Implementation of Inquiry-Based Science Education: Issues, Exemplars and Recommendations

SEAMEO RECSAM http://www.recsam.edu.
my/joomla/lsmjournal/
Implementation of Inquiry–Based Science Education:

Issues, Exemplars and Recommendations
Mazura Khalik1, Corrienna Abdul Talib1# & Intan Bidayu bte Mohd Rafi2#
1
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, MALAYSIA.
2
SMK Taman Universiti, Johor, MALAYSIA.
#
corresponding authors <[email protected]> and <[email protected]>
Received first draft 9 March 2018. Received reports from first reviewer (10 September) and second reviewer
(1 October). Received revised draft 15 December. Accepted to publish 20 December 2018.
Abstract
The introduction of Inquiry-based Science Education (IBSE) in education field was
inspired by constructivist learning theory. Constructivism refers to the idea that learners
construct knowledge and concepts for themselves. IBSE provides some of the criteria
required by the 21st century learning including creativity, critical thinking, communication
and collaboration. This study reports the output through systematic review on some of the
implementations of IBSE approaches that were familiar and effective to be used in Science
education such as 5E Model, 7E Model and Process–Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning
(POGIL). Some of the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches were determined.
It was proven that the effect of these approaches influences the students’ achievement,
attitude and self - confidence towards Science subject. Many problems encountered by the
Science instructors were detailed out so that a variety of modification methods could be
highlighted. A great number of teachers explained that they did not have a higher self–
efficacy to carry out the task based on IBSE principles. This was due to insufficient time,
resource materials and incompetent teaching skills. The ZYL Triangle Model was
recommended to be applied by the Science educators. It was an effective pedagogy
approach whereby its objective was to assist and guide teachers to conduct the classroom
and laboratory session systematically.
Keywords: Constructivist; Inquiry-based Science Education (IBSE); 5E/7E model;

Process–Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL); ZYL model; Self–efficacy
115
Learning Science and Mathematics Issue 13 December 2018 e-ISSN: 2637-0832 (online)
SEAMEO RECSAM http://www.recsam.edu.my/joomla/lsmjournal/
Introduction
Background and Overview
Education is the process of facilitating learning or acquisition of knowledge, skills, beliefs and
habits. It is a dynamic process and it changes with changing times. Teaching Science concerns
getting students ready to cope and adapt not only changes but also challenges in their lives. Many
researchers have observed the problem of students becoming uninterested in and demotivated to
learn science at a young age (Swarat, Ortony, & Revelle, 2012). The teaching and learning
approaches used and the quality of teaching is a major determinant of student engagement with
and success in school subjects (Tyler & Osborne 2012). Nearly 60 % of European students stated
that science teaching is not interesting enough and only 15% of them were satisfied with the quality
of science teaching in schools (MEYSCR, 2010).
Inquiry is a process that required students to understand the nature and properties of science where this
purpose can be achieved through scientific experiments. The objective of inquiry – based science
teaching is to improve students ‘understanding of concepts and procedures (Minner, Levy & Century,
2010). It is also important for the development of scientifically literate citizens (Goodrum & Rennie,
2007). The stages of inquiry include orientation phase, conceptualization phase, investigation phase,
conclusion phase and lastly discussion phase (Pedaste et al., 2015).
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, many countries are struggling to improve the equity
and quality of education by launching various educational reforms and practices. In order to ensure
all the students’ understand the nature of science and possess a higher ability to learn scientific
concepts, an educational practice known as Inquiry – based Science Education (IBSE) has been
introduced all over the world and is viewed as an effective approach for learning scientific concepts
and understanding the nature of science (NOS) in which the process of inquiry is key (Martina et
al., 2016). Decision making, critical thinking, tolerance, adaptability and autonomy are the
importance of competencies which are enhanced through IBSE (Aksela, 2010).
Spencer and Walker (2011) stated that young students nowadays tend to be motivated to learn and
curious to know towards the subject. The gap between how science subjects are taught and how
they are perceived in society nowadays become increase rapidly (Cakmakci et al. 2011, Osbone
2007). It is necessary to implement an effective teaching/learning method which can reduce the
gap between the understanding of nature based on the knowledge taught in school and
extracurricular knowledge obtained from different information sources (Ault & Dodick, 2010;
Bianchini, 2008). Therefore, teachers have big responsibilities to increase student’s interest in
Science education especially at an early age. For this reason, IBSE is becoming a popular choice
as a suitable educational method for the development of motivation, knowledge and right skills for
the students to enjoy learning the science subject.
Rationale and Objectives
The traditional and directed – teaching approach has long been criticized because it makes students
feel bored towards presentation, too much writing, less practical activity and students act only as
recipients of information. Wang and Wen (2010) stated that the direct teaching has a tendency to
restrict the development of students’ skill and abilities to make judgement. The traditional model
of teaching has been based on textbooks reading and lectures. This method of teaching is a one
way communication that have more teacher’s talking and students just listening to the input. In
this situation, students who succeed can memorize information and algorithm but fail to understand
116
the relevant concept and not a good problem–solver. For this reason, IBSE has been introduced so
that the learning session could be improved effectively and innovatively.
This study reports the output of analysis through systematic review on some of the implementation
of IBSE approaches that were familiar and effective to be used in science education such as 5E
Model, 7E Model and Process–Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). Some of the
advantages and disadvantages of these approaches were identified with discussion on issues and
illustrations on exemplars, subsequently recommendations for the future research.
Literature Review
Inquiry-based Learning: Concepts, Issues and Factors Influencing Inquiry Process
Studies had shown that the anxiety of the students towards Chemistry subjects are due to their negative
perception of this subject, lower interest and attitudes, wide range of syllabus to be covered, lack of
information and awareness about the future career, students’ background, the abstract nature of the
subjects, teacher–centered applications and lack of resources or teaching aids in laboratory and
traditional lecture session (Jegede, 2007; Kolomuc, Ozmen, Metin & Acisli, 2012; Nbina & Vico,
2010). Referring to an analysis made by two international assessments (i.e. TIMSS and PISA), the low
scientific literacy level among Malaysian students was revealed to be influenced by incompetency of
science teaching from the educators. According to the analysis made by TIMSS on 2007 and 2011,
most of the Malaysian students’ skills in conducting an experiment while doing an investigation.
Researchers have suggested that students’ learning should combined with an inquiry process similar
to the way scientists work (Anderson, 2007; Lederman et al. 2014). The term “acting like a scientist”
can be analogous to the procedural steps of “the scientific method” which required students to make
observations, construct research questions and hypotheses, implement investigations, analyze data,
develop conclusions and disseminate report findings with others. With regards to the integral part of
acting like a scientist, Schwartz, Lederman and Lederman (2008) stated that extensive social
interactions such as engaging in content specific discussions, defending arguments, reasoning for
decision making, making research conclusions, as well as demonstrating perseverance are also
included. Wong and Hodson (2008) determined that there are eight important factors which influence
the inquiry process as outlined below:
(1) various methods of investigation;
(2) consideration of existing theories throughout inquiries;
(3) recognition of the tentativeness of theories;
(4) creativity;
(5) the importance of peer review;
(6) social, political and cultural influences;
(7) funding and ethical issues; and
(8) collaboration and competition with other researchers, including also social interaction.
According to Hazelkorn et al (2015), inquiry-based science education (IBSE) has impacted science
curricula in a large number of European countries. This is because, most of the past research in more
than a decade proved that students’ motivation can be increased through by IBSE. For example, a study
that was conducted by Berg, Bergendahl and Lundberg (2003) found that students who experienced
IBSE opportunities lead to an increase in academic performance and motivation. A study by Gibson
and Chase (2002) also proved that 77 % of students who had successful experiences with IBSE tend
to show a positive interest in science subject. The pedagogy of IBSE allows pupils to develop their
conceptual understanding of scientific phenomena (Minner et al., 2010). Thus, it can be seen that IBSE
have positive impact on academic performance and motivation among students.
117
European Commission (EC) (2007) proposed the needs for teachers’ professional development (TPD)
to use variety of new teaching approaches which can stimulate students’ interest towards science
subjects. This new strategy focused more on student–centered education using inquiry and context –
based approaches. According to Anderson (2007), inquiry–based learning helps the students to build
their own knowledge through material that make up their world. The focus of inquiry –based activities
mostly has been on laboratory works to strengthen learning of concept and contents (Hogstrom,
Ottander & Benckert, 2006). This study was to detail out the limitation of implementing various
method of inquiry – based learning in science subjects due to the insufficient time and incompetent of
teaching skills by the chemistry instructor. A new approach of teaching skills will be recommended to
enhance the inquiry – based learning process.
IBSE Levels in Science Education
IBSE is age - specific when it is being applied to science education. Young students in primary
school are not able to conduct scientific research independently compared to secondary school and
university students. Therefore, it is necessary for teachers to develop the students’ skill gradually
and systematically based on their abilities in IBSE. Students play an important role in inquiry-
based science strategies that need to actively engage as to collect knowledge and develop their
own skills. The most important factor in developing the understanding of the student is to make an
observation and experience their own experiment. IBSE has been suggested to positively affect
learning outcomes of students by means of enabling open inquiries (Liang & Richardson, 2009).
In open IBSE, teachers encourage pupils to conduct a self-designed, interest-guided inquiry in
order to answer their own research question (Martina et al., 2016). During this process, the
important role of the teachers is directed towards facilitating, supporting and supervising their
pupils (Zion et al., 2007).
According to Banchi and Bell (2008), there are four levels of inquiry which are confirmation,
structured, guided and open inquiry. They also define that, these four IBSE levels depend on the
degree of teacher’s guidance. The following Table 1 shows the four levels of IBSE.
Table 1
Four IBSE Levels
IBSE Levels Questions Procedure Solution ( defined by
( defined by teacher ) ( defined by teacher ) teacher )
1) Confirmation Yes Yes Yes
2) Structured Yes Yes No
3) Guided Yes No No
4) Open No No No
Confirmation inquiry is necessary at the beginning of implementation where it involves the

