Abstract
Inquiry-based science education (IBSE) has been proposed as a framework for conceptualizing the priorities and values of authentic science teaching and learning. The main features of this framework include active pupil engagement in the learning process with emphasis on supporting knowledge claims with observations, experiences or complementary sources of credible evidence; tackling of authentic and problem-based learning activities; consistent practice and development of the skills of systematic observation, questioning, planning and recording with a purpose to obtain credible evidence; committed participation in collaborative group work, peer interaction, construction of discursive argumentation and communication with others as the main process of learning; and the development of autonomy and self-regulation through experience as important goals of learning. IBSE has also been misconstrued as a teaching method for better engaging students or as scaffolding structure for designing learning environments. In this chapter, we will first elaborate on these distinctions and will discuss the implications for science education reform. We will present an overview of the educational policy priorities that have been formulated at European level for IBST/L, and we will discuss the opportunities and constraints that these efforts have generated for science education and science teacher professional development across European contexts. The chapter provides a framing text for the case studies in the remainder of the book. As such, it identifies issues and sets the tone for what follows, alerting the reader to both the problematics and the unavoidable complexity that emerge from efforts to highlight broad educational objectives at a level that is far removed from student and teacher experience as well as local societal priorities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Open and guided inquiry can be also defined as: “Guided-inquiry laboratories are experiments in which students follow experimental directions, gather data on certain specified variables, and through the analysis process establish relationships among the variables from their own data. Open-inquiry laboratories are experiments in which students design and perform their own procedures to investigate a question. Open-inquiry laboratories apply the relationships previously developed via guided-inquiry activities in a new setting or examine a new aspect of that relationship” (Chatterjee, Williamson, McCann, & Peck, 2009).
References
Alisinanoglu, F., Inan, H. Z., Ozbey, S., & Usak, M. (2012). Early childhood teacher candidates qualifications in science teaching. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B, 4, 373–390.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform – Project 2061: Chapter 8: Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bfr/online/blpintro.htm
Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding students’ experiments—What kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2719–2749.
Ausubel, D. P. (1961). Learning by discovery: Rationale and mystique. The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 45(269), 18–58.
Ausubel, D. P. (2012). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media.
Baker, W. P., & Leyva, K. (2003). What variables affect solubility? Science Activities, 40, 23–26.
Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 265–278.
Beck, I. L. (1997). Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Order Department, International Reading Association, 800 Barksdale Road, PO Box 8139, Newark, DE 19714-8139.
Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, P. C., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., Karikorpi, M., Lazoudis, A., Casulleras, R. P., Welzel-Breuer, M. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. EU 26893, European Commission.
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536–553.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577–616.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory ad classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding ‘a framework for K-12 science education’. Science Teacher, 78(9), 34–40.
Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist approaches to learning in science and their implication for science pedagogy: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 3(4), 193–206.
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). (2008). Assessment for learning: Formative assessment. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40600533.pdf
Chatterjee, S., Williamson, V. M., McCann, K., & Peck, M. L. (2009). Surveying students’ attitudes and perceptions toward guided-inquiry and open-inquiry laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(12), 1427.
Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44.
Corbett, C. (2014). Change in science teacher practice towards IBSE. Doctoral dissertation, Dublin City University.
de Jong, T. (2006a). Computer simulations – Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532–533.
de Jong, T. (2006b). Scaffolds for computer simulation based scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Dealing with complexity in learning environments (pp. 107–128). London: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1996). Essays. In L. Hickman (Ed.), Collected work of John Dewey, 1882–1953: The electronic edition. Charlottesville, VA: InteLex Corporation.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568.
Dolin, J., & Evans, R. (Eds.). (2017). Transforming assessment: Through an interplay between practice, research and policy. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Some features of children’s ideas and their implications for teaching. Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450.
Engeln, K., Mikelskis-Seifert, S., & Euler, M. (2014). Inquiry-based mathematics and science education across Europe: A synopsis of various approaches and their potentials. In Topics and trends in current science education (pp. 229–242). Dordrecht The Netherlands: Springer.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.
Filipiak, E. (2011). Z Wygotskim i Brunerem w tle: Słownik pojęć kluczowych. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego.
Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453–467.
Gardner, J. (2010). Developing teacher assessment. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105.
Gibson, H. L. (1998). Case studies of an inquiry-based science programs’ impact on students’ attitude towards science and interest in science careers.
Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B., & Armstrong, N. (2009). Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 16.
Grangeat, M. (2016). Dimensions and modalities of inquiry-based teaching: Understanding the variety of practices. Education Inquiry, 7(4), 29863.
Hancock, C., Kaput, J. J., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1992). Authentic inquiry with data: Critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27, 337–364.
Harlen, W. (2013). Assessment & inquiry-based science education: Issues in policy and practice. Trieste, Italy: Global Network of Science Academies.
Haury, D. L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. ERIC CSMEE Digest, March. (ED 359 048).
Hayes, M. T. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers’ struggles to define inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 147–165.
Hess, A. J., & Trexler, C. J. (2005). Constructivist teaching: Developing constructivist approaches to the agricultural education class. Agricultural Education Magazine, 77, 12–13.
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.
Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 85–142.
Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1996). A learner-centered tool for students building models. Communication of the ACM, 39(4), 4849.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Kirschner, P. A. (1991). Practicals in higher science education. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Lemma.
Kirschner, P. A. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science & Education, 1(3), 273–299.
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(2), 75–86.
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.
Klus-Stańska. (2000). Konstruowanie wiedzy w szkole. Wyd. Uniwersytetu Warmińsko – Mazurskiego, Olsztyn.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 313–350.
Kyza, E. A., Constantinou, C. P., & Spanoudis, G. (2011). Sixth graders’ co-construction of explanations of a disturbance in an ecosystem: Exploring relationships between grouping, reflective scaffolding, and evidence-based explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2489–2525.
Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2004). Specific design principles: Elaborating the scaffolded knowledge integration framework. In M. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 315–339). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Hsi, S. (1998). Using the internet to enhance student understanding of science: The knowledge integration environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1–2), 4–38.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Inquiry and technology. In Internet environments for science education (pp. 3–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049–1050.
Linn, M. C., Pea, R. D., & Songer, N. B. (1994). Can research on science learning and instruction inform standards for science education? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(1), 7–15.
Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B., & Eylon, B. S. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. In Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 438–490). Riverside, NJ: Macmillan.
Looney, J. W. (2011). Integrating formative and summative assessment: Progress toward a seamless system? (OECD Education Working Papers No. 58). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/5kghx3kbl734-en
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 226–232.
Michalak, R. (2004). Aktywizowanie ucznia w edukacji wczesnoszkolnej, Wyd. Naukowe UAM, Poznań.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
Monteira, S. F., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2016). The practice of using evidence in kindergarten: The role of purposeful observation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1232–1258.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
OECD. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: OECD Publishing and Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.
Osborne, J. (2006). Towards a science education for all: The role of ideas, evidence and argument. In Proceedings of the ACER conference: Boosting science learning – What will it take? Camberwell, VIC: ACER.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2013). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Penner, D. E., Giles, N. D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 125–143.
Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36, 14–20.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337–387.
Rissing, S. W., & Cogan, J. G. (2009). Can an inquiry approach improve college student learning in a teaching laboratory? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 8(1), 55–61.
Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Rocard report: “Science education now: A new pedagogy for the future of Europe”. EU 22845, European Commission.
Saari, H., & Viiri, J. (2003). A research-based teaching sequence for teaching the concept of modelling to seventh-grade students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1333–1352.
Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137–1160.
Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131–166.
Schroeder, C., Scott, T., Tolson, H., Huang, T., & Lee, Y. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436–1460.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. The Educational Record, 43, 197–205.
Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.
Sewell, A. (2002). Constructivism and student misconceptions: Why every teacher needs to know about them. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48, 24–28.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W. C., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 387–404.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1971). The psychology of art (Scripta Technica, Inc., Trans.). Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press (Original work published 1925).
Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72, 131–175.
Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 321–341.
Zoller, U. (2011). Science and technology education in the STES context in primary schools: What should it take? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 444–453.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Constantinou, C.P., Tsivitanidou, O.E., Rybska, E. (2018). What Is Inquiry-Based Science Teaching and Learning?. In: Tsivitanidou, O., Gray, P., Rybska, E., Louca, L., Constantinou, C. (eds) Professional Development for Inquiry-Based Science Teaching and Learning. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91406-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91406-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-91405-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-91406-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)