Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, United Kingdom.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artigue, M., & Blomhoej, M. (2013). Conceptualizing inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6). doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0506-6.

  • Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2006(17), 265–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruder, R., & Prescott, A. (2013). Research evidence on the benefits of IBL. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6), this issue.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as a method. Science, 31, 121–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorier, J., & Garcia, F. J. (2013). Challenges and opportunities for the implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6), this issue.

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Gallup Organization (2008). Young people and science: Analytical report, Flash Eurobarometer #239: European Commission.

  • Geiser, C. (2011). Datenanalyse mit MPLUS (Analysing data using MPLUS). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, M. T. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers’ struggles to define inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kirschner, P. A. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science & Education, 1, 273–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Maass, K., & Artigue, M. (2013). State of the art of the implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6), this issue.

  • 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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • OECD. (2009). Technical report—PISA 2006. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, M. (2006). Designing and using research instruments to describe the belief and practices of mathematics teachers. Research in Education, 75, 58–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Wagenschein, M. (1962). Die pädagogische Dimension der Physik (The pedagogical dimension of physics). Braunschweig: Westermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M. D. (2007). Teaching inquiry-based science—a guide for middle and high school teachers. La Vergne, TN: Lightning Source.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz-Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Olshausenstraße 62, 24098, Kiel, Germany

    Katrin Engeln & Manfred Euler

  2. Institute for Mathematical Education, University of Education Freiburg, Kunzenweg 21, 79117, Freiburg, Germany

    Katja Maass

Authors
  1. Katrin Engeln
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manfred Euler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katja Maass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katja Maass.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Engeln, K., Euler, M. & Maass, K. Inquiry-based learning in mathematics and science: a comparative baseline study of teachers’ beliefs and practices across 12 European countries. ZDM Mathematics Education 45, 823–836 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0507-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0507-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation