Ros Roberts

Assessment of biology investigations

The restricted range of biology investigations submitted for assessment in England and Wales, almost exclusively laboratory-based and with very little fieldwork, can be seen as a consequence of Sc1 being perceived as a skills-based performance model. An alternative approach to procedural understanding conceptualises investigations as the process of utilising a knowledge base, the Concepts of Evidence. Four biology investigations set in different contexts are analysed in this paper and the Concepts of Evidence used are shown to be very similar for each. However, the sequence in which ideas are used and actions occur differs between lab-based investigations and fieldwork. A case is made for the assessment of investigations against the Concepts of Evidence in written tests as being potentially a more reliable and valid way of assessing the ideas used in all types of biology investigations, thus reducing the distorting effect of assessment on the curriculum.

A written test for procedural understanding: a way forward for assessment in the UK science curriculum?

A recent UK House of Commons report on Science 14–19 identified problems with coursework and argued for a greater emphasis on teaching and assessment of scientific literacy. This paper describes a written test for procedural understanding, given to 15 year olds, that addresses both of these issues. Comparisons are made between the scores on a written test of procedural understanding with both assessments made of subject knowledge and pupil accounts of investigations. The potential advantages of assessing procedural understanding by written tests are discussed.

Questioning the evidence for a claim in a socio‐scientific issue: an aspect of scientific literacy

Understanding the science in a ‘socio‐scientific issue’ is at the heart of the varied definitions of ‘scientific literacy’. Many consider that understanding evidence is necessary to participate in decision making and to challenge the science that affects people’s lives. A model is described that links practical work, argumentation and scientific literacy which is used as the basis of this research. If students are explicitly taught about evidence does this transfer to students asking questions in the context of a local socio‐scientific issue? What do they ask questions about? Sixty‐five primary teacher training students were given the pre‐test, before being taught the ‘concepts of evidence’ and applying them in an open‐ended investigation and were tested again 15 weeks later. Data were coded using Toulmin’s argument pattern (TAP) and the ‘concepts of evidence’. After the intervention it was found that, in relation to a socio‐scientific issue, they raised significantly more questions specifically about the evidence that lead to the scientists’ claims although questions explicitly targeting the quality of the data were still rare. This has implications for curricula that aim for scientific literacy.

Underlying success in open‐ended investigations in science: using qualitative comparative analysis to identify necessary and sufficient conditions

Both substantive (i.e. factual knowledge, concepts, laws and theories) and procedural knowledge (understanding and applying concepts such as reliability and validity, measurement and calibration, data collection, measurement error, the ability to interpret evidence and the like) are involved in carrying out an open‐ended science investigation. There is some debate as to whether procedural understanding is of little importance compared to substantive understanding or whether – and this is the view we take – procedural ideas can and should be taught explicitly. We present here findings from a study of undergraduate students who took a module which specifically taught procedural ideas. We employ an innovative method, Charles Ragin’s Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), which involves the analysis of necessary and sufficient conditions and conjunctions of causes. Findings from a comparison of the students’ performance before and after the teaching and from QCA imply that procedural understanding was indeed a necessary condition for carrying out an open‐ended investigation. It was also sufficient when combined with either substantive understanding, prior attainment or both.

Understanding the quality of data: a concept map for ‘the thinking behind the doing’ in scientific practice

Recent school science curriculum developments in many countries emphasise that scientists derive evidence for their claims through different approaches; that such practices are bound up with disciplinary knowledge; and that the quality of data should be appreciated. This position paper presents an understanding of the validity of data as a set of conceptual relationships, illustrating the application of the network of ideas and their inter-relationships necessary for the ‘thinking behind the doing’ with examples from practice. We explore ways in which this understanding of data is inherently related to underpinning disciplinary ideas. We suggest how the recognition of a conceptual basis for understanding the quality of data represents an ontological shift with respect to widespread characterisations of scientific practices which addresses some long-standing issues in science education research, policy, curricula and practice.

Scientific Evidence as Content Knowledge: A Replication Study with English and Turkish Pre-Service Primary Teachers.

Pre-service teachers around the world need to develop their content knowledge of scientific evidence to meet the requirements of recent school curriculum developments which prepare pupils to be scientifically literate. This research reports a replication study in Turkey of an intervention originally carried out with pre-service primary teachers in England. The cohorts had different characteristics; in particular, their overall ability, their confidence in science and how they had been taught science at school were different. Despite these differences the explicit teaching of the ‘concepts of evidence’, which is described, proved to be a targeted and efficient intervention in both cohorts. Following teaching both cohorts had increased their understanding of scientific evidence, improved their ability to conduct an open-ended investigation and they were able to ask questions about the evidence for claims made in a socio-scientific issue.

Exploring ‘The Thinking Behind the Doing’ in an Investigation: Students’ Understanding of Variables

Recent curriculum developments emphasise that scientific practice involves understanding about evidence. The concepts of evidence have been identified as ‘the thinking behind the doing’ and have been validated as a knowledge base underpinning this understanding, and we contrast this conceptual approach with the widespread ‘process approach’ in which the understandings may be implicit. One aspect of understanding is the validity of design and its underpinning variable structure. This small-scale exploratory questionnaire study, conducted with over 150 lower secondary school students from a school in Japan, enabled us to explore students’ understanding of variables. Some items were answered well, suggesting students’ competence with the ideas addressed, but interestingly a comparison of items that targeted similar understandings identified different responses. We tentatively suggest that the differences may be explained by students approaching the items from a ‘doing’ perspective – they may be imagining the stages they may go through, as if they were conducting the investigation – rather than from a ‘thinking behind the doing’ perspective wherein they would draw on their understanding of evidence, and specifically their understanding of variables, to respond to the items.