
group performed more conventional, confirmationtype activities. Students in the inquiry group developed more
positive attitudes toward learning chemistry than did the students who experienced the conventional treatment.
 Henderson, and Fraser (1997) reported significant correlations between students’ perceptions of the
science laboratory learning environment and their attitudes and science achievement. Similar results were
reported in an Australian study by Fraser et al. (1993). A study of this kind was also conducted in Israel high
school chemistry (Hofstein et al. 2001). The study revealed that students involved in a series of inquiry-type
laboratory investigations in chemistry found the laboratory learning environment to be more open-ended and
more integrated with the conceptual framework they were developing than did the students enrolled in
conventional laboratory courses (control). In the inquiry group the gap between the actual learning environment
and the students’ preferred environment was significantly smaller than in the control group. These findings
suggested that some kinds of practical experiences can promote a positive, healthy leaning environment.
Tobin (1990) wrote that: “Laboratory activities appeal as a way of allowing students to learn with
understanding and, at the same time, engage in the process of constructing knowledge by doing science (p.405)”.
To attain this goal he suggested that students should be provided opportunities in the laboratory to reflect on
findings, clarify understandings and misunderstandings with peers, and consult a range of resources that include
teachers, books, and other learning materials. His review reported that such opportunities rarely exist since
teachers are so often preoccupied with technical and managerial activities in the laboratory. Similarly, Hodson
(1993) suggested that although teachers generally professed belief in the value of student-driven, open, practical
investigation, in general, their teaching practices in the laboratory failed to support that claim. He also argued
that the research literature failed to provide evidence that standard school laboratory activities encouraged
knowledge construction. He was critical of the research literature: “Despite the very obvious differences
among, for example, practical exercises designed to develop manipulative skills or to measure ‘physical
constraints’, demonstration-type experiments to illustrate certain key-concepts, and inquiries that enable
children to conduct their own investigations, there is a tendency for researchers to lump them all together under
the same umbrella title of practical work (p. 97)”. Tobin wrote that teachers’ interpretations of practical activity
should be elaborated, made a part of the research design, and reported since a laboratory session could be open-
ended inquiry in one classroom and more didactic and confirmatory in another teacher’s classroom. Tobin
(1990) and Hodson (1993) were among those who wrote that, in general, science teachers failed to create an
environment that encouraged students to make sense of their laboratory experiences, to reflect on their own
thinking and to explore new connections that eventually lead to the desired conceptual understanding.
INQUIRY DEMONSTRATION AND LABORATORY WORK IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Chemistry is essentially a laboratory activity oriented subject. No course in chemistry can
be considered as complete without including practical work in it. Laboratory activity, here, is
used to describe the practical activities which students undertake using chemicals and equipment
in a chemistry laboratory. The original reasons for the development of laboratory work in
chemistry education lay in the need to produce skilled technicians for industry and highly
competent workers for research laboratories (16 and 17).
Today, many chemistry first degree graduates are not employed as bench chemists in industry
(20 and 21) and their reaction to practical work is often negative as a result they are not effective
in laboratory work and this may reflect a student perception that there is lack of clear purpose for
the experiments: they go through the experiment without adequate stimulation (22 and 23).
Three units of science will be required with inquiry-based laboratory experience that engages students
in asking valid scientific questions and gathering and analyzing information. The new law requires that Ohio
high school science units be inquiry-based instead of simply including scientific inquiry as a part of the entire
course.
The National Academy of Sciences defines scientific inquiry in the National Science Education
Standards (NSES p. 23) as:
…the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the
evidence derived from their work. Scientific inquiry also refers to the activities through which students develop
knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural
world.
 Furthermore, the National Science Teachers Association states:
Scientific inquiry is a powerful way of understanding science content. Students learn how to ask
questions and use evidence to answer them. In the process of learning the strategies of scientific inquiry,
students learn to conduct an investigation and collect evidence from a variety of sources, develop an explanation
from the data, and communicate and defend their conclusions.
The newly signed Ohio Core Curriculum has a rather brief but important description of “inquiry-based
laboratory experience” included in the law’s language:

Science, three units with inquiry-based laboratory experience that engages students in asking valid
scientific questions and gathering and analyzing information… [Emphasis added.]
