This article was downloaded by:[University of Waikato Library]On: 18 July 2008Access Details: [subscription number 778559845]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283

Student Experiences of Carrying out a Practical ScienceInvestigation Under DirectionAnne Hume a; Richard Coll aa University of Waikato,

First Published: July 2008

To cite this Article: Hume, Anne and Coll, Richard (2008) 'Student Experiences ofCarrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction', InternationalJournal of Science Education, 30:9, 1201 — 1228

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/09500690701445052URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690701445052

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

International Journal of Science EducationVol. 30, No. 9, 2 July 2008, pp. 1201–1228

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/08/091201–28© 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09500690701445052

RESEARCH REPORT

Student Experiences of Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction

Anne Hume* and Richard CollUniversity of WaikatoTaylor and FrancisTSED_A_244386.sgm10.1080/09500690701445052International Journal of Science Education0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis0000000002007Dr. AnneHumeannehume@waikato.ac.nz

This paper reports on the reality of classroom-based inquiry learning in science, from theperspectives of high school students and their teachers, under a national curriculum attemptingto encourage authentic scientific inquiry (as practiced by scientists). A multiple case studyapproach was taken, utilising qualitative research methods of unobtrusive observation, semi-structured interviews and document analysis. The findings showed purposeful and focused learn-ing occurring, but students were acquiring a narrow view of scientific inquiry where the thinkingwas characteristically rote and low-level. The nature of this learning was strongly influenced bycurriculum decisions made by classroom teachers and science departments in response to theassessment requirements of a high stakes national qualification. As a consequence of these deci-sions, students experienced structured teaching programmes in which they were exposed toprogramme content that limited the range of methods that scientists use to fair testing and topedagogies that were substantially didactic in nature. In addition, the use of planning templatesand exemplar assessment schedules tended to reduce student learning about experimental designto an exercise in “following the rules” as they engaged in closed rather than open investigations.Thus, the resulting student learning was mechanistic and superficial rather than creative and crit-ical, counter to the aims of the national curriculum policy that is intent on promoting students’knowledge and capabilities in authentic scientific inquiry.

Introduction

Internationally the call for scientific literacy for all citizens in society is growing asworld communities realise that science and scientific issues are exerting ever-increas-ing impact on their peoples’ daily lives (American Association for the Advancementof Science [AAAS], 1990; Jenkin, 2002; Lederman, 1999; Millar & Osborne, 1998).

*Corresponding author. Mathematics, Science & Technology Department, University of Waikato,Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand. Email: annehume@waikato.ac.nz

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1202 A. Hume et al.

Progressive science educators recognise the importance of education in the publicunderstanding of and about science, and support scientific literacy goals in newscience curricula that attempt to paint a more authentic picture of science (Carret al., 2001; Driver et al., 1996; Duggan & Gott, 2002; Hurd, 1997; Mayer &Kumano, 1999; Millar & Osborne, 1998; Ryder, 2001). To achieve such goalsscientific inquiry has re-emerged as the emphasis in these new curricula, that is, the‘doing of science’ where students have the opportunity to experience the proceduraland conceptual knowledge required to carry out investigation in a manner thatmirrors the actual practice of scientific communities (Atkin & Black, 2003). Thejustification is that through this authentic inquiry “learners can investigate the natu-ral world, propose ideas, and explain and justify assertions based upon evidence and,in the process, sense the spirit of science” (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2003, p. 30).Students become enculturated into science in a manner that ultimately helps themdevelop an understanding and appreciation of the nature of science (Collins, 2004;Driver et al., 1996; Duschl & Hamilton, 1998; Powell & Anderson, 2002;Weinburgh, 2003). Such investigations can serve to motivate students’ interest anddesire to learn science (Hughes, 2004; Jenkins, 1996), engender attitudes anddispositions associated with those of autonomous and self-motivated learners(Deboer 2002; Reid & Yang, 2002), and improve students’ thinking and learningcapabilities (Duggan & Gott, 2002; Haigh, 2003; White & Fredericksen, 1998).Collaboration between students in groups, facilitating cooperative learning, can beanother positive outcome of authentic inquiry (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2003).

Science Inquiry Learning in Current Classroom Programmes

The international literature on the nature of inquiry-based learning experienced bystudents today suggests that practical work in school science bears little resemblanceto inquiry as practiced by scientists (e.g. Chin & Kayalivizhi, 2002; Hipkins et al.,2001; Nakhlel, Polles & Malina, 2002; Watson et al., 1999). Findings from predom-inantly large scale surveys indicate much of the practical work students engage in atsenior secondary level focuses on recipe-style laboratory exercises and a ‘control ofvariables’, or ‘fair testing’, model of science investigation, which involves closedproblem-solving and produces learning outcomes that are predominantly contentand skill-based (Haigh et al., 2005). Gott et al. (1999) report little pedagogicalattention is given to problem solving, design and critical evaluation with the result“that most pupils can carry out practical tasks adequately but that few can under-stand, interpret or evaluate their data” (p. 100). Learning tends to be superficial,and limited to following a given method and completing set tasks (Berry et al.,1999). Students thus achieve little meaningful learning in classroom practical work,in terms of learning outcomes that reflect genuine scientific inquiry from currentpedagogical practices (e.g. Atkin & Black, 2003; Hipkins & Booker, 2002; Rennieet al., 2001; Woolnough, 2001). It is evident that present teaching approaches needsignificant rethinking and development if achievement of scientific literacy goalsthrough inquiry-based learning is to be achieved.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction 1203

Pedagogy for Authentic Scientific Inquiry

Redeveloping pedagogies to promote student engagement in authentic scientificinquiry involves recognising that school science has tended to portray scientificinquiry as a single, unproblematic method when in reality scientists investigate thenatural world in diverse ways (Mayer & Kumano, 1999; Watson et al., 1999), and insituations where they are routinely presented with open-ended problems that have nodata, known methods or established goals (Reid & Yang, 2002). All these componentshave to be developed by scientists, usually collaboratively, in order to address theproblem. Thus successful open-ended problem-solving depends on the knowledgeand experience held by the people involved, and their ability to draw on appropriateand relevant information. Hodson (1992) contends that scientists do this intuitively,using their own personal theoretical constructs and tacit knowledge of how to doscience. He describes how this ‘art and craft’, or ‘connoisseurship’, gives scientists the“capacity to use theoretical and procedural knowledge in a purposeful way to achievecertain goals’ (p. 133), and comes from the experience of ‘doing science’ in holisticinvestigations in many different contexts. Authentic scientific inquiry can thus beviewed as a complex social practice that involves participants interpreting, negotiatingand justifying their inquiry approach in order to build believable and plausible expla-nations about how the physical world works (Haigh et al., 2005; Hofstein & Lunetta,2003; Sandoval, 2005; Wallace & Louden, 2002).

Yet, despite the complexity, scientific inquiry can be attributed with certaincommon characteristics. In a survey of the mental and physical skills scientists use ininquiry, Harlen (1999) found agreement in the literature that these skills were; “inone form or another, abilities related to identifying investigatable questions, design-ing investigations, obtaining evidence, interpreting evidence in terms of the questionaddressed in the inquiry and communicating the investigation process” (p. 129).Some writers (e.g. Atkin & Black, 2003; Hodson, 1996) go further and maintain theskills can only be termed “scientific” when applied in the context of science andinformed and guided by scientific theory. There is also consensus in the literaturethat these generic scientific skills should provide a framework for science curriculumredevelopment intent on promoting inquiry-based learning in classroomprogrammes. Harlen (1999) suggests the main strategies teachers can use to helpstudents learn these inquiry skills include: providing students with an opportunityfor using the inquiry skills; encouraging critical review by students of their ownperformance and identification of ways in which they can improve that performance;teacher feedback that focuses on the quality of the work, not on the person; provid-ing students with exemplars which meet the criteria of quality; engaging in metacog-nitive discussion about procedures to facilitate transference of skills to othercontexts; and teaching the techniques and language needed as skills advance. Draw-ing on her research findings into student investigations, Haigh (2001) recommendspedagogical techniques such as role modeling, analysing of structured experimentalmethods, and questioning. Thus a curriculum that successfully promotes andachieves goals of authentic scientific inquiry in classrooms would see students

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1204 A. Hume et al.

engaging in open-ended problem-solving opportunities where they have to: draw ontheir existing science ideas to identify a problem; analyse the problem; plan a courseof action; carry out the plan to obtain information that they can analyse; interpretand evaluate to reach a conclusion; and finally communicate their findings in someform (Duggan & Gott, 1995; Garnett & Garnett, 1995). To design and deliver suchprogrammes teachers first have to be cognizant of procedural knowledge in science(i.e., how scientists think and work) and what constitutes authentic scientificinquiry, and secondly be focused and explicit about their pedagogical intent withstudents (Hart et al., 2000). When teachers can incorporate these aspects into theirteaching and learning programmes such that students become aware of the purposesfor engaging in investigations, then it is more likely students will take ownership ofclear learning goals that contribute to scientific literacy (Gott et al., 1999).

Assessment for Authentic Scientific Inquiry

To align assessment practice with curriculum goals in scientific inquiry and carry outvalid and useful assessment, Hodson (1992), and others (e.g., Black, 2001; Haigh,2001), contend students should be assessed, formatively and summatively, in thecontext of whole investigations. To enable this holistic assessment of process skills tooccur with validity the approach needs to be logistically school-based with the teach-ers having a key role. The argument that teachers be explicit about their pedagogicalintent with students and what constitutes authentic inquiry in their pedagogy (Hartet al., 2000) is in synergy with the research that points to classroom-based formativeassessment as a powerful means of improving student learning (Bell & Cowie, 2001;Black & Wiliam, 1998; Clarke, 2001; Moreland, Jones & Chambers, 2001). Blackand Wiliam (1998) in their literature review on this topic interpret formative assess-ment as “encompassing all those activities undertaken by teachers, and/or by theirstudents, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify teaching andlearning activities in which they are engaged” (p. 7). Formative assessment thenhappens during teaching and learning, and the intention is to support learning viafeedback, which ‘feeds forward’ into actions by teachers and learners to enhancelearning (Bell & Cowie, 2001; Black & Wiliam, 1998). Effective formative assess-ment requires the teacher initially to clarify learning goals, task criteria and mostimportantly quality criteria by exemplification, and then through continuingdialogue with students as individuals or in groups usually by way of question-answerinteractions (Clarke, 2001; Torrance & Pryor, 2001). Allowing students time toimprove on an initial attempt at a task provides opportunities for this “continuousclarification of criteria” (Torrance & Pryor, 2001, p. 624). Black (2003) commentsthat learning programmes must “provide opportunities to ensure that meaningfulinterventions that extend the pupils’ understanding can take place” (p. 5) and infersthat assessment information gathered in this fashion should be used to inform teach-ers’ future planning and actions. Students can be informed by teachers about theactions they need to take to close the gap between actual and reference levels ofachievement (Sadler, 1989). Such assessment serves to progressively shape and

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction 1205

improve a student’s competence to achieve a desired end—to scaffold learning(Torrance & Pryor, 2001). Thus formative assessment can be viewed as an integralpart of the teaching and learning process (Clarke, 2001; Crooks, 2002; MoE, 1994),and the review of research by Black and Wiliam (1998) reports that when teachersincorporate formative assessment into their pedagogies in classrooms students canachieve substantial learning gains.

Torrance and Pryor (2001) identify two ‘ideal-typical’ approaches to formativeassessment known as ‘convergent assessment’ and ‘divergent assessment’. These twoideal types of assessment for learning represent the two ends of a spectrum of possi-bilities for teachers’ practice, and seem to be associated with teachers’ differing viewson learning and the role of assessment in learning. Convergent assessment is concernedwith the teacher finding out if a learner knows, understands or can do a predeterminedthing, and the learning is measured from the point of view of the curriculum. Thisform of assessment is planned in detail, tends to use closed questions and tasks, andis more likely to be associated with behaviourist views of learning. On the other hand,for divergent assessment both student and teacher work interactively to discover whatthe learner knows, understands and can do, not from the point of view of the curric-ulum but from that of the learner. This form of assessment is not focused on themeasurement of past or current achievement, but on the next learning steps forstudents. Divergent assessment is more closely aligned to constructivist views of learn-ing and involves less planning and more open-ended questions and tasks. Torranceand Pryor (2001) note the use of one type of formative assessment by a teacher didnot necessarily rule out use of the other in their everyday classroom practice.

Significance of the Study

Reviews of the international literature reveal that most current understanding aboutthe nature of student inquiry learning comes from large-scale reviews of research andmetaanalyses of international literature (Carr et al., 2001; Hipkins et al., 2001),often based on evidence obtained through surveys of teacher and student percep-tions of classroom practice. However, according to Jones and Baker (2005) detailedclassroom-based case studies are relatively rare and are necessary to facilitate directstudy of the interplay of the more intricate and specific variables of each classroomenvironment, such as teacher expertise and student interactions. In interpretive casestudies, for example, students’ classroom investigative activities can be seen incontext and rich detail, and perspectives gained on the student learning from theparticipants themselves as they go about the actual business of teaching and learning(Atkin & Black, 2003). This interpretive study provides a ‘window’ on such activityand has the potential to provide further valuable insights into features that impact onteaching and student learning

In the context of an existing national science curriculum (Ministry of Education[MoE], 1993) that seeks to promote students’ engagement in authentic inquiry, thisstudy was carried out to inform curriculum redevelopment work (MoE, 2003a) thatreiterates and strengthens scientific literacy goals through inquiry-based learning of

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1206 A. Hume et al.

science. Any review and implementation of a new national curriculum in schools repre-sents a huge investment of time, human and financial resources and often involvescontroversy (Bell, Jones & Carr, 1995), and/or mismatch between policy intent andclassroom practice (Hipkins, Barker, & Bolstad, 2005). Curriculum designers andteachers can gain valuable insights into curriculum design and implementation fromstudies of past and current experience. Using findings from classroom-based case stud-ies, this paper examines the nature of the student-experienced curriculum in NewZealand where Year 11 students (15–16 year olds) are learning how to perform scienceinvestigations for Science Achievement Standard 1.1 Carrying out a practical investi-gation with direction (SAS 1.1). This standard is a component of a national qualification,known as the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA).

The case studies were set in two large New Zealand secondary schools, RiverValley Boys’ High School and Mountain View High School (pseudonyms); referred toas River Valley and Mountain View for ease of reading. Both school populations weresimilar in that they were predominantly of New Zealand European ethnicity (77%and 68% respectively) and each had 12% Maori (indigenous New Zealanders).Mountain View also had a significant proportion of Asian students (15%). Theschool culture at River Valley promoted traditional values of academic excellence,self-discipline, respect, service and a competitive spirit for its all male student popu-lation, while the school prospectus at Mountain View (a large co-educational urbanschool) identified teaching and learning as the cornerstone of the school with highexpectations for student learning and good behaviour.

Each case study involved a female teacher, and four to five Year 11 students (15–16 year olds) who were studying SAS 1.1 towards their NCEA qualification. Thestudents at each school were in classes representing a very broad band of mid–rangeof abilities – approximately 80% of the whole Year 11 cohort. The remaining 20%comprised students at either ends of the ability spectrum. At River Valley Jenny(pseudonym) the teacher held a Master’s degree in genetics and was in her eighthyear of teaching. In her interviews she articulated a very clear vision of her role as ascience teacher, including a responsibility for ensuring all students achieve theirmaximum capability, particularly in qualifications. The all-male student groupincluded Martyn, Peter Mitchell, Eddie and Sam (pseudonyms) who were all NewZealand Europeans. In contrast at Mountain View the teacher Kathy (pseudonym)had begun her teaching career three years earlier at Mountain View after completinga conjoint bachelor’s degree in science and teaching. The nurturing of positiveteacher-student relationships and interactions, and support for students in achievinglearning goals such as attainment of qualifications, were pivotal to her perception ofher role as a science teacher. The mixed-gender student group Anne, Carol, Alex,Mark and Steve (pseudonyms), came from different ethnic backgrounds. Anne,Mark and Steve were New Zealand Europeans, Alex a New Zealand born Asianstudent with English as his first language, and Carol a recently emigrated Asianstudent for whom English was a second language.

This investigation addressed three research questions: What science are NewZealand science students learning in NCEA classroom programmes for SAS 1.1?

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction 1207

Why and how are New Zealand science students learning the science they learn inNCEA classroom programmes for SAS 1.1? What match is there between theintended curricula (i.e. those of the SiNZC and the teacher) and the operationalscience curricula (i.e. those experienced by New Zealand science students)?

Theoretical Underpinnings

This inquiry was conducted within an interpretivist paradigm, drawing socioculturaland linguistic perspectives into a cognitive constructivist model of the developmentof thinking processes as a framework for enhancing understanding of learning(Nuthall, 1997). These teaching and learning theories were chosen to underpin thestudy because they have in common the view that knowledge has to be personallyexperienced. In a constructivist-based view of learning, students experience changesin what Leach and Scott (2003, p. 92) term the “mental structures” of individuals,that is, their concepts, schema or mental models. Individual learners construct theirown knowledge motivated by the need to make sense of experience in light of theirexisting understandings. The sociocultural stance on learning is that “thinking andlearning are not seen as an activity of the mind in isolation, but rather as part of, orconstituted by, the visible social interaction that takes place between members of acommunity” (Nuthall, 1997, p. 701). What counts as knowledge is situated in thepractice of that particular community and defined in social interactions (Barnett &Hodson, 2001; Black, 2001). The linguistic perspective acknowledges the acquisi-tion of language as a semiotic process (i.e., one of making meaning) that is central toall learning. Language is the means by which concepts are introduced and discussedby learners on the social plane, and the tool for individual thinking once concepts areinternalized (Leach & Scott, 2003).

Methodology and Methods

The interpretivist-based methodology (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) comprised a multiplecase study approach utilising qualitative research methods of unobtrusive observation,semi-structured interviews and document analysis. In the first of two case studies atotal of twelve 1-hour lessons were observed and six interviews conducted (three withthe teacher and three with the students as a group), while in the second case studyfewer lesson were observed (seven in total) and five interviews with participants wereconducted (three with the teacher and two with the students as a group). Classroomobservations in both case studies were recorded via field notes and audio-taping, andthe interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. The interview transcriptswere sent to interviewees for verification and alteration (if desired by the interviewee).Audio-tapes of classroom lessons proved difficult to transcribe accurately but they didadd to the general pool of data collected in each case study, often corroborating otherdata. A variety of documentary material related to the teaching and learning occurringin each case study was examined, including departmental guidelines for teachers, text-books and student workbooks, notes and assessment items such as exemplars and

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1208 A. Hume et al.

student scripts. The case study approach was used in order to facilitate an holistic,interpretive investigation of events in context with the potential to provide a morecomplete picture of the science curriculum students were experiencing compared toother modes of research (Adelman et al., 1980; Bell, 1999). Students were viewedas intentional participants in classroom activities and the interpretive analysisconcentrated on their perspectives of classroom reality.

The constructivist, sociocultural and linguistic teaching and learning theoriesunderpinning the study were initially surveyed to find suitable parameters on whichto base data collection decisions. Working definitions for the what, why and how ofstudent learning were devised, and guided the analysis, interpretation and discussionof the findings. The what of student learning, for example, was defined as thosescientific concepts, skills and procedural knowledge (Bell, 2005; Duggan & Gott,2002; Hodson, 1996; Skamp, 2004) students were acquiring and demonstratingthrough their words and actions during teaching and learning episodes. Instances ofwhy students were learning were characterised by the circumstances that led tostudents achieving that learning; what learners did in order to learn was the keyparameter chosen to define the how set of data. This approach to the how of learningfocused on any acts, or form of engagement in thinking, in a social context thatappeared to contribute to their acquisition of science skills, knowledge and attitudes.

To contribute to the trustworthiness of the inquiry process (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)particular attention was paid to strategies that would maximize the quality of datagathering and processing within the constraints of the study. For instance, a decisionto take a two-case study approach in this study helped to mitigate the impact of somelimiting sampling factors (i.e. small sample size in each case study) and promote trans-ferability by allowing findings from two case studies to be compared and contrasted.Triangulation, of both data collection and sources of data, sought to promote thedependability, confirmability and credibility of the study by reducing the likelihoodof researcher bias (Erickson, 1998) and producing sufficient wealth of evidence toallow a high degree of convergence (Bell, 1999; Keeves, 1998). Prolonged and exten-sive observation helped to establish the dependability of the data (Spindler & Spindler,1992), along with detailed auditing of the inquiry process and respondent validationof the raw data, which also endorsed the confirmability of the data. Rich descriptionsof the case studies, using narrative style, were used in places to allow the participantsvoices to be heard (Bishop, 1997), and to help to build an inferential bridge to thoseother groups to whom the findings may be applicable (Shulman, 1981). The analyticcategories of what, why and how also enhanced the comparability and transferabilityof the research findings by giving readers greater opportunities to make meaningfulcomparisons with their own situations (Goetz, Preissle & LeCompte, 1984).

Findings

Observations from Classroom Sessions: An Overview of Events

At River Valley the teaching and learning took place during twelve 1-hour lessons overa 3-week period, late in term one of a four-term year. In contrast students at Mountain

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction 1209

View experienced a staggered teaching and learning programme, 11 hours in total.Their teaching started with five 1-hour lessons late in the first term, followed by a 3-week break before another four consecutive lessons early in the second term. Twoweeks later the students attended a single timetabled session (2 hours) within theschool’s mid year internal exam programme where they underwent the formal assess-ment for SAS 1.1. Despite the variation in the overall timing and duration of the teach-ing and learning sessions at the two schools, the sequence of lessons in both schoolsshowed strong parallels. Each sequence could be divided into three distinct phases:the preparatory phase (instructional sessions); the practice phase (the formativeassessment); and the formal assessment phase (the summative assessment).

Phase I (preparatory phase). In the preparatory phase students in both classroomswere introduced to the requirements of SAS 1.1 and key concepts and skills associ-ated with investigating relationships between two variables. Lesson content in theseinstructional sessions focused on: terms, definitions and procedures to do with fairtesting: specific skills such as making observations and measuring, tabulation andaveraging of data, plotting graphs and the planning and reporting of fair tests usingtemplates and; how to meet the assessment requirements of SAS 1.1 as depicted inassessment schedule exemplars. Less time was devoted to the first phase at RiverValley (three lessons compared to five at Mountain View), and Jenny also revisedspecific science concepts which were pertinent to the investigation her students wereto perform in Phase II (rates of chemical reaction and preparation of solutions ofgiven concentration by dilution).

Phase II (practice phase). In the second phase students at both schools participatedin a mock assessment known as the formative assessment, designed to give studentspractice at performing a whole investigation under test-like conditions. Again therewere many commonalities between the two case studies: the mock assessment tookplace over four lessons, with each lesson covering in turn, the planning, data collecting,reporting and feedback stages of the investigation; the science context for the investi-gations was the same (both teachers used the same exemplar materials for investigatingthe effect of factors such as temperature or concentration on the rate of reactionbetween magnesium metal and hydrochloric acid); students worked in teams of fourfor planning and data gathering but as individuals for the reporting; the format, timingand reporting requirements of the mock assessment activity closely matched those ofthe summative assessment in Phase III; and teacher direction was highly evidentincluding extensive and targeted feedback for students related to the assessmentschedules for the task. In addition, at River Valley students initially peer assessed eachother’s reports using a common assessment schedule and provided verbal feedback toone another before the teacher provided global feedback to the class.

Phase III (formal assessment phase). In the third phase for their formal assessment,known as the summative assessment, students again performed fair test investigations

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1210 A. Hume et al.

in groups along similar lines to the practice investigation in Phase II. They initiallyplanned as individuals, then collaborated as a group to produce a single plan andobtain data, and finally wrote up the reports individually. The planning and reportingtemplates were virtually identical in the two schools, however, the science contextsfor the investigations were different. Students at Mountain Valley performed theirinvestigation in the context of reaction rates again, this time the relationship betweensurface area and the rate of reaction, while students at River Valley performed theirinvestigation in the new context of pendulums. The River Valley class had no priorexperience with pendulums in the course, and the study group experienced difficul-ties operating the pendulum as they investigated the relationship between the lengthof a pendulum and its period, that is, the time taken to complete a full swing. As aconsequence they were unsuccessful in obtaining sufficient data. At the last minutethe students resorted to recording their remaining results from non-existent data andthen used these fabricated results to complete the reporting section of the assessment.Another significant difference between the case studies in Phase III is that, unlike thestudents at River Valley, the five students in the study did not work in the samegroups for the summative investigation. Kathy purposefully decided groupings forthe summative assessment at Mountain High on the basis of results from the forma-tive assessment, so that each group intentionally had at least one student who haddemonstrated advanced investigative capabilities.

What Were Students Learning About Scientific Inquiry?

Findings from both case studies indicated that the learning students were achievingclosely matched that which their teachers intended them to learn. The content of theteachers’ intended curricula is summarized in Table 1 below and represent a synthe-sis drawn from data collected during teacher interviews, observation of classroomlessons, departmental guidelines and notes, and student workbook and text(Cooper, Hume & Abbott, 2002; Hannay et al., 2002).

Table 1 shows that each teacher placed a strong focus on the scientific concepts,skills and procedural knowledge of ‘fair testing’ (investigating cause-effect relation-ships through the control of variables), and how to meet the assessment requirementsof SAS 1.1 in their teaching programmes. Subsequent analysis of data from studentinterviews, field notes of classroom observations and document analysis demon-strated that most of their students in the case studies attained these scientific concepts,skills and procedural knowledge of ‘fair testing’ and the assessment requirements ofSAS 1.1, except in those areas that required students to link findings to backgroundscience, or to evaluate their investigative methods. It emerged that students couldprovide descriptive details with relative ease but most had difficulty providing scien-tific explanations and justifications. Few students were able to effectively articulatethe links between evidence and scientific theory, or demonstrate the high order criticalthinking skills associated with evaluative thinking. One student Martyn, who was anable student, did successfully relate his findings in the formative assessment to thebackground science of reaction rates, but was unable to replicate this success in the

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction 1211T

able

1.

The

tea

cher

s’ in

tend

ed le

arni

ng a

t R

iver

Val

ley

and

Mou

ntai

n V

iew

Con

cept

sS

kills

Pro

cedu

ral K

now

ledg

e

Fai

r te

sts

Pur

pose

of

an in

vest

igat

ion

as a

n ai

m, t

esta

ble

ques

tion

, hyp

othe

sis

or p

redi

ctio

nV

aria

bles

—ke

y, d

epen

dent

and

inde

pend

ent

Pri

mar

y an

d se

cond

ary

data

, qua

litat

ive

and

quan

tita

tive

dat

a, r

elia

bilit

y of

dat

aT

able

s as

a s

yste

mat

ic f

orm

at f

or r

ecor

ding

dat

aG

raph

typ

es (

bar

and

line)

; gra

ph c

ompo

nent

s su

ch a

s ti

tle,

x (

inde

pend

ent

vari

able

) an

d y

(dep

ende

nt v

aria

ble)

axe

s, u

nits

and

val

ues

for

axes

, plo

tted

poi

nts,

and

line

s of

bes

t fi

tS

ourc

es o

f er

ror

and

syst

emat

ic e

rror

sE

quip

men

t na

mes

, typ

es a

nd p

urpo

seB

ackg

roun

d/co

ntex

tual

sci

ence

con

cept

s to

the

in

vest

igat

ion

e.g.

, fac

tors

aff

ecti

ng r

ate

of

reac

tion

and

beh

avio

ur o

f pe

ndul

ums.

Des

igni

ng, e

valu

atin

g, m

odif

ying

and

car

ryin

g ou

t a

syst

emat

ic p

lan

for

a fa

ir t

est

Det

erm

inin

g th

e pu

rpos

e of

a f

air

test

in

vest

igat

ion

Iden

tify

ing,

con

trol

ling,

ch

angi

ng, o

bser

ving

and

mea

suri

ng v

aria

bles

C

hoos

ing

and

usin

g eq

uipm

ent

appr

opri

atel

y D

eter

min

ing

appr

opri

ate

rang

e of

val

ues

for

vari

able

s R

epea

ting

exp

erim

ents

Rec

ordi

ng

and

proc

essi

ng d

ata—

tabu

lati

ng, a

vera

ging

, gr

aphi

ng I

nter

pret

ing

data

, and

rec

ogni

sing

tr

ends

and

pat

tern

sD

iscu

ssin

g fi

ndin

gs, l

inki

ng f

indi

ngs

to

exis

ting

sci

ence

idea

s an

d dr

awin

g co

nclu

sion

s in

a w

ritt

en r

epor

t E

valu

atin

g th

e in

vest

igat

ion

in t

he w

ritt

en r

epor

t (s

ourc

es o

f er

ror,

impr

ovem

ents

).

Kno

win

g ho

w t

o pl

an a

wor

kabl

e, f

air

test

Kno

win

g th

at p

lann

ing

requ

ires

tri

alin

g,

eval

uati

ng a

nd m

odif

ying

Kno

win

g w

hy r

elia

ble

data

are

nee

ded

and

how

to

obta

in

cons

iste

nt d

ata

Kno

win

g th

at t

he f

indi

ngs

shou

ld b

e lin

ked

to s

cien

ce id

eas

Kno

win

g ho

w t

o w

ork

as a

tea

m

Kno

win

g ho

w t

o in

terp

ret

the

tem

plat

e an

d as

sess

men

t sc

hedu

le r

equi

rem

ents

of t

asks

fo

r th

e in

tern

al S

cien

ce A

.S. 1

.1 a

t ac

hiev

emen

t, m

erit

, and

exc

elle

nce

leve

ls.

*At

Riv

er V

alle

y Je

nny

adde

d ‘G

ood

scie

nce’

(t

he s

cien

ce t

hat

real

sci

enti

sts

do),

and

‘sch

ool

scie

nce’

(th

e po

rtra

yal o

r si

mul

atio

n of

sci

ence

ex

peri

ence

d by

stu

dent

s in

sch

ool)

; sys

tem

atic

er

rors

; and

the

con

cept

of

cont

rols

*At

Riv

er V

alle

y Je

nny

also

incl

uded

som

e tr

ialin

g of

pla

ns*A

t R

iver

Val

ley

Jenn

y al

so d

ealt

wit

h ho

w

to r

ecog

nise

and

acc

ount

for

err

ors

in

mea

sure

men

t; a

nd r

ecog

nisi

ng t

hat

the

plan

ning

and

car

ryin

g ou

t of

inve

stig

atio

ns

requ

ired

for

Sci

ence

A.S

. 1.1

mor

e cl

osel

y re

sem

bles

‘goo

d sc

ienc

e’, t

han

mos

t ‘s

choo

l sc

ienc

e’

*At

Mou

ntai

n H

igh

Kat

hy p

rovi

ded

an

expe

rim

enta

l pla

n w

hich

incl

uded

an

aim

, lis

t of

eq

uipm

ent

and

an e

xper

imen

tal m

etho

d, a

fo

rmat

for

sci

enti

fic

repo

rts

and

cove

rage

of

the

rela

tion

ship

bet

wee

n tw

o qu

anti

ties

whe

n ch

ange

in o

ne c

ause

s ch

ange

in t

he o

ther

*At

Mou

ntai

n H

igh

Kat

hy a

dded

kno

win

g th

at t

he f

indi

ngs

shou

ld b

e lin

ked

to t

he

scie

nce

behi

nd t

he in

vest

igat

ion;

and

kn

owin

g w

hen

assu

mpt

ions

can

be

mad

e an

d th

e lim

itat

ions

of

thos

e as

sum

ptio

ns

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1212 A. Hume et al.

summative assessment in the newly introduced context of pendulums (River Valleyfield notes). It did appear that River Valley students placed slightly more focus onrepetition and evaluation of their practical work in their investigations than thestudents at Mountain View (River Valley and Mountain View document analysis).

Some students were very savvy of assessment techniques and showed adeptness at‘playing the system’. The following sequence shows how the students at River Valleywere learning how to meet assessment requirements and succeed in the standarddespite ineffective investigative skills. The scene is set in Phase III, and the datapresented here is based on field notes recorded during the formally assessed practicalsession, where the students were gathering their data in readiness for writing theirinvestigation report.

The group initially appeared to be more purposeful in their approach to the investiga-tion than during the formative investigation, with Peter and Martyn collaboratingclosely in the setting-up of the apparatus and trialling of the pendulum swing, whileMitchell and Eddie drew up their tables. They had made modifications to theirapparatus utilising a retort stand and clamp instead of an upturned stool as support fortheir pendulum. However, when I asked Martyn what plan they were using he wasunsure—they had not decided at that stage on a specific plan. The discussion thatfollowed between Martyn and Peter, about the number of repeats to be performed,confirmed that some planning decisions were still to be made. When Mitchell andEddie joined in the discussion the group could not agree, and Jenny’s advice wassought. Jenny did not provide an answer, but fielded the question back to the group.Finally, after consulting with others out of the group, the group came to a consensusthat they needed to do six repeats for each pendulum length.

The students in the study group had initially failed to appreciate the full range offorward planning required for the investigation. After finally establishing an agreedplan the group proceeded with their data gathering for the pendulum period.

Shortly afterwards Martyn and Mitchell, who were then working on the apparatustogether, struck a problem. They realised that the pendulum was not swinging from afixed point, so they experimented with different forms of attachment. As they triedvarious methods Eddie began to express frustration saying, ‘start again’, and ‘hurry up,hurry up!’ As in the formative assessment it became evident again that the group hadfailed to assign individuals to tasks: ‘Whose got a watch?’ asked Eddie, ‘I’ve got a watch… need a ruler!’ replied Martyn. ‘The teacher took it off us’ said Eddie, so Mitchellgoes off to retrieve the ruler. Despite some group dissatisfaction with the set-up, theexperiment began. Almost immediately they realise no one was timing, so they restartwith Peter operating the stopwatch. He successfully timed the first run, and Peterquickly sketched up a table on a piece of loose paper to record the results. The next fewruns are recorded, but Eddie was worried about how long it was taking crying ‘hurry up,hurry up!’ and he pointed to the set-up of a neighbouring group suggesting ‘do it likethey did’. The group began to swap around roles with Eddie, then Peter, swinging thependulum and Mitchell recording and calculating average times.

The frustration in the group caused by poor organisational skills was about toworsen when technical problems with maintaining the pendulum swing arose.

Shortly afterwards, the technical difficulties they had experienced in the trialling resur-faced. The pendulum began to swivel in its action and after 6–7 swings the pendulum

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction 1213

bob would collide with the support leg of the upturned stool. When they failed to recordsuccessive runs after several attempts panic began to set in: ‘Hurry up! We won’t get itdone!’ said Eddie. Further time was lost as they struggled to adjust the length of thependulum to an exact measurement. It appeared they had not heard or comprehendedJenny’s comment the previous day that the length of the pendulum did not have to varyin a systematic way. Martyn took over the task of adjusting the length exclaiming; ‘Thisis out of control! It’s supposed to be 20! This is stupid!’ When Peter finally suggestedthat ‘it doesn’t have to be exactly 20 centimetres’, Mathew replied ‘yes it must, it’ssupposed to be a fair test’. Eddie became exasperated; ‘Martyn, stop fiddling with it.We’re never going to finish it if you keep fiddling with it!’ Martyn finally adjusted thependulum to 20 centimetres and the experimental runs recommenced.

In the continuing confusion different students attempted to take on leadership roleswith varying success as the achievement of consistent results continued to elude them.

Unfortunately maintaining the pendulum for 10 consecutive swings remained a persis-tent problem, and the group’s levels of anxiety continued to grow, particularly whenthey witnessed other groups in the class successfully completing their data collection.Amid the growing frustration and confusion Peter took on a calming, reassuring role,telling his fellow group members not to give up hope: ‘We can do it!’ Martyncommented hopefully ‘do you think we could argue that we started late?’ Eddie sensedfrom their previous experience that their method was not working and that they should‘stop it now and start again’. He wanted to alter the method but the others weredetermined to carry on with the existing plan. As pressure mounted to complete theexperimental work within the time allowed even Peter began to worry: ‘There’s no waywe’re going to get this done!’ He took on a leadership role urging Eddie to help Martynadjust the pendulum length again.

In desperation the group collectively makes a pragmatic but unscientific decisionthat solved their immediate problem of insufficient data.

Within the closing stage of the practical session the group scrambled to complete andrecord sufficient runs for their data processing and interpreting phase. The four groupmembers frequently interchanged roles as they each took it in turn to record their owncopy of the results (which they needed for the write-up in the following session). Allother groups had finished their data collection and were listening as Jenny coveredpoints for the write-up. Martyn, Peter, Mitchell and Eddie continued operating theirpendulum and consequently missed hearing what Jenny was saying during her briefing.In their rush to finish confusion set in: ‘Is this the third or fourth one?’ asked Mathewwho was recording and calculating. When the pendulum continued to collide with thesupport arm Peter commented, ‘You’ll have to estimate’, while Eddie was convincedthey should ‘make up the rest’. Mitchell agreed: ‘Lets make up the rest, and take16 seconds as the average’ and Martyn confirmed, ‘It will still give us our results’. Eachgroup member had a complete set of written data by the end of the practical. Jennyallowed the class to view the background science notes before the end of the periodbefore collecting in all papers to retain overnight.

Thus the students seemed aware before hand of what kind of data they should beobtaining experimentally and of the nature of the relationship between the variablesthey were investigating. So when they experienced practical difficulty obtaining thenecessary results it appeared a relatively simple task for them to make up appropriatedata and continue on to achieve the standard.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1214 A. Hume et al.

Why and How were students learning? Interviewing the students and their teachers,observing them interact in class, and examining support materials and studentrecords revealed why and how students learned about fair testing and the assessmentrequirements of the SAS 1.1 were direct consequences of three influences: thecontent of their teachers’ intended curricula, the pedagogical approaches andtechniques that their teachers used, and the learning strategies that studentsemployed. The key findings are summarised in Table 2.

Students learned about fair testing and the assessment requirements of SAS 1.1because this was the content effectively prescribed by the NCEA exemplarymaterials (field notes), adopted in school departmental guidelines (field notes) anddelivered by teachers in their teaching and learning programmes (field notes—seeTable 1). Some students’ heightened awareness of certain aspects of ‘good science’like the need for repetition, was probably a direct result of the emphasis placed on itby their teacher in her instructional sessions: “If you (the students) were scientistsout doing an experiment yourself you have to do repetitions … to get any sign backyour results are reliable” (River Valley field notes). The didactic pedagogical styles ofthe teachers corresponded with the manner of delivery required in the departmentalguidelines where the emphasis was on classroom procedures and arrangements forthe formative and summative assessments and methods of moderation (field notes).

Students greatly appreciated the opportunities to practise performing and report-ing with fellow students in “You could feed off each other … some of us were betterthan others at some things and the others would be better at something we weren’t”(Mountain View student interview). They also valued instructional sessions wherethey were taught beforehand relevant skills and background science, and the stepsinvolved in writing up their investigations appropriately, especially by a teacher who“knows more about the thing that they are actually teaching” and can “explain it alland make sure people know” (River Valley student interview). The planningtemplate and assessment schedules gave students the added confidence of knowing“how to do science experiments well, draw up results and all that discussion” and“the order to write them in” (Mountain View student interview). Students consid-ered feedback in relation to exemplars of the learning they were expected to achieveand models they could try to emulate as they applied their developing scientificknowledge and skills to investigative work as particularly helpful: “We know what wegot wrong … Yes, because it was like preparing us for the exam … it gives you a fairidea of what you’ve got to do and you just refer back to it … It’s a kind of reminder”(Mountain View student interview).

Departmental guidelines at each school contained and reflected other decisionsthat impacted on student learning. For example, the timing of the teaching andassessment early in the school year appeared to limit students’ opportunities toconsolidate and improve their learning in a wide range of contexts, and to developthe tacit, intuitive knowledge required for effective investigating in science (fieldnotes). The decision to set both the formative and summative investigations in thesame familiar science context possibly gave students at Mountain View the opportu-nity to make meaningful links with their new experiences more readily than students

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction 1215T

able

2.

Key

influ

ence

s on

Why

and

How

stu

dent

s le

arne

d

The

Con

tent

of

the

Tea

cher

s’

Inte

nded

Cur

ricu

laT

he P

edag

ogic

al A

ppro

ache

s, S

trat

egie

s an

d C

apab

iliti

es o

f th

eir

Tea

cher

sT

he L

earn

ing

Str

ateg

ies

that

Stu

dent

s E

mpl

oyed

Tea

cher

s de

liver

ed c

onte

nt in

the

te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng p

rogr

amm

es

spec

ific

ally

targ

eted

at f

air

test

ing

and

the

asse

ssm

ent

requ

irem

ents

of

SA

S

1.1

Tea

cher

s’ d

ecis

ions

abo

ut le

sson

co

nten

t w

ere

gove

rned

by

thei

r re

spec

tive

sch

ool d

epar

tmen

tal

guid

elin

es f

or d

eliv

erin

g th

e S

AS

1.1

—al

l tea

cher

s in

the

dep

artm

ents

w

ere

oblig

ed t

o fo

llow

the

se

guid

elin

es.

Dep

artm

enta

l gui

delin

es p

rodu

ced

man

y co

mm

onal

itie

s in

the

ped

agog

ical

str

ateg

ies

teac

hers

em

ploy

ed—

they

eff

ecti

vely

dec

ided

the

: man

ner

in

whi

ch t

he t

each

ing

and

lear

ning

pro

gram

mes

wer

e to

be

del

iver

ed a

nd a

sses

sed;

tim

ing

of t

he p

rogr

amm

e de

liver

y an

d; a

dopt

ion

of t

he p

lann

ing

tem

plat

e an

d ex

empl

ar a

sses

smen

t ta

sks

and

sche

dule

s. A

s a

resu

lt

teac

hers

’ ped

agog

ical

app

roac

hes

wer

e pr

edom

inan

tly

dida

ctic

in n

atur

e

Stu

dent

s of

ten

play

ed a

med

iati

ng r

ole

in

thei

r le

arni

ng, a

t ti

mes

con

scio

usly

cho

osin

g w

hen

and

how

to

enga

ge f

rom

a r

ange

of

pers

onal

ly p

refe

rred

lear

ning

str

ateg

ies.

Lea

rnin

g ch

oice

s w

ere

ofte

n re

late

d to

pe

rcep

tion

s st

uden

ts h

ad a

bout

wha

t w

as

valu

able

or

impo

rtan

t to

lear

n an

d w

ho w

as

best

sui

ted

to a

ssis

t th

eir

lear

ning

at

give

n ti

mes

, and

fee

lings

of

self

-est

eem

and

sel

f-co

nfid

ence

:

Dep

artm

enta

l gui

delin

es w

ere

sim

ilar

in e

ach

scho

ol s

ince

eac

h sc

hool

lo

oked

to

mat

eria

ls p

rovi

ded

by

gove

rnm

ent

agen

cies

to

supp

ort

lear

ning

pro

gram

mes

for

the

SA

S 1

.1

i.e.,

pla

nnin

g te

mpl

ates

, and

ex

empl

ar a

sses

smen

t ta

sks

and

sche

dule

sT

he e

xpos

ure

of s

tude

nts

at R

iver

V

alle

y to

the

noti

ons

of ‘g

ood

scie

nce’

as

opp

osed

to ‘s

choo

l sci

ence

’ in

thei

r le

arni

ng, p

roba

bly

stem

med

fro

m

thei

r te

ache

r’s

own

know

ledg

e ba

se

and

belie

fs a

bout

the

nat

ure

of

scie

ntif

ic in

vest

igat

ion

and

her

pers

onal

exp

erie

nce

of s

cien

tifi

c re

sear

ch.

Stu

dent

s id

enti

fied

par

ticu

lar

com

mon

tea

chin

g st

rate

gies

tha

t he

lped

the

ir le

arni

ng, i

nclu

ding

: pr

ovis

ion

of t

he o

ppor

tuni

ty t

o do

pra

ctic

e in

vest

igat

ions

and

wri

te-u

ps f

or a

sses

smen

ts in

gr

oups

: dir

ect

inst

ruct

ion

from

kno

wle

dgea

ble

teac

hers

; pro

visi

on o

f a

plan

ning

tem

plat

e an

d as

sess

men

t sc

hedu

les

and;

fee

dbac

k th

ey r

ecei

ved

from

tea

cher

s an

d fe

llow

stu

dent

s af

ter

asse

ssm

ents

.C

onve

rgen

t for

mat

ive

asse

ssm

ent p

ract

ice

unde

rpin

ned

why

and

how

stu

dent

s w

ere

succ

eedi

ng in

man

y as

pect

s of

the

ir le

arni

ng. E

xplic

it s

hari

ng o

f le

arni

ng

goal

s, s

ucce

ss c

rite

ria

and

lear

ning

pro

gres

s w

ith

stud

ents

was

ach

ieve

d vi

a th

e us

e of

exe

mpl

ars.

..

NC

EA

was

an

impo

rtan

t pe

rson

al g

oal f

or

mos

t st

uden

ts, a

nd t

hey

wer

e pr

epar

ed t

o le

arn

wha

t w

as r

equi

red

of t

hem

in o

rder

to

dem

onst

rate

ach

ieve

men

t of

the

sta

ndar

d at

pa

rtic

ular

leve

ls o

f at

tain

men

t

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1216 A. Hume et al.T

able

2.

Con

tinue

d

The

Con

tent

of

the

Tea

cher

s’

Inte

nded

Cur

ricu

laT

he P

edag

ogic

al A

ppro

ache

s, S

trat

egie

s an

d C

apab

iliti

es o

f th

eir

Tea

cher

sT

he L

earn

ing

Str

ateg

ies

that

Stu

dent

s E

mpl

oyed

The

tim

ing

of t

he t

each

ing

and

asse

ssm

ent

earl

y in

the

sc

hool

yea

r ap

pear

ed t

o lim

it s

tude

nts’

opp

ortu

niti

es

to c

onso

lidat

e an

d im

prov

e th

eir

lear

ning

in a

wid

e ra

nge

of c

onte

xts,

and

to

deve

lop

the

taci

t, in

tuit

ive

know

ledg

e re

quir

ed f

or e

ffec

tive

inve

stig

atin

g in

sc

ienc

e.T

he t

each

ing

deci

sion

to

set

both

the

for

mat

ive

and

sum

mat

ive

inve

stig

atio

ns in

the

sam

e fa

mili

ar s

cien

ce

cont

ext

poss

ibly

gav

e st

uden

ts a

t M

ount

ain

Vie

w t

he

oppo

rtun

ity

to m

ake

mea

ning

ful l

inks

wit

h th

eir

new

ex

peri

ence

s m

ore

read

ily th

an s

tude

nts

at R

iver

Val

ley,

w

here

the

bac

kgro

und

scie

nce

in t

he s

umm

ativ

e as

sess

men

t w

as u

nfam

iliar

to

stud

ents

and

the

y ha

d ha

d lit

tle

expo

sure

to

the

phen

omen

on b

eing

in

vest

igat

ed

Hig

h va

lue

was

pla

ced

on b

eing

abl

e to

wor

k an

d co

llabo

rate

wit

h pe

ers—

stud

ents

ap

prec

iate

d th

e co

nven

ienc

e an

d ea

se o

f sh

arin

g kn

owle

dge

and

expe

rtis

e to

pro

blem

so

lve,

and

to

clar

ify

mis

conc

epti

ons

and/

or

conf

irm

und

erst

andi

ng in

the

rel

ativ

ely

safe

fo

rum

of

pair

s/sm

all g

roup

s of

stu

dent

s.

The

y re

alis

ed s

ome

inte

ract

ions

bet

wee

n pe

ers

coul

d al

so b

e de

trim

enta

l to

lear

ning

, an

d la

ck o

f ef

fect

ive

team

wor

k w

as s

een

to

com

prom

ise

inte

nded

lear

ning

wor

k on

at

leas

t on

e oc

casi

on. S

tude

nts

wer

e am

biva

lent

abo

ut t

he v

alue

of

peer

as

sess

men

t in

pro

mot

ing

and

faci

litat

ing

thei

r le

arni

ng, g

ener

ally

bec

ause

the

y qu

esti

oned

the

cre

dibi

lity

and

capa

bilit

y of

th

eir

peer

s to

ass

ess

as a

ccur

atel

y as

the

ir

teac

hers

.W

hile

it w

as d

iffi

cult

to

judg

e in

divi

dual

st

uden

ts’ c

apab

iliti

es o

n th

e ba

sis

of

nego

tiat

ed g

roup

pla

ns, t

he c

olla

bora

tive

pl

anni

ng p

roce

ss t

ende

d to

giv

e m

ore

grou

p m

embe

rs th

e po

tent

ial t

o se

cure

rel

evan

t and

re

liabl

e da

ta, a

nd in

tur

n th

e ch

ance

to

proc

ess

and

inte

rpre

t dat

a, d

raw

con

clus

ions

an

d ev

alua

te t

heir

fin

ding

s.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction 1217

at River Valley, where the background science in the summative assessment wasunfamiliar to students and they had had little exposure to the phenomenon beinginvestigated (field notes).

