Inquiry Based Learning in practice to enhance an Immunological Biotechnologies laboratory experience
10.3280/exioa2-2023oa16825
This paper aims to describe a teaching redesign experience that took place through the introduction of the Inquiry Based Learning methodology within the course of Immunological Biotechnology included in the program of the Master’s Degree in Industrial Biotechnologies at the University of Padua. The decision to introduce this approach starts from the need to maximise and support students during the learning experience, to sustain the development of specific skills related to real-world laboratory research environments, making them more aware of the design and practical steps of the laboratory itself. The new design (and its implementation) has both enhanced student learning and improved satisfaction with the teaching. The feedback from the students also allowed us to acquire important information to work further on teaching and create more authentic and effective experiences, through a teaching and learning approach based on investigation.
application/pdf
2499-507X
16825
2
en
Antonella Lotti
Excellence and Innovation in Learning and Teaching - Open Access
Technologies for education
Inquiry Based Learning in practice to enhance an Immunological Biotechnologies laboratory experience
Text.Serial.Journal
https://journals.francoangeli.it/index.php/exioa
8
Esperienze e pratiche
2023-12-13
2023-11-21
2023-12-13
2023-12-13
EXIOA
Antonella Lotti
2023/12/13
10.3280/exioa2-2023oa16825
Università degli Studi di Foggia
2499-507X
2
Technologies for education
en
Wiseman, E., Carroll, D.J. Fowler, S.R. & Guisbert, E. (2020) Iteration in an Inquiry-Based Undergraduate Laboratory Strengthens Student Engagement and Incorporation of Scientific Skills. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 20 (2), 99-112.
Inquiry Based Learning in practice to enhance an Immunological Biotechnologies laboratory experience
https://journals.francoangeli.it/index.php/exioa/article/download/16825/2578
8
Esperienze e pratiche

Inquiry Based Learning in practice to enhance an
Immunological Biotechnologies laboratory experience
Regina Tavano*, Federica Picasso°, Antonella Lotti^




Abstract
This paper aims to describe a teaching redesign experience that took place
through the introduction of the Inquiry Based Learning methodology within the
course of Immunological Biotechnology included in the program of the
Master’s Degree in Industrial Biotechnologies at the University of Padua. The
decision to introduce this approach starts from the need to maximise and
support students during the learning experience, to sustain the development of
specific skills related to real-world laboratory research environments, making
them more aware of the design and practical steps of the laboratory itself. The
new design (and its implementation) has both enhanced student learning and
improved satisfaction with the teaching. The feedback from the students also
allowed us to acquire important information to work further on teaching and
create more authentic and effective experiences, through a teaching and
learning approach based on investigation.
Key words: Inquiry Based Learning, teaching-learning design, laboratory
experience, research competences, technologies for education.

Article submitted: 19/09/2023; accepted: 08/11/2023
Available online: 13/12/2023




*
  Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Università degli Studi di Padova, e-mail:
regina.tavano@unipd.it.
°
  Dipartimento di Psicologia e Scienze Cognitive, Università degli Studi di Trento.
^
  Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Lettere, Beni Culturali, Scienze della Formazione,
Università degli Studi di Foggia.

Excellence and Innovation in Learning and Teaching (ISSNe 2499-507X), 2023, 2

Doi: 10.3280/exioa2-2023oa16825
                                  Copyright © FrancoAngeli
        This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                  No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                            please see: http://creativecommons.org
1. Introduction and reasons for the experience

1.1 The Inquiry Based Learning methodology and implementation

   The Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) approach envisages a design based on
the inquiry-based teaching approach, intended as “a technique that encourages
students to discover or construct information by themselves instead of having
teachers directly reveal the information” (Uno, 1999; Duran & Duran, 2004,
p.49)”, so “an educational strategy in which students follow methods and
practices similar to those of professional scientists to construct knowledge”
(Keselman, 2003; Pedaste et al., 2015, p.48).
   One of the most popular approaches for designing IBL experience is the 5E
Instructional Model (Bybee & Landes, 1990) based upon cognitive psychology,
constructivist-learning theory (Bruner, 1990), and best practices in science
teaching.
   The design and the implementation process are composed by the following
steps:
● Engagement: assessment of student’s prior knowledge and/or identification
   of possible misconceptions. Motivational phase that supports the desire to
   actively explore the topic further, through a concrete learning experience.
● Exploration: students are encouraged to actively apply skills such as
   observing, questioning, investigating, testing predictions, hypothesising and
   communicating with other peers, supported by the teacher as facilitator.
● Explanation: students describe their understanding and ask questions about
   the concepts explored. Subsequently, the teacher introduces scientific and
   technical information in a direct manner, including the use of interactive
   resources, clarifying doubts raised during the previous phases.
● Elaboration: students are encouraged to apply their new understanding,
   reinforcing new skills and to compare themselves with their peers, design
   new experiments or models and carry out further investigations.
● Evaluation: assessment as a continuous process in which teachers observe
   students as they apply new concepts and skills. Observation may be
   accompanied by self- or peer-assessment experiences and may also include
   a summative experience (quiz, exam or writing assignment) (Duran &
   Duran, 2006).
   This methodology is characterised by a process of students discovering new
causal relations, through the formulation of hypotheses, the relative testing
process by conducting experiments and/or making observations (Pedaste et al.,
2012; National Research Council (NRC) Standards, 1996) and it is sustained
by the ‘learning by doing’ perspective (Dewey, 1933; Spronken-Smith, 2012).


                                           69
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
    IBL is comprehended in the student-centred approaches (Kember, 1997;
Archer-Kuhn et al., 2020) so an active learning methodology that sustains the
development of self-directed learning skills: the strategy promotes the vision of
students as direct creators and builders of their own knowledge, also with the
implications of collaborative way of learning through work group activities
(Kember, 1997; Gibbs, 1988, Healey & Roberts, 2004).
    The methodology could be useful to stimulate the development of specific
skills like problem solving and critical thinking (Pedaste & Sarapuu, 2006;
Thaiposri & Wannapiroon, 2015): its implementation can in fact “emphasises
active participation and learner’s responsibility for discovering knowledge that
is new to the learner” (de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998, Pedaste et al., 2015,
p.48). The teachers’ role is to guide the inquiry process as facilitator of learning
for students: in fact, as the literature points out, empirical research on inquiry
learning sustains that delivering specific assistance during the inquiry activity -
such as feedback, worked examples, elicitation of explanations - benefits
learners and improves learning outcomes achievement (Alfieri et al. 2011;
Lehtinen & Viiri, 2017).
    In order to structure the IBL experience Banchi & Bell (2008) theorised
different levels of complexity: in fact, they found a four-level continuum useful
to classify the levels of inquiry in a specific teaching and learning activity.
● Confirmation Inquiry: students acquire the research questions and the
    process and results are made available a priori. Then the whole process is
    made available to the students who must then confirm it through an
    investigation process.
● Structured Inquiry: teachers offer to students the research questions and
    process, but the data collection and the results analysis are connected to the
    specific action of students themselves.
● Guided Inquiry: determination of the research problem/question, leaving
    freedom of investigation and analysis to the learners who, through their own
    knowledge and research, will extrapolate from the problem the process of
    performing the method and establish the results.
● Open Inquiry or Project Work: it is defined as pure inquiry. When the
    students are high-skilled, in fact everything is designed by them and the
    teacher plays the role of facilitator of learning during the investigation and
    design process.

1.2 The course of Immunological Biotechnologies

   Demaria, Barry & Murphy (2019) show the complexity in teaching
immunology in the undergraduate laboratory: in fact, “it requires background
knowledge, data analysis skills, critical thinking, and design capacities to

                                           70
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
include relevant controls and applications of particular techniques to answer a
research question. It also requires strong technical skills” (p.1). Teaching
process in courses with practical laboratory could be structured combining
traditional teaching strategies to scaffold students learning on basic
fundamental disciplinary techniques, but to support the development of the
specific technical skills, it is important to move from the recipe-based approach
to a more interactive modality of teaching (Demaria et al., 2019).
    In connection with our formative design context, the IBL activity was
implemented in a course named Immunological Biotechnologies, a second-year
course of the Master Degree in Industrial Biotechnologies (University of
Padova). Immunological Biotechnologies course includes frontal lectures (32
hours) and a practical activity held in the didactical laboratories (32 hours). The
main topic of the course is how a vaccine, both preventive and therapeutic, is
developed; the practical activity simulates how a therapeutic vaccine could be
produced in laboratory; students work in pairs and they learn how to handle
primary human immune cells in sterility conditions, how to evaluate their
responses in vitro, how to perform complex immunology experimental
protocols (ELISA, western blot, flow cytometry), and how to analyse data and
draw proper conclusions from them. The practical experience requires ten days,
during which the students are in the laboratory about 4 hours a day. During the
final exam, students must answer a 30-question quiz about the practical activity,
which includes different types of questions about the methodologies and the
protocols used during the laboratory.

1.3 Research aim

   The main aim of the research is to understand if:
1. The introduction of a specific teaching methodology, like in this case the
   IBL approach, could be useful to sustain students’ engagement during the
   learning process.
2. The IBL can scaffold the students’ major awareness about laboratory
   processes.
3. It helps the improvement of the final exam performance. Furthermore, the
   IBL methodology will be adopted to stimulate the acquisition of specific
   competencies, like critical thinking and problem solving.
   In fact, the results of the final quiz in previous years were not satisfactory.
Moreover, although the students were able to follow very detailed protocols,
the workflow, which is intended to mimic what happens in a real research
laboratory, was not clear to the majority of students. For these reasons, we
decided to introduce this kind of activity, just before the beginning of the
laboratory, to help students to become more aware of the practical steps of the

                                           71
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
laboratory and also to help them to better understand how to plan a research
experience. In the literature, there are many examples where the IBL has been
introduced in preparation for a laboratory activity, not only in the field of
immunology (Demaria et al., 2019) but also in other study programs where
laboratories are fundamental (Parappilly et al., 2013; Lents, Cifuentes & Carpi,
2010; Wiseman et al., 2020). All of them highlight how the transition from a
laboratory activity based on standardised protocols – which students follow
without any involvement – to an IBL-activity allows students to use their prior
knowledge and critical reasoning. In fact, IBL-activity design can be crucial to
sustain an engaging teaching and learning process and to stimulate the
development of specific disciplinary competences in an interactive way.
    To structure the experience, the IBL-activity was designed based on the
guided level, to prompt the reflection on how to construct a research activity
starting from a scientific question. Additionally, through the IBL-activity,
students were guided in the use of laboratory protocols by reasoning through
the steps of the laboratory techniques before implementing them.
    The IBL-activity aimed therefore to enhance the following specific skills:
1. Proactive review of concepts learned in other courses, interconnected with
    the new topics;
2. Reflecting on the process of planning a research activity;
3. Reflecting on the correct order of the various phases of a laboratory assay;
4. How and where to search for information on laboratory protocols relevant
    to a specific task;
5. Reflecting on the importance of choosing positive and negative controls in
    a scientific experiment.


2. Description of the Methodology

   The IBL-activity lasted for 5 hours and was conducted one week before the
beginning of the practical activity. Through open-ended questions, short
bibliographic research, multiple-choice questions, word clouds, label an image,
and the “sorting” activity, students, working in groups, were guided to:
● Understand the connection between theoretical lectures and the practical
   laboratory activity Reflect about choosing experimental techniques, based
   on the research goal.
● Reflect on the different phases involved in the laboratory work.
● Conduct bibliographic research on methods used in laboratory for a specific
   purpose.
● Consider the concepts of negative and positive controls, essential when
   performing experiments in laboratory.

                                           72
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
● Reflect on the appropriate methodology to analyse experiments.
● Reflect about the correct sequence of steps of a particular technique.
● Bring out knowledge acquired from previous courses that had not been put
  into practice.

  During the IBL-activity the following activities were included:
● Engagement activities to present the various laboratory assays and the
  “experimental problem”.
● Exploration activities by means of bibliographic research and consolidation
  of prior knowledge.
● Explanation and Debriefing phases to discuss the answers from different
  groups and to provide further details on the experimental activity.

  After the actual IBL session, these activities were also implemented:
● Elaboration activities during which students generated experimental data,
  analysed and discussed the results, and recorded them in their laboratory
  notebooks.
● Evaluation phases by means of feedback modules, a midway evaluative quiz
  with Wooclap and a Moodle quiz one week after the end of the laboratory
  activity.

    The IBL-activity was entirely conducted using the student response system
Wooclap, integrating slides with explanations, debriefing moments and
different kinds of questions. Wooclap was also used to collect final feedback
on the level of student engagement during IBL, and to gather ideas and
suggestions for further implementation. This aimed to assess the students'
perception of satisfaction and usefulness of the activity.
    To help students in the learning process of the numerous concepts and
techniques, they were asked to complete a predefined form at the end of each
laboratory day, mimicking a true laboratory notebook. The form was created in
the Moodle “database” activity and students were required to include the
following information:
● Experiment date;
● Objective of the laboratory session;
● Materials/methods/tools used;
● Descriptive list of the steps performed;
● Results obtained;
● Self-evaluation (description of difficulties encountered with the protocol
    and particularly successful steps).
    At the midpoint of the laboratory experience, a short group challenge was
introduced using Wooclap, to give the students the opportunity to assess how

                                           73
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
much they had learned and understood about the practical activity. At the end,
a ranking was created, and bonus points were awarded to the top three groups,
which were included in the final evaluation.
    With the purpose of guiding students in the learning process and making
them reflect on the flow of the practical experience (scientific question,
methodologies, and assays used to answer the scientific question, data analysis,
and interpretation), each group was assigned to create a summary with Padlet,
a software useful to the creation of multimedia boards, similar to the one shown
in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Example of Padlet application for visualising the workflow during the practical
laboratory




   Eventually, at the end of the practical laboratory, students were asked to fill
out a feedback form, aimed to evaluate the satisfaction and usefulness of the
laboratory experience. The same module had been used in the previous
academic year (a.y.), allowing for an assessment of the effectiveness of the
inclusion of the IBL-activity.


3. Results

3.1 Findings and Feedback on the IBL-activity

   Out of the 35 students attending the course of Immunological
Biotechnologies, 33 students were present on the days when the IBL-activity
was conducted. Four students were unable to respond due to connection issues,

                                            74
                                  Copyright © FrancoAngeli
        This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                  No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                            please see: http://creativecommons.org
so the results of the activity were evaluated based on the responses of 29
students.
    The results of the word clouds, used to assess prior knowledge, generated
interest and sometimes led to discussions and debates among students and the
instructor, as well as between student groups. An example of a word cloud
created in class is provided (Figure 2).

Figure 2 - Example of a word cloud built with students' responses




    The word clouds, used to gather information after a bibliographic search,
allowed for an engaging introduction to the topic. Questions that required
ordering the phases of the laboratory or the steps of a particular technique
proved to be the most challenging. At the end of the two IBL sessions, students
were asked to provide anonymous feedback on various aspects (engagement,
usefulness, interest, time spent, and clarity of the experience's main thread),
rating them on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). The results, presented
in Figure 3, represent the averages of the responses; the average rating for all
evaluated parameters settled at Figure 4.




                                             75
                                  Copyright © FrancoAngeli
        This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                  No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                            please see: http://creativecommons.org
Figure 3 - Average results (29 students responding out of 35 attending) of satisfaction with the
IBL-activity: the parameters evaluated were rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely)




Figure 4 - Percentages of student responses about the satisfaction with the IBL-activity: the
parameters evaluated were rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely)




   Students were also asked to share the most important thing they learned and
to provide suggestions, ideas, and observations on the IBL-activity. Here are
some of their responses (Table 1).


                                              76
                                   Copyright © FrancoAngeli
         This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                   No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                             please see: http://creativecommons.org
Table 1 - Students’ testimony of learning and point of view on IBL experience




3.2 Comparison of overall satisfaction for the laboratory activity in the
2021/2022 and 2022/2023 a.y.

    At the end of the practical activity, an additional feedback form was submitted
to the students to assess their satisfaction. The module consisted of a series of
questions to which students could rate their responses on a scale from 1 (not at
all) to 6 (extremely). All 35 attending students responded to the feedback activity.
The same module had been already used in the previous a.y., where there were
25 attending and responding students. Figure 5 represents the results.

Figure 5 - Comparison of average ratings of satisfaction with the laboratory activity in the
2021/2022 a.y and the 2022/2023 a.y.




Note: In 2022/2023 a.y the IBL-activity was introduced and there were 35 attending students, in
the 2021/2022 a.y. there were 25 attending students. The parameters evaluated were rated on a
scale from 1 (not at all) to 6 (extremely). ns: not significant, * p < 0.1, **** p < 0.0001,
calculated using a two-way ANOVA test.




                                              77
                                  Copyright © FrancoAngeli
        This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                  No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                            please see: http://creativecommons.org
   Regarding overall satisfaction, the percentages of ratings given by students
are also shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 - Perceived level of satisfaction by the students in the 2021/2022 a.y and the 2022/2023
a.y.




Note: Percentages of student responses on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 6 (extremely) to the
question regarding satisfaction about the laboratory activity; comparison between the two a.y.
under study (25 students for the 2021/2022 a.y., 35 students for the 2022/2023 a.y.).

   In Figure 7 a significant difference is evident in terms of protocol clarity.
The handouts provided to students, containing the description of all the steps of
the practical activity, were identical in both a.y. The percentages of ratings
given by students for this aspect are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Perceived level of clarity of the protocols by the students in the 2021/2022 a.y and the
2022/2023 a.y.




Note: Percentages of student responses on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 6 (extremely) to the
question regarding the clarity of the provided protocols; comparison between the two a.y. under
study.

   In terms of clarity of the laboratory’s main thread, here below the graphs
represent the extrapolated data referred to this area of analysis (see Figure 8).




                                               78
                                   Copyright © FrancoAngeli
         This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                   No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                             please see: http://creativecommons.org
Figure 8 - Clarity of the laboratory experience’s main thread




Note: Percentages of student responses on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 6 (extremely) to the
question regarding the clarity of the laboratory experience's main thread; comparison between
the two a.y. under study.

   At the end of the practical activity, students were also asked to assess the
usefulness of the IBL-activity in preparing them for the various laboratory
activities. Figure 9 shows the average satisfaction ratings obtained on a scale
from 1 to 6 (left panel) and the percentages of student responses (right panel).
Figure 9 - Usefulness of the IBL-activity perceived by the students




Note: data (average ratings on a scale from 1-not at all to 6-extremely) on the right and
percentages of responses on the left on the perceived usefulness of the IBL-activity by students
(35 answers).

3.3 Comparison of Final Exam Results for the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023
a.y.

   During the 2022-2023 a.y. a challenge, aimed to assess their understanding
of the techniques and to identify any critical points, was introduced midway
through the laboratory experience. Students, divided into groups, had to answer
ten questions related to the techniques they had used up to that point. The


                                               79
                                   Copyright © FrancoAngeli
         This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                   No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                             please see: http://creativecommons.org
average of correct answers was 71.4%; the results were discussed and
additional explanations were provided to students regarding critical questions.
    In the 2022-2023 a.y., a change was also made to the final exam. The
laboratory quiz was scheduled not at the end of the semester but two weeks
after the end of the practical activities. The following figure (Fig. 10) displays
in the left panel the overall average scores (0-30 scale) obtained by students in
the laboratory quiz in the right panel the percentages of the range scores
achieved by the students in the two a.y. analysed.

Fig. 10 - Data on student assessment after the final quiz




Note: On the left panel, the averages of the results obtained in the same type of quiz by students
from the two a.y. under examination are represented. On the right panel, comparison of the
percentages of students who achieved different range scores (<18/30, 19-24/30, 25-30/30) in the
two a.y. under examination.

    In terms of students’ percentage who took the exam in the first session, in
the 2021-2022 a.y., 16% of enrolled students took the exam in the first session,
while in the 2022-2023 a.y., the students’ percentage was 54.3%. After the
second session, the percentage rose to 44% in the 2021-2022 a.y. and to 71.4%
in the 2022-2023 a.y.




                                               80
                                   Copyright © FrancoAngeli
         This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                   No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                             please see: http://creativecommons.org
4. Discussion

4.1 Students’ feedback on the IBL-activity

    From the analysis process of the 29 students’ responses emerged interesting
data connected to the IBL-activity feedback.
    The world cloud activities created to collect data in terms of prior knowledge
demonstrate the possibility to integrate interactive moments, among students
and with the teacher.
    The activities designed to stimulate the reflection on the phases connected
to the laboratory procedure underlined the difficulty for students to focus on the
main steps regarding the practical activity: the low rate of success (25% correct
responses), in fact, shows that this reflection activity could be powerful to put
the basis of specific formative steps to sustain student scientiﬁc literacy
(Keselman, 2003; Pedaste et al., 2015).
    In terms of students’ feedback, the data gathered put in evidence that in
general the students declared to be very engaged during the inquiry process
(53.6%). The perception of usefulness of the activity was evaluated by the
majority of students as really useful (60.7%) and in general the interest was
very high (scale point 4; 77.8%). In terms of devoted time spent on the IBL-
activity and the related clarity of the whole process, students were very satisfied
(scale point 4 - 53.6%). They were asked to rate these aspects on a scale from
1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). It’s important to affirm that in general, the IBL-
activity was really appreciated both in terms of the organisation of the
experience and in relation to the engagement with respect to the teaching and
learning process, which is therefore powerful, effective and student centred
(Kember, 1997).

4.2 Comparison of overall satisfaction for the laboratory activity in the
2021/2022 and 2022/2023 a.y.

    The analysis, connected to the satisfaction of the laboratory activity and the
related comparison between the results of the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 a.y.,
put in evidence interesting data to inform a complex overview of the
experience.
    The assessment criteria used to explore the impact allowed us to better
investigate the students' perceptions: one particularly interesting result is the
percentage of students who gave the highest rating, which increased from 40%
to 71%.
    In terms of general satisfaction, the average rating increased meaningfully:


                                           81
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
in fact, in relation to the 2022-2023 a.y. students are extremely satisfied
(70.6%) and very satisfied (29.4%), in contrast with the previous a.y. when
students' perception is divided between moderately (8%), very (52%) and
extremely satisfied with the laboratory experience (40%).
    Also, in relation with the areas connected to the interest and the devoted
time, it seems that the total average has slightly increased.
    The students' perception of protocol clarity significantly improved after the
introduction of the IBL-activity (**** p < 0.0001) compared to the previous
year. The percentage of students who considered the protocols to be very clear
increased from 8% to 56%; the percentage of students rating the clarity of the
protocols as 4 decreased from 44% to 9%. The clarity of the laboratory
experience's main thread also significantly increased (* p < 0.1), furthermore
after the introduction of the activity, the percentage of students who gave the
highest rating to this parameter increased from 24% to 56%.
    Approximately 90% of students rated the usefulness of the IBL-activity
higher than 4.
    To conclude, the laboratory experience proposed this year established an
improved experience for the students, who perceived the usefulness of the
activities in connection with the specificity of the teaching course, related
contents and connected competences.

4.3 Comparison of Final Exam Results for the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023
a.y.

    The middle challenge experience highlights the power of introducing
stimulating activities to sustain reflection and self-assessment processes during
the learning path of the students. In fact, this activity seems to be powerful to
monitor the learning progress both from the point of view of students and of the
teacher, who has been able to acquire important data to support a continuous
redesign of his/her teaching and support the learning experience. The
gamification process appears to be important to sustain the formative
assessment process embedded during the IBL laboratory module (Demaria et
al., 2019).
    The final quiz average score did not show a significant change in the two
analysed a.y. and the percentage of correct answers given by students only
increased from 74% to 78.4%. However, what is particularly interesting is the
increase in the percentage of students who achieved a score higher than 25/30
on the exam, which rose from 38.1% in the 2021-2022 a.y. to 57.1% in the
2022-2023 a.y.. Furthermore, the percentage of students who took the exam in
the first session has increased by more than three times in the two a.y. under
consideration. The data show that, through the direct support of self-directed

                                           82
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
learning skills (Bruner, 1990) and specific knowledge and competences
promoted by the IBL methodology, students seem to be more self-confident for
the final examination and this allows the students themselves to feel effective
in their preparation so as to participate in the first exam attempt. Despite the
small sample size, it is evident that the IBL methodology may be a valuable
support in supporting the development of specific STEM competences, such as
the ability to work in teams, the development of critical thinking with respect
to practical laboratory activities, and the acquisition of skills related to the
exploration and solving of concrete problems in disciplinary practice (Demaria,
Barry & Murphy, 2019).


5. Conclusions and future perspectives

    In general, the experience structured following the guided level of the
Inquiry Based Learning (Banchi & Bell, 2008) and designed through the 5E
model (Pedaste et al., 2015), seems to sustain a real process of active learning
(Archer-Kuhn et al., 2020), with a learning by doing philosophy (Gibbs, 1988,
Healey & Roberts, 2004) and a student-centred approach (Kember, 1997).
    Also, if the number of students was not wide, it is possible to affirm that, in
connection with the research question n° 1 dedicated to the engagement
improvement, the structure of the activity stimulates students’ involvement in
class, sustaining and increasing the general satisfaction and also the perception
of usefulness and related interest. In terms of the awareness improvement, the
clarity of the laboratory experience increased after the IBL-activity and students
perceived scaffolding in preparing them for the various laboratory activities
thanks to the adoption of this approach.
    Finally, in relation to the students’ final performance, it was not a significant
statistical difference regarding the final assessment grades.
    In terms of research limitations, after the analysis of the data it is possible
to affirm that it could be important to increase the time dedicated to the IBL-
activity to maximise an effective support of students during the formative
experience.
    As a final limitation connected to the results of the IBL-activity and in direct
connection with the not statistically significant comparison of the final exam
results, the main issue could be related to the fact that the cohorts analysed are
different. This statement means that students have different characteristics than
variables that may affect experience and final assessment average are multiple,
complex and can influence the assessment of the overall impact of IBL-activity.
For this reason, it will be important to include an initial pre-test in the next a.y.,


                                            83
                                  Copyright © FrancoAngeli
        This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                  No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                            please see: http://creativecommons.org
to assess the students' prior knowledge and to scaffold the activities’ design and
the implementation.
    Below, some future research perspectives will be described.
    First of all, starting from a careful study of the results of the laboratory quiz,
it will be essential to identify the weak points, possibly reformulate the
questions and review the experience to implement these shortcomings. For this,
it could be important to introduce a small IBL-activity at the beginning of each
laboratory day (for example, tidying up the work phases of that particular day)
to support the development of critical thinking skills in the personal discovery
and deeper understanding of the inquiry learning process (Archer-Kuhn, B. et.
al, 2020).
    Furthermore, at the end of the IBL-activity and before the practical
laboratory could be interesting to ask students to create a Padlet in which they
hypothesise the workflow of experimentation to push the activity of IBL even
more towards an open investigation.
    Finally, at the end of the laboratory, it should be important to organise a
meeting at which all the groups present their data and a related debate activity
in plenary on the results obtained. This process will be crucial to sustain a
debriefing moment and to create a discussion flow to explore the aspects that
have (or have not) worked.

   Author contributions: RT (PhD, Professor of the Immunological
Biotechnology course in which the IBL-activity was conducted) conceived and
designed the IBL-activity, FP (PhD student in Psychology and Cognitive
Science) supervised the design of the IBL-activity, FP and AL (PhD, Full
Professor in Education and Special Pedagogy) trained RT for the IBL-activity,
RT and FP wrote the paper, AL read the paper and provided suggestions and
comments.

References
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P.J., Aldrich, N.J., Tenenbaum, H.R. (2011). Does discovery-based
   instruction enhance learning?. J Educ Psychol, 103(1), 1-18.
Archer-Kuhn, B., Wiedeman, D., & Chalifoux, J. (2020). Student engagement and deep
   learning in higher education: Reflections on inquiry-based learning on our group
   study program course in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and
   Engagement, 24(2), 107-122.
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and children, 46(2),
   26.
Bybee, R., & Landes, N. M. (1990). Science for life and living: An elementary school
   science program from Biological Sciences Improvement Study (BSCS). The
   American Biology Teacher, 52(2), 92-98.

                                            84
                                  Copyright © FrancoAngeli
        This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                  No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                            please see: http://creativecommons.org
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Harvard University Press.
De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with
   computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of educational research,
   68(2), 179-201.
Demaria, M., Barry, A., & Murphy, K. (2019). Using inquiry-based learning to enhance
   immunology laboratory skills. Frontiers in immunology, 10, 2510.
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to
   the educative process. D.C. Heath.
Duran, L. B., & Duran, E. (2004). The 5E instructional model: A learning cycle
   approach for inquiry-based science teaching. Science Education Review, 3(2), 49-
   58.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods.
   Further Education Unit.
Healey, M., & Roberts, J., Ed. (2004). Engaging students in active learning: case
   studies in geography, environment and related disciplines. University of
   Gloucestershire, Geography Discipline Network and School of Environment.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’
   conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction 7, 255-275.
Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative
   understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
   40, 898-921. doi: 10.1002/tea.10115.
Lehtinen, A., & Viiri, J. (2017). Guidance provided by teacher and simulation for
   inquiry-based learning: A case study. Journal of science education and technology,
   26(2), 193-206.
Lents, N.H., Cifuentes, O.E. & Carpi A. (2010). Teaching the Process of Molecular
   Phylogeny and Systematics: A Multi-Part Inquiry-Based Exercise. CBE-Life
   Sciences Education, 9, 513-523.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National
   Academy Press
Parappilly, M.B., Siddiqui, S., Zadnikb, M.G., Shapter, J. & Schmidt, L. (2013). An
   Inquiry-Based Approach to Laboratory Experiences: Investigating Students’ Ways
   of Active Learning. International Journal of Innovation in Science and
   Mathematics Education, 21(5), 42-53.
Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Developing an effective support system for inquiry
   learning in a Web-based environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
   22(1), 47-62.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Leijen, Ä., & Sarapuu, S. (2012). Improving students’ inquiry
   skills through reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technology, Instruction,
   Cognition and Learning, 9, 81-95.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T.,
   ... & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the
   inquiry cycle. Educational research review, 14, 47-61.
Spronken-Smith, R. (2012). Experiencing the process of knowledge creation: The
   nature and use of inquiry-based learning in higher education. In International
   Colloquium on Practices for Academic Inquiry. University of Otago (pp. 1-17).


                                            85
                                  Copyright © FrancoAngeli
        This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                  No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                            please see: http://creativecommons.org
Thaiposri, P., & Wannapiroon, P. (2015). Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills
   through teaching and learning by inquiry-based learning activities using social
   network and cloud computing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174,
   2137-2144.
Uno, G. (1999). Handbook on teaching undergraduate science courses: A survival
   training manual. Thomson Custom Publishing.
Wiseman, E., Carroll, D.J. Fowler, S.R. & Guisbert, E. (2020) Iteration in an Inquiry-
   Based Undergraduate Laboratory Strengthens Student Engagement and
   Incorporation of Scientific Skills. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
   Learning, 20 (2), 99-112.




                                            86
                                  Copyright © FrancoAngeli
        This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                  No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                            please see: http://creativecommons.org
