9 PDF

Chemistry Education
Research and Practice

View Article Online
PAPER
Cite this: DOI: 10.1039/c6rp00044d
View Journal
An inquiry-based approach of traditional

step-by-step experiments
b
L. Szalay*a and Z. To
th
Published on 04 August 2016. Downloaded on 28/09/2016 04:57:03.
This is the start of a road map for the eective introduction of inquiry-based learning in chemistry.
Advantages of inquiry-based approaches to the development of scientific literacy are widely discussed in
the literature. However, unless chemistry educators take account of teachers reservations and identified
disadvantages such approaches will never have the place they deserve in the everyday teaching of
chemistry. If circumstances do not allow for complicated and open-ended inquiry tasks, simpler and
more structured inquiry-based tasks may be used. As a first step, teachers could be asked to modify and
adapt established step-by-step instructions to practical activities which require some stages to be
Received 11th February 2016,
Accepted 1st July 2016
designed by the students. If this happens only a few times in a school year the question arises about its
DOI: 10.1039/c6rp00044d
chemistry lessons. The present study describes the results of an empirical research project aimed to
finding the answer. Modification of step-by-step practical activities as described requires limited time
www.rsc.org/cerp
and eort, yet the results suggest that many students benefit from this approach.
eectiveness to develop experimental design skills and to reinforce knowledge and ideas taught in
Introduction
Possible advantages and disadvantages of inquiry-based
science education (IBSE)
Inquiry-based science education, as interpreted by the National
Research Council of the United States of America in the Inquiry
and the National Science Education Standards (Olson and
Loucks-Horsley, 2000), is a complex process. It uses activities
that involve not just planning investigations and using tools to
gather, analyse, and interpret data, but also to pose questions,
collecting information related to the problem, proposing
answers and communicating the result. The full process
models the way scientists work. Therefore, it is a long road to
get there and the best approach might be to take small steps
one at a time.
Advantages and disadvantages of inquiry-based approaches
have been discussed widely in the literature. Researchers
supporting IBSE argue that teaching strategies which actively
engage students in the learning process (applying active thinking and drawing conclusions from data) are more likely to
increase conceptual understanding (Minner et al., 2010) and
develop higher order cognitive skills (Tomperi and Aksela,
2014) than strategies which rely on more passive techniques.
They also increase motivation, at least among curious and
a
tvos Lora
nd University, Faculty of Science, Institute of Chemistry, Pa
zma
ny
Eo
ny 1/A, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: luca@chem.elte.hu
Peter seta
b
University of Debrecen, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of
Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry, Egyetem ter 1., H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
socially motivated students (Hofstein and Kempa, 1985). It

can reasonably be expected that applying IBSE could help
to develop a better understanding of the nature of science,
the importance of collaboration and communication in
science and the dierence between science and pseudoscience
(Finlayson et al., 2015).
Kirschner et al. (2006), however, warn that minimally guided
instructions might be less eective and less ecient than
instructional approaches which place a strong emphasis on
the guidance of students learning. They add that there is
evidence also that it may have negative results, with students
developing misconceptions or incomplete or disorganized
knowledge. Sweller (1988) emphasises that inquiry approaches
can be less eective than traditional approaches such as direct
instructions if the cognitive load placed on students is
not properly managed. Another possible disadvantage is that
IBSE is disliked by achiever and conscientious students
(Bolte et al., 2013). Finally, there are always students who feel
uncomfortable when they are asked to plan their experiments
(Cheung, 2011). As an answer to the doubts described above,
Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) stress that, in addition to learning
content, developing softer skills such as epistemic practices,
self-directed learning and collaboration are important learning
outcomes. According to them, it is valuable to investigate in
which circumstances guided inquiry approaches work, the kinds
of desired outcomes for which they are eective, the kinds of
valued practices they promote, and the kinds of support and
scaolding needed for dierent populations and learning goals.
It is also worth citing Tabers (2011) critique of Kirschner et al.s
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
View Article Online
Paper
assertion that IBSE generally identified as a constructivist

pedagogy ignores the architecture of cognition. He states
that constructivist pedagogy in science education has long
put stress on the way the cognitive system constrains and
facilitates learning (Osborne and Wittrock 1983), so for
example, teachers need to see student learning as usually an
incremental process, and so plan teaching in terms of suitable,
regularly reinforced, learning quanta. Taber also points out
that constructivist approaches do not aim to set students the
task of rediscovering through unguided exploration . . . the
cultural capital of modern science in a series of laboratory
sessions as this would be unrealistic. Hence, he disputes
Kirschner et al.s view on constructivism as a new way of
describing discovery learning.
Research problem
The 2006 PISA analysis suggests that Hungarian students
should develop a wider range of scientific skills such as devising scientific investigations and evaluating data gathered
(PISA 2006). Since inquiry has been advocated as an eective
pedagogical strategy for promoting deep conceptual understanding and more sophisticated scientific thinking (see above
and also Criswell, 2012), one strategy that might prove to be
eective is use of short inquiry laboratory activities (Cheung, 2011).
We felt that introducing the theoretical and practical aspects of
inquiry-based education (IBSE) into the pre-service training of
chemistry teachers and at continuous professional development
(CPD) courses of in-service chemistry teachers might help to
address these challenges.
As a result of several projects funded within the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, inquirybased teaching and learning resources are freely available
on the internet (e.g. McLoughlin et al., 2015). Modules and
programmes for teachers were also developed in inquiry-based
science education (e.g. Bolte et al., 2012). Successful implementations of the training modules, with positive feedback
collected from the students (e.g. Dumitrescu et al., 2014), and
as a result of those, better student achievement were reported
(e.g. Savec and Devetak, 2013). However, according to our own
experiences (Szalay, 2015) IBSE is viewed sceptically by some
people, especially practicing teachers. They argue that the
requirements of the curriculum do not allow sucient time
for unguided inquiry and only topics that are closely connected
to the curriculum could be covered. This is enforced by
Cheung (2011), who writes that some non-users may believe
that guided-inquiry labs are not feasible in their chemistry
classes due to constraints such as large class size, lack of time
and the need to prepare students for public examinations. He
adds that although the benefits of inquiry teaching are well
documented, few teachers use it in schools. After the CPD
courses some teachers saw value in IBSE, but others were
unconvinced. This mirrors the outcomes of similar courses in
other countries (e.g. Bernard et al., 2015).
sz and Szalay, 2009) confirmed
An earlier investigation (Kerte
that in Hungary, as in several other countries, science teachers
have to work under significant constraints in terms of
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
preparation time, teaching time, laboratory assistance (technical

support), external support and funding. These circumstances must
be taken into consideration when designing inquiry activities
for students. If not, many teachers will not use the activities in
their own teaching practice.
Criswell (2012) also warns that too many pre-service and
in-service teachers have expressed frustration when they use
inquiry-based activities with their students. These relate to the
belief that IBSE might lead to a less robust comprehension of
science concepts than when they are taught by more traditional
teaching strategies such as direct instructions. Criswell states
that to allow inquiry to achieve its goals, the teacher must
manage the cognitive load experienced by students while they
engage in inquiry activities. One way to tackle this is to reduce
the degree of freedom for the learner in a problem-solving task.
For example, by modifying step-by-step practical activities in
a way that requires some stages to be designed by the students,
practitioners can introduce the idea of inquiry-based processes,
as the first step towards meeting the complex requirements of
the (open ended) IBSE criteria.
Furthermore, in our view, teachers may find it easier to
manage the situation if an inquiry-based activity originates
from an established and widely used practical laboratory activity
with step-by-step instructions. Such activities could be adapted,
at least in part, to create inquiry-based tasks, by asking a small
team of students to design one or two steps of an experiment
and reviewing the results obtained through the team discussion.
In the model we suggest, these adapted activities must be
strongly related to the curriculum.
As early as in 1986, Allen et al. described how to convert a
verification experiment to a guided inquiry format. According to
them, an experiment for adaptation must be relatively simple,
require uncomplicated apparatus and apply well-established
concepts. Data collected should lend itself to discovery-type
analysis, where the conclusions can be tested.
The adapted experiment should be part of the introduction
to a topic rather than a verification experiment (the principal
concepts should not be taught before the activity). The
detailed procedural steps should be reduced significantly so
that the students must think about how to collect the required
data and their analysis. A step or procedure should be included
toward the end of the experiment that allows students to verify
their analysis and conclusions about the principal concept.
A short discussion thought question should be included in
the activity. The latter criterion is reinforced by the literature,
since student interaction has an important impact on learning
(e.g. Criswell, 2012). It is also important to ensure that students
have the necessary knowledge and skills (both theoretical and
practical) before starting the inquiry step of the experiment
(Bruck and Towns, 2009).
In our view, correct design of even a relatively simple step of
an experiment provides evidence that a student is thinking in a
correct scientific way. The question arises about the eectiveness of doing just a few partially inquiry-based activities on the
ability of a student to develop the skill of experimental design.
Also important is the eectiveness of such activities in helping
View Article Online
students gain a deep understanding of the disciplinary content

knowledge to which the activity had been linked. Finally, the
relationship between any significant eect of the approach
described and students gender and prior knowledge is of interest.
Research method
An empirical research to address the questions raised above was
organised in the school year 2014/2015 in Hungary. It was part of a
national project that aimed to develop teaching materials to help
the initial and in-service teacher training. It included a brief pilot
consisting of three chemistry lessons about reaction kinetics. Test
and control groups were studied. Pre- and post-tests were used
to identify and assess the possible eects of an inquiry-based
approach to traditional practical laboratory activities on the
development of students skills to design experiments and
develop other relevant knowledge and skills in chemistry.
Sample
The research was organised in 12 schools involving 15 teachers
and 660 students (those who completed the pre- and post-tests).
Teachers asked permission of their school principals to participate and to involve their students. Teachers explained to the
students that their test results would not count in their school
chemistry assessment. This ethical precaution was appropriate
as the research activity was considered to be a useful learning
opportunity for the students (Taber, 2014).
Each student (all were 1415 year-olds) had two 45 minutes
chemistry lessons per week in the school year 2014/2015. There
were 31 groups of students, divided randomly into 15 experimental groups and 16 control groups. The class group size
varied between 14 and 39 students. Some teachers participated
with only one group, whereas others with as many as four or
five groups. If a teacher had more than one group of students
participating in the research and half of the groups were
already chosen to be experimental, the other half of the groups
automatically became control groups. (It would have been
difficult to apply the matched pair design, since the groups of
students were different in so many parameters.) The number of
students in the experimental groups was 335 (50.8%) and in the
control group it was 325 (49.2%). All groups had a gender mix.
The gender ratio (boys/girls) in the experimental group was
141/194 and in the control group it was 121/204 (the difference
is not significant, Pearson Chi-square p = 0.421).
Paper
knowledge (DCK), 1 item to assess the ability to find reliable

information about chemical problems and 7 items (5-point
Likert scale) to assess the students attitude toward chemistry
and the learning environment at chemistry lessons. Students
were asked also to give their gender and their marks in math,
physics, chemistry, and biology that they got in the previous
school year.
The item measuring the ability to design an experiment in
the pre-test was as follows (translated from Hungarian to
English):
Choose one of the three conditions necessary for a chemical
reaction to occur (see previous task). Design an experiment to
provide evidence that this condition is required for the reactions to
take place.
The post-test consisted of 2 items assessing the ability to
design an experiment, 12 items assessing disciplinary content
knowledge (DCK) and 7 items (5-point Likert scale) assessing a
students attitude towards chemistry and the learning environment at chemistry lessons.
The 2 items measuring the ability to design an experiment in
the post-test were as follows (translated from Hungarian to
English):
Task 1: The reaction taking place between bromine water and
methanoic acid can be described by the following equation:
Br2 + HCOOH - 2HBr + CO2
Bromine water is yellow, but the other reactant and the products
are colourless. Choose a factor that influences the rate of reaction.
Design an experiment to prove that the factor you chose does
influence the rate of reaction.
Task 2: Consider the chemical equilibrium that can be described
by the following equation:
2NO2 " N2O4
NO2 is brown and N2O4 is colourless. The equilibrium mixture of
the two gases is provided in a transparent, closed glass vessel.
Design an experiment to determine whether the formation of N2O4
is exothermic or endothermic.
The other tasks measured factual knowledge, understanding
and their application (Bloom taxonomy). The participating
teachers were asked to mark students answers given to the
questions of the pre-test and the post-test. They recorded these
marks in an Excel spreadsheet following the instructions provided
(see Appendix 3).
Instruments
Three chemistry lesson plans
Tests. For both control and experimental groups the intervention took five lessons. The pre-test (see its English translation
in Appendix 1) was completed in the first lesson and the post-test
(see its English translation in Appendix 2) in the final lesson.
Students had 40 minutes to complete each test (pre- and postactivity). Students were coded so that their teachers know the
identities, but the researchers did not have this information.
The pre-test consisted of 1 item to assess the ability to
design an experiment, 15 items to assess disciplinary content
Three lesson plans on reaction kinetics were provided for

each teacher participating in the research. The topics of the
lessons were:
Lesson 1: Rate of reaction
Lesson 2: Chemical equilibrium
Lesson 3: Factors that aect the chemical equilibrium
Teachers were asked to organise the three lessons following
one another as part of the normal teaching process, but using
the lesson plans provided. Experimental (intervention) and
View Article Online
Paper
control groups followed the same lesson plans, apart from the two
tasks described below (see the student sheets and teacher guides
that were the attachments of the Lesson plan 1 and Lesson plan 3,
translated into English in Appendix 4 and Appendix 5). In the
experimental groups the students were asked to design some
aspects of the experiments, whereas the control groups got
step-by-step descriptions for each experiment.
The two tasks that were given to the experimental groups to
design experiments were part of Lesson 1 and Lesson 3 (their
most important features are given below, translated from
Hungarian to English).
Lesson 1: Students were asked to
perform an experiment following step-by-step instructions to
form colloidal S by mixing Na2S2O3 and H2SO4 solutions of known
concentration (providing them with the knowledge needed for the
next part of the activity)
design an experiment using materials and equipment provided to investigate the eect of the following factors on the rate of
reaction:
Group 1 and Group 2: concentrations of the Na2S2O3/H2SO4
solutions.
Group 3: temperature of the starting materials.
Lesson 3: The students were asked to
add distilled water drop-by-drop to BiCl3 solution until they
identify a change (formation of white precipitate, BiOCl) and had to
balance the given equation BiCl3 + H2O " BiOCl + HCl (providing
them with the knowledge needed for the next part of the activity)
design experiments using materials and equipment provided
to collect evidence to support the idea that in a chemical equilibrium, an increase in concentration drives the reaction to the
opposite side:
adding products favours reactants
adding reactants favours products.
Fig. 1
Table 1
Research model.
Cronbachs alpha values of the tests
Pre-test/DCK tasks
Post-test/DCK tasks
Experimental group
Control group
0.643
0.638
0.609
0.487
Research design
The research model could be seen in Fig. 1.
Research questions (RQ)
(1) Is there any significant change in the experimental group
students ability to design experiments? If yes, is there a
correlation between this change and students gender and/or
previous chemical knowledge (measured by the pre-test)? (RQ1)
(2) Do students in the experimental groups achieve significantly
dierent scores in the post-test than the students of the control
groups, considering the tasks measuring disciplinary content
knowledge (DCK)? If yes, is there a correlation between the
change of DCK measured and students gender and/or previous
chemical knowledge (measured by the pre-test)? (RQ2)
Results and discussion
reliability is examined only for the DCK task among the three
distinct sections of the tests, and not for the design tasks and
the attitude questions. There was only one experiment design
task in the pre-test and two design tasks in the post-test (the
correlation of the post-test design tasks will be discussed later).
Students answers to the attitude questions were analysed, but
as it could be expected this very brief intervention did not cause
changes that are worth discussing here. Cronbachs alpha values
in Table 1 are a rather low (omitting some of the tasks did
not improve them). The reason for these low, but just about
acceptable, values might be that the items of the pre-test and posttest varied hugely in the cognitive domain of Blooms taxonomy.
However, in our view, it was necessary to cover a wide range of
DCK that is different to the ability to design experiments to gain
some understanding of how the intervention influenced the
students other relevant knowledge and skills.
Reliability
Results according to types of tasks
Statistical analysis of data was accomplished by the SPSS

Statistics software. Table 1 shows Cronbachs alpha values of
the DCK tasks of the tests. There were several reasons why
The summarised results of the pre-tests and post-tests in the

experimental and control groups for the dierent types of tasks
are given in Table 2.
View Article Online
Paper
Table 2 Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and their dierences (D) of
the average results of pre-tests and post-tests in the experimental group
and control group according to the types of tasks
Tasks/group
All tasks/experimental
All tasks/control
pa
Design task/experimental
Design task/control
pa
DCK task/experimental
DCK task/control
pa
MPre-test SDPre-test MPost-test SDPost-test

(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
D (%) pa
26.8
26.4
16.4
15.4
6.6
7.2
19.6
21.5
30.2
29.6
6.6
16.8
30.0
25.0
+
23.2
13.4
+
31.6
27.7
+
16.0
12.5
+3.2 +
1.4
26.9
21.3
+16.6 +
+6.2 +
16.2
13.5
+1.4
1.9
+: significant dierence ( p o 0.05).
There were no statistically significant dierences in the

achievement of the experimental and the control groups
according to the types of tasks in the pre-test. Looking at
the results of all tasks in the post-test, a small, but significant
eect of the intervention is shown by the data in the experimental group, whereas no significant change could be detected
in the control group. The increase of achievement in the
experimental group is most likely due to the significant
increase in the ability to design experiments. It is interesting
that just doing step-by-step experiments (the control group)
also seemed to help to develop experiment designing skills. No
significant change was detected in the results of the DCK tasks
in either the experimental or the control group after the
intervention. However, there is small, but statistically significant dierence between the achievement in the DCK tasks
of the experimental and the control group in the post-test,
favouring the students achievement of the experimental group.
High standard deviations show that the sample was very
heterogeneous according to their knowledge and skills as
measured by the tests.
Results according to gender
Table 3 shows the average results of the pre-tests and the posttests according to gender in the various types of tasks in the
experimental and the control group.
There were no statistically significant dierences between
the achievement of the experimental and the control groups
of students according to gender on the pre-test. Both boys
and girls achievements increased significantly in the post-test
(all tasks) in the experimental group as a result of the intervention. When the results are grouped according to the types of
tasks, it is clear that this is probably due to the significant
increase in the ability to design experiments of both boys and
girls in the experimental group. The interesting eect of just
doing step-by-step experiments (control group) also appeared to
help develop experiment designing skills of both boys and girls.
There was a small decrease in the achievement of students of
the control group, which appears to be slightly more significant
in the boys case. This is mainly because boys in the control
group achieved significantly lower scores in the DCK tasks in
the post-test than in the pre-test.
Table 3
Results of tests according to gender
Mpre-test (%) Mpost-test (%) D (%) pa
Gender/tasks
Groups
Boys/all tasks
Experimental 27.1
Control
27.7
pa
29.8
25.1
+
+2.7 +
2.6 +
Girls/all tasks
Experimental 26.6
Control
25.6
pa
30.2
25.0
+
+3.6 +
0.6
Boys/design tasks Experimental

Control
pa
7.3
9.1
24.0
16.5
+
+16.7 +
+7.4 +
Girls/design tasks Experimental

Control
pa
6.0
6.1
22.6
11.6
+
+16.6 +
+5.5 +
Boys/DCK tasks
Experimental 30.3
Control
30.9
pa
31.1
27.0
+
+0.8
3.9 +
Girls/DCK tasks
Experimental 30.1
Control
28.8
pa
32.0
28.1
+
+1.9
0.7
Results according to achievements in the pre-test

Table 4 shows the average results of the pre-tests and the posttests according to the achievement in the pre-test and the types
of tasks.
There was only one case when a statistically significant
dierence was measured between the average scores of the
experimental and the control groups of students according to
their achievement in the pre-test (medium achievement group),
but in that case the result of the control group was significantly
better in the design task of the pre-test than the result of their
counterparts in the experimental group. Nevertheless, the
achievement of the experimental group was still significantly
better in the post-test than that of the control group. The data
listed under all tasks show that the results of the intervention
depended on the achievement in the pre-test in both the
experimental and in the control groups. The results of
the lowest achievement groups were significantly better in the
post-test than in the pre-test in both the experimental
and control groups as a result of the intervention. However,
there is a dierence in the increase of the experimental and
control groups, favouring the experimental group. Among the
medium achievement groups, only the experimental groups
results were significantly better in the post-test than in the
pre-test. It is a warning sign that the groups of students who got
the highest scores in the pre-test had significantly poorer
results in both the experimental and the control groups in
the post-test than in the pre-test. The decrease of the scores
of the control group was significantly higher than that of the
experimental group.
Looking at the data grouped by the types of tasks, there
was a statistically significant increase in the scores of all
achievement groups in the ability to design experiments in
the experimental groups. Doing step-by-step experiments also
View Article Online
Paper
Table 4

Results of tests according to achievement in the pre-test
Achievement in
pre-test/tasks
Groups
Mpre-test
(%)
Mpost-test
(%)
D (%)
pa
Lowest/all tasks
Experimental
Control
pa
9.65
10.4
20.2
18.9
+10.5
+8.5
+
+
Medium/all tasks
Experimental
Control
pa
25.3
24.7
28.4
24.7
+
+3.1
0
Highest/all tasks
Experimental
Control
pa
45.5
44.1
41.5
31.5
+
4.0
12.6
+
+
Lowest/design tasks
Experimental
Control
pa
0.0
0.3
10.0
6.6
+10.0
+6.3
+
+
Medium/design tasks
Experimental
Control
pa
1.2
4.6
+
20.7
11.2
+
+19.5
+6.6
+
+
Highest/design tasks
Experimental
Control
pa
18.5
16.7
38.8
22.5
+
+20.3
+5.8
Lowest/DCK tasks
Experimental
Control
pa
11.3
12.0
22.6
21.7
+11.3
+9.7
+
+
Medium/DCK tasks
Experimental
Control
pa
29.3
28.0
30.1
27.8
+0.8
0.2
Highest/DCK tasks
Experimental
Control
pa
50.0
48.7
42.1
33.5
+
7.9
15.2
+
+
seemed to increase the ability of designing experiments in the

control groups, although this change was not statistically
significant in the highest achievement control group.
Very interesting results can be seen when it comes to the
DCK tasks. The average scores of the lowest achievement
groups are significantly higher in both the experimental and
the control groups after the intervention. No significant
changes were detected in the medium achievement groups
(either in the experimental or the control groups). However,
worryingly the data show that the group of students who made
the highest achievement in the pre-test obtained significantly
lower average scores in the post-test than in the pre-test, in
both the experimental and the control groups. It is also interesting that this decrease was less in the experimental group
than in the control group and the scores of the experimental
group were still significantly higher in the post-test than that of
the control group.
Correlations among the design tasks and the DCK tasks
We calculated correlations among the results of the design
tasks and the result of the tasks measuring the DCK related to
solve the design tasks. In the pre-test (see Appendix 1) task V
examined the students knowledge about conditions necessary
for chemical reactions to occur. In task VI the students had to

choose one of those conditions and design an experiment to
provide evidence that this condition is required for the reactions to take place. There was no significant dierence between
the results of the control and the experimental group in task V
or task VI. There were weak correlations (r = 0.210.25) between
the results of task V and task VI in both the experimental and
the control groups. However, as expected, there were significant
differences in the results of task VI in both the experimental
and the control groups between the students who could not
name any conditions in task V and the ones who could name at
least one condition.
In the post-test (see Appendix 2) task I.2 examined the
students knowledge concerning factors that influence the rate
of reaction. In task I.3 the students had to choose one factor
and design an experiment to provide evidence that the factor
influences the rate of reaction. For task I.2 there was no
significant dierence between the control and the experimental
group. However, the experimental groups achievements were
significantly better in task I.3 (design). For the control group
there is only a very weak correlation between the results of the
task I.2 and I.3 (r = 0.14) and the correlation is stronger in the
case of the experimental group (r = 0.29). The average scores in
the case of the experimental group were 0.00 for the students
who could not mention any factor and 0.94 for the ones who
could mention at least one factor. The scores for the control
group are 0.11 for the students who could not mention any
factor and 0.58 for the ones who could mention at least one
factor. The dierence is greater for the experimental than the
control group.
There was one more design task in the post-test (task II.5).
The related DCK task (task II.3) examined the students knowledge about factors influencing the equilibrium. The experimental group achieved better score in both tasks than the
control group. A weak correlation (r = 0.25) was found in the
case of the experimental group, but no significant correlation
was found in the control group.
Results of the individual design tasks and their correlations
Students average scores (M) and their standard deviations
(SD) for the three design tasks are listed in Table 5. The relative
SDs (i.e. the SD/mean values) are lower for the experimental
group than for the control group after the intervention.
This dierence in relative SDs suggests that individual achievements in the experimental group are more similar than in the
control group.
Table 5
Results of the three design tasks
Experimental group
Control group
Test, task
SD
SD
pa
Pre-test, task VI
Post-test, task I.3
Post-test, task II.5
0.20
0.88
0.51
0.59
1.09
0.90
0.22
0.56
0.25
0.65
0.96
0.60
+
+
+: significant dierence (p o 0.05).
View Article Online

Table 6
Paper
Conclusions
Correlations among the design tasks
Tasks
r (experimental)
Pre-test VIpost-test I.3

Pre-test VIpost-test II.5
Post-test I.3post-test II.5
0.216
0.398
0.319
r (control)
Summary of the results
0.155
0.180
0.310
To answer RQ1 it could be stated that a positive change was

measured in the ability to design experiments as a result of
the short intervention in both the control groups and the
experimental groups, which only in the case of the highest
achievement control group did not prove to be significant.
However, the changes in the experimental groups were significantly higher in the case of the medium and the highest
achievement students than in the control groups. Medium and
high achievement students of the experimental group seemed to
gain more on an absolute scale, but lower achievement students
gained more on a relative scale. There was also a significant
increase in the ability to design experiments of both boys and
girls in the experimental and the control group. Furthermore,
the increase was significantly greater for the experimental group
than for the control group.
As for the RQ2: in the DCK tasks both the control and the
experimental lowest achievement groups had significantly better results in the post-test than in the pre-test. No significant
changes were detected in any of the medium achievement
groups. However, both the control and the experimental highest achievement groups had significantly poorer results in the
post-test than in the pre-test in the DCK tasks. The scores of the
experimental group are better in each achievement group than
the scores of their control counterparts, but the measured
dierence is only statistically significant in the case of the highest
achievement groups. This is because the highest achievement
control group scores decreased significantly more in the DCK
tasks than their experimental counterparts. Especially the scores
of the highest achievement boys are statistically less in the DCK
tasks of the post-test than in the pre-test.
All correlation coecients are significant at the p o 0.01 level.
The correlations among the design tasks are shown in

Table 6.
These results could indicate that experimental group students who did better in the pre-test design tasks also did better
in the post-test design tasks. These students might have
benefited more from the IBSE intervention.
The distribution of the marks of the design tasks

The design tasks were marked according to the instructions
given to the teachers (see Appendix 3). There were four
response categories:
Mark 3: The two experiments and the predicted observations are given, together with the explanation.
Mark 2: The two experiments and the predicted observations are given, together with the explanation, but observations
and explanations are not clearly separated.
Mark 1: Either the predicted observation or the explanation is not complete.
Mark 0: In any other case.
The distributions of students marks for the design tasks
were compared by using cross-table analysis (chi squared
test). The results are shown in Table 7. There was no significant
dierence for pre-test task VI between the distribution of
the marks of the experimental group and the control group
( p = 0.346).
However, there are significant dierences (p o 0.001)
between the distributions of experimental and the control
groups for both design tasks in the post-test. For task I.3 the
proportion of marks 2 (two experiments and the predicted
observations were given, together with the explanation, but
observations and explanations were not clearly separated)
are higher in the experimental group than in the control
group. For post-test task II.5 especially the proportion of marks
2 and 3 are higher in the experimental group than in the
control group.
Table 7
Distribution (in percentage) of marks in the design tasks
Test, task, group
Marks Marks Marks Marks

3 (%) 2 (%) 1 (%) 0 (%)
Pre-test, task VI, experimental group

1.8
Pre-test, task VI, control group
3.4
Post-test, task I.3, experimental group 13.7
Post-test, task I.3, control group
9.2
Post-test, task II.5, experimental group 6.9
Post-test, task II.5, control group
2.2
3.9
2.2
12.2
5.8
5.6
2.2
6.6
7.1
22.1
16.3
18.8
14.2
87.8
87.4
51.9
68.6
68.7
81.5
Implications
(1) It is worth modifying traditional practical laboratory activities
to ones where experiments have to be partially designed by
students even if it is considered to have more limited eect on
the development of the investigation skills than the open-ended
inquiry. It is a step towards the use of more comprehensive IBSE
activities. It would be valuable even if it is used only a few times
in the school year. These partly student-designed activities
appear to
develop experimental design, one of the investigation skills
needed for scientific literacy in each ability and gender group;
motivate the lowest achievement group of students.
(2) Doing step-by-step experiments also develops experimental design, one of the investigation skills, but this has a
lower eect than the experiments partly designed by the
students.
(3) The lowest achievement group of students can be
motivated by doing step-by-step experiments too. This also
increases their disciplinary content knowledge.
(4) In the case of the highest achievement group of students,
especially in the case of boys, the practical laboratory activity
might have a negative eect on the disciplinary content
View Article Online
Paper
knowledge gained in the lessons. This eect is more severe for

students who only do step-by-step experiments. Therefore the
highest achievement students, especially the highest achievement boys, should get special attention and further tasks to
develop their knowledge and skills other than the designing
experiment.
The results of our research lead us to fully support Cheung
(2011) when he states that chemical educators worldwide
should emphasise the implementation issues with inquiry
practical activities rather than just the value of inquiry teaching
or the limitations of cookbook activities (step-by-step experiments). Also, we need to convince more teachers that it is still
feasible to use guided inquiry practical activities in the chemistry curriculum, even though they need to face challenges such
as large class size and lack of instructional time. However, we
must not shrug our shoulders when chemistry teachers come
up with all the diculties that hinder the implementation of
inquiry tasks in their teaching practice or with their negative
experiences after trying to introduce inquiry. Instead we should
raise their awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of
guided and open ended inquiry. Given the constraints and

circumstances under which teachers work, providing readymade teaching materials is a considerable and significant help.
Small steps, like turning a well-known laboratory practical into
an experiment partly designed by the students, are also valuable
good practice. Finding an interesting context can be the next
step. This way we can hope that chemistry teachers will get
positive experiences with inquiry and they also start applying
more complex, open-ended inquiry tasks when circumstances
allow it. All of this will help us develop further the road map for
the eective introduction of inquiry-based learning in chemistry.
Further plans
Further analysis of the students answers in the tests are
necessary to find out about the details of skill development
and various misunderstandings. The students attitude toward
chemistry and chemical industry and its correlation with
their achievements in the tests will be the other subject of
the next study.
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Paper
View Article Online
Acknowledgements
This work was partly supported by the Hungarian Research
MOP
Fund (OTKA K-105262) and partly by the project called TA
4.1.2.B.2-13/1-2013-0007 NATIONWIDE COORDINATION FOR
THE RENEWAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION. The project was
supported by the European Union and co-financed by the
European Social Fund.
References
Allen J. B., Barker L. N. and Ramsden J. H., (1986), Guided
Inquiry Laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 63, 533534.
Bernard P., Maciejowska I., Krzeczkowska M. and Odrowz E., (2015),
Influence of In-Service Teacher Training on Their Opinions about
IBSE, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 177, 8899.
Bolte C., Holbrook J. and Rauch F. (ed.), (2012), Inquiry-based
Science Education in Europe: Reflections from the PROFILES
t Berlin, pp. 967. http://www.
Project, Berlin: Freie Universita
profiles-project.eu, last visited: 30.05.2016.
Bolte C., Streller S. and Hofstein A., (2013), How to motivate
students and raise their interest in chemistry education,
in Eilks I. and Hofstein A. (ed.) Teaching Chemistry A
Studybook, Sense Publishers, pp. 6795.
Bruck L. B. and Towns M. H., (2009), Preparing Students to Benefit
from Inquiry-Based Activities in the Chemistry Laboratory:
Guidelines and Suggestions, J. Chem. Educ., 56(7), 820822.
Cheung D., (2011), Teacher Beliefs about Implementing GuidedInquiry Laboratory Experiments for Secondary School Chemistry,
J. Chem. Educ., 88, 14621468.
Criswell B., (2012), Framing Inquiry in High School Chemistry:
Helping Students See the Bigger Picture, J. Chem. Educ., 89,
199205.
Dumitrescu C., Olteanu R. L., Gorghiu L. M. and Gorghiu G.,
(2014), Learning Chemistry in the Frame of Integrated
Science Modules Romanian Students Perception, Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 25162520.
trna
ctova
H., (2015), Inquiry
Finlayson O., Maciejowska I. and C
Based Chemistry Instruction, in Maciejowska I. and Byers B.
(ed.) A Guidebook of Good Practice for the Pre-Service Training
of Chemistry Teachers, Krakow: Faculty of Chemistry,
Jagiellonian University, p. 119, http://www.ec2e2n.info/
news/2015/1604_201510, last visited: 30.05.2016.
Hmelo-Silver C. E., Duncan R. E. and Chinn C. A., (2007),
Scaolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry
Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark
(2006), Educ. Psychol., 42(2), 99107.
Paper
Hofstein A. and Kempa R. F., (1985), Motivating strategies in

science education: attempt of an analysis, Eur. J. Sci. Educ.,
3, 221229.
sz J. and Szalay L., (2009), Summary of the work of the
Kerte
National Public Education Councils ad hoc committee for
the investigation of science education, Hung. Chem. J., 64(4),
107111. in Hungarian.
Kirschner P. A., Sweller J. and Clark R. E., (2006), Why Minimal
Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of
the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based,
Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching, Educ. Psychol.,
41(2), 7586.
McLoughlin E., et al., (2015), IBSE Teaching & Learning Units,
Volume 2, Chemistry, ESTABLISH Project, http://www.establishfp7.eu/sites/default/files/general/Chemistry.pdf, last visited:
30.05.2016.
Minner D. D., et al., (2010), Inquiry_based Science Instruction
What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research
Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 47(4),
474496.
Olson S. and Loucks-Horsley S., (2000), Inquiry and the National
Science Education Standards, 29, Washington, D.C.: National
Research Council, National Academy Press, http://www.nap.
edu/openbook.php?record_id=9596, last visited: 30.05.2016.
Osborne R. J. and Wittrock M. C., (1983), Learning science: a
generative process, Sci. Educ., 67(4), 489504.
PISA, (2006), Science Competences for Tomorrows World, Volume
1: Analysis, pp. 6468.
Savec V. F. and Devetak I., (2013), Evaluating the eectiveness
of students active learning in chemistry, Procedia Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 11131121.
Sweller J., (1988), Cognitive Load during Problem Solving:
Eects on Learning, Cogn. Sci., 12, 257285.
Szalay L., (2015), Promoting Research-led Teaching of Chemistry,
LUMAT, 3(3), 327340, http://webcache.googleusercontent.
com/search?q=cache:3bJ8pcKfnUsJ:luma.fi/file_download/
596+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk, last visited: 30.05.2016.
Taber K. S., (2011), Inquiry teaching, constructivist instruction
and eective pedagogy, Teach. Dev., 15(2), 257264.
Taber K. S., (2014), Ethical considerations of chemistry education
research involving human subjects, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,
15(2), 109113.
Tomperi P. and Aksela M., (2014), In-service Teacher Training
Project On Inquiry-Based Practical Chemistry, LUMAT, 2(2),
215226, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=
cache:MnYxuxqTFE4J:www.luma.fi/file_download/429+&cd=
1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk, last visited: 30.05.2016.

9 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

9 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chemistry Education

Research and Practice

Cite this: DOI: 10.1039/c6rp00044d

An inquiry-based approach of traditional

Published on 04 August 2016. Downloaded on 28/09/2016 04:57:03.

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016

socially motivated students (Hofstein and Kempa, 1985). It

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

View Article Online

Published on 04 August 2016. Downloaded on 28/09/2016 04:57:03.

assertion that IBSE generally identified as a constructivist

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

preparation time, teaching time, laboratory assistance (technical

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016

View Article Online

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

students gain a deep understanding of the disciplinary content

Published on 04 August 2016. Downloaded on 28/09/2016 04:57:03.

knowledge (DCK), 1 item to assess the ability to find reliable

Three chemistry lesson plans

Three lesson plans on reaction kinetics were provided for

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

View Article Online

Published on 04 August 2016. Downloaded on 28/09/2016 04:57:03.

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Cronbachs alpha values of the tests

Results and discussion

Results according to types of tasks

Statistical analysis of data was accomplished by the SPSS

The summarised results of the pre-tests and post-tests in the

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016

View Article Online

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Published on 04 August 2016. Downloaded on 28/09/2016 04:57:03.

MPre-test SDPre-test MPost-test SDPost-test

+: significant dierence ( p o 0.05).

There were no statistically significant dierences in the

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016

Results of tests according to gender

Mpre-test (%) Mpost-test (%) D (%) pa

Boys/design tasks Experimental

Girls/design tasks Experimental

+: significant dierence ( p o 0.05).

Results according to achievements in the pre-test

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

View Article Online

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Published on 04 August 2016. Downloaded on 28/09/2016 04:57:03.

+: significant dierence ( p o 0.05).

seemed to increase the ability of designing experiments in the

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

for chemical reactions to occur. In task VI the students had to

Results of the three design tasks

+: significant dierence (p o 0.05).

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016

View Article Online

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Correlations among the design tasks

Pre-test VIpost-test I.3

Summary of the results