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

ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education

Volumn 45, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 823-836

  Engeln, Katrin ^a   Euler, Manfred ^a   Maass, Katja ^b  

^a LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cultural differences; Inquiry based learning; PRIMAS; Subject differences; Teachers' beliefs

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887379445     PISSN: 18639690     EISSN: 18639704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11858-013-0507-5     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abd-el-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Ledermann, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 398-419.
2. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1-18.
3. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
4. 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.
5. Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2006(17), 265-278.
6. Bishop, A., Seah, W., & Chin, C. (2003). Values in mathematics teaching-the hidden persuaders? In A. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 717-765). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
7. Brandon, P. R., Young, D. B., Pottgenger, F. M., & Taum, A. K. (2009). The inquiry science implementation scale: Development and applications. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1135-1147.
8. Bruder, R., & Prescott, A. (2013). Research evidence on the benefits of IBL. ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6), this issue.
9. Chapmann, O. (2002). Belief structure and inservice high school mathematics teacher growth. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 177-193). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
10. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.
11. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
12. Colburn, A. (2006). What teacher educators need to know about inquiry-based instruction. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.
13. Cunningham, C. M., & Helms, J. V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 483-499.
14. Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as a method. Science, 31, 121-127.
15. 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.
16. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3-25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
17. Euler, M. (2011). WP9: Report about the survey on inquiry-based learning and teaching in the European partner countries. PRIMAS: Promoting inquiry-based learning in mathematics and science education across Europe.
18. Gallup Organization (2008). Young people and science: Analytical report, Flash Eurobarometer #239: European Commission.
19. Geiser, C. (2011). Datenanalyse mit MPLUS (Analysing data using MPLUS). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
20. Gellert, U. (1998). Von Lernerfahrungen zu Unterrichtskonzeptionen, eine soziokulturelle Analyse von Vorstellungen angehender Lehrerinnen und Lehrer zu Mathematik und Mathematikunterricht. Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Forschung.
21. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
22. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381-391.
23. Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC Questionnaire. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin.
24. Harwood, W. S., Hansen, J., & Lotter, C. L. (2006). Measuring teacher beliefs about inquiry: The development of a blended qualitative/quantitative instrument. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 69-79.
25. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon: Routledge.
26. Hayes, M. T. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers' struggles to define inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 147-165.
27. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
28. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2006). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
29. Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115-135.
30. Hodson, D., & Brencze, L. (1998). Becoming critical about practical work: Changing views and changing practice through action research. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 683-694.
31. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.
32. Kaiser, G. (2006). The mathematical beliefs of teachers about application and modelling-results of an empirical study. In J. Novotaná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehliková (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 393-400). Prague: PME.
33. Kirschner, P. A. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science & Education, 1, 273-299.
34. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
35. Llinares, S. (2002). Participation and reification in learning to teach: The role of knowledge and beliefs. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 195-209). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
36. Lloyd, G. (2002). Mathematics teachers' beliefs and experiences with innovative curriculum materials. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 149-159). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
37. Loucks, S., & Hall, G. E. (1979). Implementing innovations in school: A concern-based approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
38. Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education Pt. 1 (pp. 249-262). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
42. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
43. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
44. OECD. (2009). Technical report-PISA 2006. Paris: OECD Publishing.
45. Op't Eynde, P., de Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2002). Framing students' mathematics related beliefs. A quest for conceptual clarity and a comprehensive categorization. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 13-37). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
46. Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (1996). Mathematical beliefs and different aspects of their meaning. ZDM-The International journal on Mathematics Education, 28(4), 101-108.
47. Ponte, J., Matos, J., Guimaraes, H., Leal, L., & Canavarro, A. (1994). Teachers' and students' views and attitudes towards a new mathematics curriculum: a case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 347-365.
48. Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14-20.
49. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Rocard report: "Science education now: A new pedagogy for the future of Europe". EU 22845, European Commission.
50. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454-499.
51. Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., et al. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 930-954.
52. Staver, J. R., & Bay, M. (1987). Analysis of the project synthesis goal cluster orientation and inquiry emphasis of elementary science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(7), 629-643.
53. Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 227-249.
54. Swan, M. (2006). Designing and using research instruments to describe the belief and practices of mathematics teachers. Research in Education, 75, 58-70.
55. Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., Christopher, J. E., & Sackes, M. (2010). The effect of guided inquiry-based instruction on middle school students' understanding of lunar concepts. Research in Science Education, 40, 451-478.
56. Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89-106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57. Wagenschein, M. (1962). Die pädagogische Dimension der Physik (The pedagogical dimension of physics). Braunschweig: Westermann.
58. Walker, M. D. (2007). Teaching inquiry-based science-a guide for middle and high school teachers. La Vergne, TN: Lightning Source.
59. Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines and assessment levels. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 12-43.
60. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, 130-178.