Abstract
This study analyzed Bahraini primary school science textbooks and workbooks from grades 1 to 6 in terms of their coverage of the five essential features of scientific inquiry. These features include the following: feature 1, engaging learners in scientifically oriented questions; feature 2, making learners give priority to evidence in responding to questions; feature 3, allowing learners to formulate explanations from evidence; feature 4, helping learners connect explanations to scientific knowledge; and feature 5, helping learners communicate and justify explanations to others. The features are further classified into four levels on a rubric, which assesses whether the textbook and workbook promote teacher-centered or student-centered features of inquiry (teacher-centered, teacher-driven, teacher-guided, student-centered). The results indicate that the essential features are included in 95.9% of the activities in both textbooks and workbooks. However, the majority of these features are found at inquiry levels 1 and 2, which are teacher-centered and teacher-driven. As students progress from grade 1 to grade 6, the inquiry activities include more essential features at higher inquiry levels (teacher-guided and student-centered). When analyzing the inclusion of essential features based on science disciplines, the results show that these inquiry features are primarily emphasized at levels 1 and 2. Therefore, science textbooks and workbooks should provide more opportunities for higher levels of inquiry (levels 3 and 4). In conclusion, these results provide important recommendations for educational leaders and policymakers regarding the development of the science curriculum.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H.-L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.
Abdi, A. (2014). The effect of inquiry-based learning method on students’ academic achievement in science course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 37–41.
Akbar, B., Amirullah, G., Kartika, E., Susilo, & Safahi, L. (2021). Measuring students’ science inquiry skills through designing and experimenting on ecosystem materials: A quasi-experiment. Review of International Geographical Education (RIGEO), 11(7), 2216–2220. https://doi.org/10.48047/rigeo.11.07.200
AlAwadi, H. (2007). TIMSS 2007 Encyclopedia: A guide to mathematics and science education around the world. TIMSS 2015 Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 7, 2022, from https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/PDF/T07_Enc_V1.pdf
Aldahmash, A. H., Mansour, N. S., Alshamrani, S. M., & Almohi, S. (2016). An analysis of activities in Saudi Arabian middle school science textbooks and workbooks for the inclusion of essential features of inquiry. Research in Science Education, 46(6), 879–900.
Alfadala, A. (2015). K-12 Reform in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Countries: Challenges and policy recommendations. The World Innovation Summit for Education (WISE). https://www.wise-qatar.org/app/uploads/2019/04/appli-gcc_2016-03-03.pdf
Al-Naqbi, A. K. (2010). The degree to which UAE primary science workbooks promote scientific inquiry. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(3), 227–247.
Al-Naqbi, A. K. (2015). The fundamental abilities of inquiry in the elementary science workbooks: The case of UAE northern schools. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 4(4), 157–168.
Altman, D. G. (1990). Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm
American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?chapter=1
Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Areepattamannil, S., Cairns, D., & Dickson, M. (2020). Teacher-directed versus inquiry-based science instruction: Investigating links to adolescent students’ science dispositions across 66 countries. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(6), 675–704.
Arnold, J., Boone, W. J., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2018). Assessment of competencies in scientific inquiry through the application of Rasch measurement techniques. Education Sciences, 8(4), 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040184
Arslan, A. (2014). Transition between open and guided inquiry instruction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 104, 407–412.
Attard, C., Berger, N., & Mackenzie, E. (2021). The positive influence of inquiry-based learning teacher professional learning and industry partnerships on student engagement with STEM. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.693221
Aziz, H. A. (2016). Science and mathematics education in the GCC countries. Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, 1(2), 39–42.
Bahrain Economic Vision 2030. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.moh.gov.bh/Content/Files/Vision_2030.pdf
Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8.
Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Cairns, D., & Areepattamannil, S. (2017). Exploring the relations of inquiry-based teaching to science achievement and dispositions in 54 countries. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 1–23.
Chakraborty, D., & Kidman, G. (2007). Inquiry process skills in primary science textbooks: Authors and publishers’ intentions. Research in Science Education, 46(6), 381–392.
Chen, X., & Eilks, I. (2019). An analysis of the representation of practical work in secondary chemistry textbooks from different Chinese communities. Science Education International, 30(4), 354–363.
Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847–1868.
Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R., Tavares, N. J., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2017). 21st Century skills development through inquiry-based learning. Springer.
Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2021). 21st century skills development through inquiry-based learning from theory to practice. Springer International Publishing.
Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304–1312.
Constantinou, C. P., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Rybska, E., et al. (2018). In O. E. Tsivitanidou (Ed.), Professional development for inquiry-based science teaching and learning. Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91406-0_1
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
Dahlgren, M. A., & Öberg, G. (2001). Questioning to learn and learn to question. Higher Education, 41, 263–282.
Davis, E. A., & Forbes, C. T. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers’ mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 820–839.
Dogan, O. K. (2021). Methodological? Or dialectical? Reflections of scientific inquiry in biology textbooks. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 19(8), 1563–1585.
Dorfman, B. S., Issachar, H., & Zion, M. (2020). Yesterday’s students in today’s world—Open and guided inquiry through the eyes of graduated high school biology students. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 123–149.
Dourado; L., & Leite, L. (2010). Questionamento em manuais escolares de ciências. In Enciga (Org.), [Abstract], Ensenantes de Ciencias de Galicia (Org.), Abstracts, XXIII ENCIGA Conference (Cd-Rom) (pp. 133–135). ENCIGA.
Dunne, J., Mahdi, A. E., & O’Reilly, J. (2013). Investigating the potential of Irish primary school textbooks in supporting Inquiry-based Science Education (IBSE). International Journal of Science Education, 35, 1513–1532.
Fang, S. C., Hsu, Y. S., Chang, H. Y., Chang, W. H., Wu, H. K., & Chen, C. M. (2016). Investigating the effects of structured and guided inquiry on students’ development of conceptual knowledge and inquiry abilities: A case study in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 1945–1971.
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.
Ganajova, M., Sotakova, I., Lukac, S., Ješková, Z., Jurkova, V., & Orosova, R. (2021). Formative assessment as a tool to enhance the development of inquiry skills in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(2), 204–222.
Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018). Advancing the science of collaborative problem solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(2), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244
Herranen, J., & Aksela, M. (2019). Student-question-based inquiry in science education. Studies in Science Education, 55(1), 1–36.
Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review, 79(2), 171–212.
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.
Kahveci, A. (2010). Quantitative analysis of science and chemistry textbooks for indicators of reform: A complementary perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1495–1519.
Kim, S., & Liu, E. (2012). Analysis of inquiry activities in high school biology textbooks used in China and Korea. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(8), 1367–1377.
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.
Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education, 78, 160–173.
Laksana, D. N. (2017). The effectiveness of inquiry-based learning for natural science learning in elementary school. Journal of Education Technology, 1(1), 1–5.
Laxman, K. (2013). Infusing inquiry-based learning skills in curriculum implementation. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 2(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/20468251311290123
Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138–147.
Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23, 285–302.
Lewis, R. A. (2012). A content analysis of inquiry in third grade science textbooks. Brigham Young University.
Li, A., Wang, L., Shen, W., Wang, J., Hu, W., Chen, Y., & Tian, R. (2018a). Analysis and comparison of scientific inquiry activities in eight-grade physics textbooks in China. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(2), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/18.17.229
Li, X., Wang, L., Shen, J., Hu, W., Chen, Y., & Tian, R. (2018b). A comparative study on scientific inquiry activities of Chinese science textbooks in high schools. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(2), 229–238.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Inquiry and technology. In Internet environments for science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lu, K., Pang, F., & Shadiev, R. (2021). Understanding the mediating effect of learning approach between learning factors and higher order thinking skills in collaborative inquiry-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 2475–2492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10025-4
Lumpe, A., & Beck, J. (1996). A profile of high school biology textbooks. The American Biology Teacher, 58(3), 147–153.
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2013). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). Routledge.
Ma, Y., Wang, T., Wang, J., & Rayn, A. L. (2019). A comparative study on scientific inquiry activities of Chinese science textbooks in high schools. Research in Science Education, 1–21.
Marshall, J. C., Smart, J. B., & Alston, D. M. (2017). Inquiry-based instruction: A possible solution to improving student learning of both science concepts and scientific practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 777–796.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34–37.
Maxwell, D. O., Lambeth, D. T., & Cox, J. T. (2015). Effects of using inquiry-based learning on science achievement for fifth-grade students. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 16(1), 1–31.
Ministry Of Education-Bahrain (MoE). (2016). The manual for curricular standards for core subjects (Arabic-Math-Science-English). Ministry Of Education-Bahrain (MOE). https://www.edunet.bh/e_content/level_1/stage_1/subject_ID_1/Part_1/e_books/publication/publication.pdf
Ministry Of Education-New Zealand. (2014, April 3). Science. The New Zealand Curriculum Online. https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Science
Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (2017). TIMSS 2019 assessment frameworks. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. Website: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/frameworks/
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. Website: https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2020-12/TIMSS%202019-International-Results-in-Mathematics-and-Science.pdf
Mumba, F., Chabalengula, V. M., Wise, K., & Hunter, W. J. F. (2007). Analysis of new Zambian high school physics syllabus and practical examinations for levels of inquiry and inquiry skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 213–220.
Nariman, N. (2014). Problem-based science inquiry: Challenges and possibilities for addressing 21st century skills. University of California.
National Curriculum Board Australia (NCB). (2009). Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Science. The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). https://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/Australian_Curriculum_-_Science.pdf
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. The National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
National Science Foundation. (2020). STEM education for the future: A visioning report. National Science Foundation. Retrieved from: https://www.nsf.gov/edu/Materials/STEM%20Education%20for%20the%20Future%20-%202020%20Visioning%20Report.pdf
National Science Teachers Association. (2011). Quality science education and 21stcentury skills. NSTA Position Statement.
Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). Next generation science standards: Read the standards. The National Academies Press. https://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards?keys=inquiry
Nilson, L. B. (2016). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. Wiley.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. OECD Publishing.
Pine, J., Aschbacher, P., Roth, E., Jones, M., McPhee, C., Martin, C., & Foley, B. (2006). Fifth graders’ science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in hands-on and textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea
Rahmat, I., & Chanunan, S. (2018). Open inquiry in facilitating metacognitive skills on high school biology learning: An inquiry on low and high academic ability. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 593–606.
Rizzo, K., & Taylor, J. (2016). Effects of inquiry-based instruction on science achievement for students with disabilities: An analysis of the literature. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 19(1), 1–16.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rofieq, A., Hindun, I., Shultonnah, L., & Miharja, F. J. (2021). Developing textbook based on scientific approach, critical thinking, and science process skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1839(1), 012030. IOP Publishing.
Rozi, A., Khoiri, A., Farida, R. D. M., Sunarsi, D., & Iswadi, U. (2021). The fullness of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTs) in applied science textbooks of vocational schools. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1764(1), 012143. IOP Publishing.
Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(2), 80–84.
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.
Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: Open or guided? Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831–848.
Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221–245.
Schubatzky, T., Bock, B., & Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C. (2020). Physics pre-service teachers’ approaches to scientific investigations by data exploration. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(11). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8536
Senler, B. (2015). Middle school students’ views of scientific inquiry: An international comparative study. Science Education International, 26(2), 166–179. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1064039.pdf
Sideri, A., & Skoumios, M. (2021). Science process skills in the Greek primary school science textbooks. Science Education International, 32(3), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i3.6
Smith, J., & Johnson, A. (2019). Understanding science education: A handbook for research and practice. Routledge.
Smithenry, D. W. (2010). Integrating guided inquiry into a traditional chemistry curricular framework. International Journal of Science Education, 32(13), 1689–1714.
Song, Y., & Kong, S. (2014). Going beyond textbooks: A study on seamless science inquiry in an upper primary class. Educational Media International, 51(3), 226–236.
Sun, D., Looi, C. K., & Xie, W. (2017). Learning with collaborative inquiry: A science learning environment for secondary students. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(3), 241–263.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
Tamir, P., & Pilar-Garcia, M. (1992). Ski of laboratory exercises included in science textbooks in Catalonia (Spain). International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 381–392.
Teig, N. (2022). Inquiry in science education. In International handbook of comparative large-scale studies in education: Perspectives, methods and findings (pp. 1135–1165). Springer International Publishing.
TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. (2015). Bahrain: Special initiatives in mathematics and science education. In TIMSS 2015 encyclopedia. Retrieved February 7, 2022, from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/encyclopedia/countries/bahrain/special-initiatives-in-mathematics-and-science-education/
Vasconcelos, C., Torres, J., Dourado, L., & Leite, L. (2012). Questions in science textbooks: Do they prompt students’ inquiry and problem-based learning? Discourse and argumentation in science education. European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) (pp. 1–13).
Vesterinen, V. M., Aksela, M., & Lavonen, J. (2013). Quantitative analysis of representations of nature of science in Nordic upper secondary school textbooks using framework of analysis based on philosophy of chemistry. Science & Education, 22, 1839–1855.
Yalçinkaya-Önder, E., Zorluoglu, S. L., Timur, B., Timur, S., Güvenç, E., Özergun, I., & Özdemir, M. (2022). Investigation of science textbooks in terms of science process Skills. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 9(2), 432–449.
Yang, W., Liu, C., & Liu, E. (2019). Content analysis of inquiry-based tasks in high school biology textbooks in Mainland China. International Journal of Science Education, 41(6), 827–845.
Yuni, S., Sahyar, & Bukit, N. (2021). Analysis the components of Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Mathematics (STEAM) in senior high school physics textbook. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1811/1/012118
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1 Further Specific Examples for each Level of Inquiry Within each Feature
1.1 Feature 1: Engaging Learners in Scientifically Oriented Questions
Level 1 (Teacher-Centered): The questions are provided by the teacher, materials, or other sources. For example, “What are the main parts of a plant?”.
Level 2 (Teacher-Driven): Learner sharpens or clarifies questions provided by teacher, materials, or other source. For example, “Why do you think plants need sunlight to grow?”.
Level 3 (Teacher-Guided): Learners are given a selection of questions to choose from or are guided in generating their own questions. For example, “Select a question from the list below that you would like to investigate: How does temperature affect plant growth? How does water availability affect plant growth?”.
Level 4 (Student-Centered): Learners independently pose their own questions based on their interests or curiosity. For example, “What factors contribute to the growth rate of different plants in our school garden?”.
1.2 Feature 2: Making Learners Give Priority to Evidence in Responding to Questions
Level 1 (Teacher-Centered): Data or evidence is provided by the teacher, and learners are told how to analyze it. For example, “Here is a graph showing the temperature changes. Analyze the data and explain the trends.”
Level 2 (Teacher-Driven): Data or evidence is provided by the teacher, and learners are asked to analyze it. For example, “Here are the results of an experiment. Analyze the data and draw conclusions based on the evidence.”
Level 3 (Teacher-Guided): Learners are directed to collect specific data or evidence to answer certain questions. For example, “Collect data on the pH levels of different soil samples and determine their impact on plant growth.”
Level 4 (Student-Centered): Learners determine what constitutes evidence and collect it independently to support their explanations. For example, “Collect data from various sources to investigate the impact of pollution on local ecosystems and present your findings.”
1.3 Feature 3: Allowing Learners to Formulate Explanations from Evidence
Level 1 (Teacher-Centered): The teacher provides explanations based on evidence. For example, “Based on the evidence the following explanation is used to explain what plants need.”
Level 2 (Teacher-Driven): Learners are given possible ways to use evidence to formulate explanations. For example, “Based on the data you collected, propose an explanation for why certain plants grew taller than others.”
Level 3 (Teacher-Guided): Learners are guided in the process of formulating explanations from evidence. For example, “Use the data you collected to develop a scientific explanation for the relationship between temperature and plant growth.”
Level 4 (Student-Centered): Learners formulate explanations after summarizing and analyzing the evidence. For example, “Formulate your own explanation for the observed patterns in the data and provide evidence to support your claims.”
1.4 Feature 4: Learners Connect Explanations to Scientific Knowledge
Level 1 (Teacher-Centered): The teacher provides scientific knowledge and explanations and shows students connections between them. For example, “The teacher explain the water cycle and shows how it relates to the observed rainfall patterns.”
Level 2 (Teacher-Driven): Learners are provided with possible scientific explanations and asked to connect them to specific observations or data. For example, “Here are two scientific theories about the formation of mountains and possible connections to the geological data.”
Level 3 (Teacher-Guided): Learners are directed in connecting their explanations to established scientific knowledge and theories. For example, “Compare your explanation of the behavior of magnets with the accepted scientific principles of magnetism and identify any similarities or differences.”
Level 4 (Student-Centered): Learners independently connect their explanations to scientific knowledge and theories. For example, “Research different scientific theories on the origin of the universe and explain how your own hypothesis aligns or differs from them.”
1.5 Feature 5: Learners Communicate and Justify Explanations to Others
Level 1 (Teacher-Centered): Teacher provides steps and procedures for communication. For example, “Teacher provides students with the steps of the process of cellular respiration to communicate the information.” Or “Teacher provides students with tables and questions that instruct students how to communicate their findings.”
Level 2 (Teacher-Driven): Learners are asked to communicate and justify explanations based on broad guidelines provided by the teacher. For example, “Present your findings from the scientific experiment on the relationship between animals in the ecosystem and list the evidence that led to your conclusion.”
Level 3 (Teacher-Guided): Learners are coached in communicating and justifying their explanations to others. For example, “Prepare a presentation to explain your inquiry findings on the effects of pollution on marine life. Use visual aids and scientific evidence to support your claims.”
Level 4 (Student-Centered): Learners communicate and justify their explanations to others, using appropriate scientific language and evidence. For example, “Participate in a class debate on the impact of climate change and present well-reasoned arguments supported by scientific research.”
Appendix 2 Effective Inquiry-Based Prompts for each Feature of Inquiry at each Level
Clear explanations on how to provide effective inquiry-based prompts for each feature of inquiry at each level. Here are the explanations for each level:
2.1 Feature 1: Engaging Learners in Scientifically Oriented Questions
Level 1: Teacher-Centered.
At this level, the teacher provides questions for the learners to engage with. To provide effective inquiry-based prompts, teachers give examples to relate to real-life situations and make the questions relevant to the learners' lives and connect them to practical applications of scientific concepts.
Example prompt: “Why do you think plants need sunlight to grow?”.
Level 2: Teacher-Driven.
Learner sharpens or clarifies questions provided by teacher, materials, or other sources.
Example prompt: In a biology class where the teacher introduces a unit on genetics. The teacher initiates the discussion by asking a broad question: “How do genes influence traits?” While this question serves as a starting point, a learner finds it somewhat vague and seeks to sharpen it for deeper exploration. After careful reviewing of the textbooks, the learner proposes a refined question: “What mechanisms underlie the expression of specific traits through genetic inheritance, and how do variations in DNA sequences contribute to phenotypic diversity?”.
Level 3: Teacher-Guided.
Guide learners to select among questions or formulate new questions based on their observations or investigations.
For example: “Observe the behavior of magnets and generate a question that you would like to investigate further.”
Level 4: Learner-Centered.
Empower learners to independently pose their own questions related to scientific concepts or phenomenon.
For example: “Choose a topic of interest to you such as genes and develop a scientific question that you would like to explore.”
2.2 Feature 2: Making Learners Give Priority to Evidence in Responding to Questions
Level 1: Teacher-Centered.
Provide learners with specific data or evidence and told them how to analyze it.
For example: “Examine the graph and describe the relationship between time and distance traveled.”
Level 2: Teacher-Driven.
In this level, the teacher provides learners with data or evidence to analyze and evaluate. To provide effective inquiry-based prompts, the teacher should present clear and relevant data and provide learners with data sets, graphs, or experiments that allow them to analyze evidence and draw conclusions. Teachers should encourage evidence-based reasoning and prompt learners to support their explanations and claims with evidence from the provided data.
Example prompt: “Examine the graph showing the relationship between temperature and plant growth. Based on the data, what conclusions can you draw about the effect of temperature on plant growth?”.
Level 3: Teacher-Guided.
Guide learners in collecting and interpreting certain data or evidence to develop their explanations.
For example: “Collect data on the growth of plants under different light conditions and explain how light intensity affects plant growth.”
Level 4: Learner-Centered.
Encourage learners to determine what constitutes evidence and collect relevant data to support their explanations.
For example: “Design an experiment to investigate the effect of temperature on the rate of seed germination and use the collected data to support your explanation.”
2.3 Feature 3: Allowing Learners to Formulate Explanations from Evidence
Level 1: Teacher-Centered.
Ask learners to provide explanations based on the information or evidence provided by the teacher.
For example: “Explain why the sky appears blue during the day.”
Level 2: Teacher-Driven.
Encourage learners to formulate explanations using provided evidence and scientific concepts.
For example: “Based on the data collected, explain how different variables, such as temperature and humidity, affect the growth of bacteria.”
Level 3: Teacher-Guided.
At this level, learners are guided by the teacher in formulating explanations based on the evidence they have analyzed. To provide effective inquiry-based prompts, the teacher should prompt reasoning and analysis and encourage learners to critically analyze the evidence and draw logical conclusions based on their observations. Teachers should guide the formulation of explanations and help learners connect the evidence to the scientific concepts and theories they have learned.
Example prompt: “Based on the data you have analyzed, propose an explanation for why the plants in the experiment grew taller in the group exposed to more sunlight.”
Level 4: Learner-Centered.
Empower learners to independently formulate explanations based on their own evidence and scientific knowledge.
For example: “Investigate the factors that affect the buoyancy of objects and develop an explanation for why some objects float while others sink.”
2.4 Feature 4: Helping Learners Connect Explanations to Scientific Knowledge
Level 1: Teacher-Centered.
Provide learners with explanations and ask them to connect them to scientific concepts or principles.
For example: “Read the given explanation of photosynthesis and identify the key scientific concepts involved.”
Level 2: Teacher-Driven.
Encourage learners to make possible connections between their explanations and established scientific knowledge.
For example: “Explain how the behavior of charged particles in an electric field can be explained using the principles of electromagnetism.”
Level 3: Teacher-Guided.
Guide learners in identifying connections between their explanations and scientific knowledge through guided questioning or discussions.
For example: “How does your explanation of the water cycle align with the scientific principles of evaporation and condensation?”.
Level 4: Learner-Centered.
Empower learners to independently identify and articulate connections between their explanations and broader scientific knowledge.
For example: “Explain how the principles of genetics and inheritance support your explanation of the observed traits in a family.”
2.5 Feature 5: Helping Learners Communicate and Justify Explanations to Others
Level 1: Teacher-Centered.
Ask learners to communicate their explanations using provided formats or templates.
For example: “Write a paragraph explaining the process of cell division using the given outline.”
Level 2: Teacher-Driven.
Encourage learners to communicate and justify their explanations using provided evidence and scientific language.
For example: “Present your explanation of the causes of climate change and use provided data and scientific terminology to support your claims.”
Level 3: Teacher-Guided.
Coach learners in effectively communicating and justifying their explanations through peer discussions or feedback.
For example: “Share your explanation of the observed patterns in the behavior of pendulums with a partner and provide supporting evidence from your experiment.”
Level 4: Learner-Centered.
Empower learners to independently communicate and justify their explanations to others, using appropriate scientific language and evidence.
For example: “Prepare a presentation where you explain your hypothesis about the effects of different fertilizers on plant growth and provide evidence from your experiments to support your claims.”
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Örnek, F., Alaam, S. Five Essential Features of Scientific Inquiry in Bahraini Primary School Science Textbooks and Workbooks. Sci & Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00523-1
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00523-1