Teaching Conceptions of Inquiry-based Learning among Nigerian Secondary School Physics Teachers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/dnew6098Keywords:
Nigerian Secondary School Physics Teachers, Teaching Conceptions, Inquiry-based LearningAbstract
Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is gaining popularity in science education worldwide. Unfortunately, many teachers are yet to comprehend its pedagogical modus operandi, especially in West Africa and Nigeria, in particular, maybe due to their teaching conception that is still inclined towards a teacher-centered paradigm. This paper is targeted at finding out the teachers’ teaching conception towards IBL in secondary schools in Kebbi State, Nigeria. The Promoting Inquiry-Based Learning in Science and Mathematics (PRIMAS) questionnaire was administered to a sample of 85 physics secondary school teachers in Kebbi State. Descriptive statistics was used to arrive at a mean value of 2.74, which represents the value of the physics teachers conception. Inadequate knowledge of IBL, teachers’ difficulty in applying the method, and current practices (national curriculum and lack of adequate instructional materials) were found to be some of the respondents’ major conceptions. Professional development programs, curriculum review, and IBL teachers’ welfare were some of the suggestions offered to improve the teaching conception towards IBL.
Downloads
References
[1] L. Gow and D. Kember. Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 1, 20-33. 1993.
[2] K.W. Chan & R.G. Elliott. Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and
learning. Teach. Teacher Educ., Vol. 20, No. 1, 817-831. 2004.
[3] A.Y. Emily & S.E. Brook. Elementary Teachers' Beliefs about Multicultural Education Practices. Teachers
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, Vol. 4, No. 5, 465-486. 2017.
[4] A. A.Gebril, & G.T.L. Brown. The effect of high-stakes examination system on teacher beliefs: Egyptian teachers‘
conceptions of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, Vol. 21, No. 1, 16-33. 2013.
[5] J. Fogleman, K. L. McNeil, & J. Krajcik. Examining the Effect of Teachers Adaptation of a Middle School
Science Inquiry-Oriented Curriculum Unit on Student Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
Vol. 48, No. 2, 149–169. 2011.
[6] M. Cakir. Constructivist Approaches to Learning in Science & their Implications for Science Pedagogy: A
Literature Review, International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, Vol. 3, No. 4, 193-206. 2008.
[7] P. J. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone, & R. T. White. The Content of Science: A Constructivist Approach to its
Teaching and Learning. NY, Routledge. 112-121. 2013.
[8] C. T. Fosnot. Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice Second Edition Catherine Twomey, Teachers
College, Columbia University New York and London, 10-12. 2005.
[9] V. Silvia. A Constructivist Approach for Introducing Undergraduate Students to Special Collections and
Archival Research. A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage, vol. 17, no. 2, 148-161. 2016.
[10] M. K. Dunaway. Connectivism: Learning theory & pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes,
Reference Services Review, Vol. 39, No. 4, 675-685. 2011.
[11] M. R. Blanchard, J. W. Osborne, C. Wallwork, & E. S. Haris. Progress on Implementing Inquiry in North
Carolina: Nearly 1,000 Elementary, Middle, and High School Science Teachers Weigh In. Science Educator
Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1-11. 2013.
[12] M. P. Boyd. Planning & realigning a lesson in response to student contributions: Intentions & decision making.
The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 113, No. 1, 25-51. 2012.
[13] D. K. Capps & B. A. Crawford. Inquiry-based professional development: what does it take to support teachers in
learning about the nature of science? International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 35, No. 12, 1947-1978.
2013.
[14] D. D. Minner, A. A. Levy, & J. Century. Inquiry-based science instruction-—what is it, and does it matter? Results
from research synthesis 1984-2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 47, No. 4, 474-496. 2010.
[15] National Research Council of the National Academies. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2012.
[16] S. Philippou, C. Papademetri-Kachrimani, & L. Louca. The exchange idea was mutual, I have to say: negotiating researcher and teacher roles in an early year‘s educators‘ professional development program on inquiry-based mathematics and science learning. Professional Development in Education, Vol. 41, No. 2, 382. 2015.
[17] J. Osborne. Teaching scientific practices: meeting the challenges of change. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 25, No. 1, 177-196. 2014.
[18] J. P. Leonor. Exploration of conceptual understanding and science process skills: A basis for differentiated science inquiry curriculum model. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 5, No. 4, 255–259. 2015.
[19] W. Conklin. Higher-order thinking skills to develop 21st-century learners. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education. 11-114. 2012.
[20] E. Gaigher, N. Lederman, & J. Lederman. Knowledge about inquiry: A study in South African high schools. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 36, No. 18, 3125–3147. 2014.
[21] J. S. Lederman, N. G. Lederman, S. A. Bartos, S. L. Bartels, A. A. Meyer, & R. S. Schwartz. Meaningful assessment of learners‘ understandings about scientific inquiry—the Views About Scientific Inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 51, No. 1, 65–83. 2014.
[22] W. Breslyn, & J. R. McGinnis. A comparison of exemplary biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics
teachers‘ conceptions and enactment of inquiry. Science Education, Vol.96, No.1, 48–77. 2012.
[23] L. A. Smolleck, & A. M. Mongan. Changes in preservice teachers‘ self-efficacy: From Science methods to
student teaching. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Vol.1No.1, 133–145. 2011.
[24] PRIMAS. The PRIMAS project: Promoting inquiry-based learning (IBL) in mathematics and science education
across Europe.at PRIMAS-international-policyreport.11-302.
[25] B. A Crawford. From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell
(eds). Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2). London, England: Routledge. 13- 104. 2014.
[26] A. M. Olagoke., O. S. Mobolaji, & A. D. Mercy. Inquiry-Based Learning Approaches: The Best Practice for
Basic Science Teachers. International journal Curriculum Research and Review, Vol.6, No.15, 15-19. 2014.
[27] Federal Ministry of Education, FMOE, Abuja, Nigeria. Government Press. 3-201. 2010
[28] S. P. Asheena., P. A. Busisiwe, & N. Godson. Tapping into Basic 7–9 Science and Technology Teachers‘
Conceptions of Indigenous Knowledge in Imo State, Nigeria. African Journal of Research in Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, Vol.21, No.2, 125-135. 2017.
[29] C. P. Brown, & Y. C. Lan. A qualitative meta-synthesis comparing U.S. teachers' conceptions of school
readiness prior to and after the implementation of NCLB. Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol.45, No.1, 1-13.
2015.
[30] F. A. Phang., U.S. Radzali & A. Mohdyusof. Changing conceptions of teaching from teacher centred to student
centred learning among engineering lecturers. Global Journal of Engineering Education, Vol.20, No.2, 120-126.
2018.
[31] J. B.Tikva. Socratic Teaching Is Not Teaching but Direct Transmission is: Notes from 13 to 15-year-olds
conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol.26, No.3, 656-664. 2010.
[32] T. Mansoor, & B. A. Somayeh. Teachers‘ conceptions of effective teaching and their teaching practices: a
mixed-method approach. Journal of Teachers and Teaching theory and Practice Vol.23, No.6, 674-688. 2017.
[33] K, Trigwel, & M. Prosser. Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher
Education, Vol.21, No.3, 275-284. 1996.
[34] G. Baş, & Ö. Beyhan. Teaching-learning of prospective teachers the relationship between their understanding
and student control ideologies. Hacettepe University Journal of Education Faculty, Vol.1, No.1, 14-26. 2013.
[35] G. Bas. Teaching philosophy with the beliefs of teachers' learning philosophy: The relationship between their
perceptions. Education and Science, Vol.40, No.8, 111-126. 2015.
[36] D. W. Morgan, & R. V. Krejcie. Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and
Psychological Measurement Vol.30, No.1, 607-610. 1970.
[37] J. Wilcos, J. W. Kruse, & M. P. Clough. Teaching science through inquiry: seven common myths about timehonoured approach. The Science Teacher, Vol.82, No. 6, 27-36. 2015.
[38] B. Cavlazoglu, & S. Carol. Changes in Science Teachers' Conceptions and Connections of STEM Concepts and
Earthquake Engineering. Journal of Educational Research, Vol.110, No.3, 239-254. 2017.
[39] S. K. Abell, P. L. Brown, A. Demir, & F. J.Schmidt. College science teachers‘ views of classroom inquiry.
Science Education, 90(5), 784-802. 2006
[40] L. D. Assay, & M. Orgill. Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in the science
teacher, 1998–2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, Vol.21, No.1, 57–79. 2010.
[41] F. A. Phang & N. F. A.Rahman. Teachers talk in Physics classroom. Man in India Vol.97, No.13, 159-170. 2017.
[42] R. W. Bybee., J. A.Taylor., A. Gardner., P. Van Scotter., P. J. Carlson., A.Westbrook, & N.Landes. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. BSCS 101-103 Colorado Springs. 2006.
[43] B. Cavas, The meaning of and need for Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE). Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol.11, No.1, 4-6. 2012.
[44] G. Conole., E. Scanlon., K. Littleton., L. Kerawalla, & P. Mulholland. Personal inquiry: innovations in participatory design and models for inquiry learning. Educational Media International, Vol.47, No.1, 277-292. 2010.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 AUTHOR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
