1

Dr Jon Chippindall

‘The only good primary science is practical work by the children’

The objective of this essay is to explore the hypothesis: ‘The only good primary science is practical

work by the children’. The hypothesis will be discussed with reference to published literature,

personal observations and a focus group conducted with six Year Six pupils (transcription in

appendix D). To begin this essay, it is necessary to explore key terms within the hypothesis.

The term practical work is used to describe teaching and learning which requires pupils to

manipulate and/or observe objects which they are studying (Millar, 2004). Consequently, practical

work may take a variety of forms. Pupils may undertake short tasks to highlight concepts or facts, or

undertake more lengthily ‘investigations’ to determine patterns or relationships. Regardless of type,

these activities take place within primary science, which takes place within primary education.

Hence, to discuss whether specific elements of primary science are indeed ‘good’, it is necessary to

consider the aims of primary science and primary education more generally.

Millar (2004) summaries the aims of science education as:

to help pupils to gain an understanding of as much of the established body of scientific

knowledge as is appropriate to their needs, interests and capacities;

to develop pupils’ understanding of the methods by which this knowledge has been gained,

and our grounds for confidence in it (knowledge of scientific enquiry).

Indeed the categorisation of science education into scientific knowledge and knowledge of scientific

enquiry appears in the statutory requirements of the national curriculum, which specifies 50% of

teaching time should focus upon objectives from Sc 1: Scientific enquiry, with such ‘enquires’ based

on scientific knowledge from Sc 2-4: Life and living processes; Materials and their properties; and

Physical processes, respectively (DfEE/QCA, 2000).

The aim of science education resides within the wider purpose of primary education, which has

recently undergone Government-actioned and independent review (Rose, 2009; Alexander, 2009

respectively). As a consequence of Government review, it is anticipated that statutory curriculum

aims for the primary phase of education will be introduced reflecting an amalgamation of the key

stage 3/4 aims (see below) and the outcomes of the Every Child Matters (ECM) initiative: be healthy,

be safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution, achieve economic well-being (DCSF, 2008)

successful learners, who enjoy learning, make progress and succeed;

2

confident individuals, who are able to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives;

responsible citizens, who make a positive contribution to society; (DfEE/QCA, 1999)

Building upon the above introduction, five themes will be discussed within this essay: the

effectiveness of practical work in conveying scientific knowledge and knowledge of scientific enquiry;

the role of practical work in motivating pupils; the implications of the teacher ‘in the loop’; literacy,

numeracy and ICT within science practical work; and the implications of practical work upon

inclusion. Conclusions will subsequently be drawn against the hypothesis.

Scientific knowledge and knowledge of scientific enquiry

To discuss the value of practical work in developing pupils’ scientific knowledge, it is necessary to

introduce the constructionist view of learning which recognises that pupils are not without ideas

about the world around them, but that such ideas are often misconceptions (Harlen, 1999).In the

constructionist approach, it is the job of the teacher to elicit such misconceptions and facilitate

opportunity for pupils to construct their own learning by providing experiences that will tend pupils’

ideas towards the scientifically established explanation1.

Millar (2004) argues that practical work offers an ideal medium to elicit pupils’ misconceptions.

Indeed, Appendix A provides a description of a practical activity used to elicit pupils’ misconceptions

on the topic of light2. Of note, due to the active nature of practical work, it was my experience that

misconceptions not only surfaced in the outcome of the activity (a diagram) but also through

observation of the pupils undertaking the activity i.e. overhearing pupils’ discussions and observing

their actions.

Following elicitation, Driver (1983) champions practical enquiry as a tool to facilitate conceptual

development. Indeed, Ofsted (2008:5) states: ‘The experiences and insights gained through scientific

investigations and good quality explanations and demonstrations help to bring about good

conceptual development’. Yet, after reviewing numerous studies, Hodson (1993) argues that

practical work is not superior to other teaching methods in helping pupils to develop scientific

knowledge. Indeed, Watson (1995:499) states: ‘the quantity of practical work done by the pupils had

marginal effect on pupils’ understanding’ and Osborne (1997) offers his ‘advantageous’ alternatives

to practical work, namely: group discussions, jumbled sentence exercises and concept maps.

1 It is noted that a classroom typically gives rise to a social-constructionist environment, in which pupils’ construction of learning takes place in the company of other learners; the exchange of ideas between learners and a ‘knowledgeable other’ (the teacher) informs the construction of learning (Vygostky, 1988). 2 Annotated examples of pupils’ work including specific details of misconceptions appears in appendix A

3

It is interesting to note however, that both Millar (2004) and Ofsted (2008) emphasize that it is not

solely practical work completed by the children that leads to effective conceptual learning, but

rather it is a combination of practical work and reflective discussion upon such practical work. This

mirrors my experience when delivering a lesson upon reversible and irreversible changes, as

described in Appendix B. I noted that, whilst the practical activity was valuable in providing the

evidence to support conceptual understanding, pupils only appeared to construct such

understanding within the discussion which comprised the plenary. Indeed, Harlen (2009) highlights

that just because pupils are actively engaged in practical work, does not necessarily indicate they are

developing ideas from evidence.

Scientific enquiry comprises of ‘skills and attitudes’. For example (respectively): ‘use observations,

measurements or other data to draw conclusions’ and ‘it is important to test ideas using evidence

from observation and measurement’ (DfEE/QCA, 2000:83). Woolnough (1994) and Jakeways (1986)

have argued that undertaking practical work (doing science) is an effective means for pupils to

develop such skills and attitudes. However, in both studies, such practical work comprises of

‘extended investigations’ seeking to prove hypothesis, in which the pupils are involved from

conception to conclusion – an experience perhaps more typical beyond key stage 2. Indeed, from

observing pupils undertake practical work, including that described in Appendix B, I am sceptical

about the level of tacit knowledge of scientific enquiry which pupils’ develop from doing science.

Certainly throughout the GPP, pupils did not illustrate significant progression in this area. As such,

with reference to the paragraph above, perhaps coupling practical work with discussion about

scientific enquiry within the lesson plenary may aid pupils’ progress in this area; making tacit

knowledge explicit and enabling pupils to be more aware of the objectives in this area of the science

curriculum.

Student motivation

The curriculum aims referenced within the introduction indicate education has an outward

commitment to produce citizens who make a positive contribution to society. For science education,

given a workforce highly skilled in science has been emphasised as fundamental to the future

prosperity of the UK economy (Lord Sainsbury, 2007), such an outward commitment may be

interpreted, in part, as enthusing pupils and motivating them to pursue the study of science further3.

Traditionally, the positive impact upon student motivation has been used as an argument for the

value of practical work in science education (Hodson 1993). Indeed, a recent report by the Children,

3 Since traditionally only a small number (relatively) of pupils chose to pursue the study of the sciences beyond key stage 4, the importance of pupil motivation becomes more significant (IOP, 2006)

4

Schools and Families Committee (2009) refers to a lack of practical work as a possible cause of

pupils’ loss of interest in science. In addition, a number of Government funded initiatives (e.g.

STEMNET, Stimulating Physics, Chemistry for our Futures,) aim to motivate pupils to continue the

study of science through, in part, the delivery of practical activities within schools4.

Yet, studies have questioned whether practical work within science education does indeed increase

student motivation (Gardner and Gould, 1990). Rather, Gardner and Gould (1990:91) claim ‘the

opportunity to engage more freely with the teacher and with other children and to pace work to suit

them’ appeals to pupils as opposed to conducting practical work per se. Furthermore, Harlen

(1999:7) claims there to be ‘no evidence that increasing the amount of practical work increases

pupils’ interest and motivation in relation to science’. However, on this point, perhaps it is necessary

to consider that there is a base proportion of science education which pupils assume/wish to be

practical, and whilst positive correlation between practical work and motivation above this base

level may not exist, removal of this base provision may result in a decrease in motivation. Would

pupils really find a science course without any practical element as interesting as a course which did

incorporate practical activities?

From observing and teaching pupils on GPP, including those lessons documented in the appendices

to this essay, pupils certainly appeared to enjoy participating in practical activities, although it is

acknowledged that ‘enjoy’ needs further qualifying and certainly may not equate to ‘motivated to

study further’. However, in my focus group, all pupils were quick to voice their favourite part of

science was ‘doing experiments’. Aligned with such evidence, Braund and Driver (2005) report Year

Six pupils to value practical work, and to look forward to doing more of it with more advanced

equipment at secondary school.

Finally, it is interestingly to note the response of D when asked in the focus group about his

enjoyment of practical work. D explains: “I like the hard question, you [the teacher] haven’t found it

out. We have to find it out.” Evidence of this desire to undertake a challenging task with an

increased level of autonomy reflects findings by Hodson (1993), who concluded that pupils’ both

value and are motivated by practical work when it provides a cognitive challenge and offers

increased independence.

4 I was a regional coordinator for the Stimulating Physics project. The project remit placed great emphasis on the delivery of practical activities in school to supposedly raise pupils’ motivation in science.

5

Teacher ‘in the loop’

Practical work by children does not spontaneously occur; for children to be undertaking science

practical work it is implied that a teacher has planned and is facilitating the activity. However,

inevitably, teachers’ scientific knowledge and confidence in that knowledge will vary. Consequently,

and particularly since it has been argued that practical work may be most effective when coupled

with reflective discussion facilitated by the teacher as the ‘knowledgeable other’, the importance of

considering the teacher as a variable in the value of ‘practical work by the children’ becomes

apparent.

Fundamentally, in terms of teachers’ beliefs, Lynch (1987) states that, ‘when a group of teachers is

nodding approval about practical work they have quite different purposes in mind.’5 Furthermore,

Hodson (1993) presents evidence to suggest that despite teachers exhibiting coherent individual

philosophic stances towards the role of practical work in science education, their selection of

practical activities rarely reflects such views but rather more immediate concerns such as behaviour

management.

Given practical activities inevitably vary in complexity, in terms of both theory and practicality, it

seems reasonable to suggest that such variation in teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and confidence will

influence selection of practical activities at the planning stage. Indeed, Oftsed (2008) concluded that

it was a lack of knowledge and confidence responsible for putting teachers off ‘hands on’ lessons,

and recommended an increase in provision of continuing professional development to counter this

trend. Along similar lines, a recent article in TESmagazine (2009) offered practical advice to teachers

whom have been put off practical work with ‘lively’ classes.

Certainly during my GPP, a range in teachers’ confidence, capacity and desire to deliver science

practical lessons became apparent, and I suggest such variation will ultimately lead to a variation in

the value of such ‘practical work by the children’. Furthermore, in an attempt to support less

confident staff members, there existed a prescribed set of well rehearsed experiments within the

school. However, as came to light in the focus group, since all teachers appeared to gravitate

towards delivering theses experiments, pupils were repeating experiments year-on-year, which,

understandably, had a negative impact upon pupils’ motivation.

5 Pekmez et al (2005) recently found only a minority of teachers (4 out of 23) articulated a way of thinking towards practical work consistent with the aims of the national curriculum i.e. that practical work may be a tool for conveying knowledge of scientific enquiry and scientific knowledge.

6

Literacy, numeracy and ICT within science practical work

Cross and Bowden (2009) highlight that language is used in a specific manner within science and, as

such, provides opportunity for pupils to expand their vocabulary in a meaningful context.

Furthermore, group practical activities provide the opportunity for pupils to develop their speaking

and listening skills. Indeed Mercer et al (2000) used practical group work in science to aid pupils’

language development, specifically pupils’ ability to use talk for reasoning. Interestingly, Mercer et al

(2000) concluded that placing an emphasis upon ‘talk and reason’ within practical work not only

aided pupils’ progression in terms of their language development, but also in their grasp of scientific

understanding.

Appendix C provides an example of how ICT may be used to enhance the value of science practical

work which pupils experience, as argued by Murphy (2003). In this instance, ICT facilitated a

‘conference style’ environment, in which pupils’ presented plans for an investigation to the class;

pupils took questions from their peers and defended their scientific enquiry skills 6. As such, the value

of ICT was in facilitating a level of pupil-to-pupil interaction which would have otherwise been

difficult to achieve, thus hopefully aiding pupils’ progression given a social-constructionist approach

to learning. However, it is also worth noting that some researchers speak rather unenthusiastically

about the value of ICT, given the billions of pounds of investment in this area (Reynolds et al, 2003).

Indeed Reynolds et al (2003:151) states that, despite investment in equipment, ‘ICT has been

broken-backed without a pedagogic spine to provide the necessary structure and support.’

Lenton and Stevens (1999) highlight that understanding science relies upon on an ability to grasp

mathematical concepts or undertake mathematical tasks e.g. constructing/interpreting graphs or

reading scales etc. As such, a pupils’ level of numeracy may either hinder or help their progression

within science practical work. Furthermore science practical work may be viewed as an opportunity

to reinforce mathematical understanding, within a context perhaps more concrete than textbook

questions. On this note, I delivered a lesson in which pupils determined the relationship between the

rate at which sugar dissolves and its surface area. As such, in the plenary to the lesson, I was able to

engage the pupils in mathematical concepts from units on 2D and 3D shape and area, along with

practising multiplication and addition (numeracy-in-action). However, it is noted that this practical

investigation did not coincide with such subjects being taught in maths, which, whilst difficult

logistically to achieve, may have enhanced the value of such numeracy-in-action, in terms of pupils’

strengthening their understanding.

6 Using ICT in this manner also linked to drama skills, as pupils were encouraged to assume the role of academics defending their latest work.

7

Science for all: Inclusion

A class of pupils is far from homogenous; two subsets of pupils will be discussed below to consider

the interaction between practical work and inclusion: female pupils and pupils whom have English as

an additional language (EAL).

The presence of overly dominant male pupils within science group practical work has been cited as

having a detrimental effect upon girls’ experience of science education and their confidence in their

ability within science (Morgan, 1989 and IOP, 2006). Morgan (1989:34) writes ‘boys were very much

to the fore in offering to help try things, hold things, move equipment etc’. Furthermore, Morgan

(1989) argues that girls may struggle with elements of science which require particular confidence in

their ability, such as making predictions. However, on GPP I certainly did not get the sense that the

girls in the class were put off science during practical group work due to overly dominant males - in

fact, in some cases, the reverse may had been true! Yet, regarding confidence, it is interesting to

note that when discussing practical investigations in the focus group, Z, who was a male student,

exclaims: “I like the predicting” and then adds: “I want to see if I am right”. Whereas M, who is a

female pupil, is quick to add: “I don’t like the predicting because sometimes I don’t have a clue what

I am going to do and I always end up getting it wrong”.

Studies have made favourable reference to the role of practical work in narrowing the achievement

discrepancy between EAL and non-EAL pupils within science. For example, both Robinson (2005) and

Gayle et al (2005) argue that the physical and mental involvement in the development of

understanding afforded by practical work provides the conditions with enable EAL pupils to,

subsequently, retrieve vocabulary. However, Robinson (2005) also noted the ease with which EAL

pupils become disengaged in practical activities if instructions are not clear. From observing pupils

with EAL on GPP I would certainly support this statement. Furthermore, linking back to the value of

combining practical work with reflection to advance learning, I would emphasise that whilst pupils

with EAL may be keen to engage with hands-on practical work, such engagement needs to be

capitalised on in the subsequent discussion to cement learning, both in terms of scientific vocabulary

and knowledge.

8

Conclusions

In light of the above discussions, the following conclusions are drawn against the hypothesis:

It has been argued, based on evidence from literature and personal experience, that

practical work provides an efficient means to reveal pupils’ misconceptions in science – the

first step in a constructionist approach to learning. Significantly, it has been noted that

misconceptions may arise both in the outcome of such activities and by observing pupils

undertaking the tasks.

Contradicting research on the value of practical work in facilitating progression in conceptual

understanding has been reviewed. However, it has been noted that those championing

practical work emphasise the importance of coupling practical tasks with reflective

discussion. Indeed, it was my experience, that whilst practical work provides evidence to

support conceptual understanding, it was subsequent class discussion in which pupils

appeared to construct ideas from evidence.

Given the statutory emphasis on scientific enquiry, elements of science education which

help to foster enquiry skills and attitudes must be assumed to be ‘good’, and research has

been reviewed which indeed argues that learners’ may progress in this area via the tacit

knowledge acquired in completing practical work (Jakeways, 1986). Yet, from personal

experience, I remain sceptical about pupils’ development in this area from ‘doing science’.

Perhaps pupils’ progression in this area may be enhanced if supposed tacit knowledge was

made explicit, and reinforced, via reflective discussion.

The significance of student motivation within science education has been illustrated.

Contradicting research has been reviewed which argues for and against the role of practical

work in motivating pupils in science. Evidence from the focus group suggests, in support of

work by Hodson (1990), that pupils find practical work motivating when it offers a cognitive

challenge and an opportunity to operate autonomously.

It has been argued, based on literature and personal experience, that variation in teachers’

beliefs, knowledge and confidence will inevitably lead to variation in the ‘value of practical

work by the children’.

9

It has been highlighted that practical work provides a context within which pupils may

reinforce and further develop their literacy and numeracy skills. Furthermore, research has

indicated that a literacy focus within practical work may also aid scientific understanding

(Mercer et al 2000). It has equally been noted that a low level of numeracy or literacy may

hinder progression in science practical work.

It has been argued, with reference to personal experience, that ICT may be used to increase

the value of ‘practical work by the children’. In this instance such ICT facilitated a high

degree of pupil-to-pupil discussion, aiding a social-constructionist environment. Research

has also been reviewed which provides a less enthusiastic review of the value of ICT within

education, calling for greater pedagogic support for teachers.

It has been highlighted, with reference to two subsets of pupils, that practical work may bear

influence over inclusion – affecting different pupils in different ways. Research has

highlighted that girls’ enjoyment and confidence in science education may be diminished

through practical work with ‘overly-dominant’ boys, although personal observation only

partly supports this argument. Alternatively, research argues for increased provision of

practical work for EAL pupils, claiming the process of undertaking practical work provides

conditions conducive to efficient vocabulary recall.

It appears the value of practical work depends upon a complex set of interactions between a range

of variables, including (amongst others not explored in this essay): the form of practical work; the

purpose or learning objective of the practical work; the pupils’ individual characteristics; the

teachers’ individual characteristics; and the context within which learning takes place. Consequently,

whilst it has indeed been argued that in certain instances practical work may be particularly

effective, it would appear difficult to argue ‘practical work by the children as being the only good

science’. As such, perhaps a suitable quote to conclude upon is that from Osbourne (1997:61), who

suggests: ‘In the learning of science, practical work should be viewed as one strategy in an extended

repertoire’.

10

References

Alexander, R. (2009) Children, their World, their Education: Final report and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review, London. Routledge

Braud, M. and Driver, M., (2005) Pupils’ perceptions of practical science in primary and secondary school: implications for progression and continuity of learning, Educational research, 47: 1, pp 77-91

Cross, A. and Bowden, A., (2009) Essential Primary Science, London: Open University Press

DCSF, (2008) Every Child Matters Outcome Framework, Online: www.everychildmatters.go v.uk/aims/outcomes/

DfEE/QCA, (1999) The National Curriculum: A handbook for secondary teachers in England , London, HMSO

DfEE/QCA, (2000) The National Curriculum: A handbook for primary teachers in England, London, HMSO

Driver,R.(1983) The Pupils as Scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press

Gardner, P., and Gauld, C., (1990) Labwork and students attitudes. In: Hegarty-Hazel, E. The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum. London. Routledge

Gayle, B., Mast, C., Ehlers, N., and Franklin, E., (2005) Preparing teachers to make a mainstream science classroom conducive to the needs of English-language learners, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol 42, No. 9, pp. 1013 - 1031

Harlen, W. (1999) Effective Teaching of Science: A review of research, Edinburgh: SCRE

Harlen, W. (2009) Enquiry and Good Science Teaching, Primary Science Review, Vol. 106, pp 5-8

Hodson, D. (1993) Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science, Studies in Science Education, 22: 1, pp 85-142

House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee, (2009), National Curriculum, Forth report of session 2008-09, Vol. 1

IOP (2006), Girls in the Physics Classroom: A Teachers Guide for Action, Institute of Physics Education

Jakeways, R., (1986) Assessment of A-Level physics investigations, Physics Education, 21, pp. 12-14

Lenton, G., and Stevens. B., (1999) Numeracy in Science, School Science Review, 80(293)

Lord Sainsbury of Turville, (2007), The Race to the Top: A review of Government’s Science and Innovation Policy. London, HMSO

Lynch, P. (1987) Laboratory work in schools and universities: structures and strategies still largely unexplored. Australian Science Teachers Journal 32 , pp. 31-39

Mercer, N., Dawes, L., and Wegerif, R., (2000) Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science, British Educational Research Journal, Vol 30, No. 3

11

Millar, R. (2004) The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science, Paper prepared for the Committee: High School Science Laboratories: National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC

Morgan, V. (1989) Primary science – Gender differences in pupils’ responses’, Education 3-13, 17: 2, pp. 33-37

Murphy, C. (2003) Primary Science and ICT, Futurelab: Innovation in Education

Ofsted, (2008) Success in Science, London, HMSO

Osbourne, J., (1997) Practical alternatives School Science Review, 78 (285)

Pekmez, E. P, Johnson, P., and Gott, R., (2005) Teachers’ understanding of the nature and purpose of practical work, Research in Science and Technological Education, 23: 1, pp 3-23

Reynolds, D., Treharne, D., and Tripp, H., (2003), ICT – the hopes and the reality, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol 34, No 2, pp. 151-167

Robinson, P., (2005) Teaching key vocabulary in Geography and Science Classrooms: An analysis of teachers practice with particular reference to EAL pupils’ learning, Language and Education, 19: 5, pp. 428 – 445.

Rose, J. (2009) Independent review of the primary curriculum: Final Report, Nottingham HMSO

TESmagazine, (2009) Behaviour, Times Education Supplement, pp 24

Vygotsky, L.S., (1988) Thought and language, Third edition. London: MIT Press

Watson, R., Prieto, T., Dillion., J (1995) The Effect of Practical Work on Students Understanding of Combustion, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol 32, No. 5, pp.487-502

Woolnough, B.E., (1994) Effective Science Teaching, Chapter 4, Buckingham: Open University Press

12

Appendix A Elicitation activity for QCA unit 6F: How we see things

For this activity, I placed a number of glowsticks around a dark room and asked four pupils to spend

five minutes determining, in pairs, how they were able to use a plane mirror to see all the sources of

light, including those behind them. This was designed to get the pupils thinking and talking about

how light travels; I then asked pupils to sketch two diagrams: ‘Illustrate how a pupil in the class can

see the teacher’ and illustrate ‘How a shadow is formed’.

The pupils were reasonably engaged in the activity, although they became less so when asked to

draw the diagram as opposed to experimenting with the mirrors. As such, it would have been

preferable if the diagrams I had asked them to draw were more closely linked to the practical activity

with the mirror.

In terms of accurate science recall, many of the pupils’ diagrams evidenced key facts from the year 4

unit. E.g. light travels in straight lines and arrows indicate the direction the light is travelling in. In

addition, pupils, on the whole, correctly recalled that shadows are formed when light is blocked by

an opaque object.

Considering the diagram, Illustrate how a pupil in the class can see the teacher. It is apparent, from

the diagrams produced (see attached), a common misconception is the belief that sight is an active,

as opposed to passive, process. This can be deduced from the pupils’ diagrams, in which the arrows

on the light rays are pointing away from the eye. Considering why such a misconception may arise,

and furthermore may be ‘common’, appearing across many pupils. I suggest this alternative belief

may, perhaps, be attributed to an appealing perspective held by children, in which there is greater

belief that they are in control of their actions and senses, as opposed to being dependent upon that

which is beyond their control – a more uncomfortable reality at their age.

As a result of this elicitation activity, I was aware of the pupils’ key understanding which I didn’t need

to recap in great detail, namely that light travels in straight lines and emulates from a light source.

Furthermore, with a constructionist approach to learning in mind, I designed an activity which

challenged pupils’ belief that sight is an active process - hopefully tending their beliefs towards the

scientifically established understanding.

13

Appendix B Teach an aspect of science to a group of pupils

Pupils responded well to the practical element of this lesson, in which, in groups, pupils had to add

salt, sugar, sand, Andrews liver salts and flour to water and record observations of the resulting

mixture. Since time had been allocated to assigning roles within the groups (each pupil to combine

one mixture, all to observe and record, one to pour away each mixture etc) a high proportion of the

students were engaged in the practical activity and the majority of talk was ‘on topic’.

The lesson was designed to use scientific enquiry objectives from Sc1 to convey scientific

understanding from Sc3 – see attached lesson plan for further details. However, whilst the practical

enquiry element was effective at engaging pupils, questioning the pupils at the end of the practical

element revealed a low level of conceptual learning. Certainly pupils were not able to articulate a

firm understanding of what makes a change reversible or irreversible, or accurately provide an

example of each from the preceding practical work – an Sc 3 objective for the lesson. Hence it was

noted that, whilst drawing on evidence from the practical enquiry, it was the discussion and concept

map construction in the lesson plenary which facilitated the greatest progression in pupils’

conceptual learning.

This lesson enabled pupils’ to undertake scientific enquiry skills, such as making and recording

observations, which most pupils achieved well. However, as highlighted above, pupils didn’t make

the link between scientific enquiry and scientific understanding i.e. using scientific enquiry to inform

or confirm scientific knowledge. As such, the following lesson comprised of an investigation which

provided a closer link between scientific enquiry and conceptual learning (in this instance that

surface area affects the rate of dissolving). Furthermore, the investigative nature of the practical

activity enabled pupils to engage in higher order scientific enquiry skills, such as: making predictions;

proving or otherwise predictions, and; using scientific knowledge to explain observations.

14

Appendix C Select, trial and evaluate and ICT application in science

Generic description: The picture to the right is of a Visualiser, which was used to complete this

task. A visualiser may connect directly to an interactive white

board or computer and provides live video of that which is

placed onto the visualiser.

Specific use and evaluation: The aim of the visualiser is to

easily facilitate visual communication with the whole class. In

this instance, the visualiser was used in a lesson plenary to

display the work from pupils’ exercise books. Such work

comprised of pupils’ plans for an investigation (the surface

area investigation mentioned in appendix B), including diagrams illustrating how they intended to

undertake the investigation.

Given the aim of undertaking the investigation was to develop scientific enquiry skills, particularly

the necessity to ensure a fair test, the aim of using the visualiser was to facilitate a ‘conference style’

environment, akin to that held within the academic community, in which pupils had to present and

defend their investigation plans. As such, pupils had two minutes to present their plans before taking

questions from the pupils to ensure their plans were scientifically watertight.

Using ICT in this manner facilitated a high level of pupil-to-pupil interaction which would have

otherwise been difficult to achieve, and which ensured a high proportion of the pupils were engaged

in the lesson plenary. Furthermore, the conference style activity enabled assessment of pupils’ grasp

of the concept of fair testing, not just by observing those presenting, but also by taking note of the

questions which pupils were asking. Furthermore, regarding a social-constructionist approach to

learning, the guided pupil-to-pupil discussions which ensued during the questioning sessions helped

pupils to further grasp the meaning of a fair test, leading to a progression in pupils’ conceptual

understanding.

Given the ease with which the visualiser enabled whole class sharing and engagement, and the

apparent value in the pupil-to-pupil interaction with regards pupils’ construction of learning, I intend

to repeat the conference style activity in science and in other subjects where possible.

15

Appendix D Focus group transcription

The following is a transcription, from Dictaphone, of a focus group held with six pupils from Acacias CPS. To maintain anonymity, pupils’ first initials are used and JC indicates myself. Pupils J, Z and D are male whilst M, A and Ma are female. Quotes used in main body of essay appear in red.

JC: We are going to start with quite an open question; I want you tell me anything you would like about science: Whether you like it? Whether you dislike it? What parts you like or dislike?

A: I like experimenting.M: I like experimenting but I don’t like boring experiments, I like the ones where you can get

messy.J: I like the experiments but I don’t like when you have do all the reports saying what

happened.D: I like doing it [experimenting] but I don’t like writing it out.Ma: I think science is quite exciting and I don’t really mind writing it down because it’s just a part of science.Z: I think science is good when you’re doing the experiments but when you write it out it is quite boring.A: Chemistry is the best part. Agreement from others

JC: What is it about chemistry that you like?

D: You get to mix chemicals!M: Yeah and sometimes they change different colours.A: You don’t know what you are going to get at the end so it’s exciting.D: You might get an explosion.

JC: Well I showed you the mini explosion with the Angel Delight. Agreement from pupils.JC: OK great, so let’s be a little more specific - we may have covered this already, but what is it specifically that you like about your science lessons and why? M: I just like the experimenting and I don’t like writing it down.

JC: What is it about experimenting that you like?

M: I don’t know... It’s just fun to see what will happen at the end; it’s exciting.A: It’s okay when you write but when you right loads it gets kind of boring. With experiments it’s fun as you do different things and mix and add things together.Z: I like science with the experimenting.

JC: Aiming to clarify what pupils consider to be ‘experimenting’. In science we did that experiment where we investigated the speed at which different sugars dissolved, and we planned that as a class and that was very much an experiment to answer a specific question. What about the other week when you were playing around with the mirrors to see the glow sticks - would you call that an experiment or is that not what you are talking about?

J: It wasn’t really because all you had to do was find something and when you are doing a proper experiment you want to answer a tough question.

JC: So is it the answering the question which you like? All agree.

All pupils quick to say that ‘experimenting’ is their favourite part of science

16

Z: I like doing the predicting.D: I like the hard question, like you have to find it out – you haven’t found it out; we have to find it out.Z: I like the predicting.

JC: What is it you like about the predicting?

Z: I want to see if I get it right.M: I don’t like the predicting because sometimes I don’t have a clue what I am going to do and I always end up getting it wrong.D: I agree with David and I think that science is one of the most important subjects because if we didn’t have science we couldn’t evolve and getting house build and stuff like that.

JC: So, moving on then, what is it specifically that you don’t like about science?

M: Writing it all down.D: Mostly writing it all down.A: Recording our results.J: The bit Meg said where you have to write it all up – the answers.Z: ‘Explain your answer’ I hate that bit!

JC: Why do you hate that bit?

Z: Because I can never explain the answer.

JC: So do you find it quite difficult?

Z: Yes

JC: Does anyone else find that bit difficult? Two hands up and two hands ‘half up’.JC: Do you have anything else to add?

A: Sometimes the experiments are boring – like all you have to do is add something and you are done.

JC: So you don’t like all experiments as some can be quite dull?

M: I don’t like the experiments where you just have to look at something and then explain your answer from it - I prefer doing something with it.

JC: So we’re talking about what we call really interactive experiments which are very practical and allow you to get in stuck in?

D: I like that experiment that we did in Eid when we stuck our hand in.

JC: Oh the Cornflour one that I showed you – you liked that did you? Pupil is reffering to an experiment in which a large quantity of Cornflour is made up which exhibits unusual, and quite interesting, characteristics.

D: Yeah

17

M: I’m not really keen on observing everything as that’s quite boring. I prefer observing something which is exciting.J: When you are doing it, I don’t like the bit when you are explaining it. It would be better if you could just say what happened, for example: ‘We noticed that this type of sugar dissolved the quickest’.

JC: Do you mean as opposed to going into why that sugar dissolved quickest?

J: Yeah as opposed to saying why is happening.

JC: Yeah but it is that scientific understanding which allows us to progress in science.

D: Most of the experiments we’ve already done: the torch and the sugar etc.A: We did it in Year 5 as we had Year 6 in our class.M: We had a mixed class so we did it last year.A: I like doing microorganisms. M: I hate that.

JC: So what would you like to do more of in the science lessons?

M: More exciting experiments and less of the writing it down – you could just use a voice recorder.

JC: Good idea. What other IT stuff have you used?

Z: Instead of writing it down you could do more experiments with chemicals.A: You could just do a little diagram.

JC: Do you mind drawing the diagrams as much as the writing?

M: Yeah I do.Z: No.J: I’d rather do diagrams.

JC: Have you ever used data loggers?

All: No.

JC: Do you know what a data logger is? None of the pupils do.

D: I think the class should have a book which the teacher writes in. We do the experiments and the teacher writes them in.M: I think we could video tape it as we are going along.

JC: So you are quite keen on getting IT into lessons – a bit like when we used the visuliser. So why are you so keen to get IT into your lessons?

M: Because it is a lot easier and it shows more than just writing it down – it shows what you were actually doing as well.Z: Instead of thinking in your head you could just see it.J: Instead of thinking what did we do step-by-step you just start it playing back.