Does the New Science GCSE Curriculum Improve The Effectiveness of Practical Work In Key Stage 4 Classes?

This study was designed to consider the effectiveness of practical work under the Key Stage 4 (KS4) science curriculum implemented from September 2016 in England. Science practical work, despite being widely used in English schools, though reasonably effective at teaching manipulative skills, is considered largely ineffective in developing understanding of the underpinning concepts (Abrahams and Millar, 2008). However, the written exam now incorporates questions worth 15% of the GCSE grade on ‘required or ‘core’ practicals owing to the modifications to the practical work assessment introduced in September 2016. These modifications necessitate students to thoroughly comprehend specific practicals, which could increase the effectiveness of practical work.

This study took a multi-method approach for data collection using observation of a sequence of lessons involving GCSE required practicals in four different schools in England, teacher interviews and focus group interviews with students. The data was analysed by adapting the framework used by Abrahams and Millar (2008) to accommodate ideas from cognitive load theory (CLT) (Sweller, 2020). This study concludes that teachers are the driving force, using a range of strategies, for ensuring practical work is carried out as intended. However, there is less emphasis on the development and monitoring of students’ apparatus use and techniques outlined in the curriculum. There is a focus on developing the underlying scientific concepts in post-practical sessions, largely using exam-style questions, which the study found facilitated a deep understanding of aspects of practicals through the application of ideas. However, this is only effective if they are part of a balanced spread of retrieval tasks that includes class discussion about practical results. Memorising a large volume of practical methods is causing anxiety for teachers and pupils. The study finds regular use of CLT strategies develops recall and retention of knowledge. Class discussion effects measurable epistemic progress, but effectiveness is reduced when teachers’ objectives are not clearly defined in both the ‘hands-on’ and ‘minds-on’ domains of practical work.