Educational Journal of Living Theories

Volume 16(1): 1-27

www.ejolts.net How can I improve my practice as a
ISSN 2009-1788 science teacher through the development
of my pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?
Mohd Syafiq Aiman Mat Noor

Mohd Syafiq Aiman Abstract

Mat Noor
Since my days as a novice teacher, I have always asked myself:
UCL Institute of Education, ‘How do I improve what I am doing?’ When I started my
UK & doctoral studies, I engaged in critical reflection and reflexivity
University of Leeds, UK. on my pedagogical practices, and, in the spirit of Alice in
Wonderland, became “curiouser and curiouser” about ‘inquiry’
and why it requires a prominent position in my practice. It tells
[email protected] the story of the development of my knowledge, understanding,
and educational practice as I researched to improve my
https://orcid.org/0000- pedagogical ‘inquiry skills’. This article builds on my doctoral
0003-4123-7357 studies. The process of writing this article has enabled me to
develop my understanding of Living Educational Theory
Research, drawing on my Action Research work, and share my
explanation of the importance of conducting it. Using my lived
Submitted 27/07/2022
experiences of my doctoral studies, I narrate what I have done
Accepted for publication to explore and answer questions, with particular regards to
19/10/2023 pedagogical practices of inquiry in my home country of
Malaysia. This article explains how, my epistemic beliefs and
CC BY-NC values, pedagogical knowledge, and practices as a science
teacher improved. I now see myself, as a teacher-researcher,
Copyright: © Mat Noor 2023.
working towards and living my values, and recognising the
This is an open access article
distributed under the terms of
impact that this has had on my current practice as a teacher
the Creative Commons educator. I continue to reflect upon, question, and evaluate
Attribution Non-Commercial what I do as I constantly seek to live my values in my practice.
License, which permits
unrestricted non-commercial
use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and
source are credited. Keywords: Pedagogical practices; primary science education;
doctoral studies; living contradictions; living
theory; Living Educational Theory Research
2 How can I improve my practice as a science teacher through the development of my
pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?

Prologue
I have used Living Educational Theory Research as an innovative approach to
professional development and growth for teachers’ pedagogical practices (Huxtable &
Whitehead, 2021). It is based on the premise that an individual’s educational experiences
are the foundation for their ongoing development as a practitioner (Bigger, 2021). As I
embarked on my doctoral studies in 2014, I brought with me a range of beliefs related to my
pedagogical practices as a science teacher that reflected my ontology and epistemology at
that stage of my life. Thus, at the start of the study, through my own reflections, I
highlighted some key issues that needed to be addressed.
In the context of my own practice, the ‘where I was at’ component, referred to as
reconnaissance (derived from the French word, reconnaitre: to look at), was particularly
significant. Elliott’s (1991) model identifies the reconnaissance phase as a starting point for
clarifying one’s concerns and developing them into more focused questions and hypotheses.
Significant unintentional reconnaissance had already occurred in the period prior to this
study. So, in order to identify any change in my practice, I considered it was vital to discover
my starting point as a basis for critical reflection. At first, this was a challenging endeavour. It
was worthwhile, however, as it allowed me to identify my motivations for this study and its
relationship to my research interests. I now realise that my reflections took me beyond the
reconnaissance practice and divisions of Maxwell (2003) and into an ‘I-focused’ form of
educational action research (Glenn et al., 2023). The outline of my reconnaissance phase
provided me with a realistic assessment of where I was, what I hoped to achieve, and how I
thought I might do so. I was beginning to use aspects of first-person action research.
As a primary school science teacher, I began to question the centrality of inquiry in
relation to science teaching. “Am I teaching science as through or with inquiry? What does
inquiry look like in primary schools? What are teachers’ goals when using inquiry? Does
inquiry result in better learning?” This reflection was initiated through the cognitive
processes of both “problem finding” and “problem-solving” (Leitch & Day, 2000, p. 180). I
then started to refine my thinking, on the basis of constraints I encountered in implementing
inquiry teaching in the past, keeping in mind Kemmis et al.’s (2014) central question: “What
aspects of your practice will you change?” (p. 102)
In a recent publication (Shaik-Abdullah et al., 2023) I co-authored on Living
Educational Theory Research, I make explicit my latest understanding of this research. This
has implications for my practice as a teacher-researcher as I generate my living-educational-
theory. The implications are focused on clarifying and communicating the meaning of the
embodied values I use to distinguish my practice and my learning as educational. In this
article I show what these implications have been. I clarify my embodied values, which have
emerged in the course of my Living Educational Theory Research, that form my explanatory
principles in my explanation of my educational influences in my own learning, in the learning
of others and in the learning of the social formations within which my practice is located.

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

 Mat Nooor, M, S, A. 3

The reconnaissance
I have published a detailed discussion of my reconnaissance phase in “Curiouser and
curiouser!”: A reconnaissance of my doctoral studies as a ‘teacher-researcher’ (Mat Noor,
2022a). In this reflective article, I illustrated how I became a ‘teacher-researcher’. I
employed two dimensions of reconnaissance – ‘unintentional’ (the exploration of my beliefs
and behaviours) and ‘intentional’ (the exploration of the research context, investigation
approaches and the literature) – to explore). Using this approach, I will now show how I
explored my beliefs and experiences in the early stage of my study, as well as literature
related to my research interests: inquiry-based teaching in the primary science classroom.
Throughout this article I continue an unintentional reconnaissance approach as I now
critically engage with my postgraduate data, which was gathered during my international
studies. I explore the relationship between my beliefs and the actions I took. This has helped
me to move my thinking from Action Research towards Living Educational Theory Research
and so clarify my values of ‘inquiry’ and ‘education’ as my standards of judgement and
explanatory principles in my account of my living-educational-theory.
My appreciation for science investigation began during my secondary school
education. I was fascinated by the subject of science and felt drawn to understanding the
natural world through systematic investigation and experimentation.
My early experience set the foundation for my passion for ‘inquiry’ and my belief in
the importance of hands-on and interactive learning experiences in the classroom. In
addition, my early education in science left a lasting impression on me and motivated me to
become a teacher. I was determined to not repeat the same teaching methods as my own
science teachers and instead strive to make science education fun, interesting, and
engaging. I firmly believe that science should be taught in a way that sparks curiosity and
encourages hands-on exploration, experimentation, and discovery. This is the most effective
and engaging way for children to learn science and was in line with my beliefs about how
new knowledge is created through inquiry that is educational.
As a qualified primary school science teacher, I was aware of how important inquiry
is and I was often encouraged to implement it in the primary science classroom. However,
during my undergraduate and teacher education training, I was given little knowledge as to
how inquiry should actually work in science teaching. I think the term ‘inquiry’ itself has
been misleading in its own terminology in Malaysia. What I understood about ‘inquiry’ is
‘sifat ingin tahu’, literally to be ‘inquisitive’, and I suspect my school colleagues understood
‘inquiry’ in the same way.
I imagine that there may be a discrepancy between what I and some of my
colleagues understand as ‘inquiry’ and what is outlined in curriculum documents and
literature. This could be seen as an epistemological clash, as the differing perspectives on
what constitutes ‘inquiry’ may lead to varying approaches in the classroom. While
curriculum documents may provide guidelines and requirements for teaching science, they
may not fully capture the essence of inquiry-based learning. In Malaysia, curriculum
documents advocate learning science through the process of inquiry across many
jurisdictions (MOE, 2013, 2014). The science curriculum defines inquiry as “generally a
means to find information, to question and to investigate a phenomenon that occurs in the

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

4 How can I improve my practice as a science teacher through the development of my
pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?

environment” (MOE, 2013, p. 10). It also emphasises that an “inquiry approach may not be
suitable for all teaching and learning situations. Sometimes, it may be more appropriate for
teachers to present concepts and principles directly to children” (MOE, 2013, p. 26). In fact,
the ‘discovery-inquiry approach’ has been emphasised in other subjects, too, as a general
approach to teaching and learning. Reflecting on this, I now recognise that there were
contextual clashes with my values.
Some teachers may follow these guidelines strictly and stick to a more traditional,
lecture-style approach, while others may prioritise hands-on experiences and
experimentation in order to foster a love for science and encourage children to think
critically and ask questions (Triona & Klahr, 2007). My personal perception of ‘inquiry’
developed from my early career and through engagement with the literature as well as from
my studying in a UK context.
At the beginning of my teaching career, my perception of ‘inquiry’ was that it was
just one of the many methods/approaches one could use when teaching; I did not yet see it
as one of the vital elements of teaching science. Literature on science education suggests
that Malaysian science teachers require support in planning their science teaching, which
can lead to an improvement of their pedagogical knowledge and skills (Osman et al., 2006).
This is because “science is still being taught in a didactic manner. A small number of teachers
do not conduct experiments with their children and a handful of them concentrate more on
demonstration” (Syed Zin, 2003, p. 47).
When I was offered the opportunity to continue my studies at postgraduate level, I
chose to study abroad to allow me to understand my inquiry-based pedagogical practices
from an international perspective. I will now explain how I have critically reflected on data I
gathered from my international research. I started my Master’s degree at Brunel University
London in the United Kingdom and from that point onwards I explored what is meant by
‘inquiry’ and became interested to know how it actually works in the science classroom. I
started to analyse ‘inquiry’ and its important place in the National Curriculum for England
and my work was published as a book chapter (Mat Noor, 2014b). This data shows how I
learned from the literature and policy documents in different settings, which have differing
educational values. I came to realise that ‘inquiry’ is central to the science-teaching
repertoire. In the next paragraph I show ‘inquiry’ as my educational value in action.
I have come to understand that inquiry is at the core of effective science
education. Inquiry refers to the process of asking questions, exploring, and discovering new
information and knowledge through hands-on experiences, experimentation, and
observation. When children engage in inquiry-based learning, they are encouraged to make
connections between what they are learning in the classroom and the real world, which
enhances their understanding of scientific concepts. By encouraging children to ask
questions, make observations, and design experiments, they develop critical thinking skills,
creativity, and a sense of ownership over their own learning. This leads to increased
motivation and engagement, as children become invested in the learning process and take
an active role in their own education.
By clarifying ‘inquiry’’ and ‘education’ with ‘life-enhancing values’ I want to
express more fully in my role as a teacher, I’m driven to prioritise holistic student
development. This perspective reshapes my curriculum design and pedagogy to foster

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

 Mat Nooor, M, S, A. 5

student autonomy and deepen my educational relationships with learners. It urges me to

continuously grow professionally and shift my success metrics to include aspects like
curiosity and problem-solving. Embracing ‘inquiry’ as a value I hold myself to account to
expressing as fully as I can in my practice as a science teacher, I advocate for collaboration
and inclusivity and inspiring students to view education as a lifelong, enriching journey.
At times, I was confused by the varied terminology and definition of ‘inquiry’ as a
process. Apparently, I was not alone: there is also evidence of confusion among the broader
science education community (Bevins & Price, 2016). I discovered that different countries
and scholars introduce different terms such that there is no international agreement on
what ‘inquiry’ means. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), for example, has used several inquiry terms in their Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA) reports (e.g., scientific inquiry, inquiry-based/oriented teaching).
In my doctoral studies, I treated the literature review as a springboard for me to
develop my understandings and beliefs. But in writing this reflective article I realised that
advocacy of ‘inquiry’ is common in discussions of science education, with inquiry being
defined “as ‘practised by professional scientists’ through a series of procedures” (Bevins &
Price, 2016, p. 19). My educational experiences were informing my ongoing development as
a practitioner and therefore I was beginning to dip my toes into the ideas of Living
Educational Theory Research (Bigger, 2021). I began to ask about the educational basis of
curricula. I questioned whether inquiry-based approaches in science should solely emphasise
the practices of professional scientists and should not mention the creative and reflective
capacities of children (Kamarudin et al., 2022; Schwab, 1962). The aim of the primary school
science curriculum in Malaysia does not mention such an aim:
The aim of the primary school science curriculum is to develop children’s interest and
creativity through everyday experiences and investigations that promote the acquisition of
scientific and thinking skills as well as the inculcation of scientific attitudes and values. (MOE,
2013, p. 2)

The primary school science curriculum in Malaysia highlights key scientific skills,
thinking skills, scientific attitudes and scientific values (Mat Noor, 2022b). Although the
curriculum aims do not mention ‘inquiry’ directly, I finally realised that these elements were
part of inquiry. The question was, ‘do I teach science as ‘how scientists do their work’ or do I
teach children to learn about science as ‘how scientists do their work’? The epistemological
difference between these questions has grown in importance as I reflect on my research
data. As I now can say I value education and inquiry, these must be seen to be part of my
approach to teaching and learning and must be seen in how my children learn. Kruit et al.
(2018) point out that in primary science, children are taught inquiry by way of learning by
doing (science process skills) to acquire content knowledge and epistemic knowledge. Thus,
when children are doing experiments, they view themselves as “acting like [a] scientist” in
class (Zhai et al., 2014, p. 568).
In addition, while children are engaging in science process skills (e.g., observing,
experimenting, measuring and testing), they are also applying thinking skills to make sense
of the data and connect their thinking to scientific theories (Osborne, 2015). Besides the
curriculum aim, ‘inquiry’ can also be described as an approach to teaching science (e.g.,
inquiry teaching, inquiry-based learning, inquiry-based science education). Ultimately,

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

6 How can I improve my practice as a science teacher through the development of my
pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?

however, whatever title ‘inquiry’ is given, it should be defined by what comes under its
banner.
I implemented inquiry teaching as a small-scale project to see how it works in
primary science (Mat Noor, 2014a). Utilising Collaborative Action Research study as a
research design, I collaborated with two teachers in Malaysia who volunteered to implement
an inquiry approach in their own classroom using a developed module, which had
considered all aspects of inquiry. One of the things I learned about classroom interactions
was the importance of how teachers ask questions and how children respond to these
questions Effective classroom interactions involve a range of skills and techniques that I as a
teacher can use to engage children and promote their learning. One key aspect of this is the
way that I ask questions and how children respond to these questions. In the process of
conducting my research, I realised that questioning is one of the most important
components of inquiry teaching (Harlen, 2011). This new learning for me has gained in
importance as I considered what made my action research, educational. According to
Whitehead (2018) educational research includes learning with values of human flourishing in
developing one’s living-educational-theory as an explanation of educational influences in
learning. I realised the importance of a focus on ‘I’ as a teacher and researcher and ‘on what
I have learned to value as a person and as a professional within my world (Glenn et al, 2023).
Although the children who were involved in my Master’s research project were from
rural areas, they manifested a high degree of curiosity and asked many questions. Besides
questioning, another issue that I was interested in throughout the process was that of
control. The idea of letting go and having the children take a more active role in the
classroom through inquiry-based learning was somewhat threatening. Using this process,
the teachers’ role changed. The children became the planners and the teacher facilitated. I
knew of this concept in theory (Metz, 2004), but I was not sure how I would handle this
situation in practice.
Generally, the results of the project were profound for me, and I was hoping my
teaching colleagues would also greatly benefit from the study. However, the inquiry
approach was new to them, and often neither had the necessary competencies to utilise it.
Yet, one of the positive aspects was that they also had fewer inhibitions in attempting to
implement inquiry teaching, because to them any approach was new and they were more
open to changing their existing approach. Re-examining my Master’s data I found evidence
that my research project may have had a significant impact on the learning of others, as in
the following reflection of a teacher in my collaborative research
Lesson 1
As I reflect on my teaching, I realise that some of my children seemed uneasy and struggled
to comprehend the question I posed to them. However, after repeating the question a few
times, they gradually grasped the essence of it and answered surprisingly well. This
experience has taught me the importance of delivering clear and concise instructions to my
children to ensure their understanding and engagement in the lesson.
Lesson 2
As I improve my questioning techniques, I can see that my children’s level of questioning is
becoming more structured. They are able to formulate good questions more effectively, and I

