Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of tools/methods, types of interactions and the major findings of interactions in face-to-face science undergraduate laboratories

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

Tools/MethodsInteractionsMain FindingsReferences
Practical Tests Assessment Inventory (PTAI) adopted from Tamir, Nussinovitz, and Friedler (1982)Comparative, cooperative, and individualised S-S interactionsCompetitive interactions were proved to be more potent than cooperative and individualised approaches.(Okebukola, 1984)
Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI)S-I interactionsTeacher behaviours are more strongly related to student learning outcomes than curriculum content.(Wubbels, 1993)
Bloome’s multiple levels of interactionsVerbal and non-verbalThis naturalistic study shows that instructor-student interactions illustrate different features in different stages of the laboratory.(Roychoudhury & Roth, 1996)
The self-developed method through constant comparisonVerbalStudents interact less in inquiry laboratories than non-inquiry approaches.(Krystyniak & Heikkinen, 2007)
Ethnographic and mixed-method comparison of verbal discourseVerbal and non-verbalA comparison between the three groups indicated that to effectively develop conceptual understanding, friendly and relatively critical group atmosphere was required.(Oliveira & Sadler, 2008)
Interviews, observations, and video documentationVerbal and non-verbalThe instructor-student interaction was helpful in guiding students’ activities.(Högström et al., 2010)
Sociocultural discourse analysisVerbal and non-verbalStudents favoured proposing ideas more than asking questions in a higher level of inquiry laboratories(Xu & Talanquer, 2013)
Tuckman’s stage modelVerbal and non-verbalInstructors can take some methods to realise the students’ behaviour and foster their peer interactions.(Gresser, 2006)
The constant comparison methodS-I verbalThe S-I verbal interactions were influenced by the laboratory content(Flaherty et al., 2017)
Eighteen-category items of teacher/student interactions selected and modified after Ogunniyi and Ramorogo (1994)S-I Verbal and non-verbalHuman-machine interaction in computer-based instruction learning environments: learners need to reallocate cognitive gains and effort and examine possible sources of error.(Kiboss, 1997)
A modified version of the Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scale (FSMAS) and a questionnaireStudent AttitudeTAs influence the students’ attitudes to the biology laboratories to a great extent.(Rybczynski & Schussler, 2013)
Student and teaching assistant questionnairesS-I InteractionsTo keep the same TA (over different sessions) gave higher learning outcomes for students than with expert TA model.(Good et al., 2015)
A pre- and post-lab surveyS-S, S-I, S-E and I-I InteractionsStudents with different academic values had different opinions of interactions(Wei et al., 2018)