IMPROVING SCIENCE LITERACY THROUGH A CONDUCIVE LABORATORY LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: A PROPOSED MODEL Lilia Halim Faculty of Education Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia <lilia@ukm.my> Abstract Laboratory work is seen as an integrated part of most science subjects. Science educators have suggested that laboratory activities and experiences can promote dimensions of scientific literacy such as the acquisition of fundamental science concepts and problem solving skills. However, the Malaysian laboratory learning environment still emphasizes on ‘teacher centered’ and ‘confirmatory laboratory’ model which limits the opportunity for open ended investigation and therefore may be boring for most of the students. Laboratory learning environment could be improved either by a) teachers’ using information from the learning environment perceptions of students to improve their pedagogical practices or b) changing the physical design of laboratories. This paper proposes a model of science laboratory that considers the physical design of school science laboratories which aims to encourage positive attitudes and cognitive growth. The learning environment perceptions’ of students of the proposed model is then investigated. This paper will present preliminary findings of the students’ perceptions of their laboratory learning environment at three different settings: actual, preferred and the proposed model. Implications of the findings and modification to the proposed model will be discussed. Introduction The benefits of learning science through laboratory activities are well documented in the literature. It has been suggested that engaging learners in science laboratory activities or practical work promote stud ents’ understanding of scientific concepts, problem solving abilities and attitudes towards science (Arzi 2003: Ozkan, Carikoglu & Tekkaya, 2006). Hofstein, Shore & Kipnis (2004) further suggest that when inquiry –centered laboratory is properly developed, the learning experiences gained in such an environment have the potential to enhance students’ understanding of the nature of science. They further suggest that the characteristics of inquiry-type laboratory work, namely identifying questions, forming hypothesis, designing and conducting scientific investigations, and formulating scientific explanations are important in developing a scientific literate individual, a main goal in science education. Thus, inquiry is central to the achievement of scientific literacy and effective as well as meaningful science laboratory experiences play an important role in achieving that goal. However, a critical review of research on the role of laboratory in science teaching and learning (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2003) indicated that research has failed to show the relationships between experiences in the laboratory and student learning. Some of the reasons for this lack of empirical evidence on the role of laboratory on students’ learning are a) insufficient reporting of the instructional reporting and assessment procedures used, b) assessment measures of students’ learning outcomes inconsistent with stated goals of the teaching and research and c) insufficient sample size in many quantitative studies. Another reason for this is the mismatch between the aims of laboratory work and the laboratory activities provided. Arzi (2003) argues that carefully designed laboratory activities with appropriate physical facilities can contribute to most aspects of science education. For example, the call for open ended or authentic laboratory investigations for the cultivation of intellectual skills implies larger space and time for group discussions. Physical characteristics of the classroom do influence teacher-student communication. Wubbels and Brekelmans (2003) suggest that the traditional physics laboratory with a demonstration bench is a physical barrier between the teacher and students hence also becomes a psychological barrier and thus could hinder good relationshisp between teacher and students. Other studies (Arzi 2003) also showed that active forms of learning are associated with better science facilities and a higher frequency of inquiry methods was detected when teaching is conducted in spaces with combined classroom and laboratory facilities, compared with teaching in separate classrooms and laboratories. Despite the evidence that physical environments make a difference, there is dearth of research on the interrelations of physical design and practice in science education. Vast research has focused on the investigation of the students’ perceptions of the psychological characteristics of their classrooms. Little research has focused on physical characteristics of the laboratory that might affect the science learning environment experienced by the students. The current research is one of the few attempts. The overall aim of this research is to conceive, design and developed a prototype of the science laboratory model for Malaysian science education and to evaluate the prototype.