Elementary School Teachers' Perceptions on Inquiry-based Science Teaching

(1)

Elementary School Teachers’ Perceptions on Inquiry-based Science Teaching

Roosa Salminen

Master of Arts (Education) University of Eastern Finland Philosophical Faculty

Education 14.6.2021

(2)

University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty

School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education

Salminen, Roosa: Elementary School teachers’ perceptions on inquiry-based science teaching Master’s thesis, 75 pages, 3 appendices (5 pages)

Thesis instructor, professor Sari Havu-Nuutinen June 2021

Keywords: Inquiry-Based Teaching, Inquiry, The National Common Core Standards, The National Standards in the U.S.

Previous research has shown that it is too late to start developing the engagement into science learning in the secondary school years. It is therefore essential to engage the children in science learning already in their early years. Inquiry-based teaching is an effective method of creating interest in science learning among children. Inquiry-based teaching is from the United States of America and has been implemented in teaching for a long time. After the common core standards changed in the year 2015, the emphasis from science teaching has moved into the language arts/literature and mathematics. This change threatened the concept of science education and especially using inquiry-based teaching in science education.

This study aims to examine the elementary school teachers’ perceptions of inquiry-based science teaching and how teachers use it and assess children’s science learning. A phenomenological hermeneutic approach was applied throughout the research process. Data from six teachers were collected with semi-structured interviews. The interviews focused on teachers’ perspectives about the role of Inquiry-based science learning and assessing the children’s science learning. The data analysis was conducted with the use of content analysis.

Results show that the limited time in science teaching is seen as problematic amongst the teachers, especially in assessing science learning and using inquiry-based teaching in science. In the future, more research of assessing science learning and the learning outcomes in science is needed because it is crucial to know how these changes in the American educational system have affected the children, especially when inquiry-based teaching is not explicitly guided in the National Common Core Standards.

(3)

Itä-Suomen yliopisto, filosofinen tiedekunta

Soveltavan kasvatustieteen ja opettajankoulutuksen osasto

Salminen, Roosa: Luokanopettajien näkemyksiä tutkimuslähtöisestä luonnontieteiden opetuksesta

Pro-gradu, 75 sivua, 3 liitettä (5 sivua)

Tutkielman ohjaaja, professori Sari Havu-Nuutinen Kesäkuu 2021

Asiasanat: tutkimuksellinen työskentely, tutkimuksellisuus, Yhdysvaltojen yhteiset koulutukselliset perusstandardit, Yhdysvaltojen kansalliset koulutusstandardit

Aiemmat tutkimukset osoittavat, että sitoutumisen luominen luonnontieteiden opiskeluun on liian myöhäistä yläasteella. Siksi on tärkeää sitouttaa lapset luonnontieteiden opiskeluun jo varhaisella iällä. Lapsilla tutkimuksellinen työskentely on tehokas tapa luoda kiinnostusta luonnontieteiden opiskelua kohtaan. Tutkimuksellisessa työskentelyssä oppilas saa haastaa itseään yhdessä toisten kanssa. Oppiminen tutkimuksellisessa työskentelyssä perustuu ongelmakeskeiseen työskentelyyn, jossa harjoitellaan tutkimuksen tekemisen taitoja. Näihin taitoihin kuuluvat esimerkiksi kysymysten tekeminen, tiedonhankinta ja johtopäätösten tekeminen.

Tutkimuksellinen työskentely on lähtöisin Yhdysvalloista, jota sitä on käytetty jo pitkään.

Yhdysvaltalaisten koulutuksellisten perusstandardien muuttuessa vuonna 2015 painotus luonnontieteistä siirtyi äidinkielen ja kirjallisuuden (englanti) ja matematiikan korostamiseen.

Tämä muutos on uhkaava niin luonnontieteiden opetukselle kuin tutkimuksellisen työskentelyn toteuttamiselle.

Tässä tutkimuksessa selvitetään alakoulun opettajien näkemyksiä tutkimuksellisesta työskentelystä sekä sen roolista heidän luonnontieteiden opetuksessaan. Lisäksi tutkitaan sitä, millaisia lähestymistapoja tutkimuksellisessa työskentelyssä käytetään sekä sitä, kuinka opettajat arvioivat oppilaiden luonnontieteiden oppimista. Tutkimuksessa hyödynnettiin fenomenologis- hermeneuttista lähestymistapaa koko tutkimusprosessin ajan. Aineisto kerättiin kuudelta yhdysvaltalaiselta opettajalta puolistrukturoidulla haastattelulla, ja se analysointiin sisällönanalyysiä hyödyntäen. Haastattelut keskittyivät opettajien näkemyksiin tutkimuksellisesta työskentelystä ja siihen, kuinka opettajat arvioivat oppilaiden luonnontieteiden oppimista.

Tutkimuksen tulokset osoittivat, että pienentynyt luonnontieteiden opetukseen varattu aika loi haasteita opettajille niin tutkimuksellisen työskentelyn hyödyntämisessä opetuksessa kuin luonnontieteiden oppimisen arvioinnissa. Lisää tutkimusta luonnontieteiden arvioinnista ja

(4)

oppimistuloksista tarvitaan siksi, että tiedetään kuinka amerikkalaisen koulutusjärjestelmän muutokset ovat vaikuttaneet lapsiin, etenkin kun tutkimuksellista työskentelyä ei ole nimenomaisesti opastettu Yhdysvaltaisissa kansallisissa koulutuksellisissa perusstandardeissa.

(5)

List of Figures

Figure 1. The approaches of inquiry

Figure 2. Next Generation Science Standards for States by States Figure 3. A Spiral Model for qualitative data-analysis in this study

List of tables

Table 4. The interviewed teachers and schedule for the interviews

(6)

1 Introduction

This chapter introduces the background of the study. Firstly, science teaching and inquiry-based teaching in the early years are explained. Later, the aims and significance of this research are presented.

1.1 Background for science teaching

Several existing studies have indicated the need for further discussion to develop science education worldwide. Firstly, the primary focus of the research has been in secondary school science. The previous research (Maltese & Tai, 2010; Archer et al., 2013) has shown evidence that it is too late to start creating engagement in science learning in the secondary school years. The interest in learning new things also decreases in the last years of elementary school (Havu- Nuutinen, 2005; Archer et al., 2013; Vettenranta et al., 2016). Also, young people’s interest in scientific careers is relatively low (DeWitt et al., 2011; Kärnä, Houtsonen & Tähkä, 2012; Vettenranta et al. 2016; Leino et al. 2019). The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) testing has shown that the learning outcomes in science have decreased among the 9^th graders. These facts about the previous studies create the importance of engaging the children in science learning already in their early years. Children’s premises to science learning are good because they have a high natural interest in the environment and nature in the early years of schooling. They are naturally intrigued of learning new things and problem-solving. Furthermore, children have a high interest in their neighborhood and the phenomenon happening there, especially at the stage of starting their school (Havu-Nuutinen, 2005; Archer et al., 2013; Vettenranta et al. 2016). Previous studies have also shown that those who choose to either study or work in a scientific field have got an interest in science already during their elementary school years. The positive experiences of science learning at the early phases of school will positively impact one’s thoughts about science and scientific careers later in life. (Maltese & Tai, 2010; Archer et al., 2013.)

On the other hand, the positive learning experiences usually involve inquiry-based teaching (Havu- Nuutinen, 2005; Havu-Nuutinen et al., 2011; 2018), which means that students can challenge

(9)

themselves with the other students. Inquiry-based teaching is driven on problem-centered working where the skills of conducting research are practiced. It involves forming the research questions, acquisition of information, and making conclusions. Furthermore, inquiry-based teaching is seen as an inclusive, engaging, and collaborative learning method where students also encounter cognitively challenging tasks that arouse children's natural interest (Havu-Nuutinen, 2005; Havu-Nuutinen et al. 2011; 2018). In addition, it has been noted that small children need meaningful learning experiences, which create their set of values. The importance of emotions in guiding the thinking and behavioral process with small children is essential. (Havu-Nuutinen, 2005;

Archer et al. 2013; Vettenranta et al. 2016.)

Children are naturally active learners – with their functionality and activity, which are also highlighted in the inquiry-based teaching. Guiding children to the phenomenon involved in their everyday lives reinforces the understanding of the phenomenon and engagement in learning. The inquiry-based teaching method supports learning at the early age stage because students can challenge themselves among their peers. (Havu-Nuutinen, 2005; Havu-Nuutinen et al, 2011; 2018.) Although textbooks can be seen as essential support in learning, they are not enough to reinforce the scientific expertise. Usually problem-solving makes the children think of new problems to be solved, creating the learning path. (Havu-Nuutinen, 2020.) In inquiry-based teaching the children need guiding during the process, towards the concepts in science and perceiving the phenomenon. In addition, inquiry-based teaching can be divided into open inquiry, guided inquiry, and confirmation inquiry (Havu-Nuutinen, 2005; Havu-Nuutinen et al. 2017; DeWit et al., 2013).

Although inquiry-based teaching is seen as an effective method in engaging the children into science learning, it has been mentioned that one of the common challenges using it is maintaining students’ interest and engaging them in the inquiry-based teaching activities as well as communicating with the students in the inquiry activities (Bencze, 2009; Oliveria, 2009). Another challenge revealed in several studies among primary school teachers is the lack of their science content knowledge (Kallery & Psillos 2001; Ødegaard et al., 2014). Content knowledge is considered one of the core elements in using inquiry-based science teaching. Furthermore, the content expertise affects the teacher’s confidence and classroom management (Enugu &

Hokayem, 2017).

(10)

1.2 Inquiry-based teaching in early years

Despite the challenges, inquiry-based science teaching is important because it is an effective and engaging method for children to learn things related to science. Kang (2017) mentions that inquiry- based learning has come to a keystone of science education for it fosters students’ understanding of nature of science and scientific inquiry. It requires students to involve at least a basic inquiry cycle such as “asking a simple question, completing an investigation, answering the question, and presenting the results to others.” (National Research Council, 1996). Also, Juntunen (2015) notes that the holistic and inquiry-based chemistry education supports versatile studying and citizenship skills in a new way. It motivates students to study chemistry and guides them to take sustainable development into account. The author emphasized that education for sustainable development is needed at all school levels. Furthermore, Louis, and Stead (2015) show reasons why science should be taught in the early years in the first place. The authors note that young children are naturally curious and “science is all about finding out about the world; science encourages exploration and investigation.” Science is a subject that engages and interests’ young children. In addition, science teaching in the early years helps children understand their bodies which underpins the ideas about keeping healthy. Havu-Nuutinen (2020) has also noted the importance of science teaching in general. Science teaching is based on ensuring human well-being in addition to maintain the stability of the earth, which needs more and more specifically, people with knowledge and professionalism to solve the phenomenon and challenges about humans and nature. More often, solving the phenomenon requires thinking outside of the box as all the things cannot be in the researchers' minds beforehand.

1.3 The changes in the American educational system

After defining the importance of using inquiry-based teaching in science teaching and the significance of science teaching in general, it is essential to discuss the changes in the American educational system as the interviews in this research focused on American elementary school teachers. In the United States of America, the common core standards provide clear and consistent learning goals which will help the students for college, career, and life. The common

(11)

core standards demonstrate what students are expected to learn at each grade level to understand and support students' learning. The common core standards focus on the core concepts and procedures starting in the early grades, which gives teachers the time needed to teach the students and the students time required to master them. Because the standards provide grade-specific goals, they do not define what materials and methods should be used by the teacher or how the standards should be taught. (Common core state standards initiative, 2010.) Because the Standards do not clearly state how science or any other subjects should be taught, the teacher has the freedom to choose whether to use inquiry-based science teaching or not.

In addition, it is essential to note that inquiry-based science teaching has its origins in the United States of America. It is a method that was first implemented used there for a long time. Also, science teaching has played an essential role in the American educational field. However, in the year 2015 American educational system experienced a significant change when the importance of science was not highlighted anymore after the common core standards in the United States of America changed. Those changes emphasized the role of language arts/literature and mathematics, which left science to the side. (Common core state standards initiative, 2010.) These changes have caused a massive impact on how inquiry is implemented in science teaching and how science learning is assessed because of the lack of time that the teachers have. The importance of language arts and literature and mathematics take time away from science teaching, and now inquiry-based teaching is in danger of disappearing from the country. As mentioned earlier, using inquiry-based teaching is not explicitly guided in the National Common Core Standards, which ultimately leaves the decision to the teacher. As noted earlier, using inquiry- based teaching has its challenges which reduces the use of it among the teachers.

Still, it has been noted that having to make the decisions about their teaching is something that teachers in the United States must face often. Suominen (2021) noted that the American teacher interviews suggest that at least when it comes to teaching the concept of history politics, the teachers have quite a bit of room for maneuverability, which they also gladly use. For this reason, at the grassroots level, education can further very different kinds of ambitions depending on the preferences of individual teachers. The responsibility to make the final choice about teaching the

(12)

concept of history politics has been shifted to textbook authors and teachers (Suominen, 2021).

This means that American teachers are not left without clear guidelines in science teaching only – the same principles also apply to other subjects. It is also vital to notice that in the United States, the curriculum frameworks of individual states vary (TIMMS 2015 Encyclopedia, United States).

Because those curriculum frameworks can be different in each state, there is no national clarity on how science education should be done. Though the Next Generation Science Standards are national and developed to improve science education through three-dimensional learning, even those standards do not clearly state how inquiry-based learning should be implemented in teaching. That is why this research about the teachers’ perceptions about inquiry-based learning is significant.

1.4 The aim of the research

Because the American curriculum documents do not clearly define how inquiry-based teaching should be used in science education, this research aims to figure out how do the teachers perceive inquiry-based teaching and what are the approaches that they use to implement the method in their science teaching. Also, the matter of how the elementary school teachers assess children’s science learning is essential to find out in this research, especially when the inquiry-based teaching gives the science learning assessment a different perspective as it is assessed more with formative assessment practices and includes the actions, emotions, and interactions as a part of the assessment.

The significance of this study is justified with the importance of seeing how the elementary school teachers in the United States of America perceive inquiry-based teaching, especially as the American curriculum framework does not define how science should be taught and whether using inquiry-based teaching is necessary. Also, it is important to see how the changes that were done in the common core standards in 2015 affect science teaching, as the emphasis on the standards changed into language arts/literature and mathematics. In addition, teachers’ assessment of children’s science learning is under the focus of this study. The significance of including assessment as a part of this research is justified with the fact that assessment is seen crucial in

(13)

inquiry-based teaching approaches, as it includes formative assessment more into assessing the children’s learning process.

(14)

2 Inquiry-based science teaching

In this theoretical framework, the core concepts used in this research are defined. As explained in the introduction, inquiry-based teaching is considered an effective method of creating engagement and interest in children’s science learning. This leads to the need to define both concepts inquiry-based teaching and inquiry more precisely. The concepts have multiple different meanings and explanations, and the researcher might also struggle with finding the definitions that fit the situation completely. To be able to understand the meaning and definition of both words, there is a need to read previous research that has been done on the topic. In this research, both of those concepts, inquiry-based teaching, and inquiry, are described in various ways by the previous research so that this research will have a complete understanding of the concept that is defined. Also, it is crucial for this research to note that though some authors cited in this research use inquiry-based learning as they define the method which suits both teaching and learning, this research is interested in teachers teaching. Therefore, the term inquiry-based teaching is used primarily in this research, but the term is defined from students’ viewpoint and defined through the term inquiry-based learning. (Levy et al., 2010; 2011.) In addition, this theoretical framework describes the teacher’s assessment of children’s science learning. With inquiry-based teaching, the formative assessment practices are highlighted as it engages the “doing” perspective of science as a part of the assessment. Often the emphasis is more in the perspective of “knowing science”, which is usually assessed with the summative assessment practices. That is why it is essential to discuss about the teachers’ assessment of children’s science learning in this theoretical framework.

2.1 Inquiry-based teaching

As defining inquiry-based teaching, the concept has multiple different definitions by various authors. Firstly, it is defined as an approach to active learning that is driven by authentic problem- based questions. Usually, the concept is grounded in a constructivist-based approach to teaching and learning, which has its roots in the educational philosophy of John Dewey. Those roots state that the essence of learning is the process of constructing meaning from knowledge consumption

(15)

and production. The process in inquiry-based learning is based on learning and doing by developing the skill to “learn how to learn.” Inquiry-based learning usually involves both problem- based and project-based learning because it is often “oriented around learning by doing.” In a broad sense, inquiry-based learning can be seen as a set of learning and assessment strategies and standards where student learning is grounded in inquiry that is driven by questions and problems relevant to the course and learning objectives. (Levy, Lameras, McKinney, Ford, 2011.) Also, inquiry-based learning is a form of active learning that engages students in a more meaningful, purposeful, and self-regulated way to learn. Inquiry-based learning is applicable and relevant across all disciplines and levels within education and formal and informal learning situations (Levy, Little, McKinney, Nibbs & Wood, 2010). Essentially inquiry-based learning is an inquiry teaching and learning process where all the learning activities and assessment are purposefully designed to cultivate knowledge building and higher-order thinking through the exploration of authentic and meaningful questions and problems (Blessinger & Carfora, 2015). In this research, the previous definitions of inquiry-based teaching by Levy et al. are used throughout the research. In addition, this research considers project-based learning as a part of the inquiry and inquiry-based teaching process as the inquiry-based teaching by itself also usually follows the same principles as the scientific method in science, where first the hypothesis is made and after the experiment is conducted and the results are seen.

In inquiry-based learning, the students learn through a process of inquiry, often co-operatively with peers and using digital information and technologies. The students apply principles and practices of academic or professional inquiry, scholarship, or research. The students engage with questions and problems that often are open-ended. They explore a knowledge base actively, critically, and creatively. In addition, the students participate in building new meaning and knowledge. They also develop process knowledge and skills in inquiry methods and in other areas, including information literacy, reflection, and group work. In addition, in inquiry-based learning the students gain opportunities to share their results of their inquiries with each other and with wider audiences. (Levy, Little, Nibbs & Wood, 2010.) Furthermore, inquiry-based learning is considered as a way of learning which focuses on investigating authentic questions which are based in the real world and problems that are meaningful to learners (Drayton & Falk, 2001). The

(16)

idea in inquiry-based learning is that learning is most effective when the learning environment fosters inquiry and enables students to actively engage in knowledge construction in a socially participatory way, for example, through a variety of relevant sources (Levy et al., 2011; Biggs, 1996). Also, inquiry-based learning can be viewed as a process that builds upon previous knowledge and experience and leverages multiple ways of knowing. When the learning environment supports the learning as a process, the students are learning how to learn and are actively engaged. This way, the students will realize that the learning process involves properly identifying questions or problems and, after applying knowledge and problem-solving skills to collect, analyze and synthesize information and form the conclusions and solutions. That kind of learning process imitates the problem-solving process that happens in the real world by the scientists and other professions. (Blessinger & Carfora, 2015.) This means that inquiry-based teaching can be viewed as an excellent method in engaging children in science learning as it is seen as a method that imitates real-life problem-solving processes.

In addition, inquiry-based learning facilitates the production of new knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors through the development of collaborative investigation of questions and problem scenarios using modes of inquiry appropriate to the discipline. This is important because each discipline has evolved within a particular epistemological framework and professional culture.

Because inquiry-based learning is non-prescriptive and respects the epistemological basis of each discipline, the instructor is free to design the course within the established epistemological framework of the discipline and the developmental level of the students while also enjoying the freedom of inquiry to integrate innovative elements into the course to allow the students to be creative in their learning. This is where the pedagogical judgment of the instructor is important. In inquiry-based learning, the teacher moves from being a transmitter of information to an expert guide who facilitates the learning process and cultivates the environment where the students are required to take increasing responsibility for their own learning. The aim of inquiry-based learning is to transform students from the instructor-dependent and direction-following students more into a way where they can be seen as self-regulating problem-solvers. (Blessinger & Carfora, 2015.)

(17)

When using inquiry-based learning, the teachers have the freedom to decide how they will use the method. Using inquiry-based learning requires active involvement and participation from the teacher but is an excellent method to engage the children in science learning. The opportunities for participation in scientific practices and discourse in the classroom community play an essential role in developing children’s understandings of scientific reasoning processes. Especially in the process of sharing, testing, and evaluating ideas can contribute to an appreciation of scientific argumentation and explanation. The teacher has a crucial role here in promoting a supportive climate for debate, questioning, feedback, and critical reflection. (Glauert et al., 2012.) In addition, it has been highlighted that children will not develop scientific reasoning automatically from experience and suggested that it is more productive to consider what children can do and understand the given instruction (Metz, 1998). Implementing inquiry-based teaching in science education requires engagement and active involvement from the teacher. It is important to note that though the learners assume increasing responsibility for their own learning, the instructor plays a critical role in creating the necessary conditions for the learning environment.

As mentioned before, inquiry-based learning is considered as a learning-centered approach where the instructors serve as facilitators and guide the inquiry process. Most inquiry-based projects are not completely unstructured because they are rather being operated on a continuum and require appropriate planning, design, and assessment by the instructor. The roles of instructor and students in inquiry-based learning are different than in traditional teacher-centered or curriculum- centered classrooms because, with the method, students learn to take increasing amounts of responsibility for their own (self-regulated) learning, and they can learn in more authentic ways.

Inquiry-based learning must be adapted to the context of the learning goals of the course and the mission, vision, and shared values of the institution. When using inquiry-based learning, the learners are more self-directed, which means that the academic motivation is likely to be increased as well. (Blessinger & Carfora, 2015.) As the teacher is seen as an essential guide to the inquiry process, it is important that the teachers feel confident about implementing the inquiry-based learning methods in their science teaching. In the previous research has been indicated that teachers’ knowledge about inquiry-based science teaching is the most significant factor that determines their implementation levels on inquiry-based instruction. Limited knowledge is seen

(18)

as a factor that prevents the teachers from successfully implementing the approach. The finding of the importance of the knowledge and the impacts of the limited knowledge has called for specific guidelines which enable teachers to understand better what inquiry-based teaching is and how to implement it. Widely used framework for helping the teachers to understand what are the factors that inquiry-based teaching forms from has five essential features. In those features, the learner dedicates in scientifically oriented questions, gives priority to evidence in responding to questions, frames explanations from the evidence in responding to questions. The features also define that the learner formulates explanations from the evidence, connects explanations to scientific knowledge, and communicates and justifies explanations. It has also been discovered that both preservice teachers and mentors had difficulty connecting appropriate inquiry features in a science method class though they had been involved in various activities designed to support their understanding of those methods. The authors also note that the current science education reform efforts “emphasize the importance of encouraging the students to construct their own knowledge through engaging in higher-level thinking and problem solving and to appreciate the nature of science through engaging in opportunities to experience how science is actually conducted.”. (Seung et. al, 2014.)

To make teachers feel more confident about implementing inquiry-based science teaching in their teaching, there are several in-service training or research projects where teachers have been introduced to inquiry-based teaching. These were aimed to support teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, experiences, satisfaction, and self-efficacy towards using inquiry-based teaching. Though those short training courses do not result major changes in behavior, they might still have short-term effects (Silm, Tiitsaar, Pedaste, Zacharia, & Papaevripidou, 2017). Generally, teachers feel positive towards inquiry, and they report that they received sufficient support for implementing inquiry in science teaching. It is also noted that when teachers apply inquiry in classroom, it changes their attitudes, reduces their anxiety, and they seem to recognize that inquiry is motivating for the students (Ahokoski, Korventausta, Veermans, & Jaakkola, 2017; Silm et al., 2017). Often teachers are engaged in inquiry approach, but they still have difficulties applying the practices to the local needs (De Vries, Schouwenaars, & Stokhof, 2017), which is in accordance with the research which

(19)

noted that the teachers’ conceptions of inquiry were not consistent with those observed in practice (Bjøness & Knain, 2018).

