University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Unveiling the visible impact: a meta-analysis on inquiry-based teaching and the effects on Black and Latinx student achievement

(USC Thesis Other)

Unveiling the visible impact: a meta-analysis on inquiry-based teaching and the effects on Black and Latinx student achievement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Unveiling the Visible Impact: A Meta-Analysis on Inquiry-Based Teaching and the Effects
on Black and Latinx Student Achievement
Katarina Marie Garcia
Rossier school of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024

© Copyright by Katarina Marie Garcia 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Katarina Marie Garcia certifies the approval of this Dissertation.
Fred Freking
Erika Patall, Committee Co-chair
Adam Kho, Committee Co-chair
Rossier school of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This study expands upon John Hattie’s (2023) synthesis, which characterizes inquiry-based
teaching (IBT) as an educational strategy where students engage in active exploration of issues,
question formulation, and dissemination of their discoveries, recognized for its potential to boost
academic achievement with an effect size of 0.46. However, Hattie’s analysis does not delve into
the impact on diverse racial demographics, especially among Black and/or Latinx students,
thereby identifying a crucial gap in the pursuit of equitable educational outcomes. To bridge this
gap, this research examines the influence of IBT on the academic achievements of these student
populations. A group of graduate researchers, including the author, selected studies from Hattie’s
meta-analyses that adhered to strict criteria. This selection was geared towards populations
comprising at least 40% Black and/or Latinx students within the United States, utilizing a
comparative method to evaluate the effectiveness of IBT against conventional curricula. Through
the application of a random-effects model, the research team analyzed the pooled effect size and
evaluated heterogeneity with Q, τ2
, and I2 statistics. The findings reveal a small to moderate
positive impact of IBT on student achievement (g = 0.162, p < 0.05), indicating its potential to
foster improved educational results among Black and/or Latinx students. A small negative
correlation was noted between the proportion of Latinx students within the sample and the effect
of inquiry-based teaching on achievement scores. The incorporation of teacher guidance (e.g.,
involvement, feedback, and support) was found to have a statistically significant positive impact
on the effect. This research significantly contributes to the ongoing dialogue on educational
equity by underscoring the differential effects of IBT on marginalized student groups and
stressing the necessity for customized instructional strategies to optimize learning outcomes.

v
Dedication
To my beloved husband, Cesar, whose steadfast support and encouragement have been the
bedrock upon which I built this academic endeavor. In moments of doubt, his unwavering belief
in my abilities propelled me forward, and his love made this journey possible.
To my precious daughter, Astrid, whose infectious laughter and boundless energy brought joy to
the challenges of research and writing. Her presence illuminated the darkest days and made the
brightest ones even more memorable.
To my dear parents, whose belief in my potential has guided my academic journey. Their words
of wisdom, unconditional love, and unwavering support have shaped me into the person I am
today. This dissertation is a testament to the foundation they provided and the dreams they
helped me chase.

vi
Acknowledgments
I extend my heartfelt gratitude to my advisors, Dr. Adam Kho and Dr. Erika Patall,
whose patience, expertise, and humor guided me through the intricate stages of this dissertation.
Their unwavering support and insightful feedback have been instrumental in shaping my
research and scholarly growth.
I am profoundly grateful to my parents, Rachel and Ed, for their unwavering
encouragement, belief in my abilities, and relentless support throughout my academic journey.
Their sacrifices, especially their dedication to buying me an endless supply of books, have been
the cornerstone of my pursuit of knowledge.
Special appreciation goes to my dear colleagues Tim and Sheree, whose camaraderie and
friendship transformed our academic environment into a supportive community. Their
encouragement and shared experiences enriched the journey and made it truly memorable. At
some point, we’ll finally go on that vacation together with our families.
I am also grateful to my husband, Cesar, whose role as a helpful editor brought clarity
and coherence to this dissertation. His patience, support, and unwavering belief in my abilities
sustained me through the challenges of research and writing.
Lastly, I thank all those who have contributed, directly or indirectly, to the realization of
this academic endeavor. Your support, whether big or small, has been invaluable and deeply
appreciated.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. x
Review of the Prior Literature ............................................................................................ 3
Defining the Influence: Inquiry-Based Teaching ................................................... 4
Theoretical Foundations and Constructivist Principles for Inquiry-Based
Teaching.................................................................................................................. 7
Review of Empirical Research.............................................................................. 13
Factors Contributing to Variation in Relationships.............................................. 17
The Present Synthesis........................................................................................... 17
Methods............................................................................................................................. 20
Literature Search................................................................................................... 21
Inclusion Criteria .................................................................................................. 22
Data Extraction ..................................................................................................... 23
Data Analysis........................................................................................................ 25
Inter-rater Agreement............................................................................................ 26
Results............................................................................................................................... 26
Overall Average Effects/Correlations................................................................... 28
Publication Bias.................................................................................................... 29
Moderator Analyses.............................................................................................. 29
Discussion and Implications............................................................................................. 32
Summary of Key Findings.................................................................................... 32
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................... 39

viii
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research...................................... 42
Conclusions........................................................................................................... 45
References..................................................................................................................................... 47
Tables............................................................................................................................................ 58
Figures........................................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix A: List of studies included in the analysis, alphabetically by author........................... 63
Appendix B: Coding Guide .......................................................................................................... 65

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Average Effect for Inquiry-Based Teaching 58
Table 2: Results of Moderator Analysis 59
Appendix A: List of Studies Included in the Analysis, Alphabetically by Author 63
Appendix B: Coding Guide 65

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Inquiry Continuum 60
Figure 2: PRISMA Chart 61
Figure 3: Publication Bias 62

1
Unveiling the Visible Impact: A Meta-Analysis on Inquiry-Based Teaching and the
Effects on Black and Latinx Student Achievement
The dominance of a White, middle-class perspective in educational research has led to a
limited understanding of the experiences and challenges of marginalized groups (LadsonBillings, 2006). In the recent decade, there has been a growing interest in exploring ways to
improve the academic achievement of Black and/or Latinx students in American schools.
Historically, academic education research has often overlooked the experiences and needs of
Black and/or Latinx students, leading to a limited understanding of their unique educational
challenges and achievements. This exclusion has perpetuated these groups’ marginalization and
hindered efforts to address their educational disparities. By studying the experiences and needs
of Black and/or Latinx students, researchers can better understand the factors contributing to
educational disparities and develop targeted interventions to promote their academic success.
Dominant narratives in science education illustrate that there has been a significant gap in
scientific literacy for Black and/or Latinx students compared to their White counterparts in the
United States (National Science Foundation, 2018). This has led to focusing research on
improving outcomes for students of color in science education. Inquiry-based teaching is one
approach proposed to have benefits for all students. It may lead to better understanding and
retention of scientific concepts among minority students and increased interest in science
(Achieve, 2012). While inquiry-based teaching has shown promise in improving science
education, further research is needed to determine the most effective ways to implement this
approach for minority students.
John Hattie’s meta-analysis, Visible Learning (2023), contributes significantly to
educational research because it comprehensively synthesizes research on “what works” in

2
education. Hattie’s analysis identifies over 300 instructional practices that affect student
achievement, including feedback, teacher-student relationships, and direct instruction (Hattie,
2023). In his synthesis, Hattie defines inquiry-based teaching (IBT) as an instructional approach
involving students exploring a topic or problem, posing questions, conducting research, and
sharing their findings with others (2023). Hattie’s synthesis of eight meta-analyses with 353
studies reports that IBT has an effect size of 0.46, which denotes that this teaching strategy has
the potential to accelerate academic achievement (Hattie, 2023). Hattie’s research inadvertently
overlooks the specific effects and effectiveness for Black and/or Latinx students by not
emphasizing racial variation in his analysis. A focused exploration of the impact of IBT on
diverse racial groups would offer crucial insights into ensuring equitable educational practices
for students of color.
To bridge this research gap, this study aims to delve deeper into the connection between
inquiry-based teaching and the academic performance of Black and/or Latinx students. There is a
growing body of research on IBT and, therefore, a need for a more comprehensive exploration of
how it impacts historically marginalized student groups. This research will review existing
studies and build upon Hattie’s influential work to better understand how IBT influences the
academic success of Black and/or Latinx students by addressing the following research
questions:
1. To what extent does inquiry-based teaching affect Black and/or Latinx student
achievement?
2. To what extent does the inclusion of guidance moderate the effect of inquiry-based
teaching on achievement among samples that are largely Black and/or Latinx?

3
3. To what extent does the effect of IBT on achievement vary depending on the
percentage of the sample that is Black and/or Latinx?
Review of the Prior Literature
The definition of inquiry-based teaching varies across studies and educational
frameworks. Some definitions describe inquiry as students actively guiding their learning with
the teacher acting as a facilitator. In contrast, others provide more detailed lists of actions for
teachers, students, and the curriculum (NRC, 1996, 2001). The variation in definitions has
implications for research syntheses that aim to determine the effectiveness of inquiry-based
teaching (Briggs, 2008). Early meta-analyses in the 1980s categorized inquiry-based teaching as
innovative, activity-based, process-oriented, and discovery-oriented. These studies found varying
effect sizes, with more significant effects observed for inquiry-discovery and guided exploration
than teacher direction and structured guidance (Lott, 1983; Wise & Okey, 1983). Although IBT
can be used in any school subject, it is predominantly utilized in science education, where its
methods and principles are most applicable to the science process. While there may be instances
of IBT being applied in other subjects, its primary use and development have been within the
context of science education.
For this research synthesis, inquiry-based teaching is defined as a constructivist approach
to education wherein students actively construct knowledge by engaging with learning materials
and peers. This definition is based on the most widely accepted definition of inquiry in science
education derived from the framework for K–12 science education (NRC, 2012). According to
this framework, inquiry is a process where students pose questions about the natural world and
investigate phenomena (NRC, 2012). Earlier definitions of inquiry from the National Research

4
Council (2000) align with this view, emphasizing students’ active involvement in investigating
scientific phenomena within a collaborative learning environment (Aktamis et al., 2016).
Defining the Influence: Inquiry-Based Teaching
Banchi and Bell (2008) provide a comprehensive perspective on inquiry by presenting it
as a continuum (Figure 1). A common misconception regarding inquiry-based teaching assumes
that students must independently identify a problem and develop a solution (Banchi & Bell,
2008). While this definition aligns with one approach to inquiry-based teaching, it is crucial to
recognize that there are multiple ways to employ this pedagogical strategy in the classroom
based on the amount of guidance provided by the teacher.
Confirmation inquiry provides substantial guidance with teachers focused on
familiarizing students with the inquiry question, procedure, and anticipated results. Structured
inquiry offers clear instructions and guidelines throughout the investigation, enabling students to
engage in inquiry while receiving tailored support to meet individual learning needs. In guided
inquiry, teachers present overarching questions while granting students autonomy in determining
investigative procedures, providing direction, and guiding them toward valuable resources for
independent problem-solving. Finally, free or open inquiry empowers students to generate
questions, devise procedures, and gather data independently. Each aspect of the continuum and
the definition of guidance is discussed in more detail below.
Guidance
While inquiry-based teaching promotes student autonomy and active engagement, it only
implies guidance. Guidance in inquiry-based teaching refers to the support and assistance
provided by the teacher to students throughout the inquiry process (Lazonder & Harmensen,
2016). The role of the teacher shifts to that of a facilitator, mentor, or guide. Guidance can take

5
various forms depending on the stage of inquiry and the needs of the students. At the beginning
of an inquiry, teachers may provide an overarching question or problem to spark students’
curiosity and set the direction for their investigations. They can offer prompts or cues to help
students develop research questions or hypotheses. This initial guidance helps students focus
their inquiries and establish a foundation for their investigations.
Teachers are crucial in providing necessary resources and materials during the inquiry
process. They guide students in locating and accessing relevant information, research articles,
books, or online sources. Teachers may also suggest appropriate methodologies, techniques, or
experimental procedures that align with the objectives of the inquiry. They help students develop
effective data collection, analysis, and interpretation strategies. Inquiry-based teaching often
involves collaborative work, facilitated group discussions, and peer interactions, which may need
to be scaffolded by the teacher depending on the student’s experiences. The amount of teacher
guidance through the inquiry process leads to four key types of inquiry-based teaching as the
guidance levels vary. Early levels of IBT involve more direct guidance and later levels
encourage independent investigation and critical thinking skills.
Confirmation Inquiry and Structured Inquiry
Confirmation inquiry entails students being cognizant of the question, procedure, and
anticipated results before engaging in the investigation (Banchi & Bell, 2008; Bell et al., 2005).
Teachers employ confirmation inquiry to introduce new topics or reinforce acquiring essential
science skills such as data collection or measurement. In this approach, students receive the most
guidance and support as they follow the teacher’s instructions to practice and refine their inquiry
skills. While confirmation inquiry heavily relies on teacher guidance and instruction to introduce
concepts and skills, structured inquiry provides a more autonomous learning environment with

6
tailored support to engage students in solving problems independently within defined parameters.
Both approaches aim to foster inquiry-based learning but differ in the level of guidance and
autonomy granted to students during the investigative process. Structured inquiry’s primary
focus is to allow learners to engage in inquiry while receiving appropriate support tailored to
their individual learning needs (Banchi & Bell, 2008; Bell et al., 2005). In a science classroom,
structured inquiry may manifest as teachers providing students with predefined questions and
procedures while empowering them to solve the problem independently. For instance, when
exploring the concept of aerodynamics, the teacher may present the question of how far a paper
airplane can fly and provide a standardized procedure for throwing the airplanes the same
distance across the classroom. However, students retain the freedom to fold their paper airplanes
uniquely, fostering creative problem-solving approaches.
Guided Inquiry
Guided inquiry represents the subsequent level of inquiry, wherein teachers present the
overarching question while granting students the autonomy to determine the procedures required
to explore and uncover a viable solution (Banchi & Bell, 2008; Bell, Smenta, & Binns, 2005).
During guided inquiry, teachers extend support by directing students toward valuable resources
that facilitate their learning journey while abstaining from providing definitive answers. Teachers
provide feedback so that students can continue to move forward and not get stuck on the task
they are working on. This can prove beneficial for Black and/or Latinx students who may have
low self-efficacy in their science identity. Guidance from the teacher encourages novices and
those students with low self-efficacy in their science identity to engage. Teachers guide their
students through tasks by giving specific feedback that may encourage them to persevere in
solving a problem.

7
Open Inquiry
Open inquiry is considered the purest and most authentic form of inquiry in education,
particularly in science. This approach empowers students to generate questions, develop
procedures, and gather data. As Banchi and Bell (2008) explain, open inquiry allows students to
explore their curiosity and creativity, fostering a deeper engagement with the subject matter. By
encouraging students to take ownership of their learning, open inquiry cultivates critical
thinking, problem-solving skills, and a genuine understanding of scientific processes. It enhances
students’ scientific knowledge and nurtures their ability to think independently and adapt to new
situations.
Inquiry-based teaching encapsulates diverse instructional approaches tailored to facilitate
student learning. Confirmation inquiry, structured inquiry, guided inquiry, and open inquiry
represent different subtypes and degrees of guidance within IBT, each with specific
characteristics. As Banchi and Bell (2008) highlight, each form of inquiry nurtures an
understanding of scientific processes that empower students to explore and discover, mirroring
the scientific process.
Theoretical Foundations and Constructivist Principles for Inquiry-Based Teaching
Inquiry-based teaching, rooted in the constructivist paradigm, presents a transformative
pedagogical approach that acknowledges learners’ active roles in knowledge construction
(Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2008; Simpson, 2002). By accentuating the dynamic interaction
between individuals and their environments, IBT catalyzes cognitive development, which is
particularly beneficial for Latinx and Black students. The intrinsic constructivist ideology of IBT
allows these students to actively incorporate their cultural funds of knowledge (Gonzalez et al.,

8
2005), providing a distinct opportunity to counteract potential marginalization associated with
Western-centric thinking and values (Carlone et al., 2011).
From a psychological and philosophical perspective, constructivism asserts that
individuals actively construct their knowledge and understanding (O’Donnell, 2012). It is an
inherently culturally responsive approach, recognizing the diverse epistemologies and ways of
knowing that students bring to the learning environment. This is especially crucial considering
Western science often overemphasizes positivist paradigms, fixating on a singular correct
answer. Such overreliance on positivism can limit students from diverse backgrounds, as it may
not align with their unique perspectives and ways of understanding the world (Chang et al.,
2010). In contrast, IBT within the constructivist framework provides an inclusive and diverse
approach. It allows students to engage with their epistemologies and integrate their knowledge
with what is conventionally termed “traditional science content.” This culturally responsive
aspect of IBT becomes particularly pertinent for Black and/or Latinx students, as it respects and
values their distinct perspectives, fostering a more comprehensive and inclusive science
education.
Principle 1: Active Learning
Inquiry-based teaching (IBT) emerges as a champion of learners’ active engagement in
constructing knowledge and understanding, contrasting with the passive reception of information
in traditional direct instruction (O’Donnell, 2012). Rooted in constructivist theory, IBT
transforms learners into dynamic participants immersed in learning, actively employing
cognitive processes to derive meaning from educational experiences (O’Donnell, 2012). This
departure from passive learning enhances students’ grasp, retention, and application of material,
offering a stark departure from the conventional view of students as mere recipients of

9
knowledge. Active learning through IBT allows teachers to embrace culturally relevant
pedagogy (CRP) and validate student knowledge through inquiry.
In classrooms lacking cultural responsiveness, students of color and their knowledge are
frequently marginalized or disregarded. Ladson-Billings (1994) underscores the pivotal role of
the teacher-student relationship in CRP, emphasizing the need for educators to recognize
students’ potential for success and their ties to broader communities. Culturally responsive
science educators position students as leaders in the classroom, challenging stereotypes and
biases while engaging them as social activists (Tsurusaki et al., 2013). IBT practices incorporate
locally based and issue-oriented scenarios, enabling Black and/or Latinx learners to engage with
material relevant to their communities critically. This approach resonates with Gay’s advocacy
for recognizing and valuing Indigenous and culturally based knowledge (2010). By validating
student insights, an environment is fostered where their knowledge is acknowledged and treated
with authority (Brown, 2017), creating a dynamic educational setting where the ideas students of
color contribute play a pivotal role in constructing knowledge through inquiry. Thus, IBT
empowers students to delve into real-world sociopolitical connections and aligns with Gay’s call
to recognize and honor diverse forms of knowledge. This transformative aspect of IBT extends
beyond conventional methods, creating an educational environment where student perspectives
and experiences are valued, and active learning catalyzes meaningful engagement and
knowledge construction.
Principle 2: Inquiry and Discovery in Real-World Contexts
In inquiry-based teaching, students are encouraged to embark on a journey of exploration
and problem-solving within real-world complexities. As a guiding principle, constructivism
underscores the profound significance of authentic, real-world experiences in facilitating

10
meaningful learning (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). Learners glean the most profound insights when
actively grappling with genuine challenges and phenomena that resonate with their lives. This
means that teachers, operating under the constructivist paradigm, can design learning tasks and
environments closely aligned with students’ personal experiences, interests, and the complexities
of the world around them. Brown (2017) illustrates that engaging in real-world contexts to
advance social change through inquiry-based teaching allows Black and/or Latinx students to
apply community cultural knowledge. In one urban garden project (Fusco, 2011), educators
directly leveraged the youth’s cultural knowledge of their community by making their insights
integral to each decision-making step. By researching and enacting science ideas based on their
cultural knowledge, these youth demonstrated a profound understanding of the nature of science
and engineering through the design process. By anchoring learning in the students’ own lives and
experiences, inquiry and discovery learning in real-world contexts align with the fundamental
tenets of constructivism, ultimately equipping students with the skills and knowledge necessary
to navigate and contribute to the world’s complexities beyond the classroom.
Principle 3: Collaborative Learning
Social interaction is crucial to constructivist learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Beyond
mere learning environments, collaborative learning allows students to engage in discussions,
negotiate meaning, and construct knowledge together. Group work, peer teaching, and
cooperative projects promote a shared understanding and perspective-taking. Social cognitive
theory emphasizes the importance of observation, modeling, and feedback when learning
(Bandura & Walters, 1977). The exchange of observations and reciprocal feedback within
collaborative learning enhances comprehension and skill acquisition. Constructivism highlights
the interaction between individuals and their peers in acquiring and refining skills and

11
knowledge (Bredo, 2016; Cobb & Bowers, 1999). It is important to note that Black and/or Latinx
students may come from collectivist cultures where communities work together towards
common goals, and this aligns with the principles of IBT and constructivist learning. The
distinctive nature of collaborative learning is underscored by the prevalence of group and
individual goals promoting a collectivist and family-like environment (Mensah, 2011). The
collaborative nature of IBT allows students from diverse backgrounds to engage in meaningful
scientific inquiry, fostering a sense of empowerment and belonging in the science classroom
(Tsurusaki et al., 2013). This sense of belonging is crucial for Black and/or Latinx students as it
enhances their motivation, engagement, and academic achievement (Goodenow, 1993).
Vygotsky’s theory similarly emphasizes the critical role of social interactions (Tudge &
Scrimsher, 2003), contending that engaging with others fosters cognitive growth. Collaborative
learning creates opportunities for shared insights, diverse perspectives, and the collective
construction of knowledge. Within a group context, collaborative interactions stimulate cognitive
growth as learners actively assimilate and adapt their experiences based on both personal
knowledge and the contributions of their peers (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978). This collaborative and
socially oriented approach aligns with the cultural values of collectivism often inherent in Black
and/or Latinx communities.
Principle 4: Guidance
Teachers play a pivotal role in guiding students’ learning journey by providing support,
posing thought-provoking questions, and facilitating discussions, thereby fostering deeper
comprehension (Brown & Campione, 1994). Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal
development (ZPD) underscores the gap between a learner’s current abilities and their potential
growth with guidance (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978). Inquiry-based teaching actively nurtures the

12
ZPD by presenting tasks that stretch students’ capabilities while remaining within their reach
through guidance (Wilson et al., 2009). This method encourages students to explore topics with
unfamiliar concepts, sparking cognitive dissonance and promoting problem-solving skills
(Tuovinen & Sweller, 1999).
In IBT, teachers guide students along the continuum of inquiry, gradually relinquishing
control over the learning process (Wilson et al., 2009). Through hands-on experiences and
assuming roles as scientists, students experience positive outcomes (Wilson et al., 2009).
Effective teacher support involves providing structured guidance and feedback to prevent
confusion and address misconceptions (Brown & Campione, 1994). This guidance ensures
efficient navigation through learning tasks, minimizing cognitive load and maximizing learning
outcomes (Tuovinen & Sweller, 1999). By incorporating scaffolded instruction within IBT,
educators create meaningful learning environments that foster students’ science identity
development (Brown & Campione, 1994; Carlone & Johnson, 2012).
The principle of teacher guidance takes on added significance, particularly concerning the
validation of Black and/or Latinx students’ identities and funds of knowledge by teachers. This
validation significantly supports IBT by fostering a supportive and inclusive learning
environment. Teachers can establish trust and rapport with their students by recognizing and
validating their identities, including their cultural backgrounds and lived experiences. Validation
of students’ funds of knowledge—the diverse range of skills, experiences, and cultural insights
they bring to the classroom—is crucial for guiding them effectively along the continuum of
inquiry. This sense of validation can cultivate a positive learning atmosphere where students feel
seen, heard, and respected, which is essential for their engagement and motivation in the learning
process (Ladson-Billings, 2022). When students feel valued for who they are, they are more

13
likely to actively participate in inquiry-based activities and take ownership of their learning
journey.
Teachers who acknowledge and build upon students’ existing knowledge base can
scaffold their learning experiences more effectively, tailoring instruction to meet their needs and
interests (Moll et al., 2006). By integrating students’ funds of knowledge into IBT activities,
teachers can make the learning process more relevant and meaningful, enhancing students’
comprehension and retention of new concepts (González et al., 2005). The validation of students’
identities and funds of knowledge contributes to creating a culturally responsive learning
environment within IBT. Culturally responsive teaching practices acknowledge the diverse
cultural backgrounds of students and leverage these differences as valuable resources for
learning (Gay, 2010). When teachers validate and incorporate students’ identities and funds of
knowledge into their instructional practices, they promote equity and inclusivity in the
classroom, ensuring that all students have equal opportunities to succeed (Howard, 2003).
Review of Empirical Research
Numerous research studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of IBT
compared to traditional, direct instruction methods for the general population of students.
However, previous meta-analyses have often used broad definitions of inquiry-based teaching,
while only a few have examined the level of guidance provided by the teacher as a crucial aspect
of this instructional reform (Lott, 1983; Minner et al., 2010; Wise & Okey, 1983). Research
indicates that IBT is effective across different subjects and grade levels. For instance, a study of
middle school science classrooms demonstrated that students involved in an IBT unit on
photosynthesis outperformed their peers who received traditional instruction on a content
knowledge test (Schauble et al., 1995). Similarly, first-grade students participating in an IBT

14
math program achieved higher scores than those in a traditional math program (Bouck &
Flanagan, 2010). A study on high school social studies classrooms revealed that students
engaged in an IBT unit on the Civil Rights Movement exhibited higher critical thinking skills
and more positive attitudes toward learning than those receiving traditional instruction (Chapman
& Hobbel, 2022). Most of these studies, however, are conducted without acknowledging that a
growing majority of students in the United States are students of color. Ethnic and racial data are
not found in studies or do not include a population that reflects the United States as a whole.
Inquiry-based teaching has demonstrated notable effectiveness in enhancing the
educational outcomes of students from diverse backgrounds, particularly those belonging to
ethnic minority groups. Geier et al. (2008) have presented evidence suggesting that inquiry
experiences contribute significantly to the academic achievement of students of color and help
mitigate the achievement gaps commonly observed between them and their White peers. Geier et
al. (2008) examined the impact of reform in Detroit Public Schools centered on project-based
inquiry science units with aligned professional development. The results show that participants
in these units, across two cohorts, demonstrated improved science understanding and process
skills compared to their peers, emphasizing the potential of inquiry-based curriculum initiatives
for enhancing achievement in historically underserved urban student populations.
Research conducted by scholars such as Carlone et al. (2011) and Moje et al. (2004) has
underscored the positive impact of culturally responsive science instruction on students of color.
These studies have highlighted outcomes including cultivating positive science identities,
improved scientific literacy, and heightened content knowledge among students from diverse
cultural backgrounds. Science identity, which encompasses a sense of belonging and competence
in the field, has been correlated with persistence in science majors and selection of science-

15
related careers (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Chemers et al., 2011; Hunter, Laursen, & Seymour,
2007). Students’ science identity development is influenced by how they perceive themselves
and are perceived by others within science communities (Carlone & Johnson, 2012). For students
of color, particularly Black and/or Latinx students, recognition within science communities of
practice may be influenced by race, gender, and ethnicity (Carlone & Johnson, 2012). Therefore,
validating students’ identities and funds of knowledge by teachers within IBT becomes crucial in
fostering a supportive and inclusive learning environment where all students feel empowered to
engage in science and develop a strong science identity (Brown & Campione, 1994; Carlone &
Johnson, 2012). This validation contributes to the dismantling of stereotypes and biases,
promoting equity and inclusivity in science education (Howard, 2003).
Incorporating guidance is critical to the success of IBT for the general study population.
Studies have shown that inquiry-based methods with minimal or no guidance are less effective
than explicit instruction (Kirschner et al, 2010). However, when students receive adequate
guidance during the inquiry process, they learn more than those taught through direct instruction
(Alfieri et al., 2011; Furtak et al., 2012). Initial research syntheses favored inquiry-based
teaching over expository instruction (Bittinger, 1968; Hermann, 1969). Studies comparing
teacher-directed inquiry learning to traditional instruction have demonstrated a higher overall
mean effect size for teacher-directed inquiry (Furtak et al., 2012; Carolan et al., 2014). The
effectiveness of guidance in inquiry learning is influenced by the learners’ age and support
needs, with different types of guidance providing varying specificity and assistance (De Jong &
Van Joolingen, 1998; Reid et al., 2003). For example, students’ ability to set up valid
experimental comparisons and transfer skills to new domains improves with age (Chen & Klahr,
1999; Koerber et al., 2011; Veenman et al., 2004) so more guidance may be necessary in the

16
primary grades rather than secondary. Different guidance levels also affect students’ autonomy
and the depth of inquiry-based learning experiences (Schwab, 1962; Shulman & Tamir, 1973).
To effectively engage Black students in mathematics, a study deliberately designed problems to
immerse them deeply in substantial mathematical tasks (Laursen & Rasmussen, 2019). This
strategy encouraged students to identify challenges and core principles by explaining their
thought processes for problem-solving. Adequate guidance was pivotal for involving all students.
The instructor’s participation and guidance during the inquiry were vital because the instructor
could address questions about the math content in real time. Without critical guidance, students
would disengage from the lesson entirely. Thus, this review underscores the critical role of
guidance, its impact on the success of inquiry-based teaching methodologies, and the necessity
of understanding how guidance influences the facilitation of compelling inquiry-based learning
experiences.
In addition to improving academic achievement, IBT has been found to positively impact
students’ motivation, engagement, and attitudes toward learning. For example, undergraduate
biology courses incorporating IBT increased intrinsic motivation and interest in the subject more
than traditional instruction (Herreid & Schiller, 2013). Similarly, middle school science
classrooms implementing an IBT climate change unit observed higher student engagement and
interest levels (Kolodner et al., 2003). This educational approach hinges on the belief that
immersing students in meaningful topics and authentic tasks mirroring real-world scenarios
optimize learning outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2008; Perkins, 2009; Sawyer, 2006) by
empowering students to explore and collaborate (Darling-Hammond, 2008; Sawyer, 2006).

17
Factors Contributing to Variation in Relationships
Incorporating guidance is critical to the success of IBT (Alfieri et al., 2011; Furtak et al.,
2012). Research indicates that inquiry-based methods with minimal or no guidance are less
effective than explicit instruction (Kirschner et al., 2006). One key reason is that students often
need more expertise for self-guided inquiry-based learning. Such methods typically expect
students to independently explore, question, and discover knowledge, which can be challenging
for learners who have yet to become experts in the field. For Black and/or Latinx students,
guidance becomes even more pivotal. It offers culturally responsive approaches that facilitate
engagement and understanding by incorporating unique cultural experiences into the inquiry
process. Many students may need more foundational background knowledge to engage
effectively in inquiry-based tasks, especially at the introductory level. Inquiry-based learning is
thought to be better suited for fostering a deeper exploration and understanding of topics after
students have acquired foundational knowledge (Schwab, 1962; Shulman & Tamir, 1973). The
ability of teachers to provide appropriate scaffolding, resources, and feedback to culturally and
linguistically diverse students can significantly impact their understanding and engagement in
the inquiry process. Differentiated support is essential to ensure equitable access to the benefits
of inquiry-based teaching for all students (Lee & Buxton, 2013).
The Present Synthesis
Numerous studies have explored the benefits of IBT across different subjects and grade
levels, highlighting its potential to enhance students’ content knowledge and critical thinking
skills. However, the existing literature lacks sufficient evidence regarding the specific effects of
IBT on the academic achievement of Black and/or Latinx students. Given the persistent
achievement gaps experienced by these student groups, it is crucial to examine whether IBT can

18
serve as an effective instructional strategy for promoting equitable learning outcomes. Research
has shown that inquiry-based methods can positively impact students’ motivation, engagement,
and achievement (Herreid & Schiller, 2013; Kolodner et al., 2003). Black and/or Latinx students
often encounter systemic barriers that can hinder their educational opportunities and outcomes
(Ladson-Billings, 2006). Therefore, it is essential to investigate whether IBT can mitigate these
disparities and provide an inclusive and supportive learning environment for historically
underserved students by acknowledging that the cultural background knowledge they bring to the
inquiry is valuable and essential to cultivating positive science identities.
Additionally, incorporating guidance in IBT has been emphasized as a critical factor for
its effectiveness (Alfieri et al., 2011; Furtak et al., 2012). This raises questions about the level
and nature of guidance required to maximize the benefits of IBT for Black and/or Latinx
students. This research synthesis builds upon Hattie’s meta-analysis and concentrates explicitly
on studies that include 40% or more Black and/or Latinx students. By synthesizing existing
research, this study provides a comprehensive overview of the relationship between IBT and
student achievement outcomes within these populations. Findings from this meta-analysis about
IBT have implications for educators, policymakers, and researchers interested in promoting
equitable and inclusive educational practices supporting historically marginalized students’
success.
Building upon existing research, mainly drawing from Hattie’s influential work, this
study explores the impact of inquiry-based teaching on the academic achievement of Black
and/or Latinx students. To address the first question (To what extent does inquiry-based teaching
affect Black and/or Latinx student achievement?), the study asserts that Black and/or Latinx
students exposed to inquiry-based teaching will exhibit enhanced academic outcomes compared

19
to traditional direct instruction methods. The interactive and exploratory nature of inquiry-based
teaching may offer distinct advantages for historically marginalized student groups. Inquirybased teaching is a method that embraces and values the diverse cultural perspectives that Black
and/or Latinx students contribute to the classroom and therefore inquiry-based teaching can
foster positive science identities among these students.
Addressing the second question (To what extent does the inclusion of guidance moderate
the effect of inquiry-based teaching on achievement among samples that are largely Black and/or
Latinx?), the researcher hypothesizes that the level of guidance provided during the learning
process has a more substantial positive impact on the academic achievement of Black and/or
Latinx students. The researcher anticipates that a structured and supportive guidance framework
will enhance the effectiveness of inquiry-based teaching for these student groups because it
ensures that students receive continuous social feedback from their teacher and peers, which
helps manage cognitive load, prevent working memory overload, and facilitate better learning
and retention of information. Structured guidance from the teacher entails providing clear
direction, scaffolding learning activities, and offering targeted assistance tailored to these
students’ community and cultural funds of knowledge which are treated as authoritative rather
than as an afterthought. By prioritizing structured and supportive guidance within the context of
inquiry-based learning, educators can empower Black and/or Latinx students to thrive
academically.
This study also aims to investigate whether the variation in the effectiveness of inquirybased teaching is related to the demographic composition of the student body, as outlined in the
third question (To what extent does the effect of IBT on achievement vary depending on the
percentage of the sample that is Black and/or Latinx?). Specifically, the researcher hypothesizes

20
that the impact of IBT on academic achievement varies with the percentage of Black and/or
Latinx students in the study population due to the shared values of the community classroom.
Stronger effects are predicted in those samples with more Black and/or Latinx students. IBT is a
method that values collaboration and cultural funds of knowledge and this may be more
beneficial in samples with a larger percentage of students of color.
These hypotheses collectively form the foundation of this study, aiming to deepen
understanding of how inquiry-based teaching influences the academic outcomes of Black and/or
Latinx students and whether the effectiveness of IBT is influenced by the provision of guidance
and the demographic composition of the student population.
Methods
Building upon John Hattie’s meta-analysis in Visible Learning, which underscores IBT as
a method where students explore topics, pose questions, conduct research, and share findings,
this study investigates the effectiveness of IBT specifically within this demographic. Utilizing a
detailed literature search, a team of graduate researchers, including the author, systematically
screened and extracted data from meta-analyses identified in Hattie’s synthesis. Rigorous
inclusion criteria were applied, focusing on studies conducted in the United States with a
significant proportion of Black and/or Latinx students. The data extraction process followed a
meticulous coding guide, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the extracted information.
Effect sizes were computed using standardized mean differences, and a random-effects model
was employed for meta-analysis. The researcher also explored moderators such as guidance
levels and sample demographics, aiming to provide a nuanced understanding of IBT’s impact on
historically marginalized students.

21
Literature Search
A team of graduate researchers, including the author, conducted a comprehensive
literature search to gather relevant studies for this meta-analysis. This search reviewed research
articles listed as part of Hattie’s synthesis of meta-analyses on inquiry-based teaching. The first
step involved accessing the website visiblelearningmetax.com and navigating to the specific
influence page on inquiry-based teaching. This webpage provided information about the
influence, a list of the eight included meta-analyses, publication year, number of studies, and
effect sizes.
To locate each meta-analysis study published on the MetaX website, various search
platforms such as Google Scholar, USC Libraries, ProQuest, ERIC, and PsycInfo were utilized.
The authors’ names, publication years, and article titles were used as search parameters to
retrieve the correct meta-analysis article. Care was taken to ensure the accuracy of the retrieved
article by cross-referencing the provided information in the article search with corresponding
information on the MetaX website.
Once the correct meta-analysis article was found, it was downloaded and saved in the
Google Drive “Meta-Analyses” folder. To quickly identify the file, a systematic naming
convention using the authors and publication year was followed. The associated data screening
document was opened and populated with the relevant information from the website and the
meta-analysis article. This included specifying the influence, authors, and year of the metaanalysis, indicating whether a copy of the article was available in the Google Drive folder, and
providing a link for quick access.
A systematic screening procedure was employed to assess the eligibility of individual
study articles for inclusion. The initial goal in this process was to locate as many studies as

22
possible within each meta-analysis. In cases where specific articles were inaccessible due to
physical copies or restricted online access, alternative methods such as USC’s Interlibrary Loan
and Document Delivery service were utilized. All eight meta-analyses listed in Hattie’s study
were found. Two meta-analyses were immediately excluded (Shymansky et al., 1990 and
Bangert-Drowns, 1992) because the list of studies included in the meta-analyses was unavailable
in the reports.
Inclusion Criteria
To synthesize effectively, the researchers meticulously followed specific inclusion
criteria. All included studies had to be part of Hattie’s meta-analyses and accessible through
various channels. Each study had to meet several conditions: it must focus on a sample
population within the United States, exclude duplicate studies, and require a minimum of 40% of
Black and/or Latinx students in the sample. Selected studies had to employ a group comparison
approach to evaluate the effectiveness of inquiry-based teaching in science versus traditional
curricula. Achievement had to be measured at the student level, with reports providing sufficient
data to calculate an effect size. The rigorous application of these criteria ensured alignment with
the research objectives.
This information was sourced from each study’s abstract or methods section. Any
absence of country or race/ethnicity data led to exclusion from the synthesis. All relevant data for
inclusion determination was meticulously recorded in a Google Sheets document. Initially, 214
studies were screened from the remaining six meta-analyses. Among these, 54 were excluded
before screening due to the inability to locate the studies (k = 54) or duplication (k = 1). This left
159 studies for screening. Subsequently, studies not conducted in the USA (k = 52), lacking race
and ethnicity data (k = 91), or having a sample of less than 40% of Black and/or Latinx students

23
(k = 3) were excluded as they did not meet the study’s criteria. This process resulted in the
retention of 13 reports (Figure 2). Six reports were removed because they did not meet the
inclusion criteria for study design, as these reports consisted of correlational studies rather than
experimental designs.
Data Extraction
A team of graduate researchers, including the author, conducted a comprehensive data
extraction process to re-synthesize Hattie’s influential works. The team employed a detailed
coding guide (Appendix B), which can be found in the appendix, to guide this process,
encompassing various aspects, such as meta-analysis characteristics, report characteristics,
participant and sample attributes, predictor influences, outcome measures, research design, and
effect size calculations.
Meta-analysis characteristics involved identifying the names of each study included in
the original meta-analysis. Report characteristics focused on factors like publication type, data
sources used, data collection year, and overlapping datasets. Setting characteristics encompassed
the geographical regions and school levels where the studies occurred. Participant and sample
characteristics were meticulously coded, capturing information such as sample analysis (whole
or subgroups), percentages of racial and ethnic composition, grade levels, gender distribution,
percentages of low-income or economically disadvantaged participants, percentages of special
education students, and the proportion of English language learners.
The coding process for assessing the influence of inquiry-based teaching involved
systematically analyzing experimental and quasi-experimental studies that focused on this
teaching approach. These studies utilized a pre and post-test design to evaluate how inquirybased teaching affected student outcomes. Rigorous coding procedures were applied to the

24
outcome measures, covering various aspects such as the types of outcomes (e.g., state
standardized tests or GPA), detailed descriptions of the measured outcomes, outcome domains,
units of analysis, timing of measurement, and type of data collection (whether simultaneous or
longitudinal). This systematic approach aimed to capture the nuanced variations in factors
influencing inquiry-based teaching comprehensively. In addition to the coding guide provided to
all researchers, the author also coded the guidance levels specific within each study’s
instructional approach, drawing from Banchi and Bell’s (2008) continuum of inquiry-based
teaching. Guidance levels were categorized as high or low based on the extent of teacher
involvement, feedback, and instructional support. Moderate guidance, or structured and guided
inquiry, included structured activities with significant teacher direction and continuous feedback.
Although structured and guided inquiry are different, these two forms of inquiry were grouped
together because the differences were difficult to discern in the included studies. Low guidance,
or open inquiry encompassed minimal teacher intervention, allowing for more open-ended
student exploration. The focus was on examining whether these guidance levels had a discernible
impact on historically marginalized students. No studies were found to include high guidance, or
confirmation inquiry.
Before commencing the article coding, the coders underwent rigorous training. Weekly
meetings, facilitated by research supervisors with expertise in meta-analysis were held to ensure
an understanding of the coding guide. Group exercises and coding practice with multiple papers
were conducted. Once an 80% agreement rate between the graduate student coders and research
supervisors was achieved, the coders were granted independent coding privileges.
Following the training sessions, the author independently coded the articles, with another
coder validating the codes for all reports included in this meta-analysis. Any discrepancies were

25
noted and resolved through comprehensive discussions. In the event of disputes, further
deliberations were undertaken with the dissertation chairs to reach a mutually agreeable
resolution.
Data Analysis
In this study, the intervention studies calculated effect sizes as standardized mean
differences (SMD) in achievement between the treatment group utilizing inquiry-based teaching
and the control group. Effect sizes were computed directly from the means, standard deviations,
and sample sizes of the intervention and control groups whenever possible. When direct
calculation was not feasible, effect sizes were derived from standard error statistics. When
multiple treatment conditions were compared to a single control condition within a study,
separate effect sizes were calculated for each intervention condition. All intervention effect sizes
were converted to bias-corrected Hedge’s g, a standardized effect size that addresses slight
positive bias present with small samples (Hedges, 1981).
The meta-analysis of this intervention data was conducted using the metafor and
clubSandwich R packages (Pustejovsky, 2019; Viechtbauer, 2010). Random-effect modeling was
employed throughout the analyses. To account for the dependence between multiple effect size
estimates within studies and mitigate the potential misspecification of models, a multi-level
modeling approach was adopted in conjunction with a robust variance estimator (RVE;
Pustejovsky & Tipton, 2020).
A random-effects model was fitted to estimate the pooled effect size for the relationship
between inquiry-based teaching and achievement. Heterogeneity among effect sizes was
assessed using Q, τ2
, and I2 statistics. Additionally, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported
for the weighted average effect (Borenstein et al., 2011). Mixed-effects meta-regression models

26
were employed further to explore the heterogeneity in the effect size estimates. Separate models
were created to examine the effects of moderators. The moderators under investigation included
the levels of guidance in each study and the exploration of the percentage of the sample that is
Black and/or Latinx. Finally, to investigate the possibility of publication bias and funnel plot
asymmetry, an Egger’s regression test (Egger et al., 1997) was conducted, and the potential role
of publication status as a moderator was explored using meta-regression models.
Inter-rater Agreement
After all the data were extracted for the studies meeting the inclusion criteria by the
author, they were checked for accuracy by an experienced graduate student collaborator to
ensure the reliability of the coding and data extraction. The inter-rater agreement rate was
calculated as the total number of data points in agreement divided by the total number of data
points extracted. There was a high agreement rate between the researcher and the validator, with
an agreement rate of approximately 99%.
Results
In total, seven studies meeting the inclusion criteria were incorporated into the final
sample (Figure 2). Of these, six were published in journals, while one remained as an
unpublished dissertation. These studies yielded a total of 14 samples and 26 effect sizes. Thirteen
samples originated from published sources, with the remaining sample from the unpublished
dissertation. The publication timeline of these studies spans from 2003 to 2016. Detailed
information regarding the authors, sample sizes, and effect sizes for these studies can be found in
Appendix A of the supplementary materials, alongside other pertinent study characteristics. The
sample sizes across the included studies varied, ranging from 13 to 4,798, culminating in a total
sample size of 7,383.

27
The study focused on assessing the impact of guidance levels on historically marginalized
students. Guidance levels were classified as either high or low depending on the degree of
teacher involvement, feedback, and instructional support. Twenty-two studies demonstrated
moderate guidance (structured and guided inquiry). structured and guided inquiry were grouped
together due to challenges in distinguishing between them across the studies reviewed. Four
studies demonstrated low guidance. No studies examined high guidance as this was the control
group for all 26 studies.
While not all of the studies discussed the demographics of the teacher participants, the
studies that do identify demographics predominantly feature new teachers or those lacking
confidence in teaching science. Across these studies, there is a recurring theme of professional
development (PD) being critical for improving teacher efficacy and confidence in teaching
science. August et al. (2009)’s study involved mostly new teachers and aimed to identify specific
areas where these educators needed support in teaching science in elementary schools. Bravo and
Cervetti (2004) included experienced elementary teachers. Despite their experience, only two out
of ten participants felt successful in teaching science. Bravo and Cervetti (2004) incorporated
interviews and surveys to assess teacher efficacy, revealing that only one teacher had a degree in
science. The findings underscore the importance of targeted PD to enhance teacher confidence
and efficacy, especially for those without a strong background in the subject. Tong et al. (2014)
involved mostly English language learners and had participants with an average of 5.88 years of
teaching experience, including two brand-new teachers. The focus was on providing bi-weekly
training sessions aimed at enhancing science content knowledge and teaching skills. This study
emphasized the dual challenge of elementary teachers learning new science content while

28
simultaneously developing effective teaching strategies, a common theme across all studies that
listed demographics.
Overall Average Effects/Correlations
The analysis revealed an effect size for achievement (g = 0.162, p < 0.05; see Table 1),
indicating a small positive effect of inquiry-based teaching on student achievement within
populations with a high percentage of Black and/or Latinx students. This suggests that
implementing inquiry-based methods may benefit educational outcomes among these
demographic groups. The dataset comprised seven reports, seven studies, and fourteen samples
with twenty-six effect sizes. However, the relatively limited number of studies and effect sizes
analyzed emphasize the need for careful interpretation and potential expansion in future research
to confirm these findings. The expected stronger relationship between inquiry-based methods
and achievement for more diverse samples including Black and/or Latinx students relative to
primarily White students was not observed, as indicated by the comparison effect of 0.46 found
in Hattie’s overview.
The meta-analysis of inquiry-based teaching revealed a substantial amount of
heterogeneity as indicated by Cochran’s Q (Q = 177.9224, p < 0.0001), tau-squared (τ² =
2.4395e-12), and I-squared (I² = 81.64). The extremely low value of 𝜏𝜏2 suggests minimal
variation among the true effect sizes. However, the high I
2 value indicates that 81.64% of the
variation in effect sizes is due to heterogeneity among the studies. This high level of
heterogeneity implies that the effect of inquiry-based teaching on achievement varies
significantly across different contexts and implementations. Such variability is expected given
the diverse educational settings and methodologies applied in the included studies. Therefore,

29
while the overall effect is positive, further analysis to explore potential moderating factors is
necessary to understand the sources of this heterogeneity.
Assessing for Outliers
The dataset was examined for extreme outliers before conducting any other analyses.
Outliers are defined as effects that were more than three standard deviations greater or smaller
than the overall estimated effect size. No outliers were found.
Publication Bias
The results from the Egger’s regression model suggested that there was evidence of
funnel plot (Figure 3) asymmetry for the dataset (b = 0.258, SE = 0.0.026, p < 0.001). The
moderator analysis reveals a significant difference between the effect sizes of published and
unpublished studies, but this should be interpreted with caution since there is only one
unpublished study. Published studies show a positive and significant impact of inquiry-based
teaching on student achievement, with an effect size of 0.167 (Table 2). In contrast, the
unpublished study indicates a negative and significant impact, with an effect size of –0.091. This
discrepancy suggests the presence of publication bias, where positive results are more likely to
be published while negative results remain unpublished, but again this should be interpreted with
caution because only one study is unpublished. Further investigation into the factors contributing
to this difference is warranted to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the
effectiveness of inquiry-based teaching across different contexts.
Moderator Analyses
This study gives particular attention to two essential moderators: the sample size of Black
and/or Latinx students and the level of guidance teachers provide during inquiry-based learning
activities (Table 2). The choice of these moderators stems from their significant relevance to the

30
research context. Specifically, exploring the impact of sample size variations among Black
and/or Latinx students offers insights into the differential experiences within these demographic
groups. Furthermore, the operationalization of guidance as the extent of support provided by
teachers during inquiry activities enabled a nuanced examination of pedagogical influences on
student outcomes. Examining how these moderators interact with the primary variables of
interest aimed to deepen understanding and provide valuable insights into the complex interplay
of factors shaping educational outcomes.
Moderator: Level of Guidance
The statistical analysis reveals significant insights in examining the impact of guidance
levels on student performance (Table 2). For studies with low guidance, the effect size was
0.352, indicating a moderate positive impact. However, the confidence interval (–0.935 to 1.639)
includes zero, suggesting that the effect is not statistically significant and there is uncertainty
around the estimate. For studies with moderate guidance, the effect size is 0.153, indicating a
smaller positive impact compared to low guidance. The confidence interval (0.093 to 0.212)
indicates that the effect is statistically significant. The moderator coefficient for the difference
between low and moderate guidance (b = –0.199, SE = 0.286) was not significant. This suggests
that there is no statistically significant difference between low guidance and moderate guidance
in terms of their effect sizes. In other words, the analysis does not provide strong evidence that
either level of guidance is more effective than the other in influencing student achievement. The
substantial uncertainty in the estimates for low guidance underscores the need for further
research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive data to better understand the impact
of low guidance (open inquiry) on student performance in K–12 schools.

31
Moderator: Percentage of Latinx students
Despite the overall positive effect size, the regression coefficient (b = –0.0019, SE =
0.0007) suggests a statistically significant (p < 0.05) and slightly negative relationship between
the percentage of Latinx students and the effect of IBT on achievement scores. The intercept of
the model (b = 0.2558, SE = 0.0299) indicates a baseline positive effect of inquiry-based
teaching on achievement scores in the absence of Latinx students. This finding suggests that
while inquiry-based teaching generally improves achievement, the magnitude of this
improvement slightly decreases as the percentage of Latinx students increases. This highlights
the importance of considering demographic factors in the interpretation of this data. The six
studies included in this analysis were focused on the impact of English Language Learners
(ELLs) within the Latinx subgroup. Estrella et al.’s (2018) meta-analysis, which contributed to
four of these studies, primarily focused on ELLs, which included a significant portion of Latinx
students. Estrella et al.’s (2018) meta-analysis did not specifically disaggregate English-fluent
Latinx students from the ELL group. The overrepresentation of Latinx ELLs in the current study
context may skew the findings regarding the effectiveness of IBT for Latinx students. Further
research is warranted to explore the effects of inquiry-based teaching on ELLs and fluent Latinx
students, thus providing a clearer understanding of the impact of teaching methodologies on
diverse student populations.
Moderator: Percentage of Black students
Although the observed coefficient for the percentage of Black students (b = 0.0007)
indicates a positive relationship between an increase in the percentage of Black students and
achievement outcomes, it does not meet the conventional threshold for statistical significance.
The confidence interval (–0.0008 to 0.0022) includes zero, suggesting that the percentage of

32
Black students does not significantly moderate the effect of inquiry-based teaching. Given these
considerations, the analysis emphasizes the need for further investigation. Future research could
benefit from larger sample sizes or more comprehensive data on student achievement to provide
a clearer understanding of the interaction between racial composition and pedagogical strategies.
These results may not be representative due to the limited number of studies with a significant
proportion of Black students in the population.
Discussion and Implications
The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of inquiry-based teaching on the
academic achievement of Black and/or Latinx students, with a particular focus on the role of
guidance in this instructional approach. It sought to explore variations in effects concerning the
percentage of Black and/or Latinx students in educational settings.
Summary of Key Findings
The analysis revealed several noteworthy findings regarding the effectiveness of inquirybased teaching and its variations concerning Black and/or Latinx student achievement. These
findings provide insights into the efficacy of IBT and the importance of instructional guidance in
diverse educational settings.
Research Question 1: To What Extent Does Inquiry-Based Teaching Affect Black and/or
Latinx Student Achievement?
The meta-analysis findings summarized in Table 1 reveal a modestly positive effect size
of (g = 0.162). The effect size falls below the Hattie threshold of 0.4, indicating a limited impact
not within the zone of desired effects. While IBT demonstrates a small but positive effect on
student achievement overall, its efficacy within the context of desired educational impacts,
particularly for targeted interventions aimed at improving outcomes for Black and/or Latinx

33
students, remains modest. Despite the alignment between the principles of inquiry-based
teaching (IBT) and culturally relevant pedagogy, the studies in this dissertation did not
demonstrate a significant impact in terms of culturally relevant pedagogy. While IBT engages
students through active learning, it does not inherently incorporate the ideals of culturally
relevant pedagogy, especially for students of color.
Culturally relevant pedagogy in science emphasizes connecting educational content with
students’ identities and backgrounds. In science education, this can involve solving real-world
problems within a student’s community or investigating local ecosystems, living spaces, and
landscapes. However, the studies in this dissertation struggled to make these connections. For
example, at least two studies focused on space science, which is difficult to relate to students’
immediate communities due to its macro-scale nature. Only one study focused on life science
and ecosystems (August et al., 2014), but it did not emphasize making the inquiry culturally
relevant. Instead, it addressed ecosystems in a general sense, rather than exploring those specific
to the students’ local environments.
The studies on earth science and plate tectonics also highlighted this disconnect. One
study was conducted in California (Kim, 2006), where earthquakes are a familiar phenomenon,
potentially making it culturally relevant. However, the other study was in New York (Keselman,
2003), where students might struggle to relate to earthquakes if they have never experienced one.
Additionally, the Hushman (2000) study, which took place at a summer camp in New Mexico,
focused on building physics and ramps for cars. While this activity was engaging due to its
consideration of student interests, it did not connect back to the students’ communities or cultural
backgrounds, even though there was an opportunity to do so.

34
None of the studies included culturally relevant pedagogy training for the teachers. The
study by Llosa et al. (2014) emphasized the importance of collective participation in professional
development for elementary school teachers, who often lack adequate preparation in science.
This study, which focused on English language learners and inquiry-based teaching, highlighted
that culturally relevant teaching was key to improving language proficiency. The researchers in
the Llosa et al. (2014) explained that many teachers “do not consider teaching for diversity as
part of their responsibility”, and the study did not provide culturally relevant pedagogy training
for the teachers, which is a significant gap.
If teachers are expected to effectively educate students of color, including Black and
Latinx students, it is crucial to provide culturally relevant pedagogy training and integrate it
within IBT. This integration would help the principles of IBT to positively impact students’
science identities. Furthermore, many teachers in these studies lacked experience in science
teaching or had low science teacher efficacy, as noted by Bravo and Cervetti (2014). This lack of
confidence further limits the effectiveness of IBT, as teachers who do not perceive themselves as
competent science educators are already at a disadvantage.
Limitations in this study also arise from sample size and demographics, which impact the
conclusions, especially for specific demographic groups like Black and Latinx students. The
analysis comprises a small number of studies (seven studies) and effect sizes (26 effect sizes
from 14 samples), restricting the breadth of the findings. One significant constraint is the lack of
disaggregated data by race/ethnicity in most of the studies included in Hattie’s original metaanalyses, and many original meta-analyses were conducted outside the United States. This
limitation significantly reduces the pool of studies available for this meta-analysis that
specifically addresses the needs and experiences of Black and Latinx students in the United

35
States. The vast majority of studies included in this meta-analysis were conducted within the
Grades 3-6 range, which restricts the generalizability of our findings. The limited age range
covered in the studies poses a challenge in extrapolating conclusions to older or younger student
populations, thereby constraining the applicability of our results across different developmental
stages.
Further research is recommended to address these limitations and enhance understanding.
Disaggregating data by race and ethnicity is also advised to gauge IBT’s impact on different
student populations accurately. Continued and targeted research efforts are imperative to
ascertain the specific circumstances under which IBT could yield more substantial benefits for
these student groups. While the principles of inquiry-based teaching align with those of
culturally relevant pedagogy, the studies in this dissertation did not effectively integrate these
ideals. To make IBT more effective and culturally relevant, there needs to be a concerted effort
to provide culturally relevant pedagogy training for teachers. This training should aim to enhance
their ability to connect science education with students’ cultural and community contexts,
thereby fostering a more inclusive and impactful learning environment.
Research Question 2: To What Extent Does the Inclusion of Guidance Moderate the Effect of
Inquiry-Based Teaching on Achievement Among Samples That Are Largely Black and/or
Latinx?
The analysis of the data reveals a nuanced understanding of the impact of guidance on the
effectiveness of inquiry-based teaching among samples that are largely Black and/or Latinx.
Specifically, the effect of IBT is statistically significant only when guidance is included. The
results for moderate guidance (structured or guided inquiry) show a modest but significant effect
size (g = 0.153) with a 95% confidence interval of (0.093, 0.212), indicating that structured

36
guidance enhances the effectiveness of IBT by providing a clearer framework for students,
leading to more consistent and measurable improvements in achievement.
Conversely, the results for low guidance (open inquiry), despite having a larger effect
size (g = 0.352), are not statistically significant. The confidence interval for this group is wide
and includes zero (–0.935, 1.639), suggesting a high level of variability in the outcomes. This
lack of significance could be attributed to the small number of studies (k = 3) in the low guidance
group, which likely results in insufficient statistical power to detect a true effect. Additionally,
the high variability in these studies further obscures the detection of a significant effect.
These findings imply that while guidance in IBT leads to a more reliable positive effect
on achievement, the effect size is modest. The moderating role of guidance in IBT may depend
heavily on alignment with the context and the characteristics of the students involved.
Effectiveness may be contingent upon how well IBT connects to students’ prior knowledge and
learning needs. All studies included in this analysis are conducted within the context of science
education for grades three to seven, focusing on learners who may be new to inquiry based
teaching and scientific inquiry (novices). This specific context suggests that structured guidance
may be particularly beneficial for younger, less experienced students who are still developing
foundational scientific skills and knowledge. Younger students often require more structured
guidance to navigate the complexities of scientific inquiry. Their cognitive and developmental
stages mean they benefit from clear, scaffolded instruction that helps them formulate questions,
design experiments, and interpret data. Structured guidance in IBT provides a framework that
supports these learners by breaking down the inquiry process into manageable steps, offering
consistent feedback, and maintaining focus on the learning objectives.

37
For Black and/or Latinx students, structured guidance may also help bridge gaps in prior
knowledge that can arise from inequities in educational opportunities. By providing a more
structured environment, educators can ensure that these students have the support they need to
engage fully with the material and develop the skills necessary for scientific inquiry. This
alignment with students’ educational needs and contexts is crucial for maximizing the
effectiveness of IBT. Conversely, low guidance or open inquiry approaches, while potentially
offering greater opportunities for creative exploration and autonomy, may not provide the
necessary support for novice learners. The variability in outcomes observed in the studies with
low guidance suggests that without sufficient structure, students may struggle to engage
effectively with the inquiry process. This can result in inconsistent learning experiences and
outcomes, highlighting the need for more tailored approaches that consider the specific needs of
the student population.
While structured guidance appears to enhance the consistency of positive outcomes in
IBT, the results are more complex than a straightforward conclusion that guidance is better. The
significant effect with moderate guidance suggests it provides a more consistent benefit, but the
potential for larger effects without guidance, although not statistically confirmed in this analysis,
warrants further investigation. This nuanced understanding highlights the importance of
considering both the presence of guidance and the variability in study outcomes when evaluating
the effectiveness of inquiry-based teaching for largely Black and/or Latinx samples. The
moderating role of guidance depends heavily on the alignment with the context and the specific
student populations involved, emphasizing the need for tailored instructional approaches that
account for these factors.

38
Research Question 2: To What Extent Does the Inclusion of Guidance Moderate the Effect of
Inquiry-Based Teaching on Achievement Among Samples That Are Largely Black and/or
Latinx?
The analysis revealed nuanced patterns concerning the variations in effects correlated
with the percentage of Black and/or Latinx students. While Latinx students demonstrated slightly
negative outcomes, this raises the question of whether this trend could be attributed to the
overrepresentation of English Language Learners in the meta-analyses. Most of the studies used
in this meta-analysis were from Estrella et al.’s (2007) meta-analysis on the effectiveness of IBT
on ELLs. Given that most of the studies in this meta-analysis were drawn from Estrella et al.’s
(2007) work on the effectiveness of IBT for ELLs, the outcomes observed for Latinx students
might reflect the particular experiences and adaptations of ELL students within collaborative
learning environments. The collaborative nature of IBT, which involves peer interactions, group
work, and shared learning activities, can be a challenge for ELL students. Collaborative learning
in IBT provides students with more opportunities to practice language skills in authentic,
meaningful contexts. They can learn from their peers, receive immediate feedback, and engage in
social interactions that enhance language acquisition. These same collaborative settings may be
daunting for ELL students who are still developing their language proficiency. They might feel
self-conscious, experience anxiety about making mistakes, or have difficulty keeping up with
rapid conversations.
The findings pertaining to Black students did not exhibit statistical significance, which
could also be influenced by the overreliance on meta-analyses that focused on IBT and Latinx
ELLs. This underscores the need for more research studies investigating how inquiry-based
teaching impacts Black students. Such studies could provide insights into the unique challenges

39
and opportunities Black students face within the context of IBT implementation. By addressing
these gaps in the literature, researchers can better understand the factors influencing the
effectiveness of IBT for Black students and develop targeted interventions to enhance their
educational outcomes. The variations in IBT’s effects on achievement among Black and/or
Latinx students highlight the complex interplay between instructional approaches and
demographic factors. Further research, mainly focused on Black students, is essential for
advancing understanding of effectively supporting diverse student populations in achieving
academic success through inquiry-based teaching.
Implications for Practice
This dissertation highlights the critical need for comprehensive teacher training in both
inquiry-based teaching (IBT) and culturally relevant pedagogy, particularly for educators
working with Black and Latinx students. While IBT has shown promise in improving
educational outcomes for students of color, its impact may have been limited by a lack of
cultural relevance in its typical implementation. This highlights the necessity for K–12 schools to
adopt a more strategic and culturally responsive approach when implementing IBT.
Districts and educational institutions should prioritize professional development that
integrates IBT with culturally relevant pedagogy. Training should focus on equipping teachers
with the skills needed to provide structured guidance within IBT frameworks, including
managing cognitive load, offering continuous feedback, and creating supportive learning
environments. Additionally, middle and high schools should pilot IBT initiatives with robust
support systems that involve regular teacher collaboration, sharing best practices, and adjusting
instructional methods based on student feedback and performance data.

40
Addressing the diverse needs of Latinx students, particularly differentiating between
English-speaking students and English Language Learners (ELLs), is also crucial. Tailoring IBT
strategies to overcome language barriers and align with cultural contexts can enhance their
effectiveness and ensure more inclusive learning experiences. Schools should also incorporate
culturally responsive pedagogies within IBT to better serve Black students, integrating their
cultural backgrounds into the curriculum and fostering an environment where all students feel
recognized and valued.
Another major finding of this dissertation is the lack of culturally relevant pedagogy
training for teachers. Llosa et al. (2014) highlighted that culturally relevant teaching was key to
improving language proficiency. However, many teachers do not consider teaching for diversity
as part of their responsibility (Banilower et al., 2012), and this gap in training limits their
effectiveness. Many teachers in these studies lacked experience in science teaching or had low
science teacher efficacy, as noted by Bravo and Cervetti (2014). This lack of confidence further
reduces the effectiveness of IBT, as teachers who do not perceive themselves as competent
science educators face significant challenges. Professional development opportunities are crucial
for enhancing teacher efficacy and confidence in science teaching.
Bryan Brown and Chris Emdin have extensively discussed the importance of integrating
culturally relevant pedagogy in science education, highlighting the necessity for educational
practices that resonate with students’ cultural identities and experiences. Brown (2006)
emphasizes the critical role of discourse and identity in science learning, advocating for
pedagogical practices that not only recognize but actively leverage students’ cultural
backgrounds. He argues that traditional science education often marginalizes students of color by
neglecting their cultural identities, leading to disengagement and lower achievement. Brown’s

41
work suggests that when educators incorporate students’ cultural narratives and linguistic
practices into the science curriculum, it can significantly enhance engagement and
understanding.
Chris Emdin (2016) champions a concept he calls “reality pedagogy,” which involves a
deep understanding of students’ cultural contexts and using that knowledge to inform and
transform teaching practices. Emdin argues that traditional teaching methods often fail to
connect with students of color because they do not reflect the realities of these students’ lives.
Reality pedagogy seeks to bridge this gap by making education more relevant and responsive to
the cultural and social realities of students. This approach includes practices such as co-teaching
with students, using hip-hop and other cultural references in lessons, and creating a classroom
environment where students’ cultural identities are affirmed and valued.
These perspectives underscore the necessity of integrating culturally relevant pedagogy
within IBT to support students of color effectively. By aligning IBT with culturally relevant
practices, educators can create learning environments that are more inclusive and equitable. This
integration involves several key strategies:
● Incorporating cultural narratives: Science lessons should include examples, case
studies, and historical contributions from diverse cultures. This helps students see
themselves reflected in the curriculum and understand the relevance of science to
their own lives.
● Utilizing students’ linguistic practices: Recognizing and incorporating the language
and communication styles of students can make science content more accessible. This
includes using everyday language, vernacular, and even multilingual approaches to
explain complex scientific concepts.

42
● Engaging with community knowledge: Teachers should draw on the knowledge and
experiences of the communities where their students live. This can include local
environmental studies, community-based science projects, and guest speakers from
the community who work in science-related fields.
● Creating affirming classroom environments: Classrooms should be spaces where
students’ cultural identities are affirmed and celebrated. This can be achieved through
classroom decor, culturally relevant teaching materials, and classroom norms that
respect and value diverse cultural expressions.
● Professional development for teachers: Ongoing training and support for teachers are
crucial. Professional development should focus on equipping teachers with the skills
and knowledge to implement culturally relevant pedagogy within IBT frameworks.
This includes workshops, collaborative planning sessions, and reflective practices that
help teachers continually improve their culturally responsive teaching methods.
The work of Brown and Emdin provides a strong theoretical and practical foundation for
integrating culturally relevant pedagogy within IBT. By adopting these strategies, educators can
better support students of color, fostering greater engagement, understanding, and achievement
in science education. This approach not only benefits students academically but also helps to
create a more just and inclusive educational system.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
This dissertation highlights several limitations inherent in the meta-analysis of inquirybased teaching (IBT), particularly when focusing on Black and Latinx students. A fundamental
limitation arises from the narrow scope tied to the exclusive reliance on Hattie’s meta-analyses.
While this approach provides a comprehensive dataset, it may restrict the exploration of novel

43
interventions or studies outside the selected body of work. To address these gaps, future research
should disaggregate data by race and ethnicity to accurately gauge IBT’s impact on different
student populations. Additionally, expanding the scope to include more recent studies and
diverse research methods will help to capture a broader spectrum of educational experiences and
outcomes.
Relying on Hattie’s included studies offers the strength of comparing similar studies
within a consistent framework, but it also presents significant weaknesses. Many of the metaanalyses in Hattie’s original study were conducted outside the United States, further reducing the
pool of studies specifically addressing the needs and experiences of Black and Latinx students in
the United States. This synthesis comprises a small number of studies (seven studies) and effect
sizes (26 effect sizes from fourteen samples), due to these being the only studies that fit the
inclusion criteria. Moreover, all of the studies in this meta-analysis were conducted within
Grades 3-6, limiting the generalizability of our findings to other grade levels, such as high school
or higher education settings. This research base limited to studies from Hattie’s larger analysis
does not reflect the most current or comprehensive studies available focusing on diverse
populations and lacks integration with qualitative research, which often emphasizes culturally
relevant teaching. Most science education research that incorporates inquiry teaching and
culturally relevant pedagogy is qualitative, focusing on the nuanced experiences and contextual
factors that influence teaching and learning. Therefore, future meta-analyses should integrate
quantitative methods to evaluate the effectiveness of culturally relevant pedagogy within IBT.
This integration is crucial for providing a more holistic understanding of how these pedagogical
strategies can be optimized and for ensuring that teachers receive appropriate training to
implement these strategies effectively.

44
Researchers should also investigate the effectiveness of professional development and the
impact on science achievement. Silverstein et al. (2009) found that while differences in passing
rates on high-stakes science assessments between students of teachers receiving professional
development and not receiving professional development were not significant during the first
two years, they became significant in the third and fourth years. This trend, also observed by
Maerten-Rivera et al. (2016), indicates that the effectiveness of PD programs may increase over
time as teachers become more proficient in new teaching methods. These findings imply that PD
programs need to be sustained over multiple years to achieve significant improvements in
teacher efficacy and student outcomes. Short-term PD initiatives may not be sufficient to bring
about the desired changes in teaching practices and student performance, particularly in science
education.
Future research should focus on several key areas to enhance the effectiveness of IBT and
culturally relevant pedagogy:
● Longitudinal studies: To fully assess the long-term impact of IBT methods and PD
programs, longitudinal studies are needed. These studies should track changes in
teacher efficacy, teaching practices, and student outcomes over several years to
provide a comprehensive understanding of the sustained effects of PD.
● Improving teacher efficacy: Research should explore strategies to improve teacher
efficacy, particularly for those without a strong background in science. This includes
developing PD programs that are specifically designed to build content knowledge
and pedagogical skills in science education.
● Cultural and contextual relevance: Future studies should consider the cultural and
contextual relevance of science topics to enhance student engagement and and

45
learning outcomes. This involves integrating culturally relevant pedagogy with IBT to
create more inclusive and effective learning environments for students of color.
By focusing on these areas, future research can provide valuable insights into how to
implement IBT and culturally relevant pedagogy more effectively across diverse educational
contexts. This will ultimately contribute to promoting equitable and inclusive learning
experiences for all students, particularly those from marginalized communities.
Conclusions
This dissertation highlights the critical need for comprehensive teacher training in both
inquiry-based teaching (IBT) and culturally relevant pedagogy, particularly for educators
working with Black and Latinx students. The meta-analysis revealed that IBT has a modestly
positive effect on student achievement overall (g = 0.162), which falls below the desired
educational impact threshold. This suggests that while IBT can be beneficial, its implementation
often lacks the cultural relevance necessary to fully engage students of color. The analysis
further underscores the significant gap in current educational practices where many teachers do
not consider teaching for diversity as part of their responsibility, limiting the effectiveness of
IBT.
One of the most compelling findings is the role of structured guidance in enhancing the
effectiveness of IBT. The results indicate that moderate guidance (structured or guided inquiry)
improves student achievement (g = 0.153), whereas low guidance (open inquiry) does not show
statistically significant results. This suggests that structured guidance, which includes clear
frameworks and consistent feedback, might particularly be beneficial for younger, less
experienced students who are still developing foundational scientific skills and knowledge. For

46
Black and Latinx students, structured guidance can bridge gaps in prior knowledge, providing
the necessary support to engage fully with the material.
Future research should address the limitations identified in this dissertation, such as the
need for more studies disaggregating data by race and ethnicity to accurately gauge IBT’s impact
on different student populations. Longitudinal studies are also needed to assess the long-term
effects of IBT methods and professional development programs. Interestingly, integrating
culturally relevant pedagogy with IBT shows promise for creating more inclusive and effective
learning environments. By aligning these pedagogical approaches, educators can better connect
science education with students’ cultural and community contexts, fostering a more inclusive and
impactful learning experience. This strategic integration could significantly enhance educational
outcomes for students of color, promoting equitable and effective teaching practices across
diverse educational contexts.

47
References
Achieve, Inc. (2012). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states.
https://www.nextgenscience.org/
Aktamiş, H., Hiğde, E., & Özden, B. (2016). Effects of the inquiry-based learning method on
students’ achievement, science process skills and attitudes towards science: A metaanalysis science. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(4), 248–261.
https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10183a
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based
instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.
August, D., Branum-Martin, L., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D. J. (2009). The impact of an
instructional intervention on the science and language learning of middle-grade English
language learners. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 345–376.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903217623
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall.
Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Implicit versus explicit nature of
science instruction: An explicit response to Palmquist and Finley. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 35(9), 1057–1061.
Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science
Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.
Bittinger, M. L. (1968). A review of discovery. The Mathematics Teacher, 61(2), 140–146.

48
Bouck, E., & Flanagan, S. (2010). Virtual manipulatives: What they are and how teachers can
use them. Intervention in school and Clinic, 45(3), 186–191.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451209349530
Bravo, M. A., & Cervetti, G. N. (2014). Attending to the language and literacy needs of English
learners in science. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(2), 230–245.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2014.900418
Bredo, E. (2015). Philosophical perspectives on mind, nature, and educational psychology. In
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 17–29). Routledge.
Briggs, D. C. (2008). Synthesizing causal inferences. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 15–22.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08314286
Brown, J. C. (2017). A metasynthesis of the complementarity of culturally responsive and
inquiry-based science education in K–12 settings: Implications for advancing equitable
science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(9), 1143–
1173. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21401
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. The MIT
Press.
Carlone, H. B., Haun-Frank, J., & Webb, A. (2011). Assessing equity beyond knowledge- and
skills-based outcomes: A comparative ethnography of two fourth-grade reform-based
science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 459–485.
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2012). Unpacking ‘culture’ in cultural studies of science
education: Cultural difference versus cultural production. Ethnography and Education,
7(2), 151–173.

49
Carolan, T. F., Hutchins, S. D., Wickens, C. D., & Cumming, J. M. (2014). Costs and benefits of
more learner freedom: Meta-analyses of exploratory and learner control training methods.
Human Factors, 56(5), 999–1014.
Chang, J., Lee, H., & Yen, C. (2010). Alternative conceptions about burning held by Atayal
indigene students in Taiwan. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 8(5), 911–935.
Chapman, T. K., & Hobbel, N. (Eds.). (2022). Social justice pedagogy across the curriculum:
The practice of freedom. Routledge.
Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Syed, M., Goza, B. K., & Bearman, S. (2011). The role of
efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority
students. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 469–491.
Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the
control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–8624.00081
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and
practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.
Corwin Publishing. (2021, August 1). Visible learning. Visible Learning. Retrieved March 11,
2023, from https://www.visiblelearningmetax.com/
Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Introduction: Teaching and learning for understanding. In L.
Darling-Hammond, P. D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld, E. K. Stage, T. D. Zimmerman, G.
N. Cervetti, & J. L. Tilson (Eds.), Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for
understanding (pp. 1–9). Jossey-Bass.

50
De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer
simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasiexperimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.
Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 860–877.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching. Multicultural Education Series. Teachers College
Press.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in
households, communities, and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language
learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327671espr1004_2
Goldenberg, C. (2014). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know - and don’t
yet know - about effective instruction. The Education Digest, 79(6), 36–42.
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & ClayChambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based
science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 45(8), 922–939. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20248
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. Routledge.

51
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. Taylor and Francis.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203181522
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel. Routledge.
Hermann, G. (1969). Learning by discovery: A critical review of studies. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 38(1), 58–72.
Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in
problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006).
Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202.
Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of
undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development.
Science Education, 91(1), 36–74.
Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Strobel, J. (2008). Constructivism and education: Misunderstandings
and pedagogical implications. The Teacher Educator, 43(1), 72–86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730701728945
Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of
Educational Research, 78(4), 1010–1038. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325580
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

52
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction:
Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–
667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x
Koerber, S., Sodian, B., Kropf, N., Mayer, D., & Schwippert, K. (2011). The development of
scientific reasoning in elementary school age: Understanding theories, designing
experiments, interpreting data. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und
Pädagogische Psychologie, 43(3), 140–154.
Kolodner, J. K., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., &
Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middleschool science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Ladson-Billings, G. (2022). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children
(3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

53
Larsen, S., Glover, E., & Melhuish, K. (2015). Beyond good teaching: The benefits and
challenges of implementing ambitious teaching. In D. Bressoud, V. Mesa, & C.
Rasmussen (Eds.), Insights and recommendations from the MAA national study of college
calculus (pp. 93–106). MAA Press.
Laursen, S. L., & Rasmussen, C. (2019). Eye on the prize: Inquiry approaches in undergraduate
mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics
Education, 5(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00085-6
Lazonder, A. W. (2013). Inquiry learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J.
Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology
(4th ed., pp. 453–464). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-
5_36
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning. Review of
Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2013). This issue. Theory into Practice, 52(1), 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.743754
Lee, O., Deaktor, R., Enders, C., & Lambert, J. (2008). Impact of a multiyear professional
development intervention on science achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse
elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 726–747.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20231
Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in
relation to next generation science standards and with implications for common core state
standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4),
223–233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13480524

54
Lott, G. W. (1983). The effect of inquiry teaching and advance organizers upon student outcomes
in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 437–451.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200507
Maerten-Rivera, J., Ahn, S., Lanier, K., Diaz, J., & Lee, O. (2016). Effect of a multiyear
intervention on science achievement of all students including English language learners.
The Elementary school Journal, 116(4), 600–624.
Mensah, F. M. (2011). A case for culturally relevant teaching in science and lessons learned for
teacher education. The Journal of Negro Education, 80(3), 296–309.
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(4), 474–496.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004).
Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of
knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (2006). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a
qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In N. Gonzalez, L. C. Moll, & C.
Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge (pp. 71–87). Routledge.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Academies
Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A
guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2001). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A
guide for teaching and learning. National Academies Press.

55
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
O’Donnell, A. M. (2012). Constructivism. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B.
McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook,
Vol. 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 61–84). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273–003
Perkins, D. (2009). Making learning whole: How seven principles of teaching can transform
education. Jossey-Bass.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. Viking
Press.
Piekny, J., & Maehler, C. (2013). Scientific reasoning in early and middle childhood: The
development of domain-general evidence evaluation, experimentation, and hypothesis
generation skills. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 153–179.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2012.02082.x
Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning
environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist,
40(1), 1–12.
Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a
simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 9–20.
Saunders, W. M., & Marcelletti, D. J. (2013). The gap that can’t go away: The catch-22 of
reclassification in monitoring the progress of English learners. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 35(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712461849

56
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833
Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding
of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131–166.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0402_1
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. Harvard University Press.
Shulman, L. S., & Tamir, P. (1973). Research on teaching in the natural sciences. In R. M. W.
Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1098–1148). Rand
McNally.
Simpson, T. L. (2002, December). Dare I oppose constructivist theory? The Educational Forum,
66(4), 347–354. Taylor & Francis Group.
Strike, K. A. (1975). The logic of learning by discovery. Review of Educational Research, 45(3),
461–483. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045003461
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure?
Routledge.
Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R., & Koch, J. (2014). Integrating literacy and science for
English language learners: From learning-to-read to reading-to-learn. The Journal of
Educational Research, 107(5), 410–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.833072
Tsurusaki, B. K., Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., Koch, P., & Contento, I. (2013). Using
transformative boundary objects to create critical engagement in science: A case study.
Science Education, 97(1), 1–31.

57
Tudge, J., & Scrimsher, S. (2014). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical,
interpersonal, and individual approach to development. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee
(Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 207–228). Routledge.
Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery
learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 334–341.
Wilson, B. G., Parrish, P., & Veletsianos, G. (2008). Raising the bar for instructional outcomes:
Toward transformative learning experiences. Educational Technology, 48(3), 39–44.
Wise, K. C., & Okey, J. R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching
strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 419–435.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200506
Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and
metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14(1),
89–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.004
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Harvard University Press.

58
Tables
Table 1
Overall Average Effect for Inquiry-Based Teaching
Outcome k NSamp NES g 95% CI 𝜏𝜏2 I
2 Q
Achievement 7 14 26 0.162*** .1007/.224 2.43e-12 81.64 177.92
Note. k = number of studies. Nsamp = number of samples. NES = number of effects. g = Hedges’ g
(average pooled effect). CI = confidence interval (low estimate / high estimate). ***p < 0.001

59
Table 2
Results of Moderator Analyses
Moderator k NS NES b (SE) g 95% CI
Publication status
Unpublished 1 1 2 – –0.091* –0.1148/ -0.0671
Published 6 6 24 0.258 (0.3125) 0.167*** 0.0808/ 0.2533
Guidance
Low (OI) 3 3 4 – 0.352 –0.935/1.639
High (SI) 5 12 22 –0.199 (0.286) 0.153*** 0.093/0.212
Ethnicity
%Black 4 9 15 0.0007 (0.0007 ) – –0.0008/0.0022
%Latinx 6 13 24 –0.0019 (0.0007)* – –0.0037/–0.0001
Note. k = number of studies. NS = number of samples. NES = number of effects. b =
unstandardized regression slope coefficient (moderator effect). SE = standard error. g = Hedges’
g (average pooled effect). CI = confidence interval (low estimate / high estimate). OI = Open
Inquiry. SI = Structured Inquiry. * p < 0.05. *** p < 0.001

60
Figures
Figure 1
Inquiry Continuum
Note. Adapted from The many levels of inquiry by H. Banchi & R. Bell, 2008, Science and
Children, 46(2), p. 26. Copyright 2008 by the National Science Teaching Association.

61
Figure 2
PRISMA Chart

62
Figure 3
Publication Bias Funnel Plot

63
Appendix A: List of Studies Included in the Analysis, Alphabetically by Author
First author Year Grade % Black % Latinx Guid N g v
August 2009 Middle school – 98 High (SI) 328 0.217 0.0123
August 2009 Middle school – 98 High (SI) 328 0.0248 0.0122
August 2009 Middle school – 98 High (SI) 562 0.224 0.0072
August 2009 Middle school – 98 High (SI) 562 0.1135 0.0071
Bravo 2014 Elementary school – 98 High (SI) 172 0.0875 0.0235
Bravo 2014 Elementary school – 98 High (SI) 172 –0.3305 0.0238
Bravo 2014 Elementary school – 98 High (SI) 115 0.1982 0.035
Bravo 2014 Elementary school – 98 High (SI) 115 –0.3252 0.0353
Bravo 2014 Elementary school – 98 High (SI) 115 0.2115 0.035
Hushman 2011 Elementary school 5 65 High (SI) 40 –0.019 0.1
Hushman 2011 Elementary school 0 60 Low (OI) 40 –0.1674 0.1004
Keselman 2003 Middle school – – Low (OI) 46 0.4534 0.0892
Keselman 2003 Middle school – – Low (OI) 46 0.6709 0.0918
Kim 2006 Elementary school 9.7 39 Low (OI) 41 0.8516 0.1065
Llosa 2016 Elementary school 24.7 28.7 High (SI) 6239 0.2475 0.0006
Llosa 2016 Elementary school 24.7 28.7 High (SI) 4798 0.2734 0.0008
Llosa 2016 Elementary school 24.7 28.7 High (SI) 726 0.1898 0.0055

64
First author Year Grade % Black % Latinx Guid N g v
Llosa 2016 Elementary school 24.7 28.7 High (SI) 129 0.2214 0.0176
Llosa 2016 Elementary school 24.7 28.7 High (SI) 486 0.2788 0.0084
Llosa 2016 Elementary school 24.7 28.7 High (SI) 6239 0.1343 0.0006
Llosa 2016 Elementary school 24.7 28.7 High (SI) 4798 0.1873 0.0008
Llosa 2016 Elementary school 24.7 28.7 High (SI) 726 0.0952 0.0055
Llosa 2016 Elementary school 24.7 28.7 High (SI) 129 0.1269 0.0176
Llosa 2016 Elementary school 24.7 28.7 High (SI) 486 0.0116 0.0083
Tong 2014 Elementary school 0 100 High (SI) 15 0.4153 0.3057
Tong 2014 Elementary school 0 100 High (SI) 13 –0.1831 0.3263
Note. Guid = type of guidance. OI = open inquiry. SI = structured inquiry. N = number of
students in sample. g = Hedges’ g (average pooled effect). v = variance.

65
Appendix B: Coding Guide
Code name Code description Code options
C-1 Date coded [text entry]
C-2 Coder [text entry]
M-1 Meta-analysis’ first author’s last name [text entry]
M-2 Meta-analysis Google Drive link [text entry]
R-1 Report ID (Reference #s) [text entry]
R-2 Article Google Drive link [text entry]
R-3 First author’s last name [text entry]
R-4 Year [text entry]
R-5 Title [text entry]
R-6 APA reference [text entry]
R-7 Publication type
1. Journal article
2. Book or book chapter
3. Dissertation
4. Master’s thesis
5. Policy report
6. Government report
7. Conference paper
8. Other
–99. Can’t tell
R-8 Data sources
1. Independent study
2. Regional/national data set
3. Other
–99. Can’t tell
R-9 Dataset name [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
R-10 Data collection year indicated 0. No
1. Yes
R-11 Year(s) data collected [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
R-12 On what page(s) did you find the data
source? [text entry]
R-13 Overlapping datasets [text entry];
–99 No
S-1 Study number
0. Single study
1. Study 1
2. Study 2
3. Study 3
etc.

66
Code name Code description Code options
S-2 Location [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
S-3 Region
1. Northeast
2. South
3. Midwest
4. West
5. National
–99. Can’t tell
S-4 On what page(s) did you find the
location?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
S-5 School level
1. Preschool
2. Elementary school: K–5
3. Middle school: 6–8
4. High school: 9–12
5. Undergraduate
6. Graduate school
7. Other (specify)
–99. Can’t tell
S-6 Other school level (specify) [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-1 Sample 0. Overall sample
1. Subgroup
P-2 Subgroup specification [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-3 Subgroup overlap
0. No
1. Yes
–99. N/A
P-4 Subgroup overlap explanation [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-5 Sample size (at start) [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-6 On what page(s) did you find the
sample size?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-7 Sample characteristics
1. Sample at start
2. Analysis sample
3. Both, but they are the same
4. Both, and they are not the same
5. Neither
–99. Can’t tell/Not Applicable
P-8 Sample characteristics specification [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable

67
Code name Code description Code options
P-9 % White [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-10 % Black [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-11 % Hispanic [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-12 % Asian or Pacific Islander [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-13 % Native American or American Indian [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-14 % Other [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-15 On what page(s) did you find the
racial/ethnic distribution?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-16 Grade level
–1. Preschool
0. Kindergarten
1. Grade 1
2. Grade 2
3. Grade 3
4. Grade 4
5. Grade 5
6. Grade 6
7. Grade 7
8. Grade 8
9. Grade 9
10. Grade 10
11. Grade 11
12. Grade 12
13. Undergraduate
14. Graduate
15. Other (specify)
–99. Can’t tell
P-17 Grade level (if other) [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-18 On what page(s) did you find the grade
level?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-19 % Female [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-20 On what page(s) did you find the %
female statistic?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-21 % Low income / economically
disadvantaged
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable

68
Code name Code description Code options
P-22 On what page(s) did you find the % low
income statistic?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-23 % Special education [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-24 On what page(s) did you find the %
special education statistic?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-25 % English learners [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
P-26 On what page(s) did you find the %
English learner statistic?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
I-1 Report’s name for influence [text entry]
I-2 Influence definition [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
I-3 On what page(s) did you find the
influence definition?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
I-4 How is the influence measured? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
I-5
On what page(s) did you find the
description of how the influence was
measured?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
I-6 Reliability
0. No
1. Yes
–99. Unsure, N/A
I-7 Alpha coefficient (reliability) [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
I-8 Alpha coefficient from what source?
1. Data from this coded study
2. Data from the study for which the
survey was derived
–99. Unsure, N/A
I-9 On what page did you find the alpha
coefficient?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
I-10 How was the influence manipulated by
the researcher?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
I-11
On what page(s) did you find the
description of how the researcher
manipulated the influence?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
I-12 Type of inquiry and level of guidance
0. Low (open inquiry)
1. Moderate (structured or guided inquiry)
2. High (confirmation inquiry)
–99 Missing/Can’t tell

69
Code name Code description Code options
O-1 Outcome type
1. Standardized test (e.g., NAEP, state
standardized assessment, WoodcockJohnson test)
2. Grades (e.g., course, GPA)
3. Knowledge diagnostic test developed by
the researcher/instructor
4. Local assessment (e.g., local school
district)
5. Other achievement
O-2 Outcome name [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
O-3 Outcome description [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
O-4 On what page(s) did you find the
description of the outcome?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
O-5 Domain of outcome
1. Mathematics
2. English language arts
3. Science
4. Social science
5. General academics
6. Other (specify)
O-6 Domain of outcome (specified) [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
O-7 What is the unit of analysis?
1. Student
2. Teacher
3. Classroom
4. School
5. Other (specify)
–99. Unsure/Not Applicable
O-8 Other unit of analysis [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
O-9 Timing of influence & outcome
measure collection
1. Simultaneously
2. Longitudinally
–99. Unsure
O-10 Specify timing [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
O-11 On what page(s) did you find the timing
of data collection described?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
E-1 Sample size (for relationship/effect) [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
E-2 On what page(s) did you find the
sample size?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable

70
Code name Code description Code options
E-3 Direction of relationship between
influence and outcome
0. Null/No relationship
1. Positive
2. Negative
3. Mixed
–99. Unclear
E-4 Evidence of direction
1. Sign of correlation coefficient
2. Comparing means or rate of success
3. Indication in text
–99. Can’t tell/unclear
E-5 On what page(s) did you find the
direction of the relationship?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
E-6 In what table did you find the direction
of the relationship?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
E-7 Type of research design
1. Descriptive study
2. Correlational study
3. One-group/single-group preexperimental design
4. Quasi-experiment
5. RCT/true experiment (2+ groups)
–99. Can’t tell
E-8 Is there a treatment group and a control
group?
0. No
1. Yes
–99. Unclear
E-9 Is there random assignment to treatment
and control groups?
0. No
1. Yes
–99. N/A
E-10 On what page did the researchers
specify random assignment?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
E-11 Level of assignment
1. Student
2. Teacher
3. Classroom
4. School
5. Other (specify)
–99. Unsure/not applicable
E-12 Other level of assignment [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
E-13 Is there matching of treatment units to
comparison units?
0. No
1. Yes
–99. N/A
E-14 Matching characteristics [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable

71
Code name Code description Code options
E-15
On what page(s) did the researchers
indicate matching and matching
characteristics?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
E-16 Did the researchers report priorinfluence or pre-test statistics?
0. No
1. Yes
–99. Can’t tell
E-17 On what page(s) did the researchers
report pre-test statistics?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
E-18 In what table did the researchers report
pre-test statistics?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
E-19 Regression
0. No
1. Yes
–99. Can’t tell
E-20 On what page did the researchers
specify using regression?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
E-21 Multi-level/hierarchical modeling
0. No
1. Yes
–99. Can’t tell
E-22 On what page did the researchers
specify multi-level modeling?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-1 What is Nₜ? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-2 On what page did you find Nₜ? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-3 In what table did you find Nₜ? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-4 What is N⸦? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-5 On what page did you find N⸦? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-6 In what table did you find N⸦? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-7 What is Mₜ? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-8 On what page did you find Mₜ? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-9 In what table did you find Mₜ? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-10 What is SDₜ? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable

72
Code name Code description Code options
EE-11 On what page did you find SDₜ? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-12 In what table did you find SDₜ? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-13 What is M⸦? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-14 On what page did you find M⸦? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-15 In what table did you find M⸦? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-16 What is SD⸦? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-17 On what page did you find SD⸦? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-18 In what table did you find SD⸦? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-19 What is the effect size (d)? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-20 What is the variance (v)? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-21 Screenshot of effect size calculation [Image];
–99 Not applicable
EE-22 What is SEₜ? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-23 On what page did you find SEₜ? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-24 In what table did you find SEₜ? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-25 What is SE⸦? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-26 On what page did you find SE⸦? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-27 In what table did you find SE⸦? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-28 What is the effect size (d)? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-29 What is the variance (v)? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-30 Screenshot of effect size calculation [Image];
–99 Not applicable

73
Code name Code description Code options
EE-31 What is the t-statistic? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-32 On what page did you find the tstatistic?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-33 In what table did you find the t-statistic? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-34 What is the effect size (d)? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-35 What is the variance (v)? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-36 Screenshot of effect size calculation [Image];
–99 Not applicable
EE-37 What is the p-value of the t-test? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-38 On what page did you find the p-value? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-39 In what table did you find the p-value? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-40 What is the effect size (d)? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-41 What is the variance (v)? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-42 Screenshot of effect size calculation [Image];
–99 Not applicable
EE-43 How many groups are compared in the
F-test?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-44 What is the F-statistic of the F-test? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-45 On what page did you find the Fstatistic?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-46 In what table did you find the Fstatistic?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-47 What is the effect size (d)? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-48 What is the variance (v)? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-49 Screenshot of effect size calculation [Image];
–99 Not applicable
EE-50 Frequency of Yes/Favorable outcome
for treatment group
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable

74
Code name Code description Code options
EE-51 Frequency of No/Unfavorable outcome
for treatment group
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-52 Frequency of Yes/Favorable outcome
for control group
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-53 Frequency of No/Unfavorable outcome
for control group
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-54
On what page did you find the
contingency table/data for the
contingency table?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-55
In what table did you find the
contingency table/data for the
contingency table?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-56 What is the effect size (d)? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-57 What is the variance (v)? [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-58 Screenshot of effect size calculation [Image];
–99 Not applicable
EE-59 D-index calculated?
0. No
1. Yes
–99. N/A
EE-60 Effect size from original meta-analysis [text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-61 On what page did you find the effect
size from the original meta-analysis?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable
EE-62 In what table did you find the effect size
from the original meta-analysis?
[text entry];
–99 missing/can’t tell/not applicable

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study expands upon John Hattie’s (2023) synthesis, which characterizes inquiry-based teaching (IBT) as an educational strategy where students engage in active exploration of issues, question formulation, and dissemination of their discoveries, recognized for its potential to boost academic achievement with an effect size of 0.46. However, Hattie’s analysis does not delve into the impact on diverse racial demographics, especially among Black and/or Latinx students, thereby identifying a crucial gap in the pursuit of equitable educational outcomes. To bridge this gap, this research examines the influence of IBT on the academic achievements of these student populations. A group of graduate researchers, including the author, selected studies from Hattie’s meta-analyses that adhered to strict criteria. This selection was geared towards populations comprising at least 40% Black and/or Latinx students within the United States, utilizing a comparative method to evaluate the effectiveness of IBT against conventional curricula. Through the application of a random-effects model, the research team analyzed the pooled effect size and evaluated heterogeneity with Q, τ2, and I2 statistics. The findings reveal a small to moderate positive impact of IBT on student achievement (g = 0.162, p < 0.05), indicating its potential to foster improved educational results among Black and/or Latinx students. A small negative correlation was noted between the proportion of Latinx students within the sample and the effect of inquiry-based teaching on achievement scores. The incorporation of teacher guidance (e.g., involvement, feedback, and support) was found to have a statistically significant positive impact on the effect. This research significantly contributes to the ongoing dialogue on educational equity by underscoring the differential effects of IBT on marginalized student groups and stressing the necessity for customized instructional strategies to optimize learning outcomes.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The effects of technology on the mathematical achievement of Black and Latinx students

PDF

Bridging gaps, building futures: a meta-analysis of collaborative learning and achievement for Black and Latinx students

PDF

The relationship between working memory and achievement among Black and Latinx students

PDF

Learning together: a meta-analysis of the effect of cooperative learning on achievement among Black and Latinx students

PDF

A meta-analysis of formative assessment on academic achievement among Black and Hispanic students

PDF

The effects of inclusive education on academic achievement for special education and general education students of color: a meta-analysis

PDF

Problems and solutions for school counselors supporting Black and Latinx students in the 21st century

PDF

Examining the impact of LETRS professional learning on student literacy outcomes: a quantitative analysis

PDF

The teacher evaluation: key components that positively impact teacher effectiveness and student achievement

PDF

Effective school leadership: practices that promote a culture of high student achievement

PDF

A meta-analysis exploring the relationships between racial identity, ethnic identity, and Black students' positive self-perceptions in school

PDF

Effects of teacher autonomy support with structure on marginalized urban student math achievement

PDF

Assessing the effectiveness of an inquiry-based science education professional development

PDF

Addressing the education debt: how community college educators utilize culturally relevant pedagogy to support Black and Latinx student success

PDF

The consequences of stereotype threat on Black and Latinx students in science and engineering

PDF

The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools

PDF

Culturally responsive teaching in science: an action research study aimed at supporting a resident teacher in developing inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons

PDF

Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions

PDF

The impact of elementary school leadership on student achievement: a gap analysis

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

Asset Metadata

Creator Garcia, Katarina Marie (author)

Core Title Unveiling the visible impact: a meta-analysis on inquiry-based teaching and the effects on Black and Latinx student achievement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 09/10/2024

Defense Date 06/24/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag achievement,Black,equity,Hattie,inquiry based teaching,Latinx,meta-analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kho, Adam (committee chair), Freking, Fred (committee member), (Patall, Erika)

Creator Email garciakm@usc.edu,katarina.m.garcia@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11399AJVY

Unique identifier UC11399AJVY

Identifier etd-GarciaKata-13513.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-GarciaKata-13513

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Garcia, Katarina Marie

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240910-usctheses-batch-1210 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu