PROPOSALS FOR RENEWAL IN ASSESSMENTFOR MALAYSIA TO FACILITATE THE

REALISATION OF THE WIDER AIMS OFPRIMARY SCIENCE EDUCATION

NG KEE CHUAN

Dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of therequirements of the

MA (Science Education) Degree of the University ofLondon.

(Independent Study)

September 1996

10

Department of Science EducationInstitute of EducationUniversity of LondonACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first of all like to thank God for His grace inhelping me to finish this work.

Special thanks to my loving wife, Kwai Yok, for herpatience, help and suggestions. You are great.

I would also like to thank Mr. Arthur Jennings for hismost able guidance and direction as he tutored me throughmany hours of discussions. I have gleaned much from youryears of experience in the field of science education.

My thanks and gratefulness is also acknowledged to theMinistry of Education of Malaysia for this opportunity tostudy and research in the Institute of Education,University of London. It has been an enriching experiencein many ways.

11

ABSTRACT

The aims of science education today have expanded

beyond the typical science domain to encompass a wider

scope of study. In this treatise, a two dimensional

matrix with the scientific-general domain as the

horizontal cline and the explicit-implicit aim of science

education as the vertical cline is proposed as an

operational classification system that helps to garner a

sense of order and perspective to these multiple aims.

This work also attempts to demonstrate that science

education is not merely a knowing of scientific knowledge,

but also has the desired purpose of competency in the

doing of scientific investigations. Thus, there is the

need to acquire a working knowledge of scientific process

skills, procedural understanding of the scientific

method, the practical manipulative skills and the methods

of problem-solving. In addition to this, science

education needs to foster a right feeling regarding

investigations and the role of science - thus, the need

to nurture proper scientific attitudes and values that

work concurrently with the aspects of knowing and doing

that have just been mentioned.

Consequently, the teaching of science can now employ

more creative methods that involves ‘bench work’, ‘word

work’, identifying and appreciating the relevance of

12

science and technology in society and life, browsing

through the annals of the development, struggles and

achievements of science and grappling with moral-belief

related issues.

Nevertheless, such wide and impressive aims of

science education cannot be realised if a complementary

method of assessment is not addressed. Typically, science

teachers teach to the assessment. Unfortunately,

traditional methods of assessments which focus mostly on

theoretical knowledge and are summative in nature are

unable to cope with this variety of aims. There is an

urgent need for new methods of assessment that are more

flexible and valid to measure progression in performance.

Furthermore, proposals for evaluation of the affective

dimension of the students are described. In this

treatise, alternative methods of assessment are explored

as a possible solution to the stated need. Ways to use

these assessments continuously and largely formatively

are suggested so that assessments will influence the

teaching-learning process.

A framework of assessment that integrates both

traditional and newer forms of assessments is formulated.

Criteria for the aspects of knowing, doing and feeling is

mapped out to help primary science teachers in Malaysia

track their students’ progress and thus apply alternative

assessment procedures. Finally, moderation procedures for

13

quality control and quality assurance are also considered

to enhance the reliability of teacher assessment.

14

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2

ABSTRACT 3

CONTENTS 5

INTRODUCTION 8

CHAPTER 1 : THE AIMS OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

1.1 One big happy family - the matter of integration10

1.2 Who’s in the family? - the matter of inclusion12

1.3 Family relationships - the matrix of aims in science education 14

1.3.1 Scientific knowledge (conceptual understanding)

1.3.1.1 Falsifiable yet reliable15

1.3.1.2 Constructing scientific knowledge17

1.3.2 Scientific methods (procedural understanding) 18

1.3.3 Process skills and manipulative skills23

Recapitulation29

1.3.4 Societal needs and relevance 30

15

1.3.5 History of science 34

1.3.6 Language and words35

Recapitulation37

1.3.7 Scientific attitudes, moral values and beliefs 38

1.3.8 Scientific and technological literacy43

1.3.9 Problem-solving methods and thinking skills 45

Recapitulation46

1.4 The family working together - the matter of practical application 47

1.5 The family up for adoption - the matter of implication for Malaysia

1.5.1 A brief overview of the history of science education

in Malaysia and its current scenario51

1.5.2 Proposals for application in the Malaysian context 54

1.5.3 Steps to bring about change in science education

for Malaysia56

16

CHAPTER 2 : ASSESSMENT IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

2.1 Renewal in approaches to assessment

2.1.1 The early reign of measurement (norm-referenced)

model and traditional assessment methods 59

2.1.2 The growing revolt against the traditional assessment

methods and the measurement model61

2.1.3 Coronation of the standard (criterion-referenced) model? 64

2.1.4 The spread of the standard model - performance assessment 65

2.2 Relevance of new approaches of assessment to science education

2.2.1 Clarifying the plethora of terminology67

2.2.2 The strengths and weaknesses of alternative assessments 73

CHAPTER 3 : PROPOSAL FOR FRAMEWORK OF ASSESSMENT OFPRIMARY SCIENCE FOR MALAYSIA

3.1 Pertinent factors in formulating the framework78

3.2 Overall structure of the framework for assessment 79

17

3.2.1 The aspect of knowing (10%)80

3.2.2 The aspect of doing (15%)81

3.2.3 The aspect of feeling (5%)83

3.3 Recording84

3.4 Moderation procedures87

3.4.1 Moderation for quality control88

3.4.2 Moderation for quality assurance94

CONCLUSION 97

APPENDICES

Appendix A Concepts of evidence and their defination99

Appendix B 9 Challenges of vision 2020 for Malaysia100

Appendix C Characteristics of authentic tests101

Appendix D Clusters of scientific process skills and procedural understanding

for each stage102

Appendix E Proposed recording form103

18

Appendix F Criteria for the aspect of knowing, feeling and doing 104

REFERENCES106

BIBLIOGRAPHY115

19

INTRODUCTION

After a demise of more than 10 years, primary

science was reinstated into the Malaysian primary school

curriculum as a subject of its own in 1994. Therefore,

we, the science educators in Malaysia, not only have a

lot of lost ground to make up but we also need to keep

abreast with current global changes in the world of

science education.

It is with this intention that I have sought to scan

the myriad sources of literature regarding the aims of

science education and attempt to structure these aims

into a working model to incorporate these ideas into the

science curricula in Malaysia.

Nevertheless, it has been a long running problem in

Malaysia that science teachers tend to teach science

using the expository method. Science is thus projected as

a “factual” subject with a plethora of scientific

terminology that needs to be memorised. Even though

practical work is carried out, they tend to be utilised

as sessions to illustrate scientific concepts and

theories.

With the reintroduction of science in the primary

school level in Malaysia, there is not much hope of the

situation improving. In fact, the situation could

20

deteriorate further since many primary science teachers

are not science specialists themselves. Thus, no matter

how appealing the developments in science education are,

they tend to falter when it reaches the implementation

stage in the classrooms and laboratories.

Nonetheless, it is not entirely fair to put the

blame squarely on the shoulders of science teachers.

After all, most of them will say that the expository

method is the most efficient and effective way to get

good results in the theory-based examinations.

Therefore, it is also my intention in this treatise

to address this matter regarding assessment. I hope to

formulate an assessment framework for primary science

that could be introduced to the Malaysian education

system. This framework will need to cover and give

credence to the range of cognitive, psychomotor and

affective dimensions that permeates the study of science

these days.

21

CHAPTER 1 : THE AIMS OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

1.1 ONE BIG HAPPY FAMILY - THE MATTER OF

INTEGRATION

Don’t “adulterate science syllabuses with non-

science” was the impassioned cry of a letter in School

Science Review (Siddons and Spurgin 1990). In these times

of constant change within the science education system

(Poole 1995:16), the question of whether “non-science”

elements should be included in its curriculum bears a

serious consequence to the composition of the aims for

science education.

It is irrefutable that the field of science itself

has undergone a ‘knowledge explosion’ (Whitfield 1971:8)

to an extent that its interface overlaps, intercepts and

interacts in increasing measure with the interfaces of

other fields (Newton 1988:82). Therefore, Martin

(1972:158-9) suggested that the content and structure of

the traditional science courses be reviewed and revised

from time to time so as to include new but related topics

from other fields.

Another factor which had considerable influence on

the composition of the aims of science education was the

emerging idea of liberal general education in the mid-

sixties and seventies. Imbedded in this approach was the

22

overriding ends of education for the all-round

development of a person morally, intellectually and

spiritually (Hirst 1970:24).

Phenix (1964:8) described such a “complete person”

as one who :

should be skilled in the use of speech, symbol and gesture,factually well informed, capable of creating and appreciatingobjects of aesthetic significance, endowed with a rich anddisciplined life in relation to self and others, able to makewise decisions and to judge between right and wrong, andpossessed of an integral outlook. These are the aims of generaleducation for the development of the whole persons.

Thus, liberal educationists like Hirst and Phenix

(1974, 1964) advocated an education which was concerned

with developing the mind in the various forms of knowing

and experience of the world. In line with this, Whitfield

(1971:20) forwarded the behaviourists approach of general

education where the development of “human abilities

through planned use of appropriate activities and

experience” became the main concern of education.

This ability-centred view where “generalised human

abilities” not originating from a particular subject

matter but with related applications inculcated to form

an “educated man” with an assortment of abilities thus

assumed the transfer of training across the logical

boundaries of knowledge (Phenix called these boundaries

of knowledge “realms of meaning” while Hirst called it

23

“forms of knowledge”) (Whitfield 1971:23). This

comprehensive development of the mind and abilities meant

that syllabuses and curricula of various subjects should

not be formed with isolationists tendencies but with

increasing interrelatedness among the forms of knowledge

(Hirst 1974:47).

Thus, science which was differentiated by both Hirst

and Phenix by its distinctive test for truth as an

empirical form of knowing by observation and experiment,

had to be considered in this broader perspective of

interrelatedness with other forms of knowledge and

generalised skills (Whitfield 1971:16).

The changes and propositions for science education

in the last decade reflected this relentless flux to meet

the challenge of renewal to stay relevant with times

(Whitfield 1971:8, Hurd 1971:1-12). It was precisely this

provisional endeavour that introduced and injected new

elements into science curricula propounding an integrated

approach in science education.

Thus, Woolnough (1994:12-14) advocates the aims of

education through science and education in science; the

former constituting the means to further general

educational aims such as interpersonal skills and self

confidence whereas the latter was related to the learning

of specific content and processes of science itself.

24

Newton (1988:33,42) alluded to a similar demarcation

by giving mention to ‘teaching about and through science’

in his argument for humanisation of science education.

This distinction was also delineated by Whitfield

(1971:20) in his call for an ability-centred view where

‘generalised human abilities’ not originating from a

particular subject matter but with related applications

is included to form an educated man with an assortment of

abilities.

In light of these viewpoints, I envisage this

conception as a continuum linking the extremes of science

domain elements and general domain elements for science

teaching aims (See Figure 1.1)

SCIENTIFIC GENERALDOMAIN DOMAIN

Figure 1.1

The cline suggests that at some point near the

middle of the continuum certain elements within that

range exudes both characteristics of scientific domain

and general domain, making the demarcation dubious. This

is where the discussion of what constitutes science and

what doesn’t intensifies leading to the next point of

contention in considering the aims of science education :

25

What should be included into the teaching aims of science

education?

1.2 WHO’S IN THE FAMILY? - THE MATTER OF

INCLUSION

Much has been written and said about what should

constitute science education. A sampling of science

curricula, science projects and the views of science

educationists divulges a broad spectrum of suggestions.

Clearly, this attests to the need for some kind of

categorisation and prioritisation of aims in science

education so as to achieve clarity in aspirations of

teaching and learning.

Meighan (1986:66) in his working definition of what

is known as the ‘hidden curriculum’, suggests that it

consists of the broad categorisation of all aspects of

learning in school not stipulated in the official

curriculum.

Synder (1970:4) writing on the same subject stated

that many tasks though explicitly expressed necessarily

involve a hosts of covert activities which are essential

for successful performance, encompassing the “how” of

learning. These aspects can be incorporated into my

26

earlier continuum of domains by introducing the

additional vertical axis representing the field of

explicit and implicit aims, thus formulating a working

model for categorising and prioritising the aims of

science education (See Figure 1.2).

EXPLICIT

A B

SCIENTIFIC GENERALDOMAIN DOMAIN

D C

IMPLICIT

Figure 1.2

In this context, I have sought to avoid the adoption

of the phrase ‘hidden curriculum’ because it is a

generally known connotation which includes many

sociological factors such as goals of school, the head,

the staff, the children, gender, race, community and

environment, teaching styles, achievement and assessment,

rewards and punishment, timetables, teacher expectations

and so on (Bottery 1990 : 98-100; Meighan 1986:66-163).

The inclusion of so many factors would certainly deluge

the working model and reduce it to a state of

impracticality.

27

Instead, I have restricted myself to the following

definitions :

Explicit aims are those that consist of the main

purpose and targets of science teaching and learning as

envisaged by a science teacher.

Implicit aims are incidental or an indirect consequence

of the explicit aims of science teaching and learning,

yet inclusive and desirable.

Hence, each element could be assigned to one of the

following segments in the matrix (Refer to Figure 1.2) :

A. Explicit aims from the scientific domain

B. Explicit aims from the general domain

C. Implicit aims from the general domain

D. Implicit aims from the scientific domain

When the myriad of elements have been clearly

designated, it would :

* make focusing on the main aims of the teaching-

learning experience easier

* enable more directed and purposeful planning of

lessons

* allow the consideration of the many facets of

learning science

* give versatility in planning lessons

28

1.3 FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS - THE MATRIX OF AIMS IN

SCIENCE EDUCATION

With this matrix as an operational classification

system, I will now embark on the task of attempting to

produce an integrated outlook of the composite aims of

science education. Undertaking this endeavour entails

making value judgements regarding the position of the

different elements within the matrix which could be a

contentious issue. Nevertheless, I hope that the exercise

may clarify at least some of the many aims of science

education. The complete matrix (Figure 1.3) will first be

given in its complete form and its elucidation and brief

considerations of each element ensues.

EXPLICIT

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE SOCIETAL NEEDS & (CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING) RELEVANCE SCIENTIFIC METHODS HISTORY OF SCIENCE(PROCEDURAL UNDERSTANDING)

PROCESS SKILLS & LANGUAGE & WORDSMANIPULATIVE SKILLS

SCIENTIFIC GENERAL DOMAIN DOMAIN

SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDES MORAL VALUES &BELIEFS

29

SCIENTIFIC LITERACY PROBLEM-SOLVINGMETHODS

TECHNOLOGICAL THINKING SKILLSLITERACY

IMPLICIT

Figure 1.3TWO DIMENSIONAL MATRIX REPRESENTING

THE AIMS OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

1.3.1 SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (conceptual understanding)

1.3.1.1 FALSIFIABLE YET RELIABLE

It almost goes without saying that the acquisition

of scientific knowledge is one of the main venerable aims

of science education (Claxton 1991:110). Martin (1972:33)

identifies this as ‘propositional knowledge’- knowledge

that something is the case. However, Newton (1988) in

listing the products of science as concepts, theories,

generalisations and laws raises the issue of the

provisional nature of this type of knowledge because the

so-called scientific method which engenders it was

unclear.

Harlen (1988:4) traces this uncertainty to the

hypothetico-deductive view expounded by the philosopher

Popper that no hypothesis could be proved true but that

the testing should instead attempt to disprove a

hypothesis by falsification. This view which countered

30

the Baconian Model of verification by induction

(Woolnough 1985: 6) and ‘naive realism’ spawned the view

regarding the tentative nature of scientific theories

(Harlen 1993: 11-12).

Notwithstanding the provisional nature of scientific

knowledge, it is still the stuff with which the content

of science education and investigation is made up

providing the science teacher with the needed context to

manuevour (Nellist and Nicholl 1986:5). Ritchie

(1971:126) puts it succinctly and pragmatically : “A

criterion for an idea to be ‘scientific’ is, therefore,

not whether it is right, but whether it is useful in

solving existing problem, predicting new ones and

allowing communication between scientist.”

Thus, teaching of science that is commensurate with

the provisional nature of science should reflect this

dynamically evolving body of scientific knowledge. Yet,

at the same time, it should not damn science in the minds

of students by giving the impression that scientific

theories and facts are easily changed and highly

arbitrary (relativism).

Kuhn in his refutation of Popperian views, claims

that in ‘normal science’ the scientific community is more

committed to the further articulation of existing

paradigms than to replacing them with novelties of new

31

paradigms (Easlea 1973:11). This means that currently

accepted theories of science or what Ziman (1980:22,63)

calls ‘valid science’, that is science which is

recognised as valid by research scientists and found in

the ‘scientific archives’ (learned journals, books, maps,

computer tapes), have a great tenacity against change.

Polanyi (1962:138) supports this view, saying, “it

is normal practice of scientists to ignore evidence which

appears incompatible with the accepted system of

scientific knowledge, in the hope that it will eventually

prove false or irrelevant.”

Kuhn further suggests that only during periods of

‘scientific revolutions’ engendered by crisis situations

whereby there exists a growing sense that an existing

paradigm has ceased to function adequately to resolve

arising anomalies, does it force the scientific community

to replace the paradigm in whole or part by a new one

(Kuhn 1962 :92-98).

Such a view thus negates the notion of relativism

that scientific knowledge is in a hopeless state of flux

and uncertainty. Indeed, it asserts that scientific

knowledge is tentative yet rigorous and thus constitutes

a legitimate form and content for science education

(Ziman 1980:18-20).

32

In synthesising the various views as stated above,

one could conclude that students can be trained to

approach science with a healthy scepticism, that is

seeing theories which are new to them when presented are

potentially falsifiable (Popper’s view) but after

rigorous testing have sufficient confidence in proven

theories of normal science (Kuhn and Polanyi’s view).

1.3.1.2 CONSTRUCTING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

Another matter which is very much in vogue regarding

scientific knowledge is the difference between

scientists’ science and what is known by an array of

terms such as “children’s science, misconceptions,

alternative frameworks/conceptions, personal constructs,

intuitive ideas or common-sense understanding of

science.” What the latter means is a personal knowledge

of the world which is constructed through personal

perceptions that is often antithetical to views held by

scientists (Osborne and Freyberg 1985, Shapiro 1994,

Driver 1985:1-9, Harlen 1993:14-53).

Thus, the teaching of scientific knowledge is

increasingly seen as a process whereby children exchange

or modify their existing ideas about phenomena in the

world for those of scientists. Gilbert et al. (1986:302-

305) suggests a more modest and manageable goal of making

children aware of an alternative viewpoint (that is, the

33

scientists’ viewpoint) and challenging them to construct

a more unified science view with more general uses. Nevertheless, Reiss (1993:89) warns against the

thinking that the goal of the science teacher is always

and merely replacing children’s prior ideas. Instead he

suggests that the teachers’ tasks should be to help

children see why their own thinking often works,

challenging them to develop this thinking by pursuing new

areas and not always attempting to falsify children’s

ideas. It is through this process that there is the

development of conceptual understanding (Gott and

Mashiter 1991, Harlen and Osborne 1985:142, Gott and

Duggan 1995:25-6).

Thus, Claxton (1991:112-7) proposes the aim of

helping children gain a more sensible working knowledge

of science theories through a practical outworking of

them in actual problem solving situations requiring

children to reflect on what they do. Qualter et al.

(1990:20-1) supports such a view purporting that

meaningful learning occurs in pupils in the context of

exploration where their existing framework of ideas are

tested against the real world and thus helping them to

modify them in light of their experience. Such a

development of personal knowledge of science is a

congenial aim for science teaching.

34

1.3.2 SCIENTIFIC METHODS (procedural understanding)

The problems surrounding the commonly accepted view

of scientific methods and thinking involving rigorous

testing by systematic observation, measurement,

deliberate experimentation by replication, deduction,

proposing hypotheses and rational theory and

communication (Hurd 1971:17, Pike 1964:82-84) has been

attested to in the previous section.

Millar (1994:166-7) even questions if there exists a

generally accepted view of scientific method. What is

clear is that the scientific method should not be viewed

merely as a uniform, precise and rigid set of procedures,

algorithms or rules to be followed to the letter (Hurd

1971:17, Millar 1994:167). Instead, the scientific method

which conceives new discoveries involves the utilisation

of two related factors, namely thinking and tacit

knowledge (Millar 1994:167,174, Hurd 1971:18) which bring

together formal technique and available theoretical

insight (Ziman 1980:60).

First of all, let us consider thinking in science.

Hurd (1971:18) asserts :

Science is not simply an abstraction from empirical data, but

an intellectual creation often suggested by the data. It is the

35

discovery of order among the data that makes the science, and

this process requires a constructive imagination, intuition,

and an intellectual command of relevant concepts.....science is

an intellectual activity which arises from personal experience

and takes place in the minds of men. It is simply a way of

using human intelligence to achieve a better understanding of

nature and nature’s laws.

Therefore, one of the aims of science teaching

should be that students are engaged actively in thinking

as they process data and ideas that accost them in the

learning discourse and situation. This also involves the

exercise of skills and decision making as they apply the

scientific method (Millar 1994:167). Thus the method and

thinking must go concurrently, hand in hand.

But, how does one make decisions when dealing with a

problem in science? The second factor of tacit knowledge

thus comes into play. Polanyi (1969) identified two types

of knowledge - explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. As

Woolnough and Allsop (1985:33,34) explain, explicit

knowledge is knowledge “articulated and cognitively

assimilated into consciously formed theories” whereas

tacit knowledge “is never consciously articulated but

acquired directly through our senses and held in

readiness for more direct application. However, tacit

learning can occur as instructional teaching is given in

the initial stages but which ultimately will have to be

experienced to be permanently embedded. A good example is

36

learning to swim or ride a bicycle. One could be told the

techniques and shown how with guidance, but the learning

can only occur as the learner tries it out himself .

However, once learnt he can perform the tasks almost

without thinking and effort and would be hard pressed to

explain how he knows it! Furthermore, tacit learning is

permanent and retrievable when needed.

Tacit knowledge in science is thus learning that

occurs when a learner is continually exposed to phenomena

or materials resulting in him/her getting a ‘feel’ for

them (Woolnough and Allsop 1985:34). When the learner is

confronted with a decision-making situation, he/she can

draw upon his/her tacit knowing (from perception of

physiognomy, that is the outward appearance of something)

- a knowing that cannot be put into words. (Polanyi

1964:4). This certainly gives account to the value of

practical work and hands-on experiences in the learning

of science.

But, what of the ‘formal technique’ employed in the

doing of science which I have alluded to earlier?

Recently, there has been an increasing interest among

certain science educators in the need to articulate the

importance of what is called procedural understanding

regarding the teaching of science especially in the

context of practical work (Gott and Duggan 1995:23-39,

Duggan and Gott 1995, Gott and Mashiter 1991, Qualter et

37

al. 1990, Millar et al. 1994). What do they mean by

procedural understanding?

Gott and Duggan (1995:26) defines it this way :Procedural understanding is the understanding of a set of ideas

which is complementary to conceptual understanding but related

to the ‘knowing how’ of science and concerned with the

understanding needed to put science into practice. It is the

thinking behind the doing.

Qualter et al. (1990:glossary) and Gott and Mashiter

delineate this further by giving the procedures involved

namely:

identifying the important variables

deciding on the status of the variables - independent,

dependent or control.

controlling variables

designing an investigation so that the variables can be

manipulated

deciding on scale of quantities used

choosing the range, number and value of measurements,

the degree of accuracy and reliability of judgements

(and any corresponding instruments)

selecting appropriate tabulation, display and

interpretation

In order to avoid undue confusion later, I feel that

it is important to try and differentiate procedural

38

understanding from skills, may it be process skills or

manipulative skills. Gott and Duggan (1995:20) gives a

helpful distinction of skills : “skills...refer to activities

...which are necessary but not sufficient in themselves

to the carrying out of most practical work.” It is the

‘doing through thinking’ aspect of practical work in

science. On the other hand, procedural understanding is

the epistemological aspect of practical work, providing

the framework and basis for investigations in science. It

is, as it were, the essentials of the scientific method

employed in science education.

To further clarify this distinction, I refer to an

integral part of procedural understanding that Duggan and

Gott (1995) calls ‘concepts of evidence’ which are the

concepts underpinning the doing of science in relation to

the evidence as a whole (Gott and Duggan 1995:30). They

structured these concepts of evidence according to four

main stages :

Design of the task

Decisions for measurement

Methods of data handling

Evaluation of the complete task in terms of the

reliability and validity of the ensuing evidence

(See Appendix A for a detailed elucidation of each

understanding associated with each of the stated stages.)

39

Very often decisions based on procedural

understanding need to be made before or after the actual

‘doing’ of investigative work. It is the planning,

formulation and assessment of the framework for the

investigation. For example, at the design stage decisions

regarding which variable to be manipulated (independent

variable), which variable to be measured (dependent

variable) for each change in value of the independent

variable, which variables to be kept constant (control

variable), factors to ensure fair testing with sufficient

and appropriate sample size, have to be thought through

and made before actually designing the experiment.

At the measurement stage, decisions on the choice of

instruments which are suitable with the relative scale

and range / interval , how many readings to take

(repeatability) and suitable tables for recording

measurements have to be made before the actual setting up

of the experiment and taking of measurements. Then, after

the measurements and results have been taken, decisions

on whether the data is reasonable and makes sense

(reliability and validity) are made.

Therefore it is the procedural understanding with

the underlying concepts of evidence that essentially

provides the framework and basis for the investigative

work - the thinking behind the doing. Even though

40

procedural understanding are decisions often made before

or after the ‘doing’ of investigative work, in a way it

also encompasses the whole investigative process because

procedural understanding provides the framework for

investigations. Considerations on the basis of procedural

understanding will be revisited in the process of ‘doing’

as deemed necessary. Thus, procedural understanding is

complementary to the doing aspect of practical work

covered by process skills and manipulative skills.

Because of this basic role of procedural

understanding and the existence of content for concepts

of evidence, Gott and Duggan (1995) have espoused the

inclusion of teaching and assessment of procedural

understanding in science education, affording it the same

degree of importance as conceptual understanding.

Consequently, in the teaching of science, the

scientific method should be seen as involving the

thinking process and the utilisation of the tacit

dimension together with procedural understanding

interacting with prior and appropriate conceptual

knowledge.

1.3.3 PROCESS SKILLS AND MANIPULATIVE SKILLS

Emanating from the realisation of tacit knowledge,

is the approach of teaching or doing science as a craft,

41

that is the art of doing science (Millar 1994:174-5,

Woolnough and Allsop 1985:76). The learner is thus

envisaged as an apprentice to a craftsman, learning as it

were the ‘trade’ through the acquirement of personal

tacit knowledge (Ravetz 1971:73).

This encompasses the methods of scientific work

(procedural understanding), tacit knowledge and the

skills required to do the work. This leads to the third

aim of science education from the matrix in the implicit

aim from the science domain, commonly known as process

skills and manipulative skills.

Watts (1991:137) differentiates skills from

processes by saying that “a skill is an individual’s

contribution to an activity, or towards an objective”

while “a process is a more general means to an end.”

Process skills would encompass abilities such as

observing, classifying, inferring, predicting,

controlling variables, hypothesising, measuring and using

numbers, using the relationship between space and time,

defining operationally, interpreting information,

communicating and experimenting. (Pusat Perkembangan

Kurikulum 1993 :3,4).

It is important to note that process skills are the

cognitive processes, the thoughts that go through the

pupils’ minds as they perform practical science

42

activities - and not the practical manipulative skills

associated with science (Gott and Duggan 1995:19). To

reiterate a distinction which I have already made in the

previous section, process skills is the thinking that

goes on while ‘doing’ science activities while procedural

understanding is the thinking that is done before and

after the ‘doing’ providing the framework and basis for

the investigation.

Process skills have been given new prominence in the

teaching of science for the past decade. From the

Nuffield view of the ‘pupil as scientist’ (Millar 1991:

44-45) to process-led science projects like Warwick

Process Science, Science in Process, TAPS (Techniques for

Assessment of Practical Science) and Science - A Process

Approach, it has certainly enjoyed a very high profile

(Millar and Driver 1987:34-36).

Nevertheless, the process approach is not without

its detractors. Millar (with Driver:1987, 1991, 1994) in

particular has repeatedly questioned the rationale of

process-led curricula and the validity of inductive

overtones in the accentuation of the process skills. His

argument against the teaching of process-led curricula

trails along this line of thinking :

The ‘processes’ as commonly espoused by the process-led

approach are features of general cognition that

43

everyone uses routinely without need for formal

instruction. This means that even from childhood

children already independently start to observe,

classify, hypothesise and so on.

The process-led approach which views process skills as

actual discrete processes which can be taught in

isolation, fails to see that the successful utilisation

of such strategies are actually content/task/context

dependent. In other words, the constructs and prior

knowledge of the pupils bears very much on his success

or failure to perform the task. Furthermore, learners

do not organise knowledge around processes. Therefore

the process-led approach actually makes it more

difficult for pupils to make links to facilitate

understanding.

There is no evidence for the transference of such

processes across domains. Thus, the value of such

emphasis on processes is doubtful.

Nevertheless, Millar is not against the teaching of

more specific or particular kind of process skills. By

this he meant that, instead of taking process skills as

general cognitive thinking skills, the teaching of

scientific thinking should be characterised by the

constructs and purposes that are employed (Millar and

Driver 1987:44). The scientific context and content for

the teaching and utilisation of these skills should be

clear. Thus, for example, it is ‘scientific observation’

44

rather than ‘observation’ that the science teacher should

be concerned about.

In one of his writings, he has endeavoured to

demarcate and isolate general processes from tactics and

techniques (see Figure 1.4)

‘Practical skills’

General cognitive Practical techniques Inquirytactics processes-observe -measure temperature with -repeat measurements,-classify a thermometer to within 1º C -drawgraph to see trend -hypothesise, -separate a solid and a liquid

in data etc. by filtration -identify variables to

etc. alter,measure, control,

etc.

(Cannot be taught) (Can be taught and improved)

Figure 1.4 Sub-categories of ‘practical skills’(Millar 1991:51)

In cutting this fine line of distinction, and with

similar arguments as outlined above, he makes the

conclusion that general cognitive processes cannot be

45

taught but practical techniques and inquiry tactics can

be taught and improved. Thus, a student can be taught to

observe the temperature as recorded by a thermometer.

Hence, the student is not taught to observe but to

observe scientifically. To emphasise this distinction,

perhaps it would be appropriate to call this context-

dependent skills as scientific process skills.

This distinction also enabled him to develop the

area of tactics in his later work with the Procedural and

Conceptual Knowledge in Science (PACKS) project where he

and his associates researched into the area of procedural

understanding, which we have already considered in the

previous section. Their conclusion was that procedural

understanding must be explicitly taught, and not assumed

that it will be ‘picked-up’ (Millar et al.1994:245).

Nevertheless, the findings of the Cognitive

Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) project has

some interesting conclusions. Basing their work on

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development the researches

formulated 30 activities (published under the name

‘Thinking Science’ by Adey et al.:1989) which covers 10

schemata or reasoning patterns which Inhelder and Piaget

proposed were the complete cognitive structure of formal

operations (Adey and Shayer 1994:17), namely:

Control of variables

46

Proportionality

Compensation

Probability

Combinations

Correlation

Classification

Formal models

Compound variables

Equilibrium

(Gott and Duggan 1995:36)

It is interesting to note that the above list has

much in common with scientific process skills and

procedural understanding. For example, control of

variables, compound variables and classification are

terms frequently used for some process skills and

procedural understanding. Similarly, most of the other

cognitive skills also relates to making interpretations

about the relationship between variables like

proportionality, compensation and equilibrium,

correlation and probability. Their basic treatise was

that suitably employed intervention strategies could

accelerate the development of formal operational thinking

(Adey and Shayer 1994:38-59) and reap benefits in the

form of improvement in the pupils’ overall standards of

achievement.

47

According to Adey and Shayer (1994:60-75) the

features of a successful cognitive intervention programme

are as indicated in Table 1.1 below:

FEATURES OFGOOD

INTERVENTIONDESCRIPTION

Duration & density

Concrete Preparation

Cognitive conflict

Construction

Metacognition

Bridging

Intervention at a steady rate over a long period.

Establishing familiarity with the vocabulary, apparatus and framework in which a problem situation will be set.

Presenting an event or observation which the students find puzzling and discordant with previous experience or understanding.

Activity in which the conflict is at leastpartially resolved as students’ minds go beyond their previous thinking capability.

The sense of conscious reflection on the problem solving process and naming of reasoning patterns developed, for future use.

Application of these reasoning patterns tonew contexts in order to (a) generalise them (b) consolidate their use

Table 1.1 Features of good cognitive

intervention strategies

The two year programme was implemented in nine

schools with pupils of 11-12 years where once every two

48

weeks a ‘Thinking Science’ lesson substituted a regular

science lesson (usually a 70 minute period) (Adey and

Shayer 1994:85). The main test instruments to measure

cognitive development were Piagetian Reasoning Tasks

which were administered both before and after the

intervention.

The results obtained after the two year period trial

indicated that after the intervention the experimental

group of pupils showed significantly better levels of

cognitive development than the control group, but no

better performance in science in each school’s end of

year science tests (Adey and Shayer 1990). Nevertheless,

three years after the intervention, the experimental

group performed significantly better at GCSE, not only in

Science but in Mathematics and English as well (Shayer

and Adey 1992, Adey and Shayer 1994:98-103).

Adey and Shayer (1994:103) interpreted the results

this way : “On the face of it, the evidence presented of

long-term far-transfer of the effect of the intervention,

set in a science context, to enhanced achievement in English two

and three years later, supports the hypothesis of a

general cognitive processor which can be positively

influenced by appropriate intervention strategies set in the

context of the ordinary curriculum.”

49

These results seem to support the notion that

incorporating scientific process skills and procedural

understanding into the context and content of science

(conceptual understanding) with suitable intervention

strategies is a win-win situation. It not only improves

achievement in science and other subjects but it also

accelerates general cognitive thinking.

Thus, it seems reasonable not to reject process

skills per se but to be more precise in our thinking and

speech of it. It should be acknowledged that process

skills should be taught in the context of science

content. Scientific process skills and content should go

hand in hand. This is what Kirkham (1989:148) advocates

when he wrote about a balanced science which achieves

equilibrium between context, process and content. He

explains that “we need a content framework that will co-

ordinate with the process framework and over which we can

lay the context framework.”

Particular manipulative skills involving practical

skills like using a thermometer, measuring cylinder,

stop-watch and so on, should be skills that pupils are

taught and trained to do (Woolnough and Allsop 1985) so

that they can perform the scientific process skills

competently. In short, the teaching of scientific process

skills should be an endeavour to promote the tendency to

think in a manner that takes into consideration

50

scientific ideas, reasoning and skills to help solve

problems.

51

RECAPITULATION

The three explicit aims of science education from the scientific domain

are scientific knowledge (conceptual understanding), scientific methods

(procedural understanding) and process skills and manipulative skills.

Scientific knowledge, although provisional is still very reliable and stable and

therefore a worthwhile explicit aim. The goal is to help children develop

conceptual understanding utilising their innate curious nature and their prior

ideas regarding natural phenomena of the world around them so that they

get closer to that of the scientists’ science.

Children also need to understand how this scientific knowledge is

formulated, that is the scientific method involving procedural understanding,

intellectual thinking and the use of tacit knowledge in investigating and

solving problems in science. Together with process skills, they are all engaged

in the learning of the craft of science - in devising experiments and tests,

measuring, structuring investigations, analysing data and findings,

formulating hypotheses and theories. Manipulative skills are of course

necessary practical skills to carry out these investigations.

Without scientific knowledge and content, there can be no science.

Without the scientific method, there can be no determination of scientific

knowledge. Without the process skills and manipulative skills, there can be no

practical ways of working out the method of science. The interlocking of these

three elements thus blends naturally together to form the explicit aims of

science education from the science domain.

52

1.3.4 SOCIETAL NEEDS AND RELEVANCE

“It is surely time that curricular units be composed to serve the

ends we want. They are in this respect socially determined and need

constantly to be reconsidered.”

(Hirst

1974)

Science education surely cannot be excluded from

this social pressure that Hirst wrote about. The

Industrial Revolution of the 19th century witnessed the

form of science, then known as ‘natural philosophy’,

attempt to isolate itself from the “vulgarities” of

practical knowledge by creating ‘pure science’ which

valued scientific knowledge just for knowledge sake and

retreating into their refuge in universities (Aikenhead

1994:15).

This tension and schism between pure science and

applied science which the natural philosophers hoped to

isolate science from possessing a moral or social

responsibility was irrevocably blown apart during World

War II as epitomised by the production and deployment of

the atomic bomb by the team of scientists assembled under

the leadership of Robert Oppenheimer. In the aftermath of

the tumultuous event, Oppenheimer’s confession that

“physicists have known sin” (Solomon 1993:14; Aikenhead

1994:16) betrayed the emerging realisation that

53

scientists and inevitably science itself has a social

responsibility and a moral role.

In addition to this, Ziman (1980:57) referring to

the apparent and seemingly unending dissension between

Robert Merton, Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper and Michael

Polanyi regarding the nature of science (see discussion

in 1.3.1) , suggests poignantly that it ironically

reveals a basic agreement - that science must be

represented by a social model. This is because the

formulation of scientific knowledge is not merely an

individual process but a communal act forming consensual

knowledge applicable for the community. Ziman (1980:54)

extends this line of thought by saying that ‘valid

science’, that is science as taught conventionally in

schools and universities (Ziman 1994:21), should be

viewed with societal links especially through its

technological applications. Hodson and Prophet (1994:34)

then delineate this by saying that school science should

be viewed as socially constructed, that is, “being the

product of particular sets of choices made by particular

groups of people at particular times”.

Such thinking served as a harbinger to what evolved

into the popularly known ‘science, technology and

society’ (STS) curriculum. In this context, Chapman

(1994) reiterates the need to not blur the distinction

between science and technology. He distinguishes the two

54

in this way: “sciences are about understanding nature;

technologies are about the application of reliable

knowledge, some, but not all from science.” Even though

the two are inevitably linked and related, yet in

practice people often use technologies without knowing or

understanding the sciences behind it. For example, a user

of computer need not know the functions of the hardware

components to use the unit successfully.

Aikenhead (1994:48-49) further describes the essence

of STS as student centred, that is the student linked to

his natural environment through the science component

(the traditional science discipline content), to his

artificially constructed environment through the

technology component and to his social environment

through the society component (see Figure 1.5).

SCIENCE

Natural Figure 1.5 : Environment The

essence of STS EducationAikenhead

(1994:48)

STUDENT

Artificially Constructed Social

55

Environment Environment

TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY

56

Aikenhead (1994:49) goes on to list an impressive

array of aims of STS in the area of social

responsibilities :

individual empowerment

intellectual capabilities such as critical thinking,

logical reasoning, creative problem-solving and

decision making

national and global citizenship, usually “democracy” or

“stewardship”

socially responsible action by individuals

an adroit work force for business and industry

Even though an elucidation of the above aims does

not fall within the purview of this dissertation, it

should be evident by now that there is indeed a dire need

to make science education relevant and not eschew

societal needs. The integrated perspective fits this aim

of science education nicely into the available matrix as

an explicit aim from the general domain. This is because

for science to meet societal needs and be relevant, it

will undoubtedly pull science into association with

economics, industry, global problems and issues that

affect the quality of life which are more of a general

nature.

There is another way of viewing relevance, that is

to see that science education should be relevant to the

57

students’ world. Newton (1988:35-6) comments that while

much of STS curriculum considers science, technology and

society, it tends to be weak on its relevance to the

needs of the individuals. This is especially important

with regards to younger children whose egocentricity

means that their world has not quite developed beyond

themselves, their families and friends.

58

Hence, Harlen (1993:37) writing regarding the

teaching of primary science emphasises the importance of

science content encompassing the children’s immediate

everyday experience of the world so that it matches their

conceptual ability, their closer affinity to relate with

it and thus possessing greater potential for retention.

Of course this aspect of relevance equally applies

to secondary science learning but with a wider girth

encompassing the local community, the nation and the

world community.

Newton (1988:40) envisaged this progression as in

Figure 1.6 below:

A B

Science and the individual

Figure 1.6

Science and society

A’ B’

Thus, he illustrates the increasing proportion of

wider societal elements as the children increase in age

from AA’ to BB’. However, his illustration does seem to

59

suggest that individual and societal elements are

mutually exclusive which in reality is not so. The

individual is part of society. Thus, I would like to

propose a slight variation to Newton’s illustration

(Figure 1.7).

60

Science and society C Figure 1.7

A B Science and the individual Increasing

Age

In the above illustration, it is alluded that the

content of science for the very young has more relevance

to his immediate individual world (Area A). As he grows

in age (moving to the right of the diagram), wider

societal elements begin to be introduced in the child’s

science content (Area B) with still direct relevance to

his individual world, thus emphasising that he is part of

society. Nevertheless, there will also be societal

elements that might not be related to him directly (Area

C). For example, the study of nuclear energy for children

in third world countries that do not have nuclear

reactors. Therefore, we maintain the individual as part

of society as they expand their perspective on the

applications of science and technology in society.

1.3.5 HISTORY OF SCIENCE

“The history of science has long been regarded by

scientists and other academics as the most natural medium

61

for humanising science education.” (Ziman 1994:26) This

is because in the history of science there exists

excellent case studies illustrating the fallible nature

of scientists, the process involved in discoveries,

inventions and innovations, the evolution of ideas and

cultures, and the influence of science and technology in

society - all of which are part of the explicit aims of

science education already referred to in the preceding

sections. (Claxton 1991:122, Ziman 1994:26, Solomon

1993:40-42).

Therefore, the history of science fits easily into

the matrix as an explicit aim from the general domain. In

utilising the history of science as lesson contents

whether in the form of introductions to related science

topics, enactments through drama of scientific events or

replicating experiments of past scientists (Newton

1988:42-55), it humanises science which could often be

seen as cold and unfeeling. It is in this process that

students get a feeling of the human endeavour in real

life stories. They also get a picture of how ideas,

understanding and models of thinking are conceived in the

dynamics of the scientific enterprise and begin to

understand that it is just as much a creative work as in

the field of arts.

Nevertheless, the warning of both Ziman (1994:27)

and Sherratt (1986:203-7) should be heeded in the usage

62

of the history of science. They lamented the tendency to

oversimplify the portrayal of the history of science so

as to give the narrow view that science progressed

because of the achievements of certain individuals.

Instead, care should be taken to show that progress in

science was and is a collective enterprise and a social

endeavour of the community - a perspective very much in

line with the societal needs and relevance of science

education as espoused in the previous section.

1.3.6 LANGUAGE AND WORDS

Sutton (1992:2,3) warns of the tendency to give so

much importance to practical work in the teaching of

science that it so dominates lessons leaving very little

time for students to actually reflect on ideas. Carre

(1981:6,7) also argues that the learning by ‘doing’

should be followed up with reflection upon what they have

done through thinking, talking and writing. Students

should be given time to construct meanings from their

experience. Sutton and Carre thus emphasise the

importance of language and words in the learning of

science.

Meighan (1986:144-5) poignantly articulates the role

of language in learning by saying:

...in acquiring a language...an individual is not simplylearning a neutral sign and symbol system for personal and

63

idiosyncratic use, but is also taking on ideas, meanings,conceptualisations, theories, attitudes and judgements whichare deposited in the language system when they were firstproduced. In a very real sense language represents a highrepository of interpretations and knowledge by which the ideasand recognitions of our ancestors are preserved and handed onto succeeding generations. Thus, in learning a language we areexposed not only to predetermined definitions of the world butalso predetermined explanations of it.

This certainly applies to the role of language and

words in the learning of science. Sutton (1994:62,63)

asserts that science lessons should be viewed as learning

the ideas already formed by the scientific community

(what Khun calls the established paradigms) and not the

actual study of nature itself. He further suggests that

practical work should not be the source from which ideas

come from but only to get a feel of the phenomena.

Therefore he proposes what he calls ‘Word Work’ as

the main activity of science teaching and learning and

not ‘Bench Work’ (practical work). By this he meant that

more time should be allocated for students to reflect,

extricate and construct for themselves the meanings

behind the language and words used to express ideas of

science rather than in actually doing practical work in

the laboratory situation (Sutton 1994:63). He sees a

parallel style of teaching with that commonly applied in

the teaching of literature, whereby students are first

exposed to the source and given sufficient time to

extract, construct and appreciate the meaning intended by

the original author. So, it is for the propositions

64

usually presented to students during the learning of

science (Sutton 1994:18).

Even though I agree with Sutton regarding the need

to have ‘Word Work’, I would think it more practical to

see it as one of the repertoire of styles that could be

employed by a science teacher. Therefore, certain science

lessons can be predominantly students engaging in ‘Word

Work’. At other times, practical work dominate but with

‘Word Work’ integrated into the lesson. This gives the

teacher the flexibility to choose what he feels is the

best way his students can construct ideas and learn the

meanings behind language and words. Nonetheless, Sutton’s

warning that science teachers should not be too caught up

and obsessed with practical work should be heeded and

taken very seriously.

Nevertheless, language and words are common entities

utilised in all fields of knowledge. In fact, commonly

used scientific terminology and nomenclature are also

sometimes used with layperson meanings, for example words

like pressure, react and mass. Because of this, I feel it

is more appropriate to designate language and words as an

explicit aim of science education from the general

domain. This completes the explanation on the group of

explicit aims from the working matrix.

65

RECAPITULATION

Scientific knowledge is a social construct by the scientific community.

Therefore, students, in the process of learning science, are extracting and

constructing meanings behind the language and words that encapsulates the

ideas of scientific knowledge as have been formulated by the scientific

community. The role of the science teacher is to help his students develop his

simple ideas of the world and phenomena closer to that of scientists’ science.

The history of science provides real case studies that illustrate the

evolutionary process of formulating the consensual scientific knowledge and

thus may help in humanising science lessons. Practical work where students

are involved in ‘hands on’ activities require the use of scientific method and

thinking and process skills, giving them a personal feeling of the process.

Science education should also reflect its relevance by helping students

see the applications of science especially through technology and its role in

society. The students gain an ever widening understanding of the world in

which they live and develop skills that they could apply in society.

Therefore, the six elements of explicit aims for science education are

very much interrelated and if presented in an integrated manner with

sufficient overt elucidation of this interconnection, students will hopefully

develop a balanced picture of what constitutes science. This suggests that the

stated elements will often feature concurrently in the teaching of particular

topics in science. They will form the main bulk of content in science lessons

and are foremost in the aspirations of science teachers.

66

1.3.7 SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDES, MORAL VALUES AND BELIEFS

Moving on to the implicit aims of science education,

we will first consider scientific attitudes, moral values

and beliefs. Harlen (1993:72) defines attitudes as “the

state of being prepared or predisposed to react in a

certain way to particular objects, persons or

situations.” It is a tendency to act or undertake some

course of action when faced with a range of similar

situations. Therefore, Harlen (1993:73) stresses that an

attitude can only be said to have been acquired if it is

manifested over and over again in a general pattern such

that it becomes predictable or typical of that person.

But what are scientific attitudes? Of course many

attitudes are applicable and appropriate for all kinds of

learning. But scientific attitudes are those that have

direct relevance to science (Harlen 1993:73) and affects

an individual so that he possesses a propensity to

approach life and its problems scientifically (Martin

1988:146). Scientific attitudes also affect learning

experiences in science in that they encourage the change

of personal ideas and influence the knowledge systems

held by individuals (Secondary Science Curriculum Review

1984:7). Therefore, scientific attitudes do in certain

ways determine the extent of learning that an individual

engages himself.

67

There are a variety of lists from various sources

that encompasses these scientific attitudes but they

generally have much more in common rather than

differences. The Secondary Science Curriculum Review

(1984:7,8) provides a typical list that was expanded from

that of the Assessment of Performance Unit : open-

mindedness, self-criticism, independence of thought,

responsibility, perseverance, co-operation, scepticism,

desire to be well informed, confidence, respect,

willingness to be involved, sensitivity, enthusiasm,

tolerance, persuasiveness, questioning and trust.

On surveying this list, the connotation that can be

derived is that some of the elements can also be regarded

as values especially if one adopts a broad definition for

values as that given by Graham that is values are “what

people think to be good” (Poole 1990:25). Nevertheless,

values are more than just attitudes for they also

engender moral choices and decisions. We can visualise

the relationship between moral values and scientific

attitudes as in Figure 1.8 below:

Moral Values

ScientificAttitudes Figure 1.8

68

The application and teaching of science is

unavoidably and intimately connected to moral choices

(Martin 1972:160) especially in the context of the role

of science in society (see Section 1.3.4). Indeed, Newton

(1988:16) espouses the inclusion of values and moral

decisions to humanise science. Poole (1995:11) lends

additional support for such a view by referring to recent

studies in history and philosophy of science that

revealed how beliefs and values have “thoroughly

permeated the scientific enterprise”, so much so that he

feels that the two cannot be separated in the theory and

practice of science education.

This brings us to the third and probably the most

controversial element as introduced by Poole, that of

beliefs. Belief is something accepted as true (Oxford

Paperback Dictionary 1988:70) and for many people this

includes religious beliefs. But are religious beliefs and

science related in any way?

Christianity, Judaism and Islam teaches that the

world is the creation of God and thus man is to manage

his environment responsibly (Poole 1990:255-6). Buddhism

and its teaching of reincarnation propagates a deep

69

respect for living things. Hinduism and most tribal

religions that leans towards pantheism sees perpetual

connection between God and His creation.

Woolnough (1989:133) referring to the relationship

between science and society raises the question of what

type of society that the teaching of science should be

related to - whether the secular, materialistic and

humanistic culture or one that recognises the existence

of God and its teachings and beliefs.

With such a large following of adherents to various

religions in the world and the fact that most religions

do not teach the compartmentalisation of life into

secular and sacred, it seems reasonable that the teaching

of science should, at least, provide some assistance for

students to consider where religious beliefs and moral

values can be available options of understanding the

world.

Furthermore, science and religion are indelibly

etched and linked in the pages of history. Not only were

many eminent scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle,

Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Kelvin believers of God, but

many dedicated their life and work with a perspective of

unfolding the ‘hand and mind’ of God in His creation

(Woolnough 1989:133)

70

Einstein probably says it best (Woolnough 1989:134):

You will hardly find among the profounder sort of scientificminds without a religious feeling of his own...His religiousfeelings take the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmonyof the natural law, which reveals an intelligence of suchsuperiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinkingand acting of human beings is an utterly insignificantreflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his lifeand work. It is beyond question closely akin to that which haspossessed the religious geniuses of all ages.

Even in the celebrated and often cited case of the

trial of Galileo by the Roman Catholic Church as a point

for incongruity between science and religion, it should

be noted that Galileo, who himself was a believer of God,

was not opposing religion per se but was in his own mind

defending and protecting the church from erroneously

linking false ideas of man with Biblical texts which

could bring untold damage to the church (Poole 1990:30-

31, Poole 1995:106-113).

Hummel (1986:119-20, 122-23) suggests further that

the actual group that engineered the opposition and

eventual condemnation of Galileo was the scientific

establishment of his day - that of Aristotelianism. This

group of scientists had long been involved in a running

debate with Galileo over his support of Corpenicus

hypotheses of heliocentrism. After failing to refute

Galileo’s assertion and arguments scientifically, they

turned the tide by making it into a theological issue and

dragged the Roman Catholic church into the controversy.

71

Therefore, this incident should not be naively construed

as a clear-cut case of religion versus science as is

commonly projected.

In light of the above points, it seems inexplicable

to dogmatically promulgate the fallacy that all reputable

scientists regard religion as a waste of time and

irrelevant, even to the extent of opposing it. This is

why I support the call of Poole, Woolnough and Reiss

(1993,1992) to deal with the science/religion issue as it

inevitably crops up in the process of learning science.

Nevertheless, we should always bear in mind the

intrinsic differences between science and theology, the

study of religion. For example, Hummel (1986:204)

addressing the biblical and scientific view of nature

succinctly points out that the former reveals the who and

why of the universe, the Creator and His purposes for

nature and humanity while the latter is more concerned

about the how of natural events. To a certain extent,

they address the same matter but from different

perspectives and for different purposes. Therefore,

science and religion do not necessarily contradict each

other but rather complement each other as they address

different aspects of the same matter.

Furthermore, Hummel (1986) adds that the biblical

message employs the everyday language of sense perception

72

which is accessible to all and for all times while

science seeks to convey its message through the more

specialised and precise technical and mathematical

language. Therefore, this distinctive and contrasting use

of language is another significant difference that should

be clearly delineated in any discourse about science and

religion. It is not a matter of which type of language

being more accurate but which style is more appropriate

for their different purposes. In short, we should be

careful not to force science or religion say anything

that is not its basic intention, but should recognise

their different purposes, perspectives and use of

language. Any failure to do so would plunge one into a

mire of confusing debacle that reaps no benefits to

anyone. Therefore it is vitally important that we should

bear in mind that essentially science and religion seek

to answer different questions pertaining to life but

nevertheless are inevitably intertwined on many fronts.

Expanding from the previous illustration (Figure

1.8), we can view the relationship of the three elements

and scientific knowledge in the making of moral decisions

and choices as in Figure 1.9 :

Scientific Knowledge

Moral

73

Values

Scientific BeliefsAttitudes

MORAL DECISIONS ,CHOICES & JUDGEMENTS

Figure 1.9

The illustration thus makes it clear that the

interplay between scientific attitudes, moral values,

beliefs and scientific knowledge is the basis upon which

moral decisions, choices and judgements are made.

Another question that needs to be considered at this

point is : Why are these three elements considered

implicit aims of science education? Poole (1990:67-8)

suggests that beliefs and values implicitly come into

science education. In expanding this view, I suggest that

scientific attitudes, moral values and beliefs will

inevitably arise in the course of learning science. It is

unavoidable though it can be ignored!

74

Furthermore, I think that these three elements are

more caught than taught. Children pick it up from models

they observe and are extremely astute in detecting

anomalies between what is explicitly ‘preached’ by the

teacher and what is openly practised. Thus, Reiss

(1992:129) suggests that these related issues can be

openly dealt with as they arise naturally in the course

of science lessons. Sometimes, the science teacher could

even initiate the discourse that relates to the three

stated elements.

Therefore, in saying that the three elements are

implicit aims, I mean that they do not need to be the

main concern of science teachers as they plan their

lessons. These will arise naturally from the explicit

aims that we have already determined (1.3.1-1.3.6). The

science teacher can then decide when and how to deal with

these issues openly with his students.

1.3.8 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY

Jacobson and Bergman (1980:74) describe scientific

literacy as “the ability to understand and discuss

developments in science and technology as they are

communicated via newspapers, magazines, television and

other public media”. This entails making personal

judgements and opinion upon issues arising from societal

concerns that affect the quality of life. Therefore,

75

Reiss (1993:33) suggests that science education that

seeks to produce scientifically literate students should

enable them to apply their knowledge and understanding of

science learnt in school to everyday issues.

Nevertheless, Jenkins (1990:48-49) points out that

though scientific literacy seems to be a noble cause for

science education, yet it suffers from too differing

interpretations by different advocates regarding what it

actually means. Furthermore, when it is delineated into

detailed aims it usually amounts to a large and

formidable list that seems to be depressingly

unattainable.

For example, Krugly-Smolska (1990:476) quotes the

Ontario lists that describes the scientifically literate

person:

understands scientific concepts, principles and conceptualnetworks;

puts scientific knowledge to practical use; realises that science is a human endeavour involving both

process and product; knows that all phenomena cannot be understood immediately

and that sometimes theories are used to provide tentativeexplanations;

recognises not only the usefulness of science but itslimitations as well; knows that scientific knowledge issubject to change; and distinguishes between scientific factand personal opinion;

uses reliable scientific and technological information inthe process of personal life management and societaldecision making;

communicates both his/her scientific knowledge and theprocess of inquiry;

76

applies science concepts, theories, processes, and values ininvestigating everyday problems and in making responsibledecisions;

respects the ethics of the scientific method; appreciates the importance of the scientific enterprise and

responds to the stimulus and enrichment afforded by thescientific community;

interrelates science and technology, realising that both ofthem influence and are influenced by society;

relates science to other fields of learning, such as socialsciences, humanities, health sciences, business andtechnological studies, and the arts;

has a rich and exciting view of the universe, the world, andthe environment as a result of a knowledge of science, itsapplications, and its implications;

develops an interest in science-related skills - cognitive,manipulative, and attitudinal - that may be applied tolifelong learning, to career awareness, and to leisurepursuits;

interacts with various components of his/her universe in amanner that is consistent with a sound environmental ethic;

values scientific and technological research and development(Ontario Ministry of Education 1987, pp.13-14)

For this reason, I have placed scientific and

technological literacy as an implicit aim of science

education from the science domain in the matrix. Like

other explicit aims considered in the preceding section,

they arise naturally from the main content derived from

the explicit aims of science education. Furthermore, much

of what constitutes scientific and technological literacy

overlaps considerably with the elements from the explicit

aims.

1.3.9 PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODS AND THINKING SKILLS

77

Lally (1994:219) defines problem-solving as “the set

of mental and physical strategies used to reach the goal

or aim to complete the project”. This implies that time

and effort is required by the ‘solver’ to reach the

‘solution’ which initially had no immediate answer or

steps leading to a resolution.

Watts (1991:131-3, also in Lally 1994:220)

differentiates two types of problem-solving in science -

he calls them PS1 and PS2. By PS1 he means problem-

solving as a purely intellectual process, usually solving

quantitative, well defined, ‘pencil and paper’ problems

commonly associated with traditional academic science

education.

On the other hand, PS2 is problem-solving as an

implementation tasks which has a practical and largely

qualitative solution involving real life contexts. It is

the open-ended, problem-solving investigations described

by Lock(1990), whose tasks are usually not so well

defined but suitable to help develop problem-solving

strategies in individuals.

Watts (1991:131) observed that from the late 1980s,

problem-solving activities were becoming more of the PS2

type - puzzles, design and make, extended project work

and ‘real-world’ problems that usually require skills,

processes, problem-solving methods or design process. He

78

adds that this is the result of the search for relevance

and application of science especially through technology.

A very much related development is that of the

emerging call to teach thinking skills - critical and

creative. Hirst and Peters (1970:31) assert that critical

thinking does not just happen or develop naturally but

has to be nurtured and built into individuals. Barnes,

Britten and Rosen who were English specialists (quoted by

Meighan 1980:109) advocate the teaching of science to be

more concerned with thought rather than just mere

information. Baker (1991:3) suggests even further that

the highest level of thinking that is metacognition be

taught to students so that they can begin to take

responsibility for their own learning and thus become

independent learners.

Problem-solving methods and thinking skills are very

much in line with current aspirations of science

education to train students so that they are able to use

their skills and knowledge in dealing with every day

problems. Nevertheless, I have opted to include them as

implicit aims of science education because they usually

arise naturally during lessons based on the explicit

aims, especially when students are engaged in the

scientific method and thinking during ‘bench-work’

(practical work) or as they grapple with meanings during

‘word-work’.

79

RECAPITULATION

The implicit aims of science education emanate naturally from the

explicit aims of science education. It does not need to be awkwardly contrived

and forced into science lessons. Scientific attitudes which are more caught

than taught is nurtured in the course of involvement in practical work as

students apply process skills and engage themselves in the scientific method

and thinking. In the process, students are also learning and practising

problem-solving methods and thinking skills. Moral values and beliefs arise

naturally when appropriate issues relating to societal needs and relevance

are contemplated. It can also arise as students delve in the annals of the

history of science.

Scientific and technological literacy arise as the application of science

in society forms the content of science lessons. It is hoped that in the process

students will become independent, self-directed learners who know how to

access information, extract and construct meaning for application and make

societal decisions.

Even though, the six elements have been designated as implicit aims,

yet they can be dealt with overtly in the lesson when they emanate naturally

from the explicit aims. They are implicit in the sense that they need not be the

main concern of the science teacher as they plan the content of their lessons.

They are as it were waiting at the peripheral of the main content of science,

waiting to emerge at appropriate junctures of the teaching-learning process.

Science teachers need to be cognisant and alert to these implicit aims so that

he or she can capitalise on the situation when it arises.

80

1.4 THE FAMILY WORKING TOGETHER - THE MATTER OF

PRACTICAL APPLICATION

I will now attempt to pull together the ideas and

conclusions from the preceding sections to form a working

model for practical application in the teaching-learning

endeavour of science education.

The teaching of science should be student-centred.

Therefore, the aims of science education which have been

considered are what science teachers hope their students

will acquire and be able to demonstrate as proof of

having learnt them. I summarise these desired

performances into three simple categories as the student

knowing, doing and feeling. (See Figure 1.10)

81

IMPLICIT AIMS

EXPLICIT AIMS

KNOWING

STUDENT

DOING FEELING

Figure 1.10 MODEL FOR STUDENT-CENTRED SCIENCE EDUCATION

Firstly, the student comes to be in a state of

‘knowing’ when he is involved in activities that helps

him extract and construct meanings locked behind the

concepts, ideas, words and language of science as

formulated by the past and present scientific community.

Secondly, the student comes to be in a state of ‘doing’

when he is involved in practical work and

investigations. Thirdly, the student comes to be in a

state of ‘feeling’ when he is constantly exposed to

natural phenomena and situations which elicit personal

responses.

82

‘Knowing’ is the objective category, ‘doing’ is the

semi-objective category and ‘feeling’ is the subjective

category. These categories encompass the explicit and

implicit aims of science education in that they are

inter-linked as seen in Figure 1.11 below:

83

STUDENT

extracting &constructingmeaning practical work

& investigations constant exposure

KNOWING DOING FEELING

(objective) (semi-objective) (subjective)

Scientific Knowledge Scientific Methods Tacit Knowing

EXPLICIT Societal Needs and Relevance Process SkillsAIMS History of Science Manipulative Skills

Language and Words

IMPLICIT Scientific Literacy Problem-solving Methods Scientific AttitudesAIMS Technological Literacy Thinking Skills

Moral Values & Beliefs

Figure 1.11 WORKING MODEL FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION

For a science teacher, the three important steps in

the teaching of science are planning, implementation and

evaluation. At the planning stage, he focuses on the

explicit aims to form his main content material while

bearing in mind and anticipating the emergence of

situations that would foster the implicit aims. He should

also always be aware of his students’ different

abilities, prior knowledge and inclinations as he plans

so that the lesson is suited to their needs.

84

At the implementation stage, all the elements can

come into play but his focus is still on the explicit

aims while being constantly aware and alert to the

implicit aims arising here and there.

Finally, at the evaluation stage, various questions

regarding assessment has to be answered first. Is it a

formative or summative assessment? Is it norm referenced

or criterion referenced? Perhaps an even more basic

question need to be asked -what does he want to assess

and can it be assessed? These are questions that will be

our primary concern in the next chapter.

Nevertheless, going back to our categories, probably

the easiest area to assess will be the objective

‘knowing’ category especially from the main aims of

science education. The semi-objective ‘doing’ category

will be more difficult and challenging, while logically

the subjective ‘feeling’ category will be even more

difficult.

85

1.5 FAMILY UP FOR ADOPTION - THE MATTER OF

IMPLICATION FOR MALAYSIA

1.5.1 A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE

EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA AND ITS CURRENT SCENARIO

Science education first became a part of formal

education in Malaysia in 1930 when an expatriate science

teacher, F. Daniel, developed a General Science course

for all pupils at the secondary level (Molly 1992:252).

Rote learning of scientific facts was the norm then.

The Ministry of Education began science curriculum

reform with the inception of the ‘Special Project’

(Projek Khas) in 1968. Resource books for primary school

teachers of science and mathematics were produced to help

them teach those subjects by the enquiry method. This

reform was carried on to the secondary school level. In

1969, the Scottish Integrated Science syllabus was

adapted for the teaching of science at the lower

secondary level (Form 1-3 Ages 13-15). The different

disciplines of science which was called ‘Modern

Physics/Chemistry/Biology For Malaysian Schools’ was the

pursuit of students in the science stream for the upper

secondary level (Form 4-Upper Six, Ages 16-19) while the

arts stream had the integrated ‘Modern Science for

Malaysian Schools’ (Rampaian Sains). This was the time

when practical work and recipe-like worksheets were a

86

normal feature - the emphasis was ‘learning by doing and

discovery’ through guided investigations after the spirit

of the Nuffield Science projects (Allsop 1991:32; see

also Table 1.2).

Name of project Level Basis Year of introduction

Projek Khas (Special Project)

Primary I-VI 1968

Integrated Science for Malaysian Schools

Forms I-III Scottish Integrated Science Syllabus

1969

Modern Physics/Chemistry/ Biology for Malaysian Schools

Form IV-V (Science stream)

Nuffield Physics/ Chemistry/ Biology O level

1972

Modern Science for Malaysian Schools

Form IV-V (Artsstream)

Nuffield Secondary Science

1974

Table 1.2 School science projects in Malaysia (1960-1979) (Molly 1992:254)

Nevertheless, Lewin (1975:11-12) reported that in

spite of the introduction of the reforms, the teaching of

science had remained very much teacher-centred and

didactic - a situation he perceived due to the assessment

exams which tested the recall of facts, thus engendering

the prevalence of rote learning techniques.

The influential Cabinet Report on the Implementation

of Education Policies in the year 1979 engendered the

back to the basics movement bringing educational reform

which eventually resulted in the formulation and

implementation of the New Primary School Curriculum

87

(NPSC) at the primary school level in 1983 (Educational

Planning and Research Division, EPRD 1989:26,75). Primary

Education was demarcated into two phases : Phase I (Year

1-3, ages 6-9) and Phase II (Year 4-6, ages 10-12). At

Phase I, the 3 R’s of reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic

were emphasised. Malay Language, English Language and

Mathematics were the three main subjects. Science as a

subject was thus discarded.

Science contents only made its appearance at Phase

II, and even then not as a single subject of its own but

as the integrated, interdisciplinary general subject

called ‘Man and His Environment’ (Alam dan Manusia).

The science content was freely mingled with that of

civics, local studies, local history and geography.

Unfortunately, this did not turn out well as most of

the teachers who taught this subject came from the art

stream and were not confident of teaching the science

content. The science aspect was thus either badly taught

(using the rote learning and expository style of passing

on facts) or even worse completely ignored! Science

laboratories in primary schools were closed down and/or

converted to ordinary classrooms while the science

apparatus was locked away in obscurity.

In 1991, Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr.

Mahathir Mohamad’s momentous paper “Malaysia : The Way

88

Forward” was the harbinger to the national ‘Vision 2020’

which seeks to transform Malaysia into an industrialised

and fully developed nation by the year 2020 (EPRD

1989:74-75). Dr. Mahathir outlined nine strategic

challenges for the nation (see Appendix B) of which the

sixth was “establishing a scientific and progressive

society, innovative and forward looking, not only as a

consumer to technology but also as a contributor to the

scientific and technological civilisation of the future”.

This certainly meant that more Malaysian students

need to be educated in the sciences. Reality was on the

contrary as after 10 years of NPSC, there was a

significant drop in students who pursued science based

subjects in the higher secondary level. The Ministry of

Education took immediate steps to check this decline and

science was reintroduced as a subject in 1994 beginning

from Phase II of the primary school level.

The New Primary Science Curriculum (1993:7,8)

covered five fields of science: Living Environment,

Physical Environment, Material Environment, the Earth and

the Universe, and the Technological World. Scientific

skills encompassing process skills and manipulative

skills was given prominence together with the science

content. Thinking skills, attitudes and values were also

clearly outlined and specified as part of the aims of the

new curriculum (Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum 1993:5,6).

89

Meanwhile, at the secondary school level, the

Integrated Secondary School Curriculum (ISSC) was

introduced as a continuity of the NPSC. As is suggested

in its name, the new curriculum sought to present

education as an integrated whole with strategies like

language, values and skills cutting across the

curriculum.

Science was a core subject meaning that it was

compulsory for every student at the Form 1-3 (ages 13-15)

level. It was an integrated science syllabus. At Form 4-5

(ages 16-17), an integrated science syllabus was

maintained also as a core subject to be taken by all

students except those who took the three individual

science subjects of physics, chemistry and biology.

Additional Science was also introduced as an optional

subject for those students who had opted for more art-

based subjects to take so that they could still switch to

the science disciplines after their Form 5 if they chose

to do so and performed reasonably well in this subject

and mathematics. Clearly, the Ministry of Education was

making an effort to encourage more students to take up

science.

The secondary school science syllabus was a

continuity of the primary science syllabus with the same

emphasis on scientific knowledge, scientific skills and

90

values. (Introductions in ‘Huraian Sukatan Pelajaran

Sains Tingkatan I-III, Sains Tambahan Tingkatan IV and V,

Fizik, Kimia, Biologi Tingkatan IV and V).

1.5.2 PROPOSALS FOR APPLICATION IN THE MALAYSIAN CONTEXT

(a) MORE TIME TO EMPHASISE QUALITY AND DEPTH

The first application I would like to propose for

science education in Malaysia is more emphasis on quality

rather than quantity, more depth rather than breadth. It

is a common complaint of teachers in Malaysia that the

science syllabus covers so much ground that they have to

rush and push through each topic. I suggest that more

time is needed for science teachers to allow their

students to achieve knowing, doing and feeling.

Students need more time to slow down and extract and

construct meanings. Thinking, contemplation, discourse,

discussions, debates and investigations cannot be hurried

or compressed without losing their desired aims. The

flurried pace at which science teachers are forced to

teach science lessons because of the constraints imposed

by the overloaded science curriculum is not very

conducive for such reflective and active learning.

91

The role of practical work in science education also

needs to be reviewed and thought through. In Malaysia,

science lessons seem to be experiments after experiments,

each different from period to period. Students are

usually expected to finish their experiment within a

period of about one hour, write up their report and hand

it in to be marked and returned, so that the whole cycle

could be repeated but with a whole new topic.

Then, there is the matter that these experiments are

usually closed, convergent and carefully tailored to

illustrate or confirm theories and concepts (Qualter et

al. 1990:4). It is highly questionable whether the

enormous quantity of experiments that Malaysian students

undergo are actually meaningful or make sense to them. Is

it merely the process of students trying to discover what

is in the mind of their science teachers and producing

those answers that is desired by them? If that is the

case, what is the advantage of such an approach over that

of didactic expository approach? As Ausubel et al.

(1968:377) states emphatically : “Yet science courses at

all academic levels are traditionally organised so that

students waste many valuable hours collecting and

manipulating empirical data that, at very best, help

students to rediscover or exemplify principles that the

instructor could present verbally and demonstrate

visually in a matter of minutes.” The game of ‘students

92

trying to discover the mind of their teachers’ is not

what investigations is all about.

As we have seen in our earlier discussion, practical

work can be viewed as craft training. Therefore students

need to be given time to get a feel of the phenomena,

acquire tacit knowing and scientific attitudes, apply

scientific methods, process skills and manipulative

skills and engage in thinking, problem solving and

abstract theoretical construction. Such a view engenders

the need to have less experiments but in a more

comprehensive and in depth manner. Meanings have to be

deliberately extracted from the investigations. ‘Word

Work’ can replace some experiments and is certainly

essential in each investigation undertaken. All these

require science teachers to slow down and take time to go

for quality and depth in their investigative practical

work.

In practice then, I suggest that every time science

teachers conduct practical lessons on a particular topic,

they allocate three to four periods (each period being

between 30-40 minutes) for students to do experiments,

another one period for students to discuss in their

various groups and write up their methods, observations

and conclusions and following that another period to

present or discourse with the other groups and their

93

teacher their results. ‘Word Work’ will be the main focus

during the final period for discourse.

Some time should also be allocated in the school

time table to allow students to suggest or present

whatever topics related to science that interests them.

Thus, the science teacher encourages his students to keep

rough notes of matters that interest them. From time to

time the teachers can then ask them to present what they

have noted.

Another related reason why I propose quality over

quantity in science lessons is because we need to see

students in Malaysia taking responsibility for their own

learning. The spoon-feeding situation where the teacher

determines what the students learn is not adequate in

light of the explosion of knowledge. It is impossible to

teach everything that the student needs before they leave

school. Therefore, it is better to train students how to

access information and extract meaning for application.

The science teacher plays the role of trainer, motivator,

stimulator, guide, mediator and facilitator (Qualter et

al. 1990:xiv).

(b) MORE HUMANISED SCIENCE FOR RELEVANCE AND MEANING

In Malaysia, science tends to be taught in a cold

and unfeeling manner - hard facts and theories are dealt

94

with. This can be one of the reasons why more and more

students opt out of science. Science is also often taught

as if scientific knowledge is unchanging. Therefore, I

propose that science education be humanised.

The nature of science as provisional yet applicable

knowledge, socially constructed and communally verified

needs to be imbedded in science lessons. The history of

science, which is often neglected and often seen as

unnecessary in science lessons, could be utilised as

excellent case studies for the often turbulent and hard

road leading to scientific discoveries and revolutions.

The students will begin to appreciate the process of

constructing scientific knowledge and not have the often

simplistic and fairy-tale like view that scientific

discoveries are the easy work of a few brilliant

individuals. Controversies, competing theories, social

and political factors, moral values and beliefs should

not be swept under the rug in the consideration of the

history of science education.

Of course, science education cannot always be locked

in the past. The present and the future should also

feature prominently in science lessons. Thus, current

issues relevant to individuals and society may it be

local, national or global needs to be introduced more

rapidly into science education. The computer with the

rapidly developing world of CD-ROMS and Internet, needs

95

to be incorporated into science education. All these will

help humanise science education and develop interests and

appreciation of science.

1.5.3 STEPS TO BRING ABOUT CHANGE IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

FOR MALAYSIA

The proposals in the previous section requires some

radical paradigm shifts. I feel three steps need to be

taken before these changes can be realised, namely :

The review of science curricula

The re-education of science teachers

The rethinking about assessments

Science curricula and syllabus need to be trimmed

down so that teachers have more time to emphasise quality

and depth. It also needs to be more open ended so that

current issues relevant to Malaysia and its role in the

global world could be more easily incorporated as needed.

Nevertheless, any efforts to bring change is doomed

to failure if science teachers are not convinced of the

rationale behind the changes. Certainly, science teachers

needs to be re-educated to a certain extent. They need to

96

see that science education do not have to be so academic

but more practical and relevant. Science teachers needs

to gain confidence that they can keep in touch with

developments and current issues. They need to model the

dynamics of science in their lessons.

The third step is crucial. Undoubtedly, Malaysian

science teachers or even teachers in general teach with

the final assessment and examinations in mind. Their

teaching approach will be adapted to produce the optimum

results in examinations. Of course this is a valid and

reasonable reason. Thus, a rethinking about assessments

needs to be undertaken. It is this important factor that

I will now consider.

97

CHAPTER 2 : ASSESSMENT IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

2.1 RENEWAL IN APPROACHES TO ASSESSMENT

2.1.1 THE EARLY REIGN OF MEASUREMENT (NORM-REFERENCED)

MODEL AND TRADITIONAL ASSESSMENT METHODS

For many years, perhaps the greater part of this century, theassessment of academic learning proceeded with little changeand with little perceived need for change.

(Biggs 1995:1)

The institutionalisation of mass education in the

nineteenth century engendered the introduction and

proliferation of educational assessment. This coupled

with the pragmatic need for some kind of mechanism for

selection in the rapidly expanding industrial economies,

popularised the measurement (norm-referenced) model of

assessment because the high stakes environment compelled

a high premium being put on assessment methods that

appeared to be fair and objective with high levels of

reliability (Broadfoot 1996:35-6).

What is this measurement model? This model is based

on the trait theory or the theory of individual

differences (Taylor 1994:236). Guilford (1959:6) defines

a trait as “any distinguishable, relatively enduring way

in which one individual varies from others”. This would

98

include physiological and psychological variables like

weight, height and intelligence. It was Galton’s earlier

discovery that these variables could be represented by

the normal curve which led to the belief that measurement

of individual traits could be reported relative to a

distribution of measures of that variable for other

people (Taylor 1994:227). This became the basis of

psychometric procedures which were similarly employed for

the measurement model.

99

Taylor (1994:236) thus outlines three distinguishing

assumptions that undergirds the measurement model :

1. Individual differences : humans consistently differ from oneanother on various human traits.

2. Relative measurement : One individual’s measurement on atrait can be reported relative to the distribution of othersimilar individuals’ measurements on that trait.

3. Reliable measurement : We can develop instruments thatreliably measure these individual differences on trait.

The third assumption concerning reliability was a

great concern in test item production. Reliability is the

consistency with which a test or other device measures

whatever it measures (Hanna 1993:8). In the context of

the predominantly multiple-choice type of questions in

testing, reliability was inevitably linked to the

discriminating power of the test item which is the

ability to differentiate examinees with higher and lower

scores on tests (Taylor 1994:238,240). The value of each

test item was judged on this basis and also on its

independence from other items. Therefore, items where

almost all testees answered in a similar way, whether

correctly or otherwise, were duly discarded as it did not

function as a discriminator. This preoccupation with

reliability eventuated a concentration by test producers

on that which was readily measurable, such as content

knowledge.

In line with this, a feature that developed into the

distinguishing mark of what is known as the traditional

100

(or conventional) technique of assessment is the

summative purpose of assessment. It was designed to

provide information at the end of a unit’s instruction

about students’ terminal achievement. This type of

assessment, being in the form of multiple choice

questions, was quick and easy to administer and process.

It soon came to dominate the educational landscape in

many countries including Malaysia.

101

2.1.2 THE GROWING REVOLT AGAINST THE TRADITIONAL

ASSESSMENT METHODS AND THE MEASUREMENT MODEL

After more than a century of unabated reign,

rumblings of discontent about generally accepted

traditional methods of assessment based on the

measurement model began to slowly grow in intensity and

frequency. Let us consider five of the main reasons for

this growing revolt.

(a) It is independent of the instructional process

One of the main complaints about traditional methods

of assessment was that it was separated from the daily

practical activity of teaching and learning. Wiggins

(1989a:704) likens this practice to that of only taking

the pulse rate of a patient - it might reveal a problem

but it has no effect whatsoever on improving the

patient’s physical health! Similarly, summative

assessment which is carried out at the end of the

teaching unit, usually reveals pupils’ learning

deficiencies and difficulties but the results will have

almost no consequence to the pupils’ actual learning

process. Wiggins (1989a:704) asserts that assessment is

central to instruction saying, “Any tests and final exams

inevitably cast their shadows on all prior work. Thus

they not only monitor standards, but also set them.” In

other words, teachers tend to teach to the test. What and

102

how they teach will depend on what and how the assessment

is like.

Maeroff (1991:275) brings this line of thinking one

step further by saying that assessment should drive

instruction, and vice versa, just like the way the front

and rear axles impel one another in a four-wheel drive

vehicle. Thus, if assessment is sheared off from

instruction, the findings of the assessment may not tell

a great deal about what students have actually learnt

from their classroom experience. Furthermore information

from such assessment has very limited use or relevance to

actual teaching. Qualter et al. (1990:94) notes that at

most these assessments tell how well (or badly) pupils

have done at year end (whatever that means!), can be used

for placement or streaming purposes or for the next

year’s planning for the teacher. Nevertheless, they

bemoan the fact that it does not help teachers detect

pupils’ areas of difficulty early enough to correct or

take remedial steps to help them in their learning.

(b) It does not primarily measure educational objectives

As we have noted earlier, the emphasis on

reliability of the measurement model means that items for

a test are selected first and foremost for their

discriminating power. Therefore, even though

representation of learning objectives within a content

103

area is a consideration when selecting items for a test,

the tests are not primarily developed to provide solid

information about how well students are learning various

objectives (Taylor 1994:241). For example, if all pupils

answered a certain question correctly, that item is

quickly discarded because of its poor discriminating

power. On the other hand, it could also mean that the all

pupils have learnt that matter well!

Bloom et al. (1981:52-3) write succinctly :

Education is a purposeful activity and we seek to have thestudents learn what we teach. If we are effective in ourinstruction, the distribution of achievement should be verydifferent from the normal curve. In fact we may even insistthat our educational efforts have been unsuccessful to the extentthat the distribution of achievement approximates the normaldistribution ....

Thus, Haertel (1991) is of the opinion that such

approaches to assessment lacked a basis in educational

theory and the knowledge base of teaching.

(c) It is weak in validity

Validity tells us whether a test measures what it

claims to measure, how well it measures it and what can

be inferred from that measurement (Neill and Medina

1989:690). Wiggins (1993:202) claims that because of the

preoccupation with reliability, validity is often

sacrificed. This means that the test-makers of

traditional assessments who develop multiple choice

104

questions generally end up being more concerned with the

precision of scores than with the intellectual value of

the challenge. Therefore, the forms of testing and

scoring were usually indirect and generic, designed to

minimise the ambiguity of tasks and answers. The tests

make the complex simple by dividing it into isolated,

independent and simplistic chores that assess only

artificially isolated “outcomes”. Consequently, the

problems were usually contrived and the cues artificial.

Such assessment, according to Wiggins (1993:202) lacked

the power to reveal whether students have the capacity

and ability to use wisely what knowledge they have.

(d) It is inadequate to measure changing educational aims

A climate of rapid technological change has

revolutionised educational aims so that they reflected

the need to train people who have the appropriate range

of skills and attitudes to cope with and undertake a

variety of roles. (Broadfoot 1996:36). Therefore, higher

level thinking skills, problem solving ability, personal

and social competencies and attitudes, skills and

processes have become new educational aims. Traditional

assessment methods are evidently inadequate to measure

such educational aims.

For example, in science education, we have

considered the practical ‘doing’ of science. Scientific

methods (procedural understanding), process and

105

manipulative skills and scientific attitudes are just

some of the aims that will be very difficult to assess

summatively solely through paper and pencil tests. In any

case, it would only give a partial and perhaps even

misleading picture of pupils’ actual abilities.

Therefore, Wiggins (1989a:704) notes that assessment

is most accurate and equitable when it entails human

judgement and dialogue, so that the person tested can ask

for clarification of questions and explain his or her

answers. Of course, traditional assessments methods have

no provision for such practices.

(e) It is not in line with the new view that pupils learn by actively

constructing ideas.

A view of learners as passive absorbers of facts,

skills and algorithms while teaching was conceived as

transmitting knowledge from teacher to learner has been

sidelined by new research findings. As we have considered

in the previous chapter, learners are actually active

participants who build their own understanding of subject

matter by constructing their own interpretations and

relate new information to their existing knowledge and

understanding (Osborne and Wittrock 1983). This new view

of student learning prompts Wilson (1992:125) to advocate

the need to start measuring understanding and models that

individual students construct for themselves during the

106

learning process. Traditional methods of testing which

provide a ‘snap-shot’ of a single point in time however

cannot and do not assess nor demonstrate the growth in

knowledge and performance (Raizen and Kaser 1989).

2.1.3 CORONATION OF THE STANDARD (CRITERION-REFERENCED)

MODEL?

In the 1970’s, a different form of assessment came

into being - the standard (criterion-referenced) model.

Taylor (1994:243) gives the assumptions of this model as

follows:

1. Public educational standards can be set.

2. They can be reached by most students, albeit by

different kinds of performance.

3. Fair and consistent judgements are possible by

educators trained to determine whether the

standards have been met.

The marked difference and improvement in the

standard model was the elevation of clear educational

objectives, thus emphasising the link between assessment

and instruction. Students were aware of the tested

objectives though not of its specific content. This was

an important development as we have seen that teachers do

teach to the test. Thus an assessment based on course

objectives has the added potential to promote the

achievement of those educational objectives. Because of

107

this, Raizen and Kaiser (1989) are of the opinion that

assessment can be a powerful tool for reform where

changing the nature of assessment can lead to changing

the nature of instruction.

Nevertheless, the early proponents of the standard

model faltered when they adopted the traditional methods

of assessment, where tests were given in a single

sitting. Thus, in essence, they ended up with the same

set of problems as accounted in the previous section.

2.1.4 THE SPREAD OF THE STANDARD MODEL - PERFORMANCE

ASSESSMENT

As long as we hold simplistic monitoring tests to be adequatemodels and incentives for reaching our intellectual standards,student performance, teaching and our thinking and discussionabout assessment will remain flaccid and uninspired.

(Wiggins 1989a:713)

Educational reform and renewal in the eighties

entailed a plethora of ideas on assessment. The United

Kingdom (UK) led the way through the seminal work of the

Assessment of Performance Unit (APU) set up by the

Department of Education and Science in 1975. At that

time, the purpose was to monitor performance in several

of the major curricular areas on a national level

(Christofi 1988:38). The APU team devised, conducted and

refined through trial and consultation an innovative

approach to assessment by using extended tests on small

108

samples of pupils which sought to assess them in Science,

Maths and English through their performance (Gott and

Duggan 1995:41). The process observed in the pupils as

they performed their tasks was assessed as was their

final product. Even though it was not the expressed aim

of the APU team to formulate an assessment framework for

individual performance , yet their findings in this area

proved to be very influential and was incorporated into

the first National Curriculum for UK. Furthermore, the

techniques developed could easily be adapted to be used

by classroom teachers for their own purposes (Christofi

1988:38).

In England and Wales, the 1988 Education Reform Act

(ERA) heralded a National Curriculum which described the

matters, skills and processes to be taught as ‘programmes

of study’ and the knowledge, skills and understanding as

‘attainment targets’ (ATs) which all pupils were expected

to have reached at the end of each of the four ‘Key

Stages’, that is Key Stage 1(ages 5-7), 2 (ages 7-11), 3

(ages 11-14) and 4 (ages 14-16).

The interesting feature was the national assessment

programme as outlined in the report of the Task Group on

Assessment and Testing (TGAT, 1988) which stipulated that

regular assessment of students against these ATs was to

be by both continuous teacher assessment (TA) and

Standard Assessment Tasks (SATs), the latter administered

109

at the end of each Key Stage. Clearly, this was a

standard model of assessment but with a defining

difference from the earlier standard model described in

the preceding chapter - it had internal assessments

conducted by the teachers themselves (TA) which used

performance assessments over a period of time (Broadfoot

1996:41). At the ages 7, 11, and 14, the internal TA’s

results were combined with the external SATs and reported

as a holistic assessment of each pupil towards the end of

that school year (McCallum 1996:74-5).

Across the waters to the United States of America

(USA), similar reforms in assessment were sweeping across

the educational scenario. ‘Authentic assessment’,

‘alternative assessment’, ‘portfolio assessment’,

‘dynamic / responsive assessment’ and ‘performance

assessment’ were topics which dominated discussions on

assessment in the educational circle (Wiggins 1989a,

1991, 1993; Maeroff 1991; Taylor 1994; Darling-Hammond

1994). This plethora of terms essentially all meant the

same thing - it was an indication that qualitative

judgement by the practitioner(teacher) through the

assessment of performance over a period of time

(longitudinal) and which influenced teaching instruction

was gaining acceptance among educators. This was evident

when Pipho (Taylor 1994:234) reported in 1992 that 40

states the USA have begun legislating for or were

110

developing new assessments that progressed toward

standards.

Broadfoot (1996) reported similar changes in

Australia and France while Rogers (1991) noted the same

in Canada. What is distinctly clear is that performance

assessment has arrived posing a serious challenge to

traditional methods of assessment. Bateson (1994:234)

describes this as a paradigm shift on the part of many

educators, administrators and politicians which involved

a complete shift in basic beliefs and values in

measurement.

Broadfoot (1995:37) gives a perceptive summary of

this emerging new culture in educational assessment :

1. An increasing emphasis on formative, learning-integratedassessment throughout the process of education.

2. A commitment to raising the level of teacher understandingand of expertise in assessment procedures associated withthe devolution of responsibility for quality assurance inthe certification process.

3. An increasing emphasis on validity in the assessment processwhich allows the full range of curriculum objectivesincluding cognitive, psychomotor and even affective domainsof learning to be addressed by the use of a wider range ofmore ‘authentic’ techniques for gathering evidence oflearning outcomes.

4. An increasing emphasis on describing learning outcomes interms of particular standards achieved - often associatedwith the pre-specification of such outcomes in a way thatreflects the integration of curriculum and assessmentplanning.

5. An increasing emphasis on using the assessment ofindividual pupils’ learning outcomes as an indicator of thequality of educational provision, whether this be at thelevel of the individual classroom, the institution, thestate, the nation or for international comparisons.

111

2.2 RELEVANCE OF NEW APPROACHES OF ASSESSMENT TO

SCIENCE EDUCATION

2.2.1 CLARIFYING THE PLETHORA OF TERMINOLOGY

At this juncture, it will be advantageous to clarify

some of the terminology frequently employed in

discussions about assessments. I will begin with the more

generic terms first (See Table 2.1).

112

TERMINOLOGY DEFINITION AND CLARIFICATION QUESTION(S) TOBE ANSWERED FOREDUCATIONISTS

Test An instrument or systematic procedurefor measuring a sample of behaviour, frequently for selection or placement. What is important is the instrument’s predictive power rather than its content. It is usually administered in a one-shot time-constrained situation.

How well does the individual perform - either in comparison withothers or in comparison witha domain of performance task?

Measurement The systematic process of obtaining anumerical (quantitative) description of the degree to which an individual possesses a particular characteristicor attribute.

How much did the individual get?

Assessment The process of collecting, interpreting and synthesising information (either quantitative or qualitative or both). It is to determine the extent to which pupils are achieving instructional objectives - usually aimed at gaugingeducational outcomes.

What has the individual learnt?How good is theindividual in it?

Evaluation The application of judgement concerning results of assessment to planning teaching and learning - to aid in decision-making for future educational instruction.

What do I (the teacher) changeor implement inthe future?

Table 2.1 Generic terminology and their definitions(Collated and adapted from : Gronlund 1985:5, Glasser

1990 as quoted by Darling-Hammond, Hanna 1993:6-7, Foden1993:161)

Testing is just one type of measurement. Measurement

is limited to quantitative descriptions of pupils always

113

expressed in numbers (for example : Lim correctly

answered 25 of the 50 questions). It does not include

qualitative descriptions (example: Tina’s work is neat

and systematic). Assessment, on the other hand, pertains

to either or both of the following : quantitative

descriptions (measurement) or qualitative descriptions

(non-measurement) of pupils. It involves making value

judgements concerning the individual (example : Bala is

making good progress in science) and is usually an on-

going and continuous process.

Evaluation links assessment to future planning of

teaching and learning by being the conduit that channels

assessment findings to be applied in instructional

decisions. Foden (1993:153) shows this inter-linking in

the cyclic pattern as in Figure 2.1 below :

Planning

Reporting Implementing

Evaluating Assessing

Recording

114

Figure 2.1 The teaching cycle

We will now consider the many ‘new’ approaches to

assessments that have been gaining increasing acceptance

and popularity among educationists (See Table 2.2)

115

ASSESSMENT/METHOD

DESCRIPTION

Performance Assessment

Authentic Assessment

Portfolio Assessment

Teacher Assessment (Internal Assessment)

Dynamic / Responsive Assessment

Standardised Testing

Profiling

The pupil completes or demonstrates the same behaviour that the assessor desires to assess.

The pupil not only completes or demonstrates the desired behaviour, but also does it in a real-life context.

The pupil either independently or with the teacher’sassistance, judges and submits for assessment his/her best work completed over a period of time which includes repeated drafts of the same piece of work in order to demonstrate the development (improvement) the pupil has achieved over time.

The practitioner (that is the teacher teaching the pupils) assess his/her students’ actual performance as they carry out the given task over a period of time. It is an internal, school-based or classroom-based assessment.

Intervention strategies are dynamically employed by the instructor cum assessor to help pupils attain abetter level of understanding as they perform the tasks. Assessment is made on the pupils highest learning achieved after intervention.

Tests (often paper and pencil type) whose measurement is deliberate, planned, separate from other instructional activities, administered and scored under controlled or standard conditions. (It can be wide-scaled or nationally distributed tests. In the USA it is usually multiple-choice type of questions which are commercially produced)

The method of displaying the results of an assessment. It is a panoramic representation, numerical, graphical or verbal, of how a student appears to assessors across a range of qualities, orin respect of one quality seen through a range of qualities.

Table 2.2 Different types of assessmentand method

116

(Collated and adapted from Christofi (1988:5-6), Neilland Medina (1989:688-9, Meyer 1992:39-40, Hanna 1993:3-4,Bachor et al 1994:255, Henning-Stout 1994:29-51)

Let us consider two examples of planned assessment

in science that elucidates some of the assessment

described in Table 2.2.

CASE 1 : THE PAPER TOWEL INVESTIGATION

This is an assessment of hands-on science used by

Baxter et al (Baxter et al 1992, Shavelson and

Baxter1992). Year five pupils were given laboratory

equipment such as beakers, a scale, trays, eye dropper

and stop-watch. They were asked to determine which of

three different paper towels soaks up the most water.

They were also told that they could use all or some of

the equipment provided, as they deemed necessary. The

pupils were instructed to record in a notebook the steps

of the investigation they planned and implemented, the

equipment(s) used, the variable controlled and the basis

in which they arrived at their conclusion. They were to

record it in such a way that “a friend could replicate

the investigation”. The science teacher then observed

students conducting their planned investigation on an

individual basis using the scoring system as indicted in

Figure 2.2.

Student : ___________ Observer : ____________ Score : __________Script : _____________

117

1. Method : A. ContainerB. Drops C. Tray (surface) Pour water in/put towel intowel on tray / pour water on Put towel in/ pour water inpour water on tray / wipe up 1 pitcher or 3 beakers/glasses

2. Saturation A. Yes B. No C. Controlled

3. Determine Result A. Weigh towel B. Squeeze towel / measure water (weight or volume) C. Measure water in/out D. Time to soak up water E. No measurement F. Count number of drops until saturated G. See how far drops spread out H. Other __________________

4. Care in Measuring Yes No

5. Correct Result Yes No

Grade Method Saturate DetermineCare in Correct Result Measuring Answer A Yes YesYes Yes Yes B Yes YesYes No Yes/No C Yes Yes/ControlledError Yes/No D Yes NoMissing Yes/No F -------------------------------------NoAttempt-----------------------------------

Figure 2.2 Paper towels investigation - hands-on scoreform

The scoring system which graded a pupil’s

performance from A to F, was decided on the scientific

soundness of the method employed by the pupil at each of

the five categories - method, saturation, determine

118

result, care in measuring and correct result. This was

done through observation by the teacher as the pupil did

the investigation.

CASE 2 : INDEPENDENT REPORT ON A SCIENCE RELATED TOPIC

Pupils were given a choice to either conduct an

independent investigation and write a full report on it

or write an article on a specific topic which they were

interested in and had done a library research. The pupils

worked at their own pace through out the school year

making appointments to meet with their teacher to report

on their progress from time to time, when they felt ready

to do so. During those appointments the teacher would

question the students’ thinking and plans so as to help

them improve on their work. They then submitted a folder

with all their resources, drafts of their planning ideas,

diagrams and written work together with the final

report/article. The teacher kept an on-going assessment

record of each pupil which was incorporated into the

profile of the student.

DISCUSSION

Case 1 is an example of a performance assessment.

The pupils were asked to perform specific behaviours like

carrying out a fair test (as they designed and

implemented the method), controlling variables (type of

119

saturation), care in measuring and correct interpretation

of results. The assessor (in this case the teacher)

observed each pupil as they did the investigation and

assessed their performance according to pre-specified

behaviours stipulated on the score form. These are the

general characteristics of performance assessment. But is

it an authentic assessment? No! Because the context was

contrived - in real life, individuals seldom plan,

implement and make deductions on investigations in one

sitting under particular time limits.

What about Case 2? Is it a performance assessment or

an authentic assessment? The answer is both! The folder

acting as a portfolio contained the examples of actual

student performance, although much of the structure

associated with testing has been removed. It is also an

authentic assessment because the performance is assessed

in a context more like that encountered in real life. For

example, the students worked at their own pace, deciding

how long to spend on the various stages of the

investigation/library research, creating and writing as

many rough drafts as they saw necessary before deciding

on their final copies.

Therefore, performance assessment refers to pre-

specified student responses to be examined in process

while authentic assessment has that extra dimension of

the context in which that response is performed. As Meyer

120

(1992:40) wrote, “While not all performance assessments

are authentic, it is difficult to imagine an authentic

assessment that would not also be a performance

assessment.”

Case 1 and 2 are also examples of internal teacher

assessment where the teacher was the assessor. Case 2 is

also an example of a portfolio assessment (where a

collection of the students’ developing work were

assessed). Furthermore, dynamic/responsive assessment was

also employed in that the teacher intervened in the

pupils’ learning through questioning techniques and

supervision. Assessment was thus made considering the

overall progress made after intervention.

In the following section, we will evaluate the

strengths and weaknesses of these ‘new’ forms of

assessments and consider how they can be employed in the

overall framework of assessment in science education to

match with the aims of science education which we have

considered in Chapter 1.

2.2.2 THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF ALTERNATIVE

ASSESSMENTS

The root of the word assessment reminds us that as assessorshould “sit with” a learner in some sense to be sure that thestudent’s answer really means what it seems to mean.

(Wiggins1989a:708)

121

In the preceding section, I have underscored the

fact that the many ‘new’ approaches to assessments have

distinctive features which are quite different from

traditional assessments. For the sake of practicality for

discussion, I will use the term ‘alternative assessment’ to

encompass all these different assessments. Let’s recap

some of the general features of alternative assessments

which we have considered hitherto.

It assesses pupils performance over a period of time.

It includes quantitative and qualitative descriptions.

It is an internal, school or classroom-based assessment

conducted by the teachers themselves.

It is an on-going assessment which continuously

influences further instruction.

It is essentially based on the standard model - the

standards usually commensurate with either teaching or

curriculum objectives.

It emphasises validity, that is the accuracy with which

it measures those pre-specified standards.

A comparison of the above features with the

objections against the traditional measurement model of

assessment (see Section 2.1.2) seems to suggest that

alternative assessment can be a viable solution for the

ills of traditional assessment. In addition to this,

educationists have alluded to the following strengths of

alternative assessment.

122

Wiggins (1989a) in his paper advocating authentic

assessments, suggests these reasons :

It assesses the pupils’ ‘habits of mind’, that is their

thoughtful understanding which has developed and is

developing. It is not simply testing the pupils’ short

term recall of facts. It also reduces the possibility

of an accident or thoughtless (if correct) response.

Instead, the patterns of success and failure and the

reasons behind them are observed.

What is to be assessed is usually known from the start

and repeatedly taken so that learning is assessed.

Thus, it emphasises students’ progress toward mastery.

It usually does not rely on unrealistic and arbitrary

time constraints.

It usually involves problems which are less structured

and hence more closely resembles real-life problems.

(For a more comprehensive list, see Appendix C).

Viechnicki (1993) writing on portfolio assessment

discerns three positive effects on the quality of

learning :

* It capitalises and adds value to the actual work in

classroom.

* It enhances teacher and student involvement in

assessment.

* It promotes pupil reflection and self assessment.

123

Athanases’ (1994) research on teacher assessing

portfolios discovered the added-value in changing the

practices of the teacher :

It convinced teachers of the need to keep more detailed

and varied records.

It helped teachers show progression of the pupils’ work

for reporting to pupils, parents, administrators and

other teachers.

And perhaps the most encouraging element was that it

promoted an increased focus in the individual students,

enabling the teachers to assess and adjust instruction

more frequently.

All this paints a very positive picture about

alternative assessments. Nevertheless, alternative

assessments has it’s own set of difficulties and problems

which we will now consider.

Firstly, there is the problem of reliability.

Alternative assessment does require teachers to make

human judgement through observations and scrutiny of

often very varied portfolios. This raises the matter of

the subjectivity of human judgement which engenders

questions of the reliability of teacher-assessment

(Wiggins 1989a:710). Furthermore, the open-ended nature

of most performance-based tasks entail very different

124

routes undertaken by pupils as they endeavour to find

solutions resulting in complexity in assessment. In

response to this problem, Wiggins (1989a:709) suggests

that reliability for alternative assessments could be

achieved through a process called “moderation”, in which

teachers of the same subjects gathered to compare results

and to set common criteria for grading.

This leads to the next problem : time and money,

which both Wiggins (1989a:710) and Maeroff (1991:281)

identified as the real obstacle to alternative

assessments. It cannot be denied that alternative

assessments are very demanding both on the teachers’ time

and energy (Maeroff 1991:279). Furthermore, if

moderation is required to ensure reliability, it would

compound the problems of the already overloaded teachers

- not to mention the financial strains that it posits.

These are major problems which education authorities

and experts are currently grappling with. Bateson’s

(1994:237-8) suggestion of blending older tried-and-true

methods and techniques and the more recently developed

methods is wisdom that should be given due consideration.

In spite of the above stated problems, alternative

assessments is still a viable option especially for

science education whose diverse aims which we have

considered in Chapter 1 requires an equally multifaceted

125

assessment tool. In Chapter 1, I have proposed that the

myriad explicit and implicit aims of science education

could be visualised as categorised in the objective

category of ‘knowing’, the semi-objective category of

‘doing’ and the subjective category of ‘feeling’. In the

objective category of ‘knowing’, where pupils are

actively involved in extracting and constructing meanings

of science concepts and phenomena with an emphasis on

application, alternative assessments provides the added

dimension of gauging this process of learning which

traditional assessment is impotent to do.

Then, in the category of semi-objective category of

‘doing’, there are many aspects which only through the

observation of students’ performance can there be any

reasonable and acceptable assessment undertaken. Such is

the case for assessing pupils’ procedural understanding

(scientific methods), scientific process skills and

manipulative skills.

As for the subjective category of ‘feeling’ like

scientific attitudes, moral values and beliefs which

certainly require human judgement, alternative

assessments provide the most appropriate and acceptable

method of collecting data for assessment.

It is with this perspective, in mind that I will now

try to formulate a suitable framework that will combine

126

both traditional and alternative assessments to be

utilised for primary science education in Malaysia.

127

CHAPTER 3: PROPOSAL FOR FRAMEWORK OF ASSESSMENTOF PRIMARY SCIENCE FOR MALAYSIA

3.1 PERTINENT FACTORS IN FORMULATING THEFRAMEWORK

In the endeavour to formulate the framework of

assessment for primary science in the Malaysian context,

the following factors were considered:

Since non-science specialists teachers do teach primary

science in Malaysia, the framework should be easy to

pick-up, master and implement. Therefore, a simple list

of criteria is preferred to an elaborate one.

Since excessive paper work is detrimental to the

already overloaded primary teachers, flexibility in

recording the various aspects to be assessed should be

a common feature. Even though a recording form will be

proposed, it can still be improvised and adapted by

individual teachers according to their preferred styles

and inclinations.

Since alternative assessment is very new to Malaysian

primary science teachers, a blending of the traditional

and alternative forms of assessment is congenial.

Since the new Malaysian Primary School Science Syllabus

(1993) espouses the importance of scientific knowledge,

scientific skills and scientific attitude, all three

128

areas will be featured prominently in the assessment

framework.

Since it is desirable that assessment should influence

the teaching and learning process, assessment will be

both formative and summative. Formative assessment is

an on-going process that is carried out in conjunction

with the learning process. Teachers will be involved in

intervention strategies to help their students improve

their learning of science and continuous feed-back

given to students so that they know of their progress.

Since it is propitious for both teachers and students

to reflect on the teaching and learning process in the

classroom, the assessment should be so structured as to

involve both the teachers and students in the process

of assessment.

3.2 THE OVERALL STRUCTURE OF THE FRAMEWORK FORASSESSMENT

According to the conclusion derived from section 1

(see 1.4), I will be using the three aspects of knowing,

doing and feeling to structure the framework. These

aspects with its respective components will be assessed

through the national examination (conducted at the end of

year six and is of a summative nature) and a school-

based, internal assessment (carried out annually from

129

year 4-6 and the average of the three marks calculated at

the end of year six; it is of a formative nature but

whose grades are translated to the overall summative

assessment). The overall marks are determined from the

total of the national assessment marks added to the total

of the three translated internal assessment marks.

Allocation of percentage marks are as indicated in Figure

3.1

ASSESSMENT OF PRIMARY SCIENCE

National AssessmentSchool-based Assessment

(Summative)(Formative and Summative)

70% 30%

Figure 3.1

The national summative assessment will cover

scientific knowledge, societal needs and relevance,

history of science, language and words from the knowing

aspect and scientific process skills and procedural

knowledge from the doing aspect. Except for the doing

aspect this type of assessment has been a regular feature

in primary school in Malaysia. Therefore, I will not be

elaborating on this assessment.

130

The school-based, internal assessment which will be

utilising the more versatile methods of alternative

assessment will cover all three aspects of knowing, doing

and feeling (see Figure 3.2). Assessment will focus

considerably on the process of learning and not merely on

the products of work.

DOING KNOWING

Practical Assessment of Portfolio -Assessment of process skills and contentlearning procedural knowledge progression

Activities : Activities: Laboratory work Book/informationsearch Design and make Project reports Field work Survey Paper and pencil tests

15 %10 %

FEELING

Holistic impressions

5 %

Figure 3.2 Aspects of school-based, internal assessment

3.2.1 THE ASPECT OF KNOWING (10%)

131

The focus of assessment in this aspect is the

student’s learning process of content matter. Portfolios

where students themselves choose the work that they would

like to be assessed in collaboration with their teachers

is a suitable method of assessing this aspect of knowing.

Primary science teachers will be able to track their

student’s construction of knowledge and understanding in

a more authentic manner. Suitable activities that could

be employed in the building of portfolios are

book/information search and project report.

Table 3.1 maps out the five criteria which will be

assessed in this aspect. It is set out in the format

employed by Glauert (1996) for tracking student’s

progress in primary science.

Criteria Descriptors forGrade 1

Descriptors for Grade 2

Range Expressing ideas that relate to one situation.

Making links between different situations, using the same idea to explain a range of experiences.

Degree ofgeneralisation

Describing observations made.

Generalising about relationshipsusing models or concepts.

Application

Merely expressing ideas without using it.

Applying scientific knowledge todifferent situations to solve problems or relating their significance to societal concerns.

Scientific terminology

Using everyday / common language to describe events, phenomena or ideas.

Using correct scientific terminology when giving descriptions.

Construction of understanding

Repeating memorised ideas.

Independent and scientifically correct expressions of ideas with explanations that reveals understanding.

132

Table 3.1 (Expanded from Glauert 1996:41)

The above descriptors describe the progress that is

hoped as students perform a certain task. It is the

process of developing the ideas and not the end product

that is assessed. Teachers allocate the grade according

to the descriptor of best fit for each criteria. The

qualities of the higher grade subsumes the qualities of

the lower grade. A grade of 0 is given for a particular

criteria if a student does not manifest the qualities of

that criteria as described by the descriptor for grade 1.

3.2.2. THE ASPECT OF DOING (15%)

The focus of this aspect is the student’s scientific

process skills and procedural knowledge. Since the list

of scientific process skills and procedural knowledge can

be very long, I have simplified them into three main

clusters, that is the planning cluster (hypothesising and

controlling variables), the implementing cluster

(observing or/and measuring) and the concluding cluster

(interpreting and communicating). Appendix D gives a more

complete list of the various process skills and

procedural knowledge that is related in each cluster.

Assessment can be elicited from laboratory-based

activities, design and make activities, field work and

surveys. Paper and pencil tests could be used to

133

supplement the need to assess the practical thinking

skills of each cluster. This can reduce the workload of

the teacher who need not have to carry out time-consuming

activities to verify their students progress.

Allocation of grades are made according to the

descriptor of best fit for each cluster. Table 3.2

provides the descriptors for the planning cluster, table

3.3 provides the descriptors for the implementing cluster

and table 3.4 provides the descriptors for the concluding

clusters.

Grade DESCRIPTORS1 Able to mention relevant features in attempting an

explanation based on everyday experience. Plans as he/she goes along.

2 Able to formulate at least one question or statement that can be investigated.

3 Able to identify and describe relevant variables.4 Adopts a systematic approach. Beginning to recognise the

need for a fair test. Able to identify at least one variablewhich should be kept the same for a fair test and identify an appropriate variable to measure or compare.

5 Able to offer explanation based on scientific knowledge and theories showing an awareness of their tentative nature. Able to translate their own or suggested ideas of explanation into a question or statement that can be investigated. Able to plan a fair test by changing one variable (independent variable) and observing or measuring the effect (dependent variable) while keeping all other relevant variables (control variables) the same.

Table 3.2 : Planning cluster : Hypothesising and controllingvariables

Grade DESCRIPTORS1 Able to observe and record gross or obvious features of

phenomena or object.2 Able to observe and record qualitative evidence by noticing

details of phenomena or object.

134

3 Able to collect qualitative or quantitative data in at leasttwo dimensions by focusing on observations relevant to the problem in hand.

4 Able to select and use appropriate instruments to collect quantitative data in the form of standard unitsorAble to notice differences between similar objects or events.

5 Able to select and use suitable measuring instruments in standard units considering range and accuracy of measurements. Able to notice differences between similar objects or events and/or similarities between different objects or events. Able to check or repeat observations and measurements to improve accuracy. Able to record evidence ordata clearly and appropriately as they carry out the work.

Table 3.3 : Implementing cluster : observing and/or measuring

135

Grade DESCRIPTORS1 Able to make interpretations related to some part of the

data (rather than preconceived ideas) even if only by loose associations. Able to give oral descriptions of the investigation and findings.

2 Able to make interpretations based on all available data. Able to give written descriptions in the form of notes and drawings of the investigation and findings.

3 Able to identify patterns in a set of data. Able to use tables or other standard framework for recording findings ofinvestigation.

4 Able to make generalised statement(s) based on evidence of data.

5 Able to evaluate data in relation to original problem. Able to justify predictions in terms of observed relationship(s) or pattern(s) showing how evidence has been used. Able to give oral or written description of the investigation using notes, drawings, tables and other standard framework appropriate for audience and purpose.

Table 3.4 : Concluding cluster : interpreting and communicating

(Collated from Russell and Harlen 1990:16-23,

Science in the National Curriculum 1995:3,8, Glauert

1996:39-40, Davis 1989:50-53)

3.2.3 THE ASPECT OF FEELING (5%)

The focus of this aspect of feeling are the

scientific attitudes that are desirable for scientific

investigations. Since this is a highly subjective aspect

for assessment, I suggest that holistic impressions that

the teacher develops of each student’s inclinations

through their interaction with them throughout the school

year be the judgement for the attainment of the five

criteria of scientific attitudes.

136

As Harlen (1993:72-3) has pointed out, an attitude

can only be said to exist if it becomes typical of that

individual and is displayed in a range of similar

situations. The science teacher is in the best position

to notice these inclinations in the daily outworking of

learning and doing science.

Table 3.5 provides the five criteria of scientific

attitudes and their descriptors. The list of criteria

could have been longer but only these five have been

chosen as they are of particular relevance to science

(Harlen 1993:73) and are suitable building blocks for

primary science.

137

Criteria Descriptors forGrade 1

Descriptors for Grade 2

Curiosity Being slow to noticenew things and needsto be prompted.

Noticing details, asking enquiringquestions; seeking for explanations and shows an eagerness to know.

Respect for evidence

Showing a tendency to report results that are in line with their original ideas while ignoringconflicting evidence.

Demonstrating open-mindedness in making conclusions from the available evidence with a willingness to consider conflicting evidence.

Flexibility

Showing a tendency to stick to preconceived ideas.

Showing a willingness to reconsider ideas and other points of view; also recognises the tentative nature of ideas with a readiness to change the,

Critical reflection

Needing encouragement and help to review methods, findings and ideas.

Showing a willingness to review and evaluate independently; also suggests ways to change for improvement.

Sensitivity to living things and the environment

Requiring supervision and rules to show appropriate concern and responsibility.

Demonstrating an awareness of the needs of living things and the importance of respecting the environment.

Table 3.5 Scientific attitudes (Collated form Glauert 1996:38-39 andHarlen 1993:72-79)

Grades are given in a similar manner as that

described in the aspect of knowing. Nevertheless, in the

final analysis, the total of the grades of all the

criteria for feeling should be divided by 2 so that it

could be used directly for totalling to the overall

marks.

3.3 RECORDING

138

Now that we have identified the criteria to be

assessed in alternative assessment, it is imperative that

some kind of recording system be formulated to help

primary science teachers keep a tracking record of their

students’ individual progress. A flexible format for

continuous recording is required so that the proposed

formative assessment does not turn out in reality and

practice as a summative assessment where teachers fill in

the necessary papers or forms at the end of the year just

because they are expected to hand in something. Of

course, some kind of monitoring system to ensure that

such a situation does not happen is desirable - and I

propose that the school inspectors be assigned this

important task.

139

The recording system should also avoid the following

pitfalls that Lock and Wheatley (1989:108) have

identified:

Bulky recording system and mark books which are difficult to

use in the classroom and laboratory.

Time consuming filling in of scores, grades and

achievements.

Inaccessibility (and sometimes incomprehension) of the data.

This recording system should also serve as a

reflective tool for teachers so that their planning of

instruction is continually being changed as a result of

the feedback that he/she is getting through the

assessment process. The primary science teacher should

also be involved in implementing intervention strategies

to help his/her students improve in their learning of

science. This is of course in line with the formative

approach to assessment and the application of dynamic

assessment.

There are basically two approaches to formulating

recording systems:

(a) A task-centred system.

(b) A skill / criterion -centred system.

According to Lock and Wheatley (1989:108), a task-

centred system is one where students are given a

practical tasks and their performance on all (or most)

140

skills or processes are assessed and recorded from the

beginning to the end. The aim is to grade all students in

the group on the same criteria in the same context on the

same occasion. The disadvantage of this system is that it

encourages mini-practical examinations within the class

context and does not really foster the integration of

assessment with learning.

A skill/criterion-centred system, allows for either

whole classes to be assessed on one or more skills in one

context or for a few students to be assessed on a range

of criteria on different occasions and contexts (Lock and

Wheatley 1989:108). Because of the flexibility of this

system and also due to the fact that it causes least

disruption to normal school lessons, I propose that we

adopt this approach.

Appendix E gives a simple recording form that could

be utilised by primary science teachers to keep track of

their students work, performance, written work and

progress throughout the year. The column for ‘prose

comments’ allows the teacher to record indicators that

exemplify the fulfilment of a particular criteria.

141

3.4 MODERATION PROCEDURES

In the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of

alternative assessments (see Section 2.2.2), I have

already alluded to the problem of reliability. Harlen

(1994:16) identifies the possible sources of error that

affect the reliability of alternative assessments:

Variation in the demand or opportunity provided by the tasks

undertaken by students.

Differences in interpretation of performance criteria or

marking schemes by assessors.

The intrusion of irrelevant contextual information in making

judgements assessors.

In light of the above problems, the process of

moderation has become a prominent feature whenever

alternative assessments are employed to enhance

reliability (Gipps 1994:78). But what exactly is

moderation and how does it work?

Harlen (1994:16-18) has suggested that moderation

procedures could be categorised into two main groups

according to their purpose, that is:

Moderation for quality control - This type of moderation is

carried out after assessment has been made with the

primary purpose of adjusting the outcome of assessment

142

to improve fairness for groups and individuals. The

focus is the product of assessment.

Moderation for quality assurance - This type of moderation

takes place before the assessment is completed and its

intention is to improve the quality of the assessment

process. Thus, the focus is on the process of assessment.

143

3.4.1 MODERATION FOR QUALITY CONTROL

Examples of moderation for quality control are:

Inspection of samples sent in by post.

Inspection of samples by visiting moderators.

The use of reference or scaling tests for

statistical moderation.

The first two examples require teachers to submit to

a group of ‘experts’, who make up the examining board,

samples of their students’ work which exemplify various

levels of grading and their justification for awarding

those grades. The weakness of this procedure is that

students’ final products do not always represent a valid

or complete measure of their practical abilities or the

process involved (Kempa 1986:87). Furthermore, only a

small sample could be evaluated due to time, cost and

management constraints (Harlen 1994:19).

The third example, statistical moderation, is a

procedure for adjusting students’ internal grades using

the results of an externally marked test taken by all

students (Harlen 1994:18). Wilson (1992:134) proposes

that such moderating procedures are employed on two

underlying assumptions:

Practising teachers know best the relativities among their

own students but know much less about the relativities

between classes and schools.

144

External raters, on the other hand, are assumed to be good

at comparing classes, but not so good at measuring within

the classes (or perhaps are too expensive for this task).

In the framework that I have proposed in Section

3.2, the reference standard to which internal teacher-

given grades are adjusted is the external national

examination (which is a theory, paper-and-pencil exam)

that all students have to sit at the end of year six. The

choice of using theory examination as a reference

standard have been criticised by Gipps (1994:80-5) and

Satterly (1994:67-8). Basically they question whether the

high reliability and trust normally accorded to such

external examination is justified. Furthermore, the

reasonability of such an application depends on whether

there is a significant correlation between students’

practical ability (which is the focus of internal

assessment) and their theoretical knowledge (which is the

focus of most external, paper-and-pencil examinations).

It calls to question the validity of using theory marks

to adjust what is essentially practical marks. It is

because of such objections that in the United Kingdom,

the application of public examinations to adjust

internal, teachers’ grades have been dropped (Harlen

1994:21). On the other hand, Australia still continues

this practice (Broadfoot 1994:46).

Nevertheless, I would still like to propose using

statistical moderation in this manner because of the

145

following reasons. Firstly, alternative assessment is

very new to Malaysian educators and public. As Wilson

(1992:136) points out a gradual transition would make

acceptance of the newer forms of assessments more likely.

Secondly, a ‘running-in’ period is required since primary

science teachers need to be trained and given time to

develop skills necessary for assessing their students’

performance. The public examination that is still the

accepted norm in Malaysia at the present moment could

provide the stabilising factor during this period of

transition. This is also important to ensure public

confidence in the assessment framework.

146

External Assessment for Internal Assessment for all students. all students. (Theory marks) (PracticalGrades)

Compute: Mean and standard Compute: Mean and standard

deviation deviation

Adjust practical grade factor for each

teaching set, j.

Compute: standard deviation Adjust standard deviation of of theory marks for each practical grade for teaching teaching set, j. set, j.

Rescale individual grade:

147

Figure 3.3: PROCEDURE FOR STATISTICAL MODERATION OFINTERNAL ASSESSMENT

The procedure employed for statistical moderation of

teacher’s grades derived from internal school-based

assessment are usually based on the notion of ‘linear

scaling’. Figure 3.3 shows the procedure for statistical

moderation of internal assessment. The following

equations are used to calculate the adjustment factor for

a teaching set, j (which could comprise of students in a

class or a school who are being assessed).

148

where

is the mean practical grade of teaching set j,

after moderation.

is the average of mean practical grades for all

teaching sets (the whole population

of students being assessed).

is the mean theory mark of teaching set j, derived

from the external theory-based

exam (national examination).

is the average of mean theory marks, for all teaching

sets.

is the adjusted standard deviation of practical

grades for teaching set j, after

moderation.

ST is the standard deviation of theory marks for

teaching set j.

is the mean of standard deviations of practical

grades within sets, for all teaching

sets.

is the mean of standard deviations of theory marks

within sets, for all teaching

sets.

149

I will illustrate this from the following example

derived from a study by Slimming (1971) which is partly

related by Kempa (1986:90-1). In this example, the

teacher assessment of practical abilities was compared

with students’ performances on a paper-and-pencil theory

test. The teacher assessment was graded on a five-point

scale for some 30 teaching sets. The following

derivations were calculated:

The mean practical grade for all teaching sets, =

3.0

The mean standard deviation of practical grades for

all teaching sets, = 0.7

Correspondingly, the theory test for all teaching sets

produced, the following:

The mean set theory marks, = 49.0%

The mean standard deviation for theory marks, =

11.0%

The following correspondence could then be calculated to

be used for comparing with the teachers’ given practical

grade. (Table 3.6)

Mean theory mark forteaching set, . (%)

Mean practical grade forteaching set, .

27.0 1.638.0 2.349.0 3.060.0 3.7

150

71.0 4.4Table 3.6

For example, when the theory mark is 27.0, the

corresponding practical grade can be calculated as

follows:

= 3 + (27 - 49)0.7/11

= 1.6

Table 3.7 shows the mean practical grade arrived at byteachers in School A and B.

School Mean teacher-derived

practical grade

Theory score(mean)

Moderatedpractical grade

(mean)

A 3.56 44.4 2.7B 2.71 59.2 3.7

Table 3.7

When the teacher-derived practical grade from school

A is compared with the figures in Table 3.6, it is

obvious that this is a case of over-assessment.

Therefore, moderation of this teaching set is carried out

as shown below:

= 44.4

= = 2.7

151

Hence, moderation reduces the mean grade to 2.7 from

3.56 (downward-scaling) (As indicated in the fourth

column in table 3.7)

On the other hand, the teacher-derived practical

grade in school B is too low compared to the set’s theory

performance in Table 3.6 (a case of under-assessment). A

similar moderation procedure when applied results in an

upward scaling of the mean practical grade for this

teaching set from 2.71 to 3.7. (See the fourth column in

Table 3.7.)

How does this affect the individual practical grade

marks of each student? The moderated practical grade of

an individual, i, in a teaching set j, , is

obtained from his or her raw grade, , by applying the

following formula :

From the above formula, when the external ratings

(theory) and the teacher’s ratings are aligned, that is

= and = then =

or, in words, when the teacher and the external

raters are using the same overall scoring framework, the

teacher’s ratings will be the final ratings. This does

not posit that the teacher’s ratings equal the external

152

ratings for all students, but only that the teacher’s

ratings have the same average and the same spread as

those of an external rater. Therefore, the statistical

moderation procedure adjusts the mean and the spread of

the practical grades awarded by a teacher for the

particular teaching set, j.

I will illustrate this by returning to the example

of school A and B. Let’s say that it was determined that

school A had a standard deviation of 7.7 for the theory

marks while school B had a standard deviation of 20.9. If

a student in school A who was assessed internally and

received an original practical grade of 4, statistical

moderation could be worked out for his particular grade

as follows:

153

= 7.7 = 0.49

= 2.7 + = 3.4

Therefore, this student’s original practical grade

of 4 would be reduced through the moderation procedure to

3.4, which matches with the downward scaling we had

earlier determined.

On the other hand, a student in school B with a

similar grade of 4 would have it enhanced to 4.6, which

matches with the upward scaling through the adjustment

factor earlier determined.

This statistical procedure (as mapped out in Figure

3.3) could be programmed on a computer database and the

adjustment made quite rapidly. Nevertheless, it should be

noted that this statistical moderating procedure cannot

be applied reasonably to small teaching sets of less than

four students. In such cases, direct visual inspection is

required.

3.4.2 MODERATION FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE

154

Wilson (1992:129-132) stresses that for the success

of introducing alternative assessments, it is essential

to establish a network of information and support for

teachers which will consist of (a) a staff-development

network, (b) a collegial-support component and (c) a

feed-back component. Group moderation (or sometimes

called group, consensus or social moderation, agreement

panels or agreement trials) provides excellent

opportunities for all these to occur (Gipps 1994:78).

These are meetings where teachers discuss examples

of work done by their students so that shared

understandings of the criteria in operation are agreed

upon (Harlen 1994:23). Both the processes and the

products of the assessment are considered. The provision

of exemplars, that is samples of marked or graded work,

sharing and discussion of indicators for performance

levels of each criteria and an atmosphere where opinions

are freely expressed and deliberated, clarifies the

outworking of the assessment procedure (Gipps 1994:79).

Group moderation not only improves inter-marker

reliability and supports the process of assessment, but

is also an excellent vehicle for teacher development. As

Gipp reports, “It seems that coming together to discuss

performance or scoring is less personally and

professionally threatening than discussing, for example,

pedagogy.” Thus, group moderation has the added value of

155

affecting teachers' ideas and teaching practices.

Furthermore, the sessions are invaluable for providing

feedback to the developers and central administrators of

the assessment framework. As a result, exemplification of

the criteria’s standards and descriptors could be refined

and improved.

The disadvantages of group moderation are that it is

time-consuming and costly. Nevertheless, Harlen’s

(1994:24) comment helps to put this in perspective:

“Quality in moderation is the process which optimises the

reliability of an assessment at a cost which is balanced

by the benefits in terms of the purposes of the

assessment and contributions to professional

developments.”

In Malaysia, most districts and states have what is

called Teacher’s Activity Centre (Pusat Kegiatan Guru,

PKG). These centres are usually centrally located within

the districts. Therefore, I propose that these centres be

used as group moderation centres. Selected primary

science teachers, lecturers from teachers training

colleges, assessment officers from the education

department, school inspectors and school heads/assistant

school heads could meet to carry out group moderation

exercises. Eventually, these moderation groups could

build up a data bank of exemplars for assessment

procedures. These key personnel could then be consulting

156

‘experts’ to train up other primary science teachers to

carry out school-based assessment.

It is hoped that within a few years of its

implementation, group moderation procedures will be

sufficiently good to ensure quality so that statistical

moderation could be done away with. Ultimately, it is

professionally desirable that the teachers’ judgement in

assessment be trusted and respected.

157

CONCLUSION

The varied explicit and implicit aims of science

education nowadays necessitate the need for a more

versatile method of assessment commensurate with the

importance accorded to the aspects of knowing, doing and

feeling in the learning of science. Traditional methods

of assessment that only assess theoretical knowledge

betrays the importunate problem of advocating scientific

investigations during the learning of science but

ignoring it altogether when it comes to the important

summative assessment.

Therefore, new forms of assessment, poignantly

called alternative assessments, that require school-based

teacher assessment that are conducted concurrently with

the teaching-learning process are proposed to remedy this

state of impropriety in science education for Malaysian

primary schools. This continuous and more authentic

assessment of students process of learning and their

performance over a period of time, is formative in nature

and thus is expected to enhance the prospect of learning

science in primary school. This teacher assessment is

also used summatively and criteria for the aspects of

knowing, doing and feeling with their corresponding

descriptors are proposed.

158

Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that introducing

such radical reforms to the assessment structure of

Malaysia is not going to be an easy endeavour. The

assessment framework which I have proposed in this

treatise needs to be tested on a small sample of primary

science teachers and their students. It will probably

need to be revised and fine tuned. Exemplars of the

criteria for knowing, doing and feeling need to be

collected for training purposes.

Articles and papers need to be written, published

and presented to inform and convince educators and the

general public in Malaysia that alternative assessment is

an equally equitable and valid form of assessment that

complements traditional assessment methods.

The staff of the Assessment Unit of the Ministry of

Education of Malaysia needs to trained to cope with the

more demanding tasks of analysing results and undertake

statistical moderation. Ultimately, it is preferable that

group moderation will take over the task of ensuring

reliability, thus diminishing the role of statistical

moderation. Therefore, the network for group moderation

needs to be set up and supported.

The task of training thousands of primary science

teachers to carry out school-based assessment confidently

and appropriately is challenging. Monitoring the

159

implementation of alternative assessment to avoid short

fall and abuses is another important factor to consider.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that in the long run,

the benefits of introducing alternative assessments far

outweighs the initial difficulties. I envision that

students will begin to receive a more balanced education

in science. They will be motivated in their daily classes

as they realise that their work and performance will be

valued in the final analysis. Primary science teachers

will be more professional in their work as they are

trusted with the tasks of assessing their own students

whom they interact with and know personally. Teacher

development will be a consistent feature that will

enhance performance.

With such optimistic potentials and more, I am

convinced that this is the way forward for assessment in

primary science in Malaysia and alternative assessment

will facilitate the realisation of the wider aims of

science education.

160

APPENDIX A

CONCEPTS OF EVIDENCE AND THEIR DEFINITION(Gott and Duggan 1995:31)

CONCEPTSOF EVIDENCE

DEFINITION

ASSOCIATED WITHDESIGN

Variableidentification

Fair test

Sample size

Variable types

Understanding the idea of a variable and identifyingthe relevant variable to change (the independentvariable) and to measure, or assess if qualitative(the dependent variable).

Understanding the structure of the fair test interms of controlling the necessary variables and itsimportance in relation to the validity of anyresulting evidence.

Understanding the significance of an appropriatesample size to allow, for instance, for probabilityor biological variation.

Understanding the distinction between categoric,discrete, continuous and derived variables and howthey link to different graph types.

ASSOCIATEDWITHMEASUREMENT

Relative scale

Range and interval

Choice ofinstrument

Repeatability

Accuracy

Understanding the need to choose sensible values forquantities so that resulting measurements will bemeaningful. For instance, a large quantity ofchemical in a small quantity of water causingsaturation, will lead to difficulty indifferentiating the dissolving times of differentchemicals.

Understanding the need to select a sensible range ofvalues of the variables within the task so that theresulting line graph consists of values which arespread sufficiently widely and reasonably spaced outso that the ‘whole’ pattern can be seen. A suitablenumber of readings is also subsumed in this concept.

Understanding the relationship between the choice ofinstrument and the required scale, range of readingsrequired, and their interval (spread) and accuracy.

Understanding that the inherent variability in anyphysical measurement requires consideration of theneed for repeats.

Understanding the appropriate degree of accuracythat is required to provide reliable data which willallow a meaningful interpretation.

ASSOCIATED WITH DATA HANDLING

Tables

Graph type

Understanding that tables are more than ways ofpresenting data after it has been collected. Theycan be used as ways of organising the design andsubsequent data collection and analysis in advanceof the whole experiment.

Understanding that there is a close link betweengraphical representations and the type of variablethey are to represent. For example, a categoric

161

Patterns

Multivariatedata

independent variable such as type of surface, cannotbe displayed sensibly in a line graph. The behaviourof a continuous variable on the other hand is bestshown in a line graph.

Understanding that patterns represent the behaviourof variables and that they can be seen in patternsin tables and graphs.

Understanding the nature of multivariate data andhow particular variables within those data can beheld constant to discover the effect of one variableon another.

ASSOCIATED WITH THE EVALUATION OF THE COMPLETE TASK

Reliability

Validity

Understanding the implications of the measurementstrategy for the reliability of the resulting data;can the data be believed?

Understanding the implications of the design for thevalidity of the resulting data; an overall view ofthe task to check that it can answer the question.

APPENDIXB

9 CHALLENGES OF VISION 2020 FOR MALAYSIA(Education Planning and Research and Division 1990:75)

Establishing a united Malaysian nation with a sense ofcommon and shared destiny;

Creating a psychologically liberated, secure, anddeveloped Malaysian society with faith and confidence;

Fostering and developing a mature democratic society;

Establishing a fully moral and ethical society;

Establishing a matured, liberal and tolerant society;

162

Establishing a scientific and progressive society,innovative and forward looking, not only as a consumerto technology but also as a contributor to thescientific and technological civilization of thefuture;

Establishing a fully caring society and a caringculture;

Ensuring an economically just society; and

Establishing a prosperous society, with an economy thatis fully competitive, dynamic, robust and resilient.

APPENDIXC

CHARACTERISTICS OF AUTHENTIC TESTS[Wiggins (b) 1989:45]

A. STRUCTURE AND LOGISTICS

1. Are more appropriately public; involve an audience, a panel, andso on.

2. Do not rely on unrealistic and arbitrary time constraints.

163

3. Offer known, not secret, questions and tasks.4. Are more like portfolios or a season of games (not one-shot).5. Require some collaboration with others.6. Recur - and are worth practising for, rehearsing, and retaking.7. Make assessment and feedback to students so central that school

schedules, structures, and policies are modified to support them.

B. INTELLECTUAL DESIGN FEATURES

1. Are “essential” - not needlessly intrusive, arbitrary, orcontrived to “shake out” a grade.

2. Are “enabling” - constructed to point the student toward moresophisticated use of the skills or knowledge.

3. Are contextualized, complex intellectual challenges, not“atomized” tasks, corresponding to isolated “outcomes”.

4. Involve the student’s own research and use of knowledge, for which“content” is a means.

5. Assess students’ habits and repertoires, not mere recall or plug-in skills.

6. Are representative challenges - designed to emphasize depth more thanbreadth.

7. Are engaging and educational.8. Involve somewhat ambiguous (“ill-structured”) tasks or problems.

C. GRADING AND SCORING STANDARDS

1. Involve criteria that assess essentials, not easily counted (butrelatively unimportant) errors.

2. Are not graded on a “curve” but in reference to performancestandards (criterion-referenced, not norm-referenced).

3. Involve demystified criteria for success that appear to students asinherent in successful activity.

4. Make self-assessment a part of the assessment.5. Use a multifaceted scoring system instead of one aggregate grade.6. Exhibit harmony with shared schoolwide aims - a standard.

D. FAIRNESS AND EQUITY

1. Ferret out and identify (perhaps hidden) strengths.2. Strike a constantly examined balance between honoring achievement and

native skill or fortunate prior training.3. Minimize needless, unfair, and demoralizing comparisons.4. Allow appropriate room for student learning styles, aptitudes, and

interests.5. Can be - should be - attempted by all students, with the test

“scaffolded up”, not “dumbed down”, as necessary.6. Reverse typical test-design procedures : they make

“accountability” serve student learning (Attention is primarilypaid to “face” and “ecological” validity of tests.)

164

APPENDIX D

CLUSTERS OF SCIENTIFIC PROCESS SKILLS AND PROCEDURALUNDERSTANDING FOR EACH STAGE

SCIENTIFIC METHOD SCIENTIFIC THINKING(PROCEDURAL UNDERSTANDING) (PROCESS SKILLS)

Design : PLANNING CLUSTER : Classifying Variable identification HYPOTHESISING AND RaisingQuestionsFair test CONTROLLING Sample size VARIABLESVariable types

Relative scale IMPLEMENTING CLUSTER : Usingthe relationshipRange and interval OBSERVINGbetween space and Choice of instrument AND MEASURING time

RecordingClassifying

Tables CONCLUDING CLUSTER : InferringGraph Types INTERPRETING AND

Predicting

165

Patterns COMMUNICATING DefiningoperationallyMultivariate data InterpretinginformationReliability Critically reflectingValidity

APPENDIX E

STUDENT’S NAME : YEAR : CLASS :SCHOOL :

CRITERIA DATE PROSE COMMENTS GRADEKNOWING

1. Range

2. Degree of generalisation

3. Application

4. Scientific terminology

5. Construction of understanding

DOING

1. Planning : Hypothesising and controlling variables2. Implementing : Observing and/or measuring

166

3. Concluding : Interpreting and communicatingFEELING

1. Curiosity

2. Respect for evidence

3. Flexibility

4. Critical reflection

5. Sensitivity to living things and the environment

Total :

Signature : ________________________________

Teacher’s Name : ___________________________

APPENDIX F

THE ASPECT OF KNOWING (10%)

Criteria Descriptors forGrade 1

Descriptors for Grade 2

Range Expressing ideas that relate to one situation.

Making links between different situations, using the same idea to explain a range of experiences.

Degree ofgeneralisation

Describing observations made.

Generalising about relationshipsusing models or concepts.

Application

Merely expressing ideas without using it.

Applying scientific knowledge todifferent situations to solve problems or relating their significance to societal concerns.

Scientific terminology

Using everyday / common language to describe events, phenomena or ideas.

Using correct scientific terminology when giving descriptions.

167

Construction of understanding

Repeating memorised ideas.

Independent and scientifically correct expressions of ideas with explanations that reveals understanding.

THE ASPECT OF FEELING (5%)

Criteria Descriptors forGrade 1

Descriptors for Grade 2

Curiosity Being slow to noticenew things and needsto be prompted.

Noticing details, asking enquiringquestions; seeking for explanations and shows an eagerness to know.

Respect for evidence

Showing a tendency to report results that are in line with their original ideas while ignoringconflicting evidence.

Demonstrating open-mindedness in making conclusions from the available evidence with a willingness to consider conflicting evidence.

Flexibility

Showing a tendency to stick to preconceived ideas.

Showing a willingness to reconsider ideas and other points of view; also recognises the tentative nature of ideas with a readiness to change the,

Critical reflection

Needing encouragement and help to review methods, findings and ideas.

Showing a willingness to review and evaluate independently; also suggests ways to change for improvement.

Sensitivity to living things and the environment

Requiring supervision and rules to show appropriate concern and responsibility.

Demonstrating an awareness of the needs of living things and the importance of respecting the environment.

168

THE ASPECT OF DOING (15%)

Grade DESCRIPTORS1 Able to mention relevant features in attempting an

explanation based on everyday experience. Plans as he/she goes along.

2 Able to formulate at least one question or statement that can be investigated.

3 Able to identify and describe relevant variables.4 Adopts a systematic approach. Beginning to recognise the

need for a fair test. Able to identify at least one variablewhich should be kept the same for a fair test and identify an appropriate variable to measure or compare.

5 Able to offer explanation based on scientific knowledge and theories showing an awareness of their tentative nature. Able to translate their own or suggested ideas of explanation into a question or statement that can be investigated. Able to plan a fair test by changing one variable (independent variable) and observing or measuring the effect (dependent variable) while keeping all other relevant variables (control variables) the same.

Planning cluster : Hypothesising and controlling variables

Grade DESCRIPTORS1 Able to observe and record gross or obvious features of a

phenomena or object.2 Able to observe and record qualitative evidence by noticing

details of a phenomena or object.3 Able to collect qualitative or quantitative data in at least

two dimensions by focusing on observations relevant to the problem in hand.

4 Able to select and use appropriate instruments to collect quantitative data in the form of standard unitsorAble to notice differences between similar objects or events.

5 Able to select and use suitable measuring instruments in standard units considering range and accuracy of measurements. Able to notice differences between similar objects or events and/or similarities between different objects or events. Able to check or repeat observations and measurements to improve accuracy. Able to record evidence ordata clearly and appropriately as they carry out the work.

Implementing cluster : observing and/or measuring

169

Grade DESCRIPTORS1 Able to make interpretations related to some part of the

data (rather than preconceived ideas) even if only by loose associations. Able to give oral descriptions of the investigation and findings.

2 Able to make interpretations based on all available data. Able to give written descriptions in the form of notes and drawings of the investigation and findings.

3 Able to identify patterns in a set of data. Able to use tables or other standard framework for recording findings ofinvestigation.

4 Able to make generalised statement(s) based on evidence of data.

5 Able to evaluate data in relation to original problem. Able to justify predictions in terms of observed relationship(s) or pattern(s) showing how evidence has been used. Able to give oral or written description of the investigation using notes, drawings, tables and other standard framework appropriate for audience and purpose.

Concluding cluster : interpreting and communicating

170

REFERENCES

ADEY, P. and SHAYER, M. (1990) ‘Accelerating thedevelopment of formal thinking in the middle and highschool students.’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (3),267-85.

ADEY, P. and SHAYER, M. (1994) Really Raising Standards : CognitiveIntervention and Academic Achievement. (London : Routledge).

ADEY, P.S. and SHAYER, M. (1989) Thinking Science : TheCurriculum Materials of the CASE Project. (London : Thomas Nelsonand Sons).

AIKENHEAD, G. (1994) ‘The Social Contract of Science : Implications forTeaching Science.’ in SOLOMON, J. and AIKENHEAD, G. (eds)(1994). 11-20.

AIKENHEAD, G. (1994) ‘What is STS Science Education?’ inSOLOMON, J and AIKENHEAD, G. (eds) (1994) 47-59.

ALLSOP, T. (1991) ‘Practical Science in Low-incomeCountries.’ in WOOLNOUGH (ed) (1991) 31-40.

ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE UNIT (1984). Science in Schools Age 11 :Report No.3 (United Kingdom : Department of Education andScience, Department of Education for Northern Ireland,Welsh Office).

ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE UNIT, SCIENCE WORKING GROUP(1977) Asssessment of Scientific Development : Consultative Paper on Plansfor the Assessment of Pupil’s Scientific Development - October 1977 (UnitedKingdom : APU)

ATHANASES, S.Z. (1994) ‘Teachers’ reports of the effectsof preparing portfolios of literacy instruction.’, TheElementary School Journal, 94 (4), 421-39.

171

AUSUBLE, D.P., NOVAK, J.D. and HANESIAN, H. (1978)Educational Psychology : A Cognitive View. (New York : Holt,Rinehart and Winston). Second Edition.

BACHOR, D.G., ANDERSON, J.O., WALSH, J. and MUIR, W.(1994) ‘Classroom assessment and the relationship torepresentativeness, accuracy and consistency.’, The AlbertaJournal of Educational Research, 40 (2), 247-62.

BAKER, L. (1991) ‘Metacognition, Reading and ScienceEducation’ in SANTA, C.M. and ALVERMANN, D.E. (eds)(1991).

BATESON, D. (1993) ‘Psychometric and philosophic problemsin “authentic” assessment : Performance tasks andportfolios.’, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40 (2),233-45.BAXTER, G.P., SHAVELSON, R.J., GOLDMAN, S.R. and PINE, J.(1992), ‘Evaluation of procedure-based scoring for hands-on science assessment.’, Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 1-17.

BIGGS, J. (1995) ‘Assessing for learning : Somedimensions underlying new approaches to educationalassessment.’, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41 (1), 1-17.

BLOOM, B.S., MADAUS,G.F. and HASTINGS, J.T. (1981)Evaluation to Improve Learning. (New York : McGraw Hill).

BOTTERY , M. (1990) The Morality of the School : The Theory and Practiceof Values in Education. (London : Cassell Educational Limited).

BRIERLEY, J. (1964) Science in its Context : A Symposium with SpecialReference to Sixth Form Studies. (London : Heinemann EducationalBooks).

BROADFOOT, P. (1994) ‘Approaches to Quality Assurance andControl in Six Countries.’, in HARLEN, W. (Ed) (1994),26-52.

172

BROADFOOT, P. (1996) ‘Performance Assessment inPerspective : International Trends and Current EnglishExperience.’ in CRAFT, A. (Ed) (1996), 35-65.

BROWN, J., COOPER, A., HORTON,T., TOATES, F. and ZELDIN,D. (Eds) (1986) Science in Schools. (England : Open University Press).

CARRE, C. (1981) Language Teaching & Learning - 4. Science.(London : Word Lock Educational).

CAVENDISH, S., GULTON, M., HARGREAVES, L. and HARLEN, W.(1990) Observing Activities: Assessing Science in the Primary Classroom.(London : Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.).

CHAPMAN, B. (1994) ‘The Overselling of Science Educationin the 1980s’ in LEVINSON, R. (ed) (1994). 190-205.

CHRISTOFI, C. (1988) Assessment and Profiling : A Practical Guide.(London : Cassell Educational Limited).

CRAFT, A. (Ed) (1996) Primary Education : Assessing and PlanningLearning. (London : Routledge).

DARLING-HAMMOND, L. (1994) ‘Performance-based assessmentand educational equity.’, Harvard Educational Review, 64 (1), 5-30.

DAVIS, B.C. (Ed) (1989) GASP (Graded Assessment in Science Project):Teacher’s Handbook. (London : Hutchinson Education).

DRIVER, R., GUESNE, E. and TIHERGHIEN, A. (Eds) (1985)Children’s Ideas in Science. (England : Open University Press).

DUGGAN, S. and GOTT, R. (1995) ‘The place ofinvestigations in practical work in the UK curriculum.’,International Journal of Science Education, 17 (2), 137-47.

EASLEA, B. (1973) Liberation and the Aims of Science : An Essay onObstacles to the Building of a Beautiful World. (London : Chatto &Windus Ltd.).

173

EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH DIVISION (1990) Educationin Malaysia 1989. (Kuala Lumpur : Ministry of EducationMalaysia ).

FODEN, A. (1993) ‘Integrating Assessment in the Curriculum.’ inSHERRINGTON, R. (ed) (1993) 152-62.

GILBERT, J.K., OSBORNE, R.J. and FENSHEM, P.J. (1986)‘Children’s Science and its Consequences for Teaching’ in BROWN, J. etal (eds)(1986). 302-315.

GIPPS, C. (1994) ‘Quality in Teacher Assessment’, inHARLEN, W. (ed) (1994), 71-86.

GLAUERT, E. (1996) Tracking Significant Achievement in PrimaryScience.(London: Hodder and Stoughton).

GOTT, R. and DUGGAN, S. (1995) Investigative Work in the ScienceCurriculum. (Buckingham : Open University Press)

GOTT, R. and MASHITER, J. (1991) ‘Practical Work inScience - A Task-based Approach?’ in WOOLNOUGH, B. (ed)(1991).

GRONLUND, N.E. (1985) Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. (NewYork : Macmillan Publishing Company). Fifth Edition.

GUILFORD, J.P. (1959) Personality. (New York : McGraw-Hill).

HAERTEL, E.H. (1991) ‘New forms of teacher assessment.’,Review of Research in Education, 17, 3-29.

HANNA, G.S. (1993) Better Teaching through Better Measurement.(Fort Worth, USA : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich CollegePublishers).

HARLEN , W. (1993) Teaching and Learning Primary Science. (London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.).Second Edition.

HARLEN, W. (1988) The Teaching of Science. (London : DavidFulton Publishers).

174

HARLEN, W. (Ed) (1994) Enhancing Quality in Assessment. (London :Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.).

HARLEN, W. and OSBORNE, R. (1985) ‘A model for learningand teaching applied to primary science.’, Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 17 (2), 133-46.

HENNING-STOUT, M. (1994) Responsive Assessment : A New Way ofThinking about Learning. (San Francisco : Jossey-BassPublishers).

HIRST, P.H. (1974) Knowledge and the Curriculum : A Collection ofPhilosophical Papers. (London : Routledge & Kegan Paul).

HIRST, P.H. and PETERS, R.S. (1970) The Logic of Education.(London : Routledge & Kegan Paul).

HODSON, D. and PROPHET, R.B. (1994) ‘Why the ScienceCurriculum Changes : Evolution or Social Control?’ inLEVINSON, R. (ed) (1994) 22-38.

HUMMEL, C.E. (1986) The Galileo Connection : Resolving Conflictsbetween Science & the Bible. (Illinois, USA : InterVarsityPress).

HURD, P.D. (1971) New Directions in Teaching Secondary SchoolScience. (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company).

HURD, P.D. (1971). New Directions in Teaching Primary School Science.(Chicago : Rand Mcnally & Company).

JACOBSON, W.J. and BERGMAN, A.B. (1980) Science For Children : ABook for Teachers. (New Jersey : Prentice Hall, Inc.). 2ndEdition.

JENKINS, E. (1990) ‘Scientific literacy and schoolscience education’, School Science Review, 71 (256) 43-51.

KEMPA, R. (1986). Assessment in Science. (Cambridge : CambridgeUniversity Press).

175

KIRKHAM, J. (1989) ‘Balanced science : Equilibriumbetween Context, Process and Context.’ in WELLINGTON, J.(ed) 135-50.

KRUGLEY-SMOLSKA, E.T. (1990) ‘Scientific literacy indeveloped and developing countries’, International Journal ofScience Education, 12 (5), 73-480.

LALLY, V. (1994) ‘Problem-solving in School Science’ inWELLINGTON, J. (ed) (1994) 218-39.

LEVINSON, R. (Ed) (1994) Teaching Science. (London :Routledge).

LEWIN, L. (1975) ‘Science Education in Malaysia and SriLanka’, IDS Discussion Paper, No.74, University of Sussex.

LOCK, R. (1990) ‘Open-ended, problem-solvinginvestigations : What do we mean and how can we usethem?’, School Science Review, 71 (256) 63-72.LOCK, R. and WHEATLEY, T. (1989) ‘Recording process,skill and criterion assessments.’, School Science Review, 70(253), 108-113.

MAEROFF, G.I. (1991) ‘Assessing alternative assessment.’,Phi Delta Kappan, 73 (4), 272-81.

MARTIN , M. (1972) Concepts of Science Education : A PhilosophicalAnalysis . (Illinois : Scott, Foresman and Company).

McCALLUM, B., GIPPS, C., McALISTER, S. and BROWN, M.(1996). ‘Teachers’ Own Assessment.’, in CRAFT, A. (ed)(1996) 74-99.

MEYER, C.A. (1992) ‘What’s the difference betweenauthentic and performance assessment?’, EducationalLeadership, 49 (8), 39-40.

MILLAR, R. (1991) ‘A means to an end : the role ofprocesses in science education’ in WOOLNOUGH , B. (ed)(1991). 43-52.

176

MILLAR, R. (1994) ‘What is Scientific Method’ inLEVINSON, R. (ed) (1994) 164-177.

MILLAR, R. and DRIVER, R. (1987) ‘Beyond Processes.’,Studies in Science Education,14, 33-62. (Yorkshire : Studies inEducation Limited).

MILLAR, R., LUBBEN, F., GOTT, R. and DUGGAN, S. (1994)‘Investigating in the school science laboratory :Conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influenceon performance.’, Research Papers in Education, 9 (2), 207-48.

MOLLY, L.N.N. (1992) ‘School curriculum reforms inMalaysia : World influences and national context.’ ,International Journal of Science Education, 14 (3), 249-263.

NEILL, D.M. and MEDINA, N.J. (1989) ‘Standardized testing: Harmful to educational health.’, Phi Delta Kappan, 70 (9),688-97.

NELLIST, J. and NICHOLL, B. (1986) ASE Science Teachers’Handbook. (London : Hutchinson & Co. Publishers Ltd.).

NEWTON , D.P. (1988) Making Science Education Relevant.(London : Kogan Page).

OSBORNE, R. and FREYBERG, P. (1985) Learning in Science : TheImplications of Children’s Science. (Auckland : Heinemann).

OSBORNE, R.J. and WITTROCK, M.C. (1983) ‘Learning science: A generative process.’, Science Education, 67, 489-508.

OXFORD PAPERBACK DICTIONARY (1988) (Oxford : OxfordUniversity Press).

PENNELL , A. and ALEXANDER , D. (1990) The Management ofChange in the Primary School : Implementing the National Curriculum inScience and Design Technology. (New York : The Falmer Press)

PHENIX, P.H. (1964) Realms of Meaning : A Philosophy of theCurriculum for General Education. (New York : McGraw Hill BookCompany).

177

PIKE, D.F.B. (1964) ‘Scientific Method in Peace and War’in BRIERLEY, J. (ed) (1964) 82-93

POLANYI, M. (1962) Personal Knowledge : Towards a Post-CriticalPhilosophy. (London : Routledge & Kegan Paul).

POLANYI, M. (1968) The Tacit Dimension. (London : Routledge &Kegan Paul).

POLANYI, M. (1969) Knowing and Being. (London : Routledge &Kegan Paul).

POOLE, M. (1990) ‘Beliefs and values in science education- A Christian perspective (Part 1)’, School Science Review, 71(256) 25-32.

POOLE, M. (1990) ‘Beliefs and values in science education- A Christian perspective (part 2)’, School Science Review, 71(257) 67-73.

POOLE, M. (1995) Beliefs and Values in Science Education.(Buckingham : Open University Press).

PUSAT PERKEMBANGAN KURIKULUM (1989) Huraian Sukatan PelajaranSains Tambahan : Tingkatan IV. (Kuala Lumpur : KementerianPendidikan Malaysia).

PUSAT PERKEMBANGAN KURIKULUM (1989) Huraian Sukatan PelajaranSains : Tingkatan III. (Kuala Lumpur : Kementerian PendidikanMalaysia).

PUSAT PERKEMBANGAN KURIKULUM (1990) Huraian Sukatan PelajaranSains : Tingkatan I. (Kuala Lumpur : Kementerian PendidikanMalaysia)

PUSAT PERKEMBANGAN KURIKULUM (1990) Huraian Sukatan PelajaranSains : Tingkatan II. (Kuala Lumpur : Kementerian PendidikanMalaysia).

178

PUSAT PERKEMBANGAN KURIKULUM (1991) Huraian Sukatan PelajaranFizik : Tingkatan IV. (Kuala Lumpur : Kementerian PendidikanMalaysia).

PUSAT PERKEMBANGAN KURIKULUM (1991) Huraian Sukatan PelajaranBiologi : Tingkatan IV. (Kuala Lumpur : Kementerian PendidikanMalaysia).

PUSAT PERKEMBANGAN KURIKULUM (1991) Huraian Sukatan PelajaranKimia : Tingkatan IV. (Kuala Lumpur : Kementerian PendidikanMalaysia).

PUSAT PERKEMBANGAN KURIKULUM (1992) Huraian Sukatan PelajaranFizik : Tingkatan V. (Kuala Lumpur : Kementerian PendidikanMalaysia).

PUSAT PERKEMBANGAN KURIKULUM (1992) Huraian Sukatan PelajaranKimia : Tingkatan V. (Kuala Lumpur : Kementerian PendidikanMalaysia).

PUSAT PERKEMBANGAN KURIKULUM (1992) Hurian Sukatan PelajaranBiologi : Tingkatan V. (Kuala Lumpur : Kementerian PendidikanMalaysia).

PUSAT PERKEMBANGAN KURIKULUM (1992) Hurian Sukatan PelajaranSains Tambahan : Tingkatan V. (Kuala Lumpur : KementerianPendidikan Malaysia).

PUSAT PERKEMBANGAN KURIKULUM (1993) Huraian Sukatan PelajaranSains Sekolah Rendah (Malaysian Primary Science Syllabus). (KualaLumpur : Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia).

QUALTER, A., STRANG, J., SWOTTON, P. and TAYLOR, R.(1990) Exploration : A Way of Learning Science. (Oxford : BlackwellEducation).

RAIZEN, S.A. and KASER, J.S. (1989) ‘Assessing sciencelearning in elementary school : Why, what and how?’, PhiDelta Kappan, 70 (9), 718-22.

179

RAVETZ, J.R. (1971) Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems.(Oxford : Clarendon Press).

REISS , M.J. (1993) Science Education For a Pluralist Society.(Buckingham : Open University Press).

REISS, M.J. (1992) ‘How should science teachers teach therelationship between science and religion?’, School ScienceReview, 74 (267) 126-30.

RITCHIE, B. (1971) ‘Physics’ in WHITFIELD, R. (ed) (1971)126-136.

ROGERS, W.T. (1991) ‘Educational assessment in Canada :Evolution or extinction?’, The Alberta Journal of EducationalResearch, 37 (2), 179-92.

RUSSEL, T. and HARLEN, W. (1990) Practical Task: Assessing Sciencein the Primary Classroom. (London : Paul Chapman PublishingLtd.).

SANTA, C.M. and ALVERMANN, D.E. (Eds) (1991) Science Learning: Processes and Applications. (Newark, Delaware: InternationalReading Association, Inc.)

SATTERLY, D. (1994) ‘Quality in External Assessment.’, inHARLEN, W. (ed) (1994), 53-70.

SECONDARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM REVIEW (1984) Towards theSpecification of Minimum Entitlement : Brenda and Friends. (London :Schools Council Publications).

SHAPIRO, B. (1994) What Children Bring to Light : A ConstructivistPerspective on Children’s Learning in Science. (New York : TeachersCollege Press).

SHAVELSON, R.J. and BAXTER, G.P. (1992) ‘What we’velearned about assessing hands-on science.’, EducationalLeadership, 49 (8), 20-5.

SHAYER, M. and ADEY, P.S. (1992) ‘Accelerating thedevelopment of formal thinking in the middle and high

180

school students II.’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(1), 81-92.

SHERRATT, W.J. (1986) ‘History of Science in the Science Curriculum : anHistorical Perspective’ in BROWN, J. et al.(eds) (1986) 198-212.

SHERRINGTON, R. (Ed) (1993) The ASE Primary Science Teachers’Handbook. (Cheltenham, England : Stanley Thornes).

SIDDONS , C. and SPURGIN , B. (1990) ‘Beliefs and valuesin science education’, Forum, School Science Review, 72 (259),145-6.

SLIMMING, D. (1971) ‘Investigation into some aspects ofteacher-based assessment of sixth-form chemistrystudents’ interpretational abilities.’ MSc. thesis.(University of East Anglia) partly refered to in KEMPA,R. (1986).

SOLOMON, J. (1993). Teaching Science, Technology and Society.(Buckingham : Open University Press).

SOLOMON, J. and AIKENHEAD, G. (Eds) (1994) STS Education :International Perspectives on Reform.(New York : Teachers CollegePress).

SUTTON, C. (1992) Words, Science and Learning. (Buckingham :Open University Press).

SUTTON, C. (1994) ‘Well, Mary, what are they saying here?’ inLEVINSON, R. (ed) (1994) 61-75.

TAYLOR, C. (1994) ‘Assessment for measurement orstandards : The peril and promise of large-scaleassessment reform.’, American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 231-62.

VIECHNICKI, K.J., BARBOUR, N., ROHRER, J. and AMBROSE, R.(1993) ‘The impact of portfolios assessment on teacherclassroom activities.’, Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (5),371-7.

181

WATTS, M. (1991) The Science of Problem Solving : A Practical Guide forScience Teachers. (London : Cassell Educational Ltd.).

WELLINGTON, J. (1994) Secondary Science : Contemporary Issues andPractical Approaches. (London : Routledge).

WELLINGTON, J. (Ed) (1989) Skills and Processes in ScienceEducation : A Critical Analysis. (London : Routledge).WHITE, R.T. (1988). Learning Science. (Oxford : BasilBlackwell).

WHITFIELD , R. (1971) Disciplines of the Curriculum. (London :the MIT Press)

WIGGINS, G. (1993) ‘Assessment : Authenticity, contextand validity.’, Phi Delta Kappan, 75 (3), 200-14.

WIGGINS, G. (a) (1989) ‘A true test : Toward moreauthentic and equitable assessment.’, Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9), 703-13.

WIGGINS, G. (b) (1989) ‘Teaching to the (authentic)test’, Educational Leadership, 46 (7), 41-7.

WILSON, M. (1992) ‘Educational leverage from a politicalnecessity : Implications of new perspectives on studentassessment for Chapter 1 evaluation.’, Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis, 14 (2), 123-44.

WOOLNOUGH , B. (1994) Effective Science Teaching. (Buckingham :Open University Press).

WOOLNOUGH, B. (Ed) (1991) Practical Science : The Role and Reality ofPractical Work in School Science. (Buckingham : Open UniversityPress).

WOOLNOUGH, B. and ALLSOP, T. (1985) Practical Work in Science.(Cambridge : Cambridge University Press) .

WOOLNOUGH, B.E. (1989) ‘Faith in science?’, School ScienceReview, 70 (252) 133-7.

182

ZIMAN, J. (1976) The Force of Knowledge : The Scientific Dimension ofSociety. (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press).

ZIMAN, J. (1980) Teaching and Learning about Science and Society.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

ZIMAN, J. (1994) ‘The Rational of STS Education is in the Approach’ inSOLOMON, J and AIKENHEAD, G. (eds) (1994) 21-31.

183

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALBERTS, R.V.J., VAN BEUZEKOM and CITO, I.D.R. (1986)‘The assessment of practical work : A choice ofoptions.’, European Journal of Science Education, 8 (4), 361-369.

APU (1977) Consultative Paper on Plans for the Assessment of Pupils’Scientific Development - October 1977.

APU (1977) Sample Questions in Science at Age 11. (London :Department of Education and Science).

ARCHBALD, D.A. and NEWMAN, F.M. (1988) Beyond StandardizedTesting : Assessing Authentic Academic Achievement in the Secondary School.(Virginia : National Association of Secondary SchoolPrincipals).

ARCHENHOLD, F. et al. (1991) Assessment Matters No. 5 - Profilesand Progression in Science : A Booklet for Teachers. (London : SchoolExaminations and Assessment Council).

ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE UNIT (1984) Science in Schools, Age11 : Report No.3. (London : Department of Education andScience, Department of Education for Northern Ireland,Welsh Office).

AUSTIN, R. (1991) Assessment Matters No. 7 - Patterns andRelationships in School Science : A Booklet for Teachers. (London : SchoolExaminations and Assessment Council).

BRYCE, T., McCALL, J., MacGREGOR, J., ROBERTSON, I. andWESTON, R. (1983) TAPS : Techniques for Assessment of Practical Skills inFoundational Science (Teacher’s Guide). (London : HeinemannEducational Books Ltd.).

BRYCE, T., McCALL, J., MacGREGOR, J., ROBERTSON, I. andWESTON, R. (1988). TAPS 2 : Techniques for Assessing Process Skills inPractical Science (Resource Pack). (London : Heinemann EducationalBooks).

184

BUCHAN, A.S. and JENKINS, E.W. (1992) ‘The internalassessment of practical skills in science in England andWales, 1960-1991: some issues in historicalperspective.’, International Journal of Science Education, 14 (4),367-380.

DONELLY, J.F. and GOTT, R. (1985) ‘An assessment-ledapproach to processes in the science curriculum.’,European Journal of Science Education, 7 (3), 237-251.

DWIGHT, K. (1989) ‘Building in assessment.’, School ScienceReview, 70 (252), 119-125.

LOCK, R. (1987) ‘OCEA-the development of gradedassessment scheme in science (1982-4).’, School Science Review,68 (244), 570-575.

LOCK, R. and FERRIMAN, B. (1989) ‘OCEA-the development ofa graded assessment scheme in science - Part III Schooltrials 1986.’, School Science Review, 70 (252), 103-112.

LOCK, R. and WHEATLEY, T. (1989) ‘Recording process,skills and criterion assessments - student systems.’,School Science Review, 71 (255), 145-150.

RIPPIN, T. and WILSON, G. (1989) ‘Assessing processacross the primary-secondary interface.’, School ScienceReview, 70 (253), 95-102.

RUSSEL, A. et al. (1991) Assessment Matter : No. 8 - Observation inSchool Science - A Booklet for Teachers (London : SchoolExaminations and Assessment Council).

SCHILLING, M., HARGREAVES, L., HARLEN, W. and RUSSEL, T.(1990) Written Tasks : Assessing Science in the Primary Classroom.(London : Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.).

STRANG, J. (1990) Assessment Matters : No. 2 - Measurement in SchoolScience : A Booklet for Teachers. (London : School Examinations andAssessment Council).

185

SWAIN, J.R.L. (1985) ‘Towards a framework for assessmentin science.’, School Science Review, 67 (238), 145-151.

SWAIN, J.R.L. (1989) ‘The development of a framework forthe assessment of process skills in a Graded Assessmentin a Science Project.’, International Journal of Science Education,11 (3), 251-259.

SWAIN, J.R.L. (1991) ‘The nature of assessment ofscientific explorations in the classroom.’, School ScienceReview, 72 260), 63-77.

TAYLOR, R.M. and SWATTON, P. (1990) Assessment Matters : No. 1 -Graph Work in School Science : A Booklet for Teachers. (London : SchoolExaminations and Assessment Council).

WILSON, G. (1989) ‘Assessing process - an assessmentscheme for a year 1 science course.’, School Science Review, 70(253), 113-121.

WOOLNOUGH, B.E. and TOH, K.A. (1990) ‘Alternativeapproaches to assessment of practical work in science.’,School Science Review, 71 (256), 127-131.

186