This thesis deals with the use of inquiry-based approaches in primary school science. The aim is to investigate the goals and purposes that are constituted by the curriculum and by the teachers in interviews and through their teaching in the classroom. The results are used to develop conceptual tools that can be used by teachers’ in their work to support students’ learning of science when using an inquiry-based approach. The thesis is comprised of four papers. In paper one a comparative analysis is made of five Swedish national curricula for compulsory school regarding what students should learn about scientific inquiry. In paper two 20 teachers were interviewed about their own teaching using inquiry. Classroom interactions were filmed and analyzed in papers three and four, which examine how primary teachers use the various activities and purposes of the inquiry classroom to support learning progressions in science. The results of paper one show how the emphasis within and between the two goals of learning to carry out investigations and learning about the nature of science shifted and changed over time in the different curricula. Paper two describes the selective traditions and qualities that were emphasized in the teachers’ accounts of their own teaching. The results of papers three and four show how students need to be involved in the proximate and ultimate purposes of the teaching activities for progression to happen. The ultimate purposes are the scientific purposes for the lesson (as given by the teacher or by the curriculum), whereas the proximate purposes are the more student-centered purposes that through different activities should allow the students to relate their own experiences and language to the ultimate purpose. The results show the importance of proximate purposes working as ends-in-view in the sense of John Dewey, meaning that the students see the goal of the activity and that they are able to relate to their experiences and familiar language. / <p>At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 1: In press. Paper 2: Manuscript. Paper 4: Manuscript.</p>

This thesis deals with the use of inquiry-based approaches in primary school science. The aim is to investigate the goals and purposes that are constituted by the curriculum and by the teachers in interviews and through their teaching in the classroom. The results are used to develop conceptual tools that can be used by teachers’ in their work to support students’ learning of science when using an inquiry-based approach. The thesis is comprised of four papers. In paper one a comparative analysis is made of five Swedish national curricula for compulsory school regarding what students should learn about scientific inquiry. In paper two 20 teachers were interviewed about their own teaching using inquiry. Classroom interactions were filmed and analyzed in papers three and four, which examine how primary teachers use the various activities and purposes of the inquiry classroom to support learning progressions in science. The results of paper one show how the emphasis within and between the two goals of learning to carry out investigations and learning about the nature of science shifted and changed over time in the different curricula. Paper two describes the selective traditions and qualities that were emphasized in the teachers’ accounts of their own teaching. The results of papers three and four show how students need to be involved in the proximate and ultimate purposes of the teaching activities for progression to happen. The ultimate purposes are the scientific purposes for the lesson (as given by the teacher or by the curriculum), whereas the proximate purposes are the more student-centered purposes that through different activities should allow the students to relate their own experiences and language to the ultimate purpose. The results show the importance of proximate purposes working as ends-in-viewin the sense of John Dewey, meaning that the students see the goal of the activity and that they are able to relate to their experiences and familiar language. / <p>At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 1: In press. Paper 2: Manuscript. Paper 4: Manuscript.</p>