Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Primary Teachers’ Reflections on Inquiry- and Context-Based Science Education

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inquiry- and context-based teaching strategies have been proven to stimulate and motivate students’ interests in learning science. In this study, 12 teachers reflected on these strategies after using them in primary schools. The teachers participated in a continuous professional development (CPD) programme. During the programme, they were also introduced to a teaching model from a European project, where inquiry- and context-based education (IC-BaSE) strategies were fused. The research question related to teachers’ reflections on these teaching strategies, and whether they found the model to be useful in primary schools after testing it with their students. Data collection was performed during the CPD programme and consisted of audio-recorded group discussions, individual portfolios and field notes collected by researchers. Results showed that compared with using only one instructional strategy, teachers found the new teaching model to be a useful complement. However, their discussions also showed that they did not reflect on choices of strategies or purposes and aims relating to students’ understanding, or the content to be taught. Before the CPD programme, teachers discussed the use of inquiry mainly from the aspect that students enjoy practical work. After the programme, they identified additional reasons for using inquiry and discussed the importance of knowing why inquiry is performed. However, to develop teachers’ knowledge of instructional strategies as well as purposes for using certain strategies, there is need for further investigations among primary school teachers.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell, S. K., & McDonald, J. T. (2006). Envisioning a curriculum of inquiry in the elementary school. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the nature of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (2002). Beginning elementary teachers’ development as teachers of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: a synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91(3), 347–370. doi:10.1002/sce.20186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, A., Löfgren, R., & Eriksson, I. (2012). Chemical Content teaching for beginners. A study of subject content can compete with the goal of getting students interested in science. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 3(2), 146–162.

  • Bybee, R., & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and students attitudes: perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7–26. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.518644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., & Cowie, B. (2013). Engaging primary students in learning about New Zealand birds: a socially relevant context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(8), 1344–1366. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.763194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childs, P. E. (2014). Reflections on PROFILES from a critical friend. In C. Bolte & F. Rauch (Eds.), Enhancing inquiry-based science education and teachers’ continuous professional development in Europe: insights and reflections on the PROFILES project and other projects funded by the European Commission (pp. 18–23). Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.

  • Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), The Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 515–541). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • European Commission (EC). (2007). Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: EC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., & Alonzo, A. C. (2010). The role of content in inquiry-based elementary science lessons: an analysis of teacher beliefs and enactment. Research in Science Education, 40(3), 425–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957–976. doi:10.1080/09500690600702470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M., & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context‐based science education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817–837. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.493185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M., & Nichols, K. (2015). How to support primary teachers’ implementation of inquiry: teachers’ reflections on teaching cooperative inquiry-based science. Research in Science Education, 45, 171–191. doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9418-x.

  • Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. J. (2007). Australian school science education national action plan, 2008-2012. Volume 1: the national action plan. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College.

  • Harrison, C., Hofstein, A., Eylon, B.-S., & Simon, S. (2008). Evidence-based professional development of science teachers in two countries. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 577–591. doi:10.1080/09500690701854832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Högström, P., Ottander, C., & Benckert, S. (2006). Teachers goals with laboratory work: Develop understanding and interest. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 2(3), 54–66.

  • Holbrook, J. (2008). Introduction to the special issue of Science Education International devoted to PARSEL. Science Education International, 19(3), 257–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2010). Contextualization, de-contextualization, re-contextualization—a science teaching approach to enhance meaningful learning for scientific literacy. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Contemporary science education: implications from science education research about orientations, strategies and assessment (pp. 69–82). Aachen: Shaker Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, J., Watters, J. J., Lunn Browlee, J., & Lupton, M. (2014). Approaches to inquiry teaching: elementary teacher’s perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1733–1750. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.877618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, A. M. (2012). Investigative approach to science teaching in primary school grades. Stockholm: Stockholm University.

  • Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204. doi:10.1080/03057260903142285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Antink, A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understanding about scientific inquiry—the views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1021–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H., Hong, Z., & Cheng, Y. Y. (2009). The interplay of the classroom learning environment and inquiry-based activities. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1013–1024. doi:10.1080/09500690701799391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl, B. (2003). Desire to learn science and technology? A longitudinal study on the way to school. (Diss., Göteborg studies in educational sciences, 196). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, L., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 1994. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1002/tea.20347.

