Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 1–23 | Cite as

Exploring the Relations of Inquiry-Based Teaching to Science Achievement and Dispositions in 54 Countries

  • Dean CairnsEmail author
  • Shaljan Areepattamannil
Article

Abstract

This study, drawing on data from the third cycle of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and employing three-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) as an analytic strategy, examined the relations of inquiry-based science teaching to science achievement and dispositions toward science among 170,474 15-year-old students from 4780 schools in 54 countries across the globe. The results of the HLM analyses, after accounting for student-, school-, and country-level demographic characteristics and students’ dispositions toward science, revealed that inquiry-based science teaching was significantly negatively related to science achievement. In contrast, inquiry-based science teaching was significantly positively associated with dispositions toward science, such as interest in and enjoyment of science learning, instrumental and future-oriented science motivation, and science self-concept and self-efficacy. Implications of the findings for policy and practice are discussed.

Keywords

Inquiry-based science teaching Science achievement Dispositions toward science PISA Hierarchical linear modeling 

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.Google Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: international perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, R. J., Wilson, M., & Wang, W.-c. (1997). The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  5. Andre, T., Whigham, M., Hendrickson, A., & Chambers, S. (1999). Competency beliefs, positive affect, and gender stereotypes of elementary students and their parents about science versus other school subjects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 719–747.Google Scholar
  6. Assessment of Performance Unit. (1985). Science in schools: ages 13 and 15. http://stem.org.uk/rx52y. Accessed 12 July 2015.
  7. Areepattamannil, S. (2012). Effects of inquiry-based science instruction on science achievement and interest in science: evidence from Qatar. [article]. Journal of Educational Research, 105(2), 134–146.Google Scholar
  8. Areepattamannil, S., Freeman, J., & Klinger, D. (2011). Influence of motivation, self-beliefs, and instructional practices on science achievement of adolescents in Canada. Social Psychology of Education, 14(2), 233–259.Google Scholar
  9. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Bankert, E. (1990). Meta-analysis of effects of explicit instruction for critical thinking.Google Scholar
  10. Barman, C. (2002). How do you define inquiry. Science and Children, 26, 8–9.Google Scholar
  11. Blakeslee, T., Bronstein, L., Chapin, M., Hesbitt, D., Peek, Y., Thiele, E., et al. (1993). Chemistry that applies. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education.Google Scholar
  12. Borman, G. D., Gamoran, A., & Bowdon, J. (2008). A randomized trial of teacher development in elementary science: first-year achievement effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1(4), 237–264.Google Scholar
  13. Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: a quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 499–518.Google Scholar
  14. Bredderman, T. (1985). Laboratory programs for elementary school science: a meta-analysis of effects on learning. Science Education, 69(4), 577–591.Google Scholar
  15. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard educational review.Google Scholar
  16. Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist approaches to learning in science and their implications for science pedagogy: a literature review. International journal of environmental and science education, 3(4), 193–206.Google Scholar
  17. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science scope, 23(6), 42–44.Google Scholar
  18. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: new roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.Google Scholar
  19. Department for Children Schools and Families. (2002). Framework for teaching science: years 7, 8 and 9. http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5308/1/sc_fwkdl_10.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2015.
  20. Duschl, R. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. Everyday assessment in the science classroom, 41–59.Google Scholar
  21. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the learning sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450.Google Scholar
  22. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211.Google Scholar
  23. Flick, L. B. (1995). Complex instruction in complex classrooms: a synthesis of research on inquiry teaching methods and explicit teaching strategies.Google Scholar
  24. Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: an exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453–467.Google Scholar
  25. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.Google Scholar
  26. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., et al. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939.Google Scholar
  27. Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science curriculum: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hattie, J. (1992). Measuring the effects of schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 36(1), 5–13.Google Scholar
  29. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Haury, D. L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. ERIC/CSMEE Digest.Google Scholar
  31. Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. Reshaping the university: new relationships between research, scholarship and teaching, 67–78.Google Scholar
  32. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. (1999). Advancing educational theory by enhancing practice in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. Journal of Education, 181(2), 25–55.Google Scholar
  33. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2006). Design principles for scaffolding technology-based inquiry. Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology, 147–170.Google Scholar
  34. 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. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.Google Scholar
  35. Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623–641.Google Scholar
  36. Holbrook, J., & Kolodner, J. L.. (2000). Scaffolding the development of an inquiry-based (science) classroom. In In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences: CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  37. Igelsrud, D., & Leonard, W. H. (1988). What research says about biology laboratory instruction. The American Biology Teacher, 303–306.Google Scholar
  38. Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1994). Making dynamic modeling accessible to precollege science students. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(3), 233–257.Google Scholar
  39. Jiang, F., & McComas, W. F. (2015). The effects of inquiry teaching on student science achievement and attitudes: evidence from propensity score analysis of PISA data. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 554–576.Google Scholar
  40. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.Google Scholar
  41. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.Google Scholar
  42. Kremer, K., Specht, C., Urhahne, D., & Mayer, J. (2014). The relationship in biology between the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Biological Education, 48(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  43. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495–523.Google Scholar
  44. Lavonen, J., & Laaksonen, S. (2009). Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 922–944.Google Scholar
  45. Lott, G. W. (1983). The effect of inquiry teaching and advance organizers upon student outcomes in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 437–451.Google Scholar
  46. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Olson, S. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching and learning: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C., & Szesze, M. (2005). Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: results from a planning grant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 912–946.Google Scholar
  48. Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92.Google Scholar
  49. Mac Iver, D. J., Young, E. M., & Washburn, B. (2001). Instructional practices and motivation during middle school (with special attention to science).Google Scholar
  50. Madden, K. R. (2011). The use of inquiry-based instruction to increase motivation and academic success in a high school biology classroom.Google Scholar
  51. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080.Google Scholar
  52. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14.Google Scholar
  53. McCoach, D. B. (2010). Hierarchical linear modeling. The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences, 123–140.Google Scholar
  54. McConney, A., Oliver, M. C., Woods-McConney, A., Schibeci, R., & Maor, D. (2014). Inquiry, engagement, and literacy in science: a retrospective, cross-national analysis using PISA 2006. Science Education, 98(6), 963–980.Google Scholar
  55. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81.Google Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. Mislevy, R. J. (1991). Randomization-based inference about latent variables from complex samples. Psychometrika, 56(2), 177–196.Google Scholar
  58. Nadelson, L., Williams, S., & Turner, H. (2011). Impact of inquiry-based science interventions on middle school students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective outcomesGoogle Scholar
  59. National curriculum in England: science programmes of study (2013). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study. Accessed 12 July 2015.
  60. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  61. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2006). PISA released items—science. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/38709385.pdf2015. Accessed 12 July 2015.
  62. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Paris, France.Google Scholar
  63. Palmer, D. H. (2009). Student interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 147–165.Google Scholar
  64. Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Samarapungavan, A. (2009). Motivation for learning science in kindergarten: is there a gender gap and does integrated inquiry and literacy instruction make a difference. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 166–191.Google Scholar
  65. Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(3), 193.Google Scholar
  66. Petty, G. (2006). Evidence based teaching: a practical approach: Nelson Thornes Tewkesbury.Google Scholar
  67. Pillay, H. K. (1994). Cognitive load and mental rotation: structuring orthographic projection for learning and problem solving. Instructional Science, 22(2), 91–113.Google Scholar
  68. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the learning sciences, 13(3), 337–386.Google Scholar
  69. Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M. (2011). HLM 7. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc Google Scholar
  71. Rubin, D. B., & Little, R. J. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. Hoboken: J Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  72. Salamon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.Google Scholar
  73. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.Google Scholar
  74. Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., & Lee, Y.-H. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436–1460.Google Scholar
  75. Schwab, J. J. (1960). Inquiry, the science teacher, and the educator. The School Review, 176–195.Google Scholar
  76. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.Google Scholar
  77. Senior secondary curriculum for science (2015). http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/science/curriculum/f-10?layout=1. Accessed 19 April 2105.
  78. Shymansky, J. A., Hedges, L. V., & Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60’s on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 127–144.Google Scholar
  79. Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W. C., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 387–404.Google Scholar
  80. Smith, D. A. (1996). A meta-analysis of student outcomes attributable to the teaching of science as inquiry as compared to traditional methodology. Temple University.Google Scholar
  81. Stake, J. E., & Mares, K. R. (2001). Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation*. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1065–1088.Google Scholar
  82. Sweitzer, G. L., & Anderson, R. D. (1983). A meta-analysis of research on science teacher education practices associated with inquiry strategy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 453–466.Google Scholar
  83. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Volume 43, pp. 215–266): Academic Press.Google Scholar
  84. Tan, A.-L., Poon, C.-L., & Lim, S. (2014). Inquiry Into the Singapore Science Classroom: Research and Practices. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  85. Thomson, S., & De Bortoli, L. (2008). Exploring scientific literacy: how Australia measures up. The PISA 2006 survey of students’ scientific, reading and mathematical literacy skills.Google Scholar
  86. Thomson, S., Hillman, K., & De Bortoli, L. (2013). A teacher’s guide to PISA scientific literacy.Google Scholar
  87. Tuan, H.-L., Chin, C.-C., Tsai, C.-C., & Cheng, S.-F. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry instruction on the motivation of different learning styles students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 541–566.Google Scholar
  88. van Uum, M. S. J., Verhoeff, R. P., & Peeters, M. (2016). Inquiry-based science education: towards a pedagogical framework for primary school teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 450–469.Google Scholar
  89. Weinstein, T., Boulanger, F. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Science curriculum effects in high school: a quantitative synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(6), 511–522.Google Scholar
  90. Wise, K. C., & Okey, J. R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 419–435.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Emirates College for Advanced EducationAbu DhabiUAE

Personalised recommendations