(PDF) The Efficacy of Inquiry-Based Instruction in Science: a Comparative Analysis of Six Countries Using PISA 2015 – ResearchGate

Research in Science Education (2021) 51 (Suppl 2):S595–S616

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.

Klahr, D. (2013). What do we mean? On the importance of not abandoning scientific rigor when talking about

science education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 3), 14075–14080.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212738110.

Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction. Psychological

Science, 15(10), 661–667.

Lau, K.-C., & Lam, T. Y.-P. (2017). Instructional practices and science performance of 10 top-performing regions

in PISA 2015. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 2128–2149. https://doi.org/10.1080

/09500693.2017.1387947.

Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: effects of guidance. Review of

Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718.

McConney, A., Oliver, M., Woods‐McConney, A., Schibeci, R. (2011) Bridging the gap? A comparative,

retrospective analysis of science literacy and interest in science for indigenous and non‐indigenous

Australian students. International Journal of Science Education, 33(14), 2017–2035.

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21135.

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). 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–

496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347.

Nadelson, L ., Williams, S., & Turn er, H. (2011). Influence of inquiry-based science interventions on

middle school students’cognitive, behavioral, and affective outcomes. The Campbell

Corporation.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts,

and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on

science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington: The National

Academies Press.

OECD. (2004). Learning for Tomorrow’s world: first results from PISA 2003. Paris: OCED.

OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow’sworld.Paris:OECD.

OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 results: what students know and can do. In Student performance in reading,

mathematics and science. Paris: Author.

OECD. (2016a). PISA 2015 results (volume I): excellence and equity in education. Paris: PISA, OECD

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en.

OECD. (2016b). PISA 2015 results (volume II): policies and practices for successful schools.Paris:PISA,

OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.

OECD. (2018). PISA 2015 results in focus. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-

results-in-focus.pdf.

Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. (2013). Maintaining curiosity: a survey into

science education in schools. Manchester, 2013.

Ofsted. (2011). Successful science: An evaluation of science education in England 2007 –2010. Manchester,

UK: Author.

Osborne, J. (2015). Practical work in science: misunderstood and badly used? School Science Review, 96(357), 16–24.

Rennie, L . J. (2010). Evaluation of the science by doing stage one professional learning approach 2010.

Australian Academy of Science: Canberra.

Rocard, M. (2007). Science education NOW: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe, Brussels: EurEopean

Commission. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/ document_library/pdf_06/report-

rocard-onscience- education_en.pdf (2.06.2015).

Roseman, J. E., Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & Koppal, M. (2017). Designing for the next generation science

standards: educative curriculum materials and measures of teacher knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 28(1), 111–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2016.1277598.

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.

Sjøberg, S. (2016). OECD, PISA, and globalization: the influence of the international assessment regime

Education Policy Perils. Tackling the Tough Issues. (pp. 102–133): Routledge.

Sjøberg, S. (2018). The power and paradoxes of PISA: should inquiry-based science education be sacrificed to

climb on the rankings? Nordic Studies in Science Education, 14(2), 186–202.

Songer, N. B., Lee, H., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science

beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 84, 490–516.

S615

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.