This article was downloaded by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES]

On: 01 February 2015, At: 17:31

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Teaching science process skills

a a
Peter N. Brotherton & Peter F. W. Preece
a
School of Education , University of Exeter , UK
Published online: 17 Jul 2008.

To cite this article: Peter N. Brotherton & Peter F. W. Preece (1996) Teaching
science process skills, International Journal of Science Education, 18:1, 65-74, DOI:
10.1080/0950069960180106

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180106

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information
(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor
& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties
whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The
accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable
for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 INT. J. sci. EDUC., 1996, VOL. 18, NO. 1, 65-74

Teaching science process skills

Peter N. Brotherton and Peter F. W. Preece, School of Education,

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 17:31 01 February 2015

University of Exeter, UK

The effects of teaching science with a special emphasis on process skills were investigated with Year 7,
8 and 9 classes, in a study employing experimental and control groups. The 28-week intervention proved
to be particularly effective in promoting science process skills and in raising the Piagetian development
level in Year 8 males. In delayed post-tests nine or ten weeks after the intervention, the positive effects
on cognitive ability were still present. The results are interpreted in terms of 'readiness', associated with
a spurt in brain development.

Introduction
The policy document Science 5—16 (DES 1985a) indicated official support in England
and Wales for introducing school students to the methods of science as the 'essential
characteristic of education in science'. This inclusion of science process skills in
school science courses received statutory backing in the Science National Curriculum
(DES 1989, 1991). The whole of Attainment Target 1 (Sc 1) is devoted to scientific
investigations (see also SCAA 1994).
The teaching of science process skills is not, however, uncontroversial (Millar
and Driver 1987) and the nature of the methods of science is a perennial source of
disagreement (Chalmers 1982). One key issue in science education concerns the
relationship between cognitive development and the acquisition of science process
skills. When cognitive development is operationalized in terms of Piagetian
reasoning patterns and related tasks, considerable overlap with science process skills
is evident. For example, 'controlling variables' features in both lists of formal
reasoning patterns (Lawson 1985) and of science process skills (e.g. AAAS 1967). This
close relationship has been confirmed empirically using a number of tests of
Piagetian development level and of process skills (Tobin and Capie 1982a, Padilla
et al. 1983, Yeany et al. 1986, Brotherton and Preece 1995) and this raises the
possibility of promoting cognitive development through teaching science process
skills (Baird and Borich 1987).
The Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) project has provided
important evidence on the possibility of promoting cognitive development and
science learning through an intervention programme based on specially designed
activities linked to Piagetian reasoning patterns (Adey 1992). However, some of the
data analyses used in the CASE project have been criticized (Preece 1993) and, in
another study, Thomas (1989) found no relationship between the conceptual
demand of science courses and students' cognitive development. The present study
sought further evidence on this issue by investigating the effects on cognitive
development of teaching science with a special emphasis on process skills.
0950-0693/96 $12-00 © 1996 Taylor & Francis Ltd
 66 RESEARCH REPORTS

Procedure
A pre-test/post-test/delayed post-test design was adopted, with experimental and
control groups in each of Years 7, 8 and 9.

Participants
The science classes used were from the only comprehensive school in a small town.
Apart from the exclusion of most statemented pupils and of most pupils with
percentile scores below 30 on the Bristol Achievement Test (Brimer 1969), which is
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 17:31 01 February 2015

taken by most entrants to the school, the classes were of mixed ability. The two Year
7 classes were selected because of their similar mean BAT scores and because the
gender ratio was the same in each class. In Year 8, two classes were selected for the
same reasons, with the additional criterion of very similar mean scores on the
Cognitive Abilities Test (Thorndike and Hagen 1986), for which information was also
available. Two Year 9 classes were chosen in a similar way. For each pair of classes,
the allocation to experimental or control category was left to the effectively random
decision of the timetabler.

The intervention
In each year, the experimental and control classes were taught the same science
content by their regular teachers. The intervention in the experimental classes
consisted in an emphasis in every lesson on science process skills, as tools available
to students to structure their thinking and practical work. The process skills
incorporated in the intervention were as follows: (1) basic skills-observing,
measuring, inferring, classifying, predicting, using number, using space/time
relationships, recording and displaying data; (2) integrated skills- interpreting data,
controlling variables, denning operationally, formulating hypotheses. This list of
skills and the classification into basic and integrated categories is based on Science-a
Process Approach (AAAS 1967). For each skill, a number of attainment targets were
formulated and these were given to the teachers of the experimental classes prior to
the interventions. For example, the following are the attainment targets, indicating
what the student should be able to do, for the 'controlling variables skill' (modified
from Tannenbaum 1971):

(1) Identify the manipulated and the responding variables in a given experi-
mental situation.
(2) Identify all the control variables in a given situation.
(3) Suggest methods for the control of variables in a given experimental
situation.
(4) Suggest methods for the sampling of change in the responding variable.

In addition, experimental class teachers were given careful directions about the style
of delivery of the course, with its emphasis on a practical, thinking approach, and
the use of process skills in the context of full investigations. Detailed plans were
provided for every lesson and for the homework for the three experimental groups
over a period of two terms (28 weeks), and the content and delivery of these lessons
was discussed with each teacher every week. The homework of the experimental
groups included 45 worksheets containing problems on process skills, from the APU
 TEACHING SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS 67

bank of questions (DES 1985b, c). These were marked by one of the researchers and
returned to the class teacher, with suggestions for discussion with students.
Students in the experimental groups were also given special holiday tasks. The
Year 7 and 8 groups were set a 'Christmas Challenge' at the end of the first term of
the intervention programme. This required each student to devise and use a device
for measuring either time, mass or volume. Students in all three experimental groups
were required to undertake a more elaborate science-based project involving the use
of all the process skills during the Easter holidays, at the end of the intervention
period. Projects were chosen, with guidance, by the students themselves, and typical
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 17:31 01 February 2015

examples were 'investigating the distribution of lichen on gravestones', 'the

performance of golf balls' and 'the wanderings of cats'.
The exercise books of students in the experimental classes were inspected
regularly by one of the researchers to ensure that the process skills emphasis was
being maintained, and this was confirmed by occasional observations of experimental
class lessons.

Tests
Two measures of science process skills were used-the Objective Referenced
Evaluation in Science (ORES) (Shaw 1983) and the Test of Integrated Science Processes
(TISP) (Tobin and Capie 1982b). ORES assesses both basic and integrated skills, and
can yield separate scores on each of these dimensions. The basic skills tested are
observing, measuring, inferring, classifying, predicting, using number, space/time
relations and recording/displaying data. The integrated skills are interpreting data,
controlling variables, defining operationally and formulating hypotheses. It has been
established that there is a hierarchical relationship between these two broad skills
areas (Brotherton and Preece 1995). The acquisition of basic skills is a prerequisite
for the acquisition of integrated skills, TISP is designed to assess a range of integrated
process skills, yielding scores on a single dimension.
Piagetian development level was also assessed by two instruments — Piagetian
Reasoning Task 3 (PRT3) (NFER 1979, Shayer and Adey 1989) and the Test of Logical
Thinking (TOLT) (Tobin and Capie 1981). PRT3 requires student responses to
questions related to whole-class demonstrations with a pendulum, yielding total
scores on a cognitive development scale. Raw scores can be transformed into scores
on a Rasch scale. Rasch scaling aims to give item-free measurement on a linear scale
(Preece 1979). TOLT assesses proficiency in five aspects of formal reasoning:
proportional reasoning, controlling variables, probabilistic reasoning, correlational
reasoning and combinatorial reasoning. Total scores indicate ability on a formal
reasoning scale.
Where necessary, anglicized versions of these instruments were produced and all
were trialled with comparable groups of students. This enabled checks to be made
on the timing, procedures, apparatus and language, permitting minor adjustments
where appropriate. Substantial internal consistency reliability and convergent
validity for each of the instruments has been established (Brotherton and Preece
1995). Brotherton and Preece also give further information about each instrument.
The science teachers who administered the tests were all trained in their use.
ORES and PRT3 were used as pre-tests and ORES, TISP, PRT3 and TOLT were used
as post-tests after the 28-week intervention. TISP and TOLT were set again nine or
ten weeks after the post-tests and PRT3 a further year later.
 68 RESEARCH REPORTS

Results
For two instruments, TISP and TOLT, pre-tests were not used and so the experimental
and control groups were compared directly on the post-tests. For ORES and PRT3
pre-tests were used and this permitted a value-added approach. However, the
analysis of change is a controversial subject (Preece 1989). Gain scores-the
difference between post-test and pre-test scores-are natural measures of change, but
their use in educational research has been strongly criticized (e.g. Plewis 1985).
Plewis defends the use of regression (residual gain score) methods to analyse change.
(A residual gain score is the difference between the actual post-test score and the
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 17:31 01 February 2015

post-test score predicted by linear regression from the pre-test score.) On the other
hand, Rogosa et al. (1982) defend gain scores and criticize the regression approach.
As these two methods of analysis can yield different, possibly conflicting,
conclusions about the effects of an intervention (Preece 1986), it was decided to use
both methods. A significant intervention effect in the regression analyses is only
reported below if the pre-test-treatment interaction is not significant (i.e. the
intervention effect is essentially the same at all pre-test levels). Homogeneity of
variance was not assumed in the i-tests and degrees of freedom are rounded down
to an integer value.

