Designing practical science assessments in England: students’ engagement and perceptions

References

• Abrahams, I. 2009. “Does Practical Work Really Motivate? A Study of the Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science.” International Journal of Science Education 31 (17): 2335–2353. doi:10.1080/09500690802342836.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahams, I. 2010. Practical Work in Secondary Science: A Minds‐on Approach. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Abrahams, I., M. J. Reiss, and R. M. Sharpe. 2013. “The Assessment of Practical Work in School Science.” Studies in Science Education 49: 209–251. doi:10.1080/03057267.2013.858496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahams, I., and R. Millar. 2008. “Does Practical Work Really Work? A Study of the Effectiveness of Practical Work as A Teaching and Learning Method in School Science.” International Journal of Science Education 30: 1945–1969. doi:10.1080/09500690701749305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alderson, J. C., and D. Wall. 1993. “Does Washback Exist?” Applied Linguistics 14: 115–129. doi:10.1093/applin/14.2.115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Au, W. 2007. “High-Stakes Testing and Curricular Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis.” Educational Researcher 36: 258–267. doi:10.3102/0013189X07306523.
   Google Scholar
• Baird, J.-A., D. Andrich, T. N. Hopfenbeck, and G. Stobart. 2017. “Assessment and Learning: Fields Apart?” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 24 (3): 317–350. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2017.1319337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. 1969. Principles of Behavior Modification. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Berliner, D. 2011. “Rational Responses to High Stakes Testing: The Case of Curriculum Narrowing and the Harm that Follows.” Cambridge Journal of Education: Mirrors for Research in Classrooms 41 (3): 287–302. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998a. “Assessment and Classroom Learning.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5: 7–74.
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998b. Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment. London: King’s College London School of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Borghans, L., and T. Schils. 2019. “Decomposing Achievement Test Scores into Measures of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skills.” https://ssrn.com/abstract=3414156
   Google Scholar
• Brandon, R. 1994. “Theory and Experiment in Evolutionary Biology.” Synthese 99: 59–73. doi:10.1007/BF01064530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childs, A., and J.-A. Baird. 2020. “General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) and the Assessment of Science Practical Work: An Historical Review of Assessment Policy.” The Curriculum Journal. xx (xx): xxx–xxx. doi:10.1002/curj.20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarkson, S. G., and D. K. Wright. 1992. “An Appraisal of Practical Work in Science Education.” School Science Review 74 (266): 39–42.
   Google Scholar
• Coe, R. 2007. “Changes in Standards at GCSE and A‐level: Evidence from ALIS and YELLIS. Report for the Office of National Statistics,April 2007.”
   Google Scholar
• Cullinane, A., S. Erduran, and S. J. Wooding. 2019. “Investigating the Diversity of Scientific Methods in High-Stakes Chemistry Examinations in England.” International Journal of Science Education 41 (16): 2201–2217. doi:10.1080/09500693.2019.1666216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department for Education. 2015. “Biology, Chemistry and Physics GCSE Subject Content.” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/593831/GCSE_single_science_formatted.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education. 2017. “GCSE, AS and A Level Assessment Objectives.” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessment-objectives-ancient-languages-geography-and-mfl/gcse-as-and-a-level-assessment-objectives#science
   Google Scholar
• Donnelly, J. F., A. Buchan, E. W. Jenkins, P. Laws, and G. Welford. 1996. Investigations by Order: Policy, Curriculum and Science Teachers’ Work under the Education Reform Act. Driffield: Studies in Education.
   Google Scholar
• El Masri, Y. H., S. Ferrara, P. W. Foltz, and J.-A. Baird. 2017. “Predicting Item Difficulty of Science National Curriculum Tests: The Case of Key Stage 2 Assessments.” Curriculum Journal 28 (1): 59–82. doi:10.1080/09585176.2016.1232201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ercikan, K. 2015. “This Issue.” Theory into Practice 54 (3): 179–182. doi:10.1080/00405841.2015.1044335.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S. 2020. Reframing science education in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. School Science Review 102 (378): 38–43.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., and Z. R. Dagher. 2014. Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education : Scientific Knowledge, Practices and Other Family Categories. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrara, S., and T. Duncan. 2011. “Comparing Science Achievement Constructs: Targeted and Achieved.” The Educational Forum 75 (2): 143–156. doi:10.1080/00131725.2011.552691.
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., and D. S. McNamara. 2011. “Computational Analyses of Multilevel Discourse Comprehension.” Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2): 371–398. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01081.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., D. S. McNamara, Z. Cai, M. Conley, H. Li, and J. Pennebaker. 2014. “Coh-Metrix Measures Text Characteristics at Multiple Levels of Language and Discourse.” Elementary School Journal 115: 210–229. doi:10.1086/678293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haladyna, T. M., and M. C. Rodriguez. 2013. Developing and Validating Test Items. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstein, A., and V. N. Lunetta. 2004. “The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century.” Science Education 88 (1): 28–54. doi:10.1002/sce.10106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. 2006. Tenth Report of Session 2005-06 Science Teaching in Schools.
   Google Scholar
• James, M. 2008. “Assessment and Learning.” In Unlocking Assessment. Understanding for Reflection and Application, edited by S. Swaffield, 20–35. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, E. W. 1995. “Central Policy and Teacher Response? Scientific Investigation in the National Curriculum in England and Wales.” International Journal of Science Education 17 (4): 471–480. doi:10.1080/0950069950170406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang, J., J. Hense, A. Scheersoi, and T. Keinonen. 2019. “Gender Study on the Relationships between Science Interest and Future Career Perspectives.” International Journal of Science Education 41 (1): 80–101. doi:10.1080/09500693.2018.1534021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krapp, A., and M. Prenzel. 2011. “Research on Interest in Science: Theories, Methods, and Findings.” International Journal of Science Education 33 (1): 27–50. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.518645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyriakides, L., and B. P. M. Creemers. 2009. “Teacher Behaviour and Student Outcomes: Suggestions for Research on Teacher Training and Professional Development.” Teaching and Teacher Education 25: 12–23. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linn, R. L. 2000. “Assessments and Accountability.” Educational Researcher 29: 4–16.
   Google Scholar
• Madaus, G. F., K. M. Russel, and J. Higgins. 2009. The Paradoxes of High Stakes Testing: How They Affect Students, Their Parents, Teachers, Principals, Schools, and Society. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing .
   Google Scholar
• McComas, W. F. 1998. “The Principal Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths.” In The Nature of Science in Science Education, edited by W. F. McComas, 53–70. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, R., and J. F. Osborne. 1998. Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future. London: King’s College London.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education (MOE), Ministry of Science and ICT (MSICT), & Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity (KOFAC). 2019. Scientific Literacy for All Koreans: Korean Science Education Standards for the Next Generation. Seoul: KOFAC.
   Google Scholar
• Muijs, D., and D. Reynolds. 2010. Effective Teaching. Evidence and Practice. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neisser, U. 1967. Cognitive Psychology. New York, NY: Appleton Century Crofts.
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ofqual. 2013. Review of Controlled Assessment in GCSEs. Coventry: Ofqual.
   Google Scholar
• Ofqual. 2015. “Assessment of Practical Work in GCSE Science Analysis of Consultation Responses – March 2015.”
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. 2015. “Practical Work in Science: Misunderstood and Badly Used?” School Science Review 96 (357): 16–24.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, P. D., A. M. Knight, M. A. Cannady, J. B. Henderson, and K. L. McNeill. 2015. “Assessment at the Intersection of Science and Literacy.” Theory into Practice 54 (3): 228–237. doi:10.1080/00405841.2015.1044372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellegrino, J. W., M. R. Wilson, J. A. Koenig, and A. S. Beatty, eds. 2014. Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/18409.
   Google Scholar
• Popham, W. J. 1987. “The Merits of Measurement-driven Instruction.” Phi Delta Kappan 68: 679–682.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeve, C. L., E. D. Heggestad, and F. Lievens. 2009. “Modeling the Impact of Test Anxiety and Test Familiarity on the Criterion-Related Validity of Cognitive Ability Tests.” Intelligence 37 (1): 34–41. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.05.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiss, M., I. Abrahams, and R. Sharpe. 2012. Improving the Assessment of Practical Work in School Science. London: Gatsby Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (1): 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryoo, K., and M. C. Linn. 2015. “Designing and Validating Assessments of Complex Thinking in Science.” Theory into Practice 54 (3): 238–254. doi:10.1080/00405841.2015.1044374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, P. M., G. Sonnert, Z. Hazari, and R. Tai. 2012. “Stability and Volatility of STEM Career Interest in High School: A Gender Study.” Science Education 93 (3): 411–427. doi:10.1002/sce.21007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satterthwait, D. 2010. “Why are ‘Hands-on’ Science Activities so Effective for Student Learning?” Teaching Science 56 (2): 7–10.
   Google Scholar
• Schiefele, U., A. Krapp, and A. Winteler. 1992. “Interest as A Predictor of Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of Research.” In The Role of Interest in Learning and Development, edited by K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, A. Krapp, and K. A. Renn, 183–212. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Sharpe, R., and I. Abrahams. 2020. “Secondary School Students’ Attitudes to Practical Work in Biology, Chemistry and Physics in England.” Research in Science & Technological Education 38 (1): 84–104. doi:10.1080/02635143.2019.1597696.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepard, L. A. 2000. “The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture.” Educational Researcher 29: 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X029007004.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, B. F. 1953. Science and Human Behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. 1981. “Testing and Cognitive Psychology.” American Psychologist 36: 1181–1189. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.10.1181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stobart, G., and T. Eggen. 2012. “High-Stakes Testing – Value, Fairness and Consequences.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 19: 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance, H., and J. Pryor. 1998. Investigating Formative Assessment. Teaching, Learning and Assessment in the Classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, J. B. 1930. Behaviorism. New York, NY: Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, J. R., J. R. L. Swain, and C. McRobbie. 2004. “Students’ Discussions in Practical Scientific Inquiries.” International Journal of Science Education 26 (1): 25–45. doi:10.1080/0950069032000072764.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiliam, D. 2010. “What Counts as Evidence of Educational Achievement? The Role of Constructs in the Pursuit of Equity in Assessment.” Review of Research in Education 34: 254–284. doi:10.3102/0091732X09351544.
   Google Scholar
• Wivagg, D., and D. Allchin. 2002. “The Dogma of ‘The’ Scientific Method.” The American Biology Teacher 69 (9): 645–646.
   Google Scholar
• Wooding, S., A. Cullinane, and S. Erduran. 2020. Supporting the Teaching of Scientific Methods in Practical Science. Oxford: University of Oxford. doi:10.5287/bodleian:xqvKxnmnX.
   Google Scholar