Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inquiry-Based Learning in Psychology

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
International Handbook of Psychology Learning and Teaching

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

Abstract

Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is an educational approach in which learning is facilitated by engaging students in complex, authentic questions, or problems. In IBL, students typically apply methods and practices comparable to those of professional scientists. These methods and practices include the formulation of research questions and hypotheses and the testing of said hypotheses by means of observation or empirical tests and experimenting. This process guides learners toward discovering new causal relations. Learning in IBL is based on an active construction of knowledge, and the learner’s own responsibility for discovering new information is emphasized. The role of the professor or teacher is usually that of a facilitator. The effectiveness and efficacy of IBL have been continuously challenged over the past decades. Critics have proposed that IBL does not provide sufficient structure to help learners understand and apply important concepts and procedures of science. This chapter comes to the conclusion that it is essential to employ some level of guidance within IBL settings to help learners accomplish subtasks and overarching goals, and to effectively learn from the IBL activities. For IBL in Higher Education, the conclusions of this chapter highlight the importance of departmental and institutional support for transiting from teacher-led, traditional instructional approaches to IBL, with a focus on fostering dialogue about IBL principles and IBL effectiveness.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0021017.

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Prospects and challenges for inquiry-based approaches to learning. In H. Dumont, D. Istance, & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice (pp. 199–225). Paris, France: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (OECD).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802582241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittinger, M. L. (1968). A review of discovery. The Mathematics Teacher, 61(2), 140–146. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer Commission. (1999). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Stony Brook, NY: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 499–518. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053004499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brew, A. (2006). Research and teaching: Beyond the divide. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, B. C., & Casey, L. (2012). The practice of inquiry: A pedagogical ‘sweet spot’ for digital literacy? Computers in the Schools, 29(1–2), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2012.657994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(2), 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness (pp. 88–89). Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C.-Y., & Mao, S.-L. (1999). Comparison of Taiwan science students’ outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 92(6), 340–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corlu, M. A., & Corlu, M. S. (2012). Scientific inquiry based professional development models in teacher education. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 514–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Angelo, C., Rutstein, D., Harris, C., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., & Haertel, G. (2014). Simulations for STEM learning: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Menlo Park: SRI International.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2014). The guided discovery learning principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 371–390). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T., & Njoo, M. (1992). Learning and instruction with computer simulations: Learning processes involved. In E. De Corte, M. C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 411–427). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, B., Van der Meij, H., & Lazonder, A. W. (2008). Supporting reflective web searching in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 649–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin & J. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41–59). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3%3C355::AID-TEA1010%3E3.0.CO;2-M.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission: Science, Economy, and Society. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. In Research report to the higher education academy. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, G. (1969). Learning by discovery: A critical review of studies. Journal of Experimental Education, 38(1), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1969.11011167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo, C., & Day, R. (1999). Contextualized questioning to scaffold learning from simulations. Computers & Education, 32(2), 151–164.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justice, C., Warry, W., Cuneo, C., Inglis, S., Miller, S., Rice, J., & Sammon, S. (2002). A grammar for inquiry: Linking goals and methods in a collaboratively taught social sciences inquiry course. The Alan Blizzard Award Paper: The Award Winning Papers. Canada: MrGraw-Hill Ryerson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 748–769. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19(4), 319–335.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, UK: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 111–146. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1003.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koerber, S., Sodian, B., Kropf, N., Mayer, D., & Schwippert, K. (2011). The development of scientific reasoning in elementary school age: Understanding theories, designing experiments, interpreting data. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 43, 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637/A000027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koerber, S., Sodian, B., Thoermer, C., & Nett, U. (2005). Scientific reasoning in young children: Preschoolers’ ability to evaluate covariation evidence. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64(3), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.64.3.141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Franklin, S. (2006). The second decade: What develops (and how). In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, D. Kuhn, & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, Perception, and Language (6th ed., pp. 953–994). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Dean, J. (2008). Scaffolded development of inquiry skills in academically disadvantaged middle-school students. Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology, 1(2), 36–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V., Greene, D., Odom, J., Schechter, E., & Slatta, R. W. (2004). What is inquiry guided learning? In V. S. Lee (Ed.), Teaching and learning through inquiry: A guidebook for institutions and instructors (pp. 3–16). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtinen, E. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An approach to powerful learning environments. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwisthle, & J. Van Merrienboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 35–54). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2004). Education and the changing job market. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 80–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lingnau, A., Kuhn, M., Harrer, A., Hofmann, D., Fendrich, M., & Hoppe, H. U. (2003). Enriching traditional classroom scenarios by seamless integration of interactive media. In V. Devedzic, J. Spector, D. Sampson, & D. Kinshuk (Eds.), Advanced learning technologies: Technology enhanced learning (pp. 135–139). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2–3), 141–155.

    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 

  • Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., De Jong, T., Anjewierden, A., & Bollen, L. (2012). Validating and optimizing the effects of model progression in simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 722–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2014). Using heuristic worked examples to promote inquiry-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.08.001.

  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Ruddock, G. J., O’Sullivan, C. Y., & Preuschoff, C. (2009). TIMSS 2011 assessment frameworks. Amsterdam, NL: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NCREL. (2003). 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). Retrieved December 19, 2019, from https://pict.sdsu.edu/engauge21st.pdf

  • Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2009). Annual report. Published under responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. Retrieved December 19, 2019, from https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/43125523.pdf

  • Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Leijen, Ä., & Sarapuu, T. (2012). Improving students’ inquiry skills through reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 9(1–2), 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piekny, J., Gruber, D., & Maehler, C. (2014). The development of experimentation and evidence evaluation skills at preschool age. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 334–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.776192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piekny, J., & Maehler, C. (2013). Scientific reasoning in early and middle childhood: The development of domain-general evidence evaluation, experimentation, and hypothesis generation skills. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 153–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2012.02082.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkwart, N. (2003). A plug-in architecture for graph based collaborative modeling systems. In U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo, & J. Kay (Eds.), Shaping the future of learning through intelligent technologies. Proceedings of the 11th conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 535–536). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkwart, N. (2005). Collaborative modeling in graph based environments. Berlin, Germany: dissertation.de.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London, UK: Routledge/Falmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic support for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131–166. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0402_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1983.tb01086.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436–1460. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotta, J. D. (2004). The web-based inquiry science environment (WISE): Scaffolding knowledge integration in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 203–231). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slotta, J. D., Jorde, D., & Holmes, J. (2007). Learning from our peers in international exchanges: When is worth doing, and how can we help it succeed? Unpublished Manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children’s differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62(4), 753–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01567.x/.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spronken-Smith, R., Walker, R., Batchelor, J., O’Steen, B., & Angelo, T. (2011). Enablers and constraints to the use of inquiry-based learning in undergraduate education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.507300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinke, P., & Fitch, P. (2011). Outcome assessment from the perspective of psychological science: The TAIM approach. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(149), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-Lab: Research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varma, K. (2014). Supporting scientific experimentation and reasoning in young elementary school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(3), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9470-8.

  • Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wecker, C., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2007). Computer literacy and inquiry learning: When geeks learn less. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00218.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660190610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zumbach, J. (2003). Problembasiertes Lernen (problem-based learning). Münster, Germany: Waxmann Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. California State University, Chico, CA, USA

    Marie Lippmann

Authors
  1. Marie Lippmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie Lippmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Research, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Joerg Zumbach

  2. Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Bonita Springs, FL, USA

    Douglas A. Bernstein

  3. School of Science - Faculty of Psychology, Psychology of Learning and Instruction, Technische Universitaet Dresden, Dresden, Sachsen, Germany

    Susanne Narciss

  4. Department of Human, Philosophical and Educational Sciences (DISUFF), University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy

    Giuseppina Marsico

Section Editor information

  1. University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Joerg Zumbach

  2. Psychologie des Lehrens und Lernens, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland

    Susanne Narciss

  3. Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Douglas A. Bernstein

  4. Department of Human, Philosophic, and Education Sciences, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy

    Giuseppina Marsico

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Lippmann, M. (2023). Inquiry-Based Learning in Psychology. In: Zumbach, J., Bernstein, D.A., Narciss, S., Marsico, G. (eds) International Handbook of Psychology Learning and Teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28745-0_59

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation