Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools is a unique educational institution in Kazakhstan that provides students with the opportunity to study chemistry in accordance with international standards. Chemistry is studied in middle school according to the international IGCSE chemistry standard. The IGCSE standard covers grades 9-10 of middle school, and students take exams in elective subjects. Chemistry is an elective subject for students.

The exam for students who choose chemistry consists of two components:

- The first component (multiple-choice and structured questions) is worth a maximum of 90 points;

- The second component (practical work) is worth a maximum of 40 points.

In each academic year, an analytical report is prepared based on the results of the exams and presented to schools. According to the report, in 2023, the percentage of task completion in the school we work with was 60.15%, and in 2024, it was 57.65%. Considering that the total maximum score is 40, the average score was 24.06 and 23.06, respectively. This result indicates a tendency for students to develop their skills in applying theoretical knowledge in practical work to stagnate and reverse development.

Based on this, we decided to study the skills of 10th graders to conduct experiments and structure the obtained data. We were interested in how students structure the material in their experiments and what difficulties they experience.

The study of literature on the topic of our study was somewhat difficult, since most literature prioritizes the formation of scientific literacy through experiments. We could not find any articles or literature that would link the skills of structuring material with chemical experiments. This further interested us and opened the way for further deepening the study.

Hofstein & Lunetta (2004) consider laboratory work as an integral part of science education and highlight its importance in developing students’ scientific literacy and research skills. From this, we looked for ways to change our teaching methods in a controlled manner. As a result, we chose a modified laboratory style (Problem-Based Laboratory) teaching method. This style was studied by Domin (1999) and its impact on the educational process was analyzed. In his study, different methods of laboratory instruction were described and their effectiveness and shortcomings were compared. In this style, students perform experiments aimed at solving specific problems. However, it requires a high level of organization from the teacher. In this context, Abraham (2011) examined the role of laboratory activities in the educational system and analyzed research over the past 20 years. He considered the impact of laboratory classes on students’ understanding, scientific thinking, and research skills.

A total of 21 students participated in the study. All of them are in the 10th grade and have chosen chemistry as an elective subject.

Two main goals were formulated during the study: Qualitative and quantitative. Quantitative: to study the difficulties in structuring the material based on the results of experiments. Quantitative: to determine the quantitative impact of the selected modified laboratory style (PBL) teaching method on the quality of students' knowledge.

Formulated research questions: 1. How can students' material structuring skills be developed using the modified laboratory style method? 2. What actions do students take to overcome the difficulties that arise when structuring the material using the selected method? 3. What actions should teachers take to help students overcome the difficulties they have encountered?

Significance of the study: There is a lack of research on the impact of the modified laboratory style on the structuring of data obtained as a result of experiments. The results of this study provide teachers with the opportunity to identify emerging challenges and possible solutions to developing argumentation skills through experiments.

In the development of material structuring skills, we used three research methods: a survey, an interview based on the results of the IGCSE “Alternative practical work” and an analysis of the subject teacher’s checklist. In order to obtain more complete quantitative data from the checklist, a real 40 marks practical work was taken. The survey was attended by 10th grade students who chose chemistry and included 5 questions. The survey included questions that required a short answer. The questions asked questions such as how clear the instructions for the practical work were, what skills you will be tested during the work, and what is expected of you as a result of the work. A total of 21 students participated. To make the survey more accurate, an IGCSE level “Alternative practical work” worksheet was prepared in the modified laboratory style (Problem-Based Laboratory) format and was worth 30 marks. During the work, a problematic question was asked and the resulting qualitative and quantitative values were entered into tables and graphs to structure the material. After the students completed this work, an interview was conducted. The interview consisted of 5 questions, taking into account the results of the questionnaire and practical work, and 8 students participated. The levels of the participating students were different. The interview questions were directed at how much the modified laboratory style work we chose made it easier to perform, what difficulties arose and what actions were taken to overcome them, what help was needed from the teacher. The third method of the study consisted of analyzing the collected checklists. At this stage, additional practical work was organized in the format of a real IGCSE exam. The work was checked and a quantitative analysis of the practical work performed by the students for 2 weeks in a row was performed. Filling out the checklists began in October and lasted until December. 2 teachers monitored each other according to the lesson schedule. During the observation, the teacher tried to identify the barriers that arise in the students and the reasons for the insufficient structuring of the experimental results. During the observation, it was found that 7 students had difficulty compiling and processing the experimental results in the form of tables and graphs. It was observed that 11 students made mistakes in using the results compiled in the form of tables and graphs to solve the problem set during the work.

13 respondents admitted that they had difficulty understanding the instructions for the practical work. Almost all of them know that their skills in summarizing the material will be tested during the work. The average score of students after the “Alternative practical work” was 19.35 points out of 30. According to the interviews, five out of 8 students said that the modified laboratory style made the process of completing the work easier. The remaining 3 students said that they expect help from the teacher in terms of structuring the material. The average score of students on the practical work in the IGCSE format, obtained after the interview, was 31.25 out of 40 points. This indicates a quality of 78.12%. Considering the different levels of the students involved in the study, the results show progress. This is because after the “Alternative practical work” work, in response to the students’ requests, we offered to summarize and structure the material during the work using a graphic organizer, more precisely, a storyboard organizer. As a result, the average score of the practical work obtained after 1 week was good. According to the results of the study, we concluded the following: 1. Despite the difficulties, students openly admitted that in carrying out their practical work, solving a problematic question with a modified laboratory style, the cognitive level of the experiment increased and made it more interesting. 2. Students expressed through feedback that the Problem-Based Laboratory deepened the practical significance of the work. 3. Students use graphic organizers to solve problematic questions and achieve the expected results of practical work. They independently use the types of organizers to structure the materials as needed. 4. Asking problematic questions by linking experimental work with real-life examples. Structuring the material in advance using the organizer based on the material prepared by the teacher.

1. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54. 2. Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543. 3. Abraham, M. R. (2011). What can be learned from laboratory activities? Revisiting 20 years of research. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(7), 1011-1019.