Main Article Content



This study focused on integration and implementation of generic components such as pedagogy, forms of laboratory, physics contents, processes skills, and nature of science in physics laboratories of college of teachers education. The study developed an alternative model of learning that guides selection and integration of generic components. In addition, guided discovery modified into three alternative approaches. Moreover, alternative approach used to select and derive covariates and dependent variables in physics laboratory work. The objective of the study was to analyze associations of independent, some selected covariates, and dependent variables with each other. The study employed tandem design phase III with quasi-experimental approach. Association study used to explore the relationship of variables. Convenience, purposive, and random samplings used to select study subjects. Due to implementation of some selected models of learning, and alternative integration of generic components in physics laboratory the association study of variables indicates that, the effect of procedural knowledge and academic performances had more direct on conceptual knowledge. In addition,    using different pedagogies, conceptual knowledge, and academic performance had direct effect on procedural knowledge. Likewise, the effect of procedural knowledge and practicing process skills in physics laboratory   had direct effect on motivation. Generally the study explores, an alternative approach of integrating          generic components used in physics laboratory session produced unique association among  independent, covariates, and depended variables with each other. Thus, when developing science/physics laboratory sessions, integration of generic components and association of students’ learning outcomes and motivation needs consideration.

Academic performance, conceptual knowledge, forms of laboratory orientation, motivation, procedural knowledge, pedagogies, practicing of process skills, views of nature of science and process skills (NOS and PS)

Article Details

How to Cite
Original Research Article


McDermott LC. Improving the teaching of science through discipline-based education research: An example from physics. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2013;1(1):1.

Badri Yadav, Shri Krishna Mishra. A study of the impact of laboratory approach on achievement and process skills in science among is standard students. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2013;3(1).
ISSN: 2250-3153.

Baloyi VM, Meyer WE, Gaigher E. Influence of guided inquiry based Laboratory activities on outcomes achieved first year physics. Proceedings of SAIP2015. Department of Physics, University of Pretoria, Private bag X20, Hatfield, Pretoria, South Africa, 0028 and Department of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, University of Pretoria, Private bag X20, Hatfield, Pretoria, South Africa, 0028. SA Institute of Physics; 2017.
ISBN: 978-0-620-70714-5, 392.

Ramarian U. Understanding the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on inquiry-based science education at townships schools in South Africa. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2016;53(4):598-619.

Tolessa M. Dabaa, Muhammed S. Anbesaw. Factors affecting implementation of practical activities in science education in some selected secondary and preparatory schools of Afar Region, North East Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental & Science Education. 2016; 11(12):5438-5452.

Herron Marshall D. The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review. 1971;79(2):171–212.

Rezba, Richard J, Teresa Auldridge, Laura Rhea. Teaching and learning the basic science skills. Richmond, VA: Dept. of Education, Office of Elementary and Middle School Instructional Services,. VHS; 1998.

Hofstein A, Lunetta VN. The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects, of research. Review of Educational Research. 1982;52(2):201–217.

Shimeles A. Content analysis of undergraduate physics laboratory manuals. Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Published by Arrival Books international (P) Ltd. Network for Staff and Educational Development; 2010.

Ministry of Education, Education Strategy Center (ESC). Ethiopian Education Development Roadmap (2018-30). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2018.

Andinet Nigussie, Said Mohammed, Endris Yimam, Worku Wolde, Negasi Akalu, Abubekir Seid, Genene Shiferaw, Tesfaye Teka1and Solomon Mulaw. Commenting on effective laboratory teaching in selected preparatory schools, North ShewaZone, Ethiopia. Journal of Educational Research and Reviews. 2018;13(14):543-550, 23.

Blanchard MR, Annetta LA, Southerland SA. Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning verses traditional science teaching methods in middle school and high school laboratory setting. Paper presented at annual conference of the national association of research in science teaching, Baltimore, MA; 2008.

Hodson D. Is this really what scientists do? Seeking a more authentic science in and beyond the, school laboratory. In: J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now?. London: Routledge. 2002;93-108.

Sudarmani, Rosana, Pujianto. Lesson Learned: Improving Students’ Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge through Physics Instruction with Media of Wave, Sound, and Light. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2018;1097 012033.

Banchi H, Bell R. The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children. 2008;46(2):26-29.

Chuk, Chidubem. Effect of laboratory instructional methods on students’ attitudes in some chemistry concepts at senior secondary school level. Global Scientific Journals. 2018; 6(7):46-49

National Research Council. Three(3) Laboratory Experiences and Student Learning America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies; 2006.

Aktami H, Yenice N. Determination of the science process skills and critical thinking skill levels. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2010;2(2):3282-3288. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2(2)3282–3288.

Millar R. The role of practical work teaching and learning of science. Paper prepared for committee. High schools laboratories role and visions nation science academy, Washington DC, York; University of York; 2004.

Minster of Education of Ethiopia. Educational policy and strategies. Addis Ababa Ethiopia; 1994.

Tesfaye Semela. Who is joining physics and why? Factors influencing the choice of physics among Ethiopian university students. Journal of Environmental & Science Education. 2010; 5(3):319-340.

Macbried DW, Bhatti ML, Hanan MA, Feinberge M. Using and inquiry approach to teach science to secondary science teachers teach. Physics Education. 2004;39(5): 434-439.

Shewart RS, Leaderman RG. It’s the nature of Beats. The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2002;39(3):205-236.

Haderson D. Rethinking old ways towards a more critical approaches to practical works in school science. Studies in Science Education. 1993;22(1):85-122.

Aweke Shishigu, Eyasu Gemechu, Kassa Michael, Mulugeta Atnafu, Yenealem Ayalew. Policy debate in Ethiopian teacher education: Retrospection future direction. International Journal of Progressive Education. 2017;13(3).

Mekbib Per Kind, Mesfine Tadesse, Mulegeta Atnafu, Kassa Michael. Challenges of science teacher education in low-income nation-the case of Ethiopia. In Flyasion, O. E., E., Erduran, S., Childs, P. (Eds) Electronic proceeding of the ESERA 2017 conference. Research, practice and collaboration in science education. Strand-13.Co-editor: Maria Evagoru & Marisa Michelini. Dublin, Irland: Dublin City University; 2018.
ISBN: 987-1-873769-84-3.

Solomon Areaya. Policy formulation, curriculum development and implementation in Ethiopia. The Book center Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa; 2008.

Oli Negassa. Ethiopian students' achievement challenges in science Education: implications to policy formulation. Adama Science and Technology University, Ethiopia. AJCE. 2014; 4(1).
ISSN: 2227-5835.

Leung ACK, Hashemi Pour B, Reynolds D, Jerzak S. New assessment process in an introductory undergraduate physics laboratory: An Exploration on Collaborative Learning. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education. 2017;42(2):169–181.

Nbina JB. The relative effectiveness of guided discovery and demonstration teaching methods on achievement of chemistry students of different levels of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Education and Society. 2013;4( 1).

Bell RL. Teaching the nature of science through process skills. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc; 2008.

Holmes NG, Olsen J, Thomas JL, Weiman CE. Value added or misattributed? A multi-institution study on the educational benefit of labs for reinforcing physics content. Physical Review Physics Education Research. 2017;13.

Winning CJ. Levels of inquiry. Hierarchs of pedagogical practices and inquiry process. Journal of Physics Teacher Education. 2005a; 2(3):3-11.

Wenning CJ. Experimental inquiry in introductory physics courses. Journal of Physics Teacher Education. 2011;6(2):2-8.

Parreira P, Yao E. Experimental design laboratories in introductory physics courses: Enhancing cognitive tasks and deep conceptual learning. Physics Education. 2018;53(5).

Kalman CS, Lattery M, Sobhanzadeh M. Impact of reflective writing and laboratories on student understanding of force and motion in introductory physics. Creative Education. 2018;9:575–596.

Arya Wulandari, Cholis Sa'dijah, Abdur Rahman As'ari, Swasono Rahardjo. Modified guided discovery model: A conceptual framework for designing learning model using guided discovery to promote student’s analytical thinking skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2018;1028(1).
Article id: 012153.

Clough MP. Teaching the nature of science of secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tents, the panteneto Forum, issue 25.
Available: 25 front 25 html. January. Republished 2008, California. Journal of Science Education. 2007;8(2):31-40.

Clough MP, Oslon JK. Teaching and assessing the nature of science: An introduction. Science Education. 2008;17(2):143-145.

Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 1977a;8(4):191– 215.

Bush G. Learning about learning: from theories to trends. Teacher Librarian. 2006;34(2):14- 19.

Golberg F, Otero V, Robission S. Designing principles for effective physics instruction. A case study from physics and everyday thinking. American Journal of Physics. 2010;8(12):1265-1277

Leve J, Winger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, Cambridge University Press; 1991.

Loynes SMM, Rikers MJP, Schimidt HG. Students conceptions of distinct constructivist assumptions. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2007;22(2):179-199.

Rummel Ethan. Constructing cognition. American Scientist. 2008;96(1):80-82.

Savery JR, Dffey TM. Problem based learning: Na instructional model and its constructivist framework. CRLT technical report. No.16-01. Indian University. Center for research and Technology; 2001.

Slivan RE. Educational psychology: Theory and practice (8th edition). Needham Heights, MA, Allyn and Bacon; 2006.

Vygotsky LS. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1978.

Mayer R. Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist. 2004;59:14-19.

Kirschner P, Sweller J, Clark R. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist. 2006;41:75-86.

Mandrin P, Preckel D. Effect of similarity-based guided discovery learning on conceptual performance. School Science and Mathematics. 2009;109(3):133-145.

Deci E. Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press; 1975.

Deci EL, Ryan RM. The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;53(6):1024-37.

Johnson JA, Musial D, Hall GE, Gollnick DM, Dupuis VL. Foundations of American education: Perspectives on education in a changing world (14th ed.). Boston MA: Pearson Education Inc; 2008.

Woolnough BE. (ed.). Practical science. Milton Keynes, Open University Press; 1991.

Boud David. The role of self-assessment in student grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 1989;14(1):20-30.

Tamir P. Practical work in school science: An analysis of current practice. In Woolnough, B.E., (ed.). Practical science Milton Keyness, Open University Press; 1991.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science for all Americans. New and Science Teaching Conference, England; 1990.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.

Campbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1963.

Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2013.

Creswell JW, Plano-Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2007.

Hofstein A, Lunetta VN. The laboratory in science education. Foundation for the twenty first century. Science Education. 2003;8(1):28-54.

Lederman NG, Abd-El-Khalick F, Bell RL, Schwartz RS. Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2002;39:497–521.

Ling L. Liang, Sufen Chen, Xian Chen. Student understanding of science and scientific. inquiry (SUSSI). Revision and Further Validation of an Assessment Instrument. Paper Prepared for the 2006 Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) San Francisco; 2006.

Eryilmaz A, Yildiz I, Akin S. Investigating of relationship between attitudes towards physics laboratories, motivation and a motivation for the class engagement. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education. 2011;59-64.

Fikret Korur, Ali Eryilmaz. Interaction between Students’ Motivation and Physics Teachers’ Characteristics: Multiple Case Study. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University and Burdur, Turkey Middle East Technical University for Staff and educational development; 2018.

Ryan Manuel D. Guido. Attitude and motivation towards learning physics. Rizal Technological University. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT); 2013.

Lederman JS. Levels of inquiry and the 5 E’s learning cycle model. Monterey, CA: National Geographic School Publishing; 2011.

Star Jon R, Gabriel J. Stylianides. Procedural and conceptual knowledge: Exploring the gap between knowledge type and knowledge quality. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. 2013;13(2):169-181.