Content uploaded by Ahmed M. Alkaabi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ahmed M. Alkaabi on Jul 28, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Copyright © 2024, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Chapter 1
DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3693-0880-6.ch001
This chapter, published as an Open Access chapter on February 15, 2024, is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and production in any medium, provided the author of the original work and
original publication source are properly credited.
ABSTRACT
Inquiry-based learning is an approach to learning that encourages students to engage in problem-
solving through exploration and high-level questioning. It incorporates active participation of stu-
dents by involving them in posing questions and bringing real-life experiences to them. The basis
of this approach is to channelize the students’ thought process through queries and help them in
“how to think” instead of “what to think.” This chapter begins by defining constructivism as the
theoretical origin of inquiry-based learning, it then moves to talk about the benefits and advantages
of this approach on students’ learning. It also discusses the multiple forms of inquiry-based learn-
ing that have been documented in the literature to increase student involvement in their learning.
The chapter demonstrates the various types of inquiry-based learning that can be implemented to
drive the teaching process.
Inquiry-Based Learning:
Encouraging Exploration and
Curiosity in the Classroom
Ahmad Qablan
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2780-9796
United Arab Emirates University, UAE
Ahmed Alkaabi
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7220-8087
United Arab Emirates University, UAE
Mohammed Humaid Aljanahi
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9982-7179
United Arab Emirates University, UAE
Suhair A. Almaamari
Emirates Schools Establishment, UAE
2
Inquiry-Based Learning
INTRODUCTION
The constructivist view of learning profoundly influences our understanding of teaching and learning.
Tobin (1993) highlighted constructivism as a paradigm shift in educational thought, describing learning
as a dynamic, social process where learners actively constructed meaning based on their prior knowledge.
Social constructivism, further elaborated by Driver et al. (1994), emphasizes the essential role of social
settings in learning, which suggests that knowledge is constructed through interactions in educational
environments (Ullrich, 1999). Constructivists advocate for teaching methods that enable students to
connect their prior knowledge with new information, while considering their diverse backgrounds and
experiences in the process (Bullough, 1994; Ullrich, 1999). The adoption of constructivism and inquiry-
oriented teaching is widely supported by educators (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004; National Research
Council, 2000; Slavin, 1994; Stofflett & Stoddart, 1994). They argue that these methods stimulate stu-
dents’ conceptual understanding by encouraging them to build on their existing knowledge and actively
engage with new information, applying their learning in real-life contexts.
Despite varying interpretations of inquiry in education, many educators agree on its core elements.
As Howes et al. (2008) suggested, inquiry in the classroom involves “doing what scientists do.” This
view aligns with the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996), which
defined inquiry as:
A multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and other
sources of information to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already
known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze and interpret data; proposing
answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results. (p. 1)
The literature documents several benefits of inquiry-based teaching and learning. Lord and Ork-
wiszewski (2006) argued that it effectively improved students’ content knowledge, scientific process
skills (Deters, 2005; Hofstein et. al., 2004), attitudes toward learning, motivation (Tuan et al., 2005),
and communication skills (Deters, 2005).
ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF INQUIRY TEACHING
The inquiry process adopts a scientific methodology, beginning with the formulation of questions about
scientific phenomena and seeking answers to these queries. This approach enables learners to develop
various skills, including scientific skills like critical thinking and problem-solving, as well as commu-
nication skills encompassing collaboration and idea sharing. The literature highlights five key features
of science inquiry that aid students in understanding the methods scientists use to acquire knowledge
(National Research Council, 2000).
Learners are Engaged by Scientifically Oriented Questions
Scientific questions often stem from observations of objects, organisms, and events in nature. These
questions are central to inquiry, leading to empirical investigations and the use of data to explain in-
3
Inquiry-Based Learning
vestigated phenomena. Scientists typically recognize two primary types of inquiry questions: existence
questions, which include many “why” queries (e.g., Why do objects fall towards Earth? Why do humans
have chambered hearts?), and causal or functional questions that explore mechanisms, often phrased as
“how” questions (e.g., How does sunlight aid plant growth?).
In educational settings, many “why” questions can be reframed as “how” questions to facilitate
investigation and simplify answers. This refinement sharpens the focus of inquiry and makes it more
scientific. Classroom questions should be robust and engaging, and spark curiosity and the desire to
explore. These questions can arise from various sources, including learners, teachers, instructional ma-
terials, or digital platforms. The teacher’s role in refining and focusing students’ questions is crucial.
Effective inquiries emerge from questions that are meaningful, engaging, relevant, and investigable at
the students’ developmental and ability levels. Skilled teachers guide students in refining their questions,
which leads to both interesting and productive investigations.
Learners Prioritize Evidence to Develop and Evaluate Explanations
Learners focus on evidence to construct and assess explanations for scientifically oriented questions.
Credible scientific investigations hinge on empirical evidence as the foundation for developing valid
explanations about specific phenomena. Scientists prioritize obtaining accurate data from observations,
whether in natural settings like oceans or controlled environments like laboratories. They rely on their
senses and instruments that measure otherwise undetectable characteristics, such as magnetic fields.
Sometimes, scientists control conditions to gather evidence; other times, they observe under a variety
of natural conditions over extended periods to infer the influence of different factors (Darawsheh et
al,2023). The validity of evidence is ensured through repeated measurements and observations or by
collecting different data types related to the same phenomenon. This evidence is then subject to further
inquiry and scrutiny.
In classroom inquiries, students similarly use evidence to formulate explanations for the phenomena
they study. They might observe natural elements like plants, animals, and rocks, or social, economic,
and political phenomena, noting their characteristics and attributes. They measure temperature, distance,
and time, observe chemical reactions, Moon phases, and chart progress, or gather evidence from various
sources, including teachers, instructional materials, and the internet, to fuel their inquiries.
Learners Formulate Explanations from Evidence
Inquiry-based learning emphasizes the reliance on evidence to construct scientific explanations.
These explanations, grounded in reason, seek to provide causes for effects and establish relationships
based on evidence and logical argumentation. Consistency with experimental and observational
evidence about phenomena is paramount. Explanations must respect rules of evidence, be open to
criticism, and involve cognitive processes such as classification, analysis, inference, prediction,
critical reasoning, and logic. Explanations aim to make the unfamiliar understandable by relating
observations to existing knowledge. Thus, they extend beyond current understanding to propose
new insights. In science, this involves building upon the existing knowledge base to comprehend
unclear phenomena. For students, it means constructing new ideas based on their prior understand-
ing, which results in new knowledge.
4
Inquiry-Based Learning
Learners Evaluate Their Explanations Against Alternatives
A key feature of scientific inquiry is the evaluation, and sometimes revision or rejection, of explanations
in light of alternative views, especially those grounded in scientific understanding. Critical questions
include questions like: Does the evidence support the proposed explanation? Is the question adequately
addressed by the explanation? Are there biases or flaws in the reasoning linking evidence and explana-
tion? Can other plausible explanations be derived from the evidence? As students engage in dialogue,
compare results, and review their findings against teacher or instructional material suggestions, alterna-
tive explanations may emerge. An important aspect of this process is ensuring students connect their
findings with accepted scientific knowledge at a level appropriate to their developmental stage. Student
explanations should align with current scientific understanding.
Learners Communicate and Justify Their Proposed Explanations
In scientific communication, explanations are presented in a manner that allows for replication by others.
This involves clearly articulating the question, methods, evidence, proposed explanation, and consider-
ing potential alternatives, which fosters critical review and further application or questioning by other
scientists. Encouraging students to share their explanations allows others to pose new questions, scru-
tinize evidence, identify flawed reasoning, challenge unsupported assertions, and propose alternative
interpretations. This exchange can either question or reinforce the links students have made between
the evidence, existing scientific knowledge, and their explanations. Through this process, students can
address inconsistencies and strengthen their arguments based on empirical evidence.
LEVELS OF INQUIRY LEARNING
Structured Inquiry
At this foundational level, students are given specific questions to investigate, following set procedures
to collect and analyze data, which leads them to an answer for the initial inquiry question. Structured
inquiry is commonly employed in elementary classrooms, where students benefit from additional sup-
port and direction in their investigations.
Guided Inquiry
In guided inquiry, the teacher plays an active role in steering students through their inquiry process. This
involves assisting students in formulating investigable questions and contemplating appropriate experi-
mental designs to address these questions. This approach offers students more autonomy in question
formulation compared to structured inquiry and is typically used in middle school settings.
Open-Ended Inquiry
This advanced level of inquiry adopts a more flexible approach. Students are presented with a problem or
phenomenon to investigate, encouraged to generate their own questions, and design experiments to collect and
5
Inquiry-Based Learning
analyze data in response to these questions. Open-ended inquiry is often utilized in higher grade levels, where
students are more independent and encouraged to explore their interests through self-guided investigations.
BENEFITS OF INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING
Encourages Engaged Learning
Inquiry-based learning actively engages students, stimulating their interest and thinking. This heightened
engagement often leads to enhanced knowledge acquisition, skill development, and attitudinal growth.
Fosters Critical Thinking
This learning approach cultivates critical thinking skills as students engage in investigations. They are
encouraged to present and critique their findings among peers, thereby honing their problem-solving
and critical-thinking abilities.
Sparks Creativity
Inquiry-based learning nurtures students’ creativity. Given the freedom to explore their interests inde-
pendently, students frequently devise innovative solutions, especially in open-ended inquiry scenarios.
Enhances Problem-Solving Skills
The process of inquiry learning sharpens problem-solving skills. Confronting real-world problems,
students learn to think innovatively and devise creative solutions, which are invaluable skills for future
investigative endeavors.
Facilitates Understanding of Complex Topics
Inquiry learning aids in grasping complex subjects. Through unrestricted investigation of phenomena
of interest, students achieve deeper and more meaningful comprehension.
Improves Communication Skills
Engagement in inquiry learning enhances communication abilities. As students work on problems or
investigations, they often find themselves explaining their ideas, results, and analyses to others, which
refines their capacity to articulate their thoughts effectively.
Links Learning to Real-Life Contexts
Inquiry learning connects learners to real-world situations. As students explore issues relevant to their
environment, they perceive the applicability of classroom learning to real-world scenarios. This fosters
a more profound understanding of the concepts they explore.
6
Inquiry-Based Learning
CLASSROOM INQUIRY MODELS
STEM Teaching Model
STEM is an interdisciplinary educational approach that emphasizes hands-on, experiential learning to
prepare students for careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Ibrahim et al., 2023;
Qablan et al., 2023). This methodology, highlighted by Bataineh et al. (2022), aims to cultivate inquisitive
minds, logical reasoning, and collaborative skills. It often includes participation in university research
programs that allow students to actively contribute to the development of new technologies and pioneer-
ing research (Khalil et al., 2023). To maintain student engagement and enhance their understanding of
STEM subjects, educators are encouraged to employ a variety of teaching methods, each contributing
uniquely to the learning experience.
Engineering Design Process
The Engineering Design Process (EDP) is a structured approach for planning STEM lessons, involv-
ing a series of steps for problem-solving in project-based learning. This method promotes open-ended
designs, creativity, and practical solutions (Nguyen et al., 2021). The following are steps in the EDP
problem-solving approach:
Ask. Students are presented with a problem or project and asked to develop a product/design solution.
They start by asking critical questions about their task or desired creation.
Research. Students gather information about their project, utilizing resources like the internet, teacher
or expert consultations, STEM volunteers, laptops for research, or relevant videos.
Imagine. In teams, students brainstorm potential solutions. This collaborative stage ensures every
student contributes, with the teacher fostering a judgment-free environment for idea generation.
Plan. Teams select a solution and strategize its implementation, considering their initial questions,
research findings, and brainstormed ideas.
Create. Students build a prototype based on their plans. This phase allows for creativity and practical
application, which tests the functionality and adherence to original requirements.
Test. Students devise methods to evaluate their solutions’ effectiveness, assessing whether they address
the problem. Teachers can facilitate peer review discussions to promote deep thinking and collaboration.
Improve. The final step involves feedback and discussions on enhancements. Students then redesign
and refine their products and repeat this cycle until satisfied with the outcome.
The Inquiry Cycle Model
The 5E model, developed by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) (Bybee et al., 2006),
represents a constructivist approach to inquiry teaching and learning. It enhances students’ understanding
through hands-on experiences and is designed in a cyclical format. This model has gained widespread
adoption and adaptation among educators. The 5E instructional model is comprised of five phases: en-
gage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate. Throughout these stages, students collaboratively observe,
investigate, analyze, and draw conclusions. With the teacher serving more as a facilitator than a lecturer,
this model is particularly effective for integrated subjects like STEM. It encourages students to deeply
engage with and critically examine new concepts and ensures meaningful learning experiences. Stud-
7
Inquiry-Based Learning
ies have shown that the 5E model is more effective in helping students acquire scientific concepts than
traditional textbook-focused methods. The following sections detail the specific activities and objectives
of each phase in the 5E learning model.
Engagement
This initial phase draws students into the learning task by focusing their attention on a phenomenon,
object, problem, situation, or event. Activities connect to prior experiences and reveal misconceptions,
which create cognitive disequilibrium. Engagement methods include posing questions, defining problems,
presenting discrepant events, or simulating problematic situations. The teacher’s role is to introduce
the situation, define the instructional task, and establish rules and procedures. Successful engagement
stimulates and motivates students, and involves both mental and physical activity.
Exploration
Following engagement, students feel a need to explore ideas and test hypotheses. Exploration activities
provide common, concrete experiences for concept, process, and skill formulation. The cognitive dis-
equilibrium from the engagement phase is leveraged here to help students regain cognitive equilibrium.
Exploration aims to create experiences for later formal introduction and discussion of concepts, pro-
cesses, or skills. Students actively engage in exploring objects, events, or situations, thereby establishing
relationships, observing patterns, identifying variables, and questioning events. The teacher facilitates
and coaches these efforts and initiates activities that allow students to investigate based on their inter-
pretations of the phenomena.
Explanation
The explanation phase centers around students constructing answers to their inquiry questions using
data analysis. Students and teachers utilize terminology relevant to the concepts or phenomena being
studied. Here, the teacher first guides students to present their explanations and then introduces scien-
tific or technological explanations in a clear, direct, and formal way. This phase orders the exploration
experiences logically to respond to research questions. Teachers should build on students’ explanations
and link them to experiences from the engagement and exploration phases (Jandigulov et al,2023). The
objective is to present concepts, processes, or skills in a brief, straightforward, and clear manner before
progressing to the next phase. Various strategies are employed by teachers in this phase. They might
use verbal explanations, videos, films, or educational software to aid students in constructing their
explanations. This stage is crucial for organizing thoughts and providing terminology for explanations.
Ultimately, students should articulate their exploratory experiences using common terms.
Elaboration
In the elaboration phase, students apply their newly developed explanations and terminology to extended
learning experiences. This phase encourages the application of concepts, processes, or skills to new,
closely related situations. Sometimes, students may retain misconceptions or understand concepts only
in the context of their exploratory experiences. Elaboration activities offer additional experiences to
8
Inquiry-Based Learning
reinforce learning. Students engage in group discussions and information-seeking activities during this
phase. They present and defend their approaches, refine the task’s definition, and identify necessary
information for successful completion. Information sources include peers, teachers, printed materials,
experts, electronic databases, and their experiments to form an information base. These group discus-
sions enable students to elaborate on their task conception, information sources, and potential strategies.
Group interactions are vital in this phase as they provide opportunities for students to express their un-
derstanding and receive feedback from peers at similar comprehension levels. Elaboration also involves
introducing students to new situations and problems that require applying similar explanations, aiming
to generalize concepts, processes, and skills.
Evaluation
The evaluation phase is where students assess their understanding using their acquired skills. They should
also receive feedback on the adequacy of their explanations. Informal evaluation may occur throughout
the 5E cycle, with a more formal evaluation following the elaboration phase. As part of practical educa-
tional practice, teachers assess learning outcomes during this phase, using various assessments to gauge
each student’s understanding level.
Gather, Reason, Communicate (GRC) Framework
The Gather, Reason, Communicate (GRC) framework is a student-centric instructional approach designed
to help students comprehend phenomena across natural, social, economic, historical, and other domains
through scientific and engineering practices. This framework can be integrated into the 5E instructional
model’s lesson planning.
Gathering Stage
At this stage, instruction is centered around phenomena, engaging students in various science and
engineering practices such as questioning, investigation, qualitative observation, and quantitative data
recording. Students explore observable phenomena or events to collect evidence supporting scientific
explanations. Anchoring learning in observable phenomena aids students in making sense of real-world
observations. Essential observation skills, including inferring, measuring, communicating, predicting, and
classifying, are employed by scientists in their research. Students apply these skills to begin addressing
their questions about the observed phenomena.
Reasoning Stage
The reasoning stage in the GRC framework involves critical thinking practices. Here, students engage in
activities such as analyzing data, constructing evidence-based explanations, evaluating data collection
techniques, employing computational thinking, and developing explanations grounded in collected evi-
dence. They utilize key ideas and concepts from the previous stage to interpret data and construct reasoned
arguments, using models to explain natural phenomena and support their explanations with evidence.
9
Inquiry-Based Learning
Communicating Stage
In this stage, students articulate their explanations and arguments, both written and oral, to demonstrate
how their evidence substantiates their conclusions. They participate in a critical exchange of ideas,
offering and receiving feedback on their explanations, and citing relevant evidence and reasoning. Ad-
ditionally, students employ models to convey their thought processes and make their reasoning visible,
which enhances communication and understanding of their scientific arguments.
LIMITATIONS AND CAVEATS
While the merits of inquiry-based learning are significant, it is equally important to recognize its limi-
tations and challenges. These include practical difficulties in implementation, a deficit in specialized
curricula and adequate teacher training, and the considerable psychological burden on educators (Khalaf
& Zin, 2018). Moreover, unique cultural aspects of inquiry-based learning and varying stakeholder ex-
pectations (Dai et al., 2012) add to its complexity. The time-intensive nature of this approach may not
always align with established academic assessment cycles, which poses additional logistical challenges
for schools (Khalaf & Zin, 2018). Successful implementation is contingent upon comprehensive teacher
training and adequate school investment (Alkaabi, 2023; Alkaabi et al., 2023; Alkaabi & Almaamari,
2020; Almaktoum & Alkaabi, 2024). This training might include mentorship programs where experienced
teachers guide novices and formal training sessions, which are essential for teacher upskilling despite
their costs. Inquiry-based learning will have a profound impact when it becomes a normative practice
in the school, greatly influencing overall school performance. This norm can be established with the
support of the administrative team and the school community staff (Al-Zoubi et al., 2023). Finally, the
considerable psychological demands placed on teachers, who play a pivotal role in facilitating student
inquiry and deep engagement, can lead to increased stress and a higher risk of burnout.
REFERENCES
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, A., Hofstein, A.,
Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives.
Science Education, 88(3), 397–419. doi:10.1002/sce.10118
Al-Zoubi, Z., Qablan, A., Issa, H. B., Bataineh, O., & AlKaabi, A. M. (2023). The degree of implemen-
tation of total quality management in universities and its relationship to the level of community service
from the perspectives of faculty members. Sustainability (Basel), 15(3), 2404. doi:10.3390/su15032404
Alkaabi A, Qablan A, Alkatheeri F, Alnaqbi A, Alawlaki M, Alameri L, et al. (2023) Experiences of
university teachers with rotational blended learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative case
study. PLoS ONE, 18(10), e0292796. https://doi.org/. pone.0292796 doi:10.1371/journal
Alkaabi, A., Qablan, A., Alkatheeri, F., Alnaqbi, A., Alawlaki, M., & Alameri, L. (2023) Experiences
of university teachers with rotational blended learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative
case study. PLoS ONE, 18(10), e0292796. https://doi.org/. pone.0292796 doi:10.1371/journal
10
Inquiry-Based Learning
Alkaabi, A. M. (2021). A qualitative multi-case study of supervision in the principal evaluation process
in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1–28. doi:10.1080/13
603124.2021.2000032
Alkaabi, A. M. (2023). Designing Enduring and Impactful Professional Development to Support Teacher
Growth. In S. Chakravarti (Ed.), Innovations in Teacher Development, Personalized Learning, and Up-
skilling the Workforce (pp. 1–23). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-5518-0.ch001
Alkaabi, A. M. (2023). Revitalizing Supervisory Models in Education: Integrating Adult Learning
Theories and Stage Theories for Enhanced Teaching and Learning Outcomes. In A. Abdallah & A. Al-
kaabi (Eds.), Restructuring Leadership for School Improvement and Reform (pp. 253–277). IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-7818-9.ch013
Alkaabi, A. M., & Almaamari, S. A. (2020). Supervisory feedback in the principal evaluation process.
International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(3), 503–509. doi:10.11591/ijere.
v9i3.20504
Almaktoum, S. B., & Alkaabi, A. M. (2024). Exploring Teachers’ Experiences Within the Teacher Evalu-
ation Process: A Qualitative Multi-Case Study. Cogent Education. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2023.2287931
Badawy, H. R., & Alkaabi, A. M. (2023). From Datafication to School Improvement: The Promise and
Perils of Data-Driven Decision Making. In A. Abdallah & A. Alkaabi (Eds.), Restructuring Leadership
for School Improvement and Reform (pp. 301–325). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-7818-9.ch015
Bataineh, O., Qablan, A., Belbase, S., Takriti, R., & Tairab, H. (2022). Gender disparity in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs at Jordanian universities. Sustainability
(Basel), 14(21), 14069. doi:10.3390/su142114069
Bullough, R. V. (1994). Personal history and teaching metaphors: A self-study of teaching as conversa-
tion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21(1), 107–120.
Bybee, R., Taylor, J., Gardner, A., Scotter, P., Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS
5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. BSCS.
Dai, D. Y., Gerbino, K. A., & Daley, M. J. (2011). Inquiry-based learning in China: Do teachers practice
what they preach, and why? Frontiers of Education in China, 6(1), 139–157. doi:10.1007/s11516-011-
0125-3
Darawsheh, S. R., Al-Shaar, A. S., Alshurideh, M., Alomari, N. A., Elsayed, A. M., Abdallah, A. K., &
Alkhasawneh, T. (2023). The Relation Between Creative Leadership and Crisis Management Among
Faculty Members at Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University in Light of the Corona Pandemic from
the Perspective of Department Heads. The Effect of Information Technology on Business and Marketing
Intelligence Systems. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-12382-5_83
Deters, K. M. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based labs. Journal of Chemical Education,
82(8), 1178–1180. doi:10.1021/ed082p1178
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in
the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. doi:10.2307/1176933
11
Inquiry-Based Learning
Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities
to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study. International Journal of Science
Education, 26, 47–62. doi:10.1080/0950069032000070342
Howes, E., Lim, M., & Campos, J. (2008). Journeys into inquiry-based elementary science: Literacy
practices, questioning, and empirical study. Science Education, 93(2), 189–221. doi:10.1002/sce.20297
Ibrahim, H. R., Alghfeli, A. H., Alnuaimi, F. S., Alshamsi, N. N., & Alkaabi, A. M. (2023). STEM and
Leadership in the Future: A Path to Innovation, Sustainability, and Entrepreneurship. In A. Abdallah &
A. Alkaabi (Eds.), Restructuring Leadership for School Improvement and Reform (pp. 420–439). IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-7818-9.ch021
Jandigulov, A., Abdallah, A. K., Tikhonova, Y., & Gorozhanina, E. (2023). Management and leader-
ship in online learning. Education and Information Technologies, 28(10), 13423–13437. doi:10.1007/
s10639-023-11699-4
Khalaf, B. K., & Mohammed Zin, Z. B. (2018). Traditional and inquiry-based learning pedagogy: A sys-
tematic critical review. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 545–564. doi:10.12973/iji.2018.11434a
Khalil, R. Y., Tairab, H., Qablan, A., Alarabi, K., & Mansour, Y. (2023). STEM-Based Curriculum
and Creative Thinking in High School Students. Education Sciences, 13(12), 1195. doi:10.3390/educ-
sci13121195
Lord, T., & Orkwiszewski, T. (2006). Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science
laboratory. The American Biology Teacher, 68(6), 342–345. doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2006)68[342:DT
IIIA]2.0.CO;2
Moulding, B., Bybee, R., & Paulson, N. (2015). A vision and plan for science teaching and learning.
Essential Teaching and Learning Publications.
National Research Council. (1996). The National Science Education Standards. The National Academies
Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. National
Academy Press.
Nguyen, Q. L., & Le, T. T. H. (2021). Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1835, 012051.
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012051
Qablan, A., Alblooshi, K. M., & Alkaabi, F. A. (2023). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)
and School Leadership. In A. Abdallah & A. Alkaabi (Eds.), Restructuring Leadership for School Im-
provement and Reform (pp. 378–398). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-7818-9.ch019
Slavin, R. (1994). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
So, W. W.-M. (2002). Constructivist teaching in primary science. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learn-
ing and Teaching, 3(1). http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v3_issue1/sowm/
12
Inquiry-Based Learning
Stofflett, R. T., & Stoddart, T. (1994). The ability to understand and use conceptual change pedagogy as
a function of prior content learning experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 31–51.
doi:10.1002/tea.3660310105
Tobin, K. (1993). Referents for making sense of science teaching. International Journal of Science
Education, 15(3), 241–254. doi:10.1080/0950069930150302
Tuan, H. L., Chin, C. C., Tsai, C. C., & Cheng, S. F. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry
instruction on the motivation of different learning styles students. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 3(4), 541–566. doi:10.1007/s10763-004-6827-8
Ullrich, W. (1999). Integrative teacher education curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the National Middle School Association, Orlando, FL.