‘I do and I understand?’
Practical work and laboratory use in
United Kingdom schools

Rob Toplis; Michael Allen

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2012.812a

‘I do and I understand?’ Practical work and laboratory use in United Kingdom schools

Full Text (PDF)

Rob Toplis ¹ ^* , Michael Allen ¹

More Detail

¹ Brunel University, Uxbridge, UNITED KINGDOM
^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This paper provides a critical review of the changes to the role of practical work in the science curriculum in England over the last forty years. The science curriculum over this period appears to place an emphasis on an approach to practical enquiry that suggests school students can act like ‘real’ scientists. This paper provides a critical perspective of this view as it traces the developments of practical work and draws on the literature and on empirical work about how practical science in the secondary school (ages 11 to 18 years) has been enacted over this time period and gives some suggestions about the current situation and how practical work might develop in the future.

Keywords

history of science education
practical work
scientific inquiry

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.812a

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2012 - Volume 8 Issue 1, pp. 3-9

Publication date: 12 Jan 2012

Article Views: 2002

Article Downloads: 1359

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

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, 1945-1969.
Abrams, E., Southerland, S.A. & Evans, C.A. (2007). Inquiry in the classroom: Identifying necessary components of a useful definition. In E. Abrams, S.A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the science classroom: Realities and opportunities (pp. ix-xi). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Atkinson, E.P. (1990). Learning scientific knowledge in the student laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 119- 131). London: Routledge.
Beatty, J.W. & Woolnough, B.E. (1982). Practical work in 11- 13 science. British Educational Research Journal, 8, 23-30.
Carmichael, P., Driver, R., Holding, B., Phillips, I., Twigger, D. & Watts, D.M. (1990). Research on Students' Conceptions in Science: A Bibliography. Leeds: University of Leeds.
Coles, M. (1997). Science education – vocational and general approaches. School Science Review, 79, 27-32.
Donnelly, J., Buchan, A., Jenkins, E. Laws, P. & Welford, G. (1996). Investigations by Order. Nafferton: Studies in Education.
Driver, R. (1975). The name of the game. School Science Review, 56, 800-804.
Erickson, G. (1994). Pupils' understanding of magnetism in a practical assessment context: the relationship between content, process and progression. In P. J. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone and R. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 80-97). London: The Falmer Press.
Fairbrother, R. & Hackling, M. (1997). Is this the right answer? International Journal of Science Education, 19 (8), 887-894.
Gee, B. & Clackson, S.G. (1992). The origin of practical work in the English school science curriculum. School Science Review, 73, 79-83.
Gott, R. & Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: its role in the understanding of evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education. 18 , 791-806.
Gott, R. & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative Work in the Science Curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gunstone. R.F. (1991). Reconstructing theory from practical experience. In B. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical Science (pp. 67-77). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Hodson, D. (1993). Rethinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2002). Science education from 14 to 19. Third report of Session 2001–02. Volume 1: Report and proceedings of the committee. London: The Stationery Office Ltd.
Jenkins, E.W. (1979). From Armstrong to Nuffield. London: John Murray.
Jones, M.E., Gott, R. & Jarman, R. (2000). Investigations as part of the Key Stage 4 science curriculum in Northern Ireland. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14. 23-37.
Keiler, L.S. & Woolnough, B.E. (2002). Practical work in school science: The dominance of assessment. School Science Review, 83, 83-88.
Lawson, A.E. (2010). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery. Science Education, 94, 336- 364.
Lock, R. (1990). Open-ended, problem-solving investigations. What do we mean and how can we use them? School Science Review, 71, 63-72.
Millar, R. (1989). Bending the evidence: The relationship between theory and experiment in science education. In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing science: Images of science in science education (pp. 38-61). London: Falmer Press.
Millar, R. (1991). A means to an end: The role of processes in science education. In B.E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science. (pp. 44-52). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Millar, R. (2010). Analysing practical science activities. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
Millar, R. & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education 14, 33-62.
National Curriculum Council (1993). Teaching science at key stages 3 and 4. York: National Curriculum Council.
Nott, M. & Wellington, J. (1999). The state we’re in: Issues in key stage 3 and 4 science. School Science Review, 81, 13-18.
Nott, M., Peacock, G., Smith, R., Wardle, J., Wellington, J. & Wilson, P. (1998). Investigations into KS3 and KS4 Science. A report prepared for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority Projects 10905 and 10906. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.
Ofsted (1999). Standards in the secondary curriculum: 1997/98 science. London: Ofsted Publications Centre.
Roth, W-M., McRobbie, C.J., Lucas, K.B. & Boutonne, S. (1997). The local production of order in traditional science laboratories: a phenomenological analysis. Learning and Instruction, 7, 107-136.
Shayer, M. (1999). Cognitive acceleration through science education II: Its effects and scope. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 883-902.
Simon, S.A. & Jones, A.T. (1992). Open work in science: A review of existing practice. London: Kings College.
Thijs, G.D. & Bosch, G.M. (1995). Cognitive effects of science experiments focusing on students' preconceptions of force: A comparison of demonstrations and small-group practicals. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 311-323.
Thompson, J.J. (Ed.) (1975). Practical work in sixth form science. Oxford: University of Oxford.
Toplis, R. & Cleaves, A. (2006). Science investigation: The views of fourteen to sixteen year old pupils. Research in Science and Technological Education, 24, 69-84.
Watson, J.R., Swain, J.R.L. & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 25-45.
Watson, R. (2000). The role of practical work. In M. Monk. & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (pp. 57-71). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wellington, J. (1981). ‘What’s supposed to happen Sir?’ School Science Review, 63, 167-173.
Wellington, J. (1994). Interpreting the statements of the National Curriculum. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Secondary science: Contemporary issues and practical approaches (pp. 3-16). London: Routledge.
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.
Woolnough, B. (1994). Effective science teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.

How to cite this article

APA

Toplis, R., & Allen, M. (2012). ‘I do and I understand?’ Practical work and laboratory use in United Kingdom schools. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.812a

Vancouver

Toplis R, Allen M. ‘I do and I understand?’ Practical work and laboratory use in United Kingdom schools. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2012;8(1):3-9. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.812a

AMA

Toplis R, Allen M. ‘I do and I understand?’ Practical work and laboratory use in United Kingdom schools. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2012;8(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.812a

Chicago

Toplis, Rob, and Michael Allen. "‘I do and I understand?’ Practical work and laboratory use in United Kingdom schools". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2012 8 no. 1 (2012): 3-9. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.812a

Harvard

Toplis, R., and Allen, M. (2012). ‘I do and I understand?’ Practical work and laboratory use in United Kingdom schools. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(1), pp. 3-9. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.812a

MLA

Toplis, Rob et al. "‘I do and I understand?’ Practical work and laboratory use in United Kingdom schools". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 8, no. 1, 2012, pp. 3-9. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.812a