Research in Science Education

, Volume 46, Issue 6, pp 901–916 | Cite as

A Large-Scale Inquiry-Based Astronomy Intervention Project: Impact on Students’ Content Knowledge Performance and Views of their High School Science Classroom

  • Michael FitzgeraldEmail author
  • David H. McKinnon
  • Lena Danaia
  • James Deehan


In this paper, we present the results from a study of the impact on students involved in a large-scale inquiry-based astronomical high school education intervention in Australia. Students in this intervention were led through an educational design allowing them to undertake an investigative approach to understanding the lifecycle of stars more aligned with the ‘ideal’ picture of school science. Through the use of two instruments, one focused on content knowledge gains and the other on student views of school science, we explore the impact of this design. Overall, students made moderate content knowledge gains although these gains were heavily dependent on the individual teacher, the number of times a teacher implemented and the depth to which an individual teacher went with the provided materials. In terms of students’ views, there were significant global changes in their views of their experience of the science classroom. However, there were some areas where no change or slightly negative changes of which some were expected and some were not. From these results, we comment on the necessity of sustained long-period implementations rather than single interventions, the requirement for similarly sustained professional development and the importance of monitoring the impact of inquiry-based implementations. This is especially important as inquiry-based approaches to science are required by many new curriculum reforms, most notably in this context, the new Australian curriculum currently being rolled out.


Inquiry-based teaching High school Astronomy education Authentic science Teacher training Student perceptions 



We acknowledge the project from which the teacher data are drawn: Space to Grow Australian Research Council Linkage Grant (grant number: LP0989264). MF acknowledges receipt of MQRES PhD scholarship from Macquarie University.


  1. Ainley, J., Kos. J., Nicholas, M., (2008), Participation in Science, Mathematics and Technology in Australian Education., Australian Center for Educational Research Monograph No. 63.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington: AAAS.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailey, J., & Slater, T. (2004). A review of astronomy education research. Astronomy Education Review, 2, 20–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey, J., Johnson, B., Prather, E., & Slater, T. (2011). Development and validation of the star properties concept inventory. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanchard, M., Southerland, S., Osborne, J., Sampson, V., Annetta, L., & Granger, E. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: a quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school (expandedth ed.). Washington: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  9. Chubb, I., Findlay, C., Du, L., Burmester, B., & Kusa, L. (2012). Mathematics, engineering and science in the national interest. Canberra: Office of the Chief Scientist, Australian Government.Google Scholar
  10. Collaboration for Astronomy Education Research (CAER) (1999). Astronomy diagnostic test. Retrieved 20th May, 2009, from modified for Southern Hemisphere 2002 by the University of Sydney, further modified 2004 by Charles Sturt University.
  11. Danaia, L., (2006). Students’ experiences, perceptions and performance in junior secondary school science: An intervention study involving astronomy and a remote telescope. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Charles Sturt University.Google Scholar
  12. Danaia, L., McKinnon, D., Parker, Q., Fitzgerald, M., Stenning, P., (2012). Space to grow: and improving science engagement in schools. Astronomy Education Review, 11(1).Google Scholar
  13. Danaia, L., Fitzgerald, M., & McKinnon, D. (2013). Students’ perceptions of high school science: what has changed over the last decade. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dekkers, J., & De Laeter, J. R. (1997). The changing nature of upper secondary school science subject enrolments. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 43(4), 35–41.Google Scholar
  15. Drury, C., & Allen, A. (2002). Task force on the physical sciences: report and recommendations. Ireland: Department of Education and Science.Google Scholar
  16. Dunlop, J. (2000). How children observe the universe. Publications of the Astronomy Society of Australia, 17, 294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Etkina, E., Matilsky, T., & Lawrence, M. (2003). What can we learn from pushing to the edge? Rutgers Astrophysics Institute motivates talented high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2007). Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate General for Research.Google Scholar
  19. Fitzgerald, M., (2015). Design principles, implementation and evaluation for inquiry-based astronomy: an investigation of the issues surrounding sufficient teacher professional development in large-scale astronomical initiatives. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
  20. Fitzgerald, M., Criss, J., Lukaszewicz, T., Frew, D. J., Catelan, M., Woodward, S., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. H. (2012). RR Lyrae Stars in the Globular Cluster NGC 6101. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29(1), 72–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fitzgerald, M., Hollow, R., Rebull, L., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. (2014). A review of high school level astronomy student research projects over the last two decades. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 31, e037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fitzgerald, M., McKinnon, D., Danaia, L., (2015a). Inquiry-based educational design for large-scale high school astronomy projects using real telescopes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1–14.Google Scholar
  23. Fitzgerald, M.T., Inwood, L., McKinnon, D.H., Dias, W.S., Sacchi, M., Scott, B., Zolinski, M., Danaia, L., Edwards, R., (2015b). Photometric and proper motion study of neglected open cluster NGC 2215. The Astronomical Journal, 149, 190.Google Scholar
  24. Furtak, E., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning science in Australian schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  26. Goodrum, D., Druhan, A., & Abbs, J. (2012). The status and quality of year 11 and 12 science in Australian schools. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  27. Herrington, D. G., Luxford, K., & Yezierski, E. J. (2012). Target inquiry: helping teachers use a research experience to transform their teaching practices. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(4), 442–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experimental and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 40, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawrance, G. A., & Palmer, D. H. (2003). Clever teachers, clever sciences: preparing teachers for the challenge of teaching science, mathematics and technology in 21st century Australia. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.Google Scholar
  30. Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science: understanding the declines in senior high school science enrolments. Research report to the Australian Science Teachers Association (ASTA). University of New England, Australia: National Centre of Science, ICT and Mathematics Education for Rural and Regional Australia (SiMERR Australia).Google Scholar
  32. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: science education for the future (the report of a seminar series funded by the Nuffield Foundation). London: King’s College London, School of Education.Google Scholar
  34. Minner, D., Levy, A., & Century, J. (2009). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2000). Pupils’ and parents’ views of the school science curriculum. London: King’s College London.Google Scholar
  36. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: critical reflections. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schneider, R., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 410–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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, 44(10), 1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Slater, S. J., Slater, T. F., & Bailey, J. M. (2010). Discipline-based education research: a scientist’s guide. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  41. Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., Christopher, J. E., & Sackes, M. (2009). The effect of guided inquiry-based instruction on middle school students’ understanding of lunar concepts. Research in Science Education, 40(3), 451–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Fitzgerald
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • David H. McKinnon
    • 1
  • Lena Danaia
    • 3
  • James Deehan
    • 3
  1. 1.Edith Cowan Institute for Education ResearchEdith Cowan UniversityJoondalupAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Physics and AstronomyMacquarie UniversityNorth RydeAustralia
  3. 3.School of Teacher EducationCharles Sturt UniversityBathurstAustralia

Personalised recommendations