Assessment and practical science: identifying generalizable characteristics of written assessments that reward and incentivise effective practices in practical science lessons

ABSTRACT

High-stakes assessments prominently influence what is done in secondary school science lessons (‘washback’ effects). It is therefore important that assessments of knowledge and understanding gained from practical work are constructed to reward and incentivise effective practices in practical work. To do that, they must differentiate between pupils who have experienced practical work in different ways. This empirical, mixed-methods study identifies generalizable characteristics of written assessments that differentially reward pupils who experienced practical activities through hands-on work, teacher demonstration, video demonstration, or reading about the activity. Conclusions are drawn from 1486 post-intervention tests completed by pupils aged 14–15 in England, from lesson observations and teacher interviews. This study also identifies pedagogical practices that were more noticeable in practical work that was most rewarded by the written assessments: the work was teacher-guided; and pupils were encouraged to be active participants. Existing literature describes negative washback effects of high-stakes, written assessments that limit the use and effectiveness of practical work as a pedagogical tool. We describe ways in which written assessments could be constructed to better reward effective practices in practical work (practices that better support learning), with the intention of having positive washback effects on pedagogy by better incentivising these practices.

KEYWORDS:

• Assessment
• practical work
• washback

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mat Hickman (Wellcome) and Ginny Page (Gatsby) for valuable discussions, and Nicklas Lindstrom and Lucy Wood (King’s College London) for assisting with data collection. The authors are exceptionally grateful to the participating teachers, lab technicians and pupils for their dedication to the study, especially through the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic. AQA material is reproduced by permission of AQA. © AQA. Reuse not permitted. (Figure 2A from AQA GCSE Biology paper 2H, 2018; Figure 3C from AQA GCSE Chemistry paper 2H, 2018; Figure 3D from AQA GCSE Combined Science Synergy paper 1H, 2019). OCR material is reproduced by permission of OCR. © OCR. Reuse not permitted. (Figure 2B from OCR GCSE Combined Science A paper 3F, Specimen Assessment Material, 2018; Figure 2C from OCR GCSE Physics B paper 1H, Specimen Assessment Material, 2018; Figures 3A and 3B from OCR GCSE Combined Science B paper 2F, 2018).

Disclosure statement

Alistair Moore is a senior national examiner for biology, and will not benefit or be at a disadvantage, financially or personally, from the published findings. No other potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Ethics statement

The research was approved by ethics committees at the University of York and King's College London.

Notes

1 15% in GCSE science examinations in England.

2 Some pupils completed more than one post-intervention test, and in these cases each test was completed after a different intervention type for a different practical activity.

3 In a small number of hands-on practical intervention lessons there was insufficient time to complete the post-intervention test in the same lesson, and it was completed at the beginning of the next lesson up to 3 days later. Given the short timescale and large sample size any effect on the results is likely to have been minimal.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by Wellcome, the Gatsby Charitable Foundation and the Royal Society (Wellcome grant number 208491/Z/17/Z). For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.