Good Practical Science: Appendix 1 - Rapid Evidence Review

Mutlu Cukurova, Pam Hanley, Alexandra Lewis

Research output: Book/ReportOther report

Abstract

There is a clear need for more high-quality studies of practical work that have a tightly-defined focus and a rigorous methodological approach. We are confident that this finding would persist in a more extended review than a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA), which is necessarily limited in scope. We would not recommend conducting a more in-depth, more traditional systematic review at this stage. There is a wealth of commentary on the purpose and usefulness of practical science, but very few robust studies. A more extensive search encompassing the grey literature would undoubtedly identify more studies, but they are unlikely to add significantly to the current knowledge base. This REA has highlighted the need for more evaluations of practical science in its various guises. There is a requirement for research that is clear in its aims, focus and definitions; has a sound methodology with adequate sample sizes and appropriate outcome measures; and is designed to shed light on the usefulness of practical science work across different contexts and for different purposes. Drawing from the literature, the report identifies five main purposes of practical science.These are to enhance student performance in conceptual understanding; practical skills; non-subject specific intellectual and personal attributes; attitudes towards science; and understanding of how science and scientists work. There is currently a much greater evidence base around practical work improving physical skills and dexterity compared with the other four purposes of practical work defined in this report.
LanguageEnglish
PublisherThe Gatsby Charitable Foundation
Number of pages44
Publication statusPublished - 25 Sep 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

science
evidence
gray literature
methodology
evaluation
performance
student

Cite this

Cukurova, M., Hanley, P., & Lewis, A. (2017). Good Practical Science: Appendix 1 - Rapid Evidence Review. The Gatsby Charitable Foundation.
Cukurova, Mutlu ; Hanley, Pam ; Lewis, Alexandra. / Good Practical Science : Appendix 1 - Rapid Evidence Review. The Gatsby Charitable Foundation, 2017. 44 p.
@book{cbe8599f3ca647d18aab5d9031fc5f95,
title = "Good Practical Science: Appendix 1 - Rapid Evidence Review",
abstract = "There is a clear need for more high-quality studies of practical work that have a tightly-defined focus and a rigorous methodological approach. We are confident that this finding would persist in a more extended review than a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA), which is necessarily limited in scope. We would not recommend conducting a more in-depth, more traditional systematic review at this stage. There is a wealth of commentary on the purpose and usefulness of practical science, but very few robust studies. A more extensive search encompassing the grey literature would undoubtedly identify more studies, but they are unlikely to add significantly to the current knowledge base. This REA has highlighted the need for more evaluations of practical science in its various guises. There is a requirement for research that is clear in its aims, focus and definitions; has a sound methodology with adequate sample sizes and appropriate outcome measures; and is designed to shed light on the usefulness of practical science work across different contexts and for different purposes. Drawing from the literature, the report identifies five main purposes of practical science.These are to enhance student performance in conceptual understanding; practical skills; non-subject specific intellectual and personal attributes; attitudes towards science; and understanding of how science and scientists work. There is currently a much greater evidence base around practical work improving physical skills and dexterity compared with the other four purposes of practical work defined in this report.",
author = "Mutlu Cukurova and Pam Hanley and Alexandra Lewis",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "25",
language = "English",
publisher = "The Gatsby Charitable Foundation",

}

Cukurova, M, Hanley, P & Lewis, A 2017, Good Practical Science: Appendix 1 - Rapid Evidence Review. The Gatsby Charitable Foundation.

Good Practical Science : Appendix 1 - Rapid Evidence Review. / Cukurova, Mutlu; Hanley, Pam; Lewis, Alexandra.

The Gatsby Charitable Foundation, 2017. 44 p.

Research output: Book/ReportOther report

TY - BOOK

T1 - Good Practical Science

T2 - Appendix 1 - Rapid Evidence Review

AU - Cukurova, Mutlu

AU - Hanley, Pam

AU - Lewis, Alexandra

PY - 2017/9/25

Y1 - 2017/9/25

N2 - There is a clear need for more high-quality studies of practical work that have a tightly-defined focus and a rigorous methodological approach. We are confident that this finding would persist in a more extended review than a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA), which is necessarily limited in scope. We would not recommend conducting a more in-depth, more traditional systematic review at this stage. There is a wealth of commentary on the purpose and usefulness of practical science, but very few robust studies. A more extensive search encompassing the grey literature would undoubtedly identify more studies, but they are unlikely to add significantly to the current knowledge base. This REA has highlighted the need for more evaluations of practical science in its various guises. There is a requirement for research that is clear in its aims, focus and definitions; has a sound methodology with adequate sample sizes and appropriate outcome measures; and is designed to shed light on the usefulness of practical science work across different contexts and for different purposes. Drawing from the literature, the report identifies five main purposes of practical science.These are to enhance student performance in conceptual understanding; practical skills; non-subject specific intellectual and personal attributes; attitudes towards science; and understanding of how science and scientists work. There is currently a much greater evidence base around practical work improving physical skills and dexterity compared with the other four purposes of practical work defined in this report.

AB - There is a clear need for more high-quality studies of practical work that have a tightly-defined focus and a rigorous methodological approach. We are confident that this finding would persist in a more extended review than a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA), which is necessarily limited in scope. We would not recommend conducting a more in-depth, more traditional systematic review at this stage. There is a wealth of commentary on the purpose and usefulness of practical science, but very few robust studies. A more extensive search encompassing the grey literature would undoubtedly identify more studies, but they are unlikely to add significantly to the current knowledge base. This REA has highlighted the need for more evaluations of practical science in its various guises. There is a requirement for research that is clear in its aims, focus and definitions; has a sound methodology with adequate sample sizes and appropriate outcome measures; and is designed to shed light on the usefulness of practical science work across different contexts and for different purposes. Drawing from the literature, the report identifies five main purposes of practical science.These are to enhance student performance in conceptual understanding; practical skills; non-subject specific intellectual and personal attributes; attitudes towards science; and understanding of how science and scientists work. There is currently a much greater evidence base around practical work improving physical skills and dexterity compared with the other four purposes of practical work defined in this report.

UR - http://www.gatsby.org.uk/

M3 - Other report

BT - Good Practical Science

PB - The Gatsby Charitable Foundation

ER -

Cukurova M, Hanley P, Lewis A. Good Practical Science: Appendix 1 - Rapid Evidence Review. The Gatsby Charitable Foundation, 2017. 44 p.