Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching

Abstract

Although previous meta-analyses have indicated a connection between inquiry-based teaching and improved student learning, the type of instruction characterized as inquiry based has varied greatly, and few have focused on the extent to which activities are led by the teacher or student. This metaanalysis introduces a framework for inquiry-based teaching that distinguishes between cognitive features of the activity and degree of guidance given to students. This framework is used to code 37 experimental and quasiexperimental studies published between 1996 and 2006, a decade during which inquiry was the main focus of science education reform. The overall mean effect size is .50. Studies that contrasted epistemic activities or the combination of procedural, epistemic, and social activities had the highest mean effect sizes. Furthermore, studies involving teacher-led activities had mean effect sizes about .40 larger than those with student-led conditions. The importance of establishing the validity of the treatment construct in metaanalyses is also discussed.

Co-development of Conceptual Understanding and Critical Attitude: Analyzing texts on radiocarbon dating

“…In a more controlled register, numerous investigations (e.g. Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006;Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, & Briggs, 2012;Minner, Levy, Century, 2009) now document the conceptual outcome of "Inquiry Based" sequences, and the need to scaffold students to be learning in these contexts. A second question that may be considered linked to the first one is whether there is a correlation between conceptual command and a certain skill.…”

Guidance Provided by Teacher and Simulation for Inquiry-Based Learning: a Case Study

“…In unguided inquiry learning, the learners are fully in control of the whole inquiry learning process; in guided inquiry, the teacher or some other source (e.g. a simulation) provides support for the process (Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, & Briggs, 2012). Unguided inquiry learning has been criticized as ineffective and cognitively too challenging for learners (Alfieri et al, 2011;Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006;Mayer, 2004).…”

Implementation of inquiry-based science education in different countries: some reflections

“…Thus, there is a double risk of conflation of inquiry as a pedagogic strategy and as a learning content, and of science inquiry and NOS. Heinz and her colleagues highlight the ambiguity of the term science inquiry (Furtak et al 2012) and discuss inquiry as three different ideas in education: (1) a set of skills to be learned by the students; (2) a cognitive understanding of the processes of inquiry, for example the logic of a controlled experiment; and (3) a pedagogical strategy. Inquiry could also take forms other than for example gathering experimental data in the lab or from field studies.…”

“…For instance, Kerstin Bergqvist and Roger Säljö (1994) display negative learning results from open inquiry activities with little guidance from the teacher. However, several studies also report positive learning outcomes from using IBSE (Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, and Briggs 2012). Fouad Abd-El-Khalik, Saouma BouJaoude, Richard Duschl, Norman G. Lederman, Rachel Mamlok-Naaman, Avi Hofstein, Mansoor Niaz, David Treagust and Hsiao-Lin Tuan (2004) conclude that the notion of inquiry in science education is one of the few overarching themes that cut across school curricula all over the world.…”