Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 1 The name and category of observation tools, types of interaction and main findings in face-to-face science undergraduate laboratories

From: Understanding interactions in face-to-face and remote undergraduate science laboratories: a literature review

Observational Tools IncludedAAAS CategoryInteractionsMain FindingsReferences
Science Laboratory Interaction Categories (SLIC)- StudentSegmentedVerbal and non-verbalMost time was spent on transferring information(Kyle et al., 1979)
N/AN/AVerbalMost of the laboratory interactions were about laboratory procedures(Lehman, 1990)
A Modified-Revised version of the Science Teacher Behaviour Inventory (MR-STBI)SegmentedVerbal and non-verbalInstructor behaviours are different in U.S. and German institutions of higher education(Hilosky et al., 1998)
Modified from Science Laboratory Interaction Categories (SLIC)SegmentedVerbal and non-verbalInstructors varied in the six science disciplines(Ajaja, 2013)
Computerised Real-time Instructor Observation Tool (RIOT)ContinuousVerbal and non-verbalS-I interaction varied in both small group and whole class observations.(West et al., 2013)
Teaching Assistant Inquiry Observation Protocol (TA-IOP)HolisticVerbal and non-verbalPeer reflection can help TAs’ teaching in inquiry laboratories.(Miller et al., 2014)
TA Observation Form (TA behaviours)
On-off task form (student engagement)
SegmentedVerbalS-I interactions could possibly predict the student engagement(Stang & Roll, 2014)
Laboratory Observation Protocol for the Undergraduate STEM (LOPUS)SegmentedVerbal and non-verbalStudents’ behaviours were independent from the instructor’s style. The nature of interactions is related to laboratory activities.(Velasco et al., 2016)