A Path Model of Effective Technology-Intensive Inquiry-Based Learning

Individual aptitude, attitudes, and behavior in inquiry-based learning (IBL) settings may affect work and learning performance outcomes during activities using different technologies. To encourage multifaceted learning, factors in IBL settings must be statistically significant and effective, and not cognitively or psychomotor intensive. We addressed these questions in a study of 421 students from 11 Slovenian middle schools using an experimental design. Learning achievements were measured by pre- and post-test, while IBL experiences and perceptions were surveyed in a one-shot study. IBL and its effects were successfully measured with a reliable technological literacy test. We designed a path model to capture the effects from multiple interferers. Course content was the most decisive influential factor, with strong impacts on learning achievements, satisfaction, and perceived course intensity. Prior knowledge and capacity, which affects IBL and decreases its psychomotor intensity, was a surprisingly strong influence. IBL had a large, positive effect on technological knowledge and the development of problem solving, critical thinking, and decision-making abilities. The study findings showed that the proposed IBL model is an effective teaching approach in technology-intensive education.

[1]  Slavko Kocijancic,et al.  Effectiveness of Inquiry-Based Learning: How do Middle School Students Learn to Maximise the Efficacy of a Water Turbine?* , 2014 .

[2]  Abigail Jurist Levy,et al.  Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002 , 2010 .

[3]  Naomi J. Aldrich,et al.  Does Discovery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning?. , 2011 .

[4]  Leonard Springer,et al.  Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis , 1997 .

[5]  Giorgos Mountrakis,et al.  Inquiry-Based Learning in Remote Sensing: A Space Balloon Educational Experiment , 2012 .

[6]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching , 2006 .

[7]  Bruce M. Shore,et al.  Teachers' Use and Understanding of Strategy in Inquiry Instruction* , 2017 .

[8]  S. Avsec,et al.  Technological literacy for students aged 6–18: a new method for holistic measuring of knowledge, capabilities, critical thinking and decision-making , 2016 .

[9]  Robert M. Horton,et al.  The Relationship of Teacher-Facilitated, Inquiry-Based Instruction to Student Higher-Order Thinking. , 2011 .

[10]  Benoît Raucent,et al.  Effectiveness of problem-based learning in engineering education: a comparative study on three levels of knowledge structure , 2012 .

[11]  Arthur Eisenkraft,et al.  Expanding the 5E Model. , 2003 .

[12]  Michael J. Prince,et al.  Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases , 2006 .

[13]  J. Marshall,et al.  4E × 2 Instructional Model: Uniting Three Learning Constructs to Improve Praxis in Science and Mathematics Classrooms , 2009 .

[14]  John Dantzler,et al.  PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF A 5E LEARNING CYCLE LESSON PLAN ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT , 2010 .

[15]  John R. Rossiter,et al.  Measurement for the Social Sciences: The C-OAR-SE Method and Why It Must Replace Psychometrics , 2010 .

[16]  R. Gonzalez.  Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences , 2003 .

[17]  C. Hmelo‐Silver,et al.  Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) , 2007 .

[18]  Michael J. Hannafin,et al.  Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[19]  S. Avsec,et al.  A Predictive Study of Learner Attitudes Toward Open Learning in a Robotics Class , 2014 .

[20]  Niels Blunch,et al.  Introduction to Structural Equation Modelling Using SPSS and Amos , 2008 .

[21]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  A Model-Based Behavior Analysis Approach for Open-Ended Environments , 2014, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[22]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[23]  Greg Pearson,et al.  Tech tally : approaches to assessing technological literacy , 2006 .

[24]  Michal Zion,et al.  Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits , 2012 .

[25]  J. Weir.  Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. , 2005, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[26]  Kristy J. Lauver,et al.  Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. , 2004, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  K. Schermelleh-Engel,et al.  Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. , 2003 .

[28]  B. Shore,et al.  Student Outcomes in Inquiry Instruction , 2012 .

[29]  Leslie R. Odom,et al.  What's this r? A Correlational Approach to Explaining Validity, Reliability and Objectivity Coefficients , 2006 .