This article was downloaded by: [University of London]

On: 5 November 2008

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 789198957]
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.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283

Does Practical Work Really Motivate? A study of the affective value of practical
work in secondary school science
Ian Abrahams a
a
Institute of Education, University of London, UK
First Published on: 31 October 2008

To cite this Article Abrahams, Ian(2008)'Does Practical Work Really Motivate? A study of the affective value of practical work in

secondary school science',International Journal of Science Education,

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09500690802342836
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690802342836

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or 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

2008, 119, iFirst Article

RESEARCH REPORT

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

Does Practical Work Really Motivate?

A study of the affective value of
practical work in secondary
school science
Ian Abrahams*
Institute of Education, University of London, UK
ianabrahams@hotmail.com
0Taylor
00
Dr.
000002008
IanAbrahams
&
Francis
International
10.1080/09500690802342836
TSED_A_334450.sgm
0950-0693
Original
2008
and
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 1114 years and 1516 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)/08/00000119
2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09500690802342836

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

2 I. Abrahams
(Wellington, 2005), recent studies (Abrahams, 2007; Haste, 2004) have shown that
pupils attitudes towards secondary school science become progressively more negative 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 Technology 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 pupils 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
and teaching approach of individual teachers (Jarvis & Pell, 2005; Reiss 2005).
Whilst recognising the potential affective value of such influences (indeed, the findings 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 influencepositively or negativelypupils
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 enjoyment (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 its short-term engagement for that particular lesson rather
than general motivation towards science. In general I think its very difficult to motivate
kids in Year 10 and 11 into thinking about engaging in science and thinking about
science in terms of thats a career that I want to follow. (Mr Rainton)

Are teachers, we might then ask, using this term in its strict psychological sense or 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 something (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 3

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).

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

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 psychological sense and also to consider how such terms can be effectively operationalised. As
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
pupils 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 undertaken 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 laboratoryincluding 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 proportion 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 pursuing these two subjects might be even lower. However, the increased use of practical

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

4 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-levelfound 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.
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 psychological literature the term interest is used more precisely to refer to a persons
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 interest (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 individuals 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 5

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

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 emotionsall of which are, generally speaking, beyond a teachers 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).

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 example, 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 & Hussler, 1998).
It should be noted that whilst personal interest is relatively stable, and hence resistant to influence by the teacher, it is not immune to situational influences. In
discussing the generation of personal interest, Bergin stresses that personal or individual 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 stimulated 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

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

6 I. Abrahams
subject can, in the case of situational interest, arise independently of each other (Hidi
& Anderson, 1992).
It is also necessary to recognise that interest in doing a particular practical task
as evidenced by the pupils apparent involvement with the objects, materials, and
phenomenadoes 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).
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 existent 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 potential 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 7

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

Table 1.
School

Location

Derwent
Foss
Kyle
Nidd
Ouse
Rye
Swale
Ure

Urban
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural

School samples

Size

Age range (years)

Education authority

500
1,480
1,550
890
630
720
670
1,280

1116
1118
1118
1118
1118
1118
1116
1118

A
A
B
B
B
C
B
C

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 1114 years and 1516 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 maintained 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 permission to observe. The English national curriculum divides the science curriculum into
four main strands, or attainment targetsone 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 associated (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

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

8 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 interview was primarily used to get the teachers account of the practical work to be
observed and of his or her view of the learning objectives of the lesson. The postlesson interview collected the teachers 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 sealthough some pupils in Year
7 did, and these will be discussed laterbut 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 comparative 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
groupand these results are presented in Table 3.

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 9

Table 2.

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

Generic category of response

work

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

Reasons that related to the

affective value of practical work

Reasons relating to making,

doing and seeing

Reasons relating to learning,

understanding and recollecting

Pupils reasons for claiming to like

practical work

Number of pupils
offering such a response

Because it is less boring than

writing*
Because it is fun
Because it is better than listening to
the teacher*
Because it is better than reading
from a textbook*
Because it is better than theory*
Because it is exciting
Because it is more believable*
Because it is better than work*
Because you get to make/do things
Because you can see what happens
Because you get to find things out
Because you gain an experience
Because you will remember it better*
Because you learn more*
Because it helps you understand
better*

47
16
4
3
1
1
1
1
10
2
1
1
3
3
2

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

Group

Number of
absolute responses

Number of
relative responses

Percentage of
absolute responses

Percentage of
relative responses

Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11

14
8
2
6
1

12
23
7
16
8

54
26
22
27
13

46
74
78
73
87

10 I. Abrahams
pieces of laboratory equipment and/or materials such as Bunsen burners, electrical
wire, and acidssomething that was not observed amongst pupils in later years. The
following extracts are a sample of the comments made by Year 7 pupils.
FS11:
FS10:
FS11:

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

Researcher:
KG5:

At the beginning of the year we got red cabbage liquid and

[Interrupting.] Yeah it was great fun.
We was adding acid to it and different kinds of real chemicals and seeing
what colour it turns stuff. It were fun.
Do you like practical work?
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 associate with using new equipment and/or materials in what is a novel environmentthe
science laboratorystarts to wane during the latter part of their first year at secondary 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 onehalf (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 individuals interaction with the subject or activity (Hidi
& Harackiewicz, 2000), it might be expected that without regular practical workto
re-stimulate situational interestpupils 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:
KD13:

What do you think science would be like if there was less practical?
Boring. If you come in and theres no practical its not as fun, youre just
sitting down writing stuff from the textbook.

Yet the following example illustrates that whilst practical work might be preferred 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:
SK28:
Researcher:
SK28:
Researcher:
SK28:

Have you enjoyed this practical?

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

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 11

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

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 speaking, 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
liking practical work into three broad categories:
i
ii
iii

Reasons that related to their affective response to practical work.

Reasons that related to doing things with objects and ideas.
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:
SW1:
Researcher:
SW1:
Researcher:
SW1:
Researcher:
SW1:

Do you like practical work?

Yeah its better than doing other work.
What other work?
Like writing.
Do you think this is going to be an exciting experiment?
Well its not exactly exciting but its better than working all the time in
the lesson.
Do you think this particular practical helps you in any way?
No, its 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 its
[practical work] just an easy option. Likewise Mr Normanby, a head of department, 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
suggestsand 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

12 I. Abrahams
alternativesin particular, writingfew pupils see it as a better way of learning
about, and understanding, scientific ideas and concepts.

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

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
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 behaviourally 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
ii

To help in the behavioural management of the classparticularly with low to

low/middle academic ability pupils.
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 theyre asking Sir are we doing practical today? (Mr Drax)

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

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 13

the numbers asking and their repeatedly shouting out the same questionwere 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 writing was commented upon by a number of the teachers. The following extract is an
example of such comments.

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

It is a carrot with them [academically low ability pupils], it is more about making it
bearable. For them its 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 problematicin that laboratories, unlike classrooms, are essentially
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 theyll be very hard
to teach. Its 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 maintain 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 effective 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 abilities to do, and see, what the teacher intendedfrequently without the need to
engage at a meaningful conceptual levelthe 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.

14 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:

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

Because, if nothing else, its [practical work] a relief, its something different theyre
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
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:
Researcher:
Mrs Kettlesing:

On Open Evening we always do whiz, bang, pops. The only physics

thing we have out is the van de Graaff.
What do you think then of this image of science as being all whiz,
bang, pops?
Maybe were giving a false picture, I think we are probably. There
arent that many whiz bang, pops and most science is really about
how does the world work and testing things out, why is this happening, why is that happening, rather than whiz bang, pops.

Such views suggest that teachers recognise practical work is not, generally speaking, fun and exciting, and that there are only a limited number of practical
tasksthe whiz, bang, popsthat 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 15

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:

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

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 practical 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
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 recollections 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 motivation 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

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

16 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 reality 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 example, 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 lessonand this is particularly so at Key Stage 4practical work provides an effective coping strategy. Whilst
these teachers felt it unlikely that such pupils would learn any more (or, equally
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 arguable 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 negative 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 1114 years). Key Stage 4 corresponds to the fourth
and fifth years of secondary school education (pupils aged 1516 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), 119122.
Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2007). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of
practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal 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. 213250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Alexander, P.A., Jetton, T.L., & Kulikowich, J.M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, interest, and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,
559575.
Ball, S.J. (1981). Beachside comprehensive: A case-study of secondary schooling. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Beatty, J.W., & Woolnough, B.E. (1982). Practical work in 1113 science: The context, type and
aims of current practice. British Educational Research Journal, 8(1), 2330.
Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science: A guide to recent research and its applications.
London: Continuum.

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 17

Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A., Samuel, D., & Kempa, R.F. (1977). Modes of instruction in high
school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 433439.
Bergin, D.A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 8798.
Blumenfeld, P.C., & Meece, J.L. (1988). Task factors, teaching behavior, and students involvement and use of learning strategies in science. Elementary School Journal, 88, 235250.
Bracht, G.H., & Glass, G.V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational
Research Journal, 5(4), 437474.
Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Cerini, B., Murray, I., & Reiss, M. (2003). Student review of the science curriculum. Major findings.
London: Planet Science/Institute of Education University of London/Science Museum.
Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.planet-science.com/sciteach/review.
Clackson, S.G., & Wright, D.K. (1992). An appraisal of practical work in science education.
School Science Review, 74(266), 3942.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Crossley, M., & Vulliamy, G. (1984). Case-study research methods and comparative education.
Comparative Education, 20(2), 193207.
Deci, E.L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behaviour: A self-determination of
theory perspective. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 4370). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Department of Education and Science. (1968). Enquiry into the flow of candidates in science and technology into higher education. (The Dainton Report). London: Her Majestys Stationary Office.
Doherty, J., & Dawe, J. (1988). The relationship between development maturity and attitude to
school science. Educational Studies, 11, 93107.
Donnelly, J.F. (1998). The place of the laboratory in secondary science teaching. International
Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 585596.
Donnelly, J., Buchan, A., Jenkins, E., Laws, P., & Welford, G. (1996). Investigations by order.
Policy, curriculum and science teachers work under the Education Reform Act. Nafferton, UK:
Studies in Education.
Firestone, W.A., & Herriott, R.E. (1984). Multisite qualitative policy research: Some design and
implementation issues. In D.M. Fetterman (Ed.), Ethnography in educational evaluation
(pp. 6388). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Tavistock.
Hannon, M. (1994). The place of investigations in science education. Education in Science,
January, 3344.
Haste, H. (2004). Science in my future: A study of values and beliefs in relation to science and technology
amongst 1121 year olds. London: Nestle Social Research Programme.
Head, J. (1982). What can psychology contribute to science education? School Science Review, 63,
631642.
Henry, N.W. (1975). Objectives for laboratory work. In P.L. Gardner (Ed.), The structure of science
education (pp. 6175). Hawthorn, Vic., Australia: Longman.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational
Research, 60, 549571.
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository
writing. In K. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 215238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hidi, S., & Berdorff, D. (1998). Situational interest and learning. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp,
K. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon conference
on interest and gender (pp. 7490). 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), 151179.
Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review,
70(256), 3340.

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

18 I. Abrahams
Hoffmann, L., & Hussler, P. (1998). An intervention project promoting girls and boys interest
in physics. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon conference on interest and gender (pp. 301316). Kiel, Germany:
IPN.
Hofstein, A., Ben-Zvi, R., & Samuel, D. (1976). The measurement of interest in, and attitude to
laboratory work amongst Israeli high school students. Science Education, 60, 401411.
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,
212214.
Jarvis, T., & Pell, T. (2005). Factors influencing elementary school childrens attitude towards
science before, during, and after a visit to the UK national space centre. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 42(1), 5383.
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. 325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D.L.
Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94130). New York:
Macmillan.
Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Paper prepared 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), 10491079.
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), 847862.
Prenzel, M. (1992). The selective persistence of interest. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp
(Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 7198). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ramsden, J.M. (1998). Misson impossible?: Can anything be done about attitudes to science?
International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 125137.
Reiss, M. (2005) Importance of affect in science education. In S. Alsop (Ed.) Beyond Cartesian
dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science (pp. 1726). 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. 165175). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299323.
Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 12, 318.
Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic achivement: A
meta analysis of research. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in
learning and development (pp. 183212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schofield, J.W. (1993). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In M. Hammersley
(Ed.), Educational research: Current issues (pp. 91113). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Downloaded By: [University of London] At: 12:05 5 November 2008

Affective Value of Practical Work in Secondary School Science 19

Selemes, C., Ashton, B.G., Meredith, H.M., & Newal, A. (1969). Attitudes to science and scientists. School Science Review, 51, 722.
Sharp, R., & Green, A. (1976). Education and social control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Stenhouse, L. (1984). Library access, library use and user education in academic sixth forms: An
autobiographical account. In R.G. Burgess (Ed.), The research process in educational settings:
Ten case studies (pp. 211234). Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.
Thompson, J.J. (Ed.). (1975). Practical work in sixthform science. Oxford, UK: Department 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, 331353.
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. 99110). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
White, R.T. (1991). Episodes and the purpose and conduct of practical work. In B.E. Woolnough
(Ed.), Practical science (pp. 7886). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.