21C Science GCSE - Nuffield Foundation



[pic]

C21 GCSE Science

Case Study Guidance

May 2007

Twenty First Century Science Training pack 2 Unit F5

The Nuffield Foundation and the University of York are grateful to Damian Ainscough of Blackpool Local Authority for permission to include this material in Twenty First Century Science

Training pack 2

There is a range of support material relating to students’ learning of how to present a case study. These include:

1. Twenty First Century Science Suite - specification

[Available at

Appendix F: Ideas about Science [page 85] is particularly important. It should be used in analysing and comparing viewpoints/claims. For example, students are NOT expected to judge the quality of a scientific report for themselves, but to comment on where it has been published (and by whom) – Is it reputable? Has it been peer reviewed? That is how they judge its validity and reliability. A well-written Case Study should be peppered with terminology showing knowledge of IaS. [See Appendix E, ‘Judging a source of information’, in this document.]

2. Twenty First Century Science Suite Teacher Support Booklet

[Available at This includes:

Appendix D: Marking Criteria for Case Studies (A219)

Appendix E: Suggestions for Topics for Case Studies

Appendix F: Guidance for Students Writing a Case Study

Appendix G: Examples of Completed Case Studies with Commentaries

Appendix I: Support for Very Weak Students to Produce Coursework

2. Examples of completed case studies with marks and brief commentaries included

within the separate subject documents available at

[see page 4]

3. Learning Skills for Science materials

See task references in Appendix D

4. Ideas about Science Glossary

Available at

5. Blackpool resources

PowerPoint available at



6. Malton School, North Yorkshire - website



7. - (Click on 'Teachers' section') - has lots of useful information

that could inform a Case Study related to P3

(Click on ‘Debate topics’) also has much useful information

8. Analysing text types: Discursive writing

Full document [Module 2] available at:



Connectives as signposts in writing

See appendix C and page 13

| |

|Notes on the following pages outline some key issues arising from discussions between Science Consultant, Damian Ainscough, English Consultant, |

|Helen Lapping, and General Adviser/Inspector – English, Glenn Mascord. |

|Thanks also to Tracey Bell, Literacy Coordinator and English teacher at Palatine Community Sports College, Blackpool, for her contribution through|

|her detailed analysis and comment on a student’s Case Study. |

|Any comments/suggestions welcome to damian.ainscough@.uk |

|Audience, form and purpose – discursive writing |

|Audience: 13-15 year old students |

|Purpose: to present arguments around a current controversial science-based issue, including evaluation of these arguments and presentation of |

|personal conclusions |

|Form: a written report, poster, PowerPoint, leaflet, script etc. Teachers can limit the acceptable forms to ease internal standardisation, |

|certainly in early years of the course. Some of the Pilot schools still restrict students to written report, PowerPoint and audio recording (for |

|EAL students). |

|Preparation – short term |

|Students will need a clear understanding of the possible audiences and forms as well as the purpose of the case study [in addition to it being a |

|piece of coursework!]. |

|Summative assessment – how much choice? |

|It is suggested that in the first year, a limited number of topics are provided [e.g. 3] and that a range of source materials is provided for each|

|one [e.g. 2/3 pieces of evidence ‘for/agree’ and 2/3 pieces of evidence ‘against/disagree’]. |

|Preparation – long term |

|Over the course, the pupils could have 3-4 opportunities [one per term?] to collaboratively research, discuss, debate, argue, conclude and |

|evaluate orally and through writing, a topical contemporary science issue. |

|For example, half the group could be asked to research and present ‘for’, and half ‘against’. Following presentations, small groups could be |

|asked to formulate and present their own conclusions, having evaluated the strength of all arguments. |

|On at least one occasion, students should be asked to argue a case that they do not personally agree with. |

|Differentiation and requirements for higher marks |

|Sequential model [GCSE ~D-G] as exemplified in the OCR ‘Case Study checklist’ |

|Students present a list of referenced evidence ‘for’, a list of referenced evidence ‘against’, then their personal conclusion/evaluation [see |

|Appendix A]. Students are unable to attain the highest marks using this method unless they evaluate and critically compare the pieces of evidence|

|they have listed. This is likely to require a significant amount of repetition of the evidence. |

|Comparative model [GCSE ~A*-D] |

|First, students consider the possible themes to be considered in the case study e.g. cost, safety, environmental impact. Each theme is considered|

|in turn with the student presenting and linking evidence ‘for’ and ‘against’. They are evaluating and critically comparing each theme as they |

|present the evidence. This model is more likely to access the higher marks. [see Appendix B and ‘Marking Criteria for Case Studies’] |

|Some claims will LACK evidence. An ability to notice and state this can be rewarded. At a higher demand level, stating what evidence might be |

|expected in such cases contributes to the evaluation. |

|Working together: English and Science departments |

|There is much common ground in GCSE English [e.g. ‘Analyse-review-comment’ assessment] and aspects of a case study could be used for English as |

|well as Science summative assessment. [Less work for the students but requiring effective liaison between departments.] |

|Judging a source of information |

|Pupils can use the grid shown in Appendix E to judge the reliability of a source. |

|In the first instance, the teacher might model this process using ‘traffic light’ or ‘2, 1, 0’ code assessment for each statement. |

|Examples of case studies from OCR [ ] |

|The following examples are available on the OCR website and include marks and brief commentaries. |

| |Marks |

| |4 8 8 4 maximum |

|Biology: | |

|Cloning |2 4 2 2 |

|Should human cloning be allowed? |3 5 4 3 |

|Cloning |4 5 5 3 |

| | |

|Chemistry: | |

|Can levels of pollution affect a town’s tourism? |3 3 3 2 |

|Are the government doing enough to reduce air pollution? |1 4 5 4 |

|Are [sic] the rise in asthma attacks caused by the air pollution? |3 7 7 4 |

| | |

|Physics: | |

|Mobile phones. Are they a risk to your health? |4 6 6 4 |

|Are mobile phones damaging our health? |3 3 4 2 |

|Are mobile phones dangerous? |2 2 4 1 |

| | |

Appendix A:

|Title page |Should spaghetti be grown on trees or on sand beds? |

| | |Page: |

| |Title page |1 |

| |Introduction |2 |

| |Scientific theory/background |3 |

| |Evidence/arguments re growing on trees |4 |

| |[3 pieces] | |

| |Evidence/arguments re growing on sand beds |8 |

| |[3 pieces] | |

| |My conclusions |12 |

| |Bibliography |14 |

| |My case study presentation checklist |15 |

| | | |

|Introduction |Explanation of what the Case Study is about and how the report is structured. |

| |As you are no doubt aware, there has been an ongoing debate about how spaghetti should be grown. There is a range of |

| |opinions, each of which is backed up by some scientific evidence. This report is an attempt to collect together these |

| |arguments/opinions and for me to evaluate these and explain my own opinions about this. |

| |The report starts with a summary of the research which suggests that spaghetti is best grown on trees. The next section |

| |then summarises research suggesting spaghetti should be grown on sand beds. I then give my opinions about each argument and|

| |my overall viewpoint. |

|Scientific theory |Relevant background science. |

| |Spaghetti can grow at a rate of up to 15 cm per month but this rate depends on a number of factors including the amount of |

| |nutrients available, exposure to the air and light, certain airborne pollutants, availability of water, and freshness of the|

| |spaghetti ‘seed’. [Abbott 1999; Dolmio 2005] |

| |In order for spaghetti to grow well, its rate of photodiffusion must be maximised. |

| |The two most common methods of spaghetti growth are |

| |from the branches of trees |

| |laid on sand beds |

|Evidence |Relevant information from sources collected with detailed references in each case. |

| |Evidence from both sides of the case. |

| |Authenticity and reliability of the evidence recognised; |

| |Explanation of the evidence using underlying science. |

| |Growing on trees |

| |Evidence A: |

| |In 1996, the BBC commissioned a study by Professor Mary Flour of the University of Maryland. She concluded that the rate of|

| |growth was enhanced by growing spaghetti on trees due to the increased exposure to air and the important nutrients that the |

| |spaghetti gains from the tree bark, in particular, the mineral selenium. Professor Flour is professor of food and nutrition|

| |and was formerly senior researcher at Oxburgh University. |

| | |

| |Reference A: |

| |UM.flour/spag/html |

| |Evidence B: |

| |Researchers at the Food and Health Institute in Rome have................ |

| | |

| |Reference B: |

| |bbc.co.uk/science/news_id=224 |

| | |

| |Evidence C: |

| |At the 2006 Conference of Food Nutrition, Professors Joaquim Pastale and Johannes Lasagne presented research which |

| |clearly......... |

| | |

| |Reference C: |

| | |

| | |

| |Growing on sand beds |

| | |

| |Evidence X: |

| |Reference X: |

| | |

| |Evidence Y: |

| |Reference Y: |

| | |

| |Evidence Z: |

| |Reference Z: |

|Conclusion |Evidence compared and evaluated. |

| |Conclusion written and justified, pointing out any limitations or alternative interpretations. |

| |In my opinion........ |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Bibliography |References listed in detail |

| | |

| |ABBOTT, P.C. (1999) Factors influencing spaghetti growth. Science, 18 (5), 213-216. |

| |DOLMIO, A. (2005) Spaghetti (London: Collincourt) |

| | |

Appendix B:

1 to 13 indicate the sequence within the written outcome

|Should the UK invest in nuclear energy or renewable energy resources as an alternative to producing electricity using fossil fuels? |

|1. Introduction: explaining topic and purpose of case study |

|2. The scientific background to both nuclear power and renewable energies |

|Nuclear energies |Renewable energies |

|3. Clean – how? |4. Clean – how? |

|Quote evidence |Quote evidence |

|Evaluate view |Evaluate view |

|5. Cost effective – how? |6. Cost effective – how? |

|Quote evidence |Quote evidence |

|Evaluate view |Evaluate view |

|7. Safe – how? |8. Safe – how? |

|Quote evidence |Quote evidence |

|Evaluate view |Evaluate view |

|9. Waste disposal – how? |10. Waste disposal – how? |

|Quote evidence |Quote evidence |

|Evaluate view |Evaluate view |

|11. Environmental impact – how? |12. Environmental impact – how? |

|Quote evidence |Quote evidence |

|Evaluate view |Evaluate view |

| Give a summarising critical evaluation of the evidence presented and (where possible) explain own derived conclusion/s |

Appendix C:

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

See final page of this section for different presentation of this table

|Getting started |Presenting arguments, evaluating, critically comparing, |Referencing and evaluation |

| |concluding | |

| | | | |

|5.4 Arranging a scientific article |1.9 Finding answers on the web |3.5 Identifying different types of text |5.6 Compiling a bibliography |

| | | | |

|6.3 Recognising a scientific poster |1.11 Evaluating websites |2.2 Observing from different points of view |2.2 Evaluating a presentation |

| | | | |

|6.4 Designing a scientific poster |3.3 Understanding the value of titles |5.1 Writing a summary |2.3 Observing from different points of view |

| | | | |

|3.1 Deciding if an article is useful – first glance |3.4 Making sense of a text [conversion] |5.2 Writing a scientific article |5.5 Evaluating scientific writing |

| | | | |

|3.2 Deciding if an article is worth reading in detail – | |5.3 Structuring a scientific article | |

|second glance | | | |

| | |5.5 Evaluating scientific writing | |

|1.4 Choosing the right book | | | |

| | | | |

|1.8 Locating articles in e-journals | | | |

| | | | |

|2.1 Taking notes from a presentation | | | |

Appendix D:

‘Learning Skills for Science’ links:

Appendix E: Judging a source of information

|Publication |Website or newsletter of a private |Respectable pressure group website or |‘Quality’ media e.g. BBC, The |School textbook or science magazine|Peer reviewed science journal or |

| |individual or a fringe group |newsletter |Times, The Independent, The |e.g. New Scientist, Focus, |government report |

| | | |Guardian, Daily Mail |Catalyst. | |

|Nature of the data |Based on little or no data |Based on some data, but of questionable |Based on just one study (or several|Valid and reliable method e.g. |Results repeated by different |

| | |validity or reliability, e.g. small sample, not|small studies). Little information |health study with large sample |scientific studies, each using a |

| | |representative of population. |about sample, or procedures |size, carried out over many years |valid and reliable method, |

| | | |followed. | | |

|Science explanation |No support within the science |New explanation, but with basis in accepted |One among several explanations |Agreed by most, but not all, within|Agreed by everyone within the |

| |community |scientific ideas |discussed with the science |the science community |science community |

| | | |community | | |

|Status of the author |Someone who knows little or no |An inexperienced scientist or science student |A professional scientist whose |A professional scientist working in|A recognised expert in this field |

| |science. Someone known to have a | |expertise is in a different field |the area – though not regarded as a|of science |

| |particular point of view | | |top expert by his/her peers | |

|Author’s affiliation or |A non-science institute |An scientific institute or company that |An scientific institute with a |A recognised university or |A leading university or scientific |

|institution | |represents particular views only |doubtful reputation |scientific institute |institute, or the research lab of a|

| | | | | |major company |

Suggestion: start on the left and work your way across the grid e.g. using ‘traffic lights’ [green, amber, red] or ‘2,1, 0’

-----------------------

CAUSE AND EFFECT

because

so

as a result

therefore

thus

consequently

QUALIFYING

however

although

unless

except

if

as long as

apart from

yet

ILLUSTRATING

for example

such as

for instance

as revealed by

in the case of

Improving writing using

CONNECTIVES

COMPARING

equally

in the same way

similarly

likewise

as with

like

EMPHASISING

most importantly

above all

in particular

significantly

indeed

notably

furthermore

CONTRASTING

however

whereas

instead of

alternatively

otherwise

unlike

on the other hand

Connectives as signposts in writing

ADDING

and

also

as well as

moreover

too

in addition

The further to the right, the more reliable the source is likely to be.

SEQUENCING

next

then

first, second, third

finally

meanwhile

after

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download