Conference PaperPDF Available

Critical Perspectives on Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) in Europe

Authors:

Abstract

"Enacting inquiry activities in science classrooms is beneficial for student learning as it places a strong emphasis on the learners’ development of scientific thinking" (Dewey, 1910). The above quote is from an article written by John Dewey, possibly the most influential psychologist and philosopher of education in the past century. The article was published as an invited feature in the prestigious journal Science more than a century ago. As we can see, inquiry-based science education (IBSE) is no newcomer. In the following, we will look at how IBSE has re-emerged on the European and international educational agenda for the STEM subjects. We will look at the meanings of inquiry-based science education and discuss the benefits that IBSE is asserted to have for the quality of teaching and learning and what research says about these claims. IBSE has become a key concept in the multifaceted initiatives taken by the European Commission for the promotion of the STEM subjects. Assessing and measuring the outcomes of STEM teaching is, however, very complicated and give widely differing results, depending on what you want to achieve. In any case, one should not restrict the assessment to look for higher scores on standardized achievement tests. Key concerns when judging the quality of IBSE should also be related to the students' development of positive attitudes, critical thinking, engagement, interest and motivation. A life-long perspective may be more important than measurable immediate results.
1
Critical Perspectives on Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) in Europe
Svein Sjøberg, Professor em. in Science education, University of Oslo,
<svein.sjoberg@ils.uio.no>
Position Paper written for EUN Partnership , European Schoolnet, updated
March 2019 -
Introduction
Enacting inquiry activities in science classrooms is beneficial for student learning as it places a strong
emphasis on the learners’ development of scientific thinking (Dewey, 1910).
The above quote is from an article written by John Dewey, possibly the most influential psychologist and
philosopher of education in the past century. The article was published as an invited feature in the prestigious
journal Science more than a century ago. As we can see, inquiry-based science education (IBSE) is no newcomer.
In the following, we will look at how IBSE has re-emerged on the European and international educational agenda
for the STEM subjects. We will look at the meanings of inquiry-based science education and discuss the benefits
that IBSE is asserted to have for the quality of teaching and learning and what research says about these claims.
IBSE has become a key concept in the multifaceted initiatives taken by the European Commission for the
promotion of the STEM subjects. Assessing and measuring the outcomes of STEM teaching is, however, very
complicated and give widely differing results, depending on what you want to achieve. In any case, one should
not restrict the assessment to look for higher scores on standardized achievement tests. Key concerns when
judging the quality of IBSE should also be related to the students' development of positive attitudes, critical
thinking, engagement, interest and motivation. A life-long perspective may be more important than measurable
immediate results
Science education in schools: setting the scene
In practically all countries, science is by now an obligatory subject for all learners, taught from primary education
through secondary and upper secondary levels. Two components are essential: science as a product, and science
as a process.
The "products" of science –laws, models and concepts are cultural products, developed over centuries as part
of our common human heritage. Students should become acquainted with the most important ideas and
theories that constitute this universally shared heritage.
Science also has a "process" dimension. The methods and practises of science inquiry are also universal;
formulating and testing ideas, making observations, performing experiments, discussing results and
interpretations to make sense and to produce new knowledge and understanding.
The welfare and prosperity of modern society depend strongly on science and science-based technologies.
Moreover, the ethos and values of science as inquiry are closely connected with the ideals of democracy; critical
thinking and the respect for arguments and evidence. At a time when "alternative facts" and "fake news" have
2
emerged in public debates, the importance of science knowledge, an inquiring mind and critical thinking are
even more important than before.
In spite of the large and growing importance of scientific knowledge and ways of thinking, school science faces
serious challenges. Young people, who by nature are enthusiastic, active and curious, often lose interest in
science during their school years. When science is no longer obligatory at school, many adolescents turn their
backs to the science disciplines. This is problematic for society, for the recruitment to science-related studies
and professions, and it is bad for democracy.
There is broad agreement that school science should be more interesting, challenging and relevant for the
learner. Several initiatives for research and development have over the decades been launched to address these
challenges. Many of these are currently subsumed under the term IBSE: Inquiry-Based Science Education. In the
following we place these initiatives in a wider context and discuss the virtues and possible pitfalls with the IBSE
projects.
The three terms Science literacy, STEM and IBSE occur frequently in initiatives related to education. These
terms emerged as key concepts in educational policy documents and debates in Europe, USA and elsewhere
during that last 10-15 years. The underlying concerns have a long history, but their role as dominant concepts is
of new date.
The overall purpose of school science is to stimulate what is now subsumed under the term Science literacy, and
the term Public Understanding of Science has nearly the same meaning. These terms are defined in different
ways, but usually imply that the learners should be empowered as citizens to understand and appreciate basic
ideas in science and to understand how science is relevant to their personal life as well as for their future in the
workplace and as voters in a democracy. Science literacy usually includes science-based technologies and is close
the way the concept STEM is used.
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) as one "word" has rather recently become a
common expression in policy documents. Using STEM as one phrase indicates that there is a strong relationship
between these four components, otherwise often treated as separate disciplines and forms of knowledge in
schools. Even the S in STEM is in many countries divided in separate disciplines in schools; like physics, chemistry,
biology and earth science. The close relationship that is suggested by the term STEM is not always visible in
education.
IBSE (Inquiry-Based Science Education) as an acronym is also a newcomer in policy documents and debates. In
short, it suggests that teaching science should be based on inquiry methods, where the learners get actively
involved in formulating ideas, designing and performing experiments, discussing results and drawing conclusions,
acting very much like a "real scientists". This pedagogy is expected to give better learning, more involvement
and higher interest than more traditional teacher- and textbook-dominated teaching.
In the following, we will look more closely at the background for the current central role of IBSE in science
education. We will also look into what we might expect from IBSE-inspired teaching and what research can tell
us about this.
3
The different purposes of school science
The role and purpose of school science is often seen differently by different stakeholders. Although the
perspectives partly overlap, there are some underlying differences in priorities and concerns.
One perspective may be based on what in a continental European tradition is called Bildung. This German term
exists in many European languages, but does not directly translate to English, but general education and liberal
education may give the right associations. From this perspective the purpose of a common, public school for all
is to empower the young generation by exposing them to a broad and diverse curriculum. The purpose of
Bildung is also to develop transferable skills, critical thinking and a strong sense of values, ethics and civic
engagement. From this perspective, science and the broader STEM is but a part of a broad spectrum of
disciplines that together contribute to the socialization and development of the young generation. From a
Bildung-perspective science is placed on par with humanities, arts and other school subjects as preparation for
life as empowered, autonomous and well informed citizens. Most teachers, educators and large segments of
society would adhere to these sorts of arguments. These views are also expressed in many countries'
foundational value statements and school curricula.
Other groups may concur with the above views, but are likely to stress the more instrumental role of STEM
subjects as preparations to serve more concrete purposes, often related to the economy and the labour market.
For instance, many people working in universities and research institutions see school science as the first step on
the ladder to become the future researcher and scientist. Similarly, people working in industry and high-tech
enterprises often tend to consider that the main purpose of STEM in schools is to qualify and recruit a high
proportion of the youth to become fit for a competitive global market, preferably as engineers and technicians.
The above perspectives on the purpose and role of science in schools partly overlap, and do not usually lead to
conflicts. Actually, a broadly-based "Bildung"-perspective may in fact be the best education also seen from the
position of a modern and dynamic labour market, where jobs increasingly depend on a wide cultural orientation,
critical thinking, social and communicational skills, creativity, entrepreneurship and innovativeness. Such skills
may be developed in most school subjects, and not in STEM subjects alone.
In the past 10-15 years, however, the instrumental and economical perspective on STEM subjects as preparation
for the labour market has come more to the forefront. This development is fuelled by the large-scale
comparative studies of educational achievement, like TIMSS (Trends in Mathematics and Science Studies) and
the OECD-project PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment). It is often assumed that a country's'
rankings on such tests is a predictor of the nations' future competitive edge in a high-tech global economy.
Hence, climbing on these standardized tests has become a high priority for many governments and policy-
makers. In this "global education race" for higher test score the wider perspectives on schooling and education
have been sacrificed. (Sellar, Thompson and Rutkowski, 2017; Sjøberg, 2018). Moreover, the strife towards
higher test scores often comes at the expense of attitudes towards science and willingness to pursue science-
related studies and careers.
Science education: Recent European initiatives
Over the past decades, many actors have reviewed and analysed the situation for school science in Europe in
order to put it on the political and educational agenda. Some initiatives at the official policy level and from the
involved professions are the following.
4
Initiatives at policy level
In 1994, Jose Mariano Gago, physics professor at CERN, took the initiative to establish a European group of
experienced scientists and science education researchers to map the field of science education across Europe.
This group reviewed existing statistics and research, and they arranged several hearings with groups of different
of stakeholders from European industry, education, research and politics. Based on this, they produced a "White
paper on science education in Europe" which received widespread circulation and attention. Shortly afterwards,
professor Gago became minister of research, science and technology in Portugal, a position he held for two
periods. The first thing he did was to establish the national programme Ciência Viva, probably Europe's most
ambitious programme to promote "the culture of science" in a country. This programme reaches all ages, from
kindergarten all the way through schools, higher education and research, and involves all possible partners from
the public as well private sectors. The concept of inquiry, experiments and active engagement played an
important role in this project already from its start in 1996.
As minister of science, professor Gago also brought the initiative to the more official European scale. The most
visible result was the work of a "High Level Group on Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe".
This group of European scholars was established by the Directorate-General of Research of the European
Commission, worked for some two years and involved all possible stakeholders and national authorities. The aim
was to describe and analyse the status and challenges for science and technology education and to develop
recommendations for the future. The 200 page report was called "Europe needs more scientists. Increasing
human resources for science and technology in Europe." (European Commission, 2004).
Although the report title stresses the needs of the labour market, the perspectives and conclusions of the report
addresses the significance of science literacy in a wider social and cultural context. The main outcome of this
comprehensive report was to put science education and the significance of public understanding of science at
the political agenda in Europe. The term IBSE was not directly used, but "Problem-based or inquiry-oriented
approaches" to science teaching were among the recommendations. The report describes this in more detail:
"This includes the development of questions, the formulation and testing of hypotheses based on existing
knowledge and theories, and the analysis and presentation of results and conclusions it means preparing
‘minds-on’ and ‘hands-on’ activities." (European Commission, 2004, p 125).
Shortly after the launch of the above Gago report, the European Commission established a working group to
look in more detail on the implications for science teaching in schools. This group was chaired by Michel Rocard,
former Prime Minister of France. This group had the task to "to examine a cross-section of on-going initiatives
and to draw from them elements of know-how and good practice that could bring about a radical change in
young people’s interest in science studies." The report was called "Science Education Now: A renewed pedagogy
for the future of Europe" (European Commission, 2007). This rather short pamphlet-type report, often called The
Rocard-report, was very concrete in its recommendations, and was soon to become the most important
document for the further development of school science in Europe. As implied in the title, the report first and
foremost stresses the need for "a renewed pedagogy" for school science. In this report, the term Inquiry-Based
Science Education, IBSE, appears for the first time in policy documents. Since then, the term IBSE (and IBST,
where Teaching is used instead of Education) has become the basic term in most initiatives in science education
in Europe, also in the calls for funding under the various initiatives in the Frame Programme 7 and Horizon 2020.
More concretely, the contracts for funding of science education projects list under FP7 in the period 2007-11
5
(European Commission, 2011) shows that the acronyms IBSE and IBST are used in the majority of the funded
projects, involving researchers, teachers and teacher educators from more than 50 countries.
Initiatives from educators and scientists
In parallel with the above mentioned "official" European initiatives at the EU/EC-level, other stakeholders have
also reviewed existing evidence and developed reports and policy recommendations. One important group is
the community of science educators working in academia and teacher training. Another group are scientists in
research and higher education. A few words about these developments follow.
Some 20 years ago, a group of influential UK science educators developed a policy document called Beyond
2000: Science Education for the Future. (Millar and Osborne, 1998). This succinct report summarized the status
of science education, outlined the challenges and came up with recommendations for the future. Although the
report was mainly targeting the situation in the UK, it also received attention from other countries in the years
that followed. Therefore, some ten years later, a new and wider group of science educators followed up this
work, but now with a European perspective. The group comprised 18 scholars in the field of research in science
education as well as representatives from the European Commission. They convened working meetings and
produced a report called Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections (Osborne and Dillon, 2008). This is, as
the title also suggest, a report with many radical and critical reflections. The most readable report reviews
evidence and findings from research in science education and ends up with a series of concrete
recommendations.
An important part of the critique is that the pedagogy in science classrooms is that teaching is
.. dominated by a conduit metaphor, where knowledge is seen as a commodity to be transmitted. […] In
this mode, writing in school science rarely transcends the copying of information from the board to the
students’ notebook. It is rare, for instance, to see any collaborative writing or work that involves the
construction of an argument. (ibid)
As one can see, this report from the professions is very much in line with the views expressed in the then newly
published Rocard-report (European Commission, 2007). With reference to this report, they state that
.. (the Rocard-report) argued that a ‘reversal of school science-teaching pedagogy from mainly deductive
to inquiry-based methods’ was more likely to increase ‘children’s and students’ interest and attainment
levels while at the same time stimulating teacher motivation’ a view with which we concur. Evidence
suggests that this is best achieved through opportunities for extended investigative work and ‘hands-on’
experimentation and not through a stress on the acquisition of canonical concepts. (Millar and Osborne,
1998).
The recommendation of inquiry-based teaching methods from the science education community is shared by
the international organizations for scientists. The International Council for Science (ICSU) is the global umbrella
organization for science Unions and Academies. They established a working group to report to their member
organizations world-wide. Here, an important recommendation is to support initiatives in science education
based on IBSE (ICSU, 2011). Likewise, IBSE is also the key idea in the science educational initiatives of ALLEA, the
European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, which brings together academics in more than
40 European countries. The joint programme statement for science education claims that "IBSE is a form of
science education that unlike the traditional model where the teacher provides facts and the students learn
6
them gives children the opportunity to explore “hands on”, to experiment, to ask questions and to develop
responses based on reasoning" (http://www.allea.org, visited June 25, 2018)
Similar initiatives are taken also in other parts of the world. Inquiry-based science teaching is for instance a high
priority from the US framework for science education developed by National Research Council (2012). They have,
however, started to use the term "scientific practices" instead of "inquiry."
As we can see from the above, IBSE is promoted for many different reasons and from many different
stakeholders world-wide. It is emphasized that active involvement in investigations and discussions is in line with
basic ideas about the nature of science as a discipline, and also with the tenets of recent theories of cognition
and learning.
Inquiry in science and science education
The concept of inquiry is central when philosophers discuss science. In fact, science and inquiry are often listed
as synonyms in dictionaries. Inquiry can be a noun, the result of an investigation, and also a description of the
process that leads to knowledge and insights. In the teaching of science, "science as inquiry" can be manifested
in many ways. A central theme in science curricula is to understand nature of science, often given the acronym
NOS. This has long time been an important issue in science education (Lederman, 1992). Sometimes NOS is
described as knowledge about science, as a contrast to knowledge in science. When stressing knowledge about
science, it is often to draw attention to science as a human product and a dynamic process, often contrasted to
considering science as a mere pile of established facts, laws and theories to be transmitted to the learner.
When the term inquiry is used in education, it is mainly with a reference to this process dimension, as noted in
the introductory quote from John Dewey (1910). The term inquiry was also central in Dewey's (1938) influential
philosophy and psychology of education. Another influential "classic" in educational theory is Josef Schwab
(1962), who argued that teaching of science always should involve the learners in a process of inquiry, and
thereby learn the subject-matter as well as experience how knowledge builds on empirical evidence.
Science curricula in many countries stress that students should learn about how scientific knowledge is
developed, constructed, validated and tested through systematic inquiry. Students are also supposed to develop
their epistemological understanding of science as a discipline where knowledge claims are based on inquiry and
that all scientific knowledge in principle is tentative, fallible and open for scrutiny.
Inquiry-based science education (IBSE) mainly refers to the methods and pedagogy of teaching science. When
the teaching is inquiry-based, the pupils get involved in activities and processes that are similar to those used by
research scientists. The learners are supposed to formulate ideas to be tested, design and carry out experiments,
discuss the findings and draw conclusions. So – by themselves working more or less like scientists, the students
are supposed to learn the science contents as well as improving their understanding of the nature of science
inquiry as a process and activity.
It is often noted that the concept of inquiry is vague and diffuse in documents in science education. This is a
point that becomes an important issue when looking at possible effects of inquiry-based education.
IBSE: The claims and promises
As we can see from the above, IBSE is promoted for many different reasons and from many different
stakeholders. It is emphasized that active involvement in investigations and discussions is in line with basic ideas
7
about the nature of science as a discipline, and also with the tenets of constructivist theories of learning.
Moreover, it is expected that IBSE leads to stronger personal involvement and higher interest in science, in
particular for girls. IBSE is also assumed to enhance the respect for science and the motivation to choose
science-related studies and occupations.
In summary, IBSE is often presented as silver-bullet that will help accomplishing several objectives. The following
six positive outcomes appear in recommendations and policy-documents.
1. IBSE is an efficient way of teaching and learning science contents
2. IBSE is instrumental for learning about the nature of science
3. IBSE will improve students' joy, interest and motivation towards science
4. IBSE will have lasting effects on attitudes to science
5. IBSE will help decreasing the gender gap in (the physical) sciences
6. IBSE will increase the recruitment to science-and technology-related studies and careers
To which degree IBSE lives up to some or all these expectations are empirical questions. It may even be that
some of the above expectations are in conflict with each other.
IBSE: What does the research say?
Educators have, of course, always been interested in the outcomes and effects of different teaching methods.
Actually, it is more or less commonplace that the quality of teaching is a main predictor of students' learning.
Empirical studies, reviews and meta-studies
The outcomes of inquiry-based science teaching has been a central theme in science education research for
decades, long before IBSE became a priority and an acronym for policy.
There is a strong tradition for small-scale studies of the effects of inquiry-based teaching. Many of these are in-
depth qualitative case-studies of teaching and learning processes. Other studies are quantitative and involve
larger samples of students. In these studies, the outcomes of inquiry methods are compared with outcomes of
other teaching methods. The results from such studies vary strongly, as clearly shown in a recent review of
empirical research on scientific inquiry activities (Rönnebeck, Bernholt and Ropohl, 2016). This review is based
on nearly 500 empirical studies of inquiry-based teaching in the period 1998 to 2013.
The reasons for seemingly contradictory and confusing results are many. A main cause is simply the lack of
clarity of what is meant by inquiry-based teaching, as already hinted above. The authors of the above review-
paper note that one should not consider inquiry as a yes/no dichotomy, but rather as spectrum. Inquiry-based
teaching should also be seen as a range of activities and thinking processes in which the students might be
engaged. Some of these may be productive to achieve one particular goal, others may not. Or they may be
fruitful for achieving other goals.
Not only the conceptualization of inquiry varies from one concrete study to another, but so do also the research
design, the teaching context, grade level and subject matter. The authors of the review article state that all
these inconsistencies have "significant implications regarding the validity and comparability of results obtained
in different studies, e.g. in the context of discussions concerning the effectiveness of inquiry-based instruction."
(ibid)
8
While systematic reviews like the above go in depth on the research they compile, the so-called meta-studies
aggregate results from a multitude of such studies. In these studies, the uncertainties of course become even
larger, since the details and complexities of the individual studies become "hidden" in the resulting averaging
process.
Even more problematic is it when several meta-studies are synthesized, as done in the influential book "Visible
Learning, a synthesis of findings from 800 meta-analyses related to achievement" (Hattie, 2009). This book
presents an impressing ranking of 138 of factors of "what works in education." On this ranking, "inquiry-based
teaching" is number 86, and far below the effect size of 0.4 that is claimed to be the critical level to be of
interest. In later updates of this ranking, now with "over 1,400 meta-analyses of 80,000 studies involving 300
million students, into what works best in education", inquiry-based teaching remains at the same low level.
https://www.visiblelearningplus.com/content/research-john-hattie
Although widely criticized by the academic community, Hatties' rankings impress many policy-makers, and are
often referred to in policy-documents. The Handbook for Educational Research of AERA (American Educational
Research Association) comments that "it is astonishing how widely Hattie’s results have been absorbed by policy
makers and how widely he recommends this result to policy makers around the world." (Paine, Blömeke and
Aydarova, 2016).
