A Review of the Research on Practical Work in School Science
Dillon, J. (King's College London, for SCORE and the Royal Society) · 2008
grade Dreviewindependentnot-applicablenumbers spot-checked
Sample
narrative review commissioned by SCORE; no stated search protocol or study count
Population
UK school science, primary and secondary, with international comparison via TIMSS.
Design
Commissioned grey-literature narrative review — the 'SCORE 2008' item in the practical-science policy chain. No search protocol, no inclusion criteria, no study count, no effect sizes; it synthesises opinion surveys, inspection reports and a small number of empirical studies. Its evidentiary claims are hedged in the language of 'there is evidence that', usually resting on a single qualitative study or a stakeholder survey. Recorded because it is the document that shaped English policy on practical science and because it is an unusually honest artefact of how the consensus is built.
Key findings
The document that set English policy on practical science, and its own evidence base is opinion. The strongest positive claims it can make are that '99% of UK science teachers believe enquiry learning has a positive impact' (NESTA survey, n=510) and that 'there is evidence that practical work can increase students' sense of ownership and motivation'. Its own headline conclusion is not about learning at all: the key finding it names is that the assessment regime has damaged the amount and variety of practical work. Three items in it are genuinely useful. First, TIMSS shows UK students already do MORE practical work than students in almost any other country — so England is the high-dose arm of an unplanned international comparison it does not win. Second, the Cerini student survey: 71% put classroom experiments among the most enjoyable ways to learn science, but only 38% among the most useful, behind class discussion (48%) and taking notes from the teacher (45%) — students themselves separate the motivation function from the learning function. Third, the review's own closing line: 'More does not necessarily mean better.'
Genetic confound
Not applicable — no causal claim is made or supportable.
Replication notes
Superseded as a policy document by Gatsby's Good Practical Science (2017) and as an evidence synthesis by Gericke et al. 2022.
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UK time spent on practical science relative to other countries (TIMSS) | direction | UK students spend more time on practical activities than students in most other countries | mixed | cross-national comparison | none | not-applicable | unclear |
| Teacher belief that enquiry learning improves attainment (NESTA survey, n=510 UK science teachers) | percent | 99% believe positive impact (83% 'very', 16% 'a little') | researcher-designed | 2005 survey | none | not-applicable | non-cognitive |
| Student ranking of classroom experiments (Cerini et al. 2003 online survey, n≈1,450) | percent | 71% most ENJOYABLE (3rd) but only 38% most USEFUL/EFFECTIVE, behind discussion (48%) and note-taking (45%) | researcher-designed | 2003 survey | none | not-applicable | non-cognitive |
Cited by
- Laboratory and practical work in school sciencemixedconf: mediumgc: low