Taking inquiry-oriented
learning to the teaching
coalface
A good practice booklet for practitioners
Chris Thompson, Gerry Rayner,
Catherine Barratt, Theo Hughes &
Les Kirkup
Funding for the production of this report has been provi ded by the Aus tra l i a n Government
Offi ce for Learning and Teaching. The vi ews expressed i n this report do not necessaril y refl ect
the vi ews of the Aus tra l i a n Government Offi ce for Lea rni ng a nd Tea chi ng.
Support for the production of this report/publication has been provided
by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. The
views expressed in this report/publication/activity do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Australian Government Office for Learning and
Teaching.
Creative Commons notice for documents
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and where
otherwise noted, all material presented in this document is provided
under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/).
The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the
Creative Commons website (accessible using the links provided) as is
the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 AU licence
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode).
Our thanks to Les Kirkup for permission to include some images from
the iolinscience website http://www.iolinscience.com.au
Requests and inquiries concerning these rights should be addressed to:
Office for Learning and Teaching
Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary
Education
GPO Box 9880,
Location code N255EL10
Sydney NSW 2001
<learningandteaching@deewr.gov.au>
2014
ISBN 978-1-74361-724-3 [PRINT]
ISBN 978-1-74361-725-0 [PDF]
ISBN 978-1-74361-726-7 [DOCX]
2
Table of Contents
Section A: Inquiry oriented learning in Science and the Health
Sciences.
4
1. Inquiry-oriented learning
4
2. Active-learning
5
3. Why change what we do?
6
4. ALTC Fellowship (2011-12) & OLT Extension Grant (2014)
7
5. Challenges and difficulties for implementation
9
6. The role of demonstrators / teaching associates / tutors in IOL
12
7. Overcoming the challenges
13
8. Getting the balance right: Recipes vs IOL
15
9. Evaluating your activity
17
Section B: Examples of IOL in practice
18
Example 1: Biochemistry
20
Example 2: Chemistry 1
23
Example 3: Physics 1
27
Example 4: Physics 2
33
Example 5: Pharmaceutical Science
37
Example 6: Biology 1
43
Example 7: Chemistry 2
47
References and further reading
51
3
Section A: Inquiry oriented learning in Science and the Health
Sciences.
1. Inquiry-Oriented Learning
The foundations of inquiry-oriented learning (IOL) lie in Vygotsky’s
(1978) tenets of social constructivism. Vygotsky promoted the notion
that learning is enhanced through problem solving, and that by working
in groups to solve problems, using dialogue, discussion and debate,
students learned more effectively than if they worked on their own.
Inquiry-oriented learning can be described in various ways, including
inquiry-based learning (IBL), inquiry-guided learning (IGL), authentic
learning (Lombardi, 2007), activity-lead learning (Wilson-Medhurst &
Glendinning, 2009) and process-oriented guided inquiry learning
(POGIL) (Farrell, Moog & Spencer, 1999). Closely related approaches
include problem-based learning (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980; HmeloSilver, 2004), scenario-based learning (Herrington, Oliver & Reeves,
2003) and case-based learning (Christensen & Hansen, 1981).
While there may be subtle differences among these inquiry approaches,
they set out to achieve the same end goal; that students acquire or
develop knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes through the
exploration of questions, scenarios, issues and problems for which
there may be no definite solution (Lee, 2004).
4
2. Active Learning
Inquiry-oriented learning and its various incarnations are subsets of
what are called active learning strategies (Bellanca, 2009). These
strategies are student-centred, rather than teacher-centred, and share
the common feature of having students engaged in practical activities,
and thinking about what they are doing or have done.
Such approaches can also have students preparing for their practical
activities, either individually or in small groups, gaining feedback from
fellow group members or demonstrators, and refining their methods
based on dialogue and feedback.
As a form of active learning, IOL strongly aligns with the practice of
scientific endeavour – what scientists actually do. Consequently,
inquiry-oriented learning should not just be a part of, but rather the
fundamental basis for science education, being initiated and scaffolded
during the K-12 years, and generating independent, critical thinking
science practitioners at the end of a tertiary degree.
There is growing evidence that instructional strategies that encourage
students to actively engage in their learning generate superior levels of
understanding, knowledge and application compared to that gained
from the traditional model of lectures and laboratory classes (DeHaan
2005).
In a metaanalysis of educational studies in the sciences, engineering
and mathematics, Freeman et al. (2014) found that students who were
engaged in active learning programs significantly outperformed those
in more traditional lecture style programs.
5
3. Why Change What We Do?
The introduction of IOL approaches in undergraduate science strongly
aligns with initiatives at primary, secondary and tertiary educational
levels. At the primary and secondary levels, the Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) has endorsed national
curricula in science for Foundation to year 10, and senior secondary
science subjects including biology, chemistry, physics, and earth and
environmental sciences.
In all of these disciplines, science inquiry skills form a very strong
component of the curriculum, which means that a high proportion of
commencing undergraduate science students will be familiar with this
form of active learning. It is beholden on tertiary educators to build on
these approaches to further enhance student learning and skills
development.
In terms of graduate attributes, the Learning and Teaching Academic
Standards (LTAS) project has generated a set of Threshold Learning
Outcomes (TLOs) for science graduates at Australian Universities
(Jones & Yates, 2010). Again, inquiry approaches are a strong element
of the science TLOs, and provide an important bridge between
secondary and tertiary curricula. Further, the science TLOs align with
the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), which sets standards
into and through university (http://www.aqf.edu.au/).
At the completion of their tertiary studies, graduates skilled in problem
solving and critical thinking, both essential features of inquiry learning,
are highly sought after by employers. For example, in a 2013 survey of
employers commissioned by the American Association of Colleges and
Universities, 93% ranked graduates’ ability to think critically and solve
problems more highly than their major area of study (Hart Research
Associates, 2013).
6
4. ALTC Fellowship & OLT Extension Grant
In 2011 Professor Les Kirkup was awarded an ALTC National
Teaching Fellowship, based around a vision to promote IOL as an
approach to enhance student learning and engage, challenge and
inspire students, ultimately delivering the capabilities we hope to see in
our graduates.
The goals of the fellowship were to:
 Stimulate the national higher education teaching and learning
conversation to focus on student-centred learning, enhancing the
recognition and value of IOL in science and related disciplines.
 Transform practice towards IOL by working with, and providing
resources to, a broad range of stakeholders.
 Provide a focus on and examination of, the student experience to
ensure IOL activities are responsive to the student perspective and
expectation, maximising student potential.
 Advance science education into the future.
Les’s activities included:




a national roadshow of hands-on IOL workshops
support and mentoring of new IOL projects at eight institutions
a national forum
the Inquiry-Oriented Learning in Science website.
7
The website – iolinscience.com.au – is a wonderful resource for any
educator wishing to transform their laboratory curriculum. It
incorporates the philosophy of IOL with a range of excellent resources,
and examples of good practice from around Australia.
In 2013, Chris Thompson, Gerry Rayner and Theo Hughes were
awarded an OLT Extension Grant to build on the momentum of Les’s
Fellowship.
This project delivered:
 a series of hands-on workshops across Victoria and Tasmania;
 an IOL Forum, including presentations from both secondary and
tertiary science educators;
 this Good Practice Booklet.
Each of these projects has revealed an underlying will to transform the
learning experience in science classrooms around Australia. Stale
laboratory curricula are being transformed into well planned, activelearning environments across the sciences.
However the implementation of well-constructed IOL-type activities is
not straightforward. There are many challenges and difficulties that
educators have experienced in their implementation of IOL-type
activities.
8
Over the next few pages we discuss a number of these factors, but
also share some of the innovative solutions that people have used to
overcome these hurdles.
5. Challenges and Difficulties for Implementing IOL
IOL as a learning strategy is not new, and has been described and
used in classrooms for quite a number of decades. Yet in most
contexts an entrenched culture of recipe-type activities continues to
dominate science classroom curricula.
A number of practical reasons underlie this:
Cost
IOL-type activities require careful development, to ensure that they:
 run efficiently
 don’t require additional teaching staff
 don’t require too much in the way of additional resources
(glassware/tools/chemicals/space).
In contrast, recipe-type experiments are highly structured and
predictable, allowing resources and staffing costs to be reliably
budgeted for in advance.
9
Class Size
There is a perception that IOL cannot be successful for very large
cohorts. The replicability of recipe-driven curricula for practicals is seen
as a solution to ensuring that large cohorts receive a consistent
learning experience.
As IOL activities are by nature less structured, if the cohort is given the
freedom to develop their own diverse range of experiments, staff
resources might be stretched, or physical resources might not be able
to cope.
Time
Asking students to take time to develop hypotheses and design their
own experiments has the potential to consume time otherwise spent
actually doing the experiment or activity. Time is precious, and many
universities have recently reduced the allocated time to undergraduate
science practical classes. Consequently many educators are reluctant
to embrace IOL-type activities.
10
Assessment
IOL-type activities are recognised to help develop authentic and
employer-desired skills, such as:





communication
collaboration and teamwork
time management and task delegation
ability to ask questions
problem solving and critical thinking
How do we assess these professional skills?
Particularly in science, traditional marking schemes for practical and
laboratory classes have relied on students ‘getting the right answer’.
What grade does a group of students earn who have worked well as a
team, brainstormed their own experiment, performed it in good time,
but end with a null result, or spend a long time chasing a dead-end?
In practice, assessing these kinds of activities is more demanding of
our demonstrators, who invariably are being remunerated through
increasingly shrinking demonstrator budgets!
11
6. The role of demonstrators / teaching associates / tutors in IOL
Over the past two decades, demonstrators, now more commonly
known as teaching associates (TAs), have become increasingly
responsible for the face-to-face instruction in undergraduate science
courses in Australia (Percy et al. 2008). Given this situation, TA
endorsement of, involvement in and preparedness for IOL activities is
necessary, in order to maximise the likelihood that such initiatives will
succeed in enhancing student learning and skills acquisition.
Unit coordinators and course conveners need to recognise the
importance of investing in TAs to ensure the cultural change towards
more active-learning strategies includes those at the teaching coalface.
Moreover, they have much to contribute when it comes to designing
the activities themselves.
Key to the success of IOL initiatives in the laboratory include the
following:
 professional development of TAs at learning workshops and
discipline-related teaching conferences;
 pre-activity TA meetings to brainstorm likely obstacles to student
learning; and
 opportunities for TA input to IOL activities and feedback from them
about successes and limitations;
12
7. Overcoming the Challenges
We have identified a number of approaches to designing inquiryoriented practicals that people have employed to overcome some of
the challenges outlined above to ensure a successful classroom
experience.
(a) Employ a team-based approach to designing your activity.
Developing IOL-type activities is a big job. Whether you set out to
modify an existing prac, or build one from the ground up, there is a lot
of work that needs to be done in designing and implementing the
activity.
The student dynamics of inquiry-oriented learning can be very different
to more scripted procedures, as participants are required to brainstorm
ideas, communicate and collaborate, and often delegate different tasks
within a group. Thus during the design phase it can be wise to seek
counsel from everyone involved in your teaching environment. This
might include technical staff, demonstrators, and even students
themselves. Not only does this lighten the load of the innovative
teacher, but it ensures a multi-perspective view of being a player in this
kind of learning environment.
(b) Identify a way to fund your innovation.
Active-learning strategies are hot topics in an educational market that
is increasingly striving to deliver genuine and authentic learning
experiences for students. Many of the successful stories of people
transforming their practice in Australian universities has been
underpinned by the acquisition of small teaching grants.
Take advantage of the mood for change, and approach your internal
learning and teaching committees to tap into internal university funding
opportunities. Despite the otherwise tight purse-strings in the tertiary
sector, funding for innovative ideas often exists.
13
(c) Use self- and peer-assessment.
To address some of the assessment challenges thrown up in activelearning environments, consider self-assessment and peer assessment
methodologies.
Placing at least some of the responsibility onto the students
themselves to contribute to the final grade, adds to the students’
investment into the activity. The rigour of assessing ensures the
student-marker has a good understanding of the exercise, thus
promoting deep learning. Rubrics can be used to ensure marks are
within the expected range and distribution.
Peer assessment can also reduce demonstrator workload, and enable
students to get feedback much sooner. It also relieves the
demonstrator from having to somehow measure and grade teamwork
and collaboration, arguably better measured by the participants
themselves.
14
8. Getting the Balance Right: Recipe vs IOL
Recipe-type activities can be very useful! In many instances a specific
skill, technique or procedure needs to be mastered in a particular way.
Clearly in such cases an open-ended, inquiry-oriented approach may
not be the most appropriate learning strategy. First year cohorts in
particular are at the beginning of their educational journey and have
limited experience and confidence in the laboratory.
Thus completely removing the recipe-type practical from our laboratory
curricula may not be a wise move. Tried and trusted experiments can
be fine-tuned to lead students towards intended learning outcomes,
time constraints can be negotiated by navigating students away from
potential mistakes, and laboratory managers can ensure students do
not overuse physical resources.
Importantly, students who are still developing basic skills and
confidence in the laboratory are undoubtedly better served by starting
their educational experience with a clear outline of what they are
expected to do.
15
IOL-type activities on the other hand have the potential to deliver many
other learning outcomes, as described above.
Most practitioners who have embraced elements of inquiry-oriented
learning in their classroom actually use both modes across the
curriculum. To get the balance right, identify your intended learning
outcome first, before choosing the learning modality.
The model below invokes the idea that in an undergraduate degree,
students start out as dependent learners, with limited practical and
professional skills. They embark at first upon quite broad curricula
through first year units, and invariably are still deciding on which
discipline they might eventually major in.
As they progress through the degree, not only do students start to
focus and specialise in content, but they become more independent
learners, through the skills they have developed along the way.
The above model might imply that the balance between recipe and
IOL- type activities might change across the degree. By the end of the
degree, students should have established the professional skills to
independently tackle sophisticated, real-world problems, and potentially
not require recipes at all.
16
9. Evaluating Your Activity
It is always worthwhile evaluating what we do in the classroom. You
may have thought your IOL prac is fantastic, but what if your students
don’t agree?
There are several ways in which this can be approached:
(a) A whole-class evaluation.
A simple Likert-scale tool is one of the most common, which asks
students to specify their level of agreement with a statement. This is
usually on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree:




Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree

Strongly
Agree
This can be coupled with several qualitative questions, enabling
students to provide more specific feedback if they desire.
This can be handed out in paper form, or can be online and automated.
(The former tends to ensure high participation rates, while the latter
can result in lower participation, but ensures simple data processing.)
(b) Interviews and focus groups.
Consider getting feedback directly from students either individually or
as a group. Seek out some volunteers to share their reflections of the
experience. While institutional student evaluations often draw
comments relating to the in-class experience, customising your own
questions will be a more powerful way to get specific feedback on your
activity.
Remember that either of the methods above will require human ethics
approval if you choose to publish any of your data, or student
comments.
17
Section B: Examples of IOL in Practice
This section serves to share a number of real examples of inquiryoriented learning in practice, developed in the areas of science and the
health sciences from a number of Australian universities.
The six exemplars below come from the disciplines of:




Biochemistry
Chemistry
Pharmacy
Physics
We have captured a brief picture of each activity in its context, with
each practitioner reflecting on not only the benefits of their intervention,
but also the challenges and difficulties for both staff and students, and
how they have tackled these challenges.
These activities have been shared in a format such that those with an
interest in implementing their own activities might be able to borrow
ideas from those who have already tried them out.
Each of the following examples have been categorised using the
simple hierarchy devised by Herron (1971). This framework
categorises the level of inquiry, although many activities might be best
placed somewhere between two of these general descriptions.
18
Table 1: The four levels of inquiry, reproduced from “The nature of scientific enquiry”, Herron (1971).
Level of Inquiry
Problem
Procedure
Solution
0
Confirmation/Verification: Students confirm a principle
through a prescribed activity with known results.



1
Structured Inquiry: Students investigate a teacherpresented question through a prescribed procedure.



2
Guided Inquiry: Students investigate a teacherpresented question using student-designed/selected
procedures.



3
Open Inquiry: Student investigate topic-related
questions that are student-formulated through studentdesigned/selected procedures.



