Volume/Issue :

Article type :

Original article

Page No :

43-55

Abstract :

Inquiry, as both an instructional method and as a curriculum goal, is a common theme in science education reforms in both North America and Europe. This paper will initiate a discussion on the definitions and practice of inquiry in three countries; United Kingdom, Czech Republic and United States. Each national context will describe how inquiry is defined in both the relevant cur-riculums and in the academic publications. The assumptions will be identified that influenced the understanding of inquiry and the relationship to the science process skills, science literacy and the nature of science. The practiced curriculum will then be presented demonstrating how inquiry as both instruction and curriculum is practiced. National conditions and factors that encourage or impede inquiry will be discussed. A summary will examine common themes across the different national contexts.

Keywords :

inquiry, national context, secondary science

References :

Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N.G., Mamlock-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H, (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspective. Science Education, 88: 397–419.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Hofstein, A., Lederman, N.G., Mamlock, R., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2001 March). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. In. An ICASE symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. St. Louis, MO.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. Washington DC: Author.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of scientific literacy. Washington DC: Author.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13 (1): 1–12.
Anderson, R. D. (1996). Study of curriculum reform. Washington DC: US Government Print-ing Office.
Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to Standards. Journal of Sci-ence Teacher Education, 17: 265–278.
Bell, D. (2009.) Engaging teachers, engaging pupils, engaging science: are we learning our lessons? School Science Review, 90 (330): 35–44.
Bybee, R. W. (2002). Scientific inquiry, student learning, and the science curriculum. In. By-bee, R.W. (ed), Learning science and the science of learning. Arlington Virginia: NSTA Press.
Framework Education Programme (FEP) for Secondary General Education. (2007). Praha: Výzkumný ústav pedagogický. ISBN 978-80-87000-23-6.
Gross, P.R. (2005). The State of State Science Standards 2005. Thomas B. Fordham Institu-te, Washington DC. On-line at http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/Science%20Standards.FinalFinal.pdf
Lotter, C., Harwood, W.S., Bonner J. J., (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (9): pp. 1318-1347.
Millar, R. (1998). ‘Rhetoric and Reality: What practical work in science is really for’ in J. Wellington (ed.), Practical work in school science. London and New York: Routledge pp.16-31.
Monk, M. (2006). How science works: what do we do now? School Science Review, 88 (332), 119–121.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Rutherford, F. J. & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 report. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Sang, D. and Wood-Robinson, V. (2002). Teaching Secondary Scientific Enquiry London: John Murray.
South Carolina Science Academic Standards. (2005). Columbia, South Carolina: State De-partment of Education. Available online at http://ed.sc.gov/agency/Standards-and-Learning/Academic-Standards/old/cso/standards/science/index.html.
Tobin, K., McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science cur-riculum. Science Education, 80 (2): 223–241.
Ulovec, A., Čeretková, S., Hutton, N., Molnár, J., Spagnolo, F. (eds.) (2007). Motivating and Exciting Methods in Mathematics and Science: Glossary of terms. Olomouc CZ; Palacky Universi-ty. Socrates-Comenius 2.1 # 129572-CP-1-2006. ISBN 978-80-244-1830-8.
Wallace, C. S., Kang, N-H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science te-achers’ beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (9): 936-960.
Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P.S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
Williams, J. (2006). Will the new GCSE really teach pupils how science works? Education in Science, 218, 14–15.
Williams, J. (2007). Do we know how science works? A brief history of the scientific method. School Science Review, 89 (327), 119–124.

Cite as :

Svec, M., Hutton, N., & Nezvalova, D. (2011). International perspectives on inquiry in secondary science. Švietimas: politika, vadyba, kokybė / Education Policy, Management and Quality, 3(1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.48127/spvk-epmq/11.3.43