Proceedings of the Redesigning Pedagogy: Culture, Knowledge and Understanding
Conference, Singapore, May 2007
PROMOTING SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS AND THE
RELEVANCE OF SCIENCE THROUGH SCIENCE ALIVE!
PROGRAMME
Grace Teo Yew Mei
Clementi Town Secondary School
Chan Kaling
Charlene Seah Xinyi
Jessie Sim Kim Sing
Karine Nai Sok Khoon
Clementi Town Secondary School
ABSTRACT
The study explores ways in which students who have participated in a curriculum innovation,
Science ALIVE! acquire Science process skills and perceive the relevance of Science in
everyday life. It investigates whether students have, after the programme, perceived an
improvement in applying Science process skills. Four classes of Secondary 2 Express
students attended one of four modules in the Science ALIVE! programme and responded to a
pre- and post-course survey to measure their perceived skill competency for each process
skill. They also responded to questions on whether the programme enhanced their awareness
of the relevance of Science in everyday life. Five students from each module were selected to
provide written feedback at mid-course and write a journal after the course. The content of
their feedback and journals were analysed to provide deeper insight of the results of the
perception surveys. The data was triangulated with teachers’ feedback, which was used to
provide insight of the factors that affect the acquisition of the process skills. The findings
show significant increase in students’ perception of skill competency while a high percentage
of students indicated that the programme has made them more aware of the relevance of
Science in their lives.
INTRODUCTION
Traditional learning approaches in which students are passive recipients of knowledge are
inconsistent with the call for Singapore schools to Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM). There is
a need to allow learning to occur in settings that are relevant to students’ experiences and real
world problems. In Clementi Town Secondary School (CTSS), Project Work was used as a
platform for students to transfer their learning and apply in authentic applications. However,
teachers who had conducted Project Work for Science at Secondary 2 observed that students’
projects lacked depth in the specific content area, and the skills needed for scientific
investigations. This spurred the need to cover content knowledge relevant to the projects
assigned. It also raised the concern that Science process skills, as stipulated in the MOE Lower
Secondary Science (LSS) Syllabus, were not sufficiently emphasised compared to acquiring
scientific knowledge. Teachers also indicated that students were unable to appreciate the
relevance of Science in solving problems in their lives after past Project Work tasks.
Science Process Skills
“Science process skills” is commonly used to describe a set of broadly transferable abilities
that are reflective of what scientists do. These skills are grouped into two types – basic and
integrated. Basic process skills provide a foundation for learning the integrated skills, which
are more complex skills for solving problems or doing Science experiments. In this study,
reflecting is listed as a process skill to be investigated, though it is usually considered part of
thinking skills which is a broader category that subsumes process skills.
Some Science educators have argued that “teaching students Science facts is not as important
as developing their Science process skills so that they can learn this knowledge on their own”
(Young, 1995). Studies in the United States have shown that elementary school students who
are taught process skills, not only learn to use those processes, but also retain them for future
use. In Singapore, the MOE Primary Science syllabus also emphasises the teaching of basic
process skills and some integrated skills, while the LSS syllabus emphasises the use of process
skills for planning investigations and creative problem solving, and other thinking skills.
Curriculum design plays an important role in the acquisition of Science process skills. The
MOE Assessment Guidelines for LSS recommends an explicit teaching of the process skills,
followed by the integration of these skills by students in experimenting or carrying out
investigative projects. Padilla (1990) pointed out that “when Science process skills are a
specific planned outcome of a Science programme, those skills can be learned by students...
Teachers need to select curricula which emphasise Science process skills.” These basic skills
are learnt more effectively if they are considered an important object of instruction and if
proven teaching methods are used. There must be a deliberate effort to focus on teaching
process skills through a modified LSS curriculum. Young (1995) recommended that if
teachers have the freedom to select their own topics, they should choose topics of direct
interest to themselves and which would excite students. Science knowledge serves as
background for lessons but should not take up the whole lesson. Instead, more time should be
spent on activities that enhance the understanding of Science concepts and improve Science
skills. Some studies have shown that instead of using the didactic approach, teaching Science
through the use of activity-based approaches significantly improved students’ achievement in
Science process skills (Beaumont-Walters, 2001).
Berry et al (1999) suggested a few crucial factors that influence the acquisition of process
skills used in laboratory work. Firstly, students need the relevant content knowledge that is
assumed by the task to be mentally engaged. For example, a more knowledgeable student
would be able to explain an observation, which in turn “validates” his knowledge and gives
him a certain amount of intellectual satisfaction. The ‘doing’ of Science has to be coupled
with ‘learning about’ Science, if students are to appreciate the value of scientific inquiry
(Haigh et al, 2005). A second factor suggested by Berry et al (1999) is students’ ownership of
laboratory tasks. Ownership would be more apparent in open laboratory tasks, where the
student has to design his own experiment than in closed laboratory tasks, where the “correct”
experimental procedure is written out in a “cookbook” style and the student is likely to carry
out the tasks unthinkingly. Another effective strategy to enhance students’ process skills
would be to let students keep a “scientific journal” (Tomkins & Tunnicliffe, 2001). It was
observed that diary writers tend to build more confidence in their own interpretations, engage
in intellectual debates with themselves over the plausibility of their explanations and ask
questions that are more quantifiable.
Relevance of Science in everyday life
Research studies conducted in recent decades on students’ perception of school Science have
consistently shown that they perceive Science as not relevant (Bennett, 2001). Similar
findings have raised a serious concern in several countries. For instance, a report by the
Dutch Ministry of Education in 2002 observed that secondary school students did not see a
connection between what they learnt in Chemistry lessons and the chemistry happening
around them (Van Aalsvoort, 2004a). A subsequent report recommended teaching Science in
context. However, a study carried out on a contextualised Science curriculum introduced to
Swaziland students highlighted some shortcomings (Campbell et al, 2000). The findings
showed that less than half of the sample students could draw on Science concepts to explain
everyday experiences or solve everyday problems. It was suggested that contextualised learning
could be made more effective through student-initiated project work on everyday problems.
Van Aalsvoort (2004b) suggested using activity theory to address the issue of the relevance
of Chemistry in chemical education, where reflection plays a key role in evaluating and
developing an activity. Reflection could be carried out through writing reflection journals,
which also helped enhance the acquisition of process skills, as mentioned earlier (Tomkins &
Tunnicliffe, 2001). According to Van Aalsvoort (2004a), relevance can be defined in four
aspects: (i) personal relevance – Science education makes connections to students’ lives; (ii)
professional relevance – Science education offers students a picture of possible professions;
(iii) social relevance – Science education clarifies the purpose of Science in human and social
issues; and (iv) personal/social relevance – Science education helps students develop into
responsible citizens. This study considers relevance in three aspects – personal, professional
and social.
INTERVENTION
Project Work aims for students to transfer the learning of concepts into applications in
authentic settings. To address the areas of concern raised by teachers teaching Project Work,
the Science ALIVE! programme was conceived to integrate Project Work and the LSS
syllabus. This 13-week programme was conducted during Semester 2 of the Secondary 2
Express Science curriculum and used alternative assessment to replace the traditional end-ofyear examination. In this programme, a team of teachers crafted four modules which covered
a variety of topics from Biology, Chemistry and Physics. As a motivating factor, students
could choose from one of the four modules offered: Aroma Chemistry, Biodiversity, Life
Science and Water Rockets.
In each Science ALIVE! module, specific content knowledge was taught using hands-on
strategies such as laboratory work, field trips, journal writing and group discussions. These
strategies were intended to promote student engagement. Most importantly, the programme
addressed the three key issues of concern in the following ways:
1. Content knowledge covered was specific to each module and relevant to the projects that
students were assigned. This enabled students to better transfer the concepts to the projects.
2. Science process skills could be applied by students through journal writing, laboratory
work and investigative project work. Science process skills were used as criteria for
assessment to emphasise their importance and focus.
3. To enhance the relevance of Science, students were given a choice of the elective module
to study, and to decide on the problem to work on for their projects. Contextualised learning,
which draws on scientific understanding to explain everyday situations, was consciously
infused into the curriculum design for each module. Reflection journals were written after
selected activities, which according to activity theory helped students evaluate their learning
(Van Aalsvoort, 2004b).
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The two research questions are: (1) How does the Science ALIVE! programme help students
to apply their Science process skills? And (2) How can the Science ALIVE! programme
enhance the relevance of Science in students’ lives?
METHODOLOGY
Participants
147 students from all four Secondary 2 Express classes attended the Science ALIVE!
programme and participated in the study. Pre- and post-course perception surveys were
conducted for all students to measure their perception of their skill competency and their
awareness of the relevance of Science in their lives through the programme. In addition, five
students were selected from each module to give written feedback in week 8 (mid-course)
and write a journal in week 13 (at the end of the course). To provide maximum variation, the
five students from each module were selected based on their Science grade in Semester 1 and
their reasons for selecting the module which reflected their motivational level.
Instruments
In the pre- and post-course surveys, students were asked to rate their perception of their
Science process skills using a four-point Likert scale. The post-course survey included an
item to measure students’ perception of increased awareness of the relevance of Science in
their lives.
Data Analysis
For survey items on Science process skills, the mean value of each skill was calculated for
the individual module (Table 2) as well as across all modules (Table 1). Skills with ratings of
less than 3 (out of 4) were identified and analysed. The differences in mean values for pre-
and post-course surveys were compared. The differences were considered significant if there
was an increase or decrease of at least 0.3 in value (or 10% of the range of scale used). Journals
and mid-course written feedback of the 20 selected students were used to surface possible
reasons for these perceptions. The data was triangulated with teachers’ feedback, which was
used to provide insight of the factors that affect the acquisition of the process skills.
For the survey item on the relevance of Science, the total percentage of students who
indicated an “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” was computed for each module. Content analysis
of the journals and written feedback from the selected students were carried out. Frequency
counts of the responses were based on three categories: personal, professional and social
relevance. Teachers’ feedback was used to provide depth to the findings.
RESULTS
Acquisition of Science process skills
The perception of all students on the level of their skill competency before and after the
Science ALIVE! programme was measured through surveys. The survey results were
compared using the mean values for each process skill, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Comparison of students’ perception of skills before and after Science ALIVE!
Process Skill
(a) Elaborating (Research)
(b) Conducting scientific investigations (Planning
investigations)
(c) Conducting scientific investigations (Using scientific
apparatus)
(d) Conducting scientific investigations (Analysing data)
(e) Communicating (Writing scientific reports)
(f) Reflecting
(g) Questioning (Learning by asking questions)
Mean value (scale 1 – 4)
Pre-Course Post-Course
3.1
3.2
2.4
2.6
2.5
3.0
2.6
2.7
3.1
2.8
3.0
2.7
3.1
3.2
In the pre-course survey, the items which scored less than 3 are the skills of ‘planning
investigations’, ‘using scientific apparatus’, ‘analysing data’, ‘writing scientific reports’ and
‘learning by asking questions’. Students’ perception rating increased in the following skills
‘using scientific apparatus’, ‘analysing data’ and ‘learning by asking questions’ suggesting
that the Science ALIVE! programme had benefited them in these areas, with the exception of
‘planning investigations’ and ‘writing scientific reports’ where there was marginal increase or
no change between the pre- and post-course rating. This revealed that in general, students
still did not have much confidence in these skills and suggests that more could be done in the
next cycle to guide students in these aspects.
The changes in the rating for items (b), (c) and (d) in the pre- and post-course surveys suggest
that students’ perceptions that their skills in handling apparatus and equipment have
improved. This could be attributed to the fact that students were introduced to various new
apparatus or equipment during project experiments in all modules. For example, the
Biodiversity module used dataloggers which was equipment new to students.
Skills in items (b), (c) and (d) are all part of the process of conducting scientific
investigations. However, there was only a marginal increase in the rating for (b) ‘planning
investigations’ after the programme. This could be because planning investigations is a
higher order process skill which encompasses making hypothesis, identifying variables and
writing the experimental procedures.
Analysis of Science process skills by skill category
The results were further categorised to compare and study the changes in students’ perception
of skill competency for the individual modules, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Comparison of perception of skill competency by module
Module
Process Skill
(a) Elaborating (Research)
(b) Conducting investigations
(Planning investigations)
(c) Conducting investigations
(Using scientific apparatus)
(d) Conducting investigations
(Analysing data)
(e) Communicating
(Writing scientific report)
(f) Reflecting
(g) Questioning (Learning by
asking questions)
Aroma
Chemistry
Pre Post
3.3
3.2
Mean value (Scale 1 – 4)
BioLife
diversity
Science
Pre Post Pre Post
2.9
3.2
3.0
3.3
Water
Rockets
Pre Post
3.1
3.1
2.6
2.7
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.8
2.3
2.5
2.4
3.1
2.4
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.4
3.0
2.6
2.9
2.6
2.8
2.7
3.1
2.6
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.4
2.5
2.9
2.5
2.7
3.1
2.8
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.2
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.2
2.9
3.3
2.9
3.0
2.6
3.2
Elaborating
The results of item (a) in the pre- and post-surveys showed an increase in rating for this skill
for the Biodiversity and Life Science modules. This could be because these modules are more
content-based topics, which require greater use of such skills. It should, however, be noted
that for Aroma Chemistry module, the pre-course survey score was already high and it might
be difficult to make further significant improvement.
From the written feedback of selected students in the 8th week of the programme, half
indicated that they had learnt to research to look for more information. All five students from
the Biodiversity module wrote that they had learnt to assess “how reliable the sources are”.
For example, one student from the module wrote in her journal that “before creating our
ecosystem, we need to do research on the organisms that we choose, on what they feed on
and their suitable habitat” (Student S8).
Teachers conducting the programme felt that most students were still at the developmental
stage of doing research, as they could not extract relevant information from sources. They
also observed that some students lacked the initiative and discipline to do research work,
though teachers had provided a list of resources. This could be seen in project reports, where
the evidence of research is lacking. A likely explanation for this observation is the past
practice of didactic teaching, resulting in students “so used to being given all materials and
information by teachers that they do not know how to get started” (Teacher T3). Teacher T1
recommended the need to balance between providing students with information and allowing
them to be independent in their learning.
Conducting Scientific Investigations
For item (b) on ‘planning investigations’, the Life Science module had the largest increase in
perception rating (more than 10%). Here the Life Science teacher explained that students
were taught how to design experiments step-by-step with given examples. The importance of
planning in investigations is stated by one of the students in the module: "When we need to
choose something, we need to think about all its aspects. After everything is ok, we can start
work" (Student S14). However, Teacher T2 commented that students still needed a lot of
hand-holding and practice to be competent. A student from another module echoed this: “I
am not sure how to design an experiment on my own”.
Item (c) on the practical skill of ‘using scientific apparatus’ or equipment had the largest
increase for all modules, except Life Science where the initial pre-course rating was already
high (mean 2.9). All modules were designed to include more hands-on activities, which
required the use of apparatus and equipment. One student wrote about the importance of
using the right procedures as he “learnt how to use steam distillation by setting up the
apparatus correctly and doing the extraction properly” (Student S2), while another student
shared her new skill of using “dataloggers to measure the different abiotic factors from the
…forests” (Student S7). Teachers observed that the students were excited and enjoyed
themselves when using new apparatus. On their part, teachers also sought to infuse rigour by
ensuring that students perform the experimental procedures accurately. The enjoyment of
Science through hands-on activities, particularly laboratory work, was a motivating factor in
learning Science.
The rating for the skill of analysing or inferring from experimental data in item (d) increased
more for three modules than for the Biodiversity module. This could be the result of students
being given more opportunities to handle experimental data in their projects and make
conclusions for the Aroma Chemistry, Life Science and Water Rockets modules. On the
other hand, the investigative project for Biodiversity was of a smaller scale, and students’
main form of project assessment was a conservation proposal. One factor which attributed to
the increase in perception rating was group collaboration. As students did their projects in
groups, they could discuss how to analyse the data obtained from the investigations.
Students analysed their data in various ways depending on the type of data collected in each
module. For example, Student S11 commented: “I got a chance to compare and compile the
results of surveys, test the reliability of our product, put into tables and identify the
similarities and differences present". Others learnt to analyse the cause of problems in their
projects, as noted by Student S16: “… our rocket failed in launching and we realise that the
problem is due to the leaking of our rocket”. Teachers however concurred in their
observations that though students could comment on their data, their analysis lacked depth.
Besides these investigative skills, many students also reflected in their journals that they had
developed observation skills during practical work and investigations. One student wrote: “In
the past, I would have just used my eyes. Now I have learnt to use all of my five senses to
know more about the subject I am observing” (Student S10).
Communicating
In item (e), ‘writing scientific reports’ was the focus in the skill of communicating. Though
there was no change in overall student perception (see Table 1), Table 2 showed a significant
drop in the rating for Biodiversity module compared to an increase in Life Science module.
The Biodiversity teacher attributed the drop in rating to students’ “realisation and shock” in
receiving feedback on their first report draft, as they “did not anticipate scientific reports to
be of slightly different nature and demands though they were briefed”. But she noted that the
provision of formative feedback and the re-drafting of reports helped students in this skill.
The Life Science teacher linked the increased rating to having provided illustrative examples
and templates for students, but she felt that they were still lacking in the skill and could be
given more practice. Students’ journals hardly mentioned this skill, except Student S10 who
wrote that he “learnt to sieve through the report for important points to put in the abstract”.
Reflecting
Generally, students felt that they were able to reflect on their lessons. Item (f) in Table 2
showed an initial high rating which was unchanged after the programme. Students saw their
journals as an “opportunity to clarify and reflect upon their learning” (Student S3). At the end
of the programme, a few students said that the reflections helped to monitor their
understanding of lessons, and one student mentioned that she would research on the internet
to address questions she had (Student S1). Teachers believed that “journal writing and
providing consistent formative feedback help(ed) the students develop reflection skills”
(Teacher T1). However, specific journal prompts are necessary to guide students so that they
do not simply give a detailed account of the activities and concepts covered without reflecting
on the learning points (Teacher T2).
Questioning
The survey results of item (g) showed more significant increase in the Biodiversity and Water
Rockets modules. For each module, students acquired this skill through reflecting on their
lessons in their journals and then asking relevant questions to find out more. One student
reflected that she dared to ask more questions in class after learning to ask questions through
journals (Student S6). Students had opportunities to generate questions when they were
verifying the reliability of information. They also formulated questions prior to industrial
visits and field trips, and posed them to the experts. At the mid-course feedback, a few
students mentioned that they learnt to “raise questions in class” through ways such as “being
a questioner in group discussions” (Student S13). The Biodiversity teacher attributed this
improvement to conducive “lesson environment and delivery (that) promotes questioning”.
Such lesson delivery may include guiding questions in class activities and journal prompts
that encouraged further questioning, and peer evaluation where students critiqued the projects
of other groups. The Water Rockets teacher reflected that in comparison to traditional
Science lessons, “there was more chance for students to ask questions as things are now less
predictable” as in most real world situations.
The post-course survey included an item which required students to state whether “Science
ALIVE! lessons have made them more aware of the relevance of Science in their lives”.
Table 3 shows the percentage of students who “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the
statement.
Table 3: Percentage of students who indicated that the programme had made them more
aware of the relevance of Science in their lives
Module
Aroma Chemistry
Biodiversity
Life Science
Water Rockets
% Agree
73.5
47.2
64.1
73.0
% Strongly Agree
17.7
50.0
23.1
10.8
% (Agree + Strongly Agree)
91.2
97.2
87.2
83.8
The results in Table 3 show a very high concurrence with the statement for all modules. This is
consistent with the programme objective of enhancing the relevance of Science in students’ lives.
Students’ journals were analysed for indications of the relevance of Science in three areas:
personal, professional and social. A frequency count of the responses showed 82% for
personal relevance, 24% for professional relevance and 65% for social relevance. This
revealed that students perceived the relevance of Science as mostly related to their personal
lives. Only a handful of students could relate the relevance to their future career prospects.
Further probing into students’ definition of personal relevance showed an extensive range of
interpretation depending on the modules taken. Enhancing one’s quality of life is frequently
mentioned in terms of personal relaxation and cure for illnesses. Students from the Aroma
Chemistry module stated that they “could use essential oils to calm a person if he feels
nervous” (Student S2). Life Science students surfaced the use of medicines when they fall
sick and the growing of genetically modified food (GMF) for convenience (Student S15).
Students also stated the importance of process skills in their lives, such as questioning the
reliability of information sources.
The majority of students could not appreciate Science as having professional relevance.
Those who were able to see career possibilities were students who had gone for field trips,
where they were introduced to experts in the related field. They saw the knowledge and skills
gained through the programme as relevant to their “future education and working career”
(Student S11). Others used the knowledge gained to better understand the requirements of
various jobs. A student stated that she “could understand how people designing furniture,
buildings and other things require this knowledge (of centre of gravity)” (Student S16).
Three out of five students could relate Science to social relevance, which included how
Science affected interaction between people and the environment. One Biodiversity student
wrote: “This also taught me that in school or at work, we have to depend on one another for a
living” (Student S10), while another could “understand nature better” and learnt not to pollute
the environment (Student S7). Life Science students pointed out various applications in social
and ethical issues, such as the use of forensic Science by police to solve crime (Student S11),
knowledge of DNA in cloning (Student S15), and even checking via blood tests whether a
child is biologically conceived or adopted (Student S12).
Teachers’ feedback indicated that students were generally able to “connect Science to reality
and … in explaining happenings in their lives” (Teacher T2). These observations were made
through students’ group discussions and written journals. Examples quoted by the teachers
were mostly related to personal and social relevance. It showed that students had an increased
awareness of scientific discovery (e.g. antibiotics, genetics) and technology (e.g. making of
soap and sweets) that were directly related to their lives and the lives of those around them.
The main catalyst that enhanced their awareness was personal experiences through engaging
them in experiments that relate to real life and exposing them to more field trips (e.g. Yakult
factory, flavour and fragrance industry, nature reserve).
DISCUSSION
Key features in Science ALIVE! that have helped students acquire Science process skills
include scaffolding, group collaboration and journal writing. Scaffolding guides students in
learning new or complex skills. Nelson (2004) pointed out that more scaffolding is required
for students to be able to do research independently. To illustrate this, the increase in rating
for skills on ‘planning investigations’ and ‘writing of scientific report’ in the Life Science
module was attributed to “a lot of hand-holding” and exemplars provided by the teacher.
Scaffolding in the form of specific journal prompts can also be adopted to ensure greater
depth in student reflection. Teachers, however, will need to balance between providing
students support and allowing them to be independent learners.
Group collaboration is deployed extensively in the programme, where students worked in
groups of three on projects, laboratory work and group assignments. This concurs with
findings of a study conducted by Hofstein et al (2004), where cooperative learning in
laboratory work helped students construct knowledge. Hofstein et al argued for more time to
be spent on laboratory tasks, so that students could reflect on findings and also discuss with
their peers. This would be one way to further improve students’ analytical skills, which they
are still lacking.
Journal writing in Science ALIVE! proves to be very useful in informing teachers of
students’ conceptual understanding, acquisition of skills such as reflecting and questioning,
and how students relate Science to their everyday life. It allows teachers to give regular
feedback as part of assessment for learning. It is also of considerable value to students as it
promotes greater ownership to their learning (Tomkins and Tunnicliffe, 2001). This leads to
independent learning and moves students to a higher level of thinking, according to the
principle on ‘Experience of learning’ in the Principles of Engaged Learning (MOE, 2005).
Science ALIVE! lessons are different from the didactic traditional Science lessons, as they
focus largely on the application of Science process skills. Hence there is a need to prepare
students for the change, for example, from structured experiments to partially open
investigations (Haigh et al, 2005). The need for such preparation was evident in the
Biodiversity module as students were surprised to learn that scientific reports were different
from other project reports, but they managed to overcome it after a few rounds of re-drafting.
