This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]

On: 13 May 2013, At: 16:23

Publisher: Routledge
Informa 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

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Does Practical Work Really Motivate? A

study of the affective value of practical
work in secondary school science
a
Ian Abrahams
a
Institute of Education, University of London, UK
Published online: 27 Oct 2009.

To cite this article: Ian Abrahams (2009): Does Practical Work Really Motivate? A study of the
affective value of practical work in secondary school science, International Journal of Science
Education, 31:17, 2335-2353

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690802342836

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

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

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should 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 directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journal of Science Education
Vol. 31, No. 17, 15 November 2009, pp. 2335–2353

RESEARCH REPORT

Does Practical Work Really Motivate?

A study of the affective value of
practical work in secondary
school science
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

Ian Abrahams*
Institute of Education, University of London, UK
ianabrahams@hotmail.com
0Taylor
00
Dr.
000002008
IanAbrahams
&
International
10.1080/09500690802342836
TSED_A_334450.sgm
0950-0693
Original
2008 andFrancis
Article
(print)/1464-5289
Francis
Journal of Science
(online)
Education

The present paper reports on a study that examined whether practical work can be said to have
affective outcomes, and if so in what sense. The term ‘affective’ is used here to refer to the
emotions, or feelings, engendered amongst pupils towards school science in general, or one of the
sciences in particular. The study is based on 25 multi-site case studies that employed a condensed
fieldwork strategy. Data were collected, using tape-recorded interviews and observational field
notes, in a sample of practical lessons undertaken in English comprehensive (non-selective) schools
during Key Stages 3 and 4 (ages 11–14 years and 15–16 years, respectively). The findings suggest
that whilst practical work generates short-term engagement, it is relatively ineffective in generating
motivation 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 need
to develop a more realistic understanding of the limitations of practical work in the affective
domain.

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), as
central to the appeal of science. There is also evidence that pupils prefer practical
work 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

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/09/172335–19

© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09500690802342836
 2336 I. Abrahams

(Wellington, 2005), recent studies (Abrahams, 2007; Haste, 2004) have shown that
pupils’ attitudes towards secondary school science become progressively more nega-
tive over time. Indeed, the absolute number of pupils choosing to pursue science at
‘A’-level is in steady decline (Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003)—a decline that is
most pronounced in chemistry and physics (House of Commons Science and Tech-
nology Committee, 2002), arguably the two science subjects that offer the most
practical work during Key Stages 3 and 4.1
However, despite the potential affective value of practical work, it is important to
recognise that a pupil’s decision to pursue science beyond the compulsory stage of
their education is likely to be more strongly influenced by a variety of factors; for
example, career and/or university aspirations (House of Commons Science and
Technology Committee, 2002), relevance (Jenkins & Pell, 2006), or the personality
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

and 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 a
means of motivating pupils towards the study of science), the focus of the present
study has been to examine the affective value of practical work itself rather than to
address the broader issue of what factors influence—positively or negatively—pupils’
subject choices.
Hodson suggests five reasons that teachers might be expected to give for using
practical 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 this
study to describe the value of practical work, the following illustrates (all names used
within the study are pseudonyms) what is often meant by this:

I think in most instances it’s short-term engagement for that particular lesson rather
than general motivation towards science. In general I think it’s very difficult to motivate
kids in Year 10 and 11 into thinking about engaging in science and thinking about
science in terms of ‘that’s a career that I want to follow’. (Mr Rainton)

Are teachers, we might then ask, using this term in its strict psychological sense or as
a ‘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. Bandura
suggests that the terms ‘motivate’ and ‘interest’ have been used, in the literature, to
mean 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 Lazarowitz
and Tamir (1994), who claim that practical work motivates pupils, citing in support
of this Ben-Zvi, Hofstein, Samuel, and Kempa (1977), Henry (1975), and Selmes,
Ashton, Meredith, and Newal (1969), even though these studies focused almost
exclusively on the issue of pupil interest rather than motivation. Indeed, of these three
citations, only in Henry is the term ‘motivation’ actually used, albeit only once,
 Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 2337

when Henry, citing no sources, simply states that ‘In addition, psychological reasons
can be proposed which relate to the improved motivation of pupils by the inclusion
of 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 in
the definition and use of key terms when discussing the affective value of practical
work and those relating to attitudes to science (Ramsden, 1998). To avoid what
Ramsden (1998, p. 127) criticises as the ‘overlap’ of terminology, it is necessary both
to 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. As
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

Wellington suggests, in talking about the motivational value of practical work, the
question as to ‘[w]hat does it motivate pupils to do?’ (2005, p. 101) needs to be
answered. It is, after all, relatively easy to make general claims about the affective
value of practical work; it is quite another to state what such claims actually mean in
terms 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 a
pupil’s decision to actively pursue the study of one, or more, science subjects in the
post-compulsory phase of their education, or in additional voluntary actions under-
taken by the pupil. Such actions might include participating in a science club, doing
more than required for homework (or, at the very least, doing all that is required
well), reading science books/magazines, watching science programmes on television,
viewing science-based web sites, visiting places of scientific interest, and the like. A
comparison of claims regarding the motivational value of practical work, with pupils’
actions both in and out of the laboratory—including particularly their intentions to
pursue science in the post-compulsory phase and, if so, in which of the three
sciences (and the reasons for this)—provides a useful means of appraising the extent
to 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 of
practical work in English schools (Millar, 2004; Third International Mathematics
and Science Study, 1999), that all three sciences would be amongst the most popular
subjects pursued post-compulsion. The findings of the House of Commons Science
and 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 in
chemistry 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
 2338 I. Abrahams

work that accompanied the Nuffield-inspired changes to the curriculum during the
1960s did not, as Hodson (1990) has noted, result in any increase in the number of
pupils choosing to pursue science post compulsion, as might have been anticipated
had practical work been an effective motivating factor. In fact, a report by the
Department of Education and Science (1968)—The Dainton Report, produced at a
time when Nuffield-inspired changes to the curriculum might have been expected to
increase the uptake of science at ‘A’-level—found that the number of pupils pursuing
science at this level had actually decreased.
There is, however, a need to recognise that the educational system in England, in
which pupils are required to specialise at the end of Key Stage 4, must result in some
pupils not pursuing their study of science because of positive choices in favour of
other subjects, rather than negative views of, or a lack of motivation towards, science.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

However, the old adage that ‘actions speak louder than words’ lends credence to the
claim 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 they
motivate pupils towards science in general or, more importantly, towards the further
study of one (or more) of the sciences in particular.

Interest
Prenzel suggests that the term ‘interest’, as commonly used, ‘describes preferences
for 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 person’s
interaction with a specific class of tasks, objects, events, or ideas’ (Krapp, Hidi, &
Renninger, 1992, p. 8; original emphasis). Whilst this description of interest is
widely accepted (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000), many psychological theorists make a
distinction between what have been termed ‘personal’ interest and ‘situational’ inter-
est (Bergin, 1999; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). To evaluate what is actually meant
by claims that ‘practical work generates interest’, it is necessary to understand that
these two types of interest differ appreciably one from the other.

Personal interest. Personal interest, sometimes referred to as ‘individual’ interest, is

primarily concerned with the relative ranking of an individual’s preferences. As
Bergin makes clear, the ‘individual approach [to interest] asks what dispositional
preferences people hold, or what enduring preferences they have for certain activities
or domains of knowledge’ (1999, p. 87; emphasis added). Recent studies in the area
of personal interest (Renninger, 1998; Schiefele, 1996) have found that children who
undertake a particular activity, or study a subject, in which they already have a
personal interest will, relative to children with no prior personal interest, be observed
to pay closer attention to, learn more from, and engage for longer with, any new
material that they are presented with. The relationship between personal interest in,
and knowledge of, a subject or activity arises because individuals prefer, when given
 Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 2339

a choice, to study what already interests them (Bergin, 1999). By increasing their
knowledge of that subject, or activity, they increase their personal interest in it
(Alexander, 1997; Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995; Deci, 1992), yet further
developing 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 emotions—all of which are, generally speaking, beyond a teacher’s immediate
domain of influence. Whilst personal interest can be an important factor in effective
learning (Schiefele, Krapp, & Winteler, 1992), it is not something that is, in the short
term, susceptible to teacher influence (Bergin, 1999; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000).
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

Situational interest. Situational interest refers to the interest that is stimulated in an

individual 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. Unlike
personal interest, situational interest is susceptible to teacher influence in the short
term (Hidi & Anderson, 1992; Hidi & Berdorff, 1998). Although it is less likely than
personal interest to endure over time (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000), it does provide
an opportunity for teachers to influence the effectiveness of pupil learning in specific
lessons in a positive manner (Hoffmann & Häussler, 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. In
discussing the generation of personal interest, Bergin stresses that ‘personal or indi-
vidual factors always interact with situational factors to create interest, or lack of
interest’ (1999, p. 89), a claim endorsed by Hidi and Harackiewicz (2000).
Despite the possible role of practical work in stimulating situational interest, there
has 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 only
studies that have been undertaken on the issue of how to increase pupil interest have
been those that have examined the factors that influence the degree of situational
interest 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 as
surprising, vivid, intense, and novel. This study has also found (Abrahams & Miller,
2007) that practical tasks that formed memorable episodes (White, 1991) also
shared these same characteristics.
It should be recognised that whilst it has been reported that pupils themselves
claim 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 personal
interest in a subject or activity is that the individual concerned also likes that subject
or activity per se (Schiefele, 1991). In contrast an ‘interest in’ and a ‘liking of’ a
 2340 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 task—
as evidenced by the pupils’ apparent involvement with the objects, materials, and
phenomena—does not imply cognitive engagement with any, or all, of the intended
ideas or concepts. It has been reported (Blumenfeld & Meece, 1988) that pupils can
be fully engaged and seemingly interested in what they were doing without their
being cognitively engaged with the task in a manner that would have been necessary
for them to have learnt what the teacher intended. Indeed, Bergin cautions that
although ‘most teachers aspire to increase the interest of their students, they should
keep in mind the fact that interest enhancement does not necessarily lead to learning
enhancement’ (1999, p. 96).
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

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

Research Strategy and Methods

Previous large-scale questionnaire-based studies of practical work in English and
Welsh secondary schools (Beatty & Woolnough, 1982; Kerr, 1964; Thompson,
1975) have focused on the rhetoric of practical work. That is, whilst they explored
the views and opinions of teachers and students, they did not examine and/or
compare 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 its
natural setting. As similar objections have been raised to the use of studies based
solely on interviews (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000; Hammersley & Atkinson,
1983), this study adopted a multi-site approach, involving a series of 25 case studies
in different settings, similar in scale to those undertaken by Firestone and Herriott
(1984) and Stenhouse (1984). This approach enabled the researcher to focus on the
observation of actual practices and to augment these with interviews conducted in
the context of these observations.
There are a number of precedents in which case studies have been used, within an
educational 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 other
settings: what Bracht and Glass (1968) refer to as ecological validity. As well as the
fact that ‘studying numerous heterogeneous sites makes multi-site studies one
potentially 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 case
study.
 Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 2341

Table 1. School samples

School Location Size Age range (years) Education authority

Derwent Urban 500 11–16 A

Foss Urban 1,480 11–18 A
Kyle Urban 1,550 11–18 B
Nidd Rural 890 11–18 B
Ouse Rural 630 11–18 B
Rye Rural 720 11–18 C
Swale Rural 670 11–16 B
Ure Rural 1,280 11–18 C
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

Eight schools were approached, with the head of the science department being
asked for permission to observe one or more science lessons at national curriculum
Key Stage 3 or Key Stage 4 (students aged 11–14 years and 15–16 years, respectively)
that involved some student practical work, to talk to the teacher about the lesson, and
perhaps 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 variety
of urban and rural settings. Some of their characteristics are presented in Table 1. As
a 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 into
four main strands, or ‘attainment targets’—one of which is called ‘Scientific
Enquiry’ and is about developing students’ understanding of the scientific approach
to 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 they
have carried out. Donnelly, Buchan, Jenkins, Laws, and Welford (1996), in a
detailed exploration of this aspect of the English national curriculum, point out that
extended and more open-ended investigative practical tasks are rarely used to teach
students about scientific enquiry, but almost entirely to assess their performance in
conducting an enquiry scientifically. In identifying practical tasks to observe, we
wanted to observe (and thought we would be more likely to be given permission to
observe) teaching situations where no high-stakes assessment was involved. We also
knew that open-ended enquiry tasks typically extend over several science lessons,
and would therefore require several visits to observe the complete task. We therefore
chose to restrict our data-set to a broad range of practical tasks that were not being
used for assessment purposes, which in practice meant that we observed tasks asso-
ciated (in teachers’ minds) with the teaching of the biology, chemistry, and physics
strands of the national curriculum.
Typically on arrival at the school, the head of science would present the researcher
with a list of lessons that were taking place on that day and that it would be possible
to observe and, as such, we had limited control of the content or subject matter of
the lessons actually observed in each school. Choices were made, whenever practical
 2342 I. Abrahams

considerations of timing permitted, to allow pre-lesson and post-lesson teacher

interviews, with the aim of achieving a reasonably balanced coverage of the five
school years in Key Stages 3 and 4 by the end of the study, and of ensuring that the
sample included biology, chemistry, and physics topics. Whilst the sample was not
unduly large, it was felt, on the basis that later lesson observations in the sequence
appeared to raise the same issues as earlier ones, that data saturation had been
achieved by this point and that nothing would be gained by increasing the size of the
sample further.
Field notes were taken in each lesson observed, and tape-recorded interviews
were carried out with the teacher before and after the lesson. The pre-lesson inter-
view was primarily used to get the teacher’s account of the practical work to be
observed and of his or her view of the learning objectives of the lesson. The post-
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

lesson interview collected the teacher’s reflections on the lesson, its success as a
teaching and learning event, and their views on the affective value/role of practical
work. Where possible, conversations with groups of students during and after the
lesson were also tape-recorded. These conversations provided an opportunity to
gain insights into the students’ thinking not only about the task that they were
observed undertaking, but also with regards to the affective value of practical work
in 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 was
not that the pupils actually liked practical work per se—although some pupils in Year
7 did, and these will be discussed later—but merely preferred it to most alternative
methods of teaching science. In contrast to Head (1982), who reported finding an
appreciable minority of pupils who expressed a dislike of practical work, in this study
one pupil claimed to dislike practical work, on the basis that it was boring, whilst
96 students claimed to like it. Because of time constraints it was not possible to
question all of the pupils, but there seems no reason to believe that the responses
obtained are not representative of the pupils involved in the study as a whole. Pupils’
reasons for claiming to like practical work are presented in Table 2, in which there
are 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 termed
‘absolute’ claims (such as it is fun, it is exciting, I just like it). An asterisk indicates a
relative preference.
Of the 96 claims, 65 (68%) are indicative of a ‘relative’ preference for practical
work whilst 31 (32%) are ‘absolute’. Whilst the sample size (N = 96) was relatively
small, and not all year groups were equally represented, it is still possible to compare
the proportion of ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ responses given by pupils in each Year
group—and these results are presented in Table 3.
 Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 2343

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

Generic category of response Pupils’ reasons for claiming to like Number of pupils
work practical work offering such a response

Because it is less boring than 47

writing*
Reasons that related to the Because it is fun 16
affective value of practical work Because it is better than listening to 4
the teacher*
Because it is better than reading 3
from a textbook*
Because it is better than theory* 1
Because it is exciting 1
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

Because it is more believable* 1

Because it is better than work* 1
Reasons relating to making, Because you get to make/do things 10
doing and seeing Because you can see what happens 2
Because you get to find things out 1
Because you gain an experience 1
Reasons relating to learning, Because you will remember it better* 3
understanding and recollecting Because you learn more* 3
Because it helps you understand 2
better*

Note: *relative preference.

What emerges clearly from Table 3 is that after Year 7, in which the majority of
pupil responses were ‘absolute’, the situation reverses to one in which the majority of
claims to like practical work have become statements of relative preference. This
remains much the same in Years 8, 9, and 10 before shifting even further towards
‘relative’ 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 equipment
and/or materials and this is something that the pupils appear to like in an ‘absolute’
sense. Many Year 7 pupils spoke excitedly simply about being allowed to use standard

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

Number of Number of Percentage of Percentage of

Group ‘absolute’ responses ‘relative’ responses ‘absolute’ responses ‘relative’ responses

Year 7 14 12 54 46
Year 8 8 23 26 74
Year 9 2 7 22 78
Year 10 6 16 27 73
Year 11 1 8 13 87
 2344 I. Abrahams

pieces of laboratory equipment and/or materials such as Bunsen burners, electrical

wire, and acids—something that was not observed amongst pupils in later years. The
following 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, which
arises out of the fun, enjoyment, and excitement that many pupils appear to associ-
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

ate with using new equipment and/or materials in what is a novel environment—the
science laboratory—starts 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 work
was 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 already
claims 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 practical
work in an ‘absolute’ sense, the interest that it generates seems best described as
situational rather than personal. Since situational interest does not persist beyond
the immediate period of an individual’s interaction with the subject or activity (Hidi
& Harackiewicz, 2000), it might be expected that without regular practical work—to
re-stimulate situational interest—pupils will perceive science as boring despite their
having used practical work on numerous previous occasions. This does, in fact, seem
to be what was observed in this study. The following extract illustrates how an
underlying view that science, as a subject, is ‘boring’ emerged as soon as it was
suggested that practical work, the source of situational interest, be either reduced or
removed from science lessons:
Researcher: What do you think science would be like if there was less practical?
KD13: Boring. If you come in and there’s no practical it’s not as fun, you’re just
sitting down writing stuff from the textbook.

Yet the following example illustrates that whilst practical work might be preferred to
‘theory’, it is not necessarily succeeding in motivating pupils towards the study of
science as a subject in the post-compulsory phase of their education.
Researcher: Have you enjoyed this practical?
SK28: Yeah it was all right; it wasn’t as fun as other ones we’ve had though.
Researcher: Are you going to take science at ‘A’ level?
SK28: No not really I’m not really in to it all.
Researcher: But you did say you liked practical.
SK28: Yeah but, ‘cause sometimes it’s fun, and practical’s easier than, well,
writing.
 Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 2345

Such claims illustrate that, for many pupils, practical work is perceived as distinct
from, and separate to, science as a subject. Indeed, it emerged that a preference for
practical work within science did not always imply a preference for science over other
subjects.
The implication here is that even when pupils claim to prefer science practical
work to other subjects, and it must be emphasised here that the preference is not for
science as a subject but rather the practical work component within it, their reasons
for doing so appear to have little to do with personal interest in the subject per se. As
with 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 for
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

liking 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 largest
group of reasons given by pupils for liking practical work, accounting for 77% of all
responses. It is important to point out that some of the reasons for claiming to like
practical work within this category, as the following quotation illustrates, are less of a
positive endorsement of practical work than a desire to avoid having to write and/or
do too much work:
Researcher: Do you like practical work?
SW1: Yeah it’s 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 it’s not exactly exciting but it’s better than working all the time in
the lesson.
Researcher: Do you think this particular practical helps you in any way?
SW1: No, it’s just less boring.

This view, that practical work does not involve working lends credence to the view
expressed by Dr Kettlesing, one of the teachers in the study, who, when asked
why she thought practical work was popular amongst pupils, claimed: ‘I think it’s
[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 practical
work amongst pupils was, in part, due to the fact that it avoided their ‘having to
think’.
Of the remaining pupils, 15% cited issues relating to making, doing, and seeing as
their reason for liking practical work whilst only 8% claimed that they liked it
because it helped them to learn, understand, and recollect ideas and concepts. This
suggests—and 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
 2346 I. Abrahams

alternatives—in particular, writing—few pupils see it as a better way of learning

about, 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 the
value of practical work, it emerged, during further discussions with them, that they
were frequently using the term ‘motivate’ to mean situational interest. As situational
interest is unlikely to endure beyond a particular lesson (Hidi & Harackiewicz,
2000), the need to continually re-stimulate the pupils, through the regular use of
practical work, becomes more understandable. It might be argued here that the fact
that pupils sometimes enter a science laboratory requesting to do practical work
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

exemplifies the motivational value of practical work and that its frequent use is
designed to enhance the effect. However, the fact that it was reported by the teachers
that the absence of practical work for even a few lessons, even amongst pupils who
have been undertaking regular practical work for almost 5 years, made them behav-
iourally harder to manage, suggests that its affective value is better understood in
terms of its generating non-enduring situational interest than any form of enduring
motivation towards science as a subject.

Value of Situational Interest

It is perhaps useful at this point to examine the reasons given by teachers for wanting
to generate what is, essentially, a non-enduring form of interest. What emerged from
the comments made by the teachers was that they perceived practical work as having
two, very distinct, affective purposes:
i To help in the behavioural management of the class—particularly with low to
low/middle academic ability pupils.
ii To help off-set the image of science as difficult, dull, and boring by presenting
an alternative, arguably misleading, image of science in which the emphasis is
primarily on ‘doing’ fun and enjoyable ‘hands-on’ work rather than on learning
about ideas (Abrahams, 2007).

Role of Practical Work in Behaviour Management

Some of the comments made by teachers, as the following example illustrates, show
how pupils frequently arrive at science lessons with the expectation, or at least a
hope, that they will be able to do practical work:
You know as soon as they come through the door they’re asking ‘Sir are we doing prac-
tical today?’ (Mr Drax)

Although the researcher observed pupils making similar requests as they entered the
laboratory, it appeared that those keenest on doing practical work—as evidenced by
 Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 2347

the numbers asking and their repeatedly shouting out the same question—were often
pupils of low academic ability who subsequently informed the researcher that they
had no intention of pursuing science post compulsion. For many of these pupils the
hope of doing practical work appeared to owe more to their desire to avoid writing
than 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 an
example of such comments.
It is a carrot with them [academically low ability pupils], it is more about making it
bearable. For them it’s just less writing. I think higher ability pupils could get by with
fewer practicals. (Dr Kepwick)

One teacher saw the actual use of a laboratory, especially for non-practical science
lessons, as problematic—in that laboratories, unlike classrooms, are essentially
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

designed, with their uncomfortable stools, and benches containing sinks, power
points, and gas taps, for doing rather than sitting and writing (Donnelly, 1998).
Whether or not the pupils’ expectations and/or hopes to undertake practical work
in science lessons are driven by a genuine personal interest in practical work, or
merely by a desire to avoid having to write, it is clear that these expectations and/or
hopes are real. What is therefore important is the question of how pupils react to
those lessons, or sequences of lessons, in which their expectations and/or hopes to do
practical work are not fulfilled. Amongst the teachers in this study, what emerges, as
the following example shows, is a widespread perception that without interspersing
practical work into a teaching sequence, on a frequent and regular basis, pupils
become not only uninterested but also noticeably more behaviourally difficult to
manage during non-practical lessons:
The kids soon work out which teacher gives more practical work and certainly, for most
classes, two lessons of theory on the trot is about the limit, after that they’ll be very hard
to teach. It’s carrot and stick really. (Mr Normanby)

This indicates a concern, particularly amongst teachers involved in teaching science

to 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 strategy
for coping with poor behaviour. As one teacher (Mr Drax) suggested, the pragmatic
justification for using practical was that ‘I can keep their interest and, although they
still 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 intended—frequently without the need to
engage at a meaningful conceptual level—the practical work invariably entailed the
use of ‘recipe’-style tasks (Clackson & Wright, 1992, p. 41). It should therefore come
as no surprise to find academically low-ability pupils exhibiting their displeasure,
through poor behaviour, when required to write and/or think for themselves about
scientific ideas rather than simply being allowed to do a cognitively undemanding
‘recipe’-style practical task.
 2348 I. Abrahams

Amongst some of the teachers there was a perception that, for some low academic
ability pupils, practical work was essentially just ‘something for them to do’ in order
to make both their time, and therefore hopefully the teachers’ time, bearable. In
some cases there appeared to be little, if any, expectation on the part of the teacher
that any meaningful learning would occur:
Because, if nothing else, it’s [practical work] a relief, it’s something different they’re
doing. (Mr Rainton)
It [practical work] gives them something to do, especially the ones who get bored with
too 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 meaningful
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

learning 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, from
as early as the end of Year 7, have moved from claiming to like practical work in an
‘absolute’ sense to merely preferring it to other non-practical teaching methods and
approaches (Table 3). One factor that might help explain this change emerged
during discussions with teachers at a school where the lesson observations occurred
during a period when the teachers were actively considering the arrangements for an
impending Open Evening for prospective Year 6 pupils and their parents. What
came out of these discussions was an acknowledgement that the image of secondary
school science, which these Year 6 pupils are encouraged by the teachers to ‘see’
(Ogborn, Kress, Martins, & McGillicuddy, 1996) during these initial school visits, is
designed to inculcate an image of science as being primarily a fun, exciting, and
enjoyable practical activity:
Mrs Kettlesing: On Open Evening we always do whiz, bang, pops. The only physics
thing 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 we’re giving a false picture, I think we are probably. There
aren’t that many whiz bang, pops and most science is really about
how 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 practical
tasks—the ‘whiz’, ‘bang’, ‘pops’—that can be used on Open Days, or the like. It
must 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’ school
science.
 Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 2349

It was also suggested that it was the quantity, rather than necessarily the quality, of
practical work that was important particularly amongst low academic ability pupils
who were not expected to pursue science post compulsion:
We try to give them [academically low ability pupils] as much practical work as possible
so 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 be
to motivate them to study science beyond Key Stage 4 but rather to provide them
with a positive recollection of the subject. The implication, if this view is taken to its
logical conclusion, is that it becomes more important for the teacher to ensure that
the pupils enjoy their lessons, irrespective of whether or not they learn, and that the
best way to achieve this is to maximise the amount of time spent ‘doing’ practical
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

work.
Some of the claims made by teachers about the value of practical work appear, as
the 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 at
lunch 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 work
have, at least in part, been influenced by their own experience as pupils, it must be
remembered that these are the recollections of people who, from an academic
perspective, did well in science and who chose to pursue it as a career. Using such
recollections to inform their own current beliefs about the affective value of practical
work fails to take account of the fact that, in all likelihood, the vast majority of their
peer 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. The
fact that situational interest is, unlike motivation or personal interest, unlikely to
endure beyond the end of a particular lesson (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000) helps to
explain why pupils need to be continuously re-stimulated by the frequent use of
practical work. Once this fact is recognised, the reason why many of those pupils
who claim to like practical work also claim to have little, if any, personal interest in
science, or any intention of pursuing it post compulsion, becomes clearer. For whilst
these pupils do like practical work, their reasons for doing so appear to be primarily
that 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) is
that the proportion of pupils, within each year group, who claim to like practical
work in an ‘absolute’ sense, as against simply preferring it to writing, decreases as the
 2350 I. Abrahams

pupils progress through the school. Indeed it would seem from the pupils’ comments
that, within their first year at secondary school, the novelty of being in a laboratory
environment 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 teachers
initially 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 of
contributing towards effective behaviour management. Teachers’ comments suggest
that when faced with having to teach science to pupils with little, if any, personal
interest in science, or in some cases of even being in the lesson—and this is particu-
larly so at Key Stage 4—practical work provides an effective ‘coping’ strategy. Whilst
these teachers felt it unlikely that such pupils would learn any more (or, equally
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

importantly, any less) from practical work than non-practical work, it was thought
that the use of practical work made them easier to deal with from a behavioural
perspective. 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 practical
work 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 more
conceptually 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 three
years of secondary school education (ages 11–14 years). Key Stage 4 corresponds to the fourth
and fifth years of secondary school education (pupils aged 15–16 years), the completion of
which marks the end of compulsory education in the UK.

References
Abrahams, I. (2007). An unrealistic image of science. School Science Review, 88(324), 119–122.
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 of
Science Education. DOI: 10.1080/09500690701749305.
Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay
of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 213–250). 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,
559–575.
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. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Beatty, J. W., & Woolnough, B. E. (1982). Practical work in 11–13 science: The context, type and
aims of current practice. British Educational Research Journal, 8(1), 23–30.
Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science: A guide to recent research and its applications.
London: Continuum.
 Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 2351

Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A., Samuel, D., & Kempa, R. F. (1977). Modes of instruction in high
school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 433–439.
Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 87–98.
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, 235–250.
Bracht, G. H., & Glass, G. V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational
Research Journal, 5(4), 437–474.
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), 39–42.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

Crossley, M., & Vulliamy, G. (1984). Case-study research methods and comparative education.
Comparative Education, 20(2), 193–207.
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. 43–70). 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 Majesty’s Stationary Office.
Doherty, J., & Dawe, J. (1988). The relationship between development maturity and attitude to
school science. Educational Studies, 11, 93–107.
Donnelly, J. F. (1998). The place of the laboratory in secondary science teaching. International
Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 585–596.
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 and
implementation issues. In D. M. Fetterman (Ed.), Ethnography in educational evaluation
(pp. 63–88). 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, 33–44.
Haste, H. (2004). Science in my future: A study of values and beliefs in relation to science and technology
amongst 11–21 year olds. London: Nestle Social Research Programme.
Head, J. (1982). What can psychology contribute to science education? School Science Review, 63,
631–642.
Henry, N.W. (1975). Objectives for laboratory work. In P. L. Gardner (Ed.), The structure of science
education (pp. 61–75). Hawthorn, Vic., Australia: Longman.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational
Research, 60, 549–571.
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. 215–238). 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 conference
on interest and gender (pp. 74–90). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue
for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151–179.
Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review,
70(256), 33–40.
 2352 I. Abrahams

Hoffmann, L., & Häussler, P. (1998). An intervention project promoting girls’ and boys’ interest
in 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. 301–316). Kiel, Germany:
IPN.
Hofstein, A., Ben-Zvi, R., & Samuel, D. (1976). The measurement of interest in, and attitude to
laboratory work amongst Israeli high school students. Science Education, 60, 401–411.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2002). Third report. Science education
from 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,
212–214.
Jarvis, T., & Pell, T. (2005). Factors influencing elementary school children’s attitude towards
science before, during, and after a visit to the UK national space centre. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 42(1), 53–83.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

Jenkins, E. W., & Pell, R. G. (2006). The relevance of science education project (ROSE) in England: A
summary 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 development
(pp. 3–25). 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. 94–130). New York:
Macmillan.
Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Paper prepared for
the meeting High school science laboratories: Role and vision. Washington, DC: National
Academy 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 literature
and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.
Pell, T., & Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of ages
from five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 847–862.
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. 71–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ramsden, J. M. (1998). Misson impossible?: Can anything be done about attitudes to science?
International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 125–137.
Reiss, M. (2005) Importance of affect in science education. In S. Alsop (Ed.) Beyond Cartesian
dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science (pp. 17–26). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Renninger, K. A. (1998). The roles of individual interest(s) and gender in learning: An overview
of 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 Seeon
conference on interest and gender (pp. 165–175). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299–323.
Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 12, 3–18.
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 in
learning and development (pp. 183–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schofield, J. W. (1993). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In M. Hammersley
(Ed.), Educational research: Current issues (pp. 91–113). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
 Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 2353

Selemes, C., Ashton, B. G., Meredith, H. M., & Newal, A. (1969). Attitudes to science and
scientists. School Science Review, 51, 7–22.
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. 211–234). Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.
Thompson, J. J. (Ed.). (1975). Practical work in sixthform science. Oxford, UK: Department of
Educational Studies, University of Oxford.
Third International Mathematics and Science Study. (1999). International science report. Retrieved
May 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, 331–353.
Wellington, J. (2005) Practical work in the affective domain. In S. Alsop (Ed.), Beyond Cartesian
dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science (pp. 99–110). Dordrecht, The
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:23 13 May 2013

Netherlands: Springer.
White, R. T. (1991). Episodes and the purpose and conduct of practical work. In B. E. Woolnough
(Ed.), Practical science (pp. 78–86). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.