Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs, Difficulties and Practices Toward Inquiry-Based Learning in Mathematics: A Mixed-Method Approach
Abstract
This study explored pre-service teachers' (PSTs) beliefs, perceived difficulties, and classroom practices toward inquiry-based learning (IBL) in mathematics at a private university in Davao City, Philippines. Employing a convergent mixed-methods design, quantitative data were collected from 92 PSTs via a validated survey (Cronbach's α = 0.872–0.885), assessing beliefs, difficulties, and practices on a 5-point Likert scale. Qualitative data came from semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 15 purposively selected PSTs. Results showed strong beliefs (M = 4.27, SD = 0.48) in IBL's effectiveness for critical thinking and engagement, but high perceived difficulties (M = 4.35, SD = 0.44) from time constraints, resource limitations, and student readiness. Practices scored moderately (M = 3.83, SD = 0.54), revealing a theory-practice gap confirmed qualitatively through themes like "Deep, Active Learning," "Constraints and Barriers," and "Teacher as Facilitator." Quantitative-statistical trends aligned with qualitative narratives, triangulating that PSTs value IBL theoretically but struggle with practical execution under curriculum pressures. Conclusions highlight the need for teacher education programs to bridge this gap through targeted professional development, IBL-compatible lesson design, scaffolded inquiry training, and institutionalized mentorship. Recommendations emphasize embedding inquiry cycles (orienting, planning, investigating, concluding) into curricula and using real-world problems to foster curiosity. This study contributes Philippine-context evidence supporting SDG 4 (quality education), informing pre-service training for student-centered mathematics pedagogy.
Downloads
PlumX Statistics
References
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A cognitive social theory. Prentice-Hall.
4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.
5. Calleja, J. (2016). Teaching mathematics through inquiry: A continuing professional development programme design. Journal of the International Society for Design and Development in Education.
6. Conroy, R. M. (2018). The RCSI Sample size handbook. A rough guide, 59-61.
7. Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Creswell, J. W. (2019). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
9. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
10. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications.
11. Felske, C., König, J., Kaiser, G. (2020). Pedagogical knowledge of working math teachers: Validation of the construct representation in the TEDS- M test. Diagnostica, 66(2), 110-122.
12. Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Visible learning for literacy, grades K-12: Implementing the practices that work best to accelerate student learning. Corwin Press.
13. Fox, S. (2024). How to determine survey sample size. A short guide. https://survicate.com/blog/survey-sample-size/
14. Friesen, S., & Scott, D. (2013). Inquiry-based learning: A review of the research literature. Alberta Ministry of Education, 32, 1-32.
15. Gholam, A. P. (2019). Inquiry-based learning: Student teachers’ challenges and perceptions. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2). https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/jiae/vol10/iss2/6
16. Hein, G. E. (1991). Constructivist learning theory. Institute for Inquiry.
http://www. exploratorium.edu/ifi/resources/constructivistlearning. htmlS.
17. Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social science & medicine, 292, 114523.
18. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
19. Ketsing, J., Inoue, N., & Buczynski, S. (2020). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ reflective quality on inquiry-based teaching through a community of practice. Science Education International, 31(4), 367-378.
20. Kidwell, V. (2019). Engaging students in inquiry-based science education: The impact of hands-on learning. Science Education, 103(4), 789–811.
21. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2018). An integrative review of the cognitive costs and benefits of note-taking. Educational Research Review, 25, 97–105.
22. Lehtinen, A., Lehesvuori, S., & Viiri, J. (2019). The connection between forms of guidance for inquiry-based learning and the communicative approaches applied—A case study in the context of pre-service teachers. Research in Science Education, 49(6), 1547-1567.
23. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction— what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347
24. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2020). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–16.
25. Ramnarain & Hlatswayo. (2018). Teacher beliefs and attitudes about inquiry-based learning in a rural school district in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 38(1), 1-10. https://dx.doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n1a1430031
26. Sen, C., Ay, Z. S., & Güler, G. (2021). The effectiveness of inquiry-based learning on middle school students' mathematics reasoning skill. Athens Journal of Education, 8(4), 417-440.
27. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Medical Teacher, 33(6), 454–460.
28. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
29. Vishnubhotla, M., Chowdhury, A., Apkarian, N. (2022). “I use IBL in this course” may say more about an instructor’s beliefs than about their teaching. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 10, 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-022-00186-9
30. Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2019). Teachers’ adoption of inquiry-based learning activities: The importance of beliefs about education, the self, and the context. Journal of teacher education, 70(5), 423-440.
31. Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press
32. Wessels, S., Trainin, G., Reeves, J. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ confidence and attitudes toward teaching English learners. Teacher Education and Practice 30(3), 443–461.
33. Yıldız-Feyzioğlu, E., & Demirci, N. (2021). The effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ learner autonomy and conceptions of learning. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(3), 401-420.
Copyright (c) 2026 John Laurence H. Benitez, Rachel An Quijada, Amelyn Mae L. Ragas, Exequiel R. Gono Jr.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
