How Science Works

Exploring effective pedagogy and practice

Rob Toplis

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9780415562799
• eBook ISBN: 9781136876400
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

How Science Works provides student and practising teachers with a comprehensive introduction to one of the most dramatic changes to the secondary science curriculum. Underpinned by the latest research in the field, it explores the emergence and meaning of How Science Works and reviews major developments in pedagogy and practice.

With chapters structured around three key themes - why How Science Works, what it is and how to teach it – expert contributors explore issues including the need for curriculum change, arguments for scientific literacy for all, school students' views about science, what we understand about scientific methods, types of scientific enquiry, and, importantly, effective pedagogies and their implications for practice. Aiming to promote discussion and reflection on the ways forward for this new and emerging area of the school science curriculum, it considers:

• teaching controversial issues in science
• argumentation and questioning for effective teaching
• enhancing investigative science and developing reasoned scientific judgments
• the role of ICT in exploring How Science Works
• teaching science outside the classroom.

How Science Works is a source of guidance for all student, new and experienced teachers of secondary science, interested in investigating how the curriculum can provide creativity and engagement for all school students.

1
HOW DID WE GET HERE?

SOME BACKGROUND TO HOW SCIENCE WORKS IN THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Rob Toplis

INTRODUCTION

The background to the inclusion of How Science Works in the science curriculum is a chequered one. As with many curriculum initiatives, it has resulted from a mixture of historical events, initiatives and a not inconsiderable degree of political influence. This chapter examines the developments – and sometimes competing factors – that have brought secondary science education to where it is today. Of necessity it raises a number of questions. These may be about the history of science education in schools – what has happened before; philosophical questions about what sort of science education we want in schools and why; and what school science students really need to learn and why they need learn it. This chapter reviews some of the enduring debates in science education concerning teaching science through contexts, scientific literacy, content and process, key curriculum events and a critical evaluation of the National Curriculum over a twenty-year period since its introduction in 1989 and its revised versions in 1991, 1995, 2000 and now 2004.

ACTING LIKE REAL SCIENTISTS? PRACTICAL WORK IN SCHOOL SCIENCE

Wellington (1998) has identified three important phases in science education since the 1960s. He terms them the discovery phase, the process approach and a third phase that came with National Curriculum legislation which he terms (after Jenkins) investigations by order. A review of these phases provides some insight into the way that practical ‘inquiry’ in science education has evolved.

The Nuffield Projects exemplified the discovery approach, based on the late-nineteenth-century ideas of heurism, promoted by Armstrong (Jenkins 1979), that pupils should discover things for themselves by enabling them to practise scientific methods. The Nuffield Projects provided new laboratory equipment and brought new and well-resourced science into secondary school classrooms. The projects had professed additional advantages of providing a more active approach to learning, of increasing motivation and recall, and of providing an understanding of the nature of inquiry and the nature of science (Wellington 1981). However, the discovery approach was open to criticism. For a school curriculum previously content-laden and reliant upon the transmission of a body of knowledge, the transition to a new approach was unclear. ‘What’s supposed to happen, sir?’ (ibid.: 167) succinctly summarizes the problem faced by pupils expected to ‘discover’ knowledge, resulting in contrivances to obtain a ‘right’ answer. Indeed, the tension of discovering knowledge in isolation from science content, as opposed to interpreting new knowledge with a prior understanding of scientific content, has been discussed by Driver (1975), who noted that pupils may bring in alternative frameworks consistent with their observations but not with acceptable theory.

The process approach placed emphasis on scientific processes or methods, such as classifying, observing and inferring, rather than science content such as facts, laws and principles (Gott and Duggan 1995). Millar and Driver (1987) have discussed some of the problems with a process approach to learning science. They point out that there is not necessarily a dichotomy between process and content; rather, the two are integral to learning science. They highlight the fact that learning content is an active process and not mere rote learning and recall of facts. They also note that processes, for example observation and evaluation, may be generic and not unique to science. Although they may be part of the skill base of pupils, there is some question about their transferability in practice between school subjects. They also argue that although scientists may have characteristic ways of working, the ‘scientific method’ (ibid.: 41) cannot be portrayed as a set of rules of procedures of science; that there are no general algorithms of the way that science is carried out.

The methods of science may vary between different branches of science. Physiologists may rely more on experimental approaches whereas astronomers or animal behaviourists may adopt detailed observation and suggested explanations of phenomena in their work. One other thing that scientists do – and do so increasingly on an international scale – is communicate with each other. Scientists meet their colleagues, discuss ideas, argue, debate, email and attend conferences all over the world. A flavour of this interactive aspect of science is richly conveyed with the story of the structure of DNA (Watson 1968) but is a frequently overlooked part of scientists’ work, certainly in school science, where the image of a scientist as a lone figure in a laboratory still remains in the minds of many pupils.

Since 1989, Attainment Target 1 – later to be called Sc1 – has included the experimental and investigative requirements of the National Curriculum. This was the first time investigative work in school science was enshrined in a statutory curriculum. Students now had to predict, carry out, analyse and evaluate investigative science. Although these skills were an integral part of the process science schemes prior to the National Curriculum, they were neither a requirement nor adopted in every school; investigative science was a noticeable departure from the ‘cookery book’ type of practical work that was carried out across the country and which was designed to illustrate scientific phenomena and explanations. What students and teachers did when the practical work failed to illustrate their intended outcomes can only be guessed at, although Nott and Wellington (1997) have reported a number of ploys used to get the ‘correct’ answer.

Research into Sc1 investigations highlighted a number of criticisms. A major survey (Nott et al. 1998) reported the opinions of local education authority personnel, teachers and students about Key Stage 3 (ages 11–14 years) and Key Stage 4 (ages 14–16 years) science. Part of this report included data from questionnaires and interviews about practical work and Sc1 investigations. The student comments were retrospective in nature as the students were in Year 12 (age 17 years) but they paint a picture of assessment-driven and contrived investigations at KS4. The survey revealed that just over half of the pupils felt there was less practical work at Key Stage 4 than earlier; a clear majority felt they should be allowed to repeat to improve marks and most felt sure that they knew how to get good marks in Sc1 for the final General Certificate in Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations at the end of Key Stage 4. A clear majority felt that Sc1 work was more about ‘getting a good mark’ than learning or understanding some science (Nott et al. 1998: 30). Students realized they had to do practical work in the ‘correct manner’ and several of them complained that practicals were really ‘pretend’ since they knew the answers and had done similar things before (Nott et al. 1998: 33). These responses lend support to the following comment about attainment levels and investigations: ‘Sc1 investigations are generally routines that teachers know will provide access to all the levels and can be organized and completed quickly in small ‘windows’ of time’ (Nott and Wellington 1999: 17).

In a study of investigations at Key Stage 4 in Northern Ireland, Jones et al. (2000) interviewed over 100 pupils at the start and towards the end of Key Stage 4 from thirty different schools. They found that the major response from pupils about practical work was one of enjoyment, valuing independence as a feature of the activity, appealing to pupils’ spirit of inquiry and providing a sense of achievement. However, twelve of the pupils indicated that they did not enjoy doing investigations, with common reasons being the requirement to write and submit a report for GCSE coursework, and associated exam pressure and shortage of time. Some found the experience too intellectually challenging while others found it boring. Keiler and Woolnough’s (2002) report of research carried out in one school highlighted six major categories of motivational behaviours during practical coursework: implementing correct procedures; following instructions; doing what is easy; acting automatically; working within limits; and earning marks. It shows that pupils ‘were all very clear about the supreme importance of the assessment system in creating and curtailing their choices and behaviours during the two years leading up to the GCSE examinations’ (Keiler and Woolnough 2002: 84).

Research reported by Toplis and Cleaves (2006) identified pupils’ concerns about the limited time available when investigations were carried out during the two-year GCSE course, lack of familiarity with apparatus and the association of investigations almost exclusively with assessment. Pupils perceived the teacher’s role in investigations as one of trainer and supporter of strategies to maximize performance for assessment. Furthermore, there is a need to fit investigative work and its attendant demands, in terms of apparatus, technician time and resources, into what is often perceived by teachers as an overburdened curriculum (Donnelly et al. 1996). To yield good marks within the full range of possible scores, teachers often select certain set-piece investigations as they seem to be sufficiently flexible to allow pupils of different abilities to achieve their potential. The demands made by examination boards to both internally moderate within schools and externally moderate between schools may make tried and tested investigations more attractive than new and novel approaches that need to be trialled and accepted. They concluded that the tendency to train pupils to do investigations may be viewed as a response to the 1988 Education Reform Act, where the comparison of school with school, the so-called ‘league tables’, has given rise to a culture of high-stakes assessment that seems to have had the widespread effect of conflating the teaching and assessment of investigations.

SCIENCE FOR ALL?

The argument for a ‘science for all’ hinges on a desire of scientific literacy for all pupils. Prior to a National Curric...

Table of contents

• CONTENTS
• ILLUSTRATIONS
• NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
• PREFACE
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• 1 HOW DID WE GET HERE?
• 2 WHAT DO STUDENTS THINK ABOUT SCIENCE?
• 3 HOW DO SCIENTISTS WORK?
• 4 THE PLACE OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY IN THE HOW SCIENCE WORKS CURRICULUM
• 5 TEACHING CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IN SCIENCE
• 6 ARGUMENTATION
• 7 QUESTIONS AND SCIENCE
• 8 ENHANCING INVESTIGATIVE SCIENCE
• 9 THE ROLE OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
• 10 TEACHING SCIENCE OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM
• FINAL THOUGHTS
• INDEX