Skip to main content

School lab: What is it?

Statements in relevant literature

As school labs can vary widely from one another, associated definitions do so as well. So far there is no terminology that is generally agreed on. As the term school lab is not protected it is currently used for a broad variety of institutions and events. (cf. [Haupt et al., 2013, page 324]).

The term school lab has been established in Engeln's dissertation MINT-Lernorte (learning facilities for MINT) in 2004 for the first time (cf. [Haupt et al., 2015, page 16]). Since then there have been many attempts for finding a definition and typification. Engeln herself sees school labs as a possibility to give an access to an extracurricular and completely new learning place for pupils(cf. [Engeln, 2004, page 13]).

They [the pupils] are given the opportunity to experiment in specially designed laboratories on the premises of cooperating research institutions, universities, external institutions, or companies. Pupils get the chance to gain experiences and analyse scientific problems (cf. [Engeln, 2004, page 13]). Although meanwhile the spectrum of school labs is rather broad, most are anxious to convey an authentic access to natural sciences and technology to pupils (cf. [Engeln, 2004, page 14]).

According to Engeln, the basic statement concerning school labs is that they are characterised by being extracurricular and cause pupils to act autonomously. Authenticity is a central element.

Euler agrees in his definition with the main points of Engeln. He states that ...


... school labs are considered to be institutions outside school that make it possible for whole classes to encounter modern natural and engineering sciences. This happens in appropriate learning places having laboratory features, which inspire pupils to actively deal with scientific and technological problems and methods. The authenticity of working methods and learning experiences is central (cf. [Kircher et al., 2007, page 760]).

Again the extracurricular character is emphasised as well as authenticity of the learning environment, and learner autonomy. In addition the covered topics are restricted to MINT subjects, the laboratory is stresseed as a central element. Another condition is the possibilty to supervise a whole class, and provide working facilities.

Scharfenberg goes even further. He writes that ...

... the laboratory as a learning place is didactically a learning environment in which extracurricular schooling takes place. Thereby the term makes clear that it is an organised learning situation outside the school building (cf. [Scharfenberg, 2005, Seite 23]).

Thus his definition also focuses on the preparatory works in the institution. Scharfenberg sets the deliberate preparation of the learning environment for pupils as a required feature. The learning environment shall have a character similar to a lesson.

In Zehren's dissertation the focus is on the structure of a school lab. His findings are:


The aim of the present study is the development of a laboratory that gives pupils the opportunity to develop an interest in scientific problems, and simultaneously gain an understanding of natural sciences by autonomous explorative experimenting concerning topics from regular school lessons(cf. [Zehren, 2009, page 11]).

Adding to the feature of learner autonomy, offered activities shall correlate with topics from school lessons. Once more the topics are restricted to MINT.

The work of Plasa [Plasa, 2013] follows the definition of LernortLabor (learning place laboratory), which was published in Kursbuch 2010 - Schülerlabore in Deutschland in 2010. According to that school labs are ...

... extracurricular services where pupils can deal with modern natural sciences, engineering sciences, mathematics, and information technology by experimenting autonomously as part of their curriculum. These include service offerings from universities, technical colleges, research institutes, museums, science centres, technology centres, business incubators, and industry which enable the confrontation with these areas in appropriate laboratories. Days for experimenting are regularly, i.e. daily or weekly (cf. [Dähnhardt et al., 2009, page 8]).

In this definition a temporal component is added. A school lab is characterised by repeatedly offered services. Again the venue is marked as outside of school, whereby the school provides the framework conditions. Furthermore there is a thematic restriction to MINT, as has also been in the other definitions.

Coinciding criteria in relevant literature

It appears that the definitions coincide in many points; some points being expressed more or less explicitly. Summarising it all school labs shall meet the following criteria:

  • institution outside school,
  • opportunity for autonomous experimenting for pupils,
  • contents concerning MINT,
  • working in prepared laboratories,
  • availability of an organised learning environment,
  • meeting framework conditions of school,
  • regular offering of service.

Does the exception prove the rule?!

All of the definitions above exclude some institutions termed school lab. The criterion institution outside school excludes the established school lab Science on Tour of BTU Cottbus for instance. The very concept of this school lab is to visit schools for experimenting. It can provide all necessary materials and equipment used in modern laboratories. Another example shows that a school lab does not necessarily need an actual laboratory, and thus does not have to be restricted to MINT. The school labGeisteswissenschaften (humanities) of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences offers a realistic and practical view on humanities by conducting classroom experiments for example. So a laboratory is unnecessary here, and the project serves no MINT topic. Then again this school lab is almost unique in its topic area - an exception to the rule.

In the subsequent work of LernortLabor e.V. Schülerlabor-Atlas 2015 it was observed that most definitions are not expedient as they either restrict too much, or appear to be too general and therefore dilute the definition (cf. [Haupt et al., 2015, page 17]). Nevertheless the necessity of finding a standardised definition remains unchanged.

Understandably users of school labs (teachers and pupils) as well as education administration and prospective third-party donors respectively sponsors want to get the necessary information as precise as possible when planning a school lab visit or supporting one (cf. [Haupt et al., 2013, page 324]).

Model

Hence Haupt et al. developed a model containing main criteria from common features of school labs.

For that it was important to derive categories from the distinguishing features of different school labs, as well as formulating criteria from those features. Furthermore a model and superordinate primary objectives should be deduced, which refer to all forms of school labs (cf. [Haupt et al., 2013, Seite 325]).

The specific aim was to structure the heterogeneity of school labs, so that comparable types of school labs become recognisable by the definition of the categories (cf. [Haupt et al., 2013, page 324]). These criteria are taken as a model for they are least excluding, and yet they concretise the main points. The definition has been worked out by the LernortLabor- Bundesverband der Schülerlabore e.V., the umbrella organisation founded and provided by school labs.

Subsequently the model will be briefly explained, and the connecting primary criteria presented.

Part of the common model of all present school labs is that they want to arouse and promote interest and understanding for natural and engineering sciences in children and adolescents (cf.[Haupt et al., 2015, page 17]).

This also includes conveying basic knowledge of natural and engineering sciences, as well as encouraging next generations for jobs and degree programmes in the MINT field. Here school labs function explicitly as a support and supplement for school (cf. [Haupt et al., 2015, page 17]).

Here, too, we find a restriction of school labs regarding MINT. Yet it is less of a concern as nearly all present school labs concentrate on MINT - except the one mentioned above.

Primary criteria

As the criteria of the model also apply for other learning facilities, Haupt et al. identified so-called primary criteria (cf.[Haupt et al., 2015, page 18]).

There are three key criteria:

  • There is a laboratory which is set up according to the respective specialised direction, respectively a room fitting for MINT with a sufficiently large number of workplaces. The venue has an address outside school, or at least outside the regular school operation, and is considerably better equipped then schools normally are (cf. [Haupt et al., 2013, page 325]).
  • The laboratory/ room is used as a school lab for at least 20 days a year. The number results from the fact that a school lab running at full capacity could, within a year (minus holidays), offer about 200 days for experimenting. A laboratory offering less than 10% of this time is obviously used for occasional, singular events only, such as experimenting on Open Day, Girls' Day, or summer school. Thus it cannot be described as a permanently active school lab (cf. [Haupt et al., 2013, page 325]).
  • Pupils predominantly experiment - research - test autonomously. The scientific work process and methods takes centre stage here. The autonomous experimenting is guided and reflected by personnel support (cf. [Haupt et al., 2013, page 325]).