As noted in the previous chapters, inquiry-based science teaching can be challenging. Scientific research and science education have different goals, and the aim of a science classroom setting is not even supposed to simulate the processes in the science laboratory (Yager & Akcay, 2010). One of the most common challenges while using inquiry-based science teaching is that it is more time consuming than learning science through non-inquiry, teacher-led, “traditional” methods (Banilower, Smith, Weiss, Malzahn, Campbell, & Weis, 2013; McBride, Bhatti, Hannan, & Feinberg, 2004). This causes uncertainty among the teachers to implement inquiry-based teaching in their science education. Also, previous studies have indicated that teachers have insufficient knowledge and experiences of inquiry-based science teaching and that many challenges in inquiry approaches relate to teachers’ behavior and competence (Anderson, 2002). Teachers often report that they would use inquiry-based science teaching, but their focus is more on hands-on activities (Odegaard, Haug, Mork, & Sorvik, 2014) or step-by-step problem-solving experiments (Kang &

Wallace, 2005). Previous studies show that among teachers, the conceptualization of inquiry- based teaching is not clear, and there is a different kind of conceptions of what it means in the practice of science education. Also, there is a significant variation in using inquiry among the teachers (Ireland et al., 2015; Wallace & Kang, 2004). According to Kang (2017) in Finland, the inquiry implementation in lower secondary schools could be strongly predicted by teachers’

confidence in teaching science and their collaboration. The results showed that the positive effect of confidence and collaboration towards inquiry implementation was partially derived from the professional development relating to the inquiry. Therefore, the result can be interpreted as inquiry-related professional development in Finland was likely to increase teachers’ confidence and collaboration, and, thus, teachers who participated in the programs implemented more inquiry than those who did not involve in the programs.

In science teaching, inquiry-based learning is seen almost in a similar way as when defining the concept of the inquiry-based learning method. It has been noted that inquiry-based learning is used in teaching science and is found as an effective method to improve student’s competence.

(20)

Inquiry-based learning in the science learning context is also a constructivist learning approach that can increase the knowledge from investigation and exploration activities. Those activities consist of planning, making experimental steps, and proposing results. In inquiry-based science learning, the teaching and learning activities are carried out in a structured manner which involves the design of findings that can increase knowledge and provide evidence or explanations of existing theories. When implementing inquiry-based learning in science education, the students can develop reasoning skills that are needed to plan, implement, and interpret scientific results.

Inquiry-based learning in science learning provides opportunities for students to be actively involved in the process of scientific inquiry and to practice critical thinking skills in solving scientific problems. (Sutiani et al., 2021.)

Also, several descriptions were chosen to characterize the role of inquiry in science education.

The inquiry includes scientific processes, experimental approach, problem-solving and forming hypotheses. It also includes designing experiments, gathering and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions. Besides all the above, inquiry is seen as practical work, including finding, and exploring questions and independent thinking. (Laubé & Bruneau, 2012.) In addition, Linn (2004) defined inquiry as “the intentional process of diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, and distinguishing alternatives, planning investigations, researching conjectures, searching for information, constructing models, debating with peers, and forming coherent arguments”. (Linn, 2004 et al.) As mentioned in those definitions, inquiry in science teaching and learning usually involves different scientific processes, experimental approaches, problem-solving and forming hypotheses which is a great way for the children to learn how to conduct research and form conclusions about the studied phenomenon. It is important that the children get these positive learning experiences at the early years' stage because these experiences usually engage children in science learning. In addition, science will more likely be interesting to them. With practicing how to conduct a problem-solving process, the children will learn how to produce a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, and form the conclusion – which are the skills that they will also later in their life.

(21)

In the context of this research, it is also important to note that the concept of scientific inquiry is close to inquiry-based learning as they are the nearby concepts, but those concepts have differences. The National Research defines scientific inquiry as “the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Scientific inquiry also refers to the activities through which students develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of scientist study the natural world.” The definition by the National Research Council reflects how scientists investigate the natural world and how STEM students gain epistemic knowledge and become immersed in the practice of authentic science. (Blessinger & Carfora, 2015.) Though several studies use the concept of scientific inquiry, in this research, the concept or the definition of the scientific inquiry is not used as the focus is only on the concept of inquiry-based teaching. The studies that use scientific inquiry have more role in the scientific work. In conclusion, inquiry-based teaching and inquiry are essential in the context of science education. Inquiry-based teaching can be considered as a broader approach that has certain features, which are described in the next chapter.

2.2 Approaches of inquiry-based science teaching

As mentioned in the previous chapter, inquiry-based teaching is a broader approach with certain features. Some of those features are presented in this chapter, as well as the methods that are used to implement these features in the teaching. Firstly, Banchi and Bell (2008) mention that sometimes teachers believe that for students to be engaged in inquiry-oriented activities, they need to be designing scientific investigations from scratch and carrying them out on their own, which is not valid. Elementary school students cannot be expected to immediately be able to design and carry out their own investigations. Regardless of age, most students need extensive practice to develop their inquiry abilities and understandings to a point where they can conduct their own investigation from start to finish. Luckily, there are many levels of inquiry that students can progress through as they move toward deeper science thinking. (Banchi & Bell, 2008.) In addition, Kang (2017) mentions that though inquiry-based approach is widely endorsed in learning different kinds of subjects at school, the effectiveness of the of the instruction is still debatable.

(22)

Kirschner et al. (2006) introduced inquiry learning as a minimally guided or unguided approach and compared its effect with a direct instructional guidance. According to the authors the definition of guided instruction is “providing information that fully explains the concepts and procedures that students are required to learn”. They also cited an example of minimal guidance with inquiry-based approaches in science education as they noted that “students are placed in inquiry learning contexts and asked to discover the fundamental and well-known principles of science by modeling the investigatory activities of professional teachers”. (Kirschner, Sweller, &

Clark, 2006.) Based on the previous literature, Kirschner et al. concluded that the guided instruction is superior to minimal guidance since students who are under guided environments get less cognitive load which may be detrimental to learning so that students are likely to learn and remember more after the guided instruction than the minimal guidance approach (Kang, 2017). On the other hand, Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) noted that inquiry learning, especially in science education, is not without or minimal guidance as it is conducted rather by providing expert guidance and proper scaffolding. They emphasize that the purpose of learning is not only for acquiring conceptual knowledge but also for retaining “the flexible thinking skills and the epistemic practices of the domain that prepare students to be lifelong learners and adaptive experts”

(Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007).

According to Sadeh and Zion (2012) inquiry can be divided into three forms as teacher-directed structured and guided inquiry and student-directed open inquiry. (Sadeh & Zion, 2012.) The first level of inquiry, structured inquiry is apt for those who first need to be familiarized with basic inquiry skills such as observing and measuring substances. More and more evidence indicate that the structured inquiry is not sufficient in developing scientific thinking. (Zion & Sadeh, 2007.) Still, Bell and Bianchi (2008) have found a four-level continuum to be useful in classifying the levels of inquiry in an activity. The continuum focuses on how much information such as guiding questions, procedure, and expected results is provided to the students and how much guidance the teacher will provide (Bell, Smetana, & Binss 2005; Herron 1971; Schwab 1962). The four levels in this continuum are confirmation, structured, guided, and open inquiry (Banchi & Bell, 2008). In this research, those four different levels of inquiry are seen as the different approaches that inquiry-

(23)

based teaching has. These four different approaches of inquiry-based teaching are described in the following chapters and presented in Figure 1.

Since several definitions exist and are used in literature (as in this study is presented in Figure 1.) of guided inquiry, it is hard to define what guided inquiry is (Kang, 2017). In the previous research, Cacciatore (2014) stated that “guided inquiry refers to inquiry in which teachers provide guidance to ensure that students focus their explorations on specific learning objectives, as opposed to open inquiry in which students explore content of their own choosing” and it is “markedly different in instructional approach than the traditional laboratories”. (Cacciotore, 2014.) When comparing to open inquiry, guided inquiry is described as a method which requires students to investigate scientific problems by following teacher guidance. During the inquiry process, the teacher should decrease the uncertainty of inquiry process by giving proper questions and procedures. However, the teacher should not provide the answer or the steps of inquiry. Guided inquiry emphasizes students to involve “in decision-making from the data collection stage, and may come up with unforeseen yet well-conceived conclusions”. (Sadeh & Zion, 2009.)

In confirmation inquiry, students are provided with the question and procedure (method), and the results are known in advance. Confirmation inquiry is useful when a teacher’s goal is to reinforce a previously introduced idea or to introduce students to the experience of conducting investigations, or have students practice a specific inquiry skill, such as collecting and recording data. In structured inquiry, the question and procedure are still provided by the teacher. However, students generate an explanation supported by the evidence they have collected. On the guided inquiry, the teacher provides students with only the research question, and the students design the procedure (method) to test their question and the resulting explanations. Because this kind of inquiry is more involved than structured inquiry, it is most successful when students have had numerous opportunities to learn and practice different ways to plan experiments and record data.

(Banchi & Bell, 2008.)

In the fourth and highest level of inquiry, open inquiry, students have the purest opportunities to act like scientists, deriving questions, designing, and carrying out investigations, and

(24)

communicating their results. This level of inquiry requires the most scientific reasoning and the most significant cognitive demand from students as the students have gained experience at the first three levels of inquiry, students at the fourth. And fifth-grade levels will be able to conduct open inquiries successfully. On the other hand, it is only appropriate to have students conducting open inquiries when they have demonstrated that they can successfully design and carry out investigations when provided with the question. This includes being able to record and analyze data, as well as draw conclusions from the evidence they have collected. Furthermore, it is important to note that the students can experience multiple different levels of inquiry during a single unit with related scientific concepts. (Banchi & Bell, 2008.) In addition, Zion and Mendelovici (2012) agree the open inquiry is regarded as the most complex level in school inquiry practice and the most similar form of genuine scientific inquiry since it allows students to select a wide variety of questions and approaches. Zion et al. (2004) mention that open inquiry as a dynamic inquiry learning process can be characterized by the four criteria: (1) learning as a process; (2) change occurring during the inquiry; (3) procedural understanding; and affective points of view. Also, Zion et al. (2007) note that although open inquiry offers the highest autonomy to students, it is not without teacher’s guidance as rather the proper scaffolds of the teacher are regarded as a key to successful work in the open inquiry.

Approach of inquiry (Zion et al., 2007)

Approach of inquiry (Banchi &

Bell, 2008)

Question Method (procedure)

Solution

Structured Confirmation inquiry

Teacher given Teacher given Known

Guided Structured

inquiry

Teacher given Teacher given Unknown

Guided inquiry Teacher given Student- generated

Unknown

Open Open inquiry Student-

generated

Student- generated

Unknown

(25)

Figure 1. The approaches of inquiry (adapted by Banchi and Bell, 2008 and Zion et al., 2007).

As presented in the previous Figure 1, the approaches of inquiry demand different kind of engagement and participation from both the teacher and students. As noted, open inquiry is the highest level of inquiry-based approaches as the question and procedure is completely student- generated and the solution is unknown. As the different skills which are needed in the problem- solving processes are practiced, the students also create the engagement into the science learning. Therefore, using inquiry-based teaching in science teaching is necessary.

2.3 Assessment in science education

As implementing the inquiry-based approaches to science teaching, it is important to note that assessment is closely related with inquiry-based teaching. With inquiry-based teaching, the formative assessment practices are highlighted as it engages the “doing” perspective of science as a part of the assessment and makes assessment crucial in inquiry approaches. Often the emphasis is more in the perspective of “knowing science”, which is usually assessed with the summative assessment practices which usually assess the results that a child has got from the learning process. The formative assessment in needed because inquiry-based teaching provides more information for teacher about the learning process that the child goes through. The formative assessment practices assess the learning process as its whole – including the action, emotions, and interaction among peers. In this chapter, the assessment in science education is described in various ways combining the information from the previous research together.

For many students and teachers, assessment drives classroom activities. Most current assessment methods emphasize knowledge recall and do not sufficiently capture the skills and attitudes dimension of key competencies. The result is that current assessment models are typically at odds with the high-level skills, knowledge, attitudes, and characteristics increasingly necessary in our fast-changing world. Furthermore, if something is assessed, then it is often more highly valued by both teachers and students. It is essential that teachers must also be appropriately prepared for

(26)

the inquiry-based science education approach, and hence good resources and programs for teacher education must be developed. (AIP Conference Proceedings 1697, 2015.)

For this research, it is also essential to define how the assessment in science education in the context of the United States of America is done. After the Common Core Standards changed in 2015 and the emphasis moved from science to language arts/literature it is important to see whether it affected in the way that teachers assess children’s science learning. Also, it is often claimed that assessment practice drives teaching and learning (Black, 2001). Therefore it is important to consider the climate of assessment practice. As well as changes to statutory summative assessments, there are ongoing arguments that current assessments are limited in capturing many aspects of learning, such as thinking skills. (Black & Wiliam, 2006.) It is also noted that doing the assessment paper-based limits what type of information can be captured. For this reason, it has been proposed that digital technology presents unique opportunities to not only capture a wider range of communication but allow this information to be revisited and shared with others as part of a more formative learning process. (Glauert et al., 2012.) As the aims of science education change, the means used to assess children need to adapt. Adapting to the changes has prompted work offering new types of tests such as children’s scientific literacy.

(Carstensen, Lankes, and Steffensky, 2011.) Furthermore, in the European context has been suggested that the European Union should invest significantly in research and development work on assessment in science education; with the aim of developing items and methods that assess the skills, knowledge, and competencies expected of a scientifically literate citizen’ (Osborne and Dillon, 2008). This suggestion could also be adapted into the context of science education and the assessment practices done in the United States of America. Though usually the U.S. is advanced in the field of research, the development work on assessment in science education is never unnecessary. To assess science education in the United States, the teachers need to be aware of the Next Generation Science Standards, which improve science learning with three-dimensional learning.

As an example, the Wisconsin department of public instruction has mentioned that as Wisconsin implements the three-dimensional standards and assessment, the educators will need to work

(27)

together to understand what the concept of three-dimensional means for science instruction. It is mentioned that just like in instructions, the three dimensions of science learning should be apparent also in the assessment, which is seen as a blurring factor for the lines between general student work and assessment. (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.) Although the previous mentioning is made by the Wisconsin department of public instruction, the other states that use three-dimensional learning in their science education need to adapt their assessment of children’s science learning to the way which also considers those three different dimensions.

Also, it is important to define the assessment practices done in the context of science education.

Previous research notes that changing perspectives on learning, teaching and development in the field of assessment has led to a growing debate about the purposes of assessment and increased the emphasis on the importance of assessment for learning as well as of learning (Black, 2001;

Gipps and Stobart, 1997; as cited in Glauert et al., 2012). That way, two different purposes of assessment are highlighted. Firstly, the formative assessment is described. Assessment is used formatively only when it informs the learning process directly (Black, 1998; as cited in Glauert et al., 2012). This means that teachers, children, and in some situations, even parents can use assessment information to identify how to improve. The central role of formative assessment in teaching and learning processes is to seek to build on the skills, attitudes, knowledge, and understandings that children bring to school in addition to supporting and encouraging children’s active engagement in learning and foster awareness of their own thinking and progress.

Furthermore, Harrison and Howard (2011) highlight that the key roles of feedback, sharing criteria with learners, questioning, and self-assessment in promoting effective learning. The role of children in assessment is particularly significant when considering how evaluating ideas is a necessary learning process. This may include peer assessment as well as self-assessment, thereby contributing to community aspects of the class. (Harrison & Howard, 2011; as cited in Glauert et al., 2012.) In addition, many proponents consequently argue that a more holistic approach to assessment, considering the child’s physical, social, emotional, linguistic, attitudinal, and cultural background, is most effective. However, assessing such attributes requires the development of tools and criteria to support teachers in assessment. It is also important to consider the demands placed on broadening assessment for multiple children in the classroom. (Glauert et al., 2012.)

(28)

As mentioned earlier, in inquiry-based teaching the formative assessment is highlighted. The other purpose of assessment is the summative assessment which refers to the use of assessment information as a particular point in time to compare children over time and space. The results received from the summative assessment can be used for monitoring or accountability purposes.

In addition, the results can be reported to the parents. In summative assessment, the concept of replicability is considered important because each measure is independent of time and place. In addition, the summative assessment attempts to remove the role of environmental and social factors because they are playing a key role in children’s thinking. Considering these factors is seen as highly significant when considering how the summative use of assessment can drive teaching and learning (Glauert et al., 2012). Summative assessment has its challenges as it cannot provide information from the learning process that the child goes through when it is mostly used to assess the results that the child has created in the learning process, for example, a test or a result of a project.

Also, the previous research has noted a way in which assessments are standardized is through a focus on a limited way for children to express their thinking. In addition, it has highlighted the need to adopt a multimodal approach to assessment. Capturing children’s ideas through different media also presents ways for the teacher, and the child, to explore variations in thinking. It has been noted that there are additional pressures of trying to capture different modes of thinking, and in that regard, technology is seen as a way that may offer support to the problem. In the same way that tools such as video and storage can provide researchers with a richer picture of the learning process, these tools may support teachers in capturing, sharing, and reflecting upon children’s learning in science and mathematics. Indeed, this is one of the purported benefits of e- portfolios for assessment. (Stefani, Mason, and Pegler, 2007.) However, because this range of information about children is not recognized as a standard in summative assessment, teachers may have less motivation to use the multimodal assessment (Glauert et al., 2012). This leads to the need that the children would do, for example, different projects, group works, or e-portfolios using the Information and Communication Technology to help the teacher assessing children’s learning.

(29)

3 Science education in the United States of America

This chapter is about science education in the United States of America. The changes that have happened in the Common Core Standards in the year 2015 are presented and the ways that the change affected science education in America. Also, the teachers’ previous perceptions about inquiry are presented.

3.1 Science education in American Context

As mentioned in the introduction, the Common Core Standards define what the educational system in the United States of America emphasizes in general. The Common Core Standards provide clear and consistent learning goals and demonstrate what students are expected to learn at each grade level so both the teachers and parents can understand and support students learning (Common core – state standards initiative). Because these Common Core Standards give grade-specific goals, they do not define what materials and methods should be used in the teacher or how the standards should be taught. Also, as the Common Core Standards in the United States do not highlight science teaching, neither inquiry-based teaching is highlighted.

In the previous research about teachers’ perceptions about teaching science through inquiry has been noted that a problem with it has been the lack of a commonly accepted understanding what it means to teach science through inquiry. For many teachers and for many students the notion of inquiry has been conflated with the idea that inquiry requires students to handle, investigate and ask questions of the material worlds. Hence any activity that is of a ‘hands-on’ nature can be considered to fulfill the basic requirement of this pedagogic approach. In this form, inquiry is seen not as a means of developing a deeper understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry but rather as a means of serving the pedagogic function of illustrating or verifying the phenomenological account of nature offered by the teacher. (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004.) The result is that the goals of engaging in inquiry have been conflated with the goals of laboratory work such that, in the eyes of many teachers, the primary goal of engaging in inquiry is not to develop a deeper understanding of the whole process of inquiry but to provide a means of supporting their rhetorical task of

(30)

persuading their students of the validity of the account of nature that they offer. If there is an alternative focus, it tends to be on the performance of the skills required to do inquiry—and then predominantly on the manipulative skills for successful experimentation (knowing how)—rather than the analysis and interpretation of the data or an understanding about inquiry and its role in science (knowing that or knowing why). At its worst, the product is cookbook laboratory exercises where students simply follow a series of instructions to replicate the phenomenon. (Osborne, 2014.)

In the year 2015, the Common Core Standards changed, and the emphasis from science changed into the language arts and mathematics. The new Common Core Standards that have the emphasis on the English language arts/literature and mathematics were adopted by 42 states, the Department of Defence Education Activity, Washington D.C., Guam, the Northern Marina Islands, and the U.S Virgin Islands and started the process of implementing those standards locally (Common core – state standards initiative). That change in those Common Core Standards has affected the ways that teachers teach science and implementing inquiry-based learning in their teaching. It can be noted that the whole concept of science education has changed its from after the Common Core Standards changed. Before those standards were updated, science held an important position in the American educational system, and even inquiry in general and inquiry- based learning have their roots in the United States of America. Both inquiry and inquiry-based learning have been implemented in teaching and learning for a long time before the change in the Common Core Standards happened.

Though the Common Core Standards experienced a major change in 2015, the Next Generation Science Standards guide a little how science education in the United States of America should be done. Next Generation Science Standards are K-12 science content standards that set the expectations for what students should know and be able to do in the context of science education.

They were developed by states to improve science education for all students. A goal for developing the NGSS was to create a set of research-based, up-to-date K-12 science standards. These standards give local educators the flexibility to design classroom learning experiences that stimulate students’ interests in science and prepares them for college, careers, and citizenship.

(31)

The way that these Next Generation Science Standards improve science education is through three-dimensional learning. In the NGSS, there are three equally important dimensions created to science learning. Each of those dimensions is combined to form each standard (or performance expectation), and each dimension works with the other two to help students build a cohesive understanding of science over time. The vision of the NGSS is that thoughtful and coordinated approaches to implementation will enable educators to inspire future generations of scientifically literate students. The NGSS note that effective implementation of these standards demands a great deal of collaboration and patience among states, districts, schools, teachers, and students (Next Generation Science Standards).

The three dimensions in the NGSS are crosscutting concepts, science and engineering practices, and disciplinary core ideas (see Figure 2). The dimension of crosscutting concepts means that it will help students explore connections across the four domains of science, including Physical Science, Life Science, Earth and Space Science, and Engineering Design. When these concepts are made explicit for students, they can help students develop a coherent and scientifically based view of the world around them. The dimension of the Science and Engineering Practices describes what scientists do to investigate the natural world and what engineers do to design and build systems.

The practices better explain and extend what is meant by ‘inquiry’ in science and the range of cognitive, social, and physical practices that it requires. Students engage in practices to build, deepen, and apply their knowledge of core ideas and crosscutting concepts. The dimension of the disciplinary core ideas is the key ideas in science that have broad importance within or across multiple sciences or engineering disciplines. These core ideas build on each other as students’

progress through grade levels and are grouped into the following four domains: Physical Science, Life Science, Earth and Space Science, and Engineering. (A Framework for K-12 Education:

Practices, Cross-cutting concepts, and Core ideas, 2012.)

(32)

Figure 2. Next Generation Science Standards for States by States (by A Framework for K-12 Education: Practices, Cross-cutting concepts, and Core ideas, 2012).

3.2 The National Standards in the U.S.

The National Science Education Standards in the United States of America present a vision of a scientifically literate populace. The standards outline what students need to know, understand, and be able to do to be scientifically literate at different grade levels. They describe an educational system in which all students demonstrate high levels of performance, and teachers are empowered to make the decisions essential for effective learning, and communities of teachers and students are focused on learning science in addition to the supportive educational programs and systems that nurture achievement. (National Science Education Standards, 1996.)

The intent of the standards is “Science for all students” as the standards apply to all the students regardless of age, gender, cultural or ethnic background, disabilities, aspirations, or interest and motivation in science. The National Science Education Standards also highlight the need to give students the opportunity to learn science. The Standards note that students cannot achieve high levels of performance without access to skilled professional teachers, adequate classroom time, a

(33)

rich array of learning materials, accommodating workspaces, and the resources of the communities surrounding their schools. Responsibility for providing this support falls on all those involved with the science education system. In addition, the Standards rest on the premise that science is an active process. The Standards highlight that learning science is something that students do, not something done to them. They mention that the “hands-on” activities are essential but not enough as the Standards call for more than “Science as a process,” Students learn such skills as observing, experimenting, and making conclusions. The National Science Education Standards highlight that inquiry is central to science learning. When engaging in inquiry, students describe objects and events, ask questions, construct explanations, test those explanations against current scientific knowledge, and communicate their ideas to others. (National Science Education Standards, 1996.) Also Tyler et al. (2018) have found that NGSS teaching allows more equitable access to learning. When initially presented with phenomena, students are often captivated and very curious, and the NGSS are designed to encourage students to ask questions accordingly. Teachers reported that this initial period during which all students are pondering the phenomenon but none of them are yet able to explain in puts all the members of the class on an equal playing field. (Tyler et al., 2018.)

Also, the National Science Education Standards consider and support inquiry as to the central strategy for science teaching. The goal of the National Science Education Standards is to develop students into “scientifically literate citizens.” As mentioned in the introduction, the importance of the teachers’ role in implementing Inquiry-based teaching in science has highlighted, which gives the teacher the central role in student learning and educational processes. (Seung et al., 2014.) This means that teachers can decide whether they will implement inquiry-based learning in their science teaching at all. Especially after the Common Core Standards changed the emphasis away from science teaching towards the language arts and mathematics, the standards do not explicitly guide how inquiry-based learning should be used in science teaching, which completely leaves the decision to the teachers who teach science.

The National Science Education Standards also conceptualizes inquiry in two ways. First, inquiry refers to teaching methods and strategies intended to help students enhance their understanding

Elementary School Teachers' Perceptions on Inquiry-based Science Teaching