The teaching of physics at upper secondary school level: A comparative study between Indonesia and Ireland

1. Introduction

In the 2012 program for international student assessment (PISA) test results, it was found that of the 65 countries that participated in the test, Indonesia ranked 60th in literacy skills, and 64th in mathematics and science (OECD, 2014). A similar pattern was observed for Indonesia in the PISA 2009 results. On the contrary, Ireland has seen considerable improvement in recent years where it is now ranked ninth out of 65 OECD countries for science, fourth out of 65 countries for reading, and 13th of the 65 OECD countries for mathematics (OECD, 2014). Arising these results, it was felt appropriate to carry out a comparative study between the two countries in order to investigate the issues involved in teaching science in very different environments.

In comparing the teaching approaches adopted by teachers in the two countries, it was decided to investigate the different approaches to teaching physics using either an inquiry based inquiry based science education (IBSE) approach or a direct instruction (DI) approach. When discussing these contrasting teaching approaches, the inquiry-based approach is often described in terms of being student-centered [Sweitzer and Anderson, 1983; American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1990; National Research Council (NRC), 1996, 2000; Alberts, 2008; Juntunen and Aksela, 2013; Jiang and McComas, 2015]. On the contrary, the direct instruction approach is often described in terms of a teacher-centered approach (McKeen, 1972; Peterson, 1979; Becher, 1980; Rosenshine, 1995; Cobern et al., 2010). However, as will be discussed in this paper, these two categories of IBSE and DI are part of a continuum or spectrum of teaching approaches. Some authors represent DI in terms of a traditional classroom setting where students are perceived as sitting in straight rows of desks and learning through rote memorization (Brown et al., 1982; Borko and Wildman, 1986; Brooks and Brooks, 1999). In this scenario, students are described as attentively listening to the teacher standing in front of the class to impart information and compliantly taking notes without necessarily interacting with the topic being taught. Direct instruction should not be confused with didactic teaching. Hattie (2009) discusses in detail the main characteristics of direct instruction and outlines them in terms of seven major steps as outlined in Table 1 (Hattie, 2009, pp.205–206).

TABLE 1

Table 1. The seven major steps involved in direct instruction (DI; Hattie, 2009).

It is the above description of direct instruction that was adopted in this study, and which may be summarized as follows:

“In a nutshell: The teacher decides the learning intentions and success criteria, makes them transparent to the students, demonstrates them by modeling, evaluates if they understand what they have been told by checking for understanding, and re-telling them what they have been told by tying it all together with closure” (Hattie, 2009, p. 206).

The inquiry based science education approach is described as “the art of developing challenging situations in which students are asked to observe and question phenomena; pose explanations of what they observe; devise and conduct experiments in which data are collected to support or contradict their theories; analyze data; draw conclusions from experimental data; design and build models; or any combination of these” (Hattie, 2009).

In the IBSE approach, students are described as being actively involved in their own learning with the teacher using student investigations and discussions to challenge the students to think about the work being undertaken.

Many teachers will recognize the above descriptions as being at the extreme ends of the spectrum of teaching approaches and may see themselves as using various aspects of the two approaches in their everyday teaching to achieve the learning outcomes of the lesson. In this paper, we will investigate and discuss how teachers in Indonesia and Ireland used combinations of the IBSE and DI teaching approaches when teaching a module on Medical Physics to their students. Arising the implementation of the Medical Physics module, it is hoped that more students will be encouraged to undertake the study of physics at the senior high school level. Thus, we first consider some aspects of students’ attitude toward physics as a subject and then investigate the effect that the intervention package had on the attitude toward physics of the participating students.

1.1. Students’ attitude toward physics in school science

The study of students’ attitudes toward science is not a new topic in science education. For almost 50 years, hundreds of journal papers as well as reviews (Gardner, 1975; Schibeci, 1984; Simpson and Oliver, 1990; Crawley and Koballa, 1994; Osborne et al., 2003; Koballa and Glynn, 2007; Hofstein and Mamlok-Naaman, 2011; Bennett et al., 2013; Ültay et al., 2017, 2021; Ültay and Alev, 2017a,b) and dissertations have been published at international level in the area of students’ attitudes toward science.

The concept of an attitude toward science is somewhat nebulous, often poorly articulated and not well understood (Osborne and Dillon, 2008). Considerable clarity was brought to the topic in the PISA 2012 project since when discussing the results of this project (PISA 2013) the area of students’ attitudes toward science was discussed under four main headings:

a. Support for scientific inquiry, i.e., do students value scientific ways of gathering evidence, thinking logically, and communicating conclusions?

b. Self-belief as science students, i.e., what are students’ appraisals of their own abilities in science?

c. Interest in science, i.e., are students interested in science-related social issues, are they willing to acquire scientific knowledge and skills, and do they consider science-related careers?

d. Responsibility toward resources and environments. Are students concerned about environmental issues?

It is in part (c) above that the focus of this research took place, i.e., looking at the challenges involved in trying to improve students’ attitudes toward science and increasing their interest in science. At the international level, the falling numbers choosing to pursue the study of physics at senior high school level (OECD, 2014) are mirrored in Indonesia and Ireland (Kompas, 2013; Hyland, 2014).

Enhancing a positive attitude toward science lessons is essential for two reasons: (a) students’ attitudes and their academic performance are closely related and (b) attitudes may be used to forecast students’ behavior in encouraging them to choose to continue with their study of physics (Glasman and Albarracín, 2006; Cheung, 2009). The subject of Physics presents particular difficulties for students as they encounter problems related to the use of mathematical equations and the manipulation of mathematical data (Angell et al., 2004; Ornek et al., 2007; Collins, 2011). This results in many concepts and principles of physics being difficult to understand. Hence, the interest of students in studying physics is adversely affected.

Of the several factors that can affect students’ interest in science, especially in the area of Physics, the approach to teaching that is adopted by the teacher is one of fundamental importance (Wellington and Ireson, 2008). We now focus this approach in terms of the two main sub-divisions, i.e., inquiry-based science education and direct instruction.

1.2. The balance of inquiry-based science education and direct instruction

As previously mentioned, some authors have put forward the idea that direct instruction represents an undesirable form of teaching and interpret the term “direct instruction” as didactic teaching. Direct instruction has been described as “authoritarian” (McKeen, 1972), “regimented” (Borko and Wildman, 1986), “fact accumulation at the expense of thinking skill development” (Edwards, 1981), and “focusing upon tests” (Nicholls, 1989). Direct instruction has also been portrayed as a “passive” mode of teaching (Becher, 1980). Direct instruction has been described as the “pouring of information from one container, the teacher’s head, to another container, the student’s head” (Brown and Campione, 1990). All of these critics of direct instruction are proposing that teachers use forms of “student-centered” or activity-based instruction in place of direct instruction.

Many educators feel that inquiry instruction rather than direct instruction is mostly in keeping with the widely accepted constructivist theory of how people learn, i.e., that meaningful knowledge cannot simply be transmitted and absorbed but learners have to construct their own understanding (Anderson 2002; Cobern et al., 2010). Some studies have found a positive effect of IBSE [e.g., Bredderman, 1985; National Research Council (NRC), 1996, 2000, 2005; Donnelly et al., 2014; Ireland et al., 2014]. Other researchers have found a negative effect of IBSE, e.g., Buntern et al. (2014) argued that IBSE leads to high cognitive load and is thus not effective in the classroom. On another side, Arnold et al. (2014) argue that direct instruction cannot embrace the complex nature of scientific reasoning in an authentic fashion (Chinn and Malhotra, 2002) nor is it consistent with the constructivist views of learning (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). One of the big challenges facing teachers is in deciding when to use IBSE, when to give support and when to hold back information in order to maintain authentic inquiry settings, especially in upper secondary school (Crawford, 2000; Furtak, 2007). Wiggin and McTighe call it the dilemma of “direct instruction versus constructivist approach” (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005).

Educators have been indoctrinated with the mantra “constructivism good, direct instruction bad” (Hattie, 2009). Colburn (2000) stated perhaps that one source of confusion about inquiry based science education is that it is only for “advanced” students. This is a misconception as all students can achieve success if teachers guide them toward understanding by implementing different activities in the classrooms. However, there are many times when inquiry-based science education may be less advantageous than other methods. It depends on our experiences as teachers to find the right balance between inquiry and non-inquiry methods that engages our students in their study of science (Gagne, 1963). In addition, Kennedy (2013) argues that “one of the clear outcomes from the research literature is that IBSE approaches to science teaching do result in an increase in the interest levels of students in sciences. Based on the research evidence outlined in this paper, it does not seem wise to “put all our eggs in one basket” and promote IBSE as the only approach to effective science teaching. We need to get the right balance between the direct instruction and approach and the IBSE approach” (Kennedy, 2013).

In most cases, it may be best for teachers to use a combination of approaches to ensure that the needs of all students in terms of knowledge, understanding, skills, attitudes, values, scientific literacy, and overall interest in science and science-related topics are met. The advantages and disadvantages of IBSE as outlined in the literature are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of inquiry based science education (IBSE).

The advantages and disadvantages of direct instruction as outlined in the literature are summarized in Table 3.

TABLE 3

Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of direct instruction (DI).

1.3. Overview of the medical physics intervention package

The Medical Physics module used in this research was designed to encourage an interest in physics among young students through a relevant hands-on interactive learning experience using many real life examples. The module offers an introduction to medical physics through investigative and cooperative learning experiences. The module is divided into five units (X-Rays, Ultrasound, Endoscopy, MRI & CT Scans, and Radioactivity) with the objectives of each units clearly stated at the beginning of each unit. Each unit focuses on basic physics concepts presented in a logical sequence with learning outcomes stated at the end of each unit. The Medical Physics module is designed to challenge and motivate students. Whereas each lesson can be taught in a single class (40 min), it is recommended that, if possible a double lesson (80–90 min) be devoted to each lesson in order to allow time for discussion and other activities.

The module encourages a teaching approach involving a balance between inquiry based science education and direct instruction approaches. These approaches are encouraged by the inclusion of a detailed Teacher’s Guide and a wide variety of student activities to encourage IBSE. Practical work activities are included throughout the module. These practical activities are used to model scientific principles as applied to medical physics. Expert Group Tasks are included in the module and are designed to encourage IBSE. The students work collaboratively and prepare presentations for the rest of the class. In addition this module is designed for teaching using an integrated IBSE-DI approach in each lesson.

2. Methods

This study involved a case study comparative research approach using qualitative method. Also, some aspects of action research were involved as feedback from the schools involved in the implementation of the module was used to incorporate modifications in the module for implementation with schools that will participate in future trials. Due the fact that the main language of the target sample is both native English speakers and native Indonesian speakers, the teaching package was translated from English into Indonesian by the researcher. A total of 34 teachers received in-service training on the module. Of these, 15 schools in Indonesia and 15 schools in Ireland were selected to participate in the project using random sampling. In Indonesia, the researcher took samples from three different school types, i.e., Madrasah secondary schools which are equivalent to the voluntary schools in Ireland, general secondary schools in Indonesia which are equivalent to community/comprehensive schools in Ireland, and vocational secondary schools in Indonesia which are equivalent to Education and Training Board (ETB) schools in Ireland. Circulars were distributed to schools and teachers were invited to attend training workshops to familiarize them with the teaching package. Trialing was carried out by seven schools in each country, and this helped to “fine-tune” the teaching package. No major modifications were necessary.

In general, there were over 5.1 million secondary school pupils enrolled in Indonesia. 26,000 secondary schools exist. The Ministry of Education and Culture oversees 84% of these schools, and the Ministry of Religious Affairs oversees the remaining 16%. In Indonesia, high school lasts 3 years to complete. Indonesians have access to pre-professional and vocational high schools in addition to traditional high schools. In Indonesia, attending elementary through high school is required (Pambudi and Harjanto, 2020; Setiawan, 2020). In comparison, there are roughly 395,611 secondary school students in 3,968 secondary schools in Ireland. Dublin is the largest province, accounting for 18% of the market (706 Secondary schools). With 428 secondary schools (11%), Cork comes in second. Galway also has 233 secondary schools, which is a lot. Together, these three provinces account for 34% of the market for Irish secondary schools (Coolahan, 1995).

For this study purposes, a total of 402 students in the 14–16 age group from Indonesia and 263 students from Ireland participated randomly. The smaller number of students in Ireland was due to the fact that many transition year students (age 15–16) were involved in work experiences programs and therefore were unable to participate in the project. Teachers were supplied with the module as a teaching package and were given complete freedom in how they wished to implement it in the classroom. Questionnaires were issued for completion by teachers and students. In this study, all questionnaires were distributed to the teachers in in-service training courses and returned to the researcher via the postal system. The response rate was 100%. The data were analyzed using quantitatively and qualitatively. Triangulation was carried out by comparing data obtained from the students about each lesson with descriptions from teachers on how they taught the lesson.

3. Result and discussion

3.1. Response of teachers to the medical physics intervention package

The questionnaire issued to teachers ranged over a number of areas, e.g., type of school, size of the school, subject specialism in degree, teaching experience, gender, time spent implementing the intervention package, the assistance obtained from level of detail in objectives, learning outcomes and lesson plans, and the Teacher’s Guide. Teachers were asked about their use of IBSE and DI when implementing the intervention package in the classroom. In this paper, we concentrate on the teachers’ responses to the questions relating to IBSE and DI.

When the Irish science teachers were asked their opinion about the inclusion of inquiry based science education activities in each of the lesson plans provided, all of the teachers (100%) agreed that it was a good idea to include these activities. Typical responses were:

•  Yes, IBSE results in greater student engagement.

•  Allowed students the opportunity to think/reflect on their own knowledge.

•  Inquiry based science education is an advanced approach. Students questioning, researching, thus enhancing their communication skills; solving problems or creating solutions. Also encourages student “thinking” visible to the center of the learning. So, it is a good idea to included IBSE activities.

This result compares with Indonesian teachers’ responses where only 67% of the science teachers had a positive response to the inclusion of IBSE activities in the lesson plans provided. Interestingly, 33% of science teachers argued that it wasn’t a good idea to put IBSE activities in the learning process.

This approach is designed for students of high ability; most science teachers have difficulties implementing this method of teaching. This approach takes too much time.

This method of teaching is difficult to implement and difficult to design assessment for it. There is a lack of laboratory equipment, administrative support and school facilities to help me to use this approach.

Clearly, the majority of the sample of teachers in both countries expressed a positive attitude toward IBSE. However, it is clear that in the case of a significant number of science teachers in Indonesia, the perception that IBSE was only for higher ability students and the lack of laboratory facilities were clearly seen as an impediment to the teachers in implementing an IBSE approach due the fact that some of the practical activities could not be carried out.

Some interesting points of agreement were observed between the science teachers in Ireland and in Indonesia when asked about the balance between IBSE and DI in their teaching for the lessons in the intervention package. The results are summarized in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Comparative analysis regarding the reported balance between inquiry based science education (IBSE) and direct instruction (DI) during the teaching process.

Clearly, the comparative analysis above showed that approximately 40% of teachers in both countries reported that the balance of IBSE and DI was in the ratio of 50:50 DI. It is also worth noting that a significant number of teachers in Ireland (41%) and in Indonesia (29%) felt that that that a balance between IBSE and DI was in the ratio of 1:3. Some typical comments obtained were:

“In my classroom, I tried to teach with more emphasizes on inquiry based learning, but it needs more time allocated. Comparing IBSE with DI is a good idea.”

“I think there are many reasons why the balance should be 50% IBSE-50% DI”: (1). The number of students in the classroom, (2). Laboratory equipment, (3). Students’ abilities, (4). Allocation of learning time.”

When teachers were asked to comment on the benefits that they saw of IBSE and DI approaches to teaching, a wide variety of comments were received. These comments are summarized in Tables 2, 4.

TABLE 4

Table 4. Summary of the benefits of inquiry based science education (IBSE) and direct instruction (DI) in teaching physics as outlined by teachers who participated in the study.

As seen from the above summary of the data obtained, the science teachers do not believe that there is any one perfect teaching approach to implementing the intervention package. There appears to be a continuum of a shifting balance (dynamic equilibrium) between student-centered learning (inquiry based science education) and teacher-centered learning (direct instruction) to ensure that these two approaches complement each other.

3.2. Response of students to the medical physics module

The questionnaire issued to students asked their views on a number of areas, (e.g., 1) gender, (2) age, (3) type of school, (4) level of interest in science, (5) performance in past science examinations, (6) level of difficulty in understanding topics, (7) participation in group activities, (8) level of interest in topics covered in module, and (9) willingness to continue with their study of physics. Due to restrictions on space, in this paper, we concentrate on the students’ responses about their level of enjoyment of the module and their interest in the study of physics. A detailed analysis of all the data is given elsewhere (Sudirman, 2016).

Students were asked to indicate their level of enjoyment on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “extremely unenjoyable” to “extremely enjoyable.” The results are summarized in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Responses of students indicating their level of enjoyment of the module.

It is clear that the majority of the students in both countries reported that they found the module enjoyable. Typical comments received from those who found the module enjoyable were:

•  It was really enjoyable to learn about different topics in physics.

•  It was interesting and helped further my studies.

•  I really enjoyed it because it shows how medical analysis works.

•  Not my favorite topic but it was a good lesson to know in general.

•  I thought the lessons were enjoyable. I participated in the expert group task and my role was as a speaker when my group presented our research project.

It is clear from Figure 2 that while Irish students showed a higher level of enjoyment of the module than Indonesian students, overall, the majority of students reported that they enjoyed the module. A statistical analysis of the data was carried out and some interesting points emerged:

•  In Ireland male students were more interested in the module than female students but in Indonesia female students were more interested in it than male students.

•  In both Ireland and Indonesia, students in vocational type schools expressed the most positive attitude toward the module. Students in the more academic type schools were less positive about the module.

When the Irish students were asked if the study of this module would encourage them to continue with their study of physics at senior level (Leaving Certificate), 45% indicated “yes” while more than half (55%) said “no.” Interestingly, a significant number of Indonesian students (78%) said “yes” while only 22% said “no.” Some typical comments from students were:

Science = awesome, Science makes me happy to further…it increased my curiosity and interest in physics.

I actually like physics, but for the next year I will choose the Social Sciences Program which does not include physics (compulsory). Maybe if I were allowed to choose physics, I would also choose it.

The latter quotation above points to the fact that in Indonesia it is not possible to choose to study science subjects if one is specializing in subjects that are part of the Social Sciences program. This problem does not arise in Ireland where students study a total of seven subjects which include both social science subjects and science subjects.

Analysis of the comments from the students in both countries revealed that some terms used in this module affected their interest due to a lack of literacy skills. The study shows that students had difficulty not only with the technical words, but more commonly with everyday words used in the module. It would appear from the analysis of the student questionnaires that some of the teachers did not explain the meaning of many of the common terms encountered in the module as they may have assumed that they were understood by the student. This is in keeping with the findings of Cassells and Johnstone (1985) and Wellington and Osborne (2001). The use of the DI approach during the teaching process has clear significance for helping students to overcome literacy problems. Without an emphasis on supporting literacy, students may become frustrated with the problems being encountered and this may contribute to develop a negative attitude due to the difficulty of understanding the subject matter.

4. Conclusion and recommendation

Analysis of the data obtained from teachers and students clearly shows that the Medical Physics module has been successful in generating positive responses from both teachers and students. There is a statistically significant difference of responses regarding some variables in the module between Indonesian and Irish science teachers as well as in the responses from students. Analysis of the data from teachers and students shows that the teaching package was teacher-friendly, clear and concise, well laid out, and easy to follow. Teachers reported that the various methodologies and strategies used in the package were popular and could be easily adapted and modified for use in secondary school science lessons.

Based on the findings of the study that arise from the data analysis and bearing in mind its implications the following recommendations are confirmed. (1) There are some clear implications arising from this study for policymakers. Policymakers refer to those involved in curriculum design, members of the inspectorate, and other government agencies whose responsibility involves guiding the future of science education. Policymakers must ensure that continuing professional development programs for science teachers are provided to help them to develop a balance in their teaching between inquiry based science education and direct instruction. Also, teachers were clearly happy with the clearly defined learning outcomes for each lesson in the module. Hence, it is important to provide training to science teachers in the writing of learning outcomes and the methodology involved in teaching within a learning outcomes framework. While the concept of learning outcomes is well known in Ireland, the concept of a learning outcomes framework is quite new to teachers in Indonesia. (2) The availability of suitable laboratory facilities is very important in supporting an effective science teaching and learning environment. Policymakers at national and local level could better address the needs of science teachers in schools in terms of providing better quality laboratory facilities—this problem was particularly acute in Indonesia in promoting IBSE. (3) The Medical Physics module has received strong positive response from both teachers and students. Similar modules could be devised such as in astronomy, biotechnology, electronics, and other areas. Learning physics in the context of applications of science and technology allied with good pedagogy can create a good learning atmosphere.

While the students enjoyed studying the module, it had limited success in convincing them to continue with their study of physics at a higher level. The response of the teachers showed that there was a good balance between IBSE and DI in the teaching approach used by teachers when implementing this module. It is hoped that the study presented here will contribute to the development of new and innovative ways of teaching physics at the secondary school level.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was not required for the study involving human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent to participate in this study was not required from the participants in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

SuS conceived of the presented idea, developed the theory, verified the analytical methods, and performed the writing–original draft and conceptualization. DK supervised the findings of this work. SoS performed writing–review and editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

The project was funded by the Ministry of Finance, the Republic of Indonesia through the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP Scholarship).

Acknowledgments

We also wish to thank the many schools and students in both Indonesia and Ireland who participated in the project.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990) Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics and Technology. (Washington, DC: Oxford University Press).

Google Scholar

Alberts, B. (2008). Considering science education. Science 319:1589. doi: 10.1126/science.1157518

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 13, 1–12. doi: 10.1023/A:1015171124982

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E. K., and Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: frightful, but fun. Pupils’ and teachers’ view of physics and physics teaching. Sci. Educ. 88, 683–706. doi: 10.1002/sce.10141

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arnold, J., Kremer, K., and Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding Students' experiments-what kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 2719–2749. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.930209

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Becher, R. M. (1980). Teacher behaviours related to the mathematical achievement of young children. J. Educ. Res. 73, 336–340. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1980.10885262

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Beliavsky, N. (2006). Revisiting Vygotsky and Gardner: realizing human potential. J. Aesthetic Educ. 40, 1–11. doi: 10.2307/4140226

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bencze, J. (2009). Polite directiveness’ in science inquiry: a contradiction in terms? Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 4, 855–864. doi: 10.1007/s11422-009-9194-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bennett, J., Braund, M., and Sharpe, R. (2013) Student Attitudes, Engagement and Participation in STEM Subjects. New York: University of York, Department of Education.

Google Scholar

Borko, H., and Wildman, T. (1986) Recent Research on Instruction. Beginning Teacher Assistance Program, (Richmond, VA: Department of Education, Commonwealth of Virginia).

Google Scholar

Bredderman, T. A. (1985). Laboratory programs for elementary-school science—a meta-analysis of effects on learning. Sci. Educ. 69, 577–591. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730690413

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brooks, J. G., and Brooks, M. G. (1999). In Search of Understanding: The Case for the Constructivist Classroom, (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Carey).

Google Scholar

Brown, A. L., and Campione, J. C. (1990). “Interactive learning environments and the teaching of science and mathematics,” in Toward a Scientific Practice of Science Education. eds. M. Gardner, et al. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).

Google Scholar

Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., and Day, J. (1982). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from text. Educational Researcher. 10, 14–21. doi: 10.3102/0013189X010002014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Buntern, T., Lee, K., Lan Kong, N. J., and Srikoon, S. (2014). Do different levels of inquiry Lead to different learning outcomes? A comparison between guided and structured inquiry. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 1937–1959. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.886347

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cassells, J, and Johnstone, A (1985) Words That Matter in Science. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.

Google Scholar

Cheung, D. (2009). Students’ attitudes toward chemistry lessons: the interaction effect between grade level and gender. Res. Sci. Educ. 39, 75–91. doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9075-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chiapetta, E. L., and Collette, A. T. (1973). Process versus content in elementary science teaching. Available http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=113&sid=d94660d3-c320-48ca-8b62-8ca6697c1c37%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=ED099196 (Accessed August 20, 2015).

Google Scholar

Chinn, C. A., and Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Sci. Educ. 86, 175–218. doi: 10.1002/sce.10001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Applegate, B., Skjold, B., Undreiu, A., et al. (2010). Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 28, 81–96. doi: 10.1080/02635140903513599

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Colburn, A. (2000). “An Inquiry Primer,” in Science Scope 23, 42–49.

Google Scholar

Collins, S. (2011). “What do students think about science?” in How Science Works: Exploring Effective Pedagogy and Practice. ed. R. Toplis (London & New York: Routledge).

Google Scholar

Coolahan, J. (1995). Secondary Education in Ireland. Netherlands: Council of Europe.

Google Scholar

Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: new roles for science teachers. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 37, 916–937. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<916::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Crawley, F. E., and Koballa, T. R. (1994). Attitude research in science education: con-temporary models and methods. Sci. Educ. 78, 35–55. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730780103

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (2008). Democracy and Education. (Virginia: Wilder Publications)

Google Scholar

Donnelly, D. F., McGarr, O., and O'reilly, J. (2014). Just be quiet and listen to exactly what He's Saying': Conceptualising power relations in inquiry-oriented classrooms. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 2029–2054. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.889867

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Edwards, C. H. (1981). A second look at direct instruction. High Sch. J. 64, 166–169. Avilable at https://www.jstor.org/stable/40365849

Google Scholar

Eshach, H. (1997). Inquiry-events as a tool for changing science teaching efficacy belief of kindergarten and elementary school teachers. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 12, 495–501. doi: 10.1023/B:JOST.0000006309.16842.c8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Furtak, E. M. (2007). The problem with answers: an exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Sci. Educ. 90, 453–467. doi: 10.1002/sce.20130

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gagne, R. M. (1963). The learning requirements for enquiry. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1, 144–153. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660010211

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gardner, P. L. (1975). Attitudes to Science. Studies in Science Education 2, 1–41. doi: 10.1080/03057267508559818

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Glasman, L. R., and Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behaviour: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behaviour relation. Psychol. Bull. 132, 778–822. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hattie, J (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. (Abington: Routledge).

Google Scholar

Henderson, T., and David, A. (2007). Integration of play, learning, and experience: what museums afford young visitors. Early Childhood Educ. J. 35, 245–251. doi: 10.1007/s10643-007-0208-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., and Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educ. Psychol. 42, 99–107. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263368

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hofstein, R., and Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2011) High-school students’ attitudes toward and interest in learning chemistry, presented at 2011 international year of chemistry (attitude toward chemistry), 9 January

Google Scholar

Hyland, A. (2014) “The design of leaving certificate science syllabi in Ireland: An international comparison.” Available at: https://www.asti.ie/document-library/the-design-of-leaving-certicate-science-syllabi-in-ireland-an/ista-hyland-report-low-res-update-1.pdf (Accessed September 13, 2016).

Google Scholar

Ireland, J., Watters, J., Brownlee, L., and Lupton, M. (2014). Approaches to inquiry teaching: elementary teacher's perspectives. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 1733–1750. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2013.877618

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jiang, F., and McComas, W. (2015). The effects of inquiry teaching on student science achievement and attitudes: evidence from propensity score analysis of PISA data. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37, 554–576. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.1000426

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Juntunen, M., and Aksela, M. (2013). Life-cycle analysis and inquiry-based learning in chemistry teaching. Sci. Educ. Int. 24, 150–166.

Google Scholar

Kennedy, D. (2013). The role of investigations in promoting inquiry-based science education in Ireland. Sci. Educ. Int. 24, 282–305.

Google Scholar

Koballa, T. R., and Glynn, S. M. (2007). “Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning,” in Handbook of Research on Science Education. eds. S. Abell and N. Leder-Man (New Jersey: LEA Publishers).

Google Scholar

Kompas, (2013) Posisi Indonesia nyaris jadi juru kunci. Avalaible at: http://www.kopertis12.or.id/2013/12/05/skor-pisa-posisi-indonesia-nyaris-jadi-juru-kunci.html (Accessed February 12, 2015).

Google Scholar

Lawson, A., and Renner, J. (1975). Piagetian theory and biology teaching. Am. Biol. Teach. 37, 336–343. doi: 10.2307/4445275

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, O. (2002). Promoting scientific inquiry with elementary students from diverse cultures and languages. Rev. Res. Educ. 26, 23–69. doi: 10.3102/0091732X026001023

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mason, J. (1963). The direct teaching of critical thinking in grades four through six. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1, 319–328. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660010412

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McKeen, C. D. (1972) Peer Interaction Rate, Classroom Activity, and Teaching Style. Eugene: Center at Oregon for Research in the Behavioral Education of the Handicapped, University of Oregon.

Google Scholar

National Research Council (NRC) (1996) The National Science Education Standards. Washington: The National Research Council.

Google Scholar

National Research Council (NRC) (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. (Washington D.C.: The National Research Council).

Google Scholar

National Research Council (NRC) (2005). How Students Learn: History Mathematics and Science in the Classroom Washington DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10126

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The Competitive Ethos and Democratic Education. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Google Scholar

OECD (2014). Education at a Glance 2014: Highlights OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/eag-2014-en

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Oliveria, A. W. (2009). “Kindergarten, can I have your eyes and ears?” politeness and teacher directive choices in inquiry-based science classrooms. Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 4, 803–846. doi: 10.1007/s11422-009-9193-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ornek, F., Robinson, W. R., and Haugan, M. R. (2007). What makes physics difficult? Sci. Educ. Int. 18, 165–172.

Google Scholar

Osborne, J., and Dillon, J. (2008) Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. (London: The Nuffield Foundation).

Google Scholar

Osborne, J., Simon, S., and Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 1049–1079. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000032199

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pambudi, N. A., and Harjanto, B. (2020). Vocational education in Indonesia: history, development, opportunities, and challenges. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 115:105092 doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105092

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Peterson, P. (1979). “Direct instruction reconsidered,” in Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings, and Implications. eds. P. Peterson and H. Walberg (McCutchan: Berkeley, CA), 57–69.

Google Scholar

Qablan, A., Al-Ruz, J., Theodora, D., and Al-Momani, I. (2009). "I know it's so well, but I prefer not to use it."an interpretive investigation of Jordanian preservice elementary teachers perspectives about learning biology through inquiry. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 20, 394–404.

Google Scholar

Ray, W. (1961). Pupil discovery vs. direct instruction. J. Exp. Educ. 29, 271–280. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1961.11010692

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Robertson, A. (2007). Development of shared vision: Lessons from a science education community collaborative. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44, 681–705. doi: 10.1002/tea.20162

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. J. Educ. Res. 88, 262–268. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1995.9941309

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schibeci, R. A. (1984). Attitudes to science: An update. Stud. Sci. Educ. 11, 26–59. doi: 10.1080/03057268408559913

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Setiawan, A.R. (2020). Introducing the Indonesian education system. PhD thesis. Thesis commons.

Google Scholar

Simpson, R. D., and Oliver, J. S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude towards and achievement in science among adolescent students. Sci. Educ. 74, 1–18. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730740102

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Skinner, B. F. (1987). “Teaching science in high school-what is wrong.” in Paper presented at the AAA meeting.

Google Scholar

Smart, K., and Csapo, N. (2007). Learning by doing: engaging students through learner-centered activities. Bus. Commun. Q. 70, 451–457. doi: 10.1177/10805699070700040302

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sudirman, S. (2016). The role of inquiry based science education in teaching physics at secondary school level: A comparative study between Indonesia and Ireland. Unpublished MEd thesis. University College Cork.

Google Scholar

Sweitzer, G., and Anderson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of research on science teacher education practices associated with inquiry strategy. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 20, 453–466. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660200508

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ültay, E., and Alev, N. (2017a). Investigating the effect of the activities based on explanation assisted REACT strategy on learning impulse, momentum and collisions topics. J. Educ. Pract. 8, 174–186.

Google Scholar

Ültay, E., and Alev, N. (2017b). Teacher candidates’ opinions about the explanation assisted REACT strategy. Mersin Univ. J. Faculty Edu. 13, 803–820. doi: 10.17860/mersinefd.336879

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ültay, N., Çavuş Güngören, S., and Ültay, E. (2017). Using the REACT strategy to understand physical and chemical changes. Sch. Sci. Rev. 98, 47–52.

Google Scholar

Ültay, E., Durukan, Ü. G., and Ültay, N. (2021). Determination of prospective science teachers' level of knowledge about thermodynamics and their reasoning with daily life examples. J. Sci. Learn. 4, 298–308. doi: 10.17509/jsl.v4i3.29544

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vandervoort, F. S. (1983). What would John Dewey say about science teaching today? Am. Biol. Teach. 45, 38–41. doi: 10.2307/4447618

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, J., and Staver, J. R. (1995). An empirical study about China: gender equity in science education. J. Educ. Res. 90, 252–255. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1997.10544579

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wellington, J., and Ireson, G. (2008) Science Learning, Science Teaching, (New York: Routledge).

Google Scholar

Wellington, J, and Osborne, J. (2001). Language and Literacy in Science Education. (Buckingham: Open University Press).

Google Scholar

Wiggins, G. P., and McTighe, J. (2005) Understanding by Design. (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).

Google Scholar