Zambia, like many other countries, has a considerable tradition in science practical work, especially at junior and high school levels. While the science education literature highlights the fundamental benefits of science practical work, there are still questions about its effectiveness in facilitating conceptual understanding and inquiry skills. Our previous study that examined the status of inquiry-based science education in Zambia’s high school science curriculum revealed that: many Zambian teachers held a narrow conception of inquiry science teaching; curriculum materials emphasized lower inquiry tasks such as manipulating equipment rather than higher-order skills such as designing experiments, interpreting and applying scientific data/techniques; and that science inquiry tasks were conducted in a “vacuum”, without sense-making learning contexts for learners. It is against this backdrop that we embarked on this chapter aimed at examining the curriculum materials from another lens that situates practical work as a sense-making learning context. Thus, this chapter examines the extent to which science practical work integrates the science and engineering practices, which are currently viewed to constitute an improved scientific inquiry process that articulates more clearly what successful inquiry looks like when it results in conceptual and procedural understandings. Two national syllabi and two national textbooks that are used at junior high school level were analysed because they are the main sources of information and study guides for all stakeholders, including teachers, students, and curriculum designers. The findings reveal the following: only science practices are covered, not engineering practices; there is medium–high coverage on Planning and carrying out investigations; low coverage in Constructing explanations (for science); Using mathematics and computational thinking; and Developing and using models; no coverage on Asking questions (for science) and Defining problems (for engineering), and Engaging in argument from evidence; there are discrepancies in the coverage on Analyzing and interpreting data, and on Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. Life science activities had high coverage for Constructing explanations (for science), while physical science activities had medium–high coverage for Planning and carrying out investigations. The implications of these findings for science practical work are discussed herein, with a proposed design matrix for science practical work if these activities are to be meaningful and relevant to the learners.