19
Example 1:
Inquiry Level: 1
Discipline
Biochemistry
Student Profile
Third Year
Student : Demonstrator = 20 : 2
Contributor
Dr Nirma Samarawickrema, Monash
University
nirma.samarawickrema@monash.edu.
IOL Activity Description
This activity was previously delivered as a recipe based exercise where
students were given specific instructions on how to measure the rate of
activity of the enzyme, phosphofructokinase (PFK). The identical
activity was modified to introduce inquiry into the process where the
students were provided stock solutions of all the components
(substrates and enzymes) required to carry out the reaction and asked
to measure the rate of activity of PFK.
Students had to draw on previously acquired skills such as; calculating
dilutions, calibrating spectrophotometers, using Biograph software to
(a) calculate the rate of activity of PFK at different substrate
concentrations, and
(b) identify two unknown substances which were added separately to
the reaction mix so that their effects on the activity of PFK could be
monitored.
Context
This activity is the only laboratory based exercise (among a series of
paper based activities) in a third year unit. Therefore it was necessary
to engage student interest by ensuring that the learning outcomes of
the activity were better aligned with those of the lectures and introduce
a certain degree of inquiry into the activity. The activity in its current
form provides students an opportunity to collaboratively plan the
20
experiment, problem solve and share their results in order to complete
their reports.
Innovation & Implementation
Several changes were implemented as a variation to the previous
recipe-type activity:
 Students worked in pairs.
 Students had to complete a pre-laboratory exercise before attending
class. This exercise involved completing (a) all calculations of
dilutions of solutions and (b) questions related to the protocol to be
used in class.
 Students had to show completed pre-lab activity to their Teaching
associates at the start of class.
Challenges & Difficulties
Time limitation of the practical class to three hours and therefore
designing an activity to fit this time slot was the biggest challeng e.
Further degrees of inquiry could potentially be included if there was
more time allocated.
Evaluation
Anecdotal feedback from teaching associates indicates that students
were generally happy with their ability to collaboratively carry out the
activity and their ability to relate content of the practical class with their
lecture material.
Feedback from teaching associates who had tutored this exercise both
before and after introducing the initiative felt that the students had
understood the concepts taught in the activity and were better able to
interpret the data generated than previously.
In previous years this class would exceed the three hour duration and
students had difficulty interpreting the generated data, all of which
contributed to this practical class receiving negative feedback at
semester end focus groups.
21
Reflections & Implications for Future Practice
Trialling this successful activity has provided us the drive to incorporate
more inquiry into other practical class activities in other units. In the
future this same exercise can be converted into an activity that requires
further inquiry such as make the students design the entire experiment
themselves.
It is also worthwhile to utilise a 3 to 4 week block of practical class time
to provide students the opportunity to
(1) design an experiment based on a question provided to them
(2) carry out the experiments, and
(3) present findings to their peers through a variety of means (poster,
talk, laboratory report).
In future, we intend to add more resources to the Moodle site to help
with data presentation.
22
Example 2:
Inquiry Level: 2
Discipline
Chemistry
Student Profile
First Year
Student : Demonstrator = 20 : 1
Contributor
Dr Mani Naiker, Federation University
m.naiker@federation.edu.au
IOL Activity Description
 This typical activity was based on a traditional quantitative chemistry
experiment, typically delivered to students via a recipe-based format
(that is a structured, formulaic approach).
 In this inquiry-oriented variation of the theme, students were given
three commercial fruit juices and they were required to use skills
developed earlier in the semester to design an experiment to identify
and quantify the level of sodium and magnesium present in each
sample.
Context
 In first year chemistry, students perform five experiments in each
semester. These are typically recipe-based in nature.
 The aim of utilising the IOL model in this practical exercise was to
increase student engagement with the view of enhancing the quality
of learning and reduce challenges in the learning environment.
When the context of learning is both relevant and requires active
engagement, student learning is expected to be maximised.
 As a result of the inquiry based approach being used in secondary
science education (as part of the National curriculum), it was
perceived that there was a need to align our approach with that
being taught in schools.’
23
Innovation & Implementation
 Students worked in groups of 5 or 6, rather than individually. The
groups were self selected by the students.
 Each group was required to nominate a team leader who would be
responsible for organizing and managing the team.
 Each group was given a problem related to analytical/experimental
chemistry which they had to thoroughly investigate through group
discussions, literature search etc.
 Each group devised an appropriate plan so to successfully carry out
the necessary analysis/experiments in view of reporting the findings
for the given problem.
 Each group was required to liaise with the Course Coordinator by
week 9 to discuss their respective proposal/plan for solving the
problem.
 Once the Course Coordinator approved the proposal, each group
was required to make a list of all samples, reagents/chemicals,
material and equipment that is required by the end of week 9. This
list was passed on to the technicians.
 Each group was required to carry out their respective experimental
procedure(s) in week 11.
Challenges & Difficulties
 Some students having issues with working with certain team
members within the respective group dynamics
 Lack of equal contributions from some members of the team were
highlighted
 Some students feeling very lost at the start as this was the first time
they have encountered such a self-learning approach.
24
Evaluation
Student Comments & Data
Positive
 “Enjoyable, good idea to have it on-going and not just for one
practical”
 “It was good because I had a good group to work with”
 “It was good to make you think about how to do things”
 “Good but challenging”
 “It was good working as part of a team with other people who were
interested in solving the given problem and it was a fun way to do a
practical as we chose how we wanted to conduct the experiment!”
Negative
 “Prefer normal recipe based pracs – which relate to actual
lecture/tutorial question content”
 “It was a little bit of a challenge, hard to know where to begin”
 “I enjoyed IOL. However, the group size was too big and a few
people got through doing almost nothing”
 “Have the groups chosen at random and include a peer assessment
to allow the students to grade their peers on performance”
Peer Review Comments
 “For most students the experience seemed to be worthwhile with
them having planned and executed their own experiment to answer
a question while negotiating a group situation. They seemed
engaged and certainly were enhancing their skills in the laboratory.
Mani seemed to have a good rapport with the students and helped
navigate them through the decision making process as necessary.
The students showed a good level of respect for Mani and were
happy to seek his advice, help and ideas. While this exercise was
obviously not successfully completed by one group, the remainder
of the groups did gain a level of success. Mani should be
congratulated for attempting and succeeding in introducing a new
25
learning style into the course. With a degree of refinement I believe
this should become an integral aspect of Chemistry 2.”
Reflections & Implications for Future Practice
 How many lecturers/demonstrators/TAs are needed for this type of
exercise? Possibly at least 3 people in the first hour, then dropping
back to 2 would be appropriate.
 The personality of these additional staff is very important – their role
is ‘facilitation’ and to help groups solve problems. They need to be
independent and proactive in helping students, yet willing to seek
advice from the lecturer as necessary. Preparing them for the types
of problems being investigated is also important.
 A group size of no more than 6 should be adhered to as groups
larger than this number seemed to have members who didn’t
participate. If the experience of group work is important than a
gender mix and age mix also becomes important.
 The lack of a dedicated leader can result in complete disarray and
all are affected. Groupwork leadership models might be consulted to
address this.
 A safety net needs to be in place to identify dysfunctional groups.
Peer assessment might a solution to this. If a group isn’t functioning
well it needs to be identified, and a meeting with the entire group
held to discuss the issue.
26
Example 3:
Inquiry Level: 2
Discipline
Physics
Student Profile
First Year undergraduate lab class
Student : Demonstrator = 20 : 1
Contributor
Maria B Parappilly, Lisa Schmidt and Joe
Shapter, Flinders University
maria.parappilly@flinders.edu.au
Activity description
We implemented an Inquiry based laboratory (IB) on the topic of
Radioactivity for non-physics majors in semester 2, 2012. Students
were given five recipe-based laboratories and an Inquiry based
laboratory. To be in phase with the topic delivery, we offered this IB
laboratory as a third laboratory. Content-specific reading materials on
Radioactivity and smoke detectors were given before the laboratory to
help students acquire prior knowledge to design their own experiment
incorporating innovation and experimental techniques.
Context
Inquiry experiments are usually designed to introduce independent
thinking and creative problem solving skills, compared to recipe-based
laboratories, which are used largely for the confirmation of concepts
(Domin, 1999). For example, a recipe-based laboratory will provide the
students with all of the steps they need to complete the practical, and
while this will give them the chance to focus on technical expertise and
analysis, it does not engage them in the experimental design process.
In comparison, Inquiry based laboratories incorporate the design
process into the session. Advocates of IB laboratories argue that such
laboratories promote conceptual understanding, encourage students to
explore alternate approaches to investigate a problem, critically reflect
on their experiences, and take charge of their own learning (Etkina,
Karelina, Ruibal-Villasenor, Rosengrant, Jordan, & Hmelo-Silver, 2010;
Abraham 2011). Healey (2005) recognised the need for engaging
students in undergraduate research and found that inquiry is one of the
27
most effective ways to help students to begin to think like a physicist,
historian or engineer, and to contribute towards the graduate attribute
skills. This approach also falls within the domains of the Threshold
Learning Outcomes (TLOs) for science recently published by the
Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC)-Learning and
Teaching Academic Standard Project Report by Jones and Yates
(2011) which are expected to introduce major curriculum reforms at
Australian universities.
Implementation
Four different topics related to radioactivity measurements were posted
online for students to choose from.
 Students were required to research background information from
various sources.
 To gauge students’ prior knowledge of Radioactivity, we distributed
a pre-laboratory questionnaire before the commencement of
laboratory.
 Two weeks before the delivery of the Inquiry based laboratory, a
focus group was held to trial the laboratory with an aim to gauge
their initial response to the experiments, and to provide feedback as
to how to better present the IB laboratories to all the students in the
topic.
 Students worked in groups of 2, rather than individually.
 We observed that student groups were engaged in the process of
designing, testing and writing their own conclusions. The level of
interest in this new approach is highlighted in that fact that even
after finishing the lab session, some students chose to continue to
work on extra activities.
 Demonstrators were encouraged not to intervene unless the student
design was completely flawed.
Challenges and difficulties
 Some students do not like to come up with their own laboratory
procedures.
28

Some student felt very lost and disliked the extra work required to
think through problems on their own.
 Some students felt uncomfortable with this lab approach.
 Some students felt frustrated that it takes a larger amount of time to
complete the Inquiry based laboratory reports.
Evaluation
The inquiry based laboratory was offered as a third lab between recipe
based laboratories. This provided an opportunity to see if the inquiry
experience improved student performance on subsequent recipe based
laboratories. The inquiry based laboratory was not included in this
analysis as it had a substantially different marking scheme; instead the
laboratories immediately before and after were analysed to minimise
the impact of time on the results.
The results in Figure 1 show that students performed significantly
better (p<0.05 by independent samples t-test) after the IB compared to
before. Laboratory 4 was judged by the teaching team to be
considerably more difficult than laboratory 2 so the improvement was
not due to ease. The same assessors marked both reports. Other
factors such as building expertise with time across a semester may
provide an explanation but it is possible that IB laboratories lead to
students thinking more deeply about subsequent recipe based
laboratories.
Figure 1: Recipebased laboratory
marks before (Lab 2)
and after (lab 4) IB
lab (lab 3).
29
Left Statement
1
I like inquiry laboratory.
2
Inquiry laboratories are easy
to do.
3
It takes a smaller amount of
time to complete the inquiry
laboratory reports.
I have to do a lot of thinking
and analysing for doing the
inquiry-based laboratory
reports.
Inquiry laboratories are fun to
do.
4
5
6
7
8
I like to come up with my
own procedures for doing
laboratories.
I would choose to do an
inquiry-based lab over a
recipe-based lab
I personally think that I learn
more with inquiry based labs
Agreement with
Left Statement,
%
Neutral
%
Agreement with
Right Statement,
%
69
3
31
I do not like inquiry based
laboratory.
40
13
47
Inquiry laboratories are
difficult to do.
18
41
50
Right Statement
It takes a larger amount of
time to complete the inquiry
laboratory reports.
I do not have to do a lot of
thinking and analyzing for
doing the inquiry based
laboratory reports.
79
6
15
62
13
25
Inquiry laboratories are not
fun to do.
59
16
25
I like it better when I have to
follow the procedures given
in the lab manual
48
19
33
I would choose to do a
recipe-based lab over an
inquiry-based lab
63
19
21
I personally think that I learn
more with inquiry based labs
Mean
(SD)
Total
n = 32
2.18
(1.79)
3.12
(1.86)
3.43
(1.47)
1.75
(1.48)
2.25
(1.71)
2.31
(1.70)
2.75
(1.78)
2.18
(1.64)
Table 1: Distributions of Results of the Semantic Differential Survey–Flinders University
30
Student Comments:
Positive:
“Practicals helped me to understand what was expected of me to know”
“I have done a Physics class before in first year, but most things I
learned in this class were quite new to me and it gave me a really good
refresher on Physics”.
Negative:
“I'm actually having a lot of trouble regarding this lab... Do we really
have to make our own from scratch, or can we do a simple experiment
that has been done before regarding radiation? Because nothing is
coming to my head when I am thinking of my own to do”
Implications for future practice
While students are unfamiliar and feel uncomfortable with IB
laboratories, they report that they have learnt more doing such
laboratories, as compared to more traditional recipe-base laboratories,
have had to think more about how to carry out the laboratory and,
interestingly, had more fun doing the laboratories. Our study showed
that while students have mixed views on IB laboratories, such
approaches stimulate learning more than recipe based laboratories.
We also found that student performance on associated assessment
tasks indicates that inquiry based laboratories at worst do not
negatively impact on student grades and may improve assessment
outcomes. We identified that it will be good to offer a guided Inquiry
lab rather than an open-inquiry to intro level Physics students.
Another interesting investigation would be to compare the responses of
these non-physics majors students, with those majoring in physics, to
investigate the possible role of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation on
student attitudes and behaviour.
31
Example 4:
Inquiry Level: 2
Discipline
Physics
Student Profile
First Year
Student : Demonstrator = 18 : 1
Contributor
Mr Theo Hughes, Monash University
Theo.hughes@monash.edu
IOL Activity Description
We badge this activity for students as an “IDEAS” prac. This activity
provides the students with a physical phenomenon that they are
unlikely to be familiar with: when pulling a string wrapped around the
reel, how does the motion of the reel (backwards or forwards) depend
on the angle at which the string is pulled, or any other factors.
Limited direction is provided. Students need to design an experimental
investigation, gather data and try to fit this data to theory on rotational
motion that has been presented in lectures.
Context
Students attend eleven lab classes, each of 3 hours, each semester.
The activities in these classes are typically of a recipe-based nature.
This IOL initiative was driven by the desire to develop students as
confident, independent investigators; whether this be for a career in
research or industry. The main idea being: the traditional recipe-based
activities do not help to develop independent investigative skills, so
new activities would be introduced which present opportunities for
students to practice such skills.
This particular experiment was run in first year physics labs prior to the
advent of the IDEAS program. However, it was repackaged as part of
the IDEAS initiative. As well as some changes to the way this particular
experiment was delivered, the rest of the lab program is being modified
32
to provide a suitable lead in as preparation for this activity and other,
related, inquiry-oriented experiments.
Innovation & Implementation
 A week prior to the IDEAS lab class, students choose from 6
different inquiry-oriented activities. There was a limited number of
sets of equipment for each activity, so it was based on a “first to
choose”-first-served basis. So the Teams which choose last had
limited-to-no choice.
 Students worked in teams of 3 (class numbers occasionally lead to
a Team of 2 or 4).
 Prior to coming to class, students completed “Preparatory Work”:
reading a brief outline of the activity and answering some questions
related to relevant theory (on which they were assessed on arriving
in class).
 For the IDEAS lab, as with other labs, students had 3 hours to work
on the activity.
 Demonstrators assessed the class work in class.
 Two lab classes later, each Team was required to present the
results of their investigation to the rest of their Lab Group (a
maximum of 18 students i.e. 6 Teams of 3). Note:
o Google docs presentation:
 Students could collaborate online without having to physically
meet
 They could not “forget” to bring the presentation
 They did not have to rely on one member of the Team to bring
the presentation
o 6 minutes – each Team member presenting for approximately the
same time.
o Each Team in a Lab Group had carried out a different experiment.
o Assessment – a combination of marks from the demonstrator and
peer assessment (marks from the rest of the Lab Group).
33
Challenges & Difficulties
 Thinking up suitable activities that:
o were “open-ended”
o we had lab equipment for
o could be reasonably investigated in 3 hours
o students could not simply look up the answer
o were relevant to the theory students were studying
 Ensuring demonstrators provided an appropriate amount of
help/guidance – not so much that we might as well have given the
students explicit instructions, but not so little that a Team came
away feeling they had achieved nothing.
Evaluation
Representative Student Comments:
Positive:
 “It was a perfect level of challenge, in problem solving on how to
record data and refining the physical model of the system. It was
insightful and engaging.”
34
 “I enjoyed the open-ended nature and freedom in comparison to
other pracs.”
 “Absolutely enjoyed it. It made me think about the physics rather
than just record results as per usual.”
Negative:
 “I found it a little stressful as I didn’t know to begin with how the prac
was supposed to be investigated and carried out.”
 “…the concept was interesting but testing it was not.”
Reflections & Implications for Future Practice
We see the ability of students to demonstrate independent investigative
skills as the end goal of our lab program. So we will continue to modify
the program to support the IDEAS activities. Our guiding principle is to
begin the lab program with activities that include more explicit
instructions and slowly reduce the students’ reliance on these
instructions, eventuating in the students confidently tackling an IDEAS
practical (very limited instructions).
We started by only running the IDEAS session in Semester 2. We have
already expanded this to our Semester 1 course. The activities in
Semester 1 include slightly more guidance, in line with the concept of
gradually building up student confidence.
All lab activities in first and second semester are being modified to
provide more explicit preparation for the IDEAS activities.
We already have inquiry-oriented activities in our second and third year
courses. These are being expanded and aligned with the first year
program. The overall aim is to provide a coherent program preparing
students to graduate with confidence to pursue Open Inquiry activities.
35
Our longer-term pedagogical aims are to:
 improve the clarity of the assessment criteria and learning objectives;
students report the least satisfaction in relation to these aspects of
the IDEAS activities.
 gradually build up students’ abilities to work with limited instructions,
across the lab program; student’s currently perceive the transition
from regular lab activities to IDEAS activities as a sheer cliff.
 Increase the number of activities on offer; students reported really
enjoying having a choice and this lead to reporting feelings of
ownership over the investigation, yet they still wanted more choice.
 provide activities with a greater choice of investigative pathways.
Some of the current activities are limited in the scope of what
students can investigate, so that every Team effectively ends up
following the same investigative path – surprisingly, despite this
students reported feeling a sense of freedom. However, we want to
do better.
36
Example 5:
Inquiry Level: 2
Discipline
Pharmaceutical Science
Student Profile
First Year
Student : Demonstrator = 14 : 1
Contributor
Dr Elizabeth Yuriev and Briana Davie
Victorian College of Pharmacy
Elizabeth.yuriev@monash.edu
IOL Activity Description
This initiative transforms largely didactic chemistry tutorials, where
problem solving is still mainly ‘demonstrated’ by an academic (tutor). In
these guided-inquiry learning tutorials, students are provided with
challenging physical chemistry problems. They solve these problems
using knowledge and skills (i) developed in Active Learning lectures
and (ii) based on solving simpler problems as preparation. Students
are guided through the problem solving via a selection of carefully
crafted queries and “signposts”.
Context
This initiative aimed to address two seemingly unrelated problems
within the Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Science (BPharmSci) degree
program. (1) The lectures of 1st year units have been flipped: prereading/short videos are done prior to lectures, problems are tackled in
lectures; post-lecture tasks include online self-assessment feedback
quizzes. While most of this process has undergone significant Active
Learning (AL) development in 2012 and 2013, the tutorials have
remained mostly unchanged. This 2014 guided-inquiry learning
initiative was conceived to broaden student participation: to improve
learning outcomes and collaborative learning skills. (2) Graduate
teaching associates (GTAs) perform a critical role in face-to-face
teaching (tutorials, laboratory practicals). However, their educational
training is fairly deficient with one particular skill being particularly
37
lacking: the ability to guide undergraduate students in their problem
solving.
The specific goals of this initiatives were:

to generate materials for collaborative guided-inquiry learning, with
focus on knowledge construction and critical thinking

to up-skill junior teaching staff in classroom facilitating techniques
with particular focus on (i) identifying zones of proximal
development; and (ii) handling group-compromising attitudes
(social loafing, controlling, competitiveness, anxiety, and preexisting negative attitudes to group work) and establishing positive
group dynamics.
Innovation & Implementation
 Tutorials were redeveloped focusing on guided-inquiry learning and
collaborative learning, facilitated by GTAs.
 Each tutorial group of ~30 students (divided into smaller groups of
4-5) was facilitated by two tutors: an academic and a GTA.
In our activities:
 Prior to the tutorial sessions, we run a class, where we discuss the
principles (preparation, group work, participation, guided inquiry,
zones of proximal development etc.).
 Following lectures on a given topic, students receive a set of simple
problems (1-2 weeks prior to class), which they have to attempt prior
to their tutorial class.
 GTAs receive problem sets with (i) worked solutions and (ii) guiding
questions. GTAs benefit from on-the-spot mentoring by experienced
academic colleagues and develop their skills in guiding students
enquiry rather than (i) telling them what to do or (ii) leaving them
completely to their own devices.
 In class, students work in allocated groups, which are the same for
the duration of the semester. Each student within a group has a role
38
(manager, scribe, time-keeper, presenter and reflector). This roles
are rotated on a regular basis, so that by the end of the semester
each student has worked in each of the roles.
 At the beginning of each class, students in each group compare
their notes with respect to the preparation problems and work out
any issues by themselves or with guidance.
 Next, students receive their in-class problem set (2 – 5 problems)
and work through them in groups.
 Tutors moderate the discussion with guiding questions and ensure
that the “loop is closed” on the main issues (signposts).
 At the end, each group presents their solution to one of the
problems to the whole class.
 Each topic has a set of additional inquiry-type problems for students
to tackle after class.
Challenges & Difficulties
 Not all students got to present due to time constraints.
 The role of the reflector did not really work. However, each student
was asked to reflect at the end of each class via the evaluation
forms.
 Some students felt stressed when they were required to fulfil more
challenging roles of manager or presenter.
 Some students found the assessment elements of this initiative
confronting (they were marked on participation).
 The main issue was student engagement: lack of it from some and a
bit of pushing from others. Participation-based marking worked as
encouragement for some students.
39
Evaluation
In these classes,
(i) students were guided from established knowledge to a new problem,
to knowledge sharing and construction, to a possible solution, to a final
presentation of the solution
(ii) GTAs developed skills required for balanced guiding of students,
specifically: techniques for establishing a learning environment,
managing the session, and implementing strategies to promote higher
level learning
Students were surveyed before (N = 104) and after (n = 88) the activity:
70
I can lead a group discussion
60
% of respondents
50
40
30
20
10
0
Yes
No
Unsure
I can present a group-workshopped solution to the class
70
Before
After
60
% of respondents
50
40
30
20
10
0
Yes
No
Unsure
40
Positive comments:
 The tutorial classes were very effective. I think it was a good way to
not only work through problems step by step, but also to give rise to
issues had by students with certain topics and to have them then
solved by either your peers or <tutor names>. Overall, I enjoyed the
tutorials very much.
 It was good to be able to see other people’s thought processes
when working through the problems.
 Being challenged. It was daunting but a good way to learn.
 Personally, I really enjoy the tutorial classes as it helps our
development in teamwork and leadership skill and at the same time,
reinforce our knowledge.
Negative comments:
 Some of the group members are unable to follow and join the
discussion. Might due to their lack of preparation or revision. The
marking of it might be biased though. As teachers have no idea
about it.
 The assignments of roles and marking criteria for those roles were a
little overpowering in regards to the overall learning environment. I
suggest that marks should be located (sic) for the overall teamwork.
 I think preparation work should be checked before tute class
because some people come unprepared and hence taking longer to
solve each question.
41
Reflections & Implications for Future Practice
Initially (in 2014), the approaches were developed within one unit.
Following evaluation, analysis, and modification, they will be rolled out
to other 1st year units.
In future:
 Group sizes will be limited to four with these roles: manager, scribe,
time-keeper, presenter.
 It is clear that students benefit most from these inquiry-pursuing
activities if they work well collaboratively, the main elements being
preparation and participation. On the first iteration, we focused on
participation, and in some part – preparation, via assessment. To
improve preparation, we plan to monitor preparation activities using
online tools.
42
Example 6:
Inquiry Level: 2
Discipline
Biology
Student Profile
First Year
Student : Demonstrator = 16 : 1
Contributor
Dr Gerry Rayner, Monash University
gerry.rayner@monash.edu
IOL Activity Description
This activity incorporates a combination of problem-based and inquiryoriented learning. Students are presented with problem scenario: the
first year biology subject convenor has developed a severe, acute
respiratory tract infection some days after opening a letter containing a
white powder. Students’ primary aim is to identify the powder and thus
determine the likely cause of the coordinator’s infection.
In the first practical session, students develop an understanding of the
biochemical basis of Gram staining and its importance in first stage
identification for unknown microbes. They also derive, transfer and
grow pure cultures of microorganisms using aseptic techniques, and
are introduced to tests and staining methods used to identify bacterial
structures and the production of pathogen-specific enzymes.
In the second practical session, students carry out further tests to
further develop their laboratory skills and refine their understanding of
the identity of the unknown substance.
Context
First year biology often introduces students to a range of higher year
level disciplines, including microbiology, which requires a basic
understanding of microbial evolution, diversity, structure, function and
pathogenicity. Laboratory classes in first year microbiology thus involve
introduction to and development of a range of skills including sterile
43
technique and plate streaking, and staining procedures, the most basic
of which is Gram staining.
Innovation & Implementation
This practical introduces a real-world, contemporary scenario, that
students can relate to and which they seek to resolve. Student
feedback indicates that they enjoyed this problem-based approach and
in particular the hands-on approach adopted for the restructured
practicals.
In response to the question, “What were the best aspects of this unit?”,
included the following:





“Microbiology labs”
“The microbiology labs, very hands-on and very interesting”
“Getting an understanding of all the different aspects of biology
including the microbiology labs”
“Practical sessions – especially the microbiology section”
“The microbiology labs”
When asked about this specific practical, many students commented
on its problem-solving nature. For example, students commented that:



“Having a goal to achieve and a mystery to solve were
enjoyable, as opposed to experiments that just show processes
in operation”.
“While being an open-ended investigation, it was still somewhat
structured and this helps with confidence levels”
“Really liked this prac - a nice mix of IDEA (inquire-DesignExperiment-Analyse) prac and guided/regular prac. The
"detective style" format made it great fun.”
Over the period that this practical has been conducted, refined and reimplemented, students have strongly endorsed it as having a positive
effect on their understanding of microbiology and development of
44
associated skills. In an evaluation of the pedagogical value of the
practical, a high proportion of students endorsed it as interesting, and
as having increased their understanding of microbiology and refined
their skills in laboratory techniques.
Question
% students Agree
/ Strongly agree
Mean
I found this to be an interesting practical
82.4
4.1
This practical helped to develop my skills
in using laboratory equipment.
83.2
4.1
Completing this practical has increased
my understanding of microbiology.
83.2
4.2
Challenges & Difficulties
Objective assessment of student practical skills, which is a focus of this
IOL practical, has been a major challenge. Elements of the assessment
depended upon visual examination of Gram stained slides and levels of
student input, both of which require careful scrutiny by teaching
associates / demonstrators. Pre-laboratory meetings of teaching
associates, together with assessment of pre-prepared slides and the
introduction of scenario-based activities suggest that teaching
associates are considerably more skilled in assessing student skill
levels, proficiency in microbiological methods and their input to group
discussions and related activities.
The assessment structure has been refined so that it now comprises:




a pre-laboratory quiz using personal response system (clickers)
in practical assessment of Gram-stained slides
in practical assessment of student input and engagement
a post-laboratory quiz comprising 10 short answer and multiple
choice questions
45
Reflections & Implications for Future Practice
Although this particular scenario may have become somewhat
outdated in the intervening half decade years, it can be rewritten as an
investigative problem-based practical around current events – for
example, bioterrorism using transferable agents. In this way, the
practical can be redesigned to engage the students’ interest and
consolidate their understanding of basic microbial structure and
function. Overall this approach generated improved learning outcomes
and greater student interest and motivation than a simple descriptive
practical that did not rely on enquiry and investigation.
46
Example 7:
Inquiry Level: 2
Discipline
Chemistry
Student Profile
First Year
Student : Demonstrator = 16 : 1
Contributor
Dr Chris Thompson, Monash University
chris.thompson@monash.edu
IOL Activity Description
This activity takes a traditional quantitative chemistry experiment,
typically delivered to students via a recipe-based format (that is a
structured, formulaic approach). In this inquiry-oriented variation of the
theme, students are given four unknown metal alloy samples and they
are required to use skills developed earlier in the semester to
 collaboratively brainstorm and design an experiment to identify their
samples,
 perform the experiment to quantify how much of each element is in
the four samples.
Context
In first year chemistry, students perform eight experiments in each
semester. These are typically of a recipe-based nature. This IOL
initiative was driven by an intent to diversify class-styles, and increase
the degree of collaborative learning, genuine problem solving and
experimental design in the classroom. As a result of the inquiry based
approach being used in secondary science education (as part of the
National curriculum),it was perceived that there was a need to align
our approach with that being taught in schools.
47
Innovation & Implementation
Some of the structural differences used to enable the activity were:
 Students worked in groups of 3 or 4, rather than individually.
 Students were asked to plan their experiment at the start of the
class.
 Before commencing, each group was asked to share their design
with other groups.
 Students needed to do their own calculations to design their
quantitative analysis technique – no procedure (“recipe”) was
provided.
 Demonstrators were encouraged not to intervene unless the student
design was completely flawed.
Challenges & Difficulties
Optimising the amount of guidance from demonstrators
 Some students feel very lost at the start.
 Some students feel frustrated at the lack of direction from the
demonstrator.
 In contrast, other students still felt as though they were being
pushed in a very specific direction, and suggested it was not truly
inquiry-oriented.
Assessment
 Consistency of marks across a team of ~30 demonstrators.
 Appropriately finding ways to mark:
 Teamwork, collaboration & task delegation
 Inquiry, design and originality
48
Evaluation
Student Comments & Data
Positive:
 "How to work as a scientist without any knowledge of (a) substance
and determine it through experimentation"
 "Experimenters face a great deal of challenges when they are trying
to find out something unknown. Even when they take all necessary
precautions, they still may be faced with errors."
 "The issues and situations a chemist could experience in the field."
Negative:
 “I did not like the lack of guidance.”
 “There was not enough guidance - didn't know what I was trying to
accomplish at the end.”
 “Was pretty lost at first.”
 “It was a bit harder and there wasn't as much guidance.”
 “Too open ended not much guidance.”
49
Reflections & Implications for Future Practice
This activity has encouraged us to embed elements of inquiry into a
number of other activities.
We have identified that rather than experiments being pure recipebased, or purely inquiry-based, it is quite feasible to have elements of
both. This depends on the task at hand, and sophistication or earlier
student experiences in the lab.
Some students clearly require extra support, particularly when helping
them to get started in the absence of instructions: Most recently we
have introduced a more scaffolded approach including:
 A short, online pre-lab video.
 An accompanying pre-lab quiz.
Each of these includes the aim of the experiment, footage of how to
use equipment, sample calculations for the analysis, and other hints
and tips to help student overcome some of the typical barriers and
roadblocks.
We have turned to peer-assessment to help with some of the
challenges grading teamwork and collaboration. Students can
contribute to the overall mark by placing value on the contributions
made by others in the group, to help the demonstrator arrive at a fair
grade for this component.
In response to our innovation, IOL is now being implemented into
higher year levels, and even in other disciplines at our institution.
50
References and further reading
Abraham, M. R. (2011). What Can Be Learned from Laboratory Activities?
Revisiting 32 Years of Research. Journal of Chemical Education, 88,
1020-1025.
Barrows, H.S. & Tamblyn, R.M. (1980). Problem-based Learning: An
Approach to Medical Education. New York: Springer Publishing
Company.
Bellanca, J. (2009). 200+ Active Learning Strategies and Projects for
Engaging Students’ Multiple Intelligences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Christensen, C.R., & Hansen A. J. (1981). Teaching and the case method.
Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Division.
DeHaan, R.L. (2005). The impending revolution in undergraduate science
education. Journal of Science Educ ation and Technology, 14(2), 253-269.
Domin, D. S. (1999). "A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles." Journal of
Chemical Education 76(4): 543.Farrell, J.J., Moog, R.S. & Spencer, J.N.
(1999). A guided inquiry general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical
Education, 76(4), 570-574.
Etkina, E., Karelina, A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., &
Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2010). Design and reflection help students develop
scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1): 54-98.
Freeman, S. Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H.
& Wenderoth, M.P. (2014). Active learning increases student
performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Hart Research Associates (2013). It Takes More Than a Major: Employer
Priorities for College Learning and Student Success. Washington, DC:
AAC&U.
Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching exploring disciplinary
spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In: Barnett, R. (ed.)
Reshaping the university: new relationships between research,
scholarship and teaching. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University
Press, 30–42.
51
Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T.C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in
authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 19(1): 59-71.
Herron, J.D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review,
79(2),171- 212.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do
students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3): 235-266.
Lee, V.S. (Ed) (2004). Teaching and Learning Through Inquiry: A Guidebook
for Institutions and Instructors. Sterling, Va.: Stylus, 2004.
Percy, A., Scoufis, M., Parry, S., Goody, A., Hicks, M., Macdonald, I., Martinez,
K., Szorenyi-Reischl, N., Ryan, Y., Wills, S. & Sheridan, L. (2008). The
RED Report, Recognition - Enhancement - Development: The
Contribution of Sessional Teachers to Higher Education. Sydney:
Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development, In Mind
and Society, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79-91.
Wilson-Medhurst, S., & Glendinning, I. (2009). Winning hearts and minds:
Implementing activity led learning (ALL). Proceedings of the Learning by
Developing: New Ways to Learn Conference, Laurea, Helsink i.
52