Content uploaded by Joaquin Martinez Torregrosa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joaquin Martinez Torregrosa on Aug 01, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
5.83.9
SustainableChangeinPrimary
ScienceEducation:From
TransmissivetoGuided
Inquiry-BasedTeaching
CarolinaNicolás-Castellano,RubénLimiñana,AsunciónMenargues,SergioRosa-Cintas
andJoaquínMartínez-Torregrosa
SpecialIssue
SustainableTeacherTrainingandAcademicOutcomesduringUncertainTimes
Editedby
Prof.Dr.GeorginaBartonandProf.Dr.SusanneGarvis
Article
https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511710
Citation: Nicolás-Castellano, C.;
Limiñana, R.; Menargues, A.;
Rosa-Cintas, S.; Martínez-Torregrosa,
J. Sustainable Change in Primary
Science Education: From
Transmissive to Guided
Inquiry-Based Teaching.
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511710
Academic Editors: Georgina Barton
and Susanne Garvis
Received: 20 June 2023
Revised: 26 July 2023
Accepted: 27 July 2023
Published: 28 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Sustainable Change in Primary Science Education: From
Transmissive to Guided Inquiry-Based Teaching
Carolina Nicolás-Castellano 1, *, Rubén Limiñana 1, 2 , Asunción Menargues 1, 2 , Sergio Rosa-Cintas 1, 2
and Joaquín Martínez-Torregrosa 1,2 ,*
1Department of General and Specific Didactics, Faculty of Education, University of Alicante,
03080 Alicante, Spain; ruben.lm@ua.es (R.L.); a.menargues@ua.es (A.M.); sergio.rosacintas@ua.es (S.R.-C.)
2University Institute of Physics Applied to Science and Technology, University of Alicante,
03080 Alicante, Spain
*Correspondence: carolina.nicolas@ua.es (C.N.-C.); joaquin.martinez@ua.es (J.M.-T.)
Abstract:
Here, we present a professional development plan to achieve lasting and coherent change
in science education, from conventional teaching to guided inquiry-based teaching, covering the
entire primary stage. This plan is based on a review of the literature on professional development
programs and on the theory of critical mass for the achievement of complex social changes. We justify
the different phases of the plan with empirical indicators to assess its success. We show the results
obtained in a primary school from teachers, the principal, and families. These results, together with
those obtained by the students, show the success of the plan and make it possible to identify crucial
aspects to achieve sustainable changes in science teaching at the primary stage.
Keywords:
guided inquiry-based science education; primary science education; didactic change;
critical mass theory; sustainable change
1. Introduction
There is a broad consensus that, at all levels of education, science should be taught
in a similar way to how science is performed: following a process of (re)construction of
scientific knowledge in an appropriate inquiry environment for every school level [
1
–
3
].
This orientation is addressed in the recommendations and curricula of the European Union
Organisms [4,5] and the USA [6,7].
In this way, the current Spanish curricula establishes that Natural Sciences in ele-
mentary school must be taught in an environment that favours, among other actions, the
formulation of questions, data analysis and discussion, and the construction of models [
8
].
From this perspective, science should be taught in a problem-based tentative environment
where ‘teams of novice researchers’ (the students), led by an expert researcher (the teacher),
address problems of interest in an open-ended way, addressing both methodological as-
pects and knowledge attainment [
9
–
11
]. This methodology offers repeated opportunities
for students to achieve a better understanding of the scientific content because they connect
concepts and ideas with phenomena that occur in their daily lives with the development
of scientific skills and criteria [
12
,
13
]. In fact, different studies have shown that inquiry-
based teaching has a significantly positive influence on early childhood and elementary
school students’ learning compared to traditional teaching (see, e.g., [
12
,
14
–
17
]). Moreover,
it does not only lead to better learning outcomes, but also improves students’ attitudes
towards science [
18
], and therefore it contributes to achieving Sustainable Development
Goal 4 (SDG 4; quality education) in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [
19
],
which aims to increase the number of young people with the necessary skills to access
employment, decent work, and entrepreneurship. These competences include scientific
skills and knowledge to be able to respond to current social problems.
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511710 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 2 of 30
To teach in this way, it is necessary to have elementary teachers who have the necessary
scientific knowledge and skills to act as guides and supporters during these processes.
However, different studies (see, e.g., [
20
]) have shown the difficulties that elementary
in-service teachers have when teaching science using an inquiry-based (or problematised)
methodology. In Spain, most elementary teachers are generalists, that is to say, they
teach several subjects, including language, mathematics, social studies, and science. Hence,
elementary teachers require many areas of mastery, but they lack both sufficient coursework
and experience that would contribute to their scientific knowledge background. This is
necessary to help children develop a progressive and coherent knowledge of some science
concepts, models, and practices and thus become scientifically literate citizens. Given their
lack of knowledge (and understanding) to explain the phenomena of the world around
them, it is not surprising that many teachers feel insecurity, lack of confidence, and attitudes
of rejection towards science teaching [
21
,
22
].Therefore, teachers end up relying on textbooks
that basically set definitions (in many cases, with misconceptions) together with ‘standard’
exercises without taking into account students’ ideas that are substantive to work on in
order for them to learn [23].
According to Davis [
24
], there are three important challenges faced by teachers. First,
teachers’ content knowledge is related to their scientific background (p. 622). Second,
many teachers “have little understanding of inquiry and related skills, although, of course,
individuals vary” (p. 616). And third, relatively little work had been performed on scientific
inquiry carried out by in-service teachers, and “some studies investigating pre-service
teachers’ knowledge of scientific processes or thinking skills indicate that pre-service
teachers’ knowledge would be inadequate to prepare them to teach through scientific
inquiry” (p. 617).
Thus, in many cases, science teaching as verbal transmission of contents in their
final state continues to be the most widespread methodology in our country (and in the
rest of the European countries; [
25
]). Given this situation, science education researchers
generally think “our formal education institutions do not help students learn science with
understanding” [
26
]. In this sense, an international science assessment (TIMSS) found
that only 32% of 9-year-old students reached a high benchmark level [
27
]. On the other
hand, a study entitled “The challenge of STEM vocations” [
28
] points to all of the above as
causes for the loss of interest in science from early ages, which is often related to the fact
that the number of students enrolled in scientific-technological careers has fallen by 28%,
despite the growing demand for professionals with these profiles. These results highlight
the importance of assisting teachers to learn how to support pupils scientific work.
To reverse this situation and provide a “solution” to one of the major problems for
decades, so-called “professional development programmes” emerged in Spain and Europe
(as it is well known that changes in educational models are closely related to the training
received by teachers [
24
,
29
]). These programmes have been developed on two fronts:
with pre-service teachers, current undergraduates working on university degrees that
qualify them for the profession; and with in-service teachers, those who are currently
teaching at school. For practical reasons, there is much more research on the first group,
as researchers are mostly university teachers [
30
,
31
]. However, due to the limited time
devoted to science teaching in university education (only 5–7% of the credits in the Spanish
curricula), the initial training received is unlikely to influence subsequent professional
practice [
32
]. Instead, we should consider how “professional practice” can influence initial
training. In other words, if we want to improve science teaching and learning at primary
schools, we should generate teachers who are role models for future teachers. Moreover, we
know that in-service teacher training has the potential to bring about considerable didactic
change and to improve children’s learning and attitudes, as teachers can test with their
own and their peer students the improvements generated by the change in the way they
act [
33
]. Thus, given its importance, in this paper we will focus on how to introduce inquiry
science teaching into professional practice at school.
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 3 of 30
In this way, many studies have analysed the impact of a particular training programme
on teachers’ science competences [
34
–
37
]. However, we do not know to what extent
these training courses have led to real and lasting (sustainable) changes in the teaching
practices of the teachers involved. On the other hand, we also find works that review
and collect the conclusions obtained in these studies to determine what characteristics
professional development programmes should have in order to favour the change in science
teaching [38–41]
. However, despite these characteristics being known, many studies show
that didactic research continues to have little impact on educational practice because
the results are not incorporated into school teaching [
42
,
43
]. In this sense, there is a
comprehensive body of findings on approaches or features that support effective ‘one-off’
change in teacher practice, but little is known about how to implement these features to
enable primary teachers at a school to successfully implement inquiry science teaching in a
sustainable way (beyond a specific training course).
Given this background, our study aimed at the following:
(a) To conduct an in-depth review of the educational literature on effective characteristics
to achieve didactic/professional change and use it, together with the theory of critical
mass for changing social conventions [
44
–
46
], to design a professional development
programme (genuine from this research), arranged in phases that could be assessed
by means of empirical indicators of success or failure;
(b)
To implement the designed programme at a primary school (case study), whose
characteristics, conditions, and actions could be followed and studied in depth in
order to determine which interventions facilitate (or not) the desired didactic change.
Therefore, the research questions were as follows: can we devise a plan for inquiry-
based science teaching to become the usual way to teach science at a primary school? What
interventions and factors facilitate sustainable change in primary science teaching? What
obstacles need to be overcome? How can we evaluate the effectiveness of the plan so we
can learn for future editions and scale up?
Effective Features for Professional Development in Science Education
Decades ago, professional development programmes emerged to help teachers incor-
porate scientific practices into their classrooms and overcome some of their limitations [
1
].
Now, we have reviews that highlight the characteristics that in-service teacher training pro-
grammes should have to be effective and of high quality. Firstly, there is a broad consensus
that all training programmes must address the difficulties that may arise throughout the
change process for the teachers involved because they will determine, to a large extent, the
success or failure of the change process. Some of the ‘obstacles’ that appear are the follow-
ing [
10
,
41
]: (a) Change takes time (years) and persistence because, at the beginning of this
process, teachers have difficulties and frustration when trying to develop new behaviours
and introduce new activities and materials; (b) most systems and institutions are reluctant
to change (including teachers) because change is complex and it requires work; (c) teachers
need ongoing support and help to change (university-school relationship); and (d) change
efforts are effective when change and support are clearly defined and based on specific
activities (to provide examples to be used).
The literature cites “lack of ongoing support and follow-up over time” as one of the
main shortcomings of training courses [
47
]. Therefore, if we want to improve science
teaching, we need to engage teachers beyond the duration of face-to-face training courses.
According to the didactic literature, the key to doing this is to establish a lasting link over
time between the researchers’ team and the teachers’ team [
48
]. To achieve this, the two
teams must be involved and jointly overcome the fears and concerns that arise during the
change process [49].
Secondly, this collaboration should be well-defined and based on activities with spe-
cific examples (topic-specific teaching sequences) that help teachers understand what is
necessary to carry out inquiry-based science teaching in primary education classrooms [
47
].
If we develop specific examples of sequences with teachers (practice-connected learning), it
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 4 of 30
will enable them both to improve their scientific knowledge on the topic (better understand-
ing of a particular topic) and to learn how to develop it in the classroom (methodological
knowledge [
10
]). In this sense, there are studies that show that training processes that are
based on the treatment of general ideas/propositions (i.e., providing general information,
for example, on how to organise the classroom or how to develop scientific models) are
not very useful for teachers, so that they end up abandoning the training they have re-
ceived [
50
]. In such cases, they feel that they are constantly being told what to do, but they
do not have enough help and tools to be able to transfer it into the classroom [40,51].
Of course, this requires investing the necessary time for the teachers involved to take
ownership of the contents and materials so they can feel confident and able to carry out
the teaching sequences. Regarding this, examples of successful training programmes are
those in which the researchers’ team and the teachers’ team devote many hours together
to intensive work seminars, continued by follow-up sessions throughout the academic
year [
52
,
53
]. Moreover, such training needs to be connected to teachers’ daily practice
in their classrooms, so they must have enough opportunities to develop inquiry-based
sequences. Teachers must learn in, from, and for practice [
54
]. The results of the study
by Roth et al. [
52
] showed that the analysis of videotaped lessons was very helpful in
engaging them on how to improve their intervention [
10
,
55
] and thus on feeling increasingly
confident and secure in the face of change.
On the other hand, according to Schmidt et al. [
56
], designing a training plan with
primary teachers requires curricular coherence, which is achieved by treating science teach-
ing and learning as a progression on a structuring problem, where pupils and teachers
(re)construct the most important ideas of each topic and relate them to other sequences
proposed for the remaining primary school levels. When designing the teaching/learning
storyline, it must be decided which guiding goals are critical within each topic and how
these learning objectives need to be sequenced to be coherent. Such a progression organises
concepts from near (in the early primary grades) to deep and broad (in the later years of
primary school). Testing these teaching sequences in classrooms can provide the evidence
needed to show teachers that in-depth teaching (rather than treating many topics superfi-
cially) achieves a substantial improvement in scientific literacy [
23
]. This is a fundamental
point: during this process, teachers need evidence that their efforts result in better learning
outcomes and attitudes of the students. If teachers spend much time and effort and results
are not as expected, this will be one of the reasons for programme failure [
37
–
39
,
41
]. There-
fore, according to the literature, the abovementioned characteristics are the most important
ones for effective in-service teacher education programmes.
However, according to one of the most cited models of professional development,
the interconnected model [
57
], it is not enough that some of these characteristics (called
‘domains’) are present, but connections between them are very important for the change
to take place. An example of these desired connections occurs when the teacher carries
out the innovation in his/her classroom (“practice domain”). Then, he/she obtains good
learning outcomes (which will activate the “results domain”), which impact the general
satisfaction of the families and principal team with the change (“external domain”), and,
consequently, the teacher feels satisfied with his/her work and he/she wants to keep on
working this way (“personal domain”). It is evident that activation of all the domains will
produce a change in this teacher, and hence, the training plan would have been effective
and successful. However, one thing is that the training programme had been successful at a
specific moment in time, and another thing is how to ensure that this change remains in the
practice of the teacher and the school, or “teachers’ team”, over time (i.e., to be sustainable).
In this regard, in addition to all the considerations described above, the findings of
Centola should be taken into account [
44
]. Complex changes do not spread like viruses.
This author has shown the importance of getting committed minorities to change social
conventions on a large scale, so that for a given complex behaviour to spread, a minimum
percentage of the population must be convinced, which is around 25%. Once this percentage
is reached, the attitude and motivation of the committed minority can influence the rest,
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 5 of 30
with long-term effects. Applying this principle to a school would imply that a science
training programme on inquiry-based teaching would be effective if it can get around a
quarter of the school’s teachers to successfully implement problem-based sequences that
would improve students’ learning and attitudes. Therefore, if a critical mass of committed
science teachers is generated at a school who feel rewarded for their efforts, such a model
will eventually spread to a large majority of science teachers at that school, and it will
become the usual way science is taught. This will be the ultimate goal of our strategy
for didactic change. Therefore, based on the above, we present below the professional
development programme that we have designed to try to achieve this didactic change in an
effective and sustainable way, based on the didactic literature and on the theory of critical
mass for the change of social conventions [44,45].
2. Materials and Methods
We wanted to achieve, through collaboration between the researchers’ team and the
teachers and principal team of a primary school, teaching science based on the model of
teaching by inquiry aligned with the Spanish curricula and NGSS. Because this is a complex
problem, in order to learn and draw conclusions, it is necessary to focus the research on
the analysis of cases (understanding as such the study of a school or a group of teachers
whose characteristics, conditioning factors, and actions can be tracked and analysed) and to
operatively define (a) What we want to achieve; (b) The plan foreseen for its achievement,
arranged in phases that can be analysed; (c) How to assess the development of the plan;
and (d) When it will be considered that an effective and sustainable didactic change has
been achieved at that school.
2.1. A Professional Development Programme to Achieve the Science Teaching Change: Procedure
and Instruments
We divided the programme into the following general phases (see Figure 1):
(1) Setting
the base for the change: mutual accords, initial training, and getting out possible trou-
bles and fears towards the change, (2) First-time teaching sequence implementation by
teachers (video recording), (3) Reflection seminars on the practice and implementation
of the teaching sequence for the second time by teachers, (4) Achievement of lasting and
extensive science teaching change. Quantitative and qualitative indicators of success were
used to assess the consecution of these phases. We present here the instruments used for
this assessment.
2.1.1. Phase 1: Setting the Base for the Change: Mutual Accords, Initial Training, and
Getting Out Possible Troubles and Fears towards the Change
We had experience with teacher training courses convened by teacher centres. In
these courses, teachers from different schools and with different motivations (to assist,
a minimum number of hours is compulsory for improving their salary) signed up, but
when they returned to their workplaces, they generally did not put into practice what
was dealt with within the course. They felt isolated, without the necessary social support
for the change. However, the change from transmissive to guided inquiry-based science
teaching is very complex. It requires social groups of people with “strong and redundant
ties” [45,46].
Therefore, we directed our research to how to have science teaching changed in a
school. In this context, the probability of finding groups of people with similar circum-
stances and strong and redundant ties—all of the factors that favour spreading changes—is
high. In this first phase, we wanted to achieve (1) a trusting and collaborative environment
during and after developing the teaching sequences in an intensive course; (2) knowing the
teachers’ difficulties in developing the implementation; and (3) obtaining the willingness
and commitment of some of them (a number close to or higher than the critical mass) to
initiate the change in their classrooms.
We designed a course and also the sequences of activities so the interested teachers
could put inquiry-based science teaching sequences (onwards, IBSTS) into practice after
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 6 of 30
the training course [
40
,
58
]. The seminar took place in a problematised environment,
where each teaching sequence started with structuring questions or problems that were
appropriate for each grade level. This sequence also represents a progressive advance in
the core problem or idea chosen, from 1st to 6th grade [
10
] (in Spain, 6th grade belongs
to primary, not middle school). Teachers, organised in small groups, can experience the
learning environment generated. Those small groups developed the IBSTS, led by one
member of the research team. When developing every sequence of activities, in the sharing,
opportunities were reiterated for the teachers’ ideas to emerge, which were analysed,
advancing, in a tentative environment, in the justified response to the problem or question
raised at the beginning. The end of the course was a good moment to ask teachers about
their concerns and difficulties in implementing the innovation (to help teachers overcome
them in the following phases [54]).
ff ffi
ffi
Figure 1.
Diagram of the phases of the plan, indicating the purpose, success indicators, and instru-
ments for every phase [57].
Success Indicators and Instruments
To determine the success of this phase, we took into account the following indicators:
•
Obtaining the necessary consensus (principal, teachers, and families) to initiate our
change project and therefore carrying out an intensive training course with interested
teachers. This consensus included that the teachers had to be volunteers, the families
had to be informed, the principal had to favour possible changes in schedules, and the
confidentiality of the data obtained (videos, student results, etc.) would be protected
by contract with the legal service of our university.
