Scientists

Responsible Research and Innovation (rri) has been defined as an inclusive approach that allows several societal actors (e.g., researchers, citizens, policy makers, business, third sector organisations etc.) to interact during engaging with research and innovation process with the express purpose to align both the process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of European society (Science with and for Society, 2014). More specifically, citizens in democratic societies are expected to engage in decisions regarding new technologies when cultural, environmental, social, economic or ethical values are at stake. Preparing citizens to engage constructively in discussions about whether a new technology is beneficial or harmful to society requires providing them with a basic understanding of how to evaluate scientific research and innovation. Thoughtful and informed thinking comes from making judgments about the credibility of different types of evidence. Citizens need to be skilled in asking critical questions, evaluating qualitative and quantitative data, and discussing rri issues with a variety of societal actors. Discussing science policy issues with a variety of stakeholders ensures that citizens are exposed to information from different perspectives. Likewise, interacting with a diversity of stakeholders increases the likelihood that persons in positions of authority feel a sense of responsibility to carefully consider socio-scientific issues. A greater involvement of informed citizens in the research and innovation process fosters inclusive and sustainable outcomes that ensure public trust in the scientific and technological enterprise. Although rri is related to and relevant for all scientific domains, it has been argued that especially in the STEM domains in which emerging technologies encounter ethical questions and choices, rri awareness is important (e.g. Sutcliffe, 2011).

The Ark of Inquiry project aims to foster rri by teaching pupils core inquiry skills needed to evaluate the credibility and consequences of scientific research and by offering opportunities for pupils to engage with different societal actors involved in the research and innovation process. It is important that pupils experience inquiry activities outside of the formal educational setting and become aware of the broader community of people involved in research and innovation. Pupils who have an early opportunity to interact with a broad audience of stakeholders will be better prepared later as citizens to debate and think about scientific issues with an open and critical mind considering what have been mentioned as typical rri aspects such as the global and sustainable impact of research findings and innovations in which positive and negative consequences are balanced, societal relevance, and the importance of participatory design and co-creation with end users (Sutcliffe, 2011). Communicating and sharing ideas develops awareness and understanding among all participants. Preparing future citizens for their role as active and informed participants in rri therefore requires emphasizing the importance of communication and dialogue. In the Ark of Inquiry project this aspect is highlighted by including inquiry activities where pupils must interact with a range of stakeholders such as science centre staff, university researchers, teacher education pupils, and citizens/end users. For instance, pupils can be asked to write about inquiry activities and outcomes as journalists of science, hence seeking debate with others about research findings.

Scientific inquiry is defined as “the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work” (NRC, 1996, p. 23). According to Bybee (1997), inquiry constitutes the heart of science as a discipline, and true scientific literacy cannot be achieved without employing inquiry skills. Although scientific inquiry has become very important for scientists and educators since 1960s, there is still not a definite consensus about a definition of inquiry-based learning in science education literature. Recently, different science educators define inquiry-based learning in terms and in combination of the following: “formulating questions” (Keys & Bryan, 2001; Zee, Iwasyk, Kurose, Simpson & Wild, 2001), “designing experiments” (Shimoda, White, & Fredericksen, 2001; Yerrick, 2000), “predicting outcome” (Songer, Lee & Kam, 2002), “gathering resource and data”(Byers & Fitzgerald, 2002), “analyzing data” (Donaldson & Odom, 2001), “transforming knowledge” (Bybee, 1997; Hamm & Adams, 2002), “hands on, minds on activities” (Crawford, 2000; Gibson & Chase, 2002), “communicating scientific arguments” (Bybee, 1997), “process of discovery” (Schwab, 1964), “making decisions about actions” (Hmelo-Silver & Nagarajan, 2001) and “authentic scientific practice” (Cartier & Stewart, 2000; Edelson, 2001) (cited in Atar,2007).

Inquiry begins with gathering information through the use of human senses — seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling. Inquiry supports and encourages learner to question, conduct research, and make discoveries on their own experiences. The practice transforms the teacher into a learner with pupils, and pupils become teachers with us. Anderson (2002) states that inquiry is a good combination of learning, teaching, and doing science in a classroom and all components are interrelated with each other.

Ark of Inquiry is a European funded project by the FP7 programme of the European Commission that involves 13 project partners from 12 countries. The overall aim of the Ark of Inquiry project is to create a “new science classroom”, one which would provide more challenging, authentic and higher-order learning experiences and more opportunities for pupils to participate in scientific practices and tasks, using the discourse of science and working with scientific representations and tools.

As a scientist, your participation to Ark of Inquiry Project is very meaningful and important to reach project objectives defined in the project. The platform that is developed within the project life time includes inquiry-based activities that are widely available across Europe. We expect that from your end you will act as one of the major supporters of this platform.

Further to the definitions about inquiry and inquiry learning that the Ark of Inquiry webpage entails, we elaborate here on each inquiry phase by describing the processes that take place during each phase of inquiry and illustrate how they are interconnected and relate to each other. These phases are described in five distinct dimensions: Orientation, Conceptualisation, Investigation, Conclusion, Discussion and seven sub-phases: Questioning, Hypothesis Generation, Exploration, Experimentation, Data Interpretation, Reflection, and Communication.  The following Figure illustrates the relations and connections among the different inquiry phases (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Inquiry learning framework [from Pedaste et al. (2015)].

Each phase of the inquiry-based learning framework is described below. 

Orientation Phase: Orientation is a process to stimulate curiosity about a topic and leads to a problem statement. Curiosity is the “engine” of science education — it can be seen as the lever that drives pupils to keep learning, keep trying, and keep pushing forward. Hence, you, as a scientist, can aid in inspiring pupils’ curiosity through sharing with them your scientific practices and expertise and also collaborate with science teachers in the Ark of Inquiry Platform.

Conceptualisation Phase: Pupils’ engagement with the problem under study during the orientation phase will enable them to formulate their scientific research questions or hypotheses during the conceptualisation phase. Over the years, the answers to specific scientific research questions have lead to important discoveries. In this phase, pupils consider what makes scientific research questions testable and then pose testable questions about problems they are studying. Consequently, it is important for pupils to acknowledge what counts as evidence that will be subsequently needed in answering their questions.

Investigation Phase: This phase entails a process of collecting empirical evidence to respond the research question or test the previously formulated hypotheses. Investigation phase is based mostly on hands on activities. It is a process of gathering empirical evidence to answer the research question or hypotheses. For example, the pupils work in groups in science laboratory to find evidence for the problem statement defined at conceptualisation phase. Investigation phase includes three sub-phases, which are exploration, experimentation and data interpretation.

Conclusion Phase: In this phase, research findings from investigation phase are reported and justified by the results of the investigation. Pupils are expected to present their data collection and interpretations through various ways such as presentations or reports, including theoretical evidence.

Discussion phase: This phase of inquiry is directly connected to all the other phases. It consists of communicating partial or completed outcomes, as well as reflective processes to regulate the learning process. Discussion phase includes two sub-phases: communication and reflection. The communication sub-phase generates support for scientific research or study, or to inform decision-making, including political and ethical thinking. The reflection sub-phase aims to meaningfully raise pupils’ skills in developing creative, scientific problem-solving and socio-scientific decision-making abilities.

In terms of pathways through which inquiry unfolds, Figure 1 shows that inquiry is rarely a simple linear sequence. Various possible pathways exist and are indeed expected. Inquiry begins in the Orientation phase, but already in the next phase there is a choice to move through either the Questioning or Hypothesis Generation sub-phase. The difference relates to how familiar pupils are with the theory that underlies a topic. If pupils have little to no background then they should start with the Questioning sub-phase (which subsequently guides them to the Investigation phase via the Exploration and Data Interpretation sub-phases). After acquiring experience with the topic the pupils can return and select the Hypothesis Generation sub-phase. Alternatively, pupils with no familiarity with a topic could move from the Questioning to Hypothesis Generation sub-phase if they collect enough background information to formulate a specific hypothesis. In any case, Hypothesis Generation is an important phase because it leads to the Experimentation sub-phase. Experiments usually form the most critical part of inquiry since it is through empirical testing that relationships between dependent and independent variables can be established. After the Investigation phase there is the Conclusion phase. A unique feature of the Pedaste et al. framework is that the Discussion phase is in continual connection with the other inquiry phases. The Discussion phase allows for communication and reflection at any time during inquiry.

Table 1.   Skills and Examples of the Phases of Inquiry Learning 

Each skill matching the phases of inquiry described in table 1 have different proficiency levels described from A-level (Novice) to C-level (Advanced) in the evaluation system of the Ark of Inquiry.