Skip to main content

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 Included

AAAS Category

Interactions

Main Findings

References

Science Laboratory Interaction Categories (SLIC)- Student

Segmented

Verbal and non-verbal

Most time was spent on transferring information

(Kyle et al., 1979)

N/A

N/A

Verbal

Most of the laboratory interactions were about laboratory procedures

(Lehman, 1990)

A Modified-Revised version of the Science Teacher Behaviour Inventory (MR-STBI)

Segmented

Verbal and non-verbal

Instructor behaviours are different in U.S. and German institutions of higher education

(Hilosky et al., 1998)

Modified from Science Laboratory Interaction Categories (SLIC)

Segmented

Verbal and non-verbal

Instructors varied in the six science disciplines

(Ajaja, 2013)

Computerised Real-time Instructor Observation Tool (RIOT)

Continuous

Verbal and non-verbal

S-I interaction varied in both small group and whole class observations.

(West et al., 2013)

Teaching Assistant Inquiry Observation Protocol (TA-IOP)

Holistic

Verbal and non-verbal

Peer reflection can help TAs’ teaching in inquiry laboratories.

(Miller et al., 2014)

TA Observation Form (TA behaviours)

On-off task form (student engagement)

Segmented

Verbal

S-I interactions could possibly predict the student engagement

(Stang & Roll, 2014)

Laboratory Observation Protocol for the Undergraduate STEM (LOPUS)

Segmented

Verbal and non-verbal

Students’ behaviours were independent from the instructor’s style. The nature of interactions is related to laboratory activities.

(Velasco et al., 2016)