Science Teacher Education Advanced Methods

Final Report Summary - S-TEAM (Science Teacher Education Advanced Methods)

Executive summary:

S-TEAM stands for Science-Teacher Education Advanced Methods. It is funded by the EU under Framework Programme 7, and is designed to spread inquiry-based science teaching (IBST) across a wide range of national contexts. The spread of inquiry based science teaching methods is intended to increase school pupils engagement with science, and consequently to increase their scientific literacy and the likelihood that they will follow science-based careers.

S-TEAM involved 26 partners from institutions in 15 countries and has produced a wide range of materials including 30 deliverables, attended or organised over 200 events and has greatly increased awareness of inquiry-based methods in science across its partner countries and beyond. As a Coordination and Support Action, S-TEAM adds value to research already performed in order to help policymakers, teacher educators and, of course, teachers themselves to change their practice. The S-TEAM project has been running since May 2009 and was completed in April 2012, although it will continue to spread its results and will maintain many of its activities via web-based resources and other low-cost options.

S-TEAM has achieved its impact through addressing education systems at three levels. At the level of policy, we have produced extensive reports (deliverable 2b. 7a, 9b) on the uptake and measurement of IBST. We have also interacted with policymakers directly at internal and external events, as listed in the dissemination section of this report.

At the level of teacher education, S-TEAM has had a strong impact on the area of teacher professional development (TPD), by producing a range of training and development courses designed to help overcome some of the obstacles to further implementation of IBST. These courses have been piloted by partners, and have received favorable evaluations by teachers.

At the level of teaching, we have produced teaching sequences and other materials to assist teachers with the implementation of IBST in their classrooms. These provide examples of how teachers can use inquiry to promote understanding, autonomy and collaboration within the teaching of science subjects.

Main learning outcomes from S-TEAM:

1. The move to inquiry-based science teaching methods, and associated improvements in the quality of teaching, need properly aligned curricula and assessment systems that specifically support inquiry, to allow teachers to work creatively with pupils across topic areas and to exercise pupils' imagination and curiosity. In other words, classroom and school environments as a whole should support inquiry.
2. The support of colleagues and school management together with collaborative inquiry into practice is necessary for the effective implementation of inquiry-based science teaching.
3. Authentic inquiry happens when pupils are looking for answers to questions owned/formulated by themselves. Inquiry can thus make a difference to pupil motivation, but the open-ended nature of inquiry needs to be carefully adjusted to the desired outcomes, the need for teacher support and the constraints of existing curricula and assessment systems.
4. Inquiry achieves better understanding of ideas or concepts, and better develops capacities, but may take more time than traditional methods. Changes to systemic practices, including curriculum design and assessment methods, will be required, but small-scale demonstrations of the effectiveness of inquiry can help to bring about these changes. Teachers should be prepared to experiment with their own practice, and should not see inquiry as an all-or-nothing activity.
5. Inquiry is embedded in specific situations and is multi-dimensional. Teachers have to select dimensions of inquiry, which facilitate understanding, learning and engagement amongst all pupils.
6. Science content knowledge is important for the implementation of inquiry-based science teaching. In addition, it is vital that science teachers are conversant with the nature and history of science, since the nature of inquiry is as complex as the nature of science itself.
7. Science teachers also need pedagogical and didactical knowledge [PCK] to support processes, for example, concerning argumentation, experimentation, dialogic teaching, motivation, use of innovative methods such as drama and narrative, and cross-curricular working.
8. Teachers' values, beliefs and the purposes of education are sometimes in conflict, but inquiry provides a basis for resolving these tensions.
9. More priority should be given to collaborative teacher professional development activities, which should be part of a coherent professional development structure aimed at improving teaching quality, educational outcomes, pupil engagement and teacher retention.
10. Professional development should be coherent with initial teacher education and should be seen in a context of lifelong learning, rather than just being about imparting information.
11. Professional development should be conducted in teachers' professional contexts and teachers should be empowered by the professional development process, and able to change their practice as a result.
12. Initial teacher education should itself be inquiry-based, and should give pre-service teachers the possibility of conducting their own inquiries into practice.
13. In a globalised and increasingly mobile world, there needs to be more attention to learning from other educational systems, in order to avoid wasted effort and to increase educational mobility.
14. Educational interventions should be research-based, sustainable and should reflect the timescales of school careers.
15. There should be stronger coordination between projects, and better use should be made of results and experience across project clusters in particular topic areas.

Project Context and Objectives:

The context of S-TEAM is, firstly, the perception in national and European policy circles that lack of interest in science amongst young people is likely to cause:
1) A shortage of scientists/engineers/researchers, damaging European economic competitiveness;
2) Inadequate levels of scientific literacy in future citizens, leading to a democratic deficit regarding participation in public debates on socio-scientific issues.
The term 'science' here includes the natural sciences and some areas of technology as well as mathematics.

Secondly, S-TEAM was active in the context of a financial crisis affecting most EU member states, resulting in budgetary stringency across all fields. In education, this climate of austerity manifested itself in increasing teacher workload, reductions in training and development opportunities and lack of resources in the classroom. On the other hand, the responsibility of member states for education meant that S-TEAM and other EU projects were competing for attention with national strategies, priorities and initiatives, leading to 'initiative fatigue' in some cases. The critical mass and prestige of S-TEAM, as a project funded by FP7, made it more attractive in this context.

S-TEAM was thus in a strong position, being able to offer high-quality, research based teacher professional development activities at no direct cost to participants.

The objectives of S-TEAM, as set out in the Technical Annex (May 2009) are:
-To improve motivation, learning and pupil attitudes in European science education,
-resulting in increased scientific literacy and recruitment to science-based careers,
-by enabling large numbers of teachers to adopt inquiry-based and other proven methods for more effective science teaching
-by supporting teachers,
-by providing training in, and access to, innovative methods and research-based knowledge.

These objectives cover the themes of pupil engagement, teacher empowerment and teacher education. S-TEAM recognised that these objectives cannot be imposed on national systems, which in any case is not part of the EU role, but must be implemented through collaboration with existing structures, agencies and actors. Consequently, we allocated staff effort in Work Packages 2 & 3 to identifying the optimum ways in which teacher education for IBST can be implemented in specific national contexts, as reported in deliverables 2a and b. A number of opportunities were identified, and actions taken, in these national contexts. The nature of the actions varied according to the context, but was influenced by the work done in previous projects by the S-TEAM partners. We are continuing to bring S-TEAM reports to the attention of policymakers wherever possible.

The scientific context for S-TEAM actions

Inquiry-based science teaching is not new and there is a considerable body of literature supporting the use of inquiry-based methods. There is, however, some divergence in the underlying philosophies and pedagogical principles. One strand of inquiry is based on principles of constructivism, as we explained in the S-TEAM parents' booklet (del.10c).

It is very important to point out that 'constructivism' embraces two separate strands, constructivist epistemology and constructivist pedagogy. Constructivist epistemology problematises the nature of knowledge and its relation to the 'knower', whilst constructivist pedagogy is about encouraging learners to find their own way towards scientific knowledge. For the purposes of science teaching, constructivist pedagogy is what we focus on. Critiques of inquiry have often confused the two strands of constructivism leading to the criticism that inquiry fails to support learners and creates unrealistic expectations of developing sophisticated scientific concepts out of everyday experience.

In S-TEAM we have taken a critical stance towards inquiry and have resisted over-defining the concept in order to allow for different interpretations to emerge from the various cultural contexts in which inquiry might be practiced. Consequently, in designing the functional work packages 3-8, we divided the field of inquiry into:

-WP3 Powerful educational environments for successful science teaching
-WP4 Teacher collaboration and innovative methods
-WP5 Innovative methods, initial teacher education and science
-WP6 Inquiry-based methods and professional development
-WP7 Argumentation for teacher education in science
-WP8 Scientific literacies, motivation and learning

This functional distribution worked reasonably well, and is reflected in the variety and quality of the individual products within deliverables. Nevertheless, a working definition of inquiry was adopted, drawn from Linn, Davis and Bell (2004): '[inquiry is] the intentional process of diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, and distinguishing alternatives, planning investigations, researching conjectures, searching for information, constructing models, debating with peers and forming coherent arguments'.

Objectives in terms of teachers and students reached

The complexity of the 30 deliverables and the associated additional documentation was a reflection of the diversity of approaches used in the project. The deliverables provided a documented basis for project activities, but it should be noted that the deliverables did not in themselves constitute the means of achieving project objectives. The majority of activities undertaken by the project involved direct contact with teachers and teacher educators. Inevitably, the duration and quality of this contact varied across the project. However, our figures indicate that the project as a whole reached approximately 5,000 teachers as participants in workshops or seminars directly intended to improve the take-up of inquiry-based science teaching. On the basis that each of these teachers might be responsible for 150 pupils on a recurring basis over the school year, this would amount to a 'pupil reach' of around 555, 000 per year. We could also surmise that in many cases teachers will pass on innovative practices or ideas to colleagues, and that the effects of S-TEAM activities will be embedded in practice, thus creating both multiplication of effects and post-project continuity. However, it is not possible to research the extent of these effects after the end of the funding period.

The stated objectives of the project have been achieved, due to the hard work of partners. There remains a considerable body of material and a number of ongoing activities. The materials are being reconfigured in the light of experience and discussions with users, resulting in a large set of resources being available on the project website (see http://www.s-teamproject.eu online) and wiki (see http://www.ntnu.no/s-team online) for at least the next three years.

Project Results:

S-TEAM is a coordination and support action, not a research project and therefore it is slightly misleading to speak of 'scientific and technical results'. Nevertheless, the project has made considerable progress in establishing the necessary conditions for wide-scale implementation of Inquiry-based science teaching (IBST). The results of S-TEAM can thus be divided into three categories:

1) Results in terms of changed or changing practice in science education;
2) Results in terms of identifying conditions for changing practice more widely in future
3) Results in terms of learning for future projects in this or similar areas.

In this section we will discuss each of these categories in turn, and will begin with a discussion of the nature of inquiry-based methods. The lack of an agreed definition of IBST, or of 'inquiry' itself, was both a problem and an advantage for the project. It was a problem because it led to wide variations in the professional development packages and other deliverables from the project. Conversely, it was an advantage for the same reason, that a variety of 'flavors' of inquiry was necessary in order to accommodate local, regional and national differences in how inquiry was conceived and implemented. Nevertheless, a working definition of inquiry was adopted, drawn from Linn, Davis and Bell (2004): '[inquiry is] the intentional process of diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, and distinguishing alternatives, planning investigations, researching conjectures, searching for information, constructing models, debating with peers and forming coherent arguments'. As will be seen from the discussion below, and from the deliverables themselves, a much wider field of inquiry was opened up by the project.

S-TEAM findings regarding inquiry-based methods

Inquiry-based methods, broadly speaking, involve giving students greater freedom to follow their own ideas within the study of science subjects. These subjects include physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences, astronomy and other subject areas with scientific content. Mathematics can also be taught using inquiry.

This breakdown of inquiry proved very useful as a teacher development tool, since there was general agreement across the project that inquiry is not an 'either/or' alternative to other forms of teaching, but is an identifiable mode of teaching and learning, which can emerge in many different ways, and at different times and stages in the educational process.

