Project-Based Inquiry Global in Science Education: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Amina Yu and Version 3 by Amina Yu.
The National Research Council defined inquiry as an iterative, student-centered learning process that involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results. In particular, inquiry learning is a long-standing tradition in science education and is prominently featured in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), specifically in the Science and Engineering Practices dimension. 
  • inquiry-based learning
  • Project-Based Inquiry (PBI) Global
  • science content knowledge

1. Introduction

The teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) receives considerable attention among educators, researchers, and policymakers due to the powerful influence foundational STEM experiences play in educational and economic advancement [1]. According to the U.S. Department of Education [2] report STEM 2026: A Vision for Innovation in STEM Education, the need for STEM knowledge and skills will continue to grow and “graduates who have practical and relevant STEM precepts embedded into their educational experiences will be in high demand in all jobs” (p. i).
A pedagogical approach that aligns with the real-world relevancy and career-readiness focus of STEM is inquiry learning [3].
Dewey [4] contended that scientific knowledge is the product of inquiry and recommended a shift in science education from emphasizing facts during instruction to cultivating thinkers [5][6][7]. Krajcik and Blumenfeld [8] also asserted that students “learn and apply important ideas in the discipline” while engaged in inquiry toward answering a driving question (p. 318). Science education has continued to develop and implement curricula based on constructivist theories and inquiry-based approaches to learning [9]. Inquiry-based learning is established through student questioning and the exploration of new knowledge for the purpose of integration with prior knowledge and skills. With an inquiry-based approach to learning, teachers do not establish themselves as lecturers or purveyors of information; rather, students are positioned as leaders in the unfolding of their own education. Moreover, inquiry-based approaches in the classroom are valuable because they allow students to increase science content knowledge, as well as practice skills needed in the 21st century workplace [10]. Inquiry-based learning is a process of discovering new causal relations, with the learner formulating hypotheses and testing them by conducting experiments and/or making observations [7]. Through open-ended group work (components of inquiry), students engage in activity that closely reflects scientists’ research processes [5][11]. Thus, Barrow [5] asserted that teachers of all grades should value inquiry. In fact, there is a diverse array of studies that underscore inquiry’s effectiveness in the middle and secondary education levels [12] and several research studies that support the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning as an instructional approach appropriate for students of all ages [13][14]. An essential component of inquiry is appropriate instructional scaffolds that can support student thinking as they are learning new concepts. Often, inquiry as a pedagogical tool is established through an overarching, or guiding, problem apportioned into smaller components for scaffolding [15]. Successful inquiry-based learning happens when teachers act as guides who “nudge” students forward into their “Zone of Proximal Development” as students and teachers collaborate and problem solve in long-term projects [16].

2. Project-Based Learning (PBL)

PBL is experiencing renewed attention in the educational landscape. Researchers have defined PBL in a variety of ways over the years. The Buck Institute for Education [17] defines PBL as “a teaching method in which students learn actively by engaging in real world and personally meaningful projects” (np). Wilhelm et al. [3] examine the role of the teacher in PBL, noting the importance of instructional milieu in successful project-based endeavors. Across various conceptions of project-based approaches, core features include: (1) a challenging problem or question [3][18]; (2) student voice and choice; (3) authentic community engagement; (4) benchmark lessons/activities [19]; (5) reflection, critique, and revision [17]; and (6) public product. One of the long-standing premises drawn from a Deweyian perspective is that PBL, as a contemporary example of learning by doing, increases student motivation [20][21]. Research focused on the student outcomes of learning through project-based approaches is promising in terms of academic content knowledge as well [22]. One study of high school students with teachers who participated in the Buck Institute PBLWorks professional learning demonstrated statistically significant growth in reading, math, and history when compared to peers whose teachers did not participate in professional learning [23]. As the most definitive experimental study of PBL to date, Duke et al. [24] conducted a cluster randomized control trial of second-grade students engaged in PBL in which students demonstrated higher growth in social studies content and informational reading. Although with elementary students, it demonstrates that PBL can result in student learning gains as opposed to just motivational gains as other studies have demonstrated. Moreover, Craig and Marshall [25] found, through a randomized control study of secondary students at a nationally recognized model STEM school, that students taught through PBL matched the performance of conventionally taught students for the 11th-grade science and 9th-, 10th-, and 11th-grade mathematics achievement measures and exceeded the conventionally taught students’ performance for the 10th-grade science achievement measure. A limitation is how PBL can be implemented collaboratively across school sites. In their metasynthesis of PBL, Minner et al. [12] found that only 6% of PBL studies (8 out of 138) encompassed multiple settings.

3. Project-Based Inquiry (PBI) Global: A PBL Instructional Exemplar

As a type of PBL, PBI Global has a defined, five-phase, collaborative inquiry cycle and focuses students’ research on one or more of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). An impact-driven pedagogy, PBI Global alters traditional classroom instruction through a hands-on, minds-on approach to learning, encouraging students to make sense of their world, locally and globally, through inquiry. PBI Global Cycle. PBI Global has five phases (see Figure 1), including composing a compelling question, gathering and analyzing sources, creatively synthesizing claims and evidence, critically evaluating and revising research findings, and finally, communicating (i.e., share, publish, and act) learning products to a larger audience. Typically, prior to developing compelling questions, students engage in background knowledge building by reading a narrative or informational text. PBI Global has three distinguishing inquiry cycle features that differentiate it from other models of inquiry-based learning, such as the 5Es instructional model [26], the C3 Teachers Inquiry Design Model [27], and the International Baccalaureate inquiry process [28]. Those features are (1) a focus on the UN Sustainable Development Goals as the framework for learners’ solutions-oriented inquiry; (2) an interdisciplinary approach to the inquiry cycle; and (3) an explicit call for students to take social action as a result of their inquiry findings.
Education 12 00412 g001 550
Figure 1. Project-Based Inquiry (PBI) Global. From [29].

References

  1. National Research Council. A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
  2. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement. STEM 2026: A Vision for Innovation in STEM Education. 2016. Available online: https://oese.ed.gov/files/2016/09/AIR-STEM2026_Report_2016.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2021).
  3. Wilhelm, J.; Wilhelm, R.; Cole, M. What Is a Project-Based STEM Environment? In Creating Project-Based STEM Environments; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 3–5.
  4. Dewey, J. How We Think; D.C. Heath and Company: Lexington, MA, USA, 1910.
  5. Barrow, L.H. A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2006, 17, 265–278.
  6. National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
  7. Pedaste, M.; Mäeots, M.; Leijen, Ä.; Sarapuu, S. Improving students’ inquiry skills through reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technol. Instr. Cogn. Learn. 2012, 9, 81–95.
  8. Krajcik, J.; Blumenfeld, P.C. Project-based learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences; Sawyer, R.K., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 317–333.
  9. Duran, L.; Duran, E. The 5E instructional model: A learning cycle approach for inquiry-based science teaching. Sci. Educ. Rev. 2004, 3, 49–58.
  10. Chu, S.K.W.; Reynolds, R.B.; Tavares, N.J.; Notari, M.; Lee, C.W.Y. Twenty-first century skills and global education roadmaps. In 21st Century Skills Development through Inquiry-Based Learning; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 17–32.
  11. Keselman, A. Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003, 40, 898–921.
  12. Minner, D.D.; Levy, A.J.; Century, J. Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2010, 47, 474–496.
  13. Alfieri, L.; Brooks, P.J.; Aldrich, N.J.; Tenenbaum, H.R. Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? J. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 103, 1–18.
  14. Furtak, E.; Seidel, T.; Iverson, H.; Briggs, D. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 82, 300–329.
  15. Hogan, K.; Pressley, M. Scaffolding scientific competencies within classroom communities of inquiry. In Scaffolding Student Learning: Instructional Approaches and Issues; Hogan, K., Pressley, M., Eds.; Brookline Books: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997; pp. 74–107.
  16. Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978.
  17. Buck Institute for Education. PBLWorks. 2021. Available online: http://pblworks.org (accessed on 23 June 2021).
  18. Krajcik, J.S.; Czerniak, C.M. Teaching Science in Elementary and Middle School: A Project-Based Approach; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
  19. Marx, R.W.; Blumenfeld, P.C.; Krajcik, J.S.; Fishman, B.; Soloway, E.; Geier, R.; Tal, R.T. Inquiry based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 1063–1080.
  20. Blumenfeld, P.C.; Soloway, E.; Marx, R.W.; Krajcik, J.S.; Guzdial, M.; Palincsar, A. Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educ. Psychol. 1991, 26, 369–398.
  21. Capraro, M.M.; Jones, M. Interdisciplinary STEM project-based learning. In STEM Project-Based Learning; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 51–58.
  22. LaForce, M.; Noble, E.; Blackwell, C. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and Student Interest in STEM Careers: The Roles of Motivation and Ability Beliefs. Educ. Sci. 2017, 7, 92.
  23. Price, C.; Mohammed, S.; Rabbit, B. BetterLesson and PBLWorks Professional Learning at LUSD: Effects on Instructional Behaviors and Learning Outcomes. The Learning Accelerator. 2019. Available online: https://www.hsredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/PBLWorks-LindsayUSD-research-report_2019-November.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2021).
  24. Duke, N.; Halvorsen, A.; Strachan, S.; Kim, J.; Konstantopoulos, S. Putting PjBL to the test: The impact of project-based learning on second graders’ social studies and literacy learning and motivation in low-SES school settings. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2021, 58, 160–200.
  25. Craig, T.T.; Marshall, J. Effect of project-based learning on high school students’ state-mandated, standardized math and science exam performance. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2019, 56, 1461–1488.
  26. Bybee, R.W.; Landes, N.M. Science for Life and Living: An elementary school science program from Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). Am. Biol. Teach. 1990, 52, 92–98.
  27. Grant, S.G.; Swan, K.; Lee, J. Inquiry-Based Practice in Social Studies Education: Understanding the Inquiry Design Model; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
  28. Li, N. Approaches to Learning: Literature Review; International Baccalaureate Organization, 2012; Available online: https://ibo.org/research/curriculum-research/cross-programme/approaches-to-learning-literature-review-2012/ (accessed on 17 September 2021).
  29. Spires, H.A.; Himes, M.; Medlock Paul, C.; Kerkhoff, S. Going global with project-based inquiry: Cosmopolitan literacies in practice. J. Adolesc. Adult Lit. 2019, 63, 51–64.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback