The Development of a New Laboratory Course in Chemistry


It is especially important that we develop new perspectives for laboratory instruction in science. It is a widely accepted credo that experiences in the laboratory are essential to effective science programs. Occasionally this tenet is questioned, however, and, although laboratory experiences survive, the answers offered to critics are not overwhelmingly impressive. Certainly laboratory work is not as efficient and effective a mode of instruction as it might be, and it is high time that we take a hard look, with a fresh perspective, at learning in the laboratory.

This opening quotation is taken from a book entitled The Experience of Science: A New Perspective for Laboratory Teaching in which it is advocated that given the massive expansion in the amount of scientific knowledge, it is crucial, with regard to lab work, to give a great deal of consideration to what kind of information is presented to the students and what approach is used. The book and the recommendations are more than 30 years old but there is still a need to develop new perspectives for laboratory instruction in science.


Teaching Assistant Factual Knowledge Teaching Sequence Teaching Situation Laboratory Teaching 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, O.R. (1976). The Experience of Science. A New Perspective for Laboratory Teaching. New York: Teachers College PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Arce, J. & Betancourt, R. (1997). Student-Designed Experiments in Scientific Lab. Instruction. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27, 114–118Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C. (1992). On Organisational Learning. Cambridge: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauersfeld, H. (1979). Research Related to the Mathematical Learning Process. New Trends in Mathematics Teaching, 4, 204–206Google Scholar
  5. Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, U. (1992). How Modern is Modern Society? Theory, Culture & Society, 9, 163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biessels, H.W.A. (2000). From Mono-Ester to Poly-Ester, A Project in First Year Chemistry Curriculum at Utrecht University. Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  8. Buning, J.B. & Thijs, G.D. (2001). Comparing Teaching Assistants Guiding Students in Physics Undergraduate Laboratories. Paper presented at the Third European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Conference, August 21–25, Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  9. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: PolityGoogle Scholar
  10. Henderson, L. & Buising, C. (2001). A Research-Based Molecular Biology Laboratory. Turning Novice Researchers into Practicing Scientists. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30, 322–327Google Scholar
  11. Keulen, H.V. (1995). Making Sense. Simulation-of-Research in Organic Chemistry Education. Utrecht: CD-β PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis, J. (1999). The Use of Mini-Projects in Preparing Students for Independent Open-Ended Investigative Lab Work. Biochemical Education, 27, 137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Millar, R. (1991). A Means to an End: The Role of Processes in Science Education. In B. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical Science (pp. 43–52). Milton Keynes: Open University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Parkinson, J. & Adendorff, R. (1997). Two Streams of Literacy in Science: A Look at First Year Laboratory Manuals. Language and Education, 11, 200–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Qvortrup, L. (2000). Det hyperkomplekse samfund. Copenhagen: Nordisk ForlagGoogle Scholar
  16. Ram, P. (1999). Problem-Based Learning in Undergraduate Education. A Sophomore Chemistry Laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 1122–1126Google Scholar
  17. Simonsen, B. & Ulriksen, L. (1998). Universitetsstudier i krise. Fag, projekter og moderne stu-denter. Roskilde: Roskilde UniversitetsforlagGoogle Scholar
  18. Tolman, C.A. & Parshall, G.W. (1999). Fifty-Year Trends in Chemical Industry: What do They Mean for Chemical Education? Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 178–189Google Scholar
  19. Troelsen, R.P. (2001). Kompetenceudvikling i kemiuddannelserne (Development of Competence in Chemical Education). In T.B. Hansen, K.N. Nielsen, R.P. Troelsen & E. Winther (Eds.), Naturvidenskab, dannelse og kompetence(pp. 61–132). Aalborg: Aalborg UniversitetGoogle Scholar
  20. Troelsen, R.P. (2003). Kemi og kompetencer — et forsøg vœrd? En undersøgelse af laboratorieun-dervisningens vilkår og muligheder i de tertiœre uddannelser [Chemistry and Competencies. An Investigation of Conditions and Possibilities of Laboratory Teaching in Tertiary Education]. Ph. D. thesis. Odense: Syddansk UniversitetGoogle Scholar
  21. Wright, J.C. (1996). Authentic Learning Environment in Analytic Chemistry Using Co-Operative Methods and Open-Ended Laboratories in Large Lecture Courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 73, 827–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ziehe, T. (1989). Ambivalenser og mangfoldighed. En artikelsamling om ungdom, skole, œstetik og kultur. Copenhagen: Politisk RevyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations