ofsted science research report

Advertising
Subscriber Area

Ofsted’s science subject report: The key things leaders need to know

Ofsted found some primary pupils go months without science classes, although picture is improving after pandemic disruption

2 Feb 2023, 12:34

So what did Ofsted find?

1. most pupils studying ‘ambitious’ science curriculum ….

According to the report, most pupils, including those with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND), were studying a science curriculum “at least as ambitious” as the national curriculum.

It added that such curriculums were mainly focused on developing pupils’ knowledge of “substantive concepts” such as habitats or materials.

2. … but few develop teachers’ science knowledge

Inspectors found teachers rarely drew on evidence-based, subject-specific approaches when teaching.

“Very few” schools were found to have a clear plan of how to develop teachers’ knowledge of science and how to teach it through continuing professional development (CPD) .

3. Secondaries ‘wrongly assume pupils learn little at primary’ …

Inspectors found some leaders planned the science curriculum to build on what pupils learned in the previous phase of education.

But the watchdog added that in some secondary schools, “it was incorrectly assumed that pupils learned little science in primary school”.

This led to some content being “unnecessarily” repeated in year 7 and beyond.

4. … But some primary pupils do go months without science classes

The report found science was taught weekly in most primaries, but in a few schools pupils had less than one science lesson every week.

It added that “occasionally” pupils went for entire half terms without learning science.

It highlighted this a “concern because science is a core subject of the national curriculum”.

5. Differences in the amount of practical work taking place

In the “significant minority” of schools where pupils weren’t developing secure knowledge of science, the focus was “too often” on identifying practical activities for pupils to complete.

But Ofsted noted that pupils in primary were much more likely to take part in hands-on practical activities than those in secondary.

And what does Ofsted recommend to improve science in schools?

Schools should plan to secondary curriculum to build on what pupils learned at primary, rather than repeat it.
Ensure enough time is built into the curriculum for pupils to both learn and remember knowledge.
Pupils should have enough opportunities to take part in high-quality practical work that has a clear purpose in relation to the curriculum.
During explanations, teachers should regularly connect new learning to what pupils have already learned.
Schools should create a continuous approach to developing the science expertise of staff and leaders that “aligns” with the school’s curriculum.
Ensure the science curriculum is planned to take account of what pupils learn, particularly in mathematics.

Continue the conversation, share this article on social media

‘Consultation not referendum’: Oliver defends Ofsted’s ‘Big Listen’

Union leader raises 'significant concerns' about the design of Ofsted's consultation

Freddie Whittaker

‘Big Listen’: Pupils asked for views on how Ofsted can improve

'Feedback will help us make sure we're doing our job the best way we can,' says watchdog chief

Lucas Cumiskey

Ofsted: ‘Constrained’ funding could ‘compromise’ inspection reliability

Watchdog's chair warns actions to absorb rising costs are a 'short-term fix' and will likely 'store up cost pressures'

Schools Week Reporter

Ofsted chief told of ousted heads’ gagging clause ordeals

Sister of Ruth Perry says use of non-disclosure agreements after bad Ofsteds could be stopping heads raising further system...

Ofsted eyes tweaks to inspector role to boost expertise

As trusts poach inspectors and 'highest ever' levels of apathy towards joining inspectorate, how will Ofsted boost its expertise?

Ofsted: Give us £8.5m to deliver more in-depth inspections

Watchdog also warns declining inspector pay means it is losing staff to academy trusts

Your thoughts

An overview of the 2023 Ofsted science report

03rd March 2023

Cornerstones Director Simon Hickton provides an overview of Ofsted’s latest publication, Finding the optimum: the science subject report . The theme for this year’s British Science Week is ‘connections’, and it could not be more relevant to Ofsted’s latest findings on how best to teach the subject of science.

Connectivity

This recent paper, Finding the optimum: the science subject report , explains how Ofsted expects schools to continue supporting children in making sound scientific progress. Moreover, the paper sets out the strengths and weaknesses of science education, as seen in recent inspections.

One of the main findings in the report sets out the importance of connectivity in science: ‘Where science was strong in the primary and secondary schools that we visited, pupils had learned detailed and connected knowledge of the curriculum and remembered what they had learned previously. (Ofsted, 2023, p. 8). This means that schools should have a clear progression of detailed knowledge in their curriculum and effective teaching methods to help children make meaningful connections between these pieces of knowledge.

Connecting learning across subjects

It is also worth noting the attention Ofsted gives to the benefits of planning subjects beyond silos, meaning that subject leaders must know about the substance of other subjects. For example, a science subject leader who knows what children are learning in the maths curriculum can better plan and sequence knowledge to ensure that children’s cognitive capacities are not overloaded with new information. Suppose children must read scientific data from a scatter graph. In that case, it is beneficial for them to know how to do this in mathematics before reading and interpreting scientific data. In relation to this, Ofsted states explicitly that in schools where children’s learning was most secure, ‘leaders planned the science curriculum to take account of what pupils learned in mathematics.’ (Ofsted, 2023, p. 8).

Developing secure knowledge

Ofsted states that substantive and disciplinary knowledge is essential for a good curriculum. Supporting children to know and do more in science is, therefore, a balance of both types of knowledge . We must equip children with the knowledge they need to build their understanding but also provide opportunities for children to demonstrate their scientific findings.

For children to build scientific knowledge, regular science lessons are needed. Ofsted reports that ‘there were a small minority of primary schools where pupils went for entire half terms without learning science.’ (Ofsted, 2023, p. 11). In response to these findings, Ofsted recommends a weekly science lesson as optimum for learning.

Fitting it all in

The report highlights the importance of ensuring children’s understanding is as secure as possible when taught for the first time. Schools where children were not forming secure knowledge often focused on ‘covering the content, rather than ensuring it was learned, or completing practical activities.’ The impact was that ‘pupils did not have sufficient opportunities to practice and consolidate what they learned before moving on to new content’ and that sometimes there was ‘an over-reliance on pupils catching up when the content was repeated later…’ (Ofsted, 2023, p. 6).

Allowing more lesson time for practical activities, write-ups and quizzes ensures children have adequate time to explore and revisit their learning. Practical demonstrations also play an essential role in helping children learn science and save valuable time.

Assessing with purpose

Schools demonstrating an effective science curriculum are outlined in the report as having the following key strengths:

‘leaders and teachers were clear about the purpose of any teaching activity or specific content choice. They explained scientific ideas clearly and used assessment carefully to check what pupils had learned. This included disciplinary knowledge (knowledge of how to work scientifically) as well as substantive knowledge (established factual knowledge).’

(Ofsted, 2023, p. 8)

The report highlights the importance of assessment having a clear purpose. It also states that ‘assessment should be designed so that it does not unintentionally narrow the curriculum or lead to unnecessary workload.’ (Ofsted, 2023, p. 36). Drawing on research, Ofsted distinguishes between three different purposes: 

Assessment for learning – using assessment to provide feedback 
Assessment as learning – using assessment to help pupils to remember what they have previously learned 
Assessment of learning – have curricular goals been achieved

(Ofsted, 2023, p. 36)

A clear purpose for assessment alongside integrating it with the curriculum is absolutely key in moving forward. Assessment for learning and assessment as learning can dovetail to produce quality formative assessment when built into the curriculum as a constant from Nursery to Year 6. Such formative assessment enables the development of teaching and the curriculum and supports children in embedding concepts and using them to enhance their understanding.  

Assessment of learning must provide information on the impact of a curriculum area and check that children have secured the intended substantive and disciplinary knowledge. Ofsted explains this should include children’s ability to carry out specific practical procedures and scientific enquiries. These definitions of purpose give schools a clear rubric to review their current practice. 

Subject Leadership 

The report raises a concern I talk to senior leaders about daily: the lack of time for subject leaders to support teachers. Where ‘most subject leaders felt well supported by their senior leadership team,’ it is also noted that ‘the time available for subject leaders varied considerably between schools, from 2 hours a week to an hour a term.’ (Ofsted, 2023, p. 23).

With sufficient time, subject leaders can visit lessons, talk to children, check their learning matches the intended curriculum, decide the focus of future training and attend CPD courses. All leaders agree that when science teachers have strong subject knowledge, they can help children make connections between scientific concepts. Ofsted notes that ‘where leadership was strong, subject leaders focused on improving the quality of education, and not just on administration.’ (Ofsted, 2023, p. 23).

Subject leadership is the area that requires the most focus in primary education. Senior leaders, often subject leaders themselves, need to work out how to provide the time, resources and professional development to positively impact the quality of education. With these provisions covered, subject leaders can confidently take Ofsted deep into the coherent beauty of their curriculum when they call to do their shallow dives.

There is much to reflect on in this latest paper from the inspectorate. It provides a very useful starting point for reviewing your own science curriculum. However, there is a lot to digest.

I advise reading through the entire report and using this as a basis for discussion and evaluation with colleagues in your school. Take a step back and look at how science is planned and taught in your school: does it meet the expectations set out in this report, or do you need to work on some specific aspects to ensure it is up to scratch?

Wherever you are with your science curriculum, this paper is well worth a read.

As a quick reference guide, the following summarises the recommendations from this paper:

Connect specific understanding of the world knowledge in Reception with Year 1 scientific knowledge 
Provide time for the learning of key knowledge and how this is connected to previous learning across the subject and wider curriculum 
Embed substantive knowledge within the most appropriate disciplinary content, such as learning the structure of flowering plants and how biologists classify plants
Provide the opportunity to undertake high-quality, purposeful, practical work 
Identify misconceptions and adapt teaching, planning and curriculum accordingly 
Ensure that assessment checks whether pupils remember the substantive and disciplinary knowledge they have learned in previous years 
Create a systematic and continuous approach to developing the science expertise of staff and leaders, such as drawing on support from the Association for Science Education

Article Written By

Simon Hickton

Simon founded Cornerstones Education in 2010. He has 20 years of teaching experience, 10 of those years as a primary headteacher. He is currently working with hundreds of primary school leaders and teachers across the country to ensure Curriculum Maestro is continually developed to meet their needs.

How to sequence your primary curriculum

06th February 2023

How to achieve subject coverage and progression with Cornerstones

29th October 2021

Expert advice
Tailored to you
At a time to suit you

Helping schools to transform the lives of children through powerful curriculum and meaningful assessment

Enter your details to download

We’d love to occasionally keep in touch to give you guidance, information and free resources that we feel could help you. In accordance with GDPR, your details will be stored securely, not shared with any other companies and you can opt out of our communications at any time.

Download your file below

You can download your file by clicking the button below.

We are in a much better place with CM than with our old curriculum. We will be making it more bespoke in the second year.

Conrad Fox – Headteacher, Hunmanby Primary School, England

I have used Cornerstones from its first launch. The product has been refined over time as it is driven by feedback from schools and teachers delivering the content. The company is also responsive to a school's needs.

Lindsey Wain – Deputy headteacher, Hartburn Primary School, England

Maestro is a real time saver, particularly for leadership teams and subject leaders. There is a wealth of information and resources which can be used and adapted by creative skills teachers. The way the curriculum is mapped is excellent and was commented on in a very recent Ofsted inspection.

Charlotte Gibbins – Thurlstone Primary School, England

I have recommended and told many other schools and school staff about it. I would always though suggest that they need to ensure it is right for their school setting and the needs of their staff and pupils.

Kathryn – Teacher, Langton Primary School

It has been a revelation. Staff are finding their way through it and if we have any questions, the support from Cornerstones is amazing. We always get answers to our questions. It is now our one-stop-shop for curriculum with linked up thinking and approach through an intuitive and user-friendly system.

Moira Cross – Executive head, Dordon Primary School

Are you an existing Maestro customer looking for refresher training? Click here instead.

Please select which platform you're interested in.

May 16, 2021

A Summary of Ofsted's Science Research Report for Teachers and Leaders

On the 29th April, Ofsted released their report into high-quality science education. It took me quite some time to read (around an hour or so) so I thought I'd write up my notes into a blog in case it's useful to others.

Here is my take on the important parts of the report and how they refer to primary science. The information is organised by how the implications relate to teachers and school leadership.

The Importance of Early Years and the EYFS

1️⃣ This is the first formal year of science education.

👩🏼‍🏫 Children should be exposed to myriad vocabulary and phenomena which build a general science knowledge.

📖 Teachers should use picture books to teach and discuss important vocabulary that will enable success in Year 1 and later.

🌺Learning science in EYFS should not be understood as only preparing children for Year 1.

What teachers need to know:

🧩 Learning in science is most effective when the curriculum is organised into bitesize chunks (think Rosenshine). These chunks should enable children to focus on an appropriate component of knowledge that builds on prior learning and prepares for conceptual development.

🧠 How much new learning there is in a lesson is important as pupils are limited by the cognitive load placed on them. Science is already a difficult subject to learn and so reducing extraneous cognitive load (distractions, additional things to consider, number of things to focus on) is really important if we want children to learn the object of the lesson.

🥼 Working scientifically shouldn't be viewed as merely teaching skills. Rather, there is a body of knowledge detailing the what, when, where, how, who and why of working scientifically that is important to teach. This is referred to as disciplinary knowledge and should be taught in tandem with substantive knowledge : the core facts and concepts of the curriculum.

🧬 It is important to identify the best opportunities to teach disciplinary knowledge alongside substantive knowledge. Even when topics, such as evolution, do not have any obvious links to working scientifically: Ofsted give as an example, the teaching of how Darwin came to theorise evolution rather than leaving children open to interpreting that it was just a 'good' guess.

⚔️ Science is hard for pupils to learn because a lot of science contradicts the observations we make in every day life. This means that misconceptions are rife and can be enforceable. Only when pupils develop a strong understanding can some misconceptions be ready to address. The order that we teach things in therefore becomes very important.

⛓ Pupils do not transfer their knowledge of working scientifically easily from one context to another. It is important to consider the needs of the pupils at all stages, and to model the key parts of their learning, regardless of their previous experiences. For example, learning to classify leaves draws on a different knowledge base that classifying vertebrates.

😄 Practical work is often enjoyable for pupils, but this is not a reason in itself for it to be used. Instead, practical work should be used purposefully to either draw attention to a component of substantive or disciplinary science, or as a curriculum goal in itself, such as conducting an enquiry. Practical work should also be used once children's understanding has been developed, rather than as a means to provide for 'discovery' learning.

👩🏾‍🔬 Teacher demonstration is also an equally valuable tool, and can actually be more effective due to the way it can increase working memory capacity for children. As they don't have to worry with handling multiple components, they can address their full attention on the idea being demonstrated.

💬 A key part of effective teaching is the quality of our explanations. Pupils rate this as the number one factor in helping them learn.

📖 There is a positive relationship between reading achievement and science achievement. Development in one supports development in the other.

👩🏼‍🏫 The most effective teaching includes explanation, questioning modelling and feedback that is responsive to the needs of the children.

🎣 Enquiry-based learning - which is different to the scientific enquiries which the National Curriculum stipulates children learn - has variable outcomes in its effectiveness. Ofsted suggest that teacher-directed instruction can lead to higher quality learning. This is mainly due to the amount of cognitive load induced and amount of scaffolding that enquiry-based learning relies upon.

📝 Retrieval practice is an important part of science in that time should be given to consolidate prior learning. Retrieval practice works best when feedback is given immediately afterwards. Pupils should practise retrieval over extended periods of time. Partial retrieval practice, such as identifying missing letters in a word, has been shown to be very effective.

🧱The most important part of effective retrieval practice is that it encourages pupils to remember their learning in a way which supports their understanding of the concept. I've understood this to mean practising retrieval of the fundamental facts and relationships of a topic. For example, when recalling their learning about evolution, it is not that important for children to remember that Darwin sailed on The Beagle, as much as it is to remember that Darwin's ideas were not initially accepted.

What leaders need to know:

🧬 The sequencing of the curriculum is incredibly important, and time needs to be appropriately attributed to each of the components existing in the curriculum. An ad-hoc approach to topics does not support learning in a way that careful planning and sequencing can achieve.

📖 High-quality textbooks can support the content being taught in the curriculum, as online content can sometimes be out of sync with the intention of the curriculum, and can suffer some of the inaccuracies which prevent high quality learning from occuring.

👨🏻‍🏫 Teachers' content knowledge is an issue in the primary sector. Only 1 in 20 primary teachers have a science specialism beyond A-level, and in some cases, primary teachers share the same misconceptions that pupils are likely to obtain; sometimes, these misconceptions are actually taught to the children.

🧠 The quality of teacher explanations is affected by their own content knowledge. Investing in teachers' content knowledge can enable teaching to become more effective as teachers will be more able to respond to pupils' needs.

👨🏿‍🔬Ofsted recommend having a science specialist in the school to support with curriculum implementation. They also emphasise the importance of subject-specific CPD for primary teachers so they have a stronger understanding of the concepts and pedagogy of primary science.

⌛️ There is a recommendation that science leaders have dedicated leadership time. This will of course depend on the responsibilities and scope of the role in each school.

My Own Take

I feel that I'm in a fortunate position in that most of the report (admittedly, it did take some time to read) resonated with me in a positive way. I really like the the way the report refers to retrieval practice - the need for time to consolidate - and ensuring that working memory isn't overloaded. For me, this shows that the idiosyncrasies of science education have been considered with strong research about how people best learn.

One of the main criticisms of the report that I have seen on Twitter has been based on the idea that primary teachers need to be specialists. Personally, I feel I have a reasonable understanding of science based on my own degree (BA in Primary Education where science was a core module for three years) and my own developing understanding of science since qualifying. I don't claim to have a knowledge strong enough to attempt degree-level science, but I do feel that I have sufficient understanding to teach primary science.

I think high-quality texts can be the perfect starting points to develop subject knowledge for primary science. There is a growing wealth of accessible texts written by experts that can be used as authentic sources of knowledge. For example, reading Sabina Radeva's ' On The Origin Of Species ' book is a brilliant way of introducing all the Evolution objectives from the National Curriculum.

Last year, I put together all of the ideas in the science curriculum and organised them all in 'components'. I might need to go back and edit some of them, but for each objective I've also included ideas for 'working scientifically'. Hopefully this might be a good starting point for some people who are unable to access resources or CPD which they might otherwise require. Click here to go to my Primary Science Notion Page .

Just for context, I am a primary Assistant Headteacher with responsibility for the whole curriculum. My school's approach has been to be quite prescriptive in how we deliver the curriculum, and we have aimed for an 80:20 ratio of prescription to flexibility. The reason for this is so that we can direct the vast majority of teachers' approach to the curriculum so that it can fit with best practice identified by research. We can also easily evaluate the content and provision in each year group so that we have confidence in the accuracy, breadth and depth of what is being taught.

Although this might not appeal to all teachers, we have found that it has reduced a lot of anxiety and worry over what teachers need to include in the curriculum, and it frees them up to be inventive and creative in how the content can be matched with the needs of their class. Our approach means that system-level changes can be made reasonably easily, such as with curriculum sequencing, and I think it's important to acknowledge that this reduces some of the issues that some teachers might face if their curriculum is organised in a less prescribed format.

If you'd like to support the work I do on this blog, you can click on the link below.

Click here to download the graphic in PDF format.

Summary of Ofsted’s Science Subject Report 2023: Finding the Optimum

Posted by Danny Nicholson | Feb 7, 2023 | General Science , Teaching Guides | 0 |

Ofsted have just released their latest research report into Science teaching.

Here’s a summary of the main findings and recommendations.

Recommendations from the Report

Ensure the content taught in Reception is detailed as explicitly as it is for KS1 and KS2. Make better connections between Reception content and what pupils are taught in KS1.
Plan the KS3 curriculum to build on what has been learned previously. Don’t repeat KS2 content unnecessarily.
Build time into the curriculum for pupils to learn and remember key knowledge.
Explicitly teach how new content links to pre-existing schema so that pupils build connected knowledge.
Identify and sequence the disciplinary knowledge pupils need to work scientifically. This should include the full range of outcomes from the National Curriculum. This also includes some of the concepts which might not be explicitly stated but are inherent within working scientifically e.g independent variable, dependent variable, control variable etc
Ensure that all pupils have opportunities to take part in high-quality practical work with a clear purpose.
Ensure that the science curriculum is planned to take account of what pupils learn in other subjects, particularly mathematics.

Pedagogy and Assessment

Teacher explanations should use pupils’ prior learning so that meaningful connections can be made between new content and knowledge from across the curriculum.
Schools should ensure content has been learned before moving on to new content. This includes deliberately checking whether pupils have specific misconceptions.
Schools should choose appropriate teaching and learning approaches based on the content being taught.
Schools should assess that both substantive and disciplinary knowledge from previous years has been remembered. This includes, where relevant, that pupils can use their knowledge to select, plan and carry out different types of scientific enquiry.

Systems at subject and school level

Schools should create a systematic and continuous approach to developing staff expertise in science, taking into account the context of the individual school and teaching team.
Schools should support subject leaders to prioritise curriculum time for teaching key scientific knowledge. Reduce pressure to simply cover content and move on.

Main findings

Most schools provided an ambitious science curriculum, mainly focused on developing pupils’ knowledge of substantive concepts such as ‘habitats’, ‘forces’ and ‘materials’.
Science was strong in most schools. Pupils had a detailed and connected knowledge of the curriculum, and remembered what they had learned previously.
A tiny minority of schools were not developing secure knowledge of science in their pupils with the focus on covering the content, rather than ensuring it was learned.
There were a small minority of primary schools where pupils went for entire half-term blocks without learning any science. Pupils were unable to benefit from regular opportunities to revisit and build on their knowledge.
Some pupils came out of lockdown with significant gaps in their scientific knowledge, and COVID-19 prevented primary and secondary colleagues from working together to support pupils’ transition.
There was too much focus on developing pupils’ disciplinary knowledge at the expense of how to develop their substantive knowledge. Not enough consideration was given to identifying the disciplinary knowledge that is needed to work scientifically. Too often, the focus was simply on identifying practical activities for pupils to complete.
There were large differences in the amount of practical work taking place in schools. For example, pupils in primary school were much more likely to take part in hands-on practical activities than pupils in secondary school. Teachers rarely used demonstrations.
There were not always sufficient opportunities for pupils to practise and consolidate what is learned before moving on to new content. Some schools would rely on pupils catching up when the content was repeated later in the curriculum, rather than ensuring it was learned the first time.
Overall, most leaders saw their school science curriculum as a description of what pupils needed to know and do and had planned the curriculum carefully so that pupils studied content in a logical order. However, leaders generally did not see the curriculum as something that could make learning science easier. For example, very few leaders had planned their science curriculum to take account of what pupils learned in mathematics and rarely did science curricula help pupils to avoid misconceptions.
Some secondary schools incorrectly assumed that pupils learned little science in primary school and repeated unnecessary content in KS3.
In some primary schools, the knowledge of the natural world that children were expected to learn in Reception was not clear enough with just general topic areas or activities planned. This limited how effectively children were prepared for learning science in Year 1.
Teachers generally had secure subject knowledge. Clear explanations from teachers, alongside carefully selected teaching activities, supported the learning of specific content and played a key role in helping pupils to learn science.
Teachers rarely drew on evidence-based, subject-specific approaches when teaching science. Very few schools had a clear plan of how teachers’ knowledge of science, and how to teach it, was developed over time through continuing professional development (CPD).
Post-pandemic, most CPD courses, were primarily based on developing their knowledge of physics (if they were non-specialists in this discipline) or practical work.
Subject leaders played a crucial role in developing school science curriculums and supporting teachers to teach them. However, not all subject leaders had access to dedicated leadership time and subject leadership training.
Many subject leaders were improving and developing their school’s science curriculum.
In some schools, assessment as learning was sometimes taking place at the expense of assessment for learning. Some pupils were asked to recall knowledge that they had not successfully learned first time around.
Generally, assessment in science did not check whether pupils had remembered what they had learned in previous years. This was a particular concern in some primary schools, where generalised judgements at the end of a piece of learning were being made against age-related expectations, but what these grades represented in relation to the curriculum was not clear.
In some schools, there was not enough focus on checking whether pupils had learned the disciplinary knowledge that is needed to work scientifically. These schools only focused on checking that pupils had learned substantive knowledge. This was more common in primary schools.

Key Terms Used

Substantive knowledge : refers to the established knowledge produced by science, for example, the parts of a flower or the names of planets in our solar system. This is referred to as ‘scientific knowledge’ and ‘conceptual understanding’ in the national curriculum.
Disciplinary knowledge : refers to what pupils learn about how to establish and refine scientific knowledge, for example by carrying out practical procedures. By identifying and sequencing this knowledge, it is possible to plan in the curriculum for how pupils will get better at working scientifically throughout their time at school.
Practical Work : ‘any teaching and learning activity which at some point involves the students in observing or manipulating the objects and materials they are studying’. Practical work in this report can refer to a teacher demonstration or a hands-on practical activity for students.

PDF Summary

Access the full OFSTED report here

About The Author

Danny Nicholson

Danny Nicholson is an author, Science teacher, ICT Consultant, PGCE lecturer and Computing / Interactive Whiteboard Trainer. He has delivered training courses across the UK, in Europe, and in Canada.

Encouraging Discussion and Managing Pupil Talk In Science

29th January 2021

Hinge Questions in Primary Science

26th March 2024

Using AI to Chat to Historical Scientists: A Guide for Teachers

16th February 2024

What Happens When You Ask AI to Draw a Scientist?

15th November 2023

Support this site

General Science
Kitchen Science
Magic Science
EYFS Science
KS1 Science
KS2 Science
Valentines Day

Pin It on Pinterest

A Summary of the Ofsted Science Subject Report 2023

What is the Ofsted Science Subject Report 2023?

The Ofsted Science Subject Report was published by Ofsted in February 2023 and is based on evidence collected during routine Ofsted inspections. It ‘evaluates the common strengths and weaknesses of science in the schools inspected and considers the challenges that science faces’. The report also ‘identifies some significant strengths in school science education and recommends ways that school and subject leaders can ensure that all pupils leave school with an authentic understanding of science, as both a tradition of enquiry and a set of connected but distinct ideas that explain the world we live in’.

In the report, Ofsted recognises that there are many different methods of creating and teaching a successful science curriculum. Therefore, the report should not be seen as a checklist against which inspectors will measure the teaching of science.

What is the context of the Ofsted Science Subject Report?

Schools in England perform well in science tests compared to schools across the globe. During 2019, year 5 pupil achievement in science was similar to that achieved in 2015 and 83% of year 6 pupils achieved the expected standard in science. Ofsted have concerns that the removal of the KS2 national science tests in 2009 led to a decline in pupil performance and that since then science has continued to have a lower status in some primary schools. In addition, science teaching has been significantly impacted by the pandemic, which particularly affected pupil participation in practical activities and investigations.

What is substantive and disciplinary knowledge?

The report contains references to two key terms: substantive and disciplinary knowledge.

Substantive knowledge is referred to in the national curriculum as ‘scientific knowledge’ or ‘conceptual understanding ’, for example, learning the parts of a flower, knowing the order of planets in our solar system, or knowledge of different forces .

Disciplinary knowledge includes working scientifically and scientific enquiry. It is the use of methods, techniques, data, and evidence to establish and refine scientific knowledge. Examples include classification, variables, and measurement.

This knowledge is developed over many years and the curriculum should embed opportunities to develop disciplinary knowledge within the most appropriate substantive knowledge.

It’s worth noting that there is no expectation for teachers or pupils to use these terms!

The report also refers to practical work. This may consist of pupils participating in a hands-on activity, or pupils observing a teacher demonstration.

What were the main findings of the Ofsted Science Subject Report?

The science curriculum studied by pupils (including SEND) was ‘at least as ambitious as the national curriculum’ and mainly focussed on developing substantive knowledge (such as knowledge of habitats or forces).
Science was a strength in schools where pupils had ‘detailed and connected knowledge’ and ‘remembered what they had learned previously’.
In a minority of schools, pupils did not learn any science for several weeks, despite science being a core subject.
Pupils have significant gaps in their scientific knowledge due to the pandemic.
Leaders tended to focus on the development of substantive knowledge rather than disciplinary knowledge within the school’s science curriculum.
There was little use of teacher demonstrations in any of the schools.
When pupils had insufficient time to practise and consolidate their learning, they were unable to recall previously taught content.
Most science leaders planned a curriculum with a logical order but rarely did the curriculums relate to what pupils learned in mathematics or seek to avoid common misconceptions.
Sometimes, the expectations for Reception were not clear enough which limited how prepared pupils were for learning in year 1 .
Secure teacher subject knowledge and clear explanations help children to learn science. Stronger subject knowledge can be used to help children build connections between different scientific concepts.
Rarely did teachers draw on subject-specific, evidence-based approaches for teaching, and schools did not have clear plans for CPD.
Some schools did not ensure that CPD was closely matched to the curriculum when resuming after the pandemic.
Subject leaders had a key role in developing the curriculum and supporting teachers, but not all had dedicated leadership time or training.
Sometimes, pupils were asked to recall knowledge that they had not previously learned successfully. This meant that assessment as learning was taking place rather than assessment for learning.
In primary schools, science assessments did not check learning from previous years or relate to curriculum objectives. In some schools the focus was on assessing substantive knowledge but not disciplinary knowledge.

What were the recommendations from the Ofsted Science Subject Report 2023?

Knowledge of how to work scientifically should be taught, revisited and embedded within the most appropriate substantive content.
Plans for developing knowledge of working scientifically should be as detailed as those for developing substantive knowledge.
Sequence the disciplinary knowledge within the curriculum by considering the substantive content that the pupils are learning, the most logical order and the opportunities for pupils to deepen and revisit their disciplinary knowledge.
Ensure teachers know what disciplinary knowledge they are teaching and assessing when pupils are working scientifically.
Plan for children to learn disciplinary knowledge through a variety of methods, including teacher explanation and demonstration.
Provide repeated opportunities for pupils to develop disciplinary knowledge of the following; methods that scientists use to answer questions, apparatus and techniques (including measurements); data analysis; how evidence is used in science to develop explanations.
Within the curriculum, plan progression in developing pupil knowledge of; observing over time; pattern seeking; identifying, classifying and grouping; comparative and fair testing (controlled observations); researching using secondary resources
Make links to the work of specific scientists to enable pupils to understand that scientific research is carried out by different types of people in a range of environments.

What did the Science Subject Report say about curriculum planning?

The report stated that teaching of science is strong when leaders and teachers are clear about the purpose of a teaching activity. Effective leaders see the curriculum as a path that makes science easier to learn and they take account of learning in other subjects, especially maths. Pupils should have enough time to learn the content and remember it and teaching needs to build on what pupils have already learned.

Scientific concepts need to be explained clearly with assessment used to check prior learning, and there should be a balance of disciplinary and substantive knowledge. The focus of a science lesson should be what the children need to learn and remember, not just covering content or completing a practical activity. The science curriculum should be seen as a working document that can be revised and improved upon each year.

The report recommends when planning a strong science curriculum, leaders should:

emphasise that science is a core subject which should be taught weekly.
ensure children learn content in a logical order and have sufficient time to practise, use and revisit what they have learned.
support children to see and build connections in their scientific knowledge.
consider learning in other subjects, especially in mathematics and make connections, e.g. link learning about states of matter with learning about the water cycle in geography.
identify what pupils need to learn in order to achieve high-level goals and select the best activities to teach this knowledge.
prioritise scientific content, not written literacy skills.
ensure that children in upper KS2 are not expected to learn content that is too technical or which will be covered in secondary school.
if using an interdisciplinary topic approach, prioritise the development of pupils’ scientific knowledge and ensure that there is logical progression within the curriculum.
allow all pupils to participate in high-quality practical work that clearly relates to the curriculum.
identify and sequence the disciplinary knowledge needed to work scientifically. This should include different types of enquiry such as pattern-seeking, evidence and accuracy as well as data analysis or fair testing.
embed opportunities to develop disciplinary knowledge within the most appropriate substantive knowledge, e.g. plan for pupils to learn about the classification of plants (disciplinary knowledge) and the parts of a flowering plant (substantive knowledge).
seek support from organisations such as the Association for Science Education to assist in developing and refining the science curriculum.

When planning science for Reception pupils, leaders should:

specify what children in Reception should learn about understanding the world (the key concepts, vocabulary and phenomena), ensuring it does not rely solely on the high-level descriptors from the EYFS framework.
meet with other leaders within the school to ensure that the year 1 learning has clear connections with, and can build upon the Reception curriculum.
if using ready-made curriculum plans that start at year 1, ensure that the curriculum used in Reception relates to the year 1 learning

The Science Subject Report and science assessment

Science assessments should not narrow the curriculum or create an unnecessary workload for staff or pupils.

Assessment for learning is formative assessment that checks if pupils have learned the intended content of the curriculum in each lesson. It provides pupils and teachers with feedback and can be used to improve future teaching.

Multiple-choice questions can be used to check for specific misconceptions, alongside a variety of approaches such as teacher questions and quizzes to identify gaps in knowledge. Teachers should check and address errors or misconceptions and written feedback should be focussed on specific curriculum content and should be used identify strengths, identify areas that need further work, and address misconceptions.

Assessment as learning is using assessment to help pupils to remember and retrieve what they have previously learned. This assessment enables pupils to embed knowledge in their memory over an extended period of time. Pupils must have learned the knowledge before they practise retrieving it, and it should reinforce knowledge of key concepts and feedback should be given to avoid and correct misconceptions.

Assessment of learning is summative assessment and is used to identify if curriculum goals have been achieved. It helps to evaluate the impact of the science curriculum and should be used to check whether pupils have secure substantive and disciplinary knowledge. Summative assessment should not be overused as it can overburden pupils and staff, and lead to science lessons which merely teach ‘to the test’.

Science pedagogy

Strong teacher subject knowledge, and clear explanations will help pupils learn abstract concepts and illustrate the connections between different concepts within the curriculum. Models and analogies should be used alongside clear explanations and teachers should be mindful that models do not lead to misconceptions.

Teaching activities need to be focussed on the specific content being learned and pupils should be able to discuss ideas and practise applying their knowledge before moving on. Assessment should be used to check recall of substantive and disciplinary knowledge from previous years. Check that pupils can use this knowledge to choose, plan and participate in different types of scientific enquiry.

Teacher should anticipate and address where pupils may have difficulties or make mistakes, and ensure pupils can use and learn new vocabulary throughout the lesson and avoid overly technical words.

Wherever possible, support SEND pupils to achieve the same outcome as their peers. This could involve slower explanations, additional scaffolding or pre-teaching of key vocabulary.

How to make science learning easier

In order to help children with science learning, focus on what pupils need to do to improve in science and build on pupil’s prior learning. Highlight key misconceptions and difficulties in curriculum planning so that these can then address in the relevant lessons.

As leaders, adapt, develop and improve the curriculum each year in response to pupils’ difficulties and misconceptions. Plan the curriculum so that pupils have sufficient prior knowledge and vocabulary to discuss and explain their observations. Focus on the key scientific vocabulary for each year group, rather than creating long lists of keywords for each lesson. Provide opportunities for pupils to see the relevance of their learning, using science news, trips to museums, or exploring the use of scientific knowledge in the real world.

What pupils need to know and remember in science

The recommendations are that pupils need to build knowledge around key scientific concepts, and should develop a pattern of interconnected learning. Their knowledge should have an organised structure with a secure understanding of a range of concepts with both substantive and disciplinary knowledge.

Practical work should develop pupils’ disciplinary knowledge, and pupils should be able to talk about different types of scientific enquiry including pattern-seeking and secondary resources.

Science and practical work

The report recommended that practical work is a vital part of the curriculum but it should have a clear purpose and only take place when pupils have sufficient prior knowledge.

Well-structured enquiry questions should be used to focus the activity on a particular aspect of the curriculum, and teacher demonstrations are key in helping pupils to learn and saving valuable time within the curriculum. When planning practical activities, ensure that pupils do not spend too much time collecting data, and consider how best to support SEND pupils in practical activities so they can focus on the key learning.

In Reception, c hildren need to have opportunities to hear and use specific vocabulary by talking with adults. When children are given a choice of activities, intervene where necessary to ensure that all children learn all areas of the curriculum.

Subject leadership

Science subject leaders need sufficient, dedicated time to lead science, and they should be able to attend external CPD courses. Subject leaders have a key role in developing the science curriculum and supporting staff. Wider groups such as multi-academy trusts or local authority groups can provide valuable opportunities for sharing expertise. Leaders should focus on improving the quality of science education, having discussions with pupils, and checking books. This information can then inform future training sessions.

Science and teacher CPD

A systematic approach of how to develop teacher knowledge and how to teach science enables staff across the school to teach the curriculum effectively.

Teachers and support staff need regular, subject-specific CPD to develop strong subject knowledge, and CPD should align with the curriculum. Teacher and subject leader expertise should be developed using a ’systematic and continuous approach’ in line with the school’s curriculum and individual needs. Leaders should work with teachers to identify personal, subject-specific areas for development.

CPD should focus on developing teachers’ substantive knowledge and how to teach this, as well as developing knowledge of working scientifically. Effective CPD can be informal support from subject leaders and resources from organisations such as STEM Learning or the Association for Science Education.

Are you a science subject leader? Discover time-saving, progressive, and engaging primary science schemes with built-in CPD here .

How to teach science if you’re not a science expert

Teaching science can be a daunting idea;.

What if the experiments go horribly wrong?
What if they ask me why trees grow, and rocks don’t?
What if they can tell that I’m...

PZAZ Science Lessons are on Pango

Content partner announcement: pzaz is on pango.

What if I told you all your science lessons from Reception to Year 6 were planned? Well, you're in luck because PZAZ is...

Our Why&How? magazine for spring 2023 is ready for download
PSTT announces glass design competition winners
NEW EEF Guidance on Improving Primary Science Teaching
Explorify Wins at BETT Awards 2024

PSTT responds to Ofsted’s latest science subject report

Our response to ofsted’s latest science subject report.

The Primary Science Teaching Trust’s initial response to Ofsted’s science subject report

Ofsted’s recent research and analysis publication, ‘Finding the optimum: the science subject report’, provides helpful guidance for the sector. We are pleased to see the recommendations that substantial curriculum time for science is needed and that it should be taught regularly, rather than in blocks. Another positive aspect of the report is the recognition of the importance of providing children with a more connected learning experience in science, and that secondary school curricula should build on what has been learned in primary schools.

We also welcome Ofsted’s view that children should be explicitly taught disciplinary knowledge and how to work scientifically, although we would not wish to see this result in highly prescriptive practical work where children’s sense of purpose and their agency are reduced. We hope that the recommendations will not limit teachers with planning creatively for science lessons that are responsive to children’s needs and interests, nurture their curiosity, and help them build an identity with science. In early years, we would have liked Ofsted to recognise that experiential science activities where substantive knowledge may not be made explicit are, in their own right, valuable foundations for future learning in science.

We endorse the finding that teachers should have access to high quality and regular professional development, particularly where science is not a specialism, and that in their initial teacher education phase, student teachers should be supported to develop their knowledge of science and how to teach it. We appreciate Ofsted’s acknowledgement that support from external organisations can give schools a strong starting point in science, and in due course we will be mapping our current offer of professional development and resources for teachers to the recommendations outlined in the report.

Download PSTT’s initial response to Ofsted’s science subject report

Why Explorify?
Teacher support

A summary of "Finding the optimum: the science subject report", Ofsted (2023)

Summary of the Osted report findings relevant to primary science.

Summary of the main findings relevant to primary science

Curriculum, timetabling and planning:

Most pupils (including those with SEND) are studying a science curriculum at least as ambitious as the national curriculum;
Some pupils had ‘gaps’ in their science knowledge – reasons for this are lost learning during lockdown or when timetabling results in science being missed for an entire half-term;
Science subject and school leaders see the curriculum as a description of what pupils need to know and do rather than a tool to make learning easier and to link with learning in other subjects, e.g. maths;
Intended science learning in reception classes was not clear enough and as such limited how well prepared they are for learning in year 1.

Teaching, learning and assessment:

Teachers with strong subject knowledge were better able to support pupils to make connections between science concepts;
Where science was strong in a school, pupils’ learning was connected and detailed and they could remember their previous learning.
Teachers don’t have a strong awareness of evidence-based approaches for teaching science;
Access for teachers to relevant CPD that is closely aligned to the curriculum needs to be planned and implemented
Insufficient time is spent on practising and consolidating learning before moving on to new content;
Assessment did not generally check whether pupils had remembered what they had learned in previous years.

Science subject leaders:

Science subject and school leaders’ plans for well-sequenced development of pupils’ disciplinary knowledge (what they learn about how science knowledge is established and the practical procedures for this) were less developed than plans for developing pupils’ substantive knowledge (science concepts/established facts);
The role of the subject leader is crucial to curriculum development and teacher support, but not all subject leaders have access to dedicated leadership time and training.

Summary of the main recommendations relevant to primary science:

Ensure the curriculum is specific about the knowledge that reception children should learn and that it connects with the intended learning in year 1;
Ensure enough time is built in to the curriculum for pupils to learn and recall key knowledge and to connect this with other science concepts they have learned;
Ensure the curriculum sequences disciplinary knowledge so pupils learn and practise skills across all areas of working scientifically;
Ensure that the curriculum is planned to take account of learning in other subjects, e.g. maths.
Ensure that teachers support pupils to connect new learning with what they have already learned;
Ensure pupils have a secure knowledge of what has been taught before moving on to new content, including checking for specific misconceptions;
Ensure that the teaching approaches selected are appropriate for the intended learning.
Schools should create systematic approaches to developing the science expertise of all teachers;
Schools should support subject leaders to prioritise curriculum time for teaching key scientific knowledge.

Did you find this article useful?

More from science teaching support, latest evidence on what works in primary science.

Interested in reading more about the latest thinking and research or finding key documents quickly?

Explorify evaluation report 2023

Read a summary of the 2023 Explorify evaluation.

Other Teacher support:

Join Explorify today to take your class on an exciting science adventure!

We use cookies to make Explorify even more awesome for you. Find out more.

No thanks Accept Cookies

Melting glaciers in a warmer climate provide new ground for invasive species

A case study on the island of south georgia.

Invasive species have rapidly colonised new ground exposed by melting glaciers in the sub-Antarctic island of South Georgia, according to new research.

Invasive species brought to new territories through human activities are one of the main causes of the ongoing biodiversity crisis. Even on South Georgia, a remote island located in the very south of the Atlantic Ocean, exotic species are present.

In a new study published in the open access journal Neobiota and funded by Darwin Plus, the researchers Pierre Tichit (Durham University, now Swedish Agricultural University), Paul Brickle (South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute), Rosemary Newton (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), Peter Convey (British Antarctic Survey) and Wayne Dawson (Durham University, now University of Liverpool) look at how living organisms colonise new ground provided by melting glaciers on the British overseas territory.

Many were inadvertently introduced by whalers and sealers in the 19 th and early 20 th centuries. Like other cold regions of the world, South Georgia has another problem: many of its glaciers are melting at a fast pace because of climate change, leaving behind large areas of newly uncovered bare ground.

The authors surveyed the forelands biodiversity of six glaciers by counting plants, turning rocks, laying traps and using sweep nets, enabling an inventory of the flora and fauna that colonises forelands at different stages of their retreat.

Their results indicate that invasive species will likely spread on South Georgia as fast as glaciers are retreating. Whether this has or will have negative consequences on local species needs to be investigated to help protect this unique ecosystem.

Just a few years after bare ground is exposed by glacier melting, pioneer plants arrive, progressively covering more ground with time and followed by an increasing number of species. The study discovered that not only native, but also exotic plants and invertebrates, are taking advantage of this opportunity. Even more surprising, two temperate plant species from the Northern Hemisphere, annual meadow grass and mouse-ear chickweed, colonised sites faster than any other species.

Scientific expeditions to such an isolated and inhospitable island are challenging. The crossing from the Falkland Islands to reach South Georgia takes several days on a notoriously temperamental ocean. Once on the island, most glaciers are only accessible with small boats followed by hikes through difficult terrain.

New Species
Endangered Animals
Ecology Research
Global Warming
Exotic Species
Environmental Awareness
Invasive species
Water hyacinth
Larsen Ice Shelf
Zebra mussel
Water resources

Story Source:

Materials provided by Pensoft Publishers . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

Pierre Tichit, Paul Brickle, Rosemary J. Newton, Peter Convey, Wayne Dawson. Introduced species infiltrate recent stages of succession after glacial retreat on sub-Antarctic South Georgia . NeoBiota , 2024; 92: 85 DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.92.117226

Cite This Page :

Explore More

Australia On Track for Decades-Long Megadroughts
Speed of Visual Perception Ranges Widely
3D Printed Replica of an Adult Human Ear
Extremely Fast Wound Healing: New Treatment
Micro-Lisa! Novel Nano-Scale Laser Writing
Simple Brain-Computer Link: Gaming With Thoughts
Clinical Reasoning: Chatbot Vs Physicians
Understanding People Who Can't Visualize
Illuminating Oxygen's Journey in the Brain
DNA Study IDs Descendants of George Washington

Summary of Ofsted’s Science Subject Report 2023: Finding the Optimum

Feb 7, 2023 | Science Fix

Ofsted have just released their latest research report into Science teaching.

Here’s a summary of the main findings and recommendations.

Recommendations from the Report

Ensure the content taught in Reception is detailed as explicitly as it is for KS1 and KS2. Make better connections between Reception content and what pupils are taught in KS1.
Plan the KS3 curriculum to build on what has been learned previously. Don’t repeat KS2 content unnecessarily.
Build time into the curriculum for pupils to learn and remember key knowledge.
Explicitly teach how new content links to pre-existing schema so that pupils build connected knowledge.
Identify and sequence the disciplinary knowledge pupils need to work scientifically. This should include the full range of outcomes from the National Curriculum. This also includes some of the concepts which might not be explicitly stated but are inherent within working scientifically e.g independent variable, dependent variable, control variable etc
Ensure that all pupils have opportunities to take part in high-quality practical work with a clear purpose.
Ensure that the science curriculum is planned to take account of what pupils learn in other subjects, particularly mathematics.

Pedagogy and Assessment

Teacher explanations should use pupils’ prior learning so that meaningful connections can be made between new content and knowledge from across the curriculum.
Schools should ensure content has been learned before moving on to new content. This includes deliberately checking whether pupils have specific misconceptions.
Schools should choose appropriate teaching and learning approaches based on the content being taught.
Schools should assess that both substantive and disciplinary knowledge from previous years has been remembered. This includes, where relevant, that pupils can use their knowledge to select, plan and carry out different types of scientific enquiry.

Systems at subject and school level

Schools should create a systematic and continuous approach to developing staff expertise in science, taking into account the context of the individual school and teaching team.
Schools should support subject leaders to prioritise curriculum time for teaching key scientific knowledge. Reduce pressure to simply cover content and move on.

Main findings

Most schools provided an ambitious science curriculum, mainly focused on developing pupils’ knowledge of substantive concepts such as ‘habitats’, ‘forces’ and ‘materials’.
Science was strong in most schools. Pupils had a detailed and connected knowledge of the curriculum, and remembered what they had learned previously.
A tiny minority of schools were not developing secure knowledge of science in their pupils with the focus on covering the content, rather than ensuring it was learned.
There were a small minority of primary schools where pupils went for entire half-term blocks without learning any science. Pupils were unable to benefit from regular opportunities to revisit and build on their knowledge.
Some pupils came out of lockdown with significant gaps in their scientific knowledge, and COVID-19 prevented primary and secondary colleagues from working together to support pupils’ transition.
There was too much focus on developing pupils’ disciplinary knowledge at the expense of how to develop their substantive knowledge. Not enough consideration was given to identifying the disciplinary knowledge that is needed to work scientifically. Too often, the focus was simply on identifying practical activities for pupils to complete.
There were large differences in the amount of practical work taking place in schools. For example, pupils in primary school were much more likely to take part in hands-on practical activities than pupils in secondary school. Teachers rarely used demonstrations.
There were not always sufficient opportunities for pupils to practise and consolidate what is learned before moving on to new content. Some schools would rely on pupils catching up when the content was repeated later in the curriculum, rather than ensuring it was learned the first time.
Overall, most leaders saw their school science curriculum as a description of what pupils needed to know and do and had planned the curriculum carefully so that pupils studied content in a logical order. However, leaders generally did not see the curriculum as something that could make learning science easier. For example, very few leaders had planned their science curriculum to take account of what pupils learned in mathematics and rarely did science curricula help pupils to avoid misconceptions.
Some secondary schools incorrectly assumed that pupils learned little science in primary school and repeated unnecessary content in KS3.
In some primary schools, the knowledge of the natural world that children were expected to learn in Reception was not clear enough with just general topic areas or activities planned. This limited how effectively children were prepared for learning science in Year 1.
Teachers generally had secure subject knowledge. Clear explanations from teachers, alongside carefully selected teaching activities, supported the learning of specific content and played a key role in helping pupils to learn science.
Teachers rarely drew on evidence-based, subject-specific approaches when teaching science. Very few schools had a clear plan of how teachers’ knowledge of science, and how to teach it, was developed over time through continuing professional development (CPD).
Post-pandemic, most CPD courses, were primarily based on developing their knowledge of physics (if they were non-specialists in this discipline) or practical work.
Subject leaders played a crucial role in developing school science curriculums and supporting teachers to teach them. However, not all subject leaders had access to dedicated leadership time and subject leadership training.
Many subject leaders were improving and developing their school’s science curriculum.
In some schools, assessment as learning was sometimes taking place at the expense of assessment for learning. Some pupils were asked to recall knowledge that they had not successfully learned first time around.
Generally, assessment in science did not check whether pupils had remembered what they had learned in previous years. This was a particular concern in some primary schools, where generalised judgements at the end of a piece of learning were being made against age-related expectations, but what these grades represented in relation to the curriculum was not clear.
In some schools, there was not enough focus on checking whether pupils had learned the disciplinary knowledge that is needed to work scientifically. These schools only focused on checking that pupils had learned substantive knowledge. This was more common in primary schools.

Key Terms Used

Substantive knowledge : refers to the established knowledge produced by science, for example, the parts of a flower or the names of planets in our solar system. This is referred to as ‘scientific knowledge’ and ‘conceptual understanding’ in the national curriculum.
Disciplinary knowledge : refers to what pupils learn about how to establish and refine scientific knowledge, for example by carrying out practical procedures. By identifying and sequencing this knowledge, it is possible to plan in the curriculum for how pupils will get better at working scientifically throughout their time at school.
Practical Work : ‘any teaching and learning activity which at some point involves the students in observing or manipulating the objects and materials they are studying’. Practical work in this report can refer to a teacher demonstration or a hands-on practical activity for students.

PDF Summary

Access the full OFSTED report here

‘Garbage Lasagna’: Dumps Are a Big Driver of Warming, Study Says

Decades of buried trash is releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, at higher rates than previously estimated, the researchers said.

A large, gray dump truck tips a load of trash bags, boxes, plastic buckets and other rubbish onto an open pile of garbage.

By Hiroko Tabuchi

They’re vast expanses that can be as big as towns: open landfills where household waste ends up, whether it’s vegetable scraps or old appliances.

These landfills also belch methane, a powerful, planet-warming gas, on average at almost three times the rate reported to federal regulators, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Science.

The study measured methane emissions at roughly 20 percent of 1,200 or so large, operating landfills in the United States. It adds to a growing body of evidence that landfills are a significant driver of climate change, said Riley Duren, founder of the public-private partnership Carbon Mapper, who took part in the study.

“We’ve largely been in the dark, as a society, about actual emissions from landfills,” said Mr. Duren, a former NASA engineer and scientist. “This study pinpoints the gaps.”

Methane emissions from oil and gas production , as well as from livestock, have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. Like carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas that’s warming the world, methane acts like a blanket in the sky, trapping the sun’s heat.

And though methane lasts for a shorter time in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, it is more potent. Its warming effect is more than 80 times as powerful as the same amount of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that landfills are the third largest source of human-caused methane emissions in the United States, emitting as much greenhouse gas as 23 million gasoline cars driven for a year.

But those estimates have been largely based on computer modeling, rather than direct measurements. A big reason: It can be difficult and even dangerous for workers with methane “sniffers” to measure emissions on-site, walking up steep slopes or near active dump sites.

Organic waste like food scraps can emit copious amounts of methane when they decompose under conditions lacking oxygen, which can happen deep in landfills. Composting, on the other hand, generally doesn’t produce methane, which is why experts say it can be effective in reducing methane emissions.

For the new study, scientists gathered data from airplane flyovers using a technology called imaging spectrometers designed to measure concentrations of methane in the air. Between 2018 and 2022, they flew planes over 250 sites across 18 states, about 20 percent of the nation’s open landfills.

At more than half the landfills they surveyed, researchers detected emissions hot spots, or sizable methane plumes that sometimes lasted months or years. That suggested something had gone awry at the site, like a big leak of trapped methane from layers of long-buried, decomposing trash, the researchers said.

“You can sometimes get decades of trash that’s sitting under the landfill,” said Daniel H. Cusworth, a climate scientist at Carbon Mapper and the University of Arizona, who led the study. “We call it a garbage lasagna.”

Many landfills are fitted with specialized wells and pipes that collect the methane gas that seeps out of rotting garbage in order to either burn it off or sometimes to use it to generate electricity or heat. But those wells and pipes can leak.

The researchers said pinpointing leaks doesn’t just help scientists get a better picture of emissions, it also helps landfill operators fix leaks.

Overseas, the picture can be less clear, particularly in countries where landfills aren’t strictly regulated. Previous surveys using satellite technology have estimated that globally, landfill methane makes up nearly 20 percent of human-linked methane emissions.

“The waste sector clearly is going to be a critical part of society’s ambition to slash methane emissions,” said Mr. Duren of Carbon Mapper. “We’re not going to meet the global methane pledge targets just by slashing oil and gas emissions.”

A growing constellation of methane-detecting satellites could provide a fuller picture. Last month, another nonprofit, the Environmental Defense Fund, launched MethaneSat , a satellite dedicated to tracking methane emissions around the world.

Carbon Mapper, with partners including NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Institute, and the University of Arizona, intends to launch the first of its own methane-tracking satellites later this year.

Hiroko Tabuchi covers the intersection of business and climate for The Times. She has been a journalist for more than 20 years in Tokyo and New York. More about Hiroko Tabuchi

Learn More About Climate Change

Have questions about climate change? Our F.A.Q. will tackle your climate questions, big and small .

Decades of buried trash in landfills is releasing methane , a powerful greenhouse gas, at higher rates than previously estimated, a study says.

Ocean Conservation Namibia is disentangling a record number of seals, while broadcasting the perils of marine debris in a largely feel-good way. Here’s how .

To decarbonize the electrical grid, companies are finding creative ways to store energy during periods of low demand in carbon dioxide storage balloons .

New satellite-based research reveals how land along the East Coast is slumping into the ocean, compounding the danger from global sea level rise . A major culprit: overpumping of groundwater.

Did you know the ♻ symbol doesn’t mean something is actually recyclable ? Read on about how we got here, and what can be done.

Australian Antarctic Division 'struggling' to use $528 million icebreaker for science voyages, review says

When the RSV Nuyina was first launched in 2021, the state-of-the-art vessel was described as a "Disneyland for scientists".

However, an internal review that the federal government initially refused to release has raised questions about whether Australia's only icebreaker is fulfilling its research capabilities.

In addition to its remit of transporting cargo, fuel and personnel to Antarctic stations, the $528 million ship is supposed to provide 60 days a year of dedicated marine science voyages.

But despite completing multiple resupply missions since coming into service, as well as a rescue operation , the Nuyina has yet to conduct a single expedition focused solely on marine science.

A red ship moves through broken up sea ice.

A previously scheduled science voyage to the marginal ice zone was cancelled last year because of delays caused by mechanical problems on the vessel.

It means the first research-focused voyage won't occur until early 2025, when scientists take part in a marine campaign at the Denman Glacier .

The dearth of science-based voyages to date is one of several issues raised in a report the federal environment department declined to release to the ABC.

The report, which was marked as "sensitive", was only made public after Liberal senator Jonathon Duniam successfully moved a motion in the Senate ordering the production of documents.

Prepared by the Department of Finance in February, the report said Australia's reliance on one icebreaker to meet multiple demands is leaving some of the ship's capabilities under-utilised.

"The [Australian Antarctic Division] is struggling to allow sufficient time on the ship to deliver marine science," the report stated.

"This is beginning to (and could continue to) raise concerns within the scientific community."

Two people, one wearing a mask, stand dockside next to a large ship

According to the report, discussions with the government were intended to take place regarding "the suitability of a single vessel operating model for AAD".

"Given Antarctic science is an important benefit that government sought from the investment in the RSV Nuyina, there may be a need to consider whether the single vessel model is going to achieve all that is required from government in the Australian Antarctic Program," it stated.

The report does not include comments about whether a second vessel should be considered to overcome the competing demands.

But Senator Duniam told the ABC alternative options should be on the government's radar.

"If we're serious about being a leader in the region — and the region is not just the Indo-Pacific, but also the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic territories — we need to make sure we do have appropriate resources deployed," he said.

"And if it does mean we need to consider an alternative model to supplement the role of the RSV Nuyina, then we should look to that.

"There are a range of measures that could be deployed, including the chartering of vessels for certain periods of time throughout the calendar year when appropriate."

'Significant impact' if risks transpire

The report is based on a review that examined eight focus areas surrounding the vessel, including governance, risk management and readiness for service.

Overall, the report said it "appears probable" the AAD will be able to realise the Nuyina's anticipated benefits.

However, it flagged several issues that could have significant consequences.

"Remaining questions about the resolution of past propulsion system issues, as well as the incomplete commissioning work (especially in relation to science systems) brings the possibility the vessel is unavailable for key roles," it stated.

The report also suggested the private company contracted to operate the vessel, Serco, could face increased crewing costs, and that "AAD may find itself without an operator for the vessel".

It said the AAD was aware of the issues and had plans in place to respond.

"However, if one or several of these [issues] transpired, they would have a significant impact on the government's ability to achieve the benefits expected from the investment," it said.

The report also flagged "infrastructure gaps" in Hobart and at Antarctic stations that were impacting the efficiency and effectiveness of the use of the ship's capabilities.

One of the gaps relates to the wharf where the Nuyina berths at Hobart's Macquarie Point, which is in need of a significant upgrade.

A large orange ship approaches a bridge span

Another issue is that the ship is unable to refuel in Hobart because, due to safety concerns, it has not been given permission to travel under the Tasman Bridge in order to reach a nearby fuel depot.

It means the Nuyina must travel more than 600 kilometres to Burnie in Tasmania's north-west to refuel , adding almost $1 million to the AAD's annual fuel bill.

The review also noted that the Nuyina was "not well designed to support and re-supply Macquarie Island", where the AAD has a research station.

Work underway to address issues: AAD

The AAD said the Nuyina was one of the most complex scientific icebreakers in the world, and that it would serve Australia's interests for the next three decades.

"Over the past 12 months, RSV Nuyina has supported resupply activities at Australia's research stations including, delivering personnel, cargo and equipment," an AAD spokesperson said.

"The Nuyina has also assisted critical Australian Antarctic Program science activities, including sea floor mapping, the Southern Ocean plankton survey, the deployment of whale and krill monitoring devices and support for the Denman Terrestrial Campaign."

The spokesman also said many of the issues raised in the report were being managed effectively.

"The gateway review found the overall delivery confidence for the project to design and build Nuyina was good," they said.

"It also noted that the AAD has completed work, or has work underway to address all issues."

X (formerly Twitter)

Australian Antarctic icebreaker's $875,000 refuelling debacle revealed in a single image

Stressed former Antarctic researcher had 'four cracked molars', quit on advice from her dentist

Ecologist Dana Bergstrom kneels among rocks by the sea

Authorities deem new icebreaker unsafe to pass under Tasman Bridge, meaning 700km trip to refuel

Academic Research
Earth Sciences
Marine Biology
Science and Research Management

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Education, training and skills
Inspections and performance of education providers

Research review series: science

Published 29 April 2021

Applies to England

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected] .

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/research-review-series-science/research-review-series-science

Introduction

This review explores the literature relating to the field of science education. Its purpose is to identify factors that can contribute to high-quality school science curriculums, assessment, pedagogy and systems. We will use this understanding of subject quality to examine how science is taught in England’s schools. We will then publish a subject report to share what we have learned.

The purpose of this research review and the intended audience is outlined more fully in the ‘Principles behind Ofsted’s research reviews and subject reports’. [footnote 1]

Since there are a variety of ways that schools can construct and teach a high-quality science curriculum, it is important to recognise that there is no singular way of achieving high-quality science education.

In this review, we have:

outlined the national context in relation to science

summarised our review of research into factors that can affect quality of education in science

considered curriculum progression in science, pedagogy, assessment and the impact of school leaders’ decisions on provision

The review draws on a range of sources, including our ‘Education inspection framework: overview of research’ and our 3 phases of curriculum research. [footnote 2]

We hope that through this work, we will contribute to raising the quality of science education for all young people.

Ambition for all

The performance of pupils who study science in England is significantly above the average performance of pupils in other countries. Over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the number of pupils wanting to study science beyond age 16. However, there is emerging evidence from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), key stage 2 national sample tests and Ofsted’s own research into curriculum that suggests the picture is not an improving one for all pupils and may be deteriorating. This makes the findings of this review particularly significant, not only because it identifies features associated with high-quality science education but because it also shines a light on some of the barriers that prevent their implementation.

Aims of science education

Science has been designated a core subject of the national curriculum, alongside mathematics and English, since the Education Reform Act of 1988. As such, a science education forms an important entitlement for all young people. [footnote 3]

Although the precise purposes of science education have been contested for some time, [footnote 4] there is general consensus that it involves pupils learning a body of knowledge relating to the products and practices of science. [footnote 5] By learning about the products of science, such as atoms and cells, pupils are able to explain the material world and ‘develop a sense of excitement and curiosity about natural phenomena’. [footnote 6] By learning about the practices of science, pupils learn how scientific knowledge becomes established through scientific enquiry. By learning this, pupils appreciate the nature and status of scientific knowledge: for example, knowing it is open to revision in the light of new evidence.

As pupils learn science, they also learn about its uses and significance to society and their own lives. [footnote 7] This will highlight the significant contribution science has made in the past. For example, by eradicating smallpox and discovering penicillin. But pupils will also learn about the continuing importance of science in solving global challenges such as climate change, food availability, controlling disease and access to water. [footnote 8]

Science education also provides the foundation for a range of diverse and valuable careers that are crucial for economic, environmental and social development. [footnote 9]

National context

Primary and the early years foundation stage.

Pupils begin their formal science education in the early years foundation stage ( EYFS ). This involves learning foundational knowledge primarily through the ‘understanding the world: the natural world’ [footnote 10] area of learning. This provides a number of rich contexts for pupils to learn a wide range of vocabulary. [footnote 11] These words form the beginnings of scientific concepts that will be built on in Year 1 and beyond. Because pupils develop their scientific and non-scientific vocabulary during this time, the EYFS should not just be considered as preparation for learning further science in Year 1.

At primary school, the national curriculum outlines what content pupils learn. [footnote 12] However, there is concern that science is being squeezed out of the primary school curriculum. This has coincided with the removal of primary national curriculum tests. [footnote 13] For example, a ‘state of the nation’ report for primary science education in 2020 revealed that, when taught weekly, science is taught for an average of 1 hour and 24 minutes per week. [footnote 14] On average, younger year groups received fewer hours of weekly lessons. Only 31% of respondents to the same survey said their senior leaders saw science as ‘very important’. This contrasts with 88% for English and 86% for mathematics.

Ofsted’s own research into the primary curriculum highlights a similarly concerning picture. [footnote 15] Inspectors found that, in the majority of primary schools, disproportionate amounts of curriculum time were being spent on English and mathematics, often to prepare for tests. This significantly reduced the amount of curriculum time available to teach science, which in turn led to narrowing of the curriculum.

Evidence of a decline in primary science is further supported by the performance of Year 6 pupils in biennial national sample tests. [footnote 16] In 2018, just 21.2% of the 8,139 Year 6 pupils tested were estimated to have reached the expected standard in science. [footnote 17] This is a decrease of nearly 7 percentage points since 2014 when the current methodology for national sample tests was first introduced. [footnote 18] While such paper and pencil tests cannot measure all the important outcomes of a science education, they are nevertheless an important indicator of curriculum impact.

A recent report from The Ogden Trust and The University of Manchester describes the realities of primary pupils’ science learning. [footnote 19] It shows that pupils regularly experience ‘fun activities’ without developing a deep understanding of the associated scientific concepts. Indeed, a recent survey shows that only just over half of pupils in Years 7 and 8 felt that the science they had learned in primary school prepared them well for learning science at secondary school. [footnote 20]

This decline in the status of primary science is particularly concerning given the importance of these foundational years in influencing pupils’ scientific aspirations [footnote 21] and future learning. [footnote 22]

In England, science is assessed at key stage 4 as either combined science worth 2 GCSE grades, or as 3 separate science GCSEs, commonly referred to as triple science. A minority of pupils complete entry level or vocational qualifications. At key stage 5, pupils can choose to study A levels in the 3 sciences, as well as environmental science. There is also a range of vocational science qualifications. Health and science T levels begin in autumn 2021. [footnote 23]

In 2019, 26.6% of pupils were entered for triple science and just over 95% of pupils were entered for English Baccalaureate ( EBacc ) science. [footnote 24] This is an increase of over 30 percentage points since the EBacc science measure was first introduced in 2010. This has coincided with a large decrease in the number of pupils being entered for BTEC applied science at key stage 4. [footnote 25] The number of pupils studying A levels in biology, chemistry and physics is also encouraging, being at its highest level for 10 years in 2019. [footnote 26]

Despite the increase in the number of pupils wanting to study the sciences beyond age 16, it is important to remember that these pupils are the exception. [footnote 27] Indeed, research shows that many pupils leave school without a basic knowledge or appreciation of science [footnote 28] and that their interest declines with time spent at school. [footnote 29] Often, this decrease in interest and motivation occurs when pupils have to make so-called ‘choices’ about science pathways. [footnote 30] For example, many pupils wrongly assume that science is not for them when they are prevented from choosing triple science at GCSE. This is particularly problematic when the decision to study triple science comes too early.

Evidence from analysis of school timetables in England suggests that insufficient time is often allocated to teach triple science. [footnote 31] This means that some schools restrict triple science to just high-attaining pupils who are presumed to be able to cope with the more intensive timetable.

Recent findings from TIMSS 2019 show that England’s performance in science at Year 9 has decreased significantly compared with 2015, albeit remaining well above the TIMSS average. [footnote 32] England’s performance is now significantly lower than in any previous TIMSS cycle. This contrasts with the trend in mathematics achievement, which has seen an increase in the performance of Year 9 pupils over the last 24 years. Of particular concern is the widening gap between the highest- and lowest-performing Year 9 pupils in science. Indeed, the proportion of pupils performing below the lowest TIMSS science benchmark has doubled since 2015.

Research commissioned by the Education Endowment Foundation shows that disadvantaged pupils make poorer progress in science at every stage of their education, although this gap is not unique to science. [footnote 33] These pupils are also less likely to take a science subject at A level and beyond.

Workforce challenges

Any attempt to capture the national context for science education needs to recognise that schools face a number of challenges in recruiting and retaining specialist science teachers.

The 2019 school workforce census shows that 26.6% of teaching hours in physics were taught by teachers with no relevant post-A-level qualifications. [footnote 34] The figure was 17.3% and 6.9% for chemistry and biology respectively. At primary, estimates suggest that just 5% of teachers hold specialised science degrees and teaching qualifications. [footnote 35]

Recruitment into teacher training is also challenging. Although in 2019 the number of trainees specialising in biology exceeded the Department for Education’s recruitment target, chemistry and physics targets were missed. They reached only 70% and 43%, respectively. [footnote 36]

Curriculum progression: what it means to get better at science

The school science curriculum sets out what it means ‘to get better’ at science. Expertise in science requires pupils to build at least 2 forms, or categories, of knowledge. The first is ‘substantive’ knowledge, which is knowledge of the products of science, such as models, laws and theories. The second category is ‘disciplinary knowledge’, which is knowledge of the practices of science. This teaches pupils how scientific knowledge becomes established and gets revised. Importantly, this involves pupils learning about the many different types of scientific enquiry. It should not be reduced to learning a single scientific method. In high-quality science curriculums, knowledge is carefully sequenced to reveal the interplay between substantive and disciplinary knowledge. This ensures that pupils not only know ‘the science’; they also know the evidence for it and can use this knowledge to work scientifically.

Learning science: from novice to expert

Research exploring the differences between expert and novice scientists is useful to inform our understanding of what successful learning in science looks like. Experts differ from novices not only in the extent of their domain-specific knowledge, but also in how this knowledge is organised in their memory. [footnote 37] Experts know more science than novices and this knowledge is better structured. When knowledge is well structured, it becomes meaningful, flexible and easier to access. This knowledge can then be used to solve complex, and interesting, scientific problems without overloading working memory. [footnote 38]

Organisation of these cognitive structures is a good predictor of pupils’ problem-solving abilities in science. [footnote 39] Expert pupils organise their knowledge according to major scientific principles, such as conservation of energy. They then use these principles to solve problems. [footnote 40] Expertise in science is also associated with being able to connect knowledge between different levels when thinking about problems. [footnote 41] This might, for example, involve explaining what is happening at the cellular level by referring to what molecules are doing at the submicroscopic level.

There are at least 2 important implications of this research for establishing our understanding of a high-quality science education.

First, because expertise comes from domain-specific knowledge and not generic skills, [footnote 42] pupils need to develop an extensive and connected knowledge base. When pupils learn new knowledge, it should become integrated with the knowledge they already have. This ensures that learning is meaningful. [footnote 43] In science, pupils need their knowledge to be organised around the most important scientific concepts, which predict and explain the largest number of phenomena. [footnote 44] An ambitious curriculum therefore needs to identify the most important concepts for pupils to learn. It must also teach pupils how these concepts are related so that, over time, the logical structure of each scientific discipline is made explicit. [footnote 45] For example, pupils studying biology should learn how the theory of evolution provides a central structure to organise and connect many other concepts such as variation, adaptation and natural selection.

Second, the limited capacity of human working memory means that the curriculum should break down complex concepts and procedures into meaningful ‘chunks’ of content. [footnote 46] These ‘chunks’, or components, can then be sequenced in the curriculum over time. This allows pupils to successfully build knowledge of science concepts and their relationships over multiple years, without working memory being overloaded.

Pupils’ success in learning science and, as a result, their perception of being ‘good’ at it are crucial for developing their interest in the subject. For example, research shows that a lack of confidence is a key contributor towards girls’ reluctance to study physics at A level. [footnote 47]

How this review classifies scientific knowledge

As outlined above, at the core of scientific expertise lies extensive, connected knowledge. This means that as pupils travel through the school curriculum, they need to build their knowledge of scientific concepts and procedures. By doing so, pupils can reason scientifically about phenomena with increasing sophistication and can use their knowledge to work scientifically with increasing expertise.

A useful framework for constructing science curriculums makes the distinction between the following:

substantive knowledge (knowledge of the products of science, such as concepts, laws, theories and models): [footnote 48] this is referred to as scientific knowledge and conceptual understanding in the national curriculum

disciplinary knowledge (knowledge of how scientific knowledge is generated and grows): this is specified in the ‘working scientifically’ sections of the national curriculum and it includes knowing how to carry out practical procedures

This type of distinction is useful for curriculum design because it reflects how knowledge is arranged and used in the sciences. [footnote 49] By learning substantive and disciplinary knowledge, pupils not only know ‘the science’; they also know the evidence for it.

Substantive knowledge: the products of science

Substantive knowledge in science is organised according to the 3 subject disciplines: biology, chemistry and physics. Earth science is frequently considered to be a fourth but is typically taught through the other 3 disciplines in England’s schools. Each discipline has its own ontological, methodological and epistemic rules. [footnote 50] But they all belong to ‘science’ because they are disciplines that explain the material world. Within each discipline, there are subdisciplines [footnote 51] such as cell biology, electromagnetics and organic chemistry. These are characterised by the methods and scientific theories they use.

Each scientific discipline gives pupils a unique perspective to explain the world around them. This means that as pupils progress through the curriculum, they need to develop knowledge about the similarities and the differences between each scientific discipline. [footnote 52] Biology, for example, seeks to understand living organisms and life. It must take account of complex systems involving interactions between genes, the environment and random chance. [footnote 53] Physics, in contrast, typically assumes that entities behave identically. It ‘builds its explanations on measurable quantities that can be put into numerical relationships’. [footnote 54] Chemistry differs again in that it draws heavily on the use of models and modelling [footnote 55] to explain the behaviour of matter and routinely involves the synthesis of the objects it studies. [footnote 56]

Despite these differences, each discipline draws extensively on common concepts too, such as energy and the particle model. This means that there should be a clear rationale for when and where these inter-disciplinary concepts are first introduced in the curriculum and how they develop over time. [footnote 57] Pupils will also need to learn that important scientific discoveries, such as the structure of DNA, are often made by scientists from different disciplines working together.

Disciplinary knowledge: knowing how science establishes knowledge through scientific enquiry

Disciplinary knowledge is a curricular term. It describes what pupils learn about the diverse ways [footnote 58] that science establishes and grows knowledge through scientific enquiry.

Acquiring disciplinary knowledge is an important goal of the national curriculum. [footnote 59] This goes beyond simply doing practical work or collecting data. [footnote 60] It includes learning about the concepts and procedures that scientists use to develop scientific explanations which, in turn, have implications for the status and nature of the scientific knowledge produced. [footnote 61]

The national curriculum specifies what disciplinary knowledge pupils will need to know and remember through the ‘working scientifically’ sections of the programmes of study. [footnote 62]

There are at least 4 content areas [footnote 63] through which pupils make progress when learning disciplinary knowledge:

Knowledge of methods that scientists use to answer questions. This covers the diverse methods that scientists use to generate knowledge, [footnote 64] not just fair testing, which is often over emphasised in science classrooms and curriculums. [footnote 65] For example, use of models, chemical synthesis, classification, description and the identification of correlations (pattern-seeking) have played important roles, alongside experimentation, in establishing scientific knowledge. [footnote 66]

Knowledge of apparatus and techniques, including measurement. This covers how to carry out specific procedures and protocols safely and with proficiency in the laboratory and field. This is a particularly important area for enabling progression on to science courses beyond GCSE and at university. [footnote 67] It includes the accurate measurement and recording of data. Pupils learn that all measurement involves some error and scientists put steps in place to reduce this.

Knowledge of data analysis. This covers how to process and present scientific data in a variety of ways to explore relationships and communicate results to others. Pupils learn about different types of tables and graphs and how to identify correlations.
Knowledge of how science uses evidence to develop explanations. This covers how evidence is used, alongside substantive knowledge, to draw tentative but valid conclusions. It includes the distinction between correlation and causation and knowing that explanation is distinct from data and does not simply emerge from it. [footnote 68] Pupils learn how scientific models, laws and theories develop over time, including the importance of technology and the role of the scientific community in peer review.

Research shows that disciplinary knowledge is often framed as only ‘skills’ in school curriculums and pupils are assumed to pick up these skills by ‘doing’. [footnote 69] However, this assumption fails to recognise that disciplinary thinking and carrying out practical investigations skilfully are dependent on pupils having learned a domain of knowledge. [footnote 70]

It is therefore important to recognise that disciplinary knowledge, like substantive knowledge, is underpinned by knowledge of procedures and concepts ( Table 1 ). The curriculum therefore needs to break down complex disciplinary practices, such as drawing graphs, validating experimental data or using a thermometer, into their component knowledge. [footnote 71] The curriculum can then outline how pupils’ disciplinary knowledge advances over time. [footnote 72]

Table 1: Knowledge can be categorised according to its disciplinary nature and how it is used by an individual

Scientific enquiry integrates substantive and disciplinary knowledge, as explained in the table above, into an overall strategy to answer questions about the material world.

Disciplinary and substantive knowledge: the importance of interplay

There is a risk that by categorising knowledge as either disciplinary or substantive in the curriculum, it is taught separately. For example, pupils may be taught disciplinary knowledge only in standalone ‘skills’ units. This should be avoided. [footnote 74] A curriculum focusing on either substantive or disciplinary knowledge leads to at least 2 problematic models of curriculum design that misrepresent the discipline of science.

The first problematic curriculum model treats science as only a body of substantive knowledge. Here, pupils learn substantive facts but are unaware of how this knowledge developed and became accepted. This leads to pupils developing a naive understanding of the status of scientific knowledge. [footnote 75] For example, they may think Darwin’s theory of evolution is simply a good guess or that ‘science is complete’. A focus on only substantive knowledge may also lead to misconceptions. Pupils may, for example, think a picture of a scientific model of an atom inside a textbook is what an atom is, rather than seeing it as a representation. By viewing science as complete, pupils are also unable to respond intelligently to scientific information in the real world, [footnote 76] which often involves contradictory claims being made from the same data.

At the other extreme, a curriculum that focuses only on working scientifically (disciplinary knowledge) is equally problematic. This type of curricular thinking is often associated with the ‘process view’ that characterises science by its methods. [footnote 77] Curriculums adopting this view of science focus on teaching general skills such as ‘observing’ or ‘classifying’ that are assumed to be generalisable across different domains of knowledge. This is problematic. It unintentionally disregards the importance of content and context in science. Research identifies that skills such as observation [footnote 78] or identifying significant variables [footnote 79] depend on context and substantive knowledge. This is because what scientists observe, or choose to control in an experiment, depends on what they know. For example, classifying flowering plants scientifically requires knowledge of floral parts to place specimens in appropriate groups. However, classifying insects requires knowledge of body parts.

A solution to these problems is to organise the school curriculum so that disciplinary knowledge is embedded within the substantive content of biology, chemistry and physics. This enables pupils to see the important interplay between both categories of knowledge, allowing pupils to:

appreciate the nature of substantive knowledge by knowing the evidence for it

use disciplinary knowledge together with substantive knowledge to ask and answer scientific questions by carrying out different types of scientific enquiry

recognise the power and limitations of science and consider associated personal, social, economic and environmental implications. This includes making decisions based on scientific evidence and learning about socio-scientific issues

Scientific enquiry and enquiry-based instruction are not the same

We will consider research relating to enquiry-based instruction later, in relation to pedagogy. However, it is important to clarify at this point that disciplinary knowledge of scientific enquiry, that forms a curricular goal and enables pupils to work scientifically, should not be confused with enquiry-based teaching approaches. [footnote 80] These are pedagogical approaches that aim to develop pupils’ scientific knowledge by getting them to take part in practices that resemble some aspects of scientific enquiry.

Based on the above, high-quality science education may have the following features

The curriculum is planned to build increasingly sophisticated knowledge of the products (substantive knowledge) and practices (disciplinary knowledge) of science.

Disciplinary knowledge (identified in the ‘working scientifically’ sections of the national curriculum) comprises knowledge of concepts as well as procedures.

When pupils develop their disciplinary knowledge, they learn about the diverse ways that science generates and grows knowledge through scientific enquiry. This is not reduced to a single scientific method or taken to mean just data collection.

The curriculum outlines how disciplinary knowledge advances over time and teaches pupils about the similarities and differences between each science.

Pupils are not expected to acquire disciplinary knowledge simply as a by-product of taking part in practical activities. Disciplinary knowledge is taught.

Scientific processes such as observation, classification or identifying variables are always taught in relation to specific substantive knowledge. They are not seen as generalisable skills.

Organising knowledge within the subject curriculum

A high-quality science curriculum not only identifies the important concepts and procedures for pupils to learn, it also plans for how pupils will build knowledge of these over time. This starts in the early years. Research shows that high-quality science curriculums are coherent. This means the curriculums are organised so that pupils’ knowledge of concepts develops from component knowledge that is sequenced according to the logical structure of the scientific disciplines. In this way, pupils learn how knowledge connects in science as they ‘see’ its underlying conceptual structure. Importantly, this sequencing pays careful attention to how to pair substantive with disciplinary knowledge, so that disciplinary knowledge is always learned within the most appropriate substantive contexts.

Sequencing substantive knowledge

There are several reasons why pupils may find learning science difficult. [footnote 81] These difficulties stem from the intrinsic nature of science – that is, the abstract and counter-intuitive nature of scientific knowledge and its use of language – as well as the limited capacity of human working memory. [footnote 82] An individual’s working memory capacity correlates strongly with their performance in science. [footnote 83] Pupils with little prior knowledge are particularly susceptible to working memory limitations because they do not yet have the necessary conceptual frameworks to filter out what matters from what does not. [footnote 84]

This means that careful curriculum design, where new knowledge is broken down into meaningful components and introduced sequentially, can support all pupils to learn scientific concepts. This includes those with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND). [footnote 85] Danili and Reid showed that performance in chemistry could be significantly improved by redesigning teaching materials. [footnote 86] This involved using carefully selected analogies and presenting knowledge in steps. Importantly, this study did not alter what chemistry was taught and pupils’ performance did not vary between teachers. Rather, improvements in learning were likely due to changes made to the teaching materials and ordering of content. Similar results have been found in relation to teaching genetics at school. [footnote 87] However, research identifies that many science curriculums present teachers and pupils with an arbitrary collection of topics introduced in an ad-hoc fashion. [footnote 88] Pupils then fail to develop any conceptual frameworks through which to organise and make sense of their scientific knowledge. This means that it is difficult to use and is easily forgotten. Often, this type of curricular thinking identifies interesting things for pupils to do without rigorous scientific content. [footnote 89]

Curriculum coherence: building conceptual frameworks

Top-achieving countries in TIMSS use the principle of ‘curriculum coherence’ to organise their national science curriculums. [footnote 90] This involves teaching topics – and the substantive content within them – in a particular sequence that reflects the hierarchical structure [footnote 91] of the scientific disciplines. [footnote 92] Research from the United States suggests that this curriculum journey needs to start in the early years when pupils are introduced to a wide range of vocabulary and phenomena. [footnote 93] This is because there is a clear relationship between young children’s general science knowledge and their later science achievement. If gaps in pupils’ knowledge are not addressed early on, evidence suggests that these will continue into secondary school and beyond.

As pupils progress through the science curriculum, new knowledge gets systematically integrated into pre-existing knowledge. This forms larger concepts and new ones, which in turn allow pupils to operate at more abstract levels. [footnote 94] For example, pupils will integrate their knowledge of mass and volume into their concept of ‘density’. In this way, new knowledge depends on what pupils have already learned. Indeed, results from a 12-year longitudinal study show that early introduction to science concepts in primary school positively influences subsequent science learning throughout secondary school. [footnote 95] As these pupils progressed through school, they had fewer and fewer misconceptions compared with pupils who did not do the intervention.

Schmidt, Wang and McKnight found that strong curriculums began with teaching a few of the most fundamental topics of science, such as classification of matter. [footnote 96] These topics remained for the duration of schooling and were added to. This enables important scientific concepts to be revisited and built on over prolonged periods of time. [footnote 97] Importantly, revisiting did not involve repetition of previously taught knowledge. This was expected to be remembered. Instead, it created the opportunity for new knowledge to become part of an emerging conceptual structure, which deepened over the period of schooling. For example, a separate study found that repeated exposure to the concept of energy, spaced out over years rather than weeks, was associated with a deeper understanding of it. [footnote 98] This was because knowledge learned in one unit could be built on and revised in subsequent units, in a range of contexts. By using more than one context in this way, pupils can learn to distinguish between the deep structure of the discipline and the task-specific features. [footnote 99]

Sequencing disciplinary knowledge within the most appropriate substantive contexts

Like substantive knowledge, evidence suggests that disciplinary knowledge should be articulated and sequenced in the curriculum. This supports progression of important disciplinary concepts [footnote 100] and procedures.

Sequencing disciplinary knowledge needs to first take account of its hierarchical nature (for example, teach variables before validity) and then the progression of substantive knowledge. This is because certain substantive concepts provide a better context to learn certain disciplinary knowledge than others. [footnote 101] For example, the particle nature of matter provides an excellent context for pupils to learn aspects of disciplinary knowledge about scientific models. Evolution would not be the best substantive context to teach pupils how to design experiments. [footnote 102] This means that a high-quality science curriculum will identify the best substantive contexts to teach specific disciplinary knowledge.

Once disciplinary knowledge is introduced, it should be practised in different topics and disciplines. This allows pupils to learn how the same disciplinary knowledge is used in different substantive contexts. [footnote 103] For example, knowledge of the concept ‘variable’ can be used alongside substantive knowledge when pupils draw graphs to reveal scientific laws such as Hooke’s Law, or when planning an experiment to investigate how light affects the rate of photosynthesis. In this way, disciplinary knowledge is not forgotten but is built on.

Coherence between mathematics and science

As well as seeking coherence within and between the scientific disciplines, pupils need to make relevant connections between knowledge from other subject disciplines, for example between mathematics and physics.

Subject leaders and teachers of mathematics and science should work together to understand how and when knowledge taught in their respective subjects is similar and different. [footnote 104] Where there are good reasons for differences, it is important that these are made clear to pupils, including any rationale for this. Pupils will then be clear on what knowledge to use and when. It is also important that teachers do not assume that pupils can easily transfer their learning from mathematics to the science classroom. [footnote 105] Pupils will need to be taught how to use mathematics in science.

Importantly, research shows that there is an asymmetry in the dependence between school science and mathematics. [footnote 106] This means that science is dependent on mathematics, but the opposite is not true. Collaboration between departments should therefore not be taken for granted by leaders because mathematics teachers have less to gain than science teachers. [footnote 107] Strong support from senior leadership teams is therefore necessary to make sure collaboration takes place when subject leaders create and refine curriculum plans.

In the early years, pupils are introduced to a wide-ranging vocabulary that categorises and describes the natural world. These words are not too technical but provide the ‘seeds’ for developing scientific concepts that will be built on in later years.

Attainment targets, specification points and the EYFS educational programmes are broken down into their component knowledge.

Substantive knowledge is sequenced so that pupils build their knowledge of important concepts such as photosynthesis, magnetism and substance throughout their time at school.

Knowledge is sequenced to make the deep structure of the scientific disciplines explicit. This allows teachers and pupils to see how knowledge is connected.

Disciplinary knowledge is sequenced to take account of:

its hierarchical structure

the best substantive contexts in which to teach it.

Once disciplinary knowledge is introduced, it is used and developed in a range of different substantive contexts.

Planning for progression takes account of what is taught in other subjects. For example, the science curriculum should be coherent with what is taught in mathematics. Where there are differences, these are made explicit to pupils and teachers.

Other curricular considerations

Curricular design needs to consider other factors, beyond coherence, that research has identified as being important for enabling progression in science. For example, evidence shows the importance of practice when learning science. Practice makes sure that learned knowledge is accessible and not forgotten. Pupils also need to learn about the different ways that scientists engage in their work through reading, writing, talking and representing science. There is also evidence from research into scientific misconceptions that suggests they can be addressed and pre-empted by changing what is taught and when. This includes making sure pupils are aware of the limitations of models and shortcuts.

Time in the curriculum for consolidation

A curriculum that includes time for extensive practice will help pupils to consolidate knowledge before moving on to new content. This involves pupils repeatedly solving problems that increase incrementally in complexity and receiving feedback. [footnote 108] This ensures that knowledge becomes more accessible over time, which frees up pupils’ working memory capacity. Eventually, this allows pupils to engage in more complex problem-solving tasks. [footnote 109]

Consolidation of knowledge takes time. The curriculum therefore needs to not just take account of when new component knowledge is introduced, but also ensure that there is sufficient time for this knowledge to be practised and securely remembered in long-term memory.

Practical procedures, such as using microscopes or heating apparatus, should also be practised regularly so that pupils do not forget what they have learned.

Reading, writing, talking and representing science

To learn about science, pupils need to learn about the different ways in which scientists engage in their work: through reading, talking, writing and representing science. [footnote 110] This is called disciplinary literacy. It is not the same as teaching generic literacy strategies needed to interpret any text. Instead, it involves pupils learning how individuals within a discipline ‘structure their discourses, invent and appropriate vocabulary and make grammatical choices’. [footnote 111]

Research shows, however, that pupils are routinely expected to pick up knowledge of disciplinary literacy implicitly. [footnote 112] By defining explicitly in the curriculum what aspects of disciplinary literacy pupils need to know, and why, pupils can be made aware of the aspects of literacy that are peculiar to science. For example, pupils will need to learn how to read and write in the passive voice and learn that many words have multiple meanings depending on context, for example ‘cell’ and ‘model’. [footnote 113]

Misconceptions and the curriculum

Some substantive concepts are more difficult to learn because the scientific knowledge conflicts with everyday knowledge. [footnote 114] Often, these concepts are from subject areas rich with sensory experiences that pupils encounter outside of the classroom. For example, Newtonian mechanics and heat and temperature are concepts where, despite careful instruction, pupils frequently maintain their misconceptions. For example, many pupils (and adults) think that objects require a force to keep moving or that insulating cold items will warm them up. [footnote 115]

These misconceptions are not just ‘errors’ because they are functional in everyday life and so get reinforced. For example, shops sell plant food, even though plants make their own food through photosynthesis. Misconceptions can also form pervasive barriers to learning science because they compete with the scientific idea in pupils’ minds. [footnote 116]

Research shows that experts are better than novices at suppressing misconceptions, as opposed to not having them. [footnote 117] The implications of this for curriculum design are twofold. First, pupils will not only need to know why a scientific idea is correct, they will also need to know why their misconception (prior knowledge) is scientifically wrong. This will require pupils to take a metacognitive perspective at times, where they reason about their concepts. [footnote 118] Research suggests that drawing on previous conceptions from the history of science is helpful here. [footnote 119] This allows pupils to see how their initial conceptions mirror those of early scientists. Second, pupils will need repeated opportunities in the curriculum, in a range of contexts, to practise activating the scientific conception while suppressing the misconception. This can involve exposing pupils to specific ‘conflicts’ once the scientific conception has been learned. [footnote 120]

If a misconception is challenged too early – before pupils have a scientific conception – it is likely they will rely on the misconception to make sense of the problem. [footnote 121] This may unintentionally consolidate the misconception that teachers were trying to subvert. For example, when pupils with low prior knowledge were presented with a refutation narrative about the day/night cycle, they mistakenly identified the misconception as factually correct information. [footnote 122] These mistakes were less likely when pupils had high prior knowledge.

When the gap between pupils’ prior knowledge and the scientific concept presented is too large, pupils are likely to ignore information or generate new misconceptions. [footnote 123] It is therefore important that the curriculum builds pupils’ knowledge incrementally, including all the intermediate steps. This should take account of existing conceptions pupils bring to school. The curriculum should also identify which substantive concepts pupils are likely to hold misconceptions in. It is then possible to assign extended curriculum time and specific content to teach those concepts. [footnote 124]

The curriculum itself can also be a source of misconceptions. This is because the order in which knowledge is taught can increase or decrease their likelihood. For example, many pupils consider that the world is made from solids, liquids and gases, as opposed to being made from different substances such as gold or carbon dioxide, each of which can be a solid, liquid or gas. [footnote 125] This is because many curriculums start by focusing on the particle theory in relation to solids, liquids and gases and not substances. This misconception then increases the likelihood of other misconceptions forming, for example many pupils go on to reason that gases, such as oxygen, do not have a mass. [footnote 126]

Using shortcuts and teaching models is another source of misconceptions. For example, many pupils taught the octet rule in chemistry go on to use this shortcut to incorrectly explain why specific chemicals react. [footnote 127] In science, pupils can be introduced to formula triangles to rearrange a simple formula without any knowledge of how it works. [footnote 128]

The problem is not necessarily the use of models or shortcuts in science, rather the curriculum should identify their limitations and their strengths so that pupils learn when they can and cannot be used. This includes making sure that pupils know that scientific models and teaching models are not an exact copy of reality, and that you can have more than one model for the same phenomenon. [footnote 129]

Sufficient curriculum time is allocated for pupils to embed what they have learned in long-term memory through extensive practice before moving on to new content.

The component knowledge pupils need in order to read, write, represent and talk science is identified and sequenced.

Curriculum plans consider how component knowledge introduced at one point in time influences future learning. This ensures that knowledge builds incrementally from pupils’ prior knowledge and so pupils’ misconceptions are less likely.

The curriculum anticipates where pupils are likely to hold misconceptions. These are explicitly addressed, and pupils learn how the misconception is different to the scientific idea.

Pupils know when and why models and rules can be used in science, which includes knowing what they can and cannot be used for.

Curriculum materials

The implementation of the intended curriculum can either support or undermine its coherence. Evidence suggests that quality textbooks, when used well, have a particularly important role to play in creating a coherent learning progression. They can also free up teachers’ time. In contrast, resources that focus teachers’ attention on activities, rather than on the underlying content, are not associated with positive science achievement.

Online resources and their (unintended) consequences

Curriculum materials, such as textbooks and worksheets, play an important role in implementing curriculum intent. The quality of these resources, and how they are used, can either support or undermine curriculum coherence. [footnote 130] For example, there is a growing trend of using websites to provide curriculum resources. [footnote 131] Websites usually include only smaller units or activities, meaning that a fully resourced curriculum will likely use resources from many different places. This is likely to disrupt curriculum coherence. All resources need to be carefully matched to curriculum intent, though the easy availability of online resources means that subject leaders should take extra care to ensure that they are not used in a piecemeal fashion.

Science kits

Science is taught using science kits in some primary schools and early years settings. These kits help teachers and pupils do experiments and other enquiry activities.

However, 2 systematic reviews suggest that using science kits is not associated with positive achievement in science. [footnote 132] This contrasts to positive effects for programmes that did not use kits but instead provided teachers with professional development that aimed to improve their science teaching generally. Slavin and others suggest that this may be an unintended consequence of science kits encouraging teachers to be too activity-based, rather than developing the underlying scientific concepts the activities were designed to teach. [footnote 133]

There is evidence that some textbooks in England have become narrowly linked to examinations [footnote 134] and can be a source of misconceptions. [footnote 135] However, high-quality science textbooks fulfil several valuable roles in supporting pupils’ learning. [footnote 136] For example, they can give clear delineation of content with a precise focus on key concepts and knowledge. They also provide a coherent learning progression within the subject.

Unfortunately, using textbooks has wrongly become associated with undermining teachers’ professionalism and autonomy. Research from the 2011 TIMSS survey found that textbook use in England’s schools, as a basis for instruction, is extremely low (Year 5: 4%; Year 9: 8%) compared with other high-performing countries such as Singapore (Year 5: 68%; Year 9: 52%) and Finland (Year 5: 94%; Year 9: 78%). [footnote 137] High-quality textbooks can also free teachers up to spend more time planning and adapting what they are going to teach. [footnote 138] They can also be a valuable source of subject knowledge for inexperienced teachers or those teaching outside of their subject area. [footnote 139]

Online resources match what the curriculum is intending pupils to learn and are not a source of errors/misconceptions.

If science kits are used, they help achieve the curriculum intent and the activities themselves do not become the curricular goal.

High-quality textbooks are used as an important resource for learning and teaching science.

Practical work

Practical work forms an important part of a science education. This is because it introduces pupils to the objects, phenomena and methods of study. However, research identifies that practical activities are often carried out with insufficient attention to their purpose. This means that it is often unclear whether a specific practical activity is helping pupils to learn a concept or whether it forms a goal of instruction. Evidence suggests that high-quality practical work has a clear purpose, forms part of a wider instructional sequence and takes place only when pupils have enough prior knowledge to learn from the activity. High-quality practical work is therefore dependent on a well-sequenced curriculum that specifies what pupils are learning and builds on what came before.

The purpose of practical work in relation to curriculum content

At its heart, science involves the study of the material world. Practical work [footnote 140] therefore forms a fundamental part of learning science [footnote 141] because it connects scientific concepts and procedures to the phenomena and methods being studied.

However, the specific purposes of practical work in school curriculums are not always clearly defined. [footnote 142] This means that discussions around effectiveness are sometimes confused and not particularly productive. [footnote 143] And although pupils enjoy practical work, [footnote 144] research suggests that this does not, by itself, foster long-term personal interests in the subject. [footnote 145] Indeed, teachers can often prioritise ‘wow’ moments without clear reference to any curricular goal. [footnote 146]

An important first step of effective practical work is to clarify its role in relation to specific curriculum content . This means defining whether the practical activity is carried out in order to help pupils to learn substantive or disciplinary knowledge or whether it is a curricular object in itself. For example, pupils may add sugar to water to help them learn substantive knowledge of dissolving. In this case, the concept of dissolving, and not the activity, was the goal. However, it may be that the activity itself is the goal. For example, pupils need to learn how to use a thermometer or how to carry out a specific type of scientific enquiry.

The distinction between pedagogy and curriculum is crucial when thinking about the purposes of practical work because it clarifies what the goal of instruction is, which in turn informs how the practical is completed and assessed.

Practical work to help pupils learn substantive knowledge

Millar outlines 5 related, but distinct, purposes of practical work in helping pupils learn substantive knowledge. [footnote 147] These are set out below in table 2, along with our own examples.

Importantly, he stresses that practical work should form ‘part of a broader teaching strategy’. This means that there needs to be sufficient time after or before the practical for pupils to interpret and explain the observations and measurements made, or that are about to be made.

Table 2: Millar’s different ways in which practical work can help pupils learn substantive knowledge

Practical work and disciplinary knowledge

Millar also identifies that practical work plays an important role in teaching specific disciplinary knowledge. [footnote 148] Often, this involves learning to use laboratory apparatus to carry out specific procedures, or about specific aspects of scientific enquiry. [footnote 149] At times, pupils will need to carry out their own scientific enquiries, so they can learn about the often dynamic and unpredictable aspects in which scientists work, [footnote 150] such as the challenges with measurement. [footnote 151]

For this to be successful, sufficient curriculum time needs to be allocated to teach underlying substantive and disciplinary knowledge first. [footnote 152] This is because carrying out a scientific enquiry requires knowledge of the concepts and procedures to guide what is done and why. [footnote 153] If this prior knowledge is not available, pupils will be participating in discovery learning, and not scientific enquiry.

Practical work through teachers’ use of demonstrations

Teachers’ demonstrations play an important pedagogical role in helping to teach scientific knowledge. [footnote 154] They allow pupils to encounter the objects they are learning about while minimising the distractions associated with handling apparatus and recording data. They can also be quick to set up and allow teachers to draw pupils’ attention to specific features. For example, there is considerable evidence that the control-of-variables strategy can be taught effectively using demonstrations without hands-on or virtual learning tasks. [footnote 155]

Another study found that pupils who watched teachers’ demonstrations outperformed those who watched video and reading interventions. [footnote 156] The authors suggest this effect was partly due to the high-quality questioning that took place.

Similar findings about the importance of teachers’ questioning and quality talk, during or after practical work, have been reported elsewhere. [footnote 157] These further support Millar’s view that effective practical work must form part of a wider instructional strategy. [footnote 158]

Practical work and objects of study

When planning for pupils to encounter the objects they are learning about, either through teachers’ demonstrations or whole-class practical work, teachers need to take account of the distinct and varied nature of each discipline. For example, there are concerns in biological education that there is a zoo-centric focus [footnote 159] and that pupils do not encounter the full range of living organisms in the classroom (such as fungi, protists, bacteria and plants).

Disciplinary encounters should take pupils beyond their everyday experiences. This should not be restricted by an over-cautious approach to health and safety, which can limit the range of practical work. [footnote 160]

Neither should these encounters be restricted to just making science relevant. They should also reveal phenomena that pupils have never encountered before. This includes meeting the national curriculum requirement that science must be taught in the laboratory, in the field and in other environments. [footnote 161] By doing so, pupils learn a more authentic perspective of science [footnote 162] – that science is not just done in laboratories.

Challenges of practical work

The potential of practical work to support pupils to learn scientific knowledge is not always realised. Abrahams and Millar found that practical work often involves pupils following cookbook-style ‘recipes’. [footnote 163] Although pupils could remember what they saw and did, there was little evidence that the practical activities helped pupils to learn the curriculum content, either immediately after the lesson or over a longer term. When questioned about why they carried out a specific practical procedure, many teachers simply referred to it being part of a scheme of work.

One important finding from this research was that many teachers held an inductive, ‘discovery-based’ view of learning. This meant they thought that scientific ideas would emerge simply by carrying out the practical. This has been dismissed previously on both cognitive and epistemological grounds. [footnote 164] That is, pupils will not arrive at the scientific conception that took scientists hundreds of years to develop. The authors instead suggest that pupils need to have the scientific knowledge introduced before the practical so they can link theory to observation. This is especially important when practical work is being used in connection to purposes 3 to 5 in Table 2. [footnote 165] In these purposes, pupils learn abstract ideas that they can only make sense of if they already have extensive substantive knowledge. Other studies have found similar challenges with using practical work in primary schools. [footnote 166]

Research is therefore clear that it should not be assumed that pupils will acquire abstract, and often counterintuitive, ideas simply by taking part in a practical activity. Rather, practical work should form just a part of a wider instructional sequence and pupils should have sufficient prior knowledge to learn from the activity.

The curriculum is sequenced so that pupils have the necessary disciplinary and substantive knowledge to carry out practical work successfully and learn from it.

The purpose of practical work is clear in relation to curriculum content so that practical activities can be set up and managed to develop pupils’ disciplinary and/or substantive knowledge.

Practical activities form part of a wider instructional sequence that gives pupils time to connect theory to observation.

Pupils are not expected to learn disciplinary knowledge only through taking part in practical work – disciplinary knowledge should be taught using the most effective methods.

Pupils encounter the full range of objects and phenomena they are studying through both laboratory and fieldwork. These encounters should take pupils beyond their everyday experiences to develop a sense of wonder and curiosity about the material world.

Pedagogy: teaching the curriculum

In our overview of research underpinning the education inspection framework (EIF), we identified teaching as the single most important factor in schools’ effectiveness. Teacher effectiveness is particularly important in science given the abstract and counterintuitive nature of many of the ideas being learned. Research highlights the importance of teacher explanations in science that build from what pupils already know. These explicitly focus pupils’ attention on the content being learned. This often involves the use of teaching models and analogies to represent abstract concepts in a concrete way. Evidence shows that unguided ‘discovery’ approaches are not effective. Instead, pupils learning science benefit from systematic teaching approaches that carefully scaffold their learning. Because research shows a strong positive relationship between reading achievement and science achievement generally, schools that prioritise pupils’ reading will likely help pupils to learn science and vice versa.

Teacher-directed instruction

Analysis of pupil responses and outcome data from PISA 2015 reveals that teacher-directed science instruction is positively associated with science performance in almost all countries. [footnote 167] Teacher-directed instruction (as defined by PISA) involves the following:

the teacher explains scientific ideas

a whole-class discussion takes place with the teacher

the teacher discusses our questions

the teacher demonstrates an idea

Quality teacher instruction is not lecturing and should not be associated with ‘passive learning’. It involves clear teacher explanations alongside a range of questioning and carefully planned activities. Indeed, teaching that adapts science lessons in response to pupils’ difficulties is also strongly correlated to pupils’ performance. [footnote 168]

Clear teacher explanations form an important part of teacher-directed instruction. [footnote 169] Indeed, pupils report that ‘explaining things well’ is the most important thing that science teachers do to help them learn. [footnote 170]

Teacher explanations and worked examples [footnote 171] should make connections between knowledge explicit to pupils. [footnote 172] This may include using carefully selected analogies and models [footnote 173] to help pupils link changes at the macroscopic and tangible levels to microscopic and submicroscopic levels. [footnote 174] This is known as relational understanding. For example, teaching pupils about the nature of chemical knowledge helps them to connect what happens at the macroscopic level to the submicroscopic level involving particles. [footnote 175] This prevents pupils from confusing macroscopic changes with submicroscopic changes – say, thinking a decrease in the size of a piece of metal is due to the ‘shrinking’ of particles. In biology, relationships between the different levels of organisation, such as organs and organisms, need to be made explicit too. [footnote 176]

Technology can play an important role in helping pupils to learn abstract scientific concepts. This can be through animations, simulations and videos when used as part of teachers’ lessons. [footnote 177]

Enquiry-based teaching

Before we explore the evidence relating to enquiry-based teaching, it is important to stress that enquiry-based teaching, which is a pedagogy, should not be confused with scientific enquiry as a curricular goal, or with practical work generally.

Enquiry-based teaching involves pupils acquiring substantive and/or disciplinary knowledge through exploration. This involves simulating the scientific enquiry process so that pupils develop their understanding of concepts using methods similar to professional scientists. [footnote 178] These enquiry methods are commonly assumed to be ‘best practice’ in science education. [footnote 179] However, the level of scaffolding can vary greatly. [footnote 180]

There are a number of significant challenges for learning science through exploration when you are a novice learner with little prior knowledge. When solutions to scientific problems are actively withheld from pupils, they must search for solutions themselves. [footnote 181] This carries a heavy extraneous cognitive load. This ‘load’ is further increased if pupils also manipulate apparatus. This explains why participating in ‘discovery learning’, in the absence of any guidance or sufficient prior knowledge, does not foster progress. [footnote 182] This approach has long been recognised as problematic in science education. [footnote 183]

Studies into the effectiveness of guided, enquiry-based instruction have reached very different conclusions. [footnote 184] A controlled experimental study found that pupils’ conceptual understanding of substantive science concepts was similar in both scaffolded enquiry and direct instruction. [footnote 185] In contrast, 4- and 5-year-olds learned better when explicit teaching was provided before completing practical activities about floating and sinking. [footnote 186] Similarly, withholding answers before an investigation on light meant pupils reasoned significantly worse than those pupils who had been taught what to expect beforehand. [footnote 187]

The contradictions on the effectiveness of enquiry-based teaching described above are perhaps unsurprising considering the different ways that these approaches are defined and evaluated in the literature. [footnote 188] The lack of consensus on effectiveness means that teachers need to be cautious if they decide to use guided enquiry. This is especially important given the limitations of working memory [footnote 189] and the general finding that pupils with lower levels of scientific literacy consistently report the highest frequencies of enquiry-based activities. [footnote 190] And while research identifies that enquiry-based teaching approaches are positively associated with pupils’ enjoyment of science and their other science-related dispositions, such as interest, so too are teacher-directed approaches. [footnote 191]

There are also specific challenges associated with enquiry-based teaching approaches, beyond cognitive overload, [footnote 192] that pose ‘significant difficulties’ [footnote 193] for novices learning science. First, pupils typically record measurements that conflict with the scientific idea. Second, if pupils record valid data, they often lack the necessary knowledge to draw valid conclusions. Third, it is intellectually dishonest to ask pupils to ‘discover’ when the answer is already known. Pupils know this and so it often leads to frustration.

Reading, writing and talking in science lessons

There is strong correlational evidence to show that reading achievement is associated with science achievement generally. [footnote 194] Research suggests that any school approach that improves pupils’ reading will, in turn, help pupils to learn science and vice versa. [footnote 195] Reading well-written scientific texts helps pupils familiarise themselves with key vocabulary and the conceptual relations between these words that form explanations. [footnote 196]

Younger pupils who cannot yet read will learn vocabulary when teachers discuss it and present it to them. [footnote 197] This might be through listening to storybooks and non-fiction texts, as well as rhymes and poems. This is made even more effective when key vocabulary and meanings are introduced through explicit teaching approaches alongside shared book reading. [footnote 198] For example, teachers may focus on specific words before, during and after reading a storybook. This sequence is then repeated during a second reading of the book. Picture books can also help young pupils learn accurate scientific information. A study involving 4- and 5-year-olds showed that picture books were effective in teaching them about falling objects. Pupils learned that heavier objects do not fall faster than lighter objects, despite many pupils starting with this misconception. [footnote 199]

Pupils need opportunities in lessons to recap and to orally rehearse and structure their thoughts, using scientific language. This is important in helping them to use scientific language clearly and precisely. Young pupils benefit from using talk to rehearse their text before they write it. [footnote 200] Through structured writing and speaking, pupils retrieve and reorganise their knowledge [footnote 201] as they communicate their mental representation of a scientific idea. For very young pupils, this might include labelling diagrams.

Activities are carefully chosen so that they match specific curriculum intent.

Teachers use systematic teaching approaches, where learning is scaffolded using carefully sequenced explanations, models, analogies and other representations to help pupils to acquire, organise and remember scientific knowledge.

Teaching takes account of the limited working-memory capacity of their pupils when planning lessons.

Pupils are not expected to arrive at scientific explanations by themselves without sufficient prior knowledge.

Systematic approaches, alongside carefully selected texts, are used to teach the most important vocabulary in science.

Pupils have regular opportunities in the early years and primary classrooms to learn vocabulary through story and non-fiction books, rhymes, songs and oral rehearsal.

Evidence shows that, despite the best curriculum and teaching, pupils will learn different things from what was intended. This means that teachers need to frequently check pupils’ understanding to identify ‘gaps’ and misconceptions. This must be coupled with subject-specific feedback, so pupils know how to make progress in learning the science content. A second role of assessment is to prevent pupils from forgetting what they have learned. This is known as the testing effect. Research shows that when pupils retrieve knowledge from memory, over extended periods of time, this increases the likelihood that it will be remembered. A third role of assessment is to check that pupils have reached specific curricular goals. This is known as summative assessment and must be carefully used to ensure that its high-stakes nature does not lead to curriculum narrowing and/or increase unnecessary burden on staff and pupils.

Assessment for learning: formative assessment

Formative assessment involves providing feedback for teachers and pupils [footnote 202] that is then used to improve teaching and learning. [footnote 203] One study found that formative assessment in science is most effective for pupils when it is embedded within a lesson sequence, occurring at the same time as new knowledge is taught. [footnote 204] In this way, teachers can see whether the pupils have learned and can remember important component knowledge. If not, teachers can give feedback.

Formative assessment can also be used to find out whether pupils retain and use specific misconceptions. Distractor-driven assessment tools can be especially helpful, such as multiple-choice questions that present pupils with both the scientific conception and misconception. [footnote 205] This is because misconceptions are not always identified in questions that assess general science content. [footnote 206] Evidence suggests that multiple assessment probes should be used, over extended periods of time and contexts, when making claims about learning. [footnote 207] This is because pupils regularly show variability in which conceptions they use when first learning a scientific concept.

Teachers’ content knowledge influences their ability to evaluate pupils’ ideas and the feedback they give. For example, one study found that teachers with lower scores in their science exams did not include science content in their evaluations of pupils’ answers. [footnote 208] Their feedback instead focused on pupils’ writing skills or on using tricks for remembering the content and not on pupils’ understanding. This failed to provide pupils with useful subject-level feedback. On the other hand, teachers with higher content knowledge evaluated their pupils’ answers in relation to their own scientific content.

Assessment as learning: the testing effect

Assessment as learning draws on the cognitive principle that pupils are more likely to remember knowledge if they practise retrieving that knowledge over extended periods of time. This is known as the testing effect. It involves pupils recalling information successfully from long-term memory into their working memory.

To be most effective, research shows that retrieval practice should always be followed with feedback so even incorrect answers can be correctly retrieved in the future. Each retrieval practice should take place over extended periods of time. [footnote 209]

There are now some studies showing the success of this approach in science classrooms. [footnote 210] They show that young children benefit from guided retrieval practice. [footnote 211] For example, adding knowledge to partially completed concept maps was more effective than free recall.

Despite the evidence supporting retrieval practice, teachers need to pay careful attention to ‘what’ they are asking pupils to retrieve. It must be focused on the right details and not ‘destroy[ing] the shaping of content that makes it memorable’. [footnote 212]

Assessment of learning: summative assessment

Summative assessment identifies whether specific curricular goals have been achieved. It therefore plays an important role in evaluating the impact of the curriculum. In science, it consists of assessment of substantive and disciplinary knowledge, including pupils’ ability to carry out specific practical procedures and investigations.

Concerns have been raised that high-stakes summative assessments have unintentionally distorted the way that science is taught in schools. This has been particularly problematic regarding practical work in the past. [footnote 213] Our own research into the curriculum found that changes to GCSE assessment coincided with new GCSE content being taught in key stage 3. [footnote 214] Although incorporating some aspects of GCSE content earlier may support progression, these curricular decisions must be based on facilitating progression. They should not be test preparation. [footnote 215] The overuse of exam questions narrows the curriculum and pedagogy. It focuses attention on exam questions, rather than on the body of knowledge that these were designed to test. [footnote 216] A consequence is many pupils end up ‘mimicking’ the mark scheme. They should instead be developing a deep and lasting knowledge of the scientific concepts.

Summative assessment can also influence whole-school priorities because of its role in schools’ accountability measures. [footnote 217] There is concern, from organisations such as the Wellcome Trust [footnote 218] as well as Ofsted, [footnote 219] that removing external science assessments (SATs) in 2009 made schools narrow their curriculum to focus on mathematics and English. This resulted in a decline in the status of primary science.

At the same time, there are indications that teacher-assessed grades at key stage 2 are over-inflating pupils’ achievement in science. In 2018, just 21.2% of Year 6 pupils were estimated to be performing at the expected standard in science according to national sample assessments. [footnote 220] This contrasts with 82% of pupils according to teachers’ assessments. [footnote 221] This discrepancy may be because some schools do not give enough time or training for moderation, which are both necessary to ensure that teachers’ judgements are valid and reliable. [footnote 222] It may also be due to the different methods used. For example, teacher assessment in primary schools is frequently based on classroom work, whereas national science sampling tests measure pupils’ ability to remember and apply substantive and disciplinary knowledge.

Another unintended consequence of assessment, if used inappropriately, is that it can contribute to teachers’ workloads. This could be through excessive marking, excessive feedback or excessive data-recording requirements. [footnote 223] Secondary science teachers are particularly at risk of excessive workload demands due to the number of examination papers that pupils complete.

Teachers and pupils are clear on the purpose of assessment. There is clarity about what is being assessed.

Assessment is not overly burdensome on teachers’ time in relation to marking, recording or feedback.

Feedback is focused on the science content and not on generic features. Teachers have sufficient subject knowledge to be able to do this.

Pupils regularly retrieve knowledge from memory to help them remember and organise their knowledge. This is coupled with feedback. Teachers think carefully about what pupils are being asked to retrieve and whether this prioritises the most important content.

Overuse of external assessment items, such as GCSE or A-level questions, is avoided because this narrows the curriculum and leads to superficial progress that does not prepare pupils for further study.

Systems are in place to support teachers to make accurate decisions when assessing pupils’ work. This includes supporting primary teachers with statutory teacher assessment of science at key stages 1 and 2.

Systems at subject and school level

A high-quality science education depends on effective subject and school leadership. This starts with allocating sufficient curriculum time to teach the science curriculum. However, research shows this does not always happen, particularly in primary schools. It is also paramount that leaders ensure that science teachers and technicians have access to regular, high-quality subject-specific continuous professional development (CPD). This is especially important in science given that many teachers are teaching outside of their subject specialism. Although research shows that schools face challenges retaining science teachers early on in their career, these challenges can be at least partly addressed at a leadership level. For example, leaders can adjust teachers’ timetables to prioritise teaching fewer groups and subjects. Finally, pupils need access to sufficient resources so that they can carry out practical work, both in the classroom and field. This should be in appropriately sized groups, which better enable first-hand experiences.

Teachers’ knowledge and expertise

Shulman identified the importance of both content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge to teacher education. [footnote 224] Pedagogical content knowledge is important because it allows teachers to transform their ‘content knowledge’ into something that pupils can learn from. Although we think about content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge separately, the latter depends on the former. [footnote 225] Content knowledge is therefore at the heart of expert science teaching. [footnote 226]

Despite its importance, science teachers often have insufficient content knowledge. This includes ‘specialist’ teachers with degrees in their subject who still need to learn ‘school science’, as well as how to teach it. [footnote 227] Weak content knowledge is not only a barrier to clear explanations, it is also a source of pupils’ misconceptions in science because teachers may also hold these same unscientific ideas. [footnote 228] One study, for example, reveals that many primary school teachers have the same scientific misconceptions as their pupils. [footnote 229] The majority of primary teachers in this study thought gravity increased as objects increase their height above the ground. A third believed all metals were magnetic.

Expecting teachers to pick up subject knowledge through time spent teaching is misguided. [footnote 230] It is therefore important that teachers have access to high-quality subject-specific CPD . [footnote 231] This needs to be focused on the content and how to teach it, as opposed to generic pedagogies [footnote 232] and so should be aligned with the curriculum that teachers teach. [footnote 233] CPD should also aim to improve science teachers’ disciplinary knowledge in relation to the nature of science [footnote 234] and its methods, [footnote 235] as well as how to carry out practical work. [footnote 236] Importantly, research suggests that teacher education needs to take an explicit and reflective approach to teaching teachers about the nature of science and its methods. [footnote 237] It should not be assumed that teachers will have learned about the nature of science simply as a consequence of having taken part in science-related activities. [footnote 238]

Subject-specific CPD is important for all science teachers and teaching assistants. [footnote 239] But it is especially important for non-specialist primary teachers. This is because estimates suggest that just 5% of primary school teachers hold specialised science degrees and teaching qualifications in science. [footnote 240] This means that some do not feel confident in teaching science. This is a concern given that a recent randomised control study showed improved teachers’ confidence was a repeatable predictor of pupils’ improvement when teaching about evolution at primary school. [footnote 241]

It has been suggested that an important first step in developing primary science expertise is for every primary school to have at least one teacher who specialises in teaching science. [footnote 242] This recommendation is supported by findings from the Wellcome Trust’s study into primary science leadership. [footnote 243] This identified that science leaders need dedicated leadership time.

The professional bodies such as the Institute of Physics, Royal Society of Chemistry and Royal Society of Biology, as well as teacher associations like the Association for Science Education, also have important roles to play by ensuring that their members have access to professional development. [footnote 244]

Teacher retention

Science teachers are more likely to leave their school and the profession compared with non-science teachers. [footnote 245] This is particularly the case for newly qualified teachers (NQTs). The odds of them leaving the profession within 5 years is 20% higher than for non-science NQTs. This may be because science teachers are more likely to teach multiple subjects, which increases their workload, or because they can earn more outside of the profession. Given the shortage of chemistry and physics teachers entering the profession, [footnote 246] it seems imperative that schools and other organisations not only improve recruitment but do everything possible to improve retention.

A recent report for the Gatsby Charitable Foundation identified 8 recommendations for schools to increase the quality and quantity of science teachers. [footnote 247] These include:

reducing workload through careful timetabling (discussed further below)

using science-specific CPD

using instructional coaching

paying science teachers more to reflect their outside earning potential

School timetabling

Careful timetabling plays a significant role in reducing science teachers’ workload and developing expertise. This is because many science teachers are routinely teaching outside of their specialism. Allocating a higher proportion of a teacher’s timetable to their subject specialism can reduce their workload and increase opportunities to develop their subject expertise. Workload can also be reduced, especially during the early stages of a teaching career, by assigning teachers specific key stages or reducing the number of year groups they teach. [footnote 248]

Where teachers do teach just some groups, they must still be well acquainted with the curriculum for all year groups so that they can take account of prior knowledge [footnote 249] and not repeat content unnecessarily.

Having insufficient time to teach the curriculum is another cause of teachers’ stress. A recent analysis of timetable models in England revealed that, in some secondary schools, science receives a low share of teaching time compared with optional GCSEs. [footnote 250] This is supported by recent international comparison data that shows pupils in Year 9 received considerably less curriculum time for science in England’s schools than the international average. [footnote 251] At primary, a shortage of curriculum time for teaching science has also been identified as a particular concern. [footnote 252] This often happens when science is ‘squeezed out’ of the primary curriculum due to an over-focus on English and mathematics. [footnote 253]

The importance of technicians and practical resources

Technicians provide a crucial role in supporting high-quality practical work in schools. However, research shows that not all schools have enough science technicians. [footnote 254] Indeed, schools in areas of higher social deprivation tend to be worst affected.

Like teachers, technicians benefit from specialising. In average-sized secondary schools, there should be technicians to support practical work in biology, chemistry and physics. [footnote 255] Technicians should also have regular CPD opportunities. These lead to direct improvements in the quality of practical work in the classroom. [footnote 256]

As well as access to technical support, effective practical work requires adequate practical resources. Adequate here refers to the type, condition and quantity of equipment. Previous research suggests that not all primary or secondary schools have the resources they need. [footnote 257] At secondary level, biology is the poorest resourced science. Our 2013 science subject report found that in some schools, pupils are required to complete practical work in large groups. [footnote 258] This means that not all pupils gain first-hand experience of taking part in the procedures and practices that they are learning about. In the most severe cases, shortages of practical equipment will prevent pupils from accessing the intended curriculum.

Teachers, teaching assistants and technicians have access to high-quality subject-specific CPD to develop subject knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. This is aligned to the curriculum.

In primary schools, there is at least one teacher who specialises in teaching science and science leaders have dedicated leadership time.

Science teachers engage with subject associations, and take responsibility, with support from the school, for developing their own subject knowledge throughout their career.

Early-stage teachers in particular have timetables that allow them to develop expertise in one science and that do not give them too many key stages to teach.

Timetables allocate appropriate teaching time to science, reflecting its status as a core subject in the national curriculum. There are particular concerns that pupils in some primary schools are not receiving sufficient curriculum time to learn science.

Pupils have access to sufficient practical resources to take part in demanding practical work, either independently or in appropriately sized groups that enable first-hand experiences.

This review has explored a range of evidence relating to high-quality science education. It has drawn on research from many different countries and organisations. It also builds from the same research base that underpins the EIF .

In this conclusion, we have identified some general principles. Each principle is not restricted to a specific area of science education, such as curriculum, pedagogy, assessment or school systems. Rather, we have chosen them because evidence presented in this review suggests that they play a central role in influencing many aspects of science education that lay the foundation for subject quality.

The first principle concerns the nature of the scientific discipline itself. A high-quality science education is rooted in an authentic understanding of what science is. This recognises science as a discipline of enquiry, underpinned by substantive and disciplinary knowledge, that seeks to explain the material world. Importantly, this requires that pupils learn about the differences between each science. This includes learning about the diversity of approaches used to establish knowledge in science and knowing that there is not one scientific method. When the discipline is not well understood, evidence shows that this leads to superficial curriculum thinking and ineffective pedagogical approaches. Often, these focus on developing ill-defined skills. They also confuse scientific enquiry as a curricular goal with enquiry-based teaching approaches. Without a strong sense of the discipline, it is also easy for high-stakes assessment, either through its absence or presence, to distort what is taught.

The second principle extends from the first. It reflects the important status of scientific concepts, and the relationships between them, as building blocks of scientific knowledge. A high-quality science curriculum prioritises pupils building knowledge of key concepts in a meaningful way that reflects how knowledge is organised in the scientific disciplines. This starts in the early years. Importantly, this assumes there is enough curriculum time to teach science. Evidence shows that this is not always the case.

Historically, science education has looked mainly to pedagogy to address the difficulties pupils face learning science. However, as seen throughout this review, by changing what pupils learn it is possible to prevent some of these difficulties from arising in the first place. For example, the effectiveness of practical work can be increased by making sure that pupils have the necessary prior knowledge to learn from the activity. Similarly, by changing what pupils learn, and when, the likelihood of misconceptions forming can be reduced. The science curriculum is therefore more than a description of the journey towards expertise. It is also the means by which to get there. This means that science curriculums should be planned to take account of the function of knowledge in relation to future learning.

Together, these 3 principles show that a high-quality science education carefully balances several competing priorities/tensions. For example:

pupils learn that science is a body of established knowledge but is also a discipline of enquiry

complex concepts and procedures must be broken down into simpler parts, but knowledge must not become fragmented or divorced from the subject discipline

curriculum is distinct from pedagogy, but what you learn is influenced by how you learn it

To navigate these tensions successfully, teachers and subject leaders require in-depth knowledge of science and how to teach it, as well as an understanding of how pupils learn. Building teachers’ knowledge is therefore a central plank of high-quality science education. The evidence in this review suggests that this knowledge should be developed in relation to the curriculum that is taught.

Print or save to PDF

To print the content you can:

use the ‘Print this page’ button under the Contents menu
right-click anywhere on the page using a mouse and choose ‘Print’ in the menu
press Ctrl + P on a Windows keyboard or Command + P on a Mac

You can also use these options and change the printer destination to save the content as a PDF.

Instructions may vary depending on which internet browser you use, such as Internet Explorer or Google Chrome, and the type of device you use, such as a phone or laptop. You can find your print and save options in your browser’s menu.

‘Principles behind Ofsted’s research reviews and subject reports’ , Ofsted, March 2021. ↩

‘Education inspection framework: overview of research’ , Ofsted, January 2019. ‘Commentary on curriculum research – phase 3’ , Ofsted, December 2018. ↩

The requirement for maintained schools and academies to offer a broad and balanced curriculum is set out in the Education Act 2002 (for maintained schools) and the Academies Act 2010. This expectation is reflected in the national curriculum and is at the heart of the EIF . ↩

D Hodson, ‘Learning science, learning about science, doing science: different goals demand different learning methods’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 36, Issue 15, 2014, pages 2534 to 2553. ↩

R Driver, J Leach, R Millar and P Scott, ‘Perspectives on the nature of science’, in ‘Learning and knowledge’, edited by R McCormick and C Paechter, Sage, 1999, pages 36 to 55. ↩

‘National curriculum in England: science programmes of study’ , Department for Education, September 2013. P Valdesolo, A Shtulman and AS Baron, ‘Science is awe-some: the emotional antecedents of science learning’, in ‘Emotion Review’, Volume 9, Issue 3, 2017, pages 1 to 7. ↩

‘National curriculum in England: science programmes of study’ , Department for Education, September 2013. ↩

‘Trends shaping education 2016’ , Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD Publishing, January 2016. ↩

‘Vision for science, mathematics and computing education’ , The Royal Society, June 2014. ↩

‘Early adopter schools: EYFS framework’ , Department for Education, July 2020. ↩

Y Guo, S Wang, AH Hall, A Breit-Smith and J Busch, ‘The effects of science instruction on young children’s vocabulary learning: a research synthesis’, in ‘Early Childhood Education Journal’, Volume 44, 2016, pages 359 to 367. ↩

‘Education Select Committee: primary assessment inquiry, response by the Wellcome Trust’ , Wellcome Trust, October 2016. ↩

‘Evaluation of the primary science campaign’ , Wellcome Trust, September 2020. ↩

‘Intention and substance: primary school science curriculum research’ , Ofsted, February 2019. ↩

These were introduced in 2010 to monitor standards over time after the removal of key stage 2 science national curriculum tests (SATs). The first year a matrix sampling approach was used was 2014. Direct comparisons cannot be made between results from this sampling approach and previous key stage 2 science SATs results. ↩

‘Key stage 2 science sampling 2018: methodology note and outcomes’ , Department for Education, July 2019. ↩

‘Key stage 2 science sampling 2016: methodology note and outcomes’ , Department for Education, July 2017. ↩

L Bianchi, C Whittaker and A Poole, ‘The 10 key issues with children’s learning in primary science in England’ , The University of Manchester and The Ogden Trust, March 2021. ↩

‘Young people’s views on science education: science education tracker 2019, wave 2’ , Wellcome Trust, March 2020. ↩

L Archer, J DeWitt, J Osborne, J Dillon, B Wong and B Willis, ‘ASPIRES report: young people’s science and career aspirations, age 10–14’ , King’s College London, 2013. ↩

PL Morgan, G Farkas, MM Hillemeier and S Maczuga, ‘Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors’, in ‘Educational Researcher’, Volume 45, Issue 1, 2016, pages 18 to 35; JD Novak and D Musonda, ‘A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning’, in ‘American Educational Research Journal’, Volume 28, Issue 1, 1991, pages 117 to 153. ↩

‘Guidance: introduction of T levels’ , Department for Education, September 2020. ↩

‘Key stage 4 performance, 2019 (provisional)’ , Department for Education, October 2019. EBacc science includes combined science GCSE, and single GCSEs in biology, chemistry, physics and computer science. Triple science includes 3 of: biology, chemistry, physics or computer science. ↩

T Gill, ‘The impact of the introduction of progress 8 on the uptake and provision of qualifications in English schools’, Cambridge Assessment, October 2017. ↩

‘Key indicators in STEM education’ , Gatsby Charitable Foundation, January 2020. ↩

‘A level subject take-up’ , Ofsted, May 2015. ↩

J Moote, L Archer, J DeWitt and E MacLeod, ‘Who has high science capital? An exploration of emerging patterns of science capital among students aged 17/18 in England’ , in ‘Research Papers in Education’, 2019. ↩

L Archer, J Moote, B Francis, J DeWitt and L Yeomans, ‘Stratifying science: a Bourdieusian analysis of student views and experiences of school selective practices in relation to “triple science” at KS4 in England’, in ‘Research Papers in Education’, Volume 32, Issue 3, 2016, pages 296 to 315. ↩

E Lauchlan, ‘Science timetable models research’ , Shift Learning, 2018. ↩

M Richardson, T Isaacs, I Barnes, C Swensson, D Wilkinson and J Golding, ‘Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2019: national report for England’ , Department for Education, December 2020. ↩

T Nunes, P Bryant, S Strand, JM Hillier, R Barros and J Miller-Friedmann, ‘Review of SES and science learning in formal educational settings: a report prepared for the EEF and the Royal Society’ , September 2017. Just over 9% of pupils eligible for free school meals were estimated to have reached the expected standard at the end of Year 6 in national sample tests: ‘Key stage 2 science sampling 2018: methodology note and outcomes’ , Department for Education, July 2019. ↩

‘School workforce in England: reporting year 2019’ , Department for Education, June 2020. ↩

‘Initial teacher training: trainee number census 2019 to 2020’ , Department for Education, November 2019. ↩

RJ Shavelson, MA Ruiz-Primo and EW Wiley, ‘Windows into the mind’, in ‘Higher Education’, Volume 49, 2005, pages 413 to 430. ↩

Working memory is where new information is first processed and thought about before it can be passed to long-term memory, where it is stored in knowledge structures called schemas. JJ Solaz Portolés and V Sanjosé López, ‘Cognitive variables in science problem solving: a review of research’, in ‘Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online’, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2007, pages 25 to 32. ↩

G Friege and G Lind, ‘Types and qualities of knowledge and their relations to problem solving in physics’, in ‘International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education’, Volume 4, 2006, pages 437 to 465. ↩

MT Chi, PJ Feltovich and R Glaser, ‘Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices’, in ‘Cognitive Science’, Volume 5, Issue 2, 1981, pages 121 to 152. ↩

N Schneeweiß and H Gropengießer, ‘Organising levels of organisation for biology education: a systematic review of literature’, in ‘Education Sciences’, Volume 9, Issue 3, 2019, pages 207 to 229; KS Taber, ‘Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education’, in ‘Chemistry Education Research and Practice’, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2013, pages 156 to 168. ↩

S Donovan, JD Bransford and JW Pellegrino, ‘How people learn: bridging research and practice’, National Academy Press, 1999; J Sweller, ‘Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning’, in ‘Cognitive Science’, Volume 12, Issue 2, 1988, pages 257 to 285. ↩

DP Ausubel, ‘The psychology of meaningful verbal learning’, Grune & Stratton, 1963. ↩

F Reif, ‘Applying cognitive science to education: thinking and learning in scientific and other complex domains’, MIT Press, 2008. ↩

G McPhail, ‘The search for deep learning: a curriculum coherence model’ , in ‘Journal of Curriculum Studies’, April 2020. ↩

H St Clair‐Thompson, T Overton and C Botton, ‘Information processing: a review of implications of Johnstone’s model for science education’, in ‘Research in Science & Technological Education’, Volume 28, Issue 2, 2010, pages 131 to 148. ↩

R Cassidy, S Cattan, C Crawford and S Dytham, ‘How can we increase girls’ uptake of maths and physics A-level?’ , Institute of Fiscal Studies, August 2018. ↩

Scientific laws are ‘statements or descriptions of the relationships between observable phenomena’, whereas a scientific theory is a ‘substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment’ (National Research Council, ‘Next generation science standards: for states, by states’ , The National Academies Press, 2013, Appendix H, page 433). ↩

S Erduran and ZR Dagher, ‘Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories’, Springer, 2014. ↩

J Osborne, S Rafanelli and P Kind, ‘Toward a more coherent model for science education than the crosscutting concepts of the next generation science standards: the affordances of styles of reasoning’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 55, Issue 7, 2018, pages 962 to 981. ↩

B McDonald, ‘An annotated list of disciplines and sub-disciplines in the biological sciences’, in ‘Bioscience Education’, Volume 12, Issue 1, 2008, pages 1 to 3; RH Nehm, ‘Biology education research: building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems’ , in ‘Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research’, Volume 1, Issue 15, 2019. ↩

J Holman, ‘Response to the professional bodies’ articles on developing UK science curriculum frameworks’, in ‘School Science Review’, Volume 100, Issue 370, 2018, pages 44 to 46. ↩

C Tracy, ‘Guidelines for future physics curricula’, in ‘School Science Review’, Volume 100, Issue 370, 2018, pages 36 to 43, quote on page 38. ↩

G Bates, ‘Chemistry’, in ‘What should schools teach?’, edited by AS Cuthbert and A Standish, UCL Press, 2021, pages 202 to 217. ↩

JL Rudolph, ‘Reconsidering the “nature of science” as a curriculum component’, in ‘Journal of Curriculum Studies, Volume 32, Issue 3, 2000, pages 403 to 419. ↩

J Osborne, ‘Practical work in science: misunderstood and badly used’, in ‘School Science Review’, Volume 96, Issue 357, 2015, pages 16 to 24. ↩

NG Lederman, JS Lederman and A Antink, ‘Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy’, in ‘International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology’, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2013, pages 138 to 147. ↩

Note that the national curriculum does not use these 4 headings. Rather, they are used here to represent one possible way in which disciplinary knowledge can be organised to consider progression over time. It is important to note that each content area does not operate in isolation. ↩

D Hodson, ‘Science fiction: the continuing misrepresentation of science in the school curriculum’, in ‘Curriculum Studies’, Volume 6, Issue 2, 1998, pages 191 to 216; A Hume and R Coll, ‘Authentic student inquiry: the mismatch between the intended curriculum and the student‐experienced curriculum’, in ‘Research in Science & Technological Education’, Volume 28, Issue 1, 2010, pages 43 to 62. ↩

R Brandon, ‘Theory and experiment in evolutionary biology’, in ‘Synthese’, Volume 99, 1994, pages 59 to 73; J Osborne, S Rafanelli and P Kind, ‘Toward a more coherent model for science education than the crosscutting concepts of the next generation science standards: the affordances of styles of reasoning’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 55, Issue 7, 2018, pages 962 to 981; C Sousa, ‘The scientific methods of biology, starting with Charles Darwin’, in ‘The American Biology Teacher’, Volume 78, Issue 2, 2016, pages 109 to 117. ↩

L Grant, ‘Lab skills of new undergraduates: report on the findings of a small-scale study exploring university staff perceptions of the lab skills of new undergraduates at Russell Group Universities in England’ , Gatsby Charitable Foundation, May 2011. ↩

R Millar, ‘The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science’, paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, National Academy of Sciences, October 2004. ↩

R Gott and S Duggan, ‘Practical work: its role in the understanding of evidence in science’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 18, Issue 7, 1996, pages 791 to 806; D Hodson, ‘Science fiction: the continuing misrepresentation of science in the school curriculum’, in ‘Curriculum Studies’, Volume 6, Issue 2, 1998, pages 191 to 216; NG Lederman, JS Lederman and A Antink, ‘Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy’, in ‘International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology’, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2013, pages 138 to 147; R Roberts and P Johnson, ‘Understanding the quality of data: a concept map for “the thinking behind the doing” in scientific practice’, in ‘The Curriculum Journal’, Volume 26, Issue 3, 2015, pages 345 to 369. ↩

R Millar, F Lubben, R Gott and S Duggan, ‘Investigating in the school science laboratory: conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance’, in ‘Research Papers in Education’, Volume 9, Issue 2, 1994, pages 207 to 248. ↩

R Gott, S Duggan, R Roberts and A Hussain, ‘Research into understanding scientific evidence’ , Durham University, 2018. ↩

R Roberts and P Johnson, ‘Understanding the quality of data: a concept map for “the thinking behind the doing” in scientific practice’, in ‘The Curriculum Journal’, Volume 26, Issue 3, 2015, pages 345 to 369. ↩

Procedural knowledge is being used in this review to mean knowledge of procedures. This is distinct from procedural understanding as used by Duggan and Gott that refers to ‘the ability of pupils to put together a solution to a practical problem’: S Duggan and R Gott, ‘The place of investigations in practical work in the UK national curriculum for science’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 17, Issue 2, 1995, pages 137 to 147, quote on page 139. ↩

D Hodson, ‘Science fiction: the continuing misrepresentation of science in the school curriculum’, in ‘Curriculum Studies’, Volume 6, Issue 2, 1998, pages 191 to 216; R Millar and R Driver, ‘Beyond processes’, in ‘Studies in Science Education’, Volume 14, Issue 1, 1987, pages 33 to 62. ↩

M Hainsworth, ‘An experimental study of observation in school children’, in ‘The School Science Review’, Volume 39, 1956, pages 264 to 276; R Lock, ‘Assessment of practical skills. Part 2. Context dependency and construct validity’, in ‘Research in Science & Technological Education’, Volume 8, Issue 1, 1990, pages 35 to 52. ↩

M Schwichow, C Osterhaus and PA Edelsbrunner, ‘The relation between the control-of-variables strategy and content knowledge in physics in secondary school’, in ‘Contemporary Educational Psychology’, Volume 63, 2020. ↩

WC Kyle Jr, ‘The distinction between inquiry and scientific inquiry and why high school students should be cognizant of the distinction’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 17, Issue 2, 1980, pages 123 to 130. ↩

AH Johnstone, ‘Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem’, in ‘Journal of Computer Assisted Learning’, Volume 7, Issue 2, 1991, pages 75 to 83. ↩

AH Johnstone and FF Al‐Naeme, ‘Room for scientific thought?’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 13, Issue 2, 1991, pages 187 to 192. ↩

K Yuan, J Steedle, R Shavelson, A Alonzo and M Oppezzo, ‘Working memory, fluid intelligence, and science learning’, in ‘Educational Research Review’, Volume 1, Issue 2, 2006, pages 83 to 98. ↩

YC Chu and N Reid, ‘Genetics at school level: addressing the difficulties’, in ‘Research in Science & Technological Education’, Volume 30, Issue 3, 2012, pages 285 to 309. ↩

J Carroll, L Bradley, H Crawford, P Hannant, H Johnson and A Thompson, ‘Special educational needs support in schools and colleges: rapid evidence assessment’ , Department for Education, July 2017. ↩

E Danili and N Reid, ‘Some strategies to improve performance in school chemistry, based on two cognitive factors’, in ‘Research in Science & Technological Education’, Volume 22, Issue 2, 2004, pages 203 to 226. ↩

For example, WH Schmidt, ‘The quest for a coherent school science curriculum: the need for an organizing principle’, in ‘Review of Policy Research’, Volume 20, Issue 4, 2003, pages 569 to 584. ↩

WH Schmidt, ‘The quest for a coherent school science curriculum: the need for an organizing principle’ , in ‘Review of Policy Research’, Volume 20, Issue 4, 2003, pages 569 to 584; ‘Intention and substance: primary school science curriculum research’, Ofsted, February 2019. ↩

WH Schmidt, HC Wang and CC McKnight, ‘Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective’, in ‘Journal of Curriculum Studies’, Volume 37, Issue 5, 2005, pages 525 to 559. ↩

This is similar to how information is typically organised in a computer, where folders sit within folders. It allows information to be retrieved quickly. ↩

B Bernstein, ‘Vertical and horizontal discourse: an essay’, in ‘British Journal of Sociology of Education’, Volume 20, Issue 2, 1999, pages 157 to 173. ↩

JD Novak and D Musonda, ‘A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning’, in ‘American Educational Research Journal’, Volume 28, Issue 1, 1991, pages 117 to 153. ↩

WH Schmidt, ‘The quest for a coherent school science curriculum: the need for an organizing principle’, in ‘Review of Policy Research’, Volume 20, Issue 4, 2003, pages 569 to 584. ↩

D Fortus, LM Sutherland Adams, J Krajcik and B Reiser, ‘Assessing the role of curriculum coherence in student learning about energy’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 52, Issue 10, 2015, pages 1408 to 1425. ↩

DT Willingham, ‘Ask the cognitive scientist inflexible knowledge: the first step to expertise’, in ‘American Educator’, Volume 26, Issue 4, 2002, pages 31 to 33. ↩

D Fortus and J Krajcik, ‘Curriculum coherence and learning progressions’, in ‘Second international handbook of science education’, edited by B Fraser, K Tobin and CJ McRobbie, Springer, 2012, pages 783 to 798. ↩

I Eilks and A Hofstein, ‘Curriculum development in science education’, in ‘Science education’, edited by KS Taber and B Akpan, Brill Sense, 2017, pages 167 to 181. ↩

R Boohan, ‘The language of mathematics in science: a guide for teachers of 11–16 science’ , Association for Science Education, 2016. ↩

V Wong, ‘Variation in graphing practices between mathematics and science: implications for science teaching’, in ‘School Science Review’, Volume 98, Issue 365, 2017, pages 109 to 115. ↩

V Wong and J Dillon, ‘“Voodoo maths”, asymmetric dependency and maths blame: why collaboration between school science and mathematics teachers is so rare’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 41, Issue 6, 2019, pages 782 to 802. ↩

V Wong and J Dillon, ‘Crossing the boundaries: collaborations between mathematics and science departments in English secondary (high) schools’, in ‘Research in Science and Technological Education’, Volume 38, Issue 4, 2020, pages 396 to 416. ↩

KA Ericsson, RT Krampe and C Tesch-Römer, ‘The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance’, in ‘Psychological Review’, Volume 100, Issue 3, 1993, pages 363 to 406. ↩

J Sweller, ‘Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning’, in ‘Cognitive Science’, Volume 12, Issue 2, 1988, pages 257 to 285. ↩

J Osborne, QC Sedlacek, M Friend and C Lemmi, ‘Learning to read science’, in ‘Science Scope’, Volume 40, Issue 3, 2016, pages 36 to 42. ↩

T Shanahan and C Shanahan, ‘What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter?’, in ‘Topics in Language Disorders’, Volume 32, Issue 1, 2012, pages 7 to 18, quote on page 9. ↩

KS Tang, ‘How is disciplinary literacy addressed in the science classroom? A Singaporean case study’, in ‘Australian Journal of Language and Literacy’, Volume 39, Issue 3, 2016, pages 220 to 232. ↩

D Hammer, ‘Misconceptions or p-prims: how may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions’, in ‘Journal of the Learning Sciences’, Volume 5, Issue 2, 1996, pages 97 to 127; S Vosniadou, ‘The development of students’ understanding of science’ , in ‘Frontiers in Education’, Volume 4, April 2019. ↩

A Shtulman and C Walker, ‘Developing an understanding of science’, in ‘Annual Review of Developmental Psychology’, Volume 2, 2020, pages 111 to 132. ↩

L Mason and S Zaccoletti, ‘Inhibition and conceptual learning in science: a review of studies’, in ‘Educational Psychology Review’, Volume 33, 2021, pages 181 to 212. ↩

LMB Foisy, P Potvin, M Riopel and S Masson, ‘Is inhibition involved in overcoming a common physics misconception in mechanics?’, in ‘Trends in Neuroscience and Education’, Volume 4, Issues 1 and 2, 2015, pages 26 to 36. ↩

JH Wandersee, ‘Can the history of science help science educators anticipate students’ misconceptions?’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 23, Issue 17, 1986, pages 581 to 597. ↩

P Potvin and G Cyr, ‘Toward a durable prevalence of scientific conceptions: tracking the effects of two interfering misconceptions about buoyancy from pre-schoolers to science teachers’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 54, Issue 9, 2017, pages 1121 to 1142. ↩

S Ohlsson, ‘Resubsumption: a possible mechanism for conceptual change and belief revision’, in ‘Educational Psychologist’, Volume 44, Issue 1, 2009, pages 20 to 40. ↩

JA Bonus and J Watts, ‘You can[’t] catch the sun in a net!: Children’s misinterpretations of educational science television’, in ‘Journal of Experimental Child Psychology’, Volume 202, 2021. ↩

S Vosniadou and I Skopeliti, ‘Is it the Earth that turns or the Sun that goes behind the mountains? Students’ misconceptions about the day/night cycle after reading a science text’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 39, Issue 15, 2017, pages 2027 to 2051. ↩

R Driver, J Leach, P Scott and C Wood-Robinson, ‘Young people’s understanding of science concepts: implications of cross-age studies for curriculum planning’, in ‘Studies in Science Education’, Volume 24, Issue 1, 1994, pages 75 to 100. ↩

P Johnson, ‘Children’s understanding of substances, part 2: explaining chemical change’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 24, Issue 10, 2002, pages 1037 to 1054. ↩

P Johnson and P Tymms, ‘The emergence of a learning progression in middle school chemistry’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 48, Issue 8, 2011, pages 849 to 877. ↩

KS Taber, ‘Building the structural concepts of chemistry: some considerations from educational research’, in ‘Chemistry Education Research and Practice’, Volume 2, Issue 2, 2001, pages 123 to 158. ↩

E Southall, ‘The formula triangle and other problems with procedural teaching in mathematics’, in ‘School Science Review’, Volume 97, Issue 360, 2016, pages 49 to 53. ↩

GD Chittleborough and DF Treagust, ‘Why models are advantageous to learning science’, in ‘Educación Química’, Volume 20, Issue 1, 2009, pages 12 to 17. ↩

AL Gardner, RW Bybee, L Enshan and JA Taylor, ‘Analyzing the coherence of science curriculum materials’, in ‘Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue’, Volume 16, Issues 1 to 2, 2014, pages 65 to 86. ↩

NP Roblin, C Schunn, D Bernstein and S McKenney, ‘Exploring shifts in the characteristics of US government-funded science curriculum materials and their (unintended) consequences’, in ‘Studies in Science Education’, Volume 54, Issue 1, 2018, pages 1 to 39. NP Roblin, C Schunn and S McKenney, ‘What are critical features of science curriculum materials that impact student and teacher outcomes?’, in ‘Science Education’, Volume 102, Issue 2, 2018, pages 260 to 282. ↩

A Cheung, RE Slavin, E Kim and C Lake, ‘Effective secondary science programs: a best‐evidence synthesis’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 54, Issue 1, 2017, pages 58 to 81; RE Slavin, C Lake, P Hanley and A Thurston, ‘Experimental evaluations of elementary science programs: a best‐evidence synthesis’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 51, Issue 7, 2014, pages 870 to 901. ↩

RE Slavin, C Lake, P Hanley and A Thurston, ‘Experimental evaluations of elementary science programs: a best‐evidence synthesis’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 51, Issue 7, 2014, pages 870 to 901. ↩

T Oates, ‘Why textbooks count’ , Cambridge Assessment, November 2014. ↩

CJH King, ‘An analysis of misconceptions in science textbooks: Earth science in England and Wales’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 32, Issue 5, 2010, pages 565 to 601. ↩

MO Martin, I Mullis, P Foy and G Stanco, ‘ TIMSS 2011 international results in science’ , TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, 2012. The international average of percentage of students whose teachers use textbooks as basis for instruction was 70% (Year 5) and 74% (Year 9). ↩

CV McDonald, ‘Evaluating junior secondary science textbook usage in Australian schools’, in ‘Research in Science Education’, Volume 46, Issue 4, 2016, pages 481 to 509. ↩

Practical work is defined here as any planned teaching and learning activity that involves, at some point, the students in observing or manipulating real objects and materials: R Millar, ‘The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science’, paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, National Academy of Sciences, October 2004. ↩

R Needham, ‘The contribution of practical work to the science curriculum’, in ‘Perspectives on the Science Curriculum’, Volume 95, Issue 352, 2014, pages 63 to 69. ↩

M Cukurova, P Hanley and A Lewis, ‘Rapid evidence review of good practical science, technical report’ , Gatsby Charitable Foundation, September 2017; J Holman, ‘Good practical science’ , Gatsby Charitable Foundation, September 2017; VN Lunetta, A Hofstein and MP Clough, ‘Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: an analysis of research, theory, and practice’, in ‘Handbook of research on science education’, edited by SK Abell and NG Lederman, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007, pages 393 to 441; J Osborne, ‘Practical work in science: misunderstood and badly used’, in ‘School Science Review’, Volume 96, Issue 357, 2015, pages 16 to 24. ↩

‘Young people’s views on science education: science education tracker 2019, wave 2’ , Wellcome Trust, March 2020. R Sharpe and I Abrahams, ‘Secondary school students’ attitudes to practical work in biology, chemistry and physics in England’, in ‘Research in Science & Technological Education’, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2020, pages 84 to 104. ↩

I Abrahams, ‘Does practical work really motivate? A study of the affective value of practical work in secondary school science’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 31, Issue 17, 2009, pages 2335 to 2353. ↩

J Holman, ‘Good practical science’ , Gatsby Charitable Foundation, September 2017. ↩

D Hodson, ‘Science fiction: the continuing misrepresentation of science in the school curriculum’, in ‘Curriculum Studies’, Volume 6, Issue 2, 1998, pages 191 to 216. ↩

S Duggan and R Gott, ‘The place of investigations in practical work in the UK national curriculum for science’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 17, Issue 2, 1995, pages 137 to 147; R Roberts, R Gott and J Glaesser, ‘Students’ approaches to open‐ended science investigation: the importance of substantive and procedural understanding’, in ‘Research Papers in Education’, Volume 25, Issue 4, 2010, pages 377 to 407. ↩

C Wecker, A Rachel, E Heran‐Dörr, C Waltner, H Wiesner and F Fischer, ‘Presenting theoretical ideas prior to inquiry activities fosters theory‐level knowledge’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 50, Issue 10, 2013, pages 1180 to 1206. ↩

A Basheer, M Hugerat, N Kortam and A Hofstein, ‘The effectiveness of teachers’ use of demonstrations for enhancing students’ understanding of and attitudes to learning the oxidation-reduction concept’, in ‘Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education’, Volume 13, Issue 3, 2017, pages 555 to 570. ↩

M Schwichow, S Croker, C Zimmerman, T Höffler and H Härtig, ‘Teaching the control-of-variables strategy: a meta-analysis’, in ‘Developmental Review’, Volume 39, 2016, pages 37 to 63. ↩

AM Moore, P Fairhurst, CF Correia, C Harrison and JM Bennett, ‘Science practical work in a COVID-19 world: are teacher demonstrations, videos and textbooks effective replacements for hands-on practical activities?’, in ‘School Science Review’, Volume 102, Issue 378, 2020, pages 7 to 12. ↩

C Chin, ‘Teacher questioning in science classrooms: approaches that stimulate productive thinking’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 44, Issue 6, 2007, pages 815 to 843. ↩

E Nyberg and D Sanders, ‘Drawing attention to the “green side of life”’, in ‘Journal of Biological Education’, Volume 48, Issue 3, 2014, pages 142 to 153. ↩

‘Banned chemicals and other myths 2018’ , CLEAPPS, 2018. ↩

M Braund and M Reiss, ‘Towards a more authentic science curriculum: the contribution of out‐of‐school learning’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 28, Issue 12, 2006, pages 1373 to 1388. ↩

I Abrahams and R Millar, ‘Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science’ , in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 30, Issue 14, 2008, pages 1945 to 1969; H Cramman, V Kind, A Lyth, H Gray, K Younger, A Gemar, P Eerola, R Coe and P Kind, ‘Monitoring practical science in schools and colleges’, Durham University, 2019. ↩

R Millar and R Driver, ‘Beyond processes’, in ‘Studies in Science Education’, Volume 14, Issue 1, 1987, pages 33 to 62. ↩

I Abrahams and MJ Reiss, ‘Practical work: its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 49, Issue 8, 2012, pages 1035 to 1055; D Klahr and M Nigam, ‘The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning’, in ‘Psychological Science’, Volume 15, Issue 10, 2004, pages 661 to 667; L Zhang, ‘Withholding answers during hands-on scientific investigations? Comparing effects on developing students’ scientific knowledge, reasoning, and application’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 40, Issue 4, 2018, pages 459 to 469. ↩

T Mostafa, ‘How do science teachers teach science – and does it matter?’ , PISA in Focus, No. 90, OECD Publishing, November 2018. ↩

D Geelan, ‘Teacher explanations’, in ‘Second international handbook of science education’, edited by B Fraser, K Tobin and CJ McRobbie, Springer, 2012, pages 987 to 999; C Kulgemeyer, ‘Towards a framework for effective instructional explanations in science teaching’, in ‘Studies in Science Education’, Volume 54, Issue 2, 2018, pages 109 to 139. ↩

J Sweller, JJG van Merriënboer and F Paas, ‘Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later’, in ‘Educational Psychology Review’, Volume 31, 2019, pages 261 to 292. ↩

J Wadouh, N Liu, A Sandmann and BJ Neuhaus, ‘The effect of knowledge linking levels in biology lessons upon students’ knowledge structure’, in ‘International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education’, Volume 12, 2014, pages 25 to 47. ↩

J Holman and E Yeomans, ‘Improving secondary science: guidance report’ , Education Endowment Foundation, September 2018. ↩

AH Johnstone, ‘Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem’, in ‘Journal of Computer Assisted Learning’, Volume 7, Issue 2, 1991, pages 75 to 83; KS Taber, ‘Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education’, in ‘Chemistry Education Research and Practice’, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2013, pages 156 to 168. ↩

LZ Jaber and S BouJaoude, ‘A macro–micro–symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 34, Issue 7, 2012, pages 973 to 998. ↩

For a discussion see: WW Cobern, D Schuster, B Adams, B Applegate, B Skjold, A Undreiu, CC Loving and JD Gobert, ‘Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science’, in ‘Research in Science & Technological Education’, Volume 28, Issue 1, 2010, pages 81 to 96; T Mostafa, ‘How do science teachers teach science – and does it matter?’ , PISA in Focus, No. 90, OECD Publishing, November 2018. ↩

CE Hmelo-Silver, RG Duncan and CA Chinn, ‘Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006)’, in ‘Educational Psychologist’, Volume 42, Issue 2, 2007, pages 99 to 107. ↩

L Zhang, ‘Is inquiry-based science teaching worth the effort?’, in ‘Science & Education’, Volume 25, Issues 7 and 8, 2016, pages 897 to 915. ↩

PA Kirschner, J Sweller and RE Clark, ‘Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching’, in ‘Educational Psychologist’, Volume 41, Issue 2, 2006, pages 75 to 86; D Klahr and M Nigam, ‘The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning’, in ‘Psychological Science’, Volume 15, Issue 10, 2004, pages 661 to 667. ↩

EM Furtak, T Seidel, H Iverson and DC Briggs, ‘Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: a meta-analysis’, in ‘Review of Educational Research’, Volume 82, Issue 3, 2012, pages 300 to 329; L Zhang, ‘Is inquiry-based science teaching worth the effort?’, in ‘Science & Education’, Volume 25, Issues 7 and 8, 2016, pages 897 to 915. ↩

WW Cobern, D Schuster, B Adams, B Applegate, B Skjold, A Undreiu, CC Loving and JD Gobert, ‘Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science’, in ‘Research in Science & Technological Education’, Volume 28, Issue 1, 2010, pages 81 to 96. ↩

SY Hong and KE Diamond, ‘Two approaches to teaching young children science concepts, vocabulary, and scientific problem-solving skills’, in ‘Early Childhood Research Quarterly’, Volume 27, Issue 2, 2012, pages 295 to 305. ↩

L Zhang, ‘Withholding answers during hands-on scientific investigations? Comparing effects on developing students’ scientific knowledge, reasoning, and application’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 40, Issue 4, 2018, pages 459 to 469. ↩

D Cairns and S Areepattamannil, ‘Exploring the relations of inquiry-based teaching to science achievement and dispositions in 54 countries’, in ‘Research in Science Education’, Volume 49, 2019, pages 1 to 23; J Jerrim, M Oliver and S Sims, ‘The relationship between inquiry-based teaching and students’ achievement. New evidence from a longitudinal PISA study in England’ , in ‘Learning and Instruction’, Volume 61, 2020; A McConney, MC Oliver, A Woods-McConney, R Schibeci and D Maor, ‘Inquiry, engagement, and literacy in science: a retrospective, cross-national analysis using PISA 2006’, in ‘Science Education’, Volume 98, Issue 6, 2014, pages 963 to 980; M Oliver, A McConney and A Woods-McConney, ‘The efficacy of inquiry-based instruction in science: a comparative analysis of six countries using PISA 2015’ , Research in Science Education, 2019. ↩

S Areepattamannil, D Cairns and M Dickson, ‘Teacher-directed versus inquiry-based science instruction: investigating links to adolescent students’ science dispositions across 66 countries’, in ‘Journal of Science Teacher Education’, Volume 31, Issue 6, 2020, pages 1 to 30. ↩

L Barnard-Brak, T Stevens and W Ritter, ‘Reading and mathematics equally important to science achievement: results from nationally-representative data’, in ‘Learning and Individual Differences’, Volume 58, 2017, pages 1 to 9; T Nunes, P Bryant, S Strand, J Hillier, R Barros and J Miller-Friedmann, ‘Review of SES and science learning in formal educational settings: a report prepared for the EEF and the Royal Society’ , September 2017; DK Reed, Y Petscher and AJ Truckenmiller, ‘The contribution of general reading ability to science achievement’, in ‘Reading Research Quarterly’, Volume 52, Issue 2, 2017, pages 253 to 266. ↩

JG Cromley, ‘Reading achievement and science proficiency: international comparisons from the programme on international student assessment’, in ‘Reading Psychology’, Volume 30, 2009, pages 89 to 118. ↩

PM Rowell and M Ebbers, ‘Constructing explanations of flight: a study of instructional discourse in primary science’, in ‘Language and Education’, Volume 18, Issue 3, 2004, pages 264 to 280. ↩

IL Beck and MG McKeown, ‘Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction’, in ‘The Elementary School Journal’, Volume 107, Issue 3, 2007, pages 251 to 271. ↩

JE Gonzalez, S Pollard-Durodola, DC Simmons, AB Taylor, MJ Davis, M Kim and L Simmons, ‘Low-income preschoolers’ social studies and science vocabulary knowledge through content-focused shared book reading’, in ‘Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness’, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2011, pages 25 to 52. ↩

VP Venkadasalam and PA Ganea, ‘Do objects of different weight fall at the same time? Updating naive beliefs about free-falling objects from fictional and informational books in young children’, in ‘Journal of Cognition and Development’, Volume 19, Issue 2, 2018, pages 165 to 181. ↩

D Myhill and S Jones, ‘How talk becomes text: investigating the concept of oral rehearsal in early years’ classrooms’, in ‘British Journal of Educational Studies’, Volume 57, Issue 3, 2009, pages 265 to 284. ↩

B Bell and B Cowie, ‘The characteristics of formative assessment in science education’, in ‘Science Education’, Volume 85, Issue 5, 2001, pages 536 to 553. ↩

P Black and D Wiliam, ‘Assessment and classroom learning’, in ‘Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice’, Volume 5, Issue 1, 1998, pages 7 to 74. ↩

Y Yin, MK Tomita and RJ Shavelson, ‘Using formal embedded formative assessments aligned with a short-term learning progression to promote conceptual change and achievement in science’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 36, Issue 4, 2014, pages 531 to 552. ↩

PM Sadler, ‘Psychometric models of student conceptions in science: reconciling qualitative studies and distractor‐driven assessment instruments’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 35, Issue 3, 1998, pages 265 to 296. ↩

R Brock and KS Taber, ‘Making claims about learning: a microgenetic multiple case study of temporal patterns of conceptual change in learners’ activation of force conceptions’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 42, Issue 8, 2020, pages 1388 to 1407. ↩

JL Sabel, CT Forbes and L Flynn, ‘Elementary teachers’ use of content knowledge to evaluate students’ thinking in the life sciences’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 38, Issue 7, 2016, pages 1077 to 1099. ↩

HL Roediger III and AC Butler, ‘The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention’, in ‘Trends in Cognitive Sciences’, Volume 15, Issue 1, 2011, pages 20 to 27. ↩

MA McDaniel, PK Agarwal, BJ Huelser, KB McDermott and HL Roediger III, ‘Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: the effects of quiz frequency and placement’, in ‘Journal of Educational Psychology’, Volume 103, Issue 2, 2011, page 399 to 414; T Rowley and MT McCrudden, ‘Retrieval practice and retention of course content in a middle school science classroom’, in ‘Applied Cognitive Psychology’, Volume 34, Issue 6, 2020, pages 1510 to 1515. ↩

JD Karpicke, JR Blunt, MA Smith and SS Karpicke, ‘Retrieval-based learning: the need for guided retrieval in elementary school children’, in ‘Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition’, Volume 3, Issue 3, 2014, pages 198 to 206. ↩

C Counsell, ‘Better conversations with subject leaders: how secondary senior leaders can see a curriculum more clearly’, in ‘The researchED guide to the curriculum’, edited by C Sealy and T Bennett, John Catt, 2020, pages 95 to 121, quote on page 98. ↩

I Abrahams, MJ Reiss and RM Sharpe, ‘The assessment of practical work in school science’, in ‘Studies in Science Education’, Volume 49, Issue 2, 2013, pages 209 to 251; ‘Consultation on the assessment of practical work in GCSE Science’ , Ofqual, December 2014. ↩

‘HMCI’s commentary: recent primary and secondary curriculum research’ , Ofsted, October 2017. ↩

D Berliner, ‘Rational responses to high stakes testing: the case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows’, in ‘Cambridge Journal of Education’, Volume 41, Issue 3, 2011, pages 287 to 302. ↩

WJ Popham, ‘Teaching to the test?’, in ‘Educational Leadership’, Volume 58, Issue 6, 2001, pages 16 to 21. ↩

‘National curriculum assessment at key stage 2 in England, 2018 (revised)’ , Department for Education, December 2018. ↩

W Harlen, ‘Assessment of learning’, Sage, 2007. ↩

‘There were ridiculous marking schemes, eight coloured pens and five symbols, it took me three hours a day to get through all the marking’ (secondary science teacher)’: ‘Factors affecting teacher retention: qualitative investigation’ , Department for Education, March 2018, quote on page 22. ↩

L Shulman, ‘Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform’, in ‘Harvard Educational Review’, Volume 57, Issue 1, 1987, pages 1 to 22. ↩

For example, ON Kaya, ‘The nature of relationships among the components of pedagogical content knowledge of preservice science teachers: “Ozone layer depletion” as an example’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 31, Issue 7, 2009, pages 961 to 988. ↩

RH Barba and PA Rubba, ‘Expert and novice, earth and space science: teachers’ declarative, procedural and structural knowledge’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 15, Issue 3, 1993, pages 273 to 282. ↩

V Kind, ‘Science teachers’ content knowledge’, in ‘Exploring mathematics and science teachers’ knowledge: windows into teacher thinking’, edited by H Venkat, M Rollnick, J Loughran and M Askew, Routledge, 2014, pages 15 to 28. ↩

GW Fulmer, ‘Constraints on conceptual change: how elementary teachers’ attitudes and understanding of conceptual change relate to changes in students’ conceptions’, in ‘Journal of Science Teacher Education’, Volume 24, Issue 7, 2013, pages 1219 to 1236; M Sanders, ‘Erroneous ideas about respiration: the teacher factor’, in ‘Journal of Research in Science Teaching’, Volume 30, Issue 8, 1993, pages 919 to 934. ↩

JN Burgoon, ML Heddle and E Duran, ‘Re-examining the similarities between teacher and student conceptions about physical science’, in ‘Journal of Science Teacher Education’, Volume 22, Issue 2, 2011, pages 101 to 114. ↩

RS Nixon, KM Hill and JA Luft, ‘Secondary science teachers’ subject matter knowledge development across the first 5 years’, in ‘Journal of Science Teacher Education’, Volume 28, Issue 7, 2017, pages 574 to 589. ↩

‘Improving science teacher retention’ , Wellcome Trust, September 2017. ↩

‘Subjects matter’ , Institute of Physics, December 2020. ↩

K Lynch, HC Hill, KE Gonzalez and C Pollard, ‘Strengthening the research base that informs STEM instructional improvement efforts: a meta-analysis’, in ‘Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis’, Volume 41, Issue 3, 2019, pages 260 to 293. ↩

F Abd-El-Khalick and NG Lederman, ‘Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 22, Issue 7, 2000, pages 665 to 701; D Anderson and M Clark, ‘Development of syntactic subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge for science by a generalist elementary teacher’, in ‘Teachers and Teaching’, Volume 18, Issue 3, 2012, pages 315 to 330. ↩

O Ioannidou and S Erduran, ‘Beyond hypothesis testing. Investigating the diversity of scientific methods in science teacher’s understanding’ , in ‘Science and Education’, 2021. ↩

B Youens, J Gordon and L Newton, ‘Developing confidence in practical science activities in novice teachers: policy, practice and the implementation gap’, in ‘School Science Review’, Volume 95, Issue 352, 2014, pages 71 to 79. ↩

F Abd-El-Khalick and NG Lederman, ‘Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature’, in ‘International Journal of Science Education’, Volume 22, Issue 7, 2000, pages 665 to 701; O Ioannidou and S Erduran, ‘Beyond hypothesis testing. Investigating the diversity of scientific methods in science teachers’ understanding’ , in ‘Science and Education’, 2021. ↩

JD Williams, ‘“It’s just a theory”: trainee science teachers’ misunderstandings of key scientific terminology’ , in ‘Evolution: Education and Outreach’, Volume 6, Issue 12, 2013. ↩

J Sharples, R Webster and P Blatchford, ‘Making best use of teaching assistants’ , Education Endowment Foundation, 2018. ↩

‘Vision for science, mathematics and computing education’ , The Royal Society, 2014. ↩

L Buchan, M Hejmadi, L Abrahams and LD Hurst, ‘A RCT for assessment of active human-centred learning finds teacher-centric non-human teaching of evolution optimal’ , in ‘NPJ Science of Learning’, Volume 5, Issue 19. ↩

‘The deployment of science and maths leaders in primary schools’ , Wellcome Trust, October 2013. ↩

S Sims, ‘Increasing the quantity and quality of science teachers in schools: eight evidence-based principles’ , Gatsby Charitable Foundation, 2019. ↩

Pupils in England received on average 91 hours per year for science instruction in 2019. The international average was 137 hours. Note that data was only available for between 40% and 50% of students and so should be interpreted with caution. IVS Mullis, MO Martin, P Foy, DL Kelly and B Fishbein, ‘ TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science’ , retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, 2020. ↩

‘Understanding the “state of the nation” report of UK primary science education’ , Wellcome Trust, January 2019. ↩

J Worth, ‘The science technician workforce in English secondary schools’ , National Foundation for Educational Research; November 2020. ↩

J Holman, ‘Good practical science’ , Gatsby Charitable Foundation, 2017. ↩

B Jones and S Quinnell, ‘How technicians can lead science improvements in any school: a small-scale study in England’, in ‘School Science Review’, Volume 96, Issue 357, 2015, pages 90 to 96. ↩

‘Resourcing practical science in primary schools’ and ‘Resourcing practical science at secondary level’ , Science Community Representing Education, April 2013; J Redfern, D Burdass and J Verran, ‘Practical microbiology in schools: a survey of UK teachers’, in ‘Trends in Microbiology’, Volume 21, Issue 11, 2013, pages 557 to 559. ↩

‘Science education in schools: maintaining curiosity’ , Ofsted, November 2013. ↩

Is this page useful?

Yes this page is useful
No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.

Notification: View the latest site access restrictions, updates, and resources related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) »

International Researchers Explore New Territory in the Grand Challenges of Wind Energy Science

Nrel researchers led a report tackling atmospheric science, turbine technology, grid integration, environmental codesign, and social science.

Paul Veers presents in front of a projector screen that says, “What issues need to be resolved for wind to supply 40% to 50% or more of global electricity?”

Paul Veers, an NREL wind energy research fellow, led a 2023 International Energy Agency Topical Expert Meeting on the five grand challenges of wind energy and the ways in which those challenges intersect. The findings from this meeting informed a new NREL report. Photo by Werner Slocum, NREL

Wind energy— one of the fastest-growing and lowest-cost sources of electricity in the world —will play an important role in the transition to a carbon-free energy system. However, wind energy’s growth must be planned with careful consideration of atmospheric physics, turbine design, and grid resilience, as well as environmental and social impacts. Finding solutions to these types of challenges will require experts to collaborate across their disciplines.

That is the thesis of a new report co-authored by researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) along with global industry and academic experts. The report, Grand Challenges Revisited: Wind Energy Research Needs for a Global Energy Transition , follows a 2019 article published in the journal Science , which outlined three grand challenges of wind energy research. Broadly speaking, these original three challenges focused on our inadequate understanding of and inability to accurately model atmospheric physics, wind turbine technology, and wind power plant integration into the grid.

The new report expands those three original challenges to five:

Wind atmospheric science
Wind turbine systems
Wind plants and grid
Environmental codesign
Social science.

A circle made up of five puzzle pieces labeled with icons and text as wind atmospheric science, wind turbine systems, environmental co-design, social science, and wind plants and grid.

For wind energy to realize its role in the clean energy transition and supply 50% of future global energy needs, experts from many different disciplines will need to collaborate to tackle wind energy’s interconnected challenges. These challenges, illustrated above, include wind atmospheric science, wind turbine systems, environmental co-design, social science, and wind plants and the grid. Illustration by Taylor Henry, NREL

“Three grand challenges were a grand start,” said Paul Veers , an NREL research fellow and report co-author. “But readers of the 2019 Science article pointed out that we had neglected to consider the environmental and social challenges of wind energy development. Recognizing our oversight, we incorporated these additional challenges into our expanded vision.”

To further explore these five grand challenges and their intersections, Veers and his colleagues convened an International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Energy Topical Expert Meeting in February 2023. Grand Challenges Revisited summarizes the key findings from that meeting.

Charting the Course for a Complex System

Many countries around the world, including the United States, have set ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A first step toward these goals will be to transition to renewable sources of energy, like wind, in the next few decades.

However, for wind energy to assume its role in the clean energy transition, the industry must address critical issues around the design, development, and deployment of wind turbines and power plants. In addition, as wind energy deployment increases, so will its environmental and social impacts.

“Wind energy is complicated,” Veers said. “It comes with technical, environmental, and social challenges that intersect and cut across discipline boundaries.”

To help address wind energy’s dynamic opportunities for expansion to meet global energy demand, IEA meeting participants examined the cross-disciplinary issues created by the intersections between the five grand challenges. For Veers and his colleagues, these issues highlight a need to integrate social, environmental, economic, and technical elements into wind turbine and plant design before they are built.

“For example, a prospective wind farm site may also be near an eagle population, and wind turbines pose a risk to eagles,” Veers explained. “That means the wind turbines and farm need to be designed in a way that minimizes that risk while still maintaining optimal power generation—and that means you need to integrate knowledge about eagle behavior with knowledge about plant optimization.”

A bald eagle flying above a grassy field with a wind turbine in the background.

Designing wind energy facilities to minimize risk to wildlife like this bald eagle while still maintaining optimal power production is one example of a wind energy challenge that requires interdisciplinary expertise. Photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL

Common Needs Across All Grand Challenges

Through their discussions, all groups at the IEA meeting observed three issues that all five challenges have in common, which are:

A lack of understanding of basic concepts and terminology between wind energy disciplines, creating a need for cross-disciplinary education
The challenge of aggregating and managing vast datasets while safeguarding intellectual property, which presents yet-to-be-realized opportunities to leverage existing data through digitization
That opportunities for discussion, like the IEA Topical Expert Meeting, are rare and sparsely located but are highly enlightening.

“It turned out these experts enjoyed talking to each other across the boundaries of their disciplines,” Veers said. “There aren’t many places where these different experts can come together, so doing that intentionally should be a goal.”

The Turbine’s Continued Evolution

The IEA meeting discussions also served as a reminder that wind energy still has lots of room for innovation.

For Veers and his colleagues, supporting the continued advancement of the wind turbine will require a holistic approach to design that considers metrics beyond levelized cost of energy (the ratio of costs expended to energy produced). Those designs need to incorporate intelligent control systems, which enhance turbine awareness and operational efficiency. Researchers need to step back and think about how these turbines are made, which will help improve industrial-scale turbine production, enhance recyclability, avoid the use of critical materials, and reduce manufacturing costs.

“The current success of the wind turbine does not mean it's a done technology any more than the success of the Model T meant the car was a done technology in 1920,” Veers said. “Current wind turbines work and are cost-effective, but the demands of the future will be very different from what they are today and from what they have been in the past. The evolution of the wind turbine is still a major area of opportunity.”

An aerial photo of a wind turbine standing over farmland, with more wind turbines in the background.

Wind energy still has plenty of room to evolve. Holistic turbine design, intelligent turbine control systems, and improved industrial-scale turbine production are and will continue to be key opportunities for innovation. Photo by Josh Bauer and Bryan Bechtold

Now that the participants at the IEA Wind meetings have identified the critical issues at the intersections of wind energy’s grand challenges, the next step will be to develop solutions necessary for the substantial expansion of wind energy.

Veers and his co-authors' findings offer the basis for a five-year roadmap for international collaborative research, which will help enable wind energy to fulfill its role in the clean energy transition.

Learn more about the Grand Challenges . Be sure to subscribe to NREL’s wind energy newsletter for more news like this.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Environmental Factor

Your online source for niehs news, scientific journeys: actionable research to chemical safety policy.

Suril Mehta, Dr.P.H., described his path from epidemiology to NIEHS and serving as a White House Senior Advisor for Chemical Safety.

By Ben Richardson

In February, Suril Mehta, Dr.P.H. , a Division of Translational Toxicology environmental epidemiologist, completed a year-long detail at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), where he helped develop regulations and policies related to air pollution , drinking water contamination , lead , ethylene oxide , PFAS , chemical accidents , and carcinogenic substances . During his tenure at CEQ, he also served as the White House’s interagency coordinator for the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment response , and he led efforts to ensure environmental hazards were considered as part of President Joe Biden’s Cancer Moonshot initiative.

The spark that ignited Mehta’s career journey from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to NIEHS and eventually the Executive Office of the President? His older sister Eshani, a breast imaging radiologist and breast cancer awareness advocate, who has been a constant source of inspiration to Mehta throughout his life.

Environmental Factor recently met with Mehta to discuss his work at the White House, mentors who have inspired him, and the value of NIEHS research to inform and shape policymaking.

EF : What led to your detail at the White House and what were some of the highlights of your time there?

Mehta : The White House Council on Environmental Quality was looking for a public health scientist with a science and regulatory policy background, and given my career ping-ponging back and forth between the two over the past 18 years, I thought it was a natural fit for me.

The role itself involved ensuring that the best possible science and consideration for environmental justice were being incorporated into high-level, complex, and consequential environmental and occupational policy. I strongly believe we achieved that and then some. I would argue that this was probably the most productive year for science-based policies to mitigate hazardous environmental chemicals in the U.S. in decades.

EF : Where does the science behind all these major actions start?

Mehta : Partly at NIEHS with our funding and leading intramural research. I want everyone to know that our work here at NIEHS is not just science for science’s sake, but actionable research that influences policymaking. The proof is in the pudding over the last year. Your work to further public health is not just put on the shelf collecting dust — it’s being used to tangibly improve people’s lives.

In the last year, we proposed a drinking water regulation to remove all lead pipes within 10 years and made significant progress on regulations to limit chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act. For example, this year marked the ban of certain uses of asbestos in this country, a long-overdue and historic rulemaking that exemplifies the continuum from actionable research to successful policy. These efforts could not have been done without the tireless effort of civil servants working collectively across the federal government.

Members of the CEQ team with Mehta, second from right,

EF : What was a defining moment in your scientific journey?

Mehta : When I joined the EPA as a Presidential Management Fellow, I was coming as a junior-level environmental epidemiologist mostly focusing on primary research at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, I was immediately thrown into the fire of developing regulations and policies that impacted millions of people, dealing with lawyers, congressional statutes, environmental engineers, risk assessors, and other disciplines across and outside of the EPA.

That really was an “aha” moment for me. Seeing such a broad spectrum of environmental science — from nascent primary research all the way up to policy implementation and evaluation — has been incredibly beneficial in shaping my time at NIEHS and the White House.

EF : Which mentors have played a pivotal role in your career?

Mehta : One of my first formal mentors was Jennifer Parker [Ph.D.] at the National Center for Health Statistics within the CDC. She patiently guided me through learning data analysis while working on complex survey data, such as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which was a real boon for my career.

My current manager at NIEHS, Ruth Lunn [Dr.P.H.], has also been a great mentor for me. In her role as director of the Report on Carcinogens, she’s taught me how to conduct robust cancer hazard evaluations using systematic review methodology, specifically within the field of environmental and occupational health.

Suril Mehta, Dr.P.H., Mehta, left, with family, right, who visited the White House grounds during his one-year detail.

EF : What brought you to NIEHS?

Mehta : I wanted to get back to the science while also contributing to policy work, which NIEHS allowed me to do. I came from a children’s environmental health background, so working on the Report on Carcinogens was a bit of a shift. But those basic methods for applying systematic review to environmental exposures are the same regardless of the specific population, which is what brought me to where I am today.

EF : What do you enjoy most about working in the environmental health sciences?

Mehta : What I appreciate about environmental health is that your objective research, hazard conclusions, and policymaking can have a direct impact. There is a real opportunity for meaningful change, and our recent research evaluating our impact confirms this point.

Our field has advanced to purposely and intentionally account for communities with environmental justice concerns, vulnerable life stages, and people that are being overburdened by a mixture of hazardous chemical pollutants. We’re making a difference in the lives of people who wouldn’t otherwise have a voice.

(Ben Richardson, Ph.D., is a Presidential Management Fellow in the NIEHS Office of Communications and Public Liaison.)

Epigenomics and epitranscriptomics front and center at Council

Oral histories shed light on environmental injustice in Louisiana

Implementation science can advance environmental justice research

Katrina Korfmacher, Ph.D., and Julia Brody, Ph.D.

Grantees create framework to report back environmental health results

Forum seeks environmental justice for North Carolina neighborhood

People Directory
Safety at UD

Category: College of Health Sciences

Student standing in front of poster presenting nutrition science research at an event

March College of Health Sciences For the Record

April 03, 2024 Written by CHS Staff

For the Record provides information about recent professional activities and honors of University of Delaware faculty, staff, students and alumni.

Recent appointments, presentations, publications and honors in the College of Health Sciences include the following:

Robert Weimer , a human nutrition master’s student, was awarded Poster of Distinction at the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) 2024 Nutrition Science and Practice Conference in Tampa, Florida, in March. Weimer’s research focuses on measuring muscle mass using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in patients with liver cirrhosis, who often suffer from malnutrition and muscle loss. Weimer works closely on this research with faculty mentor Carrie Earthman, a professor in the Department of Health Behavior and Nutrition Sciences in the College of Health Sciences .

“I am truly honored and grateful to be recognized for my research,” said Weimer. “This acknowledgment is not just a personal achievement but also a reflection of the collaboration and guidance of my inspiring research advisor, Dr. Carrie Earthman, who’s helped shape my academic career."

Elizabeth Orsega-Smith , professor of health behavior and nutrition sciences , was recently recognized as a Fellow of the Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM). She was elected a Fellow at the SBM’s Annual Meeting and Scientific Session in Philadelphia in March. Orsega-Smith was recognized, in part, for her rigorous research program, which focuses on physical activity in older adults, including psychosocial determinants of health. Fellow status is the highest status achieved by an SBM member and recognizes Orsega-Smith’s outstanding contributions to advancing science and the practice of behavioral medicine.

"Being recognized as a fellow in the Society of Behavioral Medicine is an honor, not only for me but also as a representative of the Department of Health Behavior and Nutrition Sciences in the College of Health Sciences at UD," Orsega-Smith said. "I am grateful for the opportunity that the Society of Behavioral Medicine has provided me to highlight my research in the aging population and develop leadership skills within their organization."

To submit information for inclusion in For the Record, write to [email protected] and include “For the Record” in the subject line.

ADDITIONAL LINKS

Make a gift
Employee Resources
Employee Health & Wellbeing

Tower at STAR: 100 Discovery Blvd, Newark, DE 19713<br> Health Sciences Complex: 540 S. College Ave, Newark, DE 19713 [email protected] Phone: 302-831-1060

IMAGES

A Summary of Ofsted’s Science Subject Report: Finding the Optimum
Summary of Key Findings: Ofsted 2014
Fillable Online Ofsted publishes science research reviewthe first in a
A Summary of Ofsted's Science Research Report for Teachers and Leaders
Ofsted Report 2023
| STEM

COMMENTS

Subject report series: science
The report shares what we've learned and builds on the Ofsted science research review which identified factors that contribute to high-quality school science curriculums, assessment, pedagogy ...
Finding the optimum: the science subject report
The report builds on the 2021 Ofsted science research review. [footnote 1] The report is split into findings in primary schools and those in secondary schools, and includes evidence from Reception ...
A Summary of Ofsted's Science Subject Report: Finding the Optimum
Ofsted have released the first of their latest subject reports which use the research reviews as a lens to evaluate the curricula of schools they have inspected. The first report explores and evaluates the state of science education in England. The findings are based on a relatively small sample of schools (50) but nevertheless provide some ...
Ofsted's science subject report: What leaders need to know
The latest document draws on Ofsted's 2021 science research review, and finds that science curriculums are improving despite ongoing challenges caused by Covid. But it says improvements still required, including the amount of opportunities for practical work offered within secondary schools. Chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, said she was ...
An overview of the 2023 Ofsted science report
Science. 03rd March 2023. Cornerstones Director Simon Hickton provides an overview of Ofsted's latest publication, Finding the optimum: the science subject report. The theme for this year's British Science Week is 'connections', and it could not be more relevant to Ofsted's latest findings on how best to teach the subject of science.
PDF Finding the Optimum: he Science Subject Report T
At the time, Ofsted stated its intention that the research reviews would be followe d by a series of subject reports. The first of these has now been published and is summarised below. The science subject report evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of science in the schools inspected and makes a series of recommendations.
A Summary of Ofsted's Science Research Report for Teachers and Leaders
1️⃣ This is the first formal year of science education. 👩🏼‍🏫 Children should be exposed to myriad vocabulary and phenomena which build a general science knowledge. 📖 Teachers should use picture books to teach and discuss important vocabulary that will enable success in Year 1 and later. 🌺Learning science in EYFS should not ...
Summary of Ofsted's Science Subject Report 2023: Finding the Optimum
Main findings. Most schools provided an ambitious science curriculum, mainly focused on developing pupils' knowledge of substantive concepts such as 'habitats', 'forces' and 'materials'. Science was strong in most schools. Pupils had a detailed and connected knowledge of the curriculum, and remembered what they had learned previously.
PDF Finding the optimum: the science subject report
STEM Learning welcomes the publication of Ofsted's Finding the optimum: the science subject report - based on the evidence from its routine inspections. Our role is to support all schools (and staff) on their journey - recognising their individual school contexts and helping them to meet the specific needs of their pupils and staff.
A Summary of the Ofsted Science Subject Report 2023
The Ofsted Science Subject Report was published by Ofsted in February 2023 and is based on evidence collected during routine Ofsted inspections. It 'evaluates the common strengths and weaknesses of science in the schools inspected and considers the challenges that science faces'. The report also 'identifies some significant strengths in ...
Latest evidence on what works in primary science
Finding the optimum: the science subject report, Ofsted (2023) This report presents a range of evidence about science education gathered from routine Ofsted inspections in schools in England. It is split into primary and secondary findings, and includes evidence from reception classes. ... A response to the Ofsted Research Review for Science ...
PDF A review of Ofsted inspection reports: science
A review of Ofsted inspection reports: science . This document describes Wellcome's review of how Ofsted school inspections comment on science. It places the review in the context of Ofsted's own ... This is consistent with research Wellcome commissioned in March 2016: one fifth (19%) of primary school teachers reported that they spent 30
Understanding the Ofsted Research Review of Science: How to use the
The Ofsted Research Report (published at the end of April) draws together what the research tells us about how to deliver science successfully in our schools. It considers a number of key factors, including the roles of substantive and disciplinary knowledge.
PSTT responds to Ofsted's latest science subject report
The Primary Science Teaching Trust's initial response to Ofsted's science subject report. Ofsted's recent research and analysis publication, 'Finding the optimum: the science subject report', provides helpful guidance for the sector. We are pleased to see the recommendations that substantial curriculum time for science is needed and ...
Our response to Ofsted's 'Finding the optimum: the science subject report'
STEM Learning welcomes the publication of Ofsted's 'Finding the optimum: the science subject report' which is based on the evidence from its routine inspections. In this article we've reflected on key themes within the report. Our role is to support schools and staff on their journey - and we are pleased that our support has been acknowledged, along with the role that we and other ...
IOP responds to Ofsted science report
IOP responds to Ofsted science report. 8 February 2023. Need for increased emphasis on developing students' disciplinary knowledge in physics and evidence of whole-school equity plans. The IOP has welcomed the recent publication of Ofsted's science curriculum report. These subject-specific reports can provide an important window into ...
Response to Ofsted's 'Finding the optimum' report on science learning
Yesterday (Thursday 2 February 2023), Ofsted published its report on the quality of science education in England. Entitled 'Finding the optimum: the science subject report', it looked at science teaching in primary and secondary schools across England, bringing in evidence from reception through to sixth forms.
A summary of "Finding the optimum: the science subject report", Ofsted
Summary of the Osted report findings relevant to primary science. Intended science learning in reception classes was not clear enough and as such limited how well prepared they are for learning in year 1. Where science was strong in a school, pupils' learning was connected and detailed and they could remember their previous learning.
Melting glaciers in a warmer climate provide new ground for invasive
In 2022 and 2023, biologists from research institutes in the UK and the Falkland Islands led two expeditions to South Georgia to study the impacts of invasive species on this cold and rugged sub ...
Summary of Ofsted's Science Subject Report 2023: Finding the Optimum
Ofsted have just released their latest research report into Science teaching. Here's a summary of the main findings and recommendations. Recommendations from the Report Curriculum Ensure the content taught in Reception is detailed as explicitly as it is for KS1 and KS2. Make better connections between Reception content and what pupils are taught in KS1. […]
Methane From Landfills Is a Big Driver of Climate Change, Study Says
Our F.A.Q. will tackle your climate questions, big and small. Decades of buried trash in landfills is releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, at higher rates than previously estimated, a ...
Australian Antarctic Division 'struggling' to use $528 million
When the RSV Nuyina was first launched in 2021, the vessel was described as a "Disneyland for scientists". But, three years, and several PR disasters, later, the $528 million ship is yet to ...
An Everest-size volcano hiding in plain sight on Mars? New research
Scientists may have pinpointed a massive, oddly shaped volcano taller than Mount Everest on the surface of Mars — and it has been hiding in plain sight for decades, according to new research.
Research review series: science
WH Schmidt, 'The quest for a coherent school science curriculum: the need for an organizing principle', in 'Review of Policy Research', Volume 20, Issue 4, 2003, pages 569 to 584 ...
International Researchers Explore New Territory in the Grand Challenges
"Three grand challenges were a grand start," said Paul Veers, an NREL research fellow and report co-author."But readers of the 2019 Science article pointed out that we had neglected to consider the environmental and social challenges of wind energy development. Recognizing our oversight, we incorporated these additional challenges into our expanded vision."
Scientific Journeys: Actionable research to chemical safety policy
Mehta: I wanted to get back to the science while also contributing to policy work, which NIEHS allowed me to do. I came from a children's environmental health background, so working on the Report on Carcinogens was a bit of a shift. But those basic methods for applying systematic review to environmental exposures are the same regardless of ...
March College of Health Sciences For the Record
Elizabeth Orsega-Smith, professor of health behavior and nutrition sciences, was recently recognized as a Fellow of the Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM). She was elected a Fellow at the SBM's Annual Meeting and Scientific Session in Philadelphia in March. Orsega-Smith was recognized, in part, for her rigorous research program, which focuses on physical activity in older adults, including ...

Ofsted’s science subject report: The key things leaders need to know

So what did Ofsted find?

2. … but few develop teachers’ science knowledge

3. Secondaries ‘wrongly assume pupils learn little at primary’ …

4. … But some primary pupils do go months without science classes

5. Differences in the amount of practical work taking place

And what does Ofsted recommend to improve science in schools?

Continue the conversation, share this article on social media

‘Consultation not referendum’: Oliver defends Ofsted’s ‘Big Listen’

‘Big Listen’: Pupils asked for views on how Ofsted can improve

Ofsted: ‘Constrained’ funding could ‘compromise’ inspection reliability

Ofsted chief told of ousted heads’ gagging clause ordeals

Ofsted eyes tweaks to inspector role to boost expertise

Ofsted: Give us £8.5m to deliver more in-depth inspections

Your thoughts

An overview of the 2023 Ofsted science report

Connectivity

Connecting learning across subjects

Developing secure knowledge

Fitting it all in

Assessing with purpose

Subject Leadership

Simon Hickton

Similar article

How to sequence your primary curriculum

How to achieve subject coverage and progression with Cornerstones

Helping schools to transform the lives of children through powerful curriculum and meaningful assessment

Enter your details to download

Download your file below

We are in a much better place with CM than with our old curriculum. We will be making it more bespoke in the second year.

I have used Cornerstones from its first launch. The product has been refined over time as it is driven by feedback from schools and teachers delivering the content. The company is also responsive to a school's needs.

Maestro is a real time saver, particularly for leadership teams and subject leaders. There is a wealth of information and resources which can be used and adapted by creative skills teachers. The way the curriculum is mapped is excellent and was commented on in a very recent Ofsted inspection.

I have recommended and told many other schools and school staff about it. I would always though suggest that they need to ensure it is right for their school setting and the needs of their staff and pupils.

A Summary of Ofsted's Science Research Report for Teachers and Leaders

The Importance of Early Years and the EYFS

What teachers need to know:

What leaders need to know:

My Own Take

Recent Posts

Summary of Ofsted’s Science Subject Report 2023: Finding the Optimum

Recommendations from the Report

Pedagogy and Assessment

Systems at subject and school level

Main findings

Key Terms Used

PDF Summary

About The Author

Danny Nicholson

Related Posts

Encouraging Discussion and Managing Pupil Talk In Science

Using AI to Chat to Historical Scientists: A Guide for Teachers

What Happens When You Ask AI to Draw a Scientist?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Support this site

Recent Posts

Pin It on Pinterest

A Summary of the Ofsted Science Subject Report 2023

What is the Ofsted Science Subject Report 2023?

What is the context of the Ofsted Science Subject Report?

What is substantive and disciplinary knowledge?

What were the main findings of the Ofsted Science Subject Report?

What were the recommendations from the Ofsted Science Subject Report 2023?

What did the Science Subject Report say about curriculum planning?

The Science Subject Report and science assessment

Science pedagogy

How to make science learning easier

What pupils need to know and remember in science

Science and practical work

Subject leadership

Science and teacher CPD

Related Articles

How to teach science if you’re not a science expert

PZAZ Science Lessons are on Pango

PSTT responds to Ofsted’s latest science subject report

Download PSTT’s initial response to Ofsted’s science subject report

A summary of "Finding the optimum: the science subject report", Ofsted (2023)

Did you find this article useful?

Explorify evaluation report 2023

Join Explorify today to take your class on an exciting science adventure!

Melting glaciers in a warmer climate provide new ground for invasive species

Subject Leadership 