Future Teachers’ Perceptions about Their Preparedness to Teach Science as Inquiry

Abstract

Driven by current educational policies and the community of science education researchers, inquiry-based science education (IBSE) poses a challenge for both in-service and pre-service teachers (PSTs). This research aims to explore, describe, and characterize PSTs’ perceptions of their preparedness to implement IBSE in primary school classrooms. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected through a questionnaire administered to 102 PSTs in two moments of their IBSE training at a university during their Primary Education degree. According to the findings, almost all PSTs demonstrated a strong willingness to implement IBSE in their future classrooms. However, these PSTs perceive their preparedness differently: some PSTs feel very prepared; some others only feel prepared if certain obstacles do not exist; there are PSTs who believe they lack knowledge on IBSE; some PSTs need more confidence; and some PSTs need all of the above (the least prepared). Additionally, it was found that some PSTs exhibit overconfidence. In conclusion, the data reveal diversity in preparedness for IBSE among PSTs, underscoring the importance of conducting this type of exploration to develop strategies that address the unique strengths and limitations of each PST.

1. Introduction

Are pre-service teachers (PSTs) prepared to carry out Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) in their future classrooms? IBSE has been heralded as a fundamental pedagogical approach in science education, aiming to address the need of captivating and inspiring students to embrace science learning. It also seeks to enhance scientific literacy for all individuals, with a particular emphasis on nurturing future scientists [1,2,3,4]. While a century ago John Dewey already recommended the inclusion of IBSE in the science curriculum [5], the United States, through Science Standards [2], has been the major driver, with “inquiry in science education” now an overarching theme across global pre-university science curricula [6]. In Spain, the influence of the Rocard Report [4] led to recommendations for IBSE adoption, followed by reports like “ENCIENDE” [7] and “Science Education for Responsible Citizenship” [8]. Consequently, there has been a surge in the prominence of inquiry in Spain, often referred to as an “inquiry tsunami” [1]. However, IBSE has been criticized for being more theoretical (political and academic) than practical, with few educators implementing it as the norm [1,9,10,11,12,13,14]. Moreover, inquiry at the school level is often simplified, focusing solely on learning inquiry skills and neglecting scientific content and the nature of science [6]. Furthermore, the inquiry skills are often cognitively low-order compared to more complex ones such as controlling variables, and sometimes skills are limited to technical–manipulative tasks such as weighing or measuring [1].

The tendency to focus solely on developing inquiry skills among students has been observed in both teaching practices and curricula worldwide [6]. Despite the long history of IBSE in science education [5], there seems to be confusion regarding the true essence of teaching science as inquiry [6,15,16,17]. Recent studies reveal doubts among both in-service and pre-service teachers regarding IBSE [14,18]. Barrow [5] points out that inquiry has multiple meanings, leading to confusion among primary school teachers and sometimes resulting in the avoidance of fully incorporating inquiry into the classroom. Thus, inquiry extends beyond teaching and learning strategies (in its didactic sense), encompassing the ability to inquire that students must develop (i.e., a set of cognitive skills) and knowledge about the methods used by scientists. IBSE entails more than simply transplanting scientific methods to the classroom; it involves students in learning scientific concepts, understanding the nature of inquiry, and developing inquiry skills [5,15].

2. The Challenge of Teaching Science as Inquiry

Teaching science as inquiry is not easy [19]. To begin with, transitioning from traditional teaching to IBSE means that students and teachers have to get used to new ways of learning and teaching, which can be considered a challenge at first [20]. The traditional framework conceives science teaching as purely oriented towards scientific concepts, relying on textbooks with a classical structure: an initial theoretical introduction to scientific concepts, followed by exercises or practical questions to reinforce these concepts. While in this traditional framework scientific concepts and ideas are transmitted from the teacher to the students, in IBSE it could be said that students construct the explanations in response to an investigable question by using evidence that usually comes from observations and experiments, with the teacher as a guide/facilitator [21]. Additionally, according to Jiménez-Aleixandre and Brocos [22], IBSE includes the following characteristics: (i) the solution should not be obvious and constitutes a real problem; (ii) the context is close to the students; (iii) more than one procedural pathway is possible; and (iv) students must engage in scientific practices, such as formulating hypotheses, arguing based on evidence, etc. Taking into account all of the above, different levels of inquiry openness are distinguished, where at the highest level (commonly referred to as open inquiry) students guide the research, from posing the question and choosing the procedure to answer it, to collecting data and making the analyses. Other lower levels include more structured inquiry, where, for example, the teacher provides both the question and the procedure to solve it or provides the question and students decide how to solve it [23]. This type of more structured, guided inquiry seems to be the most common practice in both primary and secondary education [23,24].

To continue, according to Joyce and Showers [25], mastering new teaching strategies such as IBSE is more challenging than simply “fine-tuning” existing approaches, because the magnitude of change is greater and more complex. This is confirmed by research on both pre-service [26] and in-service teachers [27]. Specifically, Bell et al. [28] and Davis [20] demonstrate that adopting an inquiry-based approach requires teachers to change their knowledge, beliefs, and skills. IBSE demands from teachers a deep content knowledge, an understanding of how students learn, the planning and use of multiple teaching strategies, and a supportive environment [29]. Additionally, Crawford [30] identifies up to ten roles that a teacher takes on in IBSE: motivating, guiding, innovating, experimenting, evaluating their teaching, modeling scientists, diagnosing, mentoring, collaborating with students, and being a learner. All of these roles require a high degree of expertise [30] and are generally not present in more traditional teacher-centered approaches [6].

What are the difficulties and limitations? According to the literature [29,31], regarding the teaching of science, a high proportion of teachers do not receive the necessary preparation during their degree programs, neither in terms of scientific content nor in pedagogical knowledge and skills. This lack of teacher preparation for IBSE often leads them to not implement it in the classroom [32,33]. More concretely, studies such as those by Cortés and De la Gándara [34], Lucero et al. [33], and Crujeiras and Puig [35] demonstrate the limitations that pre-service teachers encounter when conducting inquiry activities, pointing out, among others, the choice of the question to be investigated, the design of the experiment, or the identification of variables and necessary materials. Other authors such as Vilchez and Bravo [36] find that pre-service teachers have little knowledge about scientific methods. The 5E cycle [37] is also not exempt from difficulties: a study showed that most pre-service teachers (55 out of 76) struggled to grasp the 5E cycle, even after receiving instruction, participating in group discussions, and developing 5E sequences [38]. Other authors emphasize that some teachers even indicate that they have not experienced inquiry activities in their degree programs, or that laboratory sessions were disconnected activities [29,39], or that they lack the necessary support network to facilitate IBSE in their classrooms [40].

However, the biggest obstacle could indeed be the one mentioned in the introduction: that both in-service and pre-service teachers do not have a clear understanding of the meaning of inquiry as a teaching approach. We know that teachers often mistakenly equate IBSE with simply carrying out hands-on activities (also called activitymania by Moscovici and Nelson [41]), which also often lack connection between them [1,30]. This leads to students not learning science (scientific content) nor about science (in this case, about inquiry). For example, a study involving 63 primary education teachers in Spain [14] found that although 86% claimed to use IBSE as a teaching approach, closer examination revealed that none of them actually implemented inquiry in its true didactic sense. Instead, they often confused inquiry with hands-on activities or searching for information online, and students were rarely involved in decision making or experiment design. Even after receiving guidance on IBSE implementation, 30% of the teachers still reported using IBSE incorrectly.

Finally, other obstacles pointed out by both in-service and pre-service teachers for IBSE include the following: it consumes a lot of time; it costs too much because sophisticated equipment is required; it is simply too advanced for students and many scientific concepts are too abstract and difficult to understand for primary education students; there is a lack of administrative and peer support; the school climate is not conducive to change; etc. [15,42,43,44,45,46,47,48].

3. Teachers’ Beliefs for the Adoption of Inquiry as a Methodology for Teaching Science

For the successful implementation of IBSE, in addition to understanding what teaching science as inquiry truly means, it is crucial that science teachers have appropriate beliefs and attitudes, alongside other factors [49]. According to Wallace and Kang [48], certain sets of beliefs promote IBSE while others limit it; thus, beliefs that promote IBSE seem to reflect the personal perspectives of teachers, while beliefs that limit IBSE tend to revolve around the norms and practices within the school environment (such as the idea that lab sessions can be skipped when there is limited time to cover the curriculum).

In recent years, there has been a surge in studies analyzing teachers’ beliefs about their preparedness for teaching (e.g., for STEM [50,51,52,53]). Today, the factors affecting preparedness for teaching are still under study, with the literature showing interest in measuring beliefs about content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, self-efficacy, willingness, importance, and utility, as well as attitudes and interests, among others [50,53,54,55,56,57,58,59].

Prior research has highlighted the importance of understanding PSTs’ preparedness in science teaching to help tailor teaching through their university training and meet their individual needs [55,60]. The present study aims to contribute to the existing literature by studying PSTs’ beliefs about their preparedness for IBSE through the exploration and characterization of the diversity within a sample of PSTs.

Therefore, research questions in this study are as follows: What perceptions do PSTs have about their preparedness for IBSE? How do these perceptions evolve over time? How are these perceptions related to the assessed knowledge about IBSE?

4. Methodology

In this study, the aim was to gain an in-depth understanding of PSTs’ perceptions regarding their preparedness to implement the IBSE methodological approach in their future primary classrooms. Therefore, it is framed within the constructivist paradigm. A convergent mixed-methods design is proposed, where both quantitative and qualitative data are collected simultaneously and then merged.

4.1. Research Context and Participants

The research involved 102 pre-service primary education teachers (PSTs, coded as PST1, PST2, …, PST102) enrolled in the course “Natural Sciences in the Primary Education Classroom II” during their third year of the Primary Education degree at the University of The Basque Country UPV/EHU (Spain), during the academic years 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 (52 and 50 PSTs, respectively). The course aims to prepare PSTs for teaching science, particularly physics and chemistry, and it has a duration of 16 weeks, with 4 to 6 h per week in the classroom and/or laboratory. PSTs worked individually and in groups of 4 when collaborative work was required.

The structure of training for IBSE is based on the proposal by Joyce and Showers [25], who suggest that teacher training for the acquisition of teaching skills and strategies should include the following: (i) the theoretical basis; (ii) demonstrations of practical implementation carried out by specialists; (iii) practice under simulated conditions (with peers or with small groups of children); (iv) feedback; and, in some cases, (v) coaching in the classroom. Additionally, didactic metareflection connected to PSTs’ own experiences was added, where PSTs explicitly reflect on the didactic aspects of inquiry [61]. Thus, the instruction was approached in three phases. In the first phase, PSTs worked on scientific practices and IBSE through active methodologies and collaborative work, including reading material and individual reflections, group discussions, and visualization of examples of IBSE in the primary education classroom in the form of videos (material from Zembal-Saul et al. [62]). In the second phase, PSTs experienced sequences of inquiry-based activities (material from APQUA [63]), where they also assumed a teaching role (practice in simulated conditions) and received feedback on their performance, and finally reflected on what they had done (t1 moment). As part of this reflection, PSTs individually completed the IBSE questionnaire (

Table 1. Questionnaire filled out by the PSTs, including the questions and the elements evaluated. PSTs were asked to explain their answers and indicate on a Likert scale (1–6) their agreement with the statement.

Element	Question
Willingness	Q1. In the future, as a primary school teacher, I WANT to carry out IBSE. Please explain your answer.
Self-efficacy expectations	Q2. In the future, as a primary school teacher, I WILL BE ABLE to carry out IBSE. Please explain your answer.
Outcome expectations	Q3. In the future, as a primary school teacher, NOTHING AND NO ONE WILL STOP ME from carrying out IBSE. Please explain your answer.
Knowledge about IBSE	Q4. I HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE about IBSE for teaching science in the EP classroom. Please explain your answer.

), and reflections were shared in large group discussions. Then, in the third phase, PSTs redesigned (following Forbes and Davis [32]) inquiry-based sequences about density [64] in groups, applying their knowledge and understanding of IBSE. For this, the PSTs were given a real and familiar context. They were asked to (i) provide the specific curricular justification for the given school; (ii) identify the 5E phases in each investigation; and (iii) apply the acquired knowledge to make the sequence more effective and efficient in promoting the learning of density and inquiry skills (here the PSTs chose to, for example, improve investigable questions, incorporate the identification of variables in experiments, include forms of representation, review learning objectives, etc.). Moreover, the groups put part of this inquiry sequence into practice, taking on the roles of primary education teachers (practice in simulated conditions) and receiving feedback on their performance from the teacher and their peers. As part of the final reflection on IBSE (t2 moment), the PSTs again completed the IBSE questionnaire (Table 1) individually, and reflections were shared in large group discussions. IBSE was always guided or structured rather than using open IBSE. All the training was guided by the first author (teacher).

This research is part of a project approved by the Ethical Commission of the university (M10_2021_161MR1_USKOLAIBARLUZEA, 25 November 2021). All participants gave informed consent.

4.2. Instruments for Data Collection

PSTs’ beliefs about their preparedness to implement IBSE in their future primary school classrooms were collected as questionnaires [65]. The questionnaire was of a mixed nature: for each question, quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Quantitative data were gathered in the form of a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 6. Qualitative data were collected in the form of written responses. PSTs responded to the questionnaire at two moments in the training, t1 and t2. The Likert scale was motivated by the results of a previous pilot study with open-ended questions that led to a ceiling effect for all variables as 95% of the PSTs (N = 32) answered affirmatively—even though explanations were heterogeneous.

The questionnaire (Table 1) includes the three factors identified by Sass et al. [66,67] to assess competence for action (willingness, knowledge, and confidence), understanding that implementing a teaching innovation like IBSE calls for action [68,69]. Thus, it has been considered that for knowledge to lead to action, individuals need willingness and confidence. This is reflected by one question about their willingness to carry out IBSE in their future EP classroom (Q1) and two questions about their confidence to do so (Q2 and Q3). Q2 refers to the PSTs’ self-efficacy; specifically, it assesses the efficacy expectations in terms of the PSTs’ own capabilities to implement IBSE in the classroom, which relates to Bandura’s self-efficacy expectations [70]. Q3 refers to outcome expectations [71] regarding the PSTs’ own possibilities to be influential, and in this case, it considers the obstacles that the PSTs believe they will encounter in the future in the implementation of IBSE. A fourth question about perceived knowledge about IBSE as a didactic strategy (Q4) was included [39]. The words in uppercase in Table 1 are taken from the questionnaire designed by Sass et al. [67]. Additionally, an open-ended question was added about whether they had observed IBSE in the practicum.

Regarding knowledge on IBSE, in addition to PSTs’ self-perceptions (Q4), it was also measured directly [54]. Two tasks were designed to be answered in writing, individually, in line with Vilchez and Bravo [36] and Montero-Pau et al. [72]. In the first task, given an outline of an experiment, PSTs were asked to formulate the investigable question, the hypothesis, and the prediction, and to identify the experiment variables. In the second question, PSTs were asked to integrate the previous experiment into an IBSE sequence based on the 5E model and briefly describe what they would do in each of the 5E phases.

4.3. Data Analysis

At t1, 100 out of 102 participating PSTs completed the questionnaire (Table 1). Of those 100 PSTs, 70 completed the questionnaire again at t2. Written explanations corresponding to Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 were carefully read by all authors, and correspondence between what was written and what was marked on the Likert scale was sought for a response to be considered valid. This contributed to the reliability of the data [73]. All answers were conserved (100 for t1 and 70 for t2). Those data were used for statistical descriptive analyses. Given the heterogeneity found for 3 out of the 4 variables analyzed for t1 (Q2, Q3, and Q4), a typology analysis was conducted based on the quantitative data obtained from the Likert scale. Responses with values of 4, 5, or 6 on the Likert scale were considered positive, while those with values of 1, 2, or 3 were considered negative. Subsequently, five typologies were established as follows: (1) negative values for Q1; (2) positive values for all variables; (3) negative values for Q2, Q3, and Q4 and positive values for Q1; (4) positive values for Q1, Q2, and Q4 but negative values for Q3; and (5) positive values for Q2 and Q1 but negative for Q4. For t2, the same criteria as for t1 were followed in order to compare whether PSTs evolved from one typology to another. Comparisons between t1 and t2 were conducted at 3 levels: (i) using descriptive statistics as a reference; (ii) using the typologies identified for t1 vs. t2 as a reference; and (iii) comparing t1 vs. t2 for perceived contributions of IBSE methodology to science education (data derived from Q1 responses), and for obstacles PSTs might find in the future when implementing IBSE (data derived from Q3 responses). All related ideas in the responses were coded. Each of the three researchers coded one-third of the responses, establishing codes based on the emerging themes through inductive coding. The codes were shared, and they were refined to achieve internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity. Internal homogeneity guaranteed that the data within each code were cohesive and meaningful, whereas external heterogeneity ensured that the distinctions between different categories were clear and well defined. Points of disagreement were discussed until a final consensus was reached, resulting in the reduction of codes into nine categories for contributions and seven categories for obstacles (

Table 2. Dimensions for analysis of contributions of IBSE methodology to science education as perceived by PSTs.

Category	Example
Autonomy	FD34 (t1, Q1): (…) students have the opportunity to work through different materials that can be made quite familiar to them, also strengthening their autonomy.
Practical methodology	FD9 (t1, Q1): Practicality prevails in this methodology, so it can be fully effective if carried out properly. Also, students become owners of their learning process.
Innovative methodology	FD62 (t1, Q1): In the future as a teacher, I would use such activities to avoid traditional resources.
Experiential methodology	FD84 (t1, Q1): The activities are very experiential and I think they are very suitable for putting into practice what you have learned in theory.
Guided methodology	FD38 (t1, Q1): Yes, I think it’s a good idea to use methodologies like APQUA in the future because they are quite simple and understandable (…).
Day-to-day context methodology	FD29 (t1, Q1): I find this methodology interesting because we work with the material we can find at home (…).
Emotional/affective	FD71 (t1, Q1): (…) because I find it an interesting and therefore motivating way to learn and understand phenomena.
Scientific competence	FD44 (t1, Q1): (…) on the one hand, I think it is essential to have inquiry skills, and I believe that the activities carried out in the classroom encourage it. On the other hand, scientific knowledge about reality is acquired and I think that is also important.
General learning	FD56 (t1, Q1): knowledge is not built with theory alone. It is true that you can learn and teach with a traditional methodology, because I believe that with this methodology you can learn in an effective and meaningful way.

).

Knowledge was assessed in 30 PSTs’ responses (corresponding to those that were asked and responded in the academic year 2022–2023). For the assessment of knowledge, in the first task, the following aspects were evaluated: (i) worth 1 point, the correct formulation of the investigable question given an experimental design in the form of a drawing or diagram; if the investigable question only considers the dependent or the independent variable, it is scored 0 points; if it is a statement instead of a question, it is scored 0 points; (ii) worth 1 point, the correct formulation of the hypothesis and prediction (0.5 points for each); and (iii) worth 1.5 points, the correct identification of the variables in the experiment: 0.5 points for the dependent variable; 0.5 points for the independent variable; and 0.5 points for the control variables; in cases that identify more than one independent variable, it is scored zero points; at least 3 control variables must be identified. In task 2, each phase of the 5E model is scored 0.7 points when complete; 0.35 if incomplete; and 0 points if there are errors such as including the experiment in a phase other than exploration. Next, the average value of the results from task 1 and task 2 is calculated. Finally, the assessed knowledge is compared with the perceptions about knowledge that PSTs have at t1 and t2 (Q4). For the 3 out of 30 PSTs for whom t1 and t2 differed by more than 1 point (Likert scale), the t2 value was considered for the comparison of assessed vs. perceived knowledge. Scores above the central value are considered positive (>1.75 for assessed knowledge; 4, 5, and 6 for perceived knowledge), while scores below are considered negative (<1.75 for assessed knowledge; 1, 2 and 3 for perceived knowledge).

The relationships between the variables (the direction and degree of the relationship between the two variables) were explored through a non-parametric correlation analysis (Spearman’s rho coefficient). It has been interpreted that values close to 1 indicate a strong positive correlation; values close to −1 indicate a strong negative correlation; and values close to zero indicate no linear correlation.

5. Results

5.1. Situation at t1: Preparedness of PSTs to Use Inquiry as a Teaching Methodology for Science in Primary School Classrooms

Next, the results at t1 (N = 100) are described according to descriptive statistics (mean, median, standard deviation, minimum and maximum, and frequency distribution) for the variables (

Table 3. Descriptive statistics (mean, median, standard deviation (SD), and minimum and maximum) for data related to t1.

	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Values	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Number of PSTs	100	100	100	100
Mean	5.10	4.60	3.42	4.02
Median	5	5	3	4
Standard deviation	0.69	0.90	1.08	1.08
Minimum	2	2	1	1
Maximum	6	6	6	6

; Figure 1).

As observed in Table 3 and Figure 1, the PSTs wanted to carry out IBSE in the future (Q1). Only two PSTs responded negatively.

In terms of self-efficacy, when asked if they feel capable of carrying out IBSE in their future classrooms, the vast majority showed great confidence (Q2). However, when asked if they will be able to overcome obstacles (Q3), the values were lower, with more PSTs falling into the 1–3 range than the 4–6 range. For example, PST26 (Q2: 3) alluded to the difficulties to carry out inquiry: “I’m not very sure, because it seems difficult to me to control everything (the children, the materials, the tasks, …) with a large class, only with one teacher.” Some PSTs base their confidence primarily on having carried out the role of a teacher in IBSE activities. For example, PST3 (Q3: 5): “I think that in these laboratory classes, I have seen myself how I would carry it out as a teacher and I have learned well how it should be done.”; PST74 (Q3: 5): “I have felt very comfortable in the role of teacher”; and PST91 (Q3: 6): “After putting it into practice in class, I have seen how to do it”.

Regarding the obstacles that PSTs mentioned when answering about their outcome expectations (Q3), seven categories were identified: obstacles related to school, material resources, time, student’s profile, lack of knowledge about science in general or IBSE in particular, curriculum, and confidence.

More than 70% of the PSTs believed they had knowledge related to IBSE (Q4). There were only two PSTs who believed they had no knowledge of IBSE.

From all the above, it is observed that the sample is more homogeneous regarding willingness (Q1) than the rest of the variables, in which the diversity in responses is greater.

Of the 100 PSTs, only 12 have observed IBSE during the practicum; 3 did not respond; and the rest either have not observed IBSE or were not aware of it. One of them mentioned the Eki project (material for primary education from a textbook publishing editorial based on competencies and interdisciplinarity, which includes activities based on IBSE); the rest mentioned or described activities typical of IBSE.

Regarding the relationship between variables, a significant positive correlation (p < 0.05) was found between perceived knowledge and self-efficacy expectations (Rho = 0.565); perceived knowledge and outcome expectations (Rho = 0.262); perceived knowledge and willingness (Rho = 0.215); self-efficacy expectations and outcome expectations (Rho = 0.214); and willingness and self-efficacy expectations (Rho = 0.306), none of which are strong correlations (>0.85).

Given the heterogeneity in the responses, the PSTs were classified into five groups or typologies, which are described below. Five PSTs did not fit into any of the aforementioned typologies.

5.1.1. The Most Prepared Ones, According to Their Beliefs

This group is the largest in terms of the number of individuals (N = 35). It is formed by the most prepared PSTs; they showed the highest values in all variables. There is no PST with the maximum value in all variables; the two PSTs with the highest values have the maximum values in perceived knowledge (Q4), willingness (Q1), and self-efficacy expectations (Q2), while having a value of 5 in outcome expectations (Q3). Only one PST observed IBSE during the practicum. For example, PST37 rated herself with the maximum value in perceived knowledge (Q4), and explained that “the inquiry practices like APQUA are very guided, facilitating the teacher’s work. Besides, I believe I have the skills to make modifications if necessary”. These perceptions are in line with the confidence in being able to carry it out (Q2: 6): “In the practicum, I carried out some activities with a similar methodology by myself; therefore, with the new knowledge and experience I have gained, I feel prepared to carry out this methodology”. Regarding the confidence in overcoming obstacles (Q3: 5), she explained that she may encounter obstacles of all kinds, such as resources, time, or attitude, but she feels prepared to overcome all obstacles. Consequently, she wants to carry out IBSE in the future (Q1: 6), and believes that IBSE brings science closer to students and also makes the content more understandable and easier to internalize. Similarly, PST6 explained that it involves significant learning and that “instead of memorizing, students learn better by inquiring, asking questions, and experimenting.” (Q1: 6). She also believed that she would be able to carry out IBSE (6 in Q2), and pointed out that “Carrying out these activities involves a lot of work, but it will be worth it because my future students will like it a lot.” However, she did not observe IBSE in the practicum, and explained that “the subject was very traditional; that is, the teacher talked and the students had to listen, and that’s it.” She also assigned the maximum values in perceived knowledge (Q4), where she linked her knowledge to prior preparation. Regarding obstacles (Q3: 5), she explained that “It is clear that to carry out this methodology and activities, you need materials, time…, and perhaps the school may not have the resources we need. Therefore, I will have to make modifications and carry it out with the materials available in the classroom”.

5.1.2. Those Conditioned by the Absence of Obstacles

This is the second largest group (N = 32) and includes PSTs who believe they are prepared for all measured variables except for overcoming obstacles (Q3). There were four PSTs with values of 1. The PSTs in this group want to carry out IBSE (Q1), and believe they have the knowledge (Q4) and will be capable of it (Q2). Seven PSTs observed IBSE during the practicum. Here are examples of their explanations: PST8 (Q3: 2) explains that the implementation of IBSE depends on the school. He also perceives as obstacles other teachers following a non-IBSE methodology; lack of material; students’ attitudes; his knowledge; etc. In the rest of the variables, his perceptions are positive. PST80 (Q3: 1) believes that IBSE takes “a lot of time”, and, consequently, not all schools will agree to allocate that time. PST9 (Q3: 2) says that it will be “impossible” to implement IBSE if it is not in line with the methodology promoted by the school. He is also concerned about the material and having “places” where IBSE can be carried out. In the rest of the variables, their perceptions are positive.

5.1.3. Those Who Believe They Lack Knowledge

This group is the third largest (N = 19) and includes those PSTs with low perceived knowledge scores (Q4). These PSTs want to carry out IBSE (Q1), believe they will be capable of doing so (Q2), and also believe they will overcome encountered obstacles (Q3). Three PSTs observed IBSE during the practicum. For example, PST84 explained that nowadays he would say he has neither the knowledge nor the skills to carry it out, and then points out that he needs to delve deeper into the knowledge and needs more practice to have more confidence in his abilities (Q4: 3). In response to the question about whether he wants to carry out IBSE (Q1: 5), he explained: “They are very experiential activities and I think they are very suitable for putting into practice what is learned in theory”, where the first idea is correct but the second does not fit the characteristics of IBSE but rather a traditional methodology. In this idea, therefore, his perception of the lack of knowledge is confirmed. In the questions about self-efficacy (Q2) and outcome expectations (Q3), he explained that he would be able to do it and would overcome obstacles; he repeated the idea that he might need more practice, and that if he does not have the material or a laboratory he would not be able to carry out the practice. These latter ideas are not appropriate, as a laboratory is not necessary for APQUA-type practices and the material can be found in the students’ kitchens (confirming again the lack of knowledge about IBSE). On the other hand, PST31 (Q4: 3) was one of the few PSTs who said he had observed IBSE in the practicum. And the resource he mentioned (Project Eki) is indeed based on IBSE. However, having observed IBSE in the EP classroom during the practicum does not imply having acted as a guide for these students. Indeed, he explained that he perceived his skills as scarce because this training had been his only practical experience (assuming the role of teacher). He also believed he had “basic” knowledge of IBSE.

5.1.4. Those Who See Themselves as Less Prepared

This group is small (N = 6) and includes PSTs with low scores in perception regarding their ability to carry out IBSE (Q2), overcome obstacles (Q3), and knowledge (Q1). However, these PSTs still want to do it (Q1). One PST observed IBSE during the practicum. For example, PST14 admitted that bringing IBSE into the classroom “scares” her and that she lacks “boldness”. She said she had some confidence (Q2: 4), based on the perception of the IBSE resource used as comfortable and “step-by-step”. She explained that, although the methodology provides her with facilities, she expected to encounter many obstacles associated with other factors (Q3: 3). She felt she had the necessary knowledge (Q4: 5) although not a mastery of IBSE. She responded that she wanted to do it (Q1: 6). On the other hand, PST28, in response to the question about whether she will be able to implement IBSE in their future classroom (Q2: 3), answered that she had never done it in the classroom with primary school students, so she thought she would encounter difficulties. She repeated this same idea of not having done it yet in Q4 although she stated that she had sufficient knowledge (Q4: 4). Regarding obstacles (Q3: 2), she believed there will be many, and emphasized that the educational community should agree on the methodology for teaching science. When asked if she wanted to do it, she responded yes (Q1: 5).

5.1.5. Those Who Don’t Want To

This group is the smallest of all (N = 2) and includes those PSTs who do not want to carry out IBSE. They also lack confidence in overcoming obstacles. They believe they have low but sufficient knowledge (Q4) while confidence in their ability varies (Q2). PST18 explained that the reasons behind not wanting to do it (Q1: 3) were that “I like the methodology, but there is a lot of work behind it; and many resources”. The idea of excessive effort was also found in her perceptions of knowledge (Q4: 3): “I would have to study more and have greater knowledge”; and “…I would need more practice.” Nevertheless, she believed she would be able to carry out IBSE (Q2: 5), although obstacles could hold her back (Q3: 3): “If the school agrees and I have the time and resources, I think I will be able to do it.” PST58 (Q1: 2) simply pointed out that she had no interest in doing IBSE. She believed she had “little knowledge” (Q4: 3). Her confidence in being able to carry it out is low (Q2: 3) as well as her confidence in overcoming obstacles (Q3: 3), where she explained that “I don’t know, to carry out this methodology I will need the material and not all schools have the capacity to buy it”.

5.2. Evolution of PSTs’ Preparedness

Improvement was observed in all variables from t1 to t2 (N = 70; Figure 2). However, when we examined evolution in typology, not all of the PSTs progressed. Out of the total of 67 PSTs assigned a typology at t1, only 33 PSTs changed typology at t2, with 22 of them moving to the group “The most prepared ones –according to their beliefs–” from other groups. It should be mentioned that at t2, 42 out of 67 PSTs were in “The most prepared ones, according to their beliefs”; 20 PSTs were in “Those conditioned by the absence of obstacles”; 5 PSTs were in “Those who believe they lack knowledge”; and no PSTs were in “The ones who see themselves as less prepared”. Neither of the two PSTs who at t1 were in “The ones who don’t want to” filled out the questionnaire at t2.

The explanations given by the PSTs were mostly positive perceptions about IBSE, and were classified into nine categories: autonomy, practical, innovative, experiential, guided, day-to-day context, emotional/affective, scientific competence, and general learning (Figure 3).

The emotional and affective contribution was the most mentioned contribution by the PSTs at t1 (34%). At t2, it was also often mentioned (38%) and in both cases, PSTs described IBSE as interesting, motivational, funny, attractive, and entertaining. Interestingly, more PSTs mentioned scientific competence at t1 than t2 (24% and 41%, respectively), resulting in the contribution most mentioned at t2. PSTs valued that IBSE helps children to do and learn science, teach or learn through observation and inquiry, and draw conclusions, which contribute to the development of scientific competence. For an example, see PST44 in Table 2. An increase was also observed in the general learning dimension (from 16% at t1 to 28% at t2). Assessments such as the methodology is useful, rich, efficient, and adequate or that it helps expressing preconceptions, better understanding scientific concepts, and reaching significant learning were included here. Regarding methodological aspects, PSTs appreciated the fact that IBSE is a practical methodology; in concrete, they mentioned the dynamism and interactivity of the methodology and that it was very manipulative. For an example, see PST9 in Table 2. The day-to-day context was also mentioned, especially at t1 (i.e., PST29, Table 2), and some PSTs described IBSE as an experiential and visual methodology. Finally, it should be noticed that at t1 PSTs described IBSE as easy, comprehensible, or simple for children remarking that it is guided (11%), whereas at t2 this idea does not arise.

The most mentioned obstacles both at t1 and at t2 (34% and 44%, respectively) were related to the school (the school management or the acceptance of IBSE by colleagues and the school planning; Figure 4). For example, PST35 stated “It’s out of my hands. If the school doesn’t accept it I have nothing to do”. However, PST96 proposed a solution: “Perhaps if we explained the efficacy of the methodology, we could overcome the obstacles, and if the results we get are good why not extend the inquiry to other courses?”. The material resources including teaching materials in both official languages, space, and budget were also often mentioned (28% at t1 and 35% at t2). For example, PST25 at t1 said “In my opinion, time is the most obvious problem that we teachers have. It completely influences our work and is an essential element in this work/activity/methodology. In addition, the financial capacity of the school will also have an effect; especially in terms of material resources. The situation of the Basque language in the Basque Autonomous Community is not the best; in fact, there are not many resources in Basque and this can become an obstacle”. Some PSTs believe that a laboratory is necessary to carry out IBSE. There are also PSTs that propose a solution, like PST50, who proposed to bring the material himself from home if there is no material at school, or PST13, who proposed to replace some materials with others in case the ones specified in the project are not available. In addition to the lack of material resources, PSTs also mentioned the lack of time as an obstacle (8% at t1 and 15% at t2). The curriculum was mentioned by three PSTs at t1 but no PST did it at t2. Some PSTs expressed their fear that the type of students would influence the IBSE practice. In this sense, they mentioned the rhythm and needs of the class or the fact that the children may not take care of the material. Finally, although few PSTs identified their own lack of knowledge as an obstacle (5% at t1 and 6% at t2), it should be noted that confidence was a new obstacle that arose in some PSTs at t2 with statements such as “Insecurities that I may have” (PST13), and that was not present at t1 (Figure 4).

Following the evolution in preparedness, according to the typologies at t1, out of the 67 PSTs, there were 26 in the most prepared group (Figure 5). These could not improve further. Of them, 20 PSTs remained in the most prepared category. Thus, out of the 41 PSTs who had scope for improvement, only 27 evolved to a typology where the perception of preparedness was higher. The rest either stayed in their typology or worsened (Figure 5). Among the six PSTs who worsened, four saw obstacles that they had not seen before, and two believed at t2 that they did not have the necessary knowledge. Additionally, 10 PSTs who at t1 believed they lacked knowledge were either in the most prepared or in those conditioned by the absence of obstacles at t2. Here are some examples of responses in perceived knowledge (Q4) of these PSTs at t2: PST10 (Q4: 5 at t2; 1 at t1): “I believe we have worked quite a bit in class”; PST40 (Q4: 5 at t2; 2 at t1): “After doing IBSE, I think I understand the basics. However, it would be necessary for me to learn or train more about inquiry before putting it into practice”; PST45 (Q4: 5 at t2; 2 at t1): “I believe I have sufficient knowledge to develop inquiry practices in the classroom, and for this, the Natural Sciences subject has been very useful. However, I know that I still need to learn some things”; and PST99 (Q4: 5 at t2; 2 at t1): “Yes, I believe that thanks to these classes, I have acquired the necessary knowledge about IBSE”.

5.3. Comparison between Assessed and Perceived Knowledge

The PSTs (N = 30) demonstrated an overall medium–high level of assessed knowledge regarding IBSE (M = 2.298; SD = 0.936), with scores ranging from a minimum of 0.25 to a maximum of 3.5. This indicates a broad spectrum of understanding, from nearly non-existent to excellent, with three PSTs achieving the highest possible score (3.5). The perceived knowledge of these PSTs (N = 30) also reflects a medium–high level, both at t1 (Mdn = 4; R = 2–6) and at t2 (Mdn = 5; R = 2–6). However, a detailed comparison of individual assessed and perceived knowledge reveals some discrepancies. For this comparison, as outlined in the methodology, values above the mean were considered positive, while those below were deemed negative (Figure 6).

Firstly, we identified 19 PSTs whose perceived knowledge aligned with their assessed knowledge, referred to as PSTs with a realistic view (Figure 6). Of these, 17 PSTs exhibited both positive assessed and perceived knowledge (above the respective mean values), indicating a good understanding of IBSE that they perceived as such (assessed knowledge: M = 2.869; SD = 0.536; R = 1.950–3.500; perceived knowledge at t1: Mdn = 4; R = 3–6; perceived knowledge at t2: Mdn = 5; R = 4–6). The remaining two PSTs had both negative assessed and perceived knowledge (below the respective mean values), reflecting limited knowledge of IBSE that they also correctly perceived as such (assessed knowledge: M = 1.700; SD = 0.035; R = 1.675–1.725; perceived knowledge at t1: Mdn = 4; R = 4–4; perceived knowledge at t2: Mdn = 3; R = 3–3).

There were also nine cases where PSTs believed they had greater knowledge than was actually demonstrated in the assessment, referred to as PSTs with overconfidence (Figure 6). These PSTs had a low average assessed knowledge (M = 1.197; SD = 0.522; R = 0.250–1.700; i.e., below the mean value of 1.75) but perceived their knowledge as higher (t1: Mdn = 5; R = 2–6; t2: Mdn = 5; R = 4–6).

Lastly, we identified two cases where PSTs underestimated their own knowledge compared to the assessment, referred to as PSTs with insecurity. These PSTs had assessed knowledge scores of 3.500 (maximum value) and 2.475, respectively. However, they perceived their knowledge at t1 as 3 and 2, respectively, and at t2 as 2 and 3, respectively.

6. Discussion

The only inquiry-based teaching that exists is the one carried out in real classrooms, i.e., the one that teachers implement [6]. This exploratory study expands our knowledge about PSTs’ preparedness to carry out IBSE in their future primary school classrooms. Our findings reveal heterogeneous perceptions among PSTs concerning their preparedness. This includes variations in their confidence levels regarding whether they will be capable (self-efficacy expectations), their expectations of overcoming encountered obstacles (outcome expectations), and their perceived knowledge of IBSE. This diversity in PSTs’ beliefs suggests that establishing a uniform pattern of preparedness for IBSE would be misleading.

6.1. The Basis for the Development of Willingness

When PSTs (N = 100) were asked if they would want to implement IBSE in the future after some IBSE training, 98% responded affirmatively. Furthermore, this belief was stable, as in a second test conducted with the same PSTs after completing their IBSE training (N = 70), 100% of the PSTs expressed their willingness to do so. Forbes and Davis [32] point out that primary education PSTs generally have a student-centered teaching perspective (in contrast to practicing teachers), which they combine with an emphasis on hands-on activities and, overall, active teaching. The written responses provided by the PSTs in this study reveal positive attitudes towards active and practical science, potentially serving as the basis for the development of a strong inclination towards IBSE implementation. As a comparative example, Abril et al. [9] examined the beliefs of practicing and pre-service teachers about inquiry, finding two fundamental differences: pre-service teachers want to implement inquiry to a greater extent than practicing teachers and hold more positive beliefs about inquiry, including its usefulness in motivating students in science. This student-centered teaching is not exclusive to science education, and the promotion of active student roles from other areas of the degree could be fostering PSTs to develop positive beliefs regarding their willingness to implement IBSE in their future classrooms.

In addition to the positive perceptions towards active and practical science, PSTs believe that IBSE will contribute to their future students’ scientific competence through the development of scientific skills and will facilitate learning based on the construction of richer, deeper, and more reflective knowledge. Furthermore, they place IBSE in the everyday context of their future students, which will also contribute to learning science. The results show that these perceptions increase in PSTs after experiencing a second sequence of inquiry, although there are still PSTs who do not mention any of them. Student-centered teaching should not be the sole motivation for implementing IBSE in the classroom, and these arguments related to aspects of scientific competence and learning should be an important part of the foundation for building a strong willingness to implement IBSE.

6.2. Perceived Obstacles: A Potential Key Factor

PSTs’ beliefs were positive for almost all variables, with high median values and higher frequencies for medium and high values. According to the literature, having generally positive beliefs can have a beneficial effect on future teaching practices [74,75]. The ability to overcome obstacles (outcome expectations) is the variable with the lowest values in terms of its median, and with the highest frequencies in low values (both at t1 and at t2). The literature abounds with examples of limitations and obstacles encountered by both active and pre-service teachers (see references in the theoretical framework), and those found in the present study are consistent with them, with the lack of materials and school-related issues being the most frequent for these PSTs. The teachers that participated in the study by Sengul [76] also mentioned their diverse experiences in the different schools where they had worked and how, despite wanting to teach physics using IBSE methodologies, they had not been able to do so in some schools. Montero and Tuzon [14] explored the obstacles encountered by active teachers and found that the most frequent ones are time (73%) and lack of materials (57%). Regarding the lack of materials, it is probably true that an inquiry-based approach requires more resources than a traditional approach; however, most of the inquiries that the PSTs in the present study have carried out have required common and recycled materials such as water, plastic items, cardboard, salt, vinegar, baking soda, stones, sticks, etc. Therefore, it would be interesting to delve into why they feel that materials or resources could be an obstacle for them.

Consequently, a typology has emerged in which PSTs seem to be conditioned on not finding obstacles in their way, with this being the only belief—among those analyzed—that limits their preparedness. It is interesting that Park et al. [53] found that one of the three variables that separate teachers (N = 303) into two typologies (with low and with high beliefs about STEM) is related to potential difficulties in teaching STEM.

Regarding the evolution of perceived obstacles, as PSTs progress in inquiry, they encounter more obstacles. Additionally, it remains the second most frequent typology (behind the most prepared ones). These results are consistent with some studies, such as the one conducted by Perkins [59] on the preparedness of PSTs for engineering teaching, where he found that PSTs progress in their self-efficacy expectations but not in their outcome expectations.

All this suggests that perceived obstacles may be a key variable in studies on teacher preparedness for IBSE, although this variable is not common in studies evaluating teacher preparedness.

6.3. The Overconfidents and the Importance of Assessing Knowledge

The typologies defined in this study are not new in science education, but to our knowledge they are new in IBSE. A study on PSTs’ beliefs about what they should know to use IBSE (N = 243) grouped PSTs into three typologies at the beginning of the course [77]: “better inquirers” (35%), “intermediates”, and “pessimists”. For this, their beliefs regarding three aspects were considered: science content, methodological aspects, and limitations. A recent typology study conducted with physics teachers (N = 241) regarding their competence for teaching physics (not focusing on any specific methodology) resulted in five groups [78]: those who self-perceive as very competent, those self-perceived as moderately competent, those with low perceived self-efficacy and variable-level teaching skills, those with low perceived self-efficacy but high teaching skills, and those with high perceived self-efficacy but lacking teaching skills. These last two groups are similar to those referred to in this study as “those who see themselves as less prepared” and “the overconfident”, and the “very competent” in that study resemble “the most prepared” in this study. As for “those who see themselves as less prepared”, it is a well-known typology in science education when it comes to scientific content; they have been described as those who possess scientific knowledge but exhibit low confidence [79].

Previous studies on teacher preparedness have generally assessed knowledge as a self-perceived factor within a broader sample of beliefs [53,56]. However, the knowledge data in this work were obtained not only from the self-perceptions but also from the assessed knowledge. The addition of this new variable led to the emergence of a new typology, “the overconfident”. These PSTs are characterized by overconfidence [80], i.e., maximum values in all variables except for their assessed knowledge. This typology has been described in the literature outside IBSE as teachers who show high confidence together with a low level of conceptual understanding in the subject matter itself [54,79,81]; they are optimistic and believe they will be good science teachers in the future even though they do not understand certain scientific concepts. In this study, knowledge refers not to science but to didactic knowledge, in this case, about IBSE, and a similar typology has been found.

The PSTs who exhibit overconfidence were hidden within the typology “the most prepared”, thus highlighting the need to incorporate assessed knowledge as a variable to distinguish those who perceive their knowledge of IBSE as broader than they actually possess. As a recent example, Lin and Lou [78] recommend measuring the teaching skills of active teachers through classroom observation, after analyzing their results based solely on their self-perceptions. Achurra et al. [54] suggest evaluating knowledge (in addition to or instead of using perceived knowledge) in studies on teacher preparedness, in that case having studied their preparedness for drawing scientific content in the Early Childhood Education classroom.

