Effects of inquiry-based science instruction on science achievement and interest in science: Evidence from qatar

Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 105, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 134-146

  Areepattamannil, Shaljan ^a  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

adolescents; hierarchical linear modeling; inquiry based science instruction; interest in science; science achievement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856867119     PISSN: 00220671     EISSN: 19400675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2010.533717     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamluk-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397-419. doi:10.1002/sce.10118
2. Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13, 153-166.
3. Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Dialogos.
4. Akerson, V. L., Hanson, D. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2007). The influence of guided inquiry and explicit instruction on K-6 teachers' views of nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 751-772.
5. Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: The results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 653-680. doi:10.1002/tea.20159
6. Akerson, V., Townsend, J., Donnelly, L., Hanson, D., Tira, P.,&White,O. (2009). Scientific modeling for inquiring teachers network (SMIT'N): The influence on elementary teachers' views of nature of science, inquiry, and modeling. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 21-40. doi:10.1007/s10972-008-9116-5
7. Anderson, R. D.,&Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 3-16. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200101)38:1<3::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2- V
8. Areepattamannil, S., Freeman, J. G., & Klinger, D. A. (2011). Influence of motivation, self-beliefs, and instructional practices on science achievement of adolescents in Canada. Social Psychology of Education, 14, 233-259.
9. Besson, H., & Viennot, L. (2004). Using models at the mesoscopic scale in teaching physics: two experimental interventions in solid friction and fluid statistics. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1083-1110. doi:10.1080/0950069042000205396
10. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11. Brewer, D. J., Augustine, C. H., Zellman, G. L., Ryan, G. W., Goldman, C. A., Stasz, C., & Constant, L. (2007). Education for a new era: Design and implementation of K-12 education reform in Qatar. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND MG548.pdf
12. Bunce, D. M., & Gabel, D. (2002). Differential effects on the achievement of males and females of teaching the particulate nature of chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 911-927. doi:10.1002/tea. 10056
13. Caro, D. H., McDonald, J. D., & Willms, J. D. (2009). Socio-economic status and academic achievement trajectories from childhood to adolescence. Canadian Journal of Education, 32, 558-590.
14. Corcoran, T. B., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. D. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform (CPRE Research Report RR-63). Retrievedfrom http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre pdfs/lp science rr63.pdf
15. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613-642. doi:10.1002/tea.20157
16. Darling-Hammond, L., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching for high standards: What policymakers need to know and be able to do (CPRE Research Report JRE-04). Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre pdfs/jre04.pdf
17. Dekkers, J., & de Laeter, J. (2001). Enrollment trends in school science education in Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 487-500. doi:10.1080/09500690118451
18. Dori, Y. J., & Sasson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 219-250. doi:10.1002/tea. 20197
19. Dori, Y.J., Sasson, I., Kaberman, Z., &Herscovitz, O. (2004). Integrating case-base computerized laboratories into high school chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 9, 1-5.
20. Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Perceived learning environments and students' emotional experiences: A multilevel analysis of mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 17, 478-493. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.001
21. Friedel, J. M., Cortina, K. S., Turner, J. C.,&Midgley, C. (2007). Achievement goals, efficacy beliefs and coping strategies in mathematics: The roles of perceived parent and teacher goal emphasis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 434-458. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.009
22. Gillies, R. M. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students' behaviors, discourse and learning during a sciencebased learning activity. School Psychology International, 29, 328-347. doi:10.1177/0143034308093673
23. Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2008). Teachers' discourse during cooperative learning and their perceptions of this pedagogical practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1333-1348. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.10. 003
24. Gillies, R. M., & Khan, A. (2008). The effects of teacher discourse on students' discourse, problem-solving, and reasoning during cooper ative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 323-340. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2008.06.001
25. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training, and Youth Affairs.
26. Haas, J. (2005). The situation in industry and the loss of interest in science education. European Journal of Education, 40, 405-416. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2005.00236.x
27. Hanauer, D., Hatfull, G., & Jacobs-Sera, D. (2009). Active assessment: Assessing scientific inquiry. New York, NY: Springer-Langer.
28. Harlow, D. B. (2010). Structures and Improvisation for Inquiry-based Science Instruction:Ateacher's adaptation of amodel ofmagnetism activity. Science Education, 94, 142-163. doi:10.1002/sce.20348
29. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1011-1026.
30. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Kind, P. (2008). Learning in and from science laboratories: Enhancing students' metacognition and argumentation skills. In C. L. Petroselli (Ed.), Science education issues and developments (pp. 59-94). New York, NY: Nova Science.
32. Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8, 105-107.
33. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Ingersoll, R. M. (2007). A comparative study of teacher preparation and qualifications in six nations. (CPRE Research Report RR-57). Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cprepdfs/sixnations-final.pdf
35. Jaakkola, T., & Nurmi, S. (2008). Fostering elementary school students' understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 271-283. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00259.x
36. Kaberman, Z.,&Dori, Y. J. (2009). Question posing, inquiry, and modeling skills of high school chemistry students in the case-based computerized laboratory environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 597-625. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9118-3
37. Kalu, I. (2008). Classroom interaction patterns and students' learning outcomes in physics. The Social Sciences, 3, 57-60.
38. Kalu, I., & Ali, A. N. (2004). Classroom interaction patterns, teacher and student characteristics and students' learning outcomes in physics. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 39, 24-31.
39. Kenyon, L., Schwarz, C., & Hug, B. (2008). The benefits of scientific modeling. Science & Children, 46, 40-44.
40. Kipnis, M., & Hofstein A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 601-627. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9066-y
41. Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 183-203. doi:10.1002/tea.20152
42. Kline, R. B. (2009). Becoming a behavioral science researcher: A guide to producing research that matters. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
43. Kunter, M., Baumert, J., & Köller, O. (2007). Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction, 17, 494-509. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.002
44. Laurie, B. (2009). Overcoming challenges and succeeding in PISA Science 2006. In W. B. Rodger & B. J. McCrae (Eds.), PISA Science 2006: Implications for science teachers and teaching (pp. 91-99). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
45. 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, 922-944. doi:10.1002/tea.20339
46. Lee, O., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1021-1043. doi:10.1002/tea.20037
47. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3-33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
49. Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 120-131. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12. 001
50. Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Reliability and agreement of student ratings of the classroom environment: A reanalysis of TIMSS data. Learning Environments Research, 9, 215-230. doi:10.1007/s10984-006-9014-8
51. Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classrooms: Students' experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 591-613. doi:10.1080/09500690500339621
52. Mantzicopoulos, P., Patrick, H., & Samarapungavan, A. (2008). Young children's motivational beliefs about learning science. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 378-394. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.04.001
53. Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist, 52, 1187-1197.
54. Matthews, M. R. (2007). Models in science and in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 16, 647-652. doi:10.1007/s11191-007-9089- 3
55. McBride, B. A., Dyer, W. J., Liu, Y., Brown, G. L., & Hong, S. (2009). The differential impact of early father and mother involvement on later student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 498-508. doi:10.1037/a0014238
56. McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233-268. doi:10.1002/sce.20294
57. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2009). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203-229. doi:10.1002/sce. 20364
58. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359-377. doi:10.1080/01411920410001689689
59. Mercer, N.,&Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
60. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000. Science education for the future. London, UK: Nuffield Foundation.
61. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
62. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
63. Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2003). Children's perceptions of school science. School Science Review, 84, 109-116.
64. National Science Teachers Association. (2004). NSTA position statement: Scientific inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry. aspx
65. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
66. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
67. National Research Council. (2005). National Science Education Standards (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
68. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
69. Newman, D. A. (2003). Longitudinal modeling with randomly and systematically missing data: A simulation of ad hoc, maximum likelihood, and multiple imputation techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 328-362. doi:10.1177/1094428103254673
70. Olitsky, S. (2007). Promoting student engagement in science: Interaction rituals and the pursuit of a community of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 33-56. doi:10.1002/tea.20128
71. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/58/33918060.pdf
72. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2006). Where immigrant students succeed: A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/38/36664934.pdf
73. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow's world. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf
74. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009a). PISA 2006 technical report. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/47/42025182.pdf
75. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009b). PISA data analysis manual. Retrieved from http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/ browseit/9809031E.PDF
76. Ozkal, K., Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J., & Sungur, S. (2009). A conceptual model of relationships among constructivist learning environment perceptions, epistemological beliefs, and learning approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 71-79. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.005
77. Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74, 525-556. doi:10.3102/00346543074004525
78. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R.,&du Toit, M. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software.
80. Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancing research on science learning in out of school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 112-120. doi:10.1002/tea.10067
81. Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 99-111. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00075-2
82. Rosenberg, S. L., Heck, D. J., & Banilower, E. R. (2005). Does teacher content preparation moderate the impacts of professional development? A longitudinal analysis of LSC teacher questionnaire data. Retrieved from http://www.horizon-research.com/reports/2005/rosenbergheck-banilower2005.php.
83. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: Wiley.
84. Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.
85. Schafer, J. L., & Olsen, M. K. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing data problems: A data analyst's perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 545-571.
86. Schnepf, S. V. (2007). Immigrants' educational disadvantage: An examination across ten countries and three surveys. Journal of Popular Economics, 20, 527-545. doi:10.1007/s00148-006-0102-y
87. Schoon, I., Parsons, S., & Sacker, A. (2004). Socioeconomic adversity, educational resilience, and subsequent levels of adult adaptation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 383-404. doi:10.1177/0743558403258856
88. Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing pre-service elementary teachers' knowledge and practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93, 720-744. doi:10.1002/sce.20324
89. Schwarz, C., Reiser, B., Davis, B., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D.,. . Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 46, 632-654. doi:10.1002/tea.20311
90. Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605-631. doi:10.1002/sce.20131
91. Shen, J., & Confrey, J. (2007). From conceptual change to transformative modeling: A case study of an elementary teacher in learning astronomy. Science Education, 91, 948-966. doi:10.1002/sce.20224
92. Sharpe, T. (2008). How can teacher talk support learning? Linguistics and Education, 19, 132-148. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2008.05.001
93. Spybrook, J. (2008). Power, sample size, and design. In A. A. O'Connell & D. B. McCoach (Eds.), Multilevel modeling of educational data (pp. 273-314). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
94. Stamovlasis, D., Dimos, A.,&Tsaparlis,G.A. (2006). Study of group interaction processes in learning lower secondary physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 556-576. doi:10.1002/tea.20134
95. Stasz, C., Eide, E. R., Martorell, F., Constant, L., Goldman, C. A., Moini, J. S.,. . Salem, H. (2007). Postsecondary education in Qatar: Employer demand, student choice, and options for policy. Retrieved from http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RANDMG644.pdf
96. Statistics Canada. (2009). University enrollment, 2007/2008. Ottawa, Canada: Ministry of Industry.
97. Stewart, J., Cartier, J., & Passmore, C. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In S. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: Science in the classroom (pp. 515-565). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
98. Supreme Council of Education. (2007). Knowledge and skills for the new millennium: Results from PISA 2006 for Qatar. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.qa/EVI/InternationalTests/QatarPISAEnglish2007.pdf
99. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
100. Thomson, S., & De Bortoli, L. (2008). Exploring scientific literacy: How Australia measures up. The PISA 2006 survey of students' scientific, reading and mathematical skills. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/ PISA2006 Report.pdf
101. Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and homework effort in six school subjects: The role of person and family characteristics, classroom factors, and school track. Learning and Instruction, 19, 243-258. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.001
102. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards socio-cultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
103. Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigations: Can pre-service instruction foster teachers' understandings of model-based inquiry? American Educational Research Journal, 43, 783-835. doi:10.3102/00028312043004783
104. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941-967. doi:10.1002/sce.20259
105. Wolfe, S., & Alexander, R. J. (2008). Argumentation and dialogic teaching: Alternative pedagogies for a changing world. Retrieved from http://www.beyondpresenthorizons.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ch3-final- wolfealexander-argumentationalternativepedagogies 20081218.pdf
106. World Economic Forum. (2009). The global competitiveness report 2009-2010. Retrieved from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/GCR09/ GCR20092010fullreport.pdf
107. Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth grader's inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1290-1313. doi:10.1080/ 09500690600621035
108. Yoon, C. (2009). Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 203-216. doi:10.1177/0016986209334961
109. Zady,M. F., Portes, P. R., & Oches, V. D. (2003). Examining classroom interactions related to difference in students' science achievement. Science Education, 87, 40-63. doi:10.1002/sce.1053
110. Zellman, G. L., Ryan, G. W., Karam, R., Constant, L., Salem, H., Gonzalez, G.,. . Al-Obaidli, K. (2009). Implementation of the K-12 education reform in Qatar's schools. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/ 2009/RANDMG880.pdf
111. Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran &M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245-268). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.