Understanding and Assessing STEM Teachers’ Use of IBL to Address Achievement-Related Diversity: A Case Study from Turkey

Abstract

This study investigates how STEM teachers use inquiry-based learning (IBL) to address achievement-related diversity in their classroom practices. Data were collected from three teachers who participated in a long-term in-service teacher training program. Teachers' views were elicited through interviews, in-class observation, and evaluation forms. The data obtained were used in a narrative structure to create a detailed case study of each teacher and compare them. It has been determined that some strategies emphasize the diversity of success in IBL activities stand out more. Although these strategies are different, they enable IBL to progress in regularly and enable them to address the diversity of success in the classroom. The lack of a wide variety of strategies used by teachers can be seen as one of the crucial problems in case studies. In particular, the use of methods that will lead to better use of time in the classroom by using out of group work and evaluating them in terms of successful diversity may appear to be an improvement in terms of achieving the desired goals.

Keywords

• inclusive education
• STEM
• inquiry based learning
• teacher training

References

1. Amaral, O., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase achievement through inquiry‐based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 213–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2002.10668709.
2. Baxter, J., Woodward, J., & Olson, D. (2001). Effects of reform-based mathematics instruction on low achievers in five third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 529 –547. https://doi.org/10.1086/499686
3. Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion – developing learning and participation in schools. CSIE. http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Index%20English.pdf Brown, J. C. (2017). A metasynthesis of the complementarity of culturally responsive and inquiry‐based science education in K‐12 settings: Implications for advancing equitable science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(9), 1143-1173. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21401.
4. Cheng, R. W. Y., Lam, S. F., & Chan, J. C. Y. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project-based learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 205. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X218160.
5. Chin, C., & Chia, L. (2006). Problem-based learning: using ill-structured problems in biology project work. Science & Education, 90(1), 44-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20097
6. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44.
7. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
8. Doğan, Y. (2010). Fen ve teknoloji dersi programının uygulanması sürecinde karşılaşılan sorunlar [The problems encountered during the implementation of science and technology curriculum]. Van Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Education, 7(1), 86-106.

9. EC [European Commission, DG Education and Culture] (2011). Progress towards the common European objectives in education and training, Indicators and benchmarks. Brussels.
10. EC [European Commission, DG Education and Culture] (2015). Education & Training 2020, Schools policy, A whole-school approach to tackling early school leaving. Brussels.
11. EC [European Commission] (2013). Investing in Children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage, Recommendations. Brussels.
12. Empson, S. B. (2003). Low-performing students and teaching fractions for understanding: An interactional analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(4), 305–343. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034786.
13. ERG (2018). Eğitim izleme raporu 2017-18 [Education monitoring report 2017-18]. http://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/EIR_2017_2018_29.11.18.pdf
14. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. T. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Sage. Eurydice (2019). Turkey overview. Retrieved from: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/turkey_en.
15. González, J., & Wagenaar, R. (Eds.). (2003). Tuning educational structures in Europe. University of Deusto.
16. Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B., & Armstrong, N. (2009). Effects of inquiry‐based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (3)2, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030216.
17. Hassard, J. & Dias, M. (2009). The art of teaching science: Inquiry and innovation in middle school and high school. Routledge
18. Kaya, G., & Yılmaz, S. (2016). The impact of open inquiry based learning on students' achievement and development of science process skills. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 31(2), 300-318. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2016016811.
19. Lack, B., Swars, S. L., & Meyers, B. (2014). Low- and high-achieving sixth-grade students' access to participation during mathematics discourse. The Elementary School Journal, 115(1), 97-123. https://doi.org/10.1086/676947.
20. Lan, S.-W., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2019). English language learners’ participation in the discourse of a multilingual science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 41(9), 1246-1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1607618.
21. Larina, G. & Markina, V. (2019). Hidden mechanisms of differentiation: teachers’ beliefs about student diversity. Journal for Mathematics Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857‐019‐09436‐1.
22. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. (1986). Research, evaluation and policy analysis: heuristics and disciplined inquiry. Review of Policy Research, 5(3), 546-565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00429.x.
23. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’ Apolonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170650.
24. Lubienski, S. T. (2000). A clash of social class cultures? Students’ experiences in a discussion intensive seventh-grade mathematics classroom. Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 377– 403. https://doi.org/10.1086/499647.
25. MaSDiV. (2020). Rope. https://icse.eu/international-projects/masdiv/
26. Meijer, C. J. (2010). Special needs education in Europe: inclusive policies and practices. Journal of Inclusion, 4(2). Miles, S., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.). (2010). Responding to diversity in schools: An inquiry-based approach. Routledge.
27. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2005). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programı ve klavuzu [Elementary science and technology lesson curriculum and guide]. Ministry of National Education
28. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Science course curriculum]. Ministry of National Education
29. Minner, D., Levy, A., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry‐based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347.
30. Mortimer, E. F., Scott, P., & El-Hani, C. N. (2012). The heterogeneity of discourse in science classrooms: The conceptual profile approach. In Second international handbook of science education (pp. 231-246). Springer
31. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning-making in secondary science classrooms. McGraw-Hill Education.
32. Nasir, N. S., & Cobb, P. (2006). Improving access to mathematics: diversity and equity in the classroom. Multicultural Education Series: ERIC.
33. OECD (2014). TALIS 2013 results: an international perspective on teaching and learning. OECD Publishing.
34. OECD (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): what students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
35. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.Sage.
36. Ramnarain, U. D. (2014). Teachers' perceptions of inquiry-based learning in urban, suburban, township and rural high schools: The context-specificity of science curriculum implementation in South Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 65-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.003.
37. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Interior Directorate General of Migration Management (2019). Residence Permits.
38. Rivet, A., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth-grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 669–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20021.
39. Ryu, M. (2019). Mixing languages for science learning and participation: an examination of Korean-English bilingual learners in an after-school science-learning programme. International Journal of Science Education, 41(10), 1303-1323. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1605229.
40. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
41. Starcic, A. I. (2010). Educational technology for the inclusive classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 9(3), 26-37.
42. Taş, U. E., Arıcı, Ö., Ozarkan, H. B., & Özgürlük, B. (2016). PISA 2015 ulusal raporu [PISA 2015 national report]. Ministry of National Education
43. TEDMEM. (2019). 2018 Eğitim değerlendirme raporu [2018 Educational Evaluation Report]. Türk Eğitim Derneği Yayınları.,
44. Tüysüz, C & Aydın, H. (2009). The elementary school science and technology teachers’ perceptions toward to new science and technology curriculum. Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty Journal, 29(1) 37-54.
45. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/reference.
46. Wilson, C., Taylor, J., Kowalski, S. Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47(3), 276–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20329.
47. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and method. Sage.
48. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research method in social sciences]. Seçkin Publishing
49. Yıldırım, H. H., Yıldırım, S., Yetişir, M. İ., & Ceylan, E. (2013). PISA 2012 ulusal ön raporu [PISA 2012 national preliminary report]. Ministry of National Education.