6.4. Knowledge about IBSE and Its Relationship with Self-Efficacy Expectations

According to the results, there is a positive correlation between self-efficacy expectations and perceived knowledge about IBSE. However, there is a typology, “Those who believe they lack knowledge”, in which all these PSTs (t1: N = 19; t2: N = 2) believe they will be able to carry out IBSE in the classroom while simultaneously believing they do not have the necessary knowledge. Consequently, the need to explore diversity in samples and describe typologies in heterogeneous ones is clearly evident because associations between variables or causal relationships may not occur for all participants in the sample. Continuing with these 19 PSTs at t1, 7 PSTs moved to “the most prepared” group at t2, and 3 PSTs to “those conditioned by obstacles”; thus, completing IBSE training seems to have led to an improvement in their perception of preparedness. However, there were still two PSTs who remained in the typology “those who believe they lack knowledge” at t2 (the rest of the PSTs did not complete the questionnaire at t2).

Also, in the typology “those who see themselves as less prepared” at t1 (N = 6), there is room for improvement in perceived knowledge, as well as—in this case—in self-efficacy expectations. Of the six PSTs at t1, four PSTs changed to typologies with higher perceived knowledge and self-efficacy expectations, and one PST moved to “Those who believe they lack knowledge” (one PST did not complete the questionnaire at t2). That is, completing the training seems to have brought about an improvement in perceived knowledge and self-efficacy expectations for those PSTs in the typology “those who see themselves as less prepared”.

These results are consistent with the literature [29,38,43,82], according to which, although correlation does not imply causation, it could be assumed that if one increases their didactic knowledge in IBSE, one will have greater confidence to implement it in future. In fact, there is no PST in the sample with low self-efficacy expectations (≤3) who has very high perceived knowledge (≥5), neither at t1 nor at t2. Settlage [38] suggested that positive correlations between PSTs’ beliefs in teaching efficacy in science and their understanding of the 5E learning cycle might indicate that an appreciation of the purposes of the 5E cycle could lead to greater confidence in teaching science. Choi and Ramsey [43] found that, before IBSE training, participants responded that they were reluctant or even afraid to teach science as inquiry because they believed they lacked the necessary knowledge and skills. After completing the course (presumably with greater knowledge), all participants responded that they were no longer afraid to employ an inquiry approach; however, they still thought they lacked the necessary knowledge. Menon and Sadler [83] found a significant correlation between self-beliefs in teaching science and scientific content knowledge, but they highlighted that the correlation, although significant, was moderate, that is, the relationship explained only a limited amount of the underlying variability.

6.5. Implications for Inquiry-Based Science Education

Given the heterogeneity of the sample, some interventions for improving preparedness should address the unique strengths and limitations of each PST, while others could be for all PSTs in general. Thus, PSTs showing overconfidence could benefit from self- and peer-assessments of their knowledge about IBSE, allowing them to realize their needs, so that this overconfidence does not hinder the development of their knowledge. For those PSTs showing low self-efficacy expectations, it would be interesting to continue with IBSE training in a way that develops their knowledge in IBSE and thus leads to greater confidence. For those who are limited by obstacles, since they have not generally observed inquiry activities during the practicum, it could be useful for them to have the opportunity to learn how practicing teachers have overcome obstacles for IBSE, which can be addressed by inviting experts to the university classroom. Finally, all PSTs should reinforce the idea that IBSE contributes to the development of scientific competence.

7. Limitations of the Study

The sample was limited to a specific number of participants in a particular context. The results are not generalizable. Regarding the variables, these were restricted to four; and it could be interesting to measure the awareness PSTs have about the importance and usefulness of IBSE, as well as their level of scientific knowledge.

It is also worth mentioning that the PSTs did not carry out an open IBSE, but rather a structured or guided IBSE; moreover, they did not implement it with real primary school students, but with their peers.

Finally, the study explored the beliefs of the participants, and what the participants believe may or may not align with their actual future practice. Therefore, it would be interesting to follow up with some PSTs in their future careers, as well as to analyze the learning of their future students.

8. Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to examine the beliefs of PSTs about their preparedness for IBSE in the primary school classroom, with an emphasis on exploring the heterogeneity of these beliefs.

Inquiry-based teaching poses a future challenge for those PSTs who participated in the present study. While almost all PSTs show a strong willingness to implement IBSE in their future primary school classrooms, these PSTs believe they are more or less prepared in different ways: some PSTs feel very prepared; some others only feel prepared if certain obstacles do not exist; there are PSTs who believe they lack knowledge on IBSE; and there are some PSTs who need more confidence. Finally, some others need all of the above (the least prepared). The addition of the assessed knowledge variable (as opposed to self-perceived knowledge) has led to the discovery that some of them are overconfident, further increasing the heterogeneity of the sample. In conclusion, the data reveal significant diversity in the preparedness for IBSE, highlighting the need to conduct this type of exploration in order to lead to further development of programs that address the unique strengths and limitations of each PST.

Proper implementation of innovative methodologies for science teaching largely depends on the preparation of the teachers. Studies like this are valuable to teacher trainers because it is crucial to train PSTs to recognize the benefits of these methodologies and to address any potential fears or perceived obstacles. Therefore, it is important to reinforce the idea of their contribution to the development of scientific competence, as demonstrated by the PSTs in this study during t2, and to illustrate that resources do not have to be difficult or expensive to obtain.

Given the scarcity of active teachers who base science learning on inquiry, it seems that new teachers are expected to take on responsibilities from the first day of classes in implementing IBSE. Thus, novice teachers may be forced to sink or swim, and, consequently, go through a tough survival stage. Gordon and Maxey [84] have cautioned that new teachers in their initial years may adopt a “survival mindset”, relying on limited teaching strategies and resisting changes to the curriculum. This can lead to lasting effects on their teaching career, including low self-confidence and negative perceptions of the profession. This deficiency in the training of novice teachers should be changed if the goal is to train effective teachers in IBSE. Therefore, more studies are needed to explore PSTs’ beliefs about IBSE, because, as Pajares [85] said, beliefs held by new teachers entering the profession, which have not been thoroughly examined, could contribute to the continuation of outdated beliefs and ineffective teaching methods.