Does the new GCSE science curriculum improve the effectiveness of practical work in Key Stage 4 classes?

This study evaluates the effectiveness of practical work under the Key Stage 4 science curriculum reformed in September 2016 in England. Previously, practical work, although effective in teaching manipulative skills i.e. in the domain of objects and observables, was seen as ineffective in developing conceptual understanding i.e. in the domain of ideas (Abrahams and Millar, 2008). The 2016 reform shifted from directly awarding 25% of marks for practical lab work to assessing practical understanding through exam questions worth 15% of marks, focusing on required practicals in each science subject. Assessment and curriculum drive school teaching (Cullinane and Liston, 2016; Reiss, Abrahams and Sharpe, 2012).

The curriculum changes necessitate students to thoroughly comprehend the required practical, hence potentially developing the effectiveness of practical work. Students are now expected to retain and recall the information of about 24 GCSE science practical which are studied over the course of 2-3 years. Interest in developing memory has grown, emphasising the integration of new knowledge into long-term memory (Ofsted, 2019) equating learning with changes in long-term memory. The lure of Sweller’s (1988) Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) is understandable, as it claims to provide strategies that help students to integrate new knowledge into their long-term memory and to make enduring connections that foster understanding. CLT has become the ‘next big thing’ in education since Dylan Wiliam’s (2016) tweet and forms the research evidence informing the Ofsted (2019) inspection framework. Teaching practice is likely to adapt, considering the limitations of working memory, to develop memory retention and recall. On the other hand, prior to 2016, the incorporation of practical work in schools, despite its expense and time requirements, was validated by its direct assessment in GCSEexams. The 2016 assessment modifications have sparked fears of practical work devaluation (Cramman et al., 2019) and cost-driven reduction in its implementation.