The Effects of Inquiry Teaching on Student Science Achievement and Attitudes: Evidence from Propensity Score Analysis of PISA Data

References

• Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   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. doi: 10.3102/00346543053004499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x
   Web of Science ®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
• Fan, X., & Nowell, D. L. (2011). Using propensity score matching in educational research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 74–79. doi: 10.1177/0016986210390635
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frölich, M. (2004). Programme evaluation with multiple treatments. Journal of Economic Surveys, 18(2), 181–224. doi: 10.1111/j.0950-0804.2004.00001.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. (2009). Recent experimental studies of inquiry-based teaching: A meta-analysis and review. Presented at the 13th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review, 79(2), 171–212. doi: 10.1086/442968
   Web of Science ®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. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, G. (2012). Marginal mean weighting through stratification: A generalized method for evaluating multivalued and multiple treatments with nonexperimental data. Psychological Methods, 17(1), 44–60. doi: 10.1037/a0024918
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imbens, G. W. (2000). The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika, 87(3), 706–710. doi: 10.1093/biomet/87.3.706
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, F., & McComas, W. F. (2012). The effects of level of openness in inquiry teaching on student science achievement and attitudes: Evidence from propensity score analysis with PISA 2006 U.S. data. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis, IN.
   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. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lechner, M. (2001). Identification and estimation of causal effects of multiple treatments under the conditional independence assumption. In M. Lechner & F. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Econometric evaluation of labour market policies (Vol. 13, pp. 43–58). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lott, G. W. (1983). The effect of inquiry teaching and advance organizers upon student outcomes in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 437–451. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660200507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi: 10.1002/tea.20347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. doi: 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., & Lee, Y. (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. doi: 10.1002/tea.20212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1–103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. S., & Tamir, P. (1973). Research on teaching in the natural sciences. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching: A project of the American educational research association (pp. 1098–1148). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
   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. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660270205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shymansky, J. A., Kyle Jr. W. C., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 387–404. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660200504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spreeuwenberg, M. D., Bartak, A., Croon, M. A., Hagenaars, J. A., Busschbach, J. J. V., Andrea, H., … Twisk, J. (2010). The multiple propensity score as control for bias in the comparison of more than two treatment arms: An introduction from a case study in mental health. Medical Care, 48, 166–174. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181c1328f
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart, E. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2008). Matching methods for causal inference: Designing observational studies. In J. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 155–176). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Treagust, D. F. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 373–391). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   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. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660190610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windschitl, M. (2008). What is inquiry? A framework for thinking about authentic scientific practice in the classroom. In J. Luft, R. L. Bell, & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 1–20). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wise, K. C., & Okey, J. R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 419–435. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660200506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar