Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

From Inquiry-Based Science Education to the Approach Based on Scientific Practices

A Critical Analysis and Suggestions for Science Teaching

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For years, inquiry-based learning has been conceived of and promoted as one of the best approaches to learning science. However, there is currently a movement within the science education community that suggests promoting science learning based on scientific practices, instead of inquiry, because in this way, science learning would be more coherent with the enterprise that is science. But, are there well-founded reasons to work towards this shift, or is it just a new terminology with which to refer to inquiry? In order to respond to this question, firstly, the main arguments which support science education based on scientific practices are presented. Secondly, an analysis is made in order to determine the extent to which the approach based on scientific practices is innovative with respect to the inquiry approach. Thirdly, nature of the inquiry and scientific practice constructs is analyzed. All of this is done from a critical and reflective view. Finally, some reflections and suggestions are made in relation to practice-based science education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. K-12 Framework NRC (2012) document is cited in the majority of the current international studies on practice-based science education (see, for example, the references cited above). In addition, that document is mentioned in the Science Framework of PISA 2015 and 2018 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2017, 2019), which is an international program that currently affects 76 countries.

  2. It is necessary to clarify that NGSS are not an official mandatory for science education in the USA. Indeed, according to the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA, https://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx), various states have not adopted the NGSS, and others have adopted them only partially. Even so, I consider that the NGSS is possibly the most coherent or high-profile document for analyzing science education in the USA. In addition, according to the literature on science education, the NGSS are very influential in other many countries.

  3. This is referred in K–12 Framework (NRC 2012) as follows: “(...) attempts to develop the idea that science should be taught through a process of inquiry have been hampered by the lack of a commonly accepted definition of its constituent elements” (p. 44).

  4. In the K–12 Framework (2012) document, the term “(scientific) inquiry” is mentioned numerous times; however, unlike previous standards NRC (1996), what should be understood by “inquiry” within the practice-based framework is not given (or, at least, not explicitly).

  5. Larkin (2019) argues that “the choice to avoid specific pedagogy in standards documents seems understandable and reasonable because there is even less agreement on pedagogical approaches to teaching science than there is on the standards themselves (…). Yet, it seems paradoxical to try to develop a public understanding of science education [which is promoted in these documents] without some sense of how exactly that education is to take place” (p. 1296; the brackets are mine).

  6. Ford and co-workers define critique as “the social and intellectual source of a search for errors and the examination of multiple possibilities” (Forman and Ford 2014, p. 200). For more details on this, see Ford (2008).

  7. According to Google Scholar, this article currently has close to 1900 citations.

  8. In the different documents concerning the reform of science education in the USA prior to the NGSS Lead States (2013), nature of science was identified with nature of scientific knowledge (Lederman 2019).

  9. The adjective “epistemic” derives from the Greek term episteme whose meaning in its philosophical acceptance is “knowledge that is methodologically and rationally constructed as against opinions which lack foundation” (Spanish Royal Academy’s Dictionary, https://www.rae.es).

  10. A similar perspective is also assumed by other authors in their approaches for NOS/nature of scientific practices (e.g., García-Carmona and Acevedo-Díaz 2018; Erduran et al. 2019; Martins 2015).

  11. The four dimensions are conceptual, social, epistemic, and material (Stroupe 2014, 2015).

  12. I would not possibly interpret it in this way if Kelly always was talking about “scientific practices” in his theoretical approach. I think that language is very important in any knowledge area, and the selection of a name is always intentional—one is seeking a precise as possible designation of the idea one wants to represent.

  13. Duschl (2008) specifically talks about “a more balanced focus among things conceptual, epistemic, and social” (p. 283).

  14. For Kelly (2014), striving to meet these three objectives of science education demands a critical analysis and discussions about nature of inquiry, which I fully share with him. I consider this is independent of my critique on his terminology usage regarding “practices,” which I exposed above.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S. K., Smith, D. C., & Volkmann, M. J. (2006). Inquiry in science teacher education. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 173–199). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., García-Carmona, A., & Aragón, M. M. (2017). Enseñar y aprender sobre naturaleza de la ciencia mediante el análisis de controversias de historia de la ciencia. Resultados y conclusiones de un proyecto de investigación didáctica [Teaching and learning about nature of science through the analysis of controversies from history of science. Results and conclusions of an educational research project]. Madrid: Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (OEI).

  • Allchin, D. (2004). Should the sociology of science be rated X? Science Education, 88(6), 934–946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aragón-Méndez, M. M., Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., & García-Carmona, A. (2019). Prospective biology teachers’ understanding of the nature of science through an analysis of the historical case of Semmelweis and childbed fever. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(3), 525–555.

  • Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding students’ experiments—What kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2719–2749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asay, L. D., & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in The Science Teacher, 1998–2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 57–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2015). Foundation–Year 10 Australian Curriculum: Science. Retrieved from: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/science/. Accessed 30 Jan 2020.

  • Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 265–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevins, S., & Price, G. (2016). Reconceptualising inquiry in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2006). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding a framework for K-12 science education. Science and Children, 49(4), 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cañal, P., Pozuelos, F. J., & Travé, G. (2005). Proyecto Curricular Investigando Nuestro Mundo (6-12). Descripción General y Fundamentos [The “Inquiring our World (6-12)” Project. General Description and Foundations]. Sevilla: Díada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M. F., Wu, T. Y., & Lin, S. F. (2019). Investigating the relationship between views of scientific models and modeling practice. Research in Science Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09880-2

  • Clough, M. P. (2018). Teaching and learning about the nature of science. Science & Education, 27(1–2), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. (2015). Can we teach people what science is really like? Science Education, 99(6), 1049–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, volume II (pp. 515–541). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crujeiras-Pérez, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2018). Influencia de distintas estrategias de andamiaje para promover la participación del alumnado de secundaria en las prácticas científicas [Influence of different scaffolding strategies for engaging secondary students in scientific practices]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 36(2), 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Why does it matter? Science & Education, 25(1–2), 147–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education. (2013). Science programmes of study: Key stages 1 and 2. National curriculum in England: Science programmes of study.

  • Durando, M., Sjøberg, S., Gras-Velazquez, A., Leontaraki, I., Martin Santolaya, E., & Tasiopoulou, E. (2019). Teacher training and IBSE practice in Europe–A European Schoolnet overview. Brussels: European Schoolnet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Education Ministry. (2014). Royal Decree 126/2014, February 28, establishing the basic curriculum of primary education. Madrid: Official Bulletin of the State.

    Google Scholar 

  • Education Ministry. (2015). Royal Decree 1105/2014, January 3, establishing the basic curriculum of secondary education. Madrid: Official Bulletin of the State.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, K. C., & McKaughan, D. J. (2014). Nonepistemic values and the multiple goals of science. Philosophy of Science, 81(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2015). Introduction to the focus on… scientific practices. Science Education, 99(6), 1023–1025.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Dagher, Z. R., & McDonald, C. V. (2019). Contributions of the family resemblance approach to nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 311–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, E. A., & Ford, M. J. (2014). Authority and accountability in light of disciplinary practices in science. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 199–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., & Penuel, W. R. (2019). Coming to terms: Addressing the persistence of “hands-on” and other reform terminology in the era of science as practice. Science Education, 103(1), 167–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., Shavelson, R. J., Shemwell, J. T., & Figueroa, M. (2012). To teach or not to teach through inquiry. In J. Shrager & S. Carver (Eds.), The journey from child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences (pp. 227–244). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Carmona, A. (2020). Prospective elementary teachers’ abilities in tackling a contextualized physics problem as guided inquiry. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física, 42, e20190280. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9126-RBEF-2019-0280.

  • García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2017). Understanding the nature of science through a critical and reflective analysis of the controversy between Pasteur and Liebig on fermentation. Science & Education, 26(1), 65–91.

  • García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2018). The nature of scientific practice and science education. Science & Education, 27(5–6), 435–455.

  • García-Carmona, A., Criado, A. M., & Cruz-Guzmán, M. (2017). Primary pre-service teachers’ skills in planning a guided scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 989–1010.

  • García-Carmona, A., Criado, A. M., & Cruz-Guzmán, M. (2018). Prospective primary teachers’ prior experiences, conceptions, and pedagogical valuations of experimental activities in science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 237–253.

  • Harlen, W. (2012). Fibonacci project. Background resources for implementing inquiry in science and mathematics at school. Paris: Fondation La main à la pâte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (Ed.). (2015). Working with big ideas of science education. Trieste: Science Education Programme of IAP.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Crujeiras, B. (2017). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education (pp. 69–80). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Liso, M. R., Martínez-Chico, M., Avraamidou, L., & López-Gay, R. (2019). Scientific practices in teacher education: The interplay of sense, sensors, and emotions. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1647158.

  • Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99–117). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J. (2014). Inquiry teaching and learning: Philosophical considerations. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1363–1380). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Licona, P. (2018). Epistemic practices and science education. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), History, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 139–165). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students’ scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & Tan, A.-L. (2011). Rethinking difficulties of teaching inquiry-based practical work: Stories from elementary pre-service teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 465–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreimer, P. (2005). Karin Knorr Cetina. La fabricación del conocimiento. Un ensayo sobre el carácter constructivista y contextual de la ciencia [review of the Spanish version of the book “The machine of knowledge: an essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science”, by K. Knorr-Cetina]. Redes, 11(22), 209–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, D. B. (2019). Attending to the public understanding of science education: A response to Furtak and Penuel. Science Education, 103(5), 1294–1300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2019). Contextualizing the relationship between nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 249–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Is nature of science going, going, going, gone? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(3), 235–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H. S., Gilbert, J. K., & Lien, C. J. (Eds.). (2016). Science education research and practice in East Asia: Trends and perspectives. Taipei: Higher Education Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). Computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning and classroom scripts: Effects on help-seeking processes and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 257–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malkawi, A. R., & Rababah, E. Q. (2018). Jordanian twelfth-grade science teachers’ self-reported usage of science and engineering practices in the next generation science standards. International Journal of Science Education, 40(9), 961–976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins, A. F. P. (2015). Natureza da ciência no ensino de ciências: uma proposta baseada em “temas” e “questões” [Nature of science in science education: a proposal based on “themes” and “questions”]. Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, 32(3), 703–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In E. M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education (2008). The Ontario curriculum, grades 1–8. Science and Technology. Retrieved from: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/scientec18currb.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2020.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mody, C. M. D. (2015). Scientific practice and science education. Science Education, 99(6), 1026–1032.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland, P., Collins, T., Gaved, M., Wright, M., Sharples, M., Greenhalgh, C., ... & Littleton, K. (2009). Activity guide: An approach to scripting inquiry learning. In: AIED Workshop on Exploratory Learning Environments, 6-10 Jul 2009, Brighton, UK.

  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (Eds.) (2016). TIMSS 2015 encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in mathematics and science. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/encyclopedia/. Accessed 30 Jan 2020.

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, W. J., Abell, S. K., Hubbard, P. D., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 257–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuffield Foundation (2013). Introduction to model-based inquiry. Retrieved from: https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-work-learning/introduction-model-based-inquiry. Accessed 14 Aug 2019.

  • Öberg, G., & Campbell, A. (2019). Navigating the divide between scientific practice and science studies to support undergraduate teaching of epistemic knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 41(2), 230–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Volume 1: Analysis. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2017). PISA 2015 Science Framework. In PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, G. T., Bulte, A. M., & Pilot, A. (2018). Designing context-based teaching materials by transforming authentic scientific modelling practices in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1108–1135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramnarain, U. (2018). Scientific literacy in East Asia: Shifting toward an inquiry-informed learning perspective. In Primary science education in East Asia (pp. 201–213). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: Directorate General for Research, Science, Economy and Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 161–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundgren, C. J. (2018). Implementation of inquiry-based science education in different countries: Some reflections. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(2), 607–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry: A way to promote learning during laboratory activities. The Science Teacher, 76(7), 42–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroupe, D. (2015). Describing “science practice” in learning settings. Science Education, 99(6), 1033–1040.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, F. (2019). Is it right to use Nazi research if it can save lives? BBC.com . Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190723-the-ethics-of-using-nazi-science. Accessd 24 July 2019.

  • Tang, X., Coffey, J. E., Elby, A., & Levin, D. M. (2010). The scientific method and scientific inquiry: Tensions in teaching and learning. Science Education, 94(1), 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkmann, M. J., & Abell, S. K. (2003). Seamless assessment. Science and Children, 40(8), 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorholzer, A., & von Aufschnaiter, C. (2019). Guidance in inquiry-based instruction–An attempt to disentangle a manifold construct. International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1562–1577.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, H. G., Joung, Y. J., & Kim, M. (2012). The challenges of science inquiry teaching for pre-service teachers in elementary classrooms: Difficulties on and under the scene. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 589–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S. Y., Suh, J. K., & Park, S. (2014). Korean students’ perceptions of scientific practices and understanding of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2666–2693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zangori, L., & Forbes, C. T. (2014). Scientific practices in elementary classrooms: Third-grade students’ scientific explanations for seed structure and function. Science Education, 98(4), 614–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. (2016). Is inquiry-based science teaching worth the effort? Some thoughts worth considering. Science & Education, 25(7–8), 897–915.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (Government of Spain) under grant EDU2017-82505-P.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales y Sociales, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Sevilla, Calle Pirotecnia S/N, 41013, Sevilla, Spain

    Antonio García-Carmona

Authors
  1. Antonio García-Carmona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio García-Carmona.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declared that he has no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

García-Carmona, A. From Inquiry-Based Science Education to the Approach Based on Scientific Practices. Sci & Educ 29, 443–463 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00108-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00108-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation