Content uploaded by Emrah hiğde
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emrah hiğde on Nov 05, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
248
Journal of Turkish Science Education. 13(4),248-261
Effects of the Inquiry-Based Learning Method on Students’
Achievement, Science Process Skills and Attitudes towards
Science: A Meta-Analysis Science
Hilal AKTAMIŞ1, Emrah HİĞDE2, Barış ÖZDEN3
1 Assoc. Prof. Dr., Adnan Menderes University, Aydın-TURKEY
2 Research Assit, Adnan Menderes University, Aydın-TURKEY
3 Science Teacher, Ministry of National Education, Afyon-TURKEY
Received: 23.02.2016 Revised: 16.06.2016 Accepted: 20.10.2016
The original language of article is English (v.13, n.4, December 2016, pp. 248-261, doi: 10.12973/tused.10183a)
ABSTRACT
The effectiveness of inquiry-based learning method was discussed for a long time. However, inquiry-
based learning method was not discussed and compared with traditional learning before in terms of
students’ academic achievement, science process skills and attitudes towards science in a meta-analysis
study. This study aimed to cover the effects of the inquiry-based science education on students’ academic
achievement, science process skills and attitudes towards science comparing with traditional learning.
The study reviews the findings of the studies on the effectiveness of the inquiry-based science education
comparing with traditional learning. In other words, meta-analysis method was used to combine
statistically the numerical data of the studies and to reach a general conclusion using the results of these
studies. The study reviewed a total of nineteen studies (37 comparisons in terms of achievement, science
process skills and attitudes towards science) about the effects of the inquiry-based science education on
the students’ academic achievement, science process skills and attitudes towards science comparing with
traditional learning carried out in Turkey between 2005 and 2015. Meta-analysis results showed that the
inquiry-based science education had a positive and higher levels of effects of students’ academic
achievement (Cohen’s d=1.029). It was also found that this specific teaching and learning method had a
positive and medium level of effect on their science process skills (Cohen’s d=0.742) and attitudes
towards science (Cohen’s d=0.558). It was found that the inquiry-based learning method used in science
education had much more significant effects on student achievement rather than on their science process
skills and their attitudes towards science in contrast to the traditional teaching method.
Keywords: Academic achievement, attitudes towards science, inquiry, meta-analysis, science process
skills.
INTRODUCTION
Improvements in science and technology have significant effects on science education
like in other fields. Therefore, given that science education has become an important field the
educational systems of different countries aimed at educating individuals who are scientific
literacy. Countries have tried to improve the science course and to make it possible to educate
individuals who can reach the necessary information, interpret the newly acquired information
Corresponding author e-mail: emrahhigde@gmail.com © ISSN:1304-6020
TÜRK FEN EĞİTİMİ DERGİSİ
Yıl 13, Sayı 4, Aralık 2016
Journal of
TURKISH SCIENCE EDUCATION
Volume 13, Issue 4, December 2016
http://www.tused.org
249
Aktamış, H., Hiğde, E. & Özden, B. (2016). Effects of the Inquiry-Based Learning…
based on experiences and have problem-solving skills (AAAS, 1990; NRC, 1996, 2000; MEB
2013). The national educational program for the course of science which became effective in
2013 has the major goal of “educating scientifically literate individuals” (MEB, 2013). The
program makes use of the inquiry-based method as a primary learning and teaching method
for educating scientifically literate individuals. Similarly, National Research Council (NRC)
published a series of standards and reported that inquiry is the basis for science education
(NRC, 1996; 2000). The inquiry-based learning method is a student-centered method in which
students discover everything in their near environment, develop strong arguments about the
natural and physical world surround them based on strong justifications, become those
individuals who are aware of the significance of science, and construct information about
doing, living and thinking (MEB, 2013; Wallace, 1997; Wood, 2003).
Although inquiry-based science teaching commonly could not be identified by
scientists, scientists determine common characteristics of inquiry-based science teaching for
participants. National Research Council (1996) expressed national science standards to define
inquiry-based teaching in different aspects (content, process skills or instructional strategies).
In 2000, Inquiry and the national science education standards declared five main
characteristics of inquiry-based science teaching without any classification (NRC, 2000;
Tatar, 2006; Ulu, 2011);
1. Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions.
2. Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate
explanations that address scientifically oriented questions.
3. Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented
questions.
4. Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly
those reflecting scientific understanding.
5. Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations.
Using of traditional teaching cause to rote learning of science topics. Traditional
teaching is concerned with the teacher being the controller of the learning environment.
Power and responsibility are held by the teacher and they play the role of instructor (in the
form of lectures) and decision maker (in regards to curriculum content and specific
outcomes). They regard students as having knowledge holes that need to be filled with
information. In short, the traditional teacher views that it is the teacher that causes learning to
occur (Novak, 1998). In the eyes of reformers, traditional teacher-centered methods focused
on rote learning and memorization must be abandoned in favor of student-centered and task-
based approaches to learning. In recent years, reforms in science education proposed methods
which are not based on route memorization, and encourage students’ mental and scientific
reasoning skills. These methods are strongly based on inquiry and aimed to improve their
interest in science (NRC, 1996; 2000). In numerous studies, it was found that the inquiry-
based teaching is much more efficient in improving student performance than traditional
teaching methods (Gabel, Ruba & Franz, 1977; Hal & McCurdy, 1990; Geban, Askar &
Ozkan, 1992; Gencturk & Turkmen, 2007; Celik & Cavas, 2012), their laboratory skills or
science process skills (Tobin & Capie, 1982; Matheis & Nakayama, 1988; Basaga, Geban &
Tekkaya, 1994; Ergul et al., 2011; Ozdemir & Isık, 2015; Yalcın, 2014), their ability to
remember the content of the course (Schneider & Rener, 1980), gender (Gencturk &
Turkmen, 2007; Inaltekin & Akcay, 2012) and their attitudes towards science or their
scientific activities (Gabel, Ruba & Franz, 1977; Shepardson & Pizini, 1992; Turkmen, 2009;
Arslan et al., 2014). Ergul, Simsekli, Calıs, Ozdilek, Gocmencelebi and Sanlı (2011) carried
out the study with elementary students about how inquiry-based science learning change their
science process skills and attitudes towards science and had reached the conclusion that
250
Journal of Turkish Science Education. 13(4),248-261
inquiry-based science learning significantly influenced on their science process skills and
attitudes towards science.
Although there are plenty of studies to investigate about the effect of inquiry-based
science learning on students’ achievement, science process skills and attitudes towards
science, there is no clear conclusion about whether inquiry-based science learning influence
students achievement, science process skills and attitudes towards science positively or
negatively compared with traditional learning. In all these studies, there seems to be no
consistent conclusion. Some studies showed a result that inquiry-based science learning
increased students’ science process skills, achievement and attitudes towards science and
technology than traditional learning (Celik & Cavas, 2012; Hickey et al., 1999; Hickey,
Wolfe & Kindfeld, 2000; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan & Chinn, 2007; Guthrie et al., 2004; Langer,
2001; Lynch et al., 2005; Tatar, 2012; Wu & Tsai, 2005) with statistical significance, whereas
others found that there is no statistical effect of inquiry-based science learning on students’
science process skills, achievement and attitudes towards science and technology compared
with traditional learning (Bagcaz, 2009; Yıldırım & Berberoğlu; 2012).
Such studies may or may not reach different conclusions. Given that the number of
studies has been increasing, it is hard to access the information needed. Therefore, a
comprehensive research approach should be used in order to make use of the findings of these
studies. One of such comprehensive research approaches is meta-analysis (Hedges & Olkin,
1985; Borenstein et al., 2009). There are both national and international studies about the use
of the inquiry-based teaching method in science education. However, in these studies, the
correlations among the variables which have significant effects on inquiry-based teaching
method in science education generally have not been fully revealed. Therefore, a meta-
analysis is needed to reveal the effects of these variables in science education.
This study aimed at covering the effects of the inquiry-based science education on
students’ academic achievement, science process skills and attitudes towards science
comparing with traditional learning. In addition, the study reviewed the findings of the studies
on the effectiveness of the inquiry-based science education comparing with traditional
learning. In other words, it contains a meta-analysis which is a method to combine statistically
the numerical data of the studies and to reach a general conclusion using the results of these
studies. According to the aim of the study, the following research questions try to be
answered. In contrast to traditional teaching methods:
1) At which level does the inquiry-based learning method affect students’ academic
achievement?
2) At which level does the inquiry-based learning method affect students’ science
process skills?
3) At which level does the inquiry-based learning method affect their attitudes towards
science?
METHODS
a) Research Design
In the study, meta-analysis method was employed to cover the effects of the inquiry-
based learning method on students’ academic achievement, their science process skills and
their attitudes towards science comparing with traditional learning in science education. Meta-
analysis is a method to combine statistically the numerical data of the studies which were
carried out on the same topic and to reach a general conclusion using the results of these
studies (Lipsey & Wilson 2001; Saglam & Yuksel, 2007; Kablan, Topan & Erkan, 2013). In
general, meta-analysis is carried out in the following three steps: 1) identification and
selection of eligible studies, 2) the coding of the data of studies and calculation of effect size
251
Aktamış, H., Hiğde, E. & Özden, B. (2016). Effects of the Inquiry-Based Learning…
and 3) statistical analysis of the effect size and interpretation of the findings of the studies
(Hoffler & Leutner, 2007).
b) Data Collection Tools
The studies were reviewed if they contained a comparison between traditional teaching
methods and the inquiry-based learning method used in science education in terms of the
effects on students’ academic achievement, their scientific process skills and their attitudes
towards science. More specifically, the following criteria were employed in selecting the
studies to be reviewed (Camnalbur & Erdogan, 2008; Springer, Stanne & Donovan, 1999;
Topcu, 2009; Kablan, Topan & Erkan, 2013):
Publication dates: Those studies which were carried out between 2005 and 2015 were
included in the study.
Publication type: Master theses, Ph.D. theses, articles published in scientific journals or
in e-journals, databases (ERIC, YOK thesis catalog, Google scholar, Springer, Science Direct)
were reviewed in the study.
Method employed in the studies: In order to establish the effect size of each method,
namely traditional teaching method and the inquiry-based learning method, those studies
which included both an experimental group and a control group were selected. In addition, the
traditional method should be implemented in the control groups and the inquiry-based method
should be employed in the experiment groups. The study data included statistics that could be
transformed in an effect size. The study was available in Turkish or English. The sample was
from Turkey only.
Use of the appropriate teaching method: In the study, it was required that the inquiry-
based method was employed in the experiment groups and traditional learning was
implemented in the control groups.
Sufficient numerical data: In meta-analysis, the effect size should be covered.
Therefore, descriptive numerical data about the control group and the experiment group are
needed to reveal the effect size. Therefore, those studies which contained the data on the
number of the sample, mean and standard deviation for the control group and the experiment
group were included in the study.
In order to find all potential studies for inclusion in the quantitative synthesis, a
comprehensive systematic search strategy was used. These articles published in international
journals and national journals, which met the criteria given above, were accessible through
the YOK theses catalog, and proceedings were reviewed. The stems of following identifiers
or keywords in the title or abstract were used in the separate or combined searches: (In
Turkish) Sorgulama, Araştırma, Sorgulamaya Dayalı Öğretim, Araştırmaya Dayalı Öğretim,
(In English) Inquiry, Inquiry-based, Inquiry-based Teaching. At the end, a total of 58 studies
were identified.
Then, these studies were reviewed in terms of containing the control group and the
experiment group. Those with no such sampling design were excluded from the study. Those
studies with no numerical data were also excluded. When it was clear that multiple sources
(e.g., dissertations and journal manuscript) reported about the same data set, the source with
more information was included in the analysis. After these reviews, a total of nineteen studies
were included in the sample of the study.
c) Coding of the Data
In the study, the data collected were grouped into two categories. In the first category,
there were eight sub-categories which are all about the publication information and the
content of the studies. These sub-categories were the author(s), publication date, type of the
252
Journal of Turkish Science Education. 13(4),248-261
publication, academic semester, materials used in the study, dependent variables, target
educational level and type of the course. The second category includes information about
sampling size, arithmetical mean, and standard deviation. In order to establish the reliability
of the coding, the data were coded by the authors for two times independently.
Dependent variables: The dependent variables of the study were the effects of the
inquiry-based learning method on the students’ academic achievement, their science process
skills and their attitudes towards science comparing with traditional learning. The effect size
is a standardized value for the data analysis tools used in each study (Bernard et al., 2004).
d) Data Analysis
The data collected in the study were analyzed using treatment effectiveness meta-
analysis. This method is reported to be employed when the arithmetical means of the
dependent variables was found using different data collection tools (Camnalbur & Erdogan,
2008). The statistical data obtained in different studies should be transformed into a common
form which is called the effect size.
The calculation of the effect size was realized using the Standardized Mean Difference
(SMD) also known as Cohen’s d in the literature and in the statistical analyses the
significance was set at 95%. To calculate SMD and to get possible moderators, the following
information was extracted from each study: sample size (experiment and control groups), the
title of participants (traditional and inquiry-based science education attendance) and
quantitative data to calculate effect sizes (r, t, F statistics and X2), p values, or means and
standard deviations. Calculations were based on fixed and random effect model. However, in
social studies, random was recommended (Cumming, 2012). Heterogeneity of effect sizes
was assessed using Q and I2 statistics. When these statistics indicate the lack of homogeneity,
the meta-analytic procedures are repeated in the moderator sub-groups. Therefore, in the
study the effect size classification developed by Cohen (1992) was used. In the meta-analysis,
the effect size is interpreted using a coefficient classification. This classification states that if
the effect size is between .20 and .50 it is small-size. If it occurs between .50 and .80, it is
called medium effect size and if it is higher than .80, it is called large effect size. In the study,
the CMA and the Microsoft Excel 2010 Office program were used for the group comparisons.
Publication Bias
Publication bias is mostly stated in the studies which contain positive and statistical
significance. However, it is rarely stated in the studies which contain negative and no
statistical significance. Publication bias at a certain level affects the mean effect size and
makes it larger than its actual size (Kıs & Konan, 2014). In the study in order to control the
effect of publication bias on the effect size the funnel plot and Orwin’s Fail-Safe N value
were employed.
A funnel plot is a graph designed to check the existence of publication bias. It shows
standard error in the study on the Y axis and effect size on the X axis. Those studies with
smaller standard error occur at the top of the funnel and near to the line of the effect size.
Those studies with higher standard error occur at the bottom of the funnel (Dincer, 2013).
Because those studies with smaller sampling rate have a larger sampling variance than the
expectation of effect size. Publication bias was controlled for each dependent variable
independently below.
RESULTS
a) Descriptive Data
In the study, a total of nineteen studies comparing the traditional method and the
inquiry-based method used in the secondary school science education were reviewed.
253
Aktamış, H., Hiğde, E. & Özden, B. (2016). Effects of the Inquiry-Based Learning…
These studies were carried out on 1521 students, 778 of whom were in the experiment
groups and 743 of whom were in the control groups. The following table shows the type of
the studies, publication dates, and the dependent variables included:
Table 1. Included Studies
Academic
Achievement
Science Process
Skill
Attitudes
Towards
Science
Included Studies
Article
Thesis
Article
Thesis
Article
Thesis
Celik & Cavas, 2012
X
X
X
Bagcaz, 2009
X
X
Kula, 2009
X
X
X
Kaya, 2009
X
Akpullukcu & Gunay, 2013
X
X
Fansa, 2012
X
X
X
Gencturk & Turkmen, 2007
X
Colak, 2014
X
X
Koksal & Berberoglu, 2012
X
X
X
Karamanoglu, 2006
X
Taskoyan, 2008
X
X
Yildirim, 2012
X
X
Ulu, 2009
X
X
Tatar, 2006
X
X
X
Sahin & Saglamer Yazgan, 2013
X
Parim, 2009
X
X
Turkmen, 2009
X
Yalcın, 2013
X
Ergul et al., 2011
X
X
Total (n=19)
5
11
3
8
5
5
The studies reviewed were categorized into three groups: the effects of the inquiry-
based learning method on students’ academic achievement, the effects of the inquiry-based
learning method on students’ science process skills and the effects of the inquiry-based
learning method on students’ attitudes towards science (Table 1). It was found that there
were eleven theses and five articles on the effects of the inquiry-based learning method on
students’ academic achievement. There were eight theses and three articles on the effects of
the inquiry-based learning method on students’ science process skills. There were five
theses and five articles on the effects of the inquiry-based learning method on students’
attitudes towards science. On the other hand, these studies were also found to be related to
the effects of other variables which were not included in the study.
254
Journal of Turkish Science Education. 13(4),248-261
b)
Effects of the Inquiry-Based Learning Method on Students’ Academic
Achievement Based on the Random Effects Model
As given in Table 2, the results of the random effects models about the effects of the
traditional teaching model and the inquiry-based learning method on the student achievement
used in the studies reviewed.
Table 2.
Effectiveness of inquiry-based learning method according to random effects model
Model Type
N
Z
Q
ES
95%
confidence interval
Lower
Upper
Random
Effects
Model
16
6.488
87.358
1.029
.718
1.340
As can be seen in Table 2, there is a large effect size on student achievement.
Therefore, it can be argued that the students’ academic achievement in the groups where
the inquiry-based learning method is employed is much higher than in the groups where the
traditional learning method is employed.
The results of the z test which was employed for statistical significance purposes
showed the following z value: z= 6.488. It is statistically significant with p= 0.000
(p<0.05).
In the chi-square table, the critical value is stated to be nearly 24.996 with a
significance level of 95% and a degree of freedom of 15. Given that Q value found in the
study is 87.358 and that it is higher than the critical value of 24.996, the hypothesis of
homogeneity about the distribution of the effect size was used in the random effects model.
In the study, the effect size was found as 1.029. As can be seen in Figure 1 the effect
sizes of the studies reviewed are symmetrically distributed on two sides of the vertical axis
and they are all near to this axis. The Orwin’s Fail-Safe N analysis showed that the effect
size of 1.029 could only be near to zero if 848 studies were included in the meta-analysis.
However, there were only sixteen studies which met the necessary inclusion criteria. In
short, it can be argued that there was no publication bias in the studies reviewed.
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
Standard Error
Std diff in means
Funnel Plot of Standard Error by Std diff in means
Figure 1. Funnel plot for effectiveness of inquiry-based learning on academic achievement
Standard Error
Std. Mean Differences
255
Aktamış, H., Hiğde, E. & Özden, B. (2016). Effects of the Inquiry-Based Learning…
c)
Effects of the Inquiry-Based Learning Method on Students’ Science Process
Skill Based on the Random Effects Model
As given in Table 3, the results of the random effects models about the effects of the
traditional teaching method and the inquiry-based learning method on students’ science
process skills used in the studies reviewed.
Table 3. Effectiveness of inquiry-based learning method according to random effects model
Model Type
N
Z
Q
ES
95%
confidence interval
Lower
Upper
Random
Effects
Model
11
5.074
37.816
.742
.455
1.028
As it can be seen in Table 3, the effect size is at the medium level according to the
classification developed by Cohen (1988). It is safe to argue that the students’ science
process skill in the groups where the inquiry-based learning method is employed is much
better than in the groups where the traditional teaching method is employed.
The results of the z test which was employed for statistical significance purposes
showed the following z value: z= 5.074. It is statistically significant with p=0.000 (p<0.05).
In the chi-square table, the critical value is stated to be nearly 18.31 with a
significance level of 95% and a degree of freedom of 10. Given that Q value found in the
study is 37.816 and that it is higher than the critical value of 18.31, the hypothesis of
homogeneity about the distribution of the effect size was used in the random effects model.
In the study, the effect size was found as 0.742. As can be seen in Figure 2, the effect
sizes of the studies reviewed are symmetrically distributed on two sides of the vertical axis
and they are all near to this axis. The Orwin’s Fail-Safe N analysis showed that the effect
size of 0.742 could only be near to zero if 266 studies were included in the meta-analysis.
However, there were only eleven studies which met the necessary inclusion criteria. In
short, it can be argued that there was no publication bias in the studies reviewed.
-2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
Standard Error
Std diff in means
Funnel Plot of Standard Error by Std diff in means
Figure 2. Funnel plot for effectiveness of inquiry-based learning on science process skills
Std. Mean Differences
Standard Error
256
Journal of Turkish Science Education. 13(4),248-261
d)
Effects of the Inquiry-Based Learning Method on Students’ Attitudes
Towards Science Based on the Random Effects Model
Table 4 shows the results of the random effects models about the effects of the
traditional teaching model and the inquiry-based learning method on students’ attitudes
towards science used in the studies reviewed.
Table 4. Effectiveness of inquiry-based learning method according to random effects model
Model Type
N
Z
Q
ES
95 %
confidence interval
Lower
Upper
Random
Effects
Model
10
3.832
36.631
.558
.273
.843
As it can be seen in Table 4, the effect size is at the medium level according to the
classification developed by Cohen (1988). It is safe to argue that the students’ attitude
towards science in the groups where the inquiry-based learning method is employed is
much more positive than in the groups where the traditional teaching method is employed.
The results of the z test which was employed for statistical significance purposes
showed the following z value: z= 3.832. It is statistically significant with p=0.000 (p<0.05).
In the chi-square table, the critical value is stated to be nearly 16.92 with a
significance level of 95% and a degree of freedom of 9. Given that Q value found in the
study is 36.631 and that it is higher than the critical value of 16.92, the hypothesis of
homogeneity about the distribution of the effect size was used in the random effects model.
In the study, the effect size was found as 0.558. As can be seen in Figure 3 the effect
sizes of the studies reviewed are symmetrically distributed on two sides of the vertical axis
and they are all near to this axis. The Orwin’s Fail-Safe N analysis showed that the effect
size of 0.742 could only be near to zero if 127 studies were included in the meta-analysis.
However, there were only ten studies which met the necessary inclusion criteria. In short, it
can be argued that there was no publication bias in the studies reviewed.
-2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
Standard Error
Std diff in means
Funnel Plot of Standard Error by Std diff in means
Figure 3. Funnel plot for effectiveness of inquiry-based learning on attitudes towards science
Standard Error
Std. Mean Differences
257
Aktamış, H., Hiğde, E. & Özden, B. (2016). Effects of the Inquiry-Based Learning…
DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION
Discussion
In the study, a total of nineteen studies were reviewed in terms of the effects of the
traditional teaching method and the inquiry-based learning method on student achievement,
their science process skills and their attitudes towards science in the context of primary
education science courses.
Of these nineteen studies, sixteen studies compared the effects of the traditional
teaching method and the inquiry-based learning method on students’ academic
achievement. The meta-analysis showed that in fifteen studies there was a positive effect
size in favor of the inquiry-based learning method. The national findings (Timur
&
Kincal,
2010) about the effects of the inquiry-based learning method are mostly consistent with the
international findings (Schroeder et al., 2007). Minner, Levy
&
Century (2009) reviewed a
total of 138 studies on the effects of the inquiry-based learning method used in science
education on student achievement and their conceptual comprehension. These studies were
published between 1984 and 2002. They found that the inquiry-based learning method used
in science education had significant effects on the students’ academic achievement and
their conceptual comprehension. On the other hand, based on the findings of the current
meta-analysis and the previous findings it is safe to argue that the inquiry-based learning
method used in science education had significant effects on the primary education students’
academic achievement in contrast to the traditional teaching method (Celik
&
Cavas,
2012).
In the current meta-analysis, eleven studies were reviewed in terms of the effects of
the traditional teaching method and the inquiry-based learning method on students’
scientific process. Of these eleven studies in ten studies, the inquiry-based learning method
was found to have much more positive effects on students’ science process skills in
contrast to the traditional teaching method. In the previous studies carried out in Turkey
about the effects of the inquiry-based learning method on primary education students’
science process skills inconclusive findings were found. For instance, Yıldırım and
Berberoglu (2012) concluded that the inquiry-based learning method had no significant
effect on the eight-grade students’ academic achievement and science process skills in
regard to the unit of force and movement. However, Yasar and Duban (2009) concluded
that the science activities which were carried out using the inquiry-based learning method
increased the number and type of the science process skills used by the fifth-grade students.
Based on the findings of the current meta-analysis it is possible to argue that the inquiry-
based learning method improved the use of the science process skills by primary education
students in terms of the number of these skills.
Among ten studies reviewed in eight studies the inquiry-based learning, method was
found to have much more positive effects on the attitudes of the students towards science in
contrast to the traditional teaching method. Similarly, Gibson and Chase (2002) concluded
that the attitudes of the students towards science who were taking courses in an inquiry-
based learning method. Duban (2008) also argued that the inquiry-based learning method
used in science education has positive and significant effects on student achievement, their
science process skills and their attitudes towards science.
Conclusion
Experimental studies were included to meta-analysis study so results should be
interpreted according to nature of experimental studies. In experimental studies, it was
possible that variables out of the independent variables influence on dependent variables.
Especially, when participants’ attitudes toward being involved in a study affect the way
258
Journal of Turkish Science Education. 13(4),248-261
they behave, a Hawthorne effect has occurred. When participants are given increased
attention and recognition because they are participating in a study, their responses may be
affected. This is known as the Hawthorne effect, some changes in teaching method by
researchers cause that participants can give different responses unusually (Fraenkel
&
Wallen, 2006). Therefore, experimental groups can take higher scores than control groups.
Sometimes teachers and researchers can be influenced by Hawthorne effect. For this
reason, it can be said that increasing of academic achievement could not be resulted from
only inquiry-based science teaching in experimental studies.
In the current study, it was found that in contrast to the traditional teaching method
the inquiry-based learning method used in science education had much more significant
effects on student achievement rather than on their science process skills and their attitudes
towards science.
Recommendations
Therefore, it can be suggested that the inquiry-based learning method should be
preferred in primary education science courses in order to improve student achievement,
science process skills and attitudes towards science.
Future studies may also employ the meta-analysis technique to reveal the effects of
the inquiry-based learning method used in science education on misconceptions and on
students’ future careers.
In the study only quantitative studies were reviewed. Therefore, future studies may
review the qualitative studies. Another limitation of the current study is that it reviewed
those studies carried out in Turkey. Future studies may review other studies carried out in
different countries. Such studies will provide an opportunity to make comparisons at a
larger scale.
Given that the studies on the inquiry-based learning method have become common,
similar meta-analysis based studies should be made to make comparisons in terms of the
effect size.
REFERENCES
AAAS. (1993). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. Oxford University Press, New York.
Arslan, A., Ogan Bekiroğlu, F., Süzük, E., & Gürel, C. (2014). Fizik laboratuvar derslerinin
araştırma-sorgulama açısından incelenmesi ve öğretmen adaylarının görüşlerinin
belirlenmesi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(2), 3-37.
Bağcaz, E. (2009). Sorgulayıcı öğretim yönteminin öğrencilerin akademik başarısı ve fen ve
teknoloji dersine yönelik tutumuna etkisi. Sakarya University, Science Institute,
Sakarya.
Basaga, H., Geban, O. & Tekkaya, C. (1994). The effect of the inquiry teaching method on
biochemistry and science process skills achievements. Biochemical Education, 2, 29-32.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L. et al. (2004).
How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of
the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 349-361.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. (2013). Meta-Analize
Giris [Introduction to Meta-Analyses]. Dincer, S., (trans.). Ankara: Ani publishing
(Original work published 2009).
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to
meta-analysis. West Sussex-UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Camnalbur, M. & Erdogan, Y. (2008). Bilgisayar destekli öğretimin etkililiği üzerine bir meta
analiz çalışması: Türkiye örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 8, 497-505.
259
Aktamış, H., Hiğde, E. & Özden, B. (2016). Effects of the Inquiry-Based Learning…
Celik, K. & Cavas, B. (2012). Canlılarda Üreme, Büyüme ve Gelişme Ünitesinin Araştırmaya
Dayalı Öğrenme Yöntemi ile İşlenmesinin Öğrencilerin Akademik Başarılarına,
Bilimsel Süreç Becerilerine ve Fen ve Teknoloji Dersine Yönelik Tutumlarına Etkisi.
Ege Eğitim Dergisi, (13)2, 50–75.
Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
1(3), 98-101.
Cumming, G. (2013). The new statistics why and how. Psychological science,
0956797613504966.
Duban, N. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersinin sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme
yaklaşımına göre islenmesi: Bir eylem araştırması. Anadolu University, Institute of
Educational Sciences, Unpublished Dissertation, Eskisehir.
Ergul, R., Simsekli, Y., Calıs, S., Ozdilek, Z. & Gocmencelebi, S. (2011). The effects of
inquiry-based science teaching on elementary school students’ science process skills
and science attitudes. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 5(1), 48-68.
Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen. N.E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. Mc
Grawall Hill.
Gabel, D. L., Rubba, P. A. & Franz, J. R. (1977). The effect of early teaching and training
experience on physics achievement, attitudes toward science and science teaching, and
process skill proficiency: Science Education, 61, 503-511.
Geban, O., Askar, P. & Ozkan, I. (1992). Effects of computer simulations and problem-
solving approaches on high school students: J. Educational Research, 86, 5-10.
Gencturk, A. H. & Turkmen, L. (2007). İlköğretim 4. Sınıf Fen Bilgisi Dersinde Sorgulama
Yöntemi ve Etkinliği Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 277-
292.
Gibson, H. L. & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program
on middle school students' attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., et al.
(2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented
reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423.
Hal, D. A. & McCurdy, D. W. (1990). A comparison of a Biological Sciences Curriculum
Study (BSCS) laboratory and a traditional laboratory on student achievement a two
private liberal arts colleges. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 625-636.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Florida-USA:
Academic Press, Inc.
Hickey, D. T., Kindfeld, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. (1999). Advancing
educational theory by enhancing practice in a technology supported genetics learning
environment. Journal of Education, 181, 25– 55.
Hickey, D. T., Wolfe, E. W., & Kindfield, A. C. H. (2000). Assessing learning in a
technology-supported genetics environment: Evidential and consequential validity
issues. Educational Assessment, 6, 155–196.
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem
based learning and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark
(2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Hoffler, T. & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-
analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722-738.
İnaltekin, T., Akçay, H. (2012). Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretmenliği Adaylarının Sorgulamaya
Dayalı Fen Öğretimi Öz Yeterliliklerinin İncelenmesi. Address:
http://kongre.nigde.edu.tr/ date: 29.11.2012
Kablan, Z., Topan, B. & Erkan, B. (2013). Sınıf İçi Öğretimde Materyal Kullanımının
Etkililik Düzeyi: Bir Meta-Analiz Çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri,
260
Journal of Turkish Science Education. 13(4),248-261
13(3), 1629-1644.
Kıs, A. & Konan, N. (2014). Okul Müdürlerinin Öğretimsel Liderlik Davranışlarını Gösterme
Düzeylerine İlişkin Sınıf ve Branş Öğretmenlerinin Görüşleri: Bir Meta-Analiz. Eğitim
ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 359-374.
Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and
write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 837–880.
Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. California: Sage
Publications.
Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C., & Szesze, M. (2005). Examining the effects of a highly rated
science curriculum unit on diverse students: Results from a planning grant. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 42, 921–946.
Matheis, F. E., & Nakayama, G. (1988). Effects of laboratory-centered inquiry program on
laboratory skills, science process skills, and understanding in middle grade students,
ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED307148.
MEB. (2013). Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ve 8. ) Öğretim Programı [The Science
Program], Ankara.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J. & Century, J. R. (2004, April 3). Describing Inquiry Instruction in
Current Research: A Challenge for Synthesis. Paper presented at the National
Association of Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Vancouver, B. C.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. DC: National
Academies Press, Washington.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards.
DC: National Academies Press, Washington.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ozdemir, O. & Isık, H. (2015). Effect of Inquiry-Based Science Activities on Prospective
Elementary Teachers’ Use of Science Process Skills and Inquiry Strategies. Journal of
Turkish Science Education, 12(1).
Rutherford, F. J. & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Saglam, M. & Yuksel, İ. (2007). Program değerlendirmede meta-analiz ve meta
değerlendirme yöntemleri. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (18): 175-
189.
Schneider, L. S. & Rener, J. W. (1980). Concrete and formal teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 17, 503-517.
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-
1460.
Shepardson, D. P. & Pizini, E. L. (1993). A comparison of student perceptions of science
activites within the instructional approaches. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 127-
131.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E. & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on
undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21-51.
Tatar, N. (2006). İlköğretim fen eğitiminde araştırmaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımının bilimsel
süreç becerilerine, akademik başarıya ve tutuma etkisi. Gazi University, Institute of
Education Sciences (Unpublished Dissertation)
Timur, B. & Kıncal, R.Y. (2010). İlköğretim 7. Sınıf Fen Bilgisi Dersinde Sorgulamalı
Öğretimin Öğrenci Başarısına Etkisi, Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi 8, 1, 41-65.
Tobin, K. G. & Capie, W. (1982). Relationship between formal reasoning ability, locus of
261
Aktamış, H., Hiğde, E. & Özden, B. (2016). Effects of the Inquiry-Based Learning…
control, academic engagement and integrated process skills achievement. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 19, 13-12.
Topcu, P. (2009). Cinsiyetin bilgisayar tutumu üzerindeki etkisi: Bir meta analiz çalışması.
Unpublished master thesis, Marmara University, Institute of Education Sciences,
İstanbul.
Turkmen, H. (2009). An effect of technology based inquiry approach on the of “Earth, Sun, &
Moon” subject. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10 (1).
Ulu, C. (2011). Fen öğretiminde araştırma sorgulamaya dayalı bilim yazma aracı
kullanımının kavramsal anlama, bilimsel süreç ve üstbiliş becerilerine etkisi. Marmara
University, Institute of Education Sciences, İstanbul, Türkiye.
Wallace, R. S. (1997). Structural Equation Model of the Relationships among Inquiry-Based
Instruction, Attitudes toward Science, Achievement in Science and Gender. Illinois
University, Northon.
Wood, W. B. (2003). Inquiry-based undergraduate teaching in life sciences at large research
universities: A perspective on the boyer commission report. Cell Biology Education, 2,
112-116.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2005). Effects of constructivist-oriented instruction on elementary
school students’ cognitive structures. Journal of Biological Education, 39, 113–119.
Yalcın, T. (2014). Sorgulama Temelli Öğrenme Yönteminin, Öğrencilerin Bilimsel Süreç
becerileri ve Kavramsal Anlamaları Üzerindeki Etkisi. Dokuz Eylül University,
Institute of Education Sciences, Unpublished master thesis, İzmir.
Yasar, S. & Duban, N. (2009). Students’ opinions regarding to the inquiry-based learning
approach. Elementary Education Online, 8 (2), 457-475.
Yıldırım, A. & Berberoglu, G. (2012). Rehberli Sorgulama Deneylerinin Bilimsel Süreç
Becerilerinin Kazandırılmasına, Başarıya ve Kavramsal Değişime Etkisi. Unpublished
master thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Yıldız, N. (2002). Verilerin değerlendirilmesinde meta analiz. Unpublished master thesis,
Institute of Sciences, Marmara University, İstanbul.