alid or invalid on a priori ground*y Thus, de-pending on the problem, the laboratory may bean altogether appropriate setting for an investiga-tion and certain real-life environments may behighly inappropriate. Suppose, for example, oneis interested in studying the interaction betweenmother and child when the child is placed in astrange and unfamiliar situation. Clearly the lab-oratory approximates this condition far better thanthe home. Conversely, if the focus of inquiry isthe modal pattern of parent-child activity pre-vailing in the family, observations confined to thelaboratory can be misleading. As I have docu-mented elsewhere in greater detail (Bronfenbren-ner, in press), patterns of parent-child interactionin the laboratory are substantially and systemati-cally different than those in the home. Specifi-cally, so far as young children are concerned, theresults indicate that the strangeness of the labora-tory situation tends to increase anxiety and othernegative feeling states and to decrease manifesta-tions of social competence (Lamb, 1976b; Ross,Kagan, Zelazo, & Kotelchuck, 1975; Lamb, Note3). Possibly in response to this reaction of thechild, parents tend to exhibit more positive inter-i actions toward their children in the laboratory' than in the home (Schlieper, 1975; Shalock, 1956;Belsky, Note 4). In addition, Lamb (1976b;Note 3) reported that the tendency of the infantat home to display more affiliative behaviors (e.g.,looking, smiling, reaching, vocalizing) toward thefather than the mother was reversed in the labora-tory. Moreover, consistent with the arguments ofSroufe (1970) and Tulkin (1972) that the lab-oratory is especially likely to be an anxiety-arous-ing situation for lower-class families, Lamb foundsocioeconomic differences in father-infant inter-action favoring the middle class in the laboratory,'whereas such differences had not been present inI the h o m e.Again, the fact that

Laboratory activities and constructivism are two notions that have been playing significant roles in science education. Despite common beliefs about the importance of laboratory activities, reviews reported inconsistent results about the effectiveness of laboratory activities. Since laboratory activities can be expensive and take more time, there is an effort to introduce virtual laboratory activities. This study aims at exploring the learning environment created by a virtual laboratory and a real laboratory. A quasi experimental study was conducted at two grade ten classes at a state high school in Bandung, Indonesia. Data were collected using a questionnaire called Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) before and after the laboratory activities. The results show that both types of laboratories can create constructivist learning environments. Each type of laboratory activity, however, may be stronger in improving certain aspects compared to the other. While a virtual laboratory is stronger in improving critical voice and personal relevance, real laboratory activities promote aspects of personal relevance, uncertainty and student negotiation. This study suggests that instead of setting one type of laboratory against the other, lessons and follow up studies should focus on how to combine both types of laboratories to support better learning.