Research in Science Education

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 353–363 | Cite as

Student disclosures of fraudulent practice in school laboratories



The debate about the inclusion of laboratory practicals in the school curriculum is continued in this paper which reports on fraudulent practice by students. One of the widely accepted goals of school laboratory practicals is to teach students about the nature of scientific inquiry. This paper reports how student disclosures of their actual practice in school laboratories is at odds with such a goal. We identify and define the student practice of “fudging” which involves faking, fabricating, or stealing data. Five types of fudging behaviour are described. The factors contributing to and the motivations for such behaviour are also identified.


Scientific Inquiry Actual Practice School Curriculum School Laboratory Student Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, R. O. (1976).The experience of science: A new perspective for laboratory teaching. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, A. (1990).Language learning. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  3. Department of Education and Science. (1987).The National Curriculum Science Working Party Interim Report. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  4. Driver, R. (1988). Theory into practice II: A constructivist approach to curriculum development. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.),Developments and dilemmas in science education (pp. 133–149). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  5. Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (1995). The place of investigations in practical work in the UK National Curriculum for Science.International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 137–147.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards, J., & Power, C. (1990). Role of laboratory work in a national junior secondary science project: Australian Science Education Project (ASEP). In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.),The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 315–336). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Fellows, N. J. (1995). A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 985–1002.Google Scholar
  8. Fordham, A. (1980). Student intrinsic motivation, science teaching practices and student learning.Research in Science Education, 10, 108–117.Google Scholar
  9. Gangoli, S. G., & Gurumurthy, C. (1995). A study of the effectiveness of a guided open-ended approach to physics experiments.International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 233–241.Google Scholar
  10. Gardner, P., & Gauld, C. (1990). Labwork and students' attitudes. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.)The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 132–156). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Guba, E., & Lincoln, D. F. (1989).Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1990). Learning technical skills in the student laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.),The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 75–94). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Hodson, D. (1992). Assessment of practical work: Some condsiderations in philosophy of science.Science & Education, 1, 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science.Studies in Science Education, 22, 85–142.Google Scholar
  15. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research.Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.Google Scholar
  16. Johnstone, A. H., & Letton, K. M. (1989). Is practical work practicable?Journal of College Science Teaching, 18(3), 190–192.Google Scholar
  17. Keys, C. W. (1995). The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignments: An interpretive study of six ninth-grade students.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1003–1022.Google Scholar
  18. Klopfer, L. E. (1990). Learning scientific inquiry in the student laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.),The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 95–118). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.),Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94–128). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Lott, G. W. (1983). The effect of inquiry teaching: How teachers cope. In J. Olson (Ed.),Innovation in the science curriculum (pp. 140–178). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  21. Nott, M., & Smith, R. (1995). ‘Talking your way our of it', rigging’ and ‘conjuring’: What science teachers do when practicals go wrong.International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 399–410.Google Scholar
  22. Rigano, D. L., & Ritchie, S. M. (1994). Students' thinking in a chemistry laboratory.Research in Science Education, 24, 280–279.Google Scholar
  23. Ritchie, S. M. (1992). Questioning the teaching of scientific genres.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 38(4), 45–48.Google Scholar
  24. Ritchie, S. M., & Rigano, D. L. (1995, April).Student engagement in a laboratory research project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  25. Roth, W.-M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 197–223.Google Scholar
  26. Shulman, L. D., & Tamir, P. (1973). Research on teaching in the natural sciences. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.),Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1098–1140). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  27. Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W. C., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387–404.Google Scholar
  28. Tamir, P. (1990). Evaluation of student laboratory work and its role in developing policy. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.),The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 242–266). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Tobin, K. (1990a). Teacher mind frames and science learning. In K. Tobin, J. B. Kahle, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.),Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with high level cognitive learning in science (pp. 33–86). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  30. Tobin, K. (1990b). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning.School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403–418.Google Scholar
  31. Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations.Science Education, 65, 33–50.Google Scholar
  32. Woolnough, B., & Allsop, T. (1985).Practical work in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Education Research Association 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationJames Cook University of North QueenslandTownsvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations