In recent years, many international studies have underlined a worrying decline in young people’s interest in science and mathematics, largely due to the way science is taught in schools. As a teacher interviewed during the research effectively summarized, direct instruction is the most common educational approach to scientific activity, with the teacher commenting textbooks as the learners listen passively or answer to stock questions. Even when “experiments” are carried out in laboratory, the teacher is the foremost centre of attention, designing and providing procedures step by step while students are executing more than actively posing questions or exploring hypothesis. Conversely, constructivist approach to the scientific education is addressed to ease learners in building up their knowledge starting from the discussion of preconceptions in order to learn together. Assuming the role as facilitator, teacher actively engages students to use flexible strategies to solve real problems, consistently with students’ knowledge and abilities. Discussion and documentation are essential in this process (Harlen, 2013).

To favour the constructivist approach to science teaching, the Rocard Report (2007) strongly recommended the dissemination and integration of innovative inquiry-based education methods.  Nevertheless, the problem is that compared to a great spread of project about IBSE (Inquiry Based Science Education) method, evaluation of inquiry-based activities still remains rather undeveloped. Many assessments tools for evaluating the quality of IBSE activities and student’s skills are currently employed but, since IBSE has proved to be a complex process, there is no “right way” to assess it (Dillon 2012). As a consequence, despite “Science in Society” projects including program monitoring and formal evaluation to determine whether the intended findings are being achieved, there is a lack of effective program evaluation as well as a lack of confidence among professionals in their ability to use evaluation in their programs (Coyle 2005). To investigate this issue, we developed an analysis of the European project INQUIRE (Inquire Based Teacher Training for Sustainable Future) within the framework of Evaluation Capacity Building theory. INQUIRE seeks to promote IBSE activities in schools, botanical gardens, museums and natural parks through the management of training courses addressed to teachers and educators working with pupils aged between 9 and 14 on the topics of biodiversity loss and climate change.

Evaluation Capacity Building (ECB) is the intentional work to create and sustain organizational processes that make quality evaluation and its uses routine, involving the supply of technical skills, tools and resources to produce effective and useful evaluations which become sustainable over time (Stockdill, Baizerman, Compton 2002; Fleming, Easton 2010). To develop a sustainable ECB it is essential to embed evaluation into daily work practices and policies which allow the promotion of cultural change in schools. This target has been specifically stressed by the teachers and educators who participated in the INQUIRE project.

Building the evaluation capacity of individuals and groups means understanding and discussing the motivations necessary to engage in EBC, the assumptions and values supporting evaluation, the goals of assessment practices, how they contribute to effective decision making and add value to school organization. EBC fosters the active collaboration of the stakeholders involved through hands-on learning and by doing activities planned to design, implement and manage evaluation projects in an accountable way (Preskill 2008). To this aim, we examined the monitoring process and the assessment instruments implemented by the INQUIRE project through the ECB lens in order to evaluate the ability to provide staff with skills and sufficient resources to conduct rigorous and lasting evaluations.

Black P., Wiliam D. (1998), Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment, School of Education, King's College, London. Coyle, K. (2005), Environmental Literacy in America: What Ten Years of NEETF/Roper research and related studies say about environmental literacy in the U.S., The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation. Crohn K., Birnbaum M. (2010), Environmental education evaluation: Time to reflect, time for change, in Evaluation and Program Planning, 33 155-158. Dillon, J. (2012), Panacea or passing fad, how good is IBSE? BGCI Review, Roots, 9 (2), 4-8. Duschl, R. A., Grandy, R.E. (2008), Reconsidering the Character and Role of Inquiry Science: Framing the Debates. In R.A. Duschl & R.E. Grandy (Eds.),Teaching Scientific Inquiry, Sense Publisher, Rotterdam, Taipei. Fleming, L. & Easton, J. (2010), Building environmental educators’ evaluation capacity through distance education. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 172-177. Forbes C. T., Zint M. (2011), Elementary Teachers’ Belief About, Perceived Competencies for, and Reported Use of Scientific Inquiry to Promote Student Learning About and for the Environment, The Journal of environmental education, 42(1), 30-42. Harlen W. (1999), Assessment in the Inquiry Classroom. In: National Science Foundation (NSF), Foundations 2: Inquiry. Arlington, Va. NSF. Harlen W. (2005), Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning – tensions and synergies, The Curriculum Journal, 16 (2), 207-223. Harlen W. (2013), Assessment & Inquiry-Based Science Education: Issues in Policy and Practice, the Global Network of Science Academies, Science Education Programme Linn, M. C, Davis, E. A. and Bell, P. (Eds) (2004), Internet environments for science education, Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010), Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does It matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496. NEEAC (National Environmental Education Advisory Council) 1996, Report assessing environmental education in the United States and the implementation of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990. Preskill, H. and Boyle, S. (2008), A Multidisciplinary Model of Evaluation Capacity Building. American Journal of Evaluation, 29 (4), 443–459. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H. and Hemmo, V. (2007), Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe, Brussels, Directorate General for Research, Science, Economy and Society. Stockdill, S. H., Baizerman, M., & Compton, D. W. (2002), Toward a definition of ECB process: A conversation with the ECB literature, New Directions for Evaluation, 93, 7–25.