Post-test-ORES
The means and standard deviations of ORES basic and integrated scale scores for each
group on each occasion of testing, including separate figures for males and females,

Table 1. ORES results: basic process skills.

Pre-test Post-test
Group N Mean SD N Mean SD

Year 7
Control 27 22-30 4-06 24 27-08 4-96
Experimental 27 22-78 4-92 24 28-17 4-65
Control male 12 22-42 3-29 12 25-33 5-93
Control female 15 22-20 4-71 12 28-83 3-10
Experimental male 12 22-33 6-17 11 28-64 5-41
Experimental female 15 23-13 3-83 13 27-77 4-09
Year 8
Control 31 24-77 5-26 28 26-61 5-27
Experimental 30 24-73 5-26 28 27-64 4-65
Control male 16 26-31 5-07 14 28-14 4-80
Control female 15 23-13 5-11 14 25-07 5-43
Experimental male 18 26-17 3-36 18 28-83 4-18
Experimental female 12 22-58 5-07 10 25-50 4-88
Year 9
Control 30 24-40 4-04 28 26-46 3-88
Experimental 30 26-63 4-48 28 28-36 3-61
Control male 17 25-47 3-74 14 27-29 4-18
Control female 13 23-00 4-12 14 25-64 3-52
Experimental male 17 26-65 5-27 16 28-87 406
Experimental female 13 26-61 3-40 12 28-80 2-93
 TEACHING SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS 69

Table 2. ORES results: integrated process skills.

Pre-test Post-test

Group N Mean SD N Mean SD

Year 7
Control 27 11-67 3-49 24 13-83 4-93
Experimental 27 11-78 400 24 15-50 419
Control male 12 11-75 3-57 12 13-75 5-67
Control female 15 11-67 3-64 12 13-92 4-32
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 17:31 01 February 2015

Experimental male 12 1208 4-58 11 15-27 4-54

Experimental female 15 11-53 3-74 13 15-69 4-05
Year 8
Control 31 12-58 3-64 28 14-25 4-69
Experimental 30 11-87 4-07 28 15-43 3-75
Control male 16 13-69 3-79 14 14-86 4-54
Control female 15 11-40 318 14 13-64 4-94
Experimental male 18 12-83 4-15 18 16-44 3-38
Experimental female 12 10-42 3-65 10 13-60 3-84
Year 9
Control 30 12-90 4-13 28 14-04 4-30
Experimental 30 13-20 4-41 28 16-79 3-28
Control male 17 13-94 4-42 14 13-93 4-83
Control female 13 11-54 3-41 14 14-14 3-88
Experimental male 17 13-29 4-95 16 17-25 2-79
Experimental female 13 13 08 3-80 12 16-17 3-88

are given in tables 1 and 2. For basic skills, both gain score and regression analyses
indicated no significant differences (i.e. p > 0-05) between the mean scores of
experimental and control groups in each year. For integrated skills, a significant
difference in favour of the experimental group was found for Year 9 (F=7-14,
d.f. = 1 /51, p < 0-05), the results for the gain-score analysis approaching significance
for this year.
On analysing male and female results separately, the lack of any significant effect
of the intervention on basic skills was confirmed for each gender group in each year.
For integrated skills, it was found that the significant intervention effect in Year 9
was confined to males, a result obtained by both regression analysis (F=7-76,
d.f. = 1/26, p < 0-01) and by gain-score analysis (t = 2-40, d.f. = 26, p < 0-05). The
effect size (d = the difference between the mean gains of the experimental and control
groups, divided by the post-test control group standard deviation) for Year 9 males
was 0-68. The separate male and female gain-score analyses also revealed significant
differences in favour of the experimental group for males in Year 8 (t = 2-06,
d.f. = 27, p < 0-05, d = 0-61 and for females in Year 7 (t = 2-10, d.f. = 19, p < 0-05,

Post-test-TISP
The means and standard deviations of TISP scores for each group on each occasion
of testing, including separate figures for males and females, are given in table 3.
Significant differences between experimental and control group mean post-test
 70 RESEARCH REPORTS

Table 3. TISP results.

Post-test Delayed post-test

Group N Mean SD N Mean SD

Year 7
Control 23 9-82 3-60 22 900 4-22
Experimental 23 10-56 3-97 23 11-30 4-08
Control male 10 10-80 4-29 10 8-20 5-43
Control female 13 908 2-93 12 9-67 2-96
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 17:31 01 February 2015

Experimental male 10 11-40 3-84 10 11-70 4-97

Experimental female 13 9-92 411 13 11-00 3-44
Year 8
Control 27 9-89 4-12 24 10-54 4-39
Experimental 28 1307 4-69 26 12-04 4-75
Control male 14 10-79 4-89 13 10-62 4-46
Control female 13 8-92 2-98 11 10-45 4-52
Experimental male 18 14-67 4-24 17 14-00 4-00
Experimental female 10 10-20 4-21 9 8-33 3-84
Year 9
Control 30 10-60 3-94 31 1119 4-51
Experimental 28 13-00 4-43 24 13-12 4-27
Control male 16 11-69 409 17 11-82 4-93
Control female 14 9-36 3-48 14 10-43 3-99
Experimental male 17 13-24 4-76 12 13-42 4-10
Experimental female 11 12-64 4-06 12 12-83 4-59

scores, in favour of the experimental group, were found for Year 8 (t= 2-68, d.f. = 52,
p < 0-01) and Year 9 (i = 2-17, d.f. = 54, p< 005).
The male and female TISP results were also analysed separately. The significant
intervention effect in Year 8 was confined to males (t = 2-36, d.f. = 25, p < 0-05) and
in Year 9 it was confined to females (t = 2-13, d.f. = 19, p<0-05). Effect sizes
(difference between post-test mean scores for experimental and control groups,
divided by the control group standard deviation) were 0-79 for Year 8 males and
0-94 for Year 9 females.

Post-test-PRT3
The means and standard deviations of PRT3 Rasch scores for each group on each
occasion of testing, including separate figures for males and females, are given in
table 4. No significant intervention effect on group mean PRT3 Rasch scores was
found in any year, by either gain-score or regression analyses.
Separate analyses for males and females yielded one significant effect in favour
of the experimental group, the regression analysis for Year 8 males (.F=6-39,
d.f. = 1/25, p<0-05, d=0-75).

Post-test-TOLT
The means and standard deviations of TOLT scores for each group on each occasion
of testing, including separate figures for males and females, are given in table 5. No
significant differences were found between experimental and control group mean
 TEACHING SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS 71

Table 4. PRT3 results: Rasch scores.

Pre-test Post-test Delayed post-test

Group N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

Year 7
Control 23 6-81 0-55 22 7-59 0-81 15 7-33 0-73
Experimental 24 6-57 0-68 22 7-32 0-82 22 7-70 1-15
Control male 11 6-88 0-50 10 7-64 0-75 10 7-46 0-72
Control female 12 6-74 0-60 12 7-55 0-88 5 7-08 0-77
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 17:31 01 February 2015

Experimental male 11 6-87 0-82 10 7-52 0-97 11 7-76 1-22

Experimental female 13 6-32 0-41 12 7-15 0-68 11 7-64 113
Year 8
Control 28 6-76 0-60 26 6-90 0-84 26 7-63 1-17
Experimental 29 700 0-72 24 7-34 0-87 19 7-95 0-38
Control male 13 6-62 0-61 15 6-71 0-63 15 7-65 1-28
Control female 15 6-87 0-59 11 7-17 104 11 7-60 105
Experimental male 18 718 0-71 15 7-65 0-85 12 810 0-32
Experimental female 11 6-72 0-66 9 6-82 0-65 7 7-70 0-36
Year 9
Control 28 6-77 0-73 28 7-26 0-94 23 7-66 1-02
Experimental 29 6-83 0-79 27 7-33 0-87 24 7-62 1-06
Control male 17 7-36 0-77 14 7-36 1-15 14 7-77 116
Control female 11 7-15 0-58 14 7-15 0-69 9 7-50 0-80
Experimental male 17 6-92 0-83 16 7-27 0-88 12 7-47 0-97
Experimental female 12 6-70 0-73 11 7-41 0-88 12 7-77 1-16

post-test scores in any year. T h e s e null results were confirmed in separate analyses
for males and females.

Delayed post-test- TISP

The significant differences between experimental and control group mean scores in
the post-test in Years 8 and 9 were not reproduced in the delayed post-test results,
although in each year the experimental group mean score was greater, albeit not
significantly, than that of the control group. However, on analysing male and female
data separately, one significant difference was found: the Year 8 male experimental
group mean score continued to be significantly greater than that of the control group
(f = 215, d.f. = 24, p<0-05, d = 0-69).

Delayed post-test-TOLT
No significant differences were found between experimental and control group
means on the delayed post-test in any year. However, the separate analyses of male
and female data located one significant difference, which was for Year 8 males in
favour of the experimental group (i=2-40, d.f. = 27, p<0-05, d= 1-46).

Delayed post-test-PRT3
No significant intervention effects between pre-tests and delayed post-tests were
found for PRT3 mean scores in any year, by either gain-score or regression analyses.
Separate analyses of male and female data also indicated no significant differences
 72 RESEARCH REPORTS

Table 5. TOLT results.

Post-test Delayed post-test

Group N Mean SD N Mean SD

Year 7
Control 23 1-48 1-62 20 2-85 2-58
Experimental 24 1-92 2-43 23 2-48 2-63
Control male 11 1-73 2-00 9 3-78 2-91
Control female 12 1-25 1-21 11 2-09 2-12
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 17:31 01 February 2015

Experimental male 11 2-91 3-18 10 2-70 3-37

Experimental female 13 1-08 111 13 2-31 202
Year 8
Control 29 2-69 1-97 26 2-69 2-17
Experimental 28 3-00 2-52 26 3-92 3-16
Control male 16 3-19 2-01 12 2-36 2-02
Control female 13 2-08 1-80 14 1-65 2-31
Experimental male 18 3-67 2-70 17 5-29 2-93
Experimental female 10 1-80 1-69 9 1-33 1-58
Year 9
Control 30 2-83 2-29 27 3-70 2-30
Experimental 29 2-52 1-82 25 2-84 2-32
Control male 16 3-31 2-36 16 4-12 2-53
Control female 14 2-29 216 11 309 1-87
Experimental male 17 2-59 1-87 16 2-75 2-05
Experimental female 12 2-42 1-83 9 3-00 2-87

between experimental and control group mean scores on this delayed post-test taken
about 60 weeks after the intervention.

Discussion
The clearest and most consistent finding to emerge from this study is of the
effectiveness of the intervention, which essentially involved a greater emphasis on
science process skills, for Year 8 males. Both process skills instruments showed a
significant intervention effect on integrated skills, with substantial effect sizes of 0-61
(ORES integrated) and 0-79 (TISP) in the immediate post-tests for this subgroup.
Moreover, the effect was found to persist, equally strongly, about ten weeks later.
The intervention also had an immediate positive effect on Piagetian development
level for Year 8 males (as measured by PRT3), an effect which was found to persist
after about ten weeks (as measured by TOLT), although not one year later (using
PRT3). These results are of particular interest because they parallel the findings of
the CASE research on the particular effectiveness of the intervention for boys of this
age (Adey and Shayer 1990, Shayer and Adey 1992). Perhaps the most plausible
explanation is in terms of the spurt in brain development that takes place for males
at around the age of 12 years (Epstein 1978). This may prepare the cerebral cortex
for the complex reasoning patterns involved in integrated process skills.
There is also a spurt in brain development in females at around the age of 11 years,
and it is worth noting that a significant effect of the intervention was also found for
Year 7 females in one, but not both, process skills instruments. The effect did not
persist to the delayed post-tests. Other transient intervention effects on process
 TEACHING SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS 73

skills, not confirmed by the second instrument, were found for Year 9 males and
females. Significant intervention effects on Piagetian development level were
confined to the Year 8 males.
The notion of 'readiness' suggested by the above results also provides a plausible
explanation for the effects of the intervention occurring for integrated, but not for
basic, process skills. The readiness to acquire basic skills probably occurs at an earlier
age, whereas the acquisition of integrated skills, closely related to Piagetian formal
reasoning patterns, may only be possible during adolescent years, and then perhaps
only for a minority of students. If this interpretation is correct, it suggests that the
capacity to utilize some integrated skills required at level 2 of the National
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 17:31 01 February 2015

Curriculum and the rapidly rising intellectual challenge between levels 2 and 4 in
Scl are inappropriate for most students (Brotherton and Preece 1995).

References
AAAS (AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE) (1967) Science-A
Process Approach (Washington: AAAS).
ADEY, P. (1992) The CASE results: implications for science teaching. International Journal of
Science Education, 14 (2), 137-146.
ADEY, P. and SHAYER, M. (1990) Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle
and high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (3), 267-285.
BAIRD, W. E. and BORICH, G. D. (1987) Validity considerations for research on integrated
science process skills and formal reasoning ability. Science Education, 20 (2), 259-269.
BRIMER, A. (1969) The Bristol Achievement Tests, Level 3 (Form A) (Windsor: NFER).
BROTHERTON, P. N. and PREECE, P. F. W. (1995). Science process skills: their nature and
inter-relationships. Research in Science and Technological Education, 13 (2), 3-9.
CHALMERS, A. F. (1982) What is This Thing Called Science? (Milton Keynes: Open University
Press).
DES (DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE) (1985a) Science 5-16: A Statement of Policy
(London: HMSO).
DES (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE) (1985b) Assessment of Performance Unit.
Sample Questions in Science at Age 11 (London: HMSO).
DES (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE) (1985C) Assessment of Performance Unit.
Science at Age 13 and 15: Sample Questions (London: HMSO).
DES (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE) (1989) Science in the National Curriculum
(London: HMSO).
DES (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE) (1991) Science in the National Curriculum
(London: HMSO).
EPSTEIN, H. T . (1978) Growth spurts during brain development: implications for educational
policy and practice. In J. S. Chall and A. F. Minsky (eds), Education and the Brain
(Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education), 343-370.
LAWSON, A. E. (1985) A review of research on formal reasoning and science teaching. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 22 (7), 569-617.
MILLAR, R. and DRIVER, R. (1987) Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33-62.
NFER (NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH) (1979) Science Reasoning
Tasks (Windsor: NFER).
PADILLA, J. M., OKEY, J. R. and DILLASHAW, F. G. (1983) The relationship between science
process skill and formal thinking ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
20 (3), 239-246.
PLEWIS, I. (1985) Analysing Change: Measurement and Exploration Using Longitudinal Data
(Chichester: Wiley).
PREECE, P. F. W. (1979) Objective measurement in education: the Rasch model. The School
Science Review, 60 (213), 770-773.
PREECE, P. F. W. (1986) T h e data analyst's dilemma. Research Intelligence, 24, 2.
PREECE, P. F. W. (1989) Pitfalls in research on school and teacher effectiveness. Research
Papers in Education, 4 (3), 47-69.
 74 RESEARCH REPORTS

PREECE, P. F. W. (1993) Comment: cognitive acceleration and science achievement. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (8), 1005-1006.
ROSOGA, D., BRANDT, D. and ZIMOWSKI, M. (1982) A growth curve approach to the
measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 726-748.
SCAA (SCHOOL CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY) (1994) Science in the National
Curriculum Draft Proposals (London: HMSO).
SHAW, J. T . (1983) The effect of a process-orientated curriculum upon problem solving
ability. Science Education, 67 (5), 615-623.
SHAYER, M. and ADEY, P. (1989) Revised Scoring of Science Reasoning Tasks (London: King's
College).
SHAYER, M. and ADEY, P. S. (1992) Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 17:31 01 February 2015

and high school students II: postproject effects on science achievement. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 29 (1), 81-92.
TANNENBAUM, R. S. (1971) The development of the test of science processes. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 8 (2), 123-136.
THOMAS, M. A. (1989) Cognitive conflict and development: is course demand enough?
International Journal of Science Education, 11 (3), 287-296.
THORNDIKE, R. L. and HAGEN, E. P. (1986) The Cognitive Abilities Test (Windsor: NFER).
TOBIN, K. G. and CAPIE, W. (1981) The Test of Logical Thinking (Florida: Florida State
University).
TOBIN, K. G. and CAPIE, W. (1982a) Relationships between formal reasoning ability, locus of
control, academic engagement, and integrated process skill achievement. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 19 (2), 113-121.
TOBIN, K. G. and CAPIE, W. (1982b) Development and validation of a group test of integrated
science processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19 (2), 133—141.
YEANY, R. N., YAP, K. C, and PADILLA, M. J. (1986) Analysing hierarchical relationships
among modes of cognitive reasoning and integrated science process skills. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 23 (4), 277-291.