Creative practicals in the new GCSE science curriculum – Webinar

The role of practical work in the new GCSE science specifications has changed. What will this mean for lessons? How will this impact assessment? In this webinar, Ed Walsh takes a look at the impact of the changes on science lessons as we know them, and gives some practical advice on incorporating enquiry-based work into your curriculum.

A link to the recording of Ed Walsh’s webinar, Creative Practicals in the new GCSE science curriculum, is embedded in this article.

Create an account to read this article

£12.00+ VAT

One-off purchase

Purchase and Download today

Register for free

No Credit Card required

Register for free
Access to 3 free articles
Free TeachingTimes Report every month

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#40767"
  ["title"]=>
  string(50) "Evaluation of the National Science Learning Centre"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(70) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/national-science-learning-centre_050813/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1375375334)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-40767-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(389) "This NFER report explores the impact on students of the subject-specific CPD undertaken by teachers at the National Science Learning Centre, with a particular focus on students’ motivation for, and engagement with, science, student progress and attainment, and participation in science subjects at GCSE and progression post-16.
Leadership ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(377) "... science subjects and careers. Many schools had already experienced increasesin uptake in science subjects at GCSE and post-16, due in part to National Centre CPD. ■ As a result of teachers introducing a wider range of teaching approaches and contexts, pupilshad developed transferable and practical skills (e.g. discussion ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(59) "Evaluation of the National Science Learning Centre"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(1) {
        [0]=>
        string(7) "science"
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(404) "This NFER report explores the impact on students of the subject-specific CPD undertaken by teachers at the National Science Learning Centre, with a particular focus on students’ motivation for, and engagement with, science, student progress and attainment, and participation in science subjects at GCSE and progression post-16.
Leadership Briefing 8.01 (85)"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(3) {
        [0]=>
        string(3) "cpd"
        [1]=>
        string(4) "gcse"
        [2]=>
        string(7) "science"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(4226) "Leadership BriefingLeadership Briefing – www.teachingtimes.comReports Summaries – a weeklyservice of essential summaries,in-depth reports and criticalanalysis that’s new and relevantto education, linked to originalsource documents.EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCELEARNING CENTRE: FINAL REPORTKeywordsCPD, teachers,motivation,engagement,science, studentprogress,attainment,participation,GCSESummaryThis NFER research explores the impact on pupils of continuing professional development(CPD) undertaken at the National Science Learning Centre, which provides professionaldevelopment in the teaching of science, in primary and secondary schools and FE colleges.The aim of the study was to explore the impacts on students of the subject-specific CPDundertaken by teachers at the National Centre, with a particular focus on students’ motivationfor, and engagement with, science, student progress and attainment, and participation inscience subjects at GCSE and progression post-16.Key  Findings: ■ Staff and pupils reported increased pupil enjoyment of, and engagement in, science, due togreater teacher enthusiasm and confidence in teaching science and delivering practicals.Increased pupil confidence and understanding and more secure subject knowledge were alsohighlighted. Interviewees anticipated that this increased enjoyment and interest would lead togreater uptake of science subjects and careers. Many schools had already experienced increasesin uptake in science subjects at GCSE and post-16, due in part to National Centre CPD. ■ As a result of teachers introducing a wider range of teaching approaches and contexts, pupilshad developed transferable and practical skills (e.g. discussion skills, working in pairs/groups,undertaking practical work), greater awareness of the importance of science to society, andincreased knowledge of career opportunities. ■ Interviewees were cautious in reporting impacts on student attainment, although many feltthat students’ increased enjoyment of, and engagement in, science would inevitably lead toimprovements in progress and attainment. Some teachers (and students) reported actualimprovements in grades. ■ There was widespread enthusiasm for pursuing CPD at the National Science Learning Centre onan ongoing basis and the ENTHUSE bursary contributed to the accessibility of courses. ■ All of the impacts reported during the first phase of the research were evident during follow-upinterviews, suggesting lasting benefits.Recommendations for schools: ■ Schools could improve internal systems and develop guidance to enable the effective monitoringand evaluation of the impact of CPD. More effective links should be made with performancemanagement processes in schools and evaluation should be built into the application andplanning process, covering both short- and long-term evaluation outcomes.Week Commencing 5th August 2013http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/NSLC02/NSLC02.pdfhttp://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/NSLC02/NSLC02.pdfhttp://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/PMSZ01/PMSZ01.pdfLeadership BriefingLeadership Briefing – www.teachingtimes.comReports Summaries – a weeklyservice of essential summaries,in-depth reports and criticalanalysis that’s new and relevantto education, linked to originalsource documents. ■ School and departmental wide approaches to the evaluation of CPD should be adopted. Thiscould be further supported by ensuring that senior school leaders and those responsible for CPDhave appropriately defined roles and receive training to enable them to support staff in maximisingthe impacts and benefits of undertaking CPD. ■ Senior school leaders should communicate clearly the purpose and value of CPD to staff, outlinetheir priorities for its use, and introduce school-wide processes by which staff can share theirlearning from such experiences with their peers.WEB LINKEvaluation of the National Science Learning Centre: Final Reporthttp://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/NSLC02/NSLC02.pdf"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(5) {
        [0]=>
        string(3) "cpd"
        [1]=>
        string(4) "gcse"
        [2]=>
        string(9) "practical"
        [3]=>
        string(4) "work"
        [4]=>
        string(7) "science"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Evaluation of the National Science Learning Centre

1 Aug 2013

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#42384"
  ["title"]=>
  string(70) "A framework for evaluating teacher continuing professional development"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(24) "Professional Development"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(63) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/framework-for-evaluating-teacher/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1431599122)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-42384-3"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(318) "It is important that professional development makes a difference but how can its impact be robustly tracked and measured? Drawing on extensive research, Suzanne Straw, Matt Walker, Irina Kudenko and Pauline Hoyle provide practical guidance for teachers on evaluating their continuing professional development."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(349) "reflective journal or yourevaluations of lessons or schemes of work■ Feedback from pupils (see below)■ Changes to schemes of work/lesson plans/assessment/resourcesPupils■ Attainment data■ Progression data (e.g. teacher assessment within/between years/Key Stages,progression from Key Stage 2 to GCSE or post-16 study)■ ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(70) "A framework for evaluating teacher continuing professional development"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(318) "It is important that professional development makes a difference but how can its impact be robustly tracked and measured? Drawing on extensive research, Suzanne Straw, Matt Walker, Irina Kudenko and Pauline Hoyle provide practical guidance for teachers on evaluating their continuing professional development."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(1) {
        [0]=>
        string(9) "practical"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(4801) "reflective journal or yourevaluations of lessons or schemes of work■ Feedback from pupils (see below)■ Changes to schemes of work/lesson plans/assessment/resourcesPupils■ Attainment data■ Progression data (e.g. teacher assessment within/between years/Key Stages,progression from Key Stage 2 to GCSE or post-16 study)■ Attitude surveys (before and after changes and with a comparison groupif possible)■ Interviews/discussions/focus groups■ Videos/photos/posters■ Feedback on pupil engagement from the observation of lessons bycolleagues■ Documenting your personal reflections/observation of pupils■ Parent feedbackColleagues andschool■ Feedback from colleagues■ Evidence of improved student progress and attainment■ Feedback from lesson observations (for example by staff/Ofsted)■ Other evidence e.g. from staff/pupil surveys, interviews, videos etc.■ Evidence of increased uptake of subject pre-/post-16■ School/department documents e.g. development or improvement plans/vision statements, schemes of work/assessment regimes/lesson observationprocesses/resourcesbefore and after you implement changes in the classroomresulting from your professional development and tocollect the same data from a comparison group of pupilsnot experiencing the same changes. When this is notpossible, comparing pre- and post-intervention data foryour target group, or comparing post-intervention dataof the target group with the results from a comparisongroup of similar pupils would still provide useful data.In any case, you should aim to collect different■■■ How should you evaluate impacts onpupils?Planning how you will evaluate the impact of yourprofessional development on pupils is key, and you needto give this some thought prior to undertaking the CPDand/or actions post-CPD. In particular, you will needto consider what data can be collected, if pupils shouldbe involved in evaluation and when to collect the data.The ideal would be to collect data from pupils both66A framework for evaluating teacher continuing professional development ■■■■■……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………types of data to ensure that your measurement ofimpact is correct. You may want to collect quantitativeor qualitative data and both types of evidence can bevalid, useful and complementary. The type of questionsyou want to pose will influence the method(s) youdecide to use.The example below is from a physics teacher whocompleted a CPD course ‘Success in teaching 11-16Physics’ at the National Science Learning Centre(NSLC) and chose to focus on his Year 11 AdditionalScience (AQA) students by introducing changes to theway they studied the topic of radioactivity and nuclearphysics. The teacher used the exam results of his pupilsin a previous year as a benchmark to compare hiscurrent pupils’ achievements. He also used ‘Pupil Voice’to verify the established result and provide additionalevidence of impact:It [radioactivity and nuclear physics] was a good topic aslearners often struggle with the concepts involved and it can seema topic in which a lot of physics is thrown together and it is lesseasy to see the ties…I decided that, throughout the topic, I wouldreturn to the same PowerPoint slide, which is a spider diagramshowing the overview of the topic…I think ultimately the bestjudge is assessment data. It is very difficult to make comparisonsbetween students in a statistically small sample. However, whencomparing the end of topic assessment data for this class againstmy class of a similar ability last year, the students on averageincreased their marks by nine per cent. However, another measureis how the students felt about the topic in relation to the othertopics covered this year…The overall consensus [from PupilVoice] was that the students found it a good thing that helpedto bring everything together.Progress and attainment data will be the mostconvincing data to demonstrate the positive impactsof the changes you make in your classroom.In terms of progress, this might include assessing,over the period of time in which you have beenimplementing changes in the classroom, how pupilshave progressed from their starting point and to whatextent the progress they have made is higher thanexpectations/ targets and can be linked to your changein practice.In terms of attainment, you will want to look atpupils’ performance in internal and external"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(4) {
        [0]=>
        string(3) "cpd"
        [1]=>
        string(4) "gcse"
        [2]=>
        string(4) "work"
        [3]=>
        string(7) "science"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(24) "Professional Development"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Professional Development

A framework for evaluating teacher continuing professional development

14 May 2015

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#43624"
  ["title"]=>
  string(28) "Rediscover Learning to Learn"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(2) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
    [1]=>
    string(16) "Leading Learning"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(54) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/slt81-learning-to-learn/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1497954020)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-43624-2"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(169) "A new approach to Learning to Learn has resulted in significant academic gains, especially among young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. James Mannion explains how."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(372) "... G, Chambers, M, Powell, G & Lucas, B. (2011) The Learning Powered School: Pioneering 21st Century Education. TLO, Bristol.;  Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The Emerging Science of Learnable Intelligence. New York: Free Press.Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House: New York.Engle, R. A., Lam ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(5) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(28) "Rediscover Learning to Learn"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["author"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(13) "James Mannion"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(169) "A new approach to Learning to Learn has resulted in significant academic gains, especially among young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. James Mannion explains how."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5645) "Using research to inspire practice. (pp. 161-178). Paris, France: OECD.Y7, 8, 9Oracy (paired talk, P4C, formal debates, public speaking…)Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. London, UK: Routledge.Topping, K. J. & Trickey, S. (2007a). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: Cognitive effects at 10-12 years. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 271–288.Topping, KJ & Trickey, S (2007b), ‘Collaborative philosophical inquiry for schoolchildren: Cognitive gains at 2-year follow-up’ British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 4, pp. 787-796.Y7, 8, 9Formative assessment (comment-based feedback)Black P, Wiliam D (1998) Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom. Assessment Phi Delta Kappan 80(2) 139-148. 2. Hattie, J. (2009) Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement, Routledge, London. Higgins, S., Kokotsaki, D. & Coe, R.J. (2011). Toolkit of Strategies to Improve Learning: Summary for Schools Spending the Pupil Premium. Sutton Trust-Educational Endowment Foundation.Y7, 8, 9Metacognition (language of learning, plenaries, journals) Whitebread, D. & Pino Pasternak, D. (2010) Metacognition, Self-Regulation & Meta-Knowing. In Littleton, K., Wood, C. & Kleine Staarman, J. (eds) International Handbook of Psychology in Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald.Y8Personal effectiveness (organisational skills)Harrison, N., James, D. and Last, K. (2012) The impact of the pursuit of ASDAN’s Certificate of Personal Effectiveness (CoPE) on GCSE attainment. Project Report. UWE/ASDAN.Y9Thinking & reasoning skills  (critical thinking, debating)Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53, 4, 449-455.Whole-schoolGrowth mindset (shared language of learning)Claxton, G, Chambers, M, Powell, G & Lucas, B. (2011) The Learning Powered School: Pioneering 21st Century Education. TLO, Bristol.;  Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The Emerging Science of Learnable Intelligence. New York: Free Press.Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House: New York.Engle, R. A., Lam, D. P., Meyer, X. S., & Nix, S.. “How does expansive framingpromote transfer? Several proposed explanations.,” Educational Psychologist, v.47, 2012, p. 215-231.Whole-schoolTransfer (managed approach)Engle, R. A., Lam, D. P., Meyer, X. S., & Nix, S.. “How does expansive framingpromote transfer? Several proposed explanations.,” Educational Psychologist, v.47, 2012, p. 215-231.Hipkins, R., & Cowie, B. (2014). Learning to learn, lifewide and lifelong learning: Reflections on the New Zealand experience. In R. Deakin-Crick, C. Stringher, & K. Ren (Eds.), Learning to learn: International perspectives from theory and practice (pp. 303–320). London, UK: Routledge.Whole-schoolAction Research as CPD (collaborative inquiry) Bell, M., Cordingley, P., Isham, C. & Davis, R. (2010) Report of Professional Practitioner Use of Research Review: Practitioner engagement in and/or with research. Coventry: CUREE, GTCE, LSIS & NTRP. Available at: http://www.curee-paccts.com/node/2303Crippen, K. J., Biesinger, K. D. & Ebert, E. K. (2010) Using Professional Development to Achieve Classroom Reform and Science Proficiency: An Urban Success Story from Southern Nevada, USA. Professional Development in Education, 36 (4) pp.637-661. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002) Student achievement through staff development. In: Joyce, B. & Showers, B. Designing training and peer coaching: our needs for learning. VA, USA: ASCD. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration [BES]. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Available at www.educationcounts.govt.nz/goto/BES.  The importance of transferThere is not space here to explore each of these components in detail. However, as can be seen in Table 2 the L2L curriculum at Sea View formed part of a whole-school approach to teaching and learning, which aimed to ensure that the skills and dispositions developed through the L2L curriculum were able to transfer meaningfully to other subject areas throughout the school. The issue of transfer has often been the Achilles heel of L2L initiatives, since it is well understood that skills tend to remain rooted in the contexts in which they were developed (e.g. see Willingham, 2007). While it is self-evident that transfer can and does happen, to varying degrees – school would be rather a waste of time if it did not – it certainly does not always happen automatically, and thus requires careful planning and monitoring. One key way in which transfer was facilitated at Sea View was through a shared language of learning, used by teachers throughout the school to focus on the how, as well as the what, of learning (see Figure 2). For a more detailed discussion of transfer at Sea View, see Mannion & Mercer (2016).Figure 2. The shared language of learning at Sea View, comprising the school’s six core values with examples of supporting ‘processes of learning’. What was the impact of L2L at Sea View?By the end of year 9, there was a significant increase in the proportion of students either hitting or exceeding their target grades in the"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(5) {
        [0]=>
        string(3) "cpd"
        [1]=>
        string(4) "gcse"
        [2]=>
        string(9) "practical"
        [3]=>
        string(4) "work"
        [4]=>
        string(7) "science"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(2) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [1]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(16) "Leading Learning"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Rediscover Learning to Learn

20 Jun 2017

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#43421"
  ["title"]=>
  string(41) "Young People's Views On Science Education"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(55) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/science-education_130217/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1486576263)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-43421-1"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(381) "... young people’s attitudes towards and experiences of science education and careers. It found that the poorest pupils are most likely to miss out on practical science lessons in English schools. Furthermore over a quarter of GCSE students take little or no part in practical science experiments.
Leadership Briefing 11 ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(401) "... to do more practical work(76%, compared with 49% of triple science students). ■ Young people from more deprived areas did less practical work in GCSE science lessonsthan young people from less deprived areas. o 36% of GCSE students from the mostdeprived areas reported doing hands-on practical work at ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(50) "Young People's Views On Science Education"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(1) {
        [0]=>
        string(7) "science"
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(424) "This survey by the Wellcome Trust looks at young people’s attitudes towards and experiences of science education and careers. It found that the poorest pupils are most likely to miss out on practical science lessons in English schools. Furthermore over a quarter of GCSE students take little or no part in practical science experiments.
Leadership Briefing 11.06(126)"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(3) {
        [0]=>
        string(4) "gcse"
        [1]=>
        string(9) "practical"
        [2]=>
        string(7) "science"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(6185) "three young people (33%). ■ Females were more likely to have been put off learning science than males: 22% of males saidnothing had discouraged them from learning science, compared with 11% of females. Leadership BriefingLeadership Briefing – www.teachingtimes.comReports Summaries – a weeklyservice of essential summaries,in-depth reports and criticalanalysis that’s new and relevantto education, linked to originalsource documents. ■ In particular, females were much more likely to say they had been put off by findingscience more difficult than other subjects (35%, compared with 22% of males), orbecause they have difficulty with the maths involved (26%, compared with 13% ofmales). ■ A little under half (45%) of GCSE students reported doing hands-on practical work inscience lessons at least once a fortnight, but three in ten (29%) reported doing it less thanonce a month or never. ■ The majority of GCSE students (58%) said they wanted to do more practical work inscience lessons. This was higher for single science students, three-quarters of whom saidthey wanted to do more practical work (76%). ■ Young people often do not understand the purposes behind the practical work they do inscience lessons: 22% said that they simply follow instructions without understanding thepurpose of the work ‘a lot of the time’. ■ Young people at higher performing schools reported doing practical work more often,although greater frequency of practical work was not associated with higher scores onthe science knowledge quiz. However, young people who reported doing more advancedpractical work (such as designing and carrying out their own experiment) achieved higherscores on the science quiz than their peers who had not done this kind of work. ■ Young people’s experience of practical work varied substantially depending on the scienceGCSE course taken: ■ Single science students were less likely to have done more advanced practical worksuch as designing and carrying out their own experiment (62%, compared with 83% oftriple science students). ■ Triple science students reported doing hands-on practical work more often (52% atleast once a fortnight, compared with 37% of single science students) while singlescience students more frequently watched videos of practicals (44% at least once afortnight, compared with 37% of triple science students). ■ Single science students were more likely to say they wanted to do more practical work(76%, compared with 49% of triple science students). ■ Young people from more deprived areas did less practical work in GCSE science lessonsthan young people from less deprived areas. o 36% of GCSE students from the mostdeprived areas reported doing hands-on practical work at least once a month, comparedwith 54% of those from the least deprived areas. ■ 69% of GCSE students from the most deprived areas reported designing and carrying outtheir own experiment, compared with 84% of those from the least deprived areas. ■ Three-quarters of young people (75%) said that they studied either triple science (37%)or double science (39%) at GCSE. While this overall rate matches official figures, there Leadership BriefingLeadership Briefing – www.teachingtimes.comReports Summaries – a weeklyservice of essential summaries,in-depth reports and criticalanalysis that’s new and relevantto education, linked to originalsource documents.is evidence that some young people in the survey misclassified double science as triplescience due to confusion in terminology. ■ Based on the survey classification, young people living in the most deprived areas weremuch less likely to study triple science than those living in more affluent areas. Asianmales were more likely than other ethnicity/gender groups to study triple science. ■ Young people who studied triple science were more likely than those studying otherscience GCSE courses to study (or intend to study) science subjects at Years 12 and 13. ■ Triple science students had more timetabled science hours than students studying otherscience courses: half of triple science students (54%) cite 6 or more weekly hourscompared with 20% of double and 13% of single science students. ■ Amongst those who didn’t study it, barriers to studying triple science were classified intothree types: 58% cited personal barriers such as lack of confidence or interest; 41%cited school selection barriers such as not achieving the grade required; while 23% citedschool access barriers (i.e. their school didn’t enter any students for the course). Whilemost students who took a non-triple science pathway were content with this, 16% wouldhave liked to study triple science if it had been available to them. ■ Among students who didn’t study triple science, 30% cited lack of confidence as a reasonfor not studying it. While females (36%) were more likely than males (24%) to cite this,there was evidence that this was due in part to an under-estimation of ability amongfemale students. ■ One in five students (18%) said that they had studied or were studying computer scienceat GCSE: 25% of males and 9% of females. Analysis by year group indicates a rise incomputer science entries between 2014-15 and 2015-16 corresponding with a fall in ICTGCSE entries, a pattern which reflects national trends. ■ Key barriers to studying computer science were lack of availability and interest. Femaleswere especially likely to lack interest in the subject. Lack of access declined rapidlythrough age cohorts such that only 16% of Year 10 students in 2015-16 said thatcomputer science"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(4) {
        [0]=>
        string(4) "gcse"
        [1]=>
        string(9) "practical"
        [2]=>
        string(4) "work"
        [3]=>
        string(7) "science"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Young People's Views On Science Education

8 Feb 2017