confirmation and verification of laws and theories. The aims of the teacher are to develop
observational, experimental and analytical skills of the students. Student will follow the teacher’s
instruction when conducting the experiment.
For structured inquiry, teachers help students by asking questions and also provide the guidance.
They control the lesson procedures which should be followed, questions to be asked and the
making of the decision. The students are looking for solution using their inquiry and explain the
answer based on the evidence obtained. The details of the experiment are prepared by teachers but
118
they seek for the solution themselves. It is very important stage because it develops the potential
of students to perform high–level of inquiry.
In the third level of inquiry, i.e. guided inquiry, teachers play less role to guide the students where
they cooperate with students to define research questions and gives opinion on procedures to be
implemented by the students themselves. This will increase the level of confidence of the students
so that they can work independently to seek for the solutions. One of the study revealed that guided
inquiry is more compatible with constructivist learning where it is believed to produce more
effective learning output compared to other types of inquiry (Minner, et al., 2010).
During an open inquiry, a question to be asked, methods/procedures to be followed and decisions

to be made are some of the processes that will be experienced by the students (Taraban et al.,
2007). This highest level represents a real scientific research. A higher level of scientific thinking
and higher cognitive are required in this level where only certain types of students can apply this
stage. From the four levels of inquiry, it can be concluded that there was an increase in the level
of student - generated inquiry and responsibility increase as students move along the continuum.
Methodology
This study aims at exploring issues related to Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) with
exemplars and recommendations based on the findings from systematic review on previous
research conducted related to IBSE. Selection of suitable articles, documents, and journals were
done through keyword searches across multiple databases of academic publications that provide
information about IBSE in various peer-reviewed journal articles that were subscribed by the
researcher’s university.
Data Analysis and Discussions
This section discusses the findings through systematic review of literature related to the following
features and important aspects of IBSE:
1. Inquiry-based learning is a possible solution to address various issues in education.
2. 5E Model, 7E Model and Process–Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) are approaches
that were proven to have influenced students’ achievement, attitude and self-confidence towards
Science subject.
3. A great number of teachers explained that they did not have a higher self–efficacy to carry out
the task based on IBSE principles due to insufficient time, resource materials and incompetent
teaching skills. Hence the ZYL Triangle Model was recommended to be applied by the Science
educators as it was an effective pedagogy approach whereby its objective was to assist and guide
teachers to conduct the classroom and laboratory session systematically.
More elaborations will be made in the subsequent paragraphs.
Inquiry-based Learning as Possible Solutions to Address Various Issues
Inquiry-based learning is a possible solution to address the issue of students’ low motivation for
learning science subjects and is therefore included in several curriculum reforms in European countries
(Kearney, 2016) as well as in Malaysian syllabus. The new Malaysian curriculum that have been used
in 2017 which are Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (KSSR) and Kurikulum Standard Sekolah
Menengah (KSSM) basically provided a reform and fresh syllabus that focus on inquiry learning which
lead to higher order thinking skills. According to Capobianco and Feldman (2010), some examples of
the changing landscape in science education are the role of scientific inquiry, scientific research
practices and evidence–based claims in the science classroom. Inquiry– based science teaching
119
method has three mediums namely inquiry, discovery and experiences. Inquiry involves testing and
information searching which leads to discovery. After that, the discovery acts as a “tool” to gain
knowledge, build a concepts and make a generalization. With the addition of experiences factor, the
learning become easier to gather and collect the fact. Past research such as Lawson (1999) has showed
that students who are actively engaged to construct their own knowledge lead to a positive academic
achievement. According to Pedaste, Mäeots, Leijen, & Sarapuu (2012), inquiry also can be defined as
a process of discovering new causal relations, with the learner formulating and testing hypotheses by
conducting experiments and/or making observations. Through inquiry as a base of learning, there will
be progressive development of students’ scientific and thinking skills such as logical thinking, rationale
thinking, asking questions as well as problem-solving. Inquiry-based learning helps students to
understand the concept of the nature of science, enhance the development of scientific skills as well as
increase the students’ attitude and achievement towards science (Holloway, 2015).
The differences between traditional teaching method and inquiry–based teaching method as
elaborated by Franklin (2002) (Cited in Nurshamshida Md Shamsudin, Nabilah & Nurlatifah,
2013) are shown in the following Table 2.
Table 2
Comparison between Inquiry–Based and Traditional Teaching Method
Characteristics Inquiry-Based Traditional
Principle learning theory Constructivism Behaviourism
Student participation Active Passive
Student involvement Increased responsibilities Decrease responsibilities
Outcomes
Student role Problem solver Direction follower
Curriculum goals Process oriented Product oriented
Teachers role Guide / facilitator Director / transmitter
Implementation of IBSE and the Development of Models: Issues and Success Stories
Atkin and Karplus (1962) believed that textbook-based science teaching alone did not give students at
any age the integration of conceptual understanding of the process skills that he called ‘scientific
reasoning.’ Atkin and Karplus (1962) had introduced 3E Learning Cycle consists of exploration,
concept invention and concept application stages. Many versions of learning cycles exist, ranging
from 3E (Atkin & Karplus, 1967), 5E (Bybee, 1997) and 7E (Eisenkraft, 2003). 9E learning cycle is
also proposed (Kaur & Gakhar, 2014). ‘E’ letters indicates the phases of learning process (Bybee et
al., 2006). Each subsequent cycle of the model is an expansion starting from 3E Models.
I. 5E Model of Inquiry / 5E Learning Cycle
5E Model is one of many instructional approaches that supports the inquiry–based science learning
which has five components (Bybee & Landes, 1990). The “Five Es” which is an instructional
model for constructivism was developed by Roger Bybee, the innovators of Biological Science
Curriculum Studies (BSCS). Students use their previous experience and the first–hand knowledge
obtained from new explorations in trying to make sense of things (Newby, 2004). According to
National Research Council (2000), the 5E Learning Cycle is not only an inquiry–based teaching
approach but also constructivist–oriented strategy where the involvement of the students can be
seen in experimenting, questioning and investigation of the problems. This model gives the student
more opportunities to build their understanding of a concept during the teaching and learning
120
process (Bybee, 2002). The phases involve in this learning cycle can be described as shown in the
following Figure 1.
Figure 1. The 5E Learning Cycle Model.
In the engagement phase with ‘inquiry minds’, the attraction of students is initiated by the teachers
to make them curious about the concept that will be learnt. Teachers have more opportunities to
understand the knowledge and ideas possessed by the students that can be developed (Bybee,
2002). Teachers can invite students to construct their own questions about the process of scientific
inquiry.
During the exploration phase involving ‘working with questions’, an interaction of the students
with the materials and ideas through classroom as well as small group discussion is formed
(Llewellyn, 2005). Students can construct their understanding by observing, recording, describing,
comparing as well as sharing their experiences and ideas with others.
In the explanation phase involving ‘conducting a scientific investigation’, an opportunity is provided

to the students to connect their previous experience with current learning. They can gain the main ideas
of the module. The students can be involved in student – to – student discourse where they can explain
their ideas before debating to others. Students’ previous experience can be described easily by the
introduction of formal language, terminology, scientific terms and content information.
The elaboration phase involving ‘extension of conducting a scientific investigation’, an

opportunity is provided for the students to apply introduced concepts to new experiences
(Llewellyn, 2005). It enhances the use of scientific terms and descriptions of the students. They
can draw or make a conclusion from evidence and data obtained. Not only they can deepen their
understandings of concepts and processes but also can interact with others by discussing their
understanding of the problems. One example of the lesson plan is shown in Appendix A.
During the evaluation phase, the process of ‘pulling it all together’ is placed centrally in the model
where it provides a summative assessment of what students know and can do (Bybee, 2002).
Students can access their progress by comparing their current understanding with previous
knowledge. Rubrics (quantified and prioritized outcome expectations) determined hand-in-hand
with the lesson design, teacher observation structured by checklists, student interviews, portfolios
designed with specific purposes, project and problem-based learning products, and embedded
assessments are some of the tools that assist in diagnostic process.
121
Zaitoun and Zaitoun (2003) as well as Ahmed (2006) revealed that there are many advantages by
using 5E Models. It considers an individual differences, motivates the students to use their mental
process, show much attention to focus on the development of multiple thinking skills, discussion
and collaborative learning, helps to build an accurate understanding, provides the students with
various ways of evaluation, depends on the expansionist thinking as well as introduce progress in
knowledge and science as a way of research where the student follows the learning from micro to
macro, and based on an excitement to attract attention. Each phase of 5E Models has a certain
function where it can help formulating a better understanding of scientific and technological
knowledge, skills and attitudes of the learners, as well as to the teacher’s coherent instruction
(Bybee et al., 2006). By using the 5E Models, students could easily accessible to connect the new
knowledge with the existing prior knowledge.
One of the study conducted to investigate the effects of 5E Model on undergraduate students’
achievement and on their attitudes towards Chemistry subject found that, the achievement of the
students is higher when implementing the 5E Model as compared with traditional lecture–based.
This finding is consistent with the study conducted by Hwang, Wu, Zhuang and Huang (2013)
where students who experienced this model were quite successful and had less cognitive load as
compared to the students who experienced traditional teaching method. Koksal and Berberoglu
(2014) found that there is an increase towards students’ achievement and attitudes when
implementing this model. The achievement of students in electrochemistry course using this model
is higher than using the traditional method (Sen, 2015). It stated that attitude of the students can
be developed in a positive ways through inquiry–based learning (Gibson & Chase, 2002; Koksal
& Berberoglu, 2014). The learning motivation of the university students also increased when
implementing 5E mobile inquiry learning approach (Cheng, Yang, Chang & Kuo, 2016). The
improvement of primary school students’ achievement and attitudes towards science course in
terms of the subjects of reproduction, growth and living organics can be observed when
implementing the inquiry–based (Celik & Cavas, 2012).
A study was conducted by Sen and Ozyalcin Oskay (2017) on 34 undergraduate students in Turki
using 5E Learning Cycle to determine the effects of implementing this model towards chemical
equilibrium concept. The respondents were divided into two groups; [18 respondents = experimental
group (abbreviated as EG), 16 respondents = control group (abbreviated as CG)]. EG was exposed
to 5E learning methods and CG remained in a traditional teaching method for almost 5 weeks’
learning session. It was found that the achievement of the EG towards chemical equilibrium
concept was higher than CG. This finding gained through this experiment was parallel to the
previous study carried out by past researcher (Çelik & Çavaş, 2012; Nwagbo, 2006). The result
that there was no significant difference on cognitive and affective attitudes towards science was
contrast with findings obtained in previous studies in the literature.
The effectiveness of instruction based on 5E Learning Cycle Model towards the Biology subject
was revealed by many researchers where students gain better understanding about the concepts
(Balci, 2005; Garcia, 2005). Lee (2003) stated that students could understand about plant in daily
life better when taught by using this model. However there are no differences in academic
performances found when students were taught using this model (Poderoso, 2013; Greenmiller,
2014). There is also no significant difference on achievement and attitudes of the students (Gonen,
Kocakaya & Inan, 2006; Koseoglu & Tumay, 2010; Nuhoglu & Yalcin, 2006).
Some teachers said that 5E Model does not have any negative effects but they encounter many
problems when implementing this model in a classroom due to insufficient learning material and
equipment. All these materials are necessary for application of 5E Model where it could not be
conducted effectively due to the lack of these materials. Insufficient time for teaching sessions also
122
become part of the constraints. Teachers claimed that the application of this model was quite tiring.
Balci (2005) suggested that to ensure the successful implementation of this 5E Model, the teachers
should know how to construct and manage the classroom activities.
II. 7E Learning Cycle
7E Learning Cycle is an extension of 5E Model where its objective is to ensure teachers do not leave
out any important instructional components. Eisenkraft (2003) proposed elicit, engage, explore,
explain, elaborate, evaluate, and extend that makes up the 7E components. The main aim of this model
is to highlight the importance of previous understandings and transfer it into a new concept. Ozemen
(2004) emphasizes that the 7E Model was considered to be effective and could encourage students to
participate in learning session actively, assist them to conduct research properly, encourage the
exchange of ideas or communications and also enhance the problem–solving skills. This model also
able to give an opportunity for teachers to easily evaluate their students. The 7E Model (Figure 2)
allows the use of technology and become easier for educators to implement this model in school
(Ozemen, 2004). In 7E Model, the ‘engage’ phase in 5E Model is extended into ‘elicit’ and ‘engage’
phase.
Figure 2. Eisenkraft’s 7E Instructional Model.
Each explanation of every phase in 7E Model are described below (Kanli, 2009):
a) Engage phase - is a stage where motivation and interest of the students being developed.
This helps the students to focus on a problem and current situation properly.
b) Explore – this phase required some skills of scientific research where students are
given time to conduct experiment and opportunity for skills development.
c) Explain – students needed to collaborate with others for acceptance or rejection of

hypothesis they suggested. To consider whether the models should be accepted or not,
teachers need to provide specific explanation for the students to understand.
123
d) Elaborate – students need to conduct an experiment to test their new concept. Therefore
students can develop their knowledge and skills of the concept before application takes
place.
e) Extend – this stage needs the students to relate the existing concepts with real life so
that they can transfer their knowledge and skills obtained confidently.
f) Exchange – the presentation of data and graph are necessary for the students so that
they can form a discussion group to share their new findings.
g) Evaluate – students try to find answers from the data and evidence they obtained. The
evaluation by the teachers takes place formally and it is very important to give feedback
to the students’ performance.
According to the result of study conducted by Francis Adewunmi Adesoji and Mabel Ihuoma Idika
(2015), 7E Learning Cycle and case based-learning strategies have an effective effect towards
achievement and attitude of senior secondary schools’ students towards Chemistry subject as
compared to the traditional teaching method. Student who learned with 7E Learning Cycle
obtained a higher grade on Acid–Base course due to the existence of each phase of 7E that required
the students to check their own knowledge that can be used in further study (Eisenkraft, 2003). An
instructional material for chemistry, physics as well as biology topics based on 7E Model was
developed by Cepni, San, Gökdere and Küçük (2001) and the results revealed that students were
able to learn through this model. But teachers stated that too much time is required to use such
materials and schools encounter an insufficient of necessary physical condition.
On the other hand, some of challenges to implement this model is the competency of the teachers
to conduct this model which has different approaches compared to direct instruction (Krajcik, et
al., 1998). Past researches also had showed that teachers experienced difficulties in developing
learning activities based on 7E Model including how to relate the materials into real life. At stage
one of 7E Model (elicit), teachers required much time thinking about the concept, finding an idea
to relate this concept into real life as well as making relation and connection with new
circumstances. Another obstacles encountered by the group of chemistry teachers in this study
were they did not understand constructivist learning clearly, lack of skills to help learners to
discover the concepts, difficult to conduct experiment for classroom practice especially for organic
chemistry subject which originally has been taught without having lab experiments, teachers’
limited experience to apply 7E Model and time allocation issues.
III. Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL)
Process –Oriented Guided–Inquiry Learning (POGIL) is one of inquiry–oriented approach which is

promising and is better approach for university–level Chemistry courses. POGIL is an educational
philosophy and one of a classroom technique. A teaching strategy and a philosophy of learning are part
of elements of POGIL which aim to change from a ‘model of transmitting knowledge from teacher to
student’ to ‘a developmental model of student-centered instruction’ (Geiger, 2010). The National
Science Foundation (NSF) awarded large Systematic Change Initiative grants for the reform of
Chemistry Education in 1994 and 1995. The initiatives are Peer Led Team Learning (PLTL, 2007),
Molecular Science, which includes Calibrated Peer Review (CPR, 2001), ChemConnections Project
(2004), and Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). Through this grant, there was
116
greater success of the students in Chemistry course as a result of the understanding on how people
learn has been recognized.
As an instructional model, POGIL has been introduced to fulfill the goal of improving student
learning. POGIL is based on constructivist theory of learning in which the students work in a small
group and they are fully engaged in the learning session. The guided inquiry used becomes the
basis of designed materials which purpose is to guide the students to develop new knowledge
(Farrell, Moog & Spencer, 1999). The unique process of POGIL compared to Problem–Based
Learning and Peer–Led Team Learning are the use of the learning cycle to promote inquiry and
also focus more on students’ process skills to be developed through the use of defined team roles
(Eberlein, et al., 2008).
Major principles of POGIL are students actively engaged in learning session, thinking, analysing
data, drawing conclusions, and constructing their own knowledge rather than depend on the
teachers information, and interacting with peers by discussing their ideas together (Piaget, 1985).
There are three stages learning cycle of POGIL which are exploration, concept invention, and
application. These three stages were developed by Karplus in 1960s. This teaching method was
developed for elementary school sciences (Karplus, 1977).
According to Bobrowski (2007) through the ‘teacher–centered’ mode, an introductory courses

objectives remain at Level 1 of Bloom’s Taxonomy, the knowledge level achieved by
memorization with limited comprehension. The result is the students cannot explain the concept
correctly although they can be able solve the problems algorithmically (Pickering, 1990). On the
other hands, the study indicates that POGIL project has improved collaborative learning
environments for Chemistry courses. A small group learning activities is one of POGIL
instructional material which is suitable from introductory Chemistry to upper Chemistry such as
Physical Chemistry (Moog, 2006 & Spencer et al., 2003). It provides instructor support and
develops instructional materials since 2003 (Moog, 2006; Process Oriented Guided Inquiry
Learning, 2012; Spencer et al., 2003). Several challenges are faced by the students in Biochemistry
where it is built on fundamental of Biology and Chemistry subject. To solve unfamiliar problems
in Biochemistry subject, higher cognitive skills are required where it can be developed by
implementing POGIL (Zoller, 1993; Nygren in Beyerlein & Apple, 2005). The implementation of
POGIL in Organic Chemistry at seven institutions indicates that the percentages of the examination
score of the student in POGIL section are higher than the students in traditional lecture section
(Lewis & Lewis, 2005; Perry & Wight, 2008). There is also a positive achievement in cognitive
and affective skills when lecture session was replaced into small group active learning approach
(Baepler, Walker & Driessen, 2014). The students show a better attitude and self–efficacy during
the first time implementation of POGIL in general and organic chemistry courses (Chase, Pakhira,
& Stains, 2013).
A study was conducted by Marazban Kotwal and Abilasha Jain (2015) on a group of 51 students of
T.Y.B.Sc., majoring in Chemistry at St. Xavier’s College in a course of on Spectroscopy (a
subdiscipline of Physical Chemistry) defined that POGIL activities need more coordination and
coordinating approach compared to traditional methods. About 59 % of these respondents strongly
agreed and 26 % of them agreed that POGIL activities boost their level of self–confidence towards
independent learning and found that peer–learning or cooperative learning which is an integrated part
of POGIL are advantageous. About 89 % of the students strongly agreed and agreed that there is an
improvement towards science concepts while 11 % of the students neither agreed nor disagreed about
this opinion. An improvement of student retention and performance was shown by 80 % of the students
which were strongly agreed and agreed while the remaining 20 % neither agreed nor disagreed
giving an indifferent opinion. This result also revealed that there is an increase in level of challenge
116
level with time in tandem with the students’ adaptation to the POGIL methodology. There is a
clear indication that POGIL has an ability to transform Chemistry education where the students’
understanding is deepened the responsibility of the students for learning is enhanced.
According to Sander and Sanders (2005), academic confidence is part of the concept of self–
efficacy. POGIL has shown its advantage to improve students’ confidence (Straumanis, 2010).
POGIL can increase the students’ confidence to study organic chemistry. Academic confidence
influences the studying, understanding, verbalizing, clarifying and attendance process (Sanders &
Sanders, 2005). POGIL can promote self–efficacy when students are involved in concept of
invention. Through this, they can discuss about their performances in task together with self–
efficacy while pursuing their academic goals.
The expansion and flexibility of POGIL make it differ from other inquiry–learning models. At its
first objective, POGIL was originally designed for general and organic Chemistry. Then, its use
was expanded into physical, analytical and biochemistry. Recently this approach was implemented
in biology, inorganic chemistry and in graduate level instruction. POGIL not only can be carried
out at university level but also at high school for chemistry subject (Trout, Padwa, & Hanson
(2008). POGIL can be adopted at any institution. It can be conducted based on the instructor’s
personality and style of teaching. POGIL was originally implemented at small classroom but
nowadays it can also be suited and modified for a large classroom (Yezierski, et al., 2008). The
use of technology such as tablet P-Cs (Mewhinney & Zuckerman, 2008), computer–based
assignments (Hanson & Apple, 2004) and classroom personal response clickers (Ruder &
Hunnicutt, 2008) can be applied together in POGIL classroom. There is also a shift from ‘technique
introduction’ and ‘concept verification’ to ‘concept development’ and scientific processes in
POGIL laboratories activities (Creegan, 2003; Kerner & Lamba, 2008). POGIL also can be
combined with other student–centered approaches such as problem–based learning (PBL) (Lees,
2008) and peer–led learning (Lewis & Lewis, 2005).
As a new approach to chemistry education, some teachers claimed that they are not familiar with
the POGIL’s technique. The level of challenges using the Accelerator Model shows that students
were also not happy due to insufficient of their cognitive and affective skills to maintain an
effective learning (Morgan & Apple, 2007). To increase an effectiveness of POGIL approach, the
size of the group should be limited only to three or four members including of higher and lower
performances of the students, different races and gender (Shatila, 2007). The differences of the
gender should be considered during the selection (Hanson, 2006). Therefore, the larger number of
groups will increase a greater intervention of teachers.
IV. ZYL Triangle Model
Most of the study strongly recommended that IBSE is one of effective way to implement at various
level of education. Learning at the 21st centuries should focus more on the activity of the students
rather than the presentation of the instructor. To enhance and develop the teachers’ competency in
teaching session, the ZYL Triangle would provide lots of benefits to the teacher when conducting
their science classroom or lab session. This model can be implemented together with another
inquiry–learning approaches. ZYL Model is one of pedagogical approach which describes each
phase for experiment, demonstration and simulation purposes (Nurshamshida Md Shamsudin et
al., 2013). It starts by reading the number sequences exits at the edge of the triangle (Figure 3).
Below is the detail about the ZYL Model:
117
a) Figure 3 shows ZYL Triangle Model on Experiment Pedagogy that is suggested to be

implemented before and during the experiment where it starts with explanation of the steps,
introduction by teachers on safety rules, discussion with the students about misconception
and explanation on the steps before conducting an experiment to ensure the experiment can
be performed systematically as well as finally discussion and finding steps together with
the students. By using this pedagogical approach, it helps the teachers to minimize mistakes
and also time consuming if they combine inquiry–learning along with this mode.
Figure 3. ZYL Triangle Model on experiment pedagogy.
b) Figure 4 describes about the ZYL Triangle Model on Demonstration Pedagogy Development
which begins by preparing materials, contents or aids that will be used in demonstration process
in the classroom. The focus point will be highlighted by the teachers so that student will know
what is going to be focused. Their knowledge and curiosity about the subject will be developed
later. Then teacher will respond about the students’ misconception before the actual
demonstration of the students starts. The discussion on the lesson which focus on the contents
of the topic will start so that teachers can evaluate about their understandings and can make a
suitable conclusion to foster the learning session.
Figure 4. ZYL Triangle Model on demonstration pedagogy development.

118
c) Figure 5 details out the ZYL Triangle Model on Simulation Pedagogy Development where
it required the creativity of teachers to prepare video, model or diagram to stimulate the
response of the students. The simulation process will start by explanation of the concept or
process where its aim is to construct the knowledge and curiosity of the students. The
discussion of misconception will be held and the teachers are encouraged to initiate the
questions to determine the students’ understanding. The last step is to analyze the
experience gained through this simulation.
Figure 5. ZYL Triangle Model on simulation pedagogy development.
Due to the insufficient time and incompetency to conduct IBSE approaches faced by the teachers,
this new pedagogical model is strongly suggested to be implemented together with another inquiry
learning approaches because it provides better guideline for the teachers to conduct the classroom
and laboratory. A few programs explaining and demonstrating the application of ZYL Model
should be organized to assist the teaching skills among the chemistry instructors. ZYL Model when
combining with another inquiry learning approaches should be slightly different among primary,
secondary and higher level of education.
Conclusion
The results of this systematic review show that IBSE is one of an inspiring instructional approach to
foster the science education in every level of education. Therefore, it is essential for teachers to enhance
their teaching skills so that the learning sessions can be conducted in a systematic process. Teachers
should notice about the presence and use of specific domains of knowledge which are the conceptual
domain, epistemic domain, social domain and procedural domain. The difference of the specific
domain in each stage of learning cycle should be addressed by the teachers. This is not only to
develop an excellent academic science-based knowledge of the students but also the capability to
conduct an experiment scientifically and to build their interest towards science subject.
119
Teachers need to transform their attitudes and competency teaching skills towards IBSE by
applying the inquiry–learning cycles with another relevant method such as ZYL Model or PBL
method. The inquiry learning cycles (5E and 7E Learning Cycles) are age–specific approaches. It
can be applied at each level of education by modifying certain elements present in every stage. For
primary school students, the teachers need to make their presentation in every step with interesting
and exciting introduction which can attract the children’s attention about the subject. It is very
important for young children undergo an enjoyable Science lesson so that they can understand the
concept of the subject and relate their understanding with the surroundings.
In many studies conducted, it was shown that IBSE has a potential to transform a formal Science
lesson to an enjoyable Science lesson for the primary school level students who can be exposed to
simple inquiry and fun hands–on activities. The curricula in school need to be redesigned so that
IBSE can be conducted efficiently. The school administration should pay attention on insufficient
time and resource materials that are parts of IBSE constraints. It is believed that IBSE can enhance
academic performance, attitudes, cognitive and affective domains of the students. By
implementing IBSE in science education, it is believed that there will be a great transformation of
every aspect of students’ development.
120
References
Ahmed, Ammal Mohammed (2006). The effect of using Bybee model in teaching science to modify
alternative scientific conceptions and the development of basic science operations at 10th
grade students. Egyptian Association for Science Education: Scientific Tenth Congress,
science education current and future challenges.
Aksela. M, J.A. (2010). Taking IBSE into Secondary School. Retrieved March 30, 2012, from
IAP-International Conference. Retrieved December 26, 2018 from: http://www.allea.org/
Content/ALLEA/WG%20Science%20Education/ProgrammeIBSE_YORK.pdf
Anderson, R.D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In: Abell, S.K., &
Lederman, N.G., (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 807-830.
Atkin, J.M. & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29(5), 45-51.
Ault, C. R. Jr., & Dodick, J. (2010). Tracking the Footprints Puzzle: The Problematic Persistence
of Science-as Process in Teaching the Nature and Culture of Science. Science Education,
94(6), 1092-1122.
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It's not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and
efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227-236.
Balcı, S. (2005). Improving 8th grade students’ understanding of photosynthesis and respiration
in plants by using 5E learning cycle and conceptual change text, Unpublished Master’s
thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The Many Levels of Inquiry. Science and Children, 2, 26-29.
Berg, C. A., Bergendahl, V.C.B. & B. K. S. Lundberg (2003). "Benefiting from an open-ended
experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-
inquiry version of the same experiment." International Journal of Science Education 25(3):
351-372.
Beyerlein, S. W. & Apple D. K. (Eds). (2005). Faculty Guidebook: A
Comprehensive Tool for Improving Faculty Performance, 2nd ed., Pacific Crest, Lisle, IL,
pp. 87–90.
Bianchini, J. (2008). Mary Budd Rowe: A storyteller of science. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 3, 799-810
Bobrowski, P. (2007). Bloom’s taxonomy: Expanding its meaning. In S. W. Beyerlein, D. K.

Apple & C. Holmes (Eds.), Faculty: A comprehensive tool for improving faculty
performance (4th ed., pp. 161-164). Lisle, IL: Pacifi c Crest.
121
Bybee, R.W. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
Bybee, R. W. (2002). Scientific inquiry, student learning, and the science curriculum. In: R. W.
Bybee (Ed.). Learning Science and the Science of Learning (pp. 25-35). Arlington, VA:
National Science Teachers Association.
Bybee, R., & Landes, N. M. (1990). Science for life and living: An elementary school science
program from Biological Sciences Improvement Study (BSCS). The American Biology
Teacher, 52(2), 92-98.
Bybee, R., Taylor, J., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes,
N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. Colorado Springs:
Office of Science Education National Institutes of Health. Retrieved December 15, 2018
from http://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/
b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix%20D.pdf
Cakmakci, G. Sevindik, H., Pektas, M., Uysal, A., Kole, F., & Kavak, G. (2011). Investigating
Turkish Primary School Students’ Interests in Science by Using Their Self-Generated
Questions. Research in Science Education. (In press).
Capobianco, B.M. & Feldman, Allan. (2010). Repositioning Teacher Action Research in Science
Teacher Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 21. 909-915. 10.1007/s10972-
010-9219-7.
Celik, K. & Cavas, B. (2012). Canlılarda Üreme, Büyüme ve Gelişme Ünitesinin Araştırmaya
Dayalı Öğrenme Yöntemi ile İşlenmesinin Öğrencilerin Akademik Başarılarına,
Bilimsel Süreç Becerilerine ve Fen ve Teknoloji Dersine Yönelik Tutumlarına Etkisi.
Ege Eğitim Dergisi, (13)2, 50–75
Çepni, S., Şan, H. M., Gökdere, M. & Küçük, M. (2001). Fen Bilgisi Öğretiminde Zihinde
Yapılanma Kuramına Uygun 7E Modeline Göre Örnek Etkinlik Geliştirme. Yeni Bin Yılın
Başında Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, Bildiri Kitabıs. 183-190, Maltepe Üniversitesi
Eğitim Fakültesi, İstanbul (In Turkish).
Chase, A., Pakhira, D., & Stains, M. (2013). Implementing process-oriented, guided-inquiry
learning for the first time: Adaptations and short-term impacts on students’ attitude and
performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(4), 409-416. Retrieved March 24, 2018
from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300181t
ChemConnections Project. (2004). W.W. Norton & Co. (interdisciplinary modules for
introductory college chemistry). University of Micihigan’s Global Change I Course: A
Technology-Enhanced Interdisciplinsry Learning Environment. Author.
122
Cheng, P. H., Yang, Y. T. C., Chang, S. H. G., & Kuo, F. R. R. (2016). 5E Mobile inquiry
learning approach for enhancing learning motivation and scientific inquiry ability of
university students. IEEE Transactions on Education, 59(2), 147-153.
CPR (2001). Calibrated Peer Review Home Page. Retrieved March 11, 2018 from
http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/
Creegan, F. (2003). POGIL in the organic chemistry laboratory. Retrieved March 10, 2018 from
http://creegan.washcoll.edu/gilabs/
Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T. Varma-Nelson, P. & White,
H. B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and
PLTL [Electronic version]. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education. 36(4), 262-
273.
Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E model. Science Teacher. 70(6), 56-59.
European Commission (2007). Communication from the European Commission to the European
Parliament: Improving the Quality of Teacher Education. Brussels, August 2007.
Farrell, J. J., Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (1999). A guided-inquiry general chemistry course.
Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 570-574.
Francis Adewunmi Adesoji & Mabel Ihuoma Idika (2015). Effects Of 7e Learning Cycle
Model And Case-Based Learning Strategy On Secondary School Students’ Learning
Outcomes In Chemistry. JISTE. 19(1), 7-16
Garcia, C. M. (2005). Comparing the 5Es and traditional approach to teaching evolution in a
hispanic middle school science classroom. Unpublished master thesis, California State
University, USA.
Geiger, M. P. (2010). Implementing POGIL in Allied Health Chemistry Courses: Insights from
Process Education. Retrieved April 10, 2018 from
http://www.processeducation.org/ijpe/2010/pogilh.pdf
Gibson, H.L. & Chase, C. (2002) Longitudinal Impact of an Inquiry-Based Science Program on
Middle School Students’ Attitudes toward Science. Science Education, 86, 693-705.
Gonen, S., Kocakaya, S., & Inan, C. (2006). The effect of the computer assisted teaching and 7E
model of the constructivist learning methods on the achievements and attitudes of high
school students. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology—TOJET, 5(4),
82-88.
Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. (2007). Australian school science education national action plan
2008- 2012. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Science and Training.
123
Greenmiller D.K (2014) The Effect of Inquiry Based, Hands- on Labs on Achievement in Middle
School Science. Dissertation Presented on Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the
Degree Doctor of Education, Liberty University.
Hanson, D. M. (2006). Instructor’s guide to Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning. Lisle,
IL: Pacific Crest
Hanson, D. M., & Apple, D. K. (2004). Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning assessment:
Process - The missing element. Volume IV: What matters, what works, what lasts. Project
Kaleidoscope. Retrieved March 12, 2018 from http://www.pkal.org/documents/hanson-
appleprocess--the-missing-element.pdf
Hazelkorn, E., Ryan, C., Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, C., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., & Welzel-
Breuer, M. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship (No. EUR 26893).
Brussels: European Commission – Research and Innovation.
Högström, P., Ottander, C., & Benckert, S. (2006). Lärares mål med laborativt arbete: Utveckla
förståelse och intresse. NorDiNa, 5, 54-66
Holloway, C. E. (2015). Teacher’s level of ınquıry-based chemıstry and student’s attıtude about
hıgh school chemıstry (Dissertation). University of Alabama, USA.
Hwang, Gwo-Jen & Han Wu, Po & Yen Zhuang, Ya & Huang, Yueh-Min. (2011). Effects of the
inquiry-based mobile learning model on the cognitive load and learning achievement of
students. Interactive Learning Environments. 21(4), 1-17.
10.1080/10494820.2011.575789.
Jegede, S. A. (2007). Students’ anxiety towards the learning of chemistry in some Nigerian
secondary schools. Educational Research and Review, 2(7), 193-197.
Kanlı, U. (2009). Yapılandırmacı kuramın ışığında öğrenme halkasının kökleri ve evrimi: Örnek
bir etkinlik [Roots and Evolution of Learning Cycle Model in Light of Constructivist
Theory-A Sample Activity]. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 34(151), 44-64.
Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 14 (2), 169-175.
Kaur, P., & Gakhar, A. (2014, December). 9E model and e-learning methodologies for the
optimisation of teaching and learning. In MOOC, Innovation and Technology in Education
(MITE), 2014 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 342-347). IEEE.
124
Kearney, C. (2016). Efforts to Increase Students’ Interest in Pursuing Science, Technology,

Engineering and Mathematics Studies and Careers. Retrieved April 25, 2018 from
http://www.eun.org/publications/detail?publicationID=783.
Kerner, N. K., & Lamba, R. (2008). Guided-inquiry experiments for general chemistry: Practical
problems and applications. New York: John Wiley and Sons
Koksal, E. A., & Berberoglu, G. (2014). The Effect of guided-inquiry instruction on 6th grade
Turkish students’ achievement, science process skills, and attitudes toward science.
International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 66-78.
Kolomuc, A., Ozmen, H., Metin, M., & Acisli, S. (2012). The effect of animation enhanced
worksheets prepared based on 5E model for the grade 9 students on alternative conceptions
of physical and chemical changes. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Science, 46, 1761-
1765. Retrieved April 25, 2018 from doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.374
Koseoglu, F., & Tumay, H. (2010). The effects of learning cycle method in general chemistry
laboratory on students’ conceptual change, attitude and perception. Journal of Kirsehir
Education Faculty, 11(1), 279-295.
Kotwal, Marazban & Jain, Abhilasha (2015). Implementing process-oriented guided inquiry
learning in an undergraduate physical chemistry class: A survey of student perception and
attitudes, Journal of Applicable Chemistry. 4(6), pp. 1584-1591.
Krajcik, J.S., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R.W., Bass, K., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). First
attempts at inquiry strategies in middle school, project-based science classrooms. Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313–350
Lawson, V. (1999). “Tailoring is a profession, seamstressing is work!” Resiting work and

reworking gender identities among artisanal garment workers in Quito. Environment and
Planning A. 31, 209-27
Lederman, J.S., Lederman, N.G., Bartos, S.A., Bartels, S.L., Meyer, A.A., & Schwartz, R.S.
(2014). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry—The
views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 51(1), 65-83.
Lee, C. A. (2003). A learning cycle inquiry into plant nutrition. The American Biology Teacher,
65(2), 136-144.
Lees, A. B. (2008). Chapter 15: Making science accessible in the lives of nonscience majors
using POGIL and projectbased learning. In R. S. Moog, & J. N. Spencer (Eds.), Process
Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). (pp.173-185). Washington, DC: American
Chemical Society.
125
Lewis, S. E., & Lewis, J. E. (2005). Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided
inquiry alternative. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(1), 135-139.
Liang, L. L., & Richardson, G. M. (2009). Enhancing prospective teachers’ science teaching
efficacy beliefs through scaffolded, student-directed inquiry. Journal of Elementary
Science Education, 21 (1), 51–66.
Llewellyn, D. (2005). Teaching high school science through inquiry: A case study approach.
Thousand Oaks, CA: NSTA Press & Corwin Press.
Martina S. J. van Uum, Roald P. Verhoeff & Marieke Peeters (2016). Inquiry based science
education: towards a pedagogical framework for primary school teachers. International
Journal of Science Education, 38:3, 450-469
MEYSCR (2010). Talent nad zlato. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports CR (MEYSCR).
Retrieved April 15, 2018 from http://userfiles.nidm.cz/file/KPZ/KA1-vyzkumy/brozura-
talentnadzlato-web.pdf
Minner D.D., Levy, Abigail & Century, Jeanne. (2010). Inquiry-based science
instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to
2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 47, 474-496.
Moog, R. S. (2006). The POGIL Project: NSF-CCLI Phase 3 DUE-0618746.
Morgan, J., & Apple, D. K. (2007). The Accelerator Model. In S. W. Beyerlein, D. K. Apple &
C. Holmes (Eds), Faculty guidebook: A comprehensive tool for improving faculty
performance (4th ed., pp. 503-506). Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nbina, J. B., & Vico, B. (2010). Effects of instruction in metacognitive self-assessment strategy
on chemistry students’ self-efficacy and achievement. Academia Arena, 2(11). Retrieved
April 26, 2018 from
http://www.sciencepub.net/academia/aa0211/01_3685aa0211_1_10.pdf
Newby, D.E. (2004). Using inquiry to connect young learners to science. Retrieved April 26, 2018
from http://www.nationalcharterschols.org/
uploads/pdf/resource20040617125804using%20Inguiry.pdf
Nuhoglu, H., & Yalcin, N. (2006). The effectiveness of the learning cycle model to increase
students’ achievement in the physics laboratory. Journal of Turkish Science Education,
3(2), 49-65.
126
Nurshamshida Md Shamsudin, Abdullah, Nabilah & Yaamat, Nurlatifah. (2013). Strategies of

Teaching Science Using an Inquiry based Science Education (IBSE) by Novice Chemistry
Teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 90. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.129.
Nwagbo, C. (2006). Effects of two teaching methods on the achievement in and attitude to
biology of students of different levels of scientific literacy. International Journal of
Educational Research, 45, 216-229. Retrieved April 26, 2018 from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.11.004
Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173-184.
Ozmen H. (2004). Learning theories and technology – Assisted Constructivist Learning in

Science Education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), 14.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Leijen, Ä., & Sarapuu, T. (2012). Improving students’ inquiry skills
through reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and
Learning. 9(1-2), p.81-95.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T. &
Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle.
Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61.
Perry, M. D., & Wight, R. D. (2008). Chapter 20: Using an ACS general chemistry exam to
compare traditional and POGIL instruction. In R. S. Moog, & J. N. Spencer (Eds.),
Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) (pp. 240-247). Washington, DC:
American Chemical Society.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibrium of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual
development. (T. Brown & K. J. Thampy, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pickering, M. (1990). “Further Studies of Concept Learning Versus Problem Solving.” Journal
of Chemical Education, 67, 254 – 255.
PLTL (2007). Peer-led team learning workshop project home page. Retrieved March 10,
2018 from http://www.pltl.org/
Poderoso, C. (2013). The Science Experience: The relationship Between an Inquiry-Based

Science Program and Student Outcomes. Retrieved April, 25, 2018 from Liberty
University website http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/
pqdtft/docview/1318596989/487E9985B3E425FPQ/2?accountid=12085.
Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning. (2012). Retrieved April 13, 2018 from
http://www.pogil.org
127
Ruder M, Suzanne & Hunnicutt, Sally. (2008). POGIL in Chemistry Courses at a Large Urban
University: A Case Study. 994. 133-147. 10.1021/bk-2008-0994.ch012.
Sander, P., & Sanders, L. (2005). Measuring confidence in academic study: A summary report.
Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology and Psychopedagogy, 1(1), 1-
17.
Schwartz, Renee’ & Lederman, Norman & Lederman, Judith. (2008). An Instrument To Assess
Views Of Scientific Inquiry: The VOSI Questionnaire.
Sen, S. (2015). Investigation of students’ conceptual understanding of electrochemistry and self-

regulated learning skills in process oriented guided inquiry learning environment
(Unpublished Dissertation). Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Şen, Şenol & Ozyalcin Oskay, Ozge. (2017). The Effects of 5E Inquiry Learning Activities on
Achievement and Attitude toward Chemistry. Journal of Education and Learning. 6. In
Press.
Shatila, A. (2007). Assessing the impact of integrating POGIL in elementary organic chemistry.
Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest Information and Learning Company.
Spencer, J. N., Moog, R. S., Creegan, F. J., Hanson, D. M., Wolfskill, D. M., Straumanis, A., &
Bunce, D. M. (2003). Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning: NSF (DUE-0231120).
Spencer, T.S., & Walker, T.M. (2011). Creating a Love for Science for Elementary Students
through Inquiry-based Learning. Journal of Virginia Scence Education, 4(2), 18-21.
Straumanis, A. (2010). Classroom implementation of process oriented guided inquiry learning: A

practical guide for instructors. Retrieved December 25, 2018 from
http://guidedinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/IG_2e.pdf
Swarat, S., A. Ortony, & W. Revelle. (2012). Activity Matters: Understanding Student Interest
in School Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49(4), 515–537.
Taraban, Roman; Box, Cathy; Myers, Russell; Pollard, Robin & Bowen, Craig W. (2007).
Effects of Active-Learning Experiences on Achievement, Attitudes, and Behaviors in High
School Biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 960-979
Trout, L., Padwa, L., & Hanson, D. (2008). Chapter 10: POGIL in the high school chemistry
classroom. In R. S. Moog, & J. N. Spencer (Eds.), Process Oriented Guided Inquiry
Learning (POGIL) (pp.114-121). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Tyler, R., & J. Osborne. (2012). “Student Attitudes and Aspirations towards Science.” In B. J.
Fraser, K. G. Tobin, and C. J. McRobbie (Eds.) (2012). Second
International Handbook of Science Education, 597–625. Dordrecht: Springer.
128
Wang, J., & Wen, S. (2010). Examining reflective thinking: a study of changes in methods
students’ conceptions and understandings of inquiry teaching. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education. 1-21. Retrieved April 25, 2018 from EBSCO.
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4F6CBAE4E3BBD1F0DC2A
Wong, S.L., & Hodson, D. (2008). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific
investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 1-22.
Yezierski, E. J., Bauer, C. F., Hunnicutt, S. S., Hanson, D. M., Amaral, K. E., & Schneider, J. P.
(2008). POGIL implementation in large classes: Strategies for planning, teaching, and
management. In Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) (pp. 60-71). (ACS
Symposium Series; Vol. 994). American Chemical Society.
Zaitoun, Hassan & Zaitoun, Kamal Abdul Hamid (2003). Teaching Strategies, a contemporary
vision of teaching and learning method. Cairo, the world of books.
Zion, M., Cohen, S., & Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices.
Research in Science Education, 37(4), 423–447.
Zoller, U. (1993). Are lecture and learning compatible. Journal of Chemical Education. 70:195-
197.
Appendix A
Example of Lesson Plan by Using 5E Model

129
Theme : Maintenance and Continuity of Life

Topic: Cell as the basic unit of life
Objective Understanding cell in term of cell structure, function and

organization.
Learning Standard : 2.1.1

Explain that living things are made up of cells that carry out
life’s functions and undergo cell division
2.1.2
Demonstrate the preparation of slides of animal cells and plant
cells using the correct procedures
2.1.3
Communicate about each structures in cells with their functions
as well as compare and contrast animal cells with plant cells.
Learning Activity in class Notes

Development
Before start the class, teacher need to clarify with students the objective learning of today’s
class.
Learning Objective: Understanding cell in term of cell structure, function and

organization
Engage Identify the prior knowledge through context.
1. Uncover the prior knowledge of students’

with analogy such as building structure. Teacher’s exploit
Relate the basic unit to build a house or students thinking skill to
building is by using bricks with the basic unit understand the concept of
of life. cell as the basic unit of
life.
2. Ask question as follow: Teachers are encouraged

to ask a question and
 What is the most basic thing for every brainstorming with the
living things? students to uncover
student ideas about one
science concept
130
3. Students are encourage to build a Teacher need to stimulate

questions for the next investigation: students to raise a
 Are all living things built from cells? questions about the topic
 Can cells reproduce? that will be learn.
 How does animal cell look like?
 How does plant cell look like?
 Does animal cell and plant cell have the same
shape?
 What are the difference between animal cell
and plant cell?
Explore 4. Conducting scientific investigations about Students plan and

animal cell and plant cell through conduct the exploration
microscope. activity based on
questions raised in a
The questions that can be raised during the group.
exploration activity are as follows:
As students carry out the
 How can a student study the appearance activities, the teacher
of a cell? need to raise a questions
as a guidance for
 What are the investigation steps needed students to lead for next
for students to study abut cell? focus which is the
structure of animal and
plant cell.
 What are the structure that students might
found in during the exploration?
5. Draw animal cell and plant cell that have Students record the
been observed under microscope. findings in an individual
practice report books
notes.
6. Teacher exhibit a diagram of animal cell and Teacher can use cards
plant cell while guiding students towards the that are labeled with
function of the cell structure component functions to
be matched to the cell
diagram.
Explain 7. Students communicate the exploration Students present the
findings with the multimedia. findings as a group.
Question that can be ask to students:

 What are the findings that can be share Teacher reviews the
about cell structure and function of the findings and solidifies
cell that be seen under the microscope? the understanding of
science concepts from
student presentations.
131
Elaborate Develop the idea in new situation. Teacher can use

multimedia to show to
students about cancer
8. Teacher guide students to understand the cell.
concepts of cell also carry out some process
to live and ask students to make the
comparison of healthy cell and the cancer
cell.
Evaluate Teacher can use some worksheet or module to

evaluate students understanding.
Important:
Teacher must make a summary together with the students about what have they learned for
today class.
132

Implementation of Inquiry-Based Science Education: Issues, Exemplars and Recommendations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Implementation of Inquiry-Based Science Education: Issues, Exemplars and Recommendations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Implementation of Inquiry-Based Science Education: Issues, Exemplars and Recommendations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEAMEO RECSAM http://www.recsam.edu.

Implementation of Inquiry–Based Science Education:

Keywords: Constructivist; Inquiry-based Science Education (IBSE); 5E/7E model;

Background and Overview

Rationale and Objectives

Inquiry-based Learning: Concepts, Issues and Factors Influencing Inquiry Process

IBSE Levels in Science Education

Confirmation inquiry is necessary at the beginning of implementation where it involves the

During an open inquiry, a question to be asked, methods/procedures to be followed and decisions

Data Analysis and Discussions

More elaborations will be made in the subsequent paragraphs.

Inquiry-based Learning as Possible Solutions to Address Various Issues

I. 5E Model of Inquiry / 5E Learning Cycle

Figure 1. The 5E Learning Cycle Model.

In the explanation phase involving ‘conducting a scientific investigation’, an opportunity is provided

The elaboration phase involving ‘extension of conducting a scientific investigation’, an

II. 7E Learning Cycle

Figure 2. Eisenkraft’s 7E Instructional Model.

c) Explain – students needed to collaborate with others for acceptance or rejection of

III. Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL)

Process –Oriented Guided–Inquiry Learning (POGIL) is one of inquiry–oriented approach which is

According to Bobrowski (2007) through the ‘teacher–centered’ mode, an introductory courses

IV. ZYL Triangle Model

a) Figure 3 shows ZYL Triangle Model on Experiment Pedagogy that is suggested to be

Figure 3. ZYL Triangle Model on experiment pedagogy.

Figure 4. ZYL Triangle Model on demonstration pedagogy development.

Figure 5. ZYL Triangle Model on simulation pedagogy development.

Bobrowski, P. (2007). Bloom’s taxonomy: Expanding its meaning. In S. W. Beyerlein, D. K.

Bybee, R.W. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.

Kearney, C. (2016). Efforts to Increase Students’ Interest in Pursuing Science, Technology,

Lawson, V. (1999). “Tailoring is a profession, seamstressing is work!” Resiting work and

Moog, R. S. (2006). The POGIL Project: NSF-CCLI Phase 3 DUE-0618746.

Nurshamshida Md Shamsudin, Abdullah, Nabilah & Yaamat, Nurlatifah. (2013). Strategies of

Ozmen H. (2004). Learning theories and technology – Assisted Constructivist Learning in

Poderoso, C. (2013). The Science Experience: The relationship Between an Inquiry-Based

Sen, S. (2015). Investigation of students’ conceptual understanding of electrochemistry and self-

Straumanis, A. (2010). Classroom implementation of process oriented guided inquiry learning: A

Example of Lesson Plan by Using 5E Model

Theme : Maintenance and Continuity of Life

Objective Understanding cell in term of cell structure, function and

Learning Standard : 2.1.1

Learning Activity in class Notes

Learning Objective: Understanding cell in term of cell structure, function and

1. Uncover the prior knowledge of students’

2. Ask question as follow: Teachers are encouraged

3. Students are encourage to build a Teacher need to stimulate

Explore 4. Conducting scientific investigations about Students plan and

Question that can be ask to students:

Elaborate Develop the idea in new situation. Teacher can use

Evaluate Teacher can use some worksheet or module to

You might also like