Res Sci Educ

DOI 10.1007/s11165-016-9590-2

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

Jingoo Kang 1 & Tuula Keinonen 1

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

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. Accord-
ingly, 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 ap-
proaches 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.

Keywords Student-centered approaches . Relevant topic . Inquiry-based learning . Discussion .

PISA

* Jingoo Kang
jingoo.kang@uef.fi

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

Introduction

Students’ interest in science studies has decreased in developed countries in particular over the
past few decades (Ainley and Ainley 2011; Bennett et al. 2005; Kruckeberg 2006). Conse-
quently, much research has been conducted to identify approaches that promote or decrease
students’ interest in science. In numerous studies, it has been observed that teacher-centered
instruction, such as content-based chalk and talk teaching, or using the difficult language of
science and topics irrelevant to students’ lives, has caused students to have difficulties in
learning science and has, in turn, decreased their interest in science (Aikenhead 2006;
Avraamidou and Osborne 2009; European Commission 2007; Kruckeberg 2006).
Accordingly, in order to promote students’ interest in science and encourage them to
continue their future careers in science-related fields, science education communities have
recommended the use of student-centered approaches (SCAs) and active teaching and learn-
ing, such as topics relevant for students, inquiry-based learning, or discussion (Aikenhead
2006; Bennett et al. 2005; Sadler 2004; Yager 1996). To date, much research advocates that
students who experienced SCAs in their school science indicated increasing interest and
achievement in science (e.g., Klosterman and Sadler 2010; Logan and Skamp 2012;
Ottander and Ekborg 2012). However, as Aikenhead (2006) reported, SCAs have been
practiced using small-scale studies due to a lack of financial and political support, and thus,
there is insufficient large-scale evidence supporting the implementation of SCAs in general
use. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effect of SCAs on students’ interest and
achievement by analyzing a large-scale data set derived from Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA) 2006, in order to add evidence for advocating SCAs in school
science and to generalize the effects on a large population. Currently, PISA 2006 is the latest
study focusing on science literacy that includes the constructs relevant for the study: thus, the
data are still relevant for conducting the research.

Student Interest in Science

How students’ interest works on their academic achievement has been placed on the key topic
in science education after Dewey’s (1913) authentic work on connecting interest with effort in
learning. In much recent educational research, the term interest is understood as a relation
between a person and an object by means of person–object theory of interest (Krapp and
Prenzel 2011; Krapp 2002). Related to the theory, Ainley and Ainley (2011) distinguished the
term interest into three forms. The first form of interest is the most transient level describing a
psychological stage of specific moments (Ainley 2007). These moments are Bthe momentary,
dynamic elements of students’ experiences and students’ reports of their experiences^ (Ainley
2007, p.148) within a short period. The second form is situational interest occurring in
response to a specific situation and indicating temporal attention. The environmental stimuli
trigger focused attention in the moment (Hidi 1990). Developmental models of interest have
used this standard of duration of situational interest to classify between triggered and main-
tained situational interest (Hidi and Renninger 2006). Lastly, the mainly used form of interest
in educational studies is individual interest referred to as personal-oriented, comparatively
stabled disposition engaging with a specific area or a subject. However, Bfor all three forms of
interest, it is important to emphasize that interest is the relation between person and object^
(Ainley and Ainley 2011). Krapp and Prenzel (2011) also supported that Bthe decisive criterion
Res Sci Educ

of the interest construct, which enables it to be clearly distinguished from several neighboring
motivational concepts, is its content specificity^ (Krapp and Prenzel 2011, p. 30). Thus,
interest in science can be related to Ba specific subject (biology, physics, chemistry, etc.), a
specific area or field of knowledge (the study of animals), a concrete operation or object (lab
manipulations), and an abstract scientific activity (formulating a scientific problem or question
or analyzing data)^ (Hansi and Potvin 2015, p. 340). In the current investigation, accordingly,
the term interest is used in order to refer to individual interest in learning specific science
subjects.
With regard to the relationship between interest and academic achievement (or perfor-
mance), many studies indicated a positive correlation between students’ interest in specific
topics or contents and their knowledge acquirement. Schiefele et al. (1992), for instance,
conducted a meta-analysis of studies of the relationship between interest and achievement and
found a mean correlation of r = 0.30. Thus, in general, it is understood in a way that Ban
interest is associated with a pronounced readiness to acquire new domain-specific knowledge
(a cognitive–epistemic component). As a result, highly interested students are characterized by
a comparably differentiated knowledge structure in the corresponding object area.^ (Krapp and
Prenzel 2011, p. 31).

Student-Centered Approaches in Science Education

As previously described, three types of SCAs, such as relevant topic-based, inquiry-based, and
discussion-based approaches, have been mainly discussed by science educators as increasing
students’ interest and engagement in science. Accordingly, in the following section, we briefly
describe theories and research related to these SCAs in science education. However, even
though we introduce them one at a time, these SCAs are practiced not only separately but also
simultaneously. For instance, a teacher can start with relevant topics at the beginning of the
class: then, students can conduct inquiries, and finally, they can begin discussion of the result
or investigation process.

Relevant Topic-Based Learning

Teachers often try to use everyday issues related to students’ lives and school science contents
as one of the SCAs in order to draw students’ attention and increase their interest. The
philosophical background of using everyday issues in the classroom is based on constructivist
theory (Dewey 1964; Piaget 1969; Vygotsky 1962) that since children construct their knowl-
edge based on what they have already experienced in the real world while interacting and
socializing with others, school education should be grounded in real experiences to foster
students’ knowledge. The National Research Council (NRC) also emphasizes children’s
everyday ideas as Bone of the primary characteristics of the new science of learning^
(NRC 2000, p. 10).
Relevance to life, or contextualization, can be interpreted in various ways in science
education. For instance, Potvin and Hasni (2014) analyzed nine studies that attempted to
contextualize science to students’ real-life situation. Though all nine articles indicated positive
effects on students’ attitude, each approach was very different. They found that Bapplying an
STS (Science, Technology, and Society) curricular approach, discussing ethical issues, or
using case studies or real-life problems^ (p. 105) or Btopics that seems particularly interesting
 Res Sci Educ

or useful in their everyday or future lives^ (Nieswandt and Shanahan 2008, p. 19) was used as
relevant topics in science education.
However, the effect of using contextualized topics for promoting science learning is still
inconclusive. For instance, while some studies reported that conceptual attainment of students
infused with everyday contexts was significantly increased than the group with traditional
content-based science lessons (e.g., Akcay et al. 2010; Dahncke et al. 2001), others indicated
no significant increases in learning (e.g., Choi and Cho 2002; Rubba et al. 1991).

Inquiry-Based Learning and Scientific Literacy

Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is the most well-known SCA in science education and one of the
remarkable movements of constructivism that requires learners’ own experience to promote
scientific knowledge. Thus, it is known as a student-centered orientation as opposed to a
conventional approach in which the teacher delivers knowledge to the student (Yeung 2009). It
is also recognized as a salient pedagogical method, enhancing students’ interest and achieve-
ment by following scientists’ authentic works in order to study the natural world and to reason
based on evidence (PRIMAS 2011; NRC 1996). Thereby, it provides students with a chance to
discover how scientific knowledge has been constructed and developed (Lee and Songer 2003;
Martin-Hansen 2002). Therefore, students are asked to participate in the investigation cycle,
such as Bmaking observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of
information to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already
known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data;
proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results^ (NRC
1996, p. 23). Accordingly, it becomes one of the keystones of school science for improvement
of students’ scientific literacy, participation in scientific inquiry, and development of scientific
habits (NRC 2012).
Inquiry-based learning is accounted for in various ways by the amount of autonomy
given to learners in designing and investigating experiments (Koksal and Berberoglu
2012; NRC 2000). NRC (2000) divides inquiry-based learning into three forms, as
teacher-directed structured, guided inquiry and student-centered open inquiry. However,
although structured inquiry plays a fundamental role in learning science by familiarizing
students with basic inquiry skills, since it rarely reflects the real nature of scientific
inquiry, it is not often deemed to be inquiry-based learning in science education (Bell
et al. 2005; PRIMAS 2011). Consequently, much research has focused more on students’
learning experiences in guided and open inquiry and on their effects on students’
achievements and attitudes, than on teacher-directed structured inquiry (Arnold et al.
2014; Koksal and Berberoglu 2012; Sadeh and Zion 2012).
According to Martin-Hansen (2002), open inquiry, as the most complex form of inquiry,
begins with a student’ own question, and they construct an investigation or experiment by
themselves, based on their curiosity. Therefore, this approach is most likely to follow actual
scientists’ works. On the other hand, in guided inquiry, students investigate questions that the
teacher has already formulated, and the teacher also works as a supporter in developing inquiry
(Martin-Hansen 2002). However, this does not solely mean that students merely follow what
the teacher or the book guides but rather that students lead the process and reach self-
formulated conclusions so as to communicate and discuss with other groups of students to
finalize their conclusion (Sadeh and Zion 2012). For these reasons, guided inquiry is deemed
to be a transition from structured inquiry to open inquiry (Koksal and Berberoglu 2012).
Res Sci Educ

Effects of scientific inquiry on students’ achievement and interest have been well studied in
last two decades. Minner et al. (2010) conducted the Inquiry Synthesis Project in order to
synthesize findings from research conducted between 1984 and 2002 and reported effects of
inquiry on students’ conceptual understanding. According to the result based on 138 studies,
scientific inquiry is more likely to increase students’ understanding of science content signif-
icantly than traditional passive techniques, particularly when teachers emphasize more on
students’ active thinking and drawing conclusions from data. In addition, Potvin and Hasni
(2014) synthesized 17 individual studies from research conducted between 2000 and 2012 in
order to analyze the effect of inquiry-based learning on students’ interest, motivation, and
attitude. Among 17 articles, 11 reported positive effects on students’ interest (5 with control
groups), but 6 reported no significant increases in interest (5 with control groups). However,
they pointed out that among the latter six studies, four of them were mere hands-on activities
without fundamental inquiry features. Thus, they concluded that Bmost ‘inquiry-based’ or
‘problem-based’ interventions have positive effects on students’ interest, motivation, and
attitude, while most ‘hands-on’ activities, which do not require as much reflection, do not^
(p. 103).
Regarding the effects of different levels of inquiry on students’ academic achievement and
interest, Jiang and McComas (2015) analyzed PISA 2006 by dividing students’ inquiry
activities into five levels based on given autonomy to students in conducting activities,
drawing conclusions, designing investigations, and asking questions. According to the result,
students with level 2 in which Bonly conducting activities and drawing conclusions are
sufficiently implemented, but not designing investigations or asking questions^ (p. 561)
presented the highest academic achievement, while students with level 4, representing highest
students’ autonomy of inquiry, indicated the highest interest in science in most PISA 2006
participating countries. Thus, they concluded that not all levels of inquiry are proper for all
science lessons, but based on the purpose of instructions, the proper level of inquiry should be
considered.

Learning from Classroom Discussion

In recent research, two distinctive forms of discussion have drawn attention in science
education, such as Ba forum for constructing well-supported arguments for scientific theories^
and Bas providing structure and opportunity to engage in new ways of thinking^ (Shemwell
and Furtak 2010, p. 224). While the former form focuses more on students’ scientific
argumentation and reasoning skills, the latter points out development of students’ conceptual
change through interactive teaching. Since the PISA questionnaire focused more on student–
teacher interaction, such as explaining and sharing students’ idea and opinions for discussion,
rather than argumentation, we accepted the term of discussion as Ban exchange of ideas in
which multiple participants share what they think and their reasons for that thinking^
(Shemwell and Furtak 2010, p. 223) in this study.
An approach of classroom discussion is based on sociocultural theory, which sees learning
as a process of internalization (Mortimer and Scott 2003). Since language of science is
complex and different from students’ daily talk, a teacher has to help students to learn a
new language and to interpret the meaning of it (Evagorou and Osborne 2010), so that the
students can internalize the language of science as their individual understanding. Therefore, a
teacher plays a pivotal role in this process in order to encourage students to explain their own
ideas about science topics and to participate in classroom discussions actively.
 Res Sci Educ

Discussion in school science arises in two forms, as teacher–pupil and pupil–pupil interaction
(Jocz et al. 2014; Wellington and Osborne 2001). As Wellington and Osborne (2001) argued,
however, most of the discussion in the school were found as teacher–pupil interaction rather than
pupil–pupil talk, since they were initiated by teachers who wanted Bto get pupils used to the
language of science^ (p. 29). Even though teacher–pupil interaction is beneficial for pupils who
are not used to scientific language and the process of scientific investigation, it is also important to
practice what pupils have learnt from their teachers in order to gain confidence in using the
language of science, by interacting with other pupils (Jocz et al. 2014). According to Jocz et al.
(2014), pupil–pupil discussion indicated a positive effect on students’ interest in learning science,
while teacher–pupil discussion was insignificant in terms of students’ attitudinal change.

Object of the Study

These three main SCAs (relevant topic-based, inquiry-based, and discussion-based ap-
proaches) have been advocated by strong theoretical and philosophical backgrounds and
implemented successfully in several studies. Nevertheless, since most of the interventions
were conducted with small numbers of students in different schools and countries, there is
insufficient large-scale evidence to support the positive effects of SCAs and their implemen-
tation in school science. In PISA 2006, however, students were asked to answer questions with
respect to their school learning experiences, such as BThe students are asked to apply a [school
science] concept to everyday problems,^ BStudents are required how a [school science]
question could be investigated in the laboratory,^ or BStudents have discussions about the
topics^ (OECD 2005). Thus, on the basis of students’ response to these questions, we aimed to
aggregate the components of SCAs and to measure the direct and indirect effects of each
approach on students’ achievement and interest from this large-scale data.

Methods

Data Sources

Data for the study was derived from PISA 2006. PISA is one of the comprehensive interna-
tional assessments to measure students’ capabilities not only in their content knowledge but
also in their use of knowledge in order to meet and solve real-life challenges (OECD 2007). In
addition, students’ contextual backgrounds, such as gender, interest, sociocultural status, age,
and native language, were surveyed to explore relations between students’ achievement and
their environment (OECD 2005). One subject among reading, mathematics, and science
literacy is focused on triennially in randomly selected groups of 15-year-old students, mainly
in industrialized countries, and PISA 2006 is the latest assessment focusing on science literacy,
since the result of PISA 2015 is not yet published.
We picked the Finnish sample from PISA 2006 since, unlike their successful achievement
in science literacy from recent international assessments, Finnish students presented low
interest in science and science-related careers (OECD 2007). While the Finnish educational
policy has emphasized continuously on SCAs such as inquiry-based science education (The
Finnish National Board of Education 2004, 2014) as similar as many other countries (e.g.,
Australia (Goodrum et al. 2007), Korea (Ministry of Education [MOE] 2015), USA (NRC
Res Sci Educ

2012), and many European Commission (2007), much research has constantly reported that
Finnish teachers prefer to use more traditional, teacher-centered methods (Beerenwinkel and
Börlin 2014; Juuti et al. 2010; Lavonen and Laaksonen 2009; Norris et al. 1996), and thus,
Finnish students are likely to present low interest and negative attitude toward science and
learning science (Martin et al. 2012; OECD 2007). Therefore, examining what SCAs are
associated with students’ interest and achievement in Finland may shed light on understanding
of using SCAs, not only for Finland but also for other countries that have undergone similar
situation and tried to improve their science education.

Variables

In PISA 2006, 4714 Finnish students in 155 schools participated, with 50.6% female (2385)
and 49.4% male (2329) students. All school data were collected with relatively low non-
response student data in Finland.
Finnish students’ scientific literacy scores measured in PISA 2006 were used as a dependent
variable (DV). Whereas most traditional assessments measured and focused merely on
knowledge of specific science contents, PISA defines scientific literacy as how well students
Bidentify scientific issues; explain phenomena scientifically; and use scientific evidence^
(OECD 2007, p. 20), which focuses on learners’ use of science in real-life problems in order
to gauge students’ preparation for future challenges. Technically, PISA offered five plausible
values to represent students’ achievement, since they used several booklets for measuring
students’ achievement, applied matrix sampling, so that they could reduce the length of the
test. Since they are not interested in individual achievement but more focused on the
achievement of the population, they used five plausible values that represent the range of
the student’s abilities. The BPISA Data Analysis Manual^ introduces this method in detail
(OECD 2009a). We used all five plausible values as the DV in structural equation modeling
(SEM) analysis.
Independent variables (IVs) representing SCAs were generated among 17 instructional
strategies that were presented to students in question 34 (OECD 2005). In PISA 2006, students
were asked about teaching methods that were used in science classes as shown in Table 1. The
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to
gather and aggregate variables that represent SCAs among these 17 variables.
One PISA index, INTSCIE, which scaled students’ interest in science, was used as a
mediator variable to measure the indirect effects of SCAs on science achievement through
students’ interest. In PISA 2006, students’ interest in science subjects was explored in
questionnaire 21 with eight items, and it indicates high reliability in the Finnish sample
(Cronbach’s α = 0.849) (see Table 2).
Based on Walberg’s (1981) theory of educational productivity, we chose four PISA
indices—socioeconomic status (ESCS), future-oriented science motivation (SCIEFUT), in-
strumental motivation to learn science (INSTSCIE), and enjoyment in science (JOYSCIE)—as
well as immigration status, self-study hours, and gender as control variables. Detailed infor-
mation for the PISA index was reported in the PISA 2006 Technical Report (OECD 2009b).

Statistical Models and Analysis: EFA, CFA, and SEM

Muijs (2011) explains EFA as a statistical technique to reduce variables to a smaller number
and to find relationships between variables. To become a part of the factor, items have to be
 Res Sci Educ

Table 1 Strategies listed in the question 34

Q34. When learning [school science] topics at school, how often do the following activities occur? (in all lessons,
in most lessons, in some lessons, never or hardly ever)

(A) Students are given opportunities to explain their ideas

(B) Students spend time in the laboratory doing practical experiments
(C) Students are required to design how a <school science> question could be investigated in the laboratory
(D) The students are asked to apply a <school science> concept to everyday problems
(E) The lessons involve students’ opinions about the topics
(F) Students are asked to draw conclusions from an experiment they have conducted
(G) The teacher explains how a <school science> idea can be applied to a number of different phenomena (e.g.,
the movement of objects, substances with similar properties)
(H) Students are allowed to design their own experiments
(I) There is a class debate or discussion
(J) Experiments are done by the teacher as demonstrations
(K) Students are given the chance to choose their own investigations
(L) The teacher uses <school science> to help students understand the world outside school
(M) Students have discussions about the topics
(N) Students do experiments by following the instructions of the teacher
(O) The teacher clearly explains the relevance of <broad science> concepts to our lives
(P) Students are asked to do an investigation to test out their own ideas
(Q) The teacher uses examples of technological application to show how <school science> is relevant to society

strongly correlated with each other and weakly related with other factors. By using the
principal axis factoring with varimax rotation, factors are extracted one by one, depending
on how much the variables explain factors. When the loading value is more than 0.3 or less
than −0.3, the variables are considered to belong to the factor (Muijs 2011). EFA is applied
when factorial structure of the measuring instruments is unknown (Wang and Wang 2012).
With this analysis, the number of 17 teaching method items in PISA 2006 could be reduced to
a smaller number and grouped into SCA-related variables after considering the theoretical
background.
CFA is one part of SEM. SEM consists of two parts, namely a measurement part (CFA) and
a structural part (path analysis). Kaplan (2000) defines SEM as Ba class of methodologies that
seeks to represent hypotheses about the means, variances, and covariances of observed data in
terms of a smaller number of structural parameters defined by a hypothesized underlying

Table 2 Items related to students’ interest

Questionnaire Subjects Cronbach’s α

How much interest do you have in learning (a) Topics in physics 0.849
about the following [broad science] (b) Topics in chemistry
(c) The biology of plants
(d) Human biology
(e) Topics in astronomy
(f) Topics in geology
(g) Ways scientists design experiments
(h) What is required for scientific explanations
Res Sci Educ

model^ (p. 1). It consists of B(a) the measurement models, which link the observed variables to
the latent variables, and (b) the structural part, which links the latent variables to each other
using systems of simultaneous equations^ (p. 2). CFA is used when the theoretical background
or empirical findings already existed for variables (Wang and Wang 2012). Thus, before
testing CFA, Bfactors are theoretically defined, and how specific indicators or measurement
items are loaded onto which factors is hypothesized^ (p. 29). This analysis, hence, can be
conducted to test factors formed by EFA.
The general SEM model (path analysis) measures how a specific factor predicts other
factors or is influenced by other factors (Wang and Wang 2012) and is commonly used to test
mediated relationships (Kelloway 2015). These features of SEM enabled the measurement of
the function of interest as a mediator between SCAs and students’ performance in this study. A
causal model of the research was designed as Fig. 1 with three latent variables such as relevant
topic, inquiry, and discussion, to estimate their direct and indirect effects on students’ interest
and achievement in science. The SPSS and Mplus 7.3 (Muthén and Muthén 2012) were used
to conduct EFA, CFA, and SEM analyses to measure the strength of the relationships among
the elements.
Although SEM assumes multivariate normality, Bas data normality assumption barely holds
in social science studies, it is always safer to use robust estimators for model estimation^
(Wang and Wang 2012, p. 61). Mplus offers the maximum likelihood with robust standard
errors and chi-squared (MLR) estimator, which is robust to non-normality: it is used to deal
with data including missing values (Muthén and Muthén 2012). This estimator was used to
conduct both measurement and structural models in the study, since it includes categorical
variables such as gender or immigrant status and ordinal variables as well.

Result

Descriptive Analysis

As shown in Table 3, the science achievement of Finnish students was 563, one of the top
among the OECD countries (OECD 2007). However, considering the index score of 0 as a

Fig. 1 Causal SEM model. Latent variables are represented by ovals; manifest variables are represented by rectangles
 Res Sci Educ

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of Finnish students’ background

Mean SD

Science achievement 563.38 82.19

Interest in science (INTSCIE)a −0.24 0.94
Future career in science (SCIEFUT)a −0.17 0.86
Instrumental motivation in science (INSTSCIE)a −0.21 0.89
Enjoyment in science (JOYSCIE)a 0.11 0.89
Socioeconomic status (ESCS)a 0.26 0.79
First generation of immigration (IM1) 0.01 0.11
Second generation of immigration (IM2) 0.002 0.05
Self-study hours (SS) 1.93 0.63
Gender (GEN) 0.49 0.50
a
PISA 2006 index (OECD 2009b)

mean score of PISA 2006 indices derived from all participating countries’ data (OECD
2009b), Finnish students indicated a lower interest in learning and pursuing a career in science
than the average of participating countries in PISA 2006.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

To aggregate SCA-related variables from the data, we conducted EFA first. With 17 variables,
the factor analysis was conducted with varimax rotation and found four factors with eigen-
values greater than 1, as shown in Table 4.
According to the previously reviewed literature, most variables in factors 1 and 2 were
commonly selected to study inquiry-based learning (Jiang and McComas 2015; McConney
et al. 2014; PRIMAS 2011). Specifically, most variables in factor 1 describe guided inquiry (B,
F, G, and N), and most variables in factor 2 explain about open inquiry (C, H, K, and P)
(Arnold et al. 2014; Koksal and Berberoglu 2012; Martin-Hansen 2002; Sadeh and Zion
2012). Even though some statements in the questionnaire that were related to guided inquiry
can apply equally to structured inquiry, since they were aggregated with other guided inquiry-
related variables, we assumed that in the Finnish culture, these four variables represented
guided inquiry learning. In fact, different kinds of inquiry practices can include common
denominators, such as conducting experiments in the laboratory.
All the variables in factor 3 are related to teachers’ approach to make science contextually
relevant to student life. For instance, students were asked how often teachers explain the
relevance of science to their lives (Q34O) or how often teachers use technology to show the

Table 4 Four factors derived from EFA

Factor (N of items) Question number

1 (6) 34B, 34C, 34F, 34G, 34J, 34N

2 (5) 34C, 34H, 34I, 34K, 34P
3 (3) 34L, 34O, 34Q
4 (3) 34A, 34E, 34M
Res Sci Educ

relevance of science to the society in science teaching (Q34Q). Thus, we assumed that this
factor represents features of contextualizing science for real-life application.
The variables in factor 4 ask about classroom discussion. Additionally, Q34I also asks
about a similar concept, as studied in the literature review, concerning the students’ learning in
classroom discussion. However, the reliability of A, E, I, and M (α = 0.687) was below the
threshold value (<0.7), so Q34I was not included in the group. Indeed, as Lavonen and
Laaksonen (2009) reported, Finnish students showed such different responses between Q34I
(debate) and Q34M (discussion) that two variables were aggregated with different factors in
Table 4. Since it can cause less reliability and validity in the following analysis, Q34I was not
included in the following grouping.
Given the previous literature, finally, four SCA-related groups were gathered in Table 5.
The first group was titled relevant topic representing making connection with school contents
and everyday issues, and it included three variables (α = 0.72). The second group was named
open inquiry representing high autonomy of students in selecting and designing experimental
work at school, and it included four variables (α = 0.70). The third group was titled guided
inquiry representing a transition between open and structured inquiries, and it included four
variables (α = 0.72). The last group was named discussion representing sharing and explaining
students’ idea and opinion, and it included three variables (α = 0.70).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

According to Geiser (2013), three different CFA models can be tested such as a one-factor and
a four-factor model for first-order CFA and a second-order CFA model depending on the
previous literature. As Fig. 2 shows, a proposed model in this study was a four-factor model
that each latent variable is allowed to correlate with other latent variables. The checked model
fit indices of the CFA showed that the proposed four-factor model was acceptable based on the
criteria of good model fit as shown in Table 6.
Figure 2 presents standardized estimated factor loadings between endogenous and exoge-
nous variables: they were all significant (p < 0.001) and greater than 0.5, so they met the
traditional cutoff point of factor loadings (Wang and Wang 2012).
The reliability and validity of the model have to be measured before drawing conclusions.
Based on the criterion from Fornell and Larcker (1981), composite reliability (CR), which
assesses the internal consistency of a measure, convergent validity, and discriminant validity
can be assessed. Convergent validity measures that the constructs that have to be theoretically
related are related. In contrast, discriminant validity measures the constructs that are expected
not to be related are unrelated (Campbell and Fiske 1959).
According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), a CR value of 0.7 or higher indicates sufficient
reliability of the model; to ensure convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE)

Table 5 Four groups of SCAs derived from the Finnish sample

Group (N of items) Question content Reliability (α)

Relevant topic (3) L, O, Q 0.72

Open inquiry (4) C, H, K, P 0.70
Guided inquiry (4) B, F, G, N 0.72
Discussion (3) A, E, M 0.70
 Res Sci Educ

* Model fit: C hi-square= 2025.665 (.0

000), df = 711, CFI = .8800, TLI = .846
6, SRMR = .052
RMSEA=.07 77 (90% C.I. =.074 & .0880)
Fig. 2 Four-factor model

value should be 0.5 or higher; and to assess discriminant validity, the squared root value of
AVE for each latent construct should be higher than each latent construct’s highest correlation.
As shown in Table 7, the CRs of each latent variable were all higher than 0.7 and the AVEs
were higher than 0.5: thus, they met the criteria. In addition, each squared root value (bold in

Table 6 Model fit criteria

Index Good fita Proposed model

SRMR <0.08 0.052 Good fit

CFI >0.9 or >0.95 0.880 Acceptable
TLI >0.9 or >0.95 0.846 Acceptable
RMSEA 0 = perfect fit 0.077 Fair fit
<0.05 = close fit
<0.08 = fair fit
0.08–0.10 = mediocre fit
a
Referred to Wang and Wang (2012, pp. 18–20)
Res Sci Educ

Table 7) was higher than the highest correlation of each correlation value between latent
variables. Therefore, this model demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity.
As previously mentioned, there are two other rival models competing with the suggested
four-factor model (Geiser 2015). Since no background theories existed among the four SCAs,
all other rival models, such as the one-factor model and the second-order model, were
measured and compared. The result indicated that the proposed four-factor model provided
a much better fit than the one-factor model, because most measures of the one-factor model’s
fit were below the criteria. In addition, even though the second-order model provided a similar
fit to the proposed model, because the purpose of the study was to measure the effect of each
SCA, it was beneficial to use the four-factor model in this study (see Table 8).

Structural Equation Modeling

After the consideration of the result from EFA and CFA, finally the SEM model was built, as in
Fig. 3. Four latent variables representing SCAs were used as independent variables, and
students’ interest and achievement were placed in dependent variables. Standardized path
coefficients are shown in the figure, with solid lines to identify significant and dashed lines for
non-significant coefficients. The checked fit indices of SEM showed good results based on the
previous criteria in Table 6 since all the indices of model fit indicated good and satisfactory fit
(CFI = 0.943, TLI = 0.934, SRMR = 0.073, RMSEA = 0.050).
In reference to students’ performance, four IVs were significantly associated with science
achievement (p < 0.001), as well as other control variables, except for IM2 and SS (p > 0.05).
Among the four IVs, guided inquiry and relevant topic indicated positive effects, while open
inquiry and discussion showed negative effects on students’ science achievement.
In reference to students’ interest, two independent variables, namely open inquiry and
discussion, indicated a statistically insignificant effect, while relevant topic and guided inquiry
indicated a positive relationship with students’ interest, even though they showed a small effect
size (Table 9).
As shown in Table 10, the total effect of relevant topic on achievement was positive
(β = 0.13, p < 0.001), and the indirect effect of relevant topic through interest was also
positive (β = 0.01, p < 0.001). The total effect of open inquiry on achievement was strongly
negative (β = −0.59, p < 0.001), but its indirect effect through interest was insignificant
(p > 0.05). The total effect of guided inquiry on achievement was strongly positive (β = 0.40,
p < 0.001), and its indirect effect through interest was also positive (β = 0.01, p < 0.05). The
total effect of discussion on achievement was negative (β = −0.09, p < 0.001), but its indirect
effect through interest was insignificant (p > 0.05).

Table 7 Validity and reliability table

CR AVE RT OI GI DI

RT 0.82 0.60 0.77

OI 0.84 0.58 0.72 0.76
GI 0.81 0.53 0.73 0.57 0.73
DI 0.78 0.54 0.64 0.54 0.62 0.73

RT relevant topic, OI open inquiry, GI guided inquiry, DI discussion

 Res Sci Educ

Table 8 Fits of competing models

Model χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

One-factor 4066.177 77 0.755 0.710 0.105 0.071

Second-order 2044.541 73 0.879 0.849 0.076 0.052
Four-factor 2025.665 71 0.880 0.846 0.077 0.052

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of SCAs on students’ interest and
achievement in science learning. The large-scale data derived from PISA 2006 was analyzed,
since PISA collected students’ achievements, interest, and teaching methods, as well as

Notee. ESCS: soccioeconomic status, SCIEEFUT: future career in sc ience, INSTS SCIE: instrum ental
motiivation in sciience, JOYS CIE: enjoym
ment in sciencce, GEN: gen nder, IM1: fiirst generatioon of
imm
migration, IM 2: second geeneration of immigration
i , SS: self-stu
udy hours.
*Moodel fit: Chi- square= 36880.589 (.000)), df= 300, C FI=.943, TL LI= .934,
SRM R = .073, RM SEA= .0500

Fig. 3 SCA path analysis

Res Sci Educ

Table 9 Standardized regression weights on achievement and interest

Estimate (β) SE p value

Achievement Relevant topics 0.12 0.04 **

Open inquiry −0.59 0.03 ***
Guided inquiry 0.39 0.03 ***
Discussion −0.09 0.03 ***
INTSCIE 0.16 0.02 ***
GEN 0.09 0.01 ***
INSTSCIE 0.10 0.02 ***
JOYSCIE 0.10 0.02 ***
SCIEFUT 0.10 0.02 ***
ESCS 0.20 0.01 ***
IM1 −0.11 0.02 ***
IM2 −0.02 0.01 0.184
SS −0.03 0.01 0.069
Interest Relevant topics 0.09 0.03 **
Open inquiry 0.004 0.03 0.869
Guided inquiry 0.07 0.03 *
Discussion −0.02 0.02 0.371
GEN 0.07 0.01 ***
INSTSCIE 0.12 0.02 ***
JOYSCIE 0.44 0.02 ***
SCIEFUT 0.20 0.02 ***
ESCS 0.03 0.01 *
IM1 0.03 0.01 **
IM2 0.01 0.01 0.287
SS 0.03 0.01 *

*p > 0.05, **p > 0.01, ***p > 0.001

students’ contextual information. To generate SCA-related variables, EFA and CFA were
conducted with 17 teaching methods derived from question 34. Based on the results of factor
analyses and reviewed theories, four groups were aggregated representing four SCAs, such as
relevant topic-based, open and guided inquiry-based, and discussion-based approaches in
school science. Then, SEM analysis was conducted to measure the direct and indirect effects
of those four SCAs on students’ interest and achievement.
The result indicated that when teachers connected science content more with students’ life-
related issues, students showed better achievement and more interest in science subjects. This
is consistent with previous research, which indicated the importance of using relevant topics in
order to gain science content knowledge (Klosterman and Sadler 2010) and to trigger and
maintain students’ interest in learning (Aikenhead 2006; Dahncke et al. 2001; Logan and
Skamp 2012; Ottander and Ekborg 2012). As noted by Jocz et al. (2014), students who
recognized that their teacher often applied science content to their life-related situations are
likely to be more interested in science. Moreover, a similar result was found in the Finnish
Delphi study from the PROFILES project (Keinonen et al. 2012), in that Finnish students are
more interested in personal life-related topics than other content-oriented topics. Considering
 Res Sci Educ

Table 10 Standardized total, indirect, and direct effects of SCAs on achievement

Estimate (β) SE p value

Relevant topics
Total 0.13 0.04 **
Indirect 0.01 0.01 **
Direct 0.12 0.04 **
Open inquiry
Total −0.59 0.03 ***
Indirect 0.001 0.004 0.870
Direct −0.59 0.03 ***
Guided inquiry
Total 0.40 0.03 ***
Indirect 0.01 0.004 **
Direct 0.39 0.03 ***
Discussion
Total −0.09 0.03 ***
Indirect −0.003 0.003 0.374
Direct −0.09 0.03 ***

*p > 0.05, **p > 0.01, ***p > 0.001

that interest in certain specific subjects indicates a stable, long-lasting effect (Hidi and
Renninger 2006) and individual interest is affected by SCAs such as teaching science
with student-friendly topics, this approach must be integrated with daily science-
teaching practices.
In addition, according to the result, while open inquiry-based learning was indicated as a
strong negative predictor of students’ performance and insignificant effect on their interest,
guided inquiry-based learning was indicated as a strong positive predictor of students’
performance, and its positive effect on interest was also statistically significant. The different
effects of two inquiry activities on students’ achievement are in line with the findings from
Minner et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis and Jiang and McComas’ (2015) PISA study. Both
studies indicated that when students are involved in conducting and concluding the investiga-
tion, rather than in designing or asking their own questions, they presented clearly better
academic achievement. Thus, the result of this study also supports that since not all levels of
inquiry are effective on increasing students’ knowledge acquirements, teachers should con-
sider different inquiry strategies based on their purpose of instructions. In addition, the result
can be interpreted in accordance with Arnold et al. (2014), who indicated that, in scientific
inquiry, students often need scaffolding in inquiry design such as hypothesizing or defining de-
pendent, independent, and confounding variables, because of students’ lack of procedural
knowledge of what and how to investigate in scientific experiments at school. Thus, without
teachers’ proper intervention, students are not likely to be successful in open inquiry practice.
However, as Lavonen and Laaksonen (2009) analyzed in PISA 2006, students were almost
never allowed to conduct open-ended inquiry in Finland; thus, insufficient experience in open
inquiry, for both students and teachers, has probably resulted in poor quality of open inquiry
implementation and intervention. Therefore, open inquiry was probably indicated as a negative
effect on students’ achievement.
Res Sci Educ

On the other hand, with regard to relationships between students’ attitude and inquiry, the
result was inconsistent with Jiang and McComas’s (2015) PISA 2006 study, which reported
that more openness of inquiry increased students’ interest in science, including Finnish sample.
Given that both studies used similar variables in dividing and analyzing guided and open
inquiry, the result is controversial. However, among various interest-related constructs in PISA
2006, since they used a different interest item, named embedded interest scales (Olsen and Lie
2011), the result can differ from each other. The embedded item was an innovative approach to
measure students’ interest in very specific contexts. Nevertheless, unlike a general expectation,
since it has continuously indicated an insignificant relationship with students’ performance,
using this item as a representative indicator of students’ interest is inconclusive yet (Bybee and
McCrae 2011; Drechsel et al. 2011; Olsen and Lie 2011). Moreover, since their study focused
only on inquiry teaching, the other two teaching approaches were not considered in their
model as covariates. Given that, however, there existed a high correlation between four
teaching SCAs in our study, it would be better to concern other teaching methods in the same
model as covariates, since, as we mentioned, these SCAs can be used simultaneously in one
lesson. Hence, in order to solely measure the effect of inquiry, effects of other approaches
should be controlled.
Regarding discussion in school science, it was indicated as a negative predictor of both
achievement and interest in Finland. This conflicts with previous research, which advocated
the role of discussion in school science (Driver et al. 1994; NRC 2007). However, according to
Lavonen and Laaksonen (2009), the culture of discussion is underdeveloped in Finland; this
resulted in a lower frequency of discussion than the average among OECD countries; thus, this
presented a negative relationship with students’ performance in the PISA study. One other
assumption can be inferred from a study by Jocz et al. (2014), which showed that, while the
effect of teacher directed discussion on students’ interest was insignificant in science learning,
peer discussion was indicated as a strong positive predictor of students’ interest. In the
interviews in their study, students mentioned that they learnt from peers by sharing information
and ideas, and this made them enjoy group discussion. Moreover, students indicated that they
reflected on what they did not understand during peer discussion and appreciated expressing
their opinions and receiving feedback from peers during successful discussions. Thus, it can be
assumed that teacher-led discussion is likely to happen more frequently than pupil–pupil
discussion, as a consequence of using more traditional teaching methods in Finland
(Lavonen and Laaksonen 2009). Similarly, Beerenwinkel and Börlin (2014) reported that, in
physics teaching, they found more teacher-centered interaction than student-centered interac-
tion in Finland, and a higher percentage of teacher-centered interaction was found in Finnish
classes than in other comparison countries. However, as Shemwell and Furtak (2010) reported,
evidence-supported discussion and student-rich talk, which means that Bstudents elaborate key
concepts and causal mechanisms^ (p. 222), rarely occurred in pupil–pupil discussion. Instruc-
tion or guidance from teachers, in turn, seems to play an important role in providing the
scaffolding for students’ knowledge and scientific reasoning during pupil–pupil discussion.

Limitations and Recommendations

Since the aim of the study was to analyze secondary data, there are some limitations to the
survey design. First, the data related to teaching methods only considered the frequency, not
the quality or preference of the methods. Therefore, the result can solely be interpreted in the
aspect of how the frequency of the methods affects students’ attitude and performance. For
 Res Sci Educ

further research, if students’ perception of quality of teachers’ instruction and their preference
for SCAs can be collected, the relationship between instruction and performance or interest can
be explored in more detail. Second, the data were collected only from students’ perspective of
the teaching methods, not from the teachers’ perspective. Since the Likert-scale measurement
was used in PISA 2006, the interval between points probably did not present equal changes in
attitude for all peers, and they answered according to what they felt at the time. Hence, to
produce a more precise result, the teachers’ perspective must be included in the survey to
compensate for students’ responses. In addition, since the result is only about Finnish students,
it cannot be generalized to all other countries. Since every country has its own culture,
educational system, value, and tradition, the attitudes of students in different countries could
be various, and it could be hard to reach to the same conclusion. For further research, more
data from different countries can be analyzed to include consideration of their various
backgrounds.

Conclusion

Behind Finnish students’ success story in science achievement, there is another phenomenon that
explains why students are not interested in science. This is not only true for Finland but also for
other high-score achievers such as Korea, the Netherlands, and Australia (OECD 2007). Accord-
ing to the result from this study, Finnish students get more interested in science by experiencing
more guided-inquiry learning and a connection between school science and their real-life
situations. In addition, this increased interest in science results in better achievement. Therefore,
we encourage science teachers to use guided inquiry and relevant topics more frequently to
increase both students’ interest and achievement in school science. However, the results of this
study do not advocate the frequent practice of open inquiry and discussion with lower secondary
school students in science. We assume that this result is probably due to the low frequency of
using these two student-centered pedagogies in Finland. In fact, Finnish students want to
experience discussion more frequently than in the current situation in science classes (Juuti
et al. 2009), but it seems that teachers are not ready to adopt this approach, and it will hardly
be beneficial in Finnish culture without proper professional development for pre-service and in-
service teachers. This point of view continues for open inquiry implementation, since, as
described, open inquiry is the most complex level of inquiries; it needs proper intervention by
teachers, but it is not yet culturally developed in Finland. Therefore, it also needs adequate
professional development for pre-service and in-service teachers for successful implementation.
Moreover, as the limitation indicates, the result of the study is only about the frequency of learning
experiences with SCAs, not about quality. Thus, we again suggest research to conduct more in-
depth studies about, especially, the culture of open inquiry and discussion practices in Finnish
schools and students’ perceptions of these. Regarding other countries with different cultural
backgrounds of science pedagogies, we recommend to conduct analysis with the same model
using PISA data, but based on own result of factor analyses and reviewed literature related to their
own contexts. We assume that factors related to SCAs might be aggregated differently depending
on students’ response to the questionnaire and teachers’ practice because of disparate educational
cultures. Thus, researchers should first consider the context of each educational environment
before conducting statistical analyses in order to measure and find more accurate results. In
addition, since the upcoming PISA 2015 result will include similar concepts to this study, the
suggested model can be tested to identify possible changes in each country (OECD 2016).
Res Sci Educ

References

Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science education for everyday life: evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
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.
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.
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.
Avraamidou, L., & Osborne, J. (2009). The role of narrative in communicating science. International Journal of
Science Education, 31, 1683–1707.
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.
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.
Bybee, R., & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: perspectives from PISA 2006 science.
International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7–26.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.
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.
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.
Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston: Houghton Miffler.
Dewey, J. (1964). John Dewey on education. New York: Random House.
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.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the
classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
European Commission (2007). Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels:
Report by a High Level Group on Science Education.
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.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Geiser, C. (2013). Data analysis with Mplus. New York: The Guilford Press.
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.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research,
60(4), 549–571.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist,
41(2), 111–127.
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.
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.
 Res Sci Educ

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.
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: foundations and extensions. New York: SAGE Publications.
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/0
ce20dd7-1bf0-4a10-8f1d-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.
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.
Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: theoretical considerations from an
ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383–409.
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.
Kruckeberg, R. (2006). A Deweyan perspective on science education: constructivism, experience, and why we
learn science. Science & Education, 15(1), 1–30.
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.
Lee, H., & Songer, N. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science
Education, 25(8), 923–948.
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.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry: exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom.
Science Teacher, 69(2), 34–37.
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.
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.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
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.
National Research Council (1996). The National Science Education Standards. Washington: The National
Academies Press.
National Research Council (2000). How people learn. Washington: National Academy Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OECD (2005). Student questionnaire for PISA 2006: main study. Paris: OECD.
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.
OECD (2009b). PISA 2006 Technical Report.
OECD (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: science. Reading: Mathematic and Financial
Literacy.
Res Sci Educ

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.
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.
Piaget, J. (1969). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Harlow: Longman.
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.
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/.
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.
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.
Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
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.
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.
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.
Walberg, H. (1981). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In F. H. Farley & N. Gordon (Eds.),
Psychology and education (pp. 81–110). Berkley: McCutchan.
Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling: applications using Mplus. New Jersey: Wiley.
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.
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.