Abstract
This study aims to examine the influence of inquiry-based instruction on eighth-grade male and female students’ motivation and engagement in science learning in two public junior high schools in central Taiwan. Mixed-methods methodology was adopted with 60 students (32 males and 28 females) in the experimental group and 56 students (28 males and 28 females) in the control group. The study lasted for one semester and six units using inquiry-based teaching (90–180 min each) were implemented in the experimental group. Questionnaires used for measuring students’ motivation and engagement in science learning were administered as pre- and post-tests. In addition, eight to ten male and female students from both experimental and control groups, as well as two instructors were interviewed four times throughout the semester. Quantitative data were analyzed with t test and the interview data were fully transcribed and coded. Results show that male and female students under intervention expected to do more experiments because it improved their understanding. Male and female students under intervention also used more learning strategies. However, males benefited more than females from the intervention in regard to their motivation and engagement in learning science. Males improved more in motivational constructs, recognized the value of learning science, and increased their cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement because what they learned applied to real life. In contrast, females had higher exam anxiety and lower cognitive engagement due to mathematics fear, stronger sense of pride in class, and caring too much about the right answers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.
Brandell, G., & Staberg, E. M. (2008). Mathematics: a female, male or gender-neutral domain? A study of attitudes among students at secondary level. Gender and Education, 20(5), 495–509.
Bruder, R., & Prescott, A. (2013). Research evidence on the benefits of IBL. ZDM, 45(6), 811–822.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44.
Falk, H., Brill, G., & Yarden, A. (2008). Teaching a biotechnology curriculum based on adapted primary literature. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1841–1866.
Fuad, N. M., Zubaidah, S., Mahanal, S., & Suarsini, E. (2017). Improving junior high schools’ critical thinking skills based on test three different models of learning. International Journal of Instruction, 10(1), 101–116.
Gregerson, J. (2011). Processing the curriculum through quality questioning. Science Scope, 34(6), 86–90.
Hayden, K., Ouyang, Y., Scinski, L., Olszewski, B., & Bielefeldt, T. (2011). Increasing student interest and attitudes in STEM: professional development and activities to engage and inspire learners. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 47–69.
Hsieh, C.-H., Tuan, H.-L., Chin, C.-C., & Chen, S.-C. (2016). The development and study of the relevant factors of the engagement in science learning questionnaire in junior high school. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 249–273.
Jocz, J. A., Zhai, J., & Tan, A. L. (2014). Inquiry learning in the Singaporean context: factors affecting student interest in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2596–2618.
Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Uitto, A., Byman, R., & Meisalo, V. (2010). Science teaching methods preferred by grade 9 students in Finland. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(4), 611–632.
Kapon, S. (2016). Doing research in school: physics inquiry in the zone of proximal development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1172–1197.
Kenar, I., Sekerci, A. R., Erdem, A. R., Gecgel, G., & Demir, H. I. (2015). An investigation of ninth grade students' attitudes toward daily life chemistry. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(12), 1695–1701.
Lee, C. S., Hayes, K. N., Seitz, J., DiStefano, R., & O'Connor, D. (2016). Understanding motivational structures that differentially predict engagement and achievement in middle school science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 192–215.
Lin, H.-S., Hong, Z.-R., & Huang, T.-C. (2012). The role of emotional factors in building public scientific literacy and engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 25–42.
Lin, H.-S., Lawrenz, F., Lin, S.-F., & Hong, Z.-R. (2013). Relationships among affective factors and preferred engagement in science-related activities. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 941–954.
Marshall, J. C., & Alston, D. M. (2014). Effective, sustained inquiry-based instruction promotes higher science proficiency among all groups: a 5-year analysis. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(7), 807–821.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in science. In Retrieved from Boston College. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study: Center website http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/.
McConney, A., Oliver, M. C., Woods-McConney, A., Schibeci, R., & Maor, D. (2014). Inquiry, engagement, and literacy in science: a retrospective, cross-national analysis using PISA 2006. Science Education, 98(6), 963–980.
Moote, J. K., Williams, J. M., & Sproule, J. (2013). When students take control: Investigating the impact of the CREST inquiry-based learning program on self-regulated processes and related motivations in young science students. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12(2), 178–196. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.12.2.178.
Morrison, J., Roth McDuffie, A., & French, B. (2015). Identifying key components of teaching and learning in a STEM school. School Science and Mathematics, 115(5), 244–255.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: NAP.
Schick, H., & Phillipson, S. N. (2009). Learning motivation and performance excellence in adolescents with high intellectual potential: what really matters? High Ability Studies, 20(1), 15–37.
Sevinc, B., Ozmen, H., & Yigit, N. (2011). Investigation of primary students’ motivation levels towards science learning. Science Education International, 22(3), 218–232.
Song, Y. (2016). “We found the ‘black spots’ on campus on our own”: development of inquiry skills in primary science learning with BYOD (Bring Your Own Device). Interactive Learning Environments, 24(2), 291–305.
Tas, Y. (2016). The contribution of perceived classroom learning environment and motivation to student engagement in science. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31(4), 557–577.
Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R., Guerrero, C., Fan, Y., & Huerta, M. (2014). A randomized study of a literacy-integrated science intervention for low-socio-economic status middle school students: Findings from first-year implementation. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 2083–2109.
Tuan, H.-L., Chin, C.-C., Tsai, C.-C., & Cheng, S.-F. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry instruction on the motivation of different learning styles students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 541–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-6827-8.
Wilhelm, J. (2009). Gender differences in lunar-related scientific and mathematical understandings. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2105–2122.
Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 321–341.
Wu, T., Tuan, H., Hsieh, C., & Chin, C. (2013). The validation of the motivation in learning science questionnaire. Presented at the 2013 International Conference of East-Asian Association for Science Education. July 4-6, Hong Kong, China.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks for the financial support from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan under grant number NSC 101-2511-S-018-006-MY3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Interview Protocol for Students.
(End of semester interview)
- 1.
Do you think the science course had any relationship with you in this semester? Did it mean a lot to you or have any value in your learning? Why?
- 2.
To what degree is your confidence in learning science after one semester’s learning? High? Middle? Or low? Has your confidence in learning science increased? Decreased? Or not changed? Why?
- 3.
What were the difficulties you confronted most often when you were learning science this semester? How did you overcome the difficulties? Or just ignored them?
- 4.
Did you preview the content before going to science class this semester? How did you preview it if yes? What kinds of methods or strategies did you use when you were learning in science class? Did you review what you had learned after the class? How if yes?
- 5.
Do you think the science teacher and classmates helped in your science learning this semester? Do you think you had enough opportunities to hands-on this semester? If yes, please describe it. If no, please explain why not.
- 6.
Do you find the science course interesting this semester? Why? Has your intention to learn science increased? Decreased? Or not changed? Why?
- 7.
One to ten, one means you did not concentrate at all, ten means you full concentrate. To what degree did you concentrate on class this semester? Why?
- 8.
What changes do you expect in the instruction in order to help you understand the content in class more quickly or become more motivated?
- 9.
One to ten, one means you were not nervous at all, ten means you were very nervous. To what degree did you feel in the science exams? Why?
- 10.
Do you feel satisfied with your science learning outcome this semester? Why?
- 11.
When did you feel successful when you were learning science this semester? Why?
- 12.
Other opinions or suggestions?
Appendix 2
Interview Protocol for Instructors.
(End of semester interview)
- 1.
What are the differences on your instruction between the experimental and control classes this semester?
- 2.
What are the differences on students’ learning outcome in the aspects of cognition, skills and affection between the experimental and control classes after this semester’s instruction?
- 3.
To what degree did you find students concentrated on class in the experimental and control classes? How did you improve their concentration on class?
- 4.
How did you explain the importance of science curriculum to students in the experimental and control classes?
- 5.
Do you think the instruction in the experimental and control classes improve students’ confidence in learning science? Why?
- 6.
Please describe students’ learning behavior in the experimental and control classes.
- 7.
Did you build up friendly learning environment for students in the experimental and control classes? How if yes? Why if no?
- 8.
Is there any difference on students’ exam anxiety between the experimental and control classes? If yes, what is the difference?
- 9.
Please talk about your professional development this semester.
- 10.
Other opinions or suggestions?
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kuo, YR., Tuan, HL. & Chin, CC. The Influence of Inquiry-Based Teaching on Male and Female Students’ Motivation and Engagement. Res Sci Educ 50, 549–572 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9701-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9701-3