CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Science Education and PedagogyProblem and Project Based LearningMathematics Education and Pedagogy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness of Inquiry-based Learning (IbL) on Improving Students’ Conceptual Understanding in Science and Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis

Open access
Mediana, Nardito, Funa, Aaron, Dio, Ryan·2025·International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology
DOI 10.46328/ijemst.4769
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning (IBL) on improving students' conceptual understanding in science and mathematics. The study systematically reviewed 12 empirical studies with 14 effect sizes involving 786 students across various countries, educational levels, and disciplines. These studies were selected using the PRISMA (2020) guidelines and the developed inclusion and exclusion criteria based on publication years (2014–2024), levels of IBL employed, and measures of students' conceptual understanding in science and mathematics. The results showed that IBL had a significant positive effect size (g = 0.913) on improving students' conceptual understanding, particularly in senior high school (g=1.176) and mathematics (g=1.191). Open inquiry had the greatest effect size (g=1.530), emphasizing the importance of student autonomy in learning. The findings support the broader implementation of IBL in educational curricula and teachers’ training programs to foster a more student-centered learning environment that encourages inquiry, critical thinking, and deeper conceptual understanding in science and mathematics, which are essential for success in the 21st century. Recommendations include customizing IBL to students' needs and further research on diverse IBL strategies and their impact on student outcomes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.46328/ijemst.4769

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Joycee N. Osacdin, Maricar S. Prudente, Concept Mapping for Cognitive Learning in Science Education Predominantly from Life Sciences: A Meta-Analysis , International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology: Vol. 14 No. 4 (2026)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mediana, N., Funa, A., & Dio, R.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology
Publisher
ISTES Organization
Published
2025-06-05
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
532-552
ISSN
2147-611X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.46328/ijemst.4769
OpenAlex
W4411037937
Semantic Scholar
c86cdabd481006b02fc5724efff7fc266ad7d928
Cited by
42
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 18
FWCI
34.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
inquiry-based learning, conceptual understanding, science education, mathematics education, open inquiry, student independence, student-centered learning, high school students, critical thinking, teacher professional development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review