Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Transforming Assessment pp 27–52Cite as

The Teaching and Assessment of Inquiry Competences

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Contributions from Science Education Research ((CFSE,volume 4))

Abstract

New competence-oriented learning goals can only be sustainably implemented if they are aligned with teaching and assessment goals. Within the fields of science, technology and mathematics education, one approach of competence-oriented teaching is based on the concept of inquiry-based education. Scientific inquiry in science, problem solving in mathematics, design processes in technology and innovation as a cross-curricular approach to teaching and learning that is emphasised as a key element of twenty-first-century skills allow students to engage in the thinking and working processes of scientists. By applying these approaches, teachers can address subject-specific as well as generic competences (e.g. investigation in science as a subject-specific competence vs. argumentation or communication as more generic competences). Since what is assessed strongly influences what is taught, changes in teaching need to be accompanied by changes in assessment in order to be sustainable. Teaching and learning goals need to be aligned, and assessment methods developed that allow for the assessment of competences related to scientific inquiry, mathematical problem solving or design and innovation processes. This chapter aims to provide a short overview about these inquiry-based approaches in the teaching and learning of science, technology, mathematics and innovation. Following a short introduction, the chapter consists of four subsections devoted to scientific inquiry, mathematical problem solving, design processes and innovation. Each subsection addresses three basic questions: (1) How is the construct defined and conceptualised? (2) How does teaching for inquiry change teaching? (3) What changes in assessment are necessary to assess inquiry competences?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abd El Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R. A., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Johnson, D., & Wiliam, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy. London: King’s College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, S. (1999). Key factors influencing pupil motivation in design and technology. Journal of Technology Education, 10(2), 4–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., & Awad, N. (2008). Learning processes in information system design. Paper presented at the PATT 20: Critical issues in technology education, Tel Aviv, Israel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. In L. Darling-Hammond, B. Barron, P. D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld, E. K. Stage, T. D. Zimmermann, … (Eds.), Powerful Learning. What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J. L., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. E. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Dordrecht/New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botleng, V. J., Brunel, S., & Girard, P. (2016). The digital fabrication laboratories (Fab labs) platform: A dynamic hands-on, minds-on and hearts-on approach to augment STEM education activities and 21st century skills. Paper presented at the PATT 32: Technology education for 21st century skills, Utrecht, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, J., Jablonka, E., & Olley, C. (2016). A firm foundation or shifting sands: Mathematisation and evaluation strategies. In G. Wake et al. (Eds.), Modelling perspectives: Looking in and across boundaries. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. (2011). Scaffolding strategies for integrating engineering design and scientific inquiry in project-based learning environments. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.), Fostering human development through engineering and technology education (pp. 235–256). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Basic Education. (2011). Curriculum and assessment policy statement: Grades 7–9 technology. Republic of South Africa: Department of Basic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • DES/WO. (1988). National Curriculum Design and technology working group interim report. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Design Commission. (2011). Restarting britain, design education and growth. London: Policy Connect.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, P. (2007). Sociology as method: Departures from the forensics of culture, text and knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2004). Increasing human resources for science and technology in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, J., Harlen, W., Hayward, L., Stobart, G., & Montgomery, M. (2010). Developing teacher assessment. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadfield, M. (1995). Das kupfer-problem [the copper problem]. ChemKon, 2(3), 103–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (2007). The quality of learning: Assessment alternatives for primary education, Primary review research survey 3/4. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, A., & Coll, R. K. (2010). Authentic student inquiry: The mismatch between the intended curriculum and the student-experienced curriculum. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: International Technology Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs, T. (2010). Educational assessment in England. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(3), 315–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. V., Kimbell, R. A., Patterson, V. J., Saxton, J., & Stables, K. (1987). Design and technology: A framework for assessment. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, J. H., & Galvan, P. M. (2007). Inquiry in action: Investigating matter through inquiry. A project of the American Chemical Society Education Division, Office of K–8 Science: American Chemical Society. Retrieved from http://www.inquiry-inaction.org/ download/. Accessed 19 Sept 2016.

  • Kimbell. (2012). Evolving project e-scape for national assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 135–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., & Stables, K. (2007). Researching design learning: Issues and findings from two decades of research and development (Hardback ed.). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wozniak, A., & Kelly, A. V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. London: SEAC/HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., Miller, S., Bain, J., Wright, R., Wheeler, T., & Stables, K. (2004). Assessing design innovation: A research and development project for the Department for Education & skills (DfES) and the qualifications and curriculum authority (QCA). London: Goldsmiths, University of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., Wheeler, T., Stables, K., Shepard, T., Martin, F., Davies, D., et al. (2009). E-scape portfolio assessment: A research & development project for the Department of Children, families and schools, phase 3 report. London: Goldsmiths, University of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T., & Zuga, K. (2005). A conceptual framework of ideas and issues in technology education. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maaß, K., & Artigue, M. (2013). Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching: A synthesis. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 779–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maaß, K., & Doorman, M. (2013). A model for a widespread implementation of inquiry-based learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 887–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, S. V. (2007). An international overview of assessment issues in technology education: Disentangling the influences, confusion and complexities. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 10–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, S. V. (2012). Assessment is for learning: Supporting feedback. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 227–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, C., Reese, G., & Daugherty, J. (2010). Mathematics education. In J. Ritz & P. Reed (Eds.), Research in technology education: 59th yearbook of the Council on technology teacher education (Vol. 59, pp. 172–191). Muncie: CTTE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (2011). What’s wrong with DT? London: RSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2010). Technology curriculum support. Wellington: techlink.org.nz..

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Barlex, D. (2008). Design and technology inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the design and technology classroom. London: GL Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2015a). Assessment of innovation competency: A thematic analysis of upper secondary school teachers’ talk. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(4), 318–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2015b). Rapport fra arbejdsgruppe for prøveformer der tester innovationskompetencer i gymnasiet [report from the working group on testing innovation competency in high school]. Copenhagen: Department of Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A., & Holmegaard, H. T. (2015). Innovation and employability: Moving beyond the buzzwords - a theoretical lens to improve chemistry education. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Relevant chemistry education – From theory to practice (pp. 317–334). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niss, M. (2015). Modelling as a mathematical competency: A paradox? In G. Kaiser & H.-W. Henn (Eds.), Werner blum und seine Beiträge zum modellieren im mathematikunterricht, Realitätsbezüge im mathematikunterricht [Werner blum and his contributions to modeling in mathematics instruction, relations to reality in mathematics instruction] (pp. 269–276). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niss, M., & Højgaard, T. (2011). Competencies and mathematical learning: Ideas and inspiration for the development of teaching and learning in Denmark (IMFUFA tekst). Roskilde: Roskilde University.

    Google Scholar 

  • NWSEB. (1970). A course of study in design. Manchester: North Western Secondary School Examinations Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do (volume I, revised edition, february 2014). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ofsted. (2002). Secondary subject reports 2000/01: Design and technology. London: Department for Education and Employment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofsted. (2011). Meeting technological challenges? Design and technology in schools 2007–2010. London: Ofsted.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofsted. (2012). Making a mark: Art, craft and design education 2008/11. London: Ofsted.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, A. (2012). Comparative judgment for assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 157–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ropohl, M., Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Köller, O. (2013). Report from the FP7 project: Assess inquiry in science, technology and mathematics education. A definition of inquiry-based STM education and tools for measuring the degree of IBE [deliverable D2.5]. Copenhagen: ASSIST-ME project. Retrieved from http://assistme.ku.dk/project/workpackages/wp2 131015_del_2_5_IPN.pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2016.

  • Schoenfeld, A. H., & Kilpatrick, J. (2013). A US perspective on the implementation of inquiry-based learning in mathematics. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6), 901–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schools Council. (1975). Education through design and craft: Schools Council design and craft education project. London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seery, N., Canty, D., & Phelan, P. (2012). The validity and value of peer assessment using adaptive comparative judgement in design driven practical education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. (2011). An approach to testing and modeling competence. Paper presented at the Bad Honnef Conference on Teachers’ Professional Knowledge, Bad Honnef, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shayer, M., & Adhami, M. (2007). Fostering cognitive development through the context of mathematics: Results of the CAME project. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 265–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snape, P., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2013). Perspectives of authenticity: Implementation in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 51–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spendlove, D., & Hopper, M. (2006). Using ‘electronic portfolios’ to challenge current orthodoxies in the presentation of an initial teacher training design and technology activity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(2), 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stables, K. (2013). Social and cultural relevance in approaches to developing designerly well-being: The potential and challenges when learners call the shots in Design and Technology projects. Paper presented at the PATT 27: Technology education for the future: A play on sustainability, Christchurch, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stables, K., Dagan, O., & Davies, D. (2015). Blended learning and assessment through dynamic digital portfolios: The e-scape approach. In S. Koç, X. Liu, & P. Wachira (Eds.), Assessment in online and blended learning environments. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stables, K., Kimbell, R., Wheeler, T., & Derrick, K. (2016). Lighting the blue touch paper: Design talk that provokes learners to think more deeply and broadly about their project work. Paper presented at the PATT 32: Technology education for 21st century skills, Utrecht, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strimel, G. (2015). Cognitive processes as indicators for student aptitude in engineering design. Paper presented at the PATT 29: Plurality and complementarity of approaches in design and technology education, Marseille, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull, W. (2002). The place of authenticity in technology in the New Zealand curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(2), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz-Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (IPN), Kiel, Germany

    Silke Rönnebeck & Mathias Ropohl

  2. Kiel University, Kiel, Germany

    Silke Rönnebeck

  3. Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Jan Alexis Nielsen

  4. King’s College London, London, UK

    Christopher Olley

  5. Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK

    Kay Stables

Authors
  1. Silke Rönnebeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Alexis Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher Olley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mathias Ropohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kay Stables
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silke Rönnebeck .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Jens Dolin

  2. Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Robert Evans

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rönnebeck, S., Nielsen, J.A., Olley, C., Ropohl, M., Stables, K. (2018). The Teaching and Assessment of Inquiry Competences. In: Dolin, J., Evans, R. (eds) Transforming Assessment. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63248-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63248-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63247-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63248-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation