Scaffolding Genetics Learning in Resource-Constrained Classrooms: Effects of Inquiry-Based Worksheets on Student Achievement

Genetics and genetic disorders are persistently challenging for senior high school students because of their abstract concepts, entrenched misconceptions about chromosome behavior, and difficulties in understanding meiosis and inheritance patterns. This quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test study examined the effectiveness of guided inquiry-based learning (IBL) worksheets in improving Grade 11 students’ academic performance in genetics competencies in public secondary schools in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Philippines. Two intact classes (N = 57; ages 16–18) participated and were exposed to researcher-developed IBL worksheets aligned with Department of Education standards. The instructional materials incorporated contextualized case studies on Down syndrome and scaffolded prompts that guided learners through hypothesis formulation, data interpretation, and reflective reasoning. Pre-test results indicated generally low proficiency across genetics competencies, with item-level correct response rates ranging from 37.50% to 75.00%. Post-test results demonstrated a modest but statistically significant improvement in achievement. Analysis using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed a significant increase in students’ scores (Z = 6.032, p < 0.001), suggesting that the structured inquiry approach effectively supported conceptual understanding within Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. The findings indicate that guided IBL worksheets are cost-effective and scalable instructional tools for resource-constrained educational contexts, with potential to reduce misconceptions in genetics. However, the results are limited by the short intervention period and the localized sample, warranting further longitudinal and multi-site investigations.