AS SOLUTION WHEN THERE IS LACKING REAGENT AND EQUIPMENT
These studies, which were developed to enrich the environment of teaching information and communication
technologies, increase student motivation, and in connection with this, enhance academic achievement. Such
efforts started in the 1950's with television, and continued with the use of video in classrooms. It can be seen
in the studies that there are two areas of benefit that video provides in teaching environments. One of these relates
to the way in which video stimulates concentration and motivation in students throughout the teaching process
(e.g., Roskos-Ewoldsen & Roskos-Ewoldsen 2001; Hazen, Kelly, & Sramek, 2002; Hoover, 2006; Oishi,
2007). The second area of benefit has to do with the power of video in helping students conceptualize and
internalize difficult and abstract topics (e.g., Verran, 1992; Harwood & McMahon 1997; Liedtka 2001; Herron,
Dubreil, Corrie, & Cole, 2002; Green, Voegeli, Harrison, Phillips, Knowles, Weaver, & Shephard, 2003;
Brunvand & Fishman, 2007; De Leng, Dolmans, Van de Wiel, Muijtjens, & Van Der Vleuten, 2007; Palmer,
2007; White, 2007).
The fact that technology in and of itself does not have an adequate impact on learning has led to
the development of various teaching materials and strategies. The characteristics of such materials and the
effects of teaching strategies on individual learning have formed the basis for many studies. Similarly, the present
study as well has been designed to examine the impact of technology-supported teaching materials and
different presentation strategies on learning and has suggested a means of developing supplementary teaching
materials to support broad-based science education. The study was conducted from the perspective of
identifying the needs of today's teaching programs. It reviews the effects on the academic achievement of pre-
service teachers and on their attitudes toward Science and Technology of presenting experiments using video
and demonstration strategies constructed within the context of a philosophy of inquiry-based science
education. In this process, teaching the oncepts of sight, reflection, deflection, absorption, shadow, half-
shadow, full shadow through activities related to the interaction between light and matter, the concepts of the
states of matter and density through activities related to global warming, the concepts of Archimedes'
principle and buoyancy through activities related to the buoyant force of fluids, the concepts of conductivity,
insulation through activities related to electricity, the concept of the phenomenon of the seasons through
activities related to photosynthesis and the concept of chromatography related to activities related to the
separation of mixtures in chemistry, have been targeted.

All the topics in chemistry which are practically oriented should be taught in the laboratory, using all the necessary
equipment and reagents. By using the chemicals/reagents, the students would acquire the skills involved in
handling dangerous substances.
All the science laboratories in the school should be equipped with modern equipment and other necessary teaching
aids or instructional materials. The provision of these materials/equipment will help both the teachers and the
students in their teaching and learning process.
The science (chemistry) teachers should be encouraged to attend conferences, seminars and workshops. This will
help them to learn new things, methods and acquire new skills in teaching difficult chemistry concepts.
There should be more periods on the time-table for practical chemistry lessons. The teachers and their students
should use the correct chemistry textbooks recommended by the federal, and states ministry of Education in
teaching the students.
There should be an increased and enough finance for the purchase of essential laboratory equipment. As a matter
of urgency, adequate provision should be made with regards to practical guide or work book for students and
teachers if any meaningful achievement is expected from them.
Alternatives to practical work
To what extent, it might be asked, could practical work to develop students’ scientific knowledge be replaced by
non-practical learning activities, such as video-recordings of real objects and events, or computer simulations?
For learning objectives 1-2 in Table 1 above, their contribution is limited. Video-recordings of events and
processes can be used to let students see events that could not be produced in the school laboratory, or to view
events several times in order to look closely at different aspects of them. But they cannot wholly replace first
hand practical experience. The fundamental reason is that a real event contains more information than any
representation of it. All representations (video recordings, photographs, diagrams, verbal accounts) are selective,
to a greater or lesser extent4. They communicate some aspects of the event but not others. A student will get
more complete data on what happens when a piece of magnesium is put into dilute hydrochloric acid, or when
two solutions are added and a solid precipitate is formed (to take just two examples), by observing the real thing,
than they could obtain from observing a representation. And they may gain still more by doing it, where there are
kinaesthetic aspects of the learning, and because of the greater attention we pay when we carry out actions
ourselves. The role of simulations in relation to learning objectives 1 and 2 is even more dubious. A simulation
cannot, logically, provide grounds for knowledge of the world. It might, however, provide a useful preparation
for an observation of a real phenomenon, by directing the students’ attention to specific features of the real event.

If we turn to learning objectives 3-5 in Table 1, non-practical approaches may have more to offer. Video materials
can juxtapose images of real events and processes with theoretical ideas and constructs, for example showing a
chemical reaction alongside an atomic-level representation of the process, or the process of imaging by a convex
lens alongside a ray diagram (Goldberg and Bendall, 1992). Similarly, well-designed computer-based teaching
materials, including simulations, animations and other kinds of modelling activity, can also be very useful in
helping students to operate in the domain of ideas. For example, a software tool under development by the Gatsby
Science Enhancement Project illustrates a way of helping students link observations of simple laboratory events
to a model of energy transfers (http://www.sep.org.uk/energy.htm#).
Jenkins (2013) noted the efforts made by scientists in the late 19th century to improve the intellectual rigour of
learners by placing them in authentic environments, which put them in touch with the natural world. These efforts
established practical work as an instructional strategy. Emphasis was placed on discovery learning through
identifying generalisations or patterns, which was assumed to be inherent in all scientific investigations
(Aubusson, 2011). The instructional approaches that were adopted further enhanced the role of practical work in
the teaching and learning of science.
Practical work provides authentic environments for learner inquiry in science (Allchin, 2014). Science as a
secondary school subject is notably distinctive because it involves the teaching and learning of the substantive
body of scientific knowledge and the various ways of investigating the natural world. The latter implies that
inquiry-based practical work is an indispensable component of science classroom instructional strategies.
Notwithstanding the important goals that should be achieved through high stakes testing, science education comes
with other learning goals that are inextricably connected to effective inquiry teaching. These outcomes of inquiry
and practical work, according to Blosser (1990) and Anderson (2002), include the development of manipulative,
inquiry, investigative, organizational and communicative skills, conceptual understanding and the development
of cognitive abilities such as critical thinking, problem solving, application, analysis and synthesis. Other
outcomes include understanding science processes and the nature of scientific enterprise, the development of
correct attitudes towards science such as curiosity, interest, collaboration and consensus, risk taking and
responsibility, objectivity, precision, confidence and satisfaction and achieving scientific literacy.
The compromised instructional practices do not address the full spectrum of the science education goals. The
compromised instructional practices are an adaptation of the curriculum in response to contextual factors such as
scarcity of resources, lack of sufficient time, teacher professional identities, language of instruction, inquiry
material demands, increased workloads, learner concerns, management issues and the high stakes testing
environment mentioned earlier, among other factors (Cheung 2007; Webb 2009; Ottevanger, van den Akker & de
Feiter, 2007; Stoffels, 2006).
Inquiry-based instruction comes as part of curriculum reforms aligned with learner-centred teaching and learning.
This study explored how teachers implemented inquiry-based practical work activities in an environment where
practical work in science was made to be compulsory.
Accordingly, inquiry-based practical work instructional strategies aimed at improving learner engagement and
learner-centredness. Inquiry-based practical work involves investigations conducted by learners in contextualised
and relevant experiences (Aubusson, 2011). Learners are given opportunities to conduct investigations in ways
that are scaffolded to meet the levels of their skills and knowledge (Allchin, 2014). In inquiry-based practical
work, learners demonstrate understanding of the laws and theories of science and procedural knowledge instead
of merely using worksheets with explicit instructions (Toplis, 2012). As mentioned in the introduction section,
the inclusion of inquiry-based practical work in science is partly in response to political decisions to develop
national science capabilities (Aubusson, 2011; Clothey et al., 2010). However, this strand of science as a human
endeavour is reportedly difficult to measure and not genuinely reflected in assessments (Allchin, 2014; Fensham,
2013).
However, the teachers felt that they were complying with requirements stipulated by the curriculum policies. They
did this by making sure that students conducted the prescribed practical work activities for continuous assessment
and portfolio work. On probing further into what the teachers thought about making more use of demonstrations
compared with hands-on activities, the interviewer said,

So for science you know it’s also a practical subject, are you doing enough to make sure that you are doing justice?

Molly said ‘We do as much as the department wants us to do’. In addition, Molly, as a teacher with more
experience was able to provide a comparison of physical sciences practical work policies in the past and present
curriculums. The detailed comparison shed light on some other factors that influenced the teachers’ choices of
instructional strategies for practical work, besides the lack of resources and sufficient time cited by teachers. It
could be surmised from the teacher narratives that the assessment and instructional leadership practices were
instrumental in the choice of practical work instructional strategies.
Inquiry-based practical work stimulates learners’ interest in science, serves as an alternative instructional method
to cater for diverse ways of learning, and establishes science as a human endeavour (De Boer, 2014; Toplis, 2012).
The lack of laboratory facilities, equipment and materials is one of the factors that the literature confirms as a
crippling for the implementation of inquiry-based practical work (Chueng, 2007; Christie et al. 2007). This paper
further confirms that lack of materials denies physical sciences students access to quality science education. In
this study the learners in the under-resourced school did not have ready access to laboratory facilities to perform
their hands-on activities. Hence, the unavailability of laboratory facilities, equipment and materials in the under-
resourced high school sits on the social justice agenda. Students in secondary schools do not experience inquiry-
based practical work in similar ways. However, they write the same examinations and compete for the same
placement opportunities for employment and further education. Christie et al. (2007) confirmed that in the
teaching and learning of science in some South African schools is without the practical component because of
lack of facilities and materials.

Inquiry through practical work responds to critical science education goals for skills and knowledge as well as
understanding the methods of science. Ramnarain and Schuster (2014) mentioned that students get opportunities
to learn the ways of the scientists through inquiry-based practical work instruction.
Besides, there are so many video clips and simulation programs that show the process and results of school
experiments that students and teachers don’t need
to conduct an experiment to find out the results. Thus, the focus of carrying out
experiments in high schools has been shifted from acquiring the skill of handling tools
and equipment to understanding its underlying concepts and scientific reasoning skills.
The new electronic tools and resources for teaching and learning associated with the school science laboratory
also offer important new opportunities to study learning in science, and they warrant careful scholarly study by
researchers in science education as we enter the twentyfirst century.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the study focuses on the effectiveness of school in preparation and response on emergency and
disasters as an evacuation center in Tuguegarao City. Majority of the administrators said that the school was highly
prepared on the assessment of respondents as to the state of preparedness of school in responding to disasters in
terms of the early warning system, disaster capability management, and disaster committee. When it comes to the
assessment of the evacuees as to the state of preparedness of school in responding to disasters in terms of the early
warning system, disaster capability management and disaster committee majority of the evacuees said that the
school was not prepared.
Results of the study when comparing the preparedness of the school in disasters as assessed by school
administrators and community resident respondents is positive. This means that there is a significant difference in
the preparedness of school in disasters. This is being confirmed with the p-value which is equal to 0.026.
Results of the concerns and issues of the respondents show that majority of the respondents said that lack
of fund of the DRRMC is number one issue of the respondents while the least issue is that the communities are
not interested in the advisory to the disaster prevention plan.
The current study provided evidence that, if planned properly, demonstrations can serve as
an effective platform for enhancing students’ understanding of certain chemistry concepts as well as
increase their motivation and interest to learn chemistry. This study focused on the topics of
oxidation-reduction and electrolysis; more key concepts should be researched in order to obtain a
more comprehensive picture regarding the implementation of educationally effective
demonstrations. We operate in an era in which many attempts are made to develop pedagogical
interventions with the goal in mind of enhancing students' interests in attitudes towards learning
science in general, and chemistry in particular. In the current paper we attempted to enhance middle
school students' conceptual understanding of the concept "oxidation reduction". It is recommended
to develop additional similar demonstrations to support the learning of other key concepts taught in
middle and high-school chemistry lessons.
Many research studies have been conducted comparing the effects of methods of practical work in
the laboratory with other instructional methods over the past decades. For example, Coulter (1966)
compared inductive laboratory experiments with inductive demonstrations in high school biology;
Yager, Engen, and Snider (1969) compared three groups, namely, a "laboratory group," a
"demonstration group," and a "discussion group" in biology; Lunetta (1974) compared a control group
to a computer-simulation group in physics; and Ben-Zvi, Hofstein, Kempa, and Samuel (1976a)
compared a laboratory group to a group viewing filmed experiments in chemistry. Most of these
research studies have shown no significant differences between the instructional methods as
measured by standard paper-andpencil tests in student achievement, attitude, critical thinking, and
in knowledge of the processes of science. Not surprisingly, the one area in which the laboratory
approach showed measurable advantage over other modes of instruction was in the development of
laboratory manipulative skills. Because many studies comparing the effects of laboratory learning with
more conventional forms of instruction have resulted in nonsignificant differences, some science
educators (e.g., Bates, 1978; Dickinson & Sanders, 1979) have questioned the value of laboratory
work. However, it is important to note that similarly poor evidence for success has been found for
almost all attempts to improve schooling. In a sweeping review of educational research, Stephens
(1967) noted that changing instructional techniques seems to hinder learning as often as it seems to
aid it.