Class Experiences with Inquiry Learning Spaces in Go-Lab in African Secondary Schools
Abstract
Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) is a form of active learning, often used in STEM education to promote conceptual learning and to acquire scientific investigation skills. This paper reports on a study in which teachers in Kenya, Nigeria and the Republic of Benin implemented IBL embedded in online and offline Inquiry Learning Spaces (ILS) in their classes using the Go-Lab platform (https://www.golabs.eu). After a brief description of the IBL methodology, of lab work and in particular virtual labs for STEM education, of the process of preparing teachers to use IBL in class, and of the context of this study, we highlight the methodology used, and finally report our results. These show that the introduction and class enactment of a digital inquiry based learning platform such as Go-Lab in Africa (i) is possible, although challenging, (ii) does lead to student learning, (iii) for this to take place teacher training is necessary, (iv) the digital infrastructure is present in the schools though minimal and fragile, and (v) a local partner needs to provide assistance when required.
References
Amuko, S. (2015). Pedagogocal Practices in Integration of ICT in Teaching and Learning Mathematics, in Secondary schools in Nairobi County, Kenya. Journal of Mathematics, 11(5), 20-23.
Bevins, S., & Price, G. (2016). Reconceptualising inquiry in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 17-29. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1124300. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1124300
Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218-237. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131515300087. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003
Bybee, R., W. . (2013). The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington, Viginia: National Science Teachers Association Press.
Cairns, D., & Areepattamannil, S. (2019). Exploring the Relations of Inquiry-Based Teaching to Science Achievement and Dispositions in 54 Countries. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 1-23. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9639-x. doi:10.1007/s11165-017-9639-x
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VD8-473TYWF-4/2/d7e0e88034b935522c9e8a6bf1de3a2f
Author (2015).
Council, N. R. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Dalgarno, B., Bishop, A. G., Adlong, W., & Bedgood, D. R. (2009). Effectiveness of a Virtual Laboratory as a preparatory resource for Distance Education chemistry students. Computers & Education, 53(3), 853-865. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013150900116X. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.005
de Jong, T. (2019). Moving towards engaged learning in STEM domains; there is no simple answer, but clearly a road ahead. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(2), 153-167. Retrieved from ://WOS:000461057100001. doi:10.1111/jcal.12337
de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and Virtual Laboratories in Science and Engineering Education. Science, 340(6130), 305-308. Retrieved from https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/340/6130/305.full.pdf. doi:10.1126/science.1230579
de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: the Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 3. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0003-6. doi:10.1186/s40561-014-0003-6
De Meester, J., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Buyse, M.-P., Ceuppens, S., De Cock, M., De Loof, H., . . . Dehaene, W. (2020). Bridging the Gap between Secondary and Higher STEM Education – the Case of STEM@school. European Review, 28(S1), S135-S157. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/bridging-the-gap-between-secondary-and-higher-stem-education-the-case-of-stemschool/A72252C65FA0A74921DF3EB5844AC269. doi:10.1017/S1062798720000964
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. Retrieved from https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/23/8410.full.pdf. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Fullan, M. G. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. (4th ed. ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Furtak, E. M., & Penuel, W. R. (2019). Coming to terms: Addressing the persistence of “hands-on” and other reform terminology in the era of science as practice. Science Education, 103(1), 167-186. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sce.21488. doi:10.1002/sce.21488
Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & L. John (Eds.), Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education (pp. 28-42). London: Routledge.
Gibbs, J. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2nd edition.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. California: Corwin Press.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2013). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Larkin, D. B. (2019). Attending to the public understanding of science education: A response to Furtak and Penuel Science Education, 103(5), 1294-1300. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sce.21537. doi:10.1002/sce.21537
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-Analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning: Effects of Guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681-718. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0034654315627366. doi:10.3102/0034654315627366
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Millar, R., & Abrahams, I. (2009). Practical work: making it more effective. School Science Review, 91(334), 59-64.
Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053-1075. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tea.21459. doi:10.1002/tea.21459
Mtebe, J. S., & Raphael, C. (2018). Eliciting In-service Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge for 21st-Century Skills in Tanzania. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(3), 263-279.
Mwangi, M. I., & Khatete, D. (2017). TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR PEDAGOGICAL ICT INTEGRATION IN KENYA: LESSONS FOR TRANSFORMATION. European Journal of Education Studies, 634-648. Retrieved from https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/view/787. doi:10.46827/ejes.v0i0.787
National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine. (2018). How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine. (2019). Science and Engineering for Grades 6-12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine. (2020). Changing Expectations for the K-12 Teacher Workforce: Policies, Preservice Education, Professional Development, and the Workplace. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Osborne, J. F. (2019). Not “hands on” but “minds on”: A response to Furtak and Penuel. Science Education, 103(5), 1280-1283. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sce.21543. doi:10.1002/sce.21543
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., . . . Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X15000068. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Rowe, R. J., Koban, L., Davidoff, A. J., & Thompson, K. H. (2018). Efficacy of Online Laboratory Science Courses. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 2(1), 56-67. Retrieved from ://WOS:000467809400006. doi:10.1007/s41686-017-0014-0
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136-153. Retrieved from ://WOS:000298524300014. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand, knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 14(2), 4-14.
Tawfik, A. A., Graesser, A., Gatewood, J., & Gishbaugher, J. (2020). Role of questions in inquiry-based instruction: towards a design taxonomy for question-asking and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 653-678. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09738-9. doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09738-9
van Uum, M. S. J., Peeters, M., & Verhoeff, R. P. (2019). Professionalising Primary School Teachers in Guiding Inquiry-Based Learning. Research in Science Education. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9818-z. doi:10.1007/s11165-019-9818-z
Vorholzer, A., von Aufschnaiter, C., & Boone, W. J. (2020). Fostering Upper Secondary Students’ Ability to Engage in Practices of Scientific Investigation: a Comparative Analysis of an Explicit and an Implicit Instructional Approach. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 333-359. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9691-1. doi:10.1007/s11165-018-9691-1
Xenofontos, N. A., Hovardas, T., Zacharia, Z. C., & de Jong, T. (2020). Inquiry-based learning and retrospective action: Problematizing student work in a computer-supported learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(1), 12-28. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcal.12384. doi:10.1111/jcal.12384
