Practical Work In Science

Introduction Over the years, many attempts have been made to define science. Amongst a multitude of contrasting ideas, there is one point at which all intersect; the fact that scientific theory is invariably linked to the observable world in which we exist. It is for this reason that the academic study of science is often carried out in parallel with activities that relate its theory to experimental observation. In science education, these activities are designed to be hands-on experiences that prompt thinking about the world (SCORE, 2009a). All practical work should have the objective of using this link between theory and observation to optimize both the experience and attainment of science learners. The intention of this research is to test the importance of context within practical work. In order to do this, comparisons will be drawn between two samples. The first, a class that carries out a practical investigation within a deep contextual framework. The second, a class that carries out the same investigation, but with the context entirely removed. The opinions of the students in both samples will be studied and the importance of context considered through their thoughts and opinions. Prior to this, a short review of relevant literature will outline the main debates surrounding this issue.

Literature The context based approach to learning started to emerge alongside the development of constructivist theories (Derry, 1999). McMahon (1997) states that constructivism emphasises the importance of context as a way to structure and assimilate knowledge. Practical work echoes this; observations made in the context of a lab, giving structure and meaning to knowledge. During practical work, a student will perform an action that transfers intangible theory into the memory and experience of a tangible event, assimilating the theory with the world around them. For this reason, there is an element of context which is inherent to any practical work; present regardless of how a teacher structures a lesson. Although context can be said to be inherent, the meaning of the word 'context' is somewhat ambiguous. Social constructivists like Gredler (1997), see context as something cultural, deeply ingrained within the psyche of the individual. I believe that in relation to teaching, this seems somewhat restrictive, as a large class will rarely share one common cultural reference point. In addition to this, teaching along cultural paths could be seen as socially divisive. Rogoff (1990) defines the term 'intersubjectivity' as a state in which all individuals share common interests and assumptions. I believe that for context to be used optimally in practical work, the context has to be intersubjective. However, finding a contextual structure with which twenty or more young people are intersubjective is not simple. The validity of the original assumption that a teacher should choose their own pre-determined context through which help assimilate student knowledge, must itself be called in to question. Odhiambo (1972) argues that science as a body of knowledge is inextricably linked to an out-dated, western, socio-economic norm. The context through which a science teacher constructs this knowledge can therefore have a significant impact on a student's worldview. The ethics behind this notion must be carefully considered if strong context is to be used. Evidently, there are a large number of conflicting ideologies surrounding context within science. Some believe that knowledge should be assimilated through a cultural lens. Others believe that for science to move away from the power structures on which it is built, the teacher should have a restricted influence over how a student contextualises knowledge. My belief is that a middle ground can be achieved: context that is culturally intersubjective, that does not reinforce negative power structures, and that helps all students attain the desired learning objectives.

Methodology

Bassey (1999) defines educational research as critical enquiry aimed at informing educational judgements and decisions in order to improve educational action. Student surveys were used as the method of enquiry in this research. The first considerations that had to be made were ethical. Sensitive questions can increase psychological stress and compromise the accuracy of responses (Adey, 1996). Gathering student opinion had to be done in a way in which the personal rights of the students were upheld; for this reason the survey was both optional and anonymous. Care also had to be taken to attempt not gather any information that lay exterior to that required by the aims of the research. Permission to deliver the survey was granted by the head of science department. The aim of any survey is to gain valid insights from a sample, in order to apply these insights to the wider population (Kelley, 2003). This particular survey had two main aims; the first being to assess to what extent the context helped the students understand the science that lay behind the practical. The second aim was to assess if students found practical work more interesting and engaging if there was a strong contextual framework in place. In order to test the importance of context within practical work, I delivered two lessons in which the classes carried out a practical investigation. The underlying learning objectives of the lesson were to help the students with their practical skills and to review energy exchange. The students were not initially informed of the research being carried out; the rationale being that prior knowledge could have altered natural attitudes towards the lesson, reducing the validity of responses. Towards the end of the lesson, the students were given the survey, and the option to complete it, in anonymity. The survey contained five statements. The students were asked to grade their opinion of the statements on a scale of one to eight; one representing strong disagreement, eight representing strong agreement. A descri ption of the lesson, the survey, and an example of a write up are contained within appendices A,B, and C respectively. Results In order to obtain a measure of student responses, the mean score of each statement from the two samples was calculated. The results are shown in table 1. The results are also graphically displayed in chart 1. Statement Context No context 1. The practical was enjoyable 6.5 5.4 2. The practical was interesting 6.7 5.1 3. The practical helped me to understand the underlying science 7.2 5.6 4. Practical work is more interesting when it relates to things that happen in the world around you 6.8 6.9 5. It is usually easy to see how practical work relates to the real world 4 3.6 Table 1- The mean scores from survey statements.

Analysis Question 1+2 There is a significant difference between the two groups. The context group showed a 1.1 increase in the level to which they found the practical enjoyable, and a 1.6 increase in the interest shown. Sigmund (1994) summarises a number of research papers and concludes that a student who is interested, is engaging deeper cognitive processing than a student who is not. Despite this, one must be careful to ensure that the student does not lose sight of the reason they are doing the practical, lest the activity loses the intended impact. Question 3 The contextual framework helped the students to understand the theory behind the practical. There was a 1.6 increase in the opinion score for this statement. Question 4 This statement showed very little variation between the groups. However, the absolute values are significant. The students agree that practical work is more interesting when it is put in context with the world around them. Question 5 Both classes suggest that context is not always obvious within the practical work that they do.

Evaluation

An important issue to note with this research is the fact that the comparisons made are between two separate classes. This reduces the validity of any conclusions due to the fact that the samples cannot be said to be directly comparable. Despite this, the classes used were carefully selected: they were in the same year group, at the exact same point in their secondary education, and had similar attainment scores over a range of practical based subjects. Another issue comes as a result of the surveys being done on the back of a class taught by myself. There could have been a number of variables resulting from this that led to a decrease in the validity of results. For example, my teaching style may have been different between the two classes due to my own preconceptions of what the results of the survey might be. Blaxter et al. (2001) describes all research of this kind being powerfully affected by the researcher's own motivations and values. It is plausible that every aspect of how I conducted the lesson could have been subconsciously altered. However, I was aware of this factor and made a concerted effort during the lessons to ensure that I conducted myself in a manner which ensured the minimum validity was lost; achieving this by attempting to ensure continuity in my pedagogy in both classes.

Conclusion

The aim of the research was to assess the importance of context within practical work. My opinion before the research was that context is would be important in this setting. I believe that the results show this to be the case within the boundaries of the study. The students who had a contextual framework were more interested, engaged, and understood the underlying theory better than those who did not. I am aware that the nature of the study means that these conclusions are by no means universally applicable. Given more time and resources it would have been more significant academically to extend the study. Perhaps a method of measuring the retention of theory directly between two sample groups would make it possible to separate opinion of understanding from actual understanding. The concern being that within my study, the class which believed they understood the theory better may have thought this only as a result of enjoying the practical more. To optimally use context within practical work it must appeal to everyone. Pursuing a cultural route within a multicultural setting may prove to be counterproductive. I believe that the optimization of context can be achieved through linking the theory with something that the students can imagine in the real world. The intrinsic context brought about through kinaesthetically 'doing' science will help a student to assimilate the theory into recallable knowledge. It may also help to put the investigation into the context of something that all the students can relate to in terms of the society to which they belong. Some examples of this being film, or music. Care must be taken not to exclude students who do not relate to these things. Finding a way in which to achieve this optimization of context can be difficult to achieve across a whole class. The differing prior knowledge and worldviews found across a class can mean that something that is optimal for one student, may not be optimal for another. A way in which the negative impact of this can be reduced can be brought about through using a range of contexts rather than one single idea. I believe that this method would allow students to make a decision through which medium to contextualise the theory. This would allow them, to synthesise understanding on their terms, in the way that makes the best sense to them. Bibliography

Adey, P. & Shayer, M. (1993). Really Raisings Standards. London: Routledge. Bassey, M. (1999). Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham: Open University Press. Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. & Tight, M. (2001). How to Research. Buckingham: Open University Press. Derry, S. J. (1999). 'A Fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes'. In A. M. O`Donnell & A. King (Eds). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. London: Sage

Gredler ME (1997). Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice.Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall McMahon, M. (1997, December). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web - A Paradigm for Learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference. Perth, Australia.

Odhiambo, T. R. (1972). Understanding of science: the impact of the African view of nature. In P. G. S. Gilbert & M. N. Lovegreen (Eds.), Science education in africa. London, UK: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd. Rogoff, B (1990). Apprentiship in thinking. New York: Oxford university press.

SCORE (2009a). Getting practical: a framework for practical science in schools. London: DCSF. Available at: www.scoreeducation. org/downloads/practical_work/framework.pdf Sigmund, T (1994). REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH. Spring 1994. 64 (1). 37-54.