Abstract
Inquiry is a multifaceted activity. It involves a process of exploring phenomena, asking questions, investigating, representing and reasoning to construct explanations in the search for new understanding. Through inquiry learning processes, students have better opportunities to engage with phenomena, develop inquiry skills and scientific reasoning, understand the meaning of doing and talking science, and develop positive attitudes toward science. Though scholars and practitioners all recognise the importance of inquiry learning in science education, there is a variety of definitions and forms of inquiry learning as well as different instructional approaches to support it. Based on the video-ethnographic analysis of classroom pedagogical practices in Australia, Germany and Taiwan, this Chapter analyses the forms of inquiry learning in the observed science classrooms, and the instructional approaches teachers applied to support inquiry as well as the learning modes through which students engaged with inquiry activities. The Chapter explores the impact of local cultural and curriculum contexts on the framing of inquiry processes in these classrooms.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
ACARA: Australian Assessment, Curriculum and Reporting Authority. (2013). Australian curriculum: Science. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/science/content-structure
Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Chi, M. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1996). Essays. In L. Hickman (Ed.), Collected work of John Dewey, 1882–1953: The electronic edition. Charlottesville: InteLex Corporation.
Duschl, R. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2009). Beyond the fringe: Building and evaluating scientific knowledge systems. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 311–332). New York: Routledge.
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.
Hackling, M., Peers, S., & Prain, V. (2007). Primary connections: Reforming science teaching in Australian primary schools. Teaching Science, 53(3), 12–16.
Herman, P., & Gomez, L. M. (2009). Taking guided learning theory to school: Reconciling the cognitive, motivational and social contexts of instruction. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 62–81). New York: Routledge.
Interacademies Panel, IBSE Working Group. (2011). Report of the working group on international collaboration in the evaluation of Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) programs. Retrieved from http://www.ianas.org/meetings_education/meeting55.html
Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Epistemology or pedagogy, that is the question. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 144–157). New York: Routledge.
Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Ministry of Education. (2013). Curriculum guidelines for compulsory education (Grade 1–9): The learning areas of science and technology. Retrieved from http://teach.eje.edu.tw/data/files/class_rules/nature.pdf
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/three-dimensions
Osborne, J. (2006). Towards a science education for all: The role of ideas, evidence and argument. Proceedings of the ACER conference: Boosting Science Learning – What will it take? Camberwell: ACER.
Ramseger, J. (2013). Prozessbezogene Qualitätskriterien für den naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht – zehn Kriterien für wirksames didaktisches Handeln im Elementar- und Primarbereich. In: Stiftung Haus der kleinen Forscher (Ed.): Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zur Arbeit der Stiftung „Haus der kleinen Forscher“, Bd. 5 (pp. 147–171). Schaffhausen: SCHUBI. Online http://tinyurl.com/ramseger-qualitaetskriterien
Ruf, U., & Gallin, P. (2005). Dialogisches Lernen in Sprache und Mathematik. Austausch unter Ungleichen. Grundzüge einer interaktiven und fächerübergreifenden Didaktik, (vol. 1) and Spuren legen, Spuren lesen. Unterricht mit Kernideen und Reisetagebüchern (vol. 2, 3rd Rev. ed). Velber: Kallmeyer.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. The Educational Record, 43, 197–205.
Wise, A. F., & O’Neill, K. (2009). Beyond more versus less: A reframing of the debate on instructional guidance. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 82–105). New York: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chen, HL.S., Tytler, R. (2017). Inquiry Teaching and Learning: Forms, Approaches, and Embedded Views Within and Across Cultures. In: Hackling, M., Ramseger, J., Chen, HL. (eds) Quality Teaching in Primary Science Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44383-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44383-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44381-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44383-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)