Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
An Inquiry into inquiry: EU projects and science
education
WP2 Synthesis:
Structured summarising report about Project knowledge
Final Version, October 2015
Written by Peter Gray
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 5
Introduction: Synthesis of learning from STEM education projects in FP7/LLP ........................ 6
What we mean by STEM ................................................................................................... 8
Key INSTEM Recommendations ............................................................................................ 9
Section A: Policy ................................................................................................................ 9
Section B: National level .................................................................................................. 10
Section C: School level ..................................................................................................... 10
Terminology ......................................................................................................................... 11
Evaluation vs Synthesis .................................................................................................... 12
What kind of knowledge are we synthesising? ............................................................... 14
Section A: Policy .................................................................................................................. 16
A.1: Vision ........................................................................................................................ 16
A.2: Innovation ................................................................................................................ 17
A.3: Sectoral coherence ................................................................................................... 19
A.4: STEM education and research .................................................................................. 20
A.5: Impact of STEM projects .......................................................................................... 21
A.6: Timeframes .............................................................................................................. 22
A.7: Project management at EC level .............................................................................. 23
A.8: Coordination of STEM education and European funding ........................................ 27
Section B: National Level ..................................................................................................... 29
B.1: Pedagogy, Curricula and Assessment ....................................................................... 30
B.2: Resources ................................................................................................................. 31
B.3: Professional development ........................................................................................ 32
B.4: Student voice ............................................................................................................ 32
Section C: School level ......................................................................................................... 34
C.1: School management and governance ...................................................................... 34
C.2: Teacher collaboration............................................................................................... 34
C.3: Teacher Professional Development Structures ........................................................ 35
C.4: The informal sector .................................................................................................. 36
C.5: Classroom environment ........................................................................................... 36
C.6: What Inquiry Is Not .................................................................................................. 37
C.7: Professional networks .............................................................................................. 39
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 40
Practice ............................................................................................................................ 42
Projects ............................................................................................................................ 42
Policy................................................................................................................................ 42
Appendix 1: Projects analysed in producing this report ..................................................... 43
Ark of Inquiry ................................................................................................................... 44
ASSIST-ME - Assess Inquiry in Science, Technology and Mathematics Education. ........ 45
CARIPSIE ‐ Children as Researchers in Primary Schools in Europe .................................. 46
Chreact (Chain Reaction: A Sustainable approach to Inquiry Based Science Education) 46
COMPASS ......................................................................................................................... 47
ESTABLISH - European Science and Technology in Action: Building Links with Industry, Schools and Home ........................................................................................................... 49
FaSMEd - Raising Achievement through Formative Assessment in Science and Mathematics Education ................................................................................................... 50
G@me - Gender Awareness in Media Education ........................................................... 51
Hands‐on Science ............................................................................................................ 52
HEGESCO – Higher Education as a Generator of Strategic Competences ....................... 53
INQUIRE ‐ Inquiry based teacher training for a sustainable future ................................. 54
Irresistible – Engaging The Young With Responsible Research And Innovation ............. 55
LEMA – Learning and Education in and through Modelling and Applications ................ 56
Mascil - Mathematics and Science for Life ...................................................................... 57
Metafora .......................................................................................................................... 58
NTSE ‐ Nano Technology for Science Education .............................................................. 59
Open Science Resources .................................................................................................. 60
PATHWAY ........................................................................................................................ 61
PENCIL - Permanent EuropeaN resource Centre for Informal Learning ......................... 62
PREDIL ‐ Promoting Equality in Digital Literacy ............................................................... 63
PREMA 2: Promoting Equality in Maths Achievement 2 ................................................. 64
PRIMAS ‐ Promoting inquiry in Mathematics and science education across Europe ..... 65
PROFILES - Professional Reflection-Oriented Focus on Inquiry-based Learning and Education through Science .............................................................................................. 66
SAILS ‐ Strategies for Assessment of Inquiry Learning in Science ................................... 67
SECURE – Science education Curriculum Research ......................................................... 68
SIS CATALYST - Children as Change Agents for Science and Society ............................... 70
S‐TEAM ‐ Science‐Teacher Education Advanced Methods.............................................. 71
STENCIL ............................................................................................................................ 72
TRACES ............................................................................................................................. 74
References ........................................................................................................................... 75
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank all the participating projects for the massive amount of work they contributed in the cause of better European science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Members of the INSTEM project provided valuable feedback on numerous versions of this report. Francesco Cuomo provided accessible summaries of several projects. Suzanne Kapelari provided the section on informal and out-of-school learning.
I would especially like to thank Katja Maaß (INSTEM coordinator), Jacqueline Passon, Carina Schieder and Zofia Malachowska for their patience and insight.
INSTEM has been funded with support from the European Commission, under the Lifelong Learning Programme, grant number 527333-LLP-1-2012-1-DE-COMENIUS-CNW.
This publication reflects only the views of the author. The Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Introduction: Synthesis of learning from STEM education projects in FP7/LLP
This report is based on a review of documents supplied by 20+ of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) education projects funded in FP7 and the LLP. The review is as comprehensive as possible but cannot be exhaustive, due to the continual proliferation of projects and documents. Its conclusions are set out below.
It is necessary to adopt a critical approach to project documentation because projects operate under constraints of language, presentation and timeframe relating to European Commission requirements. They conform to the requirements of calls for proposals and the resulting “descriptions of work” or “technical annexes” for specific projects. Thus, reports do not always convey the day-to-day reality of how projects operate.
The INSTEM synthesis, however, reflects the consensus view of a significant percentage of project coordinators, who have all had experience of STEM projects over many years and who are all committed to improving the state of STEM education in Europe and elsewhere. The companion state-of the-art report from INSTEM (del.05.1) reports in more detail on the views of coordinators and other project partners, whilst this report is based on project documents. Both reports, however, convey essentially the same messages regarding the need for a coherent approach to STEM education in Europe. The funding of STEM education projects by the EC is an important contribution to revitalising teaching and learning in these subjects, and all the projects reviewed here are fully committed to a pan-European movement towards innovative policies in STEM education. As this report will show, however, innovative policies do not necessarily equate to the use of any specific pedagogies. For this reason, the promotion of inquiry-based learning should be seen in the context of other enhancements to practice, such as the increased use of formative assessment, or more attention to diversity issues including gender.
Why this report is necessary
The origins of this report can be traced back to meetings in 2010 between managers and coordinators of STEM education projects. We realised that it was useful and indeed essential for projects to talk to each other in order to make progress towards the overall objective of improving STEM education in Europe. This resulted in the formation of the ProCoNet group of project coordinators, committed to collaboration and knowledge exchange within the field of inquiry-based STEM education and beyond.
The INSTEM project is an extension of ProCoNet but has a number of specific objectives including the creation of this report. Since one of the drivers behind ProCoNet is the avoidance of duplication and repetition in the work of projects, it was felt that synthesising the activities of current and completed projects was necessary in order to provide a reference point, from which further activities and projects could be developed. In particular, the launch of the Horizon 2020 and Erasmus Plus programmes created the need for a stocktaking exercise.
The duration and funding arrangements of EU projects make it difficult to sustain the effects of their actions after the end of the official funding period. There is no single mechanism or structure for continuing dissemination of project outcomes. Attempts have been made to establish portals and repositories, such as Scientix, for this purpose, and project websites can remain online, but despite these efforts there is still a problem with the sustainability of
these actions.
If the work of previous projects was not to be wasted, therefore, a synthesis of project knowledge was necessary, in order to establish a basis for building on that work. Even more importantly, we wanted to learn from it. This is important because the existing infrastructure has no explicit provision for meta-level learning from projects, including learning about the effectiveness of the system from which projects emerge. Currently, a number of organisations, including ProCoNet and the European Educational Research Asociation, are working at the meta-learning level, as is the SATORI project on evaluation and ethics1.
The projects studied in this report are good at supporting teachers and informal educators when they use inquiry-based methods. They also know that the implementation of inquiry is heavily dependent on external factors, such as curriculum and assessment. These factors have to be addressed in order to make further work on inquiry fully effective. Since many of these factors relate to national education policy, addressing them requires direct liaison with national agencies and policymakers.
This report will enable those persons, groups or organisations involved in inquiry-based learning to argue from a position of strength for the necessary changes. It does not claim to provide a manual or handbook for introducing or reinforcing inquiry-based teaching and learning. Such publications are already available from a range of sources including projects themselves, as described in the appendix, and within the general literature on teaching and learning. However, the implementation of inquiry, or any other innovation in teaching and learning, requires the collective will of all those involved in education systems, not just teachers.
In discussing inquiry-based methods, we often ignore students themselves. Student engagement is the key to success in education, and is at the heart of the Europe 2020 targets, such as reducing early dropout and increasing participation in tertiary education. Student opinion and student voice should, therefore, be more prominent in the discourse of inquiry-based science education. This is not, however, the case, despite the impact of projects such as SiS-Catalyst2, EUstudentsvoices3 and Voices for Innovation4.
The other problem at systemic level is the diversity of theoretical frameworks for inquiry-based learning, and a diversity of research results on the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning. If we take the meta-analyses of Hattie (2009) as being a major contribution to a research-based overview of teaching and learning, it is clear that there is support in the literature for a model of good teaching and learning, which applies across the curriculum and which encompasses such areas as goals, expectations, clear outcomes, formative feedback in both directions and respect for difference. Hattie’s work does not, therefore, support the idea that there is a ‘magic bullet’ solution for any educational problem.
Unfortunately, sometimes inquiry based learning (IBL) has been presented, within European project circles, as just such a magic bullet. Even more unfortunately, the connection between a shortage of STEM graduates, and insufficient levels of scientific literacy, and the use of inquiry-based learning, requires a rather problematic extrapolation from increased classroom interest in science to increased demand for science courses and science careers.
1 http://satoriproject.eu/ 2 http://www.siscatalyst.eu 3 http://studentsvoices.eu/ 4 http://www.voicesforinnovation.eu/
The trajectory of potential scientists or STEM workers is not well understood and should be studied not only through pedagogical research in schools but also through curriculum studies, higher education research and labour market analysis.
The report is thus positioned at a natural crossroads on the way to better STEM education. We hope that, in this report, we have indicated a clear direction for the future, which we summarise below in a series of recommendations at various levels. Our overall message is that a systemic approach is needed, with extensive interdisciplinary collaboration, reference to existing research and, where necessary, new research to provide evidence for action. Although inquiry-based learning is less prominent within the current Horizon 2020 work programmes, several FP7 projects will still be working with inquiry until at least 2017. It is an important topic, both as a case study of intervention and as a basis for exciting, challenging and effective STEM education.
What we mean by STEM
There is some debate over the best combination of topic areas to form an acronym in the general area of science and mathematics education. For our purposes, we have chosen STEM because it reflects a wide range of topic areas in schools where science and/or mathematical concepts are relevant. However, an alternative view is provided by the PROFILES project5:
Neither the PARSEL nor PROFILES projects use STEM. These projects more closely focus on SL or STL (scientific literacy or scientific and technological literacy). Although not excluded (see PARSEL website), these projects recognise mathematics is taught as a separate subject in European secondary schools and the issue is less on integrating science with mathematics as it is on student motivation to be involved in meaningful science learning and to learn further in the area of science. For this, the emphasis is placed on the links of natural science with social science, especially in exploring student relevant socio-scientific issues and going beyond the important IBSE stage to promote argumentation and socio-scientific decision making (using the newly gained conceptual science).
No conscious attempt is made to exclude the use of the term STEM; it just seems irrelevant. The term STEM excludes education as a key element and thus the aspect of ‘education through science’ as a philosophy is demoted by the term. There is also a distinct danger that STEM is seen as more in favour of a more narrow focus on knowledge and skills, rather than on the range of competences needed for the promotion of scientific literacy for the 21st century (which is seen as encompassing engineering, technology and mathematics, but also creative problem solving, reasoning in developing self-determination, self- efficacy and self development plus the development of a range of communication skills (not just symbolic, mathematics, or even digitally linked, but also spoken, written and the use of expressions to explain, convince and present) and employability skills plus capabilities to function as a responsible citizen to a degree dependent on status and aptitude.
In writing this report, we are conscious of a range of views on this issue, and in particular, the view that mathematics, whilst critical to science careers and indeed to advanced scientific literacy, is qualitatively different to science when it comes to inquiry. We are also
5 In a questionnaire response for the INSTEM project, October/November 2013
aware that technology can be widely interpreted in school contexts, from the use of technology in delivering science to ‘science & technology studies (STS) where these topics are critically examined in their social, economic and philosophical contexts. Meanwhile, there is little study of engineering at school level, although there is a strong argument for teaching engineering to encourage what de Bono calls “operacy”6.
We will return to this topic in various parts of the report. In order to conform to increasingly widespread usage in European discourse, however, we will use STEM as a comprehensive description when ‘science and mathematics’ does not capture the full range of relevant topics.
Criteria for inclusion in the review were that projects:
Were EU funded, either by the Lifelong Learning or Framework 7 programmes
Covered Inquiry-based science and/or mathematics (STEM) education, i.e. not education in general or Information Technology
Started between 2007-2015
The conclusions in this report are based on published documents, either supplied directly by project coordinators or from project websites. There are wide variations in the amount and content of documentation from projects. This is an area where greater consistency across projects would be desirable. One major problem is the lack of clarity as to what constitutes a ‘deliverable’ and what counts as impact. This has resulted, for example, in a proliferation of reports on ‘state of the art’ in various areas of inquiry or professional development across partner countries. The lack of overall coordination and continuity between projects means that these potentially valuable reports do not form a coherent whole, and are not updated on a regular basis.
In terms of impact, the main problem is a disconnection between the long-term aim of increasing the number of scientifically qualified citizens, and the short-term nature of projects themselves. The complex interactions between education systems, the labour market and individual dispositions make it impossible for projects to evaluate their impact in terms of this overarching aim.
Our recommendations are therefore directed at three levels: practice, projects and policy. The key recommendations are listed below, beginning with policy.
Key INSTEM Recommendations
Section A: Policy
A.1 Educational change in Europe should be implemented in line with a well-defined long-term vision, which incorporates the best features of national systems.
A.2 There should be a wider interpretation of ‘innovation’ in relation to educational interventions, to allow for methods complementary to IBL.
A.3 Greater coherence is needed between policies and actions in primary, post primary and the tertiary sector.
A.4 There should be more interaction between science education, the world of work, and research, in order to provide students with a sense of purpose and real engagement with science.
6 http://www.edwdebono.com/cort/introduction.htm
A.5 There is a need for shared understandings regarding the impact for STEM projects and a related need to create monitoring and feedback systems to ensure that this impact can be measured.
A.6 Project durations and start dates for education projects should reflect the reality of school timeframes.
A.7 There should be more Interaction between the administrative systems of the European Commission (including the executive agencies such as EACEA and REA) and project coordinators.
A.8 There should be clear coordination of EU actions related to STEM education, with connections between Horizon 2020, Erasmus Plus and relevant policy instruments.
Section B: National level
B.1 There should be better alignment between pedagogy, curricula and assessment systems.
B.2 There should be better coordination between curricula, textbooks, online resources and teacher competence.
B.3 There should be more professional development for teachers, in order to improve their confidence and repertoires of actions in relation to IBL.
B.4 More attention should be paid to student voice and rights in relation to STE(A)M subjects, in order to encourage students, as future citizens, to take responsibility for research and innovation.
Section C: School level
C.1 There needs to be commitment at school governance/management level to implement new practices effectively.
C.2 Inter-disciplinary working and teacher collaboration are essential to maximise the potential of innovations in teaching and learning,
C.3 Teacher professional development requires time, space and coherent structures.
C.4 The informal sector has an increasing part to play in implementing innovative forms of science education.
C.5 Classroom environment: The essential precondition for IBL to have any effect is an inquiry-friendly classroom environment, in which student questions are valued and curricula are sufficiently flexible to allow for deviations from planned lessons.
C.6 The role of ‘enabling knowledge’ is important, and there are many aspects of science or mathematics that do not lend themselves to discovery by students.
C.7 Supporting teachers to implement inquiry-based learning requires a greater use of professional networks, including collaboration with other teachers, working with the informal sector and working with researchers on new methods, materials and topics.
Terminology
In this report, the reader will notice that we refer to ‘science’ quite frequently. This is because the landscape of EU projects in this area is heavily biased towards the ‘science’ component of STEM, also sometimes referred to as MST (Mathematics, Science, Technology) or STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Medicine), the latter being used mainly in the tertiary education context. The other components – technology, engineering and mathematics – do feature, but in different ways and with different emphases. National contexts also play a part, and technology, for example, can be interpreted along a continuum from computer programming to woodwork, depending on the context. It can also be seen as a tool for use in teaching other subjects, as with the American interpretation of STEM. However, references to ‘science’ and ‘scientists’ in this report include the other components, and other science based occupations, unless stated otherwise.
The recent Science Education for Responsible Citizenship report also introduces the concept of STEAM, where:
Making connections between STEM and all other disciplines – what is often referred to as STEAM – pushes beyond the boundaries of science to embrace the creative potential of linking the arts, scientific inquiry and innovation. Innovative new ideas and creative solutions often emerge at the interface between disciplines and involve different societal actors. Innovation is linked, directly or indirectly, to human experience, needs and problems. This can occur through engaging with the arts – playing or listening to music, dancing, experiencing or creating art, watching and creating video or film, or being involved in designing and making (EC, 2015, p.21)
This is a significant change, linked to the emergence of Responsible Research and Innovation, in which trans-disciplinarity is emphasised as a way of addressing “grand challenges” to societal cohesion and survival.
There are also variations in the use of inquiry-based acronyms: IBST, IBSE, IBST/E, IBL.
IBST (Inquiry-Based Science Teaching) was the original, official version, but many educators see that as a limited interpretation of inquiry, the main purpose of which is to enhance learning. Hence, our preferred version is IBL, with the implication that both teachers and learners are involved in the learning process.
This report refers generically to the EC (European Commission), but in fact, projects are funded by programmes, such as FP7 (Framework Programme 7) and Horizon 2020, linked to specific Directorates-General (DG) within the overall EC structure, mainly DG Research & Innovation with the Research Executive Agency, and DG Education and Culture with the EACEA (Education, Audio-visual & Culture Executive Agency). There are thus significant differences in the operational and conceptual aspects of projects. This is significant when attempting to create a coherent overview of actions in this area, since it explains differences and overlaps between projects.
The terms student and pupil are used interchangeably for young people of school age attending formal (compulsory) education between the ages of (approximately) 5-18.
Evaluation vs Synthesis
This report does not attempt to evaluate the success of individual projects or project actions. This would be a massive task, requiring a different project structure and remit. In
most cases, evaluations are carried out routinely within projects, or by external evaluators, on a project-by-project basis. These evaluations are generally restricted in their distribution and may address sensitive issues, including financial and management information not relevant to our purposes here. Furthermore these are ‘process evaluations’ as distinct from the kind of ‘outcome evaluations’, which would be required to measure long-term outcomes from short-term projects.
In the same way, we have not attempted to compare the value of different projects’ approaches to promoting IBL, since no objective criteria exist. For example, it would be inappropriate to compare degrees of success based on numbers of teachers reached or numbers of journal articles published. In the case of teacher numbers, for example, the long-term impact of a large single event, such as a conference, may be lower than that of a sustained series of smaller workshops. The relevant data and success criteria could only be established through additional research beyond the scope of INSTEM. Our intention is, however, to take project findings and outcomes as being the best that could be achieved by that particular team with the resources available to them.
We provide a brief overview of projects reviewed in Appendix 1. One of our conclusions in this report is that the sheer number of projects, and their understandable desire to maximise dissemination opportunities, has resulted in an information explosion regarding Inquiry-based science teaching and learning. This ‘explosion’ has resulted in attempts to create portals, repositories and other web-based sites in order to manage the flow of information and to simplify navigation around the information websites themselves. It has also resulted in the INSTEM project itself. There is a danger of ‘initiative fatigue’, a phrase reflecting the multiple pressures on teachers to change their practice in various ways, within an overcrowded schedule.
In order to make the information manageable, therefore, we have looked for patterns and conceptual similarities. Our general recommendations occupy only two pages. This is because inquiry-based learning exists only when the broad principles of inquiry come into contact with the complex details of curriculum, classroom environment, individual learning styles, teacher knowledge, assessment systems, physical resources and so on. It is difficult to specify exactly what the optimum actions might be for a given situation, without being in the position of the teacher (or students) concerned. This is primarily the role of those working at the local or national level, to which in any case education is developed in the EU.
Teachers and students work within a ‘pedagogical field’ (Gray, 2009), which determines the parameters for action within any given education system. This field has trans-national, national, regional, local and micro-scale components, including relevant policies and legislation, traditions, teacher education frameworks, curricula, assessment systems and emerging trends. For example, the use of corporal punishment has become almost universally unacceptable in schools, over the last thirty or forty years, due to the influence of theoretical and ethical discourses and popular opinion. The right of students to ask questions, meanwhile, is increasingly regarded as a necessary part of a creative and curiosity driven educational environment, although in certain national contexts it is still not universally accepted.
This report provides recommendations on how the pedagogical field might be re-aligned to promote inquiry, together with other innovations or accepted forms of practice, such as formative assessment, which complement inquiry. None of its recommendations are exclusive to inquiry, even although inquiry is central to providing 21st century creativity, skills
and competences (EC, 2015). Nor are all our recommendations necessarily exclusive to STEM education, although there are some, such as the need to take account of the nature of science in teaching and learning about science, which are obviously relevant mainly to science education. As the Science Education for Responsible Citizenship report (EC, 2015) suggests, science education in a broad sense has a big part to play in addressing societal challenges, and in order to do so, it needs to deploy a wide range of innovative methods.
What kind of knowledge are we synthesising?
Knowledge is acquired as a result of asking questions, in a wide sense. It is therefore necessary to specify the kind of questions that need to be asked of the data, in this case project documents. Our underlying questions are set out below, and although some of these questions require long-term, longitudinal studies across multiple disciplines for their ultimate resolution, we can provide some answers, using information obtained from projects or which is already in the public domain.
The central challenge in synthesising the various aspects of project knowledge is that these projects do not follow a common model, although they show commonalities of approach. Their outputs include:
Reports
Teachers attending training or professional development events
Conferences
Responses to surveys
Teaching materials produced
Videos of classroom activity
Clearly, however, this varied material cannot be analysed in a statistical way as with Hattie’s (2009) study of effects sizes. The analysis consists of identifying common themes, especially in conclusions or recommendations, and of weighing arguments where opposing views are expressed. This is rare: most projects agree on the fundamentals of promoting inquiry.
There is a second and more fundamental problem with the underlying motivation for these actions. The original questions posed by the Rocard report (EC, 2007) were:
1) How can we increase the numbers of students entering science-based careers in Europe?
2) How can we increase the scientific literacy of the European population at large?
Inquiry-based science teaching was seen as the way forward, leading to calls intended to spread inquiry-based science teaching on a large scale in Europe.
The main question for INSTEM is therefore:
3) How can we increase the implementation of IBL on the basis of what is already known?
This knowledge, however, is of little use unless IBL itself is effective in the first instance. Indeed, the original calls in this area referred to ‘proven methods’. This opens up a whole area of historical and pedagogical debate, since it is well known that the mainstream promotion of inquiry-based methods dates back at least to the post-Sputnik era in the USA. It would be fair to say that the majority of projects regarded themselves as under no obligation to rigorously prove the efficacy or efficiency of IBL, since this was not a requirement of the respective calls for proposals. Conversely, however, debates over the definition of inquiry led to the creation of more nuanced and insightful models and products.
INSTEM thus faces a second, more implicit challenge:
4) Is IBL effective?
This of course breaks down into sub–questions:
5) Is IBL effective in increasing pupil interest/engagement/enjoyment7 in science?8
6) Is IBL effective in increasing pupil understanding of science?
7) Is IBL effective in increasing pupil achievement in science?
8) Is IBL effective in increasing teachers’ interest/motivation for teaching science?
9) Is IBL effective in increasing the number of entrants to tertiary-level science courses?
10) Is IBL effective in increasing the numbers of scientists entering the labour market?
Some of these answers emerge at least partially from project reports, but gaining comprehensive knowledge of the influence of pedagogy on long-term science careers and literacy is clearly beyond the scope of the projects reviewed here. In what follows, we will map out the overall learning from these projects, from European to classroom levels and across the main emergent themes. This learning does not necessarily relate directly to the long-term aim of expanding and integrating science education into society, but it does give us a great deal of guidance on how to improve school education, out-of-school learning and project design.
7 These concepts are not synonymous. 8 The PRIMAS (2013) internal evaluation report provides a useful section on student perceptions of IBL: http://www.primas-project.eu/artikel/en/1247/reports-and-deliverables/view.do
Section A: Policy
A.1: Vision
Educational change in Europe should be implemented in line with a well-defined long-term vision, which incorporates the best features of national systems.
We strongly support an overall vision of implementing IBL on a wide scale across Europe. However, as was noted in the previous section, the principles of inquiry should apply to change processes as well as to teaching pedagogies. Thus, it is necessary to inquire into the current state of the vision, and how it can be taken to the next stage.
STEM projects have initiated extensive European collaboration, have inspired thousands of teachers and have undoubtedly enabled thousands of pupils to enjoy science more, to fully engage with it, and, for some, to pursue it as a career. However, we need to construct a more inclusive vision of educational progress, one to which students and teachers can subscribe without the initiative fatigue mentioned in the previous section. Linking this vision to societal challenges might open up the possibilities of involving a wider range of stakeholders and methods. As the above recommendation suggests, imaginative local actions, perhaps unforeseen in the development of large projects, should be nurtured. This is in line with the EU’s espousal of social innovation, and also with the conclusions of the recently completed Xploit project, which looked at learning communities9 and how they could be sustained.
The most important factor in presenting such a vision is that it should be the co-creation of those involved, including students and teachers. This is not to exclude scientists themselves, although the real need is not for brief visits but continued engagement, something more possible for science students and early-career researchers than for Nobel prize winners, often cited as possible role models. Sustained engagement with scientific activity over long periods can help to provide the necessary insight and inspiration for young people to choose science-based careers or to use scientific tools in their daily lives.
In this context, it is also important to see science education in the context of the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) agenda. Science education has traditionally been seen as value free, but in RRI, we are seeing a return of values, ethics and critically, public engagement with science. Inquiry-based learning is vital in enabling students to engage with science and scientific processes through observation, data collection, analysis and argumentation based on evidence. Many STEM projects have taken the bold step of connecting school science to science in action, by linking researchers and students. The resulting dialogue is at the core of science education within RRI. The Irresistible10 project is currently demonstrating that RRI is very effective in motivating young people to engage with ‘cutting-edge’ science and its uncertainties, risks and opportunities.
Our vision for science education is one of openness, where the boundaries between science and education, or between research and learning, are porous and where boundary crossing is welcomed. This means that inquiry, in a wide sense, should be at the centre, as the connecting theme between all relevant activities, as shown in the diagram overleaf:
9 http://xploit-eu.com/thexploitproject/ 10 www.irresistible-project.eu
LEARNING SCIENCE
SOCIETAL CHALLENGES
INNOVATION
INQUIRY
A.2: Innovation
There should be a wider interpretation of ‘innovation’ in relation to educational interventions, to allow for methods complementary to IBL.
The success of the EC funded projects in STEM education has indicated the potential for collaboration and support actions to produce useful materials, to run teacher professional development courses and generally to enhance the landscape of STEM education. There is, however, much greater potential for change within the institutions and people already involved in this work at project level, and even more in the vast European population of teachers and students.
Projects have identified several obstacles to the widespread dissemination and promotion of IBL, which are discussed in other sections of this report. One further specific obstacle is that innovations of all kinds are constantly being tried in education. Many of these innovations are at the didactic level – the use of new kinds of sensor linked to smartphones in physics teaching, for example. Others, such as IBL, encompass both pedagogical and didactic innovations.
The point here is that a range of innovations arrive in the classroom through a complex range of routes and for a complex set of reasons, from a teacher tweeting colleagues about a new science resource, to a minister of education implementing a new testing regime. This makes it difficult to argue that one specific innovation is better than others at all times and for all situations. Hattie (2009) provides a meta-study of existing research, which places IBL in the mid-range of educational innovations in terms of effectiveness (depending, of course, on his definition of IBL). His study, however, whilst ultimately based on studies that may have corrected for interacting factors, cannot say much about the actual interaction of innovation at school level.
The key, as identified in the S-TEAM project, is to increase teachers’ ‘repertoires of action’ within any given situation. Any innovation to be implemented within a project should be integrated into an overall concept of high-quality teaching. Many aspects of high-quality teaching were identified by Hattie (2009), including clear goal setting and, crucially, direct instruction where this was appropriate. Better initial teacher education, better teacher professional development, better teacher networks and better information providers are essential to the increased focus on evaluating outcomes of teaching, which is the real gain from innovation in any form.
For example, we could cite the region around Freiburg in Germany. Here the Comenius project Lema (2006-2009) aimed at implementing mathematical modelling and applications to reality. Directly afterwards, the Comenius project COMPASS (2009 – 2011) aimed at implementing interdisciplinary tasks and from 2010 – 2013 the FP7 project Primas was set up to implement inquiry-based learning on a wide scale. Finally, from 2013 to 2016 the project Mascil will implement inquiry-based learning and connections to the world of work. It is likely that teachers could be confused if these concepts are regarded as different and as new things to be implemented. However, if we emphazise common principles and point out that these are also elements of good teaching, this can be very supportive for teachers. In fact, for this reason, several teachers participated in one or more of these projects, which made them real experts in innovative forms of teaching.
This illustrates, however, that although there was a fortuitous synergy between Lema, COMPASS, Primas and Mascil, this was due to the continuity provided by having the same
coordinator and coordinating institution in all these projects, together with the good relations established with teachers and schools in the region. In other cases, such continuity was absent, leading to failure to embed innovative practices into the classroom over the long term. Furthermore, the need to apply for funding on four separate occasions and the need to create four separate ‘brands’, even for these successful actions, diluted the effort that could have been applied to improving STEM education in the region over a ten-year period.
It could be argued that the allocation of funding over three or four years, and the need to re-apply on a regular basis, contribute to the injection of new ideas into the system. However, the experience of projects suggests that it would be possible to develop such new ideas within existing projects, especially when meaningful co-creation and innovation with teachers is involved. Working with schools and teachers is best facilitated when relationships are sustained over long periods, as is the case with the partnership schools associated with many teacher education institutions.
A.3: Sectoral coherence
Greater coherence is needed between policies and actions in primary, post primary and the tertiary sector.
This recommendation has already been recognised in the wording of topics appearing in the H2020 programme, via an increased focus on access to scientific careers rather than on simply making science education more engaging. For example, the results of the SECURE project11 indicate a consistent decline in science and mathematics engagement between 8-13 years of age, irrespective of national context, but do not provide a causal explanation.
There are discontinuities between STEM policies and actions at the different educational levels, from pre-school through primary, lower and upper secondary to tertiary education, not forgetting the importance of the vocational sector as well as university higher education. As one project puts it:
An abrupt change in school culture, organisation of teaching and nature of science teaching at transfer from primary to secondary school can cause a decline in performance and in affective response to science (ESTABLISH, 2011, p.14)
A number of themes recur across projects, mainly the need to encourage children’s interest in science at an early age, as in the Creative Little Scientists and Pri-Sci-Net projects, and the increasing difficulty of doing extended inquiry-based work when high-stakes exams begin to determine the way teaching and learning are carried out. This is another indicator of a need for systemic planning across the spectrum of projects, paying attention to developing interest in science at primary level or even in pre-school, but with attention also paid to the overall pathway towards science across the learning trajectory.
Several explanations are possible. One hypothesis is that once science becomes a specialist subject rather than part of general teaching and learning, a range of personal choices and preferences come into play. In particular, secondary school science is increasingly linked to mathematics, and school subject pathways may make it difficult to separate the two areas. Some research suggests that maths anxiety might be a factor12. Even where there is no maths anxiety as such, there may well be avoidance due to the perceived difficulty or tedium
11 see: http://www.secure-project.eu/ 12 See for an overview: http://journals.heacademy.ac.uk/doi/full/10.11120/msor.2006.06040019
of maths. In addition, the extant research on maths anxiety suggests that if working memory is a factor, then the addition of contextualising narratives around mathematical or scientific problems may exacerbate the problem, rather than making it easier by providing an ‘authentic’ context relevant to pupils’ own lives (Hattie, 2009, p.50).
A related theme, which is also missing, but which is undoubtedly important, is the lack of continuity from school science to university science. This reflects a general assumption that university science courses are unproblematic for those with the necessary entry qualifications, which is not always the case, as a recent UK Parliamentary report suggests13.
The nature of university science is also problematic given that the majority of science teachers gain a subject qualification before going on to take a teaching qualification. Their pedagogical attitudes are therefore likely to be influenced by their university experiences, although not always in a negative way. The emergence of integrated masters courses for science and mathematics teachers is producing some interesting results in this area.
Our overall conclusion is therefore that the design of ‘innovative’ projects and interventions in STEM education should be based on a combination of existing research evidence, engagement with stakeholders and a systematic analysis of the problem, rather than on assumptions about the effectiveness of any single method.
A.4: STEM education and research
There should be more interaction between science education, the world of work, and research, in order to provide students with a sense of purpose and real engagement with science..
By research, we mean all scientific research and technological development, not just educational research. The need for synergy and interaction relates partly to the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) agenda, which calls for greater public engagement with science. It is also related to the emerging movement towards ‘open science’, which provides for more dialogue in research processes, both within scientific communities, and between those communities and the public. In the case of STEM education, this dialogue is enormously valuable in conveying the reality of science to students.
Many projects14 were and are involved in collaborations with research institutes or departments, including institutions such as botanical gardens with roles in both research and public engagement with science. The informal learning sector has been pro-active in providing opportunities for IBL, and of course is able to offer rich learning experiences, which cannot be provided by individual schools.
What project work shows, however, is that a much greater degree of interaction between science as work and science learning would be desirable. This would benefit pupils, teachers and the science community, based on the following principles:
Keeping teachers and pupils up to date with current thinking
Improving the communication skills of those already in science
Aligning the skills needed in science workplaces with skills learned in school, especially those skills linked to creativity and innovation
Recognising science teachers as scientists
13 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldsctech/37/37.pdf 14 see e.g. http://www.inquirebotany.org/en/
Involving pupils and teachers in actual scientific research
The latter point can be illustrated by projects undertaken in the context of ‘citizen science’ in the UK, and in a number of other countries (e.g. the Netherlands) supported by Science Shops. According to Katherine Mathieson, these can be divided into three categories15:
Contributory projects – designed by professional scientists; members of the public primarily contribute data e.g. UK ladybird survey.
Collaborative projects - designed by professional scientists; members of the public contribute data and inform the way in which the questions are addressed, analyse data and disseminate findings e.g. GalaxyZoo.
Co-created projects - designed by professional scientists and members of the public working together. At least some of the volunteer participants are involved in most or all steps of the scientific process. An example is the GROW project in which teachers & pupils at Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys are working with scientists to sequence a wheat gene16.
The significance of these activities in the context of future EU STEM projects is that they reflect a trend towards more direct public engagement with science. In particular, school engagement through such activities is, by its nature, inquiry-based, and also provides ways of developing “innovative products which reflect societal needs” as mentioned in the Science With and For Society work programme for 2014-2015. The recent Eurobarometer survey17 on support for Responsible Research and Innovation indicates not only that public attitudes towards science are positive, but also that further action on RRI is seen as useful. Involving schools in science and research is part of the long-term future for RRI. Projects such as ENGAGE, Parrise, and Irresistible are making this a reality.
A.5: Impact of STEM projects
There is a need for shared understandings regarding the impact for STEM projects and a related need to create monitoring and feedback systems to ensure that this impact can be measured.
Impact has been increasingly demanded of funded projects in all areas of research and development, and yet there is little common understanding of what might constitute ‘impact’ in the field of IBL and STEM education. As we have discussed elsewhere in this report, there are problems of timescale and causality in relating IBL to science career outcomes. Impact might, therefore, be understood in terms of long-term effects on teachers’ practices or on policies designed to make IBL more widely used. Even these effects depend, however, on the combination of factors making up the pedagogical field, and are unlikely to be fully measurable within the funded duration of specific projects.
The question of indicators is also controversial. A frequently used indicator is the number of teachers ‘reached’ by project activities, often supported by evaluation results obtained from post-event questionnaires. However, another result of limitations in the duration of projects is that ‘reached’ has to be regarded as an absolute quantity, rather than as the beginning of a measurement process.
15 see:http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/blog/citizen-science-new-black 16 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/society/schools/grow.aspx 17 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1075_en.htm
We recommend that a common set of indicators should be agreed between the STEM community and the EC, with the possibility of projects selecting indicators from this set to measure their own impact. In addition, this should be combined with an extended post-project presence. We discuss this topic further in section A8, below
A.6: Timeframes
Project durations and start dates for education projects should reflect the reality of school timeframes.
The normal time frame for FP7 projects is somewhere between 24-48 months, with 36 months being a common duration. The normal timeframe of LLP projects is between 24 and 36 months.
The cycle of Calls for proposals in FP7 has resulted in projects overlapping each other, which would potentially be useful for continuity and knowledge transfer between projects. The lack of a system for overall coordination between projects, however, has meant that this knowledge transfer does not always take place. INSTEM partners were recently involved, via ProCoNet, in bringing together three of the FP7 projects working on assessment for IBL, ASSIST-ME18, SAILS19 and FaSMEd20. There should be a more formal arrangement for such knowledge transfer to take place.
A more fundamental problem is the short timescale of projects in relation to the processes necessary for successful interventions. In general, projects take between 6-12 months to conduct the various preliminary reviews, state of the art reports, national workshops etc that are considered necessary to prepare the ground for interventions. In addition, it is necessary for the consortium for each project to establish working relationships, and do practical work such as setting up websites.
Meanwhile, if work in schools is planned, it will be necessary to contact target schools and inform them of the planned project activities. Schools typically start the academic year in August or September, whilst project start dates depend on EC processes and can sometimes start too ealy or too late to initiate school-based activities. The typical school year also includes a number of weeks when project work takes a distant second place to examinations, Christmas or other holidays. Thus, slippage frequently occurs, and even if projects succeed in implementing some kind of action in the first or second term (or semester/trimester), there will then be a quiet period until the next academic year. It is therefore quite difficult to complete multiple iterations of an activity, which is desirable for continuous improvement.
There are also time constraints introduced by the typical national or regional curriculum. Even in cases where this is not a rigid framework, there are school-level norms and expectations for topics to be covered. For teachers to undertake new, inquiry-based activities, there is a need for flexibility in progress through the curriculum. This is sometimes possible, but it is rare for teachers to be able to conduct more than one or two topic-related activities in the classroom as part of a project-initiated intervention. This was the case, for example in the S-TEAM project, where a very successful teacher professional development activity (PISCES) required a whole school term to conduct one teacher-designed intervention.
18 http://assistme.ku.dk/project/ 19 http://www.sails-project.eu/portal and: http://www.sails-project.eu/portal/news/assist-me-sails-coming-together 20 http://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/meettheteam/fasmedpartners/
This same limitation applies to teacher professional development (TPD) activities in other projects. Their experience indicates that one-off TPD events are not sufficient to embed new techniques into teachers’ practice. The most effective TPD actions involved a sequence of sessions, usually across the duration of a term/trimester. Ideally, teachers would be followed over the course of at least one academic year, with researchers tracking their emergent understandings of IBL. This would be followed by in-depth analysis and feedback, and a second iteration over the following academic year, leading to the embedding of sustainable TPD in schools. All this would require more time.
A further limitation on the time available for projects to implement activities in the classroom, or to run TPD courses, is that active dissemination of project results has to take place within the duration of funding, usually within the final 12 months of the project. This means that there is little incentive to keep up the momentum of active interventions, as final conferences are organised and final reports written. At the same time, this withdrawal from active liaison with schools and other stakeholders may cause some resentment at the short-term nature of such interventions. It is difficult to build long-term relationships on this basis. Since there are often similar perceptions of short-term thinking in relation to national policy changes, teachers are naturally predisposed to seek stability rather than change. In some cases, multiple projects such as Compass/Lema/Primas/Mascil have succeeded in maintaining these relationships over time, but this is dependent on specific local circumstances which cannot always be replicated elsewhere.
This is a problem for students as well, since for inquiry to work, it needs to be embedded in the everyday lives of schools and the young people in them. Students may not be as sensitive to policy changes as teachers, but it is well known that stability is an important factor in education, and that, for example, students experiencing frequent changes of teacher are likely to do less well than those whose teachers stay in post for long periods. Inquiry methods require the same degree of stability for successful implementation. One common element of inquiry is groupwork, which requires students to learn a range of social skills and techniques for successful learning. These skills and techniques take time to acquire, and need regular practice. This needs more than a couple of weeks spent on an inquiry into a single topic.
A.7: Project management at EC level
There should be more Interaction between the administrative systems of the European Commission (including the executive agencies such as EACEA and REA) and project coordinators.
Permanent mechanisms would contribute to ensure continuing dialogue between project commissioning and project execution, before, during and after projects
The structural need for greater dialogue between projects and the EC arises in at least three areas:
7.1) Avoiding Duplication of work already performed in previous projects, to maximise efficiency;
7.2) Enhancing Coordination between projects performing work in similar areas, to maximise impact;
7.3) Sustaining the impact of projects after funding ends, to maximise value.
To institutionalize such a dialogue, regular meetings between project coordinators, and representatives of the DG Research and Innovation, DG Education and Culture and the EACEA would be helpful. One extremely good example was the ProCoNet meeting on 6/7/2012 in Brussels, and subsequent meetings where coordinators and scientific officers exchanged views on current issues of mutual interest. EACEA is already working in this direction, with its annual meetings for coordinators of LLP projects21.
Regarding 7.1 above, duplication of work arises because there is no mechanism to institutionalise the factual prior knowledge necessary for projects to perform their work. For example, many projects have conducted surveys to assess the state of IBL in the national partners engaged in their consortia. These provide useful baseline information but are often performed several times for the same country by different projects.
Regarding 7.2, the INSTEM national workshops highlighted the problems of teachers in terms of ‘initiative fatigue’. Two main problems occur. Teachers are often approached by multiple projects, either consecutively or in parallel, because their schools have been identified as good collaborators. Alternatively, in looking for useful resources online, teachers are confused by the large number of projects competing for their attention. Given the presence of national science education websites in many member states, it is not always attractive for teachers to look outside their own national providers for resources, which may not be in an appropriate language. It would therefore be useful for projects to collaborate with each other and with appropriate external agencies in order to design their impact and dissemination strategies for maximum effectiveness.
In terms of 7.3, a workshop report from the MMLAP (Mobilization and Mutual Learning Action Plans) workshop in 2012 (Healy, 2012) suggests a “head-body-tail” model for project structures, in which the head represents public engagement with the topic, the body represents the main activities and the tail is the subsequent dissemination activity. Given that projects are expected to sustain their impact after the end of the main funding period, it would be logical to provide a specific funding allocation for post-project activities over a stipulated period (e.g. five years) in order to maintain a web presence, actively promote project results and to engage with stakeholders, including other projects and the EC. This ‘tail’ need not be expensive (perhaps 5% of the overall EC contribution) and would contribute to:
Better dissemination, communication and web presence;
Better use of time within the project period, through focusing on results rather than on promotion of preliminary findings;
Better liaison with other projects and with the EC.
The existing system of mid-project review by external experts is useful in providing formative feedback to projects, and could be extended into a post-project review. This would support the work of project officers in reviewing final reports and deliverables, and could then be fed into the extended post-project period (PPP). Projects would be required to provide a plan for this period as part of the final report and it would be subject to approval on the basis of satisfactory performance during the main phase of the project.
At the opposite end, the beginning of the project phase currently involves a rather closed and secretive model of formation, writing, submission, evaluation and (if successful) “accession to a grant agreement”. The removal of the negotiation phase in Horizon 2020 was designed to simplify the process, but in the spirit of RRI, increasing stakeholder
21 e.g. the Together for Basic Skills conference, December 2012
involvement in the ‘head’ phase is highly desirable in order to make projects responsible to society. This stakeholder involvement should be supplementary to the role of external experts in proposal evaluation, a role currently compromised by the lack of a negotiation phase. This is because evaluators do not currently make recommendations, since projects are now funded on the basis of the proposal as submitted. Having a more open process prior to submission, and the possibility of post-evaluation changes, including stakeholder input, would increase the potential for projects to have effective public engagement.
BODY TAIL HEAD
Figure: The Dinosaur – Model of a project structure: Head – Body -
Tail
A.8: Coordination of STEM education and European funding
There should be clear coordination of EU actions related to STEM education, with connections between Horizon 2020, Erasmus Plus and relevant policy instruments.
There are three major questions:
8.1) What will happen to the knowledge, learning and products from completed FP7 and LLP projects in STEM education, over the 2014-2020 period?
8.2) What is the status of STEM education in Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+?
8.3) What are the goals for STEM education by the year 2020 and how can the STEM community contribute to these goals?
The first point, 8.1, is partly addressed by the continuation of Scientix into its third iteration, partly by projects’ own repositories and partly by the determination of FP7 participants to take part in SEAC 1 within H2020. The energy of FP7 project consortia is reflected in the large numbers of proposals submitted for SEAC 1 calls22. This call states that: “the action will coordinate and leverage Member states’ activities with respect to innovative approaches in the field of science education and scientific careers”23. It is still likely, however, that the ‘leveraging’ of previous activities will not be on a scale sufficient to extract the potential value of existing products or materials. Most FP7 projects have a legacy of teaching materials and the necessary professional development methods to support their implementation. It would be regrettable if these materials remained locked away in web archives without the possibility of more widespread use.
The second point, 8.2, has already been (partly) answered by the EC. A significant amount of funding has been allocated to science education in SEAC 1, and, less directly, in RRI-related projects, which, via the RRI ‘keys’, should also include science education elements. However, this funding is very limited in comparison with the size of European education systems, and the potential benefits of more scientific, inclusive and innovative citizen involvement. With the launch of the SERC report (EC, 2015), an opportunity has arisen to lobby policymakers for more funding, in order to take advantage of the existing work and potential energy of earlier projects, and to maintain a viable eco-system for STEM education reform.
We also note that the SEAC 1 call makes explicit reference to ‘innovative methods in science education’ and to “making STEM careers more accessible to young people”. This provides for a wider range of possible actions. In addition, some of the other calls in SWAFS and the Europe in a Changing World work programmes point towards possible contributions from STEM education to lifelong learning (Young-3) and social change (Young-4). There are also possibilities for incorporating STEM education and research as part of the RRI commitment within the other Societal Challenge work programmes, but it is not yet clear what constitutes science education in these contexts.
The third point is addressed in the Science Education for Responsible Citizenship report (EC, 2015, p.26). This report suggests that:
Successful reforms are not top-down quick fixes to problems, nor are they bottom-up solutions to immediate needs. They are collaborative programmes for enduring change, at local, regional, national, European and international levels.
22 Believed to be 147 proposals in 2014 and 202 in 2015, according to EC sources. 23 1587807-16._swafs_wp2014-2015_en.pdf, published 11/12/2013
The current funding system, whilst promoting competition and ensuring the quality of funded projects, might not do enough to sustain change processes over the requisite ten to twenty year period. Again, the SERC report should be taken seriously, and we agree with its conclusions. However, we would like to recommend more specifically that Horizon 2020, Erasmus plus, and their successor programmes, should consider altering the funding rules to permit some actions, or parts of actions, to have longer durations. In addition, there should be different models of governance and oversight in order that these actions are seen to deliver value for money and substantial impact.
The Europe 2020 targets for education present major challenges, especially as national systems are under increased financial pressure. There is clearly a need for action, but it is also clear that there is a need for more targeted applications of existing educational research. In 2020, there will still be impact from earlier FP7 projects and their legacies, some impact from LLP and Erasmus + projects, as well as contributions from Horizon 2020 projects. These contributions should equal more than the sum of their parts.
The experience of completed projects, as reported here, should, therefore, lead to a radical reshaping of the project landscape:
8.4) Projects should have more freedom to work with different methods, whether proven or innovative;
8.5) Inter-project cooperation and collaboration should be maximised through better information exchange at all stages of the process;
8.6) Public engagement should actually influence the way projects are designed (the ‘head’ stage) rather than simply validating actions after the event;
8.7) Progress should be cumulative, avoiding duplication and repetition of actions;
8.8) An overall framework for impact should be agreed amongst all stakeholders, covering indicators, measurement techniques and overall goals;
8.9) Funding arrangements should allow projects to have ‘tails’, allowing dissemination to extend over several years following the end of the project;
8.10) There should be more effort to coordinate European and national actions in STEM education, in order for mutual learning to take place. The last point is especially important since a lack of coherence between European and national goals could potentially lead to wasted effort on both sides. High-level ministerial agreements are in place regarding the Europe 2020 goals, but there is a need for better cooperation at the practice level. In teacher education, for example, this is being addressed through the TEQUILA network24, which brings institutions together at national and European levels to discuss research-based improvements to teacher education practice, independently of any specific project. In conclusion, we see the transitions from LLP to Erasmus+ and from Framework Programme 7 to Horizon 2020 as being important and productive, offering a chance to reflect on results, opportunities and future actions in a spirit of mutual learning. We particularly welcome the introduction of projects such as SATORI, which is studying evaluation and ethics frameworks for Mobilisation and Mutual Learning Actions. This type of project provides opportunities for reflection not available in other types of action.
24 Teacher Education Quality through Integration of Learning and reseArch.
FP7 and LLP project knowledge
A Coordination Plan for STEM projects, 2014-2020
Techniques and practices for IBL in classrooms
Teacher Professional development for IBL
Platforms and resources for IBL
2014-2015
Making STEM careers attractive
Focusing on RRI themes
Adding value to FP7/LLP
outcomes
2016-2017
2018-2020
National activities aligned with EU projects
Factors that cause dropout from STEM identified
Use of innovative pedagogies to remedy causes of dropout and low achievement
R& I activity increased through public engagement
Section B: National Level
Innovative practices are things that happen at national and regional level. By ‘national’ here we also mean regional, as in the case of the German Länder, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the UK, Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium etc. This is the level at which policies are set for schools over a wide area with shared characteristics, often including language. We therefore recognise that national and/or regional governments are responsible for educational policy and decision-making. It is desirable, however, that the learning from EU projects informs national policy and vice-versa.
B.1: Pedagogy, Curricula and Assessment
There should be better alignment between pedagogy, curricula and assessment systems
This is a recommendation that is central to STEM education reform. IBL brings with it the need for additional skills and competences, particularly in argumentation, the use of evidence and creative research design, which are difficult to measure through standardised tests or examinations. The collective skills developed through inquiry are not being assessed, as current systems focus on individual achievement.
This is recognised by the ESTABLISH project:
In particular, any attempt to introduce widespread use of new methodologies, such as IBSE, is thwarted by two inter-related items – the curriculum (in terms of syllabus content) and the associated assessment system. Consequently, these factors are identified as two critical forces in implementing IBSE in schools. As teachers play the central role in the delivery of education and the monitoring of student progress, these are also considered to be key players. Hence, the education of teachers is deemed to be a key factor. It is proposed that these three elements - curriculum, assessment and teacher education - constitute the key forces for driving change in classroom practice (Establish, 2011, p.2).
Currently, there are three major FP7 projects (Assist-Me, FaSMEd, SAILS) specifically addressing assessment, and this will undoubtedly produce a much better foundation for future applications of inquiry. In terms of curriculum, there are some indications of change towards curricula based on what the National Science Association in the US calls ‘cross cutting concepts’ and ‘disciplinary core ideas’ (see figure, below, adapted from Duschl, 2012)
B.2: Resources
There should be better coordination between curricula, textbooks, online resources and teacher competence.
This heading refers to one of the most popular approaches taken by STEM education projects, such as PRIMAS, Compass, Profiles and Pathway, that of producing ‘resources’ or ‘materials’ aimed at making it easier for teachers to conceive, plan, implement and benefit from the use of IBL. This is an area where the re-use of work from previous projects has been quite common, and rightly so, since this addresses the issues of duplication and extended timescale for deployment, to which we have previously referred.
An associated question relates to the management of such resources at European level, where there are several centralised repositories and portals from which resources can be downloaded, often with the complementary facility for teachers and others to upload resources for sharing. There has been a parallel movement to institute some form of quality control for such materials (e.g. in the Pathways project), along with an ICT aspect usually related to questions of meta-data, digital licensing and overall format. Scientix is the main focus of EC activities in this area and its role should be extended, with a more pro-active role in surveying and aggregating project resources.
It is not difficult to discern a desire for centralised control in some of these moves, and of course parallel processes are going on at national level. Furthermore, despite the wide availability of online resources from a huge range of sources, the traditional role of the textbook remains. Whilst textbooks do not determine pedagogy, they undoubtedly play a role in how science is taught. There is a literature on textbook design, but there are few signs that projects have taken account of textbooks, or collaborations between academic partners and publishers of relevant textbooks25.
However, if this is the case, then the production of trans-national ‘resources’, online or otherwise, does not seem to make much sense. Again, the problem appears to be that teacher statements about ‘lack of [appropriate] resources’ being an obstacle to using IBL are seen as a justification for developing more resources rather than re-using existing ones.
One new approach, which has been suggested recently, is e-textbooks (also known as smart textbooks). These would be a combination of the curriculum-related arrangement of learning material as in traditional textbooks, together with various links to online resources, including resources for inquiry and especially sites enabling simulated or real-world scientific activity, such as Science Created by You (SCY)26.
25 The involvement of Pearson International in the ASSIST-ME project is an exception. 26 http://www.scy-net.eu/
B.3: Professional development
There should be more professional development programmes for teachers, in order to improve their confidence and repertoires of actions in relation to IBL.
The lack of coherence in teacher professional development programmes across Europe, or indeed the overall lack of programmes, has previously been identified by the TALIS report (EC, 2009) as well as in project planning. Projects such as PRIMAS, PROFILES, Pathway and S-TEAM have, therefore, focused heavily on providing high-quality teacher professional development courses. This has probably been the most successful part of project activity, since it combines concrete action with direct teacher contact, provides strong sources of feedback and helps embed IBL into teacher practices.
Although there have been some successful trans-national TPD activities, such as seasonal schools27, they have disadvantages. Seasonal schools generally happen during school holidays, and are difficult for teachers with family commitments, leading to questions about gender equality. They also rely on project funding to cover hotel and flight costs, which is unsustainable in the long term. It is therefore more useful to focus on TPD provided at local level, where language is not a problem and where travel costs are much lower. Furthermore, local groups of teachers can be self-sustaining, providing that there is support at the level of school management. The main obstacles at national level are
A lack of commitment to TPD in general;
A tendency to fill the available TPD time with factual information delivery rather than genuine learning opportunities;
A lack of incentives for attending TPD sessions, especially if this involves time out of school;
A lack of financial arrangements to cover teachers absent from class due to TPD activities.
The evidence from projects is that effective TPD is the best and cheapest way of increasing the overall quality of teaching, itself recognised as the biggest single factor in improving student outcomes. At the same time, projects also recognise, sometimes indirectly, that initial teacher education/training (ITE/T) needs to reflect the importance of IBL, if it is to be internalised by teachers. ITE/T is a more difficult target area since it involves its own pedagogy, curricula, and assessment methods, and is often tightly controlled, as opposed to current TPD practices. It is also a rather slow way of implementing change, since the number of teachers emerging from the ITE/T system each year is only a small proportion of the overall teaching population. Nevertheless, ITE/T needs to be targeted in any meaningful reform process, in order to internalise the use of inquiry-based methods across the science education spectrum. It is also worth noting that disciplinary differences should be taken into account within ITE/T. This is not a trivial problem, given the wide range of possible disciplinary specialisms and the variations in teacher education systems across Europe. Projects have been active in this area, with attention being paid to the arrangement of materials on websites and to online web resources for initial teacher education.
B.4: Student voice
More attention should be paid to student voice and rights in relation to STEM subjects.
27 Such as those run by Creative Little Scientists in Crete, June/July 2013
Although this point has been mentioned before in this report, it is fundamentally important, since the overall aim of improving student engagement requires projects to at least acknowledge the importance of student perceptions of inquiry. This is one of the most notable absences from most project documents, but there are a number of reasons why the student voice is not there, at least in adequate strength. Those projects that have done work on student opinion, such as SECURE, have been unable to ask direct questions about inquiry either due to its being absent from school ‘language’, or because it is not being used at all. It is therefore difficult to get a clear picture, even from these projects, of whether students value inquiry and whether it might affect their long-term intentions. Other projects, such as SiS-Catalyst, have addressed student opinion in a more direct way but are not primarily concerned with IBL. PRIMAS has produced results on student evaluations.
Projects focus on maximising value from the available funding. This normally involves using a multiplication factor, starting with small numbers of teachers or institutions and relying on a tree structure, with results numerically increasing as the original input diffuses outwards. One teacher is thus expected to use inquiry-based learning with multiple groups of students over the course of time, leading to projects claiming to influence very large numbers of students. Ongoing research after the end of formal funding is needed to substantiate these multiplication figures and to ensure the sustained embedding of IBL in teachers’ practices.
There are several reasons why research into student attitudes and into the sustained effectiveness of TPD has not been widely pursued. Firstly, there is the ambiguous situation of Coordination and Support Actions (CSA) and LLP projects, which are not funded to carry out research, but which nevertheless evaluate their results.
Secondly, evaluation of project activities involving teachers is relatively easy and can be carried out within the timeframe of TPD sessions or workshops. Research into pupil beliefs and attitudes is much more complex, and requires a wide range of adaptations for different subject areas and age groups. Furthermore, there is always time pressure in the classroom, making it difficult for teachers to administer elaborate instruments or to carry out focus groups. Some projects have developed relatively compact instruments for measuring classroom attitudes to inquiry28 but these are not in widespread use.
Finally, whilst projects are keen to receive feedback from evaluations, teachers are often less enthusiastic about receiving feedback from pupils. It is perceived as difficult to separate feedback about a teaching method from feedback about teachers themselves. When this factor is added to the need for teachers to take time out from actual teaching and learning to administer questionnaires that may actually disadvantage them, it is easy to see why pupil opinion or student voice do not figure prominently in project discourse, with the exception of one project (SiS-Catalyst), which is specifically addressing this issue, through the provision of guidelines for listening to children and young people29.
This is an issue at European, national and local level. The national level, however, is where there is most scope for incorporating student voice into educational policies, planning and discourse. Misconceptions about the risks of listening to students are widespread, but research indicates that the student voice is far more responsible, mature and constructive than its present status within education might suggest.
28 Scepsati, developed in the S-TEAM project. 29 http://www.siscatalyst.eu/listen-empower
Section C: School level
C.1: School management and governance
There needs to be commitment at school governance/management level to implement new practices effectively.
Inquiry-based learning has exciting implications for schools, teachers and learners, but schools are collective enterprises where teamwork, consistency of approach and fair sharing of resources are essential. Consequently, successful adoption of IBL requires commitment from school management, especially in supporting teachers to undertake the relevant TPD activities, including the provision of teaching cover where necessary. Such commitment also extends to ensuring continuity of teaching practices, either between experienced and early-career teachers, or when teachers are replaced, or between subject areas, so that pupils do not experience dissonance between different approaches.
We have also seen a number of inquiry-based activities run as whole-school, transdisciplinary projects, with technology, science, design and even language learning taking place alongside each other, such as Wheels on Fire, an activity in Norwegian schools run by S-TEAM.
In many national contexts, the idea of schools as learning communities is becoming popular, and it is important for STEM education to recognise that it may not have a privileged position in such communities, where a variety of innovative teaching methods might already be in use. There is therefore a need for STEM education projects to be flexible and to recognise that many characteristics of inquiry in STEM are also characteristics of high-quality teaching in general.
School leaders, and the local education authorities or other regional bodies, also have a role in providing the necessary physical resources for inquiry. In some countries, the outreach role of universities is pivotal in providing access to advanced laboratories and other facilties beyond the financial reach of individual schools. This can also benefit teachers, by providing for exchanges with research scientists, as is currently appening in the Irresistible and Chain Reaction30 projects.
C.2: Teacher collaboration
Inter-disciplinary working and teacher collaboration are essential to maximise the potential of innovations in teaching and learning.
Teacher collaboration is essential for maximising the potential of IBL and other innovative teaching and learning strategies. The essence of teacher collaboration lies in the development of common understandings, and the development of shared understandings itself becomes a pedagogical tool, made explicit in the form of 'professional inquiry' (Reeves, 2008). Pedagogy is thus linked to the processes of reflection and self-evaluation, which are increasingly part of teacher education, both formal and informal. Reeves, in discussing the development of professional inquiry programmes, points out that:
The evidence...raised considerable doubts about the whole idea that ‘changing’ individuals was an adequate basis for construing professional learning and growth. It showed that there is a complex dynamic involved where one individual cannot change what she does without the acquiescence, compliance and participation of others (Reeves, 2008, n.p).
30 http://www.chreact.eu
This is a principle of pedagogy in general. New teachers are especially constrained in applying new forms of pedagogy, because even in the supposed 'isolation' of their own classrooms, what they do is affected by, and has effects on, others, for example by raising pupil expectations. Grangeat & Gray (2008) also make it clear that teachers' collective or collaborative work is increasingly important in changing teaching methods and attitudes: “Teachers’ collective work mediates between teachers as autonomous agents and teaching as a structural feature of society” (ibid, p.179). More simply, as the ESTABLISH project puts it in relation to TPD:
As the group of teachers attending workshops will have varied experiences, it is important for them to be given time to share these experiences with their colleagues, particularly as the more experienced teachers in inquiry can share their ideas and practices with others within their local context (ESTABLISH 2011, p.43).
This reflects the introduction of the ‘A’ (for All subjects) into STEM recommended by the Science Education for Responsible Citizenship report (EC, 2015).
C.3: Teacher Professional Development Structures
Teacher professional development is essential and requires time, space and a coherent purpose and structure.
The single most common theme from project documents and from the statements of teachers themselves is that professional development is necessary to enable teachers to implement IBL confidently and successfully. However, in recognising the qualities of IBL as a means of promoting better engagement and motivation in STEM subjects, we also need to recognise its effectiveness in teacher professional development. It is difficult to embed inquiry into teachers’ practice through one-off presentations or one-day workshops
Setting out principles for inquiry-based activity does not mean that the application of those principles is unproblematic. The best way of dealing with these problems is to give teachers the opportunity to get together with their colleagues and with external researchers, before, during and after the introduction of IBL activities or methods into the classroom. This requires regular time and space to be provided, either in schools or in other local facilities, for teachers to meet on a regular basis. Furthermore, there needs to be a clear purpose for such meetings, ideally located within a long-term structure for teacher professional development. This requires the involvement of educational governance in setting goals for TPD.
C3.1 Teacher professional development should itself be conducted in communities of inquiry.
This recommendation builds on our previous recommendations for teacher professional development and teacher collaboration, but is connected to requirements in Calls for Proposals regarding the involvement of teacher networks. The term ‘teacher networks’ covers a wide range of scales from the 4m + of the TES Connect network31, to local groups of three or four teachers in a chemistry department. Communities of Inquiry, however, should have a specific purpose, whereas many current teacher networks are multi-functional.
The key element in a Community of Inquiry is that an educational experience should be at the heart of the inquiry, and this should be approached through a process in which all voices
31 https://community.tes.com/
in the community have equal value. These communities, however, do not often emerge spontaneously, and input from researchers or teacher leaders is important in the initial stages.
C.4: The informal sector
The informal sector has an increasing part to play in implementing innovative forms of science education.
Learning outside the classroom has become an “add-in” to formal science education. Science education does not take place only in formal school settings. There is mounting evidence that science centres, natural history museums, zoos, aquaria and botanic gardens have great potential to support science education (Phillips et al, 2007) but also play an important role in engaging the general public in science (Bell et al, 2010). There is no doubt that these Science Learning Institutions (SLI) play an important role in providing first-hand experience in science as well as in offering accessible forms of life-long learning, whatever the social status and cultural background of their visitors. The FP7 Science and Society programme has acknowledged these facts, and has asked a wide range of SLI’s in Europe to participate in projects or to coordinate projects themselves. Projects such as INQUIRE, Pathway or Fibonacci have focused on enhancing the role of SLIs in formal science education, developing and publishing teaching materials and offering teacher professional development courses. SLIs are in the unique position of being able to provide resources as well as the up to date scientific content knowledge needed to support classroom practitioners when implementing IBL in their curriculum. Thus, one of the major achievements throughout the seven years of FP7 was that various national school-systems and teachers worked closely with SLIs in sharing knowledge, experience and resources for improving science education in Europe.
Research has shown that school visits to SLIs become more effective when these visits change from being “add-ons” to “add-ins” to the formal science curriculum. Teachers who offer pre- and post processing activities in class support their students most efficiently in achieving higher learning outcomes (Cox-Petersen et al, 2003). In addition, it is most helpful if SLI educators are informed about students’ prior ideas, knowledge and understanding of particular scientific concepts addressed during the field trip. Many FP7 projects therefore have implicitly or explicitly invited teachers to establish communities of practice involving SLI educators and teachers, in order to develop shared understandings of how inquiry based science learning can be supported in the best possible way at school and at the SLI (e.g. INQUIRE, PATHWAY etc.). This is a great step forward in joining forces for future work on improving science education in Europe. However, a culture of reflective practice as well as knowledge sharing and experience was also established amongst SLIs themselves (e.g. in INQUIRE), which will improve their proficiency in creating science learning environments. FP 7 projects all over Europe helped to raise awareness of the important role of SLIs in supporting national formal education systems and meeting 21st century science education goals.
C.5: Classroom environment
The essential precondition for effective IBL is an inquiry-friendly classroom environment, in which student questions are valued and curricula are sufficiently flexible to allow for deviations from planned lessons;
Inquiry is not synonymous with hands-on learning and the provision of resources or worksheets for activities with pre-determined outcomes is not inquiry in the true sense. On
the other hand, the role of prior knowledge, or ‘enabling knowledge’, has to be recognised, as there are many aspects of science or mathematics that do not lend themselves to discovery by students.
The most relevant aim of using inquiry is, by general agreement of all projects, to increase student engagement with science topics. Providing a classroom environment supportive of this aim might appear to be simple, but is, rather, an acquired skill, which good teachers are able to deploy. Many projects, including Fibonacci, Pathway, PRIMAS, PROFILES, S-TEAM and SAILS, provided such professional development courses aimed at creating classroom environments supportive of inquiry.
C.6: What Inquiry Is Not
The role of ‘enabling knowledge’ is important, and there are many aspects of science or mathematics that do not lend themselves to discovery by students
The provision of resources or worksheets for activities with pre-determined outcomes is not in itself inquiry in its most open sense. On the other hand, the role of prior knowledge, or ‘enabling knowledge’, has to be recognised, as there are many aspects of science or mathematics that do not lend themselves to discovery by students.
Inquiry is often confused with hands-on learning and the frequent use of photographs showing young pupils with test tubes (as we have done in this report) as a representation of inquiry is misleading. In fact inquiry is a dynamic concept, which, like the idea of a journey, cannot easily be represented by a static image. One can only illustrate places on a journey, and the test tube may well represent a starting or finishing point, or somewhere in-between. Projects generally resisted the temptation to produce resources with too much detail, including details of the ‘correct’ results, but this remains a danger when inquiry and practical experimentation, for example, are regarded as synonymous.
The main factor to stress here is that teacher involvement is a major component of inquiry. Even although there is a continuum from ‘closed’ to ‘open’ inquiry, the fact of being in a science class constrains and supports even the most open of inquiries in certain ways, just as in real science there are constraints or ‘research frames’ determining what can be researched and what counts as an acceptable outcome. To be effective, inquiry has to build on what students know beforehand and should provide them with the necessary tools and explanations. It is for teachers to decide where and when it would be unreasonable for students to discover certain principles, methods or results in a completely unscaffolded manner.
Recent work by a group of researchers linked to the S-TEAM project32 has resulted in the idea of a ‘flexibly descriptive definition’ of inquiry, which provides a basis for thinking about inquiry rather than an objective description. This means that teachers should be provided with thinking tools, enabling them to link pupils’ abilities and prior knowledge to the desired educational outcomes via a range of pedagogical and didactical actions. Inquiry is, above all, a process of questioning, but questioning always arises from an already-present set of conditions, and is directed towards a ‘possibility space’ in which certain answers are meaningful whilst others are not. This can be illustrated by looking at any questionnaire or other research instrument. Even where space is provided for open-ended responses, these are always responses to something.
32 Smith et al (Forthcoming, 2016)
This is not to diminish the importance of ‘hands-on’ activities, which empower pupils through linking their own actions with events in the world. An article in the STENCIL 3rd Annual Report (2013) introduces the concept of ‘operacy’, derived from de Bono:
That leaves out the most important aspect of all, which I call "operacy". The skills of action are every bit as important as the skills of knowing. We neglect them completely and turn out students who have little to contribute to society (de Bono, E, in STENCIL 2013, p.31)
Two specific areas should be mentioned here. Firstly, the role of mathematics in relation to science, which is addressed in this introductory statement from COMPASS, a maths-related project:
In general, mathematics and science topics are weakly connected in school. On the one hand, it is usual that some scientific contexts are used to motivate the study of mathematical issues, but they normally play a secondary role. As soon as the mathematical part is developed, the scientific context seems to fade out. On the other hand, although mathematics is the language of science, there is a tendency to minimize the mathematical dimension in the study of science in order to make science more accessible to students. However, this paradoxically provokes students having a limited access to the scientific disciplines and to real scientific enquiry (Compass, 2011, p.3)
Mathematics also has a conceptual problem when dealing with inquiry in that the nature of mathematics and the nature of science are differentiated by the concept of proof, which is fundamental to mathematics but not to science. As Kanazawa puts it:
Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists33.
Inquiry is thus harder, but not impossible, to implement in mathematics, and although there has certainly been some project activity directed towards inquiry in mathematics, there needs to be more work in this area, and - in order to solve the paradox mentioned above – we need activities which solve basic problems of understanding in mathematics. There is some evidence that solving mathematical problems is actually made harder by contextualisation (e.g. Sheffield & Hunt, 2007), although this is controversial, and the majority of projects involving mathematics have focused on ‘real world’ or ‘authentic’ contexts.
Secondly, the ‘E’ in STEM – engineering – is rarely mentioned, but has major potential for making a contribution to IBL, despite an almost universal absence from school curricula. Here, there is scope for involving the engineering institutions in collaborative work with their science colleagues and with science educators. Although practical projects with engineering components have been trialled by projects, the level of engineering involved is quite crude. Informal learning has moved faster in this respect, with organisations such as First Lego League (FLL)34 playing a strong role in some countries. In the UK for instance, FLL is working with the Institution of Engineering and Technology on school science and technology competitions.
33 see: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof 34 www.firstlegoleague.org/
C.7: Professional networks
Supporting teachers to implement inquiry-based learning requires a greater use of professional networks, including collaboration with other teachers, working with the informal sector and working with researchers on new methods, materials and topics.
In addition to the recommendations made above, regarding teachers and their professional networks, there is scope for working with professional associations and institutions in the sciences. This aspect of project work has been very successful, and has increased the capacity of these institutions to engage with education, whilst also increasing the resources available to schools, teachers and students in learning about science.
As with teacher professional development, developing and sustaining networks requires commitment at the level of school governance. Teacher unions tend to focus on conditions of work, whilst pedagogical and didactic issues are the focus of specialist associations, often around particular subject areas or age groups. Working with teachers as professional practitioners at European level would require extensive support to create the kind of structures found in other professions. Within such a network, teachers might use the concepts of professional inquiry and reflection to move to a 21st century concept of professionalism. The EU funding systems could provide opportunities to reinforce existing networks, but the idea of individual ‘communities of practice’ or ‘communities of inquiry’ based around individual projects is problematic, due to the over-supply of such communities and the short-term funding available from projects. Successful large-scale teacher communities tend to be at national level, where their professional language is shared, and where organisations are prepared to offer long-term support35.
35 e.g. the community formed around Times Education in the UK.
Conclusions
It is important to set science education in the context of the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) agenda. Science education has traditionally been seen as value free, but in RRI, we are seeing a return of values, ethics and critically, public engagement with science. Inquiry-based learning is vital in enabling students to engage with science and scientific processes through observation, data collection, analysis and argumentation based on evidence. Many STEM projects have taken the bold step of connecting school science to science in action, by linking researchers and students. The resulting dialogue is at the core of science education within RRI.
Our vision for science education is one of openness, where there are open boundaries between science and education, and between research and learning. This means that inquiry, in a wide sense, should be at the centre, as the connecting theme between all relevant activities.
School leaders, and the local education authorities or other regional bodies, also have a role in providing the necessary physical resources for inquiry. In some countries, the outreach role of universities is pivotal in providing access to advanced laboratories and other facilties beyond the financial reach of individual schools.
The most relevant aim of using inquiry is, by general agreement of all projects, to increase student engagement with science topics. Providing a classroom environment supportive of this aim would seem to be simple, but in fact it is not obvious, and is a skill, which good teachers are able to deploy once learned, whether in initial teacher education or in professional development courses. Many of the projects, including Fibonacci, Pathway, PRIMAS, PROFILES, S-TEAM and SAILS provided professional development courses aimed at creating classroom environments supportive of inquiry.
We therefore need permanent structures and channels through which to promote IBL, to train teachers in its use, to empower teachers to develop their own ways of doing inquiry and most importantly, we need to involve students in design and implementation. We also need to set out a sustainable plan for changing educational culture in order that student voices can be heard and that teachers can adopt the most effective methods regardless of their origin.
In order to move the discussion forward, let us use an analogy: projects as businesses. The EC (or the relevant EU agency) then becomes the sole shareholder, responsible for extracting the maximum value from its investment. The project board reports to the shareholder, using the specific language and forms appropriate to this specialised entity. But as Stout (2013) reminds us, shareholder value as the sole measure of success is a concept with little real foundation in law or theory. Stakeholder value is more appropriate here, especially with the rise of Responsible Research and Innovation (EC, 2015). Are the stakeholders of these projects well served?
Unlike businesses, projects cannot invest in the future by saving in the present, since their accounts have to be closed after a fixed period, with no prospect of a relaunch, except in rare cases such as Scientix. They may invest in new applications, but must reshape even successful ideas in the light of new calls. Their stakeholders are, therefore, left with little or no direct support following the demise of projects. It could be argued that there is no problem here because the work done in the action phase of projects is self-sustaining, with
many projects (and the Erasmus+ programme) using the concept of ‘multipliers’. This relies on a train-the-trainers or ‘cascade’ model, in which a relatively small number of teachers or teacher educators are trained initially by the project and then each individual goes on to train a further group, ad infinitum. This has been used to produce unfeasibly high impact indicators, with little acknowledgement of the inevitable losses caused by changes to teachers’ roles, loss of interest, competition from other innovations, pressure of work and so on. This is not to say that there is no multiplication, but as with any communication process, some ‘signal degradation’ is bound to occur.
The process of synthesising the project knowledge and learning from more than six years of intensive activity has provided many insights into the patterns of activity emerging from a particular kind of situation. We have seen that projects in this field have many commonalities of approach and have worked hard to succeed. We are therefore in a position where the learning from doing these things needs to be further refined and more widely applied. We should certainly not stop trying to promote inquiry-based learning.
Apart from the issue of possible wasted effort, it would be a mistake to stop, because this would send a signal that IBL is just another educational fashion. It is not, but we clearly need to work on bringing it into the mainstream of educational practice. Costas Constantinou, in a recent conference presentation36 states that
To attain sustainable educational change...[we need]
• Credible, Reliable Knowledge (science education research)
• Educational Innovations
• Informed Policy Objectives
• Pilot Policy Measures + Monitoring + Evaluation (i.e. scale-up)
• Systemic Reform Initiatives:
– Incentive structures
– Professional development
– Curricular realignment
– Assessment reform
He further states that there is a “problem in science education [with] the tendency to discredit theoretical ideas through a process of recycled as well as pervasive, non-rigorous use”. This neatly captures the situation that could arise if we fail to provide continuity in the further development and dissemination of IBL.
We therefore need structures and channels through which to promote IBL, to train teachers in its use, to empower them to develop their own ways of doing inquiry and most importantly, we need to involve students much more in the processes of design and implementation. This has been recognised in recent projects such as FaSMEd, with a design based approach tp formative assessment in STEM education. Additionally, in the IRRESISTIBLE project, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has been introduced as a framing device for cutting-edge science topics. Students have enthusiastically taken this up and have been engaging each other, and the public, in discussions around these research topics. The Ark of Inquiry project Is pursuing a similar theme.
36 Fibonacci conference, April 2012, Leicester
The system of funding European projects in STEM education is not likely to change significantly in the near future. We also know that the current system does not fit well with the longer cycles of school life and the shorter cycles of political action. In other words, the three-year project cycle is both too short for schools and too long for politicians, who may well come and go within the lifetime of a specific project. This makes the oft-quoted aim of ‘engaging with policymakers’ extremely difficult to achieve, as high-level policymakers are frequently “reshuffled”, whilst those at lower levels are unable to effect structural change.
Where do we go from here? Essentially, the projects reviewed for this report have attempted to change practices in schools towards more learner-centred science and mathematics education, achieved through teacher professional development. This is supported in general terms by policymakers, but there are massive variations in the ability and willingness of school systems to transform themselves into learner-centred organisations, with professional learning communities empowering teachers to adopt new forms of practice.
Learning is, however, still seen as one end of the lifecourse, something that ‘produces’ a finished product for the next stage (the world of work) rather than a way of relating to life. Perceiving learning as a way of being is consistent with inquiry and with the idea of professional learning communities.
The advent of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a theme within Horizon 2020 entails a similar shift in the way that research is seen, not as an esoteric activity for a few initiates but as a universal way of informing human activity. As with inquiry and professional learning, RRI is about increasing equality of knowledge and responsibility for its use, between actors, whether these are students and teachers or scientists and citizens. We therefore have three interrelated concluding statements:
Practice
Increase recognition of the diverse abilities and characteristics of young people as learners and responsible citizens
Listen more to learners and take action as a result
Increase the capacity of teachers to learn from research and from each other
Projects
Increase inter-project collaboration and exchange
Increase focus on realistic impact
Enable projects to plan more flexibly, involving stakeholders in the design process
Enable long-term dissemination after main activities complete
Policy
Increase capacity of educators through reducing time constraints
Increase stability of education systems to promote transformation
Work with long-term principles as well as short term interventions
We are confident that the support of the science and mathematics education community will be forthcoming in achieving this kind of long-term change.
Appendix 1: Projects analysed in producing this report
Note: an interesting history of EU LLP and other actions can be found at:
http://www.virtuelleschule.at/wiki-inspire/VIRTUELL/WIKI_INSPIRE/INDEX_PHP/EU_STRATEGY.HTM
Information is provided on current website addresses, funding source, coordinating institution and duration of project, where available. Descriptions provided under individual project headings are from project sources, have been edited and are intended to be illustrative of project activities and findings, rather than exhaustive.
Ark of Inquiry
haridustehnoloogia.ut.ee/.../ark_of_inquiry_general_intro_and_expected...
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 University of Tartu Estonia 2014-2017
Ark of Inquiry will:
1) Provide a framework for identifying inquiry activities that promote pupils’ awareness of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI);
2) Collect existing inquiry activities and environments from various projects;
3) Make these available through the Ark of Inquiry platform for learners and supporters (teachers, science and teacher education students (100), and staff of universities and science centres (50);
4) Train at least 1,100 teachers to support pupils’ inquiry activities;
5) Implement inquiry activities on a large scale across a European school network (23000 students)
ASSIST-ME - Assess Inquiry in Science, Technology and Mathematics Education.
http://assistme.ku.dk/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 University of Copenhagen, Department of Science Education
Denmark 2012-2016
ASSIST-ME is a high-level research project that will investigate formative and summative assessment methods to support and to improve inquiry-based approaches in European science, technology and mathematics education.
Based on an analysis of what is known about summative and formative assessment of knowledge, skills and attitudes, the project will design a range of combined assessment methods. These methods will be tested in primary and secondary schools in different educational cultures in Europe.
The resulting synthesis of opportunities and restrictions for implementing an assessment culture using both formative and summative approaches will be evaluated and discussed in order to formulate guidelines and recommendations for policy makers, curriculum developers, teacher trainers and other stakeholders in the different European educational systems.
CARIPSIE ‐ Children as Researchers in Primary Schools in Europe
Unable to locate directly, but see: http://www.ea.gr/ep/comenius-study/actionDetail.asp?id=6
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
Comenius Høgskolen i Bergen Norway, 2007‐2009
CARIPSIE was a Comenius project of 7 countries including Turkey, extending studies from the UK Children’s Research Centre. Its main aim was to identify and compare the best ways to teach children of all abilities the skills required to become active researchers, in primary and early years. It also created a program on developing these skills and how to embed this in school curricula. CARIPSIE was completed in 2009. In each partner country, schools have set up an LLP project called CAR (Children as Researchers). Activities involved the sharing of expertise and good practice via real and electronic links plus visits and conferences for lecturers, students, teachers and children to trial materials and methods. It also included student teaching practice. Caripsie will add value to the synthesis report in relation to early and primary education and enlarge this network of networks.
Chreact (Chain Reaction: A Sustainable approach to Inquiry Based Science Education)
http://www.chreact.eu
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 Centre for Science Education, Sheffeld Hallam University
UK 2013-2016
COMPASS
http://www.compass-project.eu/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
LLP Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg
Germany 2009‐2011
Compass had the aim of developing teaching materials that connect science and mathematics with each other and crucially with the lives of individual students and their communities. It addressed the alarming decline in young people’s interest in scientific disciplines throughout Europe to ensure we develop a workforce and citizens who have a more critical understanding of important issues that affect the world in which they live.
Outputs included the production of high quality interdisciplinary learning materials, which will be disseminated via the INSTEM synthesis reports, and professional development workshops in each nation during the lifetime of the project. The experiences made here will inform the INSTEM summary on professional development.
Creative Little Scientists - Enabling Creativity through Science and Mathematics in Preschool and First Years of Primary Education
http://www.creative-little-scientists.eu/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 Ellinogermaniki Agogi Greece 2011‐ 2013
Science and mathematics education is important for Europe. The Creative Little Scientists project constitutes a timely contribution to a better understanding, at European level, of the potential that science and mathematics education in pre‐school and early primary school can share with creativity. The project proposed guidelines, curricula and exemplary materials for relevant teacher training in the various European contexts. The consortium carried out research in a sample of nine European countries (Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Malta, Portugal, Romania, and the UK), which represent a wide spectrum of educational, economic, social and cultural contexts. This project and its networks will add value and reach to INSTEM, relating to pre‐school and early primary school learning.
Implications and directions for future research (from CLS Deliverable 6.5)
Findings from the project contribute new insights into the opportunities for inquiry and creativity in policy and practice in early years science and mathematics education.
Our policy and teacher surveys, conducted across the partnership, indicate potential for inquiry and creativity, e.g., by common emphases on the importance of play, exploration and investigation and the promotion of curiosity or thinking skills in policy, and in the priority given by teachers to social and affective factors in learning. However, whilst policy in most partner countries advocates inquiry-based approaches, there are relatively few references to creativity within policy documentation. Though creative dispositions (e.g. curiosity or thinking skills) are mentioned, these are not aimed at fostering creativity in teaching and learning. In addition, although policy may contain references to creativity and inquiry, these are not often reflected in specific curriculum or assessment requirements. This in turn makes support for teachers and schools conflicting and incoherent. Furthermore, the emphasis is generally on the generation of ideas, with limited scope for creativity in the evaluation and development of ideas and strategies or for ways in which children’s involvement in assessment might contribute to these processes of evaluation.
The Country Reports of Fieldwork provide rich evidence of children’s capacities for inquiry and creativity. They illustrate the synergies between inquiry-based and creative approaches identified in the Conceptual Framework, for example through an emphasis on motivation and affect, reflection and reasoning, problem solving and agency and the encouragement of dialogue and collaboration. Episodes also indicate the potential for sensitive scaffolding through teachers standing back to watch and listen, as well as intervening to extend children’s understanding. However, findings suggest areas for further development, for example in relation to the more limited opportunities for play and questioning reported in primary settings. It would be valuable to exemplify ways of creating such opportunities in the primary phase within constraints of time and curriculum. Finally, fieldwork experiences highlighted the value of sharing processes and outcomes with participants and the potential for enhanced recognition of opportunities for inquiry and creativity.
ESTABLISH - European Science and Technology in Action: Building Links with Industry, Schools and Home
http://www.establish-fp7.eu/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7, Dublin City University Ireland 2010-2013
ESTABLISH (European Science and Technology in Action: Building Links with Industry, Schools and Home) is a four year (2010-2013) project funded by the European Commission's Framework 7 Programme for Science in Society. The overall objective of this project is to facilitate and implement an inquiry-based approach to science education for second level students (age 12-18 years) on a widespread scale across Europe by bringing together, within a collaborative environment, the specific key stakeholders in science education.
The aim of ESTABLISH is to create authentic learning environments for science education by bringing together and involving all the key communities in second level science education. The ESTABLISH group of over 60 partners from 11 European countries are working with these key communities including science teachers and educators, the scientific and industrial communities, the young people and their parents, the policy makers responsible for science curriculum and assessment and the science education research community.This collaboration has informed the development of the project's teaching and learning materials as well as educational supports for both in-service and pre-service teacher professional development designed to promote the use of Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) in classrooms across Europe.
The aim of ESTABLISH is to create authentic learning environments for science education by bringing together and involving all the key communities in second level science education. The ESTABLISH group of over 60 partners from 11 European countries are working with these key communities including science teachers and educators, the scientific and industrial communities, the young people and their parents, the policy makers responsible for science curriculum and assessment and the science education research community.This collaboration has informed the development of the project's teaching and learning materials as well as educational supports for both in-service and pre-service teacher professional development designed to promote the use of Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) in classrooms across Europe.
FaSMEd - Raising Achievement through Formative Assessment in Science and Mathematics Education
http://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/aboutourproject/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 Newcastle University UK 2014-2017
This three year, €1.9M project led by Newcastle University will take lessons from around the world to help improve mathematics and science skills in Europe and South Africa.
Working with partners across eight countries, researchers will look at how technology can be used in formative assessment by teachers to help raise attainment levels among students.
In each country this involves researchers working with a cluster of schools with a focus on the use of formative assessment and technology to improve interactions in the classroom and reduce the anxiety about performance which frequently limits learners’ development in these subjects.
This project aims to:
foster high quality interactions in classrooms that are instrumental in raising achievement;
expand our knowledge of technologically enhanced teaching and assessment methods in raising achievement in mathematics and science
Major objectives for the project are to:
produce a toolkit for teachers to support the development of practice.
produce a professional development resource that exemplifies use of the toolkit.
offer approaches for the use of new technologies to support formative assessment when trying to raise achievement.
develop sustainable assessment and feedback practices that improve attainment in mathematics and science.
challenge stereotyped attitudes and practices which raise anxiety on the part of teachers and students
disseminate the outcomes of the project in the form of online resources, academic and professional publications, conference presentations as well as policy briefs to government agencies at a regional, National, European and International level.
FIBONACCI
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7,
http://fibonacci-project.eu/
FP7, Ecole normale supérieure, 2010‐2013
The FIBONACCI project defines a systemic dissemination process from 12 Reference Centres to 24 Twin Centres based on quality and global approach. Transversal work between partners will also be organised through 5 major topics, which will be explored through European training sessions and will lead to European guidelines in order to structure a common approach at European level. They are: 1. scientific inquiry in mathematics; 2. scientific inquiry in science; 3. implementing and expanding a Reference centre; 4. cross disciplinary approaches; 5. using the external environment of the school for science and maths education. FIBONACCI will create a transfer methodology valid for further Reference Centres in Europe. The Consortium includes 25 members from 21 countries with endorsement from major scientific institutions such as Academies of Sciences. The knowledge will contribute to the summary of INSTEM in relation to involving more institutions as multipliers for wider dissemination.
G@me - Gender Awareness in Media Education
http://game.bildung.hessen.de/downloads/en_g@me_country_reports_june_07.pdf
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
Comenius Amt für Lehrerbildung ‐ AfL Germany 2006‐2009
G@me’s principle objective was to facilitate Teacher Education in new media (ICT) combining it with gender aspects. G@me produced Country reports on the project theme; a Manual with diagnostic tools on gender specific perceptions; a Comenius 2.2 course “Gender sensitive Media Didactics in Teacher Education”; a Multilingual website for all project information and for resources on gender competence and media competence.
G@me offers INSTEM valuable knowledge about new media in combination with gender aspects and will also contribute to setting up the website of the project.
Hands‐on Science
http://www.hsci2014.info/generalinformation.html
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
Comenius University of Minho Portugal 2003-
Hands‐on Science (H‐Sci) consisted of 28 institutions from 10 European countries, and a transnational consortium (Colos). Its aim was to promote science education in schools through experiments, as an effective way of raising standards in science teaching, and to inform the public about science. A working group coordinated a campaign to promote the huge benefits of direct student involvement in experimentation, targeting teachers, education institutions, local communities, Ministries of education and science education associations. This was supported by the distribution of kits and teaching materials, and their impact was analyzed. The network distributed manuals and reports in different languages including interactive electronic versions.
This network will be actively involved with INSTEM. Its teaching materials will add value in relation to hands‐on experiments.
HEGESCO – Higher Education as a Generator of Strategic Competences
http://www.hegesco.org/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
LLP University of Ljubljana Slovenia 2007‐2009
HEGESCO addresses the needs of higher education (HE) stakeholders interested in the employability of graduates. Higher education institutions have been provided with empirical evidence for planning curricula, strategies and general orientation. Employers have been given evidence of how skills, qualifications and job descriptions are developed, interpreted, adapted, and rewarded. Policy makers at national and European level have been given evidence on implementation of the Bologna process. Graduates reflected on their learning experiences and the importance of other determinants of career success. The scientific community has been provided with the HEGESCO large scale survey database, which together with the Reflex database presents one of the largest graduate employability surveys in Europe and worldwide. Hegesco will add value to the project synthesis in relation to students’ career choices and in relation to connecting school and the world of work as well as enlarging the network.
INQUIRE ‐ Inquiry based teacher training for a sustainable future
http://www.inquirebotany.org/en/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 University of Innsbruck Austria 2012‐2013
INQUIRE focuses on the practical side and implements a one‐year teacher training course on inquiry‐ based teaching in 11 European countries. By using “Informal Learning Institutions (Botanical Gardens, Natural History Museums)” as catalysts, teachers as well as informal educators are inspired to develop proficiency in inquiry based teaching. INQUIRE course subject content addresses the major global issues of the 21st century: Biodiversity and Global Change. The course is promoted through national systems that support continual professional development for teachers as well as informal educators’ training networks. A major objective is to link informal and formal education systems. Inquire will contribute to the INSTEM summary not only by providing knowledge on the widespread uptake of inquiry‐based teaching but also with direct knowledge on global change. Its networks will also be available for INSTEM.
Irresistible – Engaging The Young With Responsible Research And Innovation
http://www.irresistible-project.eu/index.php/en/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 University of Groningen Netherlands 2014-2017
The goal of the project IRRESISTIBLE is to design activities that foster the involvement of students and the public in the process of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI).
The consortium aims to raise awareness on RRI by increasing pupils' content knowledge about research. This will be achieved by combining formal (school) and informal (science centre, museum or festival) educational approaches to introduce relevant topics and cutting edge research into the programme. By this methodology pupils will be familiarised with science, thus fostering a discussion on RRI issues.
Irresistible has the unique feature of involving students in the design of exhibitions and exhibits outside school, in order to involve the public in discussion on RRI.
LEMA – Learning and Education in and through Modelling and Applications
http://www.lema-project.org/web.lemaproject/web/eu/tout.php
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
Comenius Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg
Germany 2006-2009
LEMA supported teachers with development of their pedagogic practice in mathematical modelling and applications by developing a teacher‐training course. Current good practice across partner nations was captured to inform the development. These teacher‐training materials will also be disseminated by INSTEM.
The evaluation of LEMA identified that teachers react differently to innovation that addresses mathematical competence in problem solving. Whilst many teachers react positively and try to implement the changes, others continuously refer to impediments, particularly a shortage of time (in order to prepare for examinations) and assessment in general (Maaß, 2011: Maaß & Gurlitt, 2011).
LEMA developed a teacher training course for mathematical modelling pedagogies: Teachers that took part in this development found modelling problems in everyday life highly useful, but also asked for teaching materials linked to sciences (which were not foreseen in this project). Also, within LEMA it was also found that there is a great need for tasks that support teachers who want to implement innovative ways of teaching. Teachers will therefore be provided with guidelines of how to implement interdisciplinary pedagogies as well as well designed appropriate tasks. In order to enhance motivation of students, and to provide them with strategies for lifelong learning. Materials that encourage scientific inquiry will be used and will not focus on a certain mathematical or scientific content. This also ensures exploitation as materials will be more widely applicable within different curricula
These insights will also inform the INSTEM summary.
Mascil - Mathematics and Science for Life
http://www.mascil-project.eu/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg
Germany 2013-2016
Mascil (mathematics and science for life) aims to promote a widespread use of inquiry-based science teaching (IBST) in primary and secondary schools. In addition, we plan to connect mathematics and science education to the world of work. In a classroom where inquiry-based learning occurs, students take an active role. They pose questions, explore situations, solve problems, find their path to solutions and communicate their results. Inquiry-based learning (IBL) can have many faces, dependent on context, target group and learning aims. However, IBL learning approaches all have the shared characteristics of aiming to promote students' curiosity, engagement and learning in-depth. Both inquiry-based science teaching and the connection to the world of work will make mathematics and science more meaningful to students. When doing inquiry-based tasks, students work like scientists and by doing so, they acquire competencies they need for their future professional and personal lives as active citizens.
In order to implement inquiry-based teaching and to connect mathematics and science education to the world of work, mascil follows a holistic approach by carrying out a variety of activities, including the development of materials and running professional development courses. Furthermore, we will work with different target groups, such as teachers, parents, students, school authorities and policy makers. National and European advisory panels will bring together stakeholders to advise partners throughout the project; dialogue with policy makers will be facilitated by workshops and policy papers. The project mascil is funded by the European Commission and brings together 18 partners from 13 countries. These partners include experts in science and mathematics education, general education and e-learning, as well as a journalist.
Metafora
http://www.metafora-project.org/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Israel 2010-2013
Learning To Learn Together:A Visual Language For Social Orchestration Of Educational Activities
Launched in July 2010, by the end of its 3-year duration the Metafora R&D project resulted in the creation of a Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) system to enable 12 to 16-year-old students to learn science and mathematics in an effective and enjoyable way.
The students, first and foremost, learn to learn together, collaboratively addressing a series of assignments – the "challenge" – posed by the teacher involving a relatively complex problem. Working in groups of 3 to 6 students during a period of 2 to 3 weeks, the students plan, organize and tackle the challenge by themselves.
The Metafora "platform" offers an argumentation space where the students gather and discuss their findings and emerge with an agreed solution, also using in the process other means and tools put at their disposal by the platform – like microworlds and other "domain tools" suitable for the tasks being addressed.
The use of a special visual language enables the students to collaboratively design their plans and reflect on the planning process and content, while allowing the system to intelligently follow-up their activities to produce useful information for them and for their teachers about the learning and solution processes.
NTSE ‐ Nano Technology for Science Education
http://www.ntse-nanotech.eu/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
LLL‐KA3‐ICT Private Doğa Education Institutions
Turkey 2011‐2014
NTSE aims to use ICT as a tool to make the learning of science subjects more attractive and accessible. The project target groups are students from general and vocational schools aged 13 to 18; science teachers; and college & university students attending science education courses. Mainly, the project will establish a Virtual Lab, as an experimental virtual aid to science learning. The project will integrate well established but currently independent technological developments, within creative and motivating teaching materials and virtual learning spaces.
The long‐term goal of this project is to reach as many of the target groups as possible. The project's outputs will be widely disseminated, including Virtual Lab, Nano‐Science Camp, Nano‐Tech Guidelines, Annual Nano‐tech book for teachers, and an ICT‐based approach focused on science teaching. NTSE contributes to the project synthesis in relation to developing interest in science subjects, ICT and vocational schools.
Open Science Resources
http://www.openscienceresources.eu/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
eContentplus ECSITE Belgium 2009‐2012
Open Science Resources (OSR) is a collaborative project co‐funded under the EU programme. It started in June 2009 for 36 months. The aim of the OSR project is to create a shared repository of scientific digital objects – currently dispersed in European museums and science centres – to make them more widely available, searchable and usable in formal and informal learning situations. A highly accessible portal, using state of the art technology and equipped with excellent search tools, provides an easy and attractive interface to access the repository. Through the OSR portal, users can view the finest digital collections in European science centres and museums, follow attractive educational pathways connecting the objects with well‐defined semantic metadata and even enrich the contents provided with social tags of their own choice.
This network will enlarge the network and will add knowledge to the planned project synthesis in relation to ICT and scientific digital objects.
PATHWAY
http://www.pathway-project.eu/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 University of Bayreuth Germany 2011-2014
Following the Rocard report (2007), the Pathway Supporting Action connects experts in science education research with teacher communities, scientists and researchers, policy makers and curriculum developers to promote the inquiry and problem based science teaching techniques in schools in Europe and beyond. Its aim is to set a pathway toward a standard‐based approach to teaching science by inquiry, to support its adoption by helping to reduce constraints arising in schools, to disseminate methods and examples of the effective introduction of inquiry to science classrooms and professional development programmes, and to deliver guidelines for the further exploitation of the unique benefits of inquiry‐based science teaching. The project team thus aims to facilitate the development of communities of practitioners of inquiry that will enable teachers to learn from each other.
Teacher Professional Development37
Teachers play a central role in our education systems. They are the link between theory and practice and act both as mentors and mediators. As the world is developing rapidly, it is important for students to have mentors, to provide education that brings knowledge and everyday life together. Professional development after preservice teacher education at university is therefore important in meeting current requirements of European education systems. It is also crucial to consistently renew initial teacher education through in-service training to maintain teacher education at the latest educational standards of a rapidly changing world. Present professional development programs provide an opportunity for teachers to pay more attention to the development of students’ high level skills. Many of these educational activities are based on inquiry based approaches and help teachers to get involved in inquiry-based science.
In effective professional development. teachers are treated as adult learners. Most teachers expect to learn about new theories of learning or new instructional strategies. However, they do not expect their previous practices to be questioned or to be lectured about their status of knowledge. Applying the “teacher as adult learner” paradigm, using activities like case studies, role-playing, simulations, and self-evaluations are more helpful than giving lectures. In this manner, teachers have the chance to become familiar with new inquiry ideas and can construct their own understandings. A further element addressed in professional development is the “Socio-cultural” paradigm. The majority of teachers remain relatively autonomous in their classrooms and collaboration with peers of a certain subject is very rare. Consequently, TPD reveals the advantages, the challenges, and the knowhow of collaborative learning, which is an essential component of any learning. Equally important for teachers is the ability to resolve cognitive dissonance they sometimes experience . With help from Pathway training activities, teachers can rehearse situations in the classroom, and are given the time, structure, and support to think about the experience of dissonance.
37http://www.pathway-project.eu/content/teachers-professional-development#overlay-context=content/connecting-schools-scientific-research
PENCIL - Permanent EuropeaN resource Centre for Informal Learning
http://www.xplora.org/ww/en/pub/xplora/nucleus_home/pencil.htm
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 Ecsite, the European Network for Science Centres and Museums
Belgium 2004-2007
The Pencil project worked to strengthen the operational relations on many levels between formal and informal science education, in schools and in science centres and museums. By studying pilot actions developed by 14 major European science centres and museums, Pencil identified good practice and quality criteria for science centres and museums to work with schools to improve the quality of science teaching methods. Outcomes include case studies, findings and recommendations for future actions aimed at different stakeholders.
PREDIL ‐ Promoting Equality in Digital Literacy
http://predil.iacm.forth.gr/overview.php
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
LLP‐Comenius
FORTH / IACM Greece 2008‐ 2010
PREDIL’s focus was development of gender sensitive pedagogical methods and teaching approaches in relation to ICT. As such the project target users were a) Teachers utilizing ICT in their teaching practices, b) Policymakers promoting equality in education (curriculum designers, developers of teacher professional development programs, educational evaluators) and c) The educational research community.
PREDIL developed a series of National Reports; A State of the Art Review on ICT in education from a gender perspective; and an extensive Resource Library on the project’s thematic orientation. The project’s principle outcome was a set of Guidelines enabling teachers to reflect on girls’ instructional needs and personal attributions with respect to use of ICT in the teaching / learning process. These emerged from a series of research tasks on ICT use and pupil attitudes towards ICT.
The materials and experiences gained in PREDIL will strengthen INSTEM in relation to gender issues and ICT.
PREMA 2: Promoting Equality in Maths Achievement 2
http://prema2.iacm.forth.gr/main.php
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
LLP/Comenius FORTH / IACM Greece 2007-2009
PREMA 2 was an attempt to sustain the discourse initiated by its consortium on the project’s thematic orientation and use this as a basis to facilitate the uptake of teacher training courses on mathematics and gender, by focusing on the design of an evidence‐based curricular frame. The project’s principle achievement was an “Orienting Curriculum Framework”. The toolset and activities that constitute the framework have undergone testing and have been translated in order to accommodate the transnational dimension on their use. The building of the curricular frame was supported with user engagement at the levels of on‐line forum discussions, workshops and focus group sessions, and a variety of networking activities.
PREMA2 will contribute to the collection of material in relation to gender issues and will provide advice to curriculum designers.
PRIMAS ‐ Promoting inquiry in Mathematics and science education across Europe
http://www.primas-project.eu/en/index.do
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg
Germany 2010-2013
PRIMAS is changing the teaching and learning of mathematics and science across Europe by supporting teachers in the development of inquiry‐based teaching pedagogies. It brings together experts from 12 nations. PRIMAS provides high quality support for professional development; selection of high quality materials, and methods of working with out‐of‐school parties such as parents. Collaboration with school organisations, teaching and teacher education is core to Primas. Within Primas, important insights about innovations in mathematics and science education have also been gained. Some summary findings and conclusions from the Primas policy report38:
Across the PRIMAS consortium countries, a wide range of different policies are being implemented and much effort is currently being expended to support changes in teaching and learning in mathematics and science, particulary the implementation of Inquiry Based Learning (IBL). More significant in all nations is an apparent lack of strategic vision and coherence of policy development across potential areas of implementation. Given the strong rhetorical support at European level for the widespread use of IBL in schools to encourage stronger student engagement with mathematics and science, it seems that many policy opportunities are lost and that there is no joined‐up policy implementation to assist the work of PRIMAS and other projects that seek to effect changes in pedagogies. For example, teaching methodologies promoted in Initial Teacher Education and in in‐service Professional Development are not necessarily aligned.
Assessment currently plays a significant role in educational reform, partly driven by the OECD’s international comparative study, PISA. PISA rankings have catalysed much policy development across almost all education systems. The energies expended in improving PISA rankings are over-focused on short term gains and are, in fact, detrimental to the long-term engagement of young people in mathematics and science. Our policy analysis in relation to national school systems and structures suggests that:
1. Although mathematics and science have an important role to play in the school curriculum (as evidenced by their inclusion in international comparative studies and national assessment structures) this is not always prioritised in policy, even lthough within schools mathematics and science may be given high priority.
2. The study of mathematics and science may often be considered as being more suitable for the most able students and it is often considered that inquiry‐based learning is not important for such learners.
3. Many projects have been developed to support teaching and learning of mathematics and science but their impact may be dissipated because of lack of overall strategic vision.
38 available from : http://www.primasproject.eu/artikel/en/1247/Reports+and+deliverables/view.do?lang=en
PROFILES - Professional Reflection-Oriented Focus on Inquiry-based Learning and Education through Science
http://www.profiles-project.eu/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 Division of Chemistry Education of Freie Universität Berlin
Germany 2010-2014
PROFILES promotes IBSE, through raising the self-efficacy of science teachers to take ownership of more effective ways of teaching students, supported by stakeholders. The proposal innovation is through working with teacher partnerships to implement existing, exemplary context-led, IBSE focussed, science teaching materials enhanced by inspired, teacher relevant, training and intervention programmes. This is undertaken by reflection, interactions and seeking to meaningfully raise teacher skills in developing creative, scientific problem-solving and socio-scientific decision-making abilities in students. The measures of success are through (a) determining the self-efficacy of science teachers in developing self-satisfying science teaching methods and (b) in the attitudes of students toward this more student-involved approach. Dissemination of approaches, reactions, and reflections form a further key project target, making much use of the internet and other formats useful for sharing science teacher profiles in an interactive forum.PROFILES involves the development of teachers on four fronts (teacher as learner, teacher as effective teacher, teacher as reflective practitioner, teacher as leader) consolidating their ownership of society-led, IBSE approaches and incorporating use-inspired research, evaluative methods and stakeholder networking. The project disseminates its innovation with trained lead teachers spearheading further teacher development at pre- and in-service levels and initiating a series of workshops for key stakeholders nationwide. The project focuses on open inquiry approaches as a major teaching target and pays much attention to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of students in the learning of science. The intended outcome is school science teaching becoming more meaningful, related to 21st century science and incorporating interdisciplinary socio-scientific issues and IBSE-related teaching, taking particular note of gender factors.
The PROFILES project – divided in eight work packages (WP) – aims at disseminating (WP8) Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE). To achieve this, the PROFILES partners are using and conducting innovative learning environments (PROFILES type Modules; WP4) and programmes for the enhancement of teachers’ continuous professional development (WP5). Both supportive action strategies are supposed to raise the self-efficacy of science teachers to enable them to take ownership in more effective ways in science teaching (WP6), so as much students as possible should benefit from the PROFILES teaching modules and approaches (WP7). All participants involved in the PROFILES project are supported by stakeholders from different areas of society (WP3).
SAILS ‐ Strategies for Assessment of Inquiry Learning in Science
http://www.sails-project.eu/portal
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 Dublin City University Ireland 2012‐2015
SAILS supports teachers in adopting inquiry‐based science education (IBSE) at secondary level across Europe. SAILS partners are adopting IBSE curricula and implementing teacher education in their countries, and will prepare teachers to teach using inquiry‐based methods, and to be confident and competent in assessing students’ learning. The SAILS consortium includes 13 organizations, including universities, small‐medium enterprises and a multinational organisation. SAiLS will contribute to INSTEM with knowledge on assessment and how teaching and assessment interact. The SAILS Report On Mapping The Development Of Key Skills And Competencies On To Skills Developed In IBSE (2012) provides a useful summary about inquiry:
The term inquiry has figured prominently in science education, yet it refers to at least three distinct categories of activities—what scientists do (e.g., conducting investigations using scientific methods), how students learn (e.g., actively inquiring through thinking and doing into a phenomenon or problem, often mirroring the processes used by scientists), and a pedagogical approach that teachers employ (e.g., designing or using curricula that allow for extended investigations) (Minner, 2009). However, whether it is the scientist, student, or teacher who is doing or supporting inquiry, the act itself has some core components.
Inquiry based science education is an approach to teaching and learning science that is conducted through the process of inquiry. Some key characteristics of IBST are:
Students are engaged with a difficult problem or situation that is open-ended to such a degree that a variety of solutions or responses are conceivable.
Students have control over the direction of the inquiry and the methods or approaches that are taken.
Students draw upon their existing knowledge and they identify what their learning needs are.
The different tasks stimulate curiosity in the students, which encourages them to continue to search for new data or evidence.
The students are responsible for the analysis of the evidence and also for presenting
evidence in an appropriate manner which defends their solution to the initial problem (Kahn & O'Rourke, 2005).
These characteristics are reflected in the NRC’s “essential features of classroom inquiry”.
Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions;
Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically oriented questions;
Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions.
Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding
Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations” (NRC, 2000, p. 25)
SECURE – Science education Curriculum Research
http://www.secure-project.eu/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 Thomas More University College
Belgium (Flanders) 2010-2013
The overall aim of the SECURE project is to make a significant contribution to a European knowledge-based society by providing relevant research data that can serve as the basis for a public debate among policy makers and other stakeholders on how MST curricula and their delivery can be improved in order to encourage and prepare children from an early age on for future careers in Math, Science and Technology (MST), whilst at the same time making MST more accessible and enjoyable for all children, so that they will keep a vivid interest in science and technology, and understand the importance of their societal role, throughout their adult lives.
Objectives
The specific objective of the SECURE project is to provide relevant and rigorous research data and translate them in recommendations that contribute to the debate among policy makers on science curricula and their objectives: balancing the needs between training future scientists and broader societal needs.
Target groups
The SECURE research will focus on 5, 8, 11 and 13 years old learners, their science curriculum and their teachers. These ages bridge the gaps between kindergarten, primary and middle school. The target group for results are all people bearing responsibility for science education.
Expected outcomes
The SECURE project will provide scientific research results to enhance the debate among policy makers on the purpose of school MST education, whether this purpose is being addressed in practice through school curricula, and what perceptions both learners and teachers have on science.
The SECURE project will:
• Analyse, compare & contrast objectives and content of the current science curricula in member states.
Identify common ground among existing MST curricula.
Identify good practice in the various member states. Establish how curricula are put into practice by MST teachers.
Establish how current curricula affect learners’ competences, motivation and perception of the relevance of science.
Disseminate the research findings among stakeholders and decision makers in the field of MST.
Make recommendations to policy makers in the field of MST curriculum development, of teacher training, of educational policy makers in general.
SED – Science Education for Diversity
http://www.science-education-for-diversity.eu/
http://www.marchmont.ac.uk/projects/detailpage.asp?MarchmontProjectID=26
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 University of Exeter UK 2010-2013
SED aims to understand how countries in Europe and elsewhere address cultural and gender diversity and engaging young people in science education, and offers ways to address this issue. Knowledge of science and scientific ways of thinking is essential to participation in democratic decision making when scientific issues are at stake. Decreasing engagement with science subjects at school is evident in falling recruitment to science and technology degrees in Europe. This is a problem for the knowledge economy and for democratic participation.
One way to improve science education in Europe, in order to respond more effectively to the new cultural diversity of students, is to learn in collaboration with international partners in countries where science remains a popular career choice. In Lebanon, India and Malaysia there are issues of cultural diversity yet science remains attractive to large numbers of young people. By understanding the dynamics of the relationships between culture, gender and science education in the diverse contexts offered by the project partnership, we can design new approaches to science education that will appeal to virtually all students. Although our aim is to improve the quality of science education for all, our expertise puts us in a particularly good position to explore the impact of Islamic culture and personal religious belief on the take-up of science, a topic of great concern to all policy makers.
SED produced findings on the popularity of science in schools, and what can be done to counter its decline. Our findings do not support the folk-hypothesis that science is popular in developing countries for economic reasons. Rather, the popularity of science may arise from students’ ideas of the nature of science, where students in developing countries perceive science to be more applicable for solving practical problems in society, which may in turn provide a more attractive career outlook than envisioned by European students.
Conversely, in non-European countries, teachers and students perceive science in a rather deterministic way, at odds with contemporary understandings of the nature of science. This is relevant in view of findings that point to student-centred, inquiry-based pedagogies as improving students’ attitudes to science. Arguably, the challenge is to move towards such pedagogies through science teaching that allows children to discover its practical relevance whilst avoiding outdated deterministic notions of science. We also found that many different factors are involved in students’ declining interest in science in European countries.
In SED, a design based research and a dialogic approach were relatively successful in enhancing student interest in science and in improving teachers’ practices. This framework integrated several teaching strategies that involved students in their learning, such as inquiry-based science education and context-based science, and attempted to give voice to the students by emphasizing dialogic approaches to teaching and learning. Moreover, there is some evidence that the continuous professional development of teachers resulted in more learner-centred teachers’ behaviours in most of the partner countries.
SIS CATALYST - Children as Change Agents for Science and Society
http://www.siscatalyst.eu/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 University of Liverpool UK 2011-2014
SIS CATALYST stands for Children as Change Agents for Science and Society. This ambitious four‐year project is one of the first Mobilising Mutual Learning projects and involves a consortium of over 30 partners and advisors from across 23 countries in Europe and beyond. The aim of the project is to identify how children can be catalysts for change. Octavio Quintana Trias, Director of the European Research Area, said: “The project is well placed to contribute to solving the EU 2020 societal challenges, as well as to strengthen the ERA.” SIS Catalyst will provide useful knowledge on Children as change agents for INSTEM.
SIS CATALYST is based on the very simple idea that, as children are the future, we must involve them in the decisions of today. As a Mutual Mobilization and Learning Action project the identification, capturing and maximisation of mutual learning has been our
priority. It has become clear that we all have unique histories, societies and locations, and therefore that we define minorities, and the place of children within those minorities, very differently. Solutions to unlocking children’s potential are, however, very similar. The identification of locally defined minorities is essential to prevent Science with and for Society activities reinforcing existing educational disadvantage . The benefits of this approach will however, only be felt through policy development.
At the heart of SIS CATALYST is the pan-European need to build public engagement. The Responsible Research and Innovation agenda suggests that research and innovation (R & I) processes and outcomes should be better aligned with the needs of European society. One challenge of implementing public engagement in R & I is the identification of ‘publics’. The key message of SiS-Catalyst is that, as societal actors, children need to be recognised as a ‘public’ in their own right. However, the engagement of societal actors requires their personal empowerment and this needs to be recognised by all the actors involved. Our work on the ethics of listening and empowering children has particularly enriched this area.
We have three objectives, briefly stated as:
1: To include children in the dialogue between society and the scientific community, with the objective of capturing the mutual learning of a wide range of discussion partners, and to communicate this learning at regional, national, European and Global levels.
2: To develop case studies of successful interactions among children and higher education institutions, with associated practical guides. These will be informed by young people, students and key players, and will build capacity through training, exchange of best practices and a Mentoring programme.
3: To build tools enabling Higher Education Institutions to self evaluate and test their progress towards an aspirational Lifelong Learning and social inclusion agenda, at strategic and practical levels. This will be achieved through SiS activities with children, in the appropriate regional, national, European and global contexts.
S‐TEAM ‐ Science‐Teacher Education Advanced Methods
http://www.s-teamproject.eu/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 Norwegian University of Science & Technology
Norway 2009‐2012
S-TEAM stands for Science-Teacher Education Advanced Methods. It is funded by the EU under Framework Programme 7, and is designed to spread inquiry-based science teaching (IBST) across a wide range of national contexts. The spread of inquiry based science teaching methods is intended to increase school pupils’ engagement with science, and consequently to increase their scientific literacy and the likelihood that they will follow science-based careers.
S-TEAM involved 26 partners from institutions in 15 countries and has produced a wide range of materials including 30 deliverables, attended or organised over 200 events and has greatly increased awareness of inquiry-based methods in science across its partner countries and beyond. As a Coordination and Support Action, S-TEAM adds value to research already performed in order to help policymakers, teacher educators and, of course, teachers themselves to change their practice. The S-TEAM project ran from May 2009 to April 2012, although it continues to spread its results and will maintain many of its activities via web-based resources and other low-cost options.
S-TEAM has achieved its impact through addressing education systems at three levels. At the level of policy, we have produced reports on the uptake and measurement of IBST. We have also interacted with policymakers directly at internal and external events, as listed in the dissemination section of this report. At the level of teacher education, S-TEAM has had a strong impact on the area of teacher professional development (TPD), by producing a range of training and development courses designed to help overcome some of the obstacles to further implementation of IBST. These courses have been piloted by partners, and have received favourable evaluations by teachers.
At the level of teaching, we have produced teaching sequences and other materials to assist teachers with the implementation of IBST in their classrooms. These provide examples of how teachers can use inquiry to promote understanding, autonomy and collaboration within the teaching of science subjects.
The overall success of S-TEAM has been in utilising the inquiry-based science teaching knowledge, skills and experience of an extensive range of partners, in initiating a wide range of dissemination and training activities at local and national level and in producing a rich overview of the implementation of inquiry-based methods across Europe.
The legacy of S-TEAM consists in moving towards a more collaborative model of project activity, a more empowering version of teacher professional development and a more nuanced interpretation of the meaning of inquiry. Collectively, these movements have the potential to produce a new landscape of European science education.
STENCIL
http://www.stencil-science.eu/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
LLP‐Comenius Amitié srl France 2011‐2014
STENCIL includes 21 members from 9 European countries, providing joint science teaching expertise, innovative methodologies and creative solutions that make science more attractive to students. STENCIL offers European science teachers, schools, school leaders, policy makers and practitioners in science education, a platform for joint reflection and European co‐operation, offering high visibility to schools and institutions involved in Comenius and other European funded projects.
The project identifies innovative science teaching methodologies and practices at national and European level, using positive results from the EU project STELLA, updates the European Online Catalogue of Science Education Initiatives and publishes the Annual Report on the State of Innovation in Science Education. Guidelines for innovative science education will be spread amongst stakeholders in partner countries.
STENCIL provides INSTEM with vast experience on innovation in science education and a large network.
TEMI – Teaching Enquiry with Mysteries Incorporated
teachingmysteries.eu
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7 Queen Mary University of London
UK 2013-2016
TEMI is a teacher training project with the aim to help transform science and mathematics teaching practice across Europe by giving teachers new skills to engage with their students, exciting new resources and the extended support needed to effectively introduce enquiry based learning into their classrooms.
We do this by working with teacher training institutions and teacher networks across Europe where we wish to implement innovative training programmes called ‘enquiry labs’. These are based around the core scientific concepts and emotionally engaging activity of solving mysteries, i.e. exploring the unknown. The enquiry labs use scientists and communication professionals (e.g. actors, motivational speakers, etc.) to mentor teachers through the transition to use enquiry to teach science.
TEMI adopts a clear definition of enquiry in terms of a cognitive skillset, and sets out a stepwise progression to push students towards becoming confident enquirers. The project pays equal attention to the affective side of learning. We will help teachers foster a deep motivation to learn, by bringing to the fore the sense of mystery, exploration and discovery that is at the core of all scientific practice.
TRACES
http://www.traces-project.eu/
Programme Coordinator Country Duration
FP7, Unina Italy 2010-2012
TRACES aims to explore ways to bridge the gap between science education research and practice by constructing communities of students, teachers, researchers or policy‐makers. TRACES investigates the factors contributing to the gap between science education research and actual teaching practice, and identifies innovative policies that can contribute to filling this gap. TRACES investigates the effectiveness of research based science teaching in taking account of learners' diversities in terms of individual, cultural, linguistic and gender‐related factors. TRACES aims to provide a number of case studies, recommendations and guidelines for practitioners and decision makers to enable them to take the necessary steps to ensure that this dialogue is sustainable and effective. The insights of TRACES including the case studies will inform the summary of INSTEM with particular knowledge on how to bridge the gap between research and practice.
References
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A.W. & Feder, M.A. (Eds) (2009) Learning Science in Informal Environments People, Places and Pursuits, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Cox-Petersen, A. M., Marsh, D. D., Kisiel, J., & Melber, L. M. (2003) Investigation of guided school tours, student learning, and science reform recommendations at a museum of natural history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, pp. 200–218.
Duschl, Richard (2007) Engineering a science of S-TEAM, presentation to the S-TEAM final conference, Santiago de Compostela, Feb 2012.
EC (European Commission) (2015) Science Education For Responsible Citizenship: Report to the European Commssion of the Expert Group on Science Education, Brussels, Directorate General for Research and Innovation, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_science_education/KI-NA-26-893-EN-N.pdf
ESTABLISH (2011) Interim Report on the key forces for driving change in classroom practice across participating countries, Dublin, ESTABLISH.
ETB (Engineering and Technology Board) (2008) Women in Science & Technology: research briefing, London, ETB.
Grangeat, M., & Gray, P. (2008) Teaching as a collective activity: analysis, current research and implications for teacher education, Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(3), pp.177-189.
Gray, Peter (2009) Pedagogy and the Scottish Education System: an overview, paper prepared for the Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions, Oslo.
Healy, H (2012) Mobilisation and Mutual Learning (MML) Action Plans: Future Developments: Workshop 17-18 April 2012, Brussels, European Commission DG Research & Innovation.
Kahn Peter and O’Rourke Karen (2005) Understanding Enquiry-Based Learning in Handbook of Enquiry & Problem Based Learning. Barrett, T., Mac Labhrainn, I., Fallon, H. (Eds). Galway: CELT, 2005. Released under Creative Commons licence. Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
Maaß, K. (2011). How can teachers’ beliefs affect their professional development? ZDM(6).
Maaß Katja, Gurlitt, Johannes (2011) LEMA – Professional Development of Teachers in Relation to Mathematical Modelling in Kaiser, G., et al (eds) Trends in Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling: International Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling Volume 1, pp. 629-639, Springer, Berlin.
NRC, (2000), Inquiry and the National Science Education Standard, Steve Olson and Susan Loucks-Horsley (Eds.), National Research Council
Phillips, M., Finkelstein, D. & Wever-Frerichs, S. (2007) School Site to Museum Floor: How informal science institutions work with schools, International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), pp.1489–1507.
Reeves, Jenny (2008) Developing a Pedagogy for Professional Enquiry, paper presented at Professional Enquiry Partnership Pedagogies of Enquiry annual seminar, May
2008, University of Stirling.
Sheffield D & Hunt T (2007) How does anxiety influence maths performance and what can we do about it? MSOR Connections, 6, pp.19-23.
Smith, Colin, Hoveid, M.H, Hoveid H, Grangeat M and Gray P (2016, forthcoming) ‘Flexibly descriptive definitions: Inquiry in science classes’, Journal of Education for Teaching, submitted Oct.2015
Stout, Lynn A., The Shareholder Value Myth (April 1, 2013). European Financial Review, April-May 2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2277141
