Content uploaded by Svein Sjøberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Svein Sjøberg on Mar 05, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
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), 121–127.
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, 300–329.
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), 161–197.
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) 20–29
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