INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 1

EDUC450b
Inquiry Paper
Scott Liang
Dec 12
th
2013

Inquiry Proposal- What is the readiness of high school student to engage in inquiry-based learning
approach in Science?
By Scott Liang
Introduction and Purpose
Growing up in a Taiwanese family in Taiwan, there were not many options for me to choose
what I wanted to become. I chose Science in high school because my parents wanted me to purse a
career in medicine or engineering. I did well in all of my science subjects and got accepted to a Canadian
university, but my passion in science did not bloom until my graduate degree. During my Master
research project, I was fascinated by how million genes in plants evolved over million years and helped
plants adapt to the environments around them. What gave me the motivation to research on the plants,
which was my weakest subject in my university and high school, was the process of the research. During
this process, I was trained to find my own scientific question, set up my own hypothesis to answer the
question, design the experiment to test the hypothesis, and interpret the result of the experiment in the
most meaningful way. At the end of the process, I had more questions to ask and eventually went
through several cycles of this process to get my Master degree. Through this experience, I see science as
the process of seeking answers to the unknown and there is always unknown in science, and this is the
beauty of science. This process is what scientists call scientific inquiry, and my learning through the
process is what educator call inquiry-based learning.
My three year of my Master degree echoed the Black Box demonstration in the second week of
my Teacher Education Program at UBC. The instructor poured a clear liquid into a black box and liquid
came out in different volumes and colours, and then the instructor asked the teacher candidates to form a
model to explain the mechanism and propose a way to test it. Many people have talked about inquiry-
based learning since the start of the program and I am glad, because this type of learning has made a
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 2
huge impact on my perception on science and gave me motivation in my graduate research. I have tried
to incorporate this learning in my professional development, such as going to the conference and
teaching inquiry-based learning in my practicum. However, there are doubts over inquiry-based learning
regarding the students readiness to engage in active inquiry with little guidance and lack of focus on the
content. Therefore, I am aiming to write this inquiry paper on inquiry-based learning in science. I intend
to find out the cognitive perspective of the students and its relation to learning. I will use this information
to infer what kind of format inquiry-based learning should take to optimize the students learning
efficiency. Eventually, I will discuss the core meaning of scientific learning for the next century.

Problem statement and Research Question
The doubts among my colleagues are exemplified by the paper from Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark
(2006). Kirschner et al (2006) argues the efficiency of inquiry-based learning is not as good as
instruction-based learning because the process of inquiry-based learning tends to overload the content
and the skills for the student. The cognitive learning process of the student focuses so much on the
working memory of the brain that it fails to translate the information to long-term memory, which is
essential for the learning (Kirschner et al, 2006). Both my colleagues doubt and the argument of
Kirschner et al (2006) lead me to the central question of my inquiry thesis: what is the readiness of high
school students to engage in inquiry-based learning approaches in science?
To answer this question, I must start to look at the developmental level of the students before
high school. Metz (2004) finds a large portion of the students in elementary school are able to take on
inquiry projects and learn efficiently. Her paper focuses on the uncertainty that arises during scientific
inquiry, and found that the most of the students are able to conceptualize the uncertainty and design a
strategy to test it (Metz, 2004). However, Minner, Levy & Century (2009) looked at the outcome of
inquiry-based learning in terms of the students content learning and retention, and found that there is no
statistical correlation between the positive outcome and the saturation of this learning in the classroom,
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 3
even though the students improved their conceptual learning through the process. My central question
can then be extended to this question: why is there no guaranteed positive outcome from inquiry-based
learning, even though the students before high school are able to take on an inquiry-based learning?
One of the hypotheses to answer this question is that the students readiness to partake in inquiry-
based learning is hindered by a much more complex and overwhelming scientific fact-based content at
high school level. The evidence to test this hypothesis is obvious, because high school science does
require a deeper understanding and reasoning on a huge amount of scientific facts. In this sense, all three
literatures (Kirschner et al, 2006; Metz, 2004; & Minner et al, 2009) hold true to a certain extent. Hmelo-
Silver, Duncan, & Chinn (2006) suggests the inquiry-based learning with instructions provide the
students the scaffolding and cognitive apprenticeship, both of which are crucial in an efficient learning.
Vygotsky (1978) explained that learning occurs optimally within the students zone of proximal
development (ZPD). I suggest that both scaffolding and cognitive apprenticeship are the most important
aspects in inquiry-based learning to help students learn efficiently at high school level. In my inquiry
paper, I will discuss in detail the cognitive development of the students learning and its relationship
between cognitive apprenticeships.
Lastly, I want to draw attention to the purpose of scientific education and the assessment that
reflects its core purpose. Minner et al (2009) assess the learning outcome of inquiry-based learning on
students content learning and retention. This assessment can simply be interpreted as assessment on the
possession of scientific knowledge, and this type of assessment has been frequently used in science.
When a student is given a good grade because he or she possesses a large amount of scientific
knowledge at the moment, does that mean that he or she is going to become a good scientist who uses
knowledge critically? The inference of the assessment reflects the core purpose of the scientific
education. I will discuss my personal belief on scientific education based on constructivist theory and
argue how inquiry-based learning helps the student take on the next centurys scientific challenges.

INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 4
Answering the question
Definition of Inquiry-based Learning
Before answering the questions, I will need to define the term inquiry-based learning. Minner,
Levy, & Century (2009) explain that inquiry-based learning in science contains three categories of
activities: 1) what scientists do; 2) how students learn; and 3) how teachers teach. I will use the
definition from Alberta Learning of Alberta Ministry of Education and the National Research Council as
the ultimate definitions. Alberta Education (2004) defines scientific inquiry in the classroom as,
Inquiry-based learning is a process where students are involved in their
learning, formulate questions, investigate widely and then build new
understanding, meaning, and knowledge. That knowledge is new to the
students and may be used to answer a question, to develop a solution, or to
support a position or point of view. The knowledge is usually presented to
others and may result in some sort of action. (Chapter 1/1)
National Research Council (2000) lists five essential features of inquiry-based learning, which I used to
expand on the prior definition. These five essential features are (National Research Council, 2000):
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 evidences 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. (p. 25)

INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 5
To elaborate on the definition of inquiry-based learning, it requires the students to frequently
pose problems and consult various sources to solve the problem (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2006). During the
process of consultation with various sources, the students are required to explore and analyze the data,
which is called problem-based learning (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2006). The distinction between problem-
based and inquiry-based learning is that the instructor serves as a facilitator of the process and a provider
of the information in inquiry-based learning while the instructor only serves as a facilitator in problem-
based learning (Savery, 2006).

Cognitive Architecture of the Students Learning
Kirschner et al (2006) argues the low efficiency of learning through inquiry-based approach is
due to the cognitive overloading. According to Kirschner (2002) and Sweller et al (1998). Cognition is
how we learn information and skills and use them to solve or analyze problems. Sweller et al (1998) and
Kirschner (2002) separate the human cognitive architecture into two compartments: working memory
and long-term memory. Similar to computers, working memory is used to process the information in the
sense of organizing, contrasting, and comparing, and long-term memory is where the information is
stored and recalled for later use (Kirschner, 2002; Sweller et al, 1998). Working memory can be equated
to consciousness, and humans are limited to processing two or three items of information at the same
time (Sweller et al, 1998). As humans learn, the information is filtered through working memory and
stored into long-term memory. In long-term memory, the information is not stored as many small
isolated separated facts, but a huge unit of complex interactions and procedures that connect all the small
elements (Sweller et al, 1998). The process of information flow from working to long-term memory is
called automation and the unit where the information is stored is called schemata (Kirschner, 2002;
Sweller et al, 1998). The automation to construct the schemata is important for effective learning
because it frees up the capacity of working memory to process more information (Kirschner, 2002;
Sweller et al, 1998).
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 6
Richard Mayer, like Paul Kirschner and Joe Sweller, is another opponent of inquiry-based
learning and argues that guided discovery learning, a form of inquiry-based learning, is much more
effective than pure discovery learning (Mayer, 2004). He has discussed adaptive problem solving, which
is a product of effective learning where the learner transfers what they learned in a particular knowledge
domain to a different principle (Mayer, 1998; Mayer, 2014). Mayer (2004) stressed the importance of
cognitive readiness to have effective learning, and this cognitive readiness includes facts, concepts,
procedure, strategies, and beliefs. This cognitive readiness is developed through guided instruction, and
built up in long-term memory (Kirschner, 2002; Mayer, 2004; Sweller, 1998). To sum up the argument
from Richard Mayer, Paul Kirschner, and Joe Sweller, human cognitive architecture can only allow a
limited numbers of items to be processed in the working memory, and effective learning can happen
when there is guided instruction to provide facts, concepts, procedures, strategies, and beliefs in the
long-term memory.

Cognitive Development of the Students Learning
As I establish the concept of the cognitive structure of students learning, I need to answer my
original question: are high school students ready for inquiry-based learning? To answer this question, I
must start from cognitive development at elementary school because it leads to the stage of the high
school student.
Kathleen Metz has done research in young childrens scientific cognition from both development
and instruction points of views. One of the limitations of scientific inquiry is the uncertainty, such as
error or limitation, which arises during the process. To succeed in an inquiry task, the learner must be
able to conceptualize the uncertainty, and find a strategy to limit it so that the experiment can offer a
meaningful result. Mets (2004) found 71% of second graders and 87% of fourth and fifth graders are
able to conceptualize the uncertainty. Among them, 80% of second graders and 97% of forth and fifth
graders are able to modify their experiment to limit the uncertainty (Metz, 2004). In other words, the
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 7
students at younger age are able study their own investigation process during an inquiry based learning.
Metz (2011) studies the reasoning of young children, following an experiment scaffolding increasing
regulation of scientific inquiry, and find their reasoning is plastic and sensitive to the instructors
guidance. To sum up, the young children are able to take on a sophisticated inquiry-based learning
approach and learn effectively with a good instruction.

Cognitive Apprenticeship through Inquiry-based Learning
From a cognitive and developmental perspective, an inquiry-based learning approach with guided
instruction will help a student learn much more efficiently. This learning approach also provides
cognitive apprenticeship. Hmelo-Silver et al (2006) points out that a guided inquiry-based learning
approach in science provides the instruction in just-in-time fashion, which means that the knowledge and
skill are delivered to the student right before the student learns to start his or her inquiry task. This
approach of building the knowledge helps students advance their knowledge and skill within Vygotskys
ZPD (1978). Vygotsky (1978) points out that one of the big components of a childs learning is the role
of imitation in learning. When the students are learning within their ZPD, they are learning to imitate the
knowledge and skills within their developing ranges from their mentor. In another words, inquiry-based
learning closes the distance between the learner and mentor so that the learner can observe, enact, and
practice the material from the mentor.
Gengarelly & Abrams (2009) study the learning outcome of a group of graduate students working
with high school students in inquiry-based learning. They found over the course of the research that the
high school students understood that the science is about the process, not just the product (Gengarelly &
Abrams, 2009). The student also started to mirror the scientists questioning and answer-deriving skill.
Another thing that changes among high school students is their attitudes toward science (Gengarelly &
Abrams, 2009). The students start to develop more self-esteem and interest because they are thinking
about thing they want to think about (Gengarelly & Abrams, 2009). The most important part of the
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 8
process is that the scientist mentor becomes the students mentor. As these scientist-mentors are graduate
students and they are students themselves seeking their understanding of inquiry-based learning, it is
easy for them to display empathy when their students have trouble during their inquiry (Gengarelly &
Abrams, 2009).. Therefore, their values, attitudes, and skills associated with science are easy for the
student to imitate and eventually possess. To sum up, the closed cognitive apprenticeship during inquiry-
based learning helps the student pick up crucial knowledge, skills, and mindsets for science (Gengarelly
& Abrams, 2009).

The Core Purpose of Science Education
Minner et al (2009) compiled 138 studies on the outcomes of the inquiry-based learning, and one
of the standard they use is students content learning and retention. Does recalling scientific facts or
concepts represent that someone is a good scientist and his/her learning of science is effective? The
answer for this question varies depending on different person. Thus, to answer this question, I will need
to discuss what I believe about science and science education. I will reflect on my witness of dramatic
information growth in science to discuss the scientific literacy for the next century. I will use John
Dewey and Joseph Schwabs philosophy to discuss the core of science education.
During my graduate research in plant molecular biology, I personally experienced the dramatic
growth in scientific discovery. My graduate research was on the Arabidopsis, a genetic model plant,
similar to fruit fly and mouse used in animal research. I started in 2008, which is at the exponential
growth in the field. Two events occurred in 1990s, which transform this plant to become the genetic
model among all the plants species: 1) the establishment of European Arabidopsis Stock Centre (NASC)
and Arabidopsis Biological Resource Centre (ABRC) to provide researchers a space to share findings
and categorize mutant plants through Internet; 2) the availability of the complete genome sequence for
the researchers to study the function of the protein encoded by genes (Koornneef and Meinke, 2010).
There had been 3000 publications in molecular genetic research on Arabidopsis between 2000 and 2010
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 9
(McCourt and Benning, 2010). To expand the scope from the development plant molecular biology to
other different scientific disciplines, it is reasonable to assume the scientific discovery will expand
exponentially. The challenge of scientific education for the next 50 years will be: 1) which content
should be covered to develop our next generation become scientifically literature citizen; and 2) what
should be taught to the student to prepare them to take on the challenges in the next 50 years.
These two challenges can be summed up into one term: scientific literacy. Why is scientific
literacy important and what is scientific literacy for the next 50 years? Scientific literacy is how much a
person knows the world through the lenses of science. With the tradition of top-down science education,
science literacy could be seen as how many scientific facts or concepts a person knows. However, with
fast growth in science, scientific literacy should be defined as how much a person can critically analyze
and evaluate any social problem like a scientist. This not only includes the knowledge that one person
possesses, but also the questioning and problem-solving skills. I believe the aim of science education is
to create a scientifically literate public. Carl Wieman (2007) says,
The purpose of science education is no longer simply to train a tiny fraction
of the population who will become the next generation of the scientist. We
need a more scientifically literate populace to address the global challenges
that human now faces and that only science can explain and possibly mitigate,
such as global warming, as well as to make wise decision, informed by
scientific understanding, about issue such as genetic modification. Moreover,
the modern economy is largely based on science and technology, and for that
economy to thrive and for individual to be successful, we need technically
literate citizen with complex problem-solving.
Carl Wiemans scientific literacy focuses on the problem solving and decision-making informed by the
scientific understanding (Wieman, 2007). In addition to Carl Wiemans definition of scientific literacy, I
also believe a person with proficient scientific literacy is able to question the source of information and
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 10
be critical of what he or she is learning. Scientific literacy is my belief of what the core of science
education is.
My belief of the core of science education is derived from my philosophies of education, which
are modeled from both John Deweys (1897) My Pedagogical Creed and Joseph Schwabs (1960)
Inquiry, the Science Teacher, and the Educator. In My Pedagogical Creed, John Dewey (1897) says,
With the advent of democracy and modern industrial conditions, it is
impossible to foretell definitely just what civilization will be twenty years
from now. Hence it is impossible to prepare the child for any precise set of
conditions. To prepare him for the future life means to give him command of
himself; it means so to train him that he will have the full and ready use of all
his capacities. (p. 76)
John Dewey emphasizes student-centered learning, and believes that the students should learn the skills
and knowledge to be able tackle their future problem. I also believe in his constructivism in scientific
teaching. He says (1897),
I believe that one of the greatest difficulties in the present teaching of science
is that the material is presented in purely objective form, or is treated as a new
peculiar kind of experience which the child can add to that which he has
already had. In reality, science is of value because it gives the ability to
interpret and control the experience already had. It should be introduced, not
as so much new subject-matter, but as showing the factors already involved in
previous experience and as furnishing tools by which that experience can be
more easily and effectively regulated. (p. 78)
I believe science should be taught to build upon the students prior experience and knowledge and not a
new set of knowledge with little relation to what the student knows or experiences. Simple content
learning and retention is the opposite of John Deweys constructivism (1897) and my belief. I believe
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 11
inquiry-based learning is a way to teach science to the students so that they can use it to explain and
interpret their experiences.
In Inquiry, the Science Teacher, and the Educator, John Schwab (1960) stated,
For the purposes of science, facts can no longer be treated as self-existing
givens. They are matters contingent on the knower: on the operations he
performs to bring them into view and on the conceptions which organize and
control his operation. (p. 178)
Science possesses the revisionary character, which requires the scientist revise the current knowledge
through scientific inquiry (Schwab, 1960). The science is not an accumulation of the knowledge, but a
development of the knowledge. New facts are added to the old facts to give a new light on what was
already known (Schwab, 1960). Similar to the addition of new knowledge added by technology
mentioned in the reflection of my Master degree, revisionary process in science is so quick that the a
possession of a body of knowledge about a subject is not enough keep in pace with the growth of
scientific knowledge. Schwab says (1960),
The gross implication of this revisionary process for science education is
frighteningly obvious. It means that the notion of coverage, of conveying
the current knowledge of a field, which was once the essence of science
teaching, is called into question. It means that expertise, authoritative
possession of a body of knowledge about a subject matter, is no longer
enough to qualify men as the best teachers of science. It means that the
education of the science teacher must be something more than, perhaps
something quite different from, the inculcation of conclusions and
training in ways and means to pass them on. It means that time-hallowed
instruments of instruction-the lecture which aims to be simple, clear, and
unequivocal; the textbook which aims to eliminate doubt, un-certainty,
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 12
and difficulty; the test which aims primarily to discover what the student
knows and how he applies what he knows about a subject-these will be
inadequate or even inappropriate for much science teaching (p. 180)
I believe in Schwabs explanation on the nature of science and education, and agree that the goal of
scientific education for the next century is not to train the students to possess a body of scientific
knowledge but to train them to access and to be critical of it. Schwab (1960) proposed the development
of fluid inquiry and original engineer as national investment for the future scientific development. Fluid
inquiry, opposed to stable inquiry, does not focus on the outcome of the inquiry but the inquiry itself. For
example, a scientist who practices fluid inquiry does not emphasize on the result of the mode he or she is
testing, but the model he or she set up to test (Schwab, 1960). Parallel to fluid inquiry, an original
engineer emphasize on the scientific basis behind the technology, instead of the technology itself
(Schwab, 1960). My own personal teaching is to teach fluid inquiry and develop original engineers.
To sum up, the education is to build the knowledge and skill on what the children already knows
and they can use what they learn to apply to there live. They will be more interested and motivated. With
the same reasoning, science should be taught in the way that the children could use to either sole their
problem or interpret their experience. As the world of science has changed so fast, we cannot predict the
future and teach them the exact scientific content that will help them. However, the inquiry-base learning
approach that we use to teach science will definitely help the children learn what they need to take on the
challenge for the next century.

Conclusion
In my inquiry paper, I introduce the cognitive architecture of learning. For the student to learn
effectively, there is instruction required to release the load of working memory and build up the long-
term memory. The long-term memory then can help the student learn more effectively. The students in
high school do have learning capacity in their cognitive architecture to be engaged in inquiry-based
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 13
learning. From the research on elementary school students learning on inquiry-based project, the
students are able to conceptualize the key elements of inquiry-based learning. Even though there are
more complex concept and content in high school science, inquiry-based learning provides a closed
cognitive apprenticeship, which helps the students to mirror their knowledge, skills, attitudes, and habits
related to science from their mentor. I do believe an inquiry-belief approach will help the student to
become a more effective learner of science. This approach will help them become better citizens with a
firm foundation of scientific inquiry. However, I do believe the challenge in convincing the fellow
educator to practice an inquiry-based approach is due to their different beliefs and experiences with
science. My belief in education is firmly derived from John Deweys constructivism and Joe Schwabs
science inquiry. I have experiences as a graduate student to do scientific research. Both my belief and
experience has become the biggest driving force to believe inquiry-based approach. However, not every
teacher shared the same past as I do. Maybe the question should be: are the teachers ready to engage
their students in inquiry-based learning approach in science?
Further Research
When I was in high school, most of my science lab is to demonstrate a concept through
experiments. The lab content of BCScience10 also shows the trend of using experiment to demonstrate
the already known theory. In some of the university, the laboratory class also shows this deductive trend.
As most of teacher candidates, like myself, received a long science education following this trend, I am
wondering whether we can all perceive science as inductive reasoning. As part of teaching science
inquiry is to teach what scientist do and what scientist do in real science is heavily involved in inductive
reasoning, it is very important for teachers to see the relationship between inductive reasoning and
science. Metz (2008) studies the perception elementary teacher on science and their students scientific
learning over a course of teaching inquiry-based curriculum and finds a wide range of result. I found
some of her finding to be problematic in teaching scientific inquiry. For example, one of the teachers
think it is not important to have enough knowledge to teach science but the love for science. This teach
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 14
has a difficult time to implement this learning in the classroom. I do need to note her paper focuses on
elementary school teacher, and there will be variance at high school level. Therefore, I do think there
should be research on the requirement to be a science teacher whether this requirement develop the
teacher to take on the next education reform. From this point, the research can extend to what kind of
professional development program should exist for the existing teachers to modify their perception on
science education and develop better inquiry approach in science.
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 15

Bibliography
Alberta Learning (2004) Focus on Inquiry: A Teachers Guide to implementing Inquiry-based Learning.
Alberta. Learning and Teaching Resource Branch of Alberta Learning
Dewey J. (1897). My Pedagogic Creed. The School Journal, 54(3) 75-81.
Gengarely L.M & Abrams E.D. (2009) Closing the Gap: Inquiry in Research and the Secondary Science
Classroom. Journal of Science Technology 18(1) 74-84
Hmelo-Silver C.E., Duncan R.G., & Chinn C.A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based
and Inquiry Learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) Educational
psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Kirschner P.A. (2002) Cognitive Load Theory: Implication of Cognitive Load Theory on Design of
Learning. Learning and Education 12(1) 1-10
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006) Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not
Work: An Analysis of the failure Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and
Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Koornneef M. and Meinke D. (2010) The Development of Arabidopsis as a Model Plant. The Plant
Journal, 61, 909-921.
McCourt P. & Benning C. (2010) Arabidopsis: A Rich Harvest 10 Years After Completion of the
Genome Sequence. The Plant Journal, 61, 905-908
Metz K.E. (2004) Chidrens Understanding of Scientific Inquiry: Their Conceptualization of Uncertainty
in Investigation of Their Own Design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2) 219-290
Metz K.E. (2008) Elementary School Teacher as Target and Agent of Change: Teachers Learning in
Interaction with Reform Science Curriculum. Science Education, 93(5), 915-954
Metz K.E. (2011) Disentangling Robust Developmental Constraints From the Instructionally Mutable:
Young Childrens Epistemic Reasoning about a Study of Their Own Design. The Journal of the
Learning Science, 20(1), 50-110
Mayer R.E. (1998) Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional
Science 26(1) 49-63
Mayer R.E. (2004) Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning. American
Psychologists, 59(1), 14-19
Mayer R.E. (2014) What Problem Solvers Know: Cognitive Readiness for Adaptive Problem Solving
In H.F. Oneil & R.S. Perez (Ed.), Teaching and Measuring Cognitive Readiness 149-160 Los
Angeles, CA: Springer
Minner D.D., Levy A.J., Century J. (2009) Inquiry-based Science Instruction- What Is It and Does It
Matter? Results from a Research Synthesis Year 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47(4), 474-496
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN HIGH SCHOOL 16
National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC.
The National Academies Press
Savery J.R. (2006) Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definition and Distinction. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-20
Schwab J.J. (1960) Inquiry, the Science Teacher, and the Educator. The School Review, 68(2), 176-195
Sweller J., van Merrienboer J.J.G., & Paas F.G.W.C. (1998) Cognitive Architecture and Instructional
Design. Educational Psychology Revew,10(3) 251-296
Vygotsky L.S. (1978) Interaction Between Learning and Development. From Mind and Society. 79-91.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wieman C. (2007) Why Not Try a Scientific Approach to Science Education? Change, 9-15