After the pilot run of Science ALIVE! programme, the teachers recommended that process
skills be explicitly taught first followed by opportunities “created on purpose” for students to
practise the skills. This is consistent with Padilla (1990) who suggested the need to provide
students with “multiple opportunities to work with these skills in different content areas and
contexts”. To enhance students’ investigative skills, Haigh et al (2005) proposed that teachers
provide ‘refresher’ courses to cue students in the planning and conducting of their
investigations .On completion of the investigation, students should be given the opportunity to
evaluate their work so as to make it more meaningful. In Aroma Chemistry, students were
asked to compare the quality of two batches of soap that they had made from different
laboratory sessions and analyse the possible causes for the difference, while Biodiversity
students had to reflect on the additional learning gained after a second trip to the nature reserve.
Besides using appropriate strategies to help students adapt to the shift, it is also crucial to
rectify students’ mindset on the importance and relevance of acquiring Science process skills.
This is because students will be more motivated if they consider process skills an important
object of instruction (Padilla, 1990). Thus teachers need to make explicit the “why” of
teaching process skills (Haigh et al, 2005).
The deliberate infusion of relevant Science applications in the curriculum of each module has
succeeded in enhancing students’ awareness of the usefulness of Science in everyday life.
Personal and social relevance dominated students’ ideas of the relevance of Science, though
exposure to related industries and appropriate working environments could further promote
an awareness of professional relevance.
CONCLUSION
Going forward, the Science ALIVE! programme would be refined in the next cycle to
enhance students’ acquisition of Science process skills. Successful strategies such as the use
of reflection journals, activity-based learning, group collaboration and contextualised
learning will continue to be used. There would be more emphasis on the explicit teaching of
process skills. In addition, more opportunities would be provided for the application of
process skills in the core curriculum.
RECOMMENDATION
Further research on the Science ALIVE! programme could focus on the process skills which
students found more difficult to master. With explicit teaching of these skills in the core
curriculum prior to Science ALIVE!, the impact could be investigated. The usefulness of
Science process skills acquired through the programme could be studied in terms of its
impact on Upper Secondary Science, for example, the sustainability of student motivation in
Upper Secondary Science. The findings in these research areas will help to inform the
effectiveness of future Science ALIVE! programmes.
REFERENCES
Beaumont-Walters, Y. (2001). An analysis of high school students’ performance on five
integrated Science process skills. Research in Science & Technological Education,
19(2), 133-145.
Bennett, J. (2001). Science with attitude: the perennial issue of pupils’ responses to Science.
School Science Review, 82(300), 59-67.
Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Gunstone, R., & Loughran, J. (1999). Helping students learn from
laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 45(1), 27-31.
Campbell, B., Lubben, F., & Dlamini, Z. (2000). Learning Science through contexts: helping
pupils make sense of everyday situations. International Journal of Science Education,
22(3), 239-252.
Haigh, M., France, B., & Forret, M. (2005). Is ‘doing Science’ in New Zealand classrooms an
expression of scientific inquiry? International Journal of Science Education, 27(2),
215-226.
Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with
opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: a Case Study.
International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 47-62.
Ministry of Education (2005). A toolkit for engaged teaching and learning. Curriculum
Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education, Singapore.
Nelson, T.H. (2004). Helping students make connections. The Science Teacher, 71(3), 32-35.
Padilla, M.J. (1990). The Science process skills. Research Matters – to the Science Teacher,
No. 9004. Retrieved December 1, 2006 from http://www.narst.org/publications/
research/skill.htm
Tomkins, S.P., & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2001). Looking for ideas: observation, interpretation and
hypothesis making by 12-year-old pupils undertaking Science investigations.
International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 791-813.
Van Aalsvoort, J. (2004a). Logical positivism as a tool to analyse the problem of Chemistry’s
lack of relevance in secondary school chemical education. International Journal of
Science Education, 26(9), 1151-1168.
Van Aalsvoort, J. (2004b). Activity theory as a tool to address the problem of Chemistry’s
lack of relevance in secondary school chemical education. International Journal of
Science Education, 26(13), 1635-1651.
Young, R. M. (1995). Hands-on Science. Westminster, CA: Teacher Created Materials, Inc.