Assessment of Practical Chemistry in England: An Analysis of Scientific Methods Assessed in High-Stakes Examinations

  • Sibel ErduranEmail author
  • Alison Cullinane
  • Stephen John Wooding


“Practical science” has been widely used in the curriculum, exam board specifications and research traditions in science education for several decades in England. The terminology typically refers to a range of experimental and investigative activities conducted as part of science education in schools and colleges. According to major reviews of research literature, there is evidence that the assessment regime has had a major impact on practical work that teachers carry out. However, there is growing concern that the amount and quality of practical work carried out in schools suffer as a result of the impact of the high-stakes national tests. The chapter aims to investigate the underlying scientific methods that are promoted in the chemistry examination papers thus facilitating understanding of what is likely to be taught in chemistry lessons. In order to identify the types of scientific methods included in the chemistry examination papers, a framework was used focusing on four categories: manipulative hypothesis testing, non-manipulative hypothesis testing, manipulative parameter measurement and non-manipulative parameter measurement. The examination items from two examination papers of a leading examination board are classified according to these categories, and patterns on the marking are traced. The results indicate that for both papers, non-manipulative parameter measurement was the method assessed at a higher percentage. In both papers, manipulative hypothesis testing was the category with the lowest percentage of items or questions. Furthermore, the mark allocation was the highest in both papers in the non-manipulative parameter measurement category. The results indicate that there is consistency between the items allocated to each category of scientific methods, and the marks allocated to them, although in one paper there were more marks allocated to manipulative parameter measurement even though the relative frequency of this category was the lowest in the items. This observation may reflect an assumption that manipulative parameter measurement is considered to be cognitively more demanding and thus deserving of more marks. Some implications for assessment of practical chemistry are discussed.



The study reported in this paper was conducted in the context of Project Calibrate based at University of Oxford. The authors acknowledge the funding support from the Wellcome Trust (grant number 209659/Z/17/Z).


  1. Abrahams, I., Reiss, M. J., & Sharpe, R. M. (2013). The assessment of practical work in school science, Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 209–251.Google Scholar
  2. Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. AQA. (2016). GCSE combined science: Synergy. Available at Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
  4. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Brandon, R. (1994). Theory and experiment in evolutionary biology. Synthese, 99, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bransford, T. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cullinane, A., & Liston, M. (2016). Review of the Leaving Certificate biology examination papers (1999–2008) using Bloom’s Taxonomy—An investigation of the cognitive demands of the examination. Irish Educational Studies, 35(3), 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Department for Education. (2014). National curriculum in England: Science programmes of study. Key Stage 4. London.Google Scholar
  9. Dillon, J. (2008). A review of the research on practical work in school science. London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
  10. 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: Studies in Education.Google Scholar
  11. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualising the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. (2006). Tenth report of session 2005–06 science teaching in schools.Google Scholar
  13. Leonard, W. H. (1991). A recipe for uncookbooking laboratory investigations. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21(2), 84–87.Google Scholar
  14. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching and learning in the school science laboratory. An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–431). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. McComas, W. F. (2014). Scientific method (Scientific methodology). In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The language of science education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McPherson, H. (2018). Transition from cookbook to problem-based learning in a high school chemistry gas law investigation. Teaching Science, 64(1), 47–51.Google Scholar
  18. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ofqual. (2015, July). GCSE subject level conditions and requirements for single science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics). Accessed December 2018.
  21. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2007). Science: Programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment targets. Archived version,
  22. Reed, J. J., Brandriet, A. R., & Holme, T. A. (2017). Analyzing the role of science practices in ACS exam items. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reiss, M., Abrahams, I., & Sharpe, R. (2012). Improving the assessment of practical work in school science. London: Gatsby Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. Ryder, J., Banner, I., & Homer, M. (2014). Teachers’ experiences of science curriculum reform. School Science Review, 95(352), 126–130.Google Scholar
  25. Scerri, E. R. (2007). The periodic table: Its story and its significance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, A. (2013). The assessment of practical science: A literature review. Cambridge: Assessment Research and Development.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sibel Erduran
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alison Cullinane
    • 1
  • Stephen John Wooding
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Centre for Education Research and Practice, AQAManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations