Research question: What can Ireland offer to the wider European debate on curriculum reform in science education?

This paper will provide evidence of how changes to STEM policy documents internationally, which are grounded in current academic research around best practice in science education, have failed to translate into practice among the wider science education community (Scientix, 2018). Policy occupies one epistemological stance (that of enquiry) while practice remains firmly in another (that of knowledge-as-transmission). Teachers are expected to navigate a landscape of policy reform that does not offer pedagogical guidance or a clear definition of enquiry (Osborne, 2015), and is at odds with the cultural and epistemological beliefs teachers hold of how practical work should be taught in schools (Loughran, 2014). Indeed, there are reports of teachers believing they are teaching enquiry-based lessons, when they are actually not (Capps et al., 2013).  Irish senior cycle STEM curricula are currently under review after a series of reports that have deemed learner participation in STEM education as “less than satisfactory” (DES, 2020; 2017). Unsurprisingly, one of the main issues is an over-emphasis on propositional knowledge and an under-emphasis on epistemic and procedural knowledge (NCCA, 2019). In terms of practical activities, the lack of formal training around enquiry practices during initial teacher training and in-service professional development compounds the issue and has led to a situation where practical activities are taught by recipe and examined by rote (Hyland, 2011; Burns et al., 2018).

This research study, focuses on the enactment of enquiry-based practical activities at secondary and tertiary level and identifies how curricular reform cannot occur without epistemological reform. This type of complex reform requires the development of all three outputs of DBR; thoery, professional development and design of an educational artefact: 

Theoretical Framework:

1. Theory:

A theory of enquiry, specific to practical activities, is grounded in the work of Dewey’s complete act of thinking. This offers a view of knowledge as a dynamic end-in-view, constantly reaching into the unknown as an act of inference, “going beyond what is surely known to something else accepted on its warrant” (Dewey, 1910/2012). The mind/body dualism that is recognised within recipe teaching dissipates through this lens and is replaced by a focus on consciousness, which supports the process of enquiry. An inductive and deductive process of thinking is essential, where what is learned in one situation is put to an applied use in another, leading to a learning continuum that promotes a conscious search for knowledge.

       2. Professional Development:

In addition, Wenger’s (1998) concept of a Community of Practice is employed as a lens through which professional development takes place. Teachers (pre-service and in-service) are gradually brought into a community of enquiry practitioners, firstly through involvement in the three modes of learning (mutual engagement, joint enterprise, shared repertoire), followed by exposure to a nexus of perspectives (student, teacher, designer) focused on creating a sense of belonging (hence identity) to the enquiry community.  

Conceptual Framework:

       3. Artefact

A Framework for Teaching Enquiry Activities (FTEA) was developed for teachers to use as a sense-making artefact around which to design and teach practical activities. It’s use an inductive/deductive tool for practical activities is designed to portray the specific theoretical view of enquiry as a pedagogy of uncertainty. When used as a boundary object within a community of practice it leads to an epistemic shift in teachers’ beliefs about knowledge and fosters the “Design Mind” that is required for teachers to engage in curriculum making.

Design-based research was chosen as the research methodology because of its excellent track record at providing solutions to “wicked” problems such as the policy/practice, enquiry/recipe divide in STEM curricula (Kelly, 2013). There are three mesocycles of research within this project (McKenney and Reeves, 2012); 1. A scoping mesocycle that identified an “enquiry vacuum” in the Irish senior cycle biology curriculum 2. A design and development mesocycle that resulted in the iterative design and refinement of three outputs: a theory of enquiry as an ontological innovation, an educational artefact as a sense-making object, and a programme for professional development through a community of practice lens 3. A summative evaluation mesocycle that tested the artefact in two target settings – a university laboratory, and a second level biology classroom. Two quality approved DBR methodologies were used to refine the three outputs of the research and to scaffold learning for teachers (in-service and pre-service) within a community of practice before testing the FTEA in its target settings (Nieveen et al., 2012): 1. Walkthrough workshops 2. Micro-evaluations These methods provided a liminal space (Land et al., 2014) in which teachers could make the epistemological shift towards enquiry teaching, away from the everyday pressures of the biology classroom. When teachers were comfortable with the language and pedagogy of enquiry, they returned to their classrooms to teach practical activities. Data collected through interview, survey, audio and video evidence was analysed qualitatively using template analysis (King, 2012). This inductive/deductive analysis technique complements the pragmatic nature of DBR, providing a focus on “what works” in a particular situation rather than absolute truth. In addition qualitative analysis of video recordings was conducted through Millar’s Practical Activity Analysis Inventory (2009) and a Structured Enquiry Observations Schedule developed specifically for this research project. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data form alternative perspectives supported the validity of the claims made here.

The Theory of Enquiry developed specifically for practical activities provides a clear definition of enquiry that can suitably underpin STEM curriculum reform. It answers calls to focus knowledge on how people learn rather than on “IBL” (Osborne, 2015; Kirschener et al., 2006). It also answers national policy calls to strike a balance between propositional, procedural and epistemic knowledge (DES,2017) and international calls for innovative approaches to STEM teaching grounded in enquiry (Scientix, 2018). Underpinning practical activities with this theory leads to a pedagogy of possibility, and reduced the need for students to have the “right” answers. The FTEA has shown its worth as a pedagogical artefact that spans multiple levels of curriculum (junior cycle, senior cycle, third level). It focuses learning on knowledge building and critical thinking rather than transmission of content, by providing clear criteria for designing and teaching practical activities. By providing an alignment between theory and practice it promotes a set of epistemological assumptions within which teachers can make sense of enquiry. The FTEA also answers questions of how to balance “tight” (top-down) and “loose” policy, because teachers work as curriculum makers when they use it to design lessons (Zohar and Hipkins, 2018). The Community of Practice Approach highlights the need for professional development concerning laboratory work specifically. Within an enquiry-based community of practice commonly identified issues that prevent science teachers from engaging in enquiry (lack of subject content, lack of laboratory skills) dissipate as the view of knowledge as an end-in-view becomes the norm. Teachers regain freedom from the need to “know” everything as they adopt the enquiry identity of the Design Mind, before they teach enquiry-based lessons to their students in the target setting. The FTEA acts as a boundary object in this context, around which teachers can make epistemological sense of enquiry (Wenger, 1998).

Burns, D., Devitt, A., McNamara, G., O'Hara, J., & Brown, M. (2018). Is it all memory recall? An empirical investigation of intellectual skill requirements in Leaving Certificate examination papers in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 37(3), 351-372. Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based professional development: What does it take to support teachers in learning about inquiry and nature of science?. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 1947-1978. DES, 2017 STEM Education Policy Statement. Retrieved January 2023. https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/4d40d5-stem-education-policy/#stem-education-policy-statement-2017-2026 DES, (2020).STEM Education 2020: Reporting on Practice in Early Learning and Care, Primary and Post-Primary Contexts. Retrieved: January 2023 https://www.google.com/search?q=DES+STEM+report+2020&oq=DES+STEM+report+2020&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160j33i22i29i30.6226j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Dewey, J. (1910/2012). How we think. Courier Corporation. Hyland, A. 2011. “Entry to Higher Education in Ireland in the 21st Century.” NCCA/HEA Seminar, September 21, 1–24. Dublin: Higher Education Authority. Kelly, A. E. (2013). When is design research appropriate. Educational design research, 135-150. King, N (2012). “Doing Template Analysis”. Symon, G., & Cassell, C. (Eds.). Qualitative organizational research: core methods and current challenges. Sage. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why unguided learning does not work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Land, R., Rattray, J., & Vivian, P. (2014). Learning in the liminal space: a semiotic approach to threshold concepts. Higher Education, 67(2), 199-217. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Routledge. Millar, R. (2009). Analysing practical activities to assess and improve effectiveness: The Practical Activity Analysis Inventory (PAAI). York: Centre for Innovation and Research in Science Education, University of York. NCCA, (2019): Date Accessed: January 2023. https://ncca.ie/media/5387/bp-lc-pcb-sep-2019.pdf Nieveen, N., Folmer, E., &Vliegen, S. (2012). Evaluation matchboard. Enschede: SLO. Osborne, J. (2015). Practical work in science: Misunderstood and badly used. School science review, 96(357), 16-24. Scientix (2018). Education Practices in Europe. Retrieved: July 2022. http://www.scientix.eu/documents/10137/782005/STEM-EduPractices_DEF_WEB.pdf/b4847c2d-2fa8-438c-b080-3793fe26d0c8 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press Zohar, A., &Hipkins, R. (2018). How “tight/loose” curriculum dynamics impact the treatment of knowledge in two national contexts. Curriculum Matters, 14, 31-47.