A COMPARISON OF A BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES CURRICULUM STUDY (BSCS) LABORATORY AND A TRADITIONAL LABORATORY ON STUDENT-ACHIEVEMENT AT 2 PRIVATE LIBERAL-ARTS COLLEGES

The purpose of this experiment was to compare an inquiry‐oriented Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) style laboratory approach with a more directive traditional approach on student outcomes in the cognitive and affective domains of learning at two private, midwestern liberal‐arts colleges. The BSCS approach emphasized basic and integrated science processes, concept development through extensive questioning, and increased student discretion, while the traditional approach contained highly structured, more prescriptive, teacher‐oriented activities. Intact laboratory sections of students enrolled in introductory general biology at two private liberal‐arts colleges were randomly selected into two treatment groups. Pretest and posttest measures were taken on three dependent variables: (1) biological content achievement, measured with a researcher‐generated Test on Biology Laboratory Concepts, (2) reasoning ability, measured with the Group Assessment of Logical Thinking, and (3) attitude toward biology, measured with the Biology Student Behavior Inventory. Analysis of covariance indicated the experimental group (n = 60) using the BSCS‐style laboratory approach scored significantly higher than the comparison group (n = 59) in levels of performance on biology content achievement, F(1, 114) = 4.07, p < 0.05. There were no significant differences between the two groups in performance levels on attitude toward biology or on reasoning ability. However, both groups experienced a 15‐percent increase in the number of formal thinkers as indicated by pretest‐posttest gain scores on the reasoning ability test. These results lend support to the hypothesis that a BSCS‐style laboratory approach fosters desired learner outcomes at the postsecondary level. In addition, these findings support the notion that the science laboratory may be used as a primary vehicle to promote formal reasoning skills. Copyright © 1990 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company