We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.

Durham University

School of Education

Staff Profile

Publication details for Ros Roberts

R. Gott & R. Roberts (2004). A written test for procedural understanding: a way forward for assessment in the UK science curriculum? Research in Science & Technological Education 22(1): 5-21.

Author(s) from Durham


A recent UK House of Commons report on Science 14-19 identified problems with coursework and argued for a greater emphasis on teaching and assessment of scientific literacy. This paper describes a written test for procedural understanding, given to 15 year olds, that addresses both of these issues. Comparisons are made between the scores on a written test of procedural understanding with both assessments made of subject knowledge and pupil accounts of investigations. The potential advantages of assessing procedural understanding by written tests are discussed.


American Association for the Advancement of Science (1967) Science—a process approach
(Washington DC, Ginn & Co).
Baxter, G. P., Shavelson, R. J., Goldman, S. R. & Pine, J. (1992) Evaluation of procedure-based
scoring for hands-on assessment, Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 1–17.
Bryce, T. G. K., McCall, J., MacGregor, J., Robertson, I. J. & Weston, R. A. J. (1983) Techniques
for the assessment of practical skills in foundation science (London, Heinemann).
Davis, B. C. (1989) GASP: Graded Assessment in Science Project (London, Hutchinson).
DES and Welsh Office (1989) Science in the National Curriculum (HMSO).
Donnelly, J. (2000) Secondary science teaching under the National Curriculum, School Science
Review, 81(296), 27–35.
Donnelly, J., Buchanan, A., Jenkins, E. & Welford, A. (1994) Investigations in science education
policy. Sc1 in the National Curriculum for England and Wales (Leeds, University of Leeds).
Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2000) Intermediate General National Qualifications (GNVQ) Science: a
missed opportunity for a focus on procedural understanding? Research in Science and Technology
Education, 18(2), 201–214.
Gee, B. & Clackson, S. G. (1992) The origin of practical work in the English school science curriculum,
School Science Review, 73(265), 79–83.
Gott, R. & Duggan, S. (1995) Investigative work in the science curriculum (Buckingham, Open
University Press).
Gott, R. & Duggan, S. (2002) Problems with the assessment of performance in practical science:
which way now? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 183–201.
Gott, R. & Mashiter, J. (1991) Practical work in science—a task-based approach? in: B. E.
Woolnough (Ed.) Practical science (Buckingham, Open University Press).
Gott, R. & Murphy, P. (1987) Science report for teachers: 9. Assessing investigations at ages 13 and 15
(HMSO/ASE) 56.
Gray, D. & Sharp, B. (2001) Mode of assessment and its effect on children's performance in
science, Evaluation and Research in Education, 15(2), 55–68.
House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee (2002) Science education from 14 to 19.
Third report of session 2001–2, 1 (London, The Stationery Office).
Kerr, J. F. (1964) Practical work in school science (Leicester, Leicester University Press).
Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A. & Anderson, C. (1995) Strategies of knowledge acquisition.
Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial no. 245, 60(4)
(Chicago, University of Chicago press).
Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D. & Welch, W. (2001) The science achievement of various subgroups on
alternative assessment formats, Science Education, 85(3), 279–290.
Layton, D. (1973) Science for the people (London, Allen and Unwin).
Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S. & Davey, A. (1993) Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the
public understanding of science and some implications for science education (Driffield, Studies in
Nuffield Foundation (1966) Nuffield chemistry: introduction and guide (Harlow, Longman/Penguin).
Roberts, R. & Gott, R. (2003) Assessment of biology investigations, Journal of Biological Education,
37(3), 114–121.
Screen, P. A. (1986) The Warwick Process Science project, School Science Review, 72(260), 17–24.
Solano-Flores, G., Jovanovic, J., Shavelson, R. J. & Bachman, M. (1999) On the development and
evaluation of a shell for generating science performance assessments, International Journal of
Science Education, 21(3), 293–315.
Stark, R. (1999) Measuring science standards in Scottish schools: the assessment of achievement
programme, Assessment in Education, 6(1), 27–42.
Swain, J., Monk, M. & Johnson, S. (1999) A comparative study of attitudes to the aims of practical
work in science education in Egypt, Korea and the UK, International Journal of Science
Education, 21(12), 1311–1324.
Tytler, R., Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2000) Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of
science and science education, International Journal of Science Education, 2(8), 815–832.
Tytler, R., Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2001) Public participation of an environmental dispute:
implications for science education, Public Understanding of Science, 10, 343–364.
Watson, R., Goldsworthy, A. & Wood-Robinson, V. (1999) What is not fair with investigations?
School Science Review, 80(292), 101–106.
Welford, G., Harlen, W. & Schofield, B. (1985) Practical testing at ages 11, 13 and 15 (London,
Department of Education and Science).
Woolnough, B. E. (1991) Setting the scene, in: B. E. Woolnough (Ed.) Practical science (Buckingham,
Open University Press).
Woolnough, B. E. & Allsop, T. (1985) Practical work in science (Cambridge, Cambridge University