Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching: A Meta-Analysis

Review of Educational Research

Volumn 82, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 300-329

  Furtak, Erin Marie ^a   Seidel, Tina ^b   Iverson, Heidi ^c   Briggs, Derek C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

inquiry based teaching; meta analysis; science learning; science teaching; student achievement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865265327     PISSN: 00346543     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0034654312457206     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Alexander P. A.,Fives H.,Buehl M. M.,Mulhern J.Teaching as persuasion.Teaching and Teacher Education. 2002;18:795-813.
2. Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993:.
3. Ardac D.,Akaygun S.Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2004;41:317-337.
4. Atkin J. M.Science education: "Process" and "content" in grade schools.Science. 1966 1033;151 (3714)
5. Balci S.,Cakiroglu J.,Tekkaya C.Engagement, exploration, explanation, extension, and evaluation (5E) learning cycle and conceptual change text as learning tools.Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education. 2006;34:199-203.
6. Becker B. J.Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 1988;41:257-278.
7. Bell R. L.,Lederman N. G.,Abd-El-Khalick F.Implicit versus explicit nature of science instruction: An explicit response to Palmquist and Finley.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1998;35:1057-1061.
8. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012:.
9. Bredderman T.Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis.Review of Educational Research. 1983;53:499-518.
10. Briggs D. C.Synthesizing causal inferences.Educational Researcher. 2008;37:15-22.
11. Bruner J.The act of discovery.Harvard Educational Review. 1961;31:21-32.
12. Cepni S.,Tas E.,Köse S.The effects of computer-assisted material on students' cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes towards science.Computers and Education. 2006;46:192-205.
13. Chang C.-Y.The impact of different forms of multimedia CAI on students' science achievement.Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2002;39:280-288.
14. Chang C.-Y.,Hsiao C.-H.,Barufaldi J. P.Preferred-actual learning environment "spaces" and earth science outcomes in Taiwan.Science Education. 2006;90:420-433.
15. Chang C.-Y.,Mao S.-L.Comparison of Taiwan science students' outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction.Journal of Educational Research. 1999;92:340-346.
16. Chang C.-Y.,Tsai C.-C.The interplay between different forms of CAI and students' preferences of learning environments in the secondary science class.Science Education. 2005;89:707-724.
17. Chinn C. A.,Malhotra B. A.Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks.Science Education. 2002;86:175-218.
18. DiakidoyI.-A. N.KendeouP. (2001). Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning and Instruction, 11, 1-20. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00011-6.
19. Duschl R. A.Everyday assessment in the science classroom. Atkin J. M.Coffey J., ed. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press; 2003:41-59.
20. Duschl R. A.Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals.Review of Research in Education. 2008;32:268-291.
21. Ertepinar H.,Geban Ö.Effect of instruction supplied with the investigative-oriented laboratory approach on achievement in a science course.Educational Research. 1996;38:333-341.
22. Furtak E. M.,Shavelson R. J.,Shemwell J. T.,Figueroa M.The journey from child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences. Carver S. M.Shrager J., ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2012:227-244.
23. Gläser-Zikuda M.,Fuß S.,Laukenmann M.,Metz K.,Randler C.Promoting students' emotions and achievement-Instructional design and evaluation of the ECOLE-approach.Learning and Instruction. 2005;15:481-495.
24. Glass G. V.Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis.Educational Researcher. 1976;5:3-8.
25. Hardy I.,Jonen A.,Möller K.,Stern E.Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students' understanding of "floating and sinking.".Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006;98:307-326.
26. Hmelo-Silver C. E.,Duncan R. G.,Chinn C. A.Educational Psychologist. 2007 2006;42:99-107.
27. Huffman D.Effect of explicit problem solving instruction on high school students' problem solving performance and conceptual understanding of physics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1997;34:551-570.
28. Keselman A.Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2003;40:898-921.
29. Kiboss J. K.,Ogunniyi M. B.Outcomes of first year secondary students in a computer-augmented physics program on measurement.Learning, Media, and Technology. 2005;30:313-326.
30. Kim P.Effects of 3D virtual reality of plate tectonics on fifth grade students' achievement and attitude toward science.Interactive Learning Environments. 2006;14:25-34.
31. Kirschner P. A.,Sweller J.,Clark R. E.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. 2006;41:75-86.
32. Klahr D.,Li J.Cognitive research and elementary science instruction: From the laboratory, to the classroom, and back.Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2005;14:217-238.
33. Klahr D.,Nigam M.The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning.Psychological Science. 2004;15:661-667.
34. Lazarowitz R.,Baird J. H.,Bowlden V.,Hertz-Lazarowitz R.Teaching biology in a group mastery learning mode: High school students' academic achievement and affective outcomes.International Journal of Science Education. 1996;18:447-462.
35. Lipsey M. W.,Wilson D. B.Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001:.
36. Lott G. W.The effect of inquiry teaching and advance organizers upon student outcomes in science Education.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1983;20:437-451.
37. Mayer R. E.Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction.American Psychologist. 2004;59:14-19.
38. McNeill K. L.,Lizotte D. J.,Krajcik J.,Marx R. W.Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials.The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2006;15:153-191.
39. Minner D.,Levy A.,Century J.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2010;47:474-496.
40. Morris S. B.Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs.Organizational Research Methods. 2008;11:364-386.
41. Mullis I. V. A.,Martin M. O.,Ruddock G. J.,O'Sullivan C. Y.,Preuschoff C.TIMSS 2011 assessment frameworks. Boston, MA: TIMMS & PIRLS International Study Center; 2009:.
42. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1996:.
43. Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001:.
44. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007:.
45. PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in mathematics, reading and science. Paris, France: Author; 2009:.
46. Pedaste M.,Sarapuu T.Developing an effective support system for inquiry learning in a Web-based environment.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2006;22:47-62.
47. Pine J. P.,Aschbacher P. A.,Roth E.,Jones M.,McPhee C.,Martin C.,Roth E.Fifth graders' science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in textbook and inquiry curricula.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2006;45:467-484.
48. Reid D. J.,Zhang J.,Chen Q.Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2003;19:9-20.
49. Rutherford F. J.The role of inquiry in science teaching.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1960;2:80-84.
50. Schroeder C. M.,Scott T. P.,Tolson H.,Huang T.-Y.,Lee Y.-H.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. 2007;44:1436-1460.
51. Schwab J. J.The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1962:.
52. Seidel T.,Shavelson R. J.Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results.Review of Educational Research. 2007;77:454-499.
53. Shadish W.,Cook T.,Campbell D.Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 2002:.
54. Shavelson R. J.,Towne L.Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002:.
55. Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal. Shulman L. S.Keislar E. R., ed. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally; 1966:.
56. Shulman L. S.,Tamir P.Second handbook of research on teaching. Travers R. M. W., ed. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally; 1973:1098-1148.
57. Shymansky J. A.,Hedges L. V.,Woodworth G.A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60's on student performance.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1990;27:127-144.
58. Singer J.,Marx R. W.,Krajcik J.,Chambers J. C.Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform.Educational Psychologist. 2000;35:165-178.
59. Ugwu O.,Soyibo K.The effects of concept and vee mappings under three learning modes on Jamaican eighth graders' knowledge of nutrition and plant reproduction.Research in Science and Technological Education. 2004;22:41-58.
60. Uzuntiryaki E.,Geban Ö.Effect of conceptual change approach accompanied with concept mapping on understanding of solution concepts.Instructional Science. 2005;33:311-339.
61. Weinstein T.,Boulanger F. D.,Walberg H. J.Science curriculum effects in high school: A quantitative synthesis.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1982;19:511-522.
62. White B. Y.,Frederiksen J. R.Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students.Cognition and Instruction. 1998;16:3-118.
63. Windschitl M.,Thompson J.,Braaten M.Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations.Science Education. 2008;92:941-967.
64. Wise K. C.,Okey J. R.A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1983;20:419-435.