Silo - Tips - The Primas Project Promoting Inquirybased Learning Ibl in Mathematics and Science Education Across Europe

The PRIMAS project: Promoting inquiry-
based learning (IBL) in mathematics and

science education across Europe
PRIMAS survey report on inquiry-based

learning and teaching in Europe
PRIMAS has carried out a large survey on inquiry-based

learning and teaching (IBL) across European partner
countries. A successful implementation of IBL in different
European countries is subject to various factors that may
impede or foster its broad uptake. It faces various
challenges like the broad variety of teaching cultures and a
rather heterogeneous landscape of teacher professional
development concepts in the various European countries.
Therefore, it is necessary to collect empirical knowledge
about the present situation in order to tailor the promotion
of IBL to the specific national needs available. The results of
the survey are published in this report.
www.primas-project.eu
The project PRIMAS has received funding from the European Union
Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007‐2013) under grant agreement n° 244380.
Project Information
Project no. 244380
Project acronym: PRIMAS
Start date of project: 01/01/2010
Duration: 48 months
Project title:
Promoting inquiry-based learning in mathe-

matics and science education across Europe
Dissemination level
Thematic Priority: Science in Society
Funding scheme: FP7/ CSA/ Capacities
Information about the deliverable

Deliverable N° 9.2
Due date of deliverable: Month 6
Actual submission date: 30/06/2011
Deliverable title:
WP9
Report about the survey on inquiry-based
learning and teaching in the European
partner countries
Contact Information
Coordinator: University of Education Freiburg, Prof. Dr. Katja Maaß
Lead partner for this deliverable: IPN Kiel (Leibniz-Institut für die
Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik an der Universität
Kiel), Prof. Manfred Euler
Website: http://www.primas-project.eu/
Page 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 2

1. Main Report......................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Theoretical Background ............................................................................................ 5
1.1.1. Perspective on IBL ............................................................................................ 5
1.1.2. Challenges in the implementation of IBL .......................................................... 9
1.1.3. Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 9
1.2. Survey........................................................................................................................ 12
1.2.1. Realisation and sample .................................................................................. 12
1.2.2. Use and preconception of IBL ........................................................................ 13
1.2.3. Difficulties with implementation of IBL ............................................................ 15
1.2.4. Description of current practice ........................................................................ 17
1.2.5. Analysing PISA with respect to IBL ................................................................ 22
1.2.1. Comparison between PISA and PRIMAS ....................................................... 27
2. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 31
3. References ........................................................................................................................ 33
4. Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 35
4.1. Appendix 1: Questionnaire ...................................................................................... 35
4.2. Appendix 2: item scale documentation .................................................................. 42

Page 2
Executive Summary
Background
In many educational systems serious concerns are raised about the status and the impact of
science education and the decrease of students’ interest for key science subjects. Over the past
decades, there was a growing consensus among many developed nations that the uptake of
science and technology related studies and professions by young people is not sufficient to keep
up the pace of innovation and to react adequately to the economical, ecological and social
challenges of a rapidly changing world. As a consequence, a variety of new educational programs
and projects to improve the quality of science education were created on a regional, national and
supranational level.
In the European context, reports by expert groups have identified the necessity of a renewed
pedagogy in school that transforms the traditional mainly deductive teaching styles towards more
appealing and cognitively activating forms of learning. Inquiry based science education is
identified as the method of choice to increase students’ interest and achievement in science.
Accordingly, many projects funded within the FP7 framework focus on various ways to foster
inquiry based approaches in science education. However, the benefits of inquiry based learning
discussed in theory do not transform easily to inquiry based teaching. A successful
implementation of inquiry based learning (IBL) in different European countries is subject to
various factors that may impede or foster its broad uptake. It faces various challenges like the
broad variety of teaching cultures and a rather heterogeneous landscape of teacher professional
development concepts in the various European countries. Therefore, it is necessary to collect
empirical knowledge about the present situation in order to tailor the promotion of IBL to the
specific national needs.
Aims and purpose of the present study

In order to investigate the potentials and the challenges of an implementation of IBL on a
European scale, an empirically based overview of the existing situation is carried out in the
countries participating in the PRIMAS project as part of the external evaluation. This study serves
as a baseline study that investigates the issues of taking up IBL from the perspective of
mathematics and science teachers. The baseline measurement fulfils two main functions:
• It investigates the current status of IBL in the different teaching cultures and collects
information about existing approaches and challenges of implementation in different
countries.
• It provides reliable information about the status quo against which ongoing changes can
be judged that result from PRIMAS interventions.
The empirical study is restricted to the regions represented by the members of the PRIMAS
consortium. Therefore, it is by no means representative. Nevertheless, it provides reliable results
about the status and the variety of teaching cultures on a large European scale. Its results are
validated against another recent large scale study (PISA 2006). While the present study focuses
on IBL from the teachers' perspective, PISA provides some additional information about the use
of IBL from the students' perspective.

Page 3
Methods and research design

Inquiry based mathematics and science education has a long history and there are many
approaches to teaching and learning as inquiry. In order to represent adequately the wide
spectrum of different understandings of IBL an analysis of the various approaches on the basis of
the available literature was carried out. A multi-faceted perspective of an inquiry based teaching
and learning culture was developed in cooperation with the consortium members. This approach
represents the theoretical foundation of developing the questionnaire used in the baseline study.
The multi-faceted understanding of IBL takes into account not only the processes of inquiry but
also the classroom atmosphere, the teachers' scripts, their aims and the tools they use in
teaching.
The questionnaire contains four main sections:
• Personal data,
• Professional development,
• Views of IBL,
• Current classroom practice (traditional versus IBL).
All countries of the PRIMAS consortium took part in the baseline study. The following findings are
based on a total of N=925 teachers.
Main findings
The study shows an overall positive orientation towards IBL in all PRIMAS countries but
significant differences in the actual routine use of IBL methods in the classroom. A certain basic
level of IBL practices can be found in every country but there is ample space for developing the
existing approaches further. Teachers are convinced that IBL has a great potential to motivate
students. The use of IBL depends on the subject. Science teachers use IBL more than
mathematics teachers.
Teachers address many problems that hinder a broad uptake of IBL. The difficulties that teachers
see with respect to the implementation of IBL can be subsumed in three factors:
• Systemic restrictions,
• Classroom management,
• Resource restrictions.
There are big differences within the countries taking part in the PRIMAS project with respect to
judging the relevance of systemic and resource restrictions. Therefore, an implementation of IBL
across Europe faces very different problems.
The current practice of IBL is measured with six scales that focus on different aspects of teaching
styles and the arranging and the aims of lessons including
• Frequency of exercises,
• Focus on real world applications,
• Relevance of students' interactions and discussions,
• Frequency of experiments,
• Frequency of investigations,
• Role of hands-on activities.

Page 4
Latent class analysis of the scales allows a classification of characteristic patterns of the teaching
behavior. A three class model is found most appropriate resulting in the following classification of
the different teaching styles:
• Traditional teacher oriented style,
• Intermediate focused form of IBL,
• Extremely student and activity oriented style of teaching.
There are enormous differences between the countries with respect to the prevailing teaching
patterns. The distribution of the three groups shows a wide variation.
A comparison with the PISA scales shows a good agreement in the general trends of teacher and
student orientation across the countries. One has to keep in mind that the PISA study focuses on
the students’ views about their science education experience while the present baseline study
analyzes the teachers’ views. The agreement demonstrates the validity of the present baseline
data. As a consequence, the implementation and dissemination of the PRIMAS materials must
develop strategies to deal adequately with this wide variety.
Conclusions and recommendations

All over Europe there are teachers who have at least had initial experience with IBL and who are
keen to learn more about IBL. There is a strong believe that IBL has the potential to overcome
learning problems and to motivate students. The high potential and high the expectations among
the teachers across Europe as diagnosed by the baseline study provide an excellent base for the
implementation of a more student centred pedagogy as intended by PRIMAS.
However, with respect to the present status of practising IBL it is important for the PRIMAS
project to react adequately to the existing high variability and different teaching and learning
cultures in the participating countries. Also, the high variability of IBL approaches between
mathematics and science subjects indicates different needs and requires the tailoring of the
PRIMAS activities to the specific character of the subjects.
With adequate measures of diversity management, the PRIMAS project could profit from the
variety and use the enormous pedagogical potentials of different approaches to implement a rich
and multi-faceted culture of IBL across Europe.
Outlook
The baseline study provides a first survey on the variety of IBL-approaches in mathematics and
science teaching across Europe. The challenge is to deal adequately with variety and to use it in
productive ways. The next steps in the evaluation face the challenge to link these findings on the
level of teachers' views with the development of motivational and cognitive variables on the
students' side. With respect to the present status of research on the effects of IBL it is still an
open research question how the different teaching styles are linked with motivational and
competence gains. These questions have to be resolved to ensure that the promotion of IBL has
the desired outcomes intended on the political level.

Page 5
1. Main Report
The following survey gives an overview of the implementation of inquiry-based learning (IBL) in
Europe. In this context teachers from the twelve different countries of the consortium were asked
to complete a questionnaire. Both the collected data and PISA 2006 data from nine countries of
the consortium were analysed to attain a more elaborated picture. Therefore the view of teachers
and students is taken into account. The final results promise to be useful for the PRIMAS project.
They will serve as a baseline and give an insight into potential problems with the implementation
of IBL depending on the country. Having a baseline and being aware of these problems is
important both for the implementation of IBL and for its evaluation. The first part of the report
deals with the theoretical background, especially with the concept of IBL (as applied in the
project). In the second part, the results of the survey are reported and discussed. The concluding
chapter contains conclusions and recommendations.
1.1. Theoretical Background

This section contains an overview of a multi-faceted perspective1 on IBL. Based on this
perspective a questionnaire was developed. The design of the questionnaire is introduced.
1.1.1. Perspective on IBL

Engaging students in inquiry-based learning (IBL) is seen nowadays as a means of improving
education - especially science and mathematics - on a global level (Abd-el-Khalick et al., 2004).
On a European level most educational documents ,such as educational policy documents or
curriculum guidelines, support and require an introduction of IBL to school subjects (Dorier,
2010). Referring to the Rocard Report (Rocard et al., 2007), the European Union (EU) launched
programs within the seventh framework programme, e.g. PRIMAS (http://www.primas-project.eu/)
and Fibonacci (http://fibonacci.uni-bayreuth.de/) to support the implementation of IBL. Even
though IBL is widely accepted as a means of improving education there is still no common
understanding of IBL. Therefore, a brief overview on the diverse usages of IBL and related terms
is given in this introduction. Following this, the multi-faceted understanding of IBL used in this
survey is introduced.
Nowadays the acronym IBL is treated as a key to solving problems which exist in science and
maths education as well as in other subjects on a global level. In the discussion on improving
education, IBL is used in different ways and contexts. In addition, not only IBL is often used, but
other terms such as inquiry-based teaching and inquiry-based method are also used widely
without clarifying connections and distinctions. Moreover, inquiry is often conflated or used
interchangeably with other terms that describe similar learning and teaching approaches such as
hands-on, problem-based, project-based, student-centred, inductive and dialogic approaches
(Anderson, 2002; Hayes, 2002).
In a narrow sense IBL refers to learning that takes places following the processes that are
involved in scientific inquiry. Students are guided to pose questions, to gather and analyse data
and to construct evidence-based arguments.
“We describe inquiry instruction as engaging students in the intentional process of
diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, distinguishing alternatives, planning
1
The basis of the multi-faceted approach has been developed at the PPRIMAS meeting in Nitra,
January 2011.

Page 6
investigations, researching conjectures, searching for information from experts, and

forming coherent arguments.” (Linn, Davis, & Bell, 2004, p. xvi)
“Inquiry science is a hands-on constructivist approach to science education. Students
address teachers’ and students’ questions about natural phenomena or events by
conducting scientific investigations in which the collaboratively develop plans, collect
and explain evidence, connect the explanations to existing scientific knowledge, and
communicate and justify the explanations. (Anderson, 2002)
The Centre for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education (CSMEE) (2000, p. 25)
identifies five 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.
Within the project PRIMAS and thus within the conducted survey IBL is used in a wider sense. A
multi-faceted understanding of IBL refers to a teaching and learning culture, in which not only the
described processes are involved but also certain characteristics of the teacher, the tools, the
classroom atmosphere and the outcomes (Figure 1). Even though the mentioned features are
interrelated, it is worth looking at them separately.
Figure 1: A multi-faceted approach to IBL

Page 7
The classroom atmosphere plays an important role which is often underestimated. It is

characterised by extensive student participation including a shared ownership for “what is going
on” in the classroom. Teachers and students interact dialogically. Other people’s views are
acknowledged and appreciated. Teachers take not only school subject views but also their
students’ views seriously. This implies a certain ‘contract’ between teachers and students.
Attaining and maintaining this classroom atmosphere is a great challenge for teachers and
students.
The teacher’s role is to moderate and to scaffold in an IBL teaching and learning culture.
Teachers should support students’ engagement in inquiry and engage them in constructing
meaningful understandings. IBL does not go along with minimal guided approaches. The kind of
guidance needed strongly depends on the kind of problem and on the experience students have
already had with IBL. Teachers have to provide the “right” amount of guidance to facilitate student
learning. They value mistakes and try to build upon students’ reasoning and their former
experience (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2006). Teacher questioning skills have a great
influence both on shifting towards an IBL culture and on students learning. Teachers will
encourage their students to put forward their ideas, explore and debate their point of view while
using dialogic, critical and thought-provoking questions and giving students time to think and
answer (Chin, 2007).
“Successful inquiry-based instruction is more than curriculum materials. Instead, the
teacher is the key element in a classroom. He or she must possess certain attitudes
and skills to encourage student success in the inquiry-based classroom. First, the
teacher must support inquiry-based instruction. He or she must believe in the value of
students having some element of control over what they will do and how they will
behave.”(Colburn, 2000)
The tools provided in classrooms are also of significance. The units are often centred on
problems that are experienced as real and/or scientifically relevant. These problems ideally have
a certain degree of openness and enable the use of multiple solution strategies. Most importantly,
the problems are chosen in a way that they catch students’ interest and foster students’
involvement in inquiry, including posing questions and working collaboratively. One possibility is
to use authentic materials like newspaper and magazine articles to present the problems. Not
only is it necessary to have the right problems but in many cases resources like computers,
textbooks and equipment to conduct experiments are also needed to facilitate the inquiry
process. The use of the resources is not only highly dependent on availability but also on
previous experience.
As previously mentioned, at the heart of the IBL culture lie the processes students are involved in
and these processes are related to the scientific inquiry process. The tension between inquiry in
classrooms and the scientific inquiry process and related problems are discussed elsewhere (e.g.
Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Hodson, 1996). To be able to engage actively in the inquiry process,
students need specific skills. According to Wu and Hsied (2006) they need skills
• to identify causal relationships,
• to describe the reasoning process,
• to use data as evidence,
• to evaluate.
Being aware of existing essential skills, students have the opportunity to develop their own
questions to examine and make their own choices:
• They engage in self-directed inquiry,

Page 8
• they diagnose problems and develop questions,

• they formulate hypothesis,
• they identify variables,
• they collect data,
• they document their work and finally
• they interpret and communicate the results.
Often the results proposed by the learners lead to even more questions. Although these tasks
occur in a logical progression, inquiry is a fluid process which relies on creativity, and one task
may lead back to a previous task. IBL requires students to actively use their hands and their
minds. Students work in groups, making decisions about processes and helping each other. The
combination of the described teacher behaviour, the availability of specific tools and a certain
classroom atmosphere encourages students to engage in self-directed inquiry and, therefore, in
active learning as well.
Within an IBL culture there is also a clear belief that learning outcomes are especially valued.
Conceptual understanding of science principles are still seen as important objectives of education
and in many cases as a prerequisite for learning. Within an inquiry-based learning culture other
outcomes are more central. There is a clear focus on process and self-directed learning skills with
the aim to foster the development of interest, social competences and openness for inquiry to
prepare the students for an uncertain future and for lifelong learning.
This broad understanding of IBL makes it quite difficult to give a precise definition of IBL.
Definitions which focus on the inquiry process (like the ones cited above) go with the described
framework of an IBL culture but are missing out on certain points which are also important if a full
understanding of IBL is aspired.
The complex multi-facets understanding of an IBL culture includes classroom atmosphere,
teacher behaviour, tools, students’ involvement and valued outcomes. It is clear that in many
cases not all requirements are fulfilled and nevertheless it still can be a good education within an
IBL culture. Also one has to keep in mind that there are good lessons outside the IBL teaching
and learning culture. In this sense moving towards IBL should be an evolution and not a
revolution forced upon the teachers. One should not try to reach everything at once. Even within
the inquiry process it is useful not to focus on all the involved activities at the same time.
Furthermore, just having students to do practical work and hands-on-experiments does not lead
automatically to an IBL culture (Hodson, 1993).
IBL is an important ingredient for good education, but learning will is enhanced through a balance
between IBL and other approaches to teaching and learning. This includes a balance between
allowing an exploration of ideas and presenting information. IBL should be actively introduced to
classrooms. However, this does not imply that all teachers should pursue a single approach to
teaching mathematics and science.
According to a multi-faceted understanding IBL is not only characterized by the relevance

of the processes of inquiry but also by the classroom atmosphere, the role of the teacher,
the used tools and the desired outcomes.

Page 9
1.1.2. Challenges in the implementation of IBL

There are different factors that teachers see as problematic concerning the implementation of IBL
into classroom practice. All the factors have to be taken seriously even though in some cases
some might only be ‘perceived’ problems. Colburn and Walker (Colburn, 2000; Walker, 2007)
give an overview on the problems teachers see with the use IBL. They can be divided into three
groups:
• Problems related to the school system,
• Problems related to resources,
• Problems related to the individual teacher.
The requirements of the school system which can hinder the uptake of IBL are specifications of
the curriculum, especially on content, the allotted time for instruction and the existing assessment
practice. Literature identifies these problems. Nevertheless, results of the analysis within the
PRIMAS work package no. 2(Dorier, 2010) show that at least the curricula of the European
countries participating in the PRIMAS project support IBL implementation. Therefore, there
seems to be a gap between the intended curriculum and the perception of the teachers which is
influenced by the existing assessment practice.
Besides regulation within the school system, literature sees also the lack of resources is also
seen as a problem. Teachers have insufficient access to continuous professional development
courses regarding IBL and do not feel supported by the school environment, e.g. colleagues.
Furthermore, there is a lack of resources that are necessary or that facilitate the use of IBL:
Teachers miss appropriate textbooks, teaching materials and in many cases, especially in
science, access to materials such as computers and laboratories.
Also Colburn, Walker and others report on a disaffirmation towards IBL on a more individual level.
Teachers do not feel confident with rethinking their rule from initiator and controller to guide and
facilitator. They worry about the possibility of discipline problems, exorbitant preparation
requirements, and their lack of knowledge in a particular topic.
The “task of preparing teachers for inquiry teaching is much bigger than the technical
matters...the matter must be addressed... at a level that includes central attention to beliefs and
values” (Anderson, 2002). The uptake of IBL highly depends on teachers’ attitudes and beliefs.
The problems teachers see with the implementation relate to the school system, available
resources and on a more individual level to classroom management.
1.1.3. Questionnaire
Within the context of the project PRIMAS a teacher’s questionnaire was developed to take a
closer look at the European situation concerning inquiry-based learning and teaching,
differentiating countries (consortium) and disciplines. The questionnaire was constructed in such
a way keeping it as brief as possible so it would not deter teachers from partaking in the survey
and at the same time long enough to gather rich data. The questionnaire (appendix 4.1) is
composed of four sections:

Page 10
Personal data,
Professional development,
Inquiry-based learning,
Current practice at classroom level.
On the basis of the PISA study (OECD, 2009), four-point Likert-type items were used whenever
suitable. These items do not allow subjects to opt for a neutral response. Based on the PISA
study the applied categories of the four-point scales reflect frequencies or agreement (never or
hardly ever, in some lessons, in most lessons, in almost all lessons and strongly disagree,
disagree, agree, strongly agree). Due to time management, complexity and possible problems of
translation the questionnaire includes only one open question (question 13).
The first section (question 1 to 7) is used to gather background information about the individual
teacher. Probably the most important variable in the context of the European project PRIMAS is
the country. Being seen as relevant and easy to access, data were collected on the teachers’
age, their professional experiences, the discipline and the age group taught. These individual
characteristic personal data are used as independent variables. In this report, the focus lies on
the country to see similarities and differences on a European level.
The second part (question 8 to 10) of the questionnaire deals with continuing professional
development. The reason for this section is that the attitude and the opportunity to involve in
professional development programs might also have an influence on the success of PRIMAS.
The items are adapted from a research report about teachers experience of and attitude towards
continuing professional development of the Wellcome Trust (2006). Additionally, Guskey (2002)
influenced the choice of items. The analysis of this section will be reported and referred to within
the report about the upcoming evaluation of the implementation of IBL.
The last two sections of the questionnaire deal with IBL. Both of them are based on the above
described perspective on IBL. The first one is influenced by the Concern-Based Adoption Model,
giving attention to two facets of the individual development: Stages of Concern and Levels of Use
(Hall, George, & Rutherford, 1977; Loucks & Hall, 1979). At the beginning, there is a brief
description of IBL in the questionnaire which focuses on the process of inquiry. Afterwards,
question 11 records teachers’ use and attitudes towards IBL. The items deal with the desire and
the actual use of IBL and with the picture teachers have of IBL. The following question aims to
collect information on the problems teachers face when implementing IBL in their regular lessons.
The items refer to either school system/systemic problems or to individual problems as described
in 1.1.1. In particular they relate to the requirements of the curriculum including assessment
practices, the available resources and to classroom management.
In the final section teachers are asked to describe their current teaching practice with reference to
a particular subject and age group. The 32 items of the questions 16 and 17 refer to the facets of
IBL described in 1.1.1. This section is the longest of the questionnaire and probes deeply into the
scripts of the teachers and their views of teaching and learning. In this part we expect
considerable change to occur, provided that the ideas of IBL have been successfully taken up by
the teachers. Therefore, this part provides reliable information about the status quo against which
ongoing changes that result from PRIMAS ‘interventions’ can be judged. The items were adapted
from the IBL literature (Brandon, Young, Pottgenger, & Taum, 2009; OECD, 2009; Swan, 2006).
Swan uses 25 items to describe either student-centered or teacher-centered classroom
behaviors. Based on content and the reported item characteristics 14 were chosen for the
questionnaire used in the PRIMAS baseline survey. As a meaningful addition, four items were
taken from the 22 items of the Inquiry Science Implementation Scale, which has a strong focus on
science (Brandon et al., 2009). The chosen items are seen as central by the authors because
they address the use of questioning strategies and teacher-student interaction. Furthermore,
items were adapted from the 15 items about science learning and teaching (OECD, 2009, pp.

Page 11
333-336) used in the Pisa student questionnaire. Ten of those were integrated into the teacher’s
questionnaire developed for this study. Three items are not adopted because they strongly refer
to science and do not seem suitable for maths teachers. The other two items were withdrawn
because when examining them at a PRIMAS Consortium meeting, it became evident that they
were not clearly defined. Having ten items from the PISA 2006 study gives the opportunity to
make a direct reference to the PISA 2006 data which are publically accessible
(http://pisa2006.acer.edu.au/).
An overview of the characteristics of the items used in the questionnaire is given in appendix 4.2.
A questionnaire for the survey was developed based on a multi-faceted understanding of

IBL. This takes not only the process of inquiry but also the classroom atmosphere, the
rule of the teacher, the applied tools and the aim into account.

Page 12
1.2. Survey
A baseline study was conducted to gain insight into the situation about IBL in the European
countries that are members of the PRIMAS consortium. First, the study gives an overview of how
the survey was put into effect as well as a description of the sample (1.2.1).The analysis of the
data with respect to attitude towards IBL, difficulties with implementation and description of
current practice is presented in 1.2.2,1.2.3 and 1.2.4. Following this, data from the PISA 2006
survey is analysed for IBL. Finally, the PRIMAS and the PISA data are compared in 1.2.1.
1.2.1. Realisation and sample

All of the PRIMAS consortium countries took part in the baseline study. The questionnaire
developed (4.1) has been translated by members of the PRIMAS consortium. When possible the
same wording as in the PISA 2006 study has been used. Malta and Denmark used an adapted
English version. The survey in each country was conducted by members of the PRIMAS
consortium2. In all the involved countries teachers were asked to complete the questionnaire.
This was done using paper and pencil (e.g. Norway, Germany) as well as computers (e.g.
Cyprus, UK). The sampling was up to each country, so it has to be remarked that the sample is
not representative. An overview of the sample is given in Table 1. All together, 925 teachers from
all over Europe participated in the survey. The average age of the participating teachers is
between 32 (Cyprus) and 45(Denmark). Noticeably, the percentage of males differs from 15
(Hungary) to 53 (Norway) implying that teaching probably is - even in science and mathematics -
more a female domain in some countries than in others.
Country Size Male proportion Average age
Cyprus 46 0,35 32
Denmark 47 0,55 45
Germany 66 0,42 44
Hungary 53 0,15 41
Malta 101 0,35 35
Netherlands 40 0,36 43
Norway 61 0,53 40
Romania 121 0,41 44
Slovakia 110 0,19 40
Spain 47 0,47 42
Switzerland 162 0,30 41
UK 71 0,38 37
All 925 0,36 40
Table 1: Overview of the sample of the PRIMAS baseline study
2
Nicholas Mousoulides (Cyprus), Morten Blomhøj (Denmark), Sven Ernst (Germany), Csíkos Csaba (Hungary), Josette
Farrugia (Malta), (Netherlands), Svein Arne Sikko (Norvegen), Andras Szilard (Romania), Sona Sceretkova (Slovakia),
Francisco Javier Garcia Garcia (Spain), Laura Weiss (Switzerland), Geofferey Wake (UK)

Page 13
About 75% of the polled teachers teach maths while between 10% and 25% of the teachers teach
biology, chemistry, physics or science.
925 teachers from 12 European countries filled in the PRIMAS baseline questionnaire. 64%
of the sample is female and about 75% of all teachers teach mathematics.
1.2.2. Use and preconception of IBL

Concerning the use of IBL the orientation towards IBL and the routine use of IBL are
differentiated. The orientation (ORI) is measured with two items and the routine use (ROU) with
three (4.2). All the European teachers displayed a positive attitude towards IBL. The orientation
scale mean is 3,0. With the exception of Switzerland and Romania the differences between the
countries are quite small. The teachers in Switzerland are less interested in IBL, while those in
Romania show the greatest interest. Regarding the actual use of IBL the countries can be
separated into two groups. Malta, Denmark, Slovakia, Cyprus and Romania have a mean above
2,5. About half of the teachers in these countries reported using IBL regularly. Spain, Germany,
Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK have a mean less than 2,5 for the orientation
scale. In these countries more than half of the teachers report not using IBL regularly (Figure 2).
ORI ROU
UK 3,0 2,2
Norway 3,1 2,3
Netherlands 3,0 2,3
Hungary 3,0 2,3
Germany 2,9 2,4
Spain 3,1 2,4
Switzerland 2,7 2,5
Malta 3,1 2,7
Denmark 3,2 2,7
Slovakia 3,1 2,7
Cyprus 3,1 2,8
Romania 3,4 2,8
Figure 2: Mean of the variables ORI (Orientation towards IBL) and ROU (routine use of IBL)
differentiating the European countries (1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: agree, 4:
strongly agree)

Page 14
The different understanding of IBL between the participating countries also might have influenced
the results. Teachers in Romania, e.g., probably have different understanding than those in the
UK.
Maths teachers show about the same orientation towards IBL as science teachers, not teaching
math. The two groups show significant differences regarding the actual use of IBL. The science
teachers report to use IBL more than the maths teachers.
The preconception of IBL is measured with two scales. One scale measures the belief that IBL
needs extensive content knowledge and is not effective with lower-achieving students (KND). The
other one measures the belief that IBL is well suited to approach learning problems and to
overcome motivational problems (MOT) (4.2).
The mean of the KND (knowledge dependent) scale is 2,4. Teachers realize that pre-knowledge
is important, but it is not seen as a determining factor. Except for Slovakia and Romania the
mean of KND is between 2,2 and 2,4 for all countries. The averages for Slovakia and Romania
are significantly higher. This can point to a slightly different understanding of IBL in these two
countries.
The mean of the MOT (motivation) scale is 2,9. This indicates that the teachers all over Europe
believe that IBL has the potential to motivate students (Figure 3).
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5 ORI
ROU
2,0
KND
1,5
MOT
1,0
Figure 3: Preconception of IBL compared with use of IBL, ORI: orientation towards IBL,
ROU: routine use of IBL, KND: IBL requires extensive content knowledge,
MOT: IBL motivates student,
(1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: agree, 4: strongly agree)

Page 15
Furthermore, MOT is positively correlated with ORI (orientation) and ROU (routine) (0,476 and
0,330). Teachers who believe that IBL is well suited to motivating students also show a positive
orientation towards IBL and/or already use IBL routinely. On the other hand, the correlation
between KND (knowledge dependent)and the two ‘use’-variables ORI and ROU is negative and
considerably smaller (-0,064 and -0,133). The belief that IBL requires extensive content
knowledge is not really related with the actual use of IBL.
All over Europe teachers are positively oriented towards IBL. Routine use can be found in
all countries at least at a rudimental level. Teachers are convinced that IBL has the
potential to motivate students.
1.2.3. Difficulties with implementation of IBL

The problems teachers have with the implementation of IBL can be subsumed into three factors.
The first factor subsumes system restrictions (SYR) of the school system like the curriculum,
assessment practice and also class size. The second factor accounts for classroom management
(CLA). The third factor stands for missing resources (RES) including adequate textbooks,
computers but also CPD (4.2).
These three factors are also found in the open responses of question 133. The first four examples
are taken from the United Kingdom, the others from Malta. The answers from Malta show a clear
focus on constraints being related to the syllabus and to exam practices (system restrictions).
"Getting through the syllabus sometimes make me panic! As a teacher in a sixth form
college, I try to do as many of these sorts of things as possible but there is a real
pressure to become an exam factory which makes me return to traditional chalk &
talk.”
“Motivation of students to learn on their own is extremely low after an education up to
the age of 16 where they are spoon-fed material without understanding.”
"Most of my classes need set targets of what to achieve, to help behaviour and keep
them on task. I don't know how to incorporate this into an investigative open ended
task. I worry a lot of my pupils would see this as a chance to do nothing but mess
about.”
"Lack of readily available resources, means that as a new teacher with less training
in this creating my own resources would take too long and may not be correct and
easy to use. It would be useful to have resources online to print off and use."
“If students are not motivated, it is difficult to keep them concentrated on the lesson
even more to inquire about maths using IBL. I think that IBL is more appropriate for
more motivated students.”
“My major stumbling block is time. I cannot leave out whole chunks of the syllabus to
implement IBL, therefore I am using an inquiry based approach but collaborative
group work is at the bare minimum, e.g. once a month or less frequent.”
3
Less than 1/5 of the sample answered question 13. Due to language and translation problems only examples from the United
Kingdom and from Malta are given here.

Page 16
“Time consuming - students become very frustrated - difficult to handle large groups
especially regarding discipline - most students find it difficult to discuss and listen to
each other in groups. So the process is hard to start it off.”
“I don't feel confident about it. I need more guidance and clearer examples of how it
should be done.”
The Hungarian PRIMAS team commented on question 13:
“As for question 13, less than half of the subjects wrote anything. The opinions here
can be divided into two main clusters: (1) lack of PD programs about IBL, and even
more frequently (2) lack of resources and equipments.
Maybe people from the Western part of river Elbe can hardly believe that even
pencils, pens, cardboards and other very simple equipments are missing from the
school or are bought by parents and brought to the school by the children.”
All three categories are seen as relevant. While the average of classroom management is only
2,3, the other two are seen as more important: system restrictions and resources both have an
average of 2,8.
Figure 4: Problems with implementation of IBL: classroom management (CLA), resources

(RES) and system restrictions (SYR) (1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: agree, 4:
strongly agree)
In all countries actual classroom management is seen as the least significant problem out of the
three reviewed problems. Except for the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, all countries have
values between 2,1 and 2,4. Interestingly the Netherlands have the smallest value and the United
Kingdom the highest.
Examining responses on the two other categories (system restrictions and resources) shows that
teachers in Denmark, Germany and Norway see less problems with the implementation of IBL
than in the other countries. Teachers in Spain, Slovakia, Cyprus and Romania have the greatest
worries about implementation. In these countries system restrictions and lacking resources are
seen as about equal obstructive. With the remaining five countries it is striking that in Switzerland
and in Malta teachers see system restriction clearly more of a hindrance than resources (Figure
4, Figure 5).

Page 17
Figure 5: Scatter plot of system-related problems versus resources-related problems
Furthermore, there are significant differences between math and science teachers. The group of
teachers teaching maths without teaching teach science sees more problems with system
restrictions, with resources and most notably with classroom management.
Problems with the implementation can be divided in three categories: system, resources
and classroom management related problems. Within Europe not only the relevance of
each of these categories but also the overall problem of the implementation of IBL is rated
differently.
1.2.4. Description of current practice

Characteristics of current teaching practice are measured with six small scales. The teachers
report how often given actions occur in their lessons. All scales have the following classification:
1: never or hardly ever, 2: in some lessons, 3: in most lessons, 4: in almost all lessons. The first
scale measures the frequency of exercises (EXE). The items report a more teacher-centred
behaviour. The second scale reports the frequency of teaching with a focus on application and on
relationship to daily life (APP). Other items measure the frequency of students’ interaction
focusing on discussion (INT). Related to these items are those measuring the frequency of
discussion regarding experiments (EDI). The last two scales measure the frequency of practical
activities. The first one has a focus on the “hands-on” aspect (HON), whereas the other one
captures the frequency of investigation (INV) (4.2).

Page 18
All the six scales together give an initial overview on how lessons are structured (Figure 6) 4. The
medians of the variables EXE (exercises) and APP (application) are both 3. Both boxes lie
completely or nearly completely above 2,5, indicating that most of the teachers report a high
frequency of exercises and a focus to application. The median of INT (interaction) is 2,7. The
bottom of the box is at 2,3, the box is quite small and the whiskers are comparatively short.
Therefore, almost all teachers regard student interaction as a prevalent element of their lessons.
The medians of the remaining three variables are smaller. EDI (experiment-discussion) has a
median of 2,5, the box lies between 2 and 3, right in the middle of the scale. The whiskers cover
the whole range from 1 to 4. Therefore, the variance of this variable is big. Teachers especially
differ regarding the frequency of discussion of experiments. All the same, more than half of the
teachers have at least some discussion of experiments in some of their lessons. HON (hands-on)
and INV (investigation) both have a median of 2, while the box of HON (hands-on) lies above the
median, the box of INV (investigation) lies underneath it. Both hands-on experiments and
investigations are not regular elements of the lessons. While hands-on-experiments can still be
found in some lessons, investigations are rare.
Teachers report that their lessons contain a high portion of exercises, a focus on application and
also student interaction. The elements directly related to practical work are less evident. Around
50% of the teachers report that discussion of data and phenomena happens in most of their
lessons. However, most of them say that practical work is only part of some lessons and that
investigations are conducted even less.
Figure 6: Boxplot of the six variables describing the current teaching practice. Figured is the
frequency 1: never or hardly ever, 2: in some lessons, 3: in most lessons, 4: in almost
all lessons.
4
A boxplot shows the median, the interquartile range (IQR), the minimum and the maximum. The bottom and top of the box are
th th
the 25 and 75 percentile. The so-called whiskers show the data still within 1.5 IQR of the lower quartile, and the highest data
still within 1.5 IQR of the upper quartile.

Page 19
A latent-class analysis was conducted with the described six variables. A three class model was
chosen to be most appropriate (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Three different classes presenting different lessons patterns identified in the
PRIMAS countries.
Interestingly, the mean of EXE (exercises) is about the same in all three classes. This indicates
that the amount of exercises does not have a direct influence on the other elements. Class 1
contains 26% of the teachers. In this context, this class is labelled teacher-oriented even though
the information is only focussed on six elements. The elements of IBL which are directly
connected to experiments play a subordinated rule. In addition, a reference to application is also
not very present. IBL is not part of the daily teaching of the teachers of class 1. Class 2 is the
biggest of the three constructed classes. In all, 56% of the teachers belong to this class. They
report that exercises, reference to application, students’ interaction and also discussion of
experiments take place in more than only ‘some lessons’. Therefore, this pattern is called
intermediate focused form of IBL. Only the frequencies of hands-on activities and investigations
are still quite low. Teachers of class 2 already use some elements regularly that are important
part of IBL. Concerning practical work including investigations they still have a desideratum. The
18% of the teachers in class 3 have the highest means in all six variables. Exercises are still
important and also are reference to application, students’ interactions and discussion of
experiments. Furthermore, hands-on activities and investigations are reported to be part of most
lessons. From this information, the teachers of class 3 seem to apply IBL in their daily lessons.
Here, this class is labelled extremely student and activity oriented style of teaching.

Page 20
Figure 1: Percentage of teachers referring to maths belonging to the three generated

classes. The classes describe the current teaching pattern.
In the following, the allocation of the teachers to the three generated classes is analysed with
respect to the twelve different PRIMAS countries. The focus is on teachers referring to their
maths classes to eliminate the influence of the subject (see below). The samples of the other
subjects are too insignificant to look at them when considering each country separately.
Comparing the percentage of teachers belonging to the different classes reveals similarities and
differences between the PRIMAS countries (Figure 1). Three groups can be identified:
Group1: Romania, Slovakia, Cyprus and Switzerland. Between 20% and 30% of the teachers are
in class 1 and 3. Class 3 is considerably bigger than in the other PRIMAS countries. Hungary is
associated with group1, noticeable only 5% of the teachers belong to class 1. The teachers in this
group report to have already implemented an inquiry-based learning culture in a considerable
way.
Group 2: Denmark, Norway, Spain and Germany. Class 1 is clearly bigger than class 2. Between
25% and 35% of the teachers belong to class 1 while only between 3% and 12´% belong to class
3. The countries in this group have started to implement IBL. Still the proportion of teacher who
are extremely student-oriented is quite small.

Page 21
Group 3: UK and Netherlands. Class 1 is the biggest out of the three classes. Over 55% of the
teachers belong to class 1. Class 3 is small and contains less than 4% of the teachers. In these
two countries IBL has not found its way into daily teaching practice.
Malta can be allocated either to group 2 or to group 3.
The presented differences and similarities between the countries can clearly be assigned.
Figure 8: Scatter plot of the percentage of the teacher-oriented and intermediate IBL-
oriented class for all PRIMAS countries
In the finial part of this section, differences between the subjects the teachers refer to are
analysed (question 14 in the questionnaire QV). Table 2 gives an overview of the sample.
subject sample size proportion
Maths 529 0,64
Physics 99 0,12
Biology 75 0,09
Chemistry 48 0,06
Combined, 81 0,10
balanced or
general Science
Table 2: Overview about the subjects teachers refer to in describing their current teaching
patterns.
Between the five subjects there are no striking differences concerning the variables INT and INV.
The subject referred to does not have an effect on the reported frequency of interaction among
students and of investigation. For the other four scales the differences between maths and the
four other subjects are significant. Teachers referring to maths report a higher presence of
exercises and a smaller frequency of references to application, of discussion of experiments and
of hands-on activities. The teachers’ answers also indicate differences between the science-

Page 22
related subjects. For example, the references to application is notably high for physics and the
amount of exercises is high for chemistry (Table 3).
EXE APP INT EDI HON INV

Maths 3,1 2,7 2,8 2,5 2,2 1,8
Physics 2,8 3,3 2,8 2,8 2,4 1,9
Biology 2,7 3,1 2,8 2,8 2,3 1,9
Chemistry 3,1 3,1 2,8 2,9 2,5 1,8
Combined, balanced or 2,7 3,0 2,8 2,9 2,7 2,0
general Science
Table 3: Average of the scale EXE, APP, INT, EDI, HON, INV depending on the subject
referred to.
The typical lesson patterns vary between the countries and also between the subjects. While
exercises, reference to application and also discussion of experiments can often be found in
lessons, the presence of hands-on activities and of investigations is low.
1.2.5. Analysing PISA with respect to IBL

The PISA studies provide rich data material about teaching and learning on a global level. To
enrich the presented findings student data from the PISA 2006 study is analysed within an IBL
framework. The results are presented in this section.
“PISA is a triennial survey of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds. It is the product of
collaboration between participating countries and economies through the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and draws on leading international
expertise to develop valid comparisons across countries and cultures. More than 400 000
students from 57 countries making up close to 90% of the world economy took part in PISA
2006. The focus was on science but the assessment also included reading and
mathematics and collected data on student, family and institutional factors that could help
to explain differences in performance. “ (OECD, 2007)
PISA data, analysis, technical reports and more are publicly available from the OECD. PISA 2006
and not PISA 2009 is taken as a reference point because at the time the baseline survey of
PRIMAS was planed and conducted the Analysis Report and the Technical Report of PISA 2009
were not yet accessible. In this section, items that were used in PISA 2006 and in PRIMAS are
analysed considering the nine countries taking part in both surveys:
Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, United
Kingdom.
Focusing on these countries reduces the PISA 2006 sample to 63900. An overview of the items
used in the PISA and the PRIMAS study is given in 1.2.1. According to PISA these items
measure the frequency of interactive teaching, of hands-on-activities, of student investigations
and of teaching with a focus on applications.
Within a PISA report (Prenzel et al., 2007) the following five items were chosen to identify
patterns of science teaching and learning with the aim to focus on scientific enquiry:
• Students are given opportunities to explain their ideas. (ST34Q01)
• Students spend time in the laboratory doing practical experiments. (ST34Q02)

Page 23
• Students are asked to draw conclusions from an experiment they have conducted.
(ST34Q06)
• Students are allowed to design their own experiments. (ST34Q08)

• The teacher uses science to help students understand the world outside school.
(ST34Q12)
Based on these items a Latent Class analysis was conducted with the data of all OECD
countries. A three class model was chosen to fit most appropriate. For PRIMAS a similar Latent
Class analysis was conducted using only the PISA data from countries involved in PRIMAS. The
results are similar to those involving all OECD countries.
The classes are comparable with those reported by PISA for all OECD countries (Prenzel et al.,
2007). Class 3 (13,9%) has the highest mean in all five items. Since all facets are implemented
this class is called “strongly-student-centred”. Class 2 (47,5%) is close to class 3 except for
frequency of students designing their own experiments and also carrying out practical
experiments. Here this class is labelled ‘intermediate form of IBL’. The lowest scores for all items
are found in class 1(38,6%) Therefore, the label for this class is teacher-centred (Figure 9).
3,5
3,0
teacher‐oriented
2,5
intermediate form
2,0 student‐oriented
1,5
1,0
own practical conclusions own ideas outside
experiments
3
Figure 9: 3-class-solution of LCA: Patterns of science teaching and learning identified with
the PISA data in the PRIMAS countries (1: never or hardly ever, 2: in some lessons, 3:
in most lessons, 4: in almost all lessons)
Regarding the countries the variations in class 3 are small, whereas there are big differences in
the rates of classes 1 and 2. When comparing the proportions of class 1 and 2, the PRIMAS
countries can be divided into three groups (Figure 10):
• Class 1 / class 2 > 1: Hungary, Slovak Republic. In these countries, scientific enquiry is
not very present in school. 50% and more of the described lessons pattern belong to
class 1.

Page 24
• Class 1 / class 2 <> 1: Norway, Netherlands, Spain. Enquiry in school, as described by

PISA, is present with some restrictions in between 40% and 50% of the described
patterns (class 2). At the same time, there are about the same amount of patterns
belonging to class 1.
• Class 1/ Class 2 < 1: Denmark, United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland,. These
countries are characterized by having around 30% and less patterns belonging to
class 1. Therefore, scientific enquiry learning takes place in around 70% of the classes.
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3 teacher‐oriented
0,2 intermediate form
0,1 student‐oriented
0,0
Figure 10: Analysing PISA data: Percentage of students belonging to the three identified
classes for the nine PRIMAS countries
The PISA understanding of scientific enquiry learning is narrow compared with the multi-faceted
understanding of IBL favoured by PRIMAS. Therefore, five items have been chosen for a closer
examination. They go with the multi-faceted understanding of IBL used within PRIMAS, three of
them were also used by the PISA LCA:
• Students are given opportunities to explain their ideas. (ST34Q01)
• Students do experiments by following the instructions of the teacher. (ST34Q14)
• The teacher uses science to help students understand the word outside school.
(ST34Q12)
• The students have discussions about the topics. (ST34Q13)
• Students are allowed to design their own experiments. (ST34Q08)
Item own ideas (ST34Q01), and item discussion (ST34Q13), describe the class room
atmosphere. Item outside school (ST34Q12) is connected with the type of problems being used in
an IBL learning and teaching culture. The items instruction experiment (STQ14) and own
experiments (ST34Q08), both deal with the process of inquiry students are involved in. Both
items are chosen because they clearly distinguish between teacher-centred and student-centred
practical work.

Page 25
Table 4 shows the means of the selected items for the nine countries participating in PISA and
PRIMAS. Larger differences can be seen in instruction experiments and discussion, medium
differences in own ideas and outside school. The item own experiments shows the smallest
differences between the countries. Interestingly two countries have the highest scores in two of
the items: Denmark and the United Kingdom, one country has the lowest scores in three of the
items: Netherlands. Strikingly, Hungary has the highest score in one item and the lowest in
another.
instruction
own ideas discussion outside school own experiments
experiments
Denmark 2,6 2,8 2,3 2,4 1,6
Germany 2,7 2,4 2,4 2,3 1,5
Hungary 2,7 1,6 2,8 2,3 1,5
Netherlands 2,4 2,2 2,0 2,0 1,5
Norway 2,7 2,4 2,3 2,3 1,5
Slovakia 2,6 2,5 2,3 2,1 1,7
Spain 2,9 2,1 2,1 2,1 1,6
Switzerland 2,8 2,4 2,4 2,4 1,7
United Kingdom 2,9 2,7 2,4 2,4 1,6
All 2,8 2,4 2,3 2,3 1,6
Table 4: Mean of five PISA items measuring frequency in science lessons in nine PRIMAS countries (1: never or
hardly ever, 2: in some lessons, 3: in most lessons, 4: in almost all lessons)
As in the cited PISA report a latent class analysis has been conducted with the five chosen items
to identify similar patterns. A 3-class-model has been chosen as being most appropriate (Figure
11). Class 1 (48%) represents a teacher-oriented lesson pattern. It has the lowest means for all
five items, indicating that the facets of IBL are not yet implemented in science lessons. Class 2
(38%) subsumes students who describe their lessons as being student oriented. Members of this
class have opportunity for discussion and references to applications are being made. Concerning
IBL there is a lack of student-led investigations. Class 3 (14,0%) describes an extremely student-
centred teaching and learning culture. The lessons are student-centred and there is room for
conducting experiments.

Page 26
Figure 11: Patterns of IBL with the PISA data in the PRIMAS countries (1: never or hardly
ever, 2: in some lessons, 3: in most lessons, 4: in almost all lessons)
Figure 12: Percentage of students belonging to the three identified pattern for the nine
PRIMAS countries
Looking at the countries reveals an interesting picture (Figure 12).

The Netherlands is country with the largest teacher-oriented class. 60% of the students belong to
this class.
The Slovak Republic and Spain have a similar contribution compared to the other countries; more
than 50% of the students describe their lessons as being teacher-oriented.
Norway, Hungary and Germany, have similar patterns. The teacher-oriented class contains
nearly half of the students.

Page 27
Switzerland and Denmark show similarities. The student-oriented and the teacher-oriented class
have about the same size. Both contain around 40% of the respective sample.
The United Kingdom appears to have the most IBL- and student-oriented teaching practice. Still
40% of the sample describes their lessons as teacher-oriented.
Using five items within the presented framework of IBL gives another picture than using the five
items used within the analysis of the PISA data. Having the focus on both scientific enquiry and
classroom atmosphere shows another picture of similarities and differences between the
countries.
Analysing the PISA data of the PRIMAS countries that focus on IBL shows differences
between the countries. The grouping of the countries and the information on the level of
implementation of IBL depends on the understanding of IBL.
1.2.1. Comparison between PISA and PRIMAS

Comparing PISA 2006 and PRIMAS data has to take the differences of the two studies into
account. PISA 2006 is a large international student assessment study that has nationally-
representative samples. Within the study students answered a half-hour questionnaire about
themselves including their school experience. The PISA data analysed in this report is from this
questionnaire. The PRIMAS baseline study has been conducted with a non-representative
sample of teachers. The primary aim of the PRIMAS study is to gain insight into the situation
regarding IBL in different European countries.
In this section, the focus is on countries that took part in the PISA 2006 and the PRIMAS study.
The sample size of PISA 2006 is 63904, whereas there are only 925 PRIMAS cases. The
following analysis centres on the ten items that have been used in PISA 2006 as well as in the
PRIMAS baseline study. These items refer to science learning and teaching. They measure the
frequency of interactive teaching, of hands-on-activities, of student investigations and of teaching
with a focus on applications.
Table 5: Overview of items used in the PRIMAS and PISA studies and Figure 13 give an
overview and a comparison of the items being used in both the PRIMAS and the PISA study.

Page 28
Label
Item
PRIMAS/ mean
PRIMAS/PISA
PISA
I explain how a school maths/science idea can be applied to a 2,86
16m
number of different phenomena.
The teacher explains how a <school science> idea can be applied to
ST34Q07 a number of different phenomena (e.g. the movement of objects, 2,68
substances with similar properties)
I use the maths/science to help students understand the world
16n 2,88
outside school.
The teacher uses science to help students understand the world
ST34Q12 2,25
outside school.
16o I clearly explain the relevance of maths/science concepts to daily life. 2,86
ST34Q15 The teacher clearly explains the relevance of <broad science>. 2,45
17d My students are given opportunities to explain their own ideas. 2,90
ST34Q01 Students are given opportunities to explain their ideas. 2,79

17e My students have discussions about the topics. 2,61
ST34Q13 There is a class debate or discussion. 2,30
17f My students do practical activities. 2,35
ST34Q02 Students spend time in the laboratory doing practical experiments. 1,90
My students draw conclusions from an experiment they have
17g 2,33
conducted.
Students are asked to draw conclusions from an experiment they
ST34Q06 2,54
have conducted.
17h My students do experiments by following my instructions. 2,21
ST34Q14 Students do experiments by following the instructions of the teacher. 2,35
17i My students are allowed to design their own experiments. 1,86
ST34Q08 Students are allowed to design their own experiments. 1,58
My students are asked to do an investigation to test out their own
17j 1,88
ideas.
ST34Q16 Students are asked to do an investigation to test out their own ideas. 1,79
Table 5: Overview of items used in the PRIMAS and PISA studies

Page 29
Figure 13: Comparison of items used in the PISA and the PRIMAS survey
Interestingly, PISA students and PRIMAS teachers do not answer in a comparable way. The
reasons therefore have to be clarified within further research. One possible reason is that
teachers and students perceive lessons in different ways. An aspect in this favour is that
especially the items which contain an “I”-statement in the teachers’ questionnaire show great
differences. Another possibility to account for the differences is that the PRIMAS sample is not
representative. Teachers taking part in the survey might be ‘above average-open’ to new ways of
teaching and learning. Furthermore, the majority of the PISA teachers refers to maths while the
PRIMAS students refer to science. This might also a cause for the differences.
Comparing the results of analysing PRIMAS data (1.2.4) and PISA data (1.2.5) with respect to
lesson patterns reveals similarities and distinctions. Both studies show that IBL elements can be
found in a great portion the lessons. Nevertheless, 26% (PRIMAS) and 48% (PISA) of the
students or teachers describe the lessons as having hardly any IBL elements. As described
above, reasons for this could be either that PRIMAS has a non-representative sample which is
positively oriented towards progressions or that teacher and students experience lessons in
different ways.

Page 30
Figure 14: Scatter plot of percentage of strongly student-centred lessons versus percentage
of teacher-oriented lessons for PRIMAS and PISA
Looking at the country level, both studies complement each other in most of the cases. Both
studies indicate that Switzerland is one of the countries out of the PRIMAS consortium which
already have the most student-centred culture integrated in their lessons. Moreover, both studies
show that the lessons in the Netherlands are strongly teacher-centred. Except for the UK and
Hungary the other countries are somewhere in between with PRIMAS and PISA giving similar
results. The PRIMAS sample of Hungary shows that the country has a considerable percentage
of student-centred lessons while within PISA, Hungary has the smallest percentage of student-
centred lessons. One possible reason is that the PISA data puts a stronger focus on experiments
and that due to a lack of resources experiments are not a prevalent element of classes while
other IBL related elements are developed stronger. Even more contradictory are the results for
the UK. According to the PISA results, the UK is well advanced with the implementation of
student-centred lessons. The PRIMAS results indicate that the UK is one of the countries with the
most desiderates regarding student-centred lessons and therefore, also regarding IBL. This
contradictory result cannot be clarified within this study. One possible reason is that the UK
PRIMAS sample is mainly from the North West of England while the PRIMAS sample is taken
representatively from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and also from Scotland.
Even though there are differences between the results of PRIMAS and PISA, the two
studies add to each other and give a picture about IBL focussing on certain elements and
on the different countries.

Page 31
2. Conclusions and Recommendations

The review of the literature has shown that the acronym IBL is used in various contexts. Within
the presented study a multi-faceted approach has been used. It evolved during the planning of
this study as well as during discussions at PRIMAS meetings. Furthermore, it goes along with the
aims of PRIMAS. It is important to be aware of the various facets of IBL. When discussing IBL,
people do not necessarily have the same kind of lessons in mind. Depending on the
understanding of IBL, the existing situations will be judged differently. Within the project work it
will be useful to stick with a multi-faceted approach. This approach extends the number of
possible starting points for each partner. Everyone can choose an aspect to start with depending
on their needs and the existing restrictions.
Looking at the results of the baseline study, it has to be kept in mind that the sample is not
representative. The teachers have been aggregated by members of the consortium. It has to be
assumed that the sample has above-average interest in pedagogical issues and is open for
changes. In any case the results are still meaningful, because a similar bias can be expected in
the intervention. Furthermore, some of the findings have been supported by analysing data from
the PISA 2006 survey.
All over Europe there are teachers who have at least had initial experience with IBL and who are
keen to learn more about IBL. There is a strong believe that IBL has the potential to overcome
learning problems and to motivate students. To spread the idea of IBL, it would be useful to work
at the outset with teachers that have already had initial experience with IBL and have an open-
mind towards updating and developing their teaching styles and practices. Those teachers then
could help to spread the implementation of IBL, for example, through discussions with colleagues.
The problems teacher have with the implementing of IBL can be assigned to three categories:
Classroom management, resources and system restrictions. All of them have to be taken
seriously, even though classroom management is seen as the smallest barrier in all participating
countries. Nevertheless, in some countries there are more obstacles to a successful
implementation of IBL than in others. All the mentioned problems have to be the basis of different
kind of programs. Aspects of classroom management are probably the ones which are most
easily dealt with. They are not strongly related to subject or national matters, so material from
partners can easily be adapted.
Teachers in all countries suffer from a lack of resources for the implementation of IBL. In some
countries especially in the Eastern European ones, this problem is regarded as more severe.
Teachers like to have ready-to-use material that suits the national syllabus at the same time. This
is a great challenge for PRIMAS because of the variety of participating countries and subjects.
PRIMAS should offer universally useable material that many teachers would regard as relevant.
Therefore, it is important to have the national system restrictions in mind.
In some countries, the most serious obstacle when implementing IBL is that teachers see serious
system-immanent problems. However, the PRIMAS team has to be aware of teachers’ perception
and evaluation of the situation. Also, perceived restrictions have to be discussed and given a
reality check. It will be useful to choose a starting point for the implementation of IBL which is
most appropriate for the existing situation in a given context. Therefore, it has to be taken into
account that problems are considered more severe in some countries than in others. Teacher
must believe that the implementation of the offered aspects of IBL is possible in their individual
situation.
The participating countries also differ in the existing lesson patterns. This can be a problem for
the implementation of IBL with the PRIMAS project. Some countries, for example, already have a
high affinity to application while other do not. This has to be taken into account when adapting

Page 32
material from elsewhere. Generally, the integration of investigations into daily lessons will be
easier if students have already had experience with hands-on activities.
Even though all participating countries see the necessity of improving science education they
probably require different programs specially tailored to their needs. It is a great opportunity for
PRIMAS to work internationally and especially with people from different professional
backgrounds. Everyone can learn and improve from the experience of the other involved parties;
however, it is important to bear in mind that the different participants do not all share the same
starting point. Therefore, different approaches to an IBL-oriented teaching and learning culture
are necessary. Most important for the PRIMAS team is to exchange and appreciate each other’s
ideas on IBL. This can help everyone to find an appropriate way to foster an IBL teaching and
learning culture in their community.

Page 33
3. References
Abd-el-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Ledermann, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R.,
Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in Science Education: International Perspectives.
Science Education, 88(3), 398-419.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
Brandon, P. R., Young, D. B., Pottgenger, F. M., & Taum, A. K. (2009). The inquiry science
implementation scale: development and applications. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education:, 7, 1135-1147.
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher Questioning in Science Classrooms: Approaches that Stimulate
Productive Thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically Authentic Science in Schools: A
Theoretical Framework for Evaluation Inquiry Tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-
218.
Colburn, A. (2000). An Inquiry Primer. Science Scope.
CSMEE, C. f. S., Mathematics, and Engineering Education (CSMEE). (2000). Inquiry and the
National Science Education Standards:
A Guide for Teaching and Learning.
Dorier, J.-L. (2010). WP2 Analysis. PRIMAS – Promoting inquiry in mathematics and science
education across Europe (www.primasproject.eu).
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional Development and Teacher Change. Teachers and
Teaching: theory and practice, 8(3/4).
Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring Stages of Concern about
Innovation: A Manuel for the Use of the SoC Questionnaire. Austin, Tex: Research
and Development Center For Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin.
Hayes, M. T. (2002). Elementary Preservice Teachers' Struggles to Define Inquiry-based
Science Teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 147-165.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2006). Scaffolding and Achievement in
Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark.
Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking Old Ways: Towards A More Critical Approach To Practical
Work In School Science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142.
Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientifc method: three decades of confusion and
distortion. Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115-135.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education.
Mahawah, New Jersey: Taylor & Francis.
Loucks, S., & Hall, G. E. (1979). Implementating Innovations in School: A Concern-Based
Approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association.
OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World Executive
Summary
OECD. (2009). Technical Report- PISA 2006.
Prenzel, M., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Hammann, M., Klieme, E., et al. (Eds.). (2007).
PISA 2006 -Die Ergebnisse der dritten internationalen Vergleichsstudie -
Zusammenfassung.
Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V.
(2007). Rocard report: "Science Education Now: A New Pedagogy for the Future of
Europe". EU 22845, European Commission.

Page 34
Swan, M. (2006). Designing and using research instruments to describe the belief and
practices of mathematics teachers. Research in Education, 75.
Walker, M. D. (2007). Teaching inquiry-based science - A guide for middle and high school
teachers. LaVergne, TN: Lightning Source.
Wellcome Trust. (2006). CPD research report: Believers, Seekers and Sceptics: What
Teachers think about continuing professional development. Wellcome Trust.
Wu, H.-K., & Hsie, C.-E. (2006). Developing Sixth Graders' Inquiry Skills to Construct
Explanations in Inquiry-based Learning Enviroments. International Journal of Science
Education, 28(11), 1289-1313.

Page 35
4. Appendices
4.1. Appendix 1: Questionnaire
www.primas-project.eu
Dear teacher,

we would like you to take part in this survey as part of the European project PRIMAS.
Please fill out the questionnaire anonymously.
PRIMAS aims to effect a change across Europe in the teaching and learning of
mathematics and science by supporting teachers to develop inquiry-based learning
(IBL) pedagogies. IBL strategies in the classroom enable students to get a first-hand
experience of scientific inquiry, stimulate intrinsic motivation and generate interest for
the learning in science and mathematics.
The aim of this survey is to find out about the European situation regarding inquiry
based learning and teaching across different countries and disciplines.
Thank you for your help.
Your PRIMAS-Team

Page 36
Personal Data
In this section we would like some information about you and your teaching experience.
1. In some countries teachers are grouped according to their region, their institutes,…Please mark
the number of your group. If you have not been told a number, please mark 0.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. I am working as a teacher in
Cyprus Denmark Germany Hungary Malta Netherlands Norway Romania Slovakia Spain Switzerland UK
3. How old are you?

years
4. I am
Male Female
5. How many years have you been in the teaching profession?
0-2y 3-5y 6-10y 11-15y 16-20y More than 20y
6. Which subjects do you teach? (you may tick more than one if appropriate)
a. Maths
b. Physics
c. Biology
d. Chemistry
e. Combined, balanced or general Science
f. English
g. Foreign Languages
h. Art/Music
7. What age groups did you teach mainly during the last two years? (you may tick more than one if
appropriate)
a. Year 3 and below (8 years and younger)

b. Years 4 & 5 (8 to 10 years)
c. Years 6 & 7 (10 to 12 years)
d. Years 8 & 9 (12 to 14 years)
e. Years 10 & 11 (14 to16 years)
f. Years 12 & 13 (16 years and older)

Page 37
Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
The aim of CPD is to develop teachers’ competencies related to their profession. The CPD events last
at least half a day, but there are also long term trainings with for example several meetings within a
period of two years.
In the following section we would like to know about your attitude towards CPD.
8. How many days did you participate in professional development events over the past years?
Please fill in the numbers.
0-2 years 3-4 years 5-6 years 7-8 years

ago ago ago ago
9. .
mainly half mainly
no and yes
half
I participated in CPD because it
was compulsory.
10. To what extent do you agree with the following statements concerning CPD.
strongly strongly
disagree Agree
disagree agree
a. Engaging in CPD can help me to become a better
teacher.
b. Through CPD I can attain greater professional
satisfaction.
c. I would like more opportunities to undertake CPD.
d. CPD is only necessary for those new to the profession
e. CPD is only important for those seeking greater
responsibility.
f. It is difficult for me to see the value of CPD.
g. CPD is necessary to update my repertoire of teaching
methods.
h. The provision of CPD opportunities can increase staff
morale.
i. CPD is necessary in order to update subject knowledge.
j. Engaging in CPD can make me more confident in
performing my role.
k. CPD is necessary to update pedagogical skills.
l. Teachers with a great deal of professional experience
don’t need CPD.

Page 38
Inquiry Based Learning (IBL)
Inquiry based learning (IBL) is a student-centred way of learning content, strategies and self-directed
learning skills. Students
⎯ develop their questions to examine,
⎯ engage in self-directed inquiry (diagnosing problems - formulating hypothesis - identifying
variables - collecting data – documenting their work - interpreting and communicating results)
⎯ collaborate.
The aim of IBL is to stimulate students to adopt a critical inquiring mind and problem solving aptitudes.
11. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements.
strongly strongly
disagree agree
disagree agree
a. I would like to implement more IBL practices in my
lessons.
b. IBL is important for my current teaching practice.
c. Successful IBL requires students to have extensive
content knowledge.
d. IBL is not effective with lower-achieving students.
e. I see no need to use IBL approaches.
f. IBL is well suited to overcome problems with students’
motivation.
g. IBL provides material for fun activities.
h. I already use IBL a great deal.
i. I would like to have more support to integrate IBL in my
lessons.
j. IBL is well suited to approach students learning
problems.
k. I regularly do projects with my students using IBL.

Page 39
12. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements.
strongly strongly
I have difficulties in implementing IBL, because… disagree agree
disagree agree
a. the curriculum does not encourage IBL.
b. I don’t have enough time to prepare IBL lessons.
c. I don’t have adequate teaching materials.
d. IBL is not included in textbooks I use.
e. I don’t know how to assess IBL.
f. I don’t have access to any adequate CPD programs
involving IBL.
g. I worry about students’ discipline being more difficult in
IBL lessons.
h. I don’t fell confident with IBL.
i. I worry about my students getting lost and frustrated in
their learning.
j. my colleagues do not support IBL.
k. I think that group work is difficult to manage.
l. there is not enough time in the curriculum.
m. I don’t have sufficient resources such as computers,
laboratory,…
n. my students have to take assessments that don’t reward
IBL.
o. the number of students in my classes is too big for IBL
to be effective.
13. Please comment on the main difficulties that hinder the implementation of IBL in your lessons.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Page 40
Description of your current practice
Now we would like you to think of a certain group you teach.
14. Subject
Maths Physics Biology Chemistry Combined, balanced or general Science
15. Age Group
a. Year 3 and below (8 years and younger)

b. Years 4 & 5 (8 to 10 years)
c. Years 6 & 7 (10 to 12 years)
d. Years 8 & 9 (12 to 14 years)
e. Years 10 & 11 (14 to16 years)
f. Years 12 & 13 (16 years and older)
16. When teaching this subject to this class, how often do the following activities occur in your
lessons?
never or in almost
in some in most
In my lessons… hardly all
lessons lessons
ever lessons
a. I have my students working on their own, consulting a
classmate from time to time.
b. I encourage my students to use only the methods I teach
them.
c. I give my students the opportunity to choose which
questions they tackle.
d. I encourage students to work more slowly.
e. I teach the whole class at once.
f. I draw links between topics and move back and forth
between topics.
g. I am surprised by the ideas that come up in a lesson.
h. I avoid students making mistakes by explaining things
carefully first.
i. I tend to follow the textbooks or worksheets closely.
j. I try to teach each learner differently according to
individual needs.
k. I try to cover everything in a topic.
l. I try to remove students fear about failure.
m. I explain how a school math/science idea can be applied
to a number of different phenomena.
n. I use the math/science to help students understand the
world outside school.

Page 41
never or in almost
in some in most
In my lessons… hardly all
lessons lessons
ever lessons
o. I clearly explain the relevance of math/science concepts
to daily life.
p. I enable students to make presentations.
q. I circulate and interact with students.
r. I discuss variations in data collected by students
following their experiments.
s. I use questioning strategies to respond to students’
questions.
t. I have students ask questions about math/scientific
phenomena addressed during experiments.
u. I have students engage in discussions among
themselves.
17. When teaching this subject to this class, how often do your students do the following activities
during your lesson?
never or in almost
in some in most
In my lessons my students… hardly all
lessons lessons
ever lessons
a. learn through doing exercises.
b. start with easy questions and work up to harder
questions.
c. work collaboratively in pairs or small groups.
d. are given opportunities to explain their own ideas.
e. have discussions about the topics.
f. do practical activities.
g. draw conclusions from an experiment they have
conducted.
h. do experiments by following my instructions.
i. are allowed to design their own experiments.
j. are asked to do an investigation to test out their own
ideas.
k. have opportunities to work with little or no guidance.
Thank you !!!

Page 42
4.2. Appendix 2: item scale documentation

The following value will be reported for each scale used in the analysis.
‫ݔ‬ҧ s rit a Cronbachs α N
Mean of item Standard Correlation of Cronbachs α, Size of
derivation item with if item is sample
scale deleted
Use of IBL
Scale: 1:strongly disagree, 2:disagree, 3:agree, 4:strongly agree
Orientation towards IBL (ORI)

Item ‫ݔ‬ҧ s rit a
11a I would like to implement more IBL practices in my 3,06 0,626 0,399
lessons.
11i I would like to have more support to integrate IBL in 3,00 0,734 0,399
my lessons.
Cronbachs α =0,565
N= 856
Routine use of IBL (ROU)

Item ‫ݔ‬ҧ s rit A
11h I already use IBL a great deal. 2,48 ,743 ,686
11k I regularly do projects with my students using IBL. 2,36 ,745 ,686
Cronbachs α =0,814
N= 835
Preconception of IBL
Knowledge dependent (KND)

Item ‫ݔ‬ҧ S rit a
11c Successful IBL requires students to have extensive 2,57 0,763 0,367
content knowledge.
11d IBL is not effective with lower-achieving students. 2,20 0,767 0,367
Cronbachs α =0,537
N= 843

Page 43
Motivation (MOT)
11f IBL is well suited to overcome problems with 2,93 0,643 0,427
students’ motivation.
11j IBL is well suited to approach students learning 2,88 0,664 0,427
problems.
Cronbachs α =0,599
N= 833
Problems with implementation

Scale: 1:strongly disagree, 2:disagree, 3:agree, 4:strongly agree
Resources (RES)
Item ‫ݔ‬ҧ s rit A
I have difficulties in implementing IBL, because…
12c I don’t have adequate teaching materials. 2,82 0,779 0,629 0,636
12d IBL is not included in textbooks I use. 2,85 0,825 0,546 0,679
12f I don’t have access to any adequate CPD programs 2,77 0,809 0,518 0,695
involving IBL.
12m I don’t have sufficient resources such as computers, 2,74 0,911 0,468 0,729
laboratory.
Cronbachs α =0,743
N= 814
Classroom management (CLA)

12g I worry about students’ discipline being more difficult 2,34 0,834 0,599 0,672
in IBL lessons.
12h I don’t feel confident with IBL. 2,23 0,787 0,523 0,715
12i I worry about my students getting lost and frustrated 2,29 0,763 0,558 0,696
in their learning.
12k I think that group work is difficult to manage. 2,31 0,789 0,531 0,710
Cronbachs α =0,756
N= 837

Page 44
System Restrictions (SYR)

12a the curriculum does not encourage IBL. 2,70 0,829 0,443 0,650
12l there is not enough time in the curriculum. 3,13 0,774 0,543 0,591
12n my students have to take assessments that don’t 2,74 0,828 0,513 0,606
reward IBL.
12o the number of students in my classes is too big for 2,72 0,911 0,421 0,669
IBL to be effective.
Cronbachs α =0,693
N= 837
Discription of current practice

Scale: 1: never or hardly ever, 2: in some lessons, 3: in most lessons,
4: in almost all lessons
Exercises, teacher centred student behaviour, (EXE)

17a My students learn through doing exercises. 2,95 0,706 0,474
17b My students start with easy questions and work up to 3,04 0,703 0,474
harder questions.
Cronbachs α =0,643
N= 860
Focus on application (APP)
16m I explain how a school math/science idea can be 2,86 0,807 0,657 0,852
applied to a number of different phenomena.
16n I use the math/science to help students understand 2,88 0,781 0,759 0,757
the world outside school.
16o I clearly explain the relevance of math/science 2,86 0,807 0,750 0,765
concepts to daily life.
Cronbachs α =0,851
N= 859

Page 45
Discussion of experiments (DIE)

16r I discuss variations in data collected by students 2,66 0,848 0,465
following their experiments.
16t I have students ask questions about math/scientific 2,61 0,855 0,465
phenomena addressed during experiments.
Cronbachs α =0,635
N= 819
Students’ interaction (INT)

16u I have students engage in discussions among 2,56 ,820 ,504 ,699
themselves.
17d My students are given opportunities to explain their 2,90 ,721 ,511 ,683
own ideas.
17e My students have discussions about the topics. 2,61 ,761 ,640 ,526
Cronbachs α=0,727
N= 847
Hands on activities (HON)

17f My students do practical activities. 2,35 0,792 0,646 0,740
17g My students draw conclusions from an experiment 2,33 0,784 0,699 0,681
they have conducted.
17h My students do experiments by following my 2,21 0,722 0,613 0,772
instructions.
Cronbachs α=0,805
N= 828
Investigation (INV)
17i My students are allowed to design their own 1,86 0,762 0,627
experiments.
17j My students are asked to do an investigation to test 1,88 0,737 0,627
out their own ideas.
Cronbachs α=0,770
N= 841


Silo - Tips - The Primas Project Promoting Inquirybased Learning Ibl in Mathematics and Science Education Across Europe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Silo - Tips - The Primas Project Promoting Inquirybased Learning Ibl in Mathematics and Science Education Across Europe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The PRIMAS project: Promoting inquiry-

based learning (IBL) in mathematics and

PRIMAS survey report on inquiry-based

PRIMAS has carried out a large survey on inquiry-based

Promoting inquiry-based learning in mathe-

Information about the deliverable

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 2

Aims and purpose of the present study

Methods and research design

Conclusions and recommendations

1.1. Theoretical Background

1.1.1. Perspective on IBL

investigations, researching conjectures, searching for information from experts, and

Figure 1: A multi-faceted approach to IBL

The classroom atmosphere plays an important role which is often underestimated. It is

• they diagnose problems and develop questions,

According to a multi-faceted understanding IBL is not only characterized by the relevance

1.1.2. Challenges in the implementation of IBL

A questionnaire for the survey was developed based on a multi-faceted understanding of

1.2.1. Realisation and sample

1.2.2. Use and preconception of IBL

1.2.3. Difficulties with implementation of IBL

Figure 4: Problems with implementation of IBL: classroom management (CLA), resources

Figure 5: Scatter plot of system-related problems versus resources-related problems

1.2.4. Description of current practice

Figure 1: Percentage of teachers referring to maths belonging to the three generated

EXE APP INT EDI HON INV

1.2.5. Analysing PISA with respect to IBL

• Students are allowed to design their own experiments. (ST34Q08)

• Class 1 / class 2 <> 1: Norway, Netherlands, Spain. Enquiry in school, as described by

Denmark 2,6 2,8 2,3 2,4 1,6

Germany 2,7 2,4 2,4 2,3 1,5

Hungary 2,7 1,6 2,8 2,3 1,5

Netherlands 2,4 2,2 2,0 2,0 1,5

Norway 2,7 2,4 2,3 2,3 1,5

Slovakia 2,6 2,5 2,3 2,1 1,7

Spain 2,9 2,1 2,1 2,1 1,6

Switzerland 2,8 2,4 2,4 2,4 1,7

United Kingdom 2,9 2,7 2,4 2,4 1,6

All 2,8 2,4 2,3 2,3 1,6

Looking at the countries reveals an interesting picture (Figure 12).

1.2.1. Comparison between PISA and PRIMAS

ST34Q01 Students are given opportunities to explain their ideas. 2,79

Table 5: Overview of items used in the PRIMAS and PISA studies

2. Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1. Appendix 1: Questionnaire

Thank you for your help.

3. How old are you?

5. How many years have you been in the teaching profession?

0-2y 3-5y 6-10y 11-15y 16-20y More than 20y

a. Year 3 and below (8 years and younger)

Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

0-2 years 3-4 years 5-6 years 7-8 years

Inquiry Based Learning (IBL)

Description of your current practice

Now we would like you to think of a certain group you teach.

15. Age Group

a. Year 3 and below (8 years and younger)

Thank you !!!

4.2. Appendix 2: item scale documentation

Orientation towards IBL (ORI)

Routine use of IBL (ROU)