  • Newton, D. P. (1988). Making science education relevant. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, P. (2008). Recognizing the needs—student teachers’ learning to teach from teaching. NorDiNa, 4(1), 284–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, P. (2014). When teaching makes a difference: developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through learning study. International Journal of Science Education, 36(11), 1794–1814. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.879621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38, 261–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K. J. (2014). Elementary science teaching. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (Vol. 2, pp. 361–394). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokolowska, D., de Meyere, J., Folmer, E., Rovsek, B., & Peeters, W. (2014). Balancing the needs between training for future scientists and broader societal needs—SECURE project research on mathematics, science and technology curricula and their implementation. Science Education International, 25(1), 40–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedish National Agency for Education. (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school system, the pre-school class and the leisure-time centre 2011. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdmann, A., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2012). Evaluating the teaching impact of a prior, context-based, professional development programme. Science Education International, 23(2), 166–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: an international review of the literature. Paris: UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning.

  • Walan, S., & Chang Rundgren, S.-N. (2014a). Student responses to a 3-stage teaching module. In C. Bolte & F. Rauch (Eds.), Enhancing inquiry-based science education and teachers’ continuous professional development in Europe: insights and reflections on the PROFILES project and other projects funded by the European Commission (pp. 195–199). Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.

  • Walan, S., & Chang Rundgren, S.-N. (2014b). Investigating preschool and primary school teachers’ self-efficacy and needs in teaching science: a pilot study. CEPS Journal, 4(1), 51–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1), 63–89. doi:10.1007/S10972-0006-9031-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental and Life Science, Karlstad University, SE 651 88, Karlstad, Sweden

    Susanne Walan

  2. Department of Health Sciences, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden

    Birgitta Mc Ewen

Authors
  1. Susanne Walan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Birgitta Mc Ewen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanne Walan.

Appendix

Appendix

Group discussions

Workshop 1—Before

  1. 1.

    Why should we teach science?

  2. 2.

    What needs do students have in learning science?

  3. 3.

    How do we inspire students and then try to maintain their interests?

  4. 4.

    How do you work when teaching science?

  5. 5.

    What are the challenges in science teaching?

Workshop 1—After

  1. 1.

    ‘Scientific literacy’—was this a new concept for you?

  2. 2.

    Do you think this is relevant for science education at levels 4–6? Is there any support in the curriculum for this? Do you already encompass this in your education, and if so, how?

  3. 3.

    Context-based science education—was this a new concept for you? Do you already work in this way? If so, how did it work? Share your experiences with your colleagues!

  4. 4.

    Do you think context-based teaching is relevant for science education at level 4–6? Is there any support in the curriculum for this statement?

  5. 5.

    Concerning the conceptions above, were there any difficulties in understanding them or did you disagree with anything? Have you got any new ideas about how science education could/ought to be carried out? If so, what are they?

Workshop 2—Before

  1. 1.

    Based on your opinion, what is ‘inquiry-based education’? What could it include?

  2. 2.

    To what extent do you think you let students ask their own questions and then search for answers through systematic investigations? Has it been too little? Sufficient? Too much?

  3. 3.

    Why do you use laboratory assignments in science education? What are your aims?

  4. 4.

    Are there any difficulties when using laboratory assignments? If so, what are they?

  5. 5.

    What laboratory assignments do students usually find most difficult?

  6. 6.

    What are the challenges for you as a teacher regarding laboratory assignments /inquiry-based education?

Workshop 2—After

  1. 1.

    Did you get any new thoughts about inquiry-based education after the lecture? If so, what are they?

  2. 2.

    Have you gained any new ideas about how to manage the challenges with laboratory assignments /inquiry-based education? If so, what are they?

Workshop 5–Summary

  1. 1.

    What are your main impressions of the CPD programme? What has it meant to you?

  2. 2.

    What are your thoughts on context-based education? Do you think you will continue to work in this way? If so, how? Is there anything that will obstruct you? If yes, what?

  3. 3.

    Is it difficult to find suitable contexts? How could you find them? How can you connect to your students’ everyday lives and their interests in potential social issues? Do you think you will do it more in the future?

  4. 4.

    What are your thoughts about stage 2 of the PROFILES model? What is meant by work that is inquiry-based? Has your opinion changed after the CPD programme? If so, how?

  5. 5.

    What is your opinion about using the 3-stage PROFILES model at levels 4–6? Good/bad? Suitable/not suitable?

  6. 6.

    Scientific literacy—what are your thoughts about this concept? Was it new to you? Can you tell that it is relevant according to curricula? Do you think you have the tools for supporting students to develop scientific literacy? What do you need?

  7. 7.

    During the first workshop you discussed the questions below. What are your thoughts about these today? Have your opinions changed? If so, how?

    1. a.

      Why should we teach science?

    2. b.

      What needs do students have?

    3. c.

      How do we inspire students and then maintain their interests?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walan, S., Mc Ewen, B. Primary Teachers’ Reflections on Inquiry- and Context-Based Science Education. Res Sci Educ 47, 407–426 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9507-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9507-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation