Improving Secondary Science

  1. Barber, M. and Mourshed, M. (2007) How the World’s Best-Performing School Systems Came Out on Top. New York: McKinsey and Company.
  2. Jenkins, E. and Nelson, N. (2005) Important but not for me: students’ attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23 (1), 41-57.
  3. PELL, T. and 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, 847–862.
  4. Tai, R. H., Qi Liu, C., Maltese, A. V. and Fan, X. (2006) Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143-5.
  5. Nomikou, E., Archer, L. & King, H. (2017) Building ‘science capital’ in the classroom. School Science Review, 98(365), 118-124.
  6. DeWitt, J., Archer, L. & Mau, A. (2016). Dimensions of science capital: exploring its potential for understanding students’ science participation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2431-2449.
  7. Godec, S., King, H. & Archer, L. (2017) The Science Capital Teaching Approach: engaging students with science, promoting social justice. London: University College London.
  8. 2017 Science Capital survey.
  9. Hamlyn, R., Matthews, P. & Shanahan, M. (2017) Young people’s views on science education: Science Education Tracker Research Report. London: Wellcome Trust.
  10. Bennett, J., Lubben, F. and Hogarth, S. (2007) Bringing science to life: a synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91 (3), 347-370.
  11. Godec, S., King, H. & Archer, L. (2017) The Science Capital Teaching Approach: engaging students with science, promoting social justice. London: University College London.
  12. Fouad, N., Hackett, G., Haag, S., Kantamneni, N. and Fitzpatrick, M. E. (2007) Career choice barriers: environmental influences on women’s career choices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco, CA, August.
  13. Holman J (2014). Good Career Guidance, the Gatsby Foundation.
  14. Department for Education (2017). Careers strategy: making the most of everyone’s skills and talents.
  15. Woolley, M. E., Rose, R. A., Orthner, D. K., Akos, P. T., & Jones-Sanpei, H. (2013). Advancing academic achievement through career relevance in the middle grades. American Educational Research Journal, 50(6): 1309–1335.
  16. Schneider, B., Judy, J. & Mazuca, C., (2012). Boosting STEM interest in high school, The Phi Delta Kappan, 94(1), 62-65.
  17. Gartland, C., (2015). Student ambassadors: 'role-models', learning practices and identities, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(8), 1192-1211.
  18. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., and Wood-Robinson, V. (1994) Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas, New York, NY: Routledge.
  19. Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M. and Wiliam, D. (2005) ‘Classroom assessment: minute-by-minute and day-by-day’, Educational Leadership, 63 (3), pp. 18–24.
  20. Strike, K. A. and Posner, G. J. (1985) ‘A conceptual change view of learning and understanding’, in L. H. T. West and A. L. Pines (eds), Cognitive structure and conceptual change, New York: Academic Press (pp.211–231).
  21. Adey, P. and Shayer, M. (2002) ‘Cognitive Acceleration comes of age’, in M. Shayer and P. Adey (eds) Learning Intelligence Cognitive Acceleration across the curriculum from 5 to 15 years, Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 1–17.
  22. Muijs, D. and Reynolds, D. (2010) Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice, London: Sage.
  23. Nussbaum, J. and Novick, S. (1982) ‘Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy’, Instructional Science, 11 (3), pp. 183–200.
  24. Novak, J. D. (2009) ‘Meaningful Learning: the essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners’, Science Education, 86 (4), pp. 548–571.
  25. Bjork, E. L. and Bjork, R. A. (2011) ‘Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning’, in M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough and J. R. Pomerantz (eds), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (2nd edn), New York: Worth Publishers (pp. 59–68).
  26. Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B. and Robinson, A. (2010) ‘Talking Science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching’, International Journal of Science Education, 32:1, pp. 69–95.
  27. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R. and Sams, C. (2004) ‘Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science, British Educational Research Journal, 30 (3), pp. 359–377.
  28. Osborne, J., Erduran, S. and Simon, S. (2004) ‘Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science’, Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), pp. 994–1020.
  29. Best Evidence Science Teaching (BEST). University of York Science Education Group. https://www.stem.org.uk/best-evidence-science-teaching
  30. Johnstone, A. H. (1982) ‘Macro- and microchemistry’ [notes and correspondence], School Science Review, 64 (227), pp. 377–379.
  31. Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G. and Venville, G. J. (1998) ‘Teaching Science Effectively With Analogies: An Approach for Preservice and Inservice Teacher Education’, Science Teacher Education, 9 (2), pp. 85–101.
  32. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E. and Smith, C. L. (1991) ‘Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school pupils and experts’, Research in Science Teaching, 28 (9), pp. 799–822.
  33. Gilbert, J. K. and Justi, R. (2016) Modelling-based Teaching in Science Education, Switzerland: Springer International.
  34. Torrance Jenkins, R. (2017) ‘Using educational neuroscience and psychology to teach science. Part 1: A case study review of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) and Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE)’, School Science Review, 99 (367), pp. 93–103.
  35. Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottge, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M. and Metcalfe, J. (2007) ‘Organizing instruction and study to improve pupil learning’ (NCER 2007-2004), Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research. Available from http://ncer.ed.gov.
  36. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J. and Willingham, D. T. (2013) ‘Improving pupils’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14 (1), pp. 4–58.
  37. Karpicke, J. D. and Roediger, H. L. (2008) ‘The critical importance of retrieval for learning’, Science, 319, pp. 966–968.
  38. Bahrick, H., Bahrick, L., Bahrick, A. and Bahrick, P. (1993). Maintenance of Foreign Language Vocabulary and the Spacing Effect. Psychological Science, [online] 4(5). Available from: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/shkim/Bahrick%2...
  39. Holman J. ( 2017) ‘Good Practical Science’, London: Gatsby Foundation.
  40. Hamlyn, R., Matthews, P. and Shanahan, M. (2016) ‘Science Education Tracker’, London: Wellcome Trust.
  41. Millar, R. and Abrahams, I. (2009) ‘Practical work: making it more effective’, School Science Review, 91 (334) pp. 59–64.
  42. Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Strand, S., Hillier, J., Barros, J. and Miller-Friedmann, J. (2017) ‘Review of SES and Science Learning in Formal Educational Settings’, London: Education Endowment Foundation.
  43. Klahr, D. and Nigam, M. (2004) ‘The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning’, Psychological Science, 15, pp. 661–667.
  44. PhET simulations from the University of Colorado at Boulder: https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/category/...
  45. STEM projects toolkit: https://www.stem.org.uk/resources/collection/3926/...
  46. Bennett, J., Dunlop, L., Knox, K. J., Reiss, M. J. and Torrance Jenkins, R. (in press) ‘Practical Independent Research Projects in science: a synthesis and evaluation of the evidence of impact on high school students’, International Journal of Science Education.
  47. Abrahams, I. and Reiss, M. J. (2016) Enhancing learning with effective practical science 11–16, London: Bloomsbury.
  48. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G. and Kucan, L. (2013) Bringing words to life: robust vocabulary instruction, The Guildford Press.
  49. Cassels, J. and Johnstone, A. H. (1985) ‘Words that matter in science: A report of a research exercise’, Royal Society of Chemistry.
  50. Pickersgill, S. and Lock, R. (1991) ‘Student understanding of selected non‐technical words in science’, Research in Science and Technological Education, 9 (1), pp. 71–79.
  51. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009) Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, London: Routledge.
  52. Nunes, T., Bryant, P. and Barros, R. (2012) ‘The development of word recognition and its significance for comprehension and fluency’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (4), pp. 959–973, DOI: 10.1037/a0027412.
  53. Larson, S. C. (2014) ‘Exploring the Roles of the Generative Vocabulary Matrix and Academic Literacy Engagement of Ninth Grade Biology Students’, Literacy Research and Instruction, 53:4, pp. 287–325.
  54. Hall, K. and Harding, A. (2003) ‘A systematic review of effective literacy teaching in the 4 to 14 age range of mainstream schooling’, in Research Evidence in Education Library, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
  55. Osborne, J. and Dillon, J. (eds) (2010) Good Practice in Science Teaching: What research has to say, Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
  56. What Works Clearinghouse (2016) ‘Teaching secondary students to write effectively’: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc...
  57. Wellington, J. and Osborne, J. (2001) Language and literacy in science education (2011 ed.), Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  58. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L. A., Gunel, M. and Akkus, R. (2016) ‘Aligning Teaching to Learning: A 3-year Study Examining the Embedding of Language and Argumentation into Elementary Science Classrooms’, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, pp. 847–863.
  59. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. and Wiliam, D. (2002) ‘Working Inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom’, London: King’s College, Department of Education and Professional Studies.
  60. Black, P. and Harrison, C. (2010) ‘Formative Assessment in Science’, in J. Osborne and J. Dillon (eds), Good Practice in Science Teaching: What research has to say, Buckingham: Open University Press (2nd edn, pp. 183–210).
  61. Fletcher-Wood, H. (2018) ‘Responsive Teaching: Cognitive Science and Formative Assessment in Practice’, Abingdon: Routledge.
  62. Black, P. and Harrison, C. (2004) Science Inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Science Classroom, London: NfER Nelson.