Rethinking Science Education Practices: Shifting from Investigation-Centric to Comprehensive Inquiry-Based Instruction

Abstract

Inquiry-based learning (IBL) has become a cornerstone of contemporary science education, championed by frameworks like the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). While designed to engage students actively in scientific practices, inquiry is often misapplied, resulting in an overemphasis on hands-on investigations. This investigation-centric approach can overshadow other essential phases of inquiry, leading to a superficial understanding of scientific concepts. This paper introduces a Comprehensive Inquiry-Based Science Education (CIBSE) Framework, grounded in responsive teaching and aligned with the NGSS scientific and engineering practices. The framework emphasizes student reasoning, explanation, and the balance between short exploration and scaffolded support, aiming to offer a more holistic approach to inquiry-based science instruction. By synthesizing key elements from existing models and cognitivism, constructivism, and sociocultural learning theories, the CIBSE Framework addresses current gaps and limitations, providing educators with strategies to guide students toward deeper conceptual understanding and critical thinking. Ultimately, this balanced, adaptable framework empowers educators to meet diverse classroom needs, fostering scientific literacy and critical thinking skills essential for navigating an increasingly science-oriented world.

1. Introduction

The adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) has transformed K–12 science education, placing a renewed emphasis on scientific literacy and encouraging students to think and act like scientists (National Research Council, 2012). This shift reflects a global pedagogical trend, moving away from traditional lecture-based instruction toward inquiry-oriented, student-centered approaches. Inquiry-based learning (IBL) has emerged as a central framework for achieving these goals, fostering deeper conceptual understanding by engaging students in scientific practices such as questioning, investigating, reasoning, and argumentation (Wilcox et al., 2015).

Inquiry in science education is broadly defined as the process by which students actively engage in the practices of science to develop explanations, evaluate evidence, and construct arguments based on empirical observations (National Research Council, 2012). At its core, inquiry incorporates exploration, explanation, and argumentation, emphasizing both hands-on investigation and intellectual engagement with scientific ideas (Gillies, 2023; Nawanidbumrung et al., 2022). Unlike traditional methods that treat science as a static body of facts, inquiry-based approaches emphasize the dynamic and iterative nature of science, encouraging students to connect their observations to broader scientific principles.

While IBL holds significant promise, challenges persist in its practical implementation. Teachers often struggle to balance the phases of inquiry while addressing the diverse needs of students and the constraints of classroom instruction. These challenges are further compounded by systemic barriers, such as time limitations, inadequate teacher preparation, and variability in students’ prior knowledge, which hinder the equitable integration of inquiry into diverse educational contexts (Windschitl et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021; Pozuelo-Muñoz et al., 2023).

A pervasive challenge in IBL implementation is the dominance of an investigation-centric approach, where hands-on experimentation overshadows other critical elements of inquiry, such as modeling, explanation, and argumentation. This focus on experimentation often stems from misconceptions about what constitutes “inquiry.” Educators, particularly those new to teaching, may equate inquiry solely with hands-on activities, assuming that tactile engagement is sufficient to promote learning (Crawford & Capps, 2018; Marshall et al., 2009). While these lessons may capture students’ attention, they often fail to promote deeper cognitive engagement, resulting in fragmented understanding and limited reasoning skills (Barber & Cervetti, 2019; Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016; Oliver et al., 2021; Schwartz et al., 2023).

Curriculum design and systemic pressures also perpetuate the dominance of experimentation. In many educational settings, experiments are prioritized as the centerpiece of inquiry, while phases like explanation and argumentation are sidelined due to time constraints and the need to meet curricular standards (Blanchard et al., 2009; Penuel & Reiser, 2018). Teachers, facing the dual challenges of limited instructional time and extensive content requirements, often opt for activities that can be completed quickly, leaving little room for deeper reflection or scientific discourse (Morris, 2024; Marshall et al., 2009). Furthermore, teacher education programs frequently emphasize traditional instructional methods over the complex skills required to implement balanced and comprehensive inquiry instruction effectively (Strat et al., 2024).

Research underscores the importance of balancing all phases of inquiry to maximize student learning. Effective inquiry involves more than just conducting experiments; it requires planning, interpreting data, constructing explanations, and engaging in scientific argumentation (Nawanidbumrung et al., 2022). However, these practices require appropriate teacher guidance to yield positive outcomes. Without sufficient scaffolding, students may struggle to connect their investigations to broader concepts, leading to superficial engagement or declining outcomes (Aidoo et al., 2022; Morris, 2024).

To address these limitations, this paper introduces the Comprehensive Inquiry-Based Science Education (CIBSE) Framework, which synthesizes principles from cognitive, constructivist, and sociocultural theories of learning (Strat et al., 2024). The framework prioritizes balanced inquiry phases, scaffolding student reasoning alongside hands-on activities, and embedding reflective practices to foster deeper engagement with scientific ideas. Unlike traditional models, the CIBSE framework incorporates adaptive teaching strategies that align inquiry with responsive instruction, ensuring that students’ needs, prior knowledge, and classroom contexts guide the learning process (Morris, 2024; Gillies, 2023). The CIBSE framework also addresses critical barriers such as balance and time efficiency by offering practical, flexible strategies adaptable to diverse classrooms. Drawing on the scientific and engineering practices of NGSS, the framework integrates reflective practices, reasoning, and scientific discourse, ensuring students engage fully with the process of scientific inquiry (National Research Council, 2012).

Moreover, large-scale studies, such as PISA, have highlighted the nuanced relationship between inquiry-based strategies and student outcomes. While certain components of inquiry, such as argumentation and debate, have shown mixed results, structured inquiry phases combined with teacher-guided support have consistently been associated with higher levels of scientific literacy (Cairns & Areepattamannil, 2019; Jerrim et al., 2022; Oliver et al., 2021). These findings underscore the need for frameworks like CIBSE, which balance autonomy and scaffolding to bridge gaps in student understanding and promote equitable learning opportunities.

This paper argues for a paradigm shift from an investigation-centric approach to a comprehensive inquiry-based model. By addressing systemic barriers, promoting balanced phases of inquiry, and fostering reflective practices, the CIBSE framework offers a robust pathway for equipping teachers with the tools to implement inquiry effectively. Such a transition not only aligns with NGSS priorities but also ensures that all students, regardless of background, develop the scientific reasoning and critical thinking skills necessary to succeed in science and beyond.

2. Theoretical Foundations

Developing a robust science education framework requires a comprehensive approach that recognizes the diverse ways students engage with and understand scientific concepts. Integrating cognitivism, constructivism, and sociocultural learning theory provides a solid theoretical foundation to achieve this goal. These theories, when combined, address the multifaceted nature of learning, encompassing cognitive processing, active engagement, and collaborative interaction. This integration underpins the development of the CIBSE Framework, designed to move beyond traditional, investigation-centric methods by offering a balanced approach to inquiry instruction in K-12 science. By drawing from all three perspectives, educators can better facilitate meaningful, long-lasting learning experiences that equip students with the skills necessary for success in scientific inquiry (Dewey, 1910; Vygotsky, 1978). Each theory brings a unique lens to how students understand scientific concepts, and their combination enhances the depth of science instruction by addressing cognitive processing, active engagement, and collaborative learning (Bruner, 1974; Sweller, 1988).

2.1. Cognitivism

Cognitive learning theories emphasize that learning involves reorganizing information by developing new explanations or modifying existing ones (Piaget & Cook, 1954). This transformative process of knowledge development occurs where new concepts are assimilated into existing cognitive structures or schemas. Unlike behaviorist views, which focus on observable changes in actions, cognitivism considers learning as a change in internal understanding, with knowledge being actively processed and stored in memory rather than simply demonstrated through behavior. Strategies like scaffolding, chunking, and metacognition help students connect new information to prior knowledge, making complex scientific ideas more accessible (Ausubel, 1968; Schunk, 2012).

The cognitivism theory explores how learners process, organize, and store information, emphasizing the role of mental structures and schema in knowledge acquisition (Pritchard, 2017). Cognitive load theory, a branch of cognitivism, highlights the importance of scaffolding and structuring information to prevent students from becoming overwhelmed, especially when dealing with complex tasks (Sweller, 1988). During IBL, students are often required to analyze data, draw inferences, and synthesize information—tasks that can be cognitively demanding. Therefore, providing appropriate scaffolding is essential to prevent cognitive overload and support effective learning (Schunk, 2012; Stewart, 2021).

Within inquiry-based science instruction, cognitivism supports step-by-step instructional strategies, ensuring that students build a solid foundational understanding before progressing to more complex scientific concepts. For example, after conducting an experiment, students may be prompted to answer specific questions that guide them to analyze patterns in their data and relate these patterns to underlying scientific principles. Without these supports, students may struggle to interpret data or articulate coherent explanations, leading to gaps in understanding (Pritchard, 2017; Stewart, 2021).

2.2. Constructivism

Constructivism, by contrast, emphasizes the learner’s role in constructing knowledge through experience and reflection. Rather than viewing learning as a passive process, as more traditional teaching methods do, constructivism asserts that students actively build understanding by interacting with their environment and engaging in activities that require experimentation, questioning, and discovery (Kuhlthau et al., 2015; Schunk, 2012). Constructivism emphasizes that students should not be passive recipients of information but should actively participate in the learning process by formulating hypotheses, conducting experiments, and drawing conclusions based on evidence. This active engagement allows students to connect new knowledge to prior experiences, making learning more meaningful and durable (Stewart, 2021). Foundational theories, such as those proposed by Dewey (1910) and Vygotsky (1978), argued for real-world contexts within instruction to allow students to relate new information to existing knowledge.

Constructivist approaches are particularly effective in IBL because they encourage students to engage in the scientific process authentically. When students actively participate in experiments, they are not just memorizing facts but are discovering and constructing knowledge (Capps & Crawford, 2013; Oliver et al., 2021). The constructivist approach mirrors the process scientists use when teachers provide opportunities for students to conduct experiments, predict and observe outcomes, and explain findings based on data. While active engagement is critical, students need structured opportunities to reflect on their learning, articulate their thoughts, and receive feedback to refine their understanding. Simply conducting experiments without a guided process of reflection and explanation can lead to misconceptions or fragmented knowledge. Therefore, constructivist practices must be complemented with strategies that help students make sense of their experiences, emphasizing the importance of teacher facilitation in guiding the construction of knowledge (Schunk, 2012; Stewart, 2021).

2.3. Sociocultural Theory

Sociocultural learning theory extends constructivism by focusing on the social and cultural contexts of learning. It emphasizes that cognitive development is not solely an individual process but is deeply influenced by interactions within a social environment. Lev Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development illustrates how learning can be mediated through social interaction with a more knowledgeable mentor or peer guiding learners to achieve what they cannot accomplish alone (Rogoff, 2014; Vygotsky, 1978). The notion of scaffolding builds on this idea, emphasizing how teachers can support learners until they are ready to proceed independently.

In science education, sociocultural theory underlines the importance of dialogue, collaboration, and peer-led activities, reflecting the inherently collaborative nature of scientific inquiry. Sociocultural practices are essential in IBL because they encourage students to verbalize their thinking, justify their reasoning, and consider alternative perspectives (Schunk, 2012; Stewart, 2021). Classroom discussions, group projects, and peer feedback sessions create opportunities for students to refine their understanding by engaging with diverse viewpoints. For example, when students work together to explain the results of an experiment, they must communicate their reasoning, listen to others’ perspectives, and reconcile differences. This interactive social process helps solidify their knowledge and exposes them to multiple ways of thinking about a problem (Pritchard, 2017; Robertson et al., 2016).

2.4. Integrating Theories

Consolidating cognitivism, constructivism, and sociocultural learning theory creates a comprehensive approach to science education. Cognitivism provides structured, cognitive tools to help process scientific information, ensuring foundational knowledge is established. Constructivism encourages active engagement, allowing students to experiment and explore, promoting deeper conceptual understanding. Finally, sociocultural theory emphasizes the importance of collaboration, helping students learn from one another and developing skills essential for scientific inquiry (Bruner, 1974). By incorporating all three, educators can craft more dynamic and effective learning experiences, ensuring that students not only acquire knowledge but also develop critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills necessary for success in science.

3. Literature Review

IBL has become a cornerstone of science education reform, aiming to foster critical thinking, problem-solving, and scientific literacy. It promotes student engagement by encouraging them to investigate, ask questions, and actively participate in learning processes that mirror the practices of professional scientists (National Research Council, 2012). The NGSS have been instrumental in advocating for inquiry instruction, emphasizing the integration of core content with scientific practices such as developing models, analyzing data, and constructing explanations (McNeill et al., 2016; McNeill & Krajcik, 2008). However, despite its benefits, many educators still equate inquiry primarily with hands-on experimentation, often neglecting other critical aspects such as modeling, explanation, and argumentation (Capps & Crawford, 2013; Crawford, 2014; Marshall et al., 2009; Oliver et al., 2021).

Many years ago, Joseph Schwab (1962) emphasized the critical importance of the scientific literacy for the public. He noted that knowledge gained through inquiry is not merely about facts but their interpretation, which relies on the conceptual principles of the inquiry itself. Without understanding scientific knowledge and the processes by which it is generated, learners risk viewing science as a collection of isolated facts lacking relevant context (Schwartz et al., 2023). Therefore, science education reforms, both past and present, advocate for teaching scientific inquiry practices and understanding them across disciplines.

More recently, Schwartz et al. (2023) reviewed the literature and examined the role of scientific inquiry against the backdrop of earlier educational reforms. Their findings indicate a prevalent focus on engagement in inquiry activities rather than understanding the philosophical foundations of inquiry (e.g., understanding why scientists use certain methods or how evidence is evaluated). They proposed the concept of “scientific inquiry literacy”, which highlights an increased focus on both “doing” and “knowing about” inquiry. This distinction underscores the need to move beyond solely relying on hands-on activities, often mislabeled as inquiry, towards practices that foster deep cognitive engagement and critical evaluation of scientific claims. Ultimately, the authors emphasize that a fully realized scientific literacy requires integrating inquiry as both knowledge and practice.

3.1. The Spectrum of Inquiry

IBL represents a dynamic and multifaceted approach to science education, grounded in the practices of authentic scientific investigation. At its core, inquiry engages students in asking testable questions, designing investigations, analyzing data, and constructing evidence-based explanations to foster deep conceptual understanding (Wilcox et al., 2015; Morris, 2024). However, IBL is not a singular, static approach. Instead, it operates along a continuum of instructional strategies that vary in the degree of teacher guidance and student autonomy. This flexibility allows educators to tailor inquiry to meet diverse classroom needs, ranging from novice learners requiring foundational support to advanced students capable of conducting independent investigations (Morris, 2024; Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016).

3.1.1. Levels of Inquiry

The inquiry continuum encompasses four primary levels: confirmation inquiry, structured inquiry, guided inquiry, and open inquiry. These levels represent a progression in student autonomy and cognitive demand while serving distinct pedagogical purposes.

Confirmation Inquiry involves the teacher providing students with a question and a method to follow, as well as the expected outcome. Students then confirm the results through experimentation. This level serves as an entry point for IBL, particularly for students who need foundational exposure to scientific processes. It allows students to familiarize themselves with investigative techniques and reinforces established scientific concepts. For example, in a biology class, students might replicate a classic experiment to observe osmosis using potato slices in different salt solutions. While the activity is highly structured, it helps students build confidence in conducting experiments and interpreting data. However, confirmation inquiry lacks the cognitive challenge of other levels and is primarily used for reinforcing known outcomes rather than exploring new phenomena (Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016).

Structured Inquiry involves teacher-directed instruction in which educators define the problem and methods for investigation, allowing students to focus on data analysis and interpretation. This approach is particularly effective for students new to scientific inquiry, as it provides the scaffolding necessary to build foundational skills while minimizing cognitive overload (Kirschner et al., 2006). For instance, in a chemistry lesson on reaction rates, a teacher might provide detailed instructions on measuring the effects of temperature on reaction speed, enabling students to concentrate on interpreting patterns in their results without the additional burden of designing the experiment.

Guided Inquiry serves as an intermediary stage, balancing teacher direction with student autonomy. In this approach, teachers provide research questions or broad parameters, while students take on greater responsibility in designing procedures and conducting investigations. Guided inquiry encourages critical thinking and problem-solving by allowing students to engage more deeply with scientific practices while still benefiting from targeted scaffolding and support (Oliver et al., 2021). For example, students exploring the effects of soil composition on plant growth might be tasked with determining their experimental setup, including variables and controls, while the teacher facilitates discussions and addresses misconceptions.

Open Inquiry represents the most autonomous form of inquiry, mirroring the work of professional scientists. In open inquiry, students independently formulate research questions, design and conduct investigations, and draw conclusions based on their findings. This level of inquiry fosters creativity, independence, and advanced scientific reasoning but demands substantial prior knowledge and self-regulation (Gillies, 2023; Nawanidbumrung et al., 2022). For example, in a project-based learning scenario, students investigating the local impacts of climate change might design experiments to measure water quality in nearby streams, integrating data analysis with real-world problem-solving.

Together, these four levels reflect the adaptability of IBL, enabling educators to align instructional strategies with students’ readiness, the complexity of the scientific concepts being explored, and the broader learning objectives of the curriculum. While confirmation and structured inquiry provide a foundation for developing essential skills, guided and open inquiry offer opportunities for deeper cognitive engagement and the cultivation of advanced reasoning abilities (Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016; Morris, 2024).

Table 1. Continuum of Inquiry Methods (Morris, 2024).

Confirmation Inquiry	Structured Inquiry	Guided Inquiry	Open Inquiry
Question given by teacher	Question given by teacher	Question given by teacher	Question derived by learner
Procedure given by teacher	Procedure given by teacher	Procedure developed by learner	Procedure derived by learner
Outcome known in advance	Outcome not known in advance	Outcome derived by learner	Outcome derived by learner
Very teacher-focused	Less teacher-focused	More learner-focused	Very learner-focused
Low level    High level

, “Continuum of Inquiry Methods,” illustrates this progression, providing a practical framework for teachers to evaluate and adjust their instructional approaches (Morris, 2024).

3.1.2. Objectives of Inquiry-Based Learning

The overarching goal of IBL is to cultivate scientific literacy by immersing students in the practices and reasoning processes of science. Scientific literacy extends beyond knowledge of scientific facts; it encompasses an understanding of how scientific knowledge is generated, evaluated, and applied to real-world contexts (Schwab, 1962). IBL promotes this holistic view by emphasizing the iterative nature of science, where questions lead to investigations, investigations yield evidence, and evidence informs explanations and arguments (Schwartz et al., 2023). Through this process, students develop a nuanced understanding of the nature of science as a dynamic and evidence-based discipline.

One of the key strengths of IBL is its ability to engage students actively in their learning, fostering motivation and curiosity. By situating learning within meaningful, real-world contexts, inquiry-based approaches encourage students to explore phenomena that resonate with their interests and experiences (Gillies, 2023). For example, a lesson on renewable energy might involve students investigating the efficiency of solar panels under different conditions, linking abstract scientific principles to tangible applications. Research shows that such authentic engagement not only enhances students’ understanding of scientific concepts but also improves their attitudes toward science, particularly among historically underrepresented groups (Liu et al., 2021).

IBL also plays a crucial role in developing students’ research skills, such as formulating hypotheses, designing experiments, and analyzing data. These skills are essential for success in STEM fields and for navigating the complexities of a technology-driven world (El Mawas & Muntean, 2018). Furthermore, inquiry promotes critical thinking by requiring students to evaluate evidence, construct reasoned arguments, and communicate their findings effectively (Crawford, 2014; Pozuelo-Muñoz et al., 2023). Such cognitive engagement prepares students to address complex problems and make informed decisions, both within and beyond the classroom.

However, achieving these objectives requires a balanced approach to inquiry that integrates hands-on investigation with opportunities for reasoning, reflection, and discourse. Research underscores that while experimentation is a vital component of inquiry, overemphasis on hands-on activities can lead to fragmented learning if students are not guided to connect their observations to underlying scientific principles (Capps & Crawford, 2013). For example, students conducting physics experiments on force and motion may collect data but fail to grasp Newton’s laws if explicit connections are not made during the explanation phase. This finding highlights the importance of designing inquiry experiences that balance all phases of the scientific process—exploration, explanation, and argumentation—to foster comprehensive understanding (Schwartz et al., 2023).

3.1.3. Challenges to Inquiry Implementation

While IBL offers numerous benefits, its implementation often falls short of its transformative potential due to systemic barriers, teacher preparation gaps, and misconceptions about its nature. These challenges hinder its consistent and effective application across diverse educational contexts and contribute to the persistence of investigation-centric approaches that narrow the scope of inquiry.

A major challenge in IBL implementation is the widespread misconception that inquiry is synonymous with hands-on experimentation. Many educators equate inquiry with laboratory-based activities, focusing primarily on tactile engagement while overlooking other critical phases, such as reasoning, modeling, and argumentation (Morris, 2024; Marshall et al., 2009; Nawanidbumrung et al., 2022). This narrow view often leads to fragmented learning experiences, where students engage in experiments without fully connecting their findings to broader scientific principles or engaging in deeper cognitive tasks such as constructing explanations and critiquing evidence. For instance, research by Barber and Cervetti (2019) revealed that while students actively participate in data collection during experiments, they often fail to synthesize their results into meaningful scientific conclusions without explicit guidance. This limited focus on experimentation neglects key components of scientific literacy, including reasoning and the ability to evaluate evidence critically (Schwartz et al., 2023).

Compounding these challenges are systemic issues, such as time constraints and curricular demands, which further impede the implementation of comprehensive inquiry. Teachers often feel pressured to prioritize content coverage over in-depth inquiry due to rigid curricular requirements and standardized testing pressures (Blanchard et al., 2009; Penuel & Reiser, 2018). This pressure leads to truncated lessons that focus on completing experiments quickly while neglecting critical phases like reflection and evaluation. For example, Liu et al. (2021) found that teachers frequently omit the explanation and argumentation phases of inquiry due to limited instructional time, resulting in students engaging only superficially with the scientific process. This issue is particularly pronounced in resource-limited schools, where teachers may lack the laboratory materials or technology required to support guided or open inquiry. In such settings, educators often resort to structured, teacher-directed approaches that limit student autonomy and critical engagement (Morris, 2024).

Teacher preparation also plays a crucial role in determining the success of inquiry-based instruction. Effective implementation requires educators to possess a deep understanding of both content and pedagogy, as well as the ability to scaffold student learning across the phases of inquiry. However, many teachers, particularly novices, lack the training necessary to navigate the complexities of IBL. Strat et al. (2024) found that pre-service teacher programs frequently emphasize traditional, lecture-based methods over the skills needed to facilitate student-centered learning. As a result, many teachers enter the profession without adequate preparation for designing and implementing inquiry lessons that balance autonomy with structured guidance. Oliver et al. (2021) highlighted that novice teachers often default to investigation-centric approaches, prioritizing procedural tasks over reasoning and reflection due to a lack of confidence in their ability to manage more open-ended inquiry activities.

The variability in students’ prior knowledge and readiness for inquiry further complicates its implementation. IBL requires students to engage in complex cognitive tasks, such as designing experiments, interpreting data, and constructing evidence-based arguments. However, students with limited prior knowledge or experience in science may struggle to meet these demands without significant support (Kirschner et al., 2006; Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016). Teachers must carefully tailor inquiry activities to accommodate the diverse needs of learners, a task that requires substantial planning and pedagogical expertise. Without appropriate differentiation, inquiry lessons risk excluding students who lack the foundational skills to engage meaningfully in the process. For example, research by Gillies (2023) emphasized the importance of structured and guided inquiry for novice learners, as these approaches provide the scaffolding necessary to build confidence and competence before progressing to more autonomous forms of inquiry.

Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of inquiry that incorporates its full spectrum of strategies and phases. By integrating confirmation, structured, guided, and open inquiry into cohesive instructional frameworks, educators can better align inquiry practices with students’ developmental needs, curricular goals, and classroom realities. Such an approach not only mitigates the barriers to implementation but also ensures that all students benefit from the transformative potential of IBL.

Existing research highlights that achieving a balanced implementation of inquiry knowledge and practices remains challenging (Penuel & Reiser, 2018; Schwartz et al., 2023). While the NGSS promotes comprehensive engagement across multiple scientific practices, teachers frequently struggle to integrate these effectively throughout the different phases of inquiry. Addressing this issue requires a clearer understanding of what effective inquiry instruction looks like, along with strategies that promote a holistic approach emphasizing not only exploration but also reasoning, communication, and real-world application (Barber & Cervetti, 2019; Richards & Robertson, 2016; Windschitl et al., 2020).

3.2. Scientific and Engineering Practices

The NGSS redefined science education in the U.S. by emphasizing three key dimensions: disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and scientific and engineering practices. These practices are designed to engage students in the processes that scientists and engineers use to investigate the natural world and develop new technologies. The NGSS (National Research Council, 2012) outlines eight essential practices:

• Asking questions and defining problems: Encouraging students to articulate what they want to know or solve, laying the groundwork for investigations.
• Developing and using models: Helping students represent and understand complex systems, facilitating deeper comprehension of scientific phenomena.
• Planning and carrying out investigations: Engaging students in the process of scientific inquiry, from forming hypotheses to conducting experiments.
• Analyzing and interpreting data: Teaching students to identify patterns, draw conclusions, and make sense of their observations.
• Using mathematics and computational thinking: Integrating quantitative skills to analyze data and solve problems.
• Constructing explanations and designing solutions: Enabling students to synthesize information and generate coherent explanations.
• Engaging in argument from evidence: Encouraging students to support their claims with data and reasoning, promoting critical thinking.
• Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information: Developing skills for accessing, assessing, and sharing scientific information.

Each of these practices is essential for helping students understand how science is conducted in the real world. However, research has shown that without a balanced integration across all practices, students may focus too heavily on certain aspects (like experimentation) while neglecting others, leading to superficial engagement and limited development of scientific literacy (Crawford, 2007, 2014). For science to be taught effectively, a balance of the scientific and engineering practices should be apparent when students are engaged in inquiry in science classrooms.

3.3. Existing Models of Science Instruction

3.3.1. The 5E Model

The 5E Model, developed by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, is a widely adopted instructional framework that structures learning into five phases: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate (Bybee & Landes, 1990). This sequential design helps educators guide students from initial engagement through exploration, followed by deeper understanding and application of scientific concepts. Each phase builds on the other, promoting a logical flow that encourages active learning.

The strengths of the 5E Model lie in its ability to scaffold learning by moving from exploration to explanation and elaboration. This structure helps students connect their findings to broader scientific concepts, facilitating deeper understanding. However, research has highlighted practical challenges. In real-world settings, teachers often overemphasize the “Explore” phase, focusing primarily on hands-on activities without dedicating adequate time to subsequent phases like “Explain” and “Elaborate.” This can lead to a fragmented understanding of concepts, where students are skilled at performing experiments but lack the ability to articulate or apply their findings in meaningful ways (Marshall et al., 2009; Schwartz et al., 2023). Additionally, the model’s rigid structure can limit flexibility, making it challenging for educators to adapt their lessons to meet diverse classroom dynamics and student needs.

3.3.2. The 4E × 2 Model

A notable model, the 4E × 2 Instructional Model (Marshall et al., 2009), addresses the tendency to focus on hands-on experimentation at the expense of deeper conceptual engagement and structured support. This model offers a flexible cycle—Engage, Explore, Explain, and Extend—with an emphasis on formative assessment and reflection embedded within each phase. It supports the iterative assessment of student understanding, enabling educators to provide targeted feedback and guide metacognitive reflection. While adaptable across STEM disciplines, the 4E × 2 Model focuses heavily on formative reflection, helping students develop an awareness of their learning processes. However, since this model provides valuable strategies for interdisciplinary inquiry, its lack of a direct alignment with NGSS practices limits its efficacy in fostering science-specific skills and knowledge.

3.3.3. Ambitious Science Teaching

Ambitious Science Teaching offers a comprehensive instructional model that promotes deep engagement with scientific practices. It encourages students to construct models, engage in argumentation, and refine their ideas through continuous iteration (Windschitl et al., 2020). Ambitious Science Teaching is grounded in constructivist and sociocultural theories, emphasizing active learning and collaboration. The model’s core practices include planning for engagement with scientific ideas, eliciting student ideas, supporting ongoing changes in thinking, and pressing for evidence-based explanations.

Ambitious Science Teaching aligns well with the NGSS goals by encouraging students to think and act like scientists. It emphasizes formative assessment, where teachers continuously gauge student understanding, adapt instruction, and provide support to help students refine their ideas. However, the implementation of Ambitious Science Teaching can be challenging due to its resource-intensive nature. It requires significant planning, expertise, and adaptability, which can be particularly difficult for novice teachers. Managing open-ended, student-driven learning environments demands a high level of skill, and educators must be able to facilitate discussions, scaffold learning, and adapt their teaching without taking over the process (Richards & Robertson, 2016). Additionally, the complexity of Ambitious Science Teaching can make it difficult to integrate into curricula that operate under rigid schedules or prioritize high-stakes testing.

3.4. The Need for Structured Guidance

Research has consistently underscored the importance of structured guidance to ensure the success of IBL. Lazonder and Harmsen (2016) conducted a meta-analysis examining the effects of different levels of guidance in inquiry-based settings. They found that while student-led inquiry promotes autonomy and engagement, it is most effective when accompanied by adequate scaffolding. Without sufficient guidance, students often struggled to connect their investigations to broader scientific principles, leading to fragmented understanding. The study concluded that well-structured guidance, which helps students navigate the inquiry process and make sense of their observations, is essential for effective learning outcomes.

A study by Oliver et al. (2021) assessed the impact of inquiry-based teaching on scientific literacy among 15-year-old students across six Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in the 2015 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The inquiry model used in PISA encompasses elements like encouraging students to explain ideas, conduct lab experiments, participate in class debates on science topics, derive conclusions from experiments, and design experiments for testing hypotheses.

The findings showed that students who frequently engaged in high levels of inquiry strategies generally exhibited lower scientific literacy. In contrast, a positive correlation emerged between scientific literacy and the use of teacher-directed and adaptive teaching methods. Further analysis revealed mixed associations between specific inquiry practices and scientific literacy; for instance, frequent class debates and scientific argumentation correlated negatively with scientific literacy, while moderate exposure to practical experiments and conclusion-drawing yielded positive results. The study concluded that student success depended on appropriate teacher guidance and sufficient prior knowledge. Thus, students benefit from IBL when foundational understanding and proper instructional support align with their skill levels.

In line with these findings, research by Gupta et al. (2015) demonstrated that students benefit significantly from structured reflection and discussion phases following hands-on activities. The study explored guided inquiry with a focus on writing and reflection, where students were required to explain their reasoning and reflect on the processes they used during experiments. This approach helped students articulate their understanding and integrate new knowledge with existing concepts, resulting in a more coherent and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. Such findings underscore the importance of moving beyond hands-on activities to include opportunities for students to engage in meaningful discourse, explanation, and reflection (Dobber et al., 2017; Kuhlthau et al., 2015).

4. Comprehensive Inquiry-Based Science Education Framework

The CIBSE Framework is designed to address the limitations of existing inquiry-based models by providing a balanced and adaptable approach to science instruction. It integrates key elements from the NGSS, Ambitious Science Teaching, and responsive teaching practices, while drawing on the structure of the 5E Model of inquiry. By combining these components, the CIBSE Framework emphasizes not just hands-on exploration, but also deeper cognitive engagement, reasoning, and scientific discourse, offering a more holistic method of fostering scientific literacy.

The CIBSE Framework is built on a robust theoretical foundation that integrates principles from cognitivism, constructivism, and sociocultural learning theories. Each of these theories contributes to a cohesive approach to science education by emphasizing structured support, active engagement, and collaborative learning. By combining these theoretical perspectives, the CIBSE Framework promotes a dynamic and comprehensive learning experience. It encourages students to actively participate in inquiry, process complex information through scaffolded support, and engage with peers in meaningful discussions, all of which are essential for building scientific literacy.

4.1. CIBSE Framework Design

The CIBSE Framework uses the NGSS scientific and engineering practices as a foundation, serving as a lens through which students approach inquiry. These practices help students think and act like scientists, engaging them in activities such as asking questions, developing models, analyzing data, and constructing explanations. The framework also draws from principles of Responsive Teaching and Ambitious Science Teaching, ensuring that educators can adaptively guide students through the inquiry process based on their evolving needs and understandings.

4.1.1. Balancing Inquiry Phases

A hallmark of the CIBSE Framework is its balanced integration across all inquiry phases: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate. While the 5E Model has been widely adopted, it often overemphasizes the “Explore” phase, resulting in shallow cognitive engagement and limited opportunities for reflection and reasoning. CIBSE addresses this limitation by integrating shorter exploratory tasks, creating time for enhanced cognitive engagement during the “Explain” and “Elaborate” phases.

This iterative approach mirrors authentic scientific inquiry, where findings prompt new questions and deeper investigations. Teachers play a crucial role in guiding students through this cyclical process. For example, following a short exploration of chemical reactions, students may revisit the “Engage” phase to refine hypotheses or pose new research questions.

CIBSE also addresses systemic barriers like time constraints by streamlining exploration tasks and embedding opportunities for reflection and argumentation. This balance enables teachers to manage instructional time effectively while maximizing students’ cognitive engagement. Through responsive teaching practices, educators can make real-time adjustments, maintaining a balanced approach that fosters deeper cognitive engagement and critical thinking.

4.1.2. Enhanced Explanation and Reasoning

The “Explain” phase receives heightened emphasis in the CIBSE Framework, addressing a common gap in traditional inquiry models where explanation is often rushed or superficial. By leveraging principles from cognitive, constructivist, and sociocultural theories, CIBSE ensures that students synthesize their findings and connect them to broader scientific concepts.

Students are prompted to articulate their reasoning, construct models, and engage in evidence-based argumentation. For example, after a short collaborative exploratory task on photosynthesis, students might explain how light energy is converted into chemical energy using diagrams or models they develop. Teachers facilitate this process by posing clarifying questions and encouraging students to use scientific terminology, thus bridging procedural activities with deeper conceptual understanding. This approach also encourages students to use models and engage in argumentation, two practices central to the NGSS and Ambitious Science Teaching. Unlike traditional inquiry approaches, CIBSE embeds these practices systematically, ensuring that explanation and reasoning are not supplementary but integral to the inquiry process. This emphasis helps students develop scientific reasoning skills while addressing gaps in their comprehension of core concepts.

4.1.3. Responsive Teaching Practices

Responsive teaching is woven throughout the CIBSE Framework, empowering educators to adapt lessons in response to student thinking. This flexibility directly addresses the rigidity of the 5E Model and the complexity of Ambitious Science Teaching by providing practical strategies for real-time instructional adjustments.

For instance, if students struggle to connect experimental findings to theoretical principles, teachers might incorporate targeted scaffolding, such as graphic organizers or mini-lessons. During an investigation into electrical circuits, a teacher noticing misconceptions about current flow could provide a visual diagram or lead a brief discussion to clarify concepts before students continue their exploratory tasks.

These practices create a classroom environment where students feel their contributions are valued and where misconceptions are addressed constructively. Responsive teaching also ensures that inquiry remains accessible to diverse learners, enabling differentiation based on student readiness and prior knowledge.

4.1.4. Embedded Scaffolding and Direct Instruction

While IBL emphasizes student-led exploration, CIBSE acknowledges that some concepts require direct instruction before meaningful exploration can occur. For example, before investigating molecular structures, students might need a foundational lesson on atomic theory. By seamlessly integrating explicit teaching into the inquiry process, CIBSE equips students with the background knowledge necessary for deeper engagement.

Teachers employ scaffolding techniques, such as step-by-step guides, strategic questioning, and visual aids, to support students’ progression through inquiry tasks. This approach addresses cognitive load concerns, particularly for novice learners, while preserving opportunities for independent exploration. For instance, during an investigation of Newton’s laws, teachers might initially guide students through structured activities before transitioning to short guided or open inquiry tasks. This balance of structured support and autonomy enables students to develop confidence and problem-solving skills while achieving a comprehensive understanding of complex scientific concepts.

4.1.5. Integrating Ambitious Science Teaching

CIBSE incorporates principles of Ambitious Science Teaching, such as sensemaking, argumentation, and iterative model-building, to deepen engagement with scientific practices. The framework ensures that these practices are adaptable and can be tailored to different classroom settings. The CIBSE Framework addresses the challenges of Ambitious Science Teaching’s complexity and resource intensity by embedding these practices within the structured framework of the 5E Model.

For example, students investigating climate change might develop and refine models of the greenhouse effect, engaging in iterative cycles of evidence evaluation and model revision. This process helps students build a deeper, more accurate understanding of scientific systems. This process, guided by responsive teaching practices, ensures that students are supported throughout their short investigations while still benefiting from high-level cognitive tasks. By maintaining a clear structure while fostering opportunities for creative and critical thinking, CIBSE makes the ambitious goals of Ambitious Science Teaching accessible to a broader range of educators, including novice teachers.

The CIBSE Framework utilizes components of existing frameworks; however, it also addresses the gaps found each.

Table 2. Overview of Existing Models with Strengths and Limitations.

Model	Approach to Inquiry-Based Learning	Strengths	Limitations	CIBSE Response
5E Model	Sequential phases: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate	Promotes active learning with a clear structure	Often overemphasizes “Explore,” limiting conceptual engagement	CIBSE integrates short exploratory tasks and emphasizes cognitive supports
4E × 2 Model	Phases of Engage, Explore, Explain, Extend with reflection	Interdisciplinary and flexible, emphasizes formative assessment	Not specifically aligned with science and engineering practices	CIBSE aligns directly with NGSS practices to address science-specific needs
Ambitious Science Teaching	Focus on student thinking, sensemaking, and argumentation	Promotes high-level cognitive skills, argumentation	High complexity, resource-intensive, challenging for novice teachers	CIBSE focuses on responsive, adaptable teaching methods within the 5E structure

summarizes the comparative analysis of these instructional models, highlighting both their contributions and areas where the CIBSE Framework aims to address key limitations.

A visual representation of the CIBSE Framework is shown in Figure 1. The diagram illustrates how each component of the framework, from the NGSS practices to the integration of Ambitious Science Teaching and responsive teaching, contributes to a cohesive and balanced IBL environment. This visual tool helps educators understand how the elements of the framework interact and can be applied flexibly in their teaching practice.

Teachers are encouraged to see the CIBSE Framework not as a rigid set of steps but as a toolkit that allows for adaptation. Depending on student needs, classroom dynamics, and content requirements, educators can draw on different aspects of the framework to create lessons that are engaging, informative, and effective. CIBSE offers several key innovations that distinguish it from existing models:

• Addressing the Overemphasis on Exploration: CIBSE rebalances the phases of inquiry, incorporating shorter exploration tasks to create time for reflection, explanation, and argumentation. This approach addresses both the time constraints faced by educators and the cognitive demands of students.
• Integrating Cognitive Supports: By emphasizing cognitive theory alongside constructivist and sociocultural approaches, CIBSE provides a more comprehensive theoretical foundation for inquiry. Structured scaffolding and embedded direct instruction help students connect procedural tasks to conceptual understanding.
• Aligning with NGSS: CIBSE builds on the 4E × 2 Model’s emphasis on reflection but integrates NGSS scientific and engineering practices to align with the overarching goals of science education.
• Making Ambitious Practices Accessible: CIBSE incorporates high-level cognitive practices from Ambitious Science Teaching but adapts them for broader classroom use by embedding them within a adaptable 5E structure.
• Responsive and Adaptable Framework: CIBSE promotes flexibility, allowing teachers to adjust instruction based on classroom contexts, student needs, and time constraints.

By addressing these gaps, CIBSE not only builds on existing inquiry models but also offers a balanced, adaptable, and comprehensive framework for fostering scientific literacy and critical thinking. This innovative approach ensures that IBL remains both effective and accessible in diverse educational contexts.

4.2. Future Research Directions and Practical Evaluations

The CIBSE Framework offers a promising solution to the limitations of existing inquiry-based models, but further research is needed to assess its effectiveness across diverse educational settings and refine its implementation. Future studies should focus on the following areas:

• Comparative Studies Across Educational Contexts: Research should examine how the CIBSE Framework performs in different settings—urban, rural, and suburban schools—to understand how contextual factors affect its impact. Studies could explore how the framework supports diverse student populations, especially in classrooms with varying resources and levels of teacher expertise. Comparing its effectiveness across different grade levels can also reveal how the framework can be adapted for younger versus older students.
• Longitudinal Research on Student Outcomes: Long-term studies are needed to assess the impact of the CIBSE Framework on students’ scientific literacy, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. These studies would provide a clearer picture of how balanced inquiry practices influence students’ ability to retain and apply scientific knowledge beyond the classroom. Longitudinal data can also help pinpoint which elements of the framework are most effective in supporting sustained learning outcomes.
• Professional Development and Teacher Support: Future research should focus on identifying effective professional development strategies to help educators adopt the CIBSE Framework. Studies could explore best practices for training teachers to implement responsive teaching and balanced inquiry approaches, ensuring they are well-prepared to facilitate deeper learning. Understanding the challenges educators face in adopting new instructional frameworks can help tailor professional development programs to better meet their needs.
• Practical Evaluation and Iterative Refinement: Engage in action research where educators use the CIBSE Framework in real-world settings and provide feedback for continuous improvement. Collaborating with teachers can help identify areas for refinement, ensuring the framework remains adaptable, effective, and aligned with the evolving needs of educators and students.

The CIBSE Framework is a step forward in addressing systemic issues that hinder effective IBL. However, ongoing research and practical evaluations are essential to ensure its successful integration across diverse educational contexts. By refining the framework based on empirical data and teacher feedback, educators can better equip students with the skills needed to thrive in a science-driven world.

5. Conclusions

The Comprehensive Inquiry-Based Science Education (CIBSE) Framework represents a significant advancement in conceptualizing and implementing IBL in science education. While models like the 5E Model, the 4E × 2 Model, and Ambitious Science Teaching contribute valuable strategies to the field, they often fall short of achieving a balanced, accessible approach to scientific inquiry. The CIBSE Framework addresses these gaps by combining responsive teaching with structured, NGSS-aligned practices, ensuring that students experience all phases of inquiry with adequate support for deeper cognitive engagement. By integrating all phases of the 5E Model in a balanced, supported, and iterative way, CIBSE enables students to not only conduct experiments but also to build robust critical thinking, reasoning, and communication skills essential for scientific literacy and scientific inquiry literacy.

This flexible framework mirrors the cyclical, reflective nature of real-world scientific inquiry, equipping students to navigate complex scientific phenomena and engage meaningfully with real-world challenges but on a manageable scale. The CIBSE Framework, thus, offers science educators a practical, adaptable approach, allowing them to meet diverse student needs and cultivate scientifically literate, critical thinkers.