Inquiry-Based Learning: Student Teachers' Challenges ..., Study Guides, Projects, Research of Material Science and Technology

Download Inquiry-Based Learning: Student Teachers' Challenges ... and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Material Science and Technology in PDF only on Docsity! Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 112 | P a g e Inquiry-Based Learning: Student Teachers’ Challenges and Perceptions Alain Gholam American University in Dubai Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a student-centered approach driven by students’ questions and their innate curiosity. IBL was introduced and effectively implemented in the general secondary teaching methods course at the American University in Dubai. The study made use of a mixed methods approach. It was guided by two research questions: 1). What factors hinder the implementation of IBL in the student teachers’ classrooms? 2). Why do student teachers favor the use of IBL in their classroom? Eight student teachers enrolled in the general secondary teaching methodology course at the American University in Dubai (Fall 2017) participated in the study. First, they completed a survey to gain insight into the challenges and difficulties student teachers face in the implementation of IBL in their classroom. In order to build on the results from the quantitative phase, the student teachers were next involved in a qualitative data collection phase, where they had to answer the question: What makes you want to implement IBL in your own classroom? Results revealed that student teachers considered ‘school system’ as a factor that hinders the implementation of IBL in their classroom. In addition, data collected from the open- ended question were categorized into two main themes: IBL creates a culture of deep and transferable learning and strengthens student engagement and IBL allows for differentiation and empowers student voice and choice. To make the most of this innovative student-centered approach, IBL needs to be highly valued at all academic levels starting from early stages and across all disciplines. It is essential that IBL becomes embedded in daily school curricula to ensure an interactive learning journey that calls out for student questioning, deep learning, and engaged, motivated learners. Introduction Let us consider the phrase, ‘students’ role’ and reflect on its implications. To do so, we imagine ourselves visiting a classroom in the school we are currently teaching at. What do we observe? What do we notice? How are students reaching understanding? Are teachers predominantly lecturing to cover content? Are students consistently active as learners? Are they engaged in investigations that promote higher order thinking skills and conceptual understanding? Are students involved in a collaborative learning journey and offered a chance to explore their interests, opinions, feelings, beliefs, and curiosities? Such questions reveal a lot about the classroom culture. Today, it is essential that we revisit our classroom culture, reflect on what we think about our 21st century students, and ask ourselves how students want to learn. Our Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 113 | P a g e students today want to acquire new knowledge by doing. They want to think, analyse, evaluate, apply, and create. They want to tell a story, be autonomous, interact, and collaborate. They want to explore and be engaged while using meaningful technological tools. Our societal needs have tremendously changed over the years. We need to think of our students and the challenges that are ahead of them. To make sure our students are well equipped with the necessary tools to face the demands and expectations of the future, there has been a clear need for instructional practices that promote critical thinking, reflection, questioning, collaboration, communication, and research. Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a student-centered instructional approach that makes use of meaningful tasks such as cases, projects, and research to situate learning (Avsec & Kocijancic, 2016). Students are expected to work collaboratively to identify how to solve a problem, gain research skills, and trade-off capacity (Avsec, Rihtarisic, & Kocijancic, 2014). With IBL, students are engaged in the learning process and are making sense of the world around them. Alfieri et al. (2011) refer to the benefits of IBL in the classroom by explaining that, “allowing students to interact with materials, models, manipulate variables, explore phenomena, and attempt to apply principles affords them with opportunities to notice patterns, discover their underlying causalities, and learn in ways that are seemingly more robust” (p. 3). Therefore, adopting IBL engages students in the learning process and maximizes learning. The purpose of the following study was to gain insight into the challenges student teachers face in the implementation of IBL in their classrooms. It also aimed at studying student teachers’ reflections, views, and opinions on IBL. Hence, the study focused on the following two research questions: 1. What factors hinder the implementation of inquiry-based learning in student teachers’ classrooms? 2. Why do student teachers favor the use of inquiry-based learning in their classroom? Inquiry-based Learning: Definitions and Theoretical Background Inquiry is a term used both in education and in daily life to refer to seeking explanations or information by posing questions (Harlem, 2013). IBL is an instructional practice where students are at the center of the learning experience and take ownership of their own learning by posing, investigating, and answering questions (Caswell & LaBrie, 2017). It is also considered a form of self-directed learning where students take responsibility for their learning (Spronken- Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 116 | P a g e IBL is an instructional strategy that brings teaching and learning into alignment with the student and the skills needed for future success (Marks, 2013). Many studies have been conducted on the benefits of applying IBL in the classroom. Guido (2017) identifies seven benefits of IBL, arguing that it: (a) reinforces curriculum content, 2). warms up the brain for learning, 3). promotes a deeper understanding of the content, 4). helps make learning rewarding, 5). builds initiative and self- direction, 6). works in almost any classroom, and 7). offers differentiated instruction. According to Sockalingam, Rotgans, and Schmidt (2011), when students are provided the opportunity to work on a problem, they gain new knowledge and further extend and deepen their current understanding. When students explore and investigate, they take responsibility for their learning, as they are expected to make decisions and reach conclusions and judgments (Jonassen, 2000). Similarly, Hwang and Chang (2011) argue that when students learn by means of discovery and investigation in authentic settings, they improve their critical thinking skills. Goldston et al. (2010) argue that IBL considers the knowledge aspect of learning, yet places great emphasis on critical thinking, problem solving, and communication abilities. A research study by Gu et al. (2015) has found that students involved in inquiry-based practices have reported higher levels of academic self-efficacy, resolved conflicts at a higher rate, been less afraid to take risks, and more likely to continue trying different ways to be successful when they failed. Marks (2013) concludes that students who are actively engaged in inquiry do not only master content but master habits of mind. Harlen (2013) mentions that developing understanding through students’ own thinking and reasoning has many benefits for students including: enjoyment and satisfaction in finding out for themselves something that they want to know, seeing for themselves what works rather than just being told, satisfying and at the same time stimulating curiosity about the world around them, and developing progressively more powerful ideas about the world around them. Framework for Inquiry-Based Learning The variety of inquiry phases and cycles is well documented in the educational literature (Pedaste et al., 2015). For example, Marshall (2013) lists four inquiry phases: Engage, Explore, Explain, and Extend and explicitly incorporates formative assessment (continually checking in with students) and reflective practice (now where?) into each phase. Whereas Bybee et al. (2006), list five inquiry phases: Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration, and Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 117 | P a g e Evaluation. The way an inquiry cycle is presented usually suggests an ordered sequence of stages. However, researchers explain that IBL is not a prescribed, uniform linear process (Pedaste et al., 2015). Peter and Stout (2011) adapt the 6E Model to inquiry, which is similar to the 5E Instructional Model by Bybee et al. (2006), but includes an additional component: E- learning. A summary of the 6E Instructional Model is provided in the table below (Peters & Stout, pp. 10-11): Table 1. 6 E Instructional Model Component Characteristics Engagement The teacher or a curriculum task accesses the learners’ prior knowledge and helps them become engaged in a new concept through the use of short activities that promote curiosity and elicit prior knowledge. Exploration Exploration experiences provide students with a common base of activities within which current concepts (i.e., misconceptions), processes, and skills are identified and conceptual change is facilitated. Explanation The explanation phase focuses students’ attention on a particular aspect of their engagement and exploration experiences and provides opportunities to demonstrate their conceptual understanding, process skills, or behaviors. Elaboration Teachers challenge and extend students’ conceptual understanding and skills. Through new experiences, the students develop deeper and broader understanding, more information, and adequate skills. Students apply their understanding of the concept by conducting additional activities. Evaluation The evaluation phase encourages students to assess their understanding and abilities and provides opportunities for teachers to evaluate student progress toward achieving the educational objectives. E-Learning This phase is infused throughout the model to enhance the technological skills of the learners while they do things such as gather information, engage in explorations, explain and communicate their findings. The inquiry models provide a meaningful, coherent structure to help teachers plan, implement, and assess their instruction (Marshall, 2013). Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 118 | P a g e Methodology In order to uncover the challenges student teachers face in the implementation of IBL in their classrooms, explore their beliefs and opinions regarding IBL, and examine their personal reflections on the reasons they favor the use of IBL in the classroom, a mixed method design was implemented to gather and analyze data. Participants IBL was thoroughly introduced in the general secondary methodology course offered at the Graduate School of Education at the American University in Dubai. Seven female student teachers and one male student teacher enrolled in the methodology course participated in the following study. Two student teachers were teaching Science. Two were teaching French as a second language. Two were teaching Math, and one of them was also Head of the Math Department. Two were not teaching at the time. A profile of the student teachers is presented in Table 1 Student Teacher Profiles CHARACTERISTICS STUDENT TEACHERS Course Size 8 Gender Male Female 1 7 Discipline Science French as second language Math 2 2 2 Not Teaching 2 Design and Procedure The first method focused on surveys. According to Ary et al. (2013) survey research makes use of instruments such as questionnaires and interviews to collect data from groups of individuals. It also permits the researcher to summarize the characteristics of different groups or to measure their attitudes and opinions towards an issue. IBL was implemented in the general secondary methodology course at the American University in Dubai for two main purposes. The first purpose was to ensure a student centered learning Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 121 | P a g e disagreed. The second indicator evaluated by the student teachers was, ‘I don’t feel confident with IBL.’ The mean score was 1.66 on a 4-point scale, indicating that the student teachers strongly disagreed. The third indicator evaluated by the student teachers was, ‘I think group work is difficult to manage.’ The mean score was 2 on a 4-point scale, indicating that the student teachers disagreed. The mean score for the overall factor, ‘Classroom Management” was 1.94 indicating that student teachers disagreed that classroom management hindered the implementation of IBL. Table 2 presents the mean scores of the second factor, ‘Classroom Management’. Table 2 ‘Factor2: Classroom Management’ Mean Scores Standard Mean Score Indicator 1 2.16 Indicator 2 1.66 Indicator 3 2 Total 1.94 The third factor, ‘Resources’ included four indicators. The first indicator evaluated by the student teachers was, ‘I don’t have enough adequate teaching materials.’ The mean score was 1.83 on a 4-point scale, indicating that the student teachers almost disagreed. The second indicator evaluated by the student teachers was, ‘IBL is not included in the textbooks I use.’ The mean score was 2.33 on a 4-point scale, indicating that the student teachers disagreed. The third indicator evaluated by the student teachers was, ‘The quality of available instructional materials.’ The mean score was 2.33 on a 4-point scale, indicating that the student teachers disagreed. The forth indicator evaluated by the student teachers was, ‘I don’t have sufficient technology resources.’ The mean score was 2.83 on a 4-point scale, indicating that the student teachers almost agreed. The mean score for the overall factor, ‘Resources” was 2.33 indicating that student teachers disagreed that quality and availability of resources hindered the implementation of IBL. Table 3 presents the mean scores of the first factor, ‘Resources’. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 122 | P a g e Table 3 ‘Factor3: Resources’ Mean Scores Standard Mean Score Indicator 1 1.83 Indicator 2 2.33 Indicator 3 2.33 Indicator 4 2.83 Total 2.33 The fourth factor, ‘School System’ included five indicators. The first indicator evaluated by the student teachers was, ‘The curriculum does not encourage IBL.’ The mean score was 2.16 on a 4-point scale, indicating that the student teachers disagreed. The second indicator evaluated by the student teachers was, ‘There is not enough time in the curriculum.’ The mean score was 2.83 on a 4-point scale, indicating that the student teachers nearly agreed. The third indicator evaluated by the student teachers was, ‘My students have to take assessments that don’t reward IBL.’ The mean score was 3 on a 4-point scale, indicating that the student teachers agreed. The forth indicator evaluated by the student teachers was, ‘Too little time is available to plan and prepare lessons.’ The mean score was 3.16 on a 4-point scale, indicating that the student teachers agreed. The fifth indicator evaluated by the student teachers was, ‘The school system does not encourage changes.’ The mean score was 2 on a 4-point scale, indicating that the student teachers disagreed. The mean score for the overall factor, ‘School System” was 2.63 indicating that student teachers almost agreed that the school system hindered the implementation of IBL. Table 4 presents the mean scores of the first factor, ‘School System’. Table 4 ‘Factor4: School System’ Mean Score’s Standard Mean Score Indicator 1 2.16 Indicator 2 2.83 Indicator 3 3 Indicator 4 3.16 Indicator 5 2 Total 2.63 Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 123 | P a g e Figure 1 compares the mean scores of the four factors, ‘Student Readiness and Attitude’, ‘Classroom Management’, ‘Resources’, and ‘School System’. Figure 1. Comparing the Four Factors Mean Scores Data collected from the open-ended question, ‘What makes you want to implement IBL in your own classroom?’ were categorized into two themes: IBL creates a culture of deep and transferable learning and strengthens student engagement and IBL allows for differentiation and empowers student voice and choice. Theme 1: IBL Creates a Culture of Deep and Transferable Learning and Strengthens Student Engagement IBL is a teaching approach that engages all students in a variety of questions. Such questions have a number of characteristics. First, the questions are open ended, which means they are not limited to one answer. Second, they require higher order thinking skills, as students need to analyze, infer, reflect, and evaluate. Third, the questions call for support and reasoning. Fourth, they often lead to debate, discussions, and the emergence of new questions:” Students take the time to formulate their own wonder questions… They brainstorm questions that are not restrained… open ended questions….. questions that require them to think about a certain aspect …. They formulate questions and they know that they might have more than one answer…. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Student Readiness and Attitude Classroom Management Resources School System Four Factors Mean Scores Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 126 | P a g e their own interest question related to push and pull… While working on the respiratory system, a student asked why people yawn and he carried out his own investigation and research…” As IBL involves guided and independent research, a wide variety of resources is often offered to students, which provides them with a diversity of choice. The teacher can provide content in the form of text, audio, video, or manipulative. In IBL classrooms, instruction varies and may include different strategies: flexible grouping, graphic organizers, demonstrations, simulations, experiments, I-pad applications, learning stations, and field trips. Students are also given the choice to demonstrate their understanding of a certain concept: “We often use manipulatives…. I refer to graphic organizers and make use of a variety of visual thinking routines in the classroom…. The different applications on the I-pad reinforce choice – students love it…. Simulations work best for me…. At times we explore in pairs and at other times in groups…. Centers are a great way to attract students’ attention and launch a new unit…Learning outside the classroom is important in IBL and reinforces authentic learning… Students can also decide on the way to show their understanding…. They can choose to present or design a poster…. A group decided to show what they learned about the circulatory system by designing a website on WIX…. Three of my students engaged in role play to show their understanding of the muscular system…” Such a variety of instructional strategies help target each student’s learning style and ensures all students have access to content to help them reach understanding. Hence, IBL lends itself naturally to differentiation. Learning become intrinsically rewarding when students are offered different opportunities to discover and solve problems: “Students want to learn… They are interested in the questions they pose and they want to find the answers…. They are motivated to learn…. Students are excited… At times, students are all over the place engaging in meaningful discussion and sharing their learning- they are simply happy….”. In summary, when students are involved in well planned IBL, directing their own learning towards meaningful and real-world applications, they will be engaged and motivated. Discussion The first research question that this study aimed at answering was: What factors hinder the implementation of IBL in the student teachers’ classrooms? The findings reported by the student teachers did not support previous research investigations concerning the challenges of Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 127 | P a g e IBL. In her study, Beshears (2012) revealed that teachers considered the following factors as hindering the implementation of IBL in the classroom: lack of background knowledge in content and pedagogy, classroom management, and curriculum design and infrastructure. Participants in this research study did not consider lack of background knowledge in content and pedagogy and classroom management challenging, but they did consider curriculum design and infrastructure as contributing. Walker (2007) presented a list of problems teachers perceive with the implementation of IBL, including: school system, school resources, and the individual teacher. The first of these factors, school system, was mentioned by the participants in this study. In their study, Saunders-Stewart et al. (2012) derived from a literature review a 21-item criterion referenced inventory which focused on theoretically and empirically based outcomes for students engaged in inquiry. The authors reported a range of benefits: deep understanding of the content area, application of knowledge or skill, acquisition of thinking, problem solving, and personal skills, and increased motivation, self-confidence, and self-efficacy. Stern, Ferraro, and Mohnkern (2017) extended on the above notion and argued that the “goal of instruction is depth of learning and quality of thought that organizes and transfers to new situations” (p. 30). When students reach transfer, deep learning has been accomplished (Fisher, Frey, & Hattie, 2016). Friesen and Scott (2013) emphasized the importance of authenticity in students’ learning. They argued that students learn best when the subjects are meaningful to them and interesting. “Students must have an authenticity and a sense that the work being done in classrooms is real work that reflects the living realities of the discipline being taught” (as cited in Friesen & Scott, 2013, p. 11). Byrne, Rietdjik, and Cheek (2016) reflected on the framework of inquiry and explained that students involved in IBL reinforced a variety of essential skills, such as: observation, questioning, planning, recording, communication, and problem solving, and they also developed responsibility and self- autonomy. The data described by the student teachers supported each of the notions brought by Saunders et al. (2012), Stern et al. (2017), Fisher et al. (2016), and Friesen & Scott (2013):“…Students investigate, solve problems, and draw conclusions about a particular inquiry, which is related to the real-world… They will be engaged more deeply if the learning activities can be applied to real-world situations… They become more creative in applying knowledge that they have learned in other situations and disciplines… IBL is not about memorizing facts – it is about conceptual thinking.... Students transfer their learning to the real world. In addition, student teachers elaborated on skills that Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 128 | P a g e were previously reported by Byrne, Rietdjik, & Cheek (2016): “… Questioning and inquiring is all part of IBL, and these strategies allow students to think deeper and more critically in order to find solutions to their questions…. Students are not waiting for the teacher to provide an answer… IBL is not about finding the right answer, but about developing inquiring minds… Students will formulate and reformulate questions, tweak their research methods, evaluate their results and communicate their findings… Students are encouraged to elaborate on their answers, which contributes to meaningful and interesting discussions …. With time, students will learn how to participate in Inquiry-based Learning Cycles and gradually move from structured to guided and eventually open inquiry – they acquire a sense of responsibility. Data from student teacher responses also indicated that IBL empowers student voice and choice, which naturally increases motivation and leads to differentiation. Armstrong (2016) presented a wide spectrum of choices that teachers can make accessible in their classroom. He mentioned that choices could be small or limited, open ended or significant, and they could be related to content (what do you want to inquire about?) or process (how do you want to show what you have learned?). When students are offered different choices in the classroom, they become engaged in the task, put effort to complete the task, and their overall performance improves (Patall, 2013). In their study, Bayram et al. (2013) concluded that IBL promoted motivation in the classroom because students were provided with a variety of choices, given the chance to reinforce self-regulation, and carry out investigations they are interested in. According to Vasquez, Sneider, and Comer (2013), it is crucial that teachers include problem and project based approaches, which are elements of IBL, in the design of learning engagements. These approaches allow students to express their knowledge and understanding in various ways and emphasize differentiation. The findings of this study supported the relationship that previous research had showed between IBL, student voice and choice, motivation, and differentiation: “….It honors the way students choose to learn and acquire knowledge…. Students have control over their learning…. They are provided with a variety of choices…. When students are allowed to ask questions, especially questions that mean something to them, questions that they want to find answers to, then they are invested in the learning process…. As a Science teacher, I can start a new unit by asking students to brainstorm a list of questions they are interested in exploring – they become motivated to find answers to their questions…. Inquiry-based learning is also centered around students’ own interests and questions, which allows for differentiation… Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 131 | P a g e References Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. Armstrong, T. (2016). The power of the adolescent brain: Strategies for teaching Middle and High School students. Alexandria, VA USA: ASCD. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. (2013). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Avsec, S., & Kocijancic, S. (2016). A path model of effective technology-intensive inquiry- based learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 308. Avsec, S., Rihtaršič, D., & Kocijancic, S. (2014). A Predictive study of learner attitudes toward open learning in a robotics class. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(5), 692–704. Bayram, Z., Oskay, Ö. Ö., Erdem, E., Özgür, S. D., & Şen, Ş. (2013). Effect of inquiry-based learning method on students’ motivation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 988-996. Bell, R. L., Smetana, L. & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction: Assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33. Beshears, C. M. (2012). Inquiry-based instruction in the social studies: Successes and challenges. University of Arkansas. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs: BSCS. Byrne, J., Rietdijk, W., & Cheek, S. (2016). Enquiry-based science in the infant classroom: ‘letting go’. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(2), 206-223. Caswell, C. J., & LaBrie, D. J. (2017). Inquiry-based Learning from the Learner’s Point of View: A Teacher Candidate’s Success Story. Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, 7(2), 161- 186. Duran, M., & Dökme, İ. (2016). The effect of the inquiry-based learning approach on student's critical-thinking skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(12), 2887-2908. Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Visible learning for literacy grades K-12: Implementing the practices that work best to accelerate student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Friesen, S., & Scott, D. (2013). Inquiry-based learning: A review of the research literature. Alberta Ministry of Education. Gu, X., Chen, S., Zhu, W., & Lin, L. (2015). An intervention framework designed to develop the collaborative problem-solving skills of primary school students. Educational Technology Research & Development, 63(1), 143-159. Goldston, M. J., Day, J. B., Sundberg, C., & Dantzler, J. (2010). Psychometric analysis of a 5E learning cycle lesson plan assessment instrument. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 633–648. Guido, M. (2017). Inquiry-Based Learning Definition, Benefits & Strategies. Retrieved October 26, 2017, from htttps://www.prodigygame.com/blog/inquiry-basedl-learning-defintiion- benefits-strategies/ Harlen, W. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in science and mathematics. Review of science, mathematics and ICT education, 7(2), 9-33. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 132 | P a g e Hwang, G. J., & Chang, H. F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education, 56, 1023-1031. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. Liu, C., & Chen, I. (2010). Evolution of constructivism. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3 (4), 63–66. Retrieved from http://www.cluteonline.com/journals/index.php/CIER/article/view/199 Mackenzie, T. (2016). Dive into inquiry: Amplify learning and empower student voice. California: EdTechTeam Press. Mapes, M. R. (2009). Effects and challenges of project-based learning: A review. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Northern Michigan University. Retrieved Jan, 23. Marshall, J. C. (2013). Succeeding with inquiry in science and math classrooms. ASCD. Marks, D. B. (2013). Inquiry-based Learning: What’s your question? National Teacher Education Journal, 6(2), 21-25. Maxwell, D. O., Lambeth, D. T., & Cox, J. T. (2015). Effects of using inquiry-based learning on science achievement for fifth-grade students. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching, 16(1), 5-35. Patall, E. A. (2013). Constructing motivation through choice, interest, and interestingness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 522-534. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational research review, 14, 47-61. Peters, J. M., & Stout, D. L. (2015). Science in elementary education: Methods, concepts, and Inquiries. Boston: Pearson. Powell, K., & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241–251. Project Evaluation. (2013). Retrieved November 06, 2017, from http://www.mascil-project.eu/ Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Santrock, J. W. (2017). Educational Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Gyles, P. D. T., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Student outcomes in inquiry instruction: A Literature-derived inventory. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(1), 5–31. Sockalingam, N., Rotgan, J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011).H. G. Student and Tutor Perceptions on Attributes of Effective Problems in Problem-Based Learning. Higher Education, 62(1), 1–16. Spronken-Smith, R., &Walker, R. (2010). Can inquiry-based learning strengthen the links between teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 723– 740. Stern, J., Ferraro, K., & Mohnkern, J. (2017). Tools for teaching conceptual understanding: Designing lessons and assessments for deep learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Tamim, S. R., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Definitions and uses: Case study of teachers implementing project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(2), 3. Wagner, T. (2009). 7 skills students need for their future. Podcast retrieved from www.youtube. com/watch?v=NS2PqTTxFFc Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2), 2019 133 | P a g e Walker, M. D. (2007). Teaching inquiry-based science - A guide for middle and high school teachers. LaVergne, TN: Lightning Source. Zangori, L., Forbes, C. & Biggers, M. (2012). This is inquiry ... right? Strategies for effectively adapting elementary science lessons. Science and Children, 50(1), 48-53.