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

References

• Abrahams, I. (2011). Research focus: What does research say about the nature and purpose of practical work? Education in Science, 244, 28–29.
   Google Scholar
• Abrahams, I. (2017). Minds-on practical work for effective science learning. In K. S. Taber, & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education (pp. 403–413). Sense.
   Google Scholar
• Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (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(14), 1945–1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035–1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahams, I., Reiss, M. J., & Sharpe, R. M. (2013). The assessment of practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 209–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.858496
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahams, I., & Saglam, M. (2010). A study of teachers’ views on practical work in secondary schools in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902777410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aditomo, A., & Klieme, E. (2020). Forms of inquiry-based science instruction and their relations with learning outcomes: Evidence from high and low-performing education systems. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1716093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akuma, F. V., & Callaghan, R. (2019). A systematic review characterizing and clarifying intrinsic teaching challenges linked to inquiry-based practical work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(5), 619–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21516
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R.2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Barker, M., & Carr, M. (1989). Teaching and learning about photosynthesis. Part 2: A generative learning strategy. International Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069890110203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, J., & Kennedy, D. (2001). Practical work at the upper high school level: The evaluation of a new model of assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690119244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BERA. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research (4th ed.). British Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, J. H. (1995). The impact of curriculum-based external examinations on school priorities and student learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(8), 653–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(96)00001-8
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, B., & Serret, N. (2010). Validity in teachers’ summative assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695941003696016
   Google Scholar
• Caglak, S. (2017). Does hands-on science practices make an impact on achievement in science? A meta-analysis. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 3(1), 69–69. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.275708
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, L., Sun, Y., & Ma, J. (2015). Review of washback research literature within Kane's argument-based validation framework. Language Teaching, 48(4), 436–470. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444815000233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childs, A., & Baird, J. A. (2020). General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) and the assessment of science practical work: An historical review of assessment policy. The Curriculum Journal, 31(3), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Cramman, H., Kind, V., Lyth, A., Gray, H., Younger, K., Gemar, A., Eerola, P., Coe, R., & Kind, P. (2019). Monitoring practical science in schools and colleges: Project report. Durham University.
   Google Scholar
• de Winter, J., & Millar, R. (2023). From broad principles to content-specific decisions: Pre-service physics teachers’ views on the usefulness of practical work. International Journal of Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2187673
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon, J. (2010). Effective practical science. School Science Review, 91(337), 37–39.
   Google Scholar
• Dobber, M., Zwart, R., Tanis, M., & van Oers, B. (2017). Literature review: The role of the teacher in inquiry-based education. Educational Research Review, 22, 194–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckes, A., & Wilde, M. (2019). Structuring experiments in biology lessons through teacher feedback. International Journal of Science Education, 41(16), 2233–2253. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1668578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckstein, M. A., & Noah, H. J. (1993). The politics of examinations: issues and conflicts. In M. A. Eckstein, & H. J. Noah (Eds.), Secondary school examinations: International perspectives on policies and practice (pp. 191–216). Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellwood, R., & Abrams, E. (2018). Student’s social interaction in inquiry-based science education: How experiences of flow can increase motivation and achievement. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(2), 395–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9769-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairbrother, R. (1991). Principles of practical assessment. In B. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science. Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, S., & Morais, A. M. (2020). Practical work in science education: study of different contexts of pedagogic practice. Research in Science Education, 50(4), 1547–1574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9743-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fung, D., & Lui, W. (2016). Individual to collaborative: Guided group work and the role of teachers in junior secondary science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(7), 1057–1076. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1177777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gauld, C., & Hukins, A. (1980). Scientific attitudes: A review. Studies in Science Education, 7(1), 129–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268008559877
   Google Scholar
• Gericke, N., Högström, P., & Wallin, J. (2023). A systematic review of research on laboratory work in secondary school. Studies in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2090125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science curriculum. Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2002). Problems with the assessment of performance in practical science: Which way now? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640220147540
   Google Scholar
• Gunstone, R. (1991). Reconstructing theory from practical experience. In B. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science. Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hamlyn, B., Hanson, T., Malam, S., Man, C., Smith, K., & Williams, L. (2020). Young people’s views on science education: Science Education Tracker 2019, Wave 2. Wellcome Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Harlen, W. (2004). A systematic review of the evidence of the impact on students, teachers and the curriculum of the process of using assessment by teachers for summative purposes (Research Evidence in Education Library. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<655::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-E
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodson, D. (1994). Redefining and reorienting practical work in school science. In R. Levinson (Ed.), Teaching science. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.899722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holman, J. (2017). Good practical science. The Gatsby Charitable Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Holman, J., & Yeomans, E. (2018). Improving secondary science. Education Endowment Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory—Exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2527–2558. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.550952
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441).
   Google Scholar
• Maričić, M., Cvjetićanin, S., & Anđić, B. (2019). Teacher-demonstration and student hands-on experiments in teaching integrated sciences. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(5), 768–779. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.768
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAlinden, M., & Noyes, A. (2019). Assessing mathematics within advanced school science qualifications. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(3), 340–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1321524
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKee, E., Williamson, V. M., & Ruebush, L. E. (2007). Effects of a demonstration laboratory on student learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(5), 395–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9064-4
   Google Scholar
• Millar, R. (2013). Improving science education: why assessment matters. In D. Corrigan, R. Gunstone, & A. Jones (Eds.), Valuing assessment in science education: Pedagogy, curriculum, policy. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, R., & Abrahams, I. (2009). Practical work: Making it more effective. School Science Review, 91(334), 59–64.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, A. M., Fairhurst, P., Correia, C. F., Harrison, C., & Bennett, J. M. (2020). Science practical work in a COVID-19 world: Are teacher demonstrations, videos and textbooks effective replacements for hands-on practical activities? School Science Review, 102(378), 7–12.
   Google Scholar
• Ofqual. (2020). Consultation decisions: proposed changes to the assessment of GCSEs, AS and A levels in 2021 [Ofqual/20/6649]. Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2015). Practical work in science: misunderstood and badly used? School Science Review, 96(357), 16–24.
   Google Scholar
• Popham, W. J. (1987). The merits of measurement-driven instruction. The Phi Delta Kappan, 68(9), 679–682.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puttick, G., Drayton, B., & Cohen, E. (2015). A study of the literature on lab-based instruction in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 77(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2015.77.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redish, E. F., & Kuo, E. (2015). Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology. Science & Education, 24(5-6), 561–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9749-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiss, M. J., Sheldrake, R., & Lodge, W. (2023). Investigative research projects for students in science: The state of the field and a research agenda. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-023-00263-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawilowsky, S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 597–599. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1257035100
   Google Scholar
• Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., Croker, S., & Härtig, H. (2016). What students learn from hands-on activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 980–1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solé-Llussà, A., Aguilar, D., & Ibáñez, M. (2022). Video-worked examples to support the development of elementary students’ science process skills: A case study in an inquiry activity on electrical circuits. Research in Science & Technological Education, 40(2), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1786361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spratt, M. (2005). Washback and the classroom: The implications for teaching and learning of studies of washback from exams. Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr152oa
   Google Scholar
• Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tiberghien, A. (2000). Designing teaching situations in the secondary school. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 27–47). Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wideen, M. F., O'Shea, T., Pye, I., & Ivany, G. (1997). High-stakes testing and the teaching of science. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de L'éducation, 22(4), 428–444. doi:10.2307/1585793
   Google Scholar