•
Positive evaluation of the training course and usefulness of the obtained information
“in the field” on the difficulties and needs that teachers may have to carry out the
innovation. To evaluate these aspects, we designed a questionnaire made up of two
sections: the first was a list of statements about different aspects of the course (teach-
ers, interest in the contents, knowledge acquired, etc.) to be scored using a Likert
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 7 of 30
scale from one to five (1 = very negative; 5 = very positive). In the second section,
participants were asked about possible difficulties in putting into practice some of
the IBSTS of the course and their willingness to do so. To obtain this information,
we set two questions: the first asked about the origin of the difficulties they would
have in putting into practice some of the sequences, and the second question was
identical but referred to other colleagues (who did not participate in the course). Thus,
by personalizing and depersonalizing the questions, we hoped to obtain more reliable
information about the real difficulties. The end of this course was an appropriate time
to collect this information because teachers were more aware of what is required to
implement an IBSTS. The analysis of the second part of the questionnaire (on difficul-
ties) was carried out by two of the authors of this article. Previously, they established
categories (difficulties) that they thought were likely to appear, including an open
category for unforeseen responses, and reviewed all the questionnaires separately to
categorize the responses. Subsequently, they compared their analyses and discussed
the discrepancies they observed. In cases of agreement, we established a 1, and in
cases of disagreement, a 2. With this, we calculated Cohen’s Kappa coefficient, and
we obtained an agreement rate greater than 90%. Finally, they agreed to establish the
following six categories: lack of personal involvement, lack of scientific knowledge,
influence of the physical environment, lack of time, lack of material resources, and
lack of training. The questionnaire was individual and anonymous (see Appendix A).
The questionnaire was subjected to expert judgement for content validation (for more
details, see [59]).
•
Commitment of some teachers (25% at least) to put into practice some of the teaching
sequences developed and to be videorecorded, with an approximate duration of ten
teaching hours.
2.1.2. Phase 2: First-Time Teaching Sequence Implementation by Teachers (Video Recording)
This phase requires a lot of time and effort (for both teams), and it is therefore one
of the most decisive phases for the continuity of the project. The committed teachers are
confronted with change for the first time. This requires a process of “ownership”, which
demands personal work (a lot of attitudinal involvement) [
60
,
61
]. Achieving the didactic
change has less to do with convincing people that the idea is good than with the challenge
of getting them to do the extra work required to put it into practice [
45
] (p. 137). Indeed,
as we have mentioned before, teachers need a lot of support to implement the IBSTS for
the first time [
50
,
62
]. For this reason, our team assisted committed teachers by developing
seminars to review and reflect again on IBSTS and to prepare the materials. In addition, the
research team provided support during all sessions of their intervention, which were video
recorded for further reflection on the practice. We also measured the learning and attitudes
of their students; we informed teachers that the measurement of results would only serve
to document the process and that they would only be used for internal analysis for further
improvement [
10
,
47
]. Knowledge attainment will be reliable when they have owned the
sequence, which, as a reasonable rule, is usually achieved after the second time it is carried out.
Success Indicators and Instruments
We evaluated the success of this phase using one of the most cited models in profes-
sional development programmes [57]:
•
Some teachers carry out the IBSTS by generating an inquiry dynamic in their class-
rooms (they call it “domain of practice and consequence”), and their performance
serves, in addition, for other colleagues to take advantage of them. We did not expect
every teacher at the school to carry out the IBSTS, but rather some of them to initiate
that process. The initial number should be greater than the “tipping point” according
to the critical mass theory (25%).
•
Extent to which the teachers who carry out the IBSTS for the first time feel comfortable
and secure in the face of change and express positive attitudes and a “desire for
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 8 of 30
more” (“personal domain”). To assess this aspect, we designed and conducted semi-
structured interviews (Appendix B). The questions aimed at obtaining information on
the following categories: (a) difficulties or obstacles felt in bringing the innovation into
the classroom; (b) assessment of the effort required; and (c) emotions/attitudes felt and
willingness to continue (i.e., what thoughts, sensations, or feelings have you had as a
teacher?). Teachers’ responses were audio-recorded and then transcribed. To analyse
the interviews, we established three main categories: felt difficulties, assessment
of the effort required, and emotions and desire to continue. Later, to organise and
analyse the information from the interviews, we established subcategories based on
words or phrases related to each of the categories (for example, for the category “felt
difficulties” we established the subcategories “lack of. . .”, among many others). Two
of the authors reviewed all the questionnaires separately and categorised the responses
(from the identification of the subcategories). Subsequently, they compared the results
and discussed the discrepancies observed. In cases of discrepancy, the review of
another expert (also an author of the article) was used. In this way, we were able to
systematically examine the responses and find patterns.
•
Finally, we assessed the satisfaction of families and principals with the change (“exter-
nal domain”). To assess this aspect, we used questionnaires and reflections on notes in
the field notebook.
For the families, we designed a questionnaire that was called “circular for families”
(Appendix C), in which (in a generic way, without alluding to the project for changing
science teaching) we asked them if they were aware of the innovations that were being
carried out at their children’s classes, how they learned about them, and if they noticed
any unusual behaviour in their children related to the innovations. We asked them these
questions two months after the innovation began at the school. In addition, to avoid
conditioning the answers, the “questionnaire” had the school’s logo at the top, and the
principal was responsible for distributing it to children. To analyse the questionnaires, we
carried out the same procedure as for the analysis of the questionnaire carried out after the
training course (phase 1). The established categories were the following: the identification
of the innovation in the children’s class (yes or no), an explanation of how they learned
about it, and the expression of some emotion. We calculated Cohen’s Kappa coefficient,
and we obtained an agreement rate greater than 95%.
On the other hand, to assess the satisfaction of the principal, we took into account the
interactions (formal and informal meetings) that took place with the principal. Moreover,
we paid attention—by means of notes in the field notebook and reflections of the research
team—to identify factors that would facilitate or hinder the teaching change at the school.
2.1.3. Phase 3: Reflection Seminars on the Practice and Implementation of the Teaching
Sequence for the Second Time by Teachers
From the beginning, both teams knew the first-time implementation of an innovation
could always be improved. Two-hour seminars were held every week for three months
after the first implementation, aimed at improving both the performance of everyone and
the coordination of the sequence itinerary. Researchers’ teams transcribed and edited the
video records of the teaching sessions and selected episodes on the performance of teachers
and students in some activities of the sequences. These episodes were discussed, and some
behaviours of teachers and students were analysed. Sequences from different grades were
first globally recalled and then analysed by all participating teachers. This favoured the
coordination of teachers from different grades and the readjustment of some sequences to
improve the coherence and progression of the teaching itinerary.
As discussed above, these seminars made it possible for the teachers to identify
“misbehaviours”, and their causes, and good performances. We hoped that this, together
with the review of the focal questions, the plan to try to answer them, and the scientific
content of the sequences, would produce a great improvement in their conceptual and
methodological knowledge and their management of the class, which increased their self-
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 9 of 30
confidence [
10
] to put an IBSTS into practice for the second time. Some of the participants
decided to join the innovation project in those seminars.
Success Indicators and Instruments
We evaluated this phase using these criteria:
•
The implementation of changes in school organisation (timetables, prioritizing the
teachers involved in teaching science, etc.) that facilitate innovation.
•
Positive appraisal of the usefulness of the seminar sessions by the participants and the
research team. We assessed this aspect from the annotations in the field notebook of
the researcher leading the seminar.
•
Teachers and students’ behaviours. To assess whether the expected didactic change
took place in their “way of acting” in the classroom and consequently also in the way
students learn, we used an observation sheet adapted from the European Fibonacci
project [
63
] (found in Appendix D) during several classes, whose items state priority
aspects of inquiry teaching. Each item was rated with “Not Applicable/NO/YES”
and, in the case of YES, with 1 (occasionally, sometimes), 2 (frequently), and 3 (it is
part of their way of teaching). With this sheet, we also intended to detect weaknesses
and strengths and try to improve them in future interventions.
•
Self-evaluation of the committed teachers through a semi-structured interview
(Appendix E). With this interview, we aimed at obtaining information on the following:
(a) How they evaluated the way they used to teach and the way they did it with the
IBSTS; (b) The difficulties/obstacles they felt during the process (from the intensive
training course to the end of the second implementation of the innovation);
(c) The
persistence of the desire to continue/discontinue and reasons/motives. Given that
our objective focuses on the sustainability of change, it is important to know whether
they would carry it out again, and their reasons for that; (d) Emotions/attitudes they
felt during the process (with this reflection exercise, we aimed at finding out whether
there was a moment or turning point during this process in which the teacher began
to feel more comfortable, secure, and confident in the face of change). This moment
may be decisive and irreversible for him or her and may even mean that there is no
turning back to conventional teaching (in the topic dealt with in the IBSTS developed
during the process of change); (e) Factors that favoured the continuity of the project;
(f) Assessment of the sustainability of the project at their school and its extension to
others. The responses were audio recorded and then transcribed. The interviews were
analysed following the same protocol as the rest of the interviews carried out during
this plan.
•
Student learning outcomes of teachers who implemented an IBSTS twice. We designed
pre-test/post-test questionnaires and compared achievements between experimental
and control groups using the chi-square statistic (with Yates’ correction in cases where
at least one expected frequency value of the contingency table was less than five). We
considered that there were significant differences between the groups when p< 0.05
(for more details, see [59]).
2.1.4. Phase 4: Achievement of Lasting and Extensive Science Teaching Change
This phase should be considered the end of the process. In the first phase, intensive
training was offered in methodological and conceptual knowledge, on specific contents,
and linked to practice. Several problematised didactic sequences of increasing complexity
on the same core idea of science were discussed by the participants, organised in small
groups. In this intensive course, all the ideas—both those of the participants and those of
the university professor, correct or incorrect—were considered as possible existing ideas of
all the participants, treated with respect, and subjected to analysis and testing in a tentative
and non-threatening climate. In this way, we hope that not only the methodological and
conceptual knowledge of the content of teachers improved, but also coordination, feelings
of group identity, and the strengthening of stronger and broader ties.
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 10 of 30
In the first implementation of an IBSTS (2nd phase), the university team helped
committed volunteer teachers put the innovation into practice, from remembering the
specific sequence to making “My Science Notebook” and practical materials for their
students. On their part, they have allowed the video recording of their lessons. This would
have strengthened social support and trust between both teams. Early insights into students’
behaviour, attitudes, and learning also reduced feelings of personal risk in adopting the
innovation. Finally, in the 3rd phase, the “reflection on practice” seminars should have
improved teachers’ mastery of the IBSTS, the credibility of innovation, solidarity, and
deeper coordination. The second implementation of the same sequence and the measured
results on student learning and attitudes, together with the evaluation of the families and
the support of the principal, should have produced feelings of personal and professional
success, increasing enthusiasm and group confidence in the change towards guided inquiry-
based science teaching.
Therefore, we formulate the hypothesis that the structure and “rewards” [
64
] to achieve
the consolidation of a critical mass or tipping point of 25% that makes the change spread to
the entire organisation (the school)—the mathematical prediction of critical mass models
for complex social contagions [
44
,
46
]—and becomes irreversible should be reached at the
end of the 3rd phase.
In an operational way, if our hypothesis is fulfilled, in the course following the second
implementation and the seminars of reflection on practice (4th phase), we should find that
(a) The vast majority of teachers develop an IBSTS (some for the third time) with a duration
of at least 20% of the total hours devoted to science in each year (56 h); (b) The sequence
itinerary has been adopted throughout the primary stage so that students could learn
progressively and coherently about the core idea addressed; (c) The school staff (teachers
and principal) request training to be able to teach a new core idea of science by guided
inquiry. Lasting and, we believe, irreversible change would have been achieved.
Now, we present the school (and the group of committed teachers) where we imple-
mented the designed plan. After that, we will present the most important results obtained
after more than four years of work (longitudinal study). These results also identify which
interventions facilitate (or hinder) the desired professional change.
2.2. Participants
The project was carried out in a Spanish school; it was a convenience sample near the
university. Initial contact was made through acquaintance between some members of the
school and university teams. This school is private, but free for parents because it receives
public funds, and the socioeconomic and cultural level of the families is medium. About
10% of the students are of foreign origin and have difficulties speaking Spanish. The school
had twelve generalist primary teachers (teaching science, among other subjects) and three
specialists (teaching music, English, and sports), who had between four and twenty years
of experience. The principal, as considered by teachers, exercised strong leadership, and
she was willing to propose and manage initiatives to improve teaching.
3. Results
Results are presented following the phases described above in order to determine the
failure (or success) of each and try to identify causes for that to happen.
3.1. Phase 1. From Plan to Practice: The Training Course
In this phase, we held formal meetings with the principal and later with all teachers to
present our project. We show the itinerary of sequences elaborated (from 1st to 6th grade)
on “How are all things made inside? How are they similar, how are they different?” within
the Matter and Energy content of the Spanish Official Curriculum for Primary Education [
8
]
(see Appendix F). In addition, we explained the phases of our didactic change plan and
presented some evidence of specific results on children’s learning obtained in sequences
previously tested in other schools.
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 11 of 30
After several meetings, the principal was very interested in incorporating innovation
at school and improving the shortcomings they had (reading the textbook, teaching loose
items, lack of training and knowledge on certain science topics). Given the good reception,
we established commitments on both sides: teachers from the school would attend a free
training course on the sequence itinerary previously presented, and later, those interested,
on a voluntary basis, would carry out the sequences with their students; from our part, in
addition to the course, we would offer the necessary help (inside and outside the classroom)
so that the innovation could be put into practice. Besides, the school agreed to allow the
university team to obtain data to assess students learning and video record the lessons.
To this end, parents were informed about what was being performed and their written
consent was sought; an agreement was signed with the university and reviewed by the
legal services, stating all the terms of the agreement.
After the school accepted to be involved in the project (success indicator), we carried
out the offered training course. The course took place during non-teaching hours and lasted
for 40 h in two weeks. Thirteen in-service teachers attended (twelve generalist teachers and
one specialist sports teacher).
3.1.1. Evaluation of the Training Course
Table 1shows the results obtained from the first part of the training course assessment
questionnaire.
Table 1.
Anonymous assessment of the professional development course. Items are scored by
in-service teachers according to a Likert scale (1 = very negative; 5 = very positive). In this table,
“teacher” refers to the member of the research team who conducted the course.
Assess the Following Aspects of the Course in Which You Have Just
Participated School (n = 13)
x Sd
1. Interest of the contents of the course 4.5 1.2
2. Coherence between proposed objectives and methodology 4.9 0.3
3. Classroom climate 4.7 0.8
4. Time-content relationship 4.5 0.5
5. Mastery of content by teacher 5 0
6. Clarity in teacher explanations 5 0
7. Teacher methodology for developing sequences 4.8 0.6
8. Teacher ability to increase my interest in inquiry-based science teaching 4.8 0.6
9. Learning scientific contents (to me) 4.4 1
10. Learning how to teach using and inquiry-based science teaching approach
4.3 0.8
11. Explanation of the specific objectives of the sequences 4.8 0.4
12. Achievement of the objectives of the sequences 4.7 0.6
13. Sequences of activities (structure, interest. . .) 4.7 0.6
14. Orientation (important question to be solved) 4.5 0.7
15. Adequacy of sequences and materials included 4.8 0.4
16. Applicability of sequences 3.8 0.8
17. Interest in introducing inquiry-based sequences in the classroom 4.5 0.7
18. Interest in putting into practice the sequences 4.4 0.7
19. Willingness to continue in the project 4.4 0.7
20. Degree of usefulness of the sessions 4.4 0.7
21. The way how the course has been developed 4.7 0.5
22. Overall assessment of the course 4.8 0.4
As observed in Table 1, teachers at this school rated the course quite positively. They
considered that the objectives set at the beginning had been fulfilled and that the course
had coherence between its aim and the methodology used to develop it. Since our goal
was for teachers to bring innovation into their classrooms, their assessment of the IBSTS
and its applicability in the classroom was relevant (items 11 to 16). The average value
of both items was higher than 3.8 points out of 5, so it was clearly positive. However,
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 12 of 30
teachers had doubts about the applicability of the sequences in the classroom (item 16).
Teachers affirmed that they rated this item lower because they were concerned about the
lack of space and materials (for example, they did not have measuring instruments—i.e.,
scales or graduated cylinders—and classrooms were quite small according to the number
of children inside). Finally, as seen in items 9 and 10, the course was useful for teachers to
improve their knowledge on the topic and, at the same time, on how to teach science using
an inquiry approach. Their interest in introducing some of the sequences developed in the
course in their classes and continuing in the project was high (items 17 to 20). In informal
conversations at the end of the course, many teachers mentioned that this training course
was essential to being able to take the sequences to the classroom, which was reflected in
their overall evaluation of the course.
3.1.2. First Difficulties Felt in Implementing Innovation
At the end of this intensive course, teachers were more aware of what it entailed to
carry out an IBSTS in the classroom, so we asked them to reflect on the difficulties or needs
to bring this innovation into the classroom. These results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
Difficulties cited by the 13 participating teachers to implement problematised teaching
sequences (by themselves and by other non-participating teachers) at the end of the training course (f:
number of teachers expressing a difficulty).
What Do You Think Are the Main Difficulties in
Bringing the Guided IBSTS to Your Classroom?
Referred to
Themselves
Referred to
Non-Participant
Teachers
f % f %
Lack of personal involvement (attitude, willingness
to work) 8 61 10 77
Lack of scientific knowledge 1 8 6 46
Influence of the physical environment 8 61 2 15
Lack of time 3 21 0 0
Lack of material resources 8 61 0 0
Lack of training 0 0 9 69
As can be seen, teachers did not cite the same difficulties when referring to other
non-participant teachers. The main factor or difficulty was the attitudinal involvement of
the teacher—the fact of dedicating personal time and effort outside the working hours to
preparing the sequences for action. This was an important obstacle, as it was mentioned
by 77% of the teachers when referring to “other colleagues” and 61% when referring to
themselves; however, it is always necessary to do personal work to move innovation from
a training course to the classroom. The research team can help to create what Hutner
and Markman call “mediating representations” [
65
], that is, they can work to improve all
those limitations and aspects that influence the achievement of a goal, such as by taking
some of the worked sequences to the classroom. But, if teachers do not invest time in
preparing what they are going to teach (even if they think it would be the best way to
do it), there will be no “activation of the goal” (the “action” will not be carried out), and
therefore, the change will never take place. The rest of the difficulties were related to
the findings of Harrison et al. [
66
] and are well known and include a lack of scientific
knowledge and circumstantial obstacles (influence of the environment, lack of time, and
human and material resources). When they referred to other colleagues, in addition to
the above-mentioned personal involvement, both the lack of scientific knowledge and
training appeared as very prominent difficulties; the difference in these two aspects could
also be regarded as an indicator of the success of the training course to overcome some
shortcomings felt by teachers in the first phase of the plan. But, also, these results indicated
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 13 of 30
that if we want teachers to carry out an IBSTS in their classrooms, it is not enough just to
attend a course and overcome some of the well-known limitations; they need to want, that
is, their professional goal be to improve their teaching, using the time and effort that it
requires [65].
After this analysis, we can affirm that the success indicators of the first part of the
designed plan were attained: obtaining the necessary consensus to accept the university
team to work together to improve science teaching; positive evaluation of the training
course received; and obtaining reliable information on the obstacles felt by teachers to
implement an IBSTS.
3.2. Phase 2. From the Training Course to the Classroom: First Implementation
Out of the 13 teachers who attended the course, five volunteered to put into practice
some of the sequences developed and to be videorecorded (two men that we will call Fran
and Juan, and three women that will be called Isabel, Ana, and Marga; these names do
not correspond to their real names). The critical mass for the school was three, so five
was considered a good number to start with. Although the training course was recent,
before the first Implementation, two sessions of two hours for each sequence were held
with the teachers to review the sequence, solve doubts, and prepare some materials for the
children to work with. During these sessions, there was an atmosphere of collaboration;
however, recording is an invasive and uncomfortable intervention, so the teachers were a
bit worried about this. Five teachers developed some of the planned sequences in a total of
six groups, from 1st to 6th grade. During this process, the principal facilitated timetable
changes, and hence, sessions of 1.5 or 2 h could be held two or three times a week until the
sequence was completed (success indicator). The average duration was 13.5 h/sequence. To
obtain data on children’s learning, pupils up to 4th grade were interviewed (the youngest
ones) or answered a written questionnaire before and after the teaching. For children in
the 5th and 6th grade groups, a pre-test/post-test questionnaire was administered, and
responses were compared to those of control groups from another school with a higher
socio-economic context. From these results, teachers were aware of improvements in
learning in the experimental groups. These first results, as previously explained in the plan,
were used only for internal analysis and for improvement in a second implementation.
3.2.1. Assessment of Teachers Involved
The five teachers involved were interviewed using a structured questionnaire to detect
their reflections and emotions after the first and second implementations (in the next phase)
to see the evolution. We show below some representative extracts of the aspects they
mentioned after the first implementation:
•On the difficulties felt
Isabel, a 3rd and 4th grade teacher: “The impediment or obstacle was also the class-
room, because I thought that to do this work it was necessary to have more space outside
the classroom (she referred to the difficulties mentioned during the training course). Now,
after having done it, I have realised that maybe this is not so important and, if everything
is well organised, this is not as difficult as I thought”.
Fran, a 4th, 5th and 6th grade teacher: “Let’s see, it is a type of methodology that I
really liked, but it requires meticulous preparation before doing the sessions, more than
what we are used to. It is true that once you get into the working dynamics and see the
whole sequence and if you have done it several times it will not be so hard, but at the
beginning it has been a little bit more difficult than what we are used to working with”.
At the training course, teachers agreed that one of the main difficulties was the lack of
scientific knowledge and training (when referring to other non-participating teachers), in
addition to other factors such as the influence of the physical environment, time, or lack
of material and human resources. However, at this phase, all five teachers interviewed
(responding individually and separately) agreed on the difficulties expressed. None of them
cited a lack of training, so the training course improved their knowledge on the content
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 14 of 30
related to the storyline “How are all things made inside? How are they similar, how are
they different?”. On the other hand, the difficulties expressed after the first implementation
were very different from those they felt after the course, focusing now on methodological
aspects of teaching (how to act) and classroom management.
After the first implementation of the innovation, the most important obstacle was
“wanting to do it”, after “overcoming the fear of doing something new for the first time”.
Thus, when they are confronted with change for the first time, circumstantial obstacles
disappear, and personal involvement becomes the main “hindering” factor.
•
On the assessment of the effort required, emotions/attitudes felt, and the desire to continue
Ana, a 1st and 2nd grade teacher: “What I liked the most was seeing the enthusiasm of
the children [
. . .
] and seeing how they have learnt. Although it is a small thing now, it does
give you an idea of what it could be like. I see that there is another way of doing things and
that we can do things better. I can tell you that clearly, children learn; it is not that they do
not learn now, but we can do it in another way, and it might be more meaningful for them”.
Isabel, a 3rd and 4th grade teacher: “The children have learnt, they have understood it
much better than if you give them the classic lesson on the subject. They are all excited, and
they remember everything and every detail. And the parents are very happy [
. . .
]. When I
had taught the subjects in natural sciences, especially these subjects that are so complex
to explain to small children, I found it a bit difficult, I said, “How do I teach them? And
I always teach it quickly [
. . .
]. And when I have now done it this way, it has encouraged
me to do it every year so that they understand it and retain the important ideas. I really
believe that they have understood everything perfectly”.
We have presented two excerpts, but the five teachers interviewed gave very similar
answers. Teachers felt “rewarded” after implementing the innovation. They felt that
their students had learned more and better. In addition, they felt the support of both the
families and the principal and their own satisfaction with what they were doing (“I found
it uncomfortable”, said Isabel, referring to the usual teaching). Moreover, they all expressed
phrases of enthusiasm and eagerness to put the innovation into practice again: “I am looking
forward to repeating it next year [
. . .
]. I am really looking forward to it. And I would love to
do more of my course, because I learnt with the course, but when you really learn, it is when
you put it into practice with the children”; “It has changed my concept of teaching, so much
so that I would like to work more in this way, I have seen that we can make children to think”.
Overall, they all expressed that they would repeat it the following year.
3.2.2. Assessment of the Principal Team
In our plan for didactic change, the final decision to implement an IBSTS depends on
teachers, although the principal has a key role in driving and facilitating the change [
67
,
68
].
If the school leader promotes situations that foster professional interaction and collaborative
support for innovation, teachers are likely to be motivated to continue [
69
,
70
]. Although
we do not show quantitative data on this, we present descriptions of our team’s field
notebook entries and reflections: the actions of this school’s leadership match those of
an effective, transformational leader. One of her key decisions included providing time
(2 h/week
) during the school day for committed teachers to attend meetings and seminars
to prepare for the intervention, together with the university team and other committed
colleagues [
71
,
72
]. In addition, the principal promised to support them by allocating
resources to purchase the necessary materials that would allow them to develop more open
and active science teaching (in the meantime, they borrowed the necessary materials from
our team). From this perspective, teachers felt rewarded and strengthened to continue.
On the other hand, the principal/teacher teams were in almost daily contact with our
research team. The principal was continuously interested in the progress of the project and
was also very positive about the innovation carried out at the school. Teachers expressed
their interest in continuing the innovation project, and they expressed the idea that all the
science content in the curriculum should be developed using an inquiry-based approach.
Thus, it seemed that one of the success criteria of this phase, the assessment and positive
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 15 of 30
impact of the project in the “external domain”, was being achieved. To be able to affirm it
reliably, we only needed to know how the families valued the project (see next section).
3.2.3. Assessment of Families
We evaluated the satisfaction of families with the changes [
73
] from the questionnaire that
we called the “circular for families”. The principal handed out a total of 73 questionnaires (to
the groups of pupils who had been taught by inquiry), and 48 were received back. Results
obtained for the three questions set in the questionnaire are presented below (Table 3).
Table 3. Results on families’ knowledge and satisfaction with the change in science education.
Generic Open-Ended Questionnaire (see Appendix C)
(without any reference to science education)
Questionnaires sent: 73
Questionnaires answered and returned: 48 (return rate 65.7%)
n= 48 %
1. They identify “innovation” in their child’s class as a change in science teaching. 47 97.9
2. They have known innovation:
- By meeting at the beginning of the school year with the principal
- From what their children told them
- No answer
24
21
3
50
44
6
3. Expressed positive changes (joy; communication of what has been done; increased
learning) in their children’s behaviour at home, related to the change in science teaching. 39 81
The results of this questionnaire were clearly satisfactory. Out of the 48 questionnaires
analysed, 47 identified “innovations” with the change in science teaching, and only one of
them referred to other changes that had taken place at the school (mentioning that “hangers
were installed at classrooms”). Moreover, in the first question, some family members described
in detail what the science project in primary school consisted of, and they even wrote down
some of the most important ideas of the sequence developed in their children’s classes:
Family member of a 4th grader: “Experiencing science in a practical way, specifically
the topic of matter and energy. My son tells me that they have seen if air weighs, if air can
be seen. . .”.
Family member of a 1st grader: “As far as we know it is a project for the subject of
Natural Science, so that the children learn not only with the book, but also by “investigating
in groups”. They have done some work using different textiles and materials and asking
the children about it”.
These responses show that the project had an impact on the pupils because they
reported on the activities carried out at home. In that sense, 44% of the family members
stated that they were aware of this project through their children (second question), 50% of
the families were aware of the project through the initial meeting held at the beginning of
the school year, and the remaining 6% did not answer this question or referred to another
type of innovation.
The most striking results appear in the last question, which shows that 81% of the
families stated that children showed more excitement, involvement, interest, curiosity,
and/or better learning during the implementation of the innovation. Here are some
extracts from the responses of the family members:
Family member of a 3rd grader: “I have seen my daughter very motivated and excited
about the project. In addition, I think she has learnt more than with traditional lessons”.
Family member of a 3rd grader: “Yes, she was happy every day telling us what she
had seen and experienced in class. She was especially sad to see those classes end”.
Family of a 3rd grader: “Not different, but he has shown a lot of interest and he has
been telling us everywhere air can be. He has conducted some of the experiments at home,
and it was really great”!
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 16 of 30
They not only expressed the positive emotions felt by their children, but also valued them
satisfactorily (“the truth is that it was great”; “he learned more”, among other comments).
On the other hand, 17% of the family members answered that they had not noticed any
behaviour different from their usual behaviour, and 2% responded by referring to another
type of innovation. In short, based on these results and on the constant comments of gratitude
and satisfaction that the family members transmitted to us in person, we can affirm that the
families valued the implementation of the innovation in the classroom very positively.
Therefore, with all the results presented here, we can affirm that all the indicators of
success of the second phase of our programme were met: we achieved the commitment
of five teachers, who said they wanted to do more. Their practice was reinforced and
“rewarded” by personal satisfaction with their own work and by the school’s principal’s
and families support and satisfaction. The success of this phase allowed us to move on to
the third, whose results are as follows.
3.3. Phase 3. Reflection Seminars on the Practice and Implementation of the Teaching Sequence for
the Second Time by Teachers
3.3.1. Usefulness of Practice Review and Reflection Seminars
The first development of the sequences was followed by seminars of two hours per
week for three and a half months (28 h). All the teachers who wanted to participate were
invited, in addition to the five committed (those who developed the IBSTS), and they were
informed of the convenience of knowing what had been performed with their students that
year and what could be performed in the following year. A total of 10 teachers regularly
participated in the seminars. Seminars began by recalling together the storyline that gave
coherence to the teaching itinerary and the specific IBSTS within it. Videoclips selected for
showing some important episodes (both well-developed aspects and those to be improved) of
the sequence in action were then presented, and teachers were asked to express what they
thought about the activity of both students and teacher and how it could be improved, if
necessary. Those were true behavioural (co)construction sessions [
10
,
40
]. The initial reluctance
to be criticised quickly disappeared due to the climate of learning and improvement between
them. A first result of these seminars was the identification by the teachers themselves of
deficiencies (“misbehaviours”) that were repeated—which facilitates training, just as knowing
misconceptions does—in all the sequences in the first implementation:
•
Not allowing groups of students the necessary time to think about a possible answer
or logical plan. Not encouraging different answers (they looked only at the answer
they expected: the first one that was correct). Ignoring some of the students’ ideas
because they had not planned what to do with them.
•
Anticipate the content of activities instead of waiting for the right moment. Their way
of teaching was very ingrained; it was difficult for them not to say what they knew
or not immediately give the answer to a doubt or question. They found it difficult to
wait and to invite students to be part of the inquiry.
•
Lack of appropriate mastery of the initial question that guides the sequence’s argu-
ment thread. Not frequently reminding students of that question and the plan being
followed to try to answer it. That is, they used the problematised sequences as a series
of unconnected activities or tasks that had to be performed, ignoring the relationship
and connection between them.
•They still had some conceptual or terminological errors on the specific topic.
•
Lack of preparation. Teachers recognised that, in most cases, this was the cause of the
previous situations.
After the follow-up and improvement seminars, our perception was that there had
been a qualitative change in the preparation of teachers, which had to be confirmed with
a way of teaching that is consistent with inquiry teaching and with the results of their
students. One of the committed teachers (whom we call Juan, teacher of 1st and 2nd grade)
did not continue for personal reasons, but a teacher who had only participated in the
follow-up seminars joined the group of committed teachers.
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 17 of 30
3.3.2. Analysis of Classroom Dynamics
Table 4presents the analysed items (which are fundamental aspects of inquiry teaching)
and the assessment of the achievement of each item by the four teachers involved. The
observer was one of the members of the university research team. Around four hours
(non-contiguous) of each teacher’s intervention video clips were analysed. Each item was
rated with “YES/NO/Not applicable (NA)” and, in the case of YES, with 1 (the item is
carried out occasionally), 2 (the item is carried out frequently), and 3 (it is part of their way
of teaching).
Table 4.
Results of the classroom dynamics generated during the second implementation of the
innovation by the four teachers involved.
Items Section A: Teacher-Student Interactions Ana
(1st Grade)
Marga
(1st Grade)
Isabel
(3rd Grade)
Fran
(5th Grade)
Y N Y N Y N Y N
1a Teacher asks questions aimed at students to express their ideas 3 3 3 3
1b Teacher helps learners to formulate their ideas 3 3 3 3
1c Teacher gives students positive reinforcement on how to check
their ideas 3 2 3 3
2a Teacher encourages predictions 3 3 3 3
2b Teacher involves students in the investigation 3 1 3 3
2c Teacher encourages checking their predictions 3 3 3 3
2d Teacher encourages and assists in collecting data 3 3 3 3
3a Teacher asks students to present their findings 3 X 3 3
3b Teacher asks students to match their conclusions to their results
2 X 3 3
3c Teacher asks students to compare their conclusions with
their predictions 3 1 3 3
3d Teacher asks learners to try to give reasons or explanations for
what they have found 3 2 3 3
Items Section B: Student Activities Ana Marga Isabel Fran
Y N Y N Y N Y N
4a Students work on questions that they feel are their own 3 3
4b Students make predictions 3 3 3 3
4c Students participate in the research plan 3 X 3 3
4d Data obtained allow students to test their predictions 3 3 3 3
4e Students consider their results in relation to their questions 3 2 3 3
5a Students collaborate when they work in groups 3 3 3 3
5b Students engage in discussions about their investigations NA NA 3 3
5c Students present their work to each other 3 3 3 3
5d Students listen to others when they communicate results 2 2 3 3
5e Students take notes on what they have done 3 3 3 3
The four teachers who implemented the innovation for the second time moved from
reading and paraphrasing from the textbook to making inquiry-based teaching their way of
working. This, for example, included asking questions (items 1a, 1b), encouraging pupils
to communicate their ideas and predictions (2a), carrying out a ‘simple’ plan (2c) which
pupils test, draw conclusions (3a, 3b, 3c), and record them (5e), and working in teams (5a)
guiding the sharing (5d). In addition, it was remarkable that all teachers transformed the
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 18 of 30
physical arrangement of tables, materials, and students. They prepared in advance the
materials to be used in the session and arranged them perfectly to give them (and take them
away) to the groups of pupils at the right time, which facilitated order in the classroom.
However, although the changes were very evident, there were also weaknesses that needed
to be improved, which were discussed with the research group. For example, as can be
seen in Table 4, Marga was still very entrenched in her usual practice, especially in research
planning and communication of results. In most of the observed sessions, she tended to
communicate the plan to the students and/or verbalise the conclusions and recaps instead
of involving children (along with her) in these tasks. However, working with the research
group and her attitude and willingness to work helped overcome these deficiencies. Hence,
we can affirm that changes to the usual way of teaching were very positive and profound
in all cases after the second implementation.
3.3.3. Assessment of Student Outcomes
To measure student outcomes, learning indicators were developed for each sequence
according to their objectives as well as the grade for which they were developed [
59
].
Questionnaires were designed and pilot-tested to see if they were appropriate for the age
and reading level of students. After that, they were modified accordingly to be used as a
pre-test and post-test. They were administered one week before (pre-test) and one week
after (post-test) teaching. Two members of the research team separately rated the answers
as correct/incorrect and, within this division, into different categories representing the
most common answers [
59
]. For open questions, Cohen’s Kappa coefficient was calculated,
and, three months later, the intra-judge Kappa index, with an agreement rate greater than
95%. The number of meaningful ideas expressed by students in their answers to questions
such as “In class, we have discussed
. . .
; How would you explain to a friend who has
not been in class the most important ideas about
. . .
” were also measured to assess the
appropriation and linguistic progress of the learning achieved. Differences in children’s
knowledge attainment between experimental and control groups were significant (with
χ2
;
p< 0.05) in all sequences taught by teachers for the second time and in one taught for the
first time (about density in 5th and 6th grades).
3.3.4. Assessment of Teachers Involved
Structured interviews with teachers about their feelings on the second implementation
were recorded one week after the end of each teacher’s intervention and transcribed for
comparison with the first ones. Below, we present a table of the most important ideas
mentioned by three or more of the interviewed teachers in this phase. These results,
summarised in Table 5, are very useful for scaling up and eventually extending the change
to other schools.
This phase allowed us, on the one hand, to identify “misbehaviours” that were repeated
in all the sequences in the first implementation—whose knowledge will facilitate training and
extension to other sequences and schools—and, on the other hand, to identify aspects/factors
that most of the teachers involved mentioned as important aspects that influence the con-
solidation of the change. The concerns of teachers after the first implementation were very
different from those expressed at the end of the training course (results of Table 2compared
to Table 5), with the latter focusing on methodological aspects of teaching (how to act) and
classroom management. They all agreed on the great importance of the seminars to review
the sequences and the analysis of the video clips of the lessons to overcome them. After the
second implementation, the methodological obstacles disappeared because they claimed to
have gained confidence in the way of planning the teaching (by guided inquiry) and, at this
phase, the main “difficulty” is the investment of time required to prepare the intervention,
although they expressed that this will become less and less. They recognised that the principal
had provided resources and organisational changes to support the change (another indicator
of success for this phase).
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 19 of 30
Table 5.
Aspects highlighted by three or more teachers interviewed after the second implementation.
Important Ideas
No. of
People Who
Mentioned Them
(Out of Four)
Representative Excerpts
First implementation: teachers must
overcome the fear of doing it for the first time
3
“The biggest change was last year when I did it for the first
time (. . .) And you can see that it has changed completely; it
has been a 180-degree turn. This year I have not noticed that
change because I already knew what I expected, and I knew
what it was going to be like” (Isabel).
“It’s also true that the first time, there is always the insecurity
of, ‘Will I do it right, are they looking at me, what is going to
happen?” (Fran).
On how they taught before and how they
have performed it now (huge change:
methodology; teacher-pupil or pupil-pupil
interaction; classroom layout of the pupils)
4
“Well, the change in methodology has been huge. Starting
from the organisation of the classroom, as children were not
in a team before and now, they are in a team. Moreover, since
we started with this last year, they have been working as a
team with me all year round. And also, in terms of learning, it
is much more significant. (. . .) Otherwise, learning is more
mechanical and repetitive. Overall, it is very positive” (Ana).
The emotional evolution felt during the
process: from insecurity and tension to
confidence and calmness. The first
implementation: “it’s hard”
4
“The first time I taught it, I did feel enthusiasm, interest,
curiosity, fun and motivation. I was not afraid, I was a bit
insecure, maybe because it was the first time and I had to
focus and adapt to how you teach it. Now, at this moment, it
would be enthusiasm, calmness. (. . .) Of course it is difficult
the first time because that is what it is, you have to start
teaching it, you do not know how they are going to react, you
have never done it before, and so, even if you are very
prepared, you do not know. The first time it is hard, but I
think that from the second time onwards, you also feel more
confident, and you become more comfortable” (Isabel).
“(the first time) I was very tense, nervous. It was fun and I
was motivated, but very overwhelmed, I had someone
recording me and listening to me. Of course, I was curious to
know what was going to happen (. . .) but I was anxious and
insecure, I had everything”. Now (second implementation), I
am calmer, and I think next year, much better (Marga).
Internal factors influencing continuity:
students’ learning and attitudes and
professional satisfaction
4
“The most useful thing is the motivation of the pupils, the
videos of the children. That was what had the biggest impact
on me, then there was the parents reaction and my own. But
the first thing has been how they have learnt, how they have
owned all the concepts you have taught them, how they
verbalise them, how they write them down in the scientific
notebook, how they know how to do it, how they did the
experiments and how they recorded them. I could see how
they said: tomorrow is science (. . .)” (Isabel).
“I loved it. They learn so much, I loved it” (Fran).
External factors influencing the decision to
continue: principal support and training 4
“The principal has been everything. She has bet for the change,
and we have to continue in this line, I am happy” (Ana).
“The principal is totally involved; she likes it a lot. (. . .) The
principal 100% (. . .). If I had to face all the insecurities on my
own from the beginning, as I did not know what was going to
happen, as I had a bit of insecurity, it would have cost me more.
But having the support and having done it myself, I am now
confident (referring to the support of the university
team)” (Isabel).
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 20 of 30
Thus, based on the results presented, we can affirm that we achieved the success
indicators of the third phase of our plan: after the second implementation, a critical mass
of teachers teaching science by guided inquiry was reached and consolidated.
3.4. Phase 4. Achievement of Lasting and Extensive Science Teaching Change
After the positive results of the third phase of our plan, teachers and the principal
asked us to extend the training and to continue with another itinerary of IBSTS (i.e., to
start with another core idea of science) because “they wanted to teach all the science
contents in this way”. Thus, we conducted a new training course on a new IBSTS itinerary
about another structuring question for the primary education stage (“How is the Sun
path? Is it always the same? Does it change? Does it repeat itself?”, “Can we use it
for organise time and space?” (see Appendix G). Eighteen teachers attended, nine from
the first school and nine from a new school that had known about the project in an oral
presentation at a professional seminar. Some, or more of the needed critical mass, of the new
teachers attending committed themselves to incorporating the new sequences into their
academic planning. Unfortunately, in March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic did break the
planned development of the project, when we were working at the new school. Normality,
although with some restrictions on how to manage the distribution of students’ space in
the classroom, came back by the 2021–2022 scholar course.
To assess this fourth and final phase of our plan, we must see it as a consequence from
our hypothesis: if a critical mass of teachers who teach science through inquiry is generated
in one of the phases of the plan, who feel rewarded for their efforts and peer coordination
is encouraged, the change will eventually spread to a large majority of teachers to teach
science using our methodological approach. Taking into account that didactic change is
a complex behavioural change [
45
], we adopted the conservative criterion of considering
that the critical mass is reached when one third of the teachers teach science by inquiry
for two or more school years, using 20% of the hours of the subject Nature Science. This
criterion was reached at the end of the third phase: four teachers had put into practice
inquiry sequences within the planned storyline, using an average of 13.5 h of the 56 h
allocated to science (a percentage higher than 20%); their pupils had attained very good
learning results; the principal and families supported them; their peers had participated in
the seminars; and they had personal satisfaction. Once this critical mass has been achieved,
the change should eventually spread to a large majority of science teachers. This extension
should logically be reflected in a progressive increase in the number of hours and groups
of pupils in the school who receive inquiry teaching. Thus, to evaluate this fourth phase,
we present Table 6, which shows and quantifies the evolution of inquiry-based teaching in
the different phases of our plan.
As can be observed in Table 6, at the different phases, the number of groups and the
time invested in teaching science by inquiry increased. In the second phase, the number
of groups was only six; this seems logical because, at this phase, fears are at bay and they
are confronted with change for the first time. In the third phase, the number of groups
increased thanks to organisational changes made by the principal because they assigned
the teachers involved to be science teachers. Thus, out of the seven teachers who taught
science, five of them implemented a problematised sequence in one or more groups. The
number of groups increased from six to eight, and thus, the total number of hours devoted
to teaching science by inquiry also increased. However, at these phases (second and third),
there is still no progression or continuity throughout the primary school on the core idea
of science addressed in the process of change (four groups out of 12, followed a regular
teaching on “properties and common structure to all materials”).
At phase 4 (academic year 2019–2020), changes were very important: it was planned
that all teachers who taught science would carry out some inquiry-based sequence in
classrooms (thanks to the changes promoted by the principal), and therefore, the time spent
would increase enormously, up to 45.5% (after incorporating a new sequence’s itinerary).
Although these data were expected for the whole school year, due to COVID-19, teachers
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 21 of 30
could only develop the IBSTS until March. After the confinement due to the pandemic
and the promotion of health restrictions, in the following school year (2021–2022), the
school returned to “normality”, and resumed the project. As can be seen in Table 6, all
groups of pupils received inquiry-based teaching on “properties and common structure
of materials” (as the teaching of these IBSTS was well established). However, they did
not carry out the teaching of “diurnal astronomy” sequences because, unfortunately, the
pandemic prevented teachers from owning the sequences. Therefore, based on all the data
presented in this paper, we can affirm that our plan for didactic change in this school has
been both possible and irreversible. We are confident to affirm that our hypothesis on the
theory of critical mass has been confirmed, and thus, the objectives of this phase were
successfully achieved.
Table 6.
Evolution of inquiry-based teaching in the different phases of the plan (** planned for that
year, but could not be accomplished).
Number of
Teachers
Teaching
Science at the
School
Teachers Who
Carried Out
the 1st Imple-
mentation
Teachers
Participating
in Seminars
(28 h)
Teachers Who
Carry Out the
2nd (or more)
Implementa-
tion
No. of
Innovation
Groups (out
of 12)
Average
Number of
Hours and %
of Science by
Inquiry in the
Innovation
Groups (out
of 56 h)
Participants
in the New
Training
Course on a
Different
Storyline of
Sequences
Student
Results
Pre/Post
Questionnaire
Significant
Differences
(p< 0.05)?
2nd Phase
2017–2018 9 5 6 13.5 h
24% YES
3rd Phase
2018–2019 7 1 10 4 8 13.5 h
24%
Continuity of
training
requested;
intensive
initial training
was provided
(2 schools,
18 participants,
in July 2019)
YES
4th Phase
2019–2020
(Incorporation
of new
sequence
itinerary) (**
planned, but
COVID-19)
8 2 6 12
100%
25.5 h
45.5% (**)
4th Phase
(post-COVID)
2021–2022
6 6 12
100%
13.5 h
24 % YES
4. Discussion
According to the data obtained, the plan designed to achieve the didactic change
from traditional science teaching to guided inquiry-based teaching was successful in the
school where it was developed. The phases into which we divided the plan (and the
results obtained from them) had many features that coincided with those identified in other
effective professional development programmes [37,52,54].
In the first phase of the plan and after receiving the initial training course, teachers
expressed the same difficulties in implementing the innovation as those that had already
been widely documented in the existing scientific literature (such as a lack of training and
knowledge) [
21
–
23
,
25
]. However, the analysis of the evolution of the concerns felt during
the process of didactic change is something genuine about this research. These findings
were very important because they allowed us to identify “hindering patterns” that appear
during the change process, so they could be very useful for designing future professional
development programs in order to overcome them and achieve the desired didactic change.
Our plan also coincides with considering changes in the different dimensions and
processes involved in the professional growth of teachers. Therefore, according to one of the
most cited models of professional growth, the “interconnected model” [
57
], the evaluation
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 22 of 30
of the second phase (and the subsequent ones) is based on a continuous cycle of learning
and development, where we included the influence of all members of the educational
community (teachers, principal, students, and families).
On the other hand, we agree with the findings found by Roth et al. [
52
], where they
highlight the importance of using video analysis as an effective tool for the professional
development of teachers and student learning in science. Roth et al. [
52
] also conducted
a longitudinal study involving 22 high-school science teachers in a professional training
course where they were given repeated opportunities to analyse and discuss videos of their
own science lessons [10,55].
In addition, we agree with the conclusions obtained by Van Driel et al. [
41
] in their
review of the scientific literature on effective characteristics (and deficiencies) in the design
of professional development programs in science; we agree that fluid and sustained collab-
oration between the university team and the teaching team of schools is essential for the
change. Collaboration generates security and trust and helps to overcome the stress of the
first implementation, which is a key moment to start the change.
Our plan also had differences and singularities with respect to other studies. One of the
differences with other programmes was the incorporation of the critical mass theory, trying,
from the beginning, to create a group of teachers willing to teach science through guided
inquiry at different levels, with strong personal and professional relationships (strong
ties), and favouring a climate of reinforcement towards this group (from the principal and
families) [
44
–
46
]. And, above all, trying to create satisfaction with their own work, justified
by the students’ learning and attitudes [
41
]. Another difference was the operationalisation
of indicators to evaluate the achievement of the objectives at every stage, which has not been
previously considered in other studies. Another difference is that the teaching sequences
represent a learning itinerary throughout primary school on one of the subjects most
“rejected” by primary school teachers: Matter and Energy [
18
]. Students’ learning about
the existence of different and common properties in “all things” from 1st to 6th grade
(with concepts such as mass, density, and electric charge in the later grades), assessed
by pre- and post-tests, was much better when compared to control groups, and these
results will be published elsewhere. Thus, in our research, we have also addressed the
gap commonly found in most studies on professional development programs in science
by looking at the impact of implementation on student learning outcomes [
41
]. Finally,
something unique about this research was also developing six sequences for different
levels in an intensive course, which allowed five teachers to work with IBSTS at three
different levels simultaneously since the first implementation. This situation encouraged
cooperation and prevented teachers at higher levels from being unaware of what was being
performed at the initial levels (and vice versa), and it made it easier for everyone to feel
that they were all part of the same project.
Once the findings of this work have been discussed, we will proceed to present the
conclusions obtained from them.
5. Conclusions
The design of a plan divided into phases and the operational definition of success
indicators in each of them has facilitated systematic research on how to achieve “real”
didactic change and, in the case of finding obstacles, identify the causes. The designed plan
has made it possible to achieve the desired, sustainable, and irreversible didactic change in
a school.
As this is a case study, the conclusions may be limited. With this in mind, we can state
the following:
(1)
The critical mass theory of complex social change has been useful in strategically
designing a plan for achieving sustainable didactic change in science education.
(2)
A key aspect for the success of the plan after the intensive course is to obtain a critical
mass of teachers committed to the first implementation by allowing their classes to
be recorded. We recommend that the number be close to 33% of teachers who teach
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 23 of 30
science. If the number is less than 25%, the university team should seriously assess
the ratio between the effort invested and the probability of success.
(3)
The consolidation of the critical mass is achieved after participating in the evalua-
tion/reflection seminars on the first implementation and the subsequent improvement in
the second implementation. The tipping point is reached after the second implementation.
(4)
Teachers’ misbehaviours in the first implementation are common to all teachers and
sequences at the different levels. This is useful to anticipate them (as it is performed
with the spontaneous ideas or misconceptions of the pupils) in order to improve.
(5) The willingness of the principal to support and make the necessary changes to facilitate
inquiry teaching is very important. Similarly, there is a need to have families express
their satisfaction—which is often driven by their children’s enthusiasm—and to share
this with the teachers who are implementing the change.
(6) The amount of work invested by the research team is very high. Therefore, if we want
to extend this change to more schools, we need to seriously consider the sustainability
of our effort. This can be achieved by changing the initial training curricula for
primary school teachers (which is unlikely in Spain) and/or by testing whether some
of the necessary activities for the proper development of the scheme can be carried
out on a semi-presential basis with the concerned schools.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, C.N.-C. and J.M.-T.; methodology, C.N.-C., R.L., A.M.,
S.R.-C. and J.M.-T.; software, R.L.; validation, C.N.-C., R.L., A.M., S.R.-C. and J.M.-T.; formal analysis,
C.N.-C., R.L. and A.M.; investigation, C.N.-C., R.L., A.M., S.R.-C. and J.M.-T.; resources, C.N.-C.; data
curation, C.N.-C. and J.M.-T.; writing—original draft preparation, C.N.-C., R.L., A.M. and J.M.-T.;
writing—review and editing, C.N.-C., R.L., A.M., S.R.-C. and J.M.-T.; visualization, C.N.-C., R.L.,
A.M., S.R.-C. and J.M.-T.; supervision, J.M.-T.; project administration, J.M.-T.; funding acquisition,
C.N.-C. and A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport of Spain
[FPU15/02678] and by the Generalitat Valenciana (Spain) [GRE16-27].
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data would be available under request to authors.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
Appendix A
Evaluation Questionnaire For The Primary Education Teachers
Training Course
We are very interested in knowing your opinion about the training course you just
received. However, keep in mind that some psychologists say that after an intense training
course, the assistants almost always value it well because they have spent their time and/or
they have empathised with the professors. Therefore, they usually do not admit that they
have wasted their time or antagonise a person with whom they sympathise. We ask you
not to get carried away by these “effects”, if they exist, and that your answers really reflect
what you think.
(A)
Rate with 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 the following aspects of the course in which you have just
participated (where 1 represents a very negative assessment; 3, neutral; 5, very positive)
1. Interest of the contents of the course
2. Coherence between the proposed objectives and the methodology
3. Classroom environment
4. Time-content relationship
5. Mastery of content by teacher
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 24 of 30
6. Clarity in teacher explanations
7. Teacher methodology for developing sequences
8. Teacher ability to increase my interest in inquiry-based science teaching
9. Learning scientific contents (to me)
10.
Learning how to teach using and inquiry-based science teaching approach
11.
Explanation of the specific objectives of the sequences
12.
Achievement of the objectives of the sequences
13.
Sequences of activities (structure, interest. . .)
14.
Orientation (important question to be solved)
15.
Adequacy of the sequences and materials included
16.
Applicability of the sequences
17.
Interest in introducing inquiry-based sequences in the classroom
18.
Interest in putting into practice the sequences
19.
Willingness to continue in the project
20.
Degree of usefulness of the sessions
21.
The way how the course has been developed
22.
Overall assessment of the course
(B) Explain the obstacles (and possible ways to overcome them) that you might face when
carrying out the innovation that inquiry-based science teaching would entail:
obstacles Possible ways to overcome them
(C)
Do not think now about your case and reflect on which factors do you think would
influence when another colleague puts this way of teaching science into practice.
Appendix B
Semi-Structured Interview After The First Implementation Of The Innovation
1.
What real obstacles/impediments do you come across when carrying out this type of
inquiry-based teaching in your classroom? If we could work together to improve the
aspects mentioned, would you carry out this type of teaching in your classroom?
2.
Some of your colleagues, after finishing the training course, expressed the following
factors or limitations that influence when carrying out the innovation: available
materials, space, number of students or the engagement and involvement of the
teacher. Do you agree? Still being the same limitations or have they changed after
personally putting it into practice?
3.
Do you think that these difficulties could be compensated with the learning reported
by the students? Or, on the contrary, it does require to spend a lot of time and effort
and the changes are not as good as expected?
4.
What feelings have you had regarding the learning of your students? Have you
noticed any progress in the students, between what they initially thought and what
they think now about what they worked on? Or, on the contrary, do you think that it
would have been better to work on it in the usual way?
5. What thoughts, sensations or feelings have you had as a teacher?
6. Do you find negative aspects regarding how you usually work with your students?
7.
Do you find improvements compared to how you usually carry out your science classes?
8.
Would you change any aspect of the sequence of activities carried out in your class?
Any activity, grouping of the students (student organisation), way of formulating the
initial questions, the scientist’s notebook, or any suggestion that you think would
improve the development of the sessions?
9. Suggestions, comments, doubts. . .
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 25 of 30
Appendix C
Newsletter For Parents
As you might be aware, several innovations have been taking place in your child’s
classroom over the past few months, can you briefly describe what this has been about?
How did you find out about it?
In relation to this innovation, have you noticed any different behaviour than usual in
your child?
Appendix D
Items Section A: Teacher-Student Interactions Teacher
Y N
1a Teacher asks questions aimed at students to express their ideas
1b Teacher helps learners to formulate their ideas
1c Teacher gives students positive reinforcement on how to check their
ideas
2a Teacher encourages predictions
2b Teacher involves students in the investigation
2c Teacher encourages checking their predictions
2d Teacher encourages and assists in collecting data
3a Teacher asks students to present their findings
3b Teacher asks students to match their conclusions to their results
3c Teacher asks students to compare their conclusions with their
predictions
3d Teacher asks learners to try to give reasons or explanations for what
they have found
Items Section B: Student Activities Teacher
Y N
4a Students work on questions that they feel are their own
4b Students make predictions
4c Students participate in the research plan
4d Data obtained allow students to test their predictions
4e Students consider their results in relation to their questions
5a Students collaborate when they work in groups
5b Students engage in discussions about their investigations
5c Students present their work to each other
5d Students listen to others when they communicate results
5e Students take notes on what they have done
Appendix E
Semi-Structured Interview With The Teachers Involved After The Second Implementa-
tion Of The Innovation
1. You have carried out a teaching sequence twice that you did not do before:
•
How different has it been from the way you taught science before? (shal-
low/deep)
•What is your assessment of this process? (negative/positive)
Sustainability 2023,15, 11710 26 of 30
2.
Throughout this process, what has been the most laborious for you? (prepara-
tion/appropriation time; materials for children; methodology; content; group man-
agement; . . .).
3.
Next year you can decide whether to carry out this sequence in the same way or not,
do you plan to do it like this again?
4.
If you plan to do it again and you have told me aspects that have required personal
effort, what makes you continue? Can you specify the reasons why this change is
gratifying for you?
(After you answer openly, you will be shown a list of possible reasons -usually when
you talk you can forget some of the reasons, even important ones-: (1) Increased learning of
children (how do you know?); (2) Greater involvement of children; (3) They learn more
things besides science: oral and written language, logical/mathematical thinking,
. . .
;
(4) Children
are more motivated/happy (what do you notice?); (5) They improve their
way of reasoning; (6) Parents rejoice; (7) I like teaching science more than before; (8) My
work is thus more creative; (9) I find meaning in what I teach (I don’t give something
because it “touches”); (10) A positive dynamic has been generated with my classmates
around this project on science teaching; (11) The Management is happy with this change
and encourages me to continue).
5.
Next, we are going to show you a list of basic emotions so that you can evaluate them
before and after the change, that is, we want to know how you have felt throughout
the process: before, during (first implementation of the innovation) and after (after
the second implementation).
Usual teaching
Excitement Tranquillity Fear Pleasure Tension Worry
Frustration Interest
Overwhelmed
Boredom Curiosity Confidence
Teaching by inquiry (1st time)
Excitement Tranquillity Fear Pleasure Tension Worry
Frustration Interest
Overwhelmed
Boredom Curiosity Confidence
Teaching by inquiry (2nd time)
Excitement Tranquillity Fear Pleasure Tension Worry
Frustration Interest
Overwhelmed
Boredom Curiosity Confidence
6.
How did you feel the second time you put it into practice compared to the first?