Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 49, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1035-1055

  Abrahams, Ian ^a   Reiss, Michael J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

conceptual understanding; effectiveness; practical work

Indexed keywords

CASE STUDY APPROACH; CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING; DIVERSE RANGE; EFFECTIVENESS; ENGLAND; ESSENTIAL COMPONENT; FIELD NOTES; LESSON PLANS; MULTI-SITE; NATIONAL PROJECTS; PRACTICAL WORK; PRIMARY SCHOOLS; SECONDARY SCHOOLS; TRAINING INTERVENTION;

PERSONNEL TRAINING; STUDENTS;

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

EID: 84866294078     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21036     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abrahams, I., &, Millar, R., (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (14), 1945-1969.
2. Abrahams, I., &, Reiss, M., (2010). Effective practical work in primary science: The role of empathy. Primary Science, 113, 26-27.
3. Abrahams, I., &, Saglam, M., (2010). A study of teachers' views on practical work in secondary schools in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (6), 753-768.
4. Appleton, K., (1995). Science teachers' confidence to teach science: Is more science knowledge necessary to improve self-confidence. International Journal of Science Education, 17 (3), 357-369.
5. Ball, S. J., (1984). Beachside reconsidered: Reflections on a methodological apprenticeship. In, R. G. Burgess, (Ed.), The research process in educational settings: Ten case studies (pp. 69-96). Lewes: The Falmer Press.
6. Beatty, J. W., &, Woolnough, B. E., (1982). Practical work in 11-13 science: The context, type and aims of current practice. British Educational Research Journal, 8 (1), 23-30.
7. Berland, L. K., &, Hammer, D., (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (1), 68-94.
8. Bennett, J., (2003). Teaching and learning science: A guide to recent research and its applications. London: Continuum.
9. Black, P., &, Wiliam, D., (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5 (1), 7-74.
10. Bracht, G. H., &, Glass, G. V., (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational Research Journal, 5, 437-474.
11. Burron, B., James, M. L., &, Ambrosio, A. L., (1993). The effects of cooperative learning in a physical science course for elementary/middle level preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 697-707.
12. Cerini, B., Murray, I., &, Reiss, M., (2003). Student Review of the Science Curriculum: Major Findings, Planet Science, London. Available at http://www.planet-science.com/sciteach/review/Findings.pdf
13. Chang, H.-P., &, Lederman, N. G., (1994). The effects of levels of co-operation within physical science laboratory groups on physical science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 167-181.
14. Clackson, S. G., &, Wright, D. K., (1992). An appraisal of practical work in science education. School Science Review, 74 (266), 39-42.
15. Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., &, Grant, T., (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (10), 1109-1136.
16. Cohen, L., Manion, L., &, Morrison, K., (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
17. Crossley, M., &, Vulliamy, G., (1984). Case-study research methods and comparative education. Comparative Education, 20 (2), 193-207.
18. Donnelly, J. F., (1998). The place of the laboratory in secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 20 (5), 585-596. (Pubitemid 128691673)
19. Donnelly, J., Buchan, A., Jenkins, E., Laws, P., &, Welford, G., (1996). Investigations by order: Policy, curriculum and science teachers' work under the Education Reform Act. Nafferton: Studies in Education.
20. Edmondson, K. M., &, Novak, J. D., (1993). The interplay of scientific epistemological views, learning strategies, and attitudes of college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (6), 547-559.
21. Firestone, W. A., &, Herriott, R. E., (1984). Multisite qualitative policy research: Some design and implementation issues. In, D. M. Fetterman, (Ed.), Ethnography in educational evaluation (pp. 63-88). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22. Gunstone, R. F., (1991). Reconstructing theory from practical experience. In, Woolnough B. E., (Ed.), Practical science (pp. 67-77). Milton, Keynes: Open University Press.
23. Harlen, W., &, Holroyd, C., (1997). Primary teachers' understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19 (1), 93-105. (Pubitemid 127717089)
24. Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., &, Gunstone, R., (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (7), 655-675.
25. Hewson, M., &, Hewson, P., (1983). Effect of instruction using student prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20 (8), 731-743.
26. Hodson, D., (1991). Practical work in science: Time for a reappraisal. Studies in Science Education, 19, 175-184.
27. Hodson, D., (1992). Redefining and reorientating practical work in school science. School Science Review, 73 (264), 65-78.
28. Hofstein, A., &, Lunetta, V. N., (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54. (Pubitemid 38544888)
29. Hofstein, A., &, Lunetta, V. N., (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201-218.
30. Jackman, L. E., &, Moellenberg, W. P., (1987). Evaluation of three instructional methods for teaching general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 794-796.
31. Kerr, J. F., (1964). Practical work in school science. Leicester, UK: Leicester.
32. Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., &, Wilson, J., (2011). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory-Exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33 (18), 2527-2558.
33. Lazarowitz, R., &, Tamir, P., (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In, Gabel D. L., (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning New York: Macmillan.
34. Lunetta, V. N., (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In, K. Tobin, &, B. Fraser, (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Part 1, pp. 249-262). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
35. Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., &, Clough, M. P., (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In, S. K. Abell, &, N. G. Lederman, (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393-441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. Lunetta, V. N., &, Tamir, P., (1979). Matching lab activities with teaching goals. The Science Teacher, 46 (5), 22-24.
37. Millar, R., (1998). 'Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in science education is really for'. In, J. Wellington, (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now ? London: Routledge.
38. Millar, R., (2002). Thinking about practical work. In, S. Amos, &, R. Booka, (Eds.), Aspects of teaching secondary science: Perspectives on practice London: Routledge Falmer.
39. Millar, R., (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Paper prepared for the meeting: High school science laboratories: Role and vision. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
40. Millar, R., (2010). Analysing practical science activities to assess and improve their effectiveness. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
41. Millar, R., (2011). Practical work. In, J. Osborne, &, J. Dillon, (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (pp. 108-134). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
42. Millar, R., &, Abrahams, I., (2009). Practical work: Making it more effective. School Science Review, 91 (334), 59-64.
43. Millar, R., Le Maréchal, J.-F., &, Tiberghien, A., (1999). 'Mapping' the domain: Varieties of practical work. In, J. Leach, &, A. Paulsen, (Eds.), Practical work in science education-Recent research studies (pp. 33-59). Roskilde/Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Roskilde University Press/Kluwer.
44. Moeed, A., (2011). Successful science learning from practical work. School Science Review, 93 (343), 121-126.
45. Mulopo, M. M., &, Fowler, H. S., (1987). Effects of traditional and discovery instructional approaches on learning outcomes for learners of different intellectual development: A study of chemistry students in Zambia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24 (3), 217-227.
46. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., &, McGillicuddy, K., (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
47. Osborne, J., (1993). Alternatives to practical work. School Science Review, 75 (271), 117-123.
48. Pardo, P., &, Parker, J., (2010). The inquiry flame: Scaffolding for scientific inquiry through experimental design. The Science Teacher, 77 (8), 44-49.
49. Richmond, G., &, Striley, J., (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (8), 839-858. (Pubitemid 126420872)
50. Shaughnessy, J. J., &, Zechmeister, E. B., (1985). Research methods in psychology. New York: Knopf.
51. Solomon, J., (1994). The laboratory comes of age. In, R. Levinson, (Ed.), Teaching science (pp. 7-21). London: Routledge.
52. Stenhouse, L., (1984). Library access, library use and user education in academic sixth forms: An autobiographical account. In, R. G. Burgess, (Ed.), The research process in educational settings: Ten case studies (pp. 211-234). Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.
53. Tiberghien, A., (2000). Designing teaching situations in the secondary school. In, R. Millar, J. Leach, &, J. Osborne, (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 27-47). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
54. Walker, R., (1980). The conduct of educational case studies: Ethics, theory and procedures. In, W. B. Dockrell, &, D. Hamilton, (Eds.), Rethinking educational research (pp. 30-63). Sevenoaks, UK: Hodder and Stoughton.
55. Watson, J. R., Prieto, T., &, Dillon, J., (1995). The effect of practical work on students' understanding of combustion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32 (5), 487-502.
56. Wellington, J., (1998). Practical work in science. Time for a reappraisal. In, J. Wellington, (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now ? (pp. 3-15). London: Routledge.
57. White, R. T., (1979). Relevance of practical work to comprehension of physics. Physics Education, 14, 384-387.
58. White, R. T., (1988). Learning science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
59. White, R. T., &, Gunstone, R. F., (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
60. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., &, Ross, G., (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.