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

 Mat Nooor, M, S, A. 7

am pleased to see that all the questions analyzed by me are of the standard that I am
expecting.
Lesson 3
In my third lesson, I noticed that my children generated ideas more easily than before. I was
pleased to see that they were engaged and not bored with the planned activity. Throughout
the lesson, they appeared very happy, active, and comfortable using the implemented
strategies. This made me feel confident in my teaching approach and excited to continue
implementing new techniques in future lessons.
Lesson 4
As I wrapped up the final lesson of this module, I felt a surge of confidence in implementing
all the strategies and following the plan systematically. It was satisfying to see my children
excitedly generate data from the experiments that they had carried out in lesson three.
Seeing their enthusiasm and eagerness to learn was truly rewarding.
The teacher reflects on four lessons. In lesson 1, the children struggled to
comprehend the teacher’s question, but with repetition, they were able to understand and
engage. Lesson 2 shows that the teacher’s improved questioning techniques have resulted in
more structured and effective questioning from the children. In lesson 3, the teacher
observed that children generated ideas more easily and were engaged and comfortable
using the implemented strategies. Finally, in lesson 4, the teacher felt confident in
implementing all strategies and observed the children’s excitement and enthusiasm for
learning.
While I had evidence of children and collaborating teachers gaining new knowledge
from my research project I was concerned about my position in this form of research. Zeni
(1998) indicates, academic research conducted by an outsider to improve teaching often has
a specific goal in mind; rarely, though, do teachers and children acting as participants in the
study benefit directly from the findings. In addition, my biggest frustration with the project
was that I was only involved as an outsider researcher and only told the teachers what they
needed to do in their classrooms. Since I was an outsider who was peering into their
classroom from the shadows, I was not responsible for the children whose learning the
teachers documented. I did not have a chance to feel for myself, as a teacher, what it was
like to implement inquiry teaching with children. I also thought that I could implement it
even better myself than the two teachers did; ultimately, I was not yet feeling the spirit of
‘inquiry’ in me.

Reflections on the knowledge I created and my understanding of

my practice
In the reconnaissance stage, I came to realise that engaging children in inquiry
teaching is an essential element of science instruction that helps children develop scientific
literacy and provides them with the opportunity to practise important science process skills
such as observing, measuring, classifying, comparing, inferring, etc., along with critical
thinking and problem-solving skills (Mat Noor, 2021). My experience in this phase made me
reflect on the nature of knowledge, my understanding of my practice, as well as the
problems I had faced in my previous teaching experiences, and any opportunities for
improvement.

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

8 How can I improve my practice as a science teacher through the development of my
pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?

As Kemmis (2006) highlights, in order to ensure high-quality practitioner research,

researchers must address important problems related to action and thought, both in theory
and practice, for the good of each person, societies, and education. This is why I decided to
use action research as a method for developing inquiry-based teaching and thus improving
my practice as a science teacher. Huziak-Clark et al. (2007) show that the implementation of
inquiry teaching improves teachers’ pedagogical skills (i.e., the effectiveness of questioning
techniques, greater confidence in planning and implementing inquiry lessons, and an
increase in content knowledge and breadth of knowledge). Thus, it positively impacts
children’s conceptual understanding.
I had encountered Action Research during my previous study (see Mohd Salleh &
Mat Noor, 2015) and had seen through my own eyes that action research provides an ideal
vehicle to accomplish the above goals. As I embarked on my doctoral studies, I wanted a
research process that allowed me to be ‘in action’ and to have a chance to implement
inquiry teaching myself. By doing this, I was hoping that my inquiry-based teaching practice
could be improved as part of my day-to-day teaching. For that reason, in my doctoral
studies, I chose to use a first-person form of Action Research as Elliott (1991 and Stenhouse
(1975) describe as a method for improving my practice. I have since gone on to engage in
Living Educational Theory Research to explore and answer a core question Whitehead has
continually posed, ‘how do I improve my practice and generate a valid explanation for my
educational influence in my own learning, the learning of others and the learning of the
social formation/s which form the context of my professional practice?’ In the next section I
go onto explicate my living-educational-theory.

Discussion
Epistemic beliefs are core beliefs, or our individual philosophies about the nature of knowing
and knowledge … This includes the knowledge and beliefs that teachers hold about teaching
and learning … Epistemic beliefs have also been shown to be related to one’s capacity to
engage in reflection on teaching and learning. (Walker et al., 2012, pp. 264-266).
In resonance with Walker et al. (2012), I have come to realise that my beliefs about
inquiry teaching have undergone a significant transformation during my doctoral studies,
and I now have a much deeper understanding of ‘value in action’ when it comes to inquiry-
based approaches. As I stated earlier, when I was a teacher in school, I assumed that inquiry
was only one of many approaches to teaching and learning. However, when I completed my
doctoral studies, I realised that inquiry is not just an important approach in science teaching,
but that inquiry should also be part of the curriculum aims of science education (Anderson,
2002). I came to my doctoral studies not just because of my desire to achieve a higher
degree but also because of my curiosity about ‘inquiry’.
In the following, I discuss the living contradiction I experienced over the four years of
my doctoral studies, by virtue of holding educational values whilst at the same time negating
them (Whitehead, 1989). I believe that ‘educational’ does not only refer to schools or
educational institutions, but ‘educational’ is a process for each individual on how to learn,
practising what is learned for the benefit of the world. ‘Educational’ – as a new
understanding of my values, is a continuous process with no end, and it is an important
value to be held by an individual throughout their life. By holding these values, in my

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

 Mat Nooor, M, S, A. 9

doctoral studies, I searched the ways to research and improve my pedagogical practices and
used up what I had learned by creating inquiry-based teaching for children studying primary
science in Malaysia. It is aligned with the notion of adopting a Living Educational Theory
Research approach to realise the educational responsibilities of a professional practitioner to
improve their practice and explain “their educational influences in their own learning, in the
learning of others and in the learning of the social formations that influence practice and
understanding with values that carry hope for human flourishing” (Huxtable & Whitehead,
2021, p. 311).

How my educational research impacted on my practice as a teacher and

teacher educator
When I was in my early days of teaching, I felt that my colleagues and I were research
targets for university researchers (e.g., we were asked to fill in questionnaires, be
interviewed and observed). Later, they published reports and journal articles, and, in most
situations, we never got any feedback. Teachers often feel mistrustful and worried that they
would be continuously exploited as a research tool (Zhou, 2012). I agree that teachers have
not been treated entirely ethically in some research studies.
Although the idea of educational research is primarily to provide a knowledge base
and expertise to support effective teaching and learning, I did not feel my teaching practices
were informed by research when I was in school. It is plausible that teachers are unlikely to
think that they can effectively use the outputs of educational research to improve their
teaching. It is therefore not surprising that the researchers, in Speight et al.’s (2016) study,
found no evidence to suggest that participating teachers were more likely to use research to
inform their teaching than they were before the study commenced. Therefore, I realised
that a contradiction exists, as educational research is not something that my teaching
colleagues or I use in our everyday teaching practices.
In my early teaching career, I found that research articles that my colleagues and I
read tended to be written for an audience of other researchers rather than for us as
teachers. We were not reluctant to read these materials, but rather we were not given
guidance on what materials would be of most relevance to our practice. Furthermore, not
many resources or open access materials were provided. I still feel the biggest hurdle to
teachers implementing research is just how difficult research articles are to read. It is not
because researchers leave out content that teachers want; rather, all too often, researchers
write in a language that makes it hard for everybody, including academics, to understand.
This is even harder for teachers, who want streamlined descriptions and practice-based
solutions. Therefore, journal articles, theses, and other published materials such as reports
about evidence-based research were not useful for other teachers or for me.
Furthermore, teachers are busy, and they do not have enough time to study research
evidence and articles (Speight et al., 2016). The question of teachers’ workload has been a
never-ending issue in Malaysia. Malaysian teachers complain about having so much
administrative work (e.g., planning strategies, writing reports, keying in information online)
that they have little time to devote to teaching in the classroom, let alone doing research
(Syed Hassan, 2018). Although we organised a professional development programme once a

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

10 How can I improve my practice as a science teacher through the development of my
pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?

fortnight when I was a schoolteacher, such programmes were run by an inexpert teacher
during the evening time after school and were not based on research.
When I started my doctoral studies, I had a very clear view that educational research
cannot be done by someone whom we call an ‘outsider’; the teachers themselves can best
carry it out, as it must have an impact on classroom practices. I used the form of Action
Research proposed by, for example, Coghlan and Brydon-Miller (2014) and Kemmis et al.,
(2014) as one of the central tenets they focus on is that only teachers can change their
practices in their own local settings, even though they may have been influenced from
elsewhere. However, my broad knowledge of values-based education, acquired across
diverse settings and cultures, has the power to transform both my practice and me.
In conventional research, a literature review “acts as a springboard into the
researcher’s own study, raising issues, showing where there are gaps in the research field,
and providing a partial justification for the research or a need for it to be undertaken”
(Cohen et al., 2017, p. 227). I had been exposed to substantial literature that informed my
skills as a researcher and my pedagogical knowledge. I found the literature review
interesting and comforting because the more I read, the more I realised how much I did not
know. Additionally, it helped me refine my thoughts and focus on my interests. Hence, I have
been able to develop my own pedagogical thinking, which includes all the critical aspects of
inquiry, and their interconnected relationships.
The Action Research methodology I used offered me invaluable insights and tools,
benefiting not only my investigative approach but also augmenting my pedagogical acumen,
thus enabling me to construct a comprehensive understanding of the crucial elements of
inquiry and their interrelationships. As Elliott (1994) asserts:

Action research leaves a role for the educational theorist in the university as a supplier of
theoretical resources for teachers to use in reflecting about and developing their practice,
but it establishes the teacher as the ultimate arbiter over what is to count as useful
knowledge. It is the teacher who decides the extent to which theory misrepresents
educational practice. (p. 137)

I wanted a research methodology to move beyond Elliott’s ideas. I had already

developed a deep understanding of the importance of inquiry in science teaching and
learning and therefore the research process I chose needed to address the challenges of the
research processes I have outlined above. I now know that I needed a form of research that
can establish the teacher as the ultimate arbiter over what is to count as useful knowledge.
In my doctoral studies, the methodology I selected equipped me with the ability to make
informed decisions based on sound practical and theoretical knowledge. It also enabled me
to transform both my practice and enabled me to be a theorist by developing my own living-
educational-theory.
A criticism of teacher research, with which I would disagree, is that it is more focused
on practical relevance and less on generating knowledge about teaching and learning
(Admiraal et al., 2017). In contrast, Thompson and Perry (2004) argue that the findings from
one particular Action Research project can be generalised to several other similar situations.
If what happens in the classroom is seen as part of the change process for both teacher and
child, teachers are not only agents for change within the classroom but also for society as a

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

 Mat Nooor, M, S, A. 11

whole (Bourn, 2016). This aligns with the central tenets of Living Educational Theory
Research, which emphasise the importance of individual and collective agency in creating
positive social and educational change (Whitehead, 2018).
For me, theories can take different forms. The ‘usual’ form (normally accepted in
academic contexts) is an abstract theory (i.e., ideas abstracted from real life). My doctoral
studies employed the not-so-widely accepted form of people’s personal theories of practices
(i.e., theories grounded in practices). These theories of practices are generated from
practical forms of inquiry like Living Educational Theory Research, which enable them to
investigate and evaluate their work (Whitehead, 2018). Thus, Living Educational Theory
Research, as I now understand, is more than a methodology: it is about creating new
knowledge and generating theory, including values as explanatory principles.

How do I teach ‘science’? As a process or content or both?

The effort to improve my pedagogical knowledge of inquiry-based teaching did not
only depend on my engagement with the literature but also my reflections on actual
practice. To address the latter, during the first year of my doctoral studies, I attended
various continuous professional development (CPD) courses in the UK for primary science
teachers. Courses included ‘Moving from Enquiry to Working Scientifically’, ‘Assessment and
Progression in Primary Science’ and ‘Working Scientifically in the New Primary Curriculum’.
Initially, these courses helped me understand how inquiry works practically in the
science classroom. I was informed about how to carry out inquiry activities with children,
including assessments in primary science. Through these courses, I developed initial ideas on
how to integrate the ‘theory’ as outlined in the literature review into practice. I also
developed many ideas as to how to develop my own teaching strategies in teaching and
learning primary science.
Most of the courses were practical in nature, which enabled me to explore the
concept of inquiry in more detail, through hands-on activities. However, the more I attended
such courses, the more questions arose in my mind about ‘inquiry’. Indeed, I began to
question my understanding of ‘inquiry’. Did it refer to the practical activities and
experiments suggested in the CPD courses I had attended and, as outlined by authors in the
literature review, or was there more to it?
One of the CPD courses I attended was about ‘various types of scientific
inquiry’. I was exposed to many ideas about activities such as ‘exploration’, ‘identifying and
classifying’, ‘observing over time’, ‘pattern seeking’, etc. Each type of ‘scientific inquiry’ was
introduced both in theory and through practical activities. For example, facilitators
conducted ‘identifying and classifying’ activities that involved sorting objects or events into
groups. In this activity, other participants and I were directed to isolate various types of
English biscuits using the decision-making tree diagram approach (dichotomous keys), as
shown in Image 1. We were required to write polar-type questions using the eight types of
English biscuits provided, such as custard cream, Jammie Dodger, chocolate digestive, and
Oreo sandwich.
Through questions related to the criteria of biscuits such as, “Is it round?”, to start
with, we then asked questions such as “Does it have chocolate?”, and “Does it have a
filling?” to expand the tree branches. Finally, we achieved the conclusion by classifying

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

12 How can I improve my practice as a science teacher through the development of my
pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?

biscuits according to the physical criteria based on our observations. We also compared
these results with other groups and found that, in fact, they used different criteria. I believe
that this activity not only focuses on one particular inquiry skill, ‘identifying and classifying’,
but also requires the learner to have the skills to make observations, ask questions, and
come up with the best possible variables at the same time.

Image 1. Decision-making tree diagram approach (dichotomous keys) for classifying activity.
The above observations resonate with Rillero’s (1998) questioning:

Which is more important, science process skills or content knowledge? Science process skills
drive the doing of science; science content is the knowing of science. How teachers answer
this question can have dramatic implications for the science experiences that they choose for
their children. (p. 3)

Without a doubt, I learned a lot through the CPD course, and the practical activities
that were carried out as above are part of inquiry-based science process skills. I also thought
about how these skills can be practised in my context: Malaysian schools. The method of
‘inquiry’ I learned about was related to how to teach the ‘science process’. The primary
science curriculum in Malaysia, however, is structured using learning themes (e.g., human
life process) and science topics (e.g., human respiratory process, human excretion, and
deconstruction). There is no emphasis given to teaching science process skills in the
curriculum.
I question myself whether I was required to teach ‘science process’, ‘science
content’, or both? My engagement with the literature made me realise that “science
content and science process skills are equally valuable; the learning of one aids the learning
of the other” (Rillero, 1998, p. 4). However, further questions arise: how do I integrate
science process skills in my teaching, given that it is structured around science content? How
could inquiry (especially science process skills) be fitted into the primary science curriculum
in Malaysia? I found that these were great challenges for me. In grappling with these
challenges, I considered various teaching methods and their potential to support inquiry and

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

 Mat Nooor, M, S, A. 13

science process skills, leading me to ponder, ‘Can the cookbook method of practical activity
be considered a form of ‘inquiry’’?

Can the cookbook method of practical activity be considered a form of

‘inquiry’?
In the second year of my doctoral studies, I was offered the opportunity to
participate in an exchange support programme in Japan (see Image 2). I was very interested
in the international perspective on science education, particularly in Asian countries like
Japan. Japan is one of the countries that has achieved a very high score in science (well
above the OECD average) in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),
coming second worldwide in 2015 and fifth in 2018. I did not intend to find the secret behind
this; instead, I was interested to see and learn how Japanese children actually learned about
science in school.

Image 2. Participants of the exchange support programme gather for a group photo after an
enriching visit to Japanese schools.
While I was in Japan, I had the opportunity to visit a few primary and secondary
schools in Tokyo. I developed knowledge of how Japanese science education works, and I
was able to directly observe Japanese science classrooms on an informal basis. One of the
things that attracted me about science education in Japan was the structure of its science
curriculum, known as the ‘Course of Study’. However, the Japanese Course of Study for
science does not provide a description of what the inquiry-based activities are.
In my reflections at that time, I noted science education in Japan, particularly in
secondary school, is curriculum-oriented and in all public schools, children and teachers use
government-censored textbooks. If the textbooks describe experimental designs and the
expected results, children and teachers are more likely to just follow what they find in the
textbook.
I also observed Japanese science classrooms, mainly when the children carried out
practical activities. I found that practical activities conducted by Japanese children in both
primary and secondary school were structured (using a deductive approach). Children were

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

14 How can I improve my practice as a science teacher through the development of my
pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?

initially taught about a specific topic and its theory (scientific content), and then they tested
the theory by carrying out practical activities. When children were doing practical activities,
they were provided with hypotheses and variables; they studied the procedure and followed
the steps in the textbook.
My observations of Japanese schools are in line with the OECD’s (2012) report, which
highlights that Japanese teachers usually follow a detailed plan of how learning activities
should be presented, although they act as facilitators in the classroom when children carry
out inquiry-based learning. However, I came to a realisation that, although the children
conducted a cookbook method of practical activity, they were actually doing something that
is referred to as a ‘confirmation inquiry’ activity – based on the four levels of inquiry (Bell et
al., 2005) – and they fully engaged with the inquiry. Confirmation inquiry is a type of inquiry-
based learning where people are provided with a question and procedure (method) where
the results are known in advance, and confirmation of the results is the object of the inquiry
(Toma, 2022). Although they conducted the inquiry at the lowest level according to Bell et
al.’s (2005), science process skills such as observation, measuring numbers, interpreting
data, etc., were still integrated into the science teaching and learning processes.
Since I was in Japan just for a short programme, I did not speculate as to whether
what I had observed was a usual practice in Japanese schools. Most importantly, I
questioned, again, whether ‘inquiry’, which goes to the heart of science teaching (as
emphasised in science education literature), can be conducted by simply implementing
hands-on experiments and practical activities in the science classroom. Therefore, my
experience in the Japanese schools highlighted the importance of designing meaningful and
effective learning experiences that align with educational values such as inquiry-based
learning. By doing so, learners can develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter
and acquire critical thinking skills that are essential for success in their academic and
professional lives.
When I returned from Japan, I felt something was missing about the inquiry that I
had not yet explored. Inquiry, as I understand it in Japan, was not simply about engaging in
hands-on experiments and practical activities in the science classroom. In fact, science
education literature has highlighted that inquiry teaching is not as simple as just performing
activities such as observing, making inferences, controlling variables, etc.; instead, it is a
combination of the more traditional science processes, along with scientific knowledge,
reasoning, and critical thinking, to develop scientific literacy (Lederman et al., 2013).
Upon reflecting on the experiences in Japan, I wondered how I might incorporate the
multifaceted nature of inquiry into the context of a curriculum-controlled and heavily
centralised education system in Malaysia - could there be a place for the ‘cookbook method’
of practical activity within this model of inquiry, and how could it possibly help empower my
children to become active inquirers?

How can I let the children I teach be inquirers in a curriculum-controlled

and heavily centralised education system?
In the second year of my doctoral studies, I went through an upgrade process from
the Master of Philosophy programme to the Doctor of Philosophy programme. My upgrade

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

 Mat Nooor, M, S, A. 15

panel questioned me about the role of thinking skills and cognitive processes in inquiry-
based teaching. I was very pleased with the feedback and realised that I needed to explore
the psychological aspects of inquiry-based teaching, particularly when my clients were
children. As Chinn and Malhotra (2002) articulate:

… many scientific inquiry tasks given to children in schools do not reflect the core attributes
of authentic scientific reasoning. The cognitive processes needed to succeed at many school
tasks are often qualitatively different from the cognitive processes needed to engage in real
scientific research. (p. 175)

Based on this realisation, I started to identify cognitive processes as one of the

necessary components to integrate into the science classroom, especially to carry out
inquiry tasks. The shift in my understanding of the importance of cognitive processes has
profoundly influenced my teaching practices, prompting me to integrate more inquiry-based
teaching into my science curriculum. This is essential as the thinking underlying inquiry
involves cognitive processes, as indicated by Chinn and Malhotra (2002). For example, when
the teacher conducts an inquiry activity such as controlling variables in inquiry-based
teaching, children follow predetermined procedures, and class discussion focuses on what to
do but not why the task should be carried out in that way.
However, inquiry-based teaching requires children to discuss the conceptual reasons
for controlling variables by explaining why they measure certain variables and why they keep
one or more variables constant in the experiment (Jin et al., 2016). Based on this concept, it
is true that we expect children to master both scientific knowledge and skills. However, the
teaching of cognitive processes behind scientific skills is challenging for children, particularly
in primary school. I believe that children must learn about inquiry in an appropriate manner,
based on their classroom context and their own developmental capabilities.
Based on my curiosity about the role of cognitive processes in inquiry-based
teaching, I decided to spend some of my time at Yale University, an Ivy League university in
the United States, for an exchange programme (see Image 3). I was very fortunate to pursue
my research under the auspices of an educational psychologist. Since analysing children’s
understanding of how scientific knowledge is constructed is complex and requires research
that takes account of both philosophical and psychological aspects, my original intention at
Yale was to understand the role of children’s cognitive development in the teaching and
learning of science. However, as I further delved into the subject matter, I realised that
effective teaching requires more than just a solid understanding of cognitive development.
As a science teacher, I strive to improve my practice by integrating a variety of teaching
strategies that cater to diverse learning styles and foster critical thinking and scientific
curiosity in my children.

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

16 How can I improve my practice as a science teacher through the development of my
pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?

Image 3: Screenshot from Yale News featuring an article on the exchange programme
(Yale News, 2021)
The research centre that I was located in is internationally recognised for excellence
in clinical practice and research pertaining to children’s development, and my exchange
programme blended educational and clinical perspectives on working with school-aged
children. I spent an allotted amount of time in the classroom (pre-school) by observing the
behaviour of children besides learning about teachers’ responsibility to provide a creative
and exciting environment and curriculum for children.
During my time on the exchange programme, I engaged with the literature, and I
learned that young children can be sophisticated scientists (Metz, 2011, p. 68). They are not
concrete and simplistic thinkers; they can think both concretely and abstractly. Rather than
starting as a blank state, children come to school after years of cognitive growth, whereby
they already have gained substantial knowledge of the natural world.
I also had the opportunity to observe children under an educational psychologist’s
supervision at one of the kindergartens. I spent most of the day, once a week for three
months, with a group of five-year-old children. Without any pre-determined objectives and
directions, I used naturalistic observation for this purpose. By remaining unobtrusive, I
gained access to children’s behaviours that were more characteristic, more spontaneous,
and more diverse (Wells, 2010). My presence in the classroom was as an external observer,
and the children were alerted to my presence before I stepped into their classroom.
By carrying out an ‘overt participant observation’, I was in the classroom with
children, observing their behaviour closely. Some of the potential pitfalls of this approach is
that children not behaving ‘naturally’ as they know they are being watched. Although
sometimes there were those who wanted to interact with me when they felt comfortable, I
responded to them appropriately as I could. From the first day I was there, I focused on

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

 Mat Nooor, M, S, A. 17

watching the behaviour of each child when they were playing. Sometimes, I followed some
of their movements from one play station to another. Most importantly, I focused my
observation on interactions between the teachers and children.
The kindergarten had an interesting educational philosophy. The institution
advocated that children learn best when they are actively engaged. After gaining a deeper
understanding of the value of education, I now recognise the connection between the
philosophical and educational foundation of learning together through practical experience.
Based on The Hundred Languages of Children (Edwards et al., 1993) of the Reggio Emilia
approach1, this kindergarten used a developmentally sound curriculum in order to increase
the ability of five-year-old children to explore, make choices, accept challenges, become
aware of themselves and others, work through problems, and make sense of the many new
symbols in their world. The curriculum structure attracted me: children come to school to
play as they believe in the concept of play-based learning2.
The children’s class was designed with various play stations, each organised with
activities such as block building, craft making, sand and water play, drawing, cooking and
baking, etc. provided by the teacher before the child arrived at the school. Some play
stations remained unchanged and some were changed throughout the school term. Children
had the autonomy to choose which play station they wanted to experience, and this could
change at any time. Also, teachers supported children by using a language experience
approach to reading and writing, in which stories and books were an important part of each
day.
One of the play stations that attracted my attention was ‘bird watching’ by the
classroom window. This activity was introduced during the spring term as a new activity for
the children while I was there. It was available almost every day (depending on the weather
conditions) over the spring term; some children spent hours a day at this station, although
other children only did the activity once a week. The children were provided with various
types of binoculars, bird books, drawing stationery and a logbook at this station. They were
instructed to carefully observe birds flying/landing outside the classrooms and record their
observations in a shared logbook. They were told that if they saw a bird, they were expected
to draw its image and features according to what they saw. Some of them coloured in their
drawings.
The children were also expected to name the birds they drew by copying names from
bird books, and if they saw the same bird frequently – the American robin (Turdus
migratorius) is the most common bird in the area – they needed to count how often they
saw it and record the dates they found the bird. Finally, they were given the option to share
the observation results with their friends if they wished, which most of the children did.

1
An educational philosophy based on the image of the child, and of human beings, as possessing strong
potentials for development and as a subject of rights who learns and grows in the relationships with others.
2
“Play-based learning is defined as purposeful, co-construction of knowledge with others (peers and teachers)
within children’s social and cultural worlds” (Nolan & Paatsch, 2018: 42, 43).

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

18 How can I improve my practice as a science teacher through the development of my
pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?

In the bird watching activity, there were many learning aspects that the children
experienced intellectually, socially and culturally. By watching birds, children were using a
science process skill called ‘observation’. Children were initially trained to use their visual
sense to make observations; once they became skilled in observing, they were taught to use
tools (e.g., binoculars) to make observations in a more precise and clear way. In the
cognitive aspect, children were using their thinking skills of attributing and relating to
identify the characteristics and features of birds.
Children were also developing their comparing and contrasting skills (from the bird
books) by identifying similarities and differences based on the birds’ characteristics and
features. With regards to the numeracy aspect, children were taught to count the number of
birds they had observed using numbers and to write dates correctly. In relation to the
literacy aspect, although at this stage the children were still unable to read and write well,
they learned to copy words (spelling and pronouncing a bird’s name) from the bird books.
Finally, some of them had good social storytelling abilities and had great confidence to share
their observational findings with their friends.
The play station activity described above is one example of many related to
integrating learning across subjects within the curriculum. In play-based learning, I believe
that as children’s play experiences change as they develop, so does their concept
development. Apart from early childhood education, research also emphasises the
importance of play for children in primary education, and its positive effect on the child’s
development, as well as social aspects such as motivation, security, search for identity, and
trying out different roles (Sandberg & Heden, 2011).
However, I found that the approach was very difficult to implement in my context:
the curriculum-controlled and heavily centralised educational system of Malaysia. Most
importantly, I learned that the application of inquiry or particularly science process skills to
young children’s learning is entirely possible within that realm. Studying young children’s
learning has made me think of the extent of children’s abilities in primary school and has
influenced my design of inquiry-based teaching.
During the exchange programme, I learned many things: I learned how children
learn, how they think, and how they grow. As a primary school teacher, I came to realise that
every single child is different, and the role of the teacher in the child’s development is not as
simple as might be expected. As we know, the social and cognitive development of children
is growing all the time and teachers have great influence and responsibility in this area.
Ultimately, engaging children in inquiry means teaching them to use scientific process skills
(e.g., observing, asking questions, describing, providing explanations) in context.
As a teacher, I understand the importance of smoothly introducing children to
inquiry and gradually increasing the cognitive demand as they learn new tools and ideas. It’s
a delicate balance that requires me to constantly assess the needs and abilities of my
children. I recognise that there is a continuum when it comes to inquiry-based learning, with
the whole class taking on well-structured investigations at one end and pairs of children
designing their own investigations at the other end. By increasing the responsibility of the
children in undertaking inquiry, I can help cultivate their interest in science, their capacity to
undertake an inquiry on their own, and their understanding of science as a way of knowing.

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

 Mat Nooor, M, S, A. 19

I find that when children are engaged in inquiry-based learning, they are more likely
to be excited about science and are more invested in the learning process. They are able to
ask questions and seek answers in a more meaningful way, and they develop a deeper
understanding of scientific concepts. As a teacher, it is my responsibility to create a safe and
supportive learning environment that encourages exploration and experimentation. I need
to be able to guide my children as they navigate the inquiry process, providing them with the
necessary support and scaffolding they need to succeed.

My educational influences in the learning of others

In the subsequent actions of my doctoral studies, I designed, implemented and
evaluated an inquiry-based science teaching with two classes of year four primary children
(all of them about nine to ten years old). For the duration of six to seven months of
fieldwork, I completed two cycles of action implementation, which consisted of seven
lessons. I underwent a cycle of reflective planning, acting, observing, and reflecting for each
lesson, all of which utilised inquiry-based science teaching. Throughout these lessons, my
focus was on improving my pedagogical practices in three thematic concerns including i)
planning component, ii) questioning techniques, and iii) inquiry assessment.
The participating children experienced improved inquiry-based science teaching as a
result of the educational influences in my own learning (see Image 3 as evidence of the
educational influence in my own learning). They participated in innovative, validated,
research-based lessons that consisted of lots of hands-on and practical inquiry activities. The
findings of my doctoral studies show that teaching and learning activities are associated with
children’s engagement in science. Greater levels of child motivation, enjoyment, and future
orientation towards science were found in classrooms where children reported that various
measures of interaction, hands-on activities and application in science took place frequently.

Image 4. The children participated in a variety of hands-on science activities that allowed
them to engage with scientific concepts and practices in a tangible and meaningful way.

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

20 How can I improve my practice as a science teacher through the development of my
pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?

Ultimately, my doctoral studies have shown empirically how the teaching of ‘inquiry’
can be conducted for primary school science. Since there is has not been much emphasis on
how the teaching of inquiry should be conducted in a Malaysian primary school, I have
demonstrated how inquiry can, indeed, I would argue, should be conducted in practice by
integrating it into the curriculum and syllabus supplied by the Ministry of Education,
Malaysia. Another question arises, has my integration relevance or significance for fitting
‘inquiry’ (especially science process skills) into the primary science curriculum in Malaysia?
Nevertheless, my doctoral studies have evaluated new initiatives and developed a
pedagogical framework for teaching inquiry that can be used within the broader community
of science teachers in Malaysia. In fact, it has provided information about the impact of
inquiry teaching on children’s engagement presented from the perspective of the (usually)
unheard voice, the actual teacher-researcher in the practice.
The piece of my doctoral studies also has enacted social change. It has been an
empowering experience and undoubtedly has improved my pedagogical skills as a primary
school science teacher in Malaysia, particularly in the teaching of ‘inquiry’. My expertise in
the pedagogical approach of ‘inquiry’ has been brought back to Malaysia in order to
disseminate knowledge and skills to science and other subject teachers in the country (see
Ahmad & Mat Noor, 2023; Kamarudin et al., 2022; Kamarudin & Mat Noor, 2023; Othman et
al., 2023; Muhamad Dah & Mat Noor, 2021a; 2021b; 2023; Zainun et al., 2021; Zainun & Mat
Noor, 2022, for some of the completed projects I have done with teachers in Malaysia). My
research has been a catalyst for transformation, intended not only to alter my personal
world but also to effect change in our collective world, laying the groundwork for an
enhanced educational experience and a more enlightened future (Glenn et al., 2023). I have
also been continuing to disseminate the findings of the study to other teachers in an effort
to inculcate a research culture in schools (see Mat Noor et al., 2020 and Mat Noor et al.,
2021), because I strongly believe in the potential for an advocated change, closing the gap
between research and practice (Mat Noor, 2020). Although, I encountered that change is
never easy but always possible.

Conclusions
In this article, I narrated my lived experiences from ‘where I was at’ to how I changed
my perceptions and improved my pedagogical knowledge of inquiry throughout my doctoral
studies. I also briefly explained the educational influences of my doctoral studies in the
learning of others and in the learning of the social formations (Huxtable & Whitehead,
2021). The story started when I was in school as a trained teacher, navigating how my
perception of inquiry-based teaching had been shaped. I explained how expressing my
values of ‘inquiry’ and ‘education’ in my practice became my passion, which continued into
my postgraduate studies.
Apart from being influenced by the literature review and evidence-based research,
throughout my doctoral studies, I worked hard to explore pedagogical techniques of inquiry-
based teaching by participating in various courses/programmes and engaging with science
education-related organisations. By engaging in these activities, I have not only enhanced
my pedagogical knowledge, but also altered my perception of teaching. As indicated by
Bridges (2003), in the final phase of this journey, I realised that the way I was seeing

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

 Mat Nooor, M, S, A. 21

teaching and pedagogy was different and that I was becoming more appreciative of my
educational values and the role they played in my development as a professional educator.
As a teacher-researcher, I see myself in my mind’s eye. I have been able to reflect on,
argue, offer rationales for my actions, and gain greater confidence in theorising my own
practices. By engaging in argumentation and offering rationales for my decisions and actions,
I have developed a greater theoretical understanding of my practices, which has increased
my confidence in my abilities as a teacher. This process has helped me to clarify my values,
beliefs, and practices as a teacher-researcher, and has enabled me to see myself more
clearly in my role. The experiences I have shared made me realise that every teacher has the
potential to become more effective as long as there is a commitment to learn about one’s
own practices and to do whatever is required to change teaching practices to enhance
children’s learning. While each school is unique, the fundamental issues are constant, as all
primary science teachers in Malaysia encounter many of the same challenges that I faced.
I believe that science teachers should prioritise inquiry-based methods and age-
appropriate, experiential activities when teaching primary science. By doing so, we can ignite
a passion for science in our children, encourage their curiosity and critical thinking skills, and
ultimately contribute to the development of the next generation of scientists. The
conducted study was focused on Bumiputera children in Malaysia, and the intervention
applied in this study has the potential to significantly impact the education of this group.
Moreover, this study has the power to bring about social change. As a primary school
science teacher in Malaysia, I found this experience to be very empowering and it has
undoubtedly improved my pedagogical skills, specifically in the teaching of inquiry-based
learning. I have now brought my expertise in this pedagogical approach back to Malaysia,
where I am sharing my knowledge and skills with science teachers throughout the country.
My aim is to disseminate the findings of this study to teachers and in-service teachers, in
order to promote a research culture in schools (see Mat Noor et al., 2023a; 2023b). I
strongly believe that this will enable us to bridge the gap between research and practice,
and advocate for positive changes in our education system.
Throughout my doctoral studies, I learned not to listen to people who told me, “you
can’t do it”. Adopting a Living Educational Theory Research approach to my professional
development is about becoming a researcher and that means becoming a theorist and
creating and contributing new knowledge. I now realise, too, that real professional
development for me has come through researching my own practice and the generation of
my living-educational-theory in which I explain my educational influences in my own
learning, in the learning of others and the learning of the social formations within which my
practice is located. I have begun a holistic transformation of my own practice because I can
now see clearly through engaging in Living Educational Theory Research that my values and
my practice were at odds. They are now more in harmony as I show in my account of my
living-educational-theory, and I feel better, personally and professionally.
Through my doctoral studies, it is without a doubt that my practice as a science
teacher has improved. Significantly, I have embraced the role of a teacher-researcher,
actively working towards and embodying my values on inquiry and education. These values
are not only integral to my identity, but they also critically form the bedrock of my
professional practice. What has been particularly affirming is the recognition from others,

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

22 How can I improve my practice as a science teacher through the development of my
pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?

who have noticed my commitment to these values and have consequently come to trust my
sincerity. A transformative realisation for me has been the importance of taking risks.
Indeed, my growing confidence in my ability to embrace risk has opened up new avenues for
growth and development, both for myself and others - a journey of discovery I am
committed to continuing.
I have developed, and I am now more able to articulate, a better understanding of
the teaching with values of inquiry and education, which has a huge impact on my practice
as a science teacher in primary schools in Malaysia. My practice as a teacher-researcher will
continue to develop, grow and improve as I continue to reflect on, question and evaluate
what I do as I constantly seek to live my values in my practice.

Acknowledgements

I sincerely thank Sarimah Shaik-Abdullah and Roslinawati Roslan for reviewing the earlier
version of this article. I also appreciate the feedback from the two reviewers in the open
review space, Stephen Bigger and Caitriona McDonagh, which further strengthened this
article.

References
Admiraal, W., Buijs, M., Claessens, W., Honing, T., & Karkdijk, J. (2017). Linking theory and
practice: Teacher research in history and geography classrooms. Educational Action
Research, 25(2), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2016.1152904
Ahmad, J., & Mat Noor, M. S. A. (2023). ‘Bukan buku cerita fantasi’: Pendekatan identiti dana
dalam pembinaan buku cerita untuk murid pekak [‘It’s not fantasy storybooks’: The
funds of identity approach in creating storybooks for deaf pupils]. Malaysian Journal
of Action Research, 1(1), 54-81. https://www.doi.org/10.61388/mjar.v1i1.7
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982
Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science
Teacher, 30–33.
Bevins, S., & Price, G. (2016). Reconceptualising inquiry in science education. International
Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 17–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1124300
Bigger, S. (2021). What is the potential educational influence of the Educational Journal of
Living Theories (EJOLTs)? Explorations in methodology and theory. Educational
Journal of Living Theories, 14(1).
Bourn, D. (2016). Teachers as agents of social change. International Journal of Development
Education and Global Learning, 7(3), 63–77.
Bridges, D. (2003). A philosopher in the classroom. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 181–
196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790300200216

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

 Mat Nooor, M, S, A. 23

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A

theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–
218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller (2014). The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Action Research. Sage.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1993). The Hundred Languages of Children: The
Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood Education. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change. McGraw-Hill Education.
Elliott, J. (1994). Research on teachers’ knowledge and action research. Educational Action
Research, 2(1), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650799400200003
Glenn, M., Sullivan, B., Roche, M., & McDonagh, C. (2023). Action Research for the
Classroom: A Guide to Values-Based Research in Practice. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003288183
Harlen, W. (2011). Research in primary science education. Journal of Biological Education,
35(2), 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655743
Huziak-Clark, T., van Hook, S. J., Nurnberger-Haag, J., & Ballone-Duran, L. (2007). Using
inquiry to improve pedagogy through K-12/university partnerships. School Science
and Mathematics, 107(8), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-
8594.2007.tb17796.x
Huxtable, M., & Whitehead, J. (2021). Enhancing educational influences in learning with a
living educational theory approach to pedagogical action research in higher
education. Educational Action Research, 29(2), 310-327.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1779771
Jin, H., Wei, X., Duan, P., Guo, Y., & Wang, W. (2016). Promoting cognitive and social aspects
of inquiry through classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education,
38(2), 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1154998
Kamarudin, M. Z., Mat Noor, M. S. A., & Omar, R. (2022). A scoping review of the effects of a
technology-integrated, inquiry-based approach on primary pupils’ learning in science.
Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2138847
Kamarudin, M. Z., & Mat Noor, M. S. A. (2023). What do we know about the selection of
action research methodologies in primary science education?–A systematic literature
review. Educational Action Research, 1-23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2023.2261502
Kemmis, S. (2006). Participatory action research and the public sphere. Educational Action
Research, 14(4), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790600975593
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical
Participatory Action Research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

24 How can I improve my practice as a science teacher through the development of my
pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?

Kruit, P. M., Oostdam, R. J., van den Berg, E., & Schuitema, J. A. (2018). Effects of explicit
instruction on the acquisition of students’ science inquiry skills in grades 5 and 6 of
primary education. International Journal of Science Education, 40(4), 421-441.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1428777
Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry
as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy.
International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology, 1(3), 138–
147.
Leitch, R., & Day, C. (2000). Action research and reflective practice: Towards a holistic view.
Educational Action Research, 8(1), 179–193.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790000200108
Mat Noor, M. S. A. (2014a). Developing Scientific Inquiry Teaching in Rural Schools in
Malaysia: A Collaborative Action Research Project [Masters thesis, Brunel University
London]. Brunel University Research Archive (BURA).
Mat Noor, M. S. A. (2014b). Scientific enquiry and its place in the national curriculum. In R.
Malthouse (Ed.), Writing Your MA Literature Review: Contemporary Education
Studies (pp. 241–262). Thalassa Publishing.
Mat Noor, M. S. A. (2020). Action research: Closing the gap between theory and practice.
British Educational Research Association (BERA) Blog at
https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/action-research-closing-the-gap-between-theory-and-
practice
Mat Noor, M. S. A. (2021). Assessing secondary students’ scientific literacy: A comparative
study of suburban schools in England and Malaysia. Science Education International,
32(4), 343-352. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i4.9
Mat Noor, M. S. A. (2022a). “Curiouser and curiouser!”: A reconnaissance of my doctoral
studies as a ‘teacher-researcher’. Practice: Contemporary Issues in Professional
Learning, 4(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/25783858.2022.2065924
Mat Noor, M. S. A. (2022b). An insight into primary science education in Malaysia. ASE
International, 16, 34–41.
Mat Noor, M. S. A., Ahmad, S., & Zainudin, Z. (2020). Initiating a professional development
on action research during the COVID-19 pandemic. EdArXiv.
https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/3nd9k
Mat Noor, M. S. A., Ahmad, S., & Zainudin, Z. (2021). Pelaksanaan program pembangunan
profesionalisme berterusan secara dalam talian (e-PPB) mengenai kajian tindakan
semasa pandemik Covid-19 [The implementation of online continuing professional
development (e-CPD) programme on action research during Covid-19 pandemic].
Jurnal Kepimpinan Pendidikan 8(4), 51-64.
Mat Noor, M. S. A., Ahmad, S., & Zainudin, Z. (2023). Action research through the lens of the
‘rendang’ analogy. Malaysian Journal of Action Research, 1(1), 35-44.
https://doi.org/10.61388/mjar.v1i1.5

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

 Mat Nooor, M, S, A. 25

Mat Noor, M. S. A., Jhee, Y. S., & Kamarudin, M. Z. (2023). An ongoing discussion about
validity and quality in action research. Malaysian Journal of Action Research, 1(1), 23-
34. https://doi.org/10.61388/mjar.v1i1.4
Maxwell, T. W. (2003). Action research for Bhutan?. RABSEL, 3, 5-16.
Metz, K. E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of
uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2),
219-290. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2202_3
Metz, K. E. (2011). Young children can be sophisticated scientists. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8),
68–71. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003172171109200815
Ministry of Education [MOE] (2013). Dokumen Standard KSSR Sains Tahun Empat [KSSR
Science Standard Document Year Four]. Ministry of Education, Malaysia.
Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2014). KSSR: Pendekatan Inkuiri Melalui Penguasaan
Kemahiran Proses Sains [KSSR: Inquiry Approach Through Mastery of Science Process
Skills]. Ministry of Education, Malaysia.
Mohd Salleh, N., & Mat Noor, M. S. A. (2015). Improving the quality of pupils’ response in
science inquiry teaching: A participatory action research. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1310–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.482
Muhamad Dah, N., & Mat Noor, M. S. A. (2021a). Facilitating pupils’ questioning skills in
open inquiry learning through an Investigable Question Formulation Technique
(IQFT). Journal of Mathematics and Science Teacher, 1(2), em005.
https://doi.org/10.29333/mathsciteacher/11283
Muhamad Dah, N., & Mat Noor, M. S. A. (2021b). The development of an Investigable
Questions Formulation Technique (IQFT) in open inquiry learning. Malaysian Science
& Mathematics Education Journal, 11(1), 103-120.
https://doi.org/10.37134/jpsmm.vol11.1.10.2021
Muhamad Dah, N., Mat Noor, M. S. A., Kamarudin, M. Z., & Ibrahim, M. M. (2023).
Facilitation of student questioning in the Malaysian secondary science classroom
using the Investigable Questioning Formulation Technique (IQFT) protocol. Asia-
Pacific Science Education, 9(1), 9-43. https://doi.org/10.1163/23641177-bja10063
Nolan, A., & Paatsch, L. (2018). (Re)affirming identities: Implementing a play-based approach
to learning in the early years of schooling. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 26(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2017.1369397
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2012). Strong Performers
and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for Japan. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264118539-en
Osborne, J. (2015). Practical work in science: Misunderstood and badly used? School Science
Review, 96(357), 16–24.
Osman, K., Halim, L., & Mohd Meerah, S. (2006). What Malaysian science teachers need to
improve their science instruction: A comparison across gender, school location and

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

26 How can I improve my practice as a science teacher through the development of my
pedagogical ‘inquiry’ skills?

area of specialization. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology

Education, 2(2), 58–81. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75453
Othman, N. N., Mat Noor, M. S. A., & Ahmad, S. (2023). Pembangunan pendekatan kata
pandang dalam kalangan murid sindrom Down [The development of the sight word
approach among pupils with Down syndrome]. Malaysian Journal of Action Research,
1(1), 82-104. https://doi.org/10.61388/mjar.v1i1.8
Rillero, P. (1998). Process skills and content knowledge. Science Activities, 35(3), 3–4.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00368129809600910
Sandberg, A., & Heden, R. (2011). Play’s Importance in School. Education 3-13, 39(3), 317–
329. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270903530441
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein
(Eds.), The Teaching of Science (pp. 1–104). Oxford University Press.
Shaik Abdullah, S., Mat Noor, M. S. A., & Whitehead, J. (2023). Delving into Living
Educational Theory (LET) research: A conversation with Jack Whitehead. Malaysian
Journal of Action Research, 1(1), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.61388/mjar.v1i1.3
Speight, S., Callanan, M., Griggs, J., & Farias, J. C. (2016). Rochdale Research into Practice -
Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. Heinemann
Educational Books.
Syed Hassan, S. S. (2018). Measuring attitude towards learning science in Malaysian
secondary school context: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science
Education, 40(16), 2044–2059. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1518614
Syed Zin, S. M. (2003). Reforming the Science and Technology Curriculum: The Smart School
Initiative in Malaysia. Prospects, 33(1), 39–50.
Thompson, F., & Perry, C. (2004). Generalising results of an action research project in one
work place to other situations: Principles and practice. European Journal of
Marketing, 38(3/4), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410518611
Toma, R. B. (2022). Confirmation and structured inquiry teaching: does it improve students’
achievement motivations in school science?. Canadian Journal of Science,
Mathematics and Technology Education, 22(1), 28-41.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-022-00197-3
Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2007). Hands-on science: Does it matter what students’ hands are
on? The Science Education Review, 6(4), 126-130.
Walker, S., Brownlee, J., Whiteford, C., Cobb-Moore, C., Johansson, E., Ailwood, J., &
Boulton-Lewis, G. (2012). Early years teachers epistemic beliefs and beliefs about
children’s moral learning. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18(2), 263–
275. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.632267
Wells, B. M. (2010). Naturalistic observation. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research
Design (pp. 886–890). Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288.n263

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396

 Mat Nooor, M, S, A. 27

Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, ‘How
do I improve my practice?’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 41-52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764890190106
Whitehead, J. (2018). Living theory research as a way of life. Bath, UK: Brown Dog Books.
YaleNews (2021) 'Yale, University College London extend doctoral student exchange,' 18
November. https://news.yale.edu/2017/05/08/yale-university-college-london-
extend-doctoral-student-exchange-agreement (Accessed: October 19, 2023).
Zainun, Z., Mat Noor, M. S. A., Ahmad, S., & Razalli, A. R. (2021). Meningkatkan
kebolehpasaran murid-murid orang asli Semai melalui projek jualan bakeri semasa
Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan (PKP) pandemik COVID-19 [Improving the employability
of Semai indigenous pupils through a bakery sales project during the Movement
Control Order (MCO) of COVID-19 pandemic. Online Journal for TVET Practitioners,
6(2), 50-67. https://doi.org/10.30880/ojtp.2021.06.02.007
Zainun, Z., & Mat Noor, M. S. A. (2022). The implementation of a bakery sales project during
the COVID-19 pandemic to improve the employability of Semai indigenous students.
International Journal of Action Research, 17(3), 244-267.
https://doi.org/10.3224/ijar.v17i3.04
Zeni, J. (1998). A guide to ethical issues and action research. Educational Action Research,
6(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650799800200053

Educational Journal of Living Theories 16(1): 1-27, https://ejolts.net/node/396