Abstract
In this paper, we analyse the conditions and constraints which might favour, or on the contrary hinder, a large-scale implementation of inquiry-based mathematics and science education, on the basis of our work within the PRIMAS project in 12 European countries. As a complement to the approach through the analysis of teachers’ beliefs and practices (see Engeln et al. in ZDM Int J Math Educ 45(6), this issue, 2013), we tackle this issue from a systemic institutional perspective. Indeed, in our approach, we consider teachers as actors of institutions, representing some disciplines, embedded in a school system, sharing some common pedagogical issues, in relation to society. Our sources of information are easily accessible public documents. With a theoretical background from Chevallard’s anthropological theory of didactics, we organized our analysis according to four levels of institutional organization that co-determine both content and didactical aspects in the teaching of mathematics and sciences: society, school, pedagogy and disciplinary. Our approach is systemic in the sense that we do not focus on teachers as individuals, nor on the curricula, the organization of teachers’ training or the textbooks themselves. Rather, we trace the way the conditions and constraints are operative, provide the main results of our analysis and draw out a few perspectives according to our four levels of didactical determination. Finally, in the conclusion, we reflect on the limits and potential of our analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Cyprus, Denmark, England, Germany, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland.
Some key reports on the ATD can be found at http://yves.chevallard.free.fr. Also Bosch and Gascón (2006) offer a reconstruction of the evolution of the theory from the didactic transposition on.
One may be surprised to not see a level devoted to didactics, but this is included in the level of the discipline and in its interaction with the level of pedagogy. Within the model of ATD, it is not possible to separate the knowledge (mathematics or sciences) from the way it is taught (didactics); they are both sides of a same coin.
OJ L 394, 30.12.2006.
Data extracted from Hiebert et al. (2003).
Data extracted from OECD (2009).
The TALIS report shows a clear contradiction between teachers’ beliefs about teaching (more constructivist-oriented) and their current teaching practices (more structured than student-centred).
The validity of these statements (both in the case of primary and secondary teachers) is restricted to the training programs PRIMAS researchers and NCP members are familiar with.
References
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Bosch, M., & Gascón, J. (2006). Twenty-five years of the didactic transposition. ICMI Bulletin, 58, 51–63.
Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique—Du savoir savant au savoir enseigné. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage (second version revised and augmented published in 1991).
Chevallard, Y. (1992a). Concepts fondamentaux de la didactique: Perspectives apportées par une approche anthropologique. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 12(1), 73–112.
Chevallard, Y. (1992b). Fundamental concepts in didactics: Perspectives provided by an anthropological approach. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, special issue, 131–167.
Chevallard, Y. (2002). Organiser l’étude. 3. Écologie & régulation. In J. L. Dorier, M. Artaud, M. Artigue, R. Berthelot, & R. Floris (Eds.), Actes de la 11e école d’été de didactique des mathématiques (pp. 41–56). Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.
Chevallard, Y. (2006). Steps towards a new epistemology in mathematics education. In M. Bosch, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 4). http://ermeweb.free.fr/CERME4. Accessed 8 May 2013.
Chevallard, Y. (2011). La notion d’ingénierie didactique, un concept à refonder. Questionnement et éléments de réponse à partir de la TAD. In C. Margolinas, M. Abboud-Blanchard, L. Bueno-Ravel, N. Douek, A. Fluckiger, P. Gibel, et al. (Eds.), En amont et en aval des ingénieries didactiques. La Pensée Sauvage: Grenoble.
Deters, K. M. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(8), 1178–1180.
Dorier, J.-L., & Maaß, K. (2012). Inquiry-based mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Heidelberg: Springer. http://www.springerreference.com/index/chapterdbid/335725. Accessed 8 May 2013.
Engeln, K., Euler, M., & Maass, K. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in mathematics and science: A comparative baseline study of teachers’ beliefs and practices across 12 European countries. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6). doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0507-5.
Feldon, D. F., Timmerman, B. C., Stowe, K. A., & Showman, R. (2010). Translating expertise into effective instruction: The impacts of cognitive task analysis (CTA) on lab report quality and student retention in the biological sciences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1165–1185.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631–645.
King, D., Bellocchi, A., & Ritchie, S. M. (2008). Making connections: Learning and teaching chemistry in context. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 365–384.
Maaß, K., & Doorman, M. (2013). A model for a widespread implementation of inquiry-based learning. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6). doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0505-7.
Minner, D., Levy, A., & 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, 474–496.
OECD (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/51/43023606.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2013.
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. Directorate-General for Research.
Wake, G. D., & Burkhardt, H. (2013). Understanding the European policy landscape and its impact on change in mathematics and science pedagogies. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6). doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0513-7.
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on the work within the project PRIMAS—Promoting Inquiry in Mathematics and Science Education Across Europe (http://www.primas-project.eu). Project coordination: University of Education, Freiburg (Germany). Partners: University of Genève (Switzerland), Freudenthal Institute, University of Utrecht (the Netherlands), MARS—Shell Centre, University of Nottingham (UK), University of Jaen (Spain), Konstantin the Philosopher University in Nitra (Slovak Republic), University of Szeged (Hungary), Cyprus University of Technology (Cyprus), University of Malta (Malta), Roskilde University, Department of Science, Systems and Models (Denmark), University of Manchester (UK), Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj Napoca (Romania), Sør-Trøndelag University College (Norway), IPN-Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education at the University of Kiel (Germany). The research leading to these results/PRIMAS has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant Agreement No. 244380. This paper reflects only the author’s views and the European Union is not liable for any use that may be made with the information contained herein.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dorier, JL., García, F.J. Challenges and opportunities for the implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching. ZDM Mathematics Education 45, 837–849 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0512-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0512-8