High School Teachers’ Perceptions Regarding Inquiry-Based Science Curriculum in the United States, Georgia, and Israel

  • Alia Sheety
  • Marika Kapanadze
  • Fadeel Joubran
Part of the Intercultural Studies in Education book series (ISE)


This study explores high school science teachers’ perceptions and current practices of inquiry-based science curriculum and the challenges facing teachers in implementing such a curriculum in three different countries—the Georgia, Israel, and the United States—as a means of identifying instructional barriers to implementation that may be hampering widespread adoption. Science is a discipline in which curriculum designers draw topics from a similar database. Teachers’ perception and practices could reflect global trends as well as the unique characteristics of each of the countries. Data for this qualitative study were collected from 15 high school science teachers in each of the three countries using semi-structured interviews. The findings indicate a gap between teachers’ desire and capacity to effectively implement an inquiry-based science curriculum. Common barriers to implementation mentioned by teachers in the three countries included a lack of time, official exams, and class size. Other country-specific reasons included lack of materials in the Georgian language or English language barriers in highly diverse classrooms in the United States. In order to make changes in the curriculum and create more opportunities for implementing an inquiry-based science curriculum, all obstacles identified by teachers should be taken into consideration. Potential interventions could include professional development, mentoring, and developing assessment tools for inquiry-based implementation.


Inquiry-based science curriculum Teachers’ perceptions High school science education 


  1. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCD. (2016). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  3. Blessinger, P., & Carfora, J. (2015). Innovative approaches in teaching and learning: An introduction to inquiry-based learning for multidisciplinary programs. In P. Blessinger & J. Carfora (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for multidisciplinary programs (1st ed., pp. 3–22). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Cullen, R., Harris, M., & Hill, R. (2012). The learner-centered curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Day, J., Foley, L., Groeneweg, R., & Mast, C. (2004). Enhancing the classroom learning experience with web lecture. Georgia Institute of Technology, GVU Technical Report, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  6. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Doyle, T. (2011). Learner centered teaching, putting the research on learning into practice. Sterling: Stylus Publishing, LLC.Google Scholar
  8. Ebert, E. S., II, Ebert, C., & Bentley, M. L. (2013). The educator’s field guide. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  9. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freire, P. (1970). The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  11. Jones, L. (2007). The student centered classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kanter, D. E., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The impact of a project-based science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry-based practices. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from
  13. Kapanadze, M., Janashia, S., & Eilks, I. (2010). From science education in the soviet time, via national reform initiatives, towards an international network to support inquiry-based science education – The case of Georgia and the project SALiS. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Contemporary science education (pp. 237–242). Aachen: Shaker.Google Scholar
  14. Lalor, A. (2016). Ensuring high-quality curriculum: How to design, revise, or adopt curriculum aligned to student success. Published by The Association for Supervision & Curriculum (ASCD).Google Scholar
  15. Martin-Kniep, G. (1999). Capturing the wisdom of practice: Professional portfolio for educators. Published by The Association for Supervision & Curriculum (ASCD) Development.Google Scholar
  16. MED(a) – Ministry of Education of Israel. (2013). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from
  17. MED(b) – Ministry of Education of Israel. Retrieved November 20, 2016., from
  18. MES – Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia. Retrieved November 16, 2016., from
  19. Miller, S. (2016). Implementations of the 4Cs of 21st century learning skills within the blended coaching model. A doctoral dissertation completed at Brandon University. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. 10119299.Google Scholar
  20. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science edcuation standards 1996. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from:
  21. NAEC – National Assessment and Examinations Centre. Retrieved September 15, 2016., from
  22. NCP – The Portal of National Curriculum. Retrieved September 15, 2016., from
  23. NGSS – Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved October 22, 2016., from
  24. NSES – National Science Education Standards. Retrieved October 10, 2016., from
  25. PDE – Pennsylvania Department of Education.
  26. SDP – School District of Philadelphia.
  27. Sheety, A., & Rademacher, N. (2015). Inquiry-based learning as foundational pedagogical tool for critical examination of social justice in theory and practice. In P. Blessinger & J. Carfora (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for multidisciplinary programs (1st ed., pp. 119–137). Bingley: Emerald, Pages.Google Scholar
  28. Shope, F., & McComas, W. (2015, October 13). Modeling scientific inquiry to guide students in the practices of science: The ED3U teaching model of conceptual change in action. In Inquiry-Based Learning for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Programs: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators, pp. 217–240. Permanent link to this document:  10.1108/S2055-364120150000004013. Retrieved April 26, 2016, At: 08:16 (PT).
  29. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Slovinsky, E. (2012, August). SALiS and educational policy in Georgia. Proceedings of the student active learning in science final conference, Tbilisi.Google Scholar
  31. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills; learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint.Google Scholar
  32. Tyler, R. (1957). The curriculum then and now. Proceedings of the 1956 invitational conference on testing problems. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  33. USDE – United States Department of Education. Overview mission. Retrieved October 16, 2016., from
  34. WDE – World Data on Education, VII ED. (2010/2011). Retrieved September 15, 2016., from
  35. Weimer, M. (2002). Learner centered teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  36. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alia Sheety
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marika Kapanadze
    • 3
  • Fadeel Joubran
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Cabrini UniversityRadnorUSA
  2. 2.Walden UniversityMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Ilia State UniversityTbilisiGeorgia
  4. 4.Arab Academic College of EducationHaifaIsrael
  5. 5.Oranim Academic College of EducationKiryat Tiv’onIsrael

Personalised recommendations