The Teaching and Assessment of Inquiry Competences

  • Silke Rönnebeck
  • Jan Alexis Nielsen
  • Christopher Olley
  • Mathias Ropohl
  • Kay Stables
Chapter
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 4)

Abstract

New competence-oriented learning goals can only be sustainably implemented if they are aligned with teaching and assessment goals. Within the fields of science, technology and mathematics education, one approach of competence-oriented teaching is based on the concept of inquiry-based education. Scientific inquiry in science, problem solving in mathematics, design processes in technology and innovation as a cross-curricular approach to teaching and learning that is emphasised as a key element of twenty-first-century skills allow students to engage in the thinking and working processes of scientists. By applying these approaches, teachers can address subject-specific as well as generic competences (e.g. investigation in science as a subject-specific competence vs. argumentation or communication as more generic competences). Since what is assessed strongly influences what is taught, changes in teaching need to be accompanied by changes in assessment in order to be sustainable. Teaching and learning goals need to be aligned, and assessment methods developed that allow for the assessment of competences related to scientific inquiry, mathematical problem solving or design and innovation processes. This chapter aims to provide a short overview about these inquiry-based approaches in the teaching and learning of science, technology, mathematics and innovation. Following a short introduction, the chapter consists of four subsections devoted to scientific inquiry, mathematical problem solving, design processes and innovation. Each subsection addresses three basic questions: (1) How is the construct defined and conceptualised? (2) How does teaching for inquiry change teaching? (3) What changes in assessment are necessary to assess inquiry competences?

References

  1. Abd El Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R. A., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Johnson, D., & Wiliam, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy. London: King’s College London.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, S. (1999). Key factors influencing pupil motivation in design and technology. Journal of Technology Education, 10(2), 4–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barak, M., & Awad, N. (2008). Learning processes in information system design. Paper presented at the PATT 20: Critical issues in technology education, Tel Aviv, Israel.Google Scholar
  6. Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. In L. Darling-Hammond, B. Barron, P. D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld, E. K. Stage, T. D. Zimmermann, … (Eds.), Powerful Learning. What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J. L., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. E. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Dordrecht/New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Botleng, V. J., Brunel, S., & Girard, P. (2016). The digital fabrication laboratories (Fab labs) platform: A dynamic hands-on, minds-on and hearts-on approach to augment STEM education activities and 21st century skills. Paper presented at the PATT 32: Technology education for 21st century skills, Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  11. Burke, J., Jablonka, E., & Olley, C. (2016). A firm foundation or shifting sands: Mathematisation and evaluation strategies. In G. Wake et al. (Eds.), Modelling perspectives: Looking in and across boundaries. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crismond, D. (2011). Scaffolding strategies for integrating engineering design and scientific inquiry in project-based learning environments. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.), Fostering human development through engineering and technology education (pp. 235–256). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Department of Basic Education. (2011). Curriculum and assessment policy statement: Grades 7–9 technology. Republic of South Africa: Department of Basic Education.Google Scholar
  15. DES/WO. (1988). National Curriculum Design and technology working group interim report. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  16. Design Commission. (2011). Restarting britain, design education and growth. London: Policy Connect.Google Scholar
  17. Dowling, P. (2007). Sociology as method: Departures from the forensics of culture, text and knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2004). Increasing human resources for science and technology in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  19. Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardner, J., Harlen, W., Hayward, L., Stobart, G., & Montgomery, M. (2010). Developing teacher assessment. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hadfield, M. (1995). Das kupfer-problem [the copper problem]. ChemKon, 2(3), 103–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harlen, W. (2007). The quality of learning: Assessment alternatives for primary education, Primary review research survey 3/4. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hume, A., & Coll, R. K. (2010). Authentic student inquiry: The mismatch between the intended curriculum and the student-experienced curriculum. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: International Technology Education Association.Google Scholar
  28. Isaacs, T. (2010). Educational assessment in England. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(3), 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelly, A. V., Kimbell, R. A., Patterson, V. J., Saxton, J., & Stables, K. (1987). Design and technology: A framework for assessment. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  31. Kessler, J. H., & Galvan, P. M. (2007). Inquiry in action: Investigating matter through inquiry. A project of the American Chemical Society Education Division, Office of K–8 Science: American Chemical Society. Retrieved from http://www.inquiry-inaction.org/ download/. Accessed 19 Sept 2016.
  32. Kimbell. (2012). Evolving project e-scape for national assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kimbell, R., & Stables, K. (2007). Researching design learning: Issues and findings from two decades of research and development (Hardback ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wozniak, A., & Kelly, A. V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. London: SEAC/HMSO.Google Scholar
  35. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kimbell, R., Miller, S., Bain, J., Wright, R., Wheeler, T., & Stables, K. (2004). Assessing design innovation: A research and development project for the Department for Education & skills (DfES) and the qualifications and curriculum authority (QCA). London: Goldsmiths, University of London.Google Scholar
  37. Kimbell, R., Wheeler, T., Stables, K., Shepard, T., Martin, F., Davies, D., et al. (2009). E-scape portfolio assessment: A research & development project for the Department of Children, families and schools, phase 3 report. London: Goldsmiths, University of London.Google Scholar
  38. 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, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis, T., & Zuga, K. (2005). A conceptual framework of ideas and issues in technology education. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Maaß, K., & Artigue, M. (2013). Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching: A synthesis. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 779–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maaß, K., & Doorman, M. (2013). A model for a widespread implementation of inquiry-based learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 887–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McLaren, S. V. (2007). An international overview of assessment issues in technology education: Disentangling the influences, confusion and complexities. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 10–24.Google Scholar
  45. McLaren, S. V. (2012). Assessment is for learning: Supporting feedback. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merrill, C., Reese, G., & Daugherty, J. (2010). Mathematics education. In J. Ritz & P. Reed (Eds.), Research in technology education: 59th yearbook of the Council on technology teacher education (Vol. 59, pp. 172–191). Muncie: CTTE.Google Scholar
  47. Miller, J. (2011). What’s wrong with DT? London: RSA.Google Scholar
  48. Ministry of Education. (2010). Technology curriculum support. Wellington: techlink.org.nz..Google Scholar
  49. Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Barlex, D. (2008). Design and technology inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the design and technology classroom. London: GL Assessment.Google Scholar
  50. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  51. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  52. Nielsen, J. A. (2015a). Assessment of innovation competency: A thematic analysis of upper secondary school teachers’ talk. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(4), 318–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nielsen, J. A. (2015b). Rapport fra arbejdsgruppe for prøveformer der tester innovationskompetencer i gymnasiet [report from the working group on testing innovation competency in high school]. Copenhagen: Department of Science Education.Google Scholar
  54. Nielsen, J. A., & Holmegaard, H. T. (2015). Innovation and employability: Moving beyond the buzzwords - a theoretical lens to improve chemistry education. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Relevant chemistry education – From theory to practice (pp. 317–334). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  55. Niss, M. (2015). Modelling as a mathematical competency: A paradox? In G. Kaiser & H.-W. Henn (Eds.), Werner blum und seine Beiträge zum modellieren im mathematikunterricht, Realitätsbezüge im mathematikunterricht [Werner blum and his contributions to modeling in mathematics instruction, relations to reality in mathematics instruction] (pp. 269–276). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.Google Scholar
  56. Niss, M., & Højgaard, T. (2011). Competencies and mathematical learning: Ideas and inspiration for the development of teaching and learning in Denmark (IMFUFA tekst). Roskilde: Roskilde University.Google Scholar
  57. NWSEB. (1970). A course of study in design. Manchester: North Western Secondary School Examinations Board.Google Scholar
  58. OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do (volume I, revised edition, february 2014). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ofsted. (2002). Secondary subject reports 2000/01: Design and technology. London: Department for Education and Employment.Google Scholar
  60. Ofsted. (2011). Meeting technological challenges? Design and technology in schools 2007–2010. London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  61. Ofsted. (2012). Making a mark: Art, craft and design education 2008/11. London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  62. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  64. Pollitt, A. (2012). Comparative judgment for assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ropohl, M., Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Köller, O. (2013). Report from the FP7 project: Assess inquiry in science, technology and mathematics education. A definition of inquiry-based STM education and tools for measuring the degree of IBE [deliverable D2.5]. Copenhagen: ASSIST-ME project. Retrieved from http://assistme.ku.dk/project/workpackages/wp2 131015_del_2_5_IPN.pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2016.
  68. Schoenfeld, A. H., & Kilpatrick, J. (2013). A US perspective on the implementation of inquiry-based learning in mathematics. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6), 901–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schools Council. (1975). Education through design and craft: Schools Council design and craft education project. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  70. Seery, N., Canty, D., & Phelan, P. (2012). The validity and value of peer assessment using adaptive comparative judgement in design driven practical education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shavelson, R. (2011). An approach to testing and modeling competence. Paper presented at the Bad Honnef Conference on Teachers’ Professional Knowledge, Bad Honnef, Germany.Google Scholar
  72. Shayer, M., & Adhami, M. (2007). Fostering cognitive development through the context of mathematics: Results of the CAME project. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 265–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Snape, P., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2013). Perspectives of authenticity: Implementation in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Spendlove, D., & Hopper, M. (2006). Using ‘electronic portfolios’ to challenge current orthodoxies in the presentation of an initial teacher training design and technology activity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(2), 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stables, K. (2013). Social and cultural relevance in approaches to developing designerly well-being: The potential and challenges when learners call the shots in Design and Technology projects. Paper presented at the PATT 27: Technology education for the future: A play on sustainability, Christchurch, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  76. Stables, K., Dagan, O., & Davies, D. (2015). Blended learning and assessment through dynamic digital portfolios: The e-scape approach. In S. Koç, X. Liu, & P. Wachira (Eds.), Assessment in online and blended learning environments. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  77. Stables, K., Kimbell, R., Wheeler, T., & Derrick, K. (2016). Lighting the blue touch paper: Design talk that provokes learners to think more deeply and broadly about their project work. Paper presented at the PATT 32: Technology education for 21st century skills, Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  78. Strimel, G. (2015). Cognitive processes as indicators for student aptitude in engineering design. Paper presented at the PATT 29: Plurality and complementarity of approaches in design and technology education, Marseille, France.Google Scholar
  79. Turnbull, W. (2002). The place of authenticity in technology in the New Zealand curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(2), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silke Rönnebeck
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jan Alexis Nielsen
    • 3
  • Christopher Olley
    • 4
  • Mathias Ropohl
    • 1
  • Kay Stables
    • 5
  1. 1.Leibniz-Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (IPN)KielGermany
  2. 2.Kiel UniversityKielGermany
  3. 3.Department of Science EducationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.King’s College LondonLondonUK
  5. 5.GoldsmithsUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations