Conceptual demand of practical work in science curricula

Conceptual demand of practical work in science curricula:
A methodological approacha
Sílvia Ferreirab
Ana Maria Morais
Institute of Education, University of Lisbon

Abstract
The article addresses the issue of the level of complexity of practical work in science curricula
and is focused on the discipline of Biology and Geology for high school. The level of complexity is
seen in terms of the emphasis and types of practical work and, most important, in terms of its level of
conceptual demand as given by the complexity of scientific knowledge, the degree of inter-relation
between knowledges and the complexity of cognitive skills. The study also analyzes recontextualizing
processes that may occur within the official recontextualizing field. The study is psychologically and
sociologically grounded, particularly on Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse. It uses a mixed
methodology.
The results show that practical work is poorly represented in the curriculum, particularly in the
case of laboratory work. The level of conceptual demand of practical work varies according to the text
under analysis, between the two subjects Biology and Geology and, within each one of them, between
general and specific guidelines. Aspects studied are not clearly explicated to curriculum receivers
(teachers and textbooks authors). The meaning of these findings is discussed in the article. In
methodological terms, the study explores assumptions used in the analysis of the level of conceptual
demand and presents innovative instruments constructed for developing this analysis.

Keywords: science education; practical work; conceptual demand; science curriculum

a

Revised personal version of the article published in:
Research in Science Education, 44(1), 2014, DOI: 10.1007/s11165-013-9377-7.

b

Corresponding author, silviacrferreira@gmail.com.
1

1. Introduction
Since the beginning of XIX century, with the integration of science disciplines in the curricula
of several countries, practical work, namely laboratory work, has assumed a huge importance
in science education. Throughout the 1960s, major science curriculum projects - for example,
the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in the United States and the Nuffield in the United
Kingdom - include laboratory activities as a fundamental part of the science curriculum
(Lunetta, Hofstein & Clough, 2007). At the beginning of the XXI century, science curricula of
various countries reaffirm the conviction that practical work in science education is central to
the development of scientific literacy (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004; Hofstein & Naaman,
2007). However, many research studies have emphasized the need of rethinking the role and
practice of practical work, since, for example, students’ performance when doing the
respective activities is usually not assessed (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Lunetta et al., 2007).
From this, it derives the importance of further studying practical work in science curricula.
The main aim of this article is to divulge methods and concepts that may be used to
appreciate practical work in science curricula. With this purpose, an exemplary study made
with a Portuguese science curriculum is described. In the case of Portugal (a country with a
centralised educational system), the curricular plan for high school contains science
disciplines for those students who want to follow science careers. Among them is the biannual
discipline of Biology and Geology (ages 16- - 17+) which is the focus of this study. The
curriculum of this discipline considers the importance of practical work to a point that, in the
academic year of 2007/2008, it was determined that formal moments of assessment should
take place with a weight of 30% in the overall students evaluation of the discipline. It should
be noted that likewise many Latin countries Biology and Geology, although epistemologically
distinct, have traditionally been part of a same discipline (often but not always called Natural
Sciences). Teachers’ training is also directed to both subjects as a discipline.
The study presented in this article follows former research developed by the ESSA
Group1 (e.g., Morais & Neves, 2011). It is part of a broader study that investigates questions
related to the directions the Ministry of Education and Science (MES) gives to teachers for
the transmission and evaluation contexts of practical work in the discipline of Biology and
Geology and to the recontextualizing processes followed by teachers, by studying their
conceptions and practices (Ferreira, 2013). The present article is focused on the analysis of
the curriculum to explore the extent to which the MES guidelines go in the direction of raising
the level of science education through their emphasis on practical work namely laboratory
2

investigative and, most importantly, on its level of conceptual demand. The study also
analyses the extent to which the MES makes these characteristics explicit to the direct
receivers of the curriculum that is to teachers and textbooks authors. Theoretically, the study
is multidisciplinary, including sociological knowledge, and, in doing so, it goes further when
compared with Duschl’s perspective (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004), when he says that science
education researchers, policymakers and instructional designers “need to look across the three
Ps (psychology, philosophy, and pedagogy) for the design of inquiry science approaches that
support both student learning and reasoning and teachers’ assessments of students learning
and reasoning” (pp.413-414).
In the particular case of the Portuguese current Biology and Geology high school
discipline, and contrarily to the common procedure, Biology and Geology subjects are
strongly classified within the discipline, that is they are separated by strong boundaries,
recognized by the absence of common general guidelines for the two subjects and instead by
the presence of general guidelines specific to each subject. The problem of the study became
the following: What are the messages transmitted by the official pedagogic discourse (OPD)
of the two subjects Biology and Geology, within the Biology and Geology high school
discipline, with regard to the emphasis given to practical work and to its level of conceptual
demand, and what is the extent to which recontextualizing processes do occur? From this
problem the following research questions were derived: (a) What is the emphasis given to
practical work, namely laboratory work, in each one of the two subjects and of the discipline
as a whole? (b) What is the level of conceptual demand of practical work of each one of the
two subjects and of the discipline as a whole?; (c) What are the recontextualizing processes
that may have occurred between the messages of the general and the specific guidelines in the
cases of both Biology and Geology?; and d) What is the extent to which the messages of the
OPD contained in the Biology and Geology subjects are made explicit to curriculum
receivers?
On the basis of data obtained in this study a reflection will be made with regard to the
two following aspects: (i) reasons that may account for possible differences between the two
messages of Biology and Geology and (ii) extent to which differences found in the level of
conceptual demand of practical work can be made accountable for possible differential
teachers’ pedagogic practices and students’ scientific development. As stated before, a
fundamental objective of this article is to highlight methods and concepts that may be used to
appreciate the level of conceptual demand of practical work in science curricula.
3

2. Theoretical framework
Theoretically the study makes use of theories and concepts of the areas of psychology and
sociology, particularly Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse (1990, 2000). Current
conceptualizations of science education, namely with respect to the implementation and
evaluation of practical work, are also considered.
2.1. Bernstein´s theory
According to Bernstein´s model of pedagogic discourse (1990, 2000), the curricula of a given
discipline embodies the official pedagogic discourse (OPD), produced in the official
recontextualizing field (in Portugal, the Ministry of Education and Science). This official text
carries messages containing the principles and norms which constitute the general regulative
discourse (GRD). The GRD is generated in the State field as a result of the influence of the
international field, the economy field (physical resources) and the field of symbolic control
(discursive resources)2.
Specific pedagogic social contexts, namely the curriculum and the classroom, are
defined by specific power and control relations between subjects (MES-teacher, teacherstudent and student-student), discourses (between disciplines and within a discipline), and
spaces (teacher-student space and student-student space). It is possible to say that any context
of pedagogical interaction represents a particular transmission and acquisition context,
between a transmitter and an acquirer, with specific power and control relations. In this way,
different modalities of pedagogic code, and consequently different modalities of pedagogic
practice, may occur either more acquirer or more transmitter centred, with the extreme cases
of progressive and traditional practices. In order to analyze power and control relations,
Bernstein (1990, 2000) used, respectively, the concepts of classification and framing.
Classification refers to the degree of maintenance of boundaries between subjects, discourses
or spaces. The more distinct is separation between categories the stronger classification will
be. Framing refers to the social relations between subjects, that is, to the communication
between them. Considering the relation between MES (the official agent) and teachers (the
pedagogical agents), which is the focus of the study presented in this article, hierarchical
boundaries are well established – it is the official agent that has higher status in the relation,
which means that there is a strong classification between them. Framing is strong when the
categories with higher status (e.g. MES) have the control in the relation and is weak when the
categories with lower status (e.g. teachers) have also some control in the relation.
4

In a more recent development of his theory, Bernstein (1999) presents the distinction
between horizontal and vertical discourses. The horizontal discourse corresponds to a form of
knowledge which is segmentally organized and differentiated and usually understood as the
everyday or common sense knowledge. The vertical discourse, mentioned as school or official
knowledge, presents the form of a coherent, explicit, hierarchically organized structure, as in
the case of natural sciences, or the form of a series of parallel languages where development is
achieved by the construction of a new language strongly classified from other former
languages, as in the cases of sociology and education. Thus, the what to be learned, in the
case of the sciences, corresponds to a vertical discourse with a hierarchical structure. The how
to be learned corresponds to a vertical discourse with a horizontal structure.
Bernstein’s theory has provided to our research a conceptual structure that is
diagnostic, predictive, descriptive, explanatory, and transferable, broadening the relations
studied and permitting conceptualization at a higher level, without losing a dialectical relation
between the empirical and the theoretical. It is also characterized by a language of description
that allows us to analyse, describe, compare and contrast events in different contexts. At the
level of the curricular analysis, a broader investigation, that was carried out in Portugal,
involved the analysis of the pedagogic discourse contained in the Portuguese Natural Sciences
curriculum for middle school (e.g. Calado, Neves & Morais, 2013) and its results show that
there are recontextualization processes that have occurred within the curriculum, when
passing from the general to the specific guidelines, and which refer to the intra-disciplinarity
between scientific knowledges and to the complexity of this knowledge, in the direction of
decreasing the level of these characteristics. As a consequence, science teachers will receive
two contradictory messages and, if they follow the specific guidelines, they may be led to
devalue intra-disciplinarity and complex scientific knowledge in their pedagogic practices. In
fact the results of the study of Alves and Morais (2012) showed a decrease in the quality of
the teaching-learning process when teachers recontextualize curriculum into pedagogic
practices. At this level of pedagogic practices, the studies done so far suggest a mixed
pedagogic practice to lead students to success at school (e.g. Morais, Neves & Pires, 2004;
Morais & Neves, 2011) in which there is, among other characteristics, a clear explication of
the legitimate text to be acquired in the context of the classroom (strong framing of the
evaluation criteria) and an inter-relation between the various kinds of knowledge of a
discipline (weak classification of intra-disciplinarity). This mixed pedagogic practice was
suggested by the language of description derived from Bernstein’s theory and enables the
5

distinction between specific aspects of pedagogic social contexts, introducing a dimension of
great rigor into research.
2.2. Conceptual demand
The curriculum, regardless its degree of centrality, contains a sociological message that
results from the interaction of several factors and represents students learning which, if it is
considered socially necessary in a particular time and context, must be assured and organized.
The level of complexity of a curriculum can be appreciated by its level of conceptual demand.
In the context of the research that has been carried out within Bernstein’s theory, the concept
of conceptual demand was introduced by Domingos (1989a; 1989b) and at that time the
concept was related to the complexity of scientific skills. A lower level of conceptual demand
was related to skills that require a low level of abstraction (memorization and comprehension
at a simple level). A higher level of conceptual demand implied skills that require a high level
of abstraction (comprehension at a high level, analysis and knowledge utilization). Further
studies (e.g. Morais, Neves & Pires, 2004) considered the complexity of both scientific skills
and knowledge to characterize the level of conceptual demand. These studies, which were
focused on classroom pedagogic practices, showed that pedagogic practice can overcome
students’ social background when promoting science learning, particularly when developing
complex cognitive skills and scientific knowledge. For that reason, the common procedure of
lowering the level of conceptual demand in order that all children can succeed at school will
add disadvantage to the disadvantaged.
The concept of conceptual demand evolved to include three dimensions, the
complexity of scientific knowledge and skills and also the strength of intra-disciplinary
relations, that is the strength of boundaries between distinct knowledges within a given
discipline (e.g. Calado, Neves & Morais, 2013). The inclusion of intra-disciplinary relations
was related to the importance of this dimension to raise the level of scientific learning
(Morais, Neves & Pires, 2004). This is the concept of conceptual demand that is used in this
study. Conceptual demand of science education is defined as the level of complexity of
science education as given by the complexity of scientific knowledge and of the strength of
intra-disciplinary relations between distinct knowledges and also by the complexity of
cognitive skills (Morais & Neves, 2012). It is important to note that a concept of conceptual
demand was used in several international studies in the 1970’s and 1980’s, where it was
associated with Piagetian development stages (e.g. Shayer & Adey, 1981). The present study
6

departs from this perspective to follow the perspective described above and in doing so goes
deeper in the analysis.
Considering Bernstein’s model of pedagogic discourse (1990, 2000), the conceptual
demand of science education, with its three dimensions, includes aspects related to the what
(skills and knowledges) and to the how (intra-disciplinary relations) of the pedagogic
discourse. Also following Bernstein, the hierarchical structure of science knowledge requires
from the students high levels of complexity and abstraction so that they can attain a
meaningful understanding of that knowledge. That is to say that conceptual demand of
science education should be high, and should be high for all students. For this reason
conceptual demand of science education can be seen as essentially sociological (Morais,
Neves & Pires, 2004).
2.3. Practical work
According to several authors (e.g. Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004; Hodson, 1993; Hofstein &
Lunetta, 2004; Lunetta et al., 2007), practical work performs an important role in the teaching
and learning process in the sciences. Hodson (1993) considers practical work as a broad
concept which includes any activity that requires students to be active. Millar, Maréchal e
Tiberghien (1999) limit the definition presented by Hodson (1993) to consider that practical
work is ‘all those kinds of learning activities in science which involve students at some point
handling or observing real objects or materials (or direct representations of these, in a
simulation or video-recording)’ (p.36). Unlike Hodson, these authors exclude from this
definition activities such as debates and information research. In the same way, Lunetta,
Hofstein and Clough (2007) give the following definition of practical work: ‘learning
experiences in which students interact with materials or with secondary sources of data to
observe and understand the natural world’ (p.394), for example, the observation of aerial
photographs to examine lunar and earth geographic features’.
The meaning of practical work in the present study is close to Hodson’s (1993) and
follows the concept presented in the Biology and Geology Portuguese curriculum3, although it
is made more precise in that considers that it must mobilise science processes skills. These
skills were considered as ways of thinking more directly involved in scientific research, such
as observing, formulating problems and hypotheses, controlling variables and predicting
(Duschl, Schweingruber & Shouse, 2007). Thus, practical work is defined as:

7

All teaching and learning activities in the sciences in which the student is actively involved
and that allow the mobilization of science processes skills and scientific knowledge and that
may be materialized by paper and pencil activities or observing and/or manipulating materials.

Various modalities of practical work are therefore possible and options will be
directed by the objectives to be attained. There is not a consensus with regard to the character
and purpose of the activities to be part of practical work. In this study the following types of
practical work were considered: laboratory activity, simulation, application of knowledge to
new situations, bibliographical research, guided discussion activity and field trip.
The practical work, as a broad category that includes activities of a wide range, has
been analyzed in many texts and contexts by several international studies. BouJaoude (2002)
developed and used an analytical framework to investigate the balance of scientific literacy
themes in the Lebanese science curriculum, and more specifically, to assess whether and to
what extent practical work was addressed in that text. Results showed that the curriculum
emphasizes the knowledge of science, the investigative nature of science, and the interaction
of science, technology, and society, but neglects science as a way of knowing. While this last
aspect appears clearly in the general objectives of science education, the more detailed the
curriculum becomes the less evident is the emphasis given to this aspect. Later on (Abd-ElKhalick et al., 2004), the investigative nature of science was the subject of deeper analyses
which indicated that the science curriculum lacked a coherent perspective regarding practical
work. For instance, only a few general ideas about science process skills were presented in the
introductions and objectives for each educational level. In relation to practical work
enactment, Abrahams and Millar’s research (2008) has explored the effectiveness of practical
work by analysing a sample of 25 science lessons involving specific practical tasks in eight
English secondary schools. They concluded that the teachers’ focus in these practical lessons
was mainly on the teaching of substantive scientific knowledge rather than on the procedures
of scientific inquiry. The results also showed that practical work was generally effective at
getting students to do what was intended with physical objects but less effective in getting
them to use the intended scientific ideas and to reflect on the data and this was a consequence
of the little time devoted to supporting the students´ development of ideas. Recent research
has been focused on students’ epistemological understanding and argumentation skills.
Katchevich, Hofstein and Naaman (2013) found that inquiry laboratorial activities have the
potential to serve as an effective platform for formulating arguments because of the unique
features of the learning environment (working in small groups). The arguments were focused
on the hypothesis-building stage, analysis of the results, and drawing appropriate conclusions.
8

Students are not only expected to learn scientific knowledge but also to mobilize
science process skills whenever they are doing investigative practical activities. It is important
to discuss the nature and the role of practical work in science curricula, since, even if
recontextualizing processes do occur, these are aspects that broadly guide textbook authors
and teachers’ practices. Bernstein’s theory provides an internal language of description which
allows analysis and discussion by using the same concepts across both monologic texts (e.g.
curricula and textbooks) and dialogic texts (e.g. classroom practices).
3. Methodology
This study made use of a mixed methodology (Creswell, 2003; Creswell & Clark, 2011;
Morais & Neves, 2010). On the one hand, the study has a rationalist basis (a characteristic of
quantitative approaches) in that it contains a referential theoretical framework which directed
the construction of instruments for collecting data. On the other hand, the study has a
naturalistic basis (a characteristic of qualitative approaches) when, for example, some
indicators and descriptors of the instruments were defined on the basis of empirical data. In
this way the analysis of the Biology and Geology curriculum for the 10th and 11th schooling
years was made through a constant dialectics between the theoretical and the empirical where
research models and instruments represented the external language of description and the
theory represented the internal language of description (Bernstein, 2000). Also at the level of
data analysis, were used qualitative methods (interpretative content analysis) and quantitative
methods (percentage descriptions).
3.1. General aspects
The analysis of the curriculum for Biology and Geology high school was focused on two
official documents which contained directions for the teacher: 10th Biology and Geology
discipline (DES, 2001) and 11th Biology and Geology discipline (DES, 2003). Although part
of the same discipline and of the same curriculum, Biology and Geology are presented in the
curriculum as two distinct subjects4, with strong boundaries between them. A text with
general guidelines for the discipline as a whole is not made available. For that reason the two
curricular subjects were analysed separately. Thus, six parts of the curriculum were
considered: general part of Biology, Biology 10th, Biology 11th, general part of Geology,
Geology 10th and Geology 11th. The study also considered the general and specific guidelines
of the curriculum of the discipline as a whole, by grouping the results of both curricular
9

subjects. The whole text was segmented into units of analysis (excerpts) – Table 1. A unit of
analysis was considered as an excerpt of the text containing one or more periods which
together have a given semantic meaning (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007).

Table 1. Units of analysis defined for the different parts of the curriculum.
Parts of the curriculum

Number of units of analysis

General part of Biology (Bg)
General part of Geology (Gg)

67

General guidelines (GGd)

152

Specific guidelines (SGd)

Biology 10th (B10)
Biology 11th (B11)
Geology 10th (G10)
Geology 11th (G11)

73
132
212

140

601

105

Each unit of analysis was analyzed by the main researcher of the study (first author).
To estimate the reliability and validity of the analysis and of the method used, a 20% random
sample of units of analysis was analyzed independently by two other researchers familiarized
with the theoretical framework (second author and a third researcher). A preliminary
discrepancy of 13,6% in relation to the initial analysis was found. The three researchers
discussed both differences encountered in the classification of units of analysis and changes
that should be introduced in instruments, in a dialectical relation between the theoretical and
the empirical. In a third moment of analysis, the first author revised all the analyses. Finally,
in a fourth moment, the three researchers agreed with the classification of all units and with
the final version of the instruments.
The analysis of the Biology and Geology curriculum was centered on the instructional
dimension of both the transmission/ acquisition context (discourse to be transmitted/
acquired) and the evaluation context of practical work. Although the whole curriculum was
analyzed, the object of the study presented in this article is practical work (when it requires
the mobilization of science process skills) and for that reason the units of analysis with a
specific reference to practical work were the only ones considered.
The OPD analysis was centered on dimensions related to the what and the how of
practical work (figure 1). In the first case, the type of practical work and the complexity of
scientific knowledge and scientific skills were selected for analysis. In the second case, the
intra-disciplinary relations, that are the relations between the various knowledges within a
discipline, in this particular case, between distinct knowledges within a given science
10

discipline, were selected. The analysis of intra-disciplinary relations was centered on the
strength of the boundary between theory and practice. These are power relations which were
characterized by using the concept of classification. The form how the OPD is explicated to
teachers in the MES-teacher relation was also part of the analysis of the OPD message. The
intention was to understand the extent to which the MES makes explicit to teachers the type
of practical work and the knowledge and skills that are to be the object of learning and
assessment in practical work5. These are control relations that were characterized by using the
concept of framing.

Figure 1. Diagram of dimensions, related to the what and the how of practical work, analyzed in the
high school Biology and Geology curriculum.

The level of conceptual demand of the science curriculum with respect to practical
work in high school Biology and Geology, was then appreciated through the analysis of some
dimensions of the what and of the how (figure 1). The former corresponds to the type of
practical work and the level of complexity of scientific knowledge and cognitive skills and the
latter corresponds to the strength of intra-disciplinary relations between theory and practice.
3.2. Instruments construction and application
In order to characterise the message underlying each one of the units of analysis, and
consequently the OPD transmitted by the curriculum, with regard to the transmission and
11

evaluation of practical work, five instruments were constructed, piloted and applied6. The
instruments were validated by two other researchers. They were based on models/ instruments
constructed in former studies for the analysis of science curricula (e.g. Calado, Neves &
Morais, 2013). For each one of the aspects under study, the instruments were organized to
contain the four main sections usually present in any syllabus: (a) Knowledge; (b) Aims; (c)
Methodological Guidelines; and (d) Evaluation. Each unit of analysis was associated with one
of these four sections and analyzed by using the various instruments constructed. These four
main sections were considered as the indicators of the analysis.
The instruments refer to the what of practical work, namely to the complexity of
scientific knowledge and to the complexity of cognitive skills, and to the how of practical
work, specifically to the level of intra-disciplinary relations and to the explicitness of practical
work. The analysis of the type of practical work, a dimension also related to the what, did not
require the construction of a specific instrument. The text that follows contains a brief
description of the instruments constructed and how they were used, and it gives some
examples to show how the analysis was made.

3.2.1. The what of practical work
The instrument for the analysis of the what with regard to the complexity of scientific
knowledge considered the distinction between facts, simple concepts, complex concepts and
unifying themes/theories. A fact is “the data which results from observation” (Brandwein,
Watson & Blackwood, 1958, p.111) and corresponds to a very concrete situation resulting
from several observations. A concept is a “mental construct; it is a grouping of the common
elements or attitudes shared by certain objects and events” (Brandwein et al., 1980, p.12) and
represents an idea that arises from the combination of several facts or other concepts. The
categorization of concepts results from a hierarchy between levels of abstraction and
complexity, where the most abstract and most complex concepts are the unifying themes and
theories. The simple concepts correspond to concrete concepts proposed by Cantu and Herron
(1978) and are those that have a low level of abstraction, defining attributes and examples that
are observable. The complex concepts correspond to abstract concepts proposed by Cantu and
Herron (1978) and “are those that do not have perceptible instances or have relevant or
defining attributes that are not perceptible” (p.135). Unifying themes are structural ideas and
correspond, in science, to generalizations about the world that are accepted by scholars in
each subject area (Pella & Voelker, 1968). Scientific theories correspond to explanations of a
12

wide variety of related phenomena (Hickman, Roberts & Larson, 1995). Considering that the
hierarchical structure of scientific knowledge is characterized by integrating propositions that
operate at increasing levels of abstraction, theory development requires a new theory that is
more general and more inclusive than the previous theory (Bernstein, 1999).
This instrument includes the four sections of any curriculum (knowledge, aims,
methodological guidelines and evaluation) and each section contains descriptors
corresponding to four degrees of complexity of scientific knowledge, that were defined on the
basis of the monologic character of the curricular documents. Degree 1 corresponds to facts;
degree 2 corresponds to simple concepts; degree 3 corresponds to complex concepts; and
degree 4 corresponds to unifying themes and theories. Thus, this dimension of the what is not
related to the nature of scientific matters to be learned, but to the conceptual level of these
matters. Table 2 presents an excerpt of this instrument, for the ‘methodological guidelines’
curriculum section, and examples of units of analysis which illustrate different degrees of
complexity, where the last degree if reached may lead students to understand the hierarchical
structure of scientific knowledge.

Table 2. Excerpt of the instrument to characterize the complexity of scientific knowledge.
Section

Degree 1

Methodological Strategies/
guidelines
methodologies that call
for mobilizing scientific
knowledge of low level
of complexity, as facts.

Degree 2

Degree 3

Degree 4

Strategies/
knowledge of level of
complexity greater than
degree 1, as simple
concepts.

Strategies/
knowledge of level of
complexity greater than
degree 2, as complex
concepts.

Strategies/
knowledge of very high
level of complexity, as
unifying themes and
theories.

Units of analysis
Degree 1: “Search for information on the internet, in newspapers and magazines about the consequences of such
situations [human occupation of floodplains and coastal zones, and construction in slope zones] for
populations.” (Geology, 11th, p.28).
Degree 2: “Create models and simulate in the lab situations of landslides, and identify factors that lead to their
occurrence. […]” (Geology 10th, p.48).
Degree 3: “The research, discussion and systematization of data, relative to the processes of chemosynthesis, is
recommended.” (Biology 10th, p.81).
Degree 4: “The study of models that explain the emergence of unicellular eukaryotes organisms and the origin of
multicellularity can be made through the interpretation of images, including also discussion activities,
schematization and systematization of information. […]” (Biology 11th, p.12).

The instrument to analyze the complexity of cognitive skills was based on the
taxonomy created by Marzano and Kendall (2007, 2008) which considered four levels for the
cognitive system. Retrieval, the first level of the cognitive system, involves the activation and
transfer of knowledge from permanent memory to working memory and it is either a matter of
13

recognition or recall. “The process of comprehension within the cognitive system [second
level] is responsible for translating knowledge into a form appropriate for storage in
permanent memory” (2007, p.40). The third level, analysis, involves the production of new
information that the individual can elaborate on the basis of the knowledge s/he has
comprehended. The fourth and more complex level of the cognitive system implies the
knowledge utilization in concrete situations.
Table 3 presents an excerpt of this instrument, for the ‘aims’ curriculum section, and
examples of units of analysis which illustrate different degrees of complexity.

Table 3. Excerpt of the instrument to characterize the complexity of cognitive skills.
Section

Degree 1

Aims

Cognitive skills of low
level of complexity,
involving cognitive
processes of retrieval, are
mentioned.

Degree 2

Degree 3

Degree 4

Cognitive skills of level
Cognitive skills of level
Cognitive skills of very
of complexity greater than of complexity greater than high level of complexity,
degree 1, involving
degree 2, involving
involving cognitive
cognitive processes of
cognitive processes of
processes of knowledge
comprehension, are
analysis, are mentioned. utilization, are mentioned.
mentioned.

Units of analysis
Degree 1: No units of analysis were found.
Degree 2: “Interpret, schematize and/or describe images of mitosis in animal and plant cells, identifying cellular
events and reconstituting its sequence.” (Biology 11th, p.6).
Degree 3: “Classify rocks on the basis of genetic and textural criteria.” (Geology 11th, p.17).
Degree 4: “Use autonomously bibliographical resources – searching, organizing and processing information.”
(Geology 10th, p.25).

3.2.2. The how of practical work
With regard to the analysis of the how, at the level of intra-disciplinary relations (relations
between knowledge of the same discipline), an instrument was constructed to analyse the
relation between theory and practice. This instrument contained a four degree scale of
classification (C- -, C-, C+, C+ +). The empirical definition of the scale was based on
Bernstein’s concept of classification (1990, 2000), to indicate the strength of boundaries
between various types of knowledge. The weakest classification (C---) corresponds to an
integration of theory and practice, where both have equal status, and the highest classification
(C++) corresponds to a separation between theory and practice. The descriptors to each section
translate the relation between theory and practice that is the relation between declarative
knowledge and procedural knowledge.

14

Declarative knowledge, also referred to as substantive knowledge, corresponds to the
terms, facts, concepts and theories of a given subject matter (Anderson et al, 2001; Marzano
& Kendall, 2007; Roberts, Gott & Glaesser, 2010). Procedural knowledge refers not only to
the knowledge of how to do something, of techniques and specific methods of a discipline,
but also to the knowledge of scientific processes. In the discipline of Biology and Geology,
the procedural knowledge involves, for example, knowledge of how to formulate a hypothesis
and knowledge of what a hypothesis is. In a larger research program concerned with the role
of procedural knowledge in investigative work and its relation to declarative knowledge, “the
term procedural understanding has been used to describe the understanding of ideas about
evidence, which underpin an understanding of how to proceed” (Roberts et al., 2010, p.379).
Table 4 presents an excerpt of this instrument, for the ‘methodological guidelines’
curriculum section. This is followed by examples of units of analysis which illustrate different
levels of classification.

Table 4. Excerpt of the instrument to characterize the relation between theory (declarative knowledge)
and practice (procedural knowledge).
Section

C++

C+

C-

C- -

Methodological
guidelines

The suggested strategy/
methodology focus on
declarative scientific
knowledge only or on
procedural scientific
knowledge only.

knowledge and on
knowledge, but do not
make the relation
between them.

the relation between
declarative and
knowledge, being given
higher status to
knowledge in the
relation.

the relation between
declarative and
knowledge, being given
equal status to these two
types of knowledge in
the relation.

Units of analysis
C++: “Use ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) to support search for information, data
processing, construction of dynamic models and communication. […]” (Geology, general part, p.13).
+
C : No units of analysis were found.
C- : “Carry out field observations at nearby locations, identifying geological risk situations, possible influence of
human activities and preventive measures taken […]. Value the importance of preserving the natural
environment.” (Geology 10th, p.48)
C- -: “In order to solve the problem “What happens to the dynamics of an ecosystem when that ecosystem is
subjected to change?”, a field trip in articulation with classroom/ laboratory activities, to be made before
and after the field trip, is suggested. As object(s) of study, real environments are suggested, located, as far
as possible, near to the school […].” (Biology 10th, p.79).

In order to appreciate the extent to which the Ministry of Education and Science makes
explicit to teachers (MES-teacher relation) the level of conceptual demand required by the
curriculum, Bernstein’s concept of evaluation criteria was used in the analysis. The aim of
15

this analysis is to appreciate the extent to which the MES makes explicit to teachers the
message relative not only to the type of practical work but also to the level of knowledge and
skills to be involved in the teaching-learning and evaluation contexts of practical work. This
is a control relation that is characterised by using Bernstein’s concept of framing (1990,
2000), in a four degree scale where the lowest framing (F- -) indicates a situation where the
MES leaves criteria implicit and the highest framing (F++) indicates that the MES makes
criteria very explicit. Table 5 presents an excerpt of this instrument, for the ‘aims’ curriculum
section, and examples of units of analysis.

Table 5. Excerpt of the instrument to characterize the explicitness of practical work
Section

F++

F+

F-

Aims

The type of practical
work, the scientific
knowledge and the
cognitive skills to be
explored in the practical
activity are explicitly
mentioned.

The scientific
knowledge and the
activity are explicitly
mentioned. The type of
practical work is not
mentioned.

F- -

The type of practical
The scientific knowledge and/or
work and the scientific
the cognitive skills to be
knowledge and/or the explored in the practical activity
are generically mentioned. The
type of practical work is not
activity are generically
mentioned.
mentioned.
Or
The type of practical work is
generically mentioned, but the
scientific knowledge and/or the
cognitive skills to be explored
in the practical activity are not
mentioned.

Units of analysis
F++: “Carry out field observations relative to the possible damage that may have been caused by geological
phenomena in nearby areas.” (Geology 10th, p.38)
+
F : “Analyzing and interpreting data focused on replication, transcription and translation mechanisms and that
may be presented under different forms (tables, schemas, etc.),.” (Biology 11th, p.5).
F : “Identify living things on the basis of data obtained with the help of laboratory instruments and/or
bibliographical research.” (Biology 10th, p.78).
F- -: “Observing and interpreting data.” (Geology 11th, p.18).

In order to clarify how the same unit of analysis was classified in the study in terms of
the dimensions related to the what and the how of practical work, an illustrative example of
the analysis that was made is presented. This example highlights the interpretative content
analysis carried out when doing the curricular analysis.
“Setting experimental devices with simple aerobic facultative living beings (e.g. Saccharomyces
cerevisae) in nutritive media (e.g. “bread dough”, grape juice, aqueous solution of glucose…) with
different degrees of aerobiosis. Identification with the students of the variables to be controled and the
indicators of the process under study (e.g. presence/ absence of ethanol).” (Biology 10th, p.85)

With regard to the what of the OPD, this unit is focused on a laboratory activity, which
appeals to simple concepts, related to glucose degradation in the presence and in the absence
of oxygen (degree 2), and to cognitive skills involving the cognitive process of analysis, since
16

it implicates the control of variables (degree 3). With regard to the how of the OPD, this unit
of analysis involves a relation between declarative and procedural scientific knowledge,
where equal status is given to these two types of knowledge (C- -). Through this unit the MES
makes very explicit to teachers the type of practical work and the knowledge and skills that
are to be the object of learning in a specific practical work (F++) – Table 6.
Table 6. Illustrative example of the analysis made of each unit of analysis.
Practical work in science curricula
The what of practical work

The how of practical work

Conceptual demand

Sections of the
instruments
(Indicators of
analysis)
Knowledge
Aims
Methodological
guidelines
Evaluation

Complexity of
scientific knowledge
(based on several
psychological
concepts)

Complexity of
cognitive skills
(based on Marzano and
Kendall, 2007, 2008)

Relation between theory
and practice
(based on Bernstein, 1990,
2000, and on Roberts,
Gott and Glaesser, 2010)

G1

G1

C++

G2

X

G3

G4

G2

G3

G4

C-

C- -

F++

X

X

C+

Explicitness of
practical work
(based on Bernstein,
1990, 2000)
F+

F-

F- -

X

4. Results
The data presentation and analysis that follow are organized according to the general
guidelines (GGd) and specific guidelines (SGd) of the curriculum of the discipline as a whole
and the six parts of the curriculum that were considered: general part of Biology (Bg),
Biology 10th (B10), Biology 11th (B11), general part of Geology (Gg), Geology 10th (G10)
and Geology 11th (G11) – Table 1. The units of analysis whose text was ambiguous were not
considered for computing relative frequencies7.
The graph of figure 2 shows the relative frequency of the units of analysis that make
reference to practical work in the Biology and Geology high school curriculum. In the graph,
the results of the general guidelines (GGd) derived of grouping the results of both general
parts (Bg and Gg) and the results of specific guidelines (SGd) derived of grouping the results
of the four specific parts (B10, B11, G10 and G11). The general guidelines of the curriculum
contain a higher percentage of units of analysis that make reference to practical work when
compared to its specific guidelines. Despite having the highest percentages of units of
analysis that make reference to practical work, the introductory texts provided little
information about the transmission and evaluation contexts of practical work, as it would be
expected. Most of the units of analysis of these parts could not be characterized because they
17

were either ambiguous with respect to the characteristics under study or did not refer any
scientific knowledge and/or cognitive skills.
Considering each part of the curriculum, the data of figure 2 shows that the Biology
11th and the Geology 10th are the parts that focus less on practical work. When the
‘methodological guidelines’ section of the curriculum is singled out in the analysis, the units
with reference to practical work predominate over those which do not make that reference
(from 51% to 77% depending on the part of the curriculum), as would be expected.

Figure 2. Relative frequency of the units of analysis that make reference to practical work (with PW)
in Biology and Geology high school curriculum considered as a whole and in each part of that
curriculum (n - total number of units of analysis considered; GGd- general guidelines; SGd- specific
guidelines; Bg- general part of Biology; B10- Biology 10th; B11- Biology 11th; Gg- general part of
Geology; G10- Geology 10th; G11- Geology 11th).

4.1. The what of practical work
The OPD analysis related to the what of practical work considered the type of practical work,
the complexity of scientific knowledge and the complexity of cognitive skills.
The graph of figure 3 shows the relative frequency of the various types of practical
work – laboratory activity (LA), simulation (S), application of knowledge to new situations
(AK), bibliographical research (BR), guided discussion activity (GD) and field trip (FT).
Simulation is the only type of practical work that is not considered in the curriculum. When
the curriculum is taken as a whole, general guidelines of the curriculum were more focused on
laboratory activity and on field trip. Specific guidelines give more emphasis to laboratory
activity and to bibliographical research.
18

When the parts of the curriculum which refer specifically to the 10th and 11th years of
schooling are considered, the data of figure 3 shows that the two curricular subjects contain
different types of practical work and with different weights. In the 10th curricular part,
laboratory activity is present in most of the units of Biology whilst bibliographical research
reaches the highest percentage in Geology. In the 11th curricular part, and contrarily to the 10th
curricular part, laboratory activity gains greater expression in Geology when compared with
Biology, yet this is the type of practical work that comes out with higher relative frequency in
both curricular subjects. It should be noticed, however, that most laboratory activities do not
have an investigative character; they instead are used to illustrate a particular kind of
scientific knowledge.
A large number of units of analysis with an ambiguous text, as to the type of practical
work, is present and, for the reason mentioned before, these units were not considered for
computing the relative frequencies shown in figure 3 (the relative frequency of ambiguous
units ranges between 15% and 61%, depending on the six curricular parts). The excerpts that
follow illustrate references to practical work that were considered ambiguous. In both
examples the aims stated can be achieved through various types of practical work, for
example, through a laboratory activity or a guided discussion activity.
“Interpret, schematize and subtitle images about the main meiosis events.” (Biology 11th, p.8).
“To question and to formulate hypotheses.” (Geology 10th, p.18).

Figure 3. Types of practical work in Biology and Geology high school curriculum considered as a
whole and in each part of that curriculum (n- total number of units of analysis considered; GGdgeneral guidelines; SGd- specific guidelines; Bg- general part of Biology; B10- Biology 10th; B11Biology 11th; Gg- general part of Geology; G10- Geology 10th; G11- Geology 11th).

The graph of figure 4 shows the results of the analysis of the complexity of scientific
knowledge. The data show that general guidelines of the curriculum do not make reference to
19

the scientific knowledge to be the object of learning and assessment in practical work. When
the curriculum is taken as a whole, the results of specific guidelines of the curriculum show a
balance between the four degrees of complexity of scientific knowledge, prevailing degrees 2
and 3.

Figure 4. Complexity of scientific knowledge of practical work in Biology and Geology high school
curriculum considered as a whole and in each part of that curriculum (n- total number of units of
analysis considered; GGd- general guidelines; SGd- specific guidelines; Bg- general part of Biology;
B10- Biology 10th; B11- Biology 11th; Gg- general part of Geology; G10- Geology 10th; G11- Geology
11th).

Comparing Biology and Geology curricular subjects, it is clear that Biology scientific
knowledge of practical work is more complex than Geology scientific knowledge for both
years of schooling. The higher knowledge complexity in Biology practical work is specially
given by the focus on cell theory and on evolution theory. In the case of Geology there are no
units classified with degree 4 and there are units classified with degree 1. This absence of
degree 4 (scientific knowledge of very high level of complexity, as unifying themes) puts at
stake the understanding of the hierarchical structure of scientific knowledge by the students,
whenever they are doing practical activities. The results of Biology 10th and 11th show a
balance between simple concepts and complex concepts, whereas in Geology practical work
simple concepts prevail.
The graph of figure 5 shows the results of the analysis of the complexity of cognitive
skills. Although the general guidelines contain a small number of units of analysis that can be
analyzed in terms of practical work, the message they transmit is too important to be ignored
either to characterize these parts of the curriculum or to make a comparative analysis with the
message of specific guidelines. It is possible to observe that complex cognitive skills
associated with practical work prevail. Considering the specific guidelines and when the
20

curriculum is taken as a whole, most units contain complex cognitive skills (degrees 3 and/or
4), corresponding to analysis and knowledge utilization. Degree 1, involving cognitive
process of retrieval, is absent.

Figure 5. Complexity of cognitive skills of practical work in Biology and Geology high school
11th).

Comparing the Biology and Geology curricular subjects, the graph of figure 5 shows
that cognitive skills of the greatest degree of complexity prevail in Geology, as evidenced by
the frequency of units that express degree 4: 57% in general part, 43% in 10th year and 26% in
11th year. The highest complexity of cognitive skills in Geology practical work is particularly
related to the formulation of hypothesis, decision making, construction of models and
research, organization and processing of information.

4.3. The how of practical work
The OPD analysis related to the how of practical work considered the intra-disciplinary
relations between theory and practice and the explicitness of practical work.
Figure 6 shows the results of intra-disciplinary relations between theory and practice.
When the curriculum is taken as a whole, the results show that the message of the general
guidelines seems to value the relation between theory and practice (degrees C- and C- -). In the
specific guidelines of the Biology and Geology curriculum the valorization of that relation is
higher.

21

Figure 6. Relation between theory and practice of practical work in Biology and Geology high school
11th).

Comparing Biology and Geology curricular subjects (figure 6), there are units
classified with C++, something that is more frequently in the general part of Biology. In these
cases, the C+ + is related to the presence of procedural scientific knowledge (second part of the
respective descriptor) only. The introductory text of both Biology and Geology (in the graph,
Bg and Gg) contains general guidelines about science processes without relating them to
declarative scientific knowledge. The excerpts that follow illustrate this situation:
“Strengthening the skills of abstraction, experimentation, teamwork, reflection and sense of
responsibility will allow the development of skills that characterize Biology as a Science.” (Biology
general part, p.67).
“Developing experimental skills in inquiry situations arising from everyday problems.” (Geology
general part, p.8).

The data of figure 6 also shows that C- - prevails in all parts of Geology which means
that most units suggest a relation between declarative and procedural scientific knowledge,
equal status being given to these two types of knowledge. In the case of Biology, namely in
the 10th and 11th parts, most units were classified with C-, that is, the units reflect a relation
between the two types of knowledge with a focus on declarative knowledge. The authors
consider that the desirable situation with respect to the theory and practice relation is a
situation in which relations between declarative and procedural knowledge predominate, with
more status being given to declarative knowledge in the relation (C-). Biology 10th and 11th
are closer to that situation. This is the situation that best represents an efficient scientific

22

learning that is learning that is supported by the understanding and applying of science
processes knowledge.
The graph of figure 7 shows the results of the explicitness of practical work with
regard to the relation between the Ministry of Education and Science (MES) and the teacher.
The message of the general guidelines and of the general parts of both subjects (in graph,
GGd, Bg and Gg) is similar as they both show a weak concern with the explicitness of the
type of practical work and with the scientific knowledge and cognitive skills that are supposed
to be the subject of learning and assessment in the practical work. When the curriculum is
taken as a whole, the results of specific guidelines show a balance between the four degrees of
framing. About 47% of the units indicate a more MES centered control (F+ + and F+).
In the cases of the 10th and 11th years, there are important differences between Biology
and Geology. More emphasis is given to the explicitness of practical work in Biology when
compared with Geology (that is, the MES control is stronger in the case of Biology). The data
of figure 7 show that 54% and 85% of the units of Biology 10th and 11th, respectively, indicate
a more MES centered control (F+ + and F+). In the case of Geology, this control is limited to
30% of the units.

Figure 7. Explicitness of practical work in Biology and Geology high school curriculum considered as
a whole and in each part of that curriculum (n- total number of units of analysis considered; GGdgeneral guidelines; SGd- specific guidelines; Bg- general part of Biology; B10- Biology 10th; B11Biology 11th; Gg- general part of Geology; G10- Geology 10th; G11- Geology 11th).

5. Discussion and conclusion
The article intended to show a new approach for analyzing the level of complexity of practical
work in science curricula by studying its level of conceptual demand. Although the analysis is
23

focused on the Portuguese curricula of Biology and Geology for high school, the instruments
constructed and the concepts involved can be used to appreciate the level of conceptual
demand of practical work of other international science curricula and to make comparisons
between them. They can also be used to analyze additional educational texts, as are for
example the external assessment tests. The analysis intended also to appreciate
recontextualizing processes that may occur between the messages of the general and specific
guidelines in the cases of both Biology and Geology. At another level, the study intended to
explore empirically Bernstein’s model of pedagogic discourse (1990, 2000).
The results showed that the curricular documents give low emphasis to practical work
in Biology and Geology education for high school. The relative frequency of units of analysis
with reference to practical work varied between 19% and 29% in terms of the total of units
defined for each one of the parts of the 10th and the 11th years of both Biology and Geology.
These results contradict the general curriculum guidelines for each one of the two subjects,
where it is stated that in Geology education “practical activities, with an experimental
character, investigative, or of any other type, should perform a particular important role in
science education” (DES, 2001, p.7). Or also when it is stated that in Biology education
“practical work should be valued as a fundamental part of the teaching and learning of the
knowledge contained in every teaching unit” (DES, 2001, p.70). It should be remembered
here that some units of analysis could not be characterized because they were either
ambiguous with respect to the characteristics under study or did not refer any scientific
knowledge and/or cognitive skills.
Within practical work, laboratory activities are represented in all parts of the
curriculum, having the highest status in the Biology 11th. However, on the whole, laboratory
work is poorly represented. For example, again in the case of Biology 11th, where only 20%
of the units consider practical work, less than a half of these respect to laboratory work.
Furthermore, laboratory activities with an investigative character are poorly represented.
Faced with the methodological suggestions given in the curriculum, the teacher is free to
decide whether to organize an illustrative laboratory activity, through which the student
verifies something s/he already knows, or to organize an activity with an investigative
character, where the student does not know the results beforehand.
According to the results of the study, Biology and Geology subjects evidence a
somehow considerable level of conceptual demand with respect to the transmission context of
practical work, if the discipline is taken as a whole. However, when these subjects are
24

analysed separately, this picture changes: Biology is the curricular subject with a general
higher level of conceptual demand when compared with Geology. This conclusion is based on
the analysis of some dimensions of the what (complexity of scientific knowledge and
complexity of cognitive skills) and of the how (relations between theory and practice) of
practical work.
With regard to the complexity of scientific knowledge of practical work, it is Biology
that contains more complex concepts/unifying themes (60% of the units of analysis in each
schooling year) when compared with Geology (21% and 38% in Geology 10th and 11th,
respectively). Unifying themes are absent in Geology practical activities and this absence of
scientific knowledge of very high level of complexity puts at stake the understanding of the
hierarchical structure of scientific knowledge (Bernstein, 1999) by students. The authors
consider that the situation that better represents an efficient scientific learning, when practical
work is implemented, is a situation nearer to Biology, where unifying themes are acquired by
understanding complex and simple knowledge within a balanced degree of complexity of
scientific knowledge. If science education is to reflect the structure of scientific knowledge it
should lead to the understanding of concepts and big ideas, although that understanding
requires a balance between knowledge of distinct levels of complexity (Morais & Neves,
2012). Bybee and Scotter (2007) also present this aspect as a principle for the development of
an effective science curriculum.
When the focus is the complexity of cognitive skills, it is Geology that gives more
emphasis to complex cognitive skills of high level (cognitive process of knowledge
utilization) when compared with Biology. In this case the situation that better represents an
efficient learning, when practical work is implemented, is a situation nearer to Geology 11th,
where there is a balance between complex and simple cognitive skills, although it fails the
important skill of memorization. As has been evidenced by neuroscience research (e.g. Geake,
2009), the automation of mental tasks is necessary in order that a larger area of the brain is
available to perform more complex tasks, involving the use of knowledge. Only when
students develop simple skills, as memorization of specific facts and concepts, can they
develop complex skills as the applying of these concepts to new situations.
With regard to the third dimension that was used to analyze the level of conceptual
demand – relation between theory and practice – Biology is closer to the desirable situation as
it is in this subject that these relations predominate, with more status being given to theory in
the relation. The presence of this relation in the curriculum is particularly important since
25

several studies (e.g. Abrahams & Millar, 2008) point out to the existence of a separation
between theory and practice when teachers implement practical activities, particularly
laboratory work.
In order to appreciate the level of conceptual demand we also considered the types of
practical work presented in the science curriculum. The virtually absence of excerpts that
appeal to laboratory activities with an investigative character decreases the level of conceptual
demand of practical work. This places into a different perspective the results that were
obtained through the analysis of the three dimensions of conceptual demand. Conceptual
demand of practical work is not as high as the analysis of those dimensions had indicated. As
Lunetta, Hofstein and Clough (2007) state “science knowledge (conceptual and procedural)
that is central in science literacy […] and difficult to understand without extensive hands-on
and minds-on experience deserves in-depth laboratory investigation” (p.421). Among other
aspects, the investigative laboratory activities also allow the development and the integration
of complex cognitive skills of high level.
The evaluation context of practical work is largely ignored in all parts of the
curriculum. The curriculum is therefore inconsistent with current legislation that determines
formal moments of assessment with a weight of 30% in the overall students’ evaluation of the
Biology and Geology discipline (MES - Portaria n.º 1322/2007). Since curriculum guides
teachers’ decisions, and particularly textbooks authors’ decisions, and given the regulatory
role of evaluation on the learning process, this absence may compromise students’ scientific
learning.
According to Bernstein (1990), an official pedagogic discourse, as it is the case of a
science curriculum, “is always a recontextualizing of texts […] from dominant positions
within the economic field and the field of symbolic control” (p.196). The recontextualizing
processes that were considered in the case of this specific study were those that took place in
the transition from the messages of the general to the specific guidelines of both Biology and
Geology. The extent to which these recontextualizing processes might have been present
would give a measure of the ideological and pedagogical principles of respective authors.
There is evidence that they go in different directions according to the dimensions analyzed,
namely in the cases of cognitive skills and intra-disciplinary relations. Recontextualizing
processes could not be analyzed in the case of scientific knowledge related to practical work
since this knowledge is not mentioned in general guidelines. In terms of the complexity of
cognitive skills of practical work, these recontextualizing processes represent a decreasing of
26

the level of conceptual demand of the general guidelines when compared with the specific
guidelines for practical work. On the other hand, in terms of the relation between theory and
practice, the specific guidelines of both Biology and Geology go deeper in making this
relation when compared with their respective general guidelines. In this case, these
recontextualizing processes represent an increase of the level of conceptual demand. It should
be noted that although specific guidelines are, by nature, more detailed and contextualized
than general guidelines, the two teams of authors (one for the Biology subject and another for
the Geology subject) seemed to have been unable to link given concrete situations of practical
work with the development of the complex skills they had defended in the general guidelines.
This idea is supported by the results of a study made by Ferreira, Morais and Neves (2011),
centered on the Natural Sciences curriculum for middle school, that showed that the
recontextualizing processes may be a consequence of difficulties felt by curriculum authors
when putting into practice, in the form of a monologic text, some dimensions of scientific
learning.
Unlike other studies that were focused on the analysis of science curricula (e.g.
BouJaoude, 2002; Calado, Neves & Morais, 2013), the differences between the sociological
message of the general and the specific guidelines of the discipline were not in general very
marked in any of the both cases of Biology and Geology, with reference to practical work and
to the characteristics studied. The relative continuity between the general and specific parts,
within each one of the two curricular subjects, may be explained by the fact that the two parts
of each subject were constructed by the same team of authors, something that do not always
happen in the cases of other current studies.
Although the MES seems to value practical work in the curriculum for high school
Biology and Geology, this official agency does not make such intentions explicit at the level
of both the general and the specific guidelines of the curriculum. On one hand, the great
number of ambiguous units in some dimensions of the what and the how of the teachinglearning process evidences how the MES leaves implicit aspects of practical work to be
implemented. The units of analysis which were considered as ambiguous transmit a dubious
message which is open to several interpretations. The teachers when reading and interpreting
the ambiguous text can recognize, or not, the concern with the implementation of practical
work. If the teacher is aware of the importance of practical work to the quality of students’
scientific learning, s/he will interpret the text accordingly, but if not, s/he will probably
interpret the message differently. On the other hand, when the explication of the practical
27

work (evaluation criteria) is considered, the results indicate that, at the level of general
guidelines for each one of the two subjects and at the level of the specific guidelines of
Geology, the MES leaves implicit not only the type of practical work but most importantly the
scientific knowledge and the cognitive skills that are to be the object of practical work. In this
way, the teacher has a high degree of control given by the MES when implementing the
Biology and Geology curriculum, particularly in the case of Geology practical work.
This great space of intervention may have disadvantages in terms of students’
scientific learning, particularly by allowing a greater recontextualization of the Official
Pedagogic Discourse when it passes from the curriculum to the classroom. This is of
particular importance if we consider that the absence of explicit criteria with respect to the
practical work to be implemented in schools may lead teachers and textbook authors,
especially those who have scientific and pedagogic deficiencies, to be unable to build on their
own, a curriculum that takes into account research findings about the importance of practical
work in scientific learning. Thus, the teacher, in the absence of an education that allows
him/her to reflect on the significance of the sociological messages contained in the
curriculum, may subvert the space of intervention that is given to him/her in a situation of
greater control. In fact, several studies carried out at the level of the Portuguese high school
(e.g. Marques, 2005) have shown that practical work is poorly represented in the activities
performed by students and that the practical work that is done mobilizes simple cognitive
skills only. In this situation, if teachers are to promote an efficient scientific learning with
regard to the implementation and evaluation of practical work, the authors consider that
evaluation criteria should be explicit, at least with regard to scientific knowledge, cognitive
skills and the type of practical work. As suggested by Bernstein’s model of pedagogic
discourse (1990), the production and reproduction of pedagogic discourse involves dynamic
processes. For instance, there is a potential or real source of conflict, resistance and inertia
between pedagogic and official recontextualizing fields. For that reason, the authors of this
paper are now giving continuity to the present study by analyzing the relation between the
message carried by the curriculum and teachers’ conceptions and practices, regarding
practical work in Biology and Geology (Ferreira, 2013).
On the basis of the data obtained, it is possible to make a reflection with regard to the
reasons that may account for possible differences between the two practical work messages of
Biology and Geology, considered as separate subjects of the same curriculum. A possible
explanation for these discontinuities is the MES selection of different teams of authors to
28

construct the curriculum for each curricular subject. Each team of authors seemed to value
different dimensions of the what and the how of practical work. Some of these differences
(but by no means all of them) may also be related to the fact that Biology and Geology,
although part of a same discipline, are epistemologically distinct subjects. However, this fact,
by itself, would mostly likely have led for example to higher level skills of the Biology when
compared with the Geology subject, which was not shown to be the case. This leaves
differences in the science and the science education proficiency of the authors of the two
teams of authors as the soundest explanatory hypothesis. The authors who constituted the
particular Geology team should have possessed greater proficiency, with regard to science
skills, than those of the Biology team.
The variables studied are crucial for inferring the influence that the OPD, transmitted
by a given curriculum, may have on the scientific learning of all students. In the case of this
study, it is legitimate to think that the level of scientific proficiency that can be attained by
students who receive a pedagogic practice based on the analysed curriculum will be low with
respect to some dimensions of that proficiency. Unless teachers are able and motivated to
recontextualize the curriculum in the right direction that is in the direction of increasing the
amount of practical work, namely laboratory work with an investigative character and
respective level of conceptual demand. The fact that teachers can change, and in fact do
change, the message present in curricula, does not diminish the importance of making a
detailed analysis of these science educational texts. Curricula constitute the official pedagogic
discourse and as such they primarily direct not only teachers practice but also textbooks
production and external assessment tests.
The mode of analysis used in the study has the potential of highlighting the level of
conceptual demand of a science curriculum, in terms of specific aspects of the what and the
how of learning related to practical work. The strong conceptual and explanatory power of the
theory in which the study was based, and the constant dialectics between the theoretical and
the empirical, enabled the construction of instruments with descriptors that allowed detailed
analysis of the various scientific learning characteristics used as dimensions of the level of
conceptual demand of practical work. It should be noted that the conceptualization and
procedures followed in the study constitute an innovative approach that accords to the study
of science education texts greater rigor than that of other approaches found in literature. By
using the same methodological approach, it may be possible to compare and discuss the

29

conceptual demand of practical work of several international curricula and even of other
educational texts.
Notes
1 The ESSA Group – Sociological Studies of the Classroom – is a research group of the Institute of Education of
the University of Lisbon.
2 Bernstein’s model of pedagogic discourse is accessible at <http://essa.ie.ul.pt/researchmat_modelsofanalysis_
text.htm> and its characterization is available at <http://essa.ie.ul.pt/bernsteinstheory_text.htm>.
3 The concept of practical work presented in the Biology and Geology Portuguese curriculum is the following:
‘practical work must be considered as a broad concept that comprises various kinds of activities, ranging
from paper and pencil activities to activities that require the lab use or field trips. Thus, students can develop
skills as diverse as using a binocular dissecting microscope or an optical microscope, the graphical
presentation of data, making reports of practical activities, autonomous information research in different
supports, without neglecting and strengthening the capacities of written and oral expression’ (DES – High
School Department, 2001, p.70).
4 The high school Biology and Geology curriculum for the 10th and 11th schooling years (DES, 2001; DES,
2003) was constructed by two different teams of authors. One team made the curriculum for Biology and
another team made the curriculum for Geology.
5 At this level of analysis, we established a parallelism between the MES-teacher relation and the teacher-student
relation. It was considered that, at the level of the MES-teacher relation, there is a text (the curriculum OPD) to be acquired by the teacher and that the more implicit are the evaluation criteria the more control the
teacher will have of that text.
6 The instruments are available online on <http://essa.ie.ul.pt/researchmat_instruments_text.htm>.
7 Units of analysis were taken as ambiguous whenever they did not allow for a clear distinction either of the
type of practical work, or the degree of complexity of scientific knowledge, or the degree of complexity of
cognitive skills or the degree of intra-disciplinary relations, and as such classification was impossible to be
made.

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge to Isabel Neves for her contribution in the analysis of the curriculum. This research
was financed by the Foundation for Science and Technology.

References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M.,
Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science
Education, 88(3), 397-419.
Abrahams, I, & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical

30

work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education,
30(14), 1945-1969.
Alves, V., & Morais, A. (2012). A sociological analysis of science curriculum and pedagogic practices.
Pedagogies: An International Journal, 7(1), 52-71.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. (Eds.), Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., &
Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control: Volume IV, The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London:
Routledge.
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
20(2), 157-173.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (rev. ed.). London:
Rowman & Littlefield.
BouJaoude, S. (2002). Balance of scientific literacy themes in science curricula: The case of Lebanon.
International Journal of Science Education, 24(2), 139–156.
Brandwein, P., Watson, F., & Blackwood, P. (1958). Teaching high school science: A book of methods. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Brandwein, P., Cooper, E., Blackwood, P., Cottom-Winslow, M., Boeschen, J., Giddings, M., Romero, F., &
Carin, A. (1980). Concepts in science – Teacher’s edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Bybee, R., & Scotter, P. (2007). Reinventing the science curriculum. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 43-47.
Calado, S., Neves, I., & Morais, A. (2013). Conceptual demand of science curricula: Study at the level of middle
school. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 8(3), 255-277.
Cantu, L. L., & Herron, J. D. (1978). Concrete and formal piagetian stages and science concept attainment.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(2), 135-143.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conduction mixed methods research (2nd ed.). California:
Sage Publications.
DES (Departamento do Ensino Secundário) – High School Department (2001). Programa de Biologia e
Geologia – 10º ou 11º anos. Lisbon: Ministry of Education.
DES (Departamento do Ensino Secundário) – High School Department (2003). Programa de Biologia e
Geologia – 11º ou 12º anos. Lisboa: Ministério da Educação.
Domingos, A. M. (now Morais) (1989a). Conceptual demand of science courses and social class. In P. Adey
(Ed.), Adolescent development and school science (pp. 211-223). London: Falmer Press.
Domingos, A. M. (now Morais) (1989b). Influence of the social context of the school on the teacher’s pedagogic
practice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 10(3), 351-366.
Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Ed.) (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching
science in grade K-8. Washington: National Academies Press.

31

Ferreira, S. (2013). Trabalho prático em Biologia e Geologia do ensino secundário: Análise das orientações
oficiais e das conceções e das práticas dos professores. Doctoral Dissertation, Institute of Education of The
University of Lisbon (in course).
Ferreira, S., Morais, A., & Neves, I. (2011). Science curricula design: analysis of authors’ ideological and
pedagogical principles. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 21(2), 137-159.
Geake, J. (2009). The brain at school: Educational neuroscience in the classroom. Berkshire, UK: Open
University Press.
Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn
and Bacon.
Hickman, C., Roberts, L, & Larson, A. (1995). Integrated principles of zoology. Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.
Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science.
Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 85-142.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first
century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.
Hofstein, A., & Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105-107.
Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and
confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317-345.
Lunetta, V., Hofstein, A. & Clough, M. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An
analysis of research, theory, and practice. In N. Lederman & S. Abel (Eds,), Handbook of research on
science education (pp. 393-441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marques, M. (2005). O ensino laboratorial das ciências naturais pós-revisão curricular do ensino secundário: Que
implicações? Revista de Educação, XIII(1), 133-154.
Marzano, R. J. & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Marzano, R. J. & Kendall, J. S. (2008). Designing & assessing educational objectives: Applying the new
taxonomy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
MES (Ministry of Education and Science) - Portaria n.º 1322/2007, de 4 de Outubro, Ministry of Education.
Diário da República, 1ª série, 192, 7107-7123.
Millar, R., Maréchal, J. F., & Tiberghien, A. (1999). Maping the domain – varieties of practical work. In J.
Leach & A. Paulsen (Eds.), Practical work in science education (pp. 33-59). Denmark: Roskilde University
Press.
Morais, A. M., Neves, I. P., & Pires, D. (2004). The what and the how of teaching and learning: Going
deeper into sociological analysis and intervention. In J. Muller, B. Davies & A. Morais (Eds.),
Reading Bernstein, Researching Bernstein (pp. 75-90). London: Routledge & Falmer.
Morais, A. M., & Neves, I. P. (2010). Basil Bernstein as an inspiration for educational research: Specific
methodological approaches. In P.Singh, A. Sadovnik & S. Semel (Eds.), ToolKits, translation devices and
conceptual accounts: Essays on Basil Bernstein's sociology of knowledge (pp. 11-32). New York: Peter
Lang.

32

Morais, A. M., & Neves, I. P. (2011). Educational texts and contexts that work: Discussing the optimization of a
model of pedagogic practice. In D. Frandji & P. Vitale (Eds.), Knowledge, pedagogy & society:
International perspectives on Basil Bernstein`s sociology of education (pp. 191-207). London: Routledge.
Morais, A. M., & Neves, I. P. (2012, June). Vertical discourses and science education: Analyzing conceptual
demand of educational texts. Paper presented at the 7th International Basil Bernstein Symposium, Aix-enProvence, France (forthcoming book).
Pella, M., & Voelker, A. (1968). Teaching the concepts of physical and chemical change to elementary school
children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(4), 311-323.
Roberts, R., Gott, R., & Glaesser, J. (2010). Students’ approaches to open-ended science investigation: The
importance of substantive and procedural understanding. Research Papers in Education, 25(4), 377-407.
Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a science of science teaching: Cognitive development and curriculum
demand. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

33

Conceptual demand of practical work in science curricula

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Conceptual demand of practical work in science curricula

Similar to Conceptual demand of practical work in science curricula (20)

More from Sílvia Ferreira

More from Sílvia Ferreira (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Conceptual demand of practical work in science curricula