Students’ conscious decisions about the content and manner of their learningcould be linked to their aspirations, interests, feelings and emotions. NCEA was animportant priority for the students and they were prepared to put in the effort tolearn how to meet assessment requirements: “Their methods have improved incred-ibly and they now understand how much detail you need to have” (River Valleyteacher interview). Their desire to succeed was often revealed indirectly by thedegree of anxiety they expressed about NCEA: “I am not going to do terribly good… it’s so much pressure” or relief: “It’s not so bad … NCEA is good the way you getseveral tries, so if you fail once try again” (River Valley student interview). Workingwith peers boosted their confidence: “We wrote a group method, we combined allour three methods and chose one we thought would work best for us … it was waybetter, it felt so much more easier because we had combined everyone’s knowledge”(Mountain View student interview), especially the ease of asking a neighbour: “If youdon’t understand it, it’s easier and clears it up real well sometimes … I usually get amate who does know what they’re doing and I just ask him” (River Valley studentinterview).

Lack of effective teamwork could on the other hand compromise intended learn-ing work: “Sometimes you just muck around” (River Valley student interview) andbe detrimental to learning “if you’re in a group you don’t like” (Mountain Viewstudent interview). Frustration with equipment caused students at River Valley tofabricate results (field notes), and resulted in some outcomes that were contrary tothe notion of ‘good science’, i.e. dishonesty. Students were generally ambivalentabout the value of peer assessment in promoting and facilitating their learning,recognising it could help but “ we’re not sure having to mark … you think you are allconfused … well how can they get that right and I get that wrong and its kind of thesame? Not your mate marking it because they don’t really know what they are talk-ing about, they probably know nearly as much as you, but when the teacher wentover it, it was quite helpful” (River Valley student interview).

The learning outcomes for any group, as a collective, were easy to detect forcertain aspects of the investigative process, such as planning and gathering data,but not so for individual members (field notes). At Mountain View when studentscame together as respective groups to negotiate an agreed plan, after first planningas individuals, this collaboration usually resulted in the members performing aworkable plan. While it was difficult to judge individual students’ capabilities onthe basis of these negotiated group plans the collaborative process gave groupmembers further opportunity to access the additional ideas required to make thegroup plan workable, and could be a possible reason why some students learned toplan, and how they learned to plan. These resulting workable plans gave all groupmembers the potential to secure relevant and reliable data if the plan was accu-rately performed, and in turn the chance to process and interpret data, drawconclusions and evaluate their findings. At River Valley, a possible reason why

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1218 A. Hume et al.

students made inappropriate procedural decisions and overlooked some criticallogistical points could be that they lacked a group member with planning expertisein this context (field notes).

Sometimes students made deliberate learning decisions to purposefully disengagefrom learning activities for reasons that they considered valid such as daydreamingor chatting to prevent boredom when the content being taught was known (RiverValley student interview); only participating in hands-on practical work because thestudent preferred and enjoyed learning this way (Mountain View student interview);choosing not to waste time going over exercises that they felt were repetitious andnon-challenging (Mountain View student interviews); choosing their homework timeto carry out much of their learning (Mountain View student interview); and identify-ing language difficulties in class for later referral work with her language tutor, ratherthan seek help in class (Mountain View student interview).

Discussion

What were students learning about scientific inquiry? The evidence emerging from thepresent interpretive study into a student-experienced curriculum demonstratesstrong parallels between what students were learning about scientific investigationsin these New Zealand classrooms and those learning trends identified in the inter-national literature. In the case studies what students came to perceive and experi-ence, as scientific investigation was the single, linear and ‘unproblematic’methodology of fair testing. Within the narrow context of fair testing, the studentsdid manifest many of those physical and mental skills generally agreed upon in theliterature as the “scientific process skills” (Harlen, 1999). For example, they wereable to produce adequate scientific investigations for the given problem (i.e. fairtests), obtain relevant information, interpret evidence in terms of the questionaddressed in the inquiry and communicate the investigation process. However, theuse of planning templates, exemplar assessment materials and extensive teacherdirection on the other hand produced the “seen exam” phenomenon described byRoberts and Gott (2002), and reduced students to following a set of rules andprocedures which they learned in practice assessments. Their ability to identifyinvestigatable questions, for example, was not evident because the purpose of theinvestigation was a ‘given’, and students’ only task was to craft a question specify-ing the cause and effect relationship they were investigating. Students were there-fore not participating in genuinely authentic open-ended investigations, where theyhad the responsibility for determining the purpose of the investigation and thequestion to be investigated, and devising original solutions to experimental designas ‘real’ scientists would (Hodson, 1992; Reid & Yang, 2002). Also the limitedopportunities to perform investigations, and the narrow range of scientific contextsin which the investigations were based, did not encourage students to begin devel-oping the sort of tacit, intuitive knowledge in their science investigative abilities thatcomes with wide experience and understanding (Hodson, 1992). As a consequenceof these conditions, students’ learning was rote and formulaic, and characterised by

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction 1219

lower to middle order thinking (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom et al., 1956),with only a few able to display some higher order critical thinking skills. Thislearning appears to be happening despite the national policy goal of the SiNZC thatstudents should develop authentic understandings of and capabilities in science aswidely recommended by international science educators. In this regard the imple-mentation of the SiNZC appears unsuccessful.

Why and how were students learning about fair testing and assessment requirements? Inconsidering why and how the Year 11 students in these two case studies learnedabout fair testing and assessment requirements, the close match between the curric-ula they experienced in class and their teachers’ intended curricula is significant.This finding shows agreement with findings from the literature, that maintain teach-ers’ instructional intentions have a direct bearing on why and how students learn(e.g. Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Lederman, 1999; McGee & Penlington, 2001b;Tytler, 2003). However, the claim that classroom teachers are the only ones whoseactions directly affect students’ learning (Harlen & Crick, 2003) needs to bequalified in light of these case studies, given the obvious similarities between theoperational curriculum occurring in classrooms, and the SiNZC interpretationpromoted by the SAS 1.1.

The influence of the Science Achievement Standard. It appears that the interpretationof the curriculum portrayed in the SAS 1.1 had a powerful effect on the curriculumexperienced by Year 11 students in these case studies, and this observation issupported by similar overseas experience where high stakes testing and qualificationsare also reported to drive classroom practice (e.g. McDonald & Boud, 2003;Orpwood, 2002; Roberts & Gott, 2004, Wiliam, 2000). Qualifications are examplesof external determinants of classroom curricula (McGee & Penlington, 2001a) thatemanate from “sites of influence” outside classrooms (English, 1997) and influencethe final decisions teachers make about classroom curriculum delivery to theirstudents. “Sites of influence” are contexts or arenas of action where participantshave shared understandings of concepts and ideas due to the shared social contextsand who support and promote particular interpretations of “worthwhile” learning.The close similarity in each case study between the teachers’ intended curricula, thedepartmental guidelines, and the interpretation of curriculum promoted bythe NZQA in its NCEA qualification illustrates the pervasive influence of the NZQAsite of influence and the assessment regime underpinning the NCEA qualification onthe teachers’ planning intentions. This trend is also signalled in recent research byHipkins (2004) in New Zealand senior science classrooms and suggests that theteachers, and their respective science departments were for the most part acting asconduits for the achievement of that government agency’s goals. Many decisions todo with classroom practice were effectively taken out of the individual teachers’hands—instead judgements were made collectively at departmental level. Thisdepartmental layer of interpretation was based on guidelines and recommendations

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1220 A. Hume et al.

from NZQA, which departments and classroom teachers were obligated to followunder school accreditation requirements for NZQA.

The actions of individuals from other sites of influence also had a direct effect onstudents’ learning in classrooms. The writers, for example, who created the nationalassessment guidelines and exemplar materials for NCEA and the published textused in the classroom programmes in these case studies influenced the learningbecause students interacted frequently with these materials in their daily classroomactivities and home study.

The Nature of the Pedagogical Practice Departmental guidelines promoted ateacher-centred and directed programmes of teaching and learning, and both teach-ers followed this lead in their classroom delivery. Within this didactic pedagogicalapproach the structure of NCEA, with its mode of standards-based assessment, didgive teachers a format for utilising many key features of convergent formative assess-ment (Torrance & Pryor, 2001). Within this format teachers were able to success-fully scaffold certain aspects of student learning. In particular, the explicit sharing ofachievement criteria, exemplification of expected outcomes and feedback in relationto these reference levels promoted significant student learning during the instruc-tional sessions and the mock assessment exercise.

While these key elements of formative assessment were evident in classroompractice in both case studies, some aspects of that practice reduced the potential ofthe assessment to maximise the students’ learning. The extent to which teacherscould utilise the formative assessment information in their planning to adapt theirteaching programme to meet students’ emerging learning needs (Black, 2003; Black& Wiliam, 1998; Clarke, 2001; Sadler, 1989) was restricted by the departmentalguidelines, as were the opportunities for students to take the next learning steps. Inboth case studies, the short duration of the teaching and learning programme interms of allocated classroom time created an “overcrowded-curriculum” effect(Crooks, 2002), and encouraged superficial as opposed to deep learning by “rush-ing” the learning. The timing of the programme early in the year also reduced theeffectiveness of the formative function of the assessment by giving students only oneopportunity to experience a full investigation before they were summatively assessed.As a consequence, students were missing out on exposure to investigative activity ina variety of science contexts and the “prolonged engagement in evaluative activity”(Sadler, 1989, p. 135) that might help them gain more of that tacit or intuitivescientific knowledge that comes from experiencing investigations in many differentsettings (Duggan & Gott, 1995; English & Wood, 1997; Hodson, 1992, 1996). This“crash-course” classroom curriculum undoubtedly contributed to why the learningexperienced by students in the case studies had a narrow focus, and how they learnedvia memorisation and replication of knowledge.

Deboer (2002) talks of the potential for tension when students are curtailed intheir freedom to carry out authentic inquiry by the prescribed content of a standardbecause teachers and students feel pressured to cover that particular content. Thespecified nature of the SAS 1.1 and its requirements did contribute to the narrow-ness of the student experienced curriculum, but it is important to note that the

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction 1221

decisions dictating the timing and time allocated to the teaching of this investigativeunit were made at school and departmental level, and they were not set require-ments of the NCEA qualification or the NZQA. Hipkins et al. (2004) report aprevailing view among some heads of departments in New Zealand secondaryschools that attaining a high number of overall credits in NCEA was superior togaining excellences but with fewer overall assessment credits. It could be thatpragmatic decisions by the schools to provide science courses with high creditnumbers, and hence overcrowded curricula, were influenced by similar perceptionsof teachers that the quantity of credits gained in NCEA was a criterion by whichsuccess in national qualifications could be gauged. The decision to time the unitearly in the year, it seems, was one of expediency leaving more time for teachers andstudents to concentrate on the externally assessed standards later in the year.

Another departmental decision impacting on student learning, that was notrequired by NCEA and worth noting, concerned the science context in which assess-ment tasks were set. Choosing a context unfamiliar to students in one case study ledto an able student struggling with his explanations of the findings when in an earlierinvestigation where he was conversant with the background science he had beensuccessful in explaining his findings. This student’s inability to explain results in anunfamiliar science context supports the argument that students need a strongtheoretical or conceptual background in the science context of the investigation inorder to use scientific theory to make sense of their findings (Harlen, 1998; Leach &Scott, 2003; Luft, 1999).

Sociocultural Factors

Finally in considering why and how students learned the content identified in the twocase studies it needs to be acknowledged that their learning cannot be attributed tojust a cognitive exercise on their part, but also to factors in the sociocultural andaffective domains (Black, 2003; Carr et al, 2003; Nuthall, 1997). It seemed that toinitiate and sustain this cognitive engagement, students needed to perceive goodreasons for learning (Brophy, 1999). Students perceived acquisition of the NCEASAS 1.1 as a good cause for learning because they appreciated the value andimportance that society placed on this particular learning (Brophy, 1999). Thusstudents came to see the NCEA qualification as valuable and high stakes, and animportant goal to achieve.

Other motivating factors were related to students’ feelings of self-esteem andconfidence in their ability to succeed. Much of the students’ growing sense of self-effiacy, that is, their ability to use judgements on their performance to decidewhether they are capable of undertaking a task successfully (Harlen & Crick, 2003),can be attributed to the teachers’ assessment practice which scaffolded students’learning by the sharing of assessment criteria, exemplification and feedback (Crooks,2002; Sadler, 1989). This convergent form of formative assessment resulted in moststudents coming to understand a purpose that they were learning (Brookhart &Bronowizc, 2003), and provided them with reason for needing or wanting to do the

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1222 A. Hume et al.

necessary learning. Since much of the feedback was task-oriented rather than ego-oriented (Black, 2003; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Clarke, 2001), the self-esteem ofmany students rose as they came to realise that improved achievement could resultfrom effort, and was not simply down to ability. It appears these same studentsfound the feedback information intrinsically motivating (Brookhart, 2001), perhapsbecause they came to believe that they could achieve success through effort (Black,2003a; Clarke, 2001). Unlike some reports from the literature (e.g. Black, 2003a),the giving of grades for the formative assessment by peers in the River Valley Boys’High School did not appear to de-motivate students in their learning, although itcould be argued that students were mastering the ‘rules of the game’ rather thanimproving their procedural understanding of investigations (Keiler & Woolnough,2002). The fabrication of results by students at River Valley in the summativeinvestigation suggests they knew how “to play the game”.

Affective factors, like feelings of comfort and confidence about their learning mayalso in part explain the finding in the present work that students chose particularlearning strategies to best fit their learning needs at given times. Such decisions illus-trated that students could assume some control over their learning as they mediatedthe nature and pace at which it occurred (Carr et al., 2003; Nuthall, 1997). As Black(2003) found in his observations of classroom formative assessment practice inBritish high schools, students in these New Zealand case studies were more likely toapproach a fellow student if they did not understand an explanation than interruptthe teacher. Such actions were often more convenient, since the help was at handand immediate, and may have also posed less threat to some students’ self-esteem.Perhaps these students perceived that disclosure of personal inadequacies in a verypublic way, such as asking questions of a teacher in class, could expose their‘weaknesses’ to their peers. Bell and Cowie (2001) reported such a reluctance bysome students to disclose lack of understanding in their classroom study of formativeassessment practice in New Zealand secondary schools.

In this study the strong preference of students to work with their peers on learningtasks lends support to sociocultural and linguistic views of how learning occurs(Barnett & Hodson, 2001; Leach & Scott, 2003; Nuthall, 1997), and the notion thatinteracting positively with peers to co-construct understanding can be a important aidto learning (Bishop & Glynn, 1999). Students commented on how they valued thepositive reinforcement that came from interchange with their peers (Leach & Scott,2003), and the ability of peers to provide explanations in forms of language thatstudents used naturally in their everyday talk (Black, 2003a). For successful learningto emerge from peer work on group tasks, Black (2003a) comments that guidancefrom the teacher is needed so students can appreciate how to cooperate and assignresponsibilities within the group. The failure of the group at River Valley to effectivelydelegate roles and tasks in some aspects of their investigative work may have been dueto insufficient guidance from the teacher and experience with how to operate whentackling such forms of inquiry. Similarly, in both case studies some students’ seem-ingly contradictory and negative comments about peer assessment may be explainedby their lack of experience with the strategy and failure to appreciate its power to

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction 1223

promote learning. Students need time and practice to develop the skills of peerassessment (Black, 2003a, Black & Wiliam, 1998; Sadler, 1989).

Conclusions and Implications

This study sought to find out the nature of the student-experienced curriculum inthe New Zealand context as students learn about scientific inquiry for a nationalqualification from the perspectives of participants in the operational or classroomcurriculum. By examining what students were learning about science investigations,the research found that the student-experienced curriculum appeared to be focusedon a narrow view of scientific inquiry as fair testing, and on acquiring assessmenttechniques. Why and how this learning occurred stemmed largely from the stronginfluence the national qualification NCEA, and its interpretation of the sciencecurriculum, was having on decisions affecting classroom curricula in schools. Thisstudy supports the observations of Black (2001, 2003a) that qualifications areconsidered high stakes by schools and teachers and that assessment for qualificationsis driving the senior school and classroom programmes in New Zealand. Decisionswere made in this study at school and departmental level, which reflected theimportance school communities and professional staff placed on their studentsachieving success in this qualification, and this directly impacted on the content ofclassroom curricula and the methods teachers used to deliver that content.

The qualification interpretation of the science curriculum, in the form of SAS 1.1and supporting materials, and departmental decisions determining time allocationand timing of the science investigation programme in classes, influenced the didacticpedagogical approaches teachers chose to use, and the strategies used by students tolearn. The structure of the qualification, especially the standards-based mode ofassessment, promoted formative assessment practice with teachers employing manyfeatures of convergent formative assessment. However, relatively short teaching andlearning programmes before summative decisions were made restricted students’ability to act on formative assessment information to improve their learning. Conse-quently, student learning tended to focus on procedures and there was little evidenceof the higher order thinking skills linked to creativity, evaluating and self-monitoringof learning. The sway that the qualification interpretation of scientific investigationhad on curriculum design and delivery decisions made by schools, departments andclassroom lends support to the view that moving from policy document to the oper-ational curriculum in classrooms is not a straightforward process (Atkin & Black,2003; McGee & Penlington, 2001), but rather a “cascade of interpreted curricula”(Carr et al., 2001, p. 18). Members of the qualification ‘site of influence’, for exam-ple, in translating the national science curriculum relevant to its purpose of assess-ment for a qualification, placed emphasis on particular portions of the curriculumthat featured fair testing. This practice resulted in a translation contrary to the wideraims of the science curriculum and should alert policy-makers to the importance ofconveying a consistent message about student learning outcomes throughout anational curriculum statement. However, introducing more flexibility into SAS 1.1

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1224 A. Hume et al.

and support materials should facilitate improved student learning outcomes in termsof authentic scientific inquiry, and give teachers greater autonomy in designingteaching and learning programmes to meet students’ learning needs and interests.Awareness that school-based decisions that focus too much on meeting administra-tive, logistical and moderation requirements of high stakes qualifications can havedetrimental effects on pedagogy and student learning, may hopefully prompt schoolsto re-evaluate the wisdom of these decisions. Finally, the views and insights thatstudents have given in this study, about the teaching and learning they experiencedand the role they play in these processes, should provide useful information forteachers to reflect on as they evaluate the effectiveness of their pedagogical andassessment strategies in helping students to achieve quality learning in scientificinquiry.

References

Adelman, C., Kemmis, S., & Jenkins, D. (1980). Rethinking case study: Notes from the SecondCambridge Conference. In H. Simons (Ed.), Towards a science of the singular (pp. 45–61). EastAnglia, UK: Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: Arevision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Atkin, J.M., & Black, P. (2003). Inside science education reform: A history of curricular and policychange. New York: Teachers College Press.

Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understandingof what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85(4), 426–453.

Bell, B. (2005). Pedagogies developed in the Learning in Science Projects and related theses.International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 159–182.

Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment in science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Bell, B., Jones, A., & Carr, M. (1995). The development of the recent national New Zealand

science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 26, 73–105.Bell, J. (1999). Doing your research project. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Gunstone, R., & Loughran, J. (1999). Helping students learn from

laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal 45(1), 27–31.Bishop, R. (1997). Interviewing as collaborative storying. Education Research and Perspectives,

24(1), 28–47.Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (1999). Culture counts: Changing power relations in education. Palmerston

North, New Zealand: Dunmore.Black, P. (2001). Dreams, strategies and systems: portraits of assessment past, present and future.

Assessment in Education, 8(1), 65–85.Black, P. (2003). Report to the Qualifications Development Group Ministry of Education, New Zealand

on the proposals for development of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. RetrievedMarch 14, 2003 from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfmquest;layout=document&documentid =5591&data=l

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1),7–74.

Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educationalobjectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York:Longmans Green.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction 1225

Brookhart, S.M., & Bronowicz, D.L. (2003). ‘I don’t like writing. It makes my fingers hurt’:Students talk about their classroom assessments. Assessment in Education, 10(2), 221–242.

Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developingappreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist 34, 75–85.

Carr, M., McGee, C., Jones, A., McKinley, E., Bell, B., Barr, H., & Simpson, T. (2001). Theeffects of curricula and assessment on pedagogical approaches and on educational outcomes.Retrieved March 14, 2003, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfmquest;layout=docu-ment&documentid=5610&data=l

Chin, C., & Kayalvizhi, G. (2002). Posing problems for open investigations: What questions dostudents askquest; Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(2), 269–287.

Clarke, S. (2001). Unlocking formative assessment: Practical strategies for enhancing pupils’ learning inthe primary classroom. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Collins, N. (2004). Scientific research and school students. School Science Review, 85(312), 77–86.Cooper, B., Hume, A., & Abbott, G. (2002). Year 11 science. NCEA level 1 workbook. Hamilton,

New Zealand: ABA Books.Crooks, T. (2002). Educational assessment in New Zealand schools. Assessment in Education, 9(2),

237–253.Deboer, G. (2002). Student-centred teaching in a standards-based world: Finding a sensible

balance. Science & Education, 11, 405–417.Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham,

UK: Open University Press.Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (1995). The place of investigations in practical work in the UK National

Curriculum for Science. International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 137– 147.Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really needquest;

International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661–680.Duschl, R.A., & Hamilton, R.J. (1998). Conceptual change in science and in the learning of

science. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education(pp. 1047–1065). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

English, C., & Wood, R. (1997). The doing of science: A redefinition of procedural knowledge.In B. Bell & R. Baker (Eds.), Developing the science curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand(pp. 67–80). Auckland, New Zealand: Longman.

English, E. (1997). The interpretation of the curriculum. Is it all a matter of serendipityquest; NewZealand Science Teacher, 85, 27–33.

Erikson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B.J. Fraser & K.G.Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155–1174). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Garnett, P.J., & Garnett, P. J. (1995). Refocussing the chemistry lab: A case for laboratory-basedinvestigations. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 41(2), 26–34.

Goetz, J., Preissle. J., & LeCompte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educationalresearch. Orlando, Fl: Academic Press.

Gott, R., Duggan, S., & Johnson, P. (1999). What do practising applied scientists do and what arethe implications for science educationquest; Research in Science and Technological Education,17(1), 97–107.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Haigh, M. (2003). ‘Miss, miss, I’m thinking, I’m thinking’: Fostering creativity through science

education. New Zealand Science Teacher, 105, 8–10.Haigh, M. (2001). Supporting student investigations. New Zealand Science Teacher, 96, 39–41.Haigh, M., France, B., & Forret, M. (2005). Is ‘doing science’ in New Zealand classrooms an

expression of scientific inquiryquest; International Journal of Science Education. 27(2), 215–226.Hannay, B., Howison, P., & Sayes, M. (2002). Year 11 Science. Study guide. NCEA Level 1 edition.

Auckland: ESA Publications.Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M.G. (Eds.). (1992). Understanding teacher development. London:

Cassell.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1226 A. Hume et al.

Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment inEducation, 6(1), 129–144.

Harlen, W. (1998). The last 10 years: The next 10 years. In R. Sherrington (Ed.), ASE guide toprimary science education (pp. 23–33). Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes for the Associationfor Science Education.

Harlen, W., & Crick, R.D. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education,10(2), 169–207.

Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of thisexperimentquest; Or can students learn something from doing experimentsquest; Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675.

Hipkins, R. (2004, July). Shifting balances: A study of the impact of assessment for qualifications onclassroom teaching. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian ScienceEducation Association, Armidale, Australia.

Hipkins, R., Vaughan, K., Beals, F., & Ferral, H. (2004). Learning curves: meeting student learningneeds in an evolving qualifications regime. Shared pathways and multiple tracks: a second report.Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational research.

Hipkins, R., & Barker, M., & Bolstad, R. (2005). Teaching the ‘nature of science’: Modest adapta-tions or radical reconceptionsquest; International Journal of Science Education 27(2), 243–254.

Hipkins, R., Bolstad, R., Baker, R., Jones, A., Barker, M.; Bell, B., Coll, R., Cooper, B., Forret, M.,Harlow, A., Taylor, I., France, B., & Haigh, M. (2001). Curriculum, learning and effective peda-gogy: A literature review in science education. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

Hipkins, R., & Booker, F. (2002). You can’t investigate in a vacuum. SET: Research Information forTeachers 3, 22–26. Hipkins, R., Vaughan, K., Beals, F., & Ferral H. (2004). Learning curves:Meeting student learning needs in an evolving qualifications regime. Shared pathways and multipletracks: A second report. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for EducationalResearch.

Hodson, D. (1992). Assessment of practical work: Some considerations in philosophy of science.Science & Education, 1, 115–144.

Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion anddistortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115–135.

Hughes, P. (2004). Mainstream chemical research in school science. School Science Review,85(312), 71–76.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for thetwenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.

Hurd, P. (1997). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(3),407–416.

Jenkin, J. (2002). The drive for scientific literacy. School Science Review, 83(304), 21–25.Jenkins, W.J. (1996). The ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 28(2), 137–150.Jones, A., & Baker, R. (2005). Curriculum, learning and effective pedagogy in science education

for New Zealand: Introduction to special issue. International Journal of Science Education,27(2), 131–143.

Keeves, J.P. (1998). Methods and processes in research in science education. In B. Fraser &K. Tobin. (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1127–1153). Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Keiler, L.S., & Woolnough, B.E. (2002). Practical work in school science: The dominance ofassessment. School Science Review, 83(304), 83–88.

Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education.Science & Education, 12, 91–113.

Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom prac-tice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36(8), 916–929.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

Carrying out a Practical Science Investigation Under Direction 1227

Luft, J. (1999). Challenging myths. Questioning common myths about science education. TheScience Teacher, 66(4), 40–43.

Mayer, V., & Kumano, Y. (1999). The role of system science in future school science curricula.Studies in Science Education, 34, 71–91.

McDonald, B., & Boud, D. (2003). The impact of self-assessment on achievement: the effects ofself-assessment training on performance in external examinations. Assessment in Education,10(2), 209–220.

McGee, C., & Penlington, C. (2001a). Research on learning, curriculum and teachers’ roles. Report 2:Teacher-student interaction. Hamilton, New Zealand: Waikato Institute for Research inLearning and Curriculum, University of Waikato.

McGee, C., & Penlington, C. (2001b). Research on learning, curriculum and teachers’ roles. Report 3:The classroom curriculum. Hamilton New Zealand: Waikato Institute for Research in Learningand Curriculum, University of Waikato.

Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London:King’s College London.

Ministry of Education. (1993). Science in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand:Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (1994). Assessment. Policy to Practice. Wellington, New Zealand: LearningMedia.

Ministry of Education. (2003a). New Zealand curriculum project. Retrieved September 7, 2003 fromhttp://www.tki.org.nz

Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Chambers, M. (2001). Enhancing student learning in technologythrough enhancing teacher formative interactions. Set: Research Information for Teachers, 3,16–19.

Nakhlel, M.B., Polles, J., & Malina, E. (2002). Learning chemistry in a laboratory environment. InJ. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical research:Towards research-based practice (pp. 69–94). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Nuthall, G. (1997). Understanding student thinking and learning in the classroom. In B. Biddle,T. Good & I. Goodson (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1–90).Dortrecht: Kluwer.

Orpwood, G. (2001). The role of assessment in science curriculum reform. Assessment in Education,8(2), 135–151.

Powell, C.P., & Anderson, R.D. (2002). Changing teachers’ practice: Curriculum materials andscience education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37, 107–136.

Reid, N., & Yang, M-J. (2002). Open-ended problem solving in school chemistry: A preliminaryinvestigation. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1313–1332.

Rennie, L.J., Goodrum, M., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australianschools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 455–498.

Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2004). Using different types of practical within a problem-solving modelof science. School Science Review, 85(312), 113–119.

Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies inScience Education, 36, 1–44.

Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. InstructionalScience, 18, 119–144.

Sandoval, W.A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence onlearning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.

Shulman, L.S. (1981). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. Educational Researcher,10(6), 5–12.

Skamp, K. (2004). Teaching primary science constructively (2nd ed.). Victoria, Australia: Thomson.Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1992). Cultural process and ethnography: An anthropological

perspective. In M.D. Le Compte, W. Millroy, & J. Priessle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitativeresearch in education (pp. 643–680). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Uni

vers

ity o

f Wai

kato

Lib

rary

] At:

04:4

3 18

Jul

y 20

08

1228 A. Hume et al.

Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: Usingaction research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5),615–631.

Tytler, R. (2003). A window for a purpose: Developing a framework for describing effectivescience teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33, 273–298.

Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (Eds.). (2002). Dilemmas of science teaching. Perspectives on problems ofpractice. London: Routledge Falmer.

Watson, R., Goldsworthy, A., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1999). What is not fair with investigation-squest; School Science Review, 80(292), 101–106.

Weinburgh, M. (2003). Confronting and changing middle school teachers’ perceptions ofscientific methodology. School Science and Mathematics, 103(5), 222–232.

White, B.Y., & Fredericksen, J.R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling and metacognition: Making scienceaccessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

Wiliam, D. (2000, August). Integrating formative and summative functions of assessment. Paperpresented to Working Group 10 of the International Congress on Mathematics Education,Makuhari, Tokyo.

Woolnough, B. (2001). What really happens when students ‘do science’- and how we can findoutquest; Studies in Science Education, 36, 162–168.