Exploring Students’ Acquisition of Manipulative Skills during Science Practical Work
 
More details
Hide details
1
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Rohaida Mohd Saat   

Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Online publish date: 2017-07-27
Publish date: 2017-07-27
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(8):4591–4607
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
This paper reports a study on students’ science manipulative skills at the lower secondary school level. Students’ manipulative skills can be explored by understanding their technical skills and their functional aspects of performing experiment. However, this paper will focus on students’ technical skills in using basic scientific apparatus. Technical skills in this study refer to skill, abilities, and knowledge required for accomplishing a specific task in the laboratory. The skills include knowledge and skills needed to properly manipulate and operate scientific apparatus when executing a scientific task. It was found that students perform the skills in a certain pattern that reflects a form of hierarchy. This hierarchy can be used to aid science teachers in teaching manipulative skills. The paper will present the hierarchy of these technical skills and discuss these skills specifically from the perspective of lower secondary science teaching and learning. The results of this study have provided an insight on the issue of science manipulative skills that supports the importance of practical work.
 
REFERENCES (45)
1.
Abrahams, I., Reiss, M. J., & Sharpe, R. M. (2013). The assessment of practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 209-251.
 
2.
Abrahams, I. & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969.
 
3.
Allen, M. (2012). An international review of school science practical work. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(1), 1-2.
 
4.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
 
5.
Azizi, Y., Shahrin, H., & Fathiah, M. (2008). Tahap penguasaan kemahiran manipulatif di kalangan guru pelatih Kimia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia [Level of manipulative skills acquisition among pre-service Chemistry teachers in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia]. In Yusof Boon & Seth Sulaiman (Eds.) Permasalahan dalam pendidikan Sains dan Matematik (pp. 34-51). Johor, Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
 
6.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
 
7.
Boejie, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality & Quantity, 36(4), 391-409.
 
8.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113.
 
9.
Buffler, A., Allie, S., & Lubben, F. (2001). The development of first year physics students’ ideas about measurement in terms of point and set paradigms. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1137-1155.
 
10.
Campbell, B. (2001). Pupils’ perceptions of science education at primary and secondary school. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross & P. Reiska (Eds.) Research in Science Education- Past, Present and Future (pp.125-130). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.
 
11.
Charbannier, É., & Vayssettes, S. (2009). PISA 2009 Presentation Note (France). Organisatian for Economic Cooperatian and Development. Retrieved from http;//v^ww.oecd.arg/pisa/46624019.pdt.
 
12.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
 
13.
Dave, R. H. (1970). Psychomotor levels. In Robert, J. A. (Eds.) Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives (pp.20-21). Tucson, AZ: Educational Innovators Press.
 
14.
Delargey, M. J. N. (2001). How to learn science “quickly, pleasantly and thoroughly”: Comenian thoughts. School Science Review, 82(301), 79–84.
 
15.
Fadzil, H. M., & Saat, R. M. (2013). Phenomenographic study of students’ manipulative skills during transition from primary to secondary school. Sains Humanika, 63(2), 71-75.
 
16.
Fadzil, H. M., & Saat, R. M. (2014). Enhancing STEM education during school transition: Bridging the gap in science manipulative skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(3), 209-218.
 
17.
Ferris, T. L, & Aziz, S. (2005, March 1-5). A psychomotor skills extension to Bloom’s taxonomy of education objectives for engineering education. Paper presented at International Conference on Engineering Education and Research: Exploring Innovation in Education and Research, Tainan, Taiwan.
 
18.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
 
19.
Fuccia, D., Witteck, T., Markic, S., & Eilks, I. (2012). Trend in practical work in German science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(1), 59-72.
 
20.
Gagne, R. (1985). The conditions of learning and the theory of instruction, (4th Ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
 
21.
Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based Teaching in Science Education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
 
22.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.
 
23.
Grant, L. (2011). Lab skills of new undergraduates: Report on the findings of a small scale study exploring university staff perceptions of the lab skills of new undergraduates at Russell Group Universities in England. London, United Kingdom: Gatsby Charitable Foundation.
 
24.
Hamza, K. M. (2013). Distractions in the school science laboratory. Research in Science Education, 43, 1477-1499.
 
25.
Hasni, A., & Potvin, P. (2015). Student’s interest in science and technology and its relationships with teaching methods, family context and self-efficacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(3), 337-366.
 
26.
Hofstein, A., & Mamlok, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105-107).
 
27.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
 
28.
Johnstone, A. H., & Al-Shuaili, A. (2001). Learning in the laboratory: Some thoughts from the literature. University Chemistry Education, 5, 42-51.
 
29.
Kempa, R. F. (1986). Assessment in Science. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
 
30.
Kennedy, J., Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2014). The continuing decline of science and mathematics enrolments in Australian high schools. Teaching Science, 60(2), 34-46.
 
31.
Kudenko, I., & Gras-Velázquez, À. (2016). The Future of European STEM Workforce: What Secondary School Pupils of Europe Think About STEM Industry and Careers. In Insights from Research in Science Teaching and Learning (pp. 223-236). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
 
32.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
 
33.
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: an analysis of research, theory, and practice. In N. Lederman & S. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393-441). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 
34.
McFarlane, D.A. (2013). Understanding the challenges of science education in the 21st century: New opportunities for scientific literacy. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 4, 35-44.
 
35.
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
 
36.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 
37.
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, E. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp.173-194). London, UK: Routledge.
 
38.
Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., Croker, S., & Härtig, H. (2016). What students learn from hands-on activities? Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Advance online publication.doi: 10.1002/tea.21320.
 
39.
Simpson, E. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain: The psychomotor domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.
 
40.
Smith, E. (2011). Staying in the science stream: patterns ot participation in A-level science Subjects in the UK. Educational Studies, 37(1), 59-71.
 
41.
Sorgo, A., & Spernjak, A. (2012). Practical work in Biology, Chemistry and Physics at lower secondary and general upper secondary schools in Slovenia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(1), 11-19.
 
42.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (3rd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
 
43.
Tesfamariam, G. M., Lykknes, A., & Kvittingen, L. (2015). Named small but doing great: An investigation of small-scale chemistry experimentation for effective undergraduate practical work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 1-18.
 
44.
Van Griethuijsen, R. A., van Eijck, M. W., Haste, H., den Brok, P. J., Skinner, N. C., Mansour, N., & BouJaoude, S. (2015). Global patterns in students’ views of science and interest in science. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 581-603.
 
45.
Wickman, P. O., & Ostman, L. (2002). Induction as an empirical problem: How students generalize during practical work. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 465-486.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215