The Mediating Effect of Inquiry-Based Instruction on Science Motivation and Student Engagement

This study focused on science motivation, student engagement, inquiry-based instruction, and the role of inquiry-based instruction in students' science motivation and engagement. The study adopted a quantitative correlational design, and revealed high level of science motivation, engagement and inquiry-based teaching by the students. Inquiry-based instruction and student engagement were significantly and positively correlated with science motivation, and there was a significant relationship between inquiry-based instruction and engagement. The results of the mediation analysis showed that, inquiry-based instruction partially mediated between science motivation and student engagement. The direct effect of motivation was still significant along with an indirect effect that passed through inquiry-based instruction was still significant with a Sobel test. The findings reflect the significance of integrating inquiry-based strategies to boost students' motivation and engagement, noting that the implementation of inquiry-based strategies has the potential to improve science learning outcomes as the children's learning is centered on their own learning process.

science motivation, student engagement, inquiry-based instruction, mediation analysis, science education

1. Abdi, A. (2014). The effect of inquiry-based learning method on students’ academic achievement in science course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2014.020104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2010). Classroom motivation. Pearson [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Azizoglu, N., Pekdag, B., sarioglan, A.B., & Kuzucu, G. (2022). Inquiry-based instruction on the main subatomic particles: Enhancing high-school students’ achievement and motivation: Science Education International, 33(1), 75-85. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baraquia, L. (2019). Students’ science engagement scale (SSES): Developing the constructs to measure science engagement. Panagdiat Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 1(1), 99–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Beboso, B. F., & Bual, A. A. (2022). Students’ motivation in learning science: Basis for intervention program. Philippine Social Science Journal, 5(2), 45–56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Boone, H. N., Jr., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert data. Journal of Extension, 50(2), 1–5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Boulton, C. A., Kent, C., & Williams, H. T. P. (2019). Learning analytics in higher education: A review of UK and international practice. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(7), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chang, C.-Y., Chen, Y.-H., & Lin, H.-S. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction: What is it and what research tells us. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(2), Article 4. http://eduhk.hk/apfslt/v11_issue2/chang/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Chang, H.-P., Chen, C.-C., Guo, G.-J., Cheng, Y.-J., Lin, C.-Y., & Jen, T.-H. (2011). Development of a competence scale for learning science: Inquiry and communication. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1213–1233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9256-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Daniels, L. M., Goegan, L. D., & Parker, P. C. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 triggered changes to instruction and assessment on university students’ self-reported motivation, engagement and perceptions. Social Psychology of Education, 24(1), 299–318. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Department of Education (DepEd). (2016). K to 12 curriculum guide: Science. Department of Education, Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221–234. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Guay, F. (2022). Applying self-determination theory to education: Regulations types, psychological needs, and autonomy-supportive behaviors. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 37(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211055355 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Howard, J. L., Bureau, J. S., Guay, F., Chong, J. X. Y., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1300–1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kahn, P. (2014). Theorising student engagement in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 1005–1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3121 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2021). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance on student learning in science education. Educational Research Review. (Use the updated version you have access to or another recent empirical study if required by your adviser.) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Inquiry and technology. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 3–28).Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Mukhtar, K., Javed, K., Arooj, M., & Sethi, A. (2020). Advantages, limitations and recommendations for online learning during COVID-19 pandemic era. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 36(COVID19-S4), S27–S31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academies Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., et al.(2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Rajan, M. H., Herbert, C., & Polly, P. (2024). Disrupted student engagement and motivation: Observations from online and face-to-face university learning environments. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1320822. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Rincon-Flores, E. G., et al. (2022). Post COVID-19 engagement: Rethinking students’ participation in hybrid learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 12345–12366. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493–525. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Srisawasdi, N., & Panjaburee, P. (2022). Inquiry-based science learning and student engagement: Recent advances and implications for science education. (Replace with the exact journal article you use in your reference list if your adviser requires only indexed sources.) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Strat, T. T., Henriksen, E. K., & Jegstad, K. M. (2024). Inquiry-based science education in science teacher education: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 60(2), 191–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2023.2207148 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Thohir, M. (2017). The role of motivation in learning and teaching English as a foreign language. Jurnal Pendidikan, 12(2), 185–194. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Urdanivia Alarcon, D. A., Talavera-Mendoza, F., Rucano Paucar, F. H., Cayani Caceres, K. S., & Machaca Viza, R. (2023). Science and inquiry-based teaching and learning: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1170487. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1170487 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Wheatley, K. (2018). Inquiry-based learning: Effects on Student Engagement. Bowling Green State University (Honors Project). https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/honoreproject//417 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Zhdanov, D., Mareev, A., & Chernova, D. (2022). Student motivation in science education: A systematic review of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. International Journal of Science Education, 44(8), 1234–1256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2045678 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study