Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Effect of Student-Centered Approaches on Students’ Interest and Achievement in Science: Relevant Topic-Based, Open and Guided Inquiry-Based, and Discussion-Based Approaches

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since students have lost their interest in school science, several student-centered approaches, such as using topics that are relevant for students, inquiry-based learning, and discussion-based learning have been implemented to attract pupils into science. However, the effect of these approaches was usually measured in small-scale research, and thus, the large-scale evidence supporting student-centered approaches in general use is insufficient. Accordingly, this study aimed to investigate the effect of student-centered approaches on students’ interest and achievement by analyzing a large-scale data set derived from Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2006, to add evidence for advocating these approaches in school science, and to generalize the effects on a large population. We used Finnish PISA 2006 data, which is the most recent data that measures science literacy and that contains relevant variables for the constructs of this study. As a consequence of the factor analyses, four teaching methods were grouped as student-centered approaches (relevant topic-based, open and guided inquiry-based, and discussion-based approaches in school science) from the Finnish PISA 2006 sample. The structural equation modeling result indicated that using topics relevant for students positively affected students’ interest and achievement in science. Guided inquiry-based learning was also indicated as a strong positive predictor for students’ achievement, and its effect was also positively associated with students’ interest. On the other hand, open inquiry-based learning was indicated as a strong negative predictor for students’ achievement, as was using discussion in school science. Implications and limitations of the study were discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science education for everyday life: evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainley, M. (2007). Being and feeling interested: transient state, mood, and disposition. In P. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotions in education (pp. 147–163). Burlington: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). A cultural perspective on the structure of student interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akcay, H., Yager, R. E., Iskander, S. M., & Turgut, H. (2010). Change in student beliefs about attitudes toward science in grades 6–9. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1).

  • Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding students’ experiments—what kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2719–2749. doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.930209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avraamidou, L., & Osborne, J. (2009). The role of narrative in communicating science. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1683–1707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beerenwinkel, A., & Börlin, J. (2014). Surface level: teaching time, lesson phases and types of interaction. In Fischer, H., Labudde, P., Neumann, K., & Viiri, J. (eds.) Quality of Instruction in Physics (pp. 65–79). Waxmann.

  • Bell, R., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J., Grasel, C., Parchmann, I., & Waddington, D. (2005). Context-based and conventional approaches to teaching chemistry: comparing teachers’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1521–1547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R., & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, K., & Cho, H. H. (2002). Effects of teaching ethical issues on Korean school students’ attitudes towards science. Journal of Biological Education, 37(1), 26–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahncke, H., Behrendt, H., & Reiska, P. (2001). A comparison of STS-teaching and traditional physics lessons—on the correlation of physics knowledge and taking action. In H. Dahncke & H. Behrendt (Eds.), Research in science education—past, present and future (pp. 77–82). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston: Houghton Miffler.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1964). John Dewey on education. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drechsel, B., Carstensen, C., & Prenzel, M. (2011). The role of content and context in PISA interest scales: a study of the embedded interest items in the PISA 2006 science assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 73–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2007). Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: Report by a High Level Group on Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2010). The role of language in the learning and teaching of science. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: what research has to say (2nd ed., pp. 135–157). New York: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiser, C. (2013). Data analysis with Mplus. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L., Commonwealth of Australia. (2007). Australian school science education national action plan 2008–2012: Volume 1. Retrieved from http://www.innovation.gov.au/Science AndResearch/publications/ Documents/Volume1final_28August2008.pdf.

  • Hansi, A., & Potvin, P. (2015). Student’s interest in science and technology and its relationships with teaching methods, family context and self-efficacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 10(3), 337–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, F., & McComas, W. (2015). The effects of inquiry teaching on student science achievement and attitudes: evidence from propensity score analysis of PISA data. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 554–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jocz, J., Zhai, J., & Tan, A. (2014). Inquiry learning in the Singaporean context: factors affecting student interest in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2596–2618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 611–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: foundations and extensions. New York: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keinonen, T., Kukkonen, J., & Juntunen, S. (2012). PROFILES Curricular Delphi Study on Science Education. https://www2.uef.fi/documents/1347231/1410147/Delphi_Interim_Report_Second_Round_Finland.pdf/0ce20dd7-1bf0-4a10-8f1d-4e7f41bdb1fc

  • Kelloway, K. (2015). Using Mplus for structural equation modeling: a researcher’s guide (2 ed.). SAGE.

  • Klosterman, M., & Sadler, T. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017–1043. doi:10.1080/09500690902894512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koksal, E., & Berberoglu, G. (2012). The effect of guided-inquiry instruction on 6th grade Turkish students’ achievement. Science Process Skills, and Attitudes Toward Science, International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 66–78. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.721942.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27–50. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.518645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruckeberg, R. (2006). A Deweyan perspective on science education: constructivism, experience, and why we learn science. Science & Education, 15(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavonen, J., & Laaksonen, S. (2009). Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: reflections on PISA 2006 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 922–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., & Songer, N. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, M., & Skamp, K. (2012). The impact of teachers and their science teaching on students’ ‘science interest’: a four-year study. International Journal of Science Education, 1–26 iFirst Article. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.667167.

  • Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in science. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry: exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. Science Teacher, 69(2), 34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConney, A., Oliver, M., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education [MOE] (2015). 2015 National Curriculum Revision. [KOR]

  • 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, 474–496. doi:10.1002/tea.20347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS (2ed). SAGE.

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Authors.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996). The National Science Education Standards. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2000). How people learn. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2007). In R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.), Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieswandt, M., & Shanahan, M.-C. (2008). ‘I just want the credit!’—perceived instrumentality as the main characteristic of boys’ motivation in a grade 11 science course. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, N., Asplund, R., MacDonald, B., Schostack, J., & Zamorski, B. (1996). An independent evaluation of comprehensive curriculum reform in Finland. Helsinki: National Board of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2005). Student questionnaire for PISA 2006: main study. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2007). PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Volume 1.

  • OECD (2009a). PISA Data Analysis Manual. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2009b). PISA 2006 Technical Report.

  • OECD (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: science. Reading: Mathematic and Financial Literacy.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, R., & Lie, S. (2011). Profiles of students’ interest in science issues around the world: analysis of data from PISA 2006. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 97–120. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.518638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottander, C., & Ekborg, M. (2012). Students’ experience of working with socioscientific issues—a quantitative study in secondary school. Research in Science Education, 42(6), 1147–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1969). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PRIMAS (2011). Promoting inquiry-based learning in mathematics and science education across Europe. Kiel: IPN Retrieved March 21, 2013, from http://www.primas-project.eu/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubba, P., McGuyer, M., & Wahlund, T. (1991). The effects of infusion STS vignettes into the genetics unit of biology on learner outcomes in STS and genetics: a report of two investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(7), 537–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: open or guided? Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic achievement: a meta-analysis of research. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 183–212). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shemwell, J., & Furtak, E. (2010). Science classroom discussion as scientific argumentation: a study of conceptually rich (and poor) student talk. Educational Assessment, 15, 222–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Finnish National Board of Education. (2004). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2004. [FIN]

  • The Finnish National Board of Education. (2014). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014. [FIN]

  • Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walberg, H. (1981). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In F. H. Farley & N. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education (pp. 81–110). Berkley: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling: applications using Mplus. New Jersey: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Pen University Press.

  • Yager, R. (1996). Science/technology/society as reform in science education. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, S. (2009). Is student-centered pedagogy impossible in Hong Kong? The case of inquiry in classrooms. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(3), 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, Philosophical Faculty, University of Eastern Finland, PL 111, 80101, Joensuu, Finland

    Jingoo Kang & Tuula Keinonen

Authors
  1. Jingoo Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tuula Keinonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jingoo Kang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kang, J., Keinonen, T. The Effect of Student-Centered Approaches on Students’ Interest and Achievement in Science: Relevant Topic-Based, Open and Guided Inquiry-Based, and Discussion-Based Approaches. Res Sci Educ 48, 865–885 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9590-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9590-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation