An Exploration of Physics Teachers’ Lesson Plans Within the IBSE Framework: The Case of Teaching Mechanics in Autistic Students

Abstract

Drawing from a broad and multifaceted stream of educational research and practice that has gradually emerged in recent decades within science education field, widely known as Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE), the current study aims to extend its boundaries within the special education field. In particular it aspires to investigate to what extent teachers foster IBSE characteristics and accommodate the specific learning characteristics of students with autism when they are called to teach them projectile motion and the concept of force. To fulfill this goal, seven secondary school physics teachers with a background in special education were recruited to develop lesson plans on mechanics for high-functioning autistic adolescents. Our findings indicate that these teachers exhibit varying levels of engagement, with certain aspects of IBSE being applied more consistently than others. Notably, the nature of the content appears to play a significant role in shaping this variability. The findings show that teachers tend to demonstrate different levels of engagement, with some aspects of IBSE being more consistently applied than others. Interestingly, the nature of the content appears to play a significant role in influencing this variability. The findings of the current study are likely to contribute to teaching and learning science content to students that with autism spectrum disorder.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, the debate on the teaching and learning of Science Education has been multifaceted, as the transmission model, where knowledge is transferred directly from teacher to students, has been challenged from multiple perspectives (Weil-Barais, 2001; Ravanis, 2005). Within this debate, two broad categories of instructional approaches have gradually emerged: (a) Deductive approaches, which are more closely aligned with transmissive traditions. Within this general deductive framework, teachers play a dominant role in instruction, as they present laws, concepts, and phenomena, accompanied by illustrative examples that are intended to confirm the validity of the knowledge presented. (b) Inductive approaches, which through practices such as observation, experimentation, questioning, and inquiry, lead teachers to provide examples, offer support, and guide students so that, through their own active engagement, they construct their own knowledge (Constantinou et al., 2018).

Inductive approaches were decisively reinforced by two major streams of theory and research. On the one hand, psychology with a focus on learning (Bruner, 1960; Vygotsky, 1986) and the epistemology of children’s cognitive development (Piaget, 1970) assumed and demonstrated that knowledge is constructed in thought through the learner’s active engagement. During this process, children explore, formulate reasoning and arguments, make predictions and hypotheses, and attempt to verify them experimentally. On the other hand, research in Science Education that investigated students’ alternative ideas and mental representations across all age groups showed that children’s intuitive knowledge is often far removed from the models of school scientific knowledge, and that learning obstacles can only be addressed through targeted instructional interventions requiring students’ active involvement (Demkanin, 2018; Driver, 1985; Marquis & Poellhuber, 2023; Martin et al., 2024). Nevertheless, inductive approaches gained substantial acceptance by international institutions and policy makers who strongly influence educational trends, such as the National Research Council in the USA (National Research Council, 1996) and the European Commission (Rocard et al., 2007). As a result, a broad and multifaceted stream of educational research and practice gradually emerged, widely known as Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE), and often referred to in the literature as IS Learning or IS Activities. This framework is defined as one that ‘comprises experiences that enable students to develop understanding about the scientific aspects of the world around through the development and use of inquiry skills’ (Harlen & Allende, 2009, p. 11). Within this perspective, the main goals of IBSE learning environments are: (a) for students to construct new knowledge by transforming and reinterpreting the alternative ideas they already hold; (b) to make use of hands-on activities as well as the social context in processing new knowledge; (c) to collect and organize data, design hypotheses and experimental procedures, and test proposed solutions; (d) for teachers, taking into account students’ alternative ideas and cognitive specificities, to create environments conducive to student activity and inquiry, as learners work collaboratively in groups to achieve the aforementioned goals (Boilevin, 2013; Constantinou et al., 2018; Morris, 2025; Seixas Mello et al., 2021).

Although IBSE approaches are situated within a common framework, they inevitably display differences due to their wide dissemination across diverse research traditions and educational levels. Nevertheless, the core dimensions of inquiry-based activities in this framework are closely related to students and teachers, as they constitute the central agents of instructional processes (Baldy, 2023; Boilevin, 2023). Fostering IBSE characteristics while accommodating the specific learning needs of students with autism can enhance the overall learning process. The study presented here focuses on teachers, aiming to investigate their instructional design for teaching topics in Mechanics to children with high-functioning autism.

2. Literature Review and Research Questions

2.1. Litterature Review

Since IBSE in practice constitutes a broad framework that encompasses all open issues of learning and teaching in science education, related research includes a number of interesting and complementary subfields of study. This emphasis is self-evident, as the general principles of the framework call for the activation and support of student activity, communication, collaboration, and, more broadly, the creation of environments that foster interaction and the gradual autonomy of learners which inevitably requires the substantial involvement of the teacher.

Part of the related research focuses on in-service and pre-service science teachers’ attitudes and beliefs regarding the nature, interest, and effectiveness of IBSE. In this context, studies investigate whether and to what extent teachers consider IBSE approaches interesting or effective (Draganoudi et al., 2023), or whether they perceive themselves as having sufficient self-efficacy to engage in IBSE instructional practices (Kaya et al., 2021). Along these lines, attention is often drawn to factors associated with the acceptance, reservations, and prerequisites of in-service and pre-service teachers, which frequently differ depending on their training, practical experience, and the requirements of curriculum implementation (Achurra et al., 2024; Twizeyimana et al., 2024; Wallace & Kang, 2004).

From a different perspective, several studies focus on identifying factors that create favorable conditions for the development of IBSE strategies, while in some cases certain obstacles are also noted. A key issue that emerges is the professional development of teachers, since IBSE instructional practices require the cultivation of new knowledge, skills, and attitudes that can equip them for the progression of their careers (Capone et al., 2022; Lotter et al., 2013; Morrison, 2014; Voet & De Wever, 2018). In particular, research has highlighted the supportive role of structured digital collaborative learning environments (Van Joolingen et al., 2005), as well as the significant contribution of targeted professional development programs involving experiential workshops and reflective practices that help teachers organize inquiry-based teaching interventions (Desimone, 2009; Lotter et al., 2006). However, systemic obstacles are frequently identified, such as time constraints imposed by curricula, insufficient teacher preparation for developing IBSE teaching environments, and variations in students’ thinking, as their approaches to concepts and phenomena often differ, with the emergence of alternative conceptions being a central factor (Liu et al., 2021; Pozuelo-Muñoz et al., 2023; Windschitl et al., 2020).

At a third level, research has examined teachers’ everyday instructional practices when they attempt to implement different forms of inquiry-based teaching. In this direction, emphasis is placed on the crucial role of creating instructional environments in which learning objectives are clearly defined, support students’ opportunities for hands-on inquiry activities, and highlight critical thinking, problem solving, and skills such as questioning, investigating, reasoning, argumentation, and the application of knowledge (Morris, 2025; Wilcox et al., 2015). Drawing on studies that investigate the outcomes of IBSE implementations, teachers often begin by designing inquiry tasks around real-world issues or activities that correspond to students’ interests and experiences (Blat et al., 2024; Boilevin, 2023). Another strong dimension of research within the IBSE framework is the organization of instructional environments aimed at transforming students’ alternative conceptions and moving them closer to school scientific knowledge. As documented by Constantinou et al. (2018) and Minner et al. (2010) in two influential studies outlining the key aspects of the framework, addressing alternative conceptions constitutes one of the central phases of IBSE teaching procedures.

For example, Adam et al. (2015) studied the practices of teachers who, by employing a strategy for developing Inquiry-Based Learning Activities known as ‘prediction-observation-explanation’, guided second- or third-year engineering students in transitioning from misconceptions that appear in their declarative knowledge of Newton’s 2nd law toward genuine conceptual development. In another study, Trundle et al. (2009) investigated the impact of non-traditional guided inquiry teaching on middle school students’ understanding of concepts related to the phases of the Moon. In this process, a teacher working together with a researcher, through a complex procedure of recording, classifying, and interpreting data, led a large number of students to transform their initial alternative conceptions into conceptions aligned with school scientific knowledge regarding observable lunar phases, patterns of change, and their underlying causes. In a final example, the importance of teachers’ practices in engaging in IBSE teaching procedures aimed at transforming alternative conceptions is emphasized. In a study on phenomena studied within the framework of wave optics by upper secondary students, inquiry-based activities were implemented by qualified and experienced teachers who had previously participated in systematic training (Planinić et al., 2024). During this training, some teachers studied and practiced with the complete set of experimental materials, designed activities, and worked as trainers for other teachers, who then implemented the program in their own classrooms, achieving very positive outcomes in transforming students’ alternative conceptions.

Over the past decade, research within the IBSE framework has also addressed the issue of students’ engagement with the Natural Sciences among learners with intellectual disabilities (ID), including those on the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). As Iatraki and Soulis (2021) pointed out, the case of ASD differs from that of ID, since children with autism do not show limitations in intellectual functioning or adaptive behavior, but rather exhibit deficits in conceptual, social, and practical skills (Iatraki & Soulis, 2021, p. 286). In particular, regarding the engagement of children with autism in the Natural Sciences, as expected, the relevant research is not yet highly developed. Nonetheless, some recent findings are beginning to outline the main directions of research interest in this area.

Knight et al. (2012) worked with elementary school students with ASD with the aim of developing science descriptors to classify objects and materials into categories, such as ‘liquid.’ By employing a special explicit instruction approach, they guided the children not only to use the descriptors but also to adopt them for identifying other objects or images within the context of science inquiry lessons.

The same research team (Knight et al., 2013), assuming that the large volume of vocabulary required for understanding scientific content poses a barrier to the scientific literacy of students with autism, designed and implemented an instructional intervention based on graphic organizers within the framework of explicit instruction. Through this approach, students systematically engaged with scientific concepts related to changes in state (e.g., precipitation, condensation) within a teacher-guided instructional setting.

Jimenez et al. (2012) employed scripted lessons that incorporated systematic instruction combined with guided notes to enhance science learning for students on the ASD spectrum, covering topics from units in Earth and Space Science, Life Science, Physical Science, and Science as Inquiry. The results demonstrated satisfactory learning outcomes for the scripted lessons and an additional, though limited, effect of the guided notes. Moreover, participants’ understanding of the scientific content was maintained over time.

In research by Kaliampos et al. (2021, 2023), the alternative ideas concerning force, impetus theory, and projectile motion among adolescents with autism were compared to those of typically developing adolescents through the development of a digital tool with appropriate tasks. Adolescents with autism appeared to use the same force models as the comparison group, albeit with minor differences in frequency. Another finding regarding force was the significant difference between autistic adolescents and the comparison group in the consistency with which they applied the most frequently used model. Moreover, children with autism adopted the impetus theory at a rate that was statistically different from that of typically developing students.

Overall, in the limited research examining students on the ASD spectrum, often in combination with intellectual disabilities, engaging with the Natural Sciences, the importance of systematic instructional approaches complemented by supportive practices, as well as technology-assisted interventions, is highlighted (Iatraki & Soulis, 2021; Zhunussova et al., 2025). The small number of studies, along with their primary focus on learning outcomes, indicates that this research area has substantial potential for growth and for broadening its thematic scope. Notably, the teacher factor, which constitutes a major priority in contemporary educational research, remains largely underexplored, despite the fact that teachers’ scientific identity, education, and practices are crucial for supporting children with ASD in their engagement with the Natural Sciences.

The current study aimed to investigate one dimension of teachers’ potential engagement in supporting the learning activities of students with ASD. This dimension concerns an aspect of instructional work, namely the design of teaching activities. This research area is important because teachers’ micro-design constitutes one of the initial elements for effective instructional interventions, as it provides them with the opportunity to align the overarching objectives of the curriculum with the capabilities of their own students (Kaliampos, 2021; Ndihokubwayo et al., 2020; Opara & Oguzor, 2011; Pramoolsook & Magday, 2019). Given that teachers often work with students on the autism spectrum, understanding the particular learning characteristics of these individuals is crucial. Autism is a complex neurodevelopmental condition that affects approximately 1% of the global population (Van de Cruys et al., 2014). Although substantial evidence supports a genetic contribution to its manifestation, the exact causes of the disorder remain unclear (Cantio et al., 2016). Individuals on the autism spectrum typically present difficulties in two core domains: social communication and interaction, and the presence of repetitive or stereotyped patterns of behavior (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Hapčová et al., 2025). Consequently, these learners often struggle to process and retain verbal information, and they may find it challenging to interpret the social functions of language, facial expressions, and gestures (Tager-Flusberg et al., 2001). Moreover, they frequently demonstrate significant challenges in identifying and understanding both their own emotions and those of others (Lawson et al., 2004). Their thinking is often characterized by rigidity, making it difficult for them to adapt to changes in routine, which in turn leads them to rely on predictable, highly structured patterns of daily life (Booth & Happe, 2010). Interestingly, however, approximately 10% of individuals with autism show distinct ‘islets of ability,’ demonstrating remarkable skills in specific areas such as mathematics and the natural sciences (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001; Paganini & Gaido, 2013). These distinctive cognitive and behavioral characteristics of autistic learners highlight the importance of structuring inquiry-based environments with clear routines, visual support, and predictable scaffolding, allowing them to engage their strong systemizing abilities within IBSE frameworks.

2.2. Research Questions

Drawing from the above, the current study aspires to address the following two research questions

• To what extent do physics teachers foster IBSE characteristics when they are called to teach projectile motion and the concept of force in students with autism?
• To what extent do these teachers accommodate the specific learning characteristics of students with autism?

3. Methods

3.1. Sample

To address the aforementioned research question, an experimental investigation was conducted with a sample consisting solely of seven secondary school teachers, rather than students, who voluntarily participated in the study. All the participants held a Bachelor’s degree in Physics and a Master’s degree in Special Education and were recruited from the database of the joint Master’s degree in ‘Special Education and Training’ of the Universities of Patras (Greece) and Nicosia (Cyprus). As part of this degree, they attended the module ‘Students with intellectual disabilities and autism’, in which they were introduced to the theoretical background of autism, and all of them achieved good grades in this course. Furthermore, at the time of the study, these teachers were working in public schools in the field of special education, and they all had practical experience with autistic learners. Τhe researchers, having gained access to the alumni of this Master, focused and came into contact with all those who had graduated the last 4 years at most and were working as physicists in secondary schools. After being informed of the aims and objectives of the study, they agreed to participate in the research. Teachers were asked to develop lesson plans on mechanics for high-functioning autistic learners. Although these learners were hypothetical, it was assumed that they were adolescents attending middle school. The duration of the lesson plan was not specified; however, teachers were instructed to assume that they had access to any experimental or material resources they might need (see Appendix A). According to their profile, all the participants were familiar with inquiry-based approaches and specialized knowledge of children with autism as part of their initial training.

3.2. The Research Procces

The study was conducted in three phases in Greece. (a) In the first, teachers were informed remotely about the aim of the research, the differences in the difficulties of autistic and neurotypical children in specific subjects as well as the general aspects of the design they were asked to do. Here emphasis was placed on the Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) theory, which provides a systematic framework that accounts for the abilities of autistic children in various domains, physics among them (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001). (b) In the second phase, they received electronically a worksheet (see Appendix A), in which the elements that had already been explained to them were presented in a systematically structured way and they were given space to develop their design. (c) In the third phase the material was returned to the research team and the data were analyzed qualitatively by two pairs of researchers using content analysis. Each pair was composed of one researcher who was well acquainted with the Greek educational system and one researcher who had no connection to this system at all. The analysis of the two groups were cross-checked and their assessments were discussed until an agreement was reached.

3.3. Data Analysis

Regarding the first research question, four axes were used in the content analysis of participants responses drawn from the literature review (Krippendorff, 2019; Novotná & Demkanin, 2024). These were the ‘exploitation of alternative ideas’, ‘learners’ active involvement in the construction of knowledge’, ‘learners make use of resources beyond the classroom and the school’ and ‘the use of experimentation in teaching’. Concerning the first ax of exploitation of alternative ideas, these were that ‘an object thrown by a moving carrier will follow a straight, vertical trajectory’ (Kaliampos et al., 2021) and that ‘the physical action of an agent does not exert force as soon as the affected body does not move’ (Kaliampos et al., 2023). As for the second research question, participants responses were analyzed along one axis, that of the characteristics of children with autism according to the DSM-V (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). To ensure the reliability of the coding process, four independent researchers with extensive experience in science education coded all units of meaning. Two of them were well acquainted with the Greek school reality, while the other two knew absolutely nothing about it, and thus limited themselves only to the type and the assessment of the appropriateness of the coding. Agreement was established through comparison of the coding results and discussion until consensus was reached.

4. Results

4.1. 1st Research Question

Regarding the 1st research question, four axis were used in the content analysis as was stated above. Concerning the first ax, that of exploitation of alternative ideas, it seems that the majority of the participants did not enhance these ideas in their teaching process. In particular, as for projectile motion, only 2/7 participants made a clear reference to the alternative idea often held by autistics that an object would move vertically downwards when launched from a moving carrier. To quote one of them ‘as we try to turn physical quantities and phenomena into something students can truly understand, we often run into deep beliefs that people have held onto for a long time. A good example is horizontal projectile motion. When children are asked what happens to an object that falls, their first reaction is usually that it moves straight down. And that makes sense—they’re thinking based on what they see: when we drop something, it falls downward’ (Research Subject 2). As for the concept of force, almost 3/7 participants referred either to the absence of Pull/pull force model or to alternative ideas in general. Such a case was the following statement ‘In addition, as soon as we have shown students the three experimental images scenarios, it’s important to ask them whether they think a force is being applied to the displayed objects and record their initial ideas. Then, using a spring scale, we can show them that forces can act on objects even when they remain still (immobile) on surfaces’ (RS.4).

Concerning the second ax, that of learners’ active involvement in the construction of knowledge, only 1/7 participant enhanced this factor in his/her teaching process for projectile motion. This teacher indicated a group activity which clearly motivates students and makes them active during the learning process. The activity is presented in the following quotation ‘the students in the class will be divided into 2 groups and each group will stand behind a desk, which will be the ‘fortress’ of the group. Using a plastic cannon from a board game, each team will try to set fire to the opposing team’s fortress. They will experiment with the inclination of the cannon and the distance it has to be from the opposite fortress to achieve their goal and observe the trajectory of the cannonball each time. Whichever team fires on the opposite fortress will be the winner’ (RS.7)

On the other hand, a relatively high number of participants, up to 5/7, enhanced learners’ active involvement in teaching the concept of force. In particular, one teacher stated that ‘in the force exercise, it would be useful for students to participate themselves in an experimental exercise so that they realize that they exert force on all objects and greatly influence their movement and behavior’ (RS.3) while another one pointed out ‘it is imperative to use hands-on activities where children will be able to use objects of different masses in order to fully understand that force can be exerted without requiring the movement of bodies’ (RS.4). Along this line is the following statement ‘we assign roles to the students (for example, one pushes, one records what happens, and one draws the forces). We then ask them to explain, based on their observations, why the Smurf doesn’t move the table or why the broom doesn’t move the armchair’ (RS.1).

As for the third ax, that of learners make use of resources beyond the classroom and the school, almost half of them (4/7) enhanced daily-life resources in teaching projectile motion. Indicative is the following response ‘using everyday examples to make tangible connections with their experience will make it easier for them to understand the phenomenon’ (RS.1). Along this line were the following statements ‘performing activities of daily life as well as hands-on imaginative experiments that will enhance the understanding and memorization of individual combinatorial movements’ (RS.4) and ‘empowerment through everyday situations, that is linking the concept of projectile motion to images of children’s everyday life, e.g., how a ball or a pencil falls off our desk would help children to grasp the concept’ (RS.7).

In the contrary, only 1/7 referred to daily-life resources in teaching the concept of force. To quote him/her ‘quite valuable is the generalization to everyday situations. We will ask our students to think of situations from their everyday life in which they face a similar problem, i.e., that although they try very hard, sometimes they do not manage to move something or manage to do so with great difficulty. We will listen to what they have to say and we will also discuss situations where their school bag is too heavy or when they try to move a very heavy furniture in the house’ (RS.7).

Finally, concerning the fourth ax, that of experimentation, all the participants enhanced such a type in their teaching process for both projectile motion and concept of force as well. With regard to the former, a teacher proposed the following experiment ‘an experiment to qualitatively establish the trajectory of motion in a horizontal shot is to launch a small plastic object (plastic ball) from the edge of the seat. In each repetition, students will mark the point of impact on the floor. The conclusion will be discussed in order to establish the elliptical trajectory followed by the object and to refute the false impression of a vertical fall. The experiment can be repeated by dropping the body in motion. The instructor lets the body fall to the ground while moving. This simulates the dropping of a bomb from an airplane’ (RS.6). In addition, another teacher pointed out ‘we will use a trolley that moves horizontally and drop an object from it while it’s in motion. Then, students will mark the spot where the object lands and compare it to their initial guess. The goal is to show that the object keeps the trolley’s horizontal speed, which results in a curved path as it falls’ (RS.1). A more easily carried out experiment proposed by another participant who stated that ‘students will be asked to push an eraser and a pen off their desk and then to simply drop the same objects from a certain height. We will observe and discuss the differences between these two types of motion’ (RS.7).

Along with these hands-on activities, almost all participants referred to other types of experimentation such as simulations and videos. So, for example, regarding a horizontal projectile motion experiment a participant proposed that ‘it would be interesting to show a video of the setup, followed by a class discussion and feedback from the students. After that, students could run their own experiments using a computer simulation’ (RS.2). Moreover, other participants referred to the use of audiovisual media video projection stated that ‘slow motion video of actual experiments’ as well as ‘the display of pictures and GIFs of examples of horizontal shooting (e.g., throwing a ball from a table, water from a pipe)’ (RS.5) can enhance learning process.

With regard to the concept of force, here as well all participants proposed various experiments. Indicatives are the followings: ‘first, we ask a student to push a chair without the chair changing its position. The teacher can also sit on the chair and ask the student to try to move it. Question: Does the student feel tired? Is the student applying force? How is it possible to feel tired and apply force, yet the chair doesn’t move? This leads to a discussion about force, the types of forces, and the connection to energy expenditure and the resulting fatigue. Then, we ask the student to push an empty chair and move it a few meters. We conclude by mentioning some other examples of physical action such as the change of the shape of the plasteline when we molding it, the way we ask force on a pencil when we use it ect’ (RS.3) and ‘we give students soft objects (e.g., a light box and a heavy brick). We ask them to push them and observe what happens. If the object does not move, we ask: ‘Does that mean you didn’t apply force?’ We then place a force sensor (e.g., a spring or dynamometer) to show that the force is being applied, even if the object is not moving’ (RS.1).

Here as well almost all participants referred to diverse types of experimentation such as simulations and videos. To quote one of them, ‘the student will then work on a simulation which shows that the heavier an object is, the more effort and therefore force we have to exert to move it. In this simulation, the student can change the mass of the object they want to move and observe how much force is required in each case’ (RS.7). Along this line, other participants proposed to ‘display pictures and videos of forces in action’ (RS.5) as well as the usage of simulations on ‘Newton’s First Law, Inertia and Weight’ (RS.2).

4.2. 2nd Research Question

Regarding the 2nd research question, almost half of the participants took into account the characteristics of children with autism in their teaching process. In particular, concerning teaching of projectile motion, 3/7 clearly referred to the autistic profile. This is well reflected in the following statements ‘since many autistic students rely on stereotypical images (for example, from video games and cartoons), we will use visual comparisons between real-world physics and these incorrect representations. So, we would show cartoons and video games that display wrong types of motion and compare them with scientifically accurate simulations’ (RS.1) and ‘it’s definitely a good idea to choose a more hands-on and interactive way of teaching when working with children on the autism spectrum’ (RS.3). In addition, a teacher referred to specific visuals and language as well as other adaptations for students with autism. These are presented below ‘Visuals: Use pictures, GIFs, and colors to show different types of motion. Simple Language: Give clear instructions and use specific, straightforward terms. Structure & Predictability: Let students know what’s coming next, step by step. No-Pressure Interaction: Allow students to take part only if they feel comfortable. Use of Objects: Let the students hold or drop real objects themselves to help them understand better’ (RS.5).

Concerning teaching of the concept of force, 4/7 mentioned autistic characteristics. As one of them pointed out ‘since many autistic students rely on stereotypical images (for example, from video games and cartoons), we will use visual comparisons between real-world physics and these incorrect representations. So, we would show cartoons and video games that display wrong types of motion and compare them with scientifically accurate simulations’ (RS.1). In addition, another participant focused on the visual learning profile of autistics stated that ‘the use of digital programs with which children could experiment by applying and adjusting the appropriate forces on bodies of different masses would be helpful in observing the results to students in a more enjoyable and digital way as these tools usually stimulate observation and keep students’ interest as the teaching moves away from the typical way of education. Also, the strong colour tones of the applications and combinations available in these programs combined with the visual information usually enhance learning and memorization of the teaching task in the case of students on the autism spectrum’ (RS.4) while another one stressed the necessity of structured teaching process ‘each activity has a clear beginning, middle and end and clear objectives, the instructions given by the teacher are all simple, short and clear and there is step by step guidance throughout the intervention by the teacher. The program of activities is known to the pupil from the outset and the teacher’s expectations of the pupil are clearly defined’ (RS. 7).

Results of the current study are summarized in

Table 1. Frequencies of teachers’ responses regarding fostering IBSE and AS characteristics.

	IBSE Characteristics				AS Characteristics
	Exploitation of Alternative Ideas	Learners’ Active Involvement in Knowledge Construction	Learners Make Use of Resources Beyond Classroom	Experimentation in Teaching	Visual, Structural and Predictability
Projectile motion	2/7	1/7	4/7	7/7	3/7
Force	3/7	5/7	1/7	7/7	4/7

below.

5. Discussions and Conclusions

The present study sought to explore whether physics teachers integrate elements of Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) when teaching projectile motion and the concept of force to students on the autism spectrum, and to what extent they adapt their instruction to the particular learning characteristics of these students. Regarding the first research question, the findings indicate that across the four analytical axes, teachers demonstrated different levels of engagement, with some aspects of IBSE being more consistently applied than others. In particular, with regard to experimentation, the majority of participants reported incorporating demonstrations, hands-on activities, simulations, and audiovisual materials into their teaching. However, when it comes to the use of resources beyond the classroom and the promotion of learners’ active involvement in the construction of knowledge, the content of the physics topic appeared to play a role. Specifically, with regard to the former, almost half of the teachers drew on everyday-life resources when teaching projectile motion, whereas only a single teacher did so when addressing the concept of force. The opposite was observed in the latter, where only one participant engaged students in such activities in the case of projectile motion while the majority did so when teaching force. Finally, regarding the exploitation of students’ alternative ideas, only a few teachers explicitly acknowledged and attempted to build upon these ideas in their instruction of both projectile motion and force.

Regarding the second research question, the findings revealed that almost half of the participants took into account general AS characteristics in their proposed teaching intervention such as visuals and structure and predictability issues. Nevertheless, quite interestingly, none of them referred to the learning profile of autistics as described within Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) theory. E-S is a prominent theory that accounts for the islets of ability that autistic people exhibit in various domains, physics among them (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001). According to this theory, autistic people excel in Systemizing, which is the ability to conceptualize the underlying rules that govern a system, to insert variables that modify its operation and generally predict its behavior (Lawson et al., 2004). On the other hand, autistic people have a handicap in Empathizing, which is the ability to perceive the thoughts and feelings of others and to be able to respond appropriately to them (Baron-Cohen et al., 2003). The fact that none of the participants referred to Systemizing, which plays a key role in the learning profile of autistic pupils and can certainly be taken into account when teaching physics to them, is probably a matter of thought. This is even more alarming if we consider that all these physics teachers hold an MA in Special Needs. It seems that this is a kind of knowledge with which a teacher can hardly come into contact, as on one hand special educational studies rarely extend to fields such as science education, while on the other hand IBSE has not yet entered fully into the field of special needs education. The issue of the gap among professionals coming from the two distinct fields of Science Education and Special Education is aptly addressed by Villanueva et al. (2012), who stated that science education programs seldom deal with the area of special needs, whereas special education programs frequently make little or no reference to science context.

The findings of the current research study are likely to contribute to teaching and learning science content to students that have autism spectrum disorder. That is, fostering IBSE characteristics and accommodating specific learning characteristics of students with autism can enhance the overall learning process. An important limitation of this study is the small sample which certainly constrains the generalizability of the findings. Moreover, the focus on two specific physics topics, that of projectile motion and force, limits the extent to which the results can be transferred to other areas of physics. Future research could investigate IBSE implementation in a wider range of physics topics, across larger and more diverse samples.