See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267941275

THE SCIENCE PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL: MEASURING SCIENCE

PROCESS SKILLS WHILE DOING SCIENCE

Article

CITATIONS READS

2 4,915

3 authors:

Subhan Mohd Meerah Kamisah Osman

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
32 PUBLICATIONS   345 CITATIONS    117 PUBLICATIONS   824 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lilia Halim
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
99 PUBLICATIONS   589 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Interactive Multimedia Module with Pedagogical Agent View project

kamisah View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lilia Halim on 07 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE SCIENCE PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL: MEASURING
SCIENCE
PROCESS SKILLS WHILE DOING SCIENCE

Subahan Mohd Meerah Kamisah Osman

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
(subhan@pkrisc.cc.ukm.my) (kamisah@pkrisc.cc.ukm.my)

Lilia Halim
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
(lilia@pkrisc.cc.ukm.my)

Abstract: Current scenarios of science practical work in Malaysia witnessing an overemphasis on

manipulative, observational skills, in which aims of laboratory work, method of solutions, and the
inferences are boldly given in the students’ laboratory manual. Additionally, times to record the results
as well as raw conclusion are also included. Such situation is worsened when most of the teachers tend
to use the “safety net” in much of the laboratories activities. Undoubtedly, such instructional
approaches fail to challenge students to use their minds in other way, to develop problem solving skills.
Traditionally, practical work offers ample opportunity for students to do science by observing and
manipulating tangible scientific materials, which eventually bring about meaningful conceptual
acquisition. However, it terms of implementation, it could be argued that there have often little clarity
about the aims and effective use of such activity. Analytical scrutiny on empirical evidences discloses
that the end of semester examination is inadequate measure of students’ science process skills. As an
alternative, continuous school-based examination should be developed, which this paper briefly
described. The science practical assessment tool is developed to measure the process skills of students
during normal laboratory experiential activities. Just like many other science process skills assessment
tool, this instrument mainly measures the skills of observing, classifying, inferring, predicting,
measuring, and communicating. In ensuring the validity and reliability of scores, item development
procedures systematically undertaken in producing the assessment tools are also discussed.

ASSESSMENT OF LABORATORY WORK IN SCIENCE

Introduction

Practical work is an important element in the teaching of science. Through laboratory work or
doing experiments or projects, students will develop their process skills, problem solving skills,
manipulative skills as well as scientific attitudes, besides understanding the inquiry process and the
nature of science. Every school science course has laboratory work as an important part in the
curriculum in order to foster student interests, scientific attitudes as well providing training for
scientific process skills. These distinguish the difference between science and the non-science
curricula.

Practical Testing in Science

However, how the laboratory work is conducted may vary, both in terms of the types of laboratory
works, as well as to the purpose and importance of doing experiment.

In our entire previous Malaysian science curriculum, at the upper secondary level, students have to
sit for a practical examination at the end of their school year. In this examination, each student will
have to conduct individual experiment on their own based on the instructions in the examination
papers. The physics practical examination in the Malaysian Certificate Examination require the
students to conduct two separate experiments within 2 hours, roughly one hour for each. The
instructions in the paper provide the necessary guidelines or procedures for the student to set-up
the experiments. They are to setup and conduct the experiment and record the data on the

1
measurements that they have made. All the measuring instruments or apparatus are provided. Prior
to the examination the school laboratories are closed and all students are barred from entering the
laboratory where the examination will be conducted, usually two to four weeks before the date of
the examination. And students do not know on what areas of the syllabus they will be tested on.
However all instructions on conducting the experiments are provided in the examination papers.
Students have only to follow the instructions in order to carry out the experiments.

As the system of education is often described as being too examination oriented, what is being
examined has a big influence on the laboratory practices in schools. The end of year practical
examinations is limited in terms of not evaluating higher order of laboratory skills, such as the
higher process skills on planning the experiments, the methods to collect data as well choice of the
apparatus, and problem solving skills. The teachers also tend to teach practical work as a separate
from the regular classroom teaching (or teaching of the ‘content’) and sometimes students will be
doing experiment on the topics that have not been taught yet. Laboratory works carried-out by
students tend to be ‘cook-book’ type. They will conduct experiments in order to verify certain laws
or principles or to test the physical properties of substances, such as, coefficient of expansion of
copper, reflective index of glass, specific heat capacity of brass, etc. It is thus difficult to ascertain
students’ scientific skills, attitudes or values.

Purpose of Practical Work

The introduction teaching of science by inquiry does not seem to improve the practice of
laboratory work and testing. The use of end of year practical examination to gauge students’ level
of performance and acquisition of laboratory skills is an expensive and may not be cost effective.
Besides, one often asks what is the value of practical work and testing. What is the purpose of
practical work?

Studies on the aims of practical work by Kerr (1963) and later by Beaty and Woolnough, 1982
have shown that the most important aims that teachers ranked were related to the development of
practical skills rather than the development of understanding (Harlen, W. 1999). Hodson (1993) in
his review of research into practical work in school science, found evidence to support that
practical work served to motivate, to teach skills, to enhance conceptual learning, to give insight
into the scientific method and to develop scientific attitudes. He summed up that there are two
kinds of skills for the concerns on practical work. The first is related to the acquisition of
generalisable skills, which may be of value outside the laboratory, and the second is related to
those skills required by future scientists. There was not enough evidence to support all of the
above claims. Harlem, W. stated that there is no evidence to show that increasing the amount of
practical work increase pupils’ interest and motivation in relation to science. Hodson also
questions the achievements of the above claims within a school setting and stresses that only those
skills should be taught that are of value in pursuit of other learning and, when this is the case, we
should ensure those skills are developed to a satisfactory level of competence. The studies
reviewed by Hudson also do not support for the superiority of practical work over other teaching
methods in developing scientific knowledge.

The development of scientific attitudes is also considered as an important goal of science

education. But, according to Harlem (1999), the evidence from the type of practical work found in
much secondary science – where what seems important in getting the right answer would suggest
that they are unlikely to be fostered. Quoting Gardner and Gauld (1990) she re-emphasized that
merely being in the laboratory and doing laboratory work do not, by themselves, foster scientific
attitudes. What is crucial is the quality of the experiences that students have there. In similar vein,
she asserted that findings from research on the effect of practical work on students’ understanding
of the nature of scientific enquiry are as negative as those for conceptual understanding. Harlem
(1999) quoted several studies that have shown possible reasons for practical work not fulfilling the
claims made of it.

2
However, if well planned in preparing students and in designing experiments, practical work is a
valued part of science education. As Hodson put it ‘it scientists enhance their professional
expertise through practice, it is reasonable to suppose that students will learn to do science (and
learn to do it better) by doing science…’

It is important to review the purpose of practical assessment as a whole. Hobson (1990) from his
study on practical work in New Zealand, and a variety of other studies concluded that students
value practical work when:

• It provides a cognitive challenge

• It has a clear purpose and works
• It gives them sufficient control and independence

Review of the Literature

Very little research has been carried out into the effectiveness of practical work in Malaysia
(Nurzatulshima, 2005; Hofstein, A. and Lunetta, V., 1982). Okebukota investigated students’
attitudes towards chemistry laboratory procedure, using a sample size of 1,638 students. He
showed that students’ attitude towards science is most strongly correlated with a positive attitude
towards science laboratory, followed by students’ participation in laboratory activities (Okebukota,
OA 1986). Earlier it was quoted that research has shown school practical work has not been very
effective and called for alternative methods on teaching practical skills. However some who have
disagreed have advocated that at least half of the class time should be spent on activities and
laboratory exercises to those who argued that:
there are self-sufficient reasons for doing practical work in science and neither these, nor
the aims concerning the teaching and understanding of scientific knowledge are well
served by the continual linking of practical work to the content syllabus of science.
(Woolnough & Allsop, 1985)

In Malaysia, Salbiah has embarked a case study on the implementation science process skills in the
teaching and learning of Form Four biology and found that schools face a number of problems that
impede the achievement of practical work. Similarly, Sharifah found that schools are not ready to
implement PEKA practical work because of insufficient numbers and quality of apparatus for
individual practical work. She also found that the correlation between the science process skills
and the students’ interest was significant, and the teacher seemed to be having problems in
implementing the science process skills in her Biology class. Other researches has shown that
teachers are not prepared to use practical methods because they are not adequately prepared during
their teachers training program and some of them have not been exposed to enquiry skills. This is
especially true of young science teachers (Woolnaugh and Allsop, 1985).

Practical Skills Testing in Science

Assessment of practical work in Malaysian schools has been traditionally through end of year
public external examination. An alternative practical assessment using paper and pencil tests has
been tried before and the Malaysian Examination Board has reintroduced this form of assessment.
An external practical examination is of course very expensive to run and is limited in its coverage
of the skills to be assessed. However same studies have shown that the student performance in
actual laboratory investigations is considered quite different qualitatively the same student
performance in a paper and pencil test even though similar process skills are being assessed.

The Examination Syndicate has come up with an innovative way of accessing students’ laboratory
competencies named PEKA (Assessment of Laboratory Science Work). It is a school-based
continuous form of examination. It is carried out by the teacher in school to assess the constructs,
that have been identified and are associated with science process skills, scientific skills, problem

3
solving skills, manipulation skills and scientific attitudes, while the students are conducting their
experiment, inquiry or field work. The assessment is a process of getting evidence to make
judgments on student’s acquisition and performance in the construct that have been identified and
defined according to the performance indicators in The PEKA Guide. The assessment has been
implemented now and teachers are conducting the assessment as part of the process of teaching
and learning. The assessment is seen as a complement to the existing science curriculum in Physics,
Chemistry, Biology, Additional Science, Lower Secondary Science (PMR) and Upper Secondary
Science (SPM). A manual has been prepared which explained the management and
implementation of PEKA. It also elaborates the concept of PEKA, the constructs used as well as
the scoring procedures.

Scoring Procedures

Teachers are provided the scoring procedures that they should follow as described in the Teachers
Guide. A sample of the scoring procedures for a construct is as shown in the table.

Table1
Scoring/Marking Scheme

Construct Performance Indicators Scores/Marks

Conduct of the PP1 Able to carry out the 3 marks if student
Experiment experiment according to conduct correctly PP1
plan or procedure, such as & PP2
follows
PP2 Setting up/arranging the Score 2 marks students
apparatus and materials as who carry out correctly
listed in the plan PP1 & PP2 at least 2
indicators from PP2
PP3 Conduct the experiments
according to the technique
or procedures correctly as
described
PP4 Data are collected correctly
either from measurement,
or observation. And
recorded and the apparatus
set up is working
PP2 Show all criteria or factors
as follows. i.e. us and
manipulative the apparatus
and materials correctly
• Clean and store the science apparatus Students showed all
correctly PP1 and at least on
• Dispose materials that are not needed PP2
anymore correctly (if appropriate)

Most teachers use the above schemes, even though how or when they obtain the evidence
to provide the score varies. There are five constructs that teachers should look for as described in
the scoring procedures i.e. planning the experiment, conducting the experiment, collecting data and
recording apparatus, making interpretation and drawing conclusion and scientific attitude, and
universal values. Each construct is further defined in terms of the indicators; that teachers should
use for scoring purposes. Further clarifications are also given as in the early version of the
Teachers Guide in terms of sub-construct or other aspects in each major construct. However,

4
teachers found too confusing to adhere to all these aspects and criteria. An abridged version or a
simplified version is used instead.

Evaluation of PEKA

A revised version of PEKA assessment was made as a result of an initial feedback from the
teachers in terms of its practicability since its inception in 1999. It was introduced in 2002. It was
thought timely for an evaluation on its implementation to be embarked by the Examination
Syndicate in 2004. A study is being carried out now and conducted jointly between the board and
the Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. The following questions have been
propose to guide the research:

1. What are the teachers’ conceptions on PEKA (Practical Skills Assessment)?

2. In what ways do the teachers’ conceptions influence the way they carry out the
assessment (in each of the respective science practical subjects)?
3. How do the teachers implement the Assessment of Practical Skills in the schools (in
each of the respective science practical subjects)?
4. Is there a relationship student performance in the Assessment of Practical Skills and
achievement in the Paper and pencil practical tests (Paper III, Secondary Certificate of
Education)

A mixed method of collection data has been decided using a questionnaire an observation and
interview schedule. The instruments are developed by the researchers working together with a
group of ten senior science teachers in each subject area. In the development of the questionnaire
items, consensus is sort on the appropriateness and relevancy of the items according to the
definition of the construct being measured. Similarly, the observation and interview schedules
were developed. Indirectly, the whole processes provide the content validation of the instruments.
A small sample of the respondents has been observed and interviewed while conducting the pilot
study. As this study is still in the final stage of data collection, it would be inappropriate to discuss
the overall findings. However, some data from the initial pilot study were available to highlight
some of the probable findings.

Generally, teachers are not clear on the reason on replacing the final traditional practical
examination with the new school based assessment of practical skills, PEKA. Some teachers
accepted it as a directive from the Malaysian Examination Syndicate to schools to help the board
assess students’ experimental skills, scientific skills that are manipulative skills, process science
skills and scientific and universal values.

Others accepted it as a school-based assessment that teachers have to carryout for teaching and
learning purpose. Nevertheless some teachers do question the usefulness and objectivity of the
current exercise if it is to be used for grading students as compared to the previous practice.

There are also, differences on the teacher’s practices and the way they conduct the assessment.
Each student will be assessed separately even though they are working in groups. It was found
that the teachers scoring procedures are not consistent and varies between subjects and respondents.
Our observations showed that even in one school each teacher has his own peculiar way of scoring.
For example, one teacher described that she would observe the students first when the students are
conducting the experiments and give scores later on their performance after the experiment is over.
One may wonder how objective can the teachers are and how can she provide scores for each
construct and for every one in the whole class of 25-35 students. However some teachers told they
used only the student laboratory reports on the experiments that they have completed and their
familiarity with the students’ ability. The following excerpts, illustrate the above: -

‘… its directive, just do, and no question ask’

5
 ‘they say the PEKA score, are better indicators on students’ process and manipulative
skills performance than the results from a terminal, end of year practical examination’.

‘the students can always refer to their reference book….. its all there in terms what to
expect and outline the method …. Just copy’
‘…… they should be doing it … it’s a lot of work and the situation in the laboratory is
not ideal, not enough apparatus for each individual…..’

On the process of implementation, the following summarizes some of the salient features that we
found:-

i) ….. we have to conduct at least three PEKA experiments ….. students are told in
advance to read about the experiments ….. and prepare an outline of the
report…..’. All the students (27 of them) will be observed in turn ….most of them
will be doing experiments in groups, but each student will be assessed individually.
ii) ‘….. I will be going around and observed.. but would only assessed them … only
when the practical work is over and the student has handed in their laboratory
report.
iii) ‘ …. Only two of the elements will be scored during the observation in the
laboratory that is. process science skills involved in the experiment and values….
Experimental or planning skills for planning would be assessed from their
reports….’
iv) ‘Of course we know the students’ abilities as they have been carrying out a
number of experiments… which are not being evaluated….and thus we can more
or less gauge their abilities on most of the construct’

‘Generally most teachers agree that PEKA is good but we feel the assessment is very taxing in
terms of the time and paper work to keep records of each individual student. Teachers have to fill
in the score sheets for internal (school) as well as for external purpose (the Examination Syndicate)
using the computer. We also have to show the scores to the student if they are not satisfied or
wants to improve we have to find time to provide them the opportunity to repeat the experiments
again and so we repeat the scoring. These records are be kept for as six months after the final
examination is over’

‘We have to select the best of two scores from three separate observations form each year, two
from four and two from five experiments’

‘We just do not have enough apparatus to go around…they have to conduct the experiments in
groups… they have a least to show their involvement… even if they only touch the test-tube…but
we know their abilities and if we were not satisfied…we can arrange for them to conduct the
experiments again an other times…say in the afternoon or during the holidays’

Its easier to give the scores once we can remember all the indicators and criteria to be used in the
assessment. After going through many times, it will be at our finger tips.. shortage of a laboratory
apparatus or materials is an hindrance for laboratory work and performance.. and might affect
students’ attitudes.
The Assessment of Performance Unit (APU) has reached a similar conclusion.

‘Trials… revealed how important it is to go the trouble of assessing the actual performance
of investigations….Pupils.. were frequently found to be able to produce a reasonable plan
on paper, but were quite unable to do in practice anything of what was planned. It is not
just manipulative skills, which makes a difference between theory and practice in problem
solving but the interaction of ideas with events as they take place (APU, 1978,p. 15 Tamir
et.al 1992)

6
To have a common scoring scheme for all schools, teachers are asked to abide by the scheme and
look for evidence listed in order to give scores for each construct. A coordination committee is
formed in each district and a coordinator will be appointed to coordinate between 3-5 schools.
They will visit each school and go through the scoring procedures teachers have used and
coordinate the markings or scorings. Thus, the overall procedures involve evaluation, coordination
and monitoring.

The above quotes indicate that the implementation of the assessment practical skills (PEKA),
though varies, involve three identifiable stages that is the ‘pre-lab’, ‘mid-lab’ and ‘post-lab’,
assessment. In pre-lab stage the teachers can evaluate in terms student ability to plan the
experiments. The indicators are the ability of student to state the purpose of the experiment to
name the variables, to state the hypothesis, to list the apparatus or materials, t describe the
procedures of setting up the experiment and method of collecting data.

For the mid-lab assessment stage, it has to be carried out while the student is actually doing the
experiment and collecting the data. Possible indicators to look for are: ability in setting up the
apparatus appropriately and taking readings or observations using the necessary instruments and
procedures. The second construct indicators include the ability to construct tables and record
readings with appropriate decimals place. The scoring for this construct can be done later the third
stage, pos-lab, is carried out when the student has send in the laboratory work after completing the
necessary calculation, analysis, making interpretation and inference and drawing conclusion. This
includes such performance indicators as:
(i) Ability of drawing graphs with appropriate labels and axes, ability to deduce from the graphs
or perform analyze of the data and ability to interpret from the result of the analysis and draw
conclusions. Credits should be given, if student is able the probable errors.

The fifth construct on scientific values or universal values would be appropriately assessed during
students’ group work and interactions with his laboratory classmates. Students will be observed on
their ability to be able to work together, carry out the work in a systematic and responsible way
and upholding safety procedures.

Conclusion

The results from the preliminary studies indicate the following:

Science Teachers’ concept (or conception) on the Practical Work Assessment (PEKA) will
determine the nature of implementation in school. If the concept is poor or vague, then the
conduct of evaluation will also be poor or haphazard. The evaluation will be conducted as planned,
if the concept is clear and meaningful.

The conduct of the practical Work Assessment as planned is related to the availability of apparatus
and science equipments, and class size or laboratory space.

The success of the school-based assessment is also related to the amount of time available to the
teachers and the amount of paper works. Teachers felt keeping records of each student’s progress
or scores on each of the constructs tiring and filing them consumes a lot of their precious school
times.

Coordination, feedback and monitoring of scoring procedures or evaluation of students’ work are
acceptable as they to teach large number of the students and the curriculum is heavy.

1. Teachers possess a diverse set of conceptions about the purpose of the school-based practical
work assessment and that influence the way they conduct of the assessment.

7
 To conclude the highest priority of such school reform should be to create conditions that support
teachers in their work and make practical teaching an attractive option. As one teacher succinctly
put it, ‘It is good if it do not disturb his chore of finishing the syllabus and preparing his pupils for
examination that counts …it, would be better if the scores counts and, also it enhance his pupils
success.

References

Beatty, J.W. & Woolnough, B.E. (1982) Practical work in 11-13 science. British Educational
Research Journal, 8: 23-30.
Gardner, P. & Gauld, C. (1990) Labwork and students’ attitudes. In: Hegarty-Hazel, E. (Ed) The
Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum. London: Routledge.
Harlem, W. (1999). Effective Teaching of Science. A Review of Research. Edinburgh: The
Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Hodson, D. (1990) A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, (70):
33-40.
Hodson, D. (1993) Re-thinking old ways: towards a more critical approach to practical work in
school science. Studies in Science Education, (22): 85-142.
Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected
aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201-217.
Kerr, J.F. (1963) Practical Work in School Science. Leicester: Leicester University Press
Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia dan Fakulti Pendidikan UKM (2004). Kajian Pelaksanaan PEKA
Sains 2004. Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia.
Nor Aziah Darus (2001). Pengurusan PEKA Biologi di kalangan pelajar Tingkatan Empat Sains:
satu kajian kes. Projek Penyelidikan Ijazah Sarjana Pendidikan. UKM, Bangi.
Salbiah Mohd Som (2000). Kajian kes tentang perlaksanaan proses sains dalam pengajaran dan
pembelajaran Biologi Tingkatan Empat. Projek Penyelidikan Ijazah Sarjana Pendidikan,
UKM, Bangi.
Sharifah Nor Puteh (2001). Kajian penggunaan makmal sains sekolah menengah. Paper presented
Seminar Penyelidikan Pendidikan Kebangsaan BPPDP, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
22-25 Oktober, 2000.
Tamir, P. Doran, R.L. and Yeoh, O.C. (1992). Practical skills testing in Scicnce studies in
Educational Education. Vol. 18, pp 263-275.
Tan A. Girl (2002). New Paradigms for Science Education. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Woolnough, B., Allsop, T. (1985). Practical work in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press

View publication stats