An Assessment of Availability and Utilization of Laboratory Facilities for Teaching Science at Secondary Level

Abstract

The present study aimed to explore the availability and utilization of a science laboratory for the teaching and learning of science. This study was a joint collaboration with India’s Ministry of Human Resource Development, the Government of India, and the National Council of Educational Research and Training. The study adopted descriptive survey methodology and random sampling. The instruments used for the study were questionnaires for principals, teachers, and students. The study’s findings revealed in most participating schools; there were no separate science laboratories. It was also found that many teachers faced difficulties when conducting science activities due to the large number of students in each class as well as inadequate equipment and materials. The findings highlight that as there was no assessment of science laboratory practical activities, these activities did not contribute directly to the measurement of students’ academic performance in science. The study suggested that governments should support laboratory practical activities in science as a part of assessment and specifically for this study’s context takes immediate steps to set up science laboratories in all schools for the effective teaching and learning of science.

Full text

Science Education International ¦ Volume 30 ¦ Issue 1 75
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
INTRODUCTION
Education is generally considered one of the basic needs
of human beings. Science has been characterized as a
body of knowledge evolved by scientists while science
education builds on the knowledge and skills acquired by the
learners so that students can understand scientic principles,
laws, and theories. The emphasis on teaching and learning of
science is on ensuring that teachers not only teach the processes
of science but also enable sensory learners to learn scientic
concepts. By this, the “hands” and “minds” of leaners must be
on scientic activities such that learners will be able to learn
actively and thereby participate in knowledge construction
(Ausubel, 1963).
The science laboratory has a direct effect on both students’
attitudes and academic performance as per the instructional
theory of learning interaction. It is generally believed that
constant practice leads to prociency in what the learner learns
during classroom instruction; hence, the dictum “practice
makes perfect” (Hager, 1974). The quality of teaching and
learning experience depends on the extent of the adequacy
of laboratory facilities in secondary schools and the teacher’s
effectiveness in the use of laboratory facilities with the aim of
facilitating and providing meaningful learning experiences in
the learners. Investigating the relationship between adequacy
and academic performance in chemistry, Akpan (2006)
examined the adequacy of laboratory facilities using frequency
counts and percentages. Lagoke (1997) examined the adequate
use of laboratory facilities during science instruction helps
to develop values that aid the learners in decision-making.
Okeke’s (1995) study also examined the adequacy of laboratory
facilities and academic performance in basic sciences. This
study revealed that the adequacy of laboratory facilities had no
signicant relationship with students’ academic performance
in basic science.
The laboratory is a distinctive feature in science teaching and
learning. The extent of adequacy of laboratory facilities for
science teaching depends on the population of students in a
particular school (Hofstein and Ginetta, 1998, Stuckey 2013).
I would argue that for students to learn effectively, teachers
should ensure that adequate laboratory facilities are provided. It
should be noted that in Indian schools it is normal for the teacher
and student ratio to be 1:40. What is the affect, if any, of this
teacher to student ratio on the teaching and learning process?
Academic performance depicts the level of educational
attainment of an individual. It differentiates one with high
knowledge content from others with lower and lesser
competency in academic performance (Eshiet, 1996). The
adequacy of laboratory facilities has been reported to have a
signicant effect on the students’ academic performance in
chemistry (Okafor, 2000). However, a study on the inuence of
the adequacy of laboratory facilities and academic performance
in chemistry found that adequacy had a signicant inuence on
students’ academic performance in secondary school chemistry
teaching (Aburime, 2004).
The present study aimed to explore the availability and utilization of a science laboratory for the teaching and learning of science. This
study was a joint collaboration with India’s Ministry of Human Resource Development, the Government of India, and the National
Council of Educational Research and Training. The study adopted descriptive survey methodology and random sampling. The instruments
used for the study were questionnaires for principals, teachers, and students. The study’s ndings revealed in most participating schools;
there were no separate science laboratories. It was also found that many teachers faced difculties when conducting science activities
due to the large number of students in each class as well as inadequate equipment and materials. The ndings highlight that as there
was no assessment of science laboratory practical activities, these activities did not contribute directly to the measurement of students’
academic performance in science. The study suggested that governments should support laboratory practical activities in science as
a part of assessment and specically for this study’s context takes immediate steps to set up science laboratories in all schools for the
effective teaching and learning of science.
KEY WORDS: school science; secondary school science; science teaching; science laboratory`
An Assessment of Availability and Utilization of Laboratory
Facilities for Teaching Science at Secondary Level
Ram Babu Pareek*
Department of Education in Science and Mathematics, Regional Institute of Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan, India
*Corresponding author: pareekrbp@gmail.com
ABSTRACT

Pareek: Assessment and Availability of Laboratory facilities
Science Education International ¦ Volume 30 ¦ Issue 1
76
RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
One of the prime aims of the Government of India is
the Universalization of Secondary Education (USE),
which has resulted in large-scale expenditures in terms of
additional schools, classrooms, teachers, and laboratory
facilities needed to meet the challenges of providing quality
21st century education (National Council of Educational
Research and Training [NCERT, n.d.]). I would argue that
any course in science does not show its excellence until it
is related to practical work. As, stated, laboratory practical
activities, stimulate and motivate students to learn more
about science. Student engagement in laboratory courses has
shown positive impact on students’ achievement in science.
A laboratory activity is a way of allowing students to learn
with understanding and at the same time engages in a process
of constructing knowledge by doing science. In a laboratory
activity, students work individually or in small groups on a
question, problem, or hypothesis. This hands-on process uses
materials of science to construct their own explanation of the
scientic phenomena. The distinction between laboratory and
traditional classroom learning is that activities are students
centered, with students actively engaged in hands-on and
minds-on activities using laboratory techniques (Lazarowitz
and Tamir, 1994).
India’s National Curriculum Framework (NCF) (NCERT,
2005a) observed that schools, particularly those in rural areas,
should be equipped with laboratories or equipment for science
and mathematical activities. The absence of such facilities
drastically narrows subject options for children, denying them
equal opportunities for learning and future life chances. While
elementary schools can benet from a science and mathematics
corner, secondary schools require well-equipped laboratories.
The position paper brought out by NCERT on teaching of
science (NCERT, 2005b) suggested a 2-fold approach to
deal with the problem: (i) Encourage practical/technological/
creative components of the curriculum through non-
formal channels and (ii) introduce some carefully designed
experiments or technology-based questions in the theoretical
paper itself. The NCF (2005) also suggested that schools have
well-equipped laboratories, libraries, and access to computers,
were essential, and all efforts must be made to ensure that
schools and junior colleges are well equipped with such
resources.
To achieve USE, the Government of India launched the
Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) programme.
Under the RMSA framework, importance has been given to
schools to establish laboratories as a part of the strengthening
of academic infrastructural facilities. As such, there is a need
to identify the importance of laboratories and their utilization
in government secondary schools. The present study has been
undertaken to identify the laboratory facilities in the selected
government secondary schools and their utilization with the
following objectives:
• To identify the availability of laboratory facilities for
teaching of science
• To study the utilization of available laboratory facilities
in teaching of a science
• To study the effect of utilization of laboratory facilities
on students’ achievement in science
METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN
The sample of the study was based on stratied random
sampling. In the rst stage, of the 33 districts of Rajasthan,
the three districts of Jaipur, Ajmer, and Nagaur were randomly
selected in consultation with the RMSA of Rajasthan. In the
second stage, from each of the districts, seven government
secondary schools were selected. The study adopted a
survey method in which primary data was collected from
the principals, teachers, and students belonging to the 21
government secondary schools located in the Jaipur, Nagaur,
and Ajmer districts of Rajasthan state using questionnaires
and focus group discussions (FGDs). A structured FGD was
held in all the schools separately for classes IX and X students
(students aged 14–15 years old). The Government of India’s
programme for USE, RMSA has been under implementation
since 2009–10 with the vision to make secondary education
of good quality available, accessible, and affordable to all
children in the age group of 14–16 years. As such, the age
group of 14–15 years was selected. In each group, there were
10–15 students representing each class. Consent letters were
collected from RMSA ofcials, school authorities, and from
parents. Faculty members from the Regional Institute of
Education, Ajmer, were involved in the collection of data. As
per the schedule, the faculty visited the schools, observed the
laboratory facilities, and administered separate questionnaires
to the principals, teachers, and students.
Tools Used in the Study
Three tools in the form of questionnaires were developed
at NCERT by the RMSA project group involving faculty
members from the Regional Institutes of Education Ajmer
and Mysuru all the Regional Institutes of Education located
across India at Ajmer, Bhubaneswar, Bhopal, Mysuru, and
Shillong. The pilot study was conducted in one school of each
three randomly selected districts from Rajasthan state. After
Table 1: Availability of laboratory facilities
Availability of laboratory facilities Principal Responses
Teacher Student
Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%) No (%)
9 (42.85) 12 (57.15) 8 (33.33) 16 (66.67) 15 (40.54) 22 (59.46)

Pareek: Assessment and Availability of Laboratory facilities
Science Education International ¦ Volume 30 ¦ Issue 1 77
receiving constructive feedback from RMSA project group and
faculty members from all the Regional Institutes of Education,
the study’s tools were designed.
Questionnaire for principals
This questionnaire contained 17 questions, which were both
close and open ended. The questions were related to general
aspects of the school, number of science teachers, availability
of science laboratory, science kit, and provision in the timetable
for laboratory-based activities, source of nance, provision
for inclusive education, and suggestions for improving the
current status.
Questionnaire for teachers
This questionnaire contained 32 items that were both close and
open ended. The questions were related to general information
about the teacher, in-service training received, availability
and access to curricular materials, provisions made in the
curriculum, textbook and timetable for conducting laboratory
work, conducting activities venue, nature, involvement of
students and guidelines, special arrangement for children with
special needs (CWSN), difculties faced while conducting
the activities, mode of the conduct of laboratory work, source
of nance, infrastructure, laboratory materials available, and
suggestions for improving the science laboratory.
Questionnaire for students
The questionnaire consisted of 17 questions, which contained
both closed- and open-ended items. The questions were related
to the availability of laboratory in the school, its utilization,
provision for practical in the timetable, process of the conduct
of experiments, practice of ne, etc., for breakage of equipment
and guidelines for the conduct of the experiments and safety
in the laboratory.
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The data were analyzed to address the three purposes of
the study. The data were analyzed both quantitatively and
qualitatively, i.e., frequency and percentage and content
analysis.
The data analysis is provided in two sections: Availability
and utilization.
Availability of Laboratory, Curricular Materials, Financial
Grant, Infrastructure, and Provision in the Timetable for
Experimentation
A laboratory is expected to be present in every secondary
school for the conduct of experiments in science. It was
observed that of 21 schools, only one school had a functional
science laboratory as mentioned in the Table 1. Only 33.33%
of teachers responded that they had an integrated laboratory
for science and mathematics. Principals (57.15%) responded
that most do not have separate laboratories in the schools
for science and many students (40.54%) responded that they
did not have laboratories in the schools. It also observed that
only 25% of students used a laboratory once a week and 8%
of students used a laboratory twice a week. Hence, it can be
concluded that majority of the schools do not have science
laboratory. Therefore, it can be concluded that only one school
had a functional science laboratory and most teachers have
used integrated laboratory for science and mathematics.
Teaching and learning is always strengthened by referring to
curricular materials. Only 25% of the teachers referred to the
NCF. The state of Rajasthan has not developed its own Rajasthan
state curriculum framework but follows NCERT textbooks at
the secondary level. It was observed that 16.6% of the teachers
had no access to the science syllabus. It was also noted that 50%
of the teachers did not have any opportunity to refer to either
supplementary materials or laboratory manuals. As per the NCF
2005 document, both manuals and resources are as important
as textbooks for teachers and there is a need for a teacher’s
handbook as indicated in the Table 2. These would provide tips
for teachers, which they could use for lesson planning. This study
identied that only a few of the participating teachers referred
to the NCF document and many teachers did not have access
to the science syllabus.
Recommendation and Guidelines in the Textbook for
Experimentation
The study further found that teachers usually conduct their
science activities in their classrooms (Table 3).
When the teachers were asked whether the curriculum document
and the textbooks provided scope for experimentation in
science, most of the teachers (67%) responded that they were
expected to conduct experiments in the laboratory/classroom.
Some examples that indicated the scope in the textbook for
conducting the experiments included: Chemical reaction,
oxidation and reduction, and pH paper experiments.
Table 3: Recommendation and guidelines in the textbook
for experimentation
Items/responses Yes (%) No (%)
Recommendation for experimentation 16 (66.67) 8 (33.33)
Provision in the textbooks for conducting
experiments
17 (70.83) 7 (29.17)
Inclusion of guidelines in the textbooks for
conducting experiments/activities
15 (62.50) 9 (37.5)
There is a specic laboratory manual 5 (20.83) 19 (79.17)
Table 2: Accessibility of curricular materials
Accessibility of curricular materials Teacher responses
Yes (%) No (%)
NCF-05 6 (25) 18 (75)
RSCF 4 (16.6) 20 (83.4)
Syllabus 20 (83.4) 4 (16.6)
Textbook 13 (54.17) 11 (45.83)
Supplementary materials 12 (50) 12 (50)
Laboratory manual 6 (25) 12 (50)
NCF: National curriculum framework, RSCF: Rajasthan state curriculum
framework

Pareek: Assessment and Availability of Laboratory facilities
Science Education International ¦ Volume 30 ¦ Issue 1
78
Regarding guidelines in the textbook for conducting
experiments, most of the teachers (62.5%) responded that there
were guidelines in the textbook, whereas nearly 80% of the
teachers responded that there was no specic laboratory manual
which they followed for conducting experiments and the rest
followed a laboratory manual published by private agencies.
Availability of Financial Grants
Teachers were asked about the availability and utilization of
nancial grants for procuring chemicals and replacing the
unserviceable equipment in the laboratory. It was noted that
only 16.67% of the teachers had a recurring grant for procuring
chemicals and 95% of the teachers responded that there was no
separate grant for replacing the unserviceable equipment in the
laboratory. Regarding utilization of the grant, a majority of the
teachers (75%) responded that the grant was not being properly
utilized. The principals of the participating schools expressed
a similar opinion. It was reported by the principals that they
did not receive grants from RMSA regularly; only 17% of the
principals responded that they did receive grants for meeting
the laboratory-related expenses between 2012 and 2014.
Provision in the Timetable for Laboratory Activities
Learning of science is often based on doing (i.e., hands-on
activities); however, none of the participating schools has
allotted a separate and specic slot for laboratory activities in
their timetable (Table 4).
From Table 4, it could be inferred that these schools have a
low priority for providing laboratory activities for students. It
was noted that a free period in the timetable could be utilized
either for science activities or library work.
Utilization of Laboratory Facilities: Conduct of Experiments/
Activities, Difficulties Faced, Arrangements for CWSN,
Effect of Conducting of Experiments, Materials Used for
Science Class, and Financial Grant
Conduct of experiments/activities
The data indicated in the Table 5 regarding conducting of
experiments/activities, teachers responded with respect to
whether they had made any improvisations to perform activities
proposed in the textbooks. Only 37.50% of the teachers had
improvised the activities given in the textbooks which included
lime water test for carbon dioxide, iron dust, and a balloon
experiment with regard to designing of experiments using locally
available materials and 33.33% of the teachers could design some
activities using waste materials and material used in daily life.
In case of conducting experiments involving corrosive
chemicals and glassware, teachers were asked to write about
the precautions they took in such cases. This study found that
70% of participating teachers took precautions while handling
the glassware carefully, not disposing of the chemicals/solid
waste into the washbasin, and the use of appropriate amounts
of chemicals. Regarding guidelines to be given to students
for conducting activities, 45% of the teachers responded that
they did not give any guidelines and the remaining teachers
responded that they give guidelines.
Regarding precautions to be taken in the case of re/acid
accidents and breakage of glassware, 90% of the students were
never informed about such things by the teachers. Similarly,
the way of using the laboratory, only 8% of the students
responded that they go in small groups to the laboratory,
whereas 16% of the students responded that the entire class
goes at the same time to the laboratory. With regard to the way
the students conduct experiments in the laboratory, only 25%
of the students went in a group of seven or more. However,
90% of the students never performed any activity individually
and they worked in a group of three–six students. With regard
to using the equipment/materials in the laboratory, 37% of
the students had used beakers, spirit lamps, concave mirrors,
litmus papers, and thermometers and 24% of the students had
used a tripod stand, spring balance, or voltmeter. 51% of the
participating students had used convex lens, microscopes, test
tubes, and prisms. While using the materials in the laboratory,
there is the possibility of breakage. When students were asked
whether they were penalized for such acts, 97% of the students
responded that they were neither asked to pay nor were they
punished.
Teachers were asked to name any two activities conducted
by them along with the students during the current academic
year. The activities named by them were pH meter test, glass
slide experiment in physics, experiments with prism, lens,
and mirror and those activities had been conducted using
Table 4: Provision in the timetable for laboratory activities
Provision in the timetable for laboratory activities Responses
Principal Teacher
Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%) No (%)
5 (23.8) 16 (76.2) 0 (0) 24 (100)
Table 5: Conduct of experiments and activities
Items Teacher
Yes (%) No (%)
Any improvisation in the experiment 9 (37.50) 15 (62.50)
Devising of experiments using locally
available materials
8 (33.33) 16 (66.67)
Guidelines to be given to students 13 (54.17) 11 (45.83)
Instructions regarding any accident
(if happens) in the laboratory
5 (13.52) 32 (86.48)
Students being allowed to use the equipment
directly
15 (62.50) 9 (37.50)

Pareek: Assessment and Availability of Laboratory facilities
Science Education International ¦ Volume 30 ¦ Issue 1 79
demonstration method by 45% of the teachers and using
group activity by 25% of the teachers. It was also found that
45% of the teachers responded that the activities were being
conducted by demonstration method. 48% of the students
responded that they were being held in the classroom itself.
The two demonstrations liked by the students were an onion
membrane experiment and acid-base indicator test. Whenever
demonstrations were held, 65% of the students could not see
clearly what the teacher was demonstrating and 73% of the
students were of the opinion that teachers did not involve
students in the demonstration. Regarding other forms of
activities, out of school activity was organized by only 8% of
the teachers and individual experimentation was conducted
by 12% of the teachers.
With regard to students being allowed to use the equipment
directly about 70% of the teachers responded that they were
not allowed to use. Only 22% of the principals stated that
laboratory was not being used by secondary stage students.
This was true as 73% of the students had not done any
experiment on their own, whereas the rest of the students had
performed experiments such as litmus paper, use of pH paper,
and lime water test. When the principals were asked about
the alternative arrangements that were made to overcome the
problem of non-availability of science laboratory in school,
17% of them responded that they use higher secondary
school laboratory or arrange demonstrations and 30% of
them carried out experiments in the class. It was also found
that mobile laboratories were not in the reach of any school
as per the response of the principals. It is, therefore, clearly
evident that no proper hands-on experience are provided to
the students.
Extent of Involvement of Students in Conducting the
Activities
Teachers were asked about the extent of the involvement of
students in conducting the activities (Table 6).
While 33.33% of the teachers had responded that it is high,
20.83% of the teachers have opined that it is moderate and the
remaining (30%) teachers opined that the involvement of the
students has been low.
Difficulties Faced While Conducting the Activities
As mentioned in the Table 7 activites are normally a part of
teaching-learning process. When the teachers were asked about
the difculties they faced while conducting the activities,
41.67% of the teachers responded that student strength is a
problem and 33.33% of them related to a lack of adequate
equipment and materials. It was also found that 45% of the
teachers had the difculty in getting assistance for setting up
of the apparatus.
As per the response of the principals, none of the schools had
a laboratory attendant. Therefore, it could be expected that
there was some difculty in using laboratories in schools. As
per the response of the principals, 73% of them responded
that they had teachers with biological science backgrounds,
whereas 26% responded that they had teachers with physical
science backgrounds. This showed a disproportion of physical
and biological science teachers to teach science.
Arrangements for CWSN
In every school, there may be the possible presence of a child
with special needs. As the schools are expected to be inclusive
in their set up, it is essential for the schools to have adequate
arrangements for catering to the needs of CWSN. Regarding
the availability of CWSN in the schools, the majority of the
teachers (80%) responded that there were not any such children
in their classes. All the participating teachers responded that
there were not any special arrangements for including CWSN
in the laboratory work. This lack of support for CWSN was
further strengthened by the responses of the principals, who
responded that except for a ramp in one of the schools, no special
arrangements were made for CWSN. For most of the participating
schools, there were no specic arrangements made for CWSN.
Effect of Conducting of the Activities/Experiments
Activities and experiments, when performed by students, are
intended to develop certain skills among the students. Teachers
were asked to state whether the activities conducted by them
could result in developing process skills among the students.
70% of the teachers responded that the activities did result in
developing observation skill (Table 8), 12–13% responded
that it developed hypothesizing and interpreting skills, 30%
responded that it developed classifying skill, 9% responded
that it developed predicting skill, and every teacher opined
that the activities did not develop inferring skill.
Table 6: Extent of the involvement of students in
conducting the activities
Items Teacher response
High Moderate Low
Extent of involvement of the students in
conducting the activities
33.33 20.83 30.00
Table 8: Effect of conducting of activities/experiments
Type of skill developed Teacher’s response in %
Observation skill 70.00
Hypothesizing and interpreting skills 12.00–13.00
Classifying skill 30.00
Predicting skill 9.00
Inferring skill 0.00
Table 7: Difficulties faced by teachers while conducting
science activities
Problems/difficulties Teacher’s response in %
High student strength 41.67
Lack of adequate equipment and material 33.33
Getting assistance in setting up of the
apparatus
45.00
Inadequate duration of laboratory period 45.00

Pareek: Assessment and Availability of Laboratory facilities
Science Education International ¦ Volume 30 ¦ Issue 1
80
With regard to the inuence of activities/experiential learning/
virtual laboratories in enhancing science learning among the
students, most of the teachers (62%) responded that they
have enhanced the learning of students in science and their
examples include Newton’s law and the reection of light.
Nevertheless, 67.5% of students felt that the laboratory work
did not help them to learn science any better. When teachers
were asked whether the number of computers available was
adequate to give the experience of virtual laboratories, only
41% of the teachers responded that the number of computers
was sufcient. While examining the student computer ratio
in the class, it varied from 1:3 to 1:50. While it was 1:<10 in
eight schools, it was 1:>13 in six schools. This indicates a poor
student-computer ratio in schools.
Teachers were asked whether the students were encouraged to
participate in exhibitions and other science-related activities.
While 50% of the teachers responded yes, they did encourage
and around 21% of the teachers responded that the laboratories
were not equipped enough to help students to prepare models
for exhibitions and other science-related activities. Even 73%
of students expressed that they were not encouraged to use
laboratory equipment for project works. This indicates poor
furnishing of laboratories to undertake activities.
Other Materials Used for Science Class
It is the responsibility of the teacher to make science interesting
to the students as well as effective. For this purpose, teachers
could use other materials apart from laboratory resources.
While 67% of the teachers responded that they used science
kits, 95% of the principals responded that they did have science
kit in their schools. It was noted that 30% of the principals
stated that the equipment was not adequate to teach all the
children in the school even though 17% of the principals
responded that the teachers in their schools received training
in laboratory skills. 30% of the principals responded that the
teachers in their schools had received training in using science
kits. For making classes interesting and effective, 46% of the
teachers responded that they used models and 17% of the
teachers said that they use CDs/audio-visual (AV) materials.
Utilization of Financial Grant
Although nancial grant is available for purchasing chemicals,
80% of the teachers were of the opinion that the grant received
was not used appropriately. Even 78.26% of the principals have
said that the fund was not being used for improving laboratory
resources. This shows that although there is availability of grant
in many of the schools, it was not being utilized appropriately.
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
An integrated laboratory for science was available only in
33% of the schools. Only 25% of the teachers had access to
the NCF 2005 document and laboratory manual, whereas 75%
of the teachers had access to a science syllabus. In addition,
50% of the teachers had access to supplementary materials
to teach science. In India, teachers are expected to conduct
experiments in the laboratory as per the curriculum and the
guidelines given in the textbook. To support this, recurring
grants are available to most of the schools for procuring
the chemicals, but there is no separate grant for replacing
the equipment that is broken/malfunctioning. None of the
schools’ timetables gave a dedicated space for a separate
slot for laboratory activities. A free period for students was
being utilized for either laboratory activities or library work.
About 33% of the teachers tried to improvise the apparatus for
performing science activities given in the textbooks. It should
be noted that safety precautions were taken by the majority
of teachers while handling hazardous chemicals. Similarly,
guidelines given by the teachers were followed by all the
students. This study highlighted that most of the schools did
not allow students to use the equipment directly and in many
schools, students had not conducted the experiments on their
own. Involvement of the students in conducting the activities
was appreciably low. Teachers faced the problem of student
numbers (class sizes of greater than 40 students) in their
classroom as in the Indian context teacher it is normal for
teachers to have a student ratio of 1:40. Similarly, teachers
face issues of inadequate equipment, no assistance for setting
up apparatus, and inadequate duration of laboratory period in
conducting the activities. There were no special arrangements
in any of the schools for including CWSN in the laboratory
work and they had never performed any special laboratory
activity either for them or with them.
The activities conducted by the students resulted in the
development of their observation skills to a large extent,
then classifying, predicting, and interpreting to some extent.
There was no development of inferencing skills at all. Most
of these participating schools noted that the student-computer
ratio was very high and laboratories were not equipped well
enough to conduct activities. More importantly for this study,
in most of the schools, experiments were not conducted. For
making their teaching and learning in science effective, only
a few of the participating teachers used science kits, models,
and compact discs/AV materials. For breakage of laboratory
materials, students were neither ned nor punished. In most
of the schools, nancial grant meant for laboratories was not
used appropriately.
CONCLUSION
The study investigated the adequacy of science laboratory
facilities for effective teaching and learning of science in
21 secondary schools from the Rajasthan state, India. Findings
of this study showed that laboratory facilities are highly
inadequate, far below the expectation, and in most of the
schools, science experiments are not being conducted. This
study also revealed that as there is no assessment of science
practical activities, it does not contribute directly to the
measurement of students’ academic performance in science.
It is important that resources are made available for establishing
laboratories with adequate facilities in schools. It is, therefore,
recommended that the Indian government should include

Pareek: Assessment and Availability of Laboratory facilities
Science Education International ¦ Volume 30 ¦ Issue 1 81
practical activities in science as a part of the formal assessment
procedures and take immediate steps to equip/set up science
laboratories for the effective teaching and learning of science.
It is also suggested to facilitate science teachers being more
resourceful by providing support materials for science teaching
and learning so that students learn by doing, develop thinking
skills, and attempt innovations.
REFERENCES
Aburime, E.F. (2004). Refocusing Research Technology and Mathematics
Education: A Case for Mathematics Laboratory. Akure: Proceeding of
the 45th Annual Conference of Science Teachers’ Association of Nigeria.
Akpan, O. (2006). Laboratory Facilities for Chemistry Teaching.
Unpublished Seminar Paper. Nigeria: University of Calabar.
Ausubel, D. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning.
New York: Grune and Stratton.
Eshiet, I.T. (1996). Improvisation in Science Teaching Philosophy and
Practice. Abak: Belpot Press.
Felder, R.M., & Prince, M.J. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning
methods: Denitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of
Engineering Education, 95, 123-138.
Hager, W.R. (1974). An investigation of verbal behaviour and learning
climate in undergraduate engineering classroom. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 11(2), 121-131.
Hofstein, A., & Ginetta, A. (1998). Trends in Assessment of Laboratory
Performance in Secondary Schools in Instruction. Iowa: University of
Iowa Press.
Lagoke, B.A. (1997). Toward an elimination of the gender gulf in
science concept attainment through the use of environment analogs.
International Journal of Science Education, 9(4), 365-367.
Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction
in science. In: Gabel, D.L., (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science
Teaching and Learning, New York: Macmillan. pp. 94-130.
NCERT. (2005a). National Curriculum Framework 2005. New Delhi, India:
NCERT.
NCERT. (2005b). National Focus Group on Teaching of Science 2005.
New Delhi, India: NCERT.
NCERT. Universalization of Secondary Education in India Vision. Available
from: http://www.ncert.nic.in/departments/nie/dse/deptt/activities/pdfs/
chapter_1.pdf. [Last retrieved on 2019 Jan 15].
Okafor, P.N. (2000). Difcult concepts in physics as experienced by
senior secondary students in Akwa Ibom State. Journal of Research
Information in Education, 1(1), 114-121.
Okeke, R.J. (1995). Principles of development selection, utilization,
evaluation storage and retrieval of instructional materials. In: Okwo, F.A.,
& Ike, G.A., (Eds.), Educational Technology: Basic Concepts of Issues.
Nsukka: University Trust Publishers. pp. 45-76.
Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The
meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the
science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49, 1-3.