PISA, TIMSS and inquiry-based teaching
In recent years, international large-scale assessments of students' achievement have received increasing
attention from policy-makers as well as from the media. Climbing on the rankings of test-score has become a
high priority for governments in the participating countries. These studies, mainly TIMSS (Trends in Science and
Mathematics) and the even more influential OECD-study PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment)
basically test science and mathematics achievement. They can relate the test scores to other variables, and have
measures for the degree of inquiry-based science teaching the students are exposed to. From this they construct
indicators for inquiry-based instruction. It is interesting to note that PISA and TIMSS operationalize this concept
in different ways. Moreover, while TIMSS uses data from the class teachers' questionnaire, PISA uses self-
reporting from the students' questionnaire.
In PISA 2015, nine statements in the student questionnaire are meant to measure to which degree the students
have taken part in inquiry-based teaching. The questions are the following:
Students are given opportunities to explain their ideas
Students spend time in the laboratory doing practical experiments
Students are required to argue about science questions
Students are asked to draw conclusions from an experiment they have conducted
Students are allowed to design their own experiments
Students are asked to do an investigation to test ideas
There is a class debate about investigations
The teacher clearly explains the relevance of science concepts to our lives
The teacher explains how a science idea can be applied to a number of different phenomena
(OECD 2016c, p 242)
9
These questions are answered on a 4-point Likert scale and are combined to an index of inquiry-based
instruction. Several results are interesting. It is noteworthy that the use of IBSE varies strongly between
countries. At the very bottom we also find high-scoring countries like Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Finland. In these
countries students are barely exposed to IBSE. (OECD, 2016b, p 72). The PISA-report notes that that the general
pattern is that "in 56 countries and economies, greater exposure to inquiry-based instruction is associated with
lower scores in science. (ibid, p36).
Also, for the variation among students within the same country, the PISA finding is that "in no education system
do students who reported that they are frequently exposed to inquiry based instruction [….] score higher in
science." (ibid, p71).
One of the questions in the PISA inquiry-index may be of particular interest for science educators. Experiments
play a crucial role in science, and have always played an important role in science teaching at all levels. In many
countries, doing experiments are part and parcel of science teaching. In many countries, the curriculum specify
the number of obligatory experiments to be performed. Well-equipped school science laboratories are often
seen as a prerequisite for quality science teaching. But when it comes to PISA scores, the report states that
activities related to experiments and laboratory work show the strongest negative relationship with science
performance. (ibid, p71).
But, although the relationship between exposure to IBSE and test score is negative in PISA, IBSE relates
positively to interest in science, epistemic beliefs and motivation for science-oriented future careers: "Across
OECD countries, more frequent inquiry-based teaching is positively related to students holding stronger epistemic
beliefs and being more likely to expect to work in a science-related occupation when they are 30." (ibid, p36).
These findings are most interesting. In interpreting the results from large-scale studies as well as other research
on "what works" in education, one should also bear in mind that some teaching methods may have unwanted
"side effects" that may be important in the long run. For instance may traditional textbook-oriented and
teacher-directed instruction increase test-results, but may be detrimental for attitudes, interest and motivation
in a longer perspective. In an article with the telling title "what works may hurt", the US-Chinese professor Yong
Zhao (2017) points out that students in the top-scoring countries in tests like PISA and TIMSS in East-Asia (e.g.
Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore) seem to suffer from what he calls "side-effects" of the struggle to get good
marks and high test-scores. He presents data from PISA 2015 that show that students in these countries have
very low self-confidence and self-efficacy related to science and mathematics. He points out that there "is a
significant negative correlation between students’ self-efficacy in science and their scores in the subject across
education systems in the 2015 PISA results. Additionally, PISA scores have been found to have a significant
negative correlation with entrepreneurial confidence and intentions. (Zhao, 2017).
Other research also document that students in many countries with high mean countries with the highest scores
on PISA and TIMSS actually develop negative attitudes and interests to science and technology, and they do not
want to see themselves working occupations related to science- and technology. (Sjøberg and Schreiner, 2010)
In summary: What works?
Does IBSE "work"? This simple question has no clear answer. The question of which teaching method is "best"
simply cannot be answered, even when the school subject is specified to be science. IBSE may "work" for some
10
of the six previously mentioned assertions, but not for others. It may for instance increase the interest, joy and
satisfaction with learning science, but not lead to higher test scores.
Besides, while most empirical studies address the immediate and measurable results of teaching, while some of
the above assertions can only be judged if we take a long time perspective. This is, for instance, the case if we
are interested in the students' future choice of studies and careers. These consequences can only be visible in
the long run, and concrete reasons for choices are difficult to identify precisely.
Often, the question of "what works" is reduced to mean the first point in the previous listing: Is IBSE an efficient
way of teaching and learning science contents? In other words: does IBSE lead to higher test-scores than other
pedagogies? Even for this seemingly "simple" question there are no clear findings from research, partly because
IBSE is a collection of several possible processes that may and may not all simultaneously be present.
One should also remember that in most school subjects, variation of teaching methods and classroom activities
are important. Doing experiments is vital in science education, but doing experiments all the time and in all
lessons is not productive. The same may be said about most other teaching methods.
A weakness in many of the studies of what method is "best" is the underlying assumption that the more you use
this method, the better the teaching is. In other words, the assumption is that there is a linear relationship
between the use of the method and the measured result. Such a linear relationship is what is measured with a
standard correlation coefficient.
But in education, the relationship between the use of e.g. experiments and resulting quality may have the form
of an inverted U, with the result that the calculated correlation may be zero, or even negative. Teig, Scherer and
Nilsen (2018) have analyzed the TIMSS 2015 data, investigating the possibility of a non-linear relationship
between inquiry-based teaching and TIMSS test score. They find a strong, but curved relationship. Using IBSE is
positively related to science score up to a certain point, but then drops. In other words, there is a relationship
between TIMSS test score and inquiry-based teaching, but this relationship is not linear. Hence, the title of their
study is that "More is not always better". The optimum use of many of the IBSE components is "moderate", not
"always." The same logic is of course applicable for PISA-data.
So, when asking whether IBSE "works", one must consider both immediate and long-term effects, and also keep
in mind that the school science has several possibly competing objectives and purposes. We must also look for
what kind of relationship there is, avoiding the assumption that "more is always better".
In all these reviews of findings, we also need to know which of the above six assertions about the effects of IBSE
we want to investigate. We should also critically judge whether the research design actually provides
generalizable answers outside the context of the study.
If asked to conclude, it is fair to say that most research studies report a positive (but not necessarily linear)
relationship between inquiry-based science teaching and science achievement. Few studies directly address the
many other possible outcomes, but there is evidence that IBSE is more successful in promoting curiosity and
positive attitudes to science, interest in science and the wish to continue with studies and possible careers in
science-related occupations.
11
IBSE, teachers and teacher education
An often-cited review of the effects of inquiry-based teaching (Furtak et al., 2012) notes that rather few studies
have focused on the extent to which activities have been led by the teacher. I their review they find that the
overall mean effect size was 0.5. Furthermore, they note that "studies involving teacher-led activities had mean
effect sizes about .40 larger than those with student-led conditions."(ibid)
Although the research findings on effects of inquiry-based teaching in general are somewhat confusing, a key
finding is that the success depends strongly on the degree of involvement and guidance by the teacher in all
phases of the work. Although always being "student-centred", high quality inquiry-based teaching puts heavy
demands on the teacher, much more than traditional teacher-led and textbook-based coverage of a given
curriculum requires.
Science teachers who practice inquiry-based teaching need several types of knowledge and skills. They certainly
need to have a thorough and updated mastery of the science contents knowledge. Moreover, they need to be
acquainted with important aspects of the philosophy and sociology of science, in curricula and literature often
referred to as the Nature of Science. But they also need to know how an inquiry-based teaching strategy and
pedagogy can nurture and develop the students' understanding and interest. Successful IBSE builds on all these
elements in order to be productive. The reason for the widely differing observed effects of IBSE may partly be
explained by noting that the teachers are not properly prepared for these highly demanding pedagogies.
It is well known that teachers often teach the same way they were taught themselves. First in schools, and even
more importantly; in their teacher training. If teachers are supposed to use IBSE methods, they must have met
and used these practices in their teacher training and in their in-service teacher training. Teacher education is
often crammed with contents that have to be taught, digested and later checked in exams. Overburdened
curricula, large groups and time constraints often imply that teacher training is more traditional than wanted.
Good counter-examples exist, and several IBSE initiatives for teacher training are also among the projects with
EU-funding, mainly from the FP7 and the current Horizon 2020 programmes. Likewise, European and
international networks of science teachers and science teacher educators address these challenges and share
ideas as well as research. These efforts need to be sustained and strengthened.
In a time where "accountability" has become important, it is also important to develop indicators that address
the outcomes of IBSE. As noted, the long-term outcomes of inquiry-based teaching may be the most important:
increased and sustained interest and motivation. Such affective factors are no easily "measured", and long-term
cause and effect are difficult to ascertain. Nevertheless, one should find ways to look more deeply into the long-
lasting effects of students' and teachers' exposure to high quality inquiry-based teaching.
Summary and Conclusions
In recent years the notion of Inquiry-based science teaching (IBSE) has re-emerged as a high priority in Europe
and elsewhere. But, as before, inquiry-based teaching is a most ambiguous concept. And even more ambiguous
are the claims that "IBSE works". The research findings are conflicting and divergent. The answers depend on
how we define the term "inquiry-based" and it depends on what we want to achieve: higher immediate test-
scores, or more lasting effects on interest and motivation, possibly also increased recruitment and better gender
balance in the science and technology-sector.
12
Even when IBSE is defined, the success depends strongly on the quality of the activity and not just the "label".
For instance, a "science experiment" or a "class discussion" can be anything from an unplanned and non-focused
activity to a well-planned and well-designed learning experience. The more open an activity is, the more it
demands from the teacher. Successful IBSE activities assume that the teacher is well-qualified in the subject
matter as well as in the pedagogy. These "dual" skills are often referred to as the teachers' Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (PCK) and should be the focus of all training of science teachers.
On a general level, most educators agree to some core aspects implicit in IBSE: the importance of students as
active and engaged learners and not as empty vessels that may be filled with ready-made content knowledge.
Although students' activities are essential for their learning, science is not just activities and processes. The
established contents of science: concepts, laws and theories cannot be "discovered" by students through their
own observations, experiments or discussions. The role of the well- qualified science teacher as mediator of
established knowledge should not be underestimated. The term "inquiry" should be seen as wider than "doing
things", but also asking questions, formulating and refining hypotheses, planning and performing investigations,
observations and experiments, analysing and presenting results, discussing and argumentation what we might
learn from what we have found. In all these steps, the qualified teacher is vital. And while careful planning is
central, the nature of a real inquiry also opens for surprises and revisions of plans. To tackle these unforeseen
situations also puts high demands on teacher.
Processes of inquiry may be time-consuming, be they in the laboratory, in field work, excursions or discussions.
IBSE might therefore not be "the best" in the sense that it the most efficient way to convey testable science
knowledge to the learner. But it is likely that the cognitive as well as the affective outcomes of IBSE are more
lasting. Interest, joy, fun and amusement are certainly not the prime goals of school science, but one should not
underestimate the emotional effect of having positive and engaging encounters with a school subject. When the
laws and theories of science are forgotten, the learner often remembers the atmosphere and "body language"
of the subject.
Documenting the possible successes of IBSE activities is not easy, and they might not be visible in immediate
traditional testing. But since life-long impact on students is an aim of education, it also calls for patience and
deferred judgement. The positive impact of well-planned IBSE on students' attitudes, interests, motivation and
choices of studies or careers only become visible in the long run.
References
Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31(787), 121127.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic. The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company
Driver, R. (1983). The Pupil as Scientist? Buckingham: Open University Press.
European Commission (2004). Europe needs more scientists. Increasing human resources for science and
technology in Europe. Report of the High Level Group on Human Resources for Science and Technology in
Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission (2007). Science Education Now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe, (The
Rocard report), Brussels: European Commission, EC.
13
https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-
education_en.pdf
European Commission (2011). Science Education FP7 Projects, Summary of contracts. -
https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_public_engagement/fp7-science-education-contracts-
2007-2010_en.pdf
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of
inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300329.
doi:10.3102/0034654312457206
ICSU (2011). Report of the ICSU Ad-hoc Review Panel on Science Education. Paris: International Council for
Science. https://icsu.org/cms/2017/05/Report-on-Science-Education-final-pdf.pdf
Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
Millar, R. and J.F. Osborne (eds.) (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future, School of Education,
King's College, London, www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Beyond%202000.pdf .
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and
core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OECD (2006b). Evolution of Student Interest in Science and Technology Studies, Policy Report from OECDs Global
science forum http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/30/36645825.pdf
OECD (2016a). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic and Financial
Literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255425-en
OECD (2016b). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2016c). PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Osborne, J, & Dillon, J (eds). (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. A Report to the Nuffield
Foundation, King’s College London.
https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Sci_Ed_in_Europe_Report_Final.pdf
Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground–A literature review of
empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161197.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab, & P. F. Brandwein (Vol. Eds.), The
teaching of science: Vol. 253. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sellar, S.; Thompson, G, & Rutkowski, D. (2017). The global education race: taking the measure of PISA and
international testing. Brush Education Inc.
Sjøberg, S.& Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: an overview and key findings. [pdf] Available at:
http://roseproject.no./network/countries/norway/eng/nor-Sjoberg-Schreiner-overview-2010.pdf
14
Sjøberg, S. (2018).The power and paradoxes of PISA: Should we sacrifice Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE)
to climb on the Rankings? NorDiNa, Nordic studies in science education 14(2), p186-202
https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/nordina/article/view/6185/5249
Teig N., Scherer, R., Nilsen, T. (2018). More isn't always better: The curvilinear relationship between inquiry-
based teaching and student achievement in science. Learning and Instruction 56 (2018) 2029
Zhao, Y. (2017). What works may hurt: Side effects in education. Journal of Educational Change.
DOI 10.1007/s10833-016-9294-4
Paine, L., Blömeke, S. & Aydarova, O. (2016). Teachers and teaching in the context of globalization (pp. 717-786).
In Gitomer, D. H. & Bell, C. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed.). Washington, DC: AERA,
American Educational Research Association
... Students should master the most important key concepts, facts, theories, laws, and models, but also methods and practices of scientific inquiry (Sjøberg, 2019). IBL has become widespread in the development of inquiry skills as recommended by the National Research Council (NRC, 1996). ...
... Although open IBL best reflects the work of scientists (Banchi & Bell, 2008), at the same time, this type of research is fraught with difficulties. Furthermore, the inquiry processes can be time-consuming, be it laboratory or field work, an excursion, or a discussion (Sjøberg, 2019). Lazonder and Harmsen (2016) in their meta-analysis highlighted that IBL is effective when it is supplemented with guidance. ...
Article
Full-text available
This research focuses on BioScientist, a digital game-based, inquiry-based learning program embedded in the biology curriculum that develops inquiry skills in 8th-grade students. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate a combination of elements of digital game-based learning (DGBL) with inquiry-based learning (IBL) through BioScientist and to report on its implementation. We examined whether inquiry skills and biology learning motivation change due to BioScientist. A total of 257 eighth graders participated in the research (Nexp. = 132, Ncontrol = 125). Students in the experimental group used BioScientist at home and in the classroom. The teachers in the control group did not change their teaching practices. Students’ inquiry skills were measured using the Inquiry Skills Test, and their biology learning motivation was measured using the Biology Motivation Questionnaire II. The experimental group and teachers were asked to evaluate BioScientist. The results indicated BioScientist digital game is suitable for developing inquiry skills, with the effect size being close to medium (Cohen’s d = 0.46). However, biology learning motivation was not developed. Student feedback on the BioScientist game and its use for learning is favourable. Based on the teachers’ responses, BioScientist can be used well in teaching biology. This research provides evidence that combining elements of digital game-based and inquiry-based learning is effective in developing inquiry skills. The game can be effectively integrated into the teaching practice, in line with the content of the biology curriculum.
... Teacher educators act as 'the teachers of the teachers' (Kelchtermans et al., 2018) and their role in fostering IBSE in the teaching profession is important. During teacher education, PSTs should gain experience in IBSE as learners through authentic science experiences and should be scaffolded in how to put it into practice with their future pupils (Crawford & Capps, 2018;Sjøberg, 2019). Therefore, it is of interest how IBSE can best be implemented in teacher education to prepare PSTs for their professional practice as science teachers. ...
... However, many PSTs enter science teacher education without having experienced the inquiry-based approach (Windschitl, 2003). Thus, if teachers are to use inquiry methods, they must have met and used these practices in their teacher education (Sjøberg, 2019) and taken ownership of the inquiry-based approach (Stuchlikova et al., 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
Inquiry is central in science education and therefore also in pre-service teacher (PST) education. In this systematic review of 142 empirical articles, we examine research on inquiry-based science education (IBSE) in teacher education between 2000 and 2022. The aim is to investigate how and with what outcomes IBSE is used in PST education. The included articles were categorised according to whether the PSTs worked with inquiry in the role of learner or in the role of teacher and also according to the cognitive domains of inquiry (epistemic, procedural, conceptual, social, pedagogical, or affective). The review shows that IBSE is used for PSTs to learn science concepts and processes and how to teach science through inquiry; however, few studies highlight the transition between these. In terms of cognitive domains, the procedural, conceptual, pedagogical, and affective domains dominated, whereas fewer articles addressed the epistemic or social domains. Favourable outcomes of IBSE for science understanding, teaching competence and improved attitudes or self-efficacy were reported. Challenges were noted, for example with implementing IBSE in school placement after having learned about it in campus-based courses. Finally, we offer recommendations for fruitful ways of implementing IBSE in PST education and suggest areas for future research.
... In recent years, inquiry-based science education (IBSE) has grown in importance since it began to form part of the majority of international policies and initiatives on science education as a way to promote scientific literacy (Sjøberg, 2019). The advantages associated with IBSE (Durando et al., 2019), in line with the principles of constructivism, envision, among other aspects, improving motivation and interest in learning (Marshall & Alston, 2014), decreasing the gender gap (Sjøberg, 2019), enhancing scientific vocations (Minner et al., 2010) and creating a lasting effect on attitudes towards science (Chen et al., 2014). ...
... In recent years, inquiry-based science education (IBSE) has grown in importance since it began to form part of the majority of international policies and initiatives on science education as a way to promote scientific literacy (Sjøberg, 2019). The advantages associated with IBSE (Durando et al., 2019), in line with the principles of constructivism, envision, among other aspects, improving motivation and interest in learning (Marshall & Alston, 2014), decreasing the gender gap (Sjøberg, 2019), enhancing scientific vocations (Minner et al., 2010) and creating a lasting effect on attitudes towards science (Chen et al., 2014). Students participating in inquiry-based science learning (IBSL) are exposed to a series of student-centered methodologies that engage them in activities and processes comparable to those employed by research scientists, usually resolving real and contextualized problems (Heindl, 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this research is to evaluate the impact of a one-semester training program on the teaching profile of five pre-service secondary science teachers, following a case study that allows us to focus closely on their perceptions related to inquiry-based science education (IBSE). Through a mixed-methods analysis of a variety of qualitative and quantitative research instruments, we aim to identify the changes in the pre-service teachers’ IBSE educational achievements in terms of their capability to effectively design inquiry activities, as well as in the perceptions affecting their teaching practice concerning emotions and self-efficacy. After a general overview of the results, we provide a specific vision for each participant, and present the conclusions regarding the acceptable level developed in both inquiry learning and teaching. Finally, we analyze the possible links between all the factors considered (perceptions, emotions, and design performance) and put forward several suggestions for professional development programs.
... Most authors believe that teacher trainees should gain experiences with inquiry-based teaching as soon as during their undergraduate studies in the form of authentic scientific experience and should acquire knowledge on how to implement it into their teaching practice with their future pupils and students [52,53]. If this is the case, affective variables are used since future teachers take over responsibility for applying the inquiry-based approach in their teaching practice or, more precisely, for applying it in a way that allows using it meaningfully. ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of the study is to present information about the main findings of a research study on the application of the inquiry-based approach in undergraduate teacher training in the field of technical education. The authors seek the answer to the question ‘To what extent are the graduates of teacher training programs prepared for the application of the inquiry-based approach in technical education?’ For the above purposes, an exploratory qualitative research design was used. A qualitative pedagogical experiment was carried out, which was supported by additional research tools and methods (essays, microteaching, participative observations, an analysis of the research subjects, and reflection). The obtained findings show that, in the process of experiments, it has come to a shift in the participants’ opinions about the application of the inquiry-based approach in technical education. The participating future primary school teachers showed an inclination to using the method of inquiry, and the results suggest that they are sufficiently equipped with competencies for its realization. Since there is a lack of research in the field, the present study provides unique data that can help experts (primarily field didacticians) understand the need for searching for an optimal teaching model that can contribute to increasing the quality of education. Doi: 10.28991/HEF-2024-05-03-09 Full Text: PDF
... Educational policy bodies worldwide regard inquiry-based learning as a vital component in building a scientifically literate community (National Research Council, 2000;European Commission, 2007;The Commonwealth, 2007;Pedaste, et al., 2015;Sjøberg, 2019). Aspiring to engage students in an authentic scientific discovery process, this type of learning is widely recognized as playing an important role in learning of science through approaches which reflect the authenticity of science as practiced by professional scientists while being practical and manageable within the school context (Barrow, 2006;Barron, & Darling-Hammond, 2008). ...
Article
Full-text available
The article presents in detail the main outcomes of a recent action – research project PULCHRA – Science in the city (https://pulchra-schools.eu/), funded by Horizon 2020 EU program, promoted by the University of Athens and a consortium of ten academic and research European institutions, including the Education Research Unit from Romania. The project was inspired by the open education principles (Abrioux, 2009) and creates a complex learning by doing framework for secondary students of 14 to 17 years old. The perspective of City as ecosystem creates for the involved partner schools various opportunities for exploiting inquiry-based methods and addresses real life problems (Pedaste, et al., 2015). After three years of implementation, PULCHRA developed a specific methodology, by promoting real life experiments during science classes, in collaboration with community representatives and the support from partners, experts, and other stakeholders. By using a variety of resources, materials, and teaching approaches, specific science teams managed to research, develop, produce and promote solutions to several common issues/opportunities that European cities face due to increased urbanization. Out of the six environmental, social and economic thematic areas of the project, Romanian schools focused on regenerating urban space to connect people in a healthy environment. The article explores the outcomes at grass-root level, as documented by monitoring and evaluation activities conducted in six upper secondary schools from Romania. In particular, we highlight the contribution of the project in building students’ good scientific knowledge, in promoting expert and community participation and encouraging active engagement in shared living environments and futures. The contribution of the project on development of STEM competences, in relation with the national curriculum, is also explored. In the context of COVID pandemics, the article will highlight the importance of the City Challenges Platform, set up to facilitate the learning and collaboration of the members of the city science teams and wider network. The contribution to sharing digital educational material, design relevant experiments and develop distance-learning courses on cities as urban eco-systems will also be documented.
... In the literature, we can find numerous works on how inquiry has a positive impact on the cognitive and attitudinal results of students (Boaventura et al., 2020;Marshall & Alston, 2014), not only at the level of knowledge and reasoning but also in their attitudes towards science (Chen et al., 2014), encouraging attitudes that promote an increase in vocations towards scientific-technological careers (Sjøberg, 2019). Thus, the inquiry becomes an appropriate practice to understand the nature of science, providing a vision of the scientific world to students, involving them in scientific practice, and favouring the transfer of knowledge (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004). ...
Article
Full-text available
Implementing the inquiry approach in the science classroom represents a challenge for pre-service secondary science teachers due to the perceptions they build around inquiry and determine their future teaching practice. In this work, we analyse the perceptions of 46 students of the science specialities of the Master’s Degree in Secondary Education Teaching, using the design of a questionnaire adapted from the PRIMAS project. The results obtained show some initial perceptions of the participants with a very homogeneous profile for the variables analysed, finding them favourable to the inquiry as a teaching approach, although showing some concrete difficulties. We also found some statistically significant differences regarding gender and previous academic and teaching experience. However, the prior research background associated with the science and technological degrees completed by the participants seemed not to affect their perception about inquiry. We finally raise some implications of the results obtained and give some orientation that might be useful for the initial training of secondary science teachers.
Chapter
The development of critical thinking and scientific thinking skills is essential in science education, as these competencies enable students to effectively address and solve problems. This chapter discusses the distinction between these two types of thinking, highlighting similarities and singularities. It also examines the competence of preservice preschool teachers in scientific thinking skills when developing inquiry as a preliminary step toward developing critical thinking. The study involved 121 preservice preschool teachers from two different centers at the University of Malaga (Spain). The intervention used an inquiry-based teaching approach, and the preservice teachers’ final assignment was a report designed to assess their progress in scientific thinking skills. This report helped establish a link between the stages of inquiry and the development of scientific thinking skills. The Friedman and Wilcoxon tests revealed statistically significant differences between the problem statement and other stages of inquiry, as well as among different aspects of scientific thinking, such as creating and testing hypotheses and constructing explanations from evidence related to understanding causes and effects. These findings suggest the need to incorporate strategies that encourage argumentation and decision-making in the design and development of inquiry sequences, basing these not only on curricular terms but also considering moral, ethical, political, and other dimensions, in addition to scientific ones.
Article
This research focused on the pre-service science teachers’ perceptions of Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) in Spanish-speaking contexts. Drawing on the PRIMAS questionnaire and extensive adaptations, the PTIP questionnaire, a 25-item instrument was developed to gauge pre-service teachers’ perspectives on IBSE. The questionnaire effectively measures four dimensions through rigorous statistical validation: IBSE teaching practice, IBSE students’ applicability, and internal and external difficulties associated with the inquiry approach. Employing K-means cluster analysis, three distinct profiles emerged, elucidating pre-service teachers’ varying perceptions and readiness to embrace IBSE. Profile A embodies fervent advocates of IBSE, while profile B and C showcases strong support with moderate reservations about its challenges and a more ambivalent stance, respectively. This research contributes a valuable tool for understanding and enhancing pre-service teacher education, fostering the adoption of IBSE.
Chapter
This chapter aims to show the educational value of inquiry-based science education, with a special focus on Latin America, highlighting some relevant projects carried out in different countries. It also analyzes the main problems and challenges faced by this approach at the international level. In response to some of them, a more holistic view of its use in science teaching is presented, considering, justifying, and exemplifying the importance of contexts when designing inquiry activities. Finally, some global considerations and future perspectives on inquiry-based science education are provided.
Article
Full-text available
Since publication of the first PISA results in 2001, the PISA scores have become a kind of global “gold standard” for educational quality. Climbing on the international PISA rankings have become a high priority for national educational policies world-wide, also in the Nordic countries. This article first explores why and how the OECD, with PISA as the main instrument, has emerged as the key defining organization for educational quality and policy. Some of the underlying assumptions, ideologies and values are critiqued. Secondly, the article draws attention to PISA findings that are surprising, unexpected and problematic. The most problematic finding for science education is that PISA-scores correlate negatively with nearly all aspects of inquiry-based science teaching (IBSE), the kind of teaching that is recommended by scientists as well as science educators.
Article
Full-text available
Previous studies have assumed a linear relationship between inquiry-based teaching and student achievement in science. However this assumption may be questionable. Recent evidence on the effectiveness of inquiry-based teaching has yielded conflicting findings. To test the linearity assumption, the present study investigated the relation between inquiry-based teaching and achievement by taking into account the possible existence of nonlinear relations using Norwegian TIMSS 2015 data. A multilevel structural equation modeling analysis showed that the relationship was curvilinear. Inquiry-based teaching was positively correlated with achievement, but high frequency of inquiry activities was negatively related to achievement. Furthermore, we found that classroom SES did not affect the strength of the relationship between inquiry and achievement. These findings challenge the linearity assumption and contribute to explaining the conflicting evidence in earlier research as well as promote the effectiveness of inquiry-based teaching regardless of students’ socioeconomic backgrounds. The article can be downloaded for free until May 15th 2018 at https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1WlNJ3QACxVv3e
Article
Full-text available
Medical research is held as a field for education to emulate. Education researchers have been urged to adopt randomized controlled trials, a more “scientific” research method believed to have resulted in the advances in medicine. But a much more important lesson education needs to borrow from medicine has been ignored. That is the study of side effects. Medical research is required to investigate both the intended effects of any medical interventions and their unintended adverse effects, or side effects. In contrast, educational research tends to focus only on proving the effectiveness of practices and policies in pursuit of “what works.” It has generally ignored the potential harms that can result from what works. This article presents evidence that shows side effects are inseparable from effects. Both are the outcomes of the same intervention. This article further argues that studying and reporting side effects as part of studying effects will help advance education by settling long fought battles over practices and policies and move beyond the vicious cycle of pendulum swings in education.
Article
Full-text available
Despite the importance of scientific inquiry in science education, researchers and educators disagree considerably regarding what features define this instructional approach. While a large body of literature addresses theoretical considerations, numerous empirical studies investigate scientific inquiry on quite different levels of detail and also on different theoretical grounds. Here, only little systematic research has analysed the different conceptualisations and usages of the overarching construct of scientific inquiry in detail. To close this gap, a review of the research literature on scientific inquiry was conducted based on a widespread approach to defining scientific inquiry as activities that students engage in. The main goal is to provide a systematic overview about the range and spectrum of definitions and operationalisations used with regard to single activities of the inquiry process in empirical studies. The findings from the review first and foremost illustrate the variability in the ways these activities have been operationalised and implemented. For each activity, studies differ significantly not only with respect to the focus, explicitness and comprehensiveness of their operationalisations but also with regard to the consistency of their implementation in the form of instructional or interventional components in the study and/or in the focus of the assessment of student performance. This has significant implications regarding the validity and comparability of results obtained in different studies, e.g. in the context of discussions concerning the effectiveness of inquiry-based instruction. In addition, the interrelation between scientific inquiry, scientific knowledge and the nature of science seems to be underexplored. The conclusions make the case for further theoretical work as well as empirical research.
Chapter
Full-text available
Globalization’s heightened connections have profound implications for not just what scholars think teaching should entail or how they envision it, but also how to perceive and interpret teaching. This chapter examines international research on teachers, teaching, and teacher education in the context of globalization from a discursive perspective, viewing research as one important way that teaching and teachers can be constructed. We show empirical data about teachers and teaching and demonstrate how international research portrays and problematizes teaching and how these portrayals are themselves engendered by and intersect with conflicting discourses on globalization. Drawing on a conceptualization of globalization that views processes that create flows and disjunctures and recognizes the role of many actors operating at different levels, we examine how global norms on teaching circulate around the world and analyze how regimes of accountability, testing, and transnational governance shape approaches to teaching in different contexts.
Article
Full-text available
Although previous meta-analyses have indicated a connection between inquiry-based teaching and improved student learning, the type of instruction characterized as inquiry based has varied greatly, and few have focused on the extent to which activities are led by the teacher or student. This meta-analysis introduces a framework for inquiry-based teaching that distinguishes between cognitive features of the activity and degree of guidance given to students. This framework is used to code 37 experimental and quasi-experimental studies published between 1996 and 2006, a decade during which inquiry was the main focus of science education reform. The overall mean effect size is .50. Studies that contrasted epistemic activities or the combination of procedural, epistemic, and social activities had the highest mean effect sizes. Furthermore, studies involving teacher-led activities had mean effect sizes about .40 larger than those with student-led conditions. The importance of establishing the validity of the treatment construct in meta-analyses is also discussed.
Article
Full-text available
A number of countries are currently tackling the issue of curriculum reform in school science. In England and Wales, a 5-year moratorium on curriculum reform across the 5-16 age range will end in the year 2000. This article reviews the conclusions of a 2-year project, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, which explored ways in which a new science curriculum might be constructed and what it might look like. Particular attention is paid to the aims of science education, to the relationship between the content of a syllabus and its assessment, and to the suggestion that the science curriculum would be better presented as a relatively small number of explanatory stories rather than as a mass of detail. The proposals outlined here would allow for small but significant changes in the year 2000, and for more substantive changes thereafter, to be introduced only after adequate trialling. Our hope is that school science education in England and Wales can build on some of its current strengths and address certain weaknesses, leading to a more relevant and fulfilling education for future generations.
Article
Encouraging Student Interest in Science and Technology Studies examines overall trends in higher education enrolments and the evolution of S&T compared with other disciplines. The results suggest that although absolute numbers of S&T students have been rising as access to higher levels of education expands in OECD economies, the relative share of S&T students among the overall student population has been falling, The report shows that encouraging interest in S&T studies requires action to tackle a host of issues inside and outside the education system, ranging from teacher training and curriculum design to improving the image of S&T careers. Numerous examples of national initiatives are used to complement the analyses to derive a set of practical recommendations.
Article
From the book The Teaching of science which contains : The teaching of science as enquiry, by Joseph J. Schwab, and Elements in a strategy for teaching science in the elementary school, by Paul F. Brandwein. (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?recid=30721)