25 Years of Inquiry-Oriented Learning in Laboratories

Les Kirkup
Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, NSW 2007,
Australia, and School of Physics, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

Abstract. Laboratory-based, inquiry-oriented, learning introduces students to the principles

and practices of science in an authentic way. Despite its promise to enhance student learning,
inquiry in the laboratory is often relegated to the later years of a science degree with most first-
year laboratory programs dominated by verification-type experiments. In this paper I describe
innovations spanning 25 years at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) focussing on
developing scalable and sustainable laboratory-based, inquiry-oriented, experiences for first
year science students.

1. Introduction
While inquiry is a vital feature of the work of scientists, it is all too often absent from the
undergraduate science curriculum (see, for example) [1]. A natural location for inquiry to occur and be
supported is the undergraduate science laboratory. In the undergraduate science laboratory, students
can: behave as scientists, working together cooperatively to solve a problem; design and carry out an
experiment and evaluate its outcome, and; develop their communication skills by describing their
findings in a supportive small-group setting. All this, while strengthening their understanding of the
processes and practices of science.
Unfortunately, the laboratory experiences of most undergraduate students are typically dominated
by verification, or ‘cookbook’ type experiments, presented out of sequence with material being
discussed in lectures or online [2]. Such experiments offer limited challenges for students to grow their
knowledge of science, and often suppress their innate creative talents [3].
Concern about the value of cookbook-type experiments is not new. In 1933, A A Bless wrote,
“Cookbook instructions certainty do not stimulate a student’s capacity for reasoning or his ingenuity.
If anything, these are stifled under such a procedure. The instructions for carrying out a given
experiment should be conspicuous by their absence…” [4]. ‘Cookbook instructions’ in which a student
is told what to do and how to do it, remain the staple of many laboratory programs for undergraduate
science students [2].
Inquiry-oriented learning (IOL) and other forms of active learning, such a problem, or project-
based learning have the potential to enhance students’ experimentation skills, increase self-confidence
and foster creative approaches to problem-solving [5,6]. IOL activities adapted from Olson & Loucks-
Horsley [7], foster student engagement through the exploration of physics-based questions that have
no predetermined answer. Students develop and implement approaches to address those questions.
They then refine their approaches to enhance the quality of their data. Finally, students communicate
scientifically sound explanations and conclusions based on those data.
At UTS we have designed, developed, embedded and nurtured IOL activities in the physics
curriculum for physics majors as well as non-physics majors, since 1992 [8]. We chose inquiry as a
central feature as it authentically replicates the processes scientists adopt in their discipline-based
research, and in doing so requires students to apply methods by which scientific knowledge is created
and challenged.
In this paper I describe the background to our work in IOL at UTS and the steps we took to
integrate IOL into the first-year curriculum for large enrolment physics subjects. I will touch on some
of the national studies I have been involved with that point to issues relating to laboratory programs
designed for first year undergraduate science students. Finally, I will describe a recent innovation in
which we collaborated with Australia’s premier scientific organisation, the Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) to co-develop a scalable project-type activity which
connects first year students to research of national and international prominence.

2. Method
2.1 Drivers for Change at UTS
Prior to 1991, the laboratory programs of first year physics subjects at UTS consisted of standard
cookbook-type experiments similar to those found in standard texts on ‘Practical Physics’ [9] and
which have populated many physics laboratory programs around the world for decades [10]. In any
week at UTS, some students would be assigned a thermal experiment, some an optics experiment,
some a mechanics experiment, and so on. Students would complete their allocated experiments over
the semester, often carrying out an experiment either well in advance or arrears of consideration of the
relevant underlying concepts in lectures or tutorials and largely in isolation from other students in the
laboratory. This represented a systemic disconnect between lectures, tutorials and laboratories and did
not encourage students to work collaboratively or communicate what they had done to others.
Though at UTS we offered several first-year physics subjects, including one for life science
students and another for engineering students, we decided to focus our reform ambitions on the
laboratory program which was part of the subject ‘Physics 1C’. This subject was taught within the
Department of Applied Physics (DAP) to students majoring in a degree in the physical sciences (such
as physics, chemistry or materials science). In 1991 the subject typically enrolled 150 students per
semester, which consisted of 13 teaching weeks. Students were taught in groups of 16 to 18 in the
laboratory, supported by a demonstrator. The laboratory was of 2.5 hours duration. There were three,
one hour lectures each week, and a one-hour tutorial every two weeks.
Several drivers encouraged us to review the Physics 1C laboratory program, including: (1)
discontent with the 1991 laboratory program as expressed by students through anonymous surveys of
student satisfaction; (2) academics’ dissatisfaction with a laboratory program virtually unchanged for
more than a decade; (3) a determination to critically review the goals of first year physics laboratory
programs stimulated by conversations with teaching and learning researchers at UTS; (4) the
infectious enthusiasm of a head of department committed to reforming the laboratory experience of
first year students, and; (5) the successful application for national funding to support curriculum
reform in science. With that funding we appointed an educational developer to support the review of
the existing laboratory program and the development of a new program [11].

2.2 Introducing IOL at UTS

In 1991 we formed a working party (WP) to review the existing laboratory program. The WP consisted
of academics, demonstrators, technical staff, an educational researcher, and an educational developer
The WP was chaired by the head of department.
 The question we asked was ‘what do we want students to get from laboratory work?’.As the
review proceeded we became aware that there were aspects of laboratory work that we valued as
professional scientists, such as the opportunity to informally present findings of an experiment in a
small group setting, that were largely absent from the existing laboratory program. WP members were
asked to critically review the existing experiments and establish, for example, whether a student had to
engage in scientific inquiry by exploring a phenomenon of developing a procedure [12]. The review
revealed that only 21% of experiments required some form of exploration and none required students
to develop a procedure.
By its very nature, inquiry requires that aspects of an experiment, such as the experimental
method be left open to some extent so that students can have direct input into the development of that
method. As part of the review we examined the experiments to establish the amount of openness they
offered. The scheme shown in table 1, which was adapted from the work of Boud et al. [13], related
the levels of inquiry to the amount of student autonomy. In a level 0 experiment, a student is told the
aim of experiment, given the material for the experiment and the method and told what answer to
expect. At the other extreme (level 3) all aspects of an experiment are left open to a student.

Table 1. Level of openness in scientific inquiry

Level Aim Materials Method Answer
(Is the aim of (Do students source (Is the method (Is the outcome known
the investigation their own materials or given or do by, or given to,
prescribed or is are the materials students develop students, or is the
it open?) provided?) their own method?) outcome open?)
0 Given Given Given Given
1 Given Given Given Open
2A Given Given whole or part Open or part given Open
2B Given Open Open Open
3 Open Open Open Open

A review of the experiments revealed that 14% (2/14 experiments) were at level 0 and 85%
(12/14 experiments) were at level 1. Feedback on the Physics 1C laboratory program provided through
anonymous student surveys indicated that students were pre-occupied with following the instructions
with little time for consideration of design, analysis, inquiry, or communication of experimental
results. These findings, along with the review of individual experiments, led to the conclusion that the
laboratory program [12] “was unlikely to enhance students' interest or sense of excitement about
physics, unlikely to help motivate students to continue physics studies at a higher level, unlikely to help
develop positive attitudes to science or build scientific literacy. Moreover, the laboratories offered an
inaccurate picture of physics and its relevance to everyday life”. As a result of the review and the
feedback from students, all the existing experiments were retired, and six new experiments developed
[14]. Using the scheme in table 1, one experiment was at level 1, with the other five at level 2A.
The WP reformed the Physics 1C laboratory program, with a determination to make it more
stimulating, personally involving and relevant to student lives [8]. Educational research offered
evidence that IOL could satisfy those aims as well as expose students to experiences such as curiosity,
perseverance, experiencing failure and dealing with doubts [15]. The WP were resolute that the post-
1991 program should promote opportunities for students to engage in activities that better mirrored
those of practicing scientists.
In the revised laboratory program, which was first delivered and evaluated in 1992, the following
features were prominent: (1) All students carried out the same experiment in the same laboratory
session, this allowed the laboratory program to be sequenced with the lecture material; (2)
Experiments designed to develop skills, such those requiring0 the faithful recording of data or
investigating the impact of measurement errors, were included early to prepare the students for more
inquiry-intensive experiments; (3) Communication of students’ experimental results was highlighted.
This led to meaningful discussions of various approaches that students adopted when carrying out an
experiment; (4) The assessment scheme for the laboratory program was substantially revised and
consisted of several new elements, including compulsory pre-work to orient students to the impending
experiment. Also included was a skills test and a poster which students prepared as a group and were
required to orally present to their class mates; (5) In recognition of the increased emphasis on the
laboratory work in Physics 1C, the contribution of the laboratory program was raised from 15 % to 25
% of the total assessment of Physics 1C.
Student reaction to the changes in Physics 1C was obtained through student interviews, and
included “I find that (fewer instructions) are better than someone giving us the instructions and
saying, do this and do that. If you have a problem you actually work hard at working it out and you
feel you have accomplished something at the end. It’s better than someone saying calculate this,
calculate that” [12]. The revised program brought an emphasis to formal and informal written and oral
reporting within a supportive, small group setting.
A recognition that emerged from the revitalisation of Physics 1C was the importance of the
demonstrator in inquiry-type laboratories. In particular, inquiry experiments require demonstrators to
master skills that differ from those needed to manage and support laboratories consisting
predominantly of cookbook-type experiments. More specifically, a demonstrator supervising an
inquiry-type experiment needs to: (1) Listen to students rather than talk and tell; (2) Probe students’
understandings rather than direct their actions; (3) Encourage cooperation and communication in the
laboratory, rather than allow students to work in quiet and anonymous isolation; (4) Strike a balance
between being continuously proactive in engaging with students and standing back waiting to be
approached.

2.3 Expansion of scope of IOL at UTS

The successful introduction of IOL into the Physics 1C curriculum encouraged us to expand inquiry in
laboratory programs to two other first year subjects at UTS, namely Physical Modelling (PM) which is
delivered to engineering students, and Physical Aspects of Nature (PAN), delivered predominantly to
students majoring in the life sciences. Though the approaches we adopted in developing PM and PAN
were similar to those for Physics 1C, we were careful not to ‘cut and paste’ experiments from Physics
1C into the laboratory programs for PM and PAN.
For example, though we believed many of the elements of the revised Physics 1C laboratory
program would be appropriate for engineering students, we were cautious about introducing those
elements into PM until we had canvassed the views of engineering academics, professional engineers
and engineering students on the role of physics in an undergraduate engineering curriculum. The
redesigned laboratory program for PM included: (1) experiments with obvious relevance to
engineering; (2) time for students to devise and carry out their own experimental procedure; (3) a
choice of experiment; (4) larger units of work spanning more than one week, and; (5) experiments
synchronised with material presented in lectures.
Fuller details of the revision of the PM laboratory program and the impact on the student
laboratory experience can be found elsewhere [16]. Several years of development and delivery of IOL
opportunities in laboratories for Physics 1C and PM convinced us of the substantial positive impact of
IOL on the student experience and encouraged us to turn our attention to PAN. Building on our
experience of developing IOL in first year laboratories, we devised a framework to assist in the more
systematic development and evaluation of individual inquiry-oriented experiments in PAN [17,18].
The framework is shown in figure 1.
As described in [8], when developing new experiments for PAN, we: (1) identified topics that
could form the basis of inquiry-oriented experiments. This occurred through attendance of a member
of the development team at lectures given to first year students by life sciences academics. This was
followed up by interviews with the lecturers; (2) created written materials to assist students in the
laboratory. These materials were reviewed, not only by physics academics who could assure that the
experiment was neither too demanding nor too trivial, but also by academics from the life sciences.
These academics could advise on the relevance of the experiment to students majoring in their
disciplines; (3) trialled the experiments with a group consisting of students who had already completed
PAN in an earlier semester and physics demonstrators who had not been involved in the design of the
new program. Students and demonstrators were surveyed on the completion of the experiment and also
took part in focus groups, and; (4) rolled out experiments to all the students and gathered feedback
through surveys and focus groups.

Use classroom observations, subject outlines and

consultations with academics from students' major area of study to
identify a topic for the new experiment

Develop/review/revise experiment

Trial of experiment by
1 physics academics Feedback

Review of experiment by
2 independent academics Survey

Trial of experiment by students and Surveys and

3 demonstrators focus groups

Experiment goes ‘live’ with target

4 undergraduates
Survey

Figure 1: Framework for developing and evaluating an inquiry-oriented laboratory

program

The framework in figure 2 promotes a student-centred approach to the development and

evaluation of laboratory-based learning activities. It is able to reveal factors likely to affect student
engagement allowing for timely intervention by the innovators. The framework encourages the
accumulation of evidence about aspects of an experiment, for example whether students regard the
experiment as enhancing their capacity to communicate in the laboratory [19].

2.4 National studies bring students’ experiences of laboratory work into focus
A nationally funded project focussing on the experiences of students in physics service subjects
indicated that physics laboratories in service subjects are regarded almost uniformly poorly across
many institutions [20]. A physics service subject is one delivered, maintained and assessed largely by a
department of physics, and is specifically designed for non-physics majors [21]. A national fellowship
awarded to the author which focussed on service teaching [22] also pointed to poor experiences of
students in service subjects in laboratories. Another national fellowship awarded to the author in 2011
prompted a more thorough consideration of student experiences and learning in undergraduate science
laboratories and allowed for the scope of the work on IOL to extend beyond UTS and to include the
development of evaluation of predominantly laboratory-based IOL experiences in chemistry and
biology, as well as physics [23].

2.5 Collaboration with the national science organisation to develop laboratory-based, IOL
experiences
Laboratory-based IOL experiences have a role to play in giving students a sharper insight into the
nature of research that occurs in the world beyond universities [24]. IOL experiences are able to
directly link students to research and development being pioneered through collaboration between
universities and research organisations. As an example, academics at UTS and senior scientists at
CSIRO co-developed an innovative inquiry-oriented experiment based on collaborative research being
carried out between several Australian universities and CSIRO.
 Details of the experiment, which is based on the performance of organic solar cells, can be found
elsewhere [24]. A novel aspect of the innovation is the inclusion of a synchronous question and answer
session which takes place via Skype. In the session the director of the research at CSIRO responds to
questions about the research, for example, addressing the question of when the organic solar cell
technology is likely to reach full maturity.

3. Discussion
With education at all levels undergoing disruption, often due to the impact of internet-based
technologies [25] there is pressure to evaluate all aspects of a science degree to establish their quality
and enduring value to the student. Increasingly, opportunities for students and instructors to interact
face to face are being scaled-down or replaced by online instruction, even for students who are campus
based [26]. Not surprisingly, the role of the laboratory in an undergraduate’s education is being re-
examined. Reasons for this include the expense of maintaining the laboratory in the curriculum, in
terms of both physical and human resources.
Perhaps one of the most convincing argument around the retention and expansion of laboratory
work in the science curriculum, is the central role that laboratory-based investigation plays in the lives
of practicing scientists. Universities have a special responsibility in they are both education institutions
and institutions where basic and applied research takes place. It is incumbent on universities to
introduce students to enterprises which are at the heart of science. As Boud et al. [13] remarked “Our
institutions of higher education will fail to provide a scientific education unless students come to learn
something about the goals of trained scientists, the methods and procedures they use, and the ways in
which they try to communicate their results”. Through IOL, students can learn something about those
goals, procedures and modes of communication.
There are several causes to be optimistic about the retention and even expansion of laboratory work
in universities. Firstly, it is recognised that active learning is considerably better than passive learning
in supporting students’ development of concepts [27,28]. Though active learning can occur in settings
other than the laboratory [29], the laboratory is a natural and authentic location for students to develop
and practice abilities. These abilities include working cooperatively in small groups, which will be of
value to them irrespective of their career trajectory.
The importance of inquiry is recognised in Australia [30] and internationally [31]. This is manifest
not only in emerging curriculum priorities, but also in the support that is being provided by senior
figures, able to influence the national education agenda. As an example, Australia’s former Chief
Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, vigorously advocated students be given insights into the processes by
which scientific knowledge in created and challenged, through engaging in inquiry [32]. When a
critical mass of individuals and institutions with the power to act are convinced of the value of a
particular initiative, such as growing learning through inquiry, and that initiative is supported by
evidence of its efficacy, substantive change can occur [33].
Students that engage with the curriculum are students that stay in higher education and succeed
[34]. Student success and retention are important issues in Australia, and internationally [35]. Getting
to know their fellow students early through practical and academically meaningful activities enhances
a sense of student belonging. This is recognised as important in encouraging the retention of students
[36]. As face to face opportunities both with academics and fellow students continues to diminish, it is
the laboratory that will play a dominant role in bringing science students together to work, collaborate
and communicate in the same physical space.
At UTS we learned several lessons about initiating, developing and sustaining inquiry-oriented
laboratories for first year students: (1) Revitalising a laboratory program by adopting an unfamiliar
instructional approach requires you to view the challenges from multiple perspectives, then act
collectively to meet those challenges. Bringing together committed individuals with diverse and
discriminating views to be on the WP allowed for a broad, honest and critical review of the existing
laboratory program. A collegial approach to the development of the philosophy for the new laboratory
program and translating that into actions was vital to the success of the innovation. (2) Equally vital
was the role of the head of department, who signalled to the DAP that the reform of the first-year
physics laboratories was a high departmental priority. This was reinforced through his direct
involvement in developing the experiments and acting as a demonstrator when the experiments were
trialled. (3) The student voice was key in providing a reality check as to the quality of the student
learning experience. When a new experiment goes ‘live’ with students, we learned not to be
disheartened if the students regarded it poorly, nor be too excited if they regarded it highly. When
rolling out a new experiment, there are several reasons why it might be viewed poorly (for example
not enough effort was made to ensure that it was well integrated with the lecture course), or why it
might be viewed extremely positively (for example the developer of the experiment acted as an
exceptionally enthusiastic demonstrator). It was not until the experiment had become established and
delivered to whole cohorts of students over several semesters that we were able to accurately gauge its
value. (4) We found that students required to study physics as a compulsory part of their degree (for
example, engineering students) reacted unsympathetically to the laboratory program if they could not
perceive the relevance of the experiments within that program to their discipline. The most successful
experiments, in terms of the student experience, were those that married inquiry with relevance within
contexts that the students could relate to. (5) The decision to set aside all existing experiments was
bold. Not to do so, however ran the risk of maintaining experiments that were not in accord with the
new philosophy, or perhaps worse, risked regressing to the old laboratory program. In an effort to
make this an unlikely outcome, we discarded all of the teaching materials associated with the old
program. (6) Inquiry-oriented experiments can be stressful for demonstrators, as they do not have the
same control over the actions of the students as for cookbook-type experiments. As part of the
development of new experiment, we introduced professional development sessions in which
demonstrators, acting as students, carried out the experiment. This allowed demonstrators to
experience first-hand (which many had not done up to that point) an inquiry-type experiment. This
allowed demonstrators to offer informed insights to discussions on how the experiment could best be
delivered to students.

4. Conclusion
It has been more than 25 years since UTS made the decisive move to embed inquiry-oriented activities
into the laboratory program for students enrolling in a first-year physics subject. Since that time these
activities have been introduced into all first-year physics subjects at UTS. Challenges to embedding,
sustaining and revitalising IOL activities have largely been met. Our ambitions for an ever more active
and engaging undergraduate curriculum means that we must continue to innovate, for example by
connecting students through IOL in the undergraduate laboratory to research and inquiry occurring at
the national level. This reinforces, not only the essential features of IOL, but how vital inquiry is to
creating and challenging new and existing knowledge. Most importantly we must continue to support
our demonstrators, as they are the single most important element supporting the success of any
laboratory program.

5. Acknowledgements
I wish to thank the following people who made major contributions to the design, delivery, evaluation
and evolution of the laboratory programs discussed in this paper. David Green, Maree Gosper,
Elizabeth Hazel, Sue Johnson, Nirmala Maharaj, Jenny Pizzica, Mark Smith, Lakshmi Srinivasan, Paul
Swift and Katrina Waite. I would like to make special mention of the late Bob Cheary. Bob’s
infectious enthusiasm for the reform of physics laboratory work at UTS, when he was head of
department, propelled us along the path to transform the laboratory experiences of students.

6. References

[1] Adams D J 2009 Current trends in laboratory class teaching in university bioscience programs
Bioscience Education, Vol 13, issue 1, pp. 1-13.
[2] Rice…..
[3] White R T 1996 The link between laboratory and learning Int. J. Sci. Educ. Vol 18, pp. 761-774.
[4] Bless A A 1933 Cookbook laboratory work Am. J. Phys. Vol 1, pp. 88-89.
[5] Hanif M, Sneddon P H, Al-Ahmadi F M, & Reid N 2009 The perceptions, views and opinions
of university students about physics learning during undergraduate laboratory work Eur. J. Phys.
Vol 30, pp. 85-96.
[6] Lee V S 2012 What is Inquiry-Guided Learning? New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
2012: pp. 5–14. doi: 10.1002/tl.20002.
[7] Olson S, & Loucks-Horsley S, (Eds.) 2000 Inquiry and the National Science Education
Standards: A guide for teaching and learning (Available online at:
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064767/html/ retrieved 10/4/2018.
[8] Kirkup L 2015 Two decades of inquiry-oriented learning in first year undergraduate physics
laboratories: an Australian Experience in Inquiry Based Learning for Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math (eds Blessinger P and Carfora J) published by Emerald Publishing
pp. 41 - 58.
[9] Armitage E 1972 Practical Physics in SI London: John Murray.
[10] Hall E H, & Bergen J Y 1903 A Textbook of Physics: Largely Experimental 3rd Ed New York:
Holt and Company.
[11] Cheary R, Hazel E, Gosper MV, & Kirkup L 1994 Reforming the undergraduate science
laboratory Res. Dev. Higher Ed. Vol 16, pp. 129-134.
[13] Boud D, Dunn J, & Hegarty-Hazel E, 1989 Teaching in laboratories. Milton Keynes, Open
University Press.
[14] Cheary R, Gosper MV, Hazel E, & Kirkup L 1995 Revitalising the first-year physics
laboratories at the University of Technology, Sydney A&NZ Physicist Vol 32, pp. 119-124.
[15] Tamir P 1983 Inquiry and the science teacher. Science Education Vol 67, Issue 5, pp. 657-672.
[17] Kirkup L, Pizzica J, Waite K, & Srinivasan L 2008 A Framework for Developing Enquiry-
Oriented Experiments for Non-Physics Majors, Australian Institute of Physics, 18th National
Congress, Pollard J, Australian Institute of Physics, Adelaide, pp. 135-138.
[19] Kirkup L, Pizzica J, Waite K M, & Mears A 2013 http://www.iolinscience.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2011/11/ARK__June-10__2013.pdf retrieved 17/4/2018
[20] Kirkup L, & Mendez A 2009 Forging New Directions in Physics Education: Service Teaching.
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/super/ALTC/documents/Service-Report.pdf retrieved
10/4/2018.
[21] Mills D, Sharma M D, Mendez A, & Pollard J, Eds 2005 Learning Outcomes and Curriculum
Development in Physics. Commissioned by the AUTC, ISBN: 0-7326-2063-5,
www.physics.usyd.edu.au/super/AUTC/documents/pdf/2004-Report.pdf retrieved 10/4/2018
[22] Kirkup L 2009 New perspectives on service teaching: tapping into the student experience.
https://altf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Kirkup-Les-ALTC-Fellowship-report-27-Nov-
09.pdf retrieved 18/4/2018.
[23] Kirkup L 2013 Inquiry-oriented learning in science: Transforming practice through forging new
partnerships and perspectives http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-kirkup-les-uts-altc-national-
teaching-fellowship-final-report-2013 retrieved 10/4/2018.
[24] Kirkup L, Waite K, Beames S, Mears A, Pizzica J & Watkins S 2015 National Science Agency
– University Collaboration Inspires an Inquiry-Oriented Experiment International Journal of
Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education Vol 23, Issue 5, pp. 66-78.
[25] Flavin M 2012 Disruptive Technologies in Higher Education Research in Learning Technology,
Vol 20, suppl. pp. 102-111.
[26] Kemp N and Grieve R 2014 Face-to-face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates' opinions and test
performance in classroom vs. online learning Frontiers in Psychology doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278
[27] Smith M K, Wood W B, Adams W K, Wieman C, Knight J K, Guild N, & Su T T, 2009 Why
Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions Science Vol
323, pp. 122-124.
[28] Casotti G, Rieser-Danner L, & Knabb M T 2008 Successful implementation of inquiry-based
physiology laboratories in undergraduate major and non-major courses. Advances in Physiology
Education, Vol 32, pp. 286-296.
[29] Crouch C H, & Mazur E 2001 Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results American
Journal of Physics, Vol 69, Issue 9, pp. 970-977.
[30] Creagh C & Parleviet D 2014 Enhancing Student Engagement in Physics Using Inquiry
Oriented Learning Activities International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics
Education Vol 22, Issue 1, pp. 43-56.
[31] Blessinger P & Carfora J M 2015 Innovative approaches in teaching and learning: an
introduction to inquiry-based learning for STEM programs in Inquiry Based Learning for
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (eds Blessinger P and Carfora J) published by
Emerald Publishing. pp. 3-19.
[32] Office of the Chief Scientist 2013 Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in the
National Interest: A Strategic Approach, Australian Government, Canberra
http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEMstrategy290713FINALweb.pdf
retrieved 10/4/2018.
[33] Elton L 2003 Dissemination of innovations in higher education: A change theory approach.
Tertiary Education and Management, Vol 9, Issue 3, pp. 199-214.
[34] Tinto V 2012 Completing College: Rethinking Institutional Action University of Chicago Press:
Chicago.
[35] Pitkethly A & Prosser M 2001 The First Year Experience Project: a model for university
change. Higher Education Research and Development, Vol 20, pp. 185-198.