Genetics, Guided Inquiry Based Learning, Scaffolding

1. Amaro, R. C., Ballesteros, J. B., Buffe, F. T., & Tino, M. D. (2023). Performance Evaluation of Grade 9 Students in Science and its Implications for Blended Learning. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Applied Science, 122. https://doi.org/10.51584/ijrias.2023.81013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Antonio, R. P., & Prudente, M. S. (2023). Effects of Inquiry-Based Approaches on Students’ Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Science: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology, 12(1), 251. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.3216 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Arifin, Z., Sukarmin, S., Saputro, S., & Kamari, A. (2025). The effect of inquiry-based learning on students’ critical thinking skills in science education: A systematic review and meta-analysis [Review of The effect of inquiry-based learning on students’ critical thinking skills in science education: A systematic review and meta-analysis]. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 21(3). Modestum Limited. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15988 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Azzaroiha, C., Redhana, I. W., & Suma, K. (2025). The Effect of Scaffolding Strategies on Learning Outcomes in Science Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 11(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v11i1.8628 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bara, G., & Xhomara, N. (2020). The effect of student-centered teaching and problem-based learning on academic achievement in science. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(2), 180. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.20 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bernardo, A. B. I., Cordel, M. O., Calleja, M. O., Teves, J. M. M., Yap, S. A., & Chua, U. (2023). Profiling low-proficiency science students in the Philippines using machine learning. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 192. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01705-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bogador, C. J., Camarao, M. K. G., Matunding, C. G., & Sombria, K. J. F. (2024). Challenges and Benefits of Inquiry-Based Learning in Physics. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Applied Business and Education Research, 5(7), 2716. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.05.07.26 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Borja, E. A., & Mutya, R. C. (2024). Enhancing student’s conceptual understanding on the patterns of Mendelian genetics through task-based learning. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 10(1), 107. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v10i1.29924 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cabural, A. B. (2024). Beyond Benchmarking: A Diagnostic Inquiry into the Underlying Determinants of Low Performance in Philippine PISA Science. Journal of Tertiary Education and Learning, 2(3), 46. https://doi.org/10.54536/jtel.v2i3.3063 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Deep, A., Murthy, S., & Bhat, J. P. (2020). Geneticus Investigatio: a technology-enhanced learning environment for scaffolding complex learning in genetics. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-020-00145-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. DO 8, s. 2015 - Policy Guidelines on Classroom Assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program | Department of Education. April 1, 2015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Duque, S. A. F. P., Nabua, E. B., Salic-Hairulla, M. A., Almeda, M. C. V., & Alcopra, A. R. (2025). Laboratory Manual for Senior High School Physical Science Class. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 984. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2025.90500083 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Erkol, M., & Şahintepe, S. (2020). The Effect of Inquiry-Based Learning Approach on Secondary School Students’ Metacognitive Awareness. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(3), 668. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.651079 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Eymur, G., & Çetin, P. S. (2024). Investigating the role of an inquiry-based science lab on students’ scientific literacy. Instructional Science, 52(5), 743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09672-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Garcia L. C. (2025). Four teachers’ classroom management approaches (CMA): A case study in the Philippines. アジア生物教育協議会. https://doi.org/10.57443/ajbe.17.0_15 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Guerrero, J. S., & Bautista, R. G. (2023). Inquiry-Based Teaching in Secondary Science. International Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 8(2), 146. https://doi.org/10.58885/ijssh.v08i2.146.jg [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Haagsman, M. E., Koster, M., Boonstra, J., & Scager, K. (2020). Be Prepared! How Pre-lab Modules Affect Students’ Understanding of Gene Mapping. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(4), 461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09890-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Handayanto, S. K., Fawaiz, S., & Taufiq, A. (2024). Using e-scaffolding to develop students’ scientific reasoning through inquiry-based learning. The Education and Science Journal. https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2024-3082 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Jong, T. de, Lazonder, A. W., Chinn, C. A., Fischer, F., Gobert, J. D., Hmelo‐Silver, C. E., Koedinger, K. R., Krajcik, J., Kyza, E. Α., Linn, M. C., Pedaste, M., Scheiter, K., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2023). Let’s talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction [Review of Let’s talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction]. Educational Research Review, 39, 100536. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100536 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kampourakis, K. (2024). Teaching School Genetics in the 2020s: Why “Naive” Mendelian Genetics Has to Go [Review of Teaching School Genetics in the 2020s: Why “Naive” Mendelian Genetics Has to Go]. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 17(6). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a041679 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kranz, D., Martin, P. P., Schween, M., & Graulich, N. (2025). Should we scaffold it? Analysing the effect of task format and scaffolding on students’ learning gain. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1039/d4rp00241e [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Lestari, E. S., Sajidan, S., Rahmawati, F., & Indrowati, M. (2024). The Inquiry Ethnobotany Learning Model: An Instructional Design Model to Enhance Student Environmental Literacy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 23(2), 377. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/24.23.377 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Lombardo, S. C. (2025). Aprender la meiosis en Primero de Bachillerato mediante una actividad de modelización en el aula. Revista de Estilos de Aprendizaje, 17(34), 99. https://doi.org/10.55777/rea.v17i34.7078 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Matawali, A., Bakri, S. N. S., Jumat, N. R., Ismail, I. H., Arshad, S. E., & Din, W. A. (2019). The preliminary study on inverted problem-based learning in biology among science foundation students. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 8(4), 713. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v8i4.20294 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Megahati, R. R. P., Yanti, F. A. D., & Susanti, D. (2018). Effectiveness of students worksheet based on mastery learning in genetics subject. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1013, 12013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Morris, D. L. (2025). Rethinking Science Education Practices: Shifting from Investigation-Centric to Comprehensive Inquiry-Based Instruction. Education Sciences, 15(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010073 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Mursali, S., Hastuti, U. S., Zubaidah, S., & Rohman, F. (2024). Guided inquiry with Moodle to improve students’ science process skills and conceptual understanding. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 13(3), 1875. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i3.27617 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Newman, D. L., Catavero, C. M., & Wright, L. K. (2012). Students Fail to Transfer Knowledge of Chromosome Structure to Topics Pertaining to Cell Division. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 425. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-01-0003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Nunaki, J. H., Damopolii, I., Kandowangko, N. Y., & Nusantari, E. (2019). The Effectiveness of Inquiry-based Learning to Train the Students’ Metacognitive Skills Based on Gender Differences. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 505. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12232a [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ojo, A. T. (2024). Examination of secondary school students’ conceptual understanding, perceptions, and misconceptions about genetics concepts. Pedagogical Research, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/14095 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Photo, P. (2025). Teaching Experiences Connected To The Implementation Of Inquiry-Based Practical Work In Primary Science Classrooms. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-025-10235-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Picardal, M. T., & Sanchez, J. M. P. (2022). Effectiveness of Contextualization in Science Instruction to Enhance Science Literacy in the Philippines: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research, 21(1), 140. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.1.9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Raslan, G. (2024). The Impact of the Zone of Proximal Development Concept (Scaffolding) on the Students Problem Solving Skills and Learning Outcomes. In Lecture notes in civil engineering (p. 59). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56121-4_6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Saro, J. M., Guzman, M. T., Ochavez, E. E., & Dano, C. O. (2023). Ethno-Learning Resources in Teaching Biology for Promoting Sustainability Education: A District-Wide Science Problem. American Journal of Education and Technology, 2(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajet.v2i2.1322 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Siantuba, J., Nkhata, L., & Jong, T. de. (2023). The impact of an online inquiry-based learning environment addressing misconceptions on students’ performance. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00236-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Strom, K. J., & Viesca, K. M. (2023). Towards a complex framework of teacher learning-practice. In Routledge eBooks (p. 13). Informa. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003372097-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Sui, C., Chen, H.-C., Cheng, P.-H., & Chang, C. (2022). The Go-Lab Platform, an Inquiry-learning Space: Investigation into Students’ Technology Acceptance, Knowledge Integration, and Learning Outcomes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10008-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Tawfik, A. A., Hung, W., & Giabbanelli, P. J. (2020). Comparing How Different Inquiry-based Approaches Impact Learning Outcomes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijpbl.v14i1.28624 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Walck-Shannon, E., Barton, H., Rowell, S. F., Chalker, D. L., & Fink, A. (2025). Students Don’t Learn the Way They Think They Do in a Large, Active-Learning Genetics Course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.24-10-0251 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Wright, L. K., & Newman, D. L. (2011). An interactive modeling lesson increases students’ understanding of ploidy during meiosis. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39(5), 344. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20523 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Yakob, N., Kaliun, K., Ahmad, N., Rashid, R.-A. A., & Abdullah, A. (2020). The effect of coupled inquiry-5E in enhancing the understanding of Meiosis concept. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 9(1), 129. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i1.20393 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Tan, R. M., Yangco, R. T., & Que, E. N. (2020). Students’ Conceptual Understanding and Science Process Skills in an Inquiry-Based Flipped Classroom Environment. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 17. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2020.17.1.7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Exploring the Moderating Role of Demographic Variables in the Relationship Between Scientific Curiosity and Creativity Among Secondary School Students
• Development of a CODE-Based Teaching Guide on the Central Dogma in Biochemistry: A Study in the Philippines
• Chronological Versus Biological Age: The Role of Diet and Healthy Lifestyle in Modulating Epigenetic Aging
• Exploring Relationship Between Reaction Time and Academic Achievement in Science Subjects of Middle Stage Students
• Impact of Artificial Intelligent-Tutor Individualized Learning on Students’ Cognitive Load Management in Integrated Science Education in Northeast Nigeria