View Article Online / Journal Homepage / Table of Contents for this issue

PRACTICE www.rsc.org/cerp | Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Development and implementation of inquiry-based and computerized-

based laboratories: reforming high school chemistry in Israel
Nitza Barneaa, b, Yehudit Judy Doria, c and Avi Hofsteind*
Received 27th May 2009, Accepted 2nd February 2010
DOI: 10.1039/C005471M

Reforms in science education in general and in chemistry education in particular have been
introduced in many countries since the beginning of the 21st Century. Similarly, at this time in
Israel both the content and pedagogy of the chemistry curriculum in high schools were reformed.
New content and pedagogical standards emerged, fostering meaningful chemical education in the
upper secondary schools. We describe the reform process in chemistry teaching and learning which
succeeded thanks to close collaboration among the various stakeholders, including the academic
Published on 07 July 2010. Downloaded on 25/02/2016 12:02:23.

institutions, the Israeli Ministry of Education, and the teachers. The inquiry-based laboratory unit
is part of a five-unit course, and is also part of the matriculation examinations set by the
government taken at the end of the high school. We elaborate on the influence of the high school
inquiry-based and computer-based chemistry laboratory on students’ learning and its impact on
enrollment in advanced chemistry courses.

Keywords: reform in chemical education, chemistry laboratory, high school students, inquiry,
higher order thinking skills

curriculum in Israel is the involvement of many students in

Introduction
Science educators have suggested that laboratory activities
play a distinctive and central role in the science curriculum,
and they have suggested that engaging in science laboratory
activities is beneficial to students (Hofstein and Lunetta,
1982; 2004; Hodson, 1990; Tobin, 1990; Lazarowitz and
Tamir, 1994; Lunetta, 1998; Dori et al., 2004; Hofstein, 2004;
Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004). More specifically, these
researchers have suggested that, when properly developed,
inquiry-oriented laboratories have the potential to enhance
students’ meaningful learning, conceptual understanding,
higher order thinking skills, and understanding of the nature
of science. Hofstein and Walberg (1995) noted that inquiry-
based laboratories are central to learning sciences. In this
setting, students are involved in the process of formulating
hypotheses, solving scientific problems, designing
experiments, gathering and analyzing data, and drawing
conclusions about scientific problems or phenomena.
Nowadays, both the content and the pedagogy of science
learning and teaching are being scrutinized, new standards are
emerging and these are intended to shape and rejuvenate
science education as stated by the National Research Council
(1996) in the USA and ‘Tomorrow 98’, (1992),
(recommendations for reform in science and mathematics
education) in Israel. The dramatic change that has been
introduced at the turn of the century into the chemistry
a experience, and
Department of Technology and Science Education, Technion, Israel
Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
b
Ministry of Education, Jerusalem, Israel;
e-mail: nitzaba@education.gov.il
c
Continuing Education and External Studies Technion, Israel Institute of
Technology, Haifa, Israel; e-mail: yjdori@technion.ac.il
d
Department of Science Teaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science,
Rehovot, Israel; e-mail: avi.hofstein@weizmann.ac.il
inquiry-based laboratory as a central part of the matriculation
examination. In this paper, we describe the reform process
and its influence on students’ learning of chemistry in high
schools in Israel. We describe two development and research
studies conducted in two academic institutions in
collaboration with the decision makers in the Ministry of
Education.
Israeli students are involved in programs that are aligned
with the recommendations of Tobin (1990) and of Krajcik et
al. (2001) for meaningful learning in laboratory activities,
namely, the provision of opportunities for students to ask
research questions, perform the various phases of inquiry,
reflect on their findings, clarify understanding and
misunderstanding with peers, and base their conclusions on a
range of resources.
Theoretical background: inquiry-based learning
in chemistry laboratories
The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), as
well as the 2061 project (AAAS, 1990), reaffirm the claim
that inquiry is central to the achievement of scientific literacy.
The National Science Education Standards use the term
inquiry in two ways (Lunetta, 1998; Bybee 2000):
1. Inquiry as content understanding, in which students have
opportunities to construct concepts and patterns, and to
create meaning about an idea in order to explain what they
2. Inquiry in terms of skills and abilities. In this category,
Bybee included identifying and posing scientifically
oriented questions, forming hypotheses, designing and
conducting scientific investigations, formulating and
revising scientific explanations and communicating and

218 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2010, 11, 218–228 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2010

defending scientific arguments. It is suggested that many of
these abilities and skills are in alignment with those that
characterize inquiry-based laboratory work, an activity that
places the student at the center of the learning process
(Hofstein et al., 2004; Dori et al., 2005; Hofstein and
Kesner, 2006; Dori and Sasson, 2008; Kaberman and Dori,
2009a).
Researchers claimed that learning in the laboratory might
provide a constructivist environment that fosters higher order
thinking and metacognitive skills (Kipnis and Hofstein, 2008;
Kaberman and Dori, 2009b; Hofstein and Kind, in press),
including scientific thinking and inquiry skills (Hofstein and
Lunetta, 2004). Higher order thinking activities are considered
to be complex, non-algorithmic and involving applications of
multiple criteria instead of memorizing facts (Resnick, 1987).
Published on 07 July 2010. Downloaded on 25/02/2016 12:02:23.
These activities include asking research questions, solving
authentic problems, argumentation, drawing conclusions,
making comparisons, dealing with controversies and taking a
stand (Zohar and Dori, 2003). Gunstone and Champagne
(1990) claimed that meaningful learning in the laboratory
occurs when students are given ample opportunities for
interaction and reflection in order to initiate discussion.
The science laboratory as a vehicle for the development of
chemical literacy
One of the key goals of contemporary science education is to
provide students with the opportunity to develop scientific
literacy in general and chemical literacy in particular (Shwartz
et al., 2006). Examples of chemical literacy components
include understanding the particulate nature of matter,
knowledge of chemical reactions between substances to create
new ones, the ability to use laws and theories to explain
various phenomena, and understanding the application of
chemistry knowledge to students’ personal lives and to the
society in which they live. The uniqueness of chemistry is
reflected in the strong relationship between the four levels of
chemistry understanding: macroscopic, microscopic,
symbolic, and process (Johnstone, 1991; Gabel, 1994; Dori et
al., 2003; Dori and Hameiri, 2003; Dori and Sasson, 2008;
Kaberman and Dori, 2009b). In addition, in many countries
around the world achieving scientific literacy has become a
central goal for education (Shwartz et al, 2006). The target
population of the work described in this paper is those who
will eventually be thoughtful citizens in a scientific-
technological oriented society, as well as those who will
eventually embark on a career in the sciences. They will be
required to ask critical questions and seek answers upon
which they will need to make valid decisions. Thus, the
development of students’ abilities to ask questions and pose
critical thinking is seen as an important component of their
scientific literacy.
Integrating instructional technology into inquiry-based
chemistry laboratories
As mentioned in the introduction, if designed properly, the
science laboratory has the potential to play an important role
in attaining learning skills. Hofstein and Lunetta (2004)
reviewed recent developments in which computers were
integrated into the laboratory experiences. A major challenge
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2010
View Article Online
for effective use of technology in the classroom is inadequate
professional development and growth for teachers (Dori et al.,
2002). Science educators have asked for adequate support and
development programs, which would prepare both pre-service
and in-service teachers on how to face these new challenges
(Dori et al., 2005).
One of the important applications of computers in science
classrooms is collecting and analyzing data in ways that
strengthen students’ graphing and problem solving skills
(Krajcik et al., 2001). Such activities enable representations
of both the abstract (the graph) and the concrete process (the
experiment) in real time (Adams and Shrum, 1990).
Integrating real-time graphing technology into science
teaching helps the development of deeper understanding of
science concepts by linking phenomena and their graphic
representations (Brasell, 1987; Barton, 1998; Kwon, 2002;
Dori and Sasson, 2008). Such visualizations foster conceptual
understanding of and transfer among several molecular
representations (Stratford et al, 1998; Barnea, 2000; Barnea
and Dori, 2000; Wu et al. 2001; Dori and Sasson, 2008;
Kaberman and Dori, 2009a). Computerized laboratories and
molecular modeling in schools have gained recognition as
important instruments in science education (Barnea and Dori,
1999; Kozma et al, 2000; Agapova et al., 2002). Relieving
students from data collection and processing in a
computerized environment enables them to focus on solving
problems, generating their own knowledge while employing
higher order thinking skills.
Developing students’ metacognitive skills
Tobin (1990) suggested that students should be provided in
the laboratory with opportunities to reflect on findings, clarify
understandings and misunderstandings with peers, and consult
a range of resources such as books and websites. It is
suggested that the inquiry laboratory, in addition to the
cognitive and affective variables mentioned above, if designed
properly, can provide the students with opportunities to
develop metacognitive learning skills. Metacognition refers to
higher order thinking skills that involves active control over
the learning processes. Activities such as, planning how to
approach a given learning task, monitoring comprehension,
and evaluating progress toward the completion of a task are
metacognitive in nature (Flavel, 1987).
White and Mitchell (1994) specified students’ behaviours
that are characterized as ‘good learning behaviours’ for
students who developed certain metacognitive skills. A large
part of these behaviours (and skills) are actions that constitute
an integral part of the inquiry laboratory activity, such as;
asking questions, checking work against instructions,
correcting errors and omissions, justifying opinions, seeking
reasons for aspects of current work, suggesting new activities
and alternative procedures, and planning a general strategy
before starting. Students participating in the inquiry
laboratory activities are required to evaluate the experiments
they had designed and monitor their thinking processes,
thereby developing their metacognitive skills. Baird (1990)
argued that students who experience inquiry activity attain a
desirable level of metacognition.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2010, 11, 218–228 | 219

Students’ perceptions of the learning environment in the
science laboratory
International studies have shown that students’ attitudes
towards scientific disciplines depend on the extent of their
active participation in the learning process. When teachers
show personal interest in their students and support them, and
the lesson is given with an encouraging attitude, students
choose to continue studying science (Piburn and Baker 1993;
Fraser, 1994; Simpson et al., 1994; Lee and Burkam, 1996;
Shrigley et al., 1998). Students’ positive perceptions are
related to teachers’ support, enthusiasm, innovative teaching
strategies, and the opportunity for students’ involvement
(Fraser, 1994).
Several comparative studies were conducted in Australia
and Israel in which the Science Laboratory Environment
Published on 07 July 2010. Downloaded on 25/02/2016 12:02:23.
Inventory (SLEI) developed by Fraser et al. (1993) was used
to compare various modes of learning in the science
laboratory. Inquiry/discovery type laboratories and other
open-ended and student-centered instructional techniques
revealed more positive perceptions regarding the learning
environment in science laboratories compared with a
confirmatory approach. In Israel, Hofstein et al. (2001), who
used SLEI for comparing inquiry-based approach to a
traditional, structured, ‘cook-book’ type chemistry laboratory,
found that students from the inquiry-based group perceived
the laboratory learning environment more satisfying.
Aligning theory and practice: inquiry-based
chemistry laboratory in Israel
In this section we describe a collaborative effort in which two
academic institutions together with the pedagogical authorities
(National Superintendent) in the Ministry of Education in
Israel developed and implemented a radical reform in the way
chemistry is currently taught and learned in Israel. We focus
on the development of two inquiry-oriented approaches to
students’ learning in the chemistry laboratory. One of our
goals was to reduce the amount of content taught in order to
provide enough time for the development of inquiry-based
learning and other higher order thinking skills. This is aligned
with the ‘less is more’ paradigm, advocated for in ‘Benchmark
for Science Literacy’ (AAAS, 1993, p.320) in order to guide
curriculum development and teaching. The intended message
is that formal teaching results in greater understanding when
students study a limited number of topics in depth and with
care, rather than a wide range of topics, as is the practice in
many upper-secondary school science classrooms. In the
Israeli case, the implementation of educational laboratory
activities necessitated reducing the number of compulsory
topics, providing teachers with more flexibility by allowing
them to choose a subset of the topics offered in the syllabus,
and changing the way students are assessed by applying new
assessment modes and strategies (Dori, 2003). The subject
matter has also been made more application-oriented, so
students can better understand how scientists approach
research and what ‘chemistry of the future’ might offer.
Our working hypothesis in reforming the chemistry
education in Israel was that well-designed, inquiry-based
220 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2010, 11, 218–228
View Article Online
laboratory activities can provide learning opportunities that
help student develop high-level learning skills of
investigating, posing question, constructing scientific
assertions, and justifying assertions during discourse with
peer investigators. To some extent, this process, which mimics
the way the scientific community shares knowledge and ideas,
is based on the understanding that learning is contextualized
and that learners construct knowledge by solving genuine and
meaningful problems (Brown et al., 1989).
A crucial problem regarding the implementation of the
inquiry-based laboratory approach was assessing students’
achievement and progress. Many science teachers are not used
to applying authentic assessment tools, namely, tools that are
in alignment with the skills that are developed in inquiry
laboratories. The National Science Education Standards
(NRC, 1996) recommends that all the students’ learning
experiences be assessed. Appropriate assessment
methodologies and tools need therefore to be put in place to
identify what students learn.
Discrepancies exist between what takes place in the
laboratory classroom and what is recommended for high level
science teaching. Unfortunately, many science teachers do not
utilize or manage the laboratory effectively. Hofstein and
Lunetta (2004) noted that teachers are often not well informed
about new modes of learning and their implications for
teaching. The classroom behavior of many teachers
demonstrates that their belief is still that knowledge needs to
be transmitted directly to the students and that it is to be
remembered as conveyed.
To achieve the goal of teachers acting as facilitators of
inquiry-based laboratories, teachers need to undergo
continuous, long-term professional development aimed at
enhancing their content knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge (Dori et al., 2005; Taitelbaum et al., 2008). Their
training has to include learning and assessment strategies that
are similar to those of high school learners. These
professional development experiences have the potential of
helping teachers develop their skills and confidence in
working in student-centered learning environments. This, in
turn, will hopefully lead to substantial, meaningful science
laboratory experiences and effective learning.
Israeli high school students in the 10th or 11th grade can
elect one or two science courses as their major. They can
study the science course in two optional modes: basic—three
units, or honors—five units. The five-unit chemistry
curriculum implemented in Israel is modular and consists of
three basic units and two advanced units. The student takes
the national matriculation examinations in two steps: at the
end of the three basic units course (in 11th grade), and at the
end of the two advanced units course (in 12th grade).
The curricular modifications – a historical view
Until the early 1980s, the laboratory unit in the traditional
approach included close-ended, hands-on laboratory activities,
where the students carried out pre-defined experiments, and
were examined on qualitative analytical chemistry in the
laboratory. As a result of changes in the syllabus, the
laboratory unit was replaced in the early 1990s by a topic
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2010

related to the chemical industry (Hofstein and Kesner, 2006).
This unit dealt mainly with implementation of chemical
principles in the local chemical industry, and was introduced
to develop chemical concepts in context. Other topics that
were included in the basic (three units) old syllabus were
atomic structure, the periodic table of the elements, chemical
bonds, metals, ionic and molecular compounds and their
properties, stoichiometry, energy and chemical equilibrium,
acids and bases, redox reactions, hydrocarbon compounds,
and functional groups. The two advanced units included
obligatory topics, such as thermodynamics and
electrochemical cells, as well as one industry-related topic.
The two optional topics were chosen by the teachers from the
following list: polymers, proteins, carbohydrates,
electrochemistry, and interaction between radiation and
Published on 07 July 2010. Downloaded on 25/02/2016 12:02:23.
matter. Between the 1980s and the beginning of the 21st
century, all the parts of the matriculation examination (final
examination administered centrally by the Ministry of
Education) were given as paper and pencil test without the
laboratory component.
As a result of this change, since assessing students'
achievement in the laboratory was not included in the final
examinations, the laboratory lost its centrality in the chemical
education program. What actually happened was that fewer
hours were devoted to hands-on laboratory experiences. There
was a shift to more classroom demonstrations by teachers. As
time passed, even these activities disappeared from the regular
classroom activities. The lack of laboratory activities
adversely affected students’ motivation and enjoyment of the
subject. This may be one of the reasons for the drastic drop in
the number of chemistry students during those years.
Throughout the years 1995-2001 (the year in which the
inquiry-based laboratories were introduced) the number of
students that enrolled in the more advanced chemistry
programs decreased significantly (from about 8500 students to
about 6600). In most schools the laboratories were neglected,
and principals did not provide financial resources for
laboratory development and maintenance.
Other factors that have reduced the use of laboratories in
chemistry were the safety regulations regarding the use of
toxic and dangerous reagents, and the high cost of chemicals.
In addition, the ‘race’ to master specific subject matter in
order to prepare students for the national matriculation
examination forced teachers to reduce laboratory work, so this
activity almost vanished from the chemistry lessons.
The curricular modifications – the new approach
The chemical education committee, set up by the Israeli
Ministry of Education, towards the end of the last century,
recommended that the new syllabus include a whole unit of
inquiry-based laboratory as part of the learning sequence. This
was based on a needs assessment survey that was performed
among chemistry teachers and students and on the research
findings previously cited. The reform highlighted the
laboratory unit as the central component in the new
curriculum. In addition, the syllabus of both the basic and the
advanced courses were modified to include more emphasis on
learning in context, real-world problems, fostering higher
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2010
View Article Online
order thinking skills, and less content and quantitative
chemistry. For example, a part of organic chemistry is taught
in the new curriculum via a unit titled Taste of Chemistry
(Herscovitz et al., 2007). It is an interdisciplinary unit, which
integrates basic chemical concepts and processes with
nutritional, health and social aspects.
The laboratory unit consists of 90 lessons of 45 minutes
each and is taught in 11th and 12th grades, mainly as a whole
unit. However, since the change is gradual, and requires
investment in equipment for schools, as well as professional
development programs for teachers (Dori et al., 2005) an
option of half a laboratory unit (45 lessons) exists as well.
The following are some of the unit objectives from the
laboratory manual, as defined by the chemistry program
committee:
• Recognition of chemistry principles in practice
• Demonstration and application of theoretical content
• Development of interest and curiosity while making
chemistry more relevant
• Development of inquiry skills, independent work, and
research tools
• Development of critical thinking.
The recommended laboratory activities include both guided
and open-ended experiments. The skills required for the
guided experiments are: following instructions, using
instruments, collecting and analyzing data, comparing graphs,
and writing scientific reports with conclusions. The open-
ended experiments require posing questions, raising scientific
hypotheses, planning the work, examining the assumptions,
searching for scientific background references, and drawing
conclusions. The embedded assessment of the laboratory is
continuous throughout the whole period of study – the 11th
and 12th grades of high school (Dori, 2003). A student is
assessed on his/her portfolio of laboratory reports by his/her
teacher and by either an external reviewer or a special case-
based assignment in the national matriculation examination.
The score of this oral or written examination contributes only
25% of the students' final grade while the other 75% is based
on the information (i.e. reports, reflections, teacher-based
assessment) collected continuously in a personal portfolio.
Dissemination
Parallel to the discussions at the program committee level,
two academic institutes developed units for the laboratory.
Two new approaches were developed at the beginning of the
21st century by the two institutions: an inquiry-based
laboratory by the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot,
and a case-based and computer-based inquiry laboratory by
the Technion in Haifa.
The dissemination of our new approach was founded on
three pillars. The first was the development of curriculum
standards and learning materials, which were agreed upon and
developed collaboratively by the Chemistry Supervision at the
Ministry of Education, the academic institutions, and high
school teachers. The second pillar was professional
development of teachers and the educational staff via pre- and
in-service training, and the third was integration of the
continuous assessment into internal and external exams.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2010, 11, 218–228 | 221

Table 1 Phases in an inquiry-based experiment
Phase 1: Pre-inquiry
• Describe and detail the apparatus in front of you.
• Add drops of water to the small test tube until the powder is wet. Seal the test tube immediately. • Conducting an experiment
• Observe the test tube carefully, and record all your observations in your notebook.
Phase 2: The inquiry phase of the experiment
• Ask relevant questions. Choose one question for further investigation.
• Formulate a hypothesis that is aligned with your chosen question.
• Plan an experiment to investigate the question
• Present a plan to conduct an experiment
• Ask the teacher to provide you with equipment and substances to conduct the experiment.
• Conduct the experiment that you proposed.
• Observe and note clearly your observations.
• Discuss with your group whether your hypothesis was accepted or you need to reject it.
Published on 07 July 2010. Downloaded on 25/02/2016 12:02:23.
Disseminating the changes and innovations in the
curriculum, standards, and assessment methods into the
education system is by no means trivial. It takes a few years
for these changes to be implemented in all the classes and
schools. The reform in Israel is now in its 10th year and it has
reached about 90% of the students.
The two methods that were implemented and accompanied
with intensive and comprehensive research studies are
described below: the inquiry-type experiments and the case-
based computerized laboratory.
Study 1: The open-ended inquiry-based
experiments
The development and implementation of the inquiry-based
experiments: characteristics and components
About 100 inquiry-based experiments were developed and
implemented in 11th and 12th grade chemistry classes in Israel
(for more details about the development procedure,
assessment of students’ achievement and progress, and the
professional development of the chemistry teachers, see
Hofstein et al., 2004). Almost all the experiments were
integrated into the framework of the key concepts taught in
high-school chemistry, namely: acids-bases, stoichiometry,
oxidation-reduction, bonding, energy, chemical-equilibrium
and the rates of reactions. These experiments have been
implemented in Israeli schools in chemistry laboratories in the
last decade. As previously mentioned (Hofstein et al., 2004),
under these conditions, we controlled such variables as the
professional development of teachers, the continuous
assessment of students’ progress in terms of achievement in
the laboratory and the provision of time and facilities
(materials and equipment) for conducting inquiry-based
experiments.
Typically, in the chemistry laboratory the students perform
the experiments in small groups (3-4) by following the
instructions in the laboratory manual. Table 1 indicates the
various stages that each of the groups has to complete in order
to accomplish the inquiry task. In the first phase (the pre-
inquiry phase), the students are asked to conduct the
experiment based on specific instructions. This phase is
largely ‘close-ended’; the students are asked to conduct the
222 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2010, 11, 218–228
View Article Online
Abilities and skills
• Observing and recording observations
• Asking questions and hypothesizing
• Planning an experiment
• Conducting an experiment
• Drawing conclusions
experiment based on specific instructions given in the
laboratory manual. Thus, this phase provides the students with
very limited inquiry-based experiences. The ‘inquiry phase’
(the second phase) is where the students are involved in more
‘open-ended-type’ activities, such as asking relevant
questions, hypothesizing, choosing a question for further
investigation, planning an experiment, conducting the
experiment (including observations) and finally analyzing the
findings and arriving at conclusions. It is thought that this
phase allows the students to learn and experience science with
greater understanding and to practice their metacognitive
abilities. Moreover, it provides them with the opportunity to
construct their knowledge by actually doing scientific work.
Table 1 presents the various stages that students have to
complete in typical inquiry-based experiments.
Of special interest regarding the issue of learning is part 1
of the 2nd phase (see Table 1) in which students are asked to
construct a mental model while hypothesizing about a certain
scientific phenomena. This includes:
1. Asking relevant questions regarding the phenomena that
they have observed;
2. Formulating a hypothesis that is in alignment with the
suggested questions;
3. Choosing a researchable question for further investigation;
and
4. Planning an experiment in order to investigate this
question.
Assessment tools for open-ended inquiry-based experiments
In order to assess students’ achievement and progress during
the performance of the experiments, two assessment tools
were developed (Levy Nahum 2000; Hofstein et al., 2004).
These tools are used continuously by the chemistry teachers in
their classroom laboratories. The assessment tools combine
the teams’ assessment tool – a ‘hot report’, and the teacher’s
observations of the individuals in each group. The ‘hot report’
is the group’s product and is prepared in the laboratory during
or immediately after the laboratory exercise. The development
of this assessment tool is included in the identification of
assessment criteria and a weight is assigned to each criterion.
This procedure was conducted by the first experimental
chemistry teachers who participated in the intensive
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2010

professional development workshop. The workshop was
aimed at preparing them for the implementation of the inquiry
experiments in their schools.
During the two year period, the students who opted to
specialize in high school chemistry in grades 11 and 12 (in
schools in which the inquiry-based laboratory was
implemented) conducted about 20 inquiry-based experiments.
In this way, they were involved in the following components
of the inquiry method: identifying problems, formulating
hypotheses, designing an experiment, gathering and analyzing
data and drawing conclusions about scientific problems or
science phenomena. The laboratory manual that was
developed provided the necessary control regarding what
students were required to do during the laboratory sessions.
Each group of students produced a ‘hot-report’. These reports
Published on 07 July 2010. Downloaded on 25/02/2016 12:02:23.
were analyzed regarding the questions that the students posed,
the question that was selected for further investigation, and
the experiment that was suggested to investigate the selected
question. Altogether 25 ‘hot reports’ were analyzed (obtained
from 25 small groups of students). Analysis of the group
reports revealed that through conducting inquiry-based
experiments students improved their ability to ask relevant
(quantitative-type) questions, to hypothesize in the context of
laboratory investigations, to select a research question for
further investigations, and to plan an experiment to accept or
reject the suggested hypothesis. The inquiry laboratory and its
related activities were researched intensively over a period of
almost 10 years. For example: the research that focused on the
students’ ability to ask more and better questions while
conducting inquiry experiment (Hofstein et al., 2005), the
research that assessed students’ perceptions of their classroom
laboratory learning environment (Hofstein et al., 2001), and
the one that aimed at investigating the inquiry activities as a
learning strategy for the development of metacognitive skills
(Kipnis and Hofstein, 2008). Based on these studies we
concluded that the inquiry laboratory is an effective
instructional technique to enhance students’ important
learning skills and motivation method.
Study 2: The case-based computerized laboratory
The development and implementation of the inquiry-based
experiments: characteristics and components
The case-based computerized laboratory (CCL) chemistry
study unit was developed at the Technion. It was designed for
11th or 12th honors chemistry students with embedded
assessment in mind (Dori, 2003). The CCL curriculum,
developed within the framework of reforming the Israeli
honors chemistry curriculum, integrates computerized desktop
experiments with emphasis on scientific inquiry and case
studies (Dori et al., 2004). Case-based computerized
experiments expose students to advanced laboratory methods
and a variety of data representations. The students were
required to read authentic problems, carry out inquiry-based
laboratory experiments, process data collected by sensors, and
then interpret the resulting graphs that appeared on their
desktop computer screens.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2010
View Article Online
One central component in the CCL environment was the
use of case studies, followed by a question posing task. Each
of the five laboratory parts (e.g., bonding, energy, acid-base)
began with a case study introducing chemical phenomena
from daily life related to the inquiry laboratory that the
students were about to experience. The laboratory activities
included data collection using temperature, pH, and
conductivity sensors, graphs construction in real time, and
interpretation of the results. The last segment of each part
included another case study which dealt with a different
aspect of the subject matter under study.
The organic chemistry part of the unit was taught in a
computerized molecular modeling (CMM) environment,
where students could investigate daily-life organic molecules
using two CMM software packages downloaded from the
Internet. Students were able to construct the molecules by
determining the kinds of atoms and their numbers, as well as
the covalent bonds between them (single, double or triple).
The molecule is built according to the bonding rules. At the
end of the construction process, the students get a two-
dimensional structure of the molecule, and they can view the
molecule while constructing it in various 3D representation
modes. The software enables the transfer of the 3D drawing
between three molecular representation modes: line, ball-and-
stick, and space-filling (Kaberman and Dori, 2009a).
An important goal underlying the CCL environment was
the development of higher order thinking skills, such as,
posing questions, inquiry, graphing, and molecular modeling.
Table 2 presents examples of CCL assignments (Kaberman
and Dori, 2009a) based on a case study that describes isoprene
emission to the air.
Assessment tools in the CCL environment
New modes of assessment were applied in the CCL unit.
These included students’ laboratory portfolios and pre- and
post-test questionnaires targeted at assessing the students’
thinking skills rather than testing for knowledge alone.
The questionnaires included a case study related to a
chemical story and a variety of assignments for investigating
various thinking skills, notably, question posing, inquiry, and
modeling skills. Throughout the course, the students compiled
portfolios that were continuously assessed. Upon completing
the unit, groups of 2-3 students carried out an independent
(PBS type) inquiry project, in which they raised an inquiry
question in chemistry, formulated a hypothesis, designed and
conducted a computerized, sensor-based experiment, analyzed
its results, and drew conclusions that were related to their
hypothesis. At the end of the course, the students also took the
national case-based test, which included posing their own
questions about the case study they read, as well as modeling
and graphing skills’ assignments (Dori and Sasson, 2008;
Kaberman and Dori 2009b).
The research focused on investigating students’ question
posing, inquiry, graphing, and modeling skills as expressed in
the questionnaires, and later, in a national case-based test. The
research population consisted of about 600 12th grade honors
chemistry students who responded to the case-based
questionnaires.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2010, 11, 218–228 | 223
 View Article Online

Table 2 Examples of assignments for question posing and inquiry thinking skills

Examined thinking skill Assignment

Question posing Pose two questions to which you did not get a direct answer in the case study.
Inquiry An experiment that examined isoprene emission to the air focused on the connection between the emission rate of isoprene
and parameters of the leaves from which it is emitted. The inquired parameters were: intensity of light radiated on the leaf,
leaf temperature, and leaf humidity.
Examining isoprene emission rate as a function of the intensity of light radiated on the leaf (based on photon flow), the
graphs below were obtained.

Rate of Rate of
Isoprene emission emission
Isoprene emission
emission
(molecules to the air (molecules to the air
per second) per second)
Published on 07 July 2010. Downloaded on 25/02/2016 12:02:23.

Photon flow (particles per second) Photon flow (particles per second)

Experiment 1 Experiment 2

Scientists carried out experiments 1 and 2 in order to examine the influence of a certain factor on the dependent variable.
1. Write down the scientists’ goal in carrying out the experiments by formulating a research question.
2. What are the independent and depended variables?
3. What are the control variables? Why were they left constant?
4. What was the scientists’ conclusion in your opinion?

We found significant improvement in students’
performance at all the thinking skills, posing questions,
inquiry, graphing and modelling skills (Dori and Sasson,
2008; Kaberman and Dori, 2009a). We also found that the
CCL contributed to chemical understanding by giving
explanations at the four levels: symbolic, macroscopic,
microscopic and process, as identified previously by Dori and
Hameiri (2003).
Teachers’ attitudes toward implementation of case-based
computerized laboratory curriculum
The research objectives were to identify the chemistry
teachers’ beliefs and concerns regarding the implementation
of the CCL curriculum, including their reasons for accepting
or rejecting the integration of technology and inquiry- and
computer-based approach into chemistry teaching (Dori et al.,
2005; Carmi and Dori, 2006). The CCL curriculum has been
implemented in yearly cycles since 2001. Each cycle
consisted of a four-day summer workshop followed by five
one-day workshops, which took place bimonthly during the
academic year. The objective of the summer workshop was to
expose the chemistry teachers to the new curriculum, and the
objective of the one-day workshops was to provide continuous
support to the teachers during the CCL curriculum
implementation. Only teachers who voluntarily elected to
practise the new curriculum in their classes took part in these
one-day workshops.
Analysis of teachers’ interviews (Table 3) has shown that
teachers had positive attitudes toward performing inquiry
experiments and incorporating technology into the laboratory
environment. Among the most important reasons teachers
noted in favor of adopting the CCL curriculum were making
chemistry appealing and demonstrating up-to-date chemistry
in action.
Despite recognizing that the CCL environment can
contribute to their students’ understanding, and provide them
with a sense of scientific work, the chemistry teachers initially
did not feel very confident to integrate computer applications
into their chemistry teaching. At the end of the program,
teachers indicated that the technological aspects of the new
curriculum were a source of both frustration and satisfaction.
At the end of each summer workshop, about half of the
teachers were willing to implement the CCL curriculum, but
only one third managed to receive the appropriate funding
with the help of the Ministry of Education for the required
equipment. Others managed to receive the funding and started
the implementation in a later year.
Bilingual learning in the CCL environment
About 40% of the Israeli chemistry high school students are
Arabs. Integrating CCL into the Arab sector in Israel is
somewhat problematic, as it requires Arab students to read
and comprehend Hebrew, which for them is a second
language. To overcome this problem, a new teaching method
of partial immersion via gradual translation into Arabic was
developed (Abed, 2008). While Arabic has continued to be the
language for social interaction among students, as time went
by, the use of Hebrew for interaction between the teacher and
the students during class increased to about half of the class
time. Difficult concepts and activities were fully explained

224 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2010, 11, 218–228 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2010
 View Article Online

Table 3 Teachers’ attitudes toward the CCL curriculum implementation

Category Characteristics Examples

Reasons for not engaging in the • Teachers need to purchase technical equipment. “During this year I want to practise and prepare the
new curriculum • Teachers need extra exposure and practice with the material. I might engage in implementing the curriculum
new computerized environment. during the next year.”

Teachers’ beliefs prior to the • Positive beliefs regarding integrating students’ “There is no question that experiments and laboratories
program implementation hands-on activities and inquiry approach in high increase students’ motivation and enjoyment during
school chemistry lessons. chemistry classes.”

Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes
prior to the program
implementation regarding
technological issues
Published on 07 July 2010. Downloaded on 25/02/2016 12:02:23.
• Teachers did not perceive themselves as being “I do not perceive myself as an expert on computer
knowledgeable about and confident to integrate applications. I am familiar with some useful programs and
computer applications in their instruction. I browse the Web regularly.”
• Teachers expressed interest in integrating computer “Most students love computers. If we can integrate
applications into their chemistry classes. computers with chemistry we’ll surely benefit from this.”
• Teachers were concerned that they were going to “I anticipate some technical difficulties, which will need

face some difficulties regarding technological extra time of lab preparation.”

issues.
• The technological aspects of the new curriculum “Theoretically, integrating technology into chemistry
were a source of both frustration and satisfaction teaching is an excellent strategy and we must continue to
Teachers’ concerns during
for teachers and students. do it. Practically, it takes a lot of time at the beginning and
implementation
can cause difficulties and frustration. Eventually, students
• Teachers expressed their willingness to continue enjoyed the Web-based modelling very much”.

using both Arabic and Hebrew by the teacher, who switched
freely between the two languages.
Arab students, who experienced a partial second language
immersion while studying the CCL module, were in favor of
the bilingual education (Abed and Dori, 2007). They indicated
that bilingual learning with gradual translation from Arabic to
Hebrew is useful and beneficial as it helps them in their daily
lives and in preparation for their higher education. The
research has shown that partial translation of scientific
learning materials is effective in promoting students’ question
posing and inquiry skills and attenuating their resistance to
the introduction of learning materials written only in Hebrew.
Students’ perceptions of the chemistry laboratory
learning environment
For the purpose of assessing the students’ perceptions of the
chemistry laboratory learning environment, Hofstein et al.,
(2001) used the Hebrew version of the Science Laboratory
Environment Inventory (SLEI). The actual and preferred
versions of ‘SLEI’ were administered to the inquiry and the
control groups. The SLEI consists of 72 items in 8 scales:
student cohesiveness, teacher supportiveness, involvement,
open-endedness, integration, rule clarity, physical
environment, and laboratory organization. The differences in
the perceptions were compared using various variant and
multivariate statistical methods. In addition, students and
chemistry teachers underwent oral interviews regarding their
perceptions of the chemistry laboratory classroom learning
environment.
The inquiry group students perceived the classroom
learning environment as more open-ended, more satisfying,
more student-centered, and more difficult than did the
‘confirmatory-type’ group. This is again a clear indication of
a high level of students’ satisfaction and positive attitudes
towards the inquiry approach in which they were involved.
The SLEI questionnaire was also translated into Arabic.
Three comparisons were conducted in three types of
laboratory environments: (a) Open-ended inquiry-based, (b)
Case-based computerized and (c) Traditional close-ended-type
laboratory (Marjieh, 2007).
The SLEI was tested among 12th grade chemistry honors
students—129 students who studied in the inquiry-based
laboratory environment in the Jewish sector, 159 students who
studied in the CCL learning environment from the Jewish
sector, and 224 CCL students from the Arab sector. Another
comparison group consisted of 176 students who studied in
the traditional, close-ended laboratory environment in the
Arab sector. The research objectives were to investigate
students’ perceptions of the learning environment in the
various laboratory modes, and to characterize cultural and
gender differences. The research instruments included two
SLEI—Science Laboratory Environment Inventory—
questionnaires at actual and preferred situations. Analysis of
the students’ perception of the CCL learning environment
showed that the students in the Jewish sector perceived the
learning environment in the laboratory more positively than
did the students in the Arab sector in the categories of student
cohesiveness and physical environment in both actual and
preferred situations. Arab students in the CCL group
perceived the environment more positively than the CCL
Jewish students in the categories of integration, clarity of
rules, involvement, open-endedness, and views about the
laboratory in the actual and preferred situation. The students
in the Arab sector who were involved in the CCL program
perceived the classroom laboratory learning environment
more positively than did the group who were involved in a
more close-ended, mainly confirmatory type laboratory
activities. More specifically, they found the classroom

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2010 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2010, 11, 218–228 | 225

Table 4 The number of students who took the chemistry national matriculation examinations sorted by study units (credit points) between the years 2001
and 2008
No. of Three units*
Units basic course
Year Total No Laboratory
2001 6616 3806
2002 7166 3390
2003 7480 3032
2004 7320 2910
2005 8104 2637
2006 8593 2236
2007 9154 1763
2008 10008 953
Total 64441 20727
Published on 07 July 2010. Downloaded on 25/02/2016 12:02:23.
laboratory learning environment more satisfying, more
integrated in the subject matter taught, and more student
centered. CCL students viewed more positively the category
of rule-clarity in both actual and preferred situations and the
teacher support and laboratory attitudes only in the actual
situation. Their peers from the inquiry-based group viewed
more favorably the categories of students’ cohesiveness and
open-endedness in both actual and preferred situations.
Students in the Jewish sector perceived the laboratory as
highly satisfactory in both the open-ended and case-based
inquiry laboratory approaches. In the Arab sector, students
viewed the laboratory of both the case-based computerized
and the close-ended (traditional) types positively and did not
have expectations for improvement of the learning
environment.
Another comparative study on students’ perceptions
regarding the classroom laboratory learning environment
(using the SLEI) was conducted by Dekiedek et al (2009). In
this study they compared the perceptions of 11th and 12th
grade chemistry students in the Arab and Jewish educational
sectors. The findings have shown clear satisfaction regarding
the program; however, Arab students found their classroom
laboratories less student-centered (more teacher-centered)
than did their Jewish counterparts.
The laboratory units have been implemented gradually
since 2001 and this was when the number of students studying
chemistry as their major science course was at its lowest
point. As of 2009, out of the 350 high schools that have
honors chemistry classes, about 300 are involved in the two
inquiry-based laboratory projects.
Table 4 shows that there is a significant increase in the
number of student opted to enroll in both the 3 and 5 units of
chemistry. We assume that this is a result of the significant
increase in the number of students who were involved in the
two approaches to inquiry learning described above.
Discussion and summary
Since the early 1950s, Israeli high schools have been
accustomed to preparing their students to pass the national
matriculation examinations. Therefore, at least until the last
decade, emphasis was put on ‘teaching for the final
examination’ rather than trying to develop various learning
strategies and their associated assessment modes (Dori, 2003).
226 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2010, 11, 218–228
View Article Online
Additional two units track – honors students
Half Laboratory Unit One Laboratory Unit Additional 2 units* Total
1653 5459
1885 333 5608
1694 1073 5818
1694 1676 6300
2340 1784 6757
2324 2170 6753
2467 2798 7023
1808 4001 6762
15865 13835 43727
At the beginning of this decade, the chemistry curriculum has
been re-examined, scrutinized, and revised. The syllabus for
advanced chemistry course was revised by a program
committee which placed great emphasis on laboratory work.
This was based on a needs survey that had been carried out
among teachers and students and on research findings
reviewed in this paper. This process highlighted the laboratory
unit as a central and important component in the new
curriculum. The laboratory in Israel was declared as a unique
mode of teaching and learning as well as a unique mode of
assessment.
During recent years, the chemistry laboratory has become
an important ingredient of the matriculation examinations,
although it’s still not compulsory (Barnea, 2003, 2004). In
addition, these laboratory approaches and its related skills and
activities constitute a central part of both the teaching and
assessment processes in chemistry courses in the high school
system in Israel.
Based on our research findings in the two projects it is clear
that chemistry students in Israel who participated in these
programs obtained unique opportunities to be involved in a
worthwhile learning process in the laboratory. Introducing
open-ended inquiry-based experiments laboratories and the
case-based computerized laboratories into the chemistry
curriculum in Israel was a ‘breath of fresh air’ in the way
chemistry is taught and learned, in the way students are
assessed, and in our attempt to improve teachers’ professional
development. The alternative assessment method employed by
teachers in both approaches increases students’ motivation
and enables them to improve their cognitive achievements and
skills through the period of practice.
The CCL study unit offers an innovative approach with the
technological and scientific environment that enables students
to practice new teaching and learning methods. Although, the
CCL study unit is a structured program, it offers chemistry
teachers flexibility and variety in their implementation, since
they can choose which experiments or case studies they will
use in their classes, thus sustain teachers’ professional
development .
The best way to introduce laboratory skills to students (and
this was the case described in this paper) is by integrating all
the methods, thus letting students experience the advantages
and capabilities of each. We think that the development of the
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2010

laboratory unit will help high-school chemistry become more
appealing to students both as a relevant, challenging unit, and
as an enjoyable way to obtain their matriculation
examinations’ grade.
The inquiry laboratory emphasizes the scientific method
and establishes the basis for inquiry and alternative
assessment. The computerized lab implements progressive
technological instruments and highlights molecular modeling
and integrating graphs when analyzing results.
Two inquiry-based laboratory approaches have been
implemented gradually during the last decade. As of 2010,
over 300 out of 350 high schools include the laboratory unit in
their curriculum. We found that there was more enthusiasm
and interest among students and teachers alike, and students’
inquiry skills and scientific understanding improved
Published on 07 July 2010. Downloaded on 25/02/2016 12:02:23.
significantly. This national reform has been successful thanks
to the close collaboration between curriculum developers in
academia and decision makers who have been working hand-
in-hand to achieve the goal of improving the chemistry
learning experience of high school students in Israel.
References
Abed A., (2008), Ph.D. Dissertation, Bilingual learning culture in
computerized chemistry learning environment, Technion, Department
of Education in Technology and Science (In Hebrew with Abstract in
English).
Abed A and Dori Y. J., (2007), Fostering question posing and inquiry
skills of high school Israeli Arab students in a bilingual chemistry
learning environment, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST
CD), New Orleans, LA, USA.
Adams D. and Shrum J., (1990), The effect of microcomputer based
laboratory exercises on the acquisition of line graph construction and
interpretation skills by high school biology students, J. Res. Sci.
Teach., 27, 777-787.
Agapova O. I., Jones L. L., Ushakov A. S., Ratcliffe A. E. and Varanka
Martin, M.A., (2002), Encouraging independent chemistry learning
through multimedia design experience, Chem. Educ. Int., 3(1), AN-8.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), (1990),
Science for all Americans, Project 2061, New York: Oxford
University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science –AAAS, (1993),
Benchmarks for science literacy, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Baird J. R., (1990), Metacognition, purposeful enquiry and conceptual
change, in E. Hegarty-Hazel (ed), The student laboratory and the
science curriculum, London: Routledge, pp.183-200.
Barnea N., (2000), Teaching and learning about chemistry and modeling
with computer managed modeling system in J. K. Gilbert and C. J.
Boutler, eds, Exploring models in science education,
Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishing, pp.307-
323.
Barnea N., (2003), Bringing chemistry back to the laboratory, Alchemy-
Bulletin for Chemistry Teachers, Dec. 4, 4-10 (in Hebrew).
Barnea N., (2004), Towards the new chemistry curriculum in high-
schools. Alchemy- Bulletin for Chemistry Teachers, Dec. 5, 3-4 (in
Hebrew).
Barnea N. and Dori, Y. J., (1999), High-school chemistry students’
performance and gender differences in a computerized molecular
modeling learning environment, J. Sci. Educ. Tech., 8, 257-271.
Barnea N. and Dori Y. J., (2000), Computerized molecular modeling –
the new technology for enhancing model perception among chemistry
educators and learners, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract, 1, 109-120.
Barton R., (1998), Why do we ask pupils to plot graphs?, Phys. Educ., 33,
366-367.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2010
View Article Online
Brasell H., (1987), The effect of real time laboratory graphing on learning
graphic representation of distance and velocity, J. Res. Sci. Teach.,
24, 385-395.
Brown J. S., Collins, A. and Duguit, P., (1989), Situated cognition and the
culture of learning, Educ. Res, 18, 32–41.
Bybee R. W., (2000), in J. Minstrel and E. H. Van-Zee, eds, Inquiring
into inquiry learning and teaching in science, Washington DC;
AAAS.
Carmi M. and Dori Y. J., (2006), Pedagogical content knowledge and
concerns of chemistry teachers implementing a case-based
computerized laboratory, Paper presented at the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco.
Dkeidek I., Mamlok-Naaman R. and Hofstein A., (2009), Inquiring the
inquiry laboratory in Arab schools in Israel, A paper presented at the
ESERA Conference , Istanbul, Turkey.
Dori Y. J., (2003), From nationwide standardized testing to school-based
alternative embedded assessment in Israel: students ’performance in
the“ matriculation 2000 ”project, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40, 34-52.
Dori Y. J., Barak M. and Adir N., (2003), A Web-based chemistry course
as a means to foster freshmen learning, J. Chem. Educ., 80, 1084-
1092.
Dori Y. J., Barak. M., Herscovitz O. and Carmi M., (2005), Preparing
pre- and in-service teachers to teach high school science with
technology. C. Vrasidas and G. V. Glass., eds, Preparing teachers to
teach with technology, 2nd Volume of the book series: Current
Perspectives on Applied Information Technologies. Information Age
Publishing.
Dori Y. J. and Hameiri M., (2003), Multidimensional analysis system for
quantitative chemistry problems-symbol, macro, micro and process
aspects, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40, 278-302.
Dori Y. J. and Sasson I., (2008), Chemical understanding and graphing
skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory
environment: the value of bidirectional visual and textual
representations, J. Res. Sci. Teach, 45, 219-250.
Dori Y. J., Sasson I., Kaberman Z. and Herscovitz O., (2004), Integrating
case-based computerized laboratories into high school chemistry,
Chem. Educ., 9, 4-8.
Dori Y. J., Tal R. and Peled Y., (2002), Characteristics of science teachers
who incorporate web-based teaching, Res. Sci. Educ., 32, 511–547.
Flavell J. H., (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of
metacognition, in F. E. Weiner & R. H. Kluwe eds., Metacognition,
motivation, and understanding, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.
21–29.
Fraser B., (1994), Research on classroom and school climate, in D.L.
Gabel, ed., Handbook of research on science teaching and learning,
New York: National Science Teacher Association, pp. 493-541.
Fraser B., McRobbie C. J. and Giddings G. J., (1993), Development and
cross-national validation of a laboratory classroom instrument for
senior high school students, Sci. Educ, 77, 1-24.
Gabel D. L., (1994), ed, Handbook of research on science teaching and
learning, New York: Macmillan.
Gunstone R. F. and Champagne A. B., (1990), Promoting conceptual
change in the laboratory, in E. Hegarty-Hazel, ed., The student
laboratory and the science curriculum, London: Routledge.
Herscovitz O., Kaberman Z. and Dori Y. J., (2007), Taste of chemistry,
Holon, Israel: Yessod Publishing House (in Hebrew).
Hodson D., (1990), A critical look at practical working school science.
Sch. Sci. Rev, 70 (256), 33-40.
Hofstein A. and Kesner M., (2006), Industrial chemistry and school
chemistry: making chemistry studies more relevant, Int. J. Sci. Educ.,
28, 1017-1039.
Hofstein A. and Kind P., (in press), Learning in and from science
laboratories, in: K. Tobin, B. Fraser. and C, McRobby, eds, Second
international handbook of science education, Springer.
Hofstein A., Levy Nahum T. and Shore R., (2001), Assessment of the
learning environment of inquiry type laboratories in high-school
chemistry. Learn. Env. Res., 4, 193-207.
Hofstein A. and Lunetta V. N., (1982), The role of laboratory in science
teaching: neglected aspects of research, Rev. Educ. Res., 52, 201-217.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2010, 11, 218–228 | 227

Hofstein A. and Lunetta V. N., (2004), The laboratory in science
education: foundations for the twenty-first century, Sci. Educ., 88,
28-54.
Hofstein A., Navon O., Kipnis M. and Mamlok-Naaman R., (2005),
Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions
resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories, J. Res. Sci.
Teach., 42, 791-806.
Hofstein A., Shore R. and Kipnis M., (2004), Providing high school
chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an
inquiry-based laboratory: a case study, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 26, 47-62.
Hofstein A. and Walberg H. J., (1995), Instructional strategies, in B. J.
Fraser and H. J., eds, Improving science education, The National
Society for The Study of Education, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 70-89.
Johnstone A. H., (1991), Why is science difficult to learn? Things are
seldom what they seem, J. Comp. Ass. Learn., 7, 75-83.
Kaberman Z. and Dori Y. J., (2009a), Question posing, inquiry, and
modeling skills of high school chemistry students in the case-based
computerized laboratory environment, Int. J. Math. Educ., 7, 597-
Published on 07 July 2010. Downloaded on 25/02/2016 12:02:23.
625.
Kaberman Z. and Dori Y. J., (2009b), Metacognition in chemical
education: question posing in the case-based computerized learning
environment, Inst. Sci., 37, 403-436.
Kipnis M. and Hofstein A., (2008), The inquiry laboratory as a source for
development of metacognitive skill, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 6, 601-
627.
Kozma R., Chin E., Russel J. and Marx, N., (2000), The roles of
representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their
implications for chemistry learning, J. Learn. Sci., 9(3), 105-144.
Krajcik J., Mamlok R. and Hug B., (2001). Learning science through
inquiry, in L. Corno, ed, Education across a century: the centennial
volume, The NSSE Yearbook, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Kwon O. N., (2002), The effect of calculator based ranger activities on
students’ graphing ability, Sch. Sci. Math., 102 (6), 57-67.
Lazarowitz R. and Tamir P., (1994), Research on using laboratory
instruction in science, in Gabel D. L., Handbook of research on
science teaching, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, pp.
94-127.
Lee V. E. and Burkam D. T., (1996), Gender differences in middle grade
science achievement: subject, domain, ability level, and course
emphasis, Sci. Educ., 80, 613-650.
Levy Nahum T., (2000). The development of tools for assessing students’
performance in inquiry-based experiments in the context of the high
school chemistry laboratory, Rehovot, Israel: The Weizmann Institute
of Science, M.Sc. dissertation. (In Hebrew).
228 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2010, 11, 218–228
View Article Online
Lunetta V. N., (1998), The school science laboratory: historical
perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching, in J. B. Fraser
and K. G. Tobin, eds, International handbook of science education,
Part One, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 249-262.
Marjieh C., (2007), Master Thesis, Assessing the learning environment of
computerized case-based laboratory of high school chemistry
students, Technion, Haifa, Israel (In Hebrew with Abstract in
English).
National Research Council, (1996), National Science Education
Standards, Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Piburn M. D. and Baker D. R., (1993), If I were the teacher: qualitative
study of attitude toward science, Sci. Educ, 77, 393-406.
Resnick L., (1987), Education and learning to think, Washington D.C:
National Academy Press.
Shrigley R. I., Koballa T. R. and Simpson R. D., (1988), Defining attitude
for science educators, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 25, 659-678.
Simpson R. D., Koballa T. R., Oliver J. S. and Crawley F. E., (1994),
Research on the affective dimension of science learning, in D.L.
Gabel, ed., Handbook of research on science teaching and learning,
New York: National Science Teacher Association, pp. 221-234.
Stratford S. J., Krajcik J. and Soloway E., (1998), Secondary students'
dynamic modeling processes: analyzing, reasoning about,
synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems, J. Sci. Educ.
Tech., 7, 215-234.
Shwartz Y., Ben-Zvi R. and Hofstein A., (2006). The use of scientific
literacy taxonomy for assessing the development of chemical literacy
among high-school students, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 7, 203-225
Taitelbaum D., Carmeli M., Mamlok-Naaman R. and Hofstein A., (2008),
Int. J. Sci. Educ., 30, 593-617.
Tobin K., (1990), Research on science laboratory activities: in pursuit of
better questions and answers to improve learning, Sch. Sci. Math., 90,
403-418.
Tomorrow 98, (1992), Report to the Ministry of Education on reform in
science education, Jerusalem: Ministry of Education (English
Version)
White R. T. and Mitchell I. J., (1994), Metacognition and the quality of
learning, Stud. Sci. Educ., 23, 21-37.
Wu H., Krajcik J. S. and Soloway E., (2001), Promoting understanding of
chemical representations: students’ use of visualization tool in the
classroom, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 38, 821-842.
Zohar A. and Dori, Y. J., (2003), Higher order thinking skills and low
achieving students: are they mutually exclusive? J. Learn. Sci., 12,
145-182.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2010