Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 45, Issue 6, pp 823–836 | Cite as

Inquiry-based learning in mathematics and science: a comparative baseline study of teachers’ beliefs and practices across 12 European countries

  • Katrin Engeln
  • Manfred Euler
  • Katja MaassEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

In the European educational context, reports by expert groups have identified the necessity of a renewed pedagogy in schools to overcome deficits in science and mathematics teaching and to raise the standards of scientific and mathematical literacy. Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is considered the method of choice. However, it remains open to what extent IBL is actually used in day-to-day teaching. In the study presented here we elaborate—from the perspective of teachers—the current status of IBL in day-to-day teaching. Further, we explore what problems teachers anticipate when implementing IBL. In order to gain insight into the wide spectrum of practices in mathematics and science teaching in relation to IBL, a baseline study using teacher questionnaires was carried out in the 12 participating countries. We present selected results from this study that for the first time provides an overview of teachers’ beliefs and their reports on the current use of IBL practices in a European context. The results facilitate a cross-cultural comparison on the potentials and challenges of implementing IBL from the perspective of practicing teachers. Furthermore, the study reveals considerable differences between the teaching of mathematics and science subjects. The findings of the baseline study can serve as a reference line against which the impact of interventions to improve the quality of teaching and learning can be evaluated.

Keywords

Inquiry-based learning PRIMAS Teachers’ beliefs Subject differences Cultural differences 

Notes

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). PRIMAS has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement No. 244380. This paper reflects only the authors’ views and the European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

References

  1. Abd-el-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Ledermann, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 398–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  4. Artigue, M., & Blomhoej, M. (2013). Conceptualizing inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6). doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0506-6.
  5. Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2006(17), 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop, A., Seah, W., & Chin, C. (2003). Values in mathematics teaching—the hidden persuaders? In A. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 717–765). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandon, P. R., Young, D. B., Pottgenger, F. M., & Taum, A. K. (2009). The inquiry science implementation scale: Development and applications. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1135–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruder, R., & Prescott, A. (2013). Research evidence on the benefits of IBL. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6), this issue.Google Scholar
  9. Chapmann, O. (2002). Belief structure and inservice high school mathematics teacher growth. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 177–193). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44.Google Scholar
  12. Colburn, A. (2006). What teacher educators need to know about inquiry-based instruction. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.Google Scholar
  13. Cunningham, C. M., & Helms, J. V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as a method. Science, 31, 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dorier, J., & Garcia, F. J. (2013). Challenges and opportunities for the implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6), this issue.Google Scholar
  16. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Euler, M. (2011). WP9: Report about the survey on inquiry-based learning and teaching in the European partner countries. PRIMAS: Promoting inquiry-based learning in mathematics and science education across Europe.Google Scholar
  18. Gallup Organization (2008). Young people and science: Analytical report, Flash Eurobarometer #239: European Commission.Google Scholar
  19. Geiser, C. (2011). Datenanalyse mit MPLUS (Analysing data using MPLUS). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gellert, U. (1998). Von Lernerfahrungen zu Unterrichtskonzeptionen, eine soziokulturelle Analyse von Vorstellungen angehender Lehrerinnen und Lehrer zu Mathematik und Mathematikunterricht. Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Forschung.Google Scholar
  21. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  22. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC Questionnaire. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  24. Harwood, W. S., Hansen, J., & Lotter, C. L. (2006). Measuring teacher beliefs about inquiry: The development of a blended qualitative/quantitative instrument. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Hayes, M. T. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers’ struggles to define inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2006). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hodson, D., & Brencze, L. (1998). Becoming critical about practical work: Changing views and changing practice through action research. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 683–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaiser, G. (2006). The mathematical beliefs of teachers about application and modelling—results of an empirical study. In J. Novotaná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehliková (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 393–400). Prague: PME.Google Scholar
  33. Kirschner, P. A. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science & Education, 1, 273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Llinares, S. (2002). Participation and reification in learning to teach: The role of knowledge and beliefs. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 195–209). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  36. Lloyd, G. (2002). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and experiences with innovative curriculum materials. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 149–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  37. Loucks, S., & Hall, G. E. (1979). Implementing innovations in school: A concern-based approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  38. Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education Pt.1 (pp. 249–262). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  39. Maass, K., & Artigue, M. (2013). State of the art of the implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6), this issue.Google Scholar
  40. Maass, K., & Doorman, M. (2013). A model for a widespread implementation of inquiry-based learning. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6). doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0505-7.
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  44. OECD. (2009). Technical report—PISA 2006. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Op’t Eynde, P., de Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2002). Framing students’ mathematics related beliefs. A quest for conceptual clarity and a comprehensive categorization. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 13–37). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (1996). Mathematical beliefs and different aspects of their meaning. ZDM—The International journal on Mathematics Education, 28(4), 101–108.Google Scholar
  47. Ponte, J., Matos, J., Guimaraes, H., Leal, L., & Canavarro, A. (1994). Teachers’ and students’ views and attitudes towards a new mathematics curriculum: a case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14–20.Google Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., et al. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 930–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Staver, J. R., & Bay, M. (1987). Analysis of the project synthesis goal cluster orientation and inquiry emphasis of elementary science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(7), 629–643.Google Scholar
  53. Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Swan, M. (2006). Designing and using research instruments to describe the belief and practices of mathematics teachers. Research in Education, 75, 58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., Christopher, J. E., & Sackes, M. (2010). The effect of guided inquiry-based instruction on middle school students’ understanding of lunar concepts. Research in Science Education, 40, 451–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wagenschein, M. (1962). Die pädagogische Dimension der Physik (The pedagogical dimension of physics). Braunschweig: Westermann.Google Scholar
  58. Walker, M. D. (2007). Teaching inquiry-based science—a guide for middle and high school teachers. La Vergne, TN: Lightning Source.Google Scholar
  59. Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines and assessment levels. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 12–43.Google Scholar
  60. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, 130–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz-Institute for Science and Mathematics EducationKielGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Mathematical EducationUniversity of Education FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations