Should Practical Investigation have a place in the Primary Science curriculum?

University Degree Education and Teaching

Course: PGCE Primary

University of Chichester

Course: PGCE (Primary)

Core Curriculum Assignment

Assignment Title: “Should practical investigation have a place in the Primary Science Curriculum?”

Student Number: 1100892

Date Submitted: 28th October 2011

Word Count: 4069

Should practical investigation have a place in the Primary Science Curriculum?

“We use practical work in science classes when students are unlikely to have observed the phenomenon we are interested in - or to have observed it in sufficient detail - in their everyday lives. In such situations, it is essential and irreplaceable.” (Millar, 2004, p. 9).

“The centrality of the laboratory to the teaching of science has become like the addicts’ relationship to their drug; an unquestioned dependency which needs to be re-examined and weakened if not broken altogether.” (Osborne, 1998, p. 156).

The juxtaposing statements above form the base of this research piece on the place of practical investigation in our curriculum. Both authors are well respected in their fields, and both have completely opposite views on not only the effective teaching of, but also indeed the very place of practical work in the Primary National Curriculum. This is particularly relevant as the curriculum is currently in a state of flux due to the National Curriculum Review.

The National Curriculum Review has stated that Science will be kept as a Core subject when the new curriculum is released next year, but until early 2012 it is not known exactly what the programme of study will entail. What is known is that teachers are being given the freedom to teach their subjects in their own way; they are being told what to teach, but not how to teach it, which is a massive step forward from the old curriculum (National Curriculum Review, 2011). However, this does raise concerns about how, and indeed if, teachers should incorporate practical work and experiments into their lessons, or if it is easier to teach scientific concepts through other means, such as videos and worksheets.

This research piece will draw on both literature reviews and the author’s own personal experiences and observations in an effort to ascertain whether or not practical investigation is indeed an effective method of teaching science, or whether the risk of it being taught poorly negates its place in the curriculum entirely.

So what is practical work? In recent decades the role of practical work was - and to some extent still is - heavily influenced by the Nuffield science teaching projects of the 1960s. These projects aimed to turn pupils into scientists in their science lessons, and so many new experiments and apparatus were integrated into school science. It was assumed that if children were allowed to make the necessary observations of selected experiments and procedures then they would be able to infer and conclude scientific laws and theories by themselves too.

Nowadays, it is clear that children will not arrive at the laws of science by a process of natural intuition, and nor is this the way that real scientists arrive at these conclusions either (Alsop & Hicks, 2001).

With this in mind, the role of practical work is becoming more creative and teachers are using methods other than just laboratory-based work to get children involved. Practical work now includes: group discussion, science trips, videos and interactive whiteboard resources, ICT programmes and whole class/pair/group and individual experiments. Due to these recent changes in understanding how children learn, practical work in science is evolving and there is a lot of support for it, whilst still some arguments against it.

Wellington (1998) states that there are at least six types of activity that take place in school science that we would probably all class as practical work: teacher demonstrations, whole-class practicals (with all learners on similar tasks), working in small groups, a carousel of experiments with small groups engaged in different activities (rotating round each experiment) and investigations organised in one of the above two ways. In order for teachers to feel confident about teaching each one, it is obvious that they need to practise and gain experience of each technique.

Wellington (1998) also presents three arguments and corresponding counter arguments for doing practical work: the cognitive argument, the affective argument and the skills argument. The cognitive argument is based on the premise that by carrying out practical work, children will better understand complex theories and abstract concepts of science education as these can be visualised and confirmed by their own experiences. However, in 2000 Wellington admitted that practical work can lead just as easily to confusion as to clarity of understanding, especially if the teacher is not entirely comfortable with their subject knowledge.

The affective argument is the belief that practical work helps to generate interest and motivation for the subject. Wellington believes that pupils’ find it easier to remember the information and that the excitement around the subject means they will concentrate better. However, Johnstone & Wham (1982) noted that whilst pupils do indeed enjoy practical work and pick up motor skills with varying degrees of proficiency, they actually learn little of the theoretical information that practical work is purported to initiate and provide.

The skills argument claims that practical work helps to promote the development of intrinsically valuable skills such as: observation, inferring, investigating and hypothesising. However, Hofstein & Mamlok-Naaman (2007); and Jenkins (1999) also argue that the practical skills children learn in laboratory-based science lessons bear no relation to the real world of scientists, where many of the techniques that children learn are now either outdated or completed by automated machines. They believe that the problems children encounter in the classroom are psuedo scientific, with children often knowing the answer and the outcome before they begin, meaning that the work becomes “a lengthy elaboration of the obvious” (Leach & Paulsen, 1999, p.27).

It is not only Wellington who believes that practical work in science should play a role in our curriculum; both the government and researchers such as Dillon and Woodley also argue that practical investigation in science is one of the most effective methods of successfully teaching difficult scientific concepts to children, as it allows children to gain a wide range of skills. These include: giving the child first-hand experience of scientific equipment, materials, living things and artefacts, increasing the child’s sense of ownership, improving the child’s social skills, teaching them how to work safely and responsibly and teaching them observational, analytical, critical and evaluation skills, as well as motor skills (HMI, 1999; Dillon, 2008; and Hodson, 1993).

Aside from the government and researchers’ believing that practical investigations are an important aspect of science; teachers and students are positive about practical work too. For example, in a recent NESTA survey (n=510), 99% of the sample of UK science teachers believed that practical and enquiry-based learning had a positive impact (83% - ‘very’; 16% - ‘a little’) on student performance, understanding and attainment (NESTA, 2005a, p. 5).

Whilst it is true that the quality of practical work varies considerably, there is strong evidence - both from this country and abroad - that, “When well-planned and effectively ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Aside from the government and researchers’ believing that practical investigations are an important aspect of science; teachers and students are positive about practical work too. For example, in a recent NESTA survey (n=510), 99% of the sample of UK science teachers believed that practical and enquiry-based learning had a positive impact (83% - ‘very’; 16% - ‘a little’) on student performance, understanding and attainment (NESTA, 2005a, p. 5).

Whilst it is true that the quality of practical work varies considerably, there is strong evidence - both from this country and abroad - that, “When well-planned and effectively implemented, science education, laboratory and simulation experiences situate students’ learning in varying levels of inquiry, requiring students to be both mentally and physically engaged in ways that are not possible in other science education experiences” (Lunetta et al., 2007, p. 405). Evidence of effective practice in the use of practical work comes from a range of studies. For example, White and Gunstone’s (1992) study indicates that students must manipulate ideas as well as materials in the school laboratory, as this helps to deepen their understanding by allowing them to gain experience of scientific concepts and activities for themselves, which creates a physical (“hands-on”) to cognitive (“brains-on”) link.

There is a growing body of research showing the effectiveness of linking hands-on and brains-on activities in school science both inside and outside the laboratory. Brains-on refers to scientific ideas that account for children’s observations, and hands-on occurs when children build a bridge between what they can see and what they are handling. Making these connections is challenging, so practical activities that make these links explicit are more likely to be successful (Millar, 2004; Lazarowitz & Tamir, 1994; and Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004).

With so much research in favour of practical work, it is perhaps surprising to learn that some bodies still dispute its worth and effectiveness. However, this is largely due to concerns over teachers’ subject knowledge and planning skills. Research shows that teachers are not confident when it comes to teaching science practically, and also that they do not always have a clearly defined beginning, middle and end to their lessons, which is paramount to children’s understanding. Many teachers are also far too vague with their learning objectives and success criteria. Abrahams & Millar (2008); Wellington (1998); Woolnough and Allsop (1985); and Gough (1998) found that many ‘experiments’ are nothing of the sort, and that teachers need to devote more lesson time to helping students discuss ideas associated with the phenomena they have produced, rather than seeing the successful production of the phenomenon as the most important - and sometimes only - learning objective.

Whilst the National Curriculum (Great Britain. Department for Education and Employment, 1999) specifies that practical and investigative activities must be carried out by pupils, and (as previously discussed) there is research to indicate that generally teachers strongly advocate the use of practical work and experience, it has to be noted that there is still a gap between policy and practice; between what is written in curriculum documents, what teachers say they do and what pupils actually experience. For example, Lunetta et al. (2007); Hodson (1993 and 2001); and Wilkenson & Ward (1997) note that despite a recent shift of emphasis towards learning outcomes and success criteria, there is a ‘chasm’ between what teachers identify as their outcomes before lessons and the outcomes that their students perceive after the lesson has finished. Hodson (2001) found that teachers’ stated lesson aims frequently failed to be addressed during actual lessons and that often children left lessons unaware of what the learning outcome was, and whether or not they had achieved it.

Tamir and Lunetta (1981) found that despite curriculum reform aimed at improving the quality of practical work, students spent too much time following ‘recipes’ and, consequently practising lower level skills. As a result, students ‘failed to perceive the conceptual and procedural understandings that were the teachers’ intended goals for the laboratory activities’ (Lunetta et al., 2007, p. 403). This pattern of under-utilisation of the opportunities provided by practical activities has been reported by several researchers including: Tasker, (1981); Hofstein and Lunetta, (1982); Champagne et al., (1985); Domin, (1988); Eylon and Linn, (1988); and of course not forgetting Osborne (1998)!

With so much debate over practical science, it is hardly surprising that many teachers lack the confidence needed to teach it successfully. Teachers’ subject knowledge needs to be completely sound, and they also need to be aware that things may happen in the experiments that they are not anticipating; the outcome may not always be what they expect; but there is always something valuable to be learnt from practical science, at least in this author’s opinion. The author observed many instances where practical science was being taught effectively, and some where it was not so useful for the children and these are detailed in the case studies below.

The first case study the author observed was in a Year 3 class, where the children were learning about light and shadow using shadow puppets. This was a particularly effective use of practical science as it was also cross-curricular. The children used techniques they had learnt in both Art and Design and Technology to create their own shadow puppets after the teacher had modelled it to them. They also gathered ideas from watching a video where a puppeteer explained that different materials could be utilised to make the puppets, and she put on a short show herself. The children experimented with different opaque materials such as card and wood, as well as translucent and transparent objects such as paper and transparent film, which they coloured in. The teacher allowed the children to experiment freely; only giving them very basic guidance on the best materials to use and how the light should be positioned in an attempt to let the children discover the best materials and position themselves. Feedback from the children was highly positive, with many saying the activity had been lots of fun and that they now knew that opaque materials were the best to use, and that to make things seem bigger the light needed to be further away, or closer for making things appear smaller. The teacher had succeeded in her learning objective of helping the children understand that shadows form when light from a source is blocked in some way, by either translucent or opaque objects, and she was more confident in teaching practical science after that, so the author believes this was a positive instance of practical science being used successfully.

The second case study the author observed was not quite so successful. In this observation the children (Year 1) were being taught about light through the topic of sight and eyes. The teacher planned to cover five main areas in the following order: the physical features of the eye, the purpose of eyes, the link between seeing and light (i.e. that we cannot see without light and that the pupil of the eye is a window through which light enters), materials that you can and cannot see through (transparent, translucent and opaque) and individual differences in sight (including eye tests. The teacher used a variety of different methods to engage with and teach the children. Firstly she had the children look at their eyes in a mirror and draw them, labelling the different parts; they then created a chart to record the distributions of eye colour. For the second area (purpose) she had the children see if they could perform tasks such as putting together a jigsaw, draw faces and tell shapes and colours to the same standard with their eyes closed as when they had them open. For the third section (the effect of light on seeing) she had the children stand in ‘pitch black’ (in this case, their stationery cupboard) for a short time. The cupboard was filled with brightly coloured paper cut into different shapes, and packets with writing on. She then turned the torch on and off and asked the children what they saw in each case.

Whilst the children found all of these activities fun, the teacher had unfortunately somewhat overestimated her class (for many of whom English was an additional language) and so the last two areas had to be abandoned as the children needed to spend a longer period of time than anticipated working to understand the purpose of eyes. The order of the first three areas is significant as the teacher was aware that the children would find it difficult to make the move between something concrete to the more abstract idea of purpose, and then to try and understand that there was a link between the two separate things (in this case, seeing and light).

The Schools Council (1972) makes the particularly pertinent point that everything we teach our children is open to interpretation. By this the mean that whatever we teach children has to build upon their already existing base and that we must make allowances for what the children bring with them. No outcome is entirely predictable, because the child will “organise their experiences into some pattern personal to themselves” (Schools Council 1972, p.5). This is what happened in the case study above, with many of the children failing to grasp the links between solid and abstract, and in some cases believing it was just ‘magic’ and not a physical process. Therefore, in this case, practical investigation did not help all of the children reach their potential or achieve the intended learning outcomes.

The third case study the author observed took place in another class of Year 3 children, who were studying light, but this time they were learning about the earth’s rotation and how this affected shadows. The children worked individually, in groups and as a class, and the learning outcome was to understand that shadows change because the earth is spinning. The teacher felt that many videos reinforced the misconception that the sun moved and that this was why shadows changed throughout the day, and he knew that children struggled with this concept. The teacher showed the children pictures and animations of sundials, and then modelled a sundial to the children using an apple, a matchstick and a torch. The torch (sun) stayed still, whilst the earth (apple) rotated, lengthening the shadow from the sundial (matchstick).

In pairs, the children then created their own sundials using the same process, and then explained to each other and the teacher what was happening and what the apple, matchstick and torch represented.

Independently, the children followed the same process using plasticine, card, sticks and torches. The children then drew up a list of advantages and disadvantages to using sundials to tell the time e.g. ‘you can’t carry it around with you’, ‘it doesn’t work at night or when very cloudy’ and ‘it doesn’t need batteries or electricity’ etc.

Similarly to the first case study, the children also experimented with an OHP to see what materials best produced shadows and how the shadows changed as the objects creating them were moved further or closer to the light source. The children were asked to note down their findings and then the teacher delivered a plenary to discuss how and why shadows changed and to ensure everyone had met the learning objective.

Overall, this case study proved that practical investigation is effective, as it allowed the children to get hands-on and experience shadows and how they are created for themselves, which deepened their understanding and fuelled their enthusiasm.

The case studies above demonstrate that practical work does play an important and necessary role in the teaching of science, but that due thought and care need to go into its planning and delivery, to ensure that no child is disadvantaged through this method of learning.

As discussed briefly earlier, one of the main issues with the effective teaching of practical science is teacher subject knowledge and confidence. This was critically evaluated in reports and research carried out by government and non-government bodies including SCORE (2007) and the House of Lords (2006). Both found that science teachers’ main need is to be able to try out practical work and develop their own confidence and skills, together with technician support.

Osborne & Simon (1996); Nilsson & Van Driel (2007 and 2010); and Appleton (2005) discuss primary teachers´ lack of ability, confidence and enthusiasm for the subject. Unfortunately, the absence of these characteristics results in the use of less stimulating methods and teachers who are unable to effectively respond to pupils' questions. There are clearly defined goals for scientific knowledge and attainment in the primary curriculum, and teachers’ lack of confidence in teaching the subject can impact on the overall success of their pupils. Palmer (2006) emphasises that subject matter knowledge and science pedagogical knowledge are linked with increased confidence in the teaching of primary science. Mulholland and Wallace (2001) found that the low status of science in primary schools and the inexperience of teachers in the subject were due to a lack of positive models and an inadequate understanding of how to teach science.

However, Harlen & Holroyd (1997); Harlen (1997 and 2008); and the Teacher Scientist Network (2010) found that although teachers expressed low confidence in teaching science - which was linked to a lack of understanding of scientific ideas - they did not have any difficulty in using certain science teaching skills. Therefore, the depth of subject matter knowledge can affect the ability of the teacher to ask appropriate and meaningful questions. This was confirmed by Garbett (2003) and Carlsen (1991), who found that the less the teacher knows, the more often discussions with the students appeared to be dominated by the teacher, who ultimately, gave the students less opportunities to interact with each other. Both concluded that the less competent the teacher is, the more difficult it is for them to follow the child’s lead and to explore their ideas efficiently. This leads to planning becoming limited and defined by what the teacher knows rather than an exchange of knowledge between the learner and the teacher.

A study by Murphy & Beggs (2005) found that the two most important factors affecting teacher confidence in science teaching were professional development work in science and school size. Teachers who had undertaken professional development in science were significantly more confident in nearly all aspects of teaching science, and teachers from larger schools were significantly more confident in science teaching than those from smaller schools.

The study recommended that a national, structured programme of professional development should be put in place for primary teachers; which concentrates on making school science more relevant to the everyday lives of the children and that more investigative approaches in science teaching should be used, as this will improve both teacher and pupil confidence in practical work.

The project also advised that reducing the amount of content in the primary science curriculum would improve teacher confidence in practical work; especially if the curriculum only included aspects of science that are likely to enthuse children, not confuse them. By reducing the amount of content, teachers would have less to learn themselves and therefore would be able to better tweak their practical investigations to suit each child specifically, as the more times the same experiment is conducted, the more confident the teacher becomes.

So, having looked at the evidence for and against, should practical investigation have a place in our classrooms and curriculum? This author believes so. Although research from people such as: Osborne (1996 and 1998); Johnstone & Wham (1982); Leach & Paulsen (1999); and Lunetta et al., (2007) shows that practical investigation has the potential to be as damaging as it is useful, the author believes that evidence from others, including Wellington, White & Gunstone and Millar, is sufficiently compelling to make a firm case for the continued use of practical investigation in the curriculum. Not only does it motivate and engage children, deepen their understanding and create an enthusiasm for science in them for life, it also helps them form a better relationship with their teacher, as they get to see their teacher in a more informal light, with the teacher sometimes learning alongside the children. After all, isn’t teaching a lifelong journey of learning alongside children?

Student teachers are now being taught this philosophy, and coming to the understanding that teachers are not expected to be an infallible fount of knowledge; never unable to answer a question a child may pose. Student teachers are learning that it is, in fact, acceptable to be unsure, and to learn with the child (or children), finding the answer out together and engaging with each other and each other’s ideas and thoughts.

This takes some of the pressure off teachers, and it helps them become more confident in every area of their teaching - not just in teaching practical science - as it allows them the freedom to explore new ideas and avenues without necessarily knowing their exact destination.

Indeed, in a section of their report entitled ‘The Role of the Practical’, The House of Lords’ Science and Technology Committee (2006) collected testimonies from witnesses called to provide evidence to aid in its deliberations. They were unanimous in their belief that practical work - both in the classroom and outdoors - is an absolutely essential component in the effective teaching of science. As the Royal Society of Chemistry’s (RSC) recently commissioned Consortium of Local Education Authorities for the Provision of Science Services (CLEAPSS) noted in 2006, “Appropriate practical work enhances pupils’ experience, understanding, skills and enjoyment of science” (RSC, 2006, p. 109). Moreover, NESTA (2005b) commented that practical work “allows science education to become something that learners participate in, rather than something they are subject to” (NESTA, 2005b, p. 165) and, in the words of the QCA, supports “aspirations towards further study and science-related work.” (House of Lords, 2006, p. 195).

With this in mind, the author believes that whatever changes the new curriculum may bring, practical investigation should still play a vital part in the teaching of science, as it helps children become better learners, and teachers become better teachers, which leads to a harmonious environment for everyone.

References:

Abrahams, I., and 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, Vol. 30, Issue 14, pp. 1945-1969
Alsop, S. and Hicks, K. (2001) Teaching science: a handbook for primary and secondary school teachers, London: Routledge
Appleton, K. (2005) ‘Science Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Elementary School Teachers’, in K. Appleton (Ed), Elementary Science Teacher Education, pp. 31-54, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher.
Carlsen, W. (1991) ‘Effects of new biology teachers’ subject matter knowledge on curricular planning’, International Journal Science Education, Vol. 75, Issue 6, pp. 631-647
Champagne A, B., Gunstone, R, F. and Klopfer, L, E. (1985) ‘Instructional consequences of students’ knowledge about physical phenomena’, in L. H. T. West and A.L. Pines (Eds), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change, pp. 61–68, New York: Academic Press
Department for Education (2000) ‘National Curriculum, [Online], Available at: (Accessed 22nd October 2011)
Dillon J. (2008) ‘A Review of the Research on Practical Work in School Science’ [Online], Available at: (Accessed 23rd October 2011)
Domin, D. S. (1998) ‘A content analysis of general chemistry laboratory manuals for evidence of high order cognitive tasks’, Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 76, Issue 1, pp. 109–111
Eylon, B. and Linn, M. C. (1988) ‘Learning and instruction: an examination of four research perspectives in science education’, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 58, Issue 3, pp. 251–301
Garbett, D. (2003) ‘Science Education in Early Childhood Teacher Education: Putting Forward a Case to Enhance Student Teachers' Confidence and Competence’, Research in Science Education, Vol. 33, Issue 4, pp. 467-481
Gough, N. (1998). ‘If this were played upon a stage. School laboratory work as a theatre of representation’ in J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical Work in School Science. Which Way Now?, pp. 69–89, London: Routledge
Harlen, W. and Holroyd, C. (1997), ‘Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: impact on confidence and teaching’, International Journey of Science Education, Vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 93-105
Harlen, W. (1997), ‘Primary Teachers’ understanding in Science and its impact in the classroom’, Research in Science Education, Vol. 27, Issue 3, pp. 323-33
Harlen, W. (2008) ‘Science as a key component of the primary curriculum: a rationale with policy implications’ [Online], Available at: (Accessed October 26th 2011)
Great Britain. HMI/Office for Standards in Education (2004) Science in Primary Schools, London: Ofsted
Hodson D., (1993) ‘Re-thinking old ways: towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science’, Studies in Science Education, Vol. 22, Issue 12, pp.85-142
Hodson, D. (2001) ‘Research on practical work in school and universities: in pursuit of better questions and better methods’, Proceedings of the 6th European conference on research in chemical education, University of Aveiro; Aveiro, Portugal (ECRICE)
Hofstein, A. and Lunetta, V. N. (1982) ‘The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research’, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 52, Issue 2, pp. 201–217
Hofstein, A. and Mamlok-Namaan, R. (2007) ‘The laboratory in science education: the state of the art’, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Vol. 8, Issue 2, pp. 105-110
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (2006) ‘Tenth Report of Session 2005-06 Science Teaching in Schools’ [Online], Available at: (Accessed, October 24th, 2011)
Jenkins, E. W. (1999) ‘Practical Work in School Science: - some questions to be answered’, in Leach, J; Paulsen, (Eds), Practical Work in Science Education, pp. 19 – 32, Roskilde University, Roskilde: Kluwer Press
Johnstone, A. and Wham, A. (1982) ‘The demand of practical work’ Education in Chemistry, Vol. 19, Issue 3, pp.71-73

Lazarowitz R. and Tamir P., (1994) ‘Research on using laboratory instruction in science’, in D. L. Gabel. (Ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, pp. 94-130, New- York: Macmillan
Leach, J. and Paulsen, A., (1999) Practical Work in Science Education – Recent Research Studies, pp. 75–95, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A. and Clough, M. P. (2007) ‘Teaching and learning in the school science laboratory. An analysis of research, theory, and practice’ , in S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman (Eds), Handbook of Research on Science Education, pp. 393 – 431, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Millar, R. (2004) ‘The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science’, [Online] Available at: (Accessed October 24th 2011)
Mulholland J. and Wallace J. (2001) ‘Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: Enhancing self-efficacy’, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 17, Issue 2, pp. 243-261.
Murphy, C. and Beggs, J. (2005) Primary Science in the UK: a Scoping Study, London: Wellcome Trust
National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) (2005a) ‘Science Teachers Survey’, [Online], Available at: http://www.planetscience.com/sciteach/realscience/science_teachers_report.pdf (Accessed on October 20th, 2011)
National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) (2005b) ‘Real Science—Encouraging Experimentation and Investigation in School Science Learning’, [Online], Available at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/assets/pdf/real_science_report_NESTA.pdf (Accessed on October 21st, 2011)
Nilsson, P. and Van Driel, J. (2010) ‘Teaching together and learning together - Primary school science student teachers´ and their mentors´ joint learning in the primary classroom’, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol.26, pp. 1309-1318
Nilsson, P. and Van Driel, J. (2007) ‘Experienced primary teachers´ and primary science student teachers´ collaborative learning through reflection on their science teaching’, [Online], Available at: (Accessed October 24th 2011)
Osborne, J. and Simon, S. (1996) ‘Primary science: Past and future directions’ Studies in Science Education. Vol. 26, pp.99-147.
Osborne, J. (1998) ‘Science education without a laboratory?’, In, J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical Work In School Science Which Way Now?, pp.156–173, London: Routledge
Palmer, D.H. (2006) ‘Sources of self-efficacy in a science Method Course for Primary Teacher Education Students’, Research in Science Education, Vol. 36, Issue 4, pp.337-353
Royal Society of Chemistry (2006) ‘Memorandum by the Royal Society of Chemistry July 5’ [Online], Available at: (Accessed October 26th 2011)
Schools Council (1972) With Objectives in Mind, Guide to Science pp. 5-13. London: Schools Council in conjunction with Macdonald Education
Science Community Partnership Supporting STEM Education (SCORE) (2007) ‘House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report into Science Teaching in Schools – a response from the Science Community Partnership Supporting STEM Education (SCORE)’, [Online], Available at: (Accessed October 24th 2011)
SCORE (2009) ‘Practical work in science: a report and proposal for a strategic framework’, [Online], Available at: (Accessed October 26th 2011)
Tamir, P. and Lunetta, V. N. (1981) ‘Inquiry related tasks in high school science laboratory handbooks’, International Handbook of Science Education, Vol. 65, Issue 5, pp. 477–484
Tasker, R. (1981).’Children’s views and classroom experiences’, Australian Science Teachers Journal, Vol. 27, Issue 3, pp. 33–37
Teacher Scientist Network, (2010) ‘Practical experiments in school science lessons and science field trips’, [Online], Available at: (Accessed October 26th 2011)
Wellington, J. (Ed.) (1998) Practical Work in School Science. Which Way Now?, London: Routledge
White, R.T. and Gunstone, R. F. (1992) Probing Understanding, London: Falmer Press
Wilkenson, J. W. and Ward, M. (1997) ‘The purpose and perceived effectiveness of laboratory work in schools’, Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, Vol. 42, Issue 2, pp. 43–55
Woolnough, B. E. and Allsop, T. (1985) Practical Work in Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press