Taking IBSE into Secondary Education

Report on the conference, York, UK, October 27-29 2010

Contents
1. Introduction

2. What does inquiry-based science education mean for students and

teachers?

3. Why IBSE?

4. Challenges to current practice

4.1 What needs to change?

5. Meeting the challenges

5.1 The curriculum content
5.1.1 Identifying big ideas
5.1.2 Transfer from primary to secondary school
5.2 Science Education pedagogy
5.2.1 IBSE pedagogy
5.2.2 Practical work
5.2.3. New technologies and IBSE
5.3 Relevance of the content as seen by students
5.4 Curriculum organisation
5.4.1 Teachers’ knowledge
5.4.2 Scheduling IBSE
5.5 Assessment and testing
5.5.1 Formative assessment
5.5.2 Summative assessment

6. Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Conclusions
6.2 Recommendations

References

Appendices
A Conference programme
B Participants (delegate contact details)

Website (https://www.wellcometrustevents.org/ibse)
Poster abstracts and Plenary presentations
1. Introduction
This conference was convened to discuss the many issues involved in beginning or extending the use
of Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) in the secondary school. In many countries IBSE is being
implemented in a proportion of primary schools (schools for children up to the age of 11/12). In
some cases this has resulted from projects initiated through the IAP science education programme
which has been promoting inquiry-based teaching and learning in primary schools since 2004. Other
initiatives pre-dated the IAP programme and have provided materials, training and experience to
support developments in other countries. One of the reasons for extending IBSE into secondary
schools is to provide some continuity in the experience of students as they move through school.
There are many other good reasons for this extension, however, which were expounded in the
conference. Equally there are many challenges to be met in making the necessary changes in
secondary school science practice. These were well articulated in the conference and evident in the
brief accounts of the situation and of on-going work in 12 of the38 countries represented at the
conference, which are to be found on the conference website
(https://www.wellcometrustevents.org/ibse).

In preparation for the conference a background paper was produced, informed by a

Eurolatinamerican workshop held in Santiago, Chile, in January 2010. This report builds on the
background paper and begins in the same way, making clear what is meant by IBSE and why it is
important that it is implemented in secondary as well as in primary schools. It then considers what
changes may be needed in secondary science education if all students are to have the benefits of
learning through inquiry, the challenges in making these changes and how these challenges can
begin to be addressed. The final section presents the conclusions and recommendations agreed by
the conference participants.

2. What does inquiry-based science education mean for students and

teachers?
What we mean by IBSE for students can be expressed in terms of the process and outcomes of
learning about the world around. It is a process of developing understanding which takes account of
the way in which students learn best, that is, through their own physical and mental activity. It is
based on recognition that ideas are only understood, as opposed to being superficially known, if they
are constructed by students’ through their own thinking about their experiences. In the classroom
these experiences include direct observation and investigation of materials and phenomena,
consulting information sources such as books, experts, the internet and discussion with others in
which ideas are shared, explained and defended. This learning will involve the development and use
of skills of observation, raising investigable questions, planning and conducting investigations,
reviewing evidence in the light of what is already known, drawing conclusions and communicating
and discussing results.

It is also recognised that deep learning depends on students’ full engagement in experiences from
which they can develop their understanding. Engagement, in turn depends on the extent to which
experiences hold interest, have perceived relevance and provide enjoyment and even excitement, for
students.
2
Teachers have a key role in this process. What teachers do is dependent not only on their skills, but
also on their knowledge, dispositions, attitudes, values and interpersonal capacities. This goes
beyond what is usually meant by ‘teaching’ and is more accurately referred to as pedagogy in its
widest meaning, including both the classroom acts and the ideas and values that inform them 1.

Inquiry is not limited to the understanding of objects and phenomena that can be directly
manipulated. If this were the case it would exclude using inquiry to learn about a number of
phenomena which are part of students’ everyday experiences and the subject of their curiosity and
questions – such as the apparent changing shape of the Moon and movement of the Sun. An
essential feature of inquiry is the use of evidence from observations of such phenomena in deciding
the best explanation, that is, the one that best fits the data available. The explanation may be in
terms of a physical or theoretical model of which the parts can be manipulated to make predictions
which are then compared with observations of the phenomena. In using models it is important to
preserve the connection between observations and parts of the model, recognising that students
often interpret models to fit their own ideas.

Having made the point that the subject matter does not limit the use of inquiry, it is also important
to recognise that school science does involve learning things which have to be known about rather
than understood. Manipulative skills of using equipment and measuring instruments, conventions,
symbols and names, require direct instruction. The important point is to ensure that this knowledge
facilitates inquiry and does not replace it. It is essential to use inquiry where the aim is to develop
understanding.

3. Why IBSE?
The case in favour of IBSE becomes clear from considering what we want to achieve through science
education. In order to prepare students for the demands of twenty-first century life it is widely
accepted2 that science education should enable students to develop key science concepts (big ideas)
which enable them to understand the events and phenomena of relevance in their current and
future lives. Students should also develop understanding of how science ideas and knowledge are
obtained and the skills and attitudes involved in seeking and using evidence. Science education,
together with students’ education in other disciplines, should develop awareness of what it means to
learn and the desire to continue learning, as is essential in our rapidly changing world.

In summary, through their science education students should develop:

 understanding of fundamental scientific ideas

 understanding of the nature of science, scientific inquiry, reasoning
 scientific capabilities of gathering and using evidence
 scientific attitudes, both attitudes within science and towards science
 skills that support learning throughout life
 ability to communicate using appropriate language and representations, including
written, oral and mathematical language.

1
Alexander, R.(Ed) 2010, p280
2
OECD 2003, p132; Harlen (Ed) 2010
3
An inquiry approach to science education is widely advocated as being capable, if well implemented,
of achieving these aims to a far greater degree than traditional approaches. The position is summed
up by Alberts (2009):

We believe passionately in the power of science to create a better world, as well as in the critical
importance for everyone in society of the values and attitudes that science demands of scientists:
honesty, a reliance on evidence and logic to make judgments, a willingness to explore new ideas, and a
skeptical attitude toward simple answers to complex problems. But very little of this is conveyed to
students in our teaching (Alberts 2009).

Many of the reasons for implementing IBSE in the primary school, the focus of the first five years of
the IAP science education programme, also apply to secondary schools science. One reason follows
from experience and research showing that the development of scientific ideas, skills and attitudes
begins in the earliest years and is well advanced by the time students leave primary school. During
the primary years children are forming ideas about the natural world whether or not they are taught
science at school. Without experiences to guide the formation of these ideas, children form their
own ideas which are often in conflict with scientific ones. The longer these non-scientific ideas are
left unchallenged, the harder it is for children to change them, even in the light of conflicting
evidence. So it is essential to ensure that young children are able to develop the skills and habits
needed to test ideas and use them to create better understanding of events and phenomena in the
world around. Moreover they enjoy investigating and finding things out and such experiences can be
the basis of positive attitudes towards science. The success of implementing IBSE in primary schools
has been borne out by both formal evaluation 3 and informal reports.

Similarly older students also have pre-existing ideas 4 about how scientific phenomena are explained
and about the processes of scientific inquiry. Experiences which enable them to adopt more scientific
ideas than their naïve theories must take account of how learning with understanding takes place.
IBSE involves students working in a way similar to that of scientists, developing their understanding
and challenging their preconceptions by collecting and using evidence to test ways of explaining the
phenomena they are studying. This has the promise of fostering positive attitudes towards science,
making it real and exciting and creating the emotional response that focuses interest and attention 5.
It also includes reflection on what has been learned so that new ideas are seen to be developed from
earlier ones and the process of learning is made explicit.

A further reason relates to continuity in the experiences of science as students enter secondary
education. Those who have learned science through inquiry would be disappointed to find that they
have to learn in a very different way. The reaction of many is likely to be disengagement, a reduction
of effort and development of a more negative attitude to science and even to school. Continuity in all
aspects is not necessarily the aim, as we see later, since young people like the stimulation of change,
enjoy new challenges and want to be treated as more mature. But this desirable discontinuity should
not be at the expense of progression in learning or finding that science education is an entirely
different activity from their earlier experiences.

3
Evaluation of the ECBI program in Chile
4
Driver et al (Eds) 1985; Black and Lucas (Eds) 1993
5
McCrory, P. 2011
4
4. Challenges to current practice
The way of learning that is captured in the notion of IBSE is in considerable contrast with what is
often found in secondary school science lessons. For instance, research in 2007 conducted in the UK 6,
where laboratory work is considered to be more common than in many countries, reported that
students found science boring, largely because, although they prefer to work in groups 7, they mostly
experience whole-class teaching. One reason for this – lack of equipment – indicates a narrow view
of inquiry, for productive inquiry work need not always involve equipment, but can engage groups of
students in considering alternative ways of explaining events, planning investigations, or working out
how to interpret data from others’ experiments 8.

Even when practical work does take place it often involves all groups doing the same things,
following precise instructions. This gives some relief from whole class listening but does not add
greatly to conceptual understanding. The National Research Council review of high school practical
work9 found that it was not playing the part in science education that was intended. For example, in
New York State, where laboratory work is required, it was included only because of the possibility of
laboratory reports being inspected. Research showing that undertaking practical work at school does
not correlate with performance in university physical science courses 10 is a disincentive to including it
in secondary school courses. The role of practical work is considered further in discussing pedagogy
(p10).

Research into students’ liking for science as compared with other school subjects is given greater
significance by the current recognition of the relevance of emotional response in learning. 11
According to survey results reported by Dillon 12 at the conference, agreeing that interesting things
are learned in science and that science is useful does not lead to liking it as compared with other
subjects or to wanting to become a scientist. The students in this survey were at the end of primary
school and in early secondary school (ages 10 to 14) but were already looking away from science in
terms of their future activity. 13

Classroom observations suggest that the teaching experienced by the students expressing boredom
was characterised by few open-ended questions, little discussion of ideas and general lack of
intellectual challenge. Reasons given by teachers for teaching in this way were: the overloaded
curriculum, which meant that they did not feel there to be time for in-depth treatment of ideas; the
‘tyranny of testing’; and in some cases lack of expertise in particular sciences, usually physics and
chemistry.

6
Galton and MacBeath 2008
7
Pell et al 2007
8
For example, Crawford, 2002
9
NRC 2005
10
Sadler, P and Tai, R. 2001
11
Presentation by Wei Yu
12
Dillon, J Presentation introduction to Theme 2
13
The Science Aspirations and Career Choice: Age 10 - 14 project. A five year longitudinal study, funded by the Economic
and Social Research Council (ESRC) as part of their Science and Mathematics Education Targeted Initiative. This project is
based at King's College London
5
IBSE holds out the promise of engaging students more productively, of giving them opportunity to
enjoy science and find it rewarding. Implementation of IBSE in primary schools has resulted in
science being the most-liked subject, 14 whilst in many secondary schools it quickly becomes one of
the least liked.15

4.1 What needs to change?

Science education has the potential to serve the needs of individuals and of society. As noted in an
earlier report of the IAP science education project, 16 a basic grasp of key ideas in science and about
science enables learners as individuals to understand aspects of the world around them. Not only
does this serve to satisfy and to stimulate curiosity but helps in their personal decisions relating to
their health, their interaction with the natural environment and their choice of career. Benefits to
society follow from individuals and groups making more informed choices about, for example, use of
energy and resources and actions that affect their and others’ wellbeing. It is clearly important for all
students to gain this understanding, not just the minority who will continue study to become
scientists, technologists and engineers.

Research shows that science education in secondary schools, as currently widely practised, fails in a
number of ways to enable these benefits to be realised. At the same time, as noted earlier, there is
wide support for the view that they can be achieved through an inquiry-based approach to teaching
and learning science.17 However, implementation of IBSE will require some fundamental changes
particularly in:

The curriculum content

Science education pedagogy
The relevance of content to students’ interests and everyday lives
Curriculum organisation and scheduling
The form and use of assessment and testing.

These are all interconnected and in combination amount to a change in the culture within schools.
Indeed, in a presentation at the conference, Shuler 18 described the change needed as a ‘change in
social norms analogous to many health issues that require long-term and complex strategies’. Making
a similar point, Rowell pointed out that such change could not take place without a better and more
widespread understanding of how IBSE is characterised and how it links to the achievement of the
ideas, skills and attitudes that we want students to develop. In other words, change must go beyond
what individual teachers, departments and schools can do. Action to meet these challenges is also
needed by the authorities responsible for the curriculum and assessment.

We now look at these challenges in more detail and report insights from the conference on how to
meet them.

14
Allende, J. 2008
15
Hargreaves, L. and Galton, M. 2002; Galton, M. et al 2003
16
Harlen, W. and Allende, J. 2009 p12
17
EC, The Rocard Report 2007; Carnegie and Institute for Advanced Study 2010; Duschl et al (Eds) 2007
18
Presentation by Sally Goetz Shuler Best Practices: Creating a Road Map for Transforming and Sustaining Model Secondary
Science Education Programs.
6
5. Meeting the challenges

5.1 The curriculum content

The content is one of several aspects of the school curriculum perceived by teachers as limiting their
opportunities to use an inquiry-based approach. Others, considered later, are the form in which it is
expressed and how science lessons are organised in the school timetable. The content is often
criticised for being overloaded, containing too many apparently unconnected items to be taught;
lacking horizontal coherence and vertical continuity. The inclusion of each item might well be
justified in some way but there is no obvious overall idea to which they are linked and there is no
evident progression. The overload is often compounded by the content being expressed as a number
of items ‘to be taught’, indicating a transmission approach to teaching and dictating the study of
topics without regard to relevance to students. As a result, many students feel that they are being
‘frog-marched’ across the scientific landscape 19 and experience a lack of control over their learning.
Not only do teachers feel pressure to ‘cover the content’ but find no incentive to focus on developing
inquiry skills in their students.

5.1.1 Identifying big ideas

Conference participants were unanimous in calling not just for a reduction in the curriculum content
but less focus on learning names, terms and facts and more on understanding key ideas in depth.
There was widespread support for the view that what is needed to enable IBSE implementation is a
curriculum that is expressed in terms of a relatively few key, or ‘big’, ideas. These are ideas that are
built up through study of specific phenomena appropriate to students at different points in
development and which can be seen by teachers, and increasingly by students as they mature, to be
related to the key overall ideas. As well as identifying these key explanatory frameworks, the
curriculum should also include ideas about the nature of scientific activity and knowledge. There are
various statements of such ideas. One example, 20 provided to conference participants, proposes that
the curriculum should enable students to understand that:
 All material in the Universe is made of very small particles
 Objects can affect other objects at a distance
 Changing the movement of an object requires a net force to be acting on it
 The total amount of energy in the Universe is always the same but energy can be
transformed when things change or are made to happen
 The composition of the Earth and its atmosphere and the processes occurring within
them regulate the Earth’s climate
 The solar system is a very small part of one of millions of galaxies in the Universe
 Organisms are organised on a cellular basis
 Organisms require a supply of energy and materials for which they are often dependent
on other organisms
 Genetic information is passed down from one generation of organisms to another
 Evolution is responsible for the diversity of all organisms, living and extinct.

19
Osborne, J. and Collins, S. 2001 p450
20
Harlen, W. (Ed) 2010
7
In addition, there are ideas about the nature of scientific knowledge, how it is created and how it is
used, that also form part of the key ideas that students need to understand, for instance, that:
 Science assumes that for every effect there is a cause, or multiple causes.
 Scientific explanations, theories and models are those that best fit the facts known at a
particular time
 The knowledge produced by science is used in technologies to create products to serve
human ends
 Applications of science often have ethical, social, economic and political implications.

Of course these ideas cannot be taught as such. They need to be developed progressively from
smaller ideas derived from specific activities. Problems of over-prescription arise when they are
specified in terms of a plethora of facts and terms to be learned. Then there is danger of links to the
overall ideas being lost, leaving a fragmented curriculum which is well described by Alberts as ‘an
inch deep and a mile wide’ 21. The links can more easily be retained and reinforced by expressing the
curriculum in terms of interconnected ideas, as suggested by Millar and Osborne 22 and represented
in the Big Ideas report cited above. A curriculum set out in such terms would allow teachers freedom
to help students develop their understanding through studying topics and problems of relevance to
students.

5.1.2 Transfer from primary to secondary school

The aim is for the big ideas to develop progressively as students move through their school lives in
primary and secondary school. Through a process of inquiry and sharing with others, the ideas that
students have about the world around should progress from the ‘small’ ideas – about particular
events and objects – to become ‘bigger’ ones which explain a range of phenomena. At various points
in the course of schooling, however, there are moves for students from class to class and school to
school which can interrupt this progress. The move from primary to secondary school frequently
means a discontinuity in ways of learning which can negatively affect performance and attitude in
relation to science23.

Students move from primary to secondary education at a time when most are in early adolescence
when maturation of the body and brain24 brings physical, emotional, cognitive and social changes.
When these coincide with change in school – moving from what is generally a small school, where
classes stay together in the charge of one teacher, to a large school with separate subjects taught by
different teachers – the impact on students can be unsettling. Friendship groups may be broken as
primary children move to different schools or are placed in different classes in the ‘big’ school. There
will also be greater emphasis on performance and taking responsibility for meeting expected
standards.

The effect of this cocktail of changes has been blamed for the dip in both performance and attitudes
towards school subjects that has been well documented over many years in many countries.

21
Alberts, B. 2009
22
Millar, R. and Osborne, J Eds 1998
23
Royal Society 2010
24
OECD 2007
8
Researchers in England25 estimated that around 40% of pupils failed to make the expected progress
in the year after transfer from primary to secondary school and for some there are significant losses.
Such findings are also reported from many western countries. In relation to attitudes, studies carried
out in England26 show that boys’ attitudes to science dropped significantly after the transfer to
secondary school and continued to drop during the first year after transfer. The same pattern was
found for girls but starting from a lower level. In subsequent years attitudes to science continued to
decline but notably less so when learning through practical activities. 27

Other reasons for the decline in achievement and attitudes have pointed to lack of communication
between teachers in primary and secondary schools, when the latter are unaware of, or ignore, what
the children have learned in primary school. Thus there is often repetition of work already done,
disappointing the eager new students who expected science to be exciting and novel.

Actions of various kinds have been taken to smooth the experience at transfer in the hope of
reducing the dip in attainment and attitudes. These actions are usefully divided into ‘pastoral’ and
‘academic’. Pastoral actions include meetings with parents, visits of pupils to their transfer schools,
visits of teachers from transfer schools to primary schools and ‘buddying’ arrangements for pupils in
their new schools. More emphasis on academic actions in recent years has brought meetings of
teachers from primary and secondary schools and sometimes teacher exchanges, post-transfer
induction programmes, and ‘bridging units’. Bridging units in science are ideally produced by primary
and secondary teachers working together to plan units of work which are started in the primary
school and continued after transfer to the secondary school. They have been evaluated with positive
results but also with warnings that they be can viewed by both teachers and students as holding up
engagement with the ‘proper’ science. It appears that many students look forward to new work in a
new environment. This is not an argument for an abrupt change but to suggest that an element of
discontinuity that marks passages from childhood to early adolescence 28 is not necessarily a problem
and can be part of a ‘careful management of change’. 29

Experience of implementing IBSE in primary schools underlined the importance of enlisting the
support of parents and the local community. Given that the IBSE approach may be very different
from that experienced by the students’ parents in their education and conflicts in some ways with
the popular view of what learning science means, communicating reasons for making changes and
explaining how the goals of science education will be met is important in implementing IBSE in
secondary schools. As adolescents commonly become more distant from their parents this
communication is even more important at secondary than at primary level.

5.2 Science education pedagogy

5.2.1 IBSE pedagogy

25
Galton et al 1999
26
Galton 2009
27
Barmby et al 2008
28
Measor and Woods 1984
29
Royal Society 2010
9
Some conference participants asserted that pedagogy is more important than content in enlisting
interest and motivating learning. The teaching approach certainly has a central role in providing what
students consider to be relevant learning experiences. Learners rarely find something interesting if
they do not understand it. Thus teaching for understanding – the aim of inquiry-based education –
requires attention to the plea of students for greater relevance. In IBSE students work in groups, use
their own ideas but have to support them with evidence and argument, develop their vocabulary
and apply their learning. In secondary schools these activities should be implemented in ways that
respect students as young adults and give them some control over their learning.

The IAP science programme has developed over the five years of its activities a list of things that
teachers have to do to enable students to learn through inquiry:

 ask questions that require reasoning, explanations and reflection, and show interest in the
students’ answers
 provide opportunities for students to encounter materials and phenomena to explore or
investigate at first hand
 arrange for discussion of procedures and outcomes as well as practical investigations in small
groups
 encourage, through example, tolerance, mutual respect and objectivity in small group and
whole class discussion
 provide access to alternative procedures and ideas through discussion, reference to books,
resources such as the Internet and other sources of help
 set challenging tasks whilst providing support (scaffolding) so that students can experience
operating at a more advanced level
 encourage students through comment and questioning to check that their ideas are
consistent with the evidence available
 help students to record their observations and other information in ways that support
systematic working and review, including the use of conventional representations and
appropriate vocabulary
 encourage critical reflection on how they have learned and how this can be applied in future
learning.

Behind these statements are implicit judgements that these are valuable actions that lead to
valuable learning. In other words, they refer to pedagogy, taken in its broadest meaning as including
values and justifications for teaching actions. Teachers are more likely to do the things listed here if
they are convinced of the value of students having first-hand experience of investigating and
observing phenomena, working collaboratively in groups, talking and arguing, and so on. Thus
teachers who currently teach predominantly by following a text book, whole class working and
emphasising knowledge of facts, will be faced with making some considerable change in their view of
what teaching means as well as in classroom techniques if they are to implement IBSE.

The pedagogical content of initial teacher education and professional development has to do more
than help teachers with the techniques of questioning, managing practical work, holding group and
whole class discussions, etc. It should also convince teachers of the value of these techniques, which
10
is best done through personal experience. Teachers and trainees need to have opportunity to
experience for themselves the value of questioning and trying to answer questions through inquiry. 30
The hope that teachers are more likely to convey a view of science as inquiry if they have taken part
in genuine scientific research for themselves is behind professional development programmes which
provide research experience for teachers. Evaluation of the impact of such programmes is, however,
mixed, with those having initially better understanding of teaching and learning benefiting most. 31It is
not enough to provide experience of inquiry. It is also necessary for teachers to reflect on the
experience and how it is to be shared with students.

5.2.2 Practical work

Practical work in a laboratory or classroom is assumed in many countries to have an important role in
science education. But it does not always meet expectations. At the conference, Millar defined
practical work as ‘any science teaching and learning activity in which the students observe and/or
handle the objects or materials they are studying’ and identified its function, in theory, as being to
link ‘hands on’ to ‘minds on’. Teachers take it for granted that practical work has value, but
researchers have found that ‘as practised in many countries it is ill-conceived, confused and
unproductive’32. A review of research33 reported that practical work had little impact on students’
understanding. In relation to practical skills, the research indicates that students are better at using
equipment and carrying out practical procedures if they have had opportunities to practice doing
these, rather than just being shown how to do them. However, findings concerned with inquiry skills
were inconsistent. Millar identified different types of effectiveness of practical work and described an
instrument for analysis of particular practical activities that can be used to improve effectiveness. He
concluded that teachers should make sure that there are a few well defined objectives for practical
activities: that students are thinking about what they are doing, why they are doing it and not just
following instructions, or routines, and that the links between theory and what is observed are
explicitly discussed.

However, there are many changes needed beyond those within the classrooms of individual teachers
if IBSE is to be implemented in a school. Even if they value inquiry-based teaching, individual
teachers can feel powerless in the face of obstacles created by the content and the scheduling of the
school curriculum and by the nature of the tests and examinations they must help their students to
pass. We return to these matters later.

5.2.3 New technologies and IBSE

The impact of new technologies on science education pedagogy was touched upon briefly in the
conference. It was acknowledged that the use of technologies has dramatically changed the way in
which students can capture evidence, find information from secondary sources, and display findings.
It enables them to access museum collections from the classroom; it allows them to collect more
data than before, over a longer timescale, through automated devices. It gives opportunities to
communicate and exchange data with other students and scientists across the world. These things

30
Harlen and Allende (Eds) 2009
31
Blanchard et al 2009
32
Hodson, D. 1991
33
Millar, R. 2010
11
can take place in any science lesson. The question is whether or not these technologies can enhance
learning through inquiry.

There is no doubt that ICTs can enrich students’ experience, but what matters in learning is what
sense students are making of these experiences; whether they can form effective links between new
information and ideas or be used in testing models developed by the students. Thus in addition to
using ICT for making better measurements and observations and extending access to other
information, it is its role in supporting learning through inquiry that needs to be developed. It is also
important to bear in mind that:
 Computer simulations can be useful in relation to dangerous or inaccessible processes or
events, but can never replace real laboratory activity and field work. The direct observation
of things in the natural world remains essential to science.
 Communication through the written word via computers or mobile ‘phones cannot replace
the direct sharing of experience and ideas through talk, discussion and argumentation. The
immediacy of talk has a different role in learning than asynchronous communication through
computers.

This last point was reinforced in the conference by frequent reference to the value of students
working in groups and forming their ideas collaboratively. If they work only alone they are missing an
important contribution to their understanding from fellow students. This point was illustrated by the
experience of a mathematics professor at a US university 34 who noted that his African-American
students were consistently performing at a lower level than comparable Chinese students. He tested
various hypotheses about the causes, such as family support, motivation, income and preparation
and, finding no support for them, he studied their study habits. He observed that the African-
American students studied by themselves while the Chinese students spent at least a third of their
study time discussing their work in groups. He helped the African-American students to study in
groups and after a period of time their results of improved to a level comparable with the Chinese
students.

Thus it is important that arrangements for study, whether or not assisted by computers, avoid
isolating learners from each other. The aim to produce life-long learners, who understand what is
involved in learning, should be seen as the development of autonomy rather than independence in
learning.

5.3 Relevance of the content as seen by students

Absence of relevance is a common complaint of students about their science lessons and a reason
for lack of desire to continue studying science beyond school. What is seen as relevant by teachers
and other adults may not be perceived as such by young people. Relevance can have various
meanings in this context. It may mean ‘surface’ interest, or that curiosity is aroused, or that there is
evident application beyond the classroom. There is a difference between relevance of the subject
matter of a topic, on one hand, and the skills and understanding being developed, on the other. The
latter may not be taken into account by learners in judging relevance. What students perceive as

34
Treisman 1992
12
what they are learning – and whether they see it as worth learning – will be influenced by the topic
and context in which the skills and knowledge to be developed are embedded. For instance, finding
the density of an object by weighing it in air and then in water may not be seen as engaging in itself,
but may become so in the context of the story of the life of Archimedes of Syracuse or set as a
problem to solve in the investigation of fake coins.

Relevance can also mean ‘real’ in the sense of being part of life. Visits to work places, such as
factories, laboratories, farms and recycling plants, where science and technology are used enable
students to see the applications of science in producing the food, medicines, clothes, utensils and
equipment that we use in everyday life. Similarly, field studies in the natural environment provide
experiences which give studies of habitats, climate and interdependence a meaning in real terms.
Conference participants also mentioned summer camps and the role that scientists can have in
making the link between school science content and real life. Visits or on-line discussion with
scientists or technologists working in various fields, such as communications, food or sport, can help
students to recognise why they need to understand key ideas. It is particularly useful for students to
hear about the application of science in topics which they do not normally consider to involve
science.

The interests of adolescents are different in many ways from the interests of primary school pupils.
They are also mixed and contradictory, influenced by the physical, emotional, neurological and social
changes taking place at puberty. So, their interests will be very much centred on themselves, on their
appearance, diet, sport, music and their relationships with their peers. At the same time, their
developing ability for abstract thinking and their rapid cognitive development bring interest in local
and global environmental issues, such as conserving energy, recycling, and protecting endangered
species. These developments provide challenges but also opportunities for curriculum developers
and teachers to use contexts that motivate engagement in learning science.

This was one of several occasions during the conference where the potential role of academies of
science and academicians was mentioned. Experts have the power to enthuse students and their
broad vision of their subject enables them to express complex ideas in simple terms and through
analogies. They are a valuable resource for students and teachers.

5.4 Curriculum organisation

An obvious feature of the topics that interest young people is that they involve several science
disciplines. This is not surprising since real life, the key reference in this context, is complex and
requires interdisciplinary study. The conference presentation by Wei Yu 35 distinguished between
multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary study. In many countries students study the main science
disciplines throughout compulsory schooling. How this is organised varies considerably; it may be
through separate study of biology, physics and chemistry, sequentially or in parallel, or through an
integrated approach combining all three. Separate study is least likely to provide opportunity for
students to bring together their learning in the different science disciplines. However, even within a
supposedly integrated approach there is often more separation of topics into biology, physics and

35
Conference presentation by Wei Yu
13
chemistry than the title suggests. Interdisciplinary study, by contrast, requires the application of
knowledge and understanding of more than one discipline in another. However, it presents a
problem for teachers who, though trained in one science, find themselves needing expertise in
others.

5.4.1 Teachers’ knowledge

Fear that group and class discussions could take them beyond the comfort zone of their subject
knowledge can affect teachers’ pedagogy and limit students’ opportunities for sharing and defending
their ideas. Need for expertise across the sciences, as is likely to be required for topics that
particularly engage students – such as relating to forensic science, sport science, music mixing and
recording – may deter some teachers from giving students opportunities for extended investigations.
As in the case of primary teachers,36 those who lack confidence in their subject knowledge tend to
use teaching methods that confine students’ activities to ones that are ‘safe’ and often impoverish
students’ learning opportunities, relying heavily on a text book, emphasising expository teaching,
underplaying questioning and discussion, and avoiding using any equipment that might ‘go wrong’.

It is unrealistic to expect teachers to have expertise across all science disciplines, but it should be
possible for them to have access to help where they need it. Perhaps the most immediate means of
providing this is through science teachers working in teams (as illustrated in the presentation by
Goodrum), contributing their particular knowledge in planning topics and helping with questions and
problems that arise as students’ work progresses. Teamwork has value in itself in counteracting the
isolation teachers often feel. The mutual support among members of a team also helps in relation to
finding solutions to problems that may arise in using as inquiry-based approach. Again, conference
participants noted a role for science academies in supporting teachers’ confidence in work which is
outside their area of expertise.

5.4.2 Scheduling IBSE

The freedom to use methods of inquiry is partly controlled by the time available for science and how
that time is scheduled. The organisation of the school timetable presents an obstacle when, as is
often the case, it provides no extended periods where students can study topics in depth or engage
in problem-finding, problem-solving and reflection. A series of short lessons may suit methods aimed
at memorisation, but not inquiry-based teaching. What is needed – and it should not be too difficult
to arrange given the will – is for science to be scheduled in 2 or 3 consecutive lesson, allowing the
teacher to use this time for extended inquiries on a regular basis. Arrangements of this kind were
described in her conference presentation by Shuler as an example of best practice in secondary
science education. In a school for science and technology in Virginia, the class schedule for four days
of the week was divided not into the usual eight periods of 45 minutes a day, but only into four
periods of 90 minutes.

This may not be feasible in schools which do not focus on science and technology but since there are
other subjects which could benefit from longer blocks of time it ought to be possible to arrange for
all students to have opportunities for sustained inquiries on sevejral occasions during the school year.
For instance, the timetable could be suspended for several days each half semester, to allow
students, in groups supported by teams of teachers, to work on long-term projects that can be
36
Referred to in Harlen and Allende 2009
14
continued if appropriate throughout the year. The experience of teamwork among students is itself
an important feature of learning about the nature of scientific activity and longer periods of time
enable them to become more engaged, creative and reflective in their activities.

5.5 Assessment and testing

Among the several factors that can influence teaching methods, by far the greatest influence comes
from the forms of student assessment that are used. All assessment will influence what is taught and
how it is taught to some extent. Indeed this is one of the intentions of formative assessment and why
it has a key role in helping learning, providing feedback to the teacher and student to inform the
pace and next steps of learning.

5.5.1 Formative assessment

Formative assessment, or ‘assessment for learning’, as it is also called, engages students in their own
learning through a cyclical process in which information about students’ ideas and skills informs on-
going teaching. It involves the collection of evidence about learning as it takes place, the
interpretation of that evidence in terms of progress towards the goals of the work, the identification
of appropriate next steps and decisions about how to take them. It is an essential part of inquiry,
helping to regulate teaching and learning processes to ensure progression in learning with
understanding. It is also central to enabling students to acquire ownership of their learning, one of
the key features of genuine understanding. Ownership requires that students know the goals of their
work and the quality criteria to be applied so that they can themselves assess where they are in
relation to the goals. This puts them in a position to identify, with their teachers, the next steps in
their learning and to take some responsibility for progress towards the goals.

Assessment only has a formative role if the information gained is used, which means that teachers
have to be prepared to adapt their teaching accordingly. Introducing formative assessment is likely to
require a considerable change in pedagogy, just as in the case of inquiry-based teaching. Indeed, full
implementation of inquiry involves the use of formative assessment so that information is gathered
about relevant aspects of students’ learning processes and achievements. The aims of inquiry-based
teaching and formative assessment also coincide in helping students to take some responsibility for
their learning, requiring teachers to have the confidence to give some control to students.

Secondary teachers have less time to get to know their students than do primary teachers, although
their more mature students are more readily engaged in discussing the goals and criteria for judging
quality. Both primary and secondary teachers, however, need help in the form of well-tried strategies
which they and their students can use. Strategies for translating the theory of formative assessment
into practice have been developed by researchers working with working with teachers. 37 These
strategies and other procedures suggested by conference participants include:
 providing students with ways in which they can signal whether they feel confident in
understanding their work or need help (for instance, by using traffic light coloured cards or
objects)

37
Black and Harrison 2004
15
  opportunities for group discussion so that students can share and check their ideas with
their peers
 students preparing oral presentations and answering questions from their peers
 examples of types of questions to stimulate students’ use of inquiry skills
 teachers selecting students randomly to answer questions, rather than only those who offer
to answer, thus encouraging all to think and be ready to answer
 teachers sharing with students the criteria used in analysing students’ reports or note books
so that they can evaluate their own work as it progresses and use the information to improve
it
 teachers providing feedback, orally or in writing, that is non judgemental and indicates how
the work can be improved.

5.5.2 Summative assessment

Teachers often encounter pressure to produce marks and grades on every piece of work. Marks and
grades are appropriate for summative assessment but not capable of providing formative feedback.
It should be recognised that summative assessment has a different role from formative assessment in
students’ education, as a regular but infrequent event. By checking up, summarising and reporting
what has been learned it enables progress to be monitored by teachers, students, parents and
others. It is no less important than formative assessment but its impact can be less positive,
depending on what is assessed, how it is assessed and how the results are used. These factors are
not independent of each other. For example, when the results of assessment are used for important
decisions affecting the student or the teacher this influences the form and content of the
assessment.

Results for individual students are used within the school for monitoring their progress, record
keeping, reporting to parents, the students and other teachers, for career guidance and perhaps for
grouping or setting. The results may also be used by agencies outside the school to select students
for college or university or to award qualifications. These uses directly affect the individual student to
some degree, sometimes having the potential to influence their future learning and so having ‘high
stakes’ for the student.

In addition to using student assessment results as information about each as an individual, the
aggregated results of summative assessments for groups of students are used both within and
outside the school. These uses affect students more indirectly through the decisions made about, for
instance, policies, programmes and use of resources. More controversially, aggregated results may
also be used by agencies and authorities outside the school for accountability, for setting targets and
for evaluating teachers, schools, local or district education authorities according to whether such
targets are met. This use can lead to unfairness if students’ performance is the only information used
in evaluating the school, regardless of other factors. Using national test results in this way and for
monitoring trends in achievements over time within and across schools, districts and across a whole
system is also problematic. The information from a test given to every student is limited to the
sample of the subject domain that any one student can reasonably be expected to take. This
sampling error reduces the validity of the tests. The validity is increased by using a larger number of

16
items which cover the domain more thoroughly, as in surveys such as PISA and TIMSS 38 where
different items are given to different samples of students.

When the results of test and examinations are used to set targets for teachers and schools this makes
them ‘high stakes’ for the teachers even though they may not have high stakes for the students. The
higher the stakes – whether for students, teachers or both – the greater is the tendency to focus
teaching on what is assessed to ensure maximum success. It is also the case that high stakes means
that the reliability, or accuracy, of the assessment is emphasised in the interest of fairness. This leads
to a preference for formal tests and examinations, especially the forms which are described as being
more ‘objective’ than, say, methods based on judgments of teachers, even though these may provide
a more complete picture of students’ attainment. Further, efforts to increase the reliability of a test
mean that the sample of items included in a test will favour those items that can be most
consistently marked – those requiring factual knowledge and using a closed format (multiple choice
or short answer) – and the exclusion of those requiring application of knowledge and more open-
ended tasks more suited to assessing understanding. Conversely, attempts to increase validity by
widening the range of items, say by including more open-response items where more judgement is
needed in marking, will generally mean that the reliability is reduced.

As well as teaching to the tests high stakes testing leads to students spending time practising tests.
The impact on students is to promote a view of learning as product rather than process 39 and is
particularly de-motivating for lower-achieving students who are constantly faced with evidence of
their failure. These impacts are more serious given the narrowness of what is tested. Defining what
science education means in this way ‘is a great tragedy, inasmuch as it trivializes education for young
people’40.

For these various reasons many current tests and examinations do not give valid information about
progress and attainment in relation to the aims of IBSE. It is urgent that action is taken; otherwise the
assessment regime will be a constant brake on attempts to implement IBSE in secondary schools.

One course of action would be to replace at least some summative tests by moderated assessment
by teachers. This has the advantage of ensuring alignment of the assessment with the curriculum
aims, since teachers have access during teaching to information about the full range of skills,
knowledge and understanding that are the goals of the inquiry-based curriculum. It has the further
advantage of using data that teachers collect during teaching and which they can use to help
learning, thus serving both formative and summative assessment purposes. However, implementing
this course of action successfully would require extensive professional development, clarification of
criteria and procedures for standardising and moderating teachers’ judgments. Although these
processes all have benefits for practice, they are part of a longer-term solution. Meanwhile a more
immediate course of action would be to improve the tests and examinations being used. As was
pointed out by participants the instruments used in PISA surveys provide good examples of items
that assess a range of inquiry skills, critical evaluation of evidence and the application, rather than

38
Harlen,2007 Chapter 9
39
Harlen, W and Deakin Crick, R. 2003
40
Alberts, B. 2009
17
the recall, of scientific ideas and principles. A further change could be made by requiring, as part of
the examination, one or more extensive inquiries carried out by students during the school year.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

In the final session of the conference participants discussed a first draft of conclusions and
recommendations. After this discussion a revised list was prepared and circulated to all participants
Further changes were made in the light of comments, resulting in the following list.

6.1 Conclusions
1. The consensus of the participants in this conference is that the scientific knowledge,
understanding, skills and attitudes needed by all students, regardless of whether or not they will
proceed to further study or employment in science-based occupations, are best developed
through inquiry-based science education (IBSE) which begins in the primary school and continues
throughout the compulsory years of schooling.

2. IBSE means students progressively developing key scientific ideas through learning how to
investigate and build their knowledge and understanding of the world around. They use skills
employed by scientists such as raising questions, collecting data, reasoning and reviewing
evidence in the light of what is already known, drawing conclusions and discussing results. This
learning process is all supported by an inquiry-based pedagogy, where pedagogy is taken to
mean not only the act of teaching but also its underpinning justifications.

3. IBSE offers the opportunity to foster enjoyment and interest in scientific activity and increase
understanding of the world, as is necessary for every individual to make informed decisions
affecting their own wellbeing and that of society and the environment. Further, an inquiry-based
approach can help to reverse the decline in many countries in the number of students interested
in science, which is currently threatening to endanger the general level of scientific
understanding needed as society becomes increasingly dependent on the applications of science
and technology.

4. Since the phenomena and questions students meet in the context of daily life cut across the
disciplines of science, the experiences gained from an inquiry-based science education should
reflect the interdisciplinary nature of scientific activity and the content of science.

5. Effective implementation of IBSE in the secondary school (for pupils aged 11/12 to 15/16 years) is
different from, and to some extent more challenging than, implementation at the primary level
on account of several constraints, in particular:
a. overcrowded curricula, which are mainly oriented to factual knowledge;
b. the form and nature of most summative testing, including university entrance
examinations, which do not sufficiently reflect the objectives and outcomes of IBSE;

18
 c. the limitation of teachers’ knowledge, understanding and confidence across scientific
disciplines;
d. the lack of understanding of the value of IBSE within the current tradition of secondary
science education;
e. the impact on classroom life of the physical, psychological and emotional changes taking
place at adolescence.

6.2 Recommendations
6. The long-term aim of IBSE implementation implies fundamental curriculum change. But a start
should be made on the identification of a limited number of key science ideas, which are
relevant to the current and future life of all students, are progressively developed through
primary and secondary education and link to the curriculum beyond the compulsory years.
Scientists in Science Academies and universities have an important role, in collaboration with
science educators and educational policy makers, in identifying these key ideas.

7. More appropriate tests and procedures should be developed for assessing the understanding
and skills which are the aims of IBSE. This development should include the use of ICT and
summative assessment by teachers.

8. Teacher education, both pre-service and in-service, should develop teachers’ interest and
confidence across scientific disciplines, the pedagogical skills required for teaching through
inquiry and the skills of formative and summative assessment.

9. In order to make progress towards successful implementation of IBSE in secondary education,

pilot projects should be set up, building on the expertise already developed for primary
education. These pilots should:
a. provide training for teachers in interdisciplinary IBSE pedagogy and in the related skills of
formative and summative assessment;
b. enable schools to explore new approaches to organising the class schedule, in order to
provide appropriate time sequences and collaboration among teachers;
c. permit schools to provide alternative rigorous curriculum and assessment arrangements
where current requirements would excessively constrain needed changes;
d. encourage the sharing of practices across non-science disciplines, particularly with
mathematics, language and history;
e. enlist the participation of active scientists, technologists and engineers to give teachers
confidence in aspects of science in which they may not have been trained;
f. develop innovative uses of ICT which retain an inquiry-based pedagogy;
g. share the intentions, processes and outcomes of IBSE with parents, the business
community, industry, scientists in higher education and policy-makers.

10. In addition to the evaluation of pilot projects other research studies should be conducted to
understand the factors that inhibit change in pedagogy and content in science education and
how to meet the challenges these present.
19
References
Alberts, B. (2009) Restoring science to science education, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer
2009, 77-80. University of Texas at Dallas.
Alexander, R.(Ed) (2010) Children, their World, their Education. London: Routledge.
Allende, J. (2008) Editorial: Academies active in education, Science, 321, 1123
Barmby, P., Kind, P. and Jones, K. (2008) Examining secondary school attitudes in secondary science.
International Journal of Science Education, 30 (8):1075–93.
Black, P. and Harrison, C. (2004) Science Inside the Black Box. London: GL Assessment.
Black, P. and Lucas, A. (Eds) (1993) Children’s Informal Ideas in Science. London: Routledge.
Blanchard, M.R., Southerland, S.A, and Granger, E. M.(2009) No silver bullet for inquiry: Making
sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers, Science
Education, 93, 322-360.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
Driver, R., Guesne, E. and Tiberghien, A. (Eds) 1985. Children’s Ideas in Science. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H.A. Shouse, A.W. (Eds) (2007) Taking Science to School: Learning and
Teaching Science in Grades K-8 Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
European Commission (2007) Science Education Now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe,
(The Rocard report), Brussels: EC.
Galton, M. (2009) Moving to secondary school: initial encounters and their effects. In Perspectives on
Education 2 (Primary-secondary transfer in science) pp5-21. London: The Wellcome Trust.
Galton, M., Gray, J. and Rudduck, J. (1999) The Impact of Schools Transitions and Transfers on Pupil
Progress and Attainment. Research Report RR131 London: Department for Education and
Employment Publications.
Galton, M., Gray, J. and Rudduck, J. (2003) Transfer and Transitions in the Middle years of Schools (7-
14): Continuities and Discontinuities in Learning. Research Report 443. Nottingham:
Department for Education and Skills Publications.
Galton, M. and Macbeath, J. (2008) Teachers under Pressure? London: Sage.
Harlen, W. (2007) Assessment of Learning. London: Sage.
Harlen, W. (Ed) (2010) Principles and Big Ideas of Science Education. Hatfield: ASE.
Harlen, W. and Allende, J. (2009) Report of the Working Group on Teacher Professional Development
in Pre-Secondary IBSE. Fundación para Estudios Biomédicos Avanzados, Facultad de Medicina,
University of Chile.
Harlen, W. and Allende, J. (2006) Report of the Working Group on International Collaboration in the
Evaluation of IBSE Programs. Fundación para Estudios Biomédicos Avanzados, Facultad de
Medicina, University of Chile.
Harlen, W. and Deakin Crick, R. (2003) Testing and motivation for learning, Assessment in Education,
10(2)169-207.
Hargreaves, L. and Galton, M. (2002) Moving from the Primary Classroom: 20 years on. London:
Routledge.
Hodson, D. (1991). Practical work in school science: Time for a reappraisal. Studies in Science
Education, 19, 175-184.
Measor, L. and Woods, P. (1984) Changing Schools: Pupils’ Perspectives on Transfer to a
Comprehensive. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
McCrory, P. (2011) Developing interest in science through emotional engagement. In W. Harlen (Ed)
ASE Guide to Primary Science Education. Hatfield: ASE.
Millar, R. (2010). Practical work. In J. Osborne and J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching:
What research has to say, 2nd edn. London: McGraw-Hill.
20
Millar, R. and Osborne, J. (Eds) (1998) Beyond 2000 Science Education for the Future. London: King’s
College, School of Education.
NRC (National Research Council) (2005) America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science.
Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
OECD (2003) The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2007) Understanding the Brain: The Birth of a Learning Science. Paris: OECD.
Osborne, J. and Collins, S. (2001) Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its
implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (9), 1049-79.
Pell, T., Galton, M., Steward, S., Page, C. and Hargreaves, L. (2007) Group work at Key Stage 3: Solving
an attitudinal crisis among young adolescents? Research Papers in Education, 22(3): 309–32.
Royal Society (2010) Science and Mathematics Education, 5 – 14. A ‘state of the nation report’.
London: The Royal Society.
Sadler, P. and Tai, R. (2001). Success in introductory college physics: The role of high school
preparation. Science Education, 85 (111), 136.
Treisman, U. (1992) Studying students studying calculus: a look at the lives of minority mathematics
students in college, The College Mathematics Journal, 23 (5) 362-372.

21
Appendix A Conference programme
WEDNESDAY 27 OCTOBER 2010

09.00 Registration
09.15 Welcome and introduction to the conference and its venue
Dr. Jorge Allende
Dr. Yvonne Baker, Director of the NSLC, UK
10.00 Issues in taking IBSE into secondary schools (presentation
of background paper):
Chair: Dr. Jorge Allende
Dr. Wynne Harlen, UK
10.30 Coffee break
11.00 Theme 1 group discussions: Issues related to IBSE
pedagogy in the context of the secondary school
Dr. Pierre Léna, France
Dr. Patricia Rowell, Canada

13.00 Lunch
14.15 Theme 2 group discussions: Issues relating to making
science engaging and relevant to young people as they
move into secondary schools
Dr. Hubert Dyasi, USA
Dr. Justin Dillon, UK

16.15 Tea/Coffee break

16.30 Plenary presentation: Best practices in transforming and
sustaining secondary science education programmes
Chair: Dr. Ruediger Klein, ALLEA, Europe
Ms Sally Goetz Shuler, Executive Director, National Science
Resources Centre, USA
17.15 Plenary presentation: Recent research on the role of
practical work in science education
Chair: Dr. Ruediger Klein, ALLEA, Europe
Dr. Robin Millar, Salters Professor of Science Education,
University of York.
18.30 Pre-dinner drinks reception
18.45 Informal dinner
20.00 Round table of developing IBSE projects
Chair: Dr. Jorge Allende
With contributions from:
Dr.Jackie Olang, Kenya
Dr. Arthur Eisenkraft, USA
Tahereh Rastgar, Iran
Dr. Norma Nudelman, Argentina
Dr. Michael Reiss, UK

22
THURSDAY 28 OCTOBER 2010

09.00 Theme 3 group discussions: Issues relating to

implementation of IBSE in secondary schools for teacher
training and curriculum organization
Dr. Alice Pedregosa, France
Dr. Derek Bell, UK
11.00 Coffee break
11.30 Plenary presentation: Lessons from globalisation : PISA
2006 and ‘reaching the unreached’ in Kallupati, India
Chair: Dr. José Lozano, Colombia
Dr. Roger Establé, France
12.15 Plenary presentation: What is the impact of neuroeducation
on IBSE?
Chair: Dr. José Lozano, Colombia
Dr. Wei Yu, China
13.00 Lunch
14.15 Theme 4 group discussions: Issues relating to formative
assessment and summative assessment and testing in the
context of IBSE
Dr. Paul Black, UK
Dr. Rosa Deves, Chile

16.15 Tea/Coffee break

16.45 *Posters and view of the NSLC and STEM centre resources
Introduced by Dr. Mary Ratcliffe, Deputy Director of the NSLC
19.00 Drinks reception
19.30 Conference Dinner
Welcome by Dr Jane Grenville, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University
of York

*Posters and poster abstracts can be found on the website:

(https://www.wellcometrustevents.org/ibse)

23
FRIDAY 29 OCTOBER 2010

09.00 Plenary presentation: Implementing IBSE: turning rhetoric

into reality
Chair: Dr. Guillermo Fernandez de la Garza, Mexico
Dr. Denis Goodrum, Australia
09.45 Theme summaries: theme presenters
Chair: Dr. Soon Ting Kueh, Malaysia
10.45 Coffee break
11.15 Conclusions and recommendations:
Chair: Dr. Jorge Allende
Dr. Derek. Bell
Dr. Pierre Léna
Dr. Wynne. Harlen
Participants
End of main conference
12.30 Lunch

14.00 ALLEA Working Group Science Education

(working meeting for delegates from ALLEA Member Academies only)
17.00 Close

Discussion sessions

Each session is focused on one of four themes and led by two ‘presenters’ who will

a) set the scene for the theme and questions for discussion (15 minutes)

b) circulate discussion groups (which meet for 1 hour)

c) lead a round table of reporters from each group and make a response (45 minutes)

24
Appendix B Participants Contact Details

Professor Maija Aksela Mr Bryan Berry

Finland's Science Education Centre, LUMA Science Learning Centre South West
B.O.X 55 At-Bristol
Helsinki Anchor Road, Harbourside
00014 University of Helsinki Bristol BS1 5DB
Finland United Kingdom
T +358-50-5141450 T 0117 9157104
E [email protected] E [email protected]

Professor Jorge Allende Professor Paul Black

IAP Coordinator King's College London
Independencia 1027, Santiago Chile 150 Stamford Street
Facultad de Medicina Universidad de Chile London SE1 9NH
Santiago 8380453 United Kingdom
Chile T 020 7848 3166/3183
T 56-2-978 6255 or 56-2 -978 2246 E [email protected]
E [email protected]
Dr Martin Braund
Professor Arvind Arvind University of York
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Science Education
Mohali Department of Educational Studies
MGSIPAP Complex, Sector 26 Alcuin College 'D' Block, Heslington
Chandigarh 160019 York YO10 5DD
India United Kingdom
T +911722791024 T +44(0)1904 433465
E [email protected] E [email protected]

Ms Hannah Baker Mr William Cassidy Ill

Wellcome Trust National Science Resources Center
215 Euston Road 901 D Street, SW
London NW1 2BE Suite 704B
United Kingdom Washington 20024
T 020 7611 8636 USA
E [email protected] T 202.633.2972
E [email protected]
Ms Yvonne Baker
Myscience.co Limited Professor Beno Csapo
National Science Learning Centre University of Szeged
University of York Petofi S. sgt. 30-34
York YO10 5DD Szeged
United Kingdom H6722
T 01904 328381 (PA) Hungary
E [email protected] T +36 62 544032
E [email protected]
Professor Derek Bell
Wellcome Trust Professor Rosa Deves
215 Euston Road Universidad de Chile
London NW1 2BE Diagonal Paraguay 265
United Kingdom Santiago
T 020 7611 8843 Chile
E [email protected] T 562- 9781024
E [email protected]
Professor Justin Dillon National Institute for Teacher Training and
King's College London Research
Franklin-Wilkins Building 02 BP 159
150 Stamford Street Porto-Novo
London SE1 9NH Benin
United Kingdom T (229) 97 15 29 16
T 07785 330536 E [email protected]
E [email protected]
Mr Maksym Galchenko
Professor Stanislav Dovgyi Institute of Gifted Child of the National Academy of
Minor Academy of Sciences of the Ministry of Pedagogical Sciences
Education and Science of the National Academy of 11-A Saliutna St.
Sciences of Ukraine Kyiv 03190
3 Mishyna St., #502 Ukraine
Kyiv 03151 T +380503554330
Ukraine E [email protected]
T +380671155112
E [email protected] Ms Sally Goetz Shuler
National Science Resources Center
Professor Hubert Dyasi 901 D Street, SW
Retired Suite 704B
48 Arthur Place Washington 20024
Yonkers, USA
NY 10701-1703 T 202.633.2972
United States E [email protected]
T 914-963-9062
E [email protected] Professor Denis Goodrum
Australian Academy of Science
Professor Arthur Eisenkraf Ian Potter House
University of Massachusetts Boston Gordon Street,
100 Morrissey Boulevard Canberra 2601
COSMIC - Wheatley 4-181 Australia
Boston 02125 T 02 62019428
United States E [email protected]
T 617-287-7652
E [email protected] Professor John Grue
The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Professor Roger Establet Drammensveien 78
LAMES CNRS Université de Provence Oslo NO-0271
4 rue des pénitents 13840 Rognes Norway
France T +4741607182
T 04 42 64 31 01 E [email protected]
E [email protected]
Professor Wynne Harlen
Mr Guillermo Fernandez de la Garza Haymount Coach House
FUMEC Bridgend
San Francisco 1626-205 Col Del Valle Duns
Benito Juárez Berwickshire TD11 3DJ
México D.F. 03100 Scotland
Mexico United Kingdom
T 52 55 52 00 05 60 T 01361 88710
E [email protected] E [email protected]

Prof Sven-Olof Holmgren

Dr Issaou Gado RSAS and Stockholm University

26
Rörstrandsgatan 10 Zagreb 10000
Stockholm SE 113 40 Croatia
Sweden T +385-1-4606133
T +46 739 808025 E [email protected]
E [email protected]
Professor Yucel Kanpolat
Mr Mohamed Hosni Turkısh Academy of Sciences
Ministère de l'éducation nationale- Centre des Piyade sok. No:27
innovations pédagogiques et d'expérimentation Cankaya
Bab Rouah- Rabat Ankara 06550
73, Bd Moulay Ismail, Hassane, Rabat Turkey
Rabat 10000 T +90 312 442 41 85
Morocco E [email protected]
T 0661901468
E [email protected] Professor Chris King
Earth Science Education Unit, Keele University
Professor Leo Houziaux Keele
Royal Academy of Belgium Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
Palace of the Academies, United Kingdom
1, rue Ducale T 01782 734437
Brussels B 1000 E [email protected]
Belgium
T +32477723994 Mr John Kirkland
E [email protected] Association of Commonwealth Universities
Woburn House
Professor Haruyuki Iwabuchi 20-24 Tavistock Square
Japan Science and Technology Agency London WC1H 9HF
5-3, Yonbancho, United Kingdom
Chiyoda-ku, T 02073806700
Tokyo 102-8666 E [email protected]
Japan
T 81-3-52148993 Dr Rudiger Klein
E [email protected] ALLEA
c/o KNAW
Miss Elizabeth Jeavans Kloveniersburgwal 29
The Royal Society Amsterdam 1073XC
6 - 9 Carlton House Terrace Netherlands
London SW1Y 5AG T +31-20-5510-722 (secr.: -754)
United Kingdom E [email protected]
T 020 7451 2561
E [email protected] Professor Andrej Kranjc
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Mr Stevan Jokic Novi trg 3
Vinca Institute Ljubljana
Mike Petrovica Alasa 12-14 SI-1000
Belgrade 11001 Slovenia
Serbia T +386 1 47 06 128
T +381112455041 E [email protected]
E [email protected]

Dr José Lozano
Professor Nikola Kallay Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas
Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts y Naturales
Zrinski trg 11

27
Carrera 28 A No. 39 A - 63, Bogota, Colombia, Academia Nacional De Ciencias Exactas
South America Avda. Alvear 1711 4° P
Bogotá Buenos Aires 1014
Colombia Argentina
T 571-2443186; 571-2683290 T 5411 4576 3355
E [email protected] E [email protected]

Professor Pierre Léna Miss Zena O'Connor

Académie des sciences, Paris Wellcome Trust
23 quai de Conti 215 Euston Road
Paris 75015 London NW1 2BE
France United Kingdom
T 33 (0)1 44 41 45 62 T 02076118442
E [email protected] E [email protected]

Professor Winston Mellowes Professor Meshach Ogunniyi

Caribbean Academy of Sciences University of the Western Cape
c/o Department of Chemical Engineering, Private Bag X 17
Faculty of Engineering, The University of the West Cape Town 7535
Indies South Africa
St. Augustine T +27 21 959 2040
Trinidad and Tobago E [email protected]
T 8686622002 Ex 2169
E [email protected] Ms Jackie Olang
Network of African Science Academies (NASAC)
Professor Randolf Menzel c/o African Academy of Sciences
Berlin Brandenburgische Akademie der P. O. Box 14798
Wissenschaften Nairobi 00800
Tollensestr. 43 E Kenya
Berlin 14167 T +254202405150
Germany E [email protected]
T +493083853930
E [email protected] Dr Alice Pedregosa Delserieys
IUFM - Aix-Marseille Université
Professor Robin Millar Technopole de chateau gombert - Uniméca
University of York 60 rue Joliot Curie
Department of Educational Studies Marseille cedex 13
Heslington 13453
York YO10 5DD France
United Kingdom T 0033 6 01 91 72 11
T 01904433469 E [email protected]
E [email protected]
Professor Miljenko Peric
Professor Peter Mitchell Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Royal Irish Academy Knez Mihailova 35
Academy House Belgrade 11000
Dawson Street Serbia
Dublin 2 T +381112027342
Ireland E [email protected]
T +353 1 7162222
E [email protected]
Mr Xavier Person
Ms Pina Moliterno La main à la pâte
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 1, rue Maurice Arnoux
Montrouge 92120
Dr Norma Nudelman France

28
T +33 1 58 07 65 97 T (52) 55 15 39 07 54
E [email protected] E [email protected]

Dr Dukagjin Pupovci Dr Patricia Rowell

Kosova Academy of Sciences and Arts University of Alberta
1 Emin Duraku str P.O.Box 2014
Prishtina 10000 Ladysmith, BC
Kosovo V9G 1B5
T +381-38-244 257/ext. 109 Canada
E [email protected] T 1-250-245-4370
E [email protected]
Mrs Tahereh Rastegar
Iran University of Science and Technology Professor Elly Sabiiti
Narmak,Tehran Makerere University
Iran Uganda National Academy of Sciences
T 98-(21)77451500-5 P O Box 11499,Kampala
E [email protected] Kampala
P O BOX 7062
Professor Mary Ratcliffe Uganda
Myscience T 256 414 542277
National Science Learning Centre E [email protected]
University of York
York YO10 5DD Professor Luz Samayoa
United Kingdom Academia de Ciencias de Guatemala, La Ciencia en
T 01904 328391 la Escuela
E [email protected] 25 calle 10-63 zona 11 Granai II
Guatemala 01011
Mrs Alison Redmore Guatemala
Science Learning Centre East of England T 502 52041930
University of Hertfordshire E [email protected]
Lower Hatfield Road
Bayfordbury SG13 8LD Professor Peter Schuster
United Kingdom Austrian Academy of Sciences
T 01992 517626 Dr.Ignaz Seipel Platz 2
E [email protected] Wien 1010
Austria
Professor Michael Reiss T +43 1 4277 52736
Institute of Education, London E [email protected]
20 Bedford Way
London WC1H 0AL Mrs Annette Smith
United Kingdom Association for Science Education
T 020 7612 6092 College Lane
E [email protected] Hatfield AL10 9AA
United Kingdom
T 01707 283006
E [email protected]

Dr Ting-Kueh Soon
Professor Silvia Romero FASAS_AASA
Mexican Academy of Sciences 127B, Jalan Amiddunin Baki
Km 23.5 s/n Carr Fed Mex-Cuernavaca. Col San Taman Tun Dr Ismail
Andres Totoltepec México D.F. c.p.14400 Kuala Lumpur
Mexico City 60000
Mexico Malaysia

29
T 603 7728 3272 Professor Perko Vukotic
E [email protected] Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
Rista Stijovica 5
Mrs Libby Steele Podgorica 81000
The Royal Society Montenegro
6-9 Carlton House Terrace T + 382 20 655457
London SW1Y5AG E [email protected]
United Kingdom
T 02074512577 Professor Yu Wei
E [email protected] MOE Academician, Chinese Academy of
Engineering
Professor Leo Wee-Hin Tan No.37 Damucang Hutong, Xidan, Beijing, P.R.C
SINGAPORE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 100816
c/o Dean"s Office, Faculty of Science China
National University of Singapore, 6 Science Drive 2 T 86-10-82502773
Singapore 117546 E [email protected]
T +65 65165960
E [email protected] Ms Zhu Yanmei
Research Centre for Learning Science, Southeast
Dr Wanida Tanaprayothsak Universtiy
The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science 3#, Liwenzheng Building, Southeast Universtiy
and Technology (IPST) Nanjing, Jiangsu,
924 Sukhumvit Rd., Klong-toei P.R. China 210096
Bangkok 10110 China
Thailand T 13327803370
T +662- 392 4021 Ext. 1407 E [email protected]
E [email protected]
Miss Emily Yeomans
Professor Puntip Timsuksai Wellcome Trust
The Science Society of Thailand Under the 215 Euston Road
Patronage of His Majesty the King London
Chemistry Department, Faculty of Sciences, NW1 2BE
Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University United Kingdom
Nakhon Ratchasima T 020 7611 8254
30000 E [email protected]
Thailand
T (66) 817 253 624, (66) 804 803 559 Dr Janchai Yingprayoon
E [email protected] The Science Society of Thailand under the
Patronage of His Majesty the King
Professor Giancarlo Vecchio Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Bangkok 10330
Dipartimento di Biologia e Patologia Thailand
Cellulare e Moleolare T +66-81-6412533
Piazza Sannazzaro,57,Naples,Italy,80122 E [email protected]
Naples 80131
Italy
T 0039-081-746-3324
E [email protected] Mrs Lanita Yusof
Mr Nick von Behr Curriculum Development Centre, Ministry of
The Royal Society Education, Malaysia
6-9 Carlton House Terrace Aras 4-8, Blok E9, Kompleks Kerajaan Parcel E
London SW1Y 5AG Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
United Kingdom Putrajaya 62604
T 02074512571 Malaysia
E [email protected] T +603-88842223
E [email protected]

30
Professor Jan Zima
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Kvetna 8
Brno
CZ-60306
Czech Republic
T ++420 543 422 553
E [email protected]

31
Website
(https://www.wellcometrustevents.
org/ibse)

Poster abstracts

Plenary presentations