Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is Inquiry-Based Science Teaching Worth the Effort?

Some Thoughts Worth Considering

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inquiry-based science teaching has been advocated by many science educational standards and reports from around the world. Disagreements about and concerns with this teaching approach, however, are often ignored. Opposing ideas and conflicting results have been bouncing around in the field. It seems that the field carries on with a hope that someday they can reconcile. Unfortunately, over half a century, the opposing views have never been reconciled. Rather, they have become clearly divided, as shown in a recent debate. As such, this article intends to serve as a bridge between people holding different views and to identify key disagreements that have been sustaining the tension. The purpose is to improve science education. Suggestions for future research are also provided for a discussion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2000). Implications of the ACT-R learning theory: No magic bullets. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (Vol. 5). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Areepattamannil, S. (2012). Effects of inquiry-based science instruction on science achievement and interest in science: Evidence from Qatar. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(2), 134–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1964). Some psychological and educational limitations of learning by discovery. The Arithmetic Teacher, 11(5), 290–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin’! agency, identity, and science learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Retrieved from http://bscs.org/bscs-5e-instructional-model.

  • Clark, R. E. (2009). How much and what type of guidance is optimal for learning from instruction? In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 158–183). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, D., Jr., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91, 384–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debate. (2007). Debate: Constructivism, discovery, problem based, experiential, and inquiry based teaching: Success or failure? The World of Educational Quality (Program for the AERA 2007 Annual Meeting, pp. 218–219). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1996a). Laboratory work as scientific method: three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1996b). Practical work in school science: Exploring some directions for change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 755–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C.-Y., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2015). When should guidance be presented during physics instruction? Archives of Scientific Psychology, 3(1), 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karplus, R., & Thier, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science: Science curriculum improvement study. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, S., & Rice, D. C. (2010). Multilevel effects of student and classroom factors on elementary science achievement in five countries. International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1337–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J. (2014). Chapter 42: Inquiry teaching and learning: Philosophical considerations. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1363–1380). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory—exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2527–2558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and Academic skills in science education. Science & Education, 1(3), 273–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyun, S., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2013). The effect of worked examples when learning to write essays in English literature. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 385–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. S., & Anderson, J. R. (2013). Student learning: What has instruction got to do with it? Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 445–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matlen, B. J., & Klahr, D. (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing? Instructional Science, 41(3), 621–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2015). Reflections on 25 years of journal editorship. Science & Education, 24(5), 749–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. In Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child (M. Cook, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.

  • Pine, J., Aschbacher, P., Roth, E., Jones, M., McPhee, C., Martin, C., et al. (2006). Fifth graders’ science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in hands-on and textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 7(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M. M., Gog, T. V., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J., & Brandwein, P. F. (1962). The teaching of science: The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2004). Pedagogical praxis: The professions as models for postindustrial education. Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1401–1421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B., Lee, H.-S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 128–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B., Lee, H.-S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87(4), 490–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2009). What human cognitive architecture tells us about constructivism. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 127–143). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). The success or failure of constructivist instruction. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, C. A. (1973). An annotated bibliography of historical documents in science education. Science Education, 57(3), 297–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M., & Linn, M. C. (2002). WISE inquiry in fifth grade biology. Research in Science Education, 32, 415–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, A. F., & O’Neill, K. (2009). Beyond more versus less: A reframing of the debate on instructional guidance. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 82–105). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to give special thanks to the anonymous reviewers of Science & Education for their comments and help in preparation of this article. Support from colleagues, Drs. Lynne Ryan, Susan Skawinski, and Jane Callahan, at Providence College is gratefully acknowledged. This article was supported in part by the National Institute for Direct Instruction.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Elementary/Secondary Education, Providence College, 324 Harkins Hall, 1 Cunningham Square, Providence, RI, 02918-0001, USA

    Lin Zhang

Authors
  1. Lin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lin Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, L. Is Inquiry-Based Science Teaching Worth the Effort?. Sci & Educ 25, 897–915 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9856-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9856-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation