微信客服：xiaoxionga100
微信客服：ITCS521
COVID-19-无代写
时间：2024-05-24
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Introduction:
The COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns have had a variety of impacts on pupils,
including a loss of in-person teaching time (Clatworthy, 2020), a loss of educational
opportunities, and for Science, an increased challenge in the ability to complete
practical work in class (Molloy, 2020). In a small Independent School in the South
East of the United Kingdom, one result of the recent pandemic has been a reduction
in the amount, and frequency, of in-class Chemistry practical work. The school
policy stated during the pandemic that for the current Year 11 pupils, their practical
work was not a priority relative to the requirement for Key Stage 5 pupils to
complete their compulsory practical work. This policy, adopted for public health
reasons and in line with the CLEAPSS guidance at the time, appears to have had an
unfortunate impact on the familiarity of the current Year 11 pupils with practical
work in Chemistry.
In line with the Chemistry Department’s policy, the GCSE required practicals were
to be completed independently by the pupils by reading and following the
conventional written instructions, in line with the standard approach as Paterson
(2018) mentions. However, following the pandemic, this approach did not seem to
be working. The pupils struggled to identify the correct equipment needed to carry
out the practical work, and they struggled with following the instructions. Indeed
Paterson (2018) identified this conventional approach could cause the split-attention
effect, whereby the division of working memory between the diagram on the top of
the page and the written instructions below overloads the working memory. This
then reduces the pupils’ ability to follow the instructions (Paterson, 2018).
As a result of the problem, observed during practical work, many similar questions
were posed by the pupils including asking what they should do next, and which
apparatus should be used (Paterson, 2018). These questions impeded the completion
of the practical work in the lesson, consequently reducing the amount of time
available for discussion and analysis of the results. A similar process was observed
to be occurring on each occasion practical work was undertaken. Thus, a change in
practice was required in order to address this problem.
Innovation:
One possible solution, based on the author’s experience as an undergraduate
Chemistry student, was to employ preparatory work prior to the practical, to aid
familiarity with the apparatus and method (Loveys & Riggs, 2019). Douglas and
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
Rajendram (2021) also suggested this approach would improve pupil performance in
correctly completing practical work.
The chosen innovation to address the problem was to incorporate a flipped learning
element to the practical. This involved setting the pupils a video of the experiment
that would be watched prior to the start of the lesson (Warren, 2021). This would be
set the week before the experiment, in line with the school’s homework policy. This
video would contain a series of questions at intervals during the video (Dixon &
Dixon, 2018), for the pupils to complete, using software and a website that the school
had access to, Edpuzzle. By setting the task on Edpuzzle, the functionality of the
website would benefit the use of the innovation. This website was chosen since all
pupils would have access to it, important for the innovation’s effectiveness (Ojjeh,
2020), as well as it being a recommended tool by the Head of Teaching and Learning
at the school.
Edpuzzle allows a video to be taken and for questions to be inserted at any point
into the video. These questions pause the video and cannot be missed since the
website prevents the video from being skipped forwards. Additionally, by using
multiple choice questioning, the software automatically marked the pupils’ answers.
Furthermore, the website tracked whether the pupils had watched the video, as well
as how much of the video had been watched, allowing the teacher to ensure all
pupils completed the task prior to the start of any practical work.
The video used as a basis for the innovation was produced by Malmesbury School
(2020) and was a teacher demonstration of the required practical in question
(Fairhurst, 2020). These videos had been suggested for use by Molloy (2020) and
Beech (2020) to ensure that practical Chemistry was able to continue during the
pandemic. However, the demonstration was repurposed as part of this innovation,
in line with the idea of Beech (2020) to enhance the in-person provision of Chemistry
practicals. The questions that were added to the videos discussed the importance of
the steps in the practical, as well as the theory behind the practical (Hendrick &
Heal, 2020). Since the practical would be completed after the theory had been
covered, this should relate the practical to the pupils’ prior learning as suggested by
Henrick and Heal (2020).
Additionally, such an innovation was justified since it combined a verbal
explanation with a visual representation of the instructions in the form of a
demonstration. Kirschner and Henrick (2020) have argued that such a combination
of words and images is beneficial to pupil understanding, and that this results in a
better understanding. This supports the use of a video as an appropriate approach to
raise pupil familiarity with an experimental method, and with the apparatus used
(Warren, 2021). Additionally, as Butler (2021) has stated a visual approach, such as a
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
video, that shows how the equipment is set up will benefit pupils with Special
Educational Needs or Differences (SEND). Therefore, this approach could help
ensure that all pupils can access the practical work.
Furthermore, the functionality presented by Edpuzzle allows the video to be viewed
again. Lee et al., (2021) reported that pupils valued being able to re-watch the
preparatory videos. Thus, the functionality would enable the pupils to adapt the task
to meet their needs, by repeating the video to ensure that they were familiar with the
method and the apparatus to be used. This would allow the pupils to be more
independent in directing their learning. Darlington (2020) has argued that
independent work is beneficial for pupil outcomes, and a flipped learning approach
required pupils to be independent. Though as Ojjeh (2020) and Lee et al., (2021)
acknowledged, such a change in classroom culture can be challenging to achieve.
This approach has been used before in other settings (Lee et al., 2021), however, it
was not the usual classroom practice for this teacher. Therefore, such a change
would be an innovation for this teacher and their practice.
Barriers:
Whilst there are some potential problems posed by this innovation, its use within the
context of a small Independent School in the United Kingdom allows these issues to
be prevented. The framework from Balanskat et al., (2006) was adapted and used to
consider the barriers to the effective implementation of this innovation. Four types of
barriers were considered: student level, teacher level, school level and system level.
The main student level barriers that may prevent this innovation from being
successful, is that not all the pupils may complete the homework in time for the
lesson (Lee et al., 2021). This problem could be overcome by ensuring that the pupils
completed the task before they were allowed to join in the practical work with their
peers. The functionality of Edpuzzle allowed the pupils’ progress in the task to be
monitored and identify any pupils who had not completed the task before the
lesson. These pupils could then be required to complete the task in the classroom
before they were allowed to start the practical work. Furthermore, the videos created
by Malmesbury School (2020) were short and were under 10 minutes long (Loveys &
Riggs, 2019). This would help to encourage the majority of pupils to complete the
task before the lesson, since it could be seen as a shorter homework task than usual.
The main teacher level barrier to the effectiveness of this innovation was the creation
of the appropriate resource. This could be overcome, by using videos that had
already been created and were publicly available on YouTube (Beech, 2020).
Furthermore, training on the use of Epuzzle had been provided by the school during
the pandemic, and it was a website that was familiar to the teacher in question. As
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
well as the creation of appropriate questions and identifying the ideal point in the
video to insert these questions. This barrier could be overcome by discussing the
innovation with colleagues within the department.
The main school level barrier to the success of this innovation was the homework
timetable and the frequency with which homework could be set. The school policy
stated that homework could be set only once a week per subject. Since the different
Year 11 classes had different rates of progress through the material, and there were
competing areas requiring the additional practice provided by homework, there was
not always an overlap that allowed for a full week to be provided for the video. In
order to overcome this barrier, the ability for the task to be completed in class, for
the pupils who had not completed it beforehand, prior to starting the experiment
was factored in.
The main system level barrier to the effective implementation of this innovation was
the ability of all pupils to access the preparatory task (Ojjeh, 2020). As Ojjeh (2020)
argued, the preparatory video to familiarise pupils with the experiment to be carried
out needs to be accessible to all. The school policy states that all pupils are required
to have a laptop or an iPad for every lesson, and all homework must be set online.
This ensures that any system level barrier to the innovation can be overcome.
Additionally, the school policy states that time must be set aside by teachers for
pupils to ask questions and receive additional support outside of lessons. These
times were published and widely known by the pupils. This ensured that any pupils
who might have required assistance with the task would be able to receive this help.
Evaluation:
The aim of the innovation was to increase pupil familiarity with the apparatus and
method to be used during practical work at GCSE. This innovation was carried out
prior to the module and the main method of evaluating the innovation was teacher
observation as a part of the normal lesson process. Whilst this method is suitable for
approximately gauging the pupils’ familiarity with the method and apparatus, it is
not ideal for this to be the only method of evaluation. This method was chosen by
default, and a more structured approach should have been selected.
To gain a greater understanding of the effect of the innovation the following
methods should have been employed. A questionnaire to gauge the familiarity of the
pupils with the apparatus, both in identifying the apparatus as well as in stating its
use (Johnston & Toplis, 2012). This should be set before and after the innovation to
gauge how the pupils’ understanding develops. To understand the effect on the
pupils’ ability to follow the method, a structured observation should be carried out
by another member of staff (Punch & Oancea, 2014). The member of staff could then
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
tally the number of pupil questions asked regarding the choice of apparatus, and the
number of questions asked regarding the practical method. This observation should
be carried out before and after the innovation to track the impact of the innovation.
The innovation was used as it has been described and it appeared to be partially
successful, which appears to support the findings of Loveys and Riggs (2019).
Though it did not completely remove all questions regarding the choice of apparatus
or what the next step in the method should be. However, there were limited
successes, such as one pupil not asking whether a beaker should be used to measure
the volume of a solution, but rather asking which of the two sizes of measuring
cylinder provided should be used. Whilst this was of limited success, this
overcoming of a longstanding misconception was a significant achievement for the
pupil in question.
It was found that not all the pupils completed the preparatory task before the lesson,
and thus, the impact of the innovation could be called into question. This was the
main student level barrier to the effectiveness of the innovation and for some this
was a substantial barrier. Whilst time was set aside at the start of the lesson for these
pupils to complete the task, during which their peers were able to start work, this
reduced the ability of the pupils to repeat the video to improve their familiarity with
the method depending on their needs. Additionally, this introduced a separate
access barrier due to the unreliability of the internet connection in the laboratory,
and because the use of a computer was not a regular part of lesson routines, not all
pupils brought a fully charged laptop to the lesson.
Whilst Ojjeh (2020) recommends a tightening up of the school homework policy to
ensure that their rewards and sanctions were sufficient to ensure that the timely
completion of homework was adequately incentivised. This would, however, require
a whole school approach, which would be more challenging to implement. As well
as introducing a substantial school level barrier to the innovation.
Alternatively, this task could have been set earlier, to enable any consequences of the
incompletion of the task to occur prior to the completion of the practical. This
potentially could be overcome through the continued use of this approach, to enable
the routine to become embedded into the classroom culture. As Rogers (2015) has
implied, it takes time to embed a routine. Thus, a shortage of time to embed this
innovation as an established part of the classroom culture could have limited the
effectiveness of the approach (Ojjeh, 2020). This suggests that further use of the
innovation over a prolonged period may result in an improvement in the
effectiveness, and as a result, further research on this topic would be required.
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
Lee et al., (2021) argued that a flipped learning approach that had not been
adequately thought through and planned for would not benefit pupil outcomes. This
could explain the limited success of the innovation since it required further planning
and development prior to the implementation. This would create an additional
teacher level barrier to ensure that the classroom culture was in place to ensure that
the pupils understood the rationale behind the innovation. Additionally, this
innovation should be discussed at a departmental level to ensure that the resource
had been adequately thought through and to facilitate more effective
implementation.
The school level barrier proved problematic to overcome, due to the competing
demands for homework. Whilst the option to allow time to complete the video in
class before the experiment overcame this problem, it was not an ideal solution. This
was because the completion in class limited the amount of time that could be spent
on the task. Moreover, it is possible that this could have incentivised a rushed
completion, to move onto the experiment, which was seen as a fun activity, a factor
that Crabb (2015) advised against. As a result, insufficient attention could have been
spent on the task. Therefore, an important further adaptation to the innovation is to
ensure that adequate time to complete the homework prior to the lesson is provided
and to follow up any incomplete work before the lesson.
The time constraints could potentially be overcome, by adding a step to the process
of ordering the practical from the technician support. This step would then check if
the preparatory video had been set and if it would be completed in time. If
insufficient time had been allowed, or if the video had not been set, then the practical
could be delayed until such time as the preparatory video would be completed.
Whilst the school policy requiring a fully functioning laptop or iPad for each lesson
should have ensured that all pupils could access the task and prevented system level
barriers from reducing the effectiveness of the intervention. This was not found to be
the case. Though Edpuzzle can be accessed from a mobile phone that has access to
the internet, and though there are communal computers that the pupils have access
to, the school level and student level barriers combined to exacerbate the system
level barriers. This could be overcome by ensuring that the full time was available to
complete the task as well as following up any incomplete work to ensure that all
pupils had completed the task before the lesson. This should then prevent any
temporary access constraints from inhibiting the effectiveness of the intervention.
Conclusion:
This innovation was carried out prior to this module in response to a problem
discovered in the usual process of teaching. The anecdotal evidence at the time
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
appeared convincing in that this innovation had a beneficial impact on the
educational problem. As such it is worth further investigation to determine if this
innovation lives up to the promise that it presents.
Seery (2014) has argued that most teaching innovations are partially successful in
improving pupil learning. It could be argued that this innovation was partially
successful in improving the pupils’ familiarity with the method, and with the
apparatus to be used. Whilst the innovation appeared to increase pupil familiarity
with the method, and reduce the uncertainty in following it, as identified by
Paterson (2018), it does not directly resolve the split attention effect that Paterson
(2018) observed. A further adaptation to this innovation could be to include
diagrammatic representations of the method, as proposed by Paterson (2018).
Nevertheless, further systematic research into the effectiveness of this innovation,
and ways of improving pupil learning, is required.
The current Year 11 are not the only pupils to have experienced an interruption to
their education due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the problem of pupils’
lacking familiarity with chemical apparatus and the difficulty in following
conventional practical instructions, as noted by Paterson (2018) prior to the
pandemic, ensures that this educational problem will continue to require a solution.
References:
Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., Kefala, S. (2006) ‘The ICT impact report’, European
Schoolnet, 1, pp 1-71
Beech, D. (2020) ‘5 teaching technologies to enhance socially-distanced learning’
Education in Chemistry, Available at: https://edu.rsc.org/ideas/5-teaching-
technologies-to-improve-socially-distanced-learning/4012834.article (Accessed
21/4/2022).
Butler, R. (2021) ‘SEND: Teaching learners with special educational needs and
additional support needs’, Education in Science, 285, pp. 14-15.
Clatworthy, L. (2020) ‘Covid-19 consequences’, Education in Chemistry, Available at:
https://edu.rsc.org/opinion/what-will-be-the-consequences-of-coronavirus-for-
teachers/4012034.article (Accessed 28/4/2022).
Crabb, E. (2015) ‘Practical science at a distance’, Education in Chemistry, Available at:
https://edu.rsc.org/feature/practical-science-at-a-distance/2000104.article (Accessed
28/4/2022).
Darlington, H. (2020) ‘We’ve got this!’, Education in Science, 282, pp 12-13.
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
Dixon, N., and Dixon, N. (2018) ‘Enhancing the teaching of science with ICT’ in
Banner, I., and Hillier, J. (eds.) ASE Guide to Secondary Science Education. 4th edition.
Hatfield: The Association for Science Education, pp. 186-197.
Douglas, E., and Rajendram, R., (2021) ‘The role of virtual labs in your teaching’,
Education in Chemistry, Available at: https://edu.rsc.org/endpoint/why-you-should-
use-virtual-labs/4014074.article (Accessed: 24/4/2022).
Fairhurst, P. (2020) ‘GCSE practical work post-lockdown: Covering the required
techniques and preparing students for practical-themed exam questions’, Education
in Science, 281, pp. 14-16.
Hendrick, C., and Heal, J. (2020) ‘Just because they’re engaged, it doesn’t mean
they’re learning’, Impact, 10, pp. 6-9.
Johnston, J., and Toplis, R. (2012) ‘Research methods’ in Oversby, J. (ed.) ASE Guide
to Research in Science Education. Hatfield: The Association for Science Education, pp.
200-210.
Kirschner, P.A., and Henrick, C. (2020) How Learning Happens: Seminal works in
Educational Psychology and What They Mean in Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Lee, G., Jeon, Y., and Hong, H., (2021) ‘The effects of cooperative flipped learning on
science achievement and motivation in high school students’, International Journal of
Science Education, 43(9), pp 1381-1407, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1917788
Loveys, B.R., and Riggs, K.M (2019) ‘Flipping the laboratory: improving student
engagement and learning outcomes in second year science courses’, International
Journal of Science Education, 41(1), pp. 64-79. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1533663
Malmesbury Education (2020) GCSE Chemistry Practicals 6th May, Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAd0MSIZBSsEygAZyDRkK0PgQZ6uiC98
F (Accessed 21/02/2022).
Molloy, E. (2020) ‘How to teach practical chemistry remotely’, Education in Chemistry,
Available at: https://edu.rsc.org/ideas/how-to-teach-practical-chemistry-
remotely/4011361.article (Accessed 24/4/2022).
Ojjeh, D. (2020) ‘Should flipped learning be here to stay?’, Education in Chemistry,
Available at: https://edu.rsc.org/ideas/how-to-implement-flipped-learning-in-
2021/4012120.article (Accessed 21/4/2022).
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
Paterson, D. (2018) ‘Improving practical work with integrated instructions’,
Education in Chemistry, Available at: https://edu.rsc.org/feature/improving-practical-
work-with-integrated-instructions/3009798.article (Accessed 24/4/2022).
Punch, K.F., and Oancea, A. (2014) Introduction to Research Methods in Education. 2nd
edition. London: Sage.
Rogers, B. (2015) Classroom Behaviour. 4th edition. London: Sage.
Seery, M. (2014) ‘The impact of innovations in teaching’, Education in Chemistry,
Available at: https://edu.rsc.org/opinion/the-impact-of-innovations-in-
teaching/2010112.article (Accessed 28/4/2022).
Warren, D. (2021) ‘Maximise learning from practical videos’, Education in Chemistry,
58(2), p29.
Word count: 2994 words.
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
Appendix:
Examples of the resources can be found at:
https://edpuzzle.com/media/6204fc5f86a0ad42f90dbfc9
https://edpuzzle.com/media/6270d8a8c44b3e432361594f
Student number: 24621706
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Introduction:
The COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns have had a variety of impacts on pupils,
including a loss of in-person teaching time (Clatworthy, 2020), a loss of educational
opportunities, and for Science, an increased challenge in the ability to complete
practical work in class (Molloy, 2020). In a small Independent School in the South
East of the United Kingdom, one result of the recent pandemic has been a reduction
in the amount, and frequency, of in-class Chemistry practical work. The school
policy stated during the pandemic that for the current Year 11 pupils, their practical
work was not a priority relative to the requirement for Key Stage 5 pupils to
complete their compulsory practical work. This policy, adopted for public health
reasons and in line with the CLEAPSS guidance at the time, appears to have had an
unfortunate impact on the familiarity of the current Year 11 pupils with practical
work in Chemistry.
In line with the Chemistry Department’s policy, the GCSE required practicals were
to be completed independently by the pupils by reading and following the
conventional written instructions, in line with the standard approach as Paterson
(2018) mentions. However, following the pandemic, this approach did not seem to
be working. The pupils struggled to identify the correct equipment needed to carry
out the practical work, and they struggled with following the instructions. Indeed
Paterson (2018) identified this conventional approach could cause the split-attention
effect, whereby the division of working memory between the diagram on the top of
the page and the written instructions below overloads the working memory. This
then reduces the pupils’ ability to follow the instructions (Paterson, 2018).
As a result of the problem, observed during practical work, many similar questions
were posed by the pupils including asking what they should do next, and which
apparatus should be used (Paterson, 2018). These questions impeded the completion
of the practical work in the lesson, consequently reducing the amount of time
available for discussion and analysis of the results. A similar process was observed
to be occurring on each occasion practical work was undertaken. Thus, a change in
practice was required in order to address this problem.
Innovation:
One possible solution, based on the author’s experience as an undergraduate
Chemistry student, was to employ preparatory work prior to the practical, to aid
familiarity with the apparatus and method (Loveys & Riggs, 2019). Douglas and
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
Rajendram (2021) also suggested this approach would improve pupil performance in
correctly completing practical work.
The chosen innovation to address the problem was to incorporate a flipped learning
element to the practical. This involved setting the pupils a video of the experiment
that would be watched prior to the start of the lesson (Warren, 2021). This would be
set the week before the experiment, in line with the school’s homework policy. This
video would contain a series of questions at intervals during the video (Dixon &
Dixon, 2018), for the pupils to complete, using software and a website that the school
had access to, Edpuzzle. By setting the task on Edpuzzle, the functionality of the
website would benefit the use of the innovation. This website was chosen since all
pupils would have access to it, important for the innovation’s effectiveness (Ojjeh,
2020), as well as it being a recommended tool by the Head of Teaching and Learning
at the school.
Edpuzzle allows a video to be taken and for questions to be inserted at any point
into the video. These questions pause the video and cannot be missed since the
website prevents the video from being skipped forwards. Additionally, by using
multiple choice questioning, the software automatically marked the pupils’ answers.
Furthermore, the website tracked whether the pupils had watched the video, as well
as how much of the video had been watched, allowing the teacher to ensure all
pupils completed the task prior to the start of any practical work.
The video used as a basis for the innovation was produced by Malmesbury School
(2020) and was a teacher demonstration of the required practical in question
(Fairhurst, 2020). These videos had been suggested for use by Molloy (2020) and
Beech (2020) to ensure that practical Chemistry was able to continue during the
pandemic. However, the demonstration was repurposed as part of this innovation,
in line with the idea of Beech (2020) to enhance the in-person provision of Chemistry
practicals. The questions that were added to the videos discussed the importance of
the steps in the practical, as well as the theory behind the practical (Hendrick &
Heal, 2020). Since the practical would be completed after the theory had been
covered, this should relate the practical to the pupils’ prior learning as suggested by
Henrick and Heal (2020).
Additionally, such an innovation was justified since it combined a verbal
explanation with a visual representation of the instructions in the form of a
demonstration. Kirschner and Henrick (2020) have argued that such a combination
of words and images is beneficial to pupil understanding, and that this results in a
better understanding. This supports the use of a video as an appropriate approach to
raise pupil familiarity with an experimental method, and with the apparatus used
(Warren, 2021). Additionally, as Butler (2021) has stated a visual approach, such as a
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
video, that shows how the equipment is set up will benefit pupils with Special
Educational Needs or Differences (SEND). Therefore, this approach could help
ensure that all pupils can access the practical work.
Furthermore, the functionality presented by Edpuzzle allows the video to be viewed
again. Lee et al., (2021) reported that pupils valued being able to re-watch the
preparatory videos. Thus, the functionality would enable the pupils to adapt the task
to meet their needs, by repeating the video to ensure that they were familiar with the
method and the apparatus to be used. This would allow the pupils to be more
independent in directing their learning. Darlington (2020) has argued that
independent work is beneficial for pupil outcomes, and a flipped learning approach
required pupils to be independent. Though as Ojjeh (2020) and Lee et al., (2021)
acknowledged, such a change in classroom culture can be challenging to achieve.
This approach has been used before in other settings (Lee et al., 2021), however, it
was not the usual classroom practice for this teacher. Therefore, such a change
would be an innovation for this teacher and their practice.
Barriers:
Whilst there are some potential problems posed by this innovation, its use within the
context of a small Independent School in the United Kingdom allows these issues to
be prevented. The framework from Balanskat et al., (2006) was adapted and used to
consider the barriers to the effective implementation of this innovation. Four types of
barriers were considered: student level, teacher level, school level and system level.
The main student level barriers that may prevent this innovation from being
successful, is that not all the pupils may complete the homework in time for the
lesson (Lee et al., 2021). This problem could be overcome by ensuring that the pupils
completed the task before they were allowed to join in the practical work with their
peers. The functionality of Edpuzzle allowed the pupils’ progress in the task to be
monitored and identify any pupils who had not completed the task before the
lesson. These pupils could then be required to complete the task in the classroom
before they were allowed to start the practical work. Furthermore, the videos created
by Malmesbury School (2020) were short and were under 10 minutes long (Loveys &
Riggs, 2019). This would help to encourage the majority of pupils to complete the
task before the lesson, since it could be seen as a shorter homework task than usual.
The main teacher level barrier to the effectiveness of this innovation was the creation
of the appropriate resource. This could be overcome, by using videos that had
already been created and were publicly available on YouTube (Beech, 2020).
Furthermore, training on the use of Epuzzle had been provided by the school during
the pandemic, and it was a website that was familiar to the teacher in question. As
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
well as the creation of appropriate questions and identifying the ideal point in the
video to insert these questions. This barrier could be overcome by discussing the
innovation with colleagues within the department.
The main school level barrier to the success of this innovation was the homework
timetable and the frequency with which homework could be set. The school policy
stated that homework could be set only once a week per subject. Since the different
Year 11 classes had different rates of progress through the material, and there were
competing areas requiring the additional practice provided by homework, there was
not always an overlap that allowed for a full week to be provided for the video. In
order to overcome this barrier, the ability for the task to be completed in class, for
the pupils who had not completed it beforehand, prior to starting the experiment
was factored in.
The main system level barrier to the effective implementation of this innovation was
the ability of all pupils to access the preparatory task (Ojjeh, 2020). As Ojjeh (2020)
argued, the preparatory video to familiarise pupils with the experiment to be carried
out needs to be accessible to all. The school policy states that all pupils are required
to have a laptop or an iPad for every lesson, and all homework must be set online.
This ensures that any system level barrier to the innovation can be overcome.
Additionally, the school policy states that time must be set aside by teachers for
pupils to ask questions and receive additional support outside of lessons. These
times were published and widely known by the pupils. This ensured that any pupils
who might have required assistance with the task would be able to receive this help.
Evaluation:
The aim of the innovation was to increase pupil familiarity with the apparatus and
method to be used during practical work at GCSE. This innovation was carried out
prior to the module and the main method of evaluating the innovation was teacher
observation as a part of the normal lesson process. Whilst this method is suitable for
approximately gauging the pupils’ familiarity with the method and apparatus, it is
not ideal for this to be the only method of evaluation. This method was chosen by
default, and a more structured approach should have been selected.
To gain a greater understanding of the effect of the innovation the following
methods should have been employed. A questionnaire to gauge the familiarity of the
pupils with the apparatus, both in identifying the apparatus as well as in stating its
use (Johnston & Toplis, 2012). This should be set before and after the innovation to
gauge how the pupils’ understanding develops. To understand the effect on the
pupils’ ability to follow the method, a structured observation should be carried out
by another member of staff (Punch & Oancea, 2014). The member of staff could then
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
tally the number of pupil questions asked regarding the choice of apparatus, and the
number of questions asked regarding the practical method. This observation should
be carried out before and after the innovation to track the impact of the innovation.
The innovation was used as it has been described and it appeared to be partially
successful, which appears to support the findings of Loveys and Riggs (2019).
Though it did not completely remove all questions regarding the choice of apparatus
or what the next step in the method should be. However, there were limited
successes, such as one pupil not asking whether a beaker should be used to measure
the volume of a solution, but rather asking which of the two sizes of measuring
cylinder provided should be used. Whilst this was of limited success, this
overcoming of a longstanding misconception was a significant achievement for the
pupil in question.
It was found that not all the pupils completed the preparatory task before the lesson,
and thus, the impact of the innovation could be called into question. This was the
main student level barrier to the effectiveness of the innovation and for some this
was a substantial barrier. Whilst time was set aside at the start of the lesson for these
pupils to complete the task, during which their peers were able to start work, this
reduced the ability of the pupils to repeat the video to improve their familiarity with
the method depending on their needs. Additionally, this introduced a separate
access barrier due to the unreliability of the internet connection in the laboratory,
and because the use of a computer was not a regular part of lesson routines, not all
pupils brought a fully charged laptop to the lesson.
Whilst Ojjeh (2020) recommends a tightening up of the school homework policy to
ensure that their rewards and sanctions were sufficient to ensure that the timely
completion of homework was adequately incentivised. This would, however, require
a whole school approach, which would be more challenging to implement. As well
as introducing a substantial school level barrier to the innovation.
Alternatively, this task could have been set earlier, to enable any consequences of the
incompletion of the task to occur prior to the completion of the practical. This
potentially could be overcome through the continued use of this approach, to enable
the routine to become embedded into the classroom culture. As Rogers (2015) has
implied, it takes time to embed a routine. Thus, a shortage of time to embed this
innovation as an established part of the classroom culture could have limited the
effectiveness of the approach (Ojjeh, 2020). This suggests that further use of the
innovation over a prolonged period may result in an improvement in the
effectiveness, and as a result, further research on this topic would be required.
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
Lee et al., (2021) argued that a flipped learning approach that had not been
adequately thought through and planned for would not benefit pupil outcomes. This
could explain the limited success of the innovation since it required further planning
and development prior to the implementation. This would create an additional
teacher level barrier to ensure that the classroom culture was in place to ensure that
the pupils understood the rationale behind the innovation. Additionally, this
innovation should be discussed at a departmental level to ensure that the resource
had been adequately thought through and to facilitate more effective
implementation.
The school level barrier proved problematic to overcome, due to the competing
demands for homework. Whilst the option to allow time to complete the video in
class before the experiment overcame this problem, it was not an ideal solution. This
was because the completion in class limited the amount of time that could be spent
on the task. Moreover, it is possible that this could have incentivised a rushed
completion, to move onto the experiment, which was seen as a fun activity, a factor
that Crabb (2015) advised against. As a result, insufficient attention could have been
spent on the task. Therefore, an important further adaptation to the innovation is to
ensure that adequate time to complete the homework prior to the lesson is provided
and to follow up any incomplete work before the lesson.
The time constraints could potentially be overcome, by adding a step to the process
of ordering the practical from the technician support. This step would then check if
the preparatory video had been set and if it would be completed in time. If
insufficient time had been allowed, or if the video had not been set, then the practical
could be delayed until such time as the preparatory video would be completed.
Whilst the school policy requiring a fully functioning laptop or iPad for each lesson
should have ensured that all pupils could access the task and prevented system level
barriers from reducing the effectiveness of the intervention. This was not found to be
the case. Though Edpuzzle can be accessed from a mobile phone that has access to
the internet, and though there are communal computers that the pupils have access
to, the school level and student level barriers combined to exacerbate the system
level barriers. This could be overcome by ensuring that the full time was available to
complete the task as well as following up any incomplete work to ensure that all
pupils had completed the task before the lesson. This should then prevent any
temporary access constraints from inhibiting the effectiveness of the intervention.
Conclusion:
This innovation was carried out prior to this module in response to a problem
discovered in the usual process of teaching. The anecdotal evidence at the time
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
appeared convincing in that this innovation had a beneficial impact on the
educational problem. As such it is worth further investigation to determine if this
innovation lives up to the promise that it presents.
Seery (2014) has argued that most teaching innovations are partially successful in
improving pupil learning. It could be argued that this innovation was partially
successful in improving the pupils’ familiarity with the method, and with the
apparatus to be used. Whilst the innovation appeared to increase pupil familiarity
with the method, and reduce the uncertainty in following it, as identified by
Paterson (2018), it does not directly resolve the split attention effect that Paterson
(2018) observed. A further adaptation to this innovation could be to include
diagrammatic representations of the method, as proposed by Paterson (2018).
Nevertheless, further systematic research into the effectiveness of this innovation,
and ways of improving pupil learning, is required.
The current Year 11 are not the only pupils to have experienced an interruption to
their education due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the problem of pupils’
lacking familiarity with chemical apparatus and the difficulty in following
conventional practical instructions, as noted by Paterson (2018) prior to the
pandemic, ensures that this educational problem will continue to require a solution.
References:
Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., Kefala, S. (2006) ‘The ICT impact report’, European
Schoolnet, 1, pp 1-71
Beech, D. (2020) ‘5 teaching technologies to enhance socially-distanced learning’
Education in Chemistry, Available at: https://edu.rsc.org/ideas/5-teaching-
technologies-to-improve-socially-distanced-learning/4012834.article (Accessed
21/4/2022).
Butler, R. (2021) ‘SEND: Teaching learners with special educational needs and
additional support needs’, Education in Science, 285, pp. 14-15.
Clatworthy, L. (2020) ‘Covid-19 consequences’, Education in Chemistry, Available at:
https://edu.rsc.org/opinion/what-will-be-the-consequences-of-coronavirus-for-
teachers/4012034.article (Accessed 28/4/2022).
Crabb, E. (2015) ‘Practical science at a distance’, Education in Chemistry, Available at:
https://edu.rsc.org/feature/practical-science-at-a-distance/2000104.article (Accessed
28/4/2022).
Darlington, H. (2020) ‘We’ve got this!’, Education in Science, 282, pp 12-13.
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
Dixon, N., and Dixon, N. (2018) ‘Enhancing the teaching of science with ICT’ in
Banner, I., and Hillier, J. (eds.) ASE Guide to Secondary Science Education. 4th edition.
Hatfield: The Association for Science Education, pp. 186-197.
Douglas, E., and Rajendram, R., (2021) ‘The role of virtual labs in your teaching’,
Education in Chemistry, Available at: https://edu.rsc.org/endpoint/why-you-should-
use-virtual-labs/4014074.article (Accessed: 24/4/2022).
Fairhurst, P. (2020) ‘GCSE practical work post-lockdown: Covering the required
techniques and preparing students for practical-themed exam questions’, Education
in Science, 281, pp. 14-16.
Hendrick, C., and Heal, J. (2020) ‘Just because they’re engaged, it doesn’t mean
they’re learning’, Impact, 10, pp. 6-9.
Johnston, J., and Toplis, R. (2012) ‘Research methods’ in Oversby, J. (ed.) ASE Guide
to Research in Science Education. Hatfield: The Association for Science Education, pp.
200-210.
Kirschner, P.A., and Henrick, C. (2020) How Learning Happens: Seminal works in
Educational Psychology and What They Mean in Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Lee, G., Jeon, Y., and Hong, H., (2021) ‘The effects of cooperative flipped learning on
science achievement and motivation in high school students’, International Journal of
Science Education, 43(9), pp 1381-1407, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1917788
Loveys, B.R., and Riggs, K.M (2019) ‘Flipping the laboratory: improving student
engagement and learning outcomes in second year science courses’, International
Journal of Science Education, 41(1), pp. 64-79. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1533663
Malmesbury Education (2020) GCSE Chemistry Practicals 6th May, Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAd0MSIZBSsEygAZyDRkK0PgQZ6uiC98
F (Accessed 21/02/2022).
Molloy, E. (2020) ‘How to teach practical chemistry remotely’, Education in Chemistry,
Available at: https://edu.rsc.org/ideas/how-to-teach-practical-chemistry-
remotely/4011361.article (Accessed 24/4/2022).
Ojjeh, D. (2020) ‘Should flipped learning be here to stay?’, Education in Chemistry,
Available at: https://edu.rsc.org/ideas/how-to-implement-flipped-learning-in-
2021/4012120.article (Accessed 21/4/2022).
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
Paterson, D. (2018) ‘Improving practical work with integrated instructions’,
Education in Chemistry, Available at: https://edu.rsc.org/feature/improving-practical-
work-with-integrated-instructions/3009798.article (Accessed 24/4/2022).
Punch, K.F., and Oancea, A. (2014) Introduction to Research Methods in Education. 2nd
edition. London: Sage.
Rogers, B. (2015) Classroom Behaviour. 4th edition. London: Sage.
Seery, M. (2014) ‘The impact of innovations in teaching’, Education in Chemistry,
Available at: https://edu.rsc.org/opinion/the-impact-of-innovations-in-
teaching/2010112.article (Accessed 28/4/2022).
Warren, D. (2021) ‘Maximise learning from practical videos’, Education in Chemistry,
58(2), p29.
Word count: 2994 words.
Investigating Innovations in Teaching and Learning
Student number: 24621706
Appendix:
Examples of the resources can be found at:
https://edpuzzle.com/media/6204fc5f86a0ad42f90dbfc9
https://edpuzzle.com/media/6270d8a8c44b3e432361594f
