An international collaborative investigation of beginning seventh grade students' understandings of scientific inquiry: Establishing a baseline

An international collaborative investigation of beginning seventh grade students' understandings of scientific inquiry: Establishing a baseline Judith Lederman ( Illinois Institute of Technology ), Norman Lederman ( Illinois Institute of Technology ), Selina Bartels (Universidad de Valparaíso), Juan Jimenez ( Illinois Institute of Technology ), Mark Akubo (Florida State University); Shereen Aly (American University in Cairo); Chengcheng Bao (Zhejiang Normal University); Estelle Blanquet (Université De Bordeaux & ESPE d'Aquitaine); Ron Blonder (Weizmann Institute of Science); Mariana Bologna Soares de Andrade (Universidade Estadual de Londrina); Catherine Buntting (The University of Waikato); Mustafa Cakir (Marmara Universitesi); Heba EL-Deghaidy (American University in Cairo); Ahmed ElZorkani (American University in Cairo); Estelle Gaigher (University of Pretoria); Shuchen Guo (Beijing Normal University); Arvi Hakanen (Helsingin Yliopisto); Soraya Hamed Al-Lal (Universidad de Sevilla); Cigdem Han-Tosunoglu (Marmara Universitesi); Annemarie Hattingh (University of Cape Town); Anne Hume (The University of Waikato); Serhat Irez (Marmara Universitesi); Gillian Kay (University of Cape Town); Ozgur Kivilcan Dogan (Marmara Universitesi); Kerstin Kremer (IPN, Kiel); Pi-Chu Kuo (National Pingtung University); Jari Lavonen (Helsingin Yliopisto); Shu-Fen Lin (National Changhua University of Education); Cheng Liu (Beijing Normal University); Enshan Liu (Beijing Normal University); Shiang-Yao Liu (National Taiwan Normal University); Bin Lv (Zhejiang Normal University); Rachel MamlokNaaman (Weizmann Institute of Science); Christine McDonald (Griffith University); Irene Neumann (IPN, Kiel); Yaozhen Pan (Zhejiang International Studies University); Eric Picholle (Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis); Ana Rivero García (Universidad de Sevilla); Carl-Johan Rundgren (Stockholm Universitet); David Santibáñez-Gómez (Universidad Católica Silva Henríquez); Kathy Saunders (The University of Waikato); Renee Schwartz (Georgia State University); Frauke Voitle (IPN, Kiel); Jakob von Gyllenpalm (Stockholm Universitet); Fangbing Wei (Zhejiang Normal University); Jocelyn Wishart (University of Bristol); Zhifeng Wu (Zhejiang Normal University); Huang Xiao (Zhejiang Normal University); Yalcin Yalaki (Hacettepe Universitesi); Qiaoxue Zhou (Shanghai Jingyang Middle School) Abstract Althoug understandings of scientific inquiry (as opposed to conducting inquiry) are included in science education reform documents around the world, little is known about what students have learned about inquiry during their elementary school years. This is partially due to the lack of any assessment instrument to measure understandings about scientific inquiry. However, a valid and reliable assessment has recently been developed and published, Views About Scientific Inquiry (VASI; Lederman et al. [2014], Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 65–83). The purpose of this largescale international project was to collect the first baseline data on what beginning middle school students have learned about scientific inquiry during their elementary school years. Eighteen countries/regions spanning six continents including 2,634 students participated in the study. The participating countries/regions were: Australia, Brazil, Chile, Egypt, England, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Mainland China, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United States. In many countries, science is not formally taught until middle school, which is the rationale for choosing seventh grade students for this investigation. This baseline data will simultaneously provide information on what, if anything, students learn about inquiry in elementary school, as well as their beginning knowledge as they enter secondary school. It is important to note that collecting data from all of the approximately 200 countries globally was not humanly possible, and it was also not possible to collect data from every region of each country. The results over-whelmingly show that students around the world at the beginning of grade seven have very little understandings about scientific inquiry. Some countries do show reasonable understandings in certain aspects but the overall picture of understandings of scientific inquiry is not what is hoped for after completing 6 years of elementary education in any country. Keywords: international, literacy, scientific inquiry 1. INTRODUCTION Scientific inquiry (SI) has been a perennial focus of science education for the past century and it generally refers to the combination of general science process skills with traditional science content, creativity, and critical thinking to develop scientific knowledge (Lederman, 2010). Perhaps the most influential advocacy for the importance of understandings about scientific inquiry can be found in the conceptual paper by Showalter (1974) in which he outlines the critical components of scientific literacy (Welch, 1979). Few would argue that scientific literacy is not the primary goal of science education. Consistent with Showalter's work, recent reform documents have emphasized that students should develop the abilities necessary to do inquiry and/or science practices as well as have an understanding about inquiry (e.g. Benchmarks for Science Literacy, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, National Research Council [NRC], 2011). The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000) were explicit in their differentiation between the abilities to do inquiry and knowledge about SI. This distinction also continues to be evident in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2013). Although, the NGSS refers to science practices as opposed to the inquiry. The NGSS considers “practices” as extending well beyond simply being involved in science processes. In either case, “inquiry” or “practices” refers to the engagement of students in behaviors similar to those of scientists. Similar distinctions are becoming more prominent in reform documents throughout the world. Quite simply, it seems logical that students will improve their ability to do inquiry/practices if they have an understanding about what they are doing and this knowledge, combined with knowledge of science, will enable students to make more informed decisions about scientifically based personal and societal decisions. The position here is not that the doing of science is unimportant. It is important for students to be engaged in inquiry practices. Indeed, these experiences provide the best instructional platform for students to reflect back upon how scientific knowledge is developed. However, despite the continued emphasis on understandings of SI worldwide, there has never been a systematic assessment of how well this educational outcome is being accomplished. Research indicates that neither teachers nor students typically hold informed views of SI (Lederman & Lederman, 2004; Schwartz et al., 2002). However, the research base is small primarily due to the lack of availability of valid and reliable assessments of SI. Now with the development of the Views of Scientific Inquiry, [VASI] (Lederman et al., 2014) the research base for SI can begin to grow. There are those that have concerns with instruments that purport to assess students' understand ings about constructs such as inquiry and NOS (Hammer & Elby, 2009; Hammer, Elby, Scherr, & Redish, 2005). Their arguments primarily revolve around the idea that context impacts students' abilities to express what they understand about NOS and this has been extended to the inquiry. The results of this investigation show otherwise as the VASI clearly provides students with a variety of contexts within which to express what they understand about the inquiry. Additionally, prior research also would call into question the claims made by Hammer and colleagues (Bartels & Lederman, 2017; among others). While knowing about SI is intuitively linked with the doing of SI, what is notable is the lack of a robust research base centered on students' understandings about the inquiry. What is evident is the preponderance of research focused on the doing of inquiry, which oftentimes is assumed to imply an understanding of inquiry. The belief that doing inquiry is a sufficient condition for developing understandings about SI, unfortunately, is a misconception. (Wong & Hodson, 2009, 2010). The intent of this collaborative project was to report on students' understandings of SI across the globe with a valid and reliable assessment tool; we can begin to see what students of the same grade levels know about SI in various countries/regions. The purpose is not to focus on comparisons across countries (especially since instruction, curricula, and cultures vary widely across nations), but rather to develop a baseline of understandings worldwide. Readers are urged to resist the temptation to compare the findings from their country/regions with the findings from the other countries/regions. Although one to one comparisons between countries/regions around the world are not appropriate, it is clear that there are similarities across countries/regions that can help explain the rather consistent findings. These explanatory factors are elaborated on in the conclusions. 1.1 Why should students understand scientific inquiry and what should they know? Students should be able to understand how scientists do their work and how scientific knowledge is developed, critiqued, and eventually accepted by the scientific community. SI is this process. The NSES content standards for Science as Inquiry for grades K-12 advocated the merit of students developing (a) the abilities necessary to do inquiry and (b) understandings about scientific inquiry (NRC, 2000). In the US, a relatively new set of science standards define what students should be learning. Although students should be engaged in conducting scientific inquiry the “doing” of scientific inquiry is emphasized in the new standards (NGSS, 2013), within the category of “Practices.” The NGSS expects teachers to have students; asking questions, planning and carrying out investigations, and constructing explanations. Thus in the United States, teachers are encouraged to engage their stu dents in conducting scientific investigations in their classrooms. However, the explicit teaching of understandings about SI/Practices is missing from the NGSS. Although conducting an inquiry, or the process skills of science, is important, students can often do inquiry without knowing how and why scientists go about their work. The efficacy of such implicit approaches to developing understandings of SI, and for that matter NOS, have been called into question by a growing body of research (AbdEl-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000; Lederman, Bartels, Liu, & Jimenez, 2013; Lederman & Lederman, 2004; Schwartz et al., 2002; Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004). Therefore, it is important to identify and explicitly teach the aspects of SI that can serve, in the end, to develop informed views of SI. And, of course, the major endpoint desired is the development of a scientifically literate citizenry. It is important to note that “explicit’ does not mean lecture or teacher-centered instruction, as misunderstood by some researchers (Duschl & Grandy, 2013). Explicit/reflective instruction engages students in reflections upon what they have done in an investigation and the implications this has for how scientists do their work and the knowledge that is produced. Such understandings are critical for the development of a scientifically literate public, considering that our citizenry is confronted with scientifically based issues upon which decisions must be made, yet few citizens engage in scientific investigations after they have graduated high school or college. The initial formal teaching of SI begins in primary school. The age at which a child enters primary school is different depending on the country or region. The NGSS Lead States (2013) begins with kindergarten and, therefore, the formal teaching of SI in the US is supposed to begin in kindergarten. The formal start of science instruction also differs around the world. Studies have been conducted on young children's understandings of SI. These studies have found that young children have the ability to understand certain aspects of SI that are developmentally appropriate (e.g., science begins with a question, no single scientific method, and conclusions are consistent with data collected and prior knowledge) (Lederman, 2012). Students in grades Kindergarten through fifth grade have the ability to understand some aspects of SI (Sodian, Zaitchik, & Carey, 1991; Tytler & Peterson, 2003). Two studies have looked at elementary students who spoke English and other languages at home found that after instruction in their native language students had an understanding of SI for their age level regardless of language spoken (Cuevas, Lee, Hart, & Deaktor, 2005; Lederman et al., 2013). It is in fifth grade and beyond that, the introduction and teaching of the additional aspects of SI are developmentally appropriate. 1.1.1 Aspects of SI The aspects of SI that follow are empirically shown to be appropriate in the context of K-12 classrooms (Bartels & Lederman, 2017; Lederman, 2012; Lederman et al., 2013), but can also be appropriately applied to college level students. For a more indepth elaboration of each of these aspects, see Lederman et al. (2014). Specifically students should develop an informed understanding of the following aspects. 1.2 Scientific investigations all begin with a question, but do not necessarily test a hypothesis “Scientific investigations involve asking and answering a question and comparing the answer with what scientists already know about the world” (National Research Council [NRC], 2000, p. 20). In order for scientific investigations to occur there has to be a question asked about the natural world. Traditional experimental designs typically include a formally stated hypothesis, but this is not necessary or typical of other designs (e.g. descriptive and correlational). 1.3 There is no single set or sequence of steps followed in all investigations Clearly, there are other ways that scientists perform investigations such as observing natural phenom ena. Most often, descriptive and correlational research methodologies are employed to gather data in this field. Students need to develop not only an understanding of the variety of research methodologies employed both across and within the domains of science but that, in general, “scientist[s] use different kinds of investigations depending on the questions they are trying to answer” (NRC, 2000, p. 20). 1.4 Inquiry procedures are guided by the question asked While scientists may design different procedures to answer the same question, these invariably need to be capable of answering the question proposed. Similar to the aforementioned aspect of SI, students need to understand the necessity of this alignment between the research question and method, in that the former drives and ultimately determines the latter. In general, students should understand that the question determines the approach, with the approaches differing both within and between sci entific disciplines and fields (Lederman, Antink, & Bartos, 2012). 1.5 All scientists performing the same procedures may not get the same results Students need to understand that “scientific data does not stand by itself, but can be variously interpreted” (Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar, & Duschl, 2003, p. 708). As such, scientists who ask similar questions and follow similar procedures may reach different conclusions, owing in part to their theoretical commitments, what scientists consider as evidence and how they handle anomalous data also influence the results of a scientific investigation. Because of this, scientists who examine the same data may justifiably come to different conclusions. 1.6 Inquiry procedures can influence results The procedure selected for a scientific investigation invariably influences its outcome. The operationalization of variables, the methods of data collection, and how variables will be measured and analyzed all influence the conclusions reached by the researcher. 1.7 Scientific data are not the same as scientific evidence Data and evidence serve different purposes in a scientific investigation. Data are observations gat ered by the scientist during the course of the investigation, and they can take various forms (e.g. numbers, descriptions, photographs, audio, physical samples, etc.) Evidence, in contrast, is a product of data analysis procedures and subsequent interpretation and is directly tied to a specific question and a related claim. 1.8 Research conclusions must be consistent with the data collected Each research conclusion must be supported by evidence. Students need to understand that the strength of a scientist's claim is a function of the preponderance of the evidence that supports it. The validity of the claims is further strengthened by the alignment of the research method with the research question. It follows as well then, that claims must be reflected in the data collected which are analyzed to provide the evidence for said claims. Scientific knowledge is empirically based, thus any explanations for the phenomena explored in investigations are anchored by the data that facilitates scientists' development of those explanations. 1.9 Explanations are developed from a combination of collected data and what is already known Bombardier, & Beaton, 1993; Hambleton, 2002; Hambleton & Patsula, 1998; Maneersriwongul & Dixon, 2004; Organization for Economic and Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2017). 3.4 Training Sessions for Scoring the VASI The selection and training of the contact people for this study were directed by the US researchers. This project formally began with an initial meeting at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) meeting. The initial timeline of the study was determined when the personne at each research site was able to specify their local constraints. Individual meetings were arranged and conducted via Skype between each site and the primary US site. Depending on the research team, there were two to three meetings. The first meeting involved learning to administer and score the VASI. After the administration of the VASI in each country/region, each site was required to send four or five completed (but unscored) VASI questionnaires from their sample. The responses were translated into English by each local team. Then, each questionnaire was independently scored by a group of four to five researchers from the US team. Once the questionnaires were scored, a second meeting with the international local team was scheduled to explain how the questionnaires were scored and how the questions targeted the aspects of SI. During this meeting, each local team discussed the quality of the answers, scoring, reliability, and inter-rater agreement. Any issues of cultural impacts on the meaning of students' responses were discussed and reconciled. This manifested itself in some situations where the US scoring team deferred to the interpretation of the international team because of the importance of a potential cultural influence on the meaning of student's responses. In a third meeting, each team scored a new set of questionnaires for themselves and then compared their scores with the US team. This meeting allowed the local teams to “calibrate” the scoring process in order to get 80% or greater inter-rater agreement. If additional meetings were needed, they were scheduled on a case by case basis. Once teams could reliably score the VASI with the US team, they then proceeded to establish reliability with their local team before scoring the entire set of questionnaires. They scored their entire sample and met with their local team to ensure 80% or greater inter-rater agreement for each aspect of the VASI. The interrater agreement established for each research site can be found in Table 1. 3.5 Data collection This study took place at the start of the grade seven school year which varied in timing depending on the beginning of the school year in the various continents and hemispheres. Countries in the Northern hemisphere collected data in August/September and the Southern hemisphere countries collected data in January). Each student was given a VASI questionnaire (Figure 1) to complete in a 45–60 min time period. In Figure 1, below is the full VASI instrument. The version distributed to the students contained more than adequate space for the students to provide their responses after administration of the VASI, the responses were scored by the primary contact person (and colleagues) in each country. Each student was given a score of; No Answer, Naïve (students' responses contained all inaccurate understandings), Mixed (students' responses contained some accurate and some inaccurate understandings) or Informed (students' responses are complete and accurate) for each aspect of SI. Please refer to Table 1 for examples of responses and how they were coded. Numerical scores are not used with the VASI, student's responses are categorized with respect to how accurately their responses align with the measured aspect of SI. If a respondent provided a response consistent across the entire questionnaire that is wholly congruent with the target response for a given aspect of SI they were scored as “informed”. If, in contrast, a response was either only partially provided, and thus not totally consistent with the targeted response, or if a contradiction in the response is evident, a score of “mixed” was given. A response that is contradictory to accepted views of an aspect of SI, and provides no evidence of congruence with accepted views of the specific aspect of SI under examination, was scored as “naïve”. Refer Table 1 for examples of how VASI responses are scored. At least 20% of the students were interviewed to ensure that the scoring of the VASI was accurate in representing what the students' written response meant. This insured face validity for the questionnaire. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The inter-rater agreement reported for the VASI was 80% or better for each site. 4 OVERALL FINDINGS In general, this study found that grade seven students' understandings of SI are poor. However, it was apparent that, for each country or region in the study, there were some students who held more mod erate understandings than others. These variations differed from place to place depending on the cur riculum, instruction, and the myriad of other factors that influence what students learn. Again, the reason data from each country/region were not compared with other countries/regions is that such comparisons would be inappropriate and is certainly not in line with the intended focus of this inves tigation. The following paragraphs highlight the findings from each country/region. Researchers from each were asked to write a brief summary of their site-specific findings. They wrote about the most interesting findings from their country/region. They also explained the possible reasons for these part ticular results. See Tables 2 and 3 for a complete set of data from each country/region for each aspect of SI. What follows is country/region specific explanations (in alphabetical order) of findings and possible factors influencing SI understandings based on local standards, curriculum, and teaching practice. The lead researcher for each country/region wrote the site-specific findings section, this resulted in some uneven language. Thus, some editing was done, but substantive were not made and every attempt was made to allow each contributor to convey their own findings from their own distinct place in the world. Additionally, reiterations of the same data found in the previous tables were omitted in an effort to conserve space. TABLE 2 The worldwide average of findings for each aspect of SI Aspect Naïve % Mixed % Informed % Starts with a question 43.9 29.9 20.7 Multiple methods 54.4 33.8 6.0 Same procedures may not yield same results 54.0 25.5 14.0 Procedures influence results 40.7 33.1 15.9 Conclusions must be consistent with data collected 39.7 20.6 33.3 Procedures are guided by the question asked 44.8 20.1 27.5 Data and evidence are not the same 48.5 32.1 10.4 Conclusions are developed from data and prior knowledge 41.3 37.9 10.9 10982736, 2019, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [02/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 4.1 Australia Scientific inquiry (SI) is part of the Australian national curriculum. The Australian curriculum: Science F-10 (ACARA, 2015) is structured around three interrelated strands: Science understanding, Science as a human endeavor, and Science inquiry skills. However, there is no expectation that SI is explicitly addressed in elementary classrooms. Elementary teachers are responsible for teaching across the entire curriculum and typically do not hold tertiary qualifications, often resulting in low confidence in teaching science (McKenzie, KOS, Walker, & Hong, 2008). For this study, a total of 108 students from two Catholic single-sex schools in Queensland, Australia completed the VASI. After accepting the invitation to participate in the study, students completed the instrument and their responses were analyzed and scored by two researchers. Finally, 21 students comprising a 20% subsample were interviewed, representing a range of views about SI aspects. The results show that Australian seventh grade students failed to express informed views of the majority of the aspects of SI examined in this study. Most students held naïve or mixed views of six of the eight aspects, with half of the students expressing informed views in only two aspects. Overall, Australian seventh grade students enter high school with largely uninformed views of SI. Overall, students showed adequate understandings of the need for alignment between the research question and method, and claims being supported by data. Unfortunately, a lack of understanding of the role of data interpretation and previous scientific knowledge was found in the grade seven students. A majority of the students also had an inability to describe multiple methods used by scientists. These findings are concerning as evidence suggests that inadequate views of SI may hamper students' abilities to appreciate how the scientific enterprise operates, and may lead to disengagement in science in the postcompulsory years of schooling. 4.2 Brazil Two official documents guide teaching in Brazil: The National Curricular Parameters (BRAZIL, 1998) and the National Education Plan (BRAZIL, 2014). Unfortunately, none of the documents promote and prioritize SI in science classrooms through activities. In most Brazilian elementary classrooms, science is taught using a teacher-centered approach with few or no practical activities. In this study, 169 students from five public and private co-educational schools were selected to participate. As a way to represent the majority of Brazilian schools, students have different socioeconomic levels. After the questionnaires were answered, they were scored by two researchers. Then a sub-sample of 20% of students were interviewed. The results show that the majority of Brazilian students' responses were classified as naïve For all aspects of SI. Overall, after analyzing the responses of Brazilian students, it can be seen that they can conceptualize some SI aspects, but cannot identify them in real situations. This result reflects the lack of national curricular emphasis of SI for elementary school and the absence of experience in doing inquiry in science classrooms. 4.3 Chile The Chilean national science curriculum for elementary school (MINEDUC, 2012) establishes learning objectives related to science content, scientific skills, and attitudes. Moreover, the idea of SI appears to be considered as a research skill that refers to the actions of doing science and not to the reflection on the meaning of inquiry itself. This emphasis is strengthened in all the official documents suggested for instruction. In spite of the curricular prescriptions, the science classes in most cases are teacher-centered with few opportunities to develop scientific thinking or skills. For this study, a sample of 142 students from two co-educational public and one funded school from Santiago, Chile answered the instrument. The schools were chosen because public schools (44%) and funded schools (51%) comprise 95% of the school system in Chile. These schools provide education to low-income students with similar academic backgrounds. After students answered the questionnaires, they were analyzed and scored by two researchers. Then, 20% of students were interviewed considering the dif ferent students' views of SI aspects. The results show that most of the seventh grade Chilean students demonstrated a naïve or mixed knowledge of SI. The most informed views were for conclusions consistent with data collected where only 26.1% of the students were able to read the chart and extract information. For seven SI aspects, 50% of the Chilean students demonstrated naïve views. With respect to Multiple methods (75.4%) were categorized as “naïve.” The idea of “one scientific method” is not new in the Chilean context. Even science textbooks and teachers continue transmitting that idea to students. Overall the results suggest that students are committed to a stepwise single scientific method that they have learned in science, and they assume certain levels of intuitive coherence among the steps. Simultaneously, they rarely have opportunities to develop their own research questions and design investigations to answer those questions. As a result, they are not explicitly aware of the relationship between research results and the procedures utilized. 4.4 Egypt In the science standards in Egypt (Centre for Curricula and Material Development, 2016) there are some standards related to “doing” SI yet it is rare that teachers engage students in inquiry in practice The sample was students of teachers who participated in professional development workshops in Weizmann Institute. Once the surveys were collected, two researchers analyzed them. Students from the sample were selected for interviews (20%) according to the teachers´ recommendations. The results show that seventh grade Israeli students showed naïve views in six of eight aspects of SI. Students held informed views for two aspects: Procedures guided by the question asked (44.9%) and conclusions consistent with data collected (44.2%). During the interview process, students were asked if they referred to “Data collected” or “Data analysis”, however, they did not know how to differentiate between the two. The most naïve aspects according to the analysis of student answers were multiple methods (47.8%), same procedures may not get the same results (46.4%), explanations are developed from data and what is already known (46%), procedures influence results (45.7%), and begin with a question (44.2%). Some students said that scientists may do various experi ments in their laboratories with the materials and instruments which they have, and see what they get. They do not necessarily develop a question. Data does not equal evidence also showed that 39% of the students' held naïve views. Additionally, during the interviews, students tried to explain the meaning of data/evidence, but they were quite confused about it. It appears that students, in general, learned these concepts, but they did not really assimilate them correctly. Furthermore, the inquiry approach to teaching and learning is not done in a thorough manner. The inquiry procedures were somehow “transmitted” in a declarative way, and the inquiry concepts were somehow neglected. In that case, the teachers' preparation is the key to what happens in the classroom, and to how their students perceive the scientific process as well as science phenomena. Finally, the science curriculum for sixth to eighth grades includes mainly biology topics and emphasizes the nature of science as well as inquiry procedures and skills. We, therefore, believe that quite a few students were correct about some categories, but when interviewing students, we found out that they just repeated what they were told in class, rather than really understanding the issue. 4.10 4.11 Mainland China 4.11.1 Beijing Learning science through inquiry is advocated in the national science curriculum standards for an ele mentary school in Mainland China (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [MOE], 2001). Based on the standards, SI is one of the three dimensions around which national science curriculum for primary education is built. In this dimension, process skills are the main focus. However, two aspects of understanding about inquiry, “the inquiry methods are guided by the question asked” and “evidence and logical deduction are important for scientific inquiry” are mentioned. Since the national science curriculum standards for elementary school were issued, more and more teachers in Beijing have tried to integrate hands-on activities and lab work into their science classroom teaching. In spite of much effort for providing students opportunities to do inquiry, teachers do not actively help students reflect about nature of scientific inquiry. In this study, samples came from two public middle schools. One is located at 5 km away from the center of the city and the other is 11 km away. Most of the students are enrolled in schools near they live. Public schools are selected because most of the elementary and middle schools are run by the government in Mainland China (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, 2017a, 2017b). Two classes in each public school are involved in this study. Three researchers analyzed and scored the questionnaires and a class from the school closer to the city center was selected for the individual interviews. Thus, it is important to note that although 20% of the students were interviewed, all those who were interviewed were from the same school for logistical reasons. The results show that Chinese students from Beijing hold mostly mixed views of the SI aspects. The aspects for which students views were informed: procedures are guided by the question asked, with 57.2% of the students providing explicit correct explanations; conclusions consistent with data collected, with 36.7% holding informed views, and 46.4% demonstrating mixed views for this same aspect. One possible reason for these informed views is that these particular aspects of SI are mentioned to some extent in the national curriculum standards. Teachers in this region provide opportunities for students to identify variables related to a research question, control variables, and develop a conclusion based on the data collected. The most naïve views reported were for same procedures may not get the same result (57.8%), where most students mentioned only the “error” to justify differences among results. Additionally, more than half of the students held mixed views for the other five aspects. These results may have occurred because there is no emphasis on explicit understanding about these aspects of SI in the national standards (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [MOE], 2001). Furthermore, the aspects for which students did not do well are not mentioned in the standards. These results also might be related with the eastern philosophies of education, such as Confucianism (Lee & Sriaman, 2013). It is a common belief that Chinese students are rote learners and choose a passive approach to learning. Lau, Ho, and Lam (2015) pointed out that students from Western countries are relatively better at understating the scientific process and nature of science, while East Asian students are relatively better in science content than science process. Last but not least, the grade one through six national science curriculum standards in Mainland China were just revised in 2017. Since the students involved in this study only had learning experiences guided by the previous standards issued in 2001, the focus of the revised standards have not had enough longevity to have any impact on students' understandings of scientific inquiry. 4.11.2 Shanghai As the rest of mainland China, Shanghai science education follows the national science curriculum standards for elementary school (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [MOE], 2001). In this context, SI is present in the standards mostly related to research skills. In other words, the focus is on “doing” inquiry. For this study, 106 students from one co-educational private school completed the VASI. The school serves students from middle socioeconomic levels. Once the ques tionnaires were answered by the students, they were analyzed and scored by two researchers. Finally, 20% of students were selected according to the diversity in their answers to be interviewed. The results showed that students from Shanghai showed low levels of understanding of SI in all the aspects considered in the VASI questionnaire. At best, no more than 30% of the students showed informed views for some aspects. Many possible factors can explain the results. First, in Shanghai, SI is not sufficiently used in science classrooms. Seventh grade students learn science through lectures instead of inquiry activities because teachers feel that inquiry activities require more time and longer time for the teachers to prepare. Second, it was not until 2001 that the reform of basic education started in China and SI began to be promoted. Third, science teachers have different understandings of SI and this contributes to students' misunderstanding of scientific inquiry. Finally, high stakes paper and pencil examinations are still very important with respect to assessing students' science achievement. These examinations do not stress higher level thinking, and as long as students continue to receive high scores there is little effort Thus, as long as students get good scores, there is little instructional effort to require students to understand scientific inquiry. Zhejiang The Science curriculum Standard for Full-Time Schools of Compulsory Education [2011] emphasizes the importance of SI. “Doing” and “understanding” inquiry are both stressed and described as objectives for the content of the science curriculum, as well as a teaching method. This revised curriculum also stresses the idea of an integrated curriculum, however, Zhejiang province has been implementing it for nearly 20 years with mixed results. Because primary school science has received more and more attention, some schools have begun to recruit science teachers majoring in science. Previously it was common for primary science teachers to major in other subjects, such as Chinese, Mathematics, or Music. For this study, the sample (n = 106) was selected from two urban and one rural school of different socioeconomic levels in three cities in Zhejiang province. Students answered the questionnaires and four researchers participated during the scoring process. Later, 20% of the students were interviewed to ensure the accuracy of the scoring of the VASI. The students were chosen randomly based on the various levels of understanding of SI. In general, students from Zhejiang showed informed views in four aspects of SI. They also held mixed views for two SI aspects and naïve views for another two SI aspects. In particular, the most informed views were for Procedures are guided by the question asked (60.4%), begin with a question (59.4%), explanations are developed from data and what is already known (50%), and conclusions consistent with data collected (41.5%). One of the possible reasons for these results is that SI is described as both objectives and content of the science curriculum in the standards. These four aspects are also stressed in the integrated science textbook. Aspects that showed the most naïve responses were: Same procedures may not get the same results (50%) where half of the students provided inadequate answers and reasons. The same results are seen with respect to Procedures influence results (36.8%), however, in this case, the percentage of naïve answers is similar to the informed answers (32.1%). Additionally, multiple methods (70.8%), and data does not equal to evidence (64.1) revealed mostly mixed views. The possible reason was that these two aspects are not explicitly mentioned by science curriculum standards or the integrated science textbook. 4.12 New Zealand New Zealand has a national curriculum that includes science as one of the eight learning areas (Ministry of Education, 2007). These areas are very broadly defined, and it is up to each school to develop a set of learning experiences considered appropriate for their students and community. The curriculum, therefore, is very nonprescriptive. Elementary teachers are generally responsible for teaching all eight learning areas and the majority of these teachers do not have science-specific training beyond their own school experiences and a single science education course included in their preservice teacher education. The science learning area has at its heart students' development of attributes that reflect those of a scientifically literate citizen and at the primary level, the expectation is that students understand some aspects of SI such as, the importance of asking questions for scientists. However, despite the curriculum guidelines, there is a generally widespread lack of priority placed on science, and a number of national initiatives have recently been implemented to support school science. Of particular relevance to this study was the publication of five “science capabilities for citizenship” (Ministry of Education, 2015) with a range of supporting resources provided to support teachers to develop programs that will contribute to students' “functional knowledge of science”. For this study, 87 students from two coeducational state secondary schools located in small towns in the mid-North Island region of New Zealand were selected. School selection was not only convenient but also purposeful. The schools represented “typical” schools from a mid-socio-economic area with 21% representation from indigenous people and mixed academic abilities. After answering the ques tionnaire, follow-up interviews were conducted with 18 of the students (21%) to check that the survey data scoring had been accurate. These students were selected to ensure a widespread across the range of responses. The results show that New Zealand seventh grade students tend to hold naïve views in almost every aspect of SI. Students provided more informed answers in relation to begin with a question (26.4%) and procedures are guided by the question (25.3%). However, the same SI aspects showed 37.9% and 48.3% of naïve answers respectively. This result suggests that while students may have some understanding of the purposeful nature of scientific investigations, this understanding is not always modeled in science classrooms. On the contrary, two aspects showed over 70% naïve views. Explanations are developed from data and what is already known (78.2%) and same procedures may not get the same results (71.3%), where most students suggested that different conclusions would result from the same procedures because of experimental error and/or experimental variation. Overall, although the New Zealand Curriculum in science sets expectations related to understanding key aspects of SI, science often has low status in the curriculum of many primary schools. The causes are multiple but contributing factors include the lack of systemic support for teaching science by way of inservice professional development; as a result, primary teachers possess a low sense of selfefficacy in science teaching. The introduction of national standards in numeracy and literacy, with a consequent shift in focus on these areas, has resulted in less emphasis on other areas, including science. The New Zealand government has responded to concerns about students' engagement and achievement in science, as measured by national and international testing, with a number of initiatives including a nation-wide ‘Plan for Science in Society’. 4.13 Nigeria Recently in Nigeria, there has been a review of the Universal Basic Education Curriculum (Federal Ministry of Education, 1999) by the Nigerian Education Research and Development Council (Igbokwe, 2015), however, despite that there is a curriculum in place, there is not a readily accessible detailed roadmap for teachers. Additionally, “understanding” of inquiry is not included in what students are expected to know or learn in Elementary classrooms. There is, however, some effort toward the inclusion of the “doing” of inquiry, but even this is not strongly followed in every school. Elementary science teachers are provided with schemes of work and stipulated textbooks from the State Ministries of Education, which in turn draw from the Federal Ministry of Education. Students are taught as a whole class with few instances of small group activities, and very rare field trips. They read from the texts, the blackboard, and sometimes, the teacher asks students to repeat what he/she reads aloud and requires them to write down what is said in their notebooks. For the VASI study, 102 students were selected from seven geopolitical regions in Nigeria. This sample was convenient and co-educational private and public schools are represented. After completing the VASI, students' responses were analyzed and scored, and inter-rater agreement was established with a team of six experts. Afterward, 20% of the students were purposefully selected for interviews. The results show that Nigerian students from seventh grade mostly hold naïve views on six aspects of SI. They also showed an informed understanding in two aspects. For the most informed aspects, 54.9% showed informed views on procedure influence results and 36.3% for data does not equal evidence. Students showed most naïve views on same procedures may not get the same results (77.5%), multiple methods (68.6%) procedures are guided by the question asked (61.8%), explanations are developed from data and what is already known (60.8%), begins with a question (57.8%), and conclusions consistent with data collected (42.2%). One possible explanation for the results could be that the instructional system is one that emphasizes direct and strictly guided instruction. In their learning experiences, students have some familiarity with following laid down steps and structures of organization for scientific ideas. Considering the aspect same procedures may not get the same results (77.5%) naive, it is possible to infer coherence between this and their largely formal view of the influence of procedures on results. Students may see a paradox in how one could assert that procedures influence results, and then simultaneously hold the view that the same procedures may not get the same results. So, they may have been operationalizing the logic that the same procedures yield the same results. 4.14 South Africa The National Natural Science Curriculum (Department of Basic Education (DBE), 2011) prompts teachers to use inquiry-based approaches to teaching science beginning in Grade 7. The curriculum implicitly promotes knowledge about the inquiry by providing a list of science process skills, including a detailed description of each skill. However, actual teaching about SI may vary among schools and teachers. Most of the primary science teachers have not majored in science subjects, and most of the schools do not have laboratories, resulting in a reality that doing inquiry is seldom achieved. It is possible that the emphasis on investigations in the curriculum and textbooks, combined with the culture of avoiding hands-on practical work in many schools may result in a theoretical emphasis on scientific investigations. For the VASI study, 106 students were selected to participate. A team of three researchers analyzed the answers. For interviews, 20% of students were selected according to differences in outcomes in the VASI. The results show that seventh grade students showed mostly naïve and informed views of SI. Students were considered informed for begins with a question (48%), conclusions consistent with data collected (48%), and procedure influence results (39%). Furthermore, more complex aspects involving human imagination and creativity, such as same procedures may not get the same results (57% naive), and procedures are guided by the question asked (53% naive) hold mostly naïve views. Also, data does not equal evidence (51%) showed mostly naïve views. The poor understanding of this aspect may be understood in terms of inadequate vocabulary due to second language usage. Overall, over the past 20 years, education in South Africa has been subject to three curriculum changes, seeking a balance between learning content and skills development. Throughout the curriculum changes, conducting investigations remained a focus, although the reality of poorly trained teachers often limits opportunities for learners to conduct investigations. Nevertheless, the curriculum and textbooks have placed a strong emphasis on asking questions, collecting data and making conclusions. It is therefore plausible that teachers emphasize these ideas even though learners themselves seldom have opportunities to engage practically in the inquiry. Therefore, learners may develop some unexpected understanding of some inquiry aspects emphasized by the curriculum, as argued in an earlier South African study using Grade 11 learners (Gaigher, Lederman, & Lederman, 2014). It is thus not surprising that learners in the current study are best informed on aspects focused on questions, data, and conclusions, while aspects involving the human mind in relating these ideas are poorly understood. 4.15 Spain In Spain, the Andalusian curriculum and the Organic Law of Education (LOE, 2006) have adopted the framework agreed by the Council and the European Parliament (EU, 2006a, 2006b) in which scientific competence is emphasized as one of the eight key competencies for the scientific literacy of citizens and Science has been one of the compulsory subjects in all the corresponding curricula. There are no explicit references about the understanding of SI, although it is possible to find general objectives and content related to “knowing how to do research” or doing inquiry. The teaching of pri mary science takes place in the context of a subject called “Natural Sciences”, however, there is a documented lack of interest in Science (Confederación de Sociedades Científicas de España [COSCE], 2011; Vázquez & Manassero, 2011) attributed to the lack of connection between the 5 CONCLUSIONS Overwhelmingly, the results from this study show that students around the world have an overall inadequate understanding of scientific inquiry, although there were instances in which students in a country did better than “naïve” on a particular aspect of SI. This is consistent with the few studies (i.e. because a valid and reliable instrument, was not available) that have been done with secondary students, preservice and inservice teachers (Lederman & Lederman, 2004; Schwartz, Lederman, & Lederman, 2008). Nevertheless, these findings are significant because this is the first global and systematic assessment of the highly valued educational outcome of understandings of scientific inquiry. Given the 18 independent samples from each of the countries/regions, it would be inappropriate to make blanket inferences about why these results were found. Obviously, there are numerous reasons for these results due to the obvious differences in teaching, curriculum, standards, and cultures of the various countries/regions involved in this study. However, there are some common themes gleaned from the context-specific information received from each of the research sites and reported in the pre vious sections for each of the reporting countries/regions. These themes are (1) lack of standards specifying understandings about SI, (2) teaching that does not make understandings about SI explicit, (3) science teaching that emphasizes only the doing of science, and (4) teaching that does not emphasize an inquiry approach. Given the reported context of science teaching in the countries/regions involved in this investigation, the findings are not surprising. In some cases, students rarely, if ever, have the opportunity to actually conduct scientific investigations. It is clear that no matter where students live worldwide that understandings of inquiry are not cultivated. Again, it is important to note that no statistical comparisons were made among the countries for the purpose here was just to get a baseline of beginning middle school students' understandings. Statistical comparisons across coun tries would be inappropriate because of the previously noted differences that exist with respect to cur riculum, teaching approach, and cultures across the 18 countries/regions included in this investigation. As mentioned previously, the sample is really a composite of 18 separate samples. As humans, we are all too often tempted to compare our own country's performance against other countries, but this is really inappropriate and unfair. It is important to note that despite all of the possible differences across countries/regions with respect to curriculum, teaching approach, and cultures the results are quite consistent with respect to students' lack understanding about inquiry and there seem to be some clearly common themes to explain the results. Completion of elementary school is about halfway through a student's schooling and the data collected in this study indicate that most students hold a naïve view of most of the aspects of SI in seventh grade. These findings are not surprising as a cross-sectional study conducted in the US found that students' understandings of SI do not increase between grades one to five and in the case of some aspects their understandings decrease through elementary school (Bartels & Lederman, 2017). Some may argue that the students in this investigation will have plenty of time to improve their understandings and are not that poor considering that students have just completed elementary school. However, previous studies have found that very young children (grade one and above) are able to adequately understand several aspects of scientific inquiry; science begins with a question, there is no single scientific method and conclusions are based on data gathered and what is already known (Lederman, 2012). Another study looked at grade one students' understandings of SI who came from very different cultural backgrounds, this study found that after explicit and reflective science instruction grade one students could understand aspects of SI regardless of their initial SI understandings (Lederman et al., 2013). Students should, at the very least, have informed views of at least some of the aforementioned aspects by grade seven. The interpretation of the results could rightfully be viewed as a conflict between having a perspective of a glass half full versus a glass half empty. Whether these results are viewed negatively or positively will ultimately be decided by how each country/region views the developmental level of their students and future studies on what students know when they exit high school, a study that we are just completing with 25 countries/ regions. Again, an important caveat, other than avoiding the temptation of comparing countries/regions, is that the primary goal of this investigation was to establish an initial baseline of what students understand about scientific inquiry. Understandings of scientific inquiry are a highly prized goal of science education throughout the world and it is a significant component of scientific literacy (Roberts, 2008). It is quite possible that not all countries/regions will care equally about each of the eight aspects of SI investigated here. Consequently, they may not be concerned that their students do not know the difference between data and evidence. Nevertheless, the results of this investigation provide an empirically based “call to action.” Although the samples for each location were of convenience, this investigation provides data on some aspects that are assured of concern and importance to certain countries/regions and the results can lead to changes in curricula, science teaching and policy decisions at the local, state/provincial, and national policy decisions in science education. 6 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Currently, the 18 countries/regions involved in this investigation, along with an additional seven countries/regions are looking at graduating high school students' understandings of SI. This will provide information about how, and if, students' understandings of SI become more sophisticated as they proceed through middle and high school. It will also help decide what levels of understanding are appropriate to expect of students at the beginning of seventh grade. The final piece of students' trajectories of SI understandings can be completed by assessing elementary students' understandings of SI earlier in elementary school. The results from all three of these studies combined will elucidate a full progression of students' SI understandings from beginning elementary school to the completion of high school around the world. As mentioned earlier, some may argue that doing scientific inquiry is of ultimate importance (Duschl & Grandy, 2013), and doing of inquiry will necessarily lead to understanding about the inquiry. This implicit development of knowledge about inquiry is not supported by any existing research. More importantly, we argue that understandings about scientific inquiry are a necessary and critical component to the achievement of scientific literacy. The general citizenry needs to make informed decisions about scientifically based personal and societal decisions, and these decisions are based on their knowledge about how scientific knowledge is developed (i.e. scientific inquiry). REFERENCES Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The Influence of history of science courses on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2015). Australian Curriculum: Science F-10. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia. Bartels, S. L., & Lederman, J. S. (2017, April). A cross-sectional study of elementary students' understandings of nature of science and scientific inquiry. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching conference, San Antonio, TX. BOEN. (2015). Bulletin Officiel de l'Education Nationale. Numéro spécial no11 du 26 novembre 2015: Programmes d'enseignement de l'école élémentaire et du collège (NOR MENE1526483A) [In French]. BRAZIL. (1998). Ministério da Educação e Cultura (p. 1998). Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais para o Ensino de Ciências. Brasília: MEC. BRAZIL. (2014). Ministério da Educação e Cultura Plano Nacional da Educação (p. 2014). Brasília: MEC. Centre for Curricula and Material Development. (2016). Science Standards and indicators for school level education. Egypt: Ministry of Education Retrieved from: http://moe.gov.eg/ccimd/pdf/Matrix_science_curriculum.pdf Charpak, G. (1998). La Main à la Pâte, Histoire des sciences à l'école primaire. Paris: Flammarion. Confederación de Sociedades Científicas de España [COSCE]. (2011). Informe ENCIENDE. Enseñanza de las ciencias en la Didáctica Escolar para edades tempranas en España. Madrid: COSCE. Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337–357. Department for Education. (2013). The National Curriculum in England: Science Program of Study. Retrieved from https://www.gov. uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmesof-study/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement Grades 7 – 9, Natural Sciences. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education. DEPP (2014). CEDRE-2013 ‘Grande stabilité des acquis en sciences en fin d'école depuis 2007’ ‘Strong stability of the pupils’ results in science at the end of primary school since 20070. Information Note of DEPP (Direction of Evaluation, Prospective and Performance), No27, July 2014, p. 3. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139. EU. (2006a). Competencias clave para el aprendizaje permanente. Un marco de referencia europeo. Anexo a la Recomendación del parlamento europeo y del consejo sobre las competencias clave para el aprendizaje permanente. EU. (2006b). Recomendación del parlamento europeo y del consejo sobre las competencias clave para el aprendizaje permanente. Federal Ministry of Education. (1999). UBE Universal Basic Education for Nigeria. Proceedings of the Education Mini Summit. Zaria: Ahmadu Bello University Press Limited. Finnish National Board of Education [FNBE]. (2014). The national core curriculum for basic Education. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/ops2016 Gaigher, E., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Knowledge about inquiry: A study in South African high schools. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 3125–3147. García, M., & Orozco, L. (2008). Orientando un cambio de actitud hacia las Ciencia Naturales y su enseñanza en Profesores de Educación Primaria. Revista Electrónica de Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 7(3), 539–568. Grisay, A. (2003). Translation procedures in OECD/PISA 2000 international assessment. Language Testing, 20(2), 225–240. Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(12), 1417–1432. Hambleton, R. K. (2002). Adapting achievement tests into multiple languages for international assessments. In A. C. Porter & A. Gamoran (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross national surveys of educational achievement. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research, 45(1–3), 153–171. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2009). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53–90. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_3 Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Maestre (Ed.), Transfer of Learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–119). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Igbokwe, C. O. (2015). Recent curriculum reforms at the basic education level in Nigeria aimed at catching them young to create change. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(1), 31–37. Lau, K. C., Ho, S. C., & Lam, Y. P. (2015). Effective classroom pedagogy and beyond for promoting scientific literacy: Is there an east-asian model? In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Science education in East Asia: Pedagogical innovations and research-informed practices (pp. 13–40). Switzerland: Springer. Lederman, J. S. (2012). Development of a valid and reliable protocol for the assessment of early Childhood students' conceptions of Nature of Science and scientific Inquiry. A Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis, IN. Lederman, J. S., Bartels, S. L., Liu, C., & Jimenez, J. (2013). Teaching Nature of Science and scientific Inquiry to diverse classes of early primary level students. A Paper Presented at the Annual Conference for the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Juan, PR. Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiryThe views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65–83. Lederman, N. G. (2010). A powerful way to learn. Science and Children, 48(1), 8–9. Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2012). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285–302. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2004). Project ICAN: A professional Development project to promote teachers' and students' knowledge of Nature of Science and scientific enquiry. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SAARMSTE Conference. Cape Town, South Africa. Lee, K., & Sriaman, B. (2013). An Eastern learning paradox: Paradoxes in two Korean mathematics teachers' pedagogy of silence in the classroom. Interchange, 43(2), 147–166. Organic Law of Education [LOE] 2/2006, 3rd May. (2006). Boletín Oficial del Estado, Number. 106, pp. 17158–17207. Retrieved from http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2006/05/04/pdfs/A17158-17207.pdf Maneersriwongul, W., & Dixon, J. K. (2004). Instrument translation process: a methods review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(2), 175–186. McKenzie, P., Kos, J., Walker, M., & Hong, J. (2008). Staff in Australia's Schools 2007. Canberra: DEEWR. MEB. (2013). Ministry of national Education, curriculum for Science classes for primary schools. Ankara: MEB. MINEDUC. (2012). Bases Curriculares Educación Básica. Santiago: Ministerio de Educación. Ministry of Education. (2003). Grade 1–9 science and technology curriculum guidelines. Taipei, Taiwan: MOE. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2015). Introducing five science capabilities. Retrieved from http://scienceonline.tki.org.nz/ Science-capabilities-for-citizenship/Introducingfive-science-capabilities Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. (2017a). Educational Statistics in 2016: Number of Students in Primary Schools. Retrieved from http://en.moe.gov.cn/Resources/Statistics/edu_stat_2016/2016_en01/201708/t2017 0823_311723. html Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (2017b). Educational statistics in 2016: Number of students in junior secondary schools. Retrieved from http://en.moe.gov.cn/Resources/Statistics/edu_stat_2016/2016_en01/201708/t2017 0823_ 311737.html Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [MOE]. (2001). National Science curriculum standards for the full-time compulsory Education (Grades 3– 6). (Trial Version). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press (in Chinese). Ministry of Education, Pedagogical Secretariat. (2018). Up-dated curriculum for science and technology in secondary school in Israel (in Hebrew). Retrieved from http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Mazkirut_Pedagogit/MadaTechn ologya/ tochnitLimudim/hatab+tl.htm National Academy for Educational Research. (2015). Grade 1–12 curriculum guidelines: Learning area of natural science (draft). Taipei, Taiwan: National Academy for Educational Research. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council [NRC]. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Neumann, K., Kauertz, A., & Fischer, H. E. (2010). From PISA to standards - the impact of large scale assessments on science education research in Germany. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 545–563. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press Available online at www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards Organization for Economic and Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). PISA 2015 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/sitedocument/PISA-2015-Technical-Report-Chapter-5Translation.pdf Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideasabout science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720. Roberts, D. A. (2008). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge. Gesellschaft für Didaktik des Sachunterrichts. (2013). Perspektivrahmen Sachunterricht. Julius Klinkhardt. Retrieved from http:// www.gdsu.de/wb/pages/perspektivrahmen-sachunterricht.php Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and science inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., Khishfe, R., Lederman, J. S., Matthews, L., & Liu, S. (2002). Explicit/reflective instructional attention to Nature of Science and scientific Inquiry: Impact on student Learning Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2008). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: The VOSI questionnaire. Paper Presented at the International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [KMK]. (2005a). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10). Neuwied: Luchterhand. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [KMK]. (2005b). Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10). Neuwied: Luchterhand. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [KMK]. (2005c). Bildungsstandards im Fach Physik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10). Neuwied: Luchterhand. Showalter, V. (1974). Program objectives and scientific literacy. Prism II, 2, 1–6. Skolverket. (2011). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklass och fritidshemmet. (The Swedish National Agency of Education, (2011). Curriculum for compulsory school, preschool and leisure time centers). Stockholm: Edita. Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children's differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753–766. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2003). Tracing young children´s scientific reasoning.