This research was conducted in response to the changes made to the external summary assessment of the 12th-grade students in physics for the 2023-2024 academic year. This decision was implemented by the Center for Pedagogical Measurements AEO Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools.  Considering this modification, the study proposes the preparation of Paper 3, the third component of the high school external summative assessment in physics, based on the Paper 5 of AS & A Level Physics 9702. The objective of this research is to investigate the effect of constructive teaching approach on the development of high school students' ability to produce a laboratory activity report. The researchers employed the Plan-Do-Study-Act PDSA Model of Action Research and utilized a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design using quantitative approaches performed. The respondents of the research were the 11th grade students, with 34 students participating in the study. The preparedness for Paper 5 was assessed through a survey and control test administered to the 11th-grade students. Results indicated that a majority of students were able to distinguish dependent, independent, and control variables in the task based on Paper 3. They could construct a graph according to the given table and calculate the gradient. However, when it came to the tasks based on the Paper 5 laboratory work, students struggled with designing a laboratory work, defining variables, and explaining the physical meaning of a gradient. The rate of success in tasks based on Paper 5 laboratory was only 26%, as confirmed by both the survey and control test results. In response to these findings, an active learning model based on constructive teaching methodology, selected based on the PDSA model of action research, was implemented. The difference between the scores of the input and output diagnostic tests from the implementation of the learning strategy was significant, with a high Hake's index of 0.74 ( = 0.74). Thus, the active learning model, based on the constructive learning methodology of tasks prepared based on Paper 5, significantly improved students’ skills. Based on these results, the researchers recommend the promotion and use of this teaching methodology in the physics department, in the entire NIS ChB Almaty and NIS schools across country. 

The researchers employed Plan-Do-Study-Act PDSA Model of Action Research in this study. The study also involved a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design using quantitative approaches. This study was conducted at the Nazarbayev Intellectual School of Chemistry and Biology in Almaty. Students of the 11th grade who studied physics in English took part in the research. The number of participants is 34. This process included curriculum development through collaborative planning, survey administration, and development of an input diagnostic task. A survey "Determining the skills to perform laboratory work" was conducted among the students. In addition, "Data Analysis" diagnostics prepared based on Paper 3 was carried out. The analysis of the received data showed that the students can determine the dependent and independent variables based on the prepared data, can choose the right scale, and can work with the table. However, students indicated in the survey that they had difficulty constructing and analyzing graphs. Based on the survey, the researchers addressed the first question that constitutes Paper 5. Co-developed a lesson plan that opens up the first question that makes up Paper 5. The result of the first lesson showed the average value of normalized gain of Hake. The research team decided to plan the second phase of the lesson based on the theory of constructive teaching. Before the lesson, input diagnostics prepared on the basis of Paper 5 was conducted. The process was completed in two double periods of physics lessons of 320 minutes each. During the lesson, the class was divided into groups and did laboratory work prepared on the basis of Paper 5. After the lesson, the students completed the task of output diagnosis. Pre-test and post-test transitions were analyzed using Hake's normalized gain. After completing the output Diagnostics task, the researcher provided feedback to the participants using structured questions to test their understanding and experience. In the second study lesson, students were divided into groups and discussed the questions prepared on the basis of Paper 5. They developed evaluation criteria and conducted evaluation work one by one. The head of the physics department observed the classes during the research. The situation in the classroom, the active participation of students, and the course of the lesson were evaluated. To determine the effect of the learning strategy, changes in the input and output diagnostic tasks developed on the basis of Paper 5 were analyzed using Hake's normalized gain formula.

The active learning model of constructive learning theory effectively improved students' conceptual understanding and Paper 5 skills in planning and designing experiments, identifying variables, and writing reports on controlled experiments. After the implementation of the intervention, the students demonstrated a high Hake gain ( = 0.74). Constructive learning theory's active learning model involves students articulating their ideas through participation in group projects and frequently formulating assessment questions and assignments. Students have developed the ability to convey knowledge in diverse ways. In summary, the active learning model of the constructive learning theory, focusing students on thinking and understanding rather than mechanically memorizing knowledge, has notably contributed to the effective performance of the task created based on Paper 5. The researchers recommend extending the data collection and analysis over a longer period to obtain more complete data. Another suggestion is that constructs such as motivation and scientific process skills can be included in the investigation. Qualitative methods can also be used for a deeper analysis of the impact of the active learning model of constructive learning theory on student learning. Propagation and application of this teaching pedagogy is offered at the Department of Physics NIS ChB in Almaty. An international teacher will initiate a series of professional development programs based on this teaching pedagogy for the training of teachers of the NIS in Almaty.

1. Trumper, R. (2003). The physics laboratory – A historical overview and future perspectives. Science & Education 12: 645–670. 2. Abaniel, Arra. Q. “Enhanced Conceptual Understanding, 21st Century Skills And Learning Attitudes Through An Open Inquiry Learning Model In Physics.” Journal of technology and science education 11.1 (2021): 30–43. Web. 3. Lombardi, S.M. (2011). Internet Activities for a Preschool Technology Education Program Guided by Caregivers. Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University. pp. 139–40. 4. Devries, B.; Zan, B. (2003). "When children make rules". Educational Leadership. 61 (1): 64–7. 5. Books, Jacqueline G.; Brooks, Martin G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms, revised edition. Alexandria, VA: The association for supervision and curriculum development. 6. Pelech, James (2010). The Comprehensive Handbook of Constructivist Teaching: From Theory to Practice. Charlotte, NC: IAP. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-60752-375-8. 7. Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index_sub5.html 8. https://deming.org/explore/pdsa/ 9. Coletta, Vincent P., and Jeffrey J. Steinert. “Why Normalized Gain Should Continue to Be Used in Analyzing Preinstruction and Postinstruction Scores on Concept Inventories.” Physical review. Physics education research 16.1 (2020): 010108. Web. 10. Hake, Richard R. “Analyzing Change/Gain Scores* Dept. of Physics, Indiana University.” Https://Web.physics.indiana.edu/Sdi/AnalyzingChange-Gain.pdf, web.physics.indiana.edu/sdi/AnalyzingChange-Gain.pdf.