Inquiry-Based Science Education: Perspectives from Namibian Teachers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33830/ijrse.v6i1.1635Keywords:
Teachers’ conceptions, Teaching science, Inquiry-based instruction, Science practical work, Pedagogical approachesAbstract
In the evolving landscape of secondary school science education in Namibia, there is a growing shift from traditional rote-learning methodologies toward inquiry-based instruction and practical work to foster deeper learner engagement and critical thinking skills. This study, utilizing a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach, investigates the perceptions and practices of Namibian secondary school teachers regarding the implementation of inquiry-based science education. Despite the national curriculum's strong endorsement of learner-centered approaches, findings indicate a discrepancy between policy aspirations and classroom realities. Many teachers continue to rely on traditional methods due to persistent challenges such as inadequate resources, insufficient professional development, and entrenched instructional habits. However, those teachers who have adopted inquiry-based strategies report enhanced student engagement and a more profound understanding of scientific concepts among learners. This paper underscores the necessity for targeted professional development and resource allocation to bridge the gap between educational policy and practice, ultimately aiming to enrich science education through effective inquiry-based learning environments.
References
Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035–1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21036
Asheela, E. N. (2017). An intervention on how using easily accessible resources to carry out hands-on practical activities in science influences science teachers’ conceptual development and dispositions [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Rhodes University, Grahamstown. https://sl.ut.ac.id/4C0AmLFSFo
Asheela, E., Mlungisi Ngcoza, K., & Sewry, J. (2020). The use of easily accessible resources during hands-on practical activities in rural under-resourced Namibian schools. In School Science Practical Work in Africa (1st ed., pp. 14–31). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429260650-2
Bandura, A. (2014). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In Handbook of moral behavior and development (1st ed., pp. 69-128). Psychology press. https://sl.ut.ac.id/Y2eTCKnxua
Baptista, G. C. S., & Molina-Andrade, A. (2021). Science teachers’ conceptions about the importance of teaching and how to teach Western science to students from traditional communities. Human Arenas, 6(4), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-021-00257-4
Baroudi, S., & Rodjan Helder, M. (2021). Behind the scenes: teachers’ perspectives on factors affecting the implementation of inquiry-based science instruction. Research in Science and Technological Education, 39(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1651259
Bradley, J. (2021). Achieving the Aims of Practical Work with Microchemistry. In Research in Chemistry Education (6th ed., pp. 23–30). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59882-2_2.
Bueno, O. (2013). Perception and conception: Shaping human minds. Biosemiotics, 6(3), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-013-9170-z
Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A Review of Empirical Literature on Inquiry Professional Development: Alignment with Best Practices and a Critique of the Findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9275-2
Caravias, V. (2018). Teachers’ conceptions and approaches to blended learning: A literature review. In Online Course Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (1st ed., pp. 912-934). IGI Global. http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5472-1.ch046
Chan, K. K. H., & Hume, A. (2019). Towards a consensus model: Literature review of how science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is investigated in empirical studies. In Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (1st ed., pp. 3–76). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5898-2_1
Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Skjold, B. A., Mugaloglu, E. Z., Bentz, A., & Sparks, K. (2014). Pedagogy of science teaching tests: Formative assessments of science teaching orientations. International Journal of Science Education, 36(13), 2265-2288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.918672
Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In Handbook of Research on Science Education (2nd ed., pp. 529-556). Routledge. https://sl.ut.ac.id/88GM8PDlfO
Dawadi, S. (2020). Thematic analysis approach: A step-by-step guide for ELT research practitioners. Journal of NELTA, 25(1-2), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.3126/nelta.v25i1-2.49731
Demirdogen, B., & Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E. (2016). Closing the gap between beliefs and practice: Change of pre-service chemistry teachers' orientations during a PCK-based NOS course. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 818-841. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00062B
Dewey, J. (1929). The sphere of application of the excluded middle. The Journal of Philosophy, 26(26), 701-705. https://doi.org/10.2307/2014968
Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A Model Of Teacher Professional Knowledge And Skill Including Pck: Results of the thinking from the PCK Summit. In Innovations in Science Teacher Education (1st ed., pp. 28–42). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315735665-4
Hitchcock, J. H., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2020). Developing mixed methods crossover analysis approaches. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 63-83. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/1558689819841782
Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Abrahams, I. (2013). How to learn in and from the chemistry laboratory. In Teaching chemistry–A study book (pp. 153-182). Brill Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_6
Ireland, J. E., Watters, J. J., Brownlee, J., & Lupton, M. (2012). Elementary Teacher’s Conceptions of Inquiry Teaching: Messages for Teacher Development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(2), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-0119251-2
Jagodzinski, P., & Wolski, R. (2015). Assessment of Application Technology of Natural User Interfaces in the Creation of a Virtual Chemical Laboratory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9517-5
Jokiranta, K. (2014). The Effectiveness of Practical Work in Science Education. Jyvaskylan yliopisto: University of Jyvaskyla. https://sl.ut.ac.id/k6yG2wAEyx
Keller, M. M., Neumann, K., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement and interest. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(5), 586–614.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21378
Kidman, G. (2012). Australia at the crossroads: A review of school science practical work. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.815a
Lee, M & Sulaiman, F. (2018). The Effectiveness of Practical Work in Physics To Improve Students’ Academic Performances. People: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 1404-1419. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2018.33.14041419
Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2004). Specific design principles: Elaborating the scaffolded knowledge integration framework. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 315–339). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-95201-013
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), PCK and Science Education (pp. 95-132). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_4
Maseko, B., & Khoza, H. C. (2021). Exploring the influence of science teaching orientations on teacher professional knowledge domains: a case of five Malawian teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(12), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11333
Matos, D. A. S., & Jardilino, J. R. L. (2016). Os conceitos de concepcao, percepcao, representacao e crença no campo educacional: similaridades, diferencas e implicacoes para a pesquisa. Educacao Formacao, 1(3), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.25053/edufor.v1i3.1893
Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture. (2015). Physical Science Syllabus Grades 8 and 9. Okahandja: NIED. https://sl.ut.ac.id/hxSKSnEkK3
Mohammed, S. M., & Amponsah, K. D. (2021). Teachers’ and educational administrators’ conceptions of inquiry: Do they promote or constrain inquiry-based science teaching in junior high schools?. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 10(3), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v10n3p58
Mokiwa, H. O. (2014). Exploring the teaching of Physical Science through inquiry. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(1), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2014.11890166
Mokiwa, H. O., & Nkopodi, N. (2014). Inquiry-based teaching in physical science: Teachers’ instructional practices and conceptions. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23), 1074–1082. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n23p1074
Motlhabane, A. (2013). The voice of the voiceless: Reflections on science practical work in rural disadvantaged schools. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(14), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p165
Muyoyeta, N. K. (2018). Factors affecting Grade 12 learners' academic performance in the Namibia Senior Secondary Certificate ordinary level Biology in the Khomas educational region [Masters Dissertation]. University of Namibia. https://sl.ut.ac.id/GPWvSGaOp0
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K – 12 science Curriculum practices crosscutting concepts and ideas. Washington, DC: American Association for Advancement of Science. https://sl.ut.ac.id/t6gg5FJWhb
Nilsson, P., & Loughran, J. (2012). Exploring the Development of Pre-Service Science Elementary Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(7), 699–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9239-y
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Hitchcock, J. H. (2022). Towards a Comprehensive Meta-Framework for Full Integration in Mixed Methods Research. In The Routledge Handbook for Advancing Integration in Mixed Methods Research (pp. 565-606). Routledge. https://sl.ut.ac.id/U86beUAArI
Ramnarain, U. (2016). Understanding the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on inquiry-based science education at township schools in South Africa. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(4), 598-619. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21315
Ramnarain, U. (2021). School Science Practical Work in Africa; Experiences and Challenges; First Edition. Boca Raton: Routledge. https://sl.ut.ac.id/5jAm7a8e8N
Sedumedi, T. D. T. (2017). Practical work activities as a method of assessing learning in chemistry teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 1765–1784. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00697a
Shivolo, T. (2018). Teachers’ Pedagogical Orientations in grade 8 Teacher-orchestrated Chemistry Practical Demonstrations: A focus on Oshikoto Region, Namibia (Master’s Dissertation). Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved November 11 2023, from https://hdl.handle.net/10210/402293.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22. https://translance.net/upload/shulman1987_-_Copy_(3).pdf
Sofoklis, S., Rodger W., B., & Bogner, F. X. (2017). PATHWAYS – A Case of Large-Scale Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice in Scientific Inquiry-Based Science Education. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n2p8
Sshana, Z., & Abulibdeh, E. S. (2020). Science practical work and its impact on students’ science achievement. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 10(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.3926/JOTSE.888
Sundler, A. J., Lindberg, E., Nilsson, C., & Palmér, L. (2019). Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology. Nursing open, 6(3), 733-739. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.275
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2021). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. SAGE publications. https://sl.ut.ac.id/Rj0bwIFdOg
Taylor, D. L., & Booth, S. (2015). Secondary physical science teachers' conceptions of science teaching in a context of change. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1299-1320. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1035356
Twahirwa, J., & Twizeyimana, E. (2020). Effectiveness of Practical Work in Physics on Academic Performance among Learners at the selected secondary school in Rwanda. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 16(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajesms.v16i2.7
van Driel, J. H., Berry, A., & Meirink, J. (2014). Research on science teacher knowledge. In Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 862-884). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41413082
Wei, B., & Li, X. (2017). Exploring science teachers’ perceptions of experimentation: implications for restructuring school practical work. International Journal of Science Education, 39(13), 1775–1794. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1351650
Wei, B., & Liu, H. (2018). An Experienced Chemistry Teacher’s Practical Knowledge of Teaching with Practical Work: The PCK Perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(2), 452-462. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00254H
Wei, B., Chen, S., & Chen, B. (2019). An Investigation of Sources of Science Teachers’ Practical Knowledge of Teaching with Practical Work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(4), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9886-y
Wellington, J., & Ireson, G. (2012). Science learning, science teaching. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315623429
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Tomas Shivolo, Hamza Omari Mokiwa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Content Licensing, Copyright, and Permissions
1. License
International Journal of Research in STEM Education (IJRSE) adopts the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly works for non-commercial purposes.
The non-commercial use of the article will be governed by this license, which allows others to share and adapt the work provided proper attribution is given to the author(s) and the journal.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons License: CC BY-NC 4.0
2. Author's Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by the stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright vested exclusively in the author, is free of any third-party rights, and that all necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author(s).
3. User Rights
The International Journal of Research in STEM Education aims to disseminate published articles as freely as possible. Under the Creative Commons license, users are permitted to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work for non-commercial purposes only, provided that proper attribution is given to the author(s) and this journal.
4. Rights of Authors
Authors retain the following rights:
- Copyright and proprietary rights related to the article, such as patent rights.
- The right to use the substance of the article in future works (e.g., lectures, books).
- The right to reproduce the article for personal purposes.
- The right to self-archive the article.
- The right to enter into separate, additional non-exclusive contractual arrangements for the distribution of the article’s published version (e.g., posting to an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with acknowledgment of its initial publication in IJRSE.
If the author has a non-exclusive publishing contract with another publisher under a more restrictive license, the author still retains all rights to republish or distribute the work elsewhere, including commercially, as the author is not bound by the license conditions imposed on the journal.
5. Co-Authorship
If the article has multiple authors, the signatory of this agreement warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf and agrees to inform all co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
6. Termination
This agreement may be terminated by either the author or IJRSE with two months’ notice if the other party has materially breached this agreement and failed to remedy such breach within one month after receiving written notice.
No breach or violation of this agreement will cause automatic termination or affect the license granted to IJRSE.
7. Royalties
This agreement entitles the author to no royalties or other fees. To the extent legally permissible, the author waives the right to collect royalties in respect of any use of the article by IJRSE or its sublicensees.
8. Miscellaneous
IJRSE will publish the article (or have it published) once the editorial process has been successfully completed.
The journal reserves the right to edit the article for style, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, referencing, and consistency as deemed appropriate.
The author acknowledges that the article will be made publicly accessible, and such access will be free of charge for readers.
