PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of London]On: 5 November 2008Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 789198957]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283

Does Practical Work Really Motivate? A study of the affective value of practicalwork in secondary school scienceIan Abrahams aa Institute of Education, University of London, UK

First Published on: 31 October 2008

To cite this Article Abrahams, Ian(2008)'Does Practical Work Really Motivate? A study of the affective value of practical work insecondary school science',International Journal of Science Education,To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09500690802342836URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690802342836

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

International Journal of Science Education2008, 119, iFirst Article

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/08/00000119 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09500690802342836

RESEARCH REPORT

Does Practical Work Really Motivate? A study of the affective value of practical work in secondaryschool science

Ian Abrahams*Institute of Education, University of London, UKTaylor and FrancisTSED_A_334450.sgm10.1080/09500690802342836International Journal of Science Education0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis0000000002008Dr. IanAbrahamsianabrahams@hotmail.com

The present paper reports on a study that examined whether practical work can be said to haveaffective outcomes, and if so in what sense. The term affective is used here to refer to theemotions, or feelings, engendered amongst pupils towards school science in general, or one of thesciences in particular. The study is based on 25 multi-site case studies that employed a condensedfieldwork strategy. Data were collected, using tape-recorded interviews and observational fieldnotes, in a sample of practical lessons undertaken in English comprehensive (non-selective) schoolsduring Key Stages 3 and 4 (ages 1114 years and 1516 years, respectively). The findings suggestthat whilst practical work generates short-term engagement, it is relatively ineffective in generatingmotivation to study science post compulsion or longer-term personal interest in the subject,although it is often claimed to do so. This suggests that those involved with science education needto develop a more realistic understanding of the limitations of practical work in the affectivedomain.

Introduction

In countries with a tradition of practical work in school science (such as the UK),practical work is often seen, by teachers and others (particularly scientists), ascentral to the appeal of science. There is also evidence that pupils prefer practicalwork to other methods of teaching science (Cerini, Murray, & Reiss, 2003).

Yet despite the frequent and widespread use of practical work in English schools(Bennett, 2003; Millar, 2004; Third International Mathematics and Science Study,1999), and the common perception amongst teachers that its use motivates pupils

*Institute of Education, University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK.Email: i.abrahams@ioe.ac.uk

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

2 I. Abrahams

(Wellington, 2005), recent studies (Abrahams, 2007; Haste, 2004) have shown thatpupils attitudes towards secondary school science become progressively more nega-tive over time. Indeed, the absolute number of pupils choosing to pursue science atA-level is in steady decline (Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003)a decline that ismost pronounced in chemistry and physics (House of Commons Science and Tech-nology Committee, 2002), arguably the two science subjects that offer the mostpractical work during Key Stages 3 and 4.1

However, despite the potential affective value of practical work, it is important torecognise that a pupils decision to pursue science beyond the compulsory stage oftheir education is likely to be more strongly influenced by a variety of factors; forexample, career and/or university aspirations (House of Commons Science andTechnology Committee, 2002), relevance (Jenkins & Pell, 2006), or the personalityand teaching approach of individual teachers (Jarvis & Pell, 2005; Reiss 2005).Whilst recognising the potential affective value of such influences (indeed, the find-ings of this study lend credence to the potential value of career aspirations as ameans of motivating pupils towards the study of science), the focus of the presentstudy has been to examine the affective value of practical work itself rather than toaddress the broader issue of what factors influencepositively or negativelypupilssubject choices.

Hodson suggests five reasons that teachers might be expected to give for usingpractical work, one of these being To motivate by stimulating interest and enjoy-ment (1990, p. 34). The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee(2002) likewise claims practical work is absolutely essential in creating enthusiasm(Question 514).

Whilst the term motivate was frequently used by science teachers within thisstudy to describe the value of practical work, the following illustrates (all names usedwithin the study are pseudonyms) what is often meant by this:

I think in most instances its short-term engagement for that particular lesson ratherthan general motivation towards science. In general I think its very difficult to motivatekids in Year 10 and 11 into thinking about engaging in science and thinking aboutscience in terms of thats a career that I want to follow. (Mr Rainton)

Are teachers, we might then ask, using this term in its strict psychological sense or asa catch-all term that embodies elements of interest, fun, enjoyment, and engagement?

Teachers are not the only ones to say one thing and mean another. Bandurasuggests that the terms motivate and interest have been used, in the literature, tomean the same thing even though there is a major difference between a motive,which is an inner drive to action, and an interest, which is a fascination with some-thing (1986, p. 243; emphasis added). An example of this can be seen in Lazarowitzand Tamir (1994), who claim that practical work motivates pupils, citing in supportof this Ben-Zvi, Hofstein, Samuel, and Kempa (1977), Henry (1975), and Selmes,Ashton, Meredith, and Newal (1969), even though these studies focused almostexclusively on the issue of pupil interest rather than motivation. Indeed, of these threecitations, only in Henry is the term motivation actually used, albeit only once,

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 3

when Henry, citing no sources, simply states that In addition, psychological reasonscan be proposed which relate to the improved motivation of pupils by the inclusionof laboratory exercises in the science program (1975, p. 73).

Framework for Considering the Affective Value of Practical Work

What the examples above illustrate is the similarity between the lack of precision inthe definition and use of key terms when discussing the affective value of practicalwork and those relating to attitudes to science (Ramsden, 1998). To avoid whatRamsden (1998, p. 127) criticises as the overlap of terminology, it is necessary bothto clarify what terms such as motivation and personal interest mean in a psychologi-cal sense and also to consider how such terms can be effectively operationalised. AsWellington suggests, in talking about the motivational value of practical work, thequestion as to [w]hat does it motivate pupils to do? (2005, p. 101) needs to beanswered. It is, after all, relatively easy to make general claims about the affectivevalue of practical work; it is quite another to state what such claims actually mean interms of specific observable consequences.

It is to a consideration of the psychological literature that we now turn.

Motivation

Motivation, in the context used here, refers to an inner drive to action (Bandura,1986, p. 243) that, in terms of observable consequences, might manifest itself in apupils decision to actively pursue the study of one, or more, science subjects in thepost-compulsory phase of their education, or in additional voluntary actions under-taken by the pupil. Such actions might include participating in a science club, doingmore than required for homework (or, at the very least, doing all that is requiredwell), reading science books/magazines, watching science programmes on television,viewing science-based web sites, visiting places of scientific interest, and the like. Acomparison of claims regarding the motivational value of practical work, with pupilsactions both in and out of the laboratoryincluding particularly their intentions topursue science in the post-compulsory phase and, if so, in which of the threesciences (and the reasons for this)provides a useful means of appraising the extentto which such claims are supported by the evidence.

If, as has been claimed (Hannon, 1994; Henry, 1975; Lazarowitz & Tamir, 1994),practical work does motivate, then it might be expected, given the frequent use ofpractical work in English schools (Millar, 2004; Third International Mathematicsand Science Study, 1999), that all three sciences would be amongst the most popularsubjects pursued post-compulsion. The findings of the House of Commons Scienceand Technology Committee suggest that in fact the converse is true and the propor-tion of A level entries accounted for by chemistry and physics is falling (2002,p. 23). It could logically be argued that without the frequent use of practical work inchemistry and physics throughout Key Stages 3 and 4, the number of pupils pursu-ing these two subjects might be even lower. However, the increased use of practical

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

4 I. Abrahams

work that accompanied the Nuffield-inspired changes to the curriculum during the1960s did not, as Hodson (1990) has noted, result in any increase in the number ofpupils choosing to pursue science post compulsion, as might have been anticipatedhad practical work been an effective motivating factor. In fact, a report by theDepartment of Education and Science (1968)The Dainton Report, produced at atime when Nuffield-inspired changes to the curriculum might have been expected toincrease the uptake of science at A-levelfound that the number of pupils pursuingscience at this level had actually decreased.

There is, however, a need to recognise that the educational system in England, inwhich pupils are required to specialise at the end of Key Stage 4, must result in somepupils not pursuing their study of science because of positive choices in favour ofother subjects, rather than negative views of, or a lack of motivation towards, science.However, the old adage that actions speak louder than words lends credence to theclaim by Bennett (2003) that, whilst certain practical tasks can generate interest and/or engagement within a particular lesson, there is little evidence to suggest that theymotivate pupils towards science in general or, more importantly, towards the furtherstudy of one (or more) of the sciences in particular.

Interest

Prenzel suggests that the term interest, as commonly used, describes preferencesfor objects (1992, p. 73)where the term objects is used in a very broad sense as,for example, when someone claims to have an interest in sport. Within the psycho-logical literature the term interest is used more precisely to refer to a personsinteraction with a specific class of tasks, objects, events, or ideas (Krapp, Hidi, &Renninger, 1992, p. 8; original emphasis). Whilst this description of interest iswidely accepted (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000), many psychological theorists make adistinction between what have been termed personal interest and situational inter-est (Bergin, 1999; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). To evaluate what is actually meantby claims that practical work generates interest, it is necessary to understand thatthese two types of interest differ appreciably one from the other.

Personal interest. Personal interest, sometimes referred to as individual interest, isprimarily concerned with the relative ranking of an individuals preferences. AsBergin makes clear, the individual approach [to interest] asks what dispositionalpreferences people hold, or what enduring preferences they have for certain activitiesor domains of knowledge (1999, p. 87; emphasis added). Recent studies in the areaof personal interest (Renninger, 1998; Schiefele, 1996) have found that children whoundertake a particular activity, or study a subject, in which they already have apersonal interest will, relative to children with no prior personal interest, be observedto pay closer attention to, learn more from, and engage for longer with, any newmaterial that they are presented with. The relationship between personal interest in,and knowledge of, a subject or activity arises because individuals prefer, when given

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 5

a choice, to study what already interests them (Bergin, 1999). By increasing theirknowledge of that subject, or activity, they increase their personal interest in it(Alexander, 1997; Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995; Deci, 1992), yet furtherdeveloping what might usefully be thought of as a system of positive feedback.

Numerous factors can stimulate personal interest. Bergin (1999) suggests relevance,competence, identification, cultural value, social support, background knowledge,and emotionsall of which are, generally speaking, beyond a teachers immediatedomain of influence. Whilst personal interest can be an important factor in effectivelearning (Schiefele, Krapp, & Winteler, 1992), it is not something that is, in the shortterm, susceptible to teacher influence (Bergin, 1999; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000).

Situational interest. Situational interest refers to the interest that is stimulated in anindividual as a consequence of their being in a particular environment or situation(Bergin, 1999; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Krapp et al., 1992), such as, for exam-ple, when a pupil undertakes practical work within a science laboratory. Unlikepersonal interest, situational interest is susceptible to teacher influence in the shortterm (Hidi & Anderson, 1992; Hidi & Berdorff, 1998). Although it is less likely thanpersonal interest to endure over time (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000), it does providean opportunity for teachers to influence the effectiveness of pupil learning in specificlessons in a positive manner (Hoffmann & Hussler, 1998).

It should be noted that whilst personal interest is relatively stable, and hence resis-tant to influence by the teacher, it is not immune to situational influences. Indiscussing the generation of personal interest, Bergin stresses that personal or indi-vidual factors always interact with situational factors to create interest, or lack ofinterest (1999, p. 89), a claim endorsed by Hidi and Harackiewicz (2000).

Despite the possible role of practical work in stimulating situational interest, therehas been no specific research to ascertain what particular situational factors, if any,make a practical task appear more, or less, interesting to the pupils. To date the onlystudies that have been undertaken on the issue of how to increase pupil interest havebeen those that have examined the factors that influence the degree of situationalinterest stimulated by different types of text (Hidi, 1990; Hidi & Anderson, 1992;Wade & Adams, 1990). These studies have shown that situational interest is stimu-lated to a greater extent by texts that were characterised by the researchers assurprising, vivid, intense, and novel. This study has also found (Abrahams & Miller,2007) that practical tasks that formed memorable episodes (White, 1991) alsoshared these same characteristics.

It should be recognised that whilst it has been reported that pupils themselvesclaim to like practical work (Ben-Zvi et al., 1977; Henry, 1975; Hofstein, Ben-Zvi, &Samuel, 1976), or that teachers claim that their pupils like practical work (Jakeways,1986), such claims do not necessarily imply that the pupils are in fact interested in it.This point is of particular relevance given that a necessary condition for personalinterest in a subject or activity is that the individual concerned also likes that subjector activity per se (Schiefele, 1991). In contrast an interest in and a liking of a

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

6 I. Abrahams

subject can, in the case of situational interest, arise independently of each other (Hidi& Anderson, 1992).

It is also necessary to recognise that interest in doing a particular practical taskas evidenced by the pupils apparent involvement with the objects, materials, andphenomenadoes not imply cognitive engagement with any, or all, of the intendedideas or concepts. It has been reported (Blumenfeld & Meece, 1988) that pupils canbe fully engaged and seemingly interested in what they were doing without theirbeing cognitively engaged with the task in a manner that would have been necessaryfor them to have learnt what the teacher intended. Indeed, Bergin cautions thatalthough most teachers aspire to increase the interest of their students, they shouldkeep in mind the fact that interest enhancement does not necessarily lead to learningenhancement (1999, p. 96).

The literature has shown that there is a clear distinction, within psychologicaltheory, between the terms motivation, situational interest, and personal interest.Analysing the comments and actions (actual and/or intended) of both teachers andpupils using this psychological framework provides an effective and consistent meansof evaluating the affective value of practical work.

Research Strategy and Methods

Previous large-scale questionnaire-based studies of practical work in English andWelsh secondary schools (Beatty & Woolnough, 1982; Kerr, 1964; Thompson,1975) have focused on the rhetoric of practical work. That is, whilst they exploredthe views and opinions of teachers and students, they did not examine and/orcompare such views with actual practice. Indeed, Crossley and Vulliamy (1984)have suggested that questionnaire-based surveys are more likely to reproduce exis-tent rhetoric than to provide accurate insights into the reality of teaching within itsnatural setting. As similar objections have been raised to the use of studies basedsolely on interviews (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000; Hammersley & Atkinson,1983), this study adopted a multi-site approach, involving a series of 25 case studiesin different settings, similar in scale to those undertaken by Firestone and Herriott(1984) and Stenhouse (1984). This approach enabled the researcher to focus on theobservation of actual practices and to augment these with interviews conducted inthe context of these observations.

There are a number of precedents in which case studies have been used, within aneducational context, to explore the relationship between rhetoric and reality (see,e.g., Ball, 1981; Sharp & Green, 1976). The use of case studies also offers the poten-tial for achieving a higher degree of external validity and generalisability to othersettings: what Bracht and Glass (1968) refer to as ecological validity. As well as thefact that studying numerous heterogeneous sites makes multi-site studies onepotentially useful approach to increasing the generalizability of qualitative work(Schofield, 1993, p. 101), such an approach also avoids what Firestone and Herriott(1984) refer to as the radical particularism of the traditional single in-depth casestudy.

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 7

Eight schools were approached, with the head of the science department beingasked for permission to observe one or more science lessons at national curriculumKey Stage 3 or Key Stage 4 (students aged 1114 years and 1516 years, respectively)that involved some student practical work, to talk to the teacher about the lesson, andperhaps also to talk to some of the students. All the schools approached were main-tained state comprehensive schools (all school names are pseudonyms), in a varietyof urban and rural settings. Some of their characteristics are presented in Table 1. Asa group they were broadly representative of secondary schools in England.

One other factor influenced the nature of the science lessons we requested permis-sion to observe. The English national curriculum divides the science curriculum intofour main strands, or attainment targetsone of which is called ScientificEnquiry and is about developing students understanding of the scientific approachto enquiry and their skill in using it. This is assessed, at ages 14 and 16 years,through one or more written reports by each student on a practical investigation theyhave carried out. Donnelly, Buchan, Jenkins, Laws, and Welford (1996), in adetailed exploration of this aspect of the English national curriculum, point out thatextended and more open-ended investigative practical tasks are rarely used to teachstudents about scientific enquiry, but almost entirely to assess their performance inconducting an enquiry scientifically. In identifying practical tasks to observe, wewanted to observe (and thought we would be more likely to be given permission toobserve) teaching situations where no high-stakes assessment was involved. We alsoknew that open-ended enquiry tasks typically extend over several science lessons,and would therefore require several visits to observe the complete task. We thereforechose to restrict our data-set to a broad range of practical tasks that were not beingused for assessment purposes, which in practice meant that we observed tasks asso-ciated (in teachers minds) with the teaching of the biology, chemistry, and physicsstrands of the national curriculum.

Typically on arrival at the school, the head of science would present the researcherwith a list of lessons that were taking place on that day and that it would be possibleto observe and, as such, we had limited control of the content or subject matter ofthe lessons actually observed in each school. Choices were made, whenever practical

Table 1. School samples

School Location Size Age range (years) Education authority

Derwent Urban 500 1116 AFoss Urban 1,480 1118 AKyle Urban 1,550 1118 BNidd Rural 890 1118 BOuse Rural 630 1118 BRye Rural 720 1118 CSwale Rural 670 1116 BUre Rural 1,280 1118 C

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

8 I. Abrahams

considerations of timing permitted, to allow pre-lesson and post-lesson teacherinterviews, with the aim of achieving a reasonably balanced coverage of the fiveschool years in Key Stages 3 and 4 by the end of the study, and of ensuring that thesample included biology, chemistry, and physics topics. Whilst the sample was notunduly large, it was felt, on the basis that later lesson observations in the sequenceappeared to raise the same issues as earlier ones, that data saturation had beenachieved by this point and that nothing would be gained by increasing the size of thesample further.

Field notes were taken in each lesson observed, and tape-recorded interviewswere carried out with the teacher before and after the lesson. The pre-lesson inter-view was primarily used to get the teachers account of the practical work to beobserved and of his or her view of the learning objectives of the lesson. The post-lesson interview collected the teachers reflections on the lesson, its success as ateaching and learning event, and their views on the affective value/role of practicalwork. Where possible, conversations with groups of students during and after thelesson were also tape-recorded. These conversations provided an opportunity togain insights into the students thinking not only about the task that they wereobserved undertaking, but also with regards to the affective value of practical workin general.

Findings

Pupils Claims to Like Practical Work

Almost all of the pupils questioned in this study said that they liked practical work.Yet when these responses were probed further it was found that in many cases it wasnot that the pupils actually liked practical work per sealthough some pupils in Year7 did, and these will be discussed laterbut merely preferred it to most alternativemethods of teaching science. In contrast to Head (1982), who reported finding anappreciable minority of pupils who expressed a dislike of practical work, in this studyone pupil claimed to dislike practical work, on the basis that it was boring, whilst96 students claimed to like it. Because of time constraints it was not possible toquestion all of the pupils, but there seems no reason to believe that the responsesobtained are not representative of the pupils involved in the study as a whole. Pupilsreasons for claiming to like practical work are presented in Table 2, in which thereare two types of claim: those indicative of a relative preference (containing compara-tive terms such as better than, less than, more than), and what might be termedabsolute claims (such as it is fun, it is exciting, I just like it). An asterisk indicates arelative preference.

Of the 96 claims, 65 (68%) are indicative of a relative preference for practicalwork whilst 31 (32%) are absolute. Whilst the sample size (N = 96) was relativelysmall, and not all year groups were equally represented, it is still possible to comparethe proportion of absolute and relative responses given by pupils in each Yeargroupand these results are presented in Table 3.

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 9

What emerges clearly from Table 3 is that after Year 7, in which the majority ofpupil responses were absolute, the situation reverses to one in which the majority ofclaims to like practical work have become statements of relative preference. Thisremains much the same in Years 8, 9, and 10 before shifting even further towardsrelative in Year 11. One possible explanation for this is that, amongst Year 7 pupils,many of these practical tasks provide the first opportunity to use scientific equipmentand/or materials and this is something that the pupils appear to like in an absolutesense. Many Year 7 pupils spoke excitedly simply about being allowed to use standard

Table 2. Pupils reasons for claiming to like practical work (N = 96)

Generic category of response work

Pupils reasons for claiming to like practical work

Number of pupils offering such a response

Because it is less boring than writing*

47

Reasons that related to the affective value of practical work

Because it is funBecause it is better than listening to the teacher*

164

Because it is better than reading from a textbook*

3

Because it is better than theory* 1Because it is exciting 1Because it is more believable* 1Because it is better than work* 1

Reasons relating to making, doing and seeing

Because you get to make/do thingsBecause you can see what happens

102

Because you get to find things out 1Because you gain an experience 1

Reasons relating to learning, understanding and recollecting

Because you will remember it better*Because you learn more*

33

Because it helps you understand better*

2

Note: *relative preference.

Table 3. Comparison of absolute and relative responses by year group

GroupNumber of

absolute responsesNumber of

relative responsesPercentage of

absolute responsesPercentage of

relative responses

Year 7 14 12 54 46Year 8 8 23 26 74Year 9 2 7 22 78Year 10 6 16 27 73Year 11 1 8 13 87

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

10 I. Abrahams

pieces of laboratory equipment and/or materials such as Bunsen burners, electricalwire, and acidssomething that was not observed amongst pupils in later years. Thefollowing extracts are a sample of the comments made by Year 7 pupils.

FS11: At the beginning of the year we got red cabbage liquid and FS10: [Interrupting.] Yeah it was great fun.FS11: We was adding acid to it and different kinds of real chemicals and seeing

what colour it turns stuff. It were fun.Researcher: Do you like practical work?KG5: Yeah because we get to use proper wire for the first time and we get to

use a six vec [sic] [volt] battery thing which is very powerful.

What the data in Table 3 suggest is that an absolute liking of practical work, whicharises out of the fun, enjoyment, and excitement that many pupils appear to associ-ate with using new equipment and/or materials in what is a novel environmentthescience laboratorystarts to wane during the latter part of their first year at second-ary school. Whilst the onset of a decline in pupil interest in science (practical workwas not considered independently) from Year 7 onwards has been reported(Bennett, 2003; Doherty & Dawe, 1988), the fact that this study found almost one-half (46%) of the Year 7 claims (Table 3) regarding practical work were alreadyclaims of relative preference lends credence to the findings of Pell and Jarvis (2001)that a decline in interest in science may start before pupils reach secondary school.

Because it appears that many pupils, especially after Year 7, cease to like practicalwork in an absolute sense, the interest that it generates seems best described assituational rather than personal. Since situational interest does not persist beyondthe immediate period of an individuals interaction with the subject or activity (Hidi& Harackiewicz, 2000), it might be expected that without regular practical worktore-stimulate situational interestpupils will perceive science as boring despite theirhaving used practical work on numerous previous occasions. This does, in fact, seemto be what was observed in this study. The following extract illustrates how anunderlying view that science, as a subject, is boring emerged as soon as it wassuggested that practical work, the source of situational interest, be either reduced orremoved from science lessons:

Researcher: What do you think science would be like if there was less practical?KD13: Boring. If you come in and theres no practical its not as fun, youre just

sitting down writing stuff from the textbook.

Yet the following example illustrates that whilst practical work might be preferred totheory, it is not necessarily succeeding in motivating pupils towards the study ofscience as a subject in the post-compulsory phase of their education.

Researcher: Have you enjoyed this practical?SK28: Yeah it was all right; it wasnt as fun as other ones weve had though.Researcher: Are you going to take science at A level?SK28: No not really Im not really in to it all.Researcher: But you did say you liked practical.SK28: Yeah but, cause sometimes its fun, and practicals easier than, well,

writing.

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 11

Such claims illustrate that, for many pupils, practical work is perceived as distinctfrom, and separate to, science as a subject. Indeed, it emerged that a preference forpractical work within science did not always imply a preference for science over othersubjects.

The implication here is that even when pupils claim to prefer science practicalwork to other subjects, and it must be emphasised here that the preference is not forscience as a subject but rather the practical work component within it, their reasonsfor doing so appear to have little to do with personal interest in the subject per se. Aswith a previous study (Hodson, 1990), this study has found that, generally speak-ing, pupils regard practical work as a less boring alternative to other methods(Hodson, 1990, p. 34).

Another way to look at the data in Table 2 is to divide the reasons pupils gave forliking practical work into three broad categories:

i Reasons that related to their affective response to practical work.ii Reasons that related to doing things with objects and ideas.iii Reasons that related to learning about objects and ideas.

As Table 2 shows, claims in the broad affective category constitute the largestgroup of reasons given by pupils for liking practical work, accounting for 77% of allresponses. It is important to point out that some of the reasons for claiming to likepractical work within this category, as the following quotation illustrates, are less of apositive endorsement of practical work than a desire to avoid having to write and/ordo too much work:

Researcher: Do you like practical work?SW1: Yeah its better than doing other work.Researcher: What other work?SW1: Like writing.Researcher: Do you think this is going to be an exciting experiment?SW1: Well its not exactly exciting but its better than working all the time in

the lesson.Researcher: Do you think this particular practical helps you in any way?SW1: No, its just less boring.

This view, that practical work does not involve working lends credence to the viewexpressed by Dr Kettlesing, one of the teachers in the study, who, when askedwhy she thought practical work was popular amongst pupils, claimed: I think its[practical work] just an easy option. Likewise Mr Normanby, a head of depart-ment, expressed a similar view when he claimed that the popularity of practicalwork amongst pupils was, in part, due to the fact that it avoided their having tothink.

Of the remaining pupils, 15% cited issues relating to making, doing, and seeing astheir reason for liking practical work whilst only 8% claimed that they liked itbecause it helped them to learn, understand, and recollect ideas and concepts. Thissuggestsand similar findings have been reported by Cerini et al. (2003)that,despite many of the pupils claiming to like practical work better than non-practical

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

12 I. Abrahams

alternativesin particular, writingfew pupils see it as a better way of learningabout, and understanding, scientific ideas and concepts.

Teachers Views on the Affective Value of Practical Work

Whist some teachers initially used the term motivation when talking about thevalue of practical work, it emerged, during further discussions with them, that theywere frequently using the term motivate to mean situational interest. As situationalinterest is unlikely to endure beyond a particular lesson (Hidi & Harackiewicz,2000), the need to continually re-stimulate the pupils, through the regular use ofpractical work, becomes more understandable. It might be argued here that the factthat pupils sometimes enter a science laboratory requesting to do practical workexemplifies the motivational value of practical work and that its frequent use isdesigned to enhance the effect. However, the fact that it was reported by the teachersthat the absence of practical work for even a few lessons, even amongst pupils whohave been undertaking regular practical work for almost 5 years, made them behav-iourally harder to manage, suggests that its affective value is better understood interms of its generating non-enduring situational interest than any form of enduringmotivation towards science as a subject.

Value of Situational Interest

It is perhaps useful at this point to examine the reasons given by teachers for wantingto generate what is, essentially, a non-enduring form of interest. What emerged fromthe comments made by the teachers was that they perceived practical work as havingtwo, very distinct, affective purposes:

i To help in the behavioural management of the classparticularly with low tolow/middle academic ability pupils.

ii To help off-set the image of science as difficult, dull, and boring by presentingan alternative, arguably misleading, image of science in which the emphasis isprimarily on doing fun and enjoyable hands-on work rather than on learningabout ideas (Abrahams, 2007).

Role of Practical Work in Behaviour Management

Some of the comments made by teachers, as the following example illustrates, showhow pupils frequently arrive at science lessons with the expectation, or at least ahope, that they will be able to do practical work:

You know as soon as they come through the door theyre asking Sir are we doing prac-tical today? (Mr Drax)

Although the researcher observed pupils making similar requests as they entered thelaboratory, it appeared that those keenest on doing practical workas evidenced by

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 13

the numbers asking and their repeatedly shouting out the same questionwere oftenpupils of low academic ability who subsequently informed the researcher that theyhad no intention of pursuing science post compulsion. For many of these pupils thehope of doing practical work appeared to owe more to their desire to avoid writingthan any genuine personal interest in doing practical work. This desire to avoid writ-ing was commented upon by a number of the teachers. The following extract is anexample of such comments.

It is a carrot with them [academically low ability pupils], it is more about making itbearable. For them its just less writing. I think higher ability pupils could get by withfewer practicals. (Dr Kepwick)

One teacher saw the actual use of a laboratory, especially for non-practical sciencelessons, as problematicin that laboratories, unlike classrooms, are essentiallydesigned, with their uncomfortable stools, and benches containing sinks, powerpoints, and gas taps, for doing rather than sitting and writing (Donnelly, 1998).

Whether or not the pupils expectations and/or hopes to undertake practical workin science lessons are driven by a genuine personal interest in practical work, ormerely by a desire to avoid having to write, it is clear that these expectations and/orhopes are real. What is therefore important is the question of how pupils react tothose lessons, or sequences of lessons, in which their expectations and/or hopes to dopractical work are not fulfilled. Amongst the teachers in this study, what emerges, asthe following example shows, is a widespread perception that without interspersingpractical work into a teaching sequence, on a frequent and regular basis, pupilsbecome not only uninterested but also noticeably more behaviourally difficult tomanage during non-practical lessons:

The kids soon work out which teacher gives more practical work and certainly, for mostclasses, two lessons of theory on the trot is about the limit, after that theyll be very hardto teach. Its carrot and stick really. (Mr Normanby)

This indicates a concern, particularly amongst teachers involved in teaching scienceto pupils of low/low-middle academic ability, about the need to establish and main-tain a Normal Desirable State of Pupil Activity (Brown & McIntyre, 1993, p. 54)and a recognition that the frequent use of practical work, irrespective of how effec-tive it is in terms of achieving the desired learning objectives, is an effective strategyfor coping with poor behaviour. As one teacher (Mr Drax) suggested, the pragmaticjustification for using practical was that I can keep their interest and, although theystill might not learn anything, they will be easier to deal with.

Yet in order for practical work to be effective in getting pupils of all academic abil-ities to do, and see, what the teacher intendedfrequently without the need toengage at a meaningful conceptual levelthe practical work invariably entailed theuse of recipe-style tasks (Clackson & Wright, 1992, p. 41). It should therefore comeas no surprise to find academically low-ability pupils exhibiting their displeasure,through poor behaviour, when required to write and/or think for themselves aboutscientific ideas rather than simply being allowed to do a cognitively undemandingrecipe-style practical task.

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

14 I. Abrahams

Amongst some of the teachers there was a perception that, for some low academicability pupils, practical work was essentially just something for them to do in orderto make both their time, and therefore hopefully the teachers time, bearable. Insome cases there appeared to be little, if any, expectation on the part of the teacherthat any meaningful learning would occur:

Because, if nothing else, its [practical work] a relief, its something different theyredoing. (Mr Rainton)It [practical work] gives them something to do, especially the ones who get bored withtoo much writing. (Mrs Ramsgill)

In a recent study on learning experiences outside the classroom it was found that,amongst some teachers who perceived such experiences as only a "fun" day out(Jarvis & Pell, 2005, p. 79), there was a similar low expectation that any meaningfullearning would occur.

Role of Practical Work in Helping to Foster a View of Science as Fun, Exciting, and Enjoyable

A disappointing finding to emerge from this study has been the fact that pupils, fromas early as the end of Year 7, have moved from claiming to like practical work in anabsolute sense to merely preferring it to other non-practical teaching methods andapproaches (Table 3). One factor that might help explain this change emergedduring discussions with teachers at a school where the lesson observations occurredduring a period when the teachers were actively considering the arrangements for animpending Open Evening for prospective Year 6 pupils and their parents. Whatcame out of these discussions was an acknowledgement that the image of secondaryschool science, which these Year 6 pupils are encouraged by the teachers to see(Ogborn, Kress, Martins, & McGillicuddy, 1996) during these initial school visits, isdesigned to inculcate an image of science as being primarily a fun, exciting, andenjoyable practical activity:

Mrs Kettlesing: On Open Evening we always do whiz, bang, pops. The only physicsthing we have out is the van de Graaff.

Researcher: What do you think then of this image of science as being all whiz,bang, pops?

Mrs Kettlesing: Maybe were giving a false picture, I think we are probably. Therearent that many whiz bang, pops and most science is really abouthow does the world work and testing things out, why is this happen-ing, why is that happening, rather than whiz bang, pops.

Such views suggest that teachers recognise practical work is not, generally speak-ing, fun and exciting, and that there are only a limited number of practicaltasksthe whiz, bang, popsthat can be used on Open Days, or the like. Itmust be emphasised that this is not to suggest that science is never fun, exciting,and enjoyable, but that such an image does not truthfully reflect normal schoolscience.

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 15

It was also suggested that it was the quantity, rather than necessarily the quality, ofpractical work that was important particularly amongst low academic ability pupilswho were not expected to pursue science post compulsion:

We try to give them [academically low ability pupils] as much practical work as possibleso that they will remember science as being enjoyable and interesting. (Mr Fangfoss)

Although this view was expressed by only one teacher, it suggests that when practi-cal work is used with pupils of low academic ability the aim might not necessarily beto motivate them to study science beyond Key Stage 4 but rather to provide themwith a positive recollection of the subject. The implication, if this view is taken to itslogical conclusion, is that it becomes more important for the teacher to ensure thatthe pupils enjoy their lessons, irrespective of whether or not they learn, and that thebest way to achieve this is to maximise the amount of time spent doing practicalwork.

Some of the claims made by teachers about the value of practical work appear, asthe following example illustrates, to reflect the fact that their own positive recollec-tions of school science involve specifically memorable practical episodes:

I was lucky really because when I was at school my science teacher ran a science club atlunch time and, even now, I can remember us all getting shocks from the van de Graaff.It made it so much fun. (Miss Kilburn)

Whilst indicating that some teachers views as to the affective value of practical workhave, at least in part, been influenced by their own experience as pupils, it must beremembered that these are the recollections of people who, from an academicperspective, did well in science and who chose to pursue it as a career. Using suchrecollections to inform their own current beliefs about the affective value of practicalwork fails to take account of the fact that, in all likelihood, the vast majority of theirpeer group at school did not find the same practical tasks exciting, interesting, and/or fun, and in all likelihood chose not to pursue science post compulsion.

Conclusion

The present paper has suggested that what teachers frequently refer to as motiva-tion is, in a strict psychological sense, better understood as situational interest. Thefact that situational interest is, unlike motivation or personal interest, unlikely toendure beyond the end of a particular lesson (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000) helps toexplain why pupils need to be continuously re-stimulated by the frequent use ofpractical work. Once this fact is recognised, the reason why many of those pupilswho claim to like practical work also claim to have little, if any, personal interest inscience, or any intention of pursuing it post compulsion, becomes clearer. For whilstthese pupils do like practical work, their reasons for doing so appear to be primarilythat they see it as preferable to non-practical teaching techniques that they associate,in particular, with more writing (Hodson, 1990). What has been shown (Table 3) isthat the proportion of pupils, within each year group, who claim to like practicalwork in an absolute sense, as against simply preferring it to writing, decreases as the

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

16 I. Abrahams

pupils progress through the school. Indeed it would seem from the pupils commentsthat, within their first year at secondary school, the novelty of being in a laboratoryenvironment appears to wear off and they evidently become disillusioned by the real-ity of school science, which is clearly very different from the image that teachersinitially seek to create in order to make their subject appear attractive on, for exam-ple, Open Days.

This paper has also considered the affective value of practical work as a means ofcontributing towards effective behaviour management. Teachers comments suggestthat when faced with having to teach science to pupils with little, if any, personalinterest in science, or in some cases of even being in the lessonand this is particu-larly so at Key Stage 4practical work provides an effective coping strategy. Whilstthese teachers felt it unlikely that such pupils would learn any more (or, equallyimportantly, any less) from practical work than non-practical work, it was thoughtthat the use of practical work made them easier to deal with from a behaviouralperspective. Whilst this might be considered a lost learning opportunity, it is argu-able that amongst those pupils who have already switched off the use of practicalwork might, at the very least, mean that their perception of science will be less nega-tive than it might otherwise have been were they compelled to undertake moreconceptually demanding, non-practical, work.

Note

1. The use of the term Key Stage is peculiar to the UK. Key Stage 3 relates to the first threeyears of secondary school education (ages 1114 years). Key Stage 4 corresponds to the fourthand fifth years of secondary school education (pupils aged 1516 years), the completion ofwhich marks the end of compulsory education in the UK.

References

Abrahams, I. (2007). An unrealistic image of science. School Science Review, 88(324), 119122.Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2007). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of

practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal ofScience Education. DOI: 10.1080/09500690701749305.

Alexander, P.A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplayof cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M.L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.),Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 213250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Alexander, P.A., Jetton, T.L., & Kulikowich, J.M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, inter-est, and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,559575.

Ball, S.J. (1981). Beachside comprehensive: A case-study of secondary schooling. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Beatty, J.W., & Woolnough, B.E. (1982). Practical work in 1113 science: The context, type andaims of current practice. British Educational Research Journal, 8(1), 2330.

Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science: A guide to recent research and its applications.London: Continuum.

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 17

Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A., Samuel, D., & Kempa, R.F. (1977). Modes of instruction in highschool chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 433439.

Bergin, D.A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 8798.Blumenfeld, P.C., & Meece, J.L. (1988). Task factors, teaching behavior, and students involve-

ment and use of learning strategies in science. Elementary School Journal, 88, 235250.Bracht, G.H., & Glass, G.V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational

Research Journal, 5(4), 437474.Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Cerini, B., Murray, I., & Reiss, M. (2003). Student review of the science curriculum. Major findings.

London: Planet Science/Institute of Education University of London/Science Museum.Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.planet-science.com/sciteach/review.

Clackson, S.G., & Wright, D.K. (1992). An appraisal of practical work in science education.School Science Review, 74(266), 3942.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.Crossley, M., & Vulliamy, G. (1984). Case-study research methods and comparative education.

Comparative Education, 20(2), 193207.Deci, E.L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behaviour: A self-determination of

theory perspective. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learn-ing and development (pp. 4370). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Department of Education and Science. (1968). Enquiry into the flow of candidates in science and tech-nology into higher education. (The Dainton Report). London: Her Majestys Stationary Office.

Doherty, J., & Dawe, J. (1988). The relationship between development maturity and attitude toschool science. Educational Studies, 11, 93107.

Donnelly, J.F. (1998). The place of the laboratory in secondary science teaching. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 20(5), 585596.

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, UK:Studies in Education.

Firestone, W.A., & Herriott, R.E. (1984). Multisite qualitative policy research: Some design andimplementation issues. In D.M. Fetterman (Ed.), Ethnography in educational evaluation(pp. 6388). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Tavistock.Hannon, M. (1994). The place of investigations in science education. Education in Science,

January, 3344.Haste, H. (2004). Science in my future: A study of values and beliefs in relation to science and technology

amongst 1121 year olds. London: Nestle Social Research Programme.Head, J. (1982). What can psychology contribute to science education? School Science Review, 63,

631642.Henry, N.W. (1975). Objectives for laboratory work. In P.L. Gardner (Ed.), The structure of science

education (pp. 6175). Hawthorn, Vic., Australia: Longman.Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational

Research, 60, 549571.Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository

writing. In K. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and develop-ment (pp. 215238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hidi, S., & Berdorff, D. (1998). Situational interest and learning. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp,K. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon conferenceon interest and gender (pp. 7490). Kiel, Germany: IPN.

Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issuefor the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151179.

Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review,70(256), 3340.

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

18 I. Abrahams

Hoffmann, L., & Hussler, P. (1998). An intervention project promoting girls and boys interestin physics. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learn-ing: Proceedings of the Seeon conference on interest and gender (pp. 301316). Kiel, Germany:IPN.

Hofstein, A., Ben-Zvi, R., & Samuel, D. (1976). The measurement of interest in, and attitude tolaboratory work amongst Israeli high school students. Science Education, 60, 401411.

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2002). Third report. Science educationfrom 14 to 19. London: HMSO. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmsctech/508/50802.htm.

Jakeways, R. (1986). Assessment of A-level physics (Nuffield) investigations. Physics Education, 21,212214.

Jarvis, T., & Pell, T. (2005). Factors influencing elementary school childrens attitude towardsscience before, during, and after a visit to the UK national space centre. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 42(1), 5383.

Jenkins, E.W., & Pell, R.G. (2006). The relevance of science education project (ROSE) in England: Asummary of findings. Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds, UK.

Kerr, J.F. (1964). Practical work in school science. Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press.Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A. (1992). Interest, learning, and development. In

K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and develop-ment (pp. 325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D.L.Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94130). New York:Macmillan.

Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Paper prepared forthe meeting High school science laboratories: Role and vision. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy of Sciences.

Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom.Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literatureand its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 10491079.

Pell, T., & Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of agesfrom five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 847862.

Prenzel, M. (1992). The selective persistence of interest. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp(Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 7198). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Ramsden, J.M. (1998). Misson impossible?: Can anything be done about attitudes to science?International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 125137.

Reiss, M. (2005) Importance of affect in science education. In S. Alsop (Ed.) Beyond Cartesiandualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science (pp. 1726). Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Springer.

Renninger, K.A. (1998). The roles of individual interest(s) and gender in learning: An overviewof research on preschool and elementary school-aged children/students. In L. Hoffmann, A.Krapp, K. Renninger & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeonconference on interest and gender (pp. 165175). Kiel, Germany: IPN.

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299323.Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 12, 318.Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic achivement: A

meta analysis of research. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest inlearning and development (pp. 183212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schofield, J.W. (1993). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In M. Hammersley(Ed.), Educational research: Current issues (pp. 91113). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 19

Selemes, C., Ashton, B.G., Meredith, H.M., & Newal, A. (1969). Attitudes to science and scien-tists. School Science Review, 51, 722.

Sharp, R., & Green, A. (1976). Education and social control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.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. 211234). Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.

Thompson, J.J. (Ed.). (1975). Practical work in sixthform science. Oxford, UK: Department ofEducational Studies, University of Oxford.

Third International Mathematics and Science Study. (1999). International science report. RetrievedMay 1, 2008, from isc.bc.edu/timss 1999. html.

Wade, S.E., & Adams, B. (1990). Effects of importance and interest on recall of biographical text.A Journal of Literacy, 22, 331353.

Wellington, J. (2005) Practical work in the affective domain. In S. Alsop (Ed.), Beyond Cartesiandualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science (pp. 99110). Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Springer.

White, R.T. (1991). Episodes and the purpose and conduct of practical work. In B.E. Woolnough(Ed.), Practical science (pp. 7886). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Downlo

aded

By:

[Un

iver

sity

of

Lond

on]

At:

12:0

5 5

Nove

mber

200

8