Purposes of Practical Work

This study sought to explore and document the views and experiences of trainee and practising science teachers about the practice of using practical work to teach and assess learners’ understanding of physics concepts in the science SBA curriculum. The views and experiences of the participants were analysed and synthesized with the literature review discussed in this chapter. Subsequently, this study sought to develop a set of guidelines that can be used to inform and enhance science teachers’ PCK in teaching, learning and assessment of physics concepts using practical work in SBA.

In essence, the purpose of practical work is related to the aims of science education as a whole (SCORE, 2011). Recently one main focus of science education in the western world as well as the globe revolves around the notion of scientific literacy (Allchin, 2011; Duschl, 2008; Hodson, 1998; Laugksch, 2000). This is associated with the goal to develop learners’ life-long learning ability in science for everyday use in their societies which are increasingly influenced by science and technology (Allchin, 2011; Gluckman, 2011). In addressing such a goal, science education has multiple aims that can be summarised into two main areas. One is to help learners understand the established body of scientific knowledge and second, to develop learners’ understanding on the NoS (Millar, 2004). The emphasis on these two areas is to develop learners’ scientific understanding, knowledge and skills for further studies and career paths in science as well as for scientific literacy.

40

While these two aims have overlapping elements, the second aim for the NoS is closely related to the purposes of practical work. That is, the second aim encompasses:

an understanding of how scientific enquiry is conducted, of the different kinds of knowledge claims that scientists make, of the forms of reasoning that scientists use to link data and explanation, and the role of the scientific community in checking and scrutinising knowledge claims (Millar, 2004, p. 1).

These understandings, knowledge and skills can be addressed within three teaching, learning and assessment categories in science education (Hodson, 1998, 2014). The first category is ‘learning science’. This category includes learning and developing conceptual and theoretical scientific knowledge. The second category is ‘learning about science’. This category develops the understanding about the complex interactions science has with technology, socio-cultural and historical contexts as well as economic development and global issues regarding the natural environment. The third category is about ‘doing science’. This category involves the learners’ practical engagement in science inquiry as well as developing procedural knowledge in solving socio-scientific issues and problems (Hodson, 1998, 2014). Aligned to these categories of teaching, learning and assessment in science education are the purposes of practical work.

For over a century, the purposes of practical work were purported to enhance learners’: “understanding of scientific concepts; interest and motivation; scientific practical skills and problem solving abilities; scientific habits of mind, and understanding of the nature of science” (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2003, p. 38). Basically, these century over purposes of practical work can be classified into three main learning domains. That is, for learners’ cognitive, skills and affective developments in science (Wellington, 1998). In other words, the purposes of practical work include the understanding of scientific concepts and knowledge; procedural and manual skills; and attitude and motivation to do science. Subsequently, the purposes of practical work can be discussed in aligning these three learning domains in relation to the three categories encompassing the aims of science education.

41

Cognitive domain is in-line with the category of ‘learning science’. This involves the purpose of using practical work to teach, learn and assess scientific concepts and theories by experience. While this purpose is imperative, Osborne (2015) cautioned that scientific ideas were well researched and historically established. Hence, scientific theories and concepts cannot be readily and easily reconstructed from observation as well as experimentation in school science. However, science teachers can teach and learners can learn scientific theories and concepts theoretically. Subsequently, learners can further construct and affirm their understanding of scientific concepts by employing hands-on experience or by illustrations, verification and observation of material substances and phenomena. Although Osborne (2015) argued that more evidences are needed to prove the success of practical work, Millar (2004) claimed that practical experience can aid the understanding of scientific concepts. Basically, hands-on and practical experience can help learners to observe at the same time cognitively construct and affirm their understanding of scientific concepts (Millar, 2004). For example, learners can theoretically learn Hooke’s Law in physics classes but by doing hands-on experiment they can verify or affirm their understanding by making connections between the objects, phenomena and associated inscriptions. Apart from hands-on experience science teachers can also demonstrate using real objects to illustrate the phenomena while learners observe and cognitively interpret and construct their understanding.

Skills domain in practical work is associated with developing learners’ manipulative or manual skills in handling objects or instruments as well as the development of procedural skills and knowledge (Hodson, 1996; Wellington, 2005). While the development of manipulative and manual skills are associated with how to use scientific apparatus and objects, procedural skills and knowledge are strongly related to scientific enquiry. This is in-line with the category of doing science. According to Hodson (2014), in doing science, the learners’ would engage in first-hand experience to plan and carry out scientific investigations by themselves. The emphasis is not so much about learning the methods used by scientists but more on the procedural skills and knowledge to carry out investigations. That is, knowledge and skills to proceed and “investigate phenomena, test and develop understanding, solve problems and follow interests” (p. 2546). The focus here is shifted from teaching, learning and assessment of ‘what’ to ‘how’ and ‘why’ of science (Duschl, 2008; Wellington, 2005).

42

The emphasis is on learners’ conceptual, contextual and procedural understanding as well as knowledge and skills to make decisions when carrying out investigations in school science.

The affective domain of practical work plays an important and positive role in influencing learners’ “attitudes towards science, their keenness to do science and perhaps even their self-esteem i.e. self-belief that they can actually do some science” (Wellington 2005, p. 106). The affective domain is related to the category of learning about science which aimed at developing learner’s awareness about the sociocultural and historical aspects of science. Subsequently, learning about science should make learners motivated, excited, interested and enthusiastic in science (Wellington, 1998). Besides, learning about science provides the opportunity for learners’ to develop their understanding about science as a practice for investigating phenomena and happenings as well as for constructing concepts and establishing facts. Learning about science would also help learners to appreciate the history and development of scientific knowledge which also includes the awareness of the socio-cultural and contextual interactions of the different science fields within the scientific community (Hodson, 2014). Subsequently, learning about science promotes the awareness and the understanding of how and why science has value in the pressing global socio-scientific issues. In this regard, practical work provides an avenue for learners to develop the comprehension and interest in constructing and deconstructing claims associated with socio-scientific issues (Gott & Duggan, 2007).

The three purposes of developing learners’ cognitive, skills and affective domains along with the three categories of learning science, doing science and learning about science cannot be achieved in one single science practical work (Gott & Duggan, 2007; Hodson, 2014; Wellington, 1998). Besides, not all purposes can be achieved or approached in the same way and attempting to reach diverse purposes in one practical work may not be effective (Hodson, 2014). Basically, the three domains along with the three categories have different learning outcomes as well as different emphasis in learning, teaching and assessment planning and practice (Millar, 2004). However, while the boundaries of the domains and categories are not self-evident or may overlap for planning purposes, it is essential to understand and identify the different levels of practical work which intend to achieve different learning outcomes and purposes

43

(Millar, 2004; Osborne, 2014). This is to ensure that a practical work is designed and planned to achieve what it intended to achieve. Hence, it is important for this literature review to outline the different levels of practical work that can be designed for different purposes and learning outcomes.

Levels and Learning Outcomes of Practical Work

Basically, Branchi and Bell (2008) and Tamir (1991) provided a similar continuum comprising four different levels of practical work while Millar and Abrahams (2009) outlined three types of practical work in school science.

According to Branchi and Bell (2008) the first level is the “conformation inquiry” (p. 26) which corresponds to Tamir’s (1991) level 0. This level of practical work is aimed at confirming or reinforcing a previously learned concept, theory or to practise certain hands-on and observation skills. Learners are basically provided with a question and a set of procedure to follow with predetermined results. This is usually termed as a ‘cookbook or recipe’ practical work (Clarkson & Wright, 1992; Llewellyn, 2005). Subsequently, the second level is the “structured inquiry” (Branchi & Bell, 2008, p. 26). At this level, learners are asked to provide explanations for their results. Hence, learners have to demonstrate some knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts. This is similar to Millar and Abrahams’ (2009) Type A practical work on illustrating scientific ideas. This level or type of practical work intends to help learners develop as well as affirm their knowledge and understanding about the natural world in relation to scientific facts, concepts, theories and relationships (Millar & Abrahams, 2009). These two levels of practical work correspond to learning about science which intends to develop learners’ appreciation and knowledge on the relationships science has with everyday livelihood (Hodson, 2014).

With increasing difficulty, the third level of practical work is “guided inquiry” (Branchi & Bell, 2008, p. 27). At this level learners are provided with a question but they themselves have to plan and design a procedure to carry out the investigation. This level of practical work requires a good understanding about processes and concepts in science. This is similar to Type B practical work which involves the practice of using procedures and skills (Millar & Abrahams, 2009). Learners need to have basic understanding of scientific concepts and procedures. Subsequently, the

44

fourth level is “open inquiry” (Branchi & Bell, 2008, p. 27) which corresponds to level 3 of practical work according to Tamir (1991). At this level, learners are asked to formulate their own questions, design and conduct their own investigation as well as communicate the explanation for their results. This is similar to Type C practical work which focuses on developing learners understanding about the NoS (Millar & Abrahams, 2009). Learners are given the central role in identifying problems and developing a plan as well as carry out the investigation, gather, interpret and discuss their results along with a scientific conclusion. These two levels of practical work correspond to ‘learning science and doing science’ which intend to develop learners’ conceptual and procedural understanding in science (Hodson, 2014).

Consequently, science teachers should have an explicit knowledge and skills of teaching, learning and assessment strategies that are associated with the different levels, purposes and learning outcomes of practical work (Osborne, 2014). Science teachers need to develop a coherent knowledge and understanding that links the aims of science education, the purposes of practical work, learning outcomes to the different levels of practical work. According to Osborne (2014), this is an essential aspect to the teaching practice in science education. While science teachers need a deeper content knowledge of the subject they also need to enhance their understanding and knowledge on epistemic processes involving different levels of practical work in science. Consequently, for the purpose of this study, both trainee and practising science teachers’ views on the purposes of practical work in school science were explored.

Additionally, it is significant for this literature review to outline the teaching, learning and assessment strategies that can be utilised for different levels, purposes and learning outcomes of practical work. This nexus is imperative for the effectiveness of employing practical work in school science.

2.4.3 Teaching Strategies for Different Learning Outcomes