Title: Making a Water Filter - Science Experiment in P4 General Studies

1. Introduction

Let me start my essay with a famous quote by the philosopher Aristotle: "For the things we
have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them." This quote perfectly reflects
my design ideas behind the science experiment of the authentic assessment task. I am very
interested in this kind of learning task for two reasons: personal experiences and theoretical
reasons. I have a strong sense of curiosity as a science student, so I am very keen on doing
experiments in science lessons, especially the experiments that can have our design, like
making a water rocket, because I can practice my innovative ideas in the design and learn the
knowledge effectively via hands-on experience. The experience formed my understanding of
the benefits of experiments and inspired me to study more. Theoretically, science experiments
can be considered student-centred learning, an effective teaching method in General Studies.
Since General Studies is a subject that involves science and technology education (Education
Bureau, 2011), then the experiments can construct students’ knowledge with their active
participation instead of transferring the knowledge to them directly (Hannafin & Hannafin,
2010). Consequently, I would like to choose a science experiment in this authentic assessment
task for personal and theoretical reasons. This essay focuses on analysing the design of my
authentic assessment task, collecting peer feedback, and critically proposing suggestions for
ameliorating the task with relevant readings and literature.

2. Context of Design

2.1 Basic Context of the Authentic Task

This authentic assessment will be conducted in a common-aided primary school, where most
students are in band two. Besides, the task is designed for General Studies with primary four
students. It will take about 70 minutes, which means two double lessons to conduct the whole
task. In the class, the sex ratio is relatively equal, with 15 girls and 13 boys, a total of 28
students. They will be assigned in groups of mixed ability, and each group has 3 to 4 students.
2.2 What have students learned?

According to the educational objectives from Bloom's taxonomy, there are three domains of
learning: cognitive, psychomotor and affective (Bloom et al. 1956). The learning objectives of
the authentic assessment task can also be categorised into these three domains. From the
cognitive perspective, students can discover that different layers of materials will affect the
filtering speed and the quality of filtered water. Then they are expected to identify the best filter
media for water filtration by doing experiments. From the psychomotor perspective, students
can design, build and test their water filters. Also, they learn how to make observations and
collect data from the experiments to design the most effective water filtration apparatus. From
the affective perspective, they can understand that fresh water is a precious resource and be
aware of saving water in the future.

2.3 What students are expected to be assessed?

The students are expected to be assessed in knowledge and teamwork.

From the aspect of knowledge, students will be assessed whether they can apply the acquired
knowledge. Since there is a module about water treatment in the curriculum, this authentic task
demonstrates the filtration works. The teacher will teach the water filtration process to start the
authentic task. Then, the experiment assesses students' understanding of the principle behind
water filtration, which is the smaller size of materials' space, slower filtering speed, and better
quality of filtered water.

From the aspect of teamwork, the task can succeed only when all members are fully engaged
in sharing ideas and contributing to the group so that conducting the experiment and group
presentation can assess students' cooperation skills and communication skills, which promotes
students’ work together for maximising their learning (Johnson et al., 2008). After introducing
the immediate context, the following part will illustrate the design of an authentic assessment
task in detail.
3. Design of the Authentic Assessment Task

3.1 Details of the Task

The authentic assessment task is generally separated into three parts: pre-teaching, science
experiments and group presentation. The pre-teaching will teach about water treatment works,
especially the filtration system; the group presentation requires students to present the design
idea behind their water filter. The science experiment is undoubtedly the focal point in the
authentic assessment task. It demonstrates the teaching strategies of discovery learning, an
inductive inquiry of learners to discover principles or knowledge via experiments (Saab et al.,
2005). In order to help students understand the principles of water filtration by having hands-
on experience, thus I arranged a guided experiment, which uses different materials to filtrate
the dirty water and identify how the size of materials' spaces affects the speed and the quality
of filtered water. Meanwhile, since the experiment involves a lot of fragmented things,
preparation before the activity is significant. To ensure the experiment can conduct smoothly,
I will ask each group to bring two plastic bottles before the lesson and check for sufficient
filtering materials for students. Also, students' desks should be moved together so they can
have the experiment and discussion in groups; the grouping details will be discussed later.

Furthermore, I designed a set of worksheets as an experimental report to record their findings

and assist students in analysing the experimental result. The design of the experimental reports
is based on the scientific method, a systematic procedure to design and perform experiments
(McCuen, 1996); it contains five steps, including observation, hypothesis, prediction,
experiment and conclusion (Roberts & King, 1987). Referring to the steps of the scientific
method, the worksheet starts with an observation: Students have to observe the characteristic
of materials because the size of different materials' space is the main reason to affect the
filtration. Then, students will have a group discussion about their hypothesis of the scientific
phenomenon in question work. The third step is a prediction: Students need to predict how the
size of spaces in materials affects filtered water's filtering speed and quality. The teacher will
remind students that once they make the hypothesis and prediction, they should not change it,
even if the result shows that they were wrong (Catalano, 2014). After doing the experiments,
students should fill in their experimental results in the “My Findings” column. The step of the
experiment is the most essential part of the scientific method. Students are expected to discover
the smaller size of materials' spaces leading to slower filtering speed and cleaner filtered water.
Lastly, they should conclude the "Analysis" column, which is the final step of the scientific
method to prove whether their hypothesis is right or wrong.

Apart from the design of the scientific method, the last part of the worksheet is to improve their
design. Since the students must do the experiments twice to make a more effective water filter,
they must draw the design and find ways to improve the problems from the original design.
This improvement process can enhance students' problem-solving ability by defining and
analysing the situation identifying the problems and then solving the problems with thoughtful
solutions (Mithaug, 1993).

3.2 Assessment Criteria (Rubrics)

The assessment criteria can be used to evaluate the experiment, experimental report and group
presentation. For the experiment, the clarity, odour of filtered water and the design's creativity
will be assessed based on the rubrics. Since the purpose of making a water filter is to filtrate
the dirty water into cleaner water, it is crucial to determine the clarity and odour of the filtered
water. Students will get the highest mark if the filtered water is immaculate and has no odour
(4 points). Also, to cultivate students' creative thinking, students can use other filtering
materials, and they can have any water filter design. They will be given more points in the
creativity column if their design can demonstrate creative, thoughtful and intentional planning.
By contrast, if they only use the given materials and no design in the bottle, they will be given
an O mark in this part. The experimental report is used to record the observations, data and
analysis from experiments; students will have higher scores if they can include the more
required information and demonstrate a higher level of knowledge gained from the experiment.
For the presentation, the rubric highly focuses on whether students can present their design
ideas clearly and effectively; they will be deducted marks if they do not understand their work.

Meanwhile, this assessment rubric will also be used as a peer assessment that benefits teaching
and learning. Since each group of students has to evaluate the performance of other groups, it
generates timely feedback and facilitates better learning by checking others' successes and
weaknesses (Hernandez, 2010). Furthermore, students can give comments other than the
assessment rubrics in the peer assessment worksheet. However, the quarrel in fairness is a
common problem in peer assessment because some students may give lower scores to others
due to selfishness （盧健，2012). To mitigate this problem, teachers and students will occupy
50% and 50% of the overall scores. Therefore, peer assessment cannot influence the whole task
result, which helps to adjust fairness.

3.3 Organization of the Task

I. Grouping

Grouping is vital in organising the task as the authentic assessment task will be conducted in a
group. The group size, grouping method and group seating will be illustrated in this part. First
of all, the size of each group is 3 to 4 students, which is appropriate for doing learning activities
(Csemica et al., 2002). Since there are few steps and simple procedures for making a water
filter, 3 to 4 members are sufficient to carry on the experiment. Also, Johnson, Johnson and
Smith (1991) suggest that the shorter the time, the smaller the groups. As the task will only
take two lessons, I assign a smaller group to increase students' participation opportunities
(Burke, 2011).

In addition to the group size, the grouping method is heterogeneous ability grouping, which
refers to grouping students with different abilities. Mixed-ability grouping caters to individual
differences because low-ability students can improve their understanding of the curriculum and
study habits and even enhance their motivation through grouping with high-ability students
(Saleh & De Jong, 2005; Obaya, 1999). For example, the authentic task stresses students'
understanding—the scientific principle behind the experiment. In the mixed-ability groups,
lower-ability students feel comfortable asking their higher-ability peers for help (Poole, 2008),
which stems from understanding the material and provides more opportunities for analytical
thought (Heltemes, 2009). Furthermore, heterogeneous grouping can prevent the weaker
students are being labelled because it is less likely to identify the weaker ones and label them
accordingly (Heltemes, 2009). However, we must be aware that the individual differences
among students should not be too significant. Otherwise, the problem of stigmatisation may
still exist (Poole, 2008).

Apart from the grouping method, the groups will be arranged in U-shaped seating (please refer
to the following picture). The U-shaped arrangement encourages discussion and makes it easier
for the teacher to observe the student’s performance in class (Campbell et al., 2004). Moreover,
the U-shaped centre can be used for a group presentation, so the students' sight will not be
easily obstructed.

II. Guidance of Delivering the Task

The instruction for the authentic assessment task will be explained in detail throughout the
lessons. However, I still prepare a student handout to illustrate the situation, materials and the
experiment's instruction to prevent students from forgetting the steps because most students are
visual learners (Tileston, 2005). They rely on their sight to take information instead of hearing
it (Tomei, 2009). They can follow the straightforward instructions and pictures from the
handout to make the water filter step-by-step. In addition, the teacher will demonstrate of
making a water filter, such as how to cut a plastic bottle into half and make it become a funnel.
However, the teacher will not demonstrate the selection of the filtering materials because
students must identify the best filter media by doing the experiments themselves. Thus, the
teacher will only guide the students to think more about the characteristic of different materials
and the influence of the size of spaces in materials on the filtering speed and quality of the
filtered water.
III. The GRASPS Frame

McTighe and Wiggins (2004) have created a task frame based on the acronym GRASPS, which
creates a more authentic "performance of understanding" (Tomlinson, 2006). It includes six
parts: Goal, Role, Audience, Situation, Products / Performances and Standards. Some elements
have been discussed so that I will focus on role, audience and situation in this session. Firstly,
students are given a "role" of a gifted scientist. The meaningful role allows students to complete
real-world applications (McTighe & Wiggins, 2004). More importantly, the task becomes more
attractive, which enhances their active involvement (Benson & Barnett, 2005) because they
imagine being a gifted scientist and having a sense of mission will stimulate them to accomplish
the task. Secondly, the "audience" is other students and teachers during group presentations.
McTighe and Wiggins (2012) express that having the target audience in various phases can
effectively develop and reveal students' understanding. For example, other students and
teachers may ask questions or give feedback after a group presents enlightening students'
thoughts. Thirdly, the "situation" is severe water pollution in ABC city. Since water pollution
is a hot issue worldwide, even Hong Kong is facing this problem, so the real-world scenario
connects the teaching with real life and provides the contextual background, which helps
students to learn the real-world application (McTighe & Wiggins, 2004). After analysing the
design of the task, we will discuss the peer feedback and suggestions in the following.

4. Peer Feedback and Revision

In order to improve the design of authentic assessment tasks, I have collected two feedbacks
from my classmates. On the one hand, my peers pointed out that although the experiment is
interesting, some students may not take the experimental result seriously because there is no
motivation to encourage students to pursue better results in the task. To tackle this problem,
Brooks et al. (1998) claim that using extrinsic rewards sparingly can increase students'
motivation; extrinsic motivators are used effectively when rewards are closely related to the
task accomplished. Therefore, I will set up a reward system to raise students' engagement. I
will award the top three groups with the highest mark in the criteria. Also, there will be two
additional rewards: "Best Presentation Award" and "Best Creativity Award", conferred to the
groups with the highest mark in presentation and creativity rubrics. Indeed, the rewards are not
only directed to the students with lower motivation; all students will benefit from higher levels
of engagement and motivation (Anderman & Midgley, 1998; Lumsden, 1994).
On the other hand, another peer criticised that students may be less motivated to start the task
after the tiresome teaching process, so I should gain students' attention before experimenting.
According to Gagné's Theory of Instruction, gaining learners' attention can ensure they are
ready to learn and participate in the class activity (Gagne et al., 1992). Strong, Silver and
Robinson (1995) state that presenting incomplete information and asking students to develop
their hypotheses can arouse students' curiosity and attention. Hence, I will gain students'
attention through group discussion: showing the clean water, and dirty water, filtering materials
and asking students to discuss how to change the dirty water into clean water. Discussing
hypotheses can gain their attention and make them aware of the content (Hassan, 2014).

5. Reflection
From my point of view, authentic assessment tasks can be considered a promising method to
mitigate the significant issues in the current education system. Nowadays, Hong Kong is
famous for spoon-feeding education. Since the exams are highly standardised under exam-
oriented education, it emphasises rote learning and memorisation (Miller, 2005), so the scores
from traditional assessments cannot truly reflect their understanding of knowledge. On the
contrary, an authentic assessment task requires students to apply knowledge or skills in
performing real-world tasks, which is an effective tool for evaluating whether students can use
the acquired knowledge or skills in real situations. Hence, authentic assessment can move
beyond the traditional assessment and demonstrate the meaningful application of essential
knowledge and skills. As a prospective teacher, I will try my best to involve more authentic
assessment tasks in the lessons to enhance the teaching and learning process productively.
Reference

• Anderman, L. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Motivation and middle school students.
Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education,
University of Illinois.
• Benson, B. P., & Barnett, S. P. (2005). Student-Led Conferencing Using Showcase
Portfolios. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
• Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay
Co Inc.
• Brooks, S. R., Grotheer, D. R., & Freiburger, S. M. (1998). Improving Elementary Student
Engagement in the Learning Process Through Integrated Thematic Instruction. Chicago:
Saint Xavier University.
• Burke, A. (2011). Group Work: How to Use Groups Effectively. The Journal of Effective
Teaching, 11(2), 87-95.
• Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (2004). Teaching & learning through multiple
intelligences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Catalano, T. (2014). Good laboratory practices for forensic chemistry. Cham: Springer.
• Csernica, J., Hanyka, M., Hyde, D., Shooter, S., Toole, M., & Vigeant, M. (2002). A
practical guide to teamwork, version 1.1. College of Engineering, Bucknell University.
• Education Bureau. (2011). General Studies for Primary Schools Curriculum Guide.
Retrieved from http://edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/kla/general-
studies-for-primary/gs_p_guide-eng_300dpi-final%20version.pdf
• Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th
ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
• Hannafin, M. J., & Hannafin, K. M. (2010). Cognition and Student-Centered, Web-Based
Learning: Issues and Implications for Research and Theory. Springer.
• Hassan, H. I. (2014). The ASSURE Model Lesson Plan. University of Khartoum. Retrieved
from http://edu.uofk.edu/multisites/UofK_edu/images/News/ASSURE.pdf
• Heltemes, L. (2009). Social and Academic Advantages and Disadvantages of Within-class
Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Ability Grouping. Mathematical and Computing
Sciences Masters. Retrieved from
http://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context-mathcs_etdmasters
• Hernandez, R. (2010). Benefits and Challenges of using self and peer assessment. USD
Center for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from
https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/UCDTLA0033-1.pdf.
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative Learning: Increasing
College Faculty Instructional Productivity. ASHE-FRIC Higher Education Report No.4.
Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington
University.
• Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Holubec, E.J. (2008). Cooperation in the classroom (8th
edition). Edina, MN: Interaction.
• Lumsden, L. S. (1994). Student Motivation to Learn. Eric Digest, Number 92. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
• McCuen, R. H. (1996). The elements of academic research. New York: ASCE Press.
• McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (2004). The Understanding by design professional development
workbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (2012). The Understanding by Design Guide to Advanced
Concepts in Creating and Reviewing Units. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
• Miller, P. C. (2005). Narratives from the classroom: an introduction to teaching. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Mithaug, D. E. (1993). Self-regulation theory: how optimal adjustment maximizes gain.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
• Obaya, A. (1999). Getting cooperative learning. Science Education International, 10, 25-
27
• Poole, D. (2008). Interactional Differentiation in the Mixed-Ability Group: A Situated
View of Two Struggling Readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 43 (3), 228-250.
• Roberts, M. B., & King, T. J. (1987). Biology - a functional approach: students' manual.
Walton-on-Thames: Nelson.
• Tileston, D. W. (2005). 10 best teaching practices: how brain research, learning styles, and
standards define teaching competencies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Tomei, L. A. (2009). Designing instruction for the traditional, adult, and distance learner:
a new engine for technology-based teaching. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction &
Understanding by Design: Connecting Content and Kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Saab, N., van Joolingen, W., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2005). "Communication in
Collaborative Discovery Learning." British Journal of Educational Psychology. 75, pp.
603-621.
• Saleh, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2005). Effects of Within-Class ability grouping on social
interaction, achievement and motivation. Instruction Science, 33, 105-119
• Stratton, J. (1999). Critical thinking for college students. Lanham, Md: Rowman and
Littlefield.
• 盧健 （2012).“學生互評”現狀研究．福建教育學院學報,3),75-77.