One of the teachers on our reference group pointed out that inquiry is not a universal solution: 'I did an inquiry based lesson the other day and they [the students] hated it! ' We know from other anecdotal evidence that this is, fortunately, not always the case. It should alert us to the need for balanced consideration of the benefits and costs of widespread implementation of inquiry, and a nuanced view of inquiry as both a set of skills and techniques, and a broader philosophical approach to science education reflecting the varied and complex nature of science itself. Even more broadly, inquiry could be regarded as a meta-level epistemological stance towards knowing. At this level, inquiry becomes an essential way of achieving societal change, a topic to which we will return in the 'societal impact' section below.

Inquiry methods, in many cases, simply involve better use of student questions and curiosity to drive learning. Another way of understanding it is the pursuit of causal, coherent explanations of natural phenomena. An authentic inquiry-driven investigation will not be conducted according to a 'recipe', but will involve the overcoming of challenges, and will be open to changes in direction depending on the available evidence. Students' ability to use evidence and the techniques of argumentation are key aspects of successful inquiry, as was ably demonstrated by WP7 in S-TEAM (see dels. 7a-d).

Currently, inquiry in schools is mostly used within existing curricular structures, and is most often combined with other teaching methods, such as 'direct' teaching, where information is 'delivered' by teachers, using ICT, handouts or blackboards. Inquiry can be about the design of experiments or other investigations, but is not restricted to 'hands-on science'. Although an excessive emphasis on practical work can lead to constraints being imposed by the possibilities of the apparatus, and a recipe book approach to following an experimental process, a more common problem is that many teachers do not have the skills or resources to make practical work more open-ended.

Inquiry is also confused with problem-based learning, which shares many of its characteristics. In general, inquiry-based learning encompasses problem-based learning, with a meta-cognitive aspect in that the nature or framing of the problems themselves is open to debate. An inquiry can be pursued with or without a central problem, or through a series of problems. A more fundamental distinction might be that problem-based learning largely relies on predetermined problems whereas inquiry can structure a wide variety of experiences in the pursuit of conceptual understanding.

Inquiry, finally, is student-centred and involves a shift in thinking, from the standardised production of individuals equipped with a fixed body of knowledge, to the realisation of individual potential for innovation, creativity and scientific imagination. This is necessary in a world where it is impossible to know everything, but essential to be able to learn in new situations. Schwab (1962) referred to this as a distinction between 'stable inquiry' and 'fluid inquiry'. The function of stable inquiry, Schwab writes, is to 'accumulate what a doctrinal education teaches us to conceive as the whole of scientific knowledge' (p. 15). A fluid inquiry, on the other hand 'proceeds to the invention of new conceptions and test them for adequacy and feasibility' (p. 17). This is not to say that students need to discover hitherto unknown aspects of science - although this can happen - but that they need to have the intellectual space in which to convert observations, facts, or data into ideas.

Does inquiry work?

Due to the nature of education systems and educational research, it is very difficult to provide definitive answers regarding the effectiveness of a given method or technique. Inquiry in science education has been around in various forms since at least the 1950s, and perhaps earlier, but measuring its efficacy depends on what it is supposed to be achieving - which is the topic of much debate. In the case of current EU projects supporting inquiry, it seems to have done its job, since the percentage of students opting for science careers now exceeds EU targets. We cannot, however, take the credit for this since it is very difficult to assess the long-term effects, across a school trajectory lasting c.13 years+, of a change in teaching methods, against the background of a volatile labor market and the financial crises currently affecting Europe and the world.

One of our partners, Professor Costas Constantinou, in a definitive address to the Fibonacci conference , gave the following overview of what inquiry should mean:

As a framework for science teaching and learning:

- Learning
- Active engagement of students in the learning process
- Epistemologically authentic procedures
- Social interaction and collaboration
- Holistic learning objectives
- Learning environments
- Designed to promote construction of meaning and gradual development of skills and awareness
- Assessment has a formative role in providing feedback to the teaching and learning process

- Teaching
- The teacher adopts the role of facilitator and aims to provide an example of an inquiring person
- The teacher does not function as the bearer of expert knowledge but rather facilitates the establishment of a community of inquiry based on honesty, trust and multiple roles (differentiation)

- Motivation: there are structured procedures for the emotional engagement of students in the learning process

- Metacognition: students' metacognitive strategies for abstraction and generalization should be explicitly developed

ICT: the use of simulations, modeling tools, sensors, data analysis tools and communication tools can enhance inquiry, but proper pedagogical and technical training of teachers and support staff is essential.

- Teaching and Learning Materials
- taught curriculum that frames the learning process
- designed and validated through a process of research

Inquiry-based science education permits degrees of freedom and degrees of structure from open inquiry to guided inquiry. It also places degrees of emphasis on reflection and interpretation of reflective strategies, and on planning, monitoring and evaluation. It encourages the metacognitive strategies of abstraction and generalization. Finally, inquiry permits a degree of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) involvement, in the use of simulations, modeling tools, sensors, data analysis tools and communication tools. These, however, are neither essential nor should they be substitutes for imagination and creativity

Measuring Inquiry

The difficulty of measuring inquiry, and the associated attitudes and beliefs of teachers concerning IBST, is demonstrated in del. 9b, which referred to 374 studies in this area, across four areas (Policy and administrative; teacher education/professional development; school level teachers; school level students). The possibility of doing large-scale comparative trials of inquiry-based methods exists but is fraught with difficulties. Not the least of these is specifying the desired outcome measures in a way that does not conflict with the necessity for attaining existing qualifications. Studies would also have to solve ethical conflicts, since in our experience of promoting IBST, many teachers already believe that inquiry-based methods are either effective or ineffective, and would therefore have difficulty in impartially applying one or other method. There are inherent problems in conducting such trials in education, especially where inquiry is involved. These range from input problems - how can the inherent variability of teaching be controlled for? - to output problems - is inquiry producing the same type of learning as so-called traditional teaching methods? In between, there are problems with different rates of progress, incompatible curricula and the difficulty of 'isolating' one method from another when the relevant knowledge is in the public domain. Finally, inquiry, as we have pointed out elsewhere, is not something diametrically opposed to existing teaching methods but, rather, an explicit acknowledgement of existing tendencies in quality teaching.

On the other hand, we have many positive, anecdotal reports from teachers of better student engagement, and an acceptance from governments that inquiry is the way forward. There are also many academic studies showing positive results. Some S-TEAM partners, however, felt that more research was needed to produce both definitive, inquiry-based science education programmes and definitive, large-scale, comparative studies of their results. Such studies would require greater research resources than currently available to most researchers in national systems, and, with some exceptions, are not part of the current Framework 7 programme.

There is, however, an alternative to large-scale trials. Teachers can be empowered to do their own context-sensitive design experiments and classroom evaluations. Such small-scale studies are not sufficiently powerful on their own to produce definitive results, but information technology provides the means to aggregate large numbers of such studies in a meaningful way. Transforming teaching into a culture of continual research and development activity is not easy but is a more appropriate way forward than the use of unsuitable research methods from other academic cultures.

S-TEAM has found that current efforts to promote inquiry, particularly in primary and lower secondary schools, are often negated by the need to switch to 'teaching to the test' when young people are faced with the high-stakes examinations typical of most upper-secondary school systems across Europe. These examinations, whilst they may predict success for students in similar forms of assessment in universities, do not in themselves develop the qualities of creativity, innovative thinking, collaborative working and autonomous learning required by today's employers or enterprises. Inquiry therefore needs to be supported by new forms of assessment, and more flexible curricula, in order to bring sustainable change to European education systems.

These changes should be more than just shifts in fashion. The whole paradigm of education needs to be rethought and more importantly, agreed between the different stakeholders, if inquiry-based education in a broad sense is to fulfill its potential. It is important to maintain teachers' freedom to have wide 'repertoires of action', a phrase which we used at the very beginning of S-TEAM and which has been promoted by the wide range of actions and products resulting from S-TEAM.

One theme, which regularly recurred in discussions about IBST, was that inquiry is not a new idea in science education. Teachers often knew of various previous or current IBST initiatives, and were thus already aware of the possibilities and barriers around IBST. Consequently, the project faced the task of persuading teachers to accept yet another intervention into their own practice. Many of them, however, were already using inquiry in their own practice, but simply needed time to reflect on how best to take it forward, or validation of their own ability to run inquiry-based learning activities.

The collaborative European dimension of the project has revealed considerable differences in cross-cultural understandings of inquiry. In some national contexts, there is a reluctance to relinquish control over curricula, and a corresponding desire to include as much content as possible. On the other hand, it is not necessary to insist on a pure form of inquiry in order to make modest gains in pupil outcomes, especially gains in the ability to ask questions on the basis of evidence and observation.

This has been noticeable in, for example the contrast between S-TEAM's activities in England and in France. The English national education system can be characterised as 'over-managed', with a multiplicity of national initiatives, agencies, standards, targets and assessments. Consequently, our two English partners took a pragmatic approach, developing materials for professional development in argumentation (University of Bristol, in WP7) and for professional development in dialogic teaching (University of Leeds, in WP6). The impact of these products was substantial at the level of teachers involved directly in local professional development activities, but the impact of S-TEAM at national level was relatively small, due to the crowded nature of the system. For instance, there are already more than enough science education resources available from online sources such as http://www.schoolscience.co.uk and a number of teacher professional development initiatives through organisations such as the Association for Science Education (ASE).

Conversely, S-TEAM had a substantial impact in France at the regional and departmental levels (especially in the Rhone-Alpes region and the Departement de l'Isere) precisely because there was little in the way of pre-existing teacher professional development for inquiry. We were also successful in France because we had three well-established and enterprising partners with good connections to the IUFM teacher education institutions and the local and regional inspectorates. It was also because we produced materials in French, specifically relevant to the French system.

Furthermore, French involvement in S-TEAM brought a number of theoretical perspectives to bear on inquiry which were not familiar to researchers from the Anglo-American or Scandinavian traditions. These include the learning contract, the institutionalisation of knowledge and the semiotics of inquiry. These have considerably advanced our understanding of areas such as pupil autonomy, the timing of inquiry activities in the classroom and the difficulties caused by ambiguities in the PISA items related to scientific literacy (see S-TEAM deliverables 6e and 8c).

The achievements of S-TEAM

S-TEAM has been able to bring together many talented science educators, teacher educators and researchers in one community. The ability to compare methods, share results and work together to move science education forward has been very stimulating and productive - we have over 400 dissemination activities in total, including the events and publications resulting directly from the project. Thus, awareness of IBST methods has been raised to a high level.

As participants in a large European project, we have come to realise that we have a unique opportunity not just to carry out our work as promised at the start of the project, but to influence the way in which future EU projects are organised. With our colleagues from similar projects in science and mathematics (STEM) education, we have formed an association called ProCoNet (Project Coordinators Network) to share knowledge and experience, and to work with the European Commission to move to more sustainable models or research, support and dissemination. The current method of funding gives, at the most, a project duration of three to four years, and has no provision for systematic learning from one project to another. This means that teachers are often provided with innovative support for one or two years and are then left to fend for themselves when funding comes to an end. ProCoNet will press for sustainable structures to continue the learning and actions of these projects after their main funding period comes to an end.

At the other end of the scale in the science classroom, S-TEAM has helped to identify obstacles to the use of inquiry, and in many cases has identified solutions to overcome these. Teachers should not be forced to use a fixed set of methods, and certainly need to have answers to problems encountered in their own national contexts. In fact, they need to be empowered to use inquiry, and this empowerment frequently involves inquiries into their own practice. This kind of inquiry needs to be based in their own practice, is best done collaboratively in small groups and over reasonable periods of time, usually at least three to four months for a typical teacher professional development module. Support, from external researchers or teacher-educators, is useful, especially at the beginning of such processes, to provide a rationale for the inquiry and perhaps to give some input from the research community. Equally, support from school authorities/management is essential.

The following quote from one of the teachers on a PISCES module captures what we wanted to achieve:
...it [the TPD activity and the intervention developed by each teacher] was about getting the pupils to think in a different way. It was all about how they asked questions and showing them how they could ask questions and what questions could look like. Getting them to develop their own questions. To give them the confidence to ask their questions, and then identify whether they were appropriate questions or not at the time. So that wasn't based on a specific topic, it was based on giving them new skills which they could use for the entire year and later on at school as well, hopefully.

This appears to be a very simple definition, but in fact captures the essence of inquiry, the ability to ask questions but within a set of implicit or explicit parameters for what makes a question relevant, useful or insightful in a particular situation. This is not an easy skill to develop, as anyone who has been to academic conferences will testify.

S-TEAM deliverables

S-TEAM has produced a range of materials for use in promoting inquiry. These include reports on the adoption of inquiry across Europe, several books in final stages of editing and a wide selection of academic articles. We have materials for teacher education and for classroom practice. Most importantly, however, we have initiated teacher professional development activities in our partner countries, often on a small scale but sufficient to provide proof of concept and a model for future activities should funding permit. We actually expect the main impact of the project to come after its official end date, since we can now reflect creatively on what has been produced and make this material available in the most effective ways, depending on audience and target group. The scale of education systems in relation to the size of S-TEAM is huge and it is only by embedding our ideas in existing systems and practices that we can really effect large scale change in European science education.

A note on web-based dissemination

The S-TEAM project has enjoyed good relations with Scientix and other organisations, such as SEEP (Science Education European Platform) performing dissemination functions at a European level. However, the usefulness of these platforms from an S-TEAM perspective is limited. The concept of 'resources' within IBST is over-used and in fact we have very little evidence to suggest that a lack of 'resources' is holding teachers back from adopting IBST. Teachers are, in fact, often very good at web-based dissemination and our findings indicate that teacher-to-teacher dissemination of resources produced in schools is an effective and cost-free channel.

In addition, there are existing open-source platforms such as LeMill (http:lemill.net) which already has over 50,000 resources online. It makes little sense to duplicate these platforms or to add even more 'resources' to the mix. The need is for teachers to become more confident in identifying how, when, where and why to use inquiry-based methods, and this has been the fundamental aim of S-TEAM. We have achieved great results on a small scale with programmes such as PISCES in Scotland and SUN in Norway, both initiated by S-TEAM, which empower teachers to think differently. With these school based projects, it is useful to have web-based learning environments associated with the programmes, but not essential.

Use of deliverables

The S-TEAM deliverables encompass a wide variety of materials from teacher professional development packages to theoretically informed discussions of inquiry. Many of them have been used in actual programmes. Taken as a whole, they represent a valuable resource for anyone professionally interested in IBST. Currently, however, the format of the deliverables reflects the requirements of the EC, as negotiated and set out in the technical annex. Consequently, as part of the continuation plan of S-TEAM, the majority of the papers making up the deliverables are being rearranged into a collected works' in ten volumes, as an online resource in .pdf format. In addition, as part of the ProCoNet initiative, the former project manager of S-TEAM is preparing a document currently known as Inquiry 2012.

Numbers of teachers involved in S-TEAM activities

1) The numbers have been rounded off to the nearest ten for clarity and to avoid giving a false impression of precision in the overall figure. In most cases, when workshops or seminars are run, there may be registered participants who do not turn up, participants who are not present throughout, etc. The important consideration is the scale of the total figure in relation to the overall problem to be addressed. It is very difficult to arrive at a precise figure for the number of science teachers in the partner countries. Our 'best guess' at the beginning of the project was 480, 000, based on partner knowledge, official statistics and some informed estimates. For example, it is not clear to what extent primary school teachers are actually 'science teachers', nor is it clear that secondary science teachers are always specialists in a science discipline.

What we have learned from S-TEAM: the future of inquiry-based science education

What we have learned about European Projects:
1) Research needs to be an integral part of all educational interventions. The idea of coordination and support actions (CSAs) is good but there needs to be better collaboration between project partners and Directorates at the planning and negotiating stages. The boundaries between research, coordination and support need to be better defined, but they should also permit, for example, research to be conducted within CSAs where appropriate. The research base for Calls should also be specified more clearly, as current practice permits assumptions to be made on the basis of questionable evidence.
2) Educational interventions should be designed to be sustainable and to fit the extended timescales of education systems. The current duration of FP7 projects does not permit the kind of long-term mutual exchange and confidence-building needed in this area.
3) There should be stronger coordination between projects, and better use should be made of results and experience across project clusters in particular topics or geographical areas. S-TEAM has made a start on this process, e.g. by holding a joint projects meeting in Hatfield, UK (November 2011) for partners in Fibonacci, Metafora, SED, Pathway and S-TEAM, generously hosted by the ASE. Continued actions of this type, however, would benefit from some kind of permanent organisation to facilitate meetings and pro-actively exchange information and resources. ProCoNet is exploring ways of doing this, subject to funding opportunities.
4) More flexible arrangements should be available for the participation of stakeholder groups such as schools, SMEs, Civil Society Organisations and others, who do not have the administrative capacity to participate as full partners in current programmes. Within S-TEAM we had a large group of universities in their role as teacher education institutions. These all have school networks with whom they collaborate, e.g. for student teacher placements. It would have been desirable to involve these schools and networks but they do not generally have the time or capacity to be fully involved as partners. A more flexible 'associate partner' provision should be written into EU financial guideline to permit peripheral participation.
5) A range of research interests should be brought together in any EU-level intervention. S-TEAM benefitted from a diverse consortium, which included both science education specialists and those with more general teacher education expertise. Consortia with narrow interests may fail to take a sufficiently critical approach to problems, producing, for example, expensive IT solutions to relatively minor problems in the teaching of science.
6) The role of gender in STEM education is important but there are no simple answers across Europe since gender issues vary from country to country and from subject to subject. In general, inquiry-based methods promote the differentiation of students across all dimensions, including gender but also ethnicity, belief systems and of course ability, amongst others. Respect for diversity was therefore a guiding principle for S-TEAM activities rather than simply trying to adjust existing gender imbalances where these existed.
7) In general, the existence of European projects in STEM is highly desirable to create a critical perspective on national policies, to share existing research and to set future research agendas. In Horizon 2020, there should be an open approach to STEM education with the goal of aligning national systems towards more innovative, creative and engaging science and mathematics in schools, whilst maintaining rigour and promoting the mobility of students.

What we have learned about national policy:
1) Changes in teaching methods, and associated improvements in the quality of teaching, need classroom environments and properly aligned curricula and assessment systems that specifically support inquiry, to allow teachers to work creatively with pupils across topic areas and to exercise their imagination and curiosity.
2) More time and space should be given to collaborative teacher professional development activities, which should be part of a coherent professional development structure aimed at improving teaching quality, educational outcomes, pupil engagement and teacher retention.
3) European and other international research should be an integral part of planning, implementing and evaluating educational interventions, with connections being made between national research centres to avoid duplication and loss of useful input from other research cultures

What we have learned about teacher education/teacher educators:
1) Science content knowledge is important for the implementation of inquiry. In addition, it is desirable that science teachers are conversant with the nature and history of science.
2) Science teachers need both pedagogical content knowledge [PCK] and pedagogical process knowledge (PPK) to support inquiry-based science teaching. These include, for example, knowledge concerning argumentation, experimentation, dialogic teaching, student motivation, use of innovative methods such as drama and narrative, and cross-curricular working.
3) Initial teacher education should itself be adopting the methods of inquiry-based teaching and learning, and should give pre-service teachers the possibility of conducting their own inquiries into practice.
4) Professional development should be coherent with initial teacher education and should be seen in a context of lifelong professional learning, rather than just being about imparting information on an ad hoc basis.
5) Professional development should be conducted, as far as possible, in teachers own professional contexts and environments. Teachers should be empowered, not constrained, by the professional development process, and should be able to change their practice as a result.
6) Teacher educators, school owners and researchers need to tailor their support activities to the needs of local teachers, and should avoid dogmatic forms of professional development and the uncritical application of 'best practice' from other educational situations.

What we have learned about science teaching:
1) Inquiry happens naturally when pupils are looking for answers to questions owned/formulated by themselves. Inquiry also involves activating pupils as questioners, which is not a trivial process and involves creating a climate in which questioning is encouraged by teachers and peers, where questioning is not exclusive to more able pupils and where learning from wrong answers and mistakes is encouraged.
2) Inquiry is not just about 'hands-on' activity and lab work, but is certainly applicable to those forms of activity. Inquiry involves 'minds on' as well as 'hands on'. Inquiry achieves better understanding of the ideas or concepts behind concrete practical activities, and better develops capacities for observing, analysing data, using evidence, and drawing conclusions, but may take more time than traditional methods.
3) Inquiry can make a difference to pupil motivation, but needs to be carefully adjusted to the desired outcomes and available time. Changes to systemic practices, including curriculum design and assessment methods, will be required, and small-scale demonstrations of the effectiveness of inquiry can help to bring about these changes.
4) Teachers should recognise that inquiry is embedded in specific situations and is multi-dimensional. Teachers have to select dimensions of inquiry, which facilitate understanding, learning and engagement amongst all pupils.
5) Teachers should be prepared to experiment with their own practice, and should not see inquiry as an all-or-nothing activity
6) Thus, inquiry can work within the constraints of existing curricula and assessment systems, and so need not conflict with them, but the open-ended nature of authentic inquiry can only be fully realised when curricula and assessment systems are also open-ended and reflect the wide range of possibilities inherent in science itself.
7) Collaborative inquiry into practice is the best basis for changing practice, including inquiry-based practices, thus the support of colleagues and school management is essential for the effective implementation of inquiry.
8) Teachers' values, and the values developed across education systems, may create conflicts between the desire to encourage authentic inquiry and the need to conform to set methods or curricula. Thus, the overall purpose of education needs to be considered in relation to the possibilities created by inquiry.
9) The teacher should adopt the role of facilitator and should aim to be an example of an inquiring person
10) The teacher does not function as the bearer of expert knowledge but rather facilitates the establishment of a community of inquiry based on honesty, trust and multiple roles (differentiation)
11) Motivation: there are structured procedures for the emotional engagement of students in the learning process
12) Metacognition: students' metacognitive strategies for abstraction and generalization should be explicitly developed
13) ICT: the use of simulations, modeling tools, sensors, data analysis tools and communication tools can enhance inquiry, but proper pedagogical and technical training of teachers and support staff is essential.

Potential Impact:

The potential impact of S-TEAM will be discussed at four distinct levels:
1) The level of individual schools, teachers and students influenced by inquiry-based methods;
2) The level of national education systems, where policy can help or hinder the introduction of inquiry;
3) The level of science education research
4) The level of European educational policy discourse, where long-term challenges are addressed.

The societal implications of S-TEAM therefore need to be assessed in the context of ongoing activity stemming from a wide variety of national policy initiatives, European projects and societal trends. The task of increasing interest in school science, science careers and scientific literacy has to be undertaken by a range of stakeholders if it is to succeed. In this context it is worth noting that the overall EU target for increasing the number of graduates in STEM subjects has been met and in fact has been greatly exceeded.

The benchmark on Mathematics, Science and Technology proposed that there should by 2010 be a 15% increase in the number of graduates as compared with 2000 (corresponding to 12.6 MST graduates per 1000 young people aged 20-29).

MST (or STEM) graduates have progressed significantly, indeed, by 2008, growth in the number of new mathematics, science and technology graduates was more than twice the level needed to meet the benchmark (Striedinger & al, 2006, 11).

S-TEAM has been successful in raising awareness of the desirability of changing teaching methods, in response to the twin challenges of increasing the takeup of science-based careers and increasing scientific literacy. We have engaged with a wide variety of stakeholders, ranging from individual teachers to policymakers at the highest level in some of the partner countries. In general, stakeholders have been sympathetic to the overall aims of S-TEAM and in some cases, have undertaken to support teacher professional development activities or other measures.

In general, there are continuing processes of curriculum revision or redesign across most European countries. The recent Eurydice report on science education in Europe (Eurydice, 2010) describes a wide range of current initiatives, and the experience of S-TEAM is that initiative fatigue is a factor in preventing wider adoption of IBST. In particular, problems occur when inquiry is already mentioned in policy documents, since ownership of reform initiatives is an important factor in their success. Thus, policymakers often wish to promote their own policies at the expense of external initiatives.

There is clearly a strong drive from the EU to promote inquiry-based science, but there is a debate as to whether this stems from a societal desire for change in education. It is reasonably clear that there is an overall societal desire to improve the overall outcomes of education, and this is variously expressed as a desire for better teaching, better teachers, better or differently organised schools, or more inclusive and equitable education. Obtaining a more inclusive attitude towards science is part of the current round of projects in FP7, especially in terms of a better gender balance in science classes. The forthcoming call for research in the application of inquiry to improving the performance of low achieving students (SiS 2013 draft work programme) is also a significant move in this direction. Nevertheless, a recent Eurobarometer survey suggests that young people are not so much 'anti-science' as 'anti-science careers', suggesting perhaps that there is not a strong link between science topic choices at school and science career choices at a later stage. Moreover, considering the prominence of rhetoric about industrial transformation and the pace of change in policy discourse, it is not surprising that career choices should be less predictable than in previous decades.

Meanwhile, in contrast to career choices, the need for overall scientific literacy is generally better established, both in public opinion and in national policies. In WP8, we have used scientific literacy as a tool to engage teachers in reflection on inquiry-based teaching, and have analysed policy documents to produce concept maps of how scientific literacy is dealt with in different national concepts.

One of the conclusions reached by S-TEAM is, therefore, that the aims of teachers should be more congruent with the aims of society. Rather than being asked to instigate change through the implementation of short-term initiatives, the nature of teaching itself needs to be realigned to the more open societal aims and fluid futures to which inquiry can contribute. In turn, this implies that teacher education should take the principles of inquiry on board and that a new generation of teachers should take on the challenge of implementing inquiry on a very large scale across Europe.

In S-TEAM we have produced materials, such as web-based modules in specific disciplines, which contribute to a more inquiry-based initial teacher education in science. Beyond this, we have begun to expand our web presence to include teacher driven websites, which embody the spirit of inquiry and teacher empowerment. Additionally, however, there is a societal effect produced by the presence of EU projects in education systems more generally.

This effect is manifested in a creative tension between national or local systems and the emerging space of European action in education. With the increasing participation of local actors in EU projects, a critical mass of these actors is often created within national systems leading to new possibilities. For example, we are in the process of initiating a Centre for Inquiry-Based science education in a London borough, in collaboration with other EU-funded projects (Pathway/Fibonacci). This in turn leads to the involvement of such actors in the creation of future projects in the area of STEM education, should funding opportunities arise.

Europe as educational laboratory

The current round of FP7 projects in science and mathematics education has in effect turned Europe into a laboratory for new methods, although of course these methods have been present in educational practice for some time. The laboratory metaphor is appropriate as the European nature of projects such as S-TEAM provides opportunities for a kind of 'peer review' of ongoing, experimental initiatives. This is more than the sharing of 'best practice', which in any case is a problematic term within education generally. We prefer the concept of 'shared professional learning'.

S-TEAM has shown that although the concept of best practice is culturally specific within national systems, it is possible to establish common principles (see del.3b) which underpin better professional learning. Shared professional learning describes what has happened within and across European projects. Transferring the principles produced in this learning process is more effective than simply providing examples of practices. In fact, it is the provision of time and space for professional learning to take place that is the single most valuable feature of EU projects. In this respect, it is important to point out that the issue of teacher replacement costs has been troublesome from the negotiating phase onwards. Despite the obvious need, as expressed in this and subsequent calls, for concrete arrangements to facilitate the participation of teachers, it has been unclear as to how to handle the costs of teacher participation. There appears to have been an EC legal department ruling preventing projects from claiming teacher replacement costs, and this will be a major obstacle for future projects, especially in the current climate.

On the other hand, there are constraints, which arise from the pre-determined structure of EU projects. The chief constraint is time, since achieving sustained educational change is a long process. Neither the time frame of a typical EU project, nor the average length of the political cycle, are sufficient to sustain radical change in education systems, given the need to gain the trust of teachers, empower them through self-reflection on practice and then scale up the requisite programmes. Currently, the parallel actions being taken in STEM education by EU projects such as PRIMAS and Fibonacci are achieving similar results to S-TEAM in terms of reports, numbers of teachers exposed to inquiry-based methods and a gradual process of embedding inquiry in the collective educational consciousness.

As mentioned briefly in the previous section, inquiry could be regarded as a meta-level epistemological stance towards knowing. At this level, inquiry becomes an essential way of achieving societal change (Jordan 2011). There is no point, however, in engaging in inquiry if the results are pre-determined and there is nowhere to go with its results.

Global challenges

In the S-TEAM project we have been fortunate in having the input of Professor Richard Duschl of Penn State University, USA. This has enabled us to compare our own work with current initiatives in the United States. Here, inquiry is shading into a blend of scientific practices, key ideas and cross cutting concepts. Whilst the term 'inquiry' is being used less, the core ideas in the US are in alignment with those used in S-TEAM. Diagram no 2 in attachment provides an example of this way of approaching inquiry.

Responsible Research & Innovation: the role of inquiry-based science teaching/education

The main thrust of current EU policy is to encourage Responsible Research and Innovation and Smart Green Growth as a means of recovering from current economic difficulties. The contribution of IBST to this policy is currently peripheral, given the long timescale of education systems, typically twenty+ years from kindergarten to graduate, and perhaps 25+ for a doctoral degree. Variations in teaching methods could produce more imaginative, scientifically inclined citizens and workers, but the effects of macro-economic factors will be such as to outweigh these variations, given the size and positioning of current projects.

The evidence from S-TEAM is that IBST could have much greater effects, but only if bold moves are made to free European education from rigid curricula, outmoded assessment systems and to drastically increase the connections between science, industry and education. This is something eminently achievable in Horizon 2020, since the societal challenges in the 2020 programme could all potentially be addressed by collaborative research in which inquiry based science teaching, and schools as communities of inquiry, played a part, along with industrial research organisations and universities.

Learning for future projects

S-TEAM provided a great deal of learning in terms of future projects in this area. One of the main problems identified in both the WP9 final report and the external evaluation reports was the complexity of the project structure. This results from the use of existing methods in IBST as required by the call. The work package structure imposed by the template for the Technical Annex and budget documents is more appropriate for scientific and technical projects aimed at producing and delivering specific artefacts or research results in a linear way, whereas the operation of Coordination and Support Actions (CSA) such as S-TEAM depends on processes of negotiation, acceptance and voluntary continuation. National education systems are sympathetic to inquiry-based science teaching but are not, as it were, 'expecting us to knock'. In other words, the success of such project depends on the good will of others, which cannot be taken for granted.

There is also a fundamental problem with the specification of EU project outcomes in terms of deliverables, aims, objectives and targets, which are not necessarily commensurable. Deliverables are essentially objects, whilst aims are specifications of desired changes, e.g. increasing the numbers of students going into scientific careers. The following points address the main areas of learning from S-TEAM regarding EU projects:

1) Appropriate, up-to-date research needs to be an integral part of all educational interventions. The idea of coordination and support actions (CSAs) is good but there should be better consultation and collaboration between project partners and Directorates at the planning and negotiating stages. The boundaries between research, coordination and support need to be better defined, and they should permit, for example, research to be conducted within CSAs where appropriate. The research base for Calls should also be specified more clearly, as current practice permits assumptions to be made on the basis of questionable evidence. This will place a greater burden on the DGs, but this could in turn be addressed by making better use of expert groups at the plaaning stage.
2) Educational interventions should be designed to be sustainable and to fit the extended timescales of education systems. The current duration of FP7 projects does not permit the kind of long-term mutual exchange and confidence building needed in this area. Furthermore, as one of our external reference group members pointed out at the 2011 Scientix conference, the proliferation of STEM education projects in itself is counterproductive, so long as there is no strong coordination between them.
3) There should be stronger coordination between projects, and better use should be made of results and experience across project clusters in particular topics or geographical areas. S-TEAM has made a start on this process, e.g. by holding a joint projects meeting in Hatfield, UK (November 2011) for partners in Fibonacci, Metafora, SED, Pathway and S-TEAM, generously hosted by the ASE. Continued actions of this type, however, would benefit from some kind of permanent organisation to facilitate meetings and pro-actively exchange information and resources. ProCoNet is exploring ways of doing this, subject to funding opportunities.
4) More flexible arrangements should be available for the participation of stakeholder groups such as schools, SMEs, Civil Society Organisations and others, who do not have the administrative capacity to participate as full partners in current programmes. Within S-TEAM we had a large group of universities in their role as teacher education institutions. These all have school networks with whom they collaborate, e.g. for student teacher placements. It would have been desirable to involve these schools and networks but they do not generally have the time or capacity to be fully involved as partners. A more flexible 'associate partner' provision should be written into EU financial guidelines to permit peripheral participation.
5) A range of research interests should be brought together in any EU-level intervention. S-TEAM benefitted from a diverse consortium, which included both science education specialists and those with more general teacher education expertise. Consortia with narrow interests may fail to take a sufficiently critical approach to problems, producing, for example, expensive IT solutions to relatively minor problems in the teaching of science.
6) The role of gender in STEM education is important but there are no simple answers across Europe since gender issues vary from country to country and from subject to subject. In general, inquiry-based methods promote the differentiation of students across all dimensions, including gender but also ethnicity, belief systems and of course ability, amongst others. Respect for diversity was therefore a guiding principle for S-TEAM activities rather than simply trying to adjust existing gender imbalances where these existed.
7) In general, the existence of European projects in STEM is highly desirable to create a critical perspective on national policies, to share existing research and to set future research agendas. In Horizon 2020, there should be an open approach to STEM education with the goal of aligning national systems towards more innovative, creative and engaging science and mathematics in schools, whilst maintaining rigour and promoting the mobility of students.

Project website: http://www.s-teamproject.eu/

Project coordinator:
Geir Karlsen, NTNU geir.stavik-karlsen@plu.ntnu.no

Acting coordinator:
Peter van Marion, NTNU peter.van.marion@plu.ntnu.no

Project manager:
Peter Gray, NTNU graypb@gmail.com

Final Report Summary - S-TEAM (Science Teacher Education Advanced Methods)

Share this page

Download