Some physics educators might be interested in the post "Re:
Metastudy on impact of inquiry in k-12" [Hake (2010)]. The abstract
reads:
***************************************
ABSTRACT: Joe Bellina (2010), in a post "Metastudy on impact of
inquiry in k-12" alerted subscribers to "Inquiry-Based Science
Instruction-What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research
Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002" [Minner, Levy, & Century (2009)]. Their
abstract reads in part (slightly edited):
"The goal of the Inquiry Synthesis Project was to synthesize findings
from research conducted between 1984 and 2002 to address the research
question, "What Is The Impact Of Inquiry Science Instruction On K-12
Student Outcomes?". . . . . Various findings across 138 analyzed
studies INDICATE A CLEAR, POSITIVE TREND FAVORING INQUIRY-BASED
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES [my CAPS], particularly instruction that
emphasizes student active thinking and drawing conclusions from data.
Teaching strategies that actively engage
students in the learning process through scientific investigations
are more likely to increase conceptual understanding than are
strategies that rely on more passive techniques, which are often
necessary in the current standardized-assessment laden educational
environment."
Leaving aside my own niggling criticism of their monumental
mixed-methods-research effort, Minner et al., even despite the
"antipositivist vigilantes," rightfully add another voice to the
chorus bemoaning the lack of *operational definitions* for various
pedagogical approaches. Among other choristers are: Century (2004),
Klahr & Li (2005), Anderson (2007), Hake (2008), Strand-Cary & Klahr
(2008), and Klahr (2009).
***************************************