education

sciences
Review
Using Cooperative Learning to Enhance Students’ Learning and
Engagement during Inquiry-Based Science
Robyn M. Gillies

School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia; [email protected]

Abstract: Much attention over the last two decades has been given to inquiry-based learning in
science as a way of capturing students’ interest and participation in learning. However, while the
research on inquiry-based learning consistently demonstrates that students do attain higher learning
outcomes than peers who are taught by traditional transmission approaches, little research has
been attached to researching the key elements of this approach that contribute to its success. This
review focuses on the role of inquiry-based learning where students work in cooperative groups
to investigate topics that challenge their curiosity, encouraging them to ask questions to clarify
their understandings, evaluate evidence that may help to explain phenomena, and predict potential
solutions to the problems at hand. The key role teachers play in inducting students into ways of
thinking and reasoning and providing opportunities for them to work with others in the context of
inquiry-based learning will also be discussed.

Keywords: inquiry-based science; cooperative learning; dialogic teaching and learning

1. Introduction
Over the past two decades there has been a concerted effort to teach science using
an inquiry-based approach as a way of galvanizing students’ curiosity and motivation to
actively participate in learning science. Learning through inquiry encourages students to
actively participate in learning science so they ask questions about the topics that challenge
Citation: Gillies, R.M. Using
their thinking, test out potential solutions to problems, and consider alternative possibilities
Cooperative Learning to Enhance
Students’ Learning and Engagement
as they learn to reconcile their developing understandings with previous knowledge and
during Inquiry-Based Science. Educ.
experience [1]. “Inquiry refers to a variety of processes and ways of thinking that support
Sci. 2023, 13, 1242. https://doi.org/ the development of new knowledge in science” ([2], p. 19). Inquiry teaching requires
10.3390/educsci13121242 teachers to not only teach the content but also help students to understand the approaches
and processes scientists use as they conduct their investigations.
Academic Editors: Laurinda Leite,
Understanding how science works is critically important to understanding the pro-
Luis Dourado and Neil Gordon
cesses involved in scientific inquiry. Science is a set of processes that are interconnected,
Received: 17 October 2023 and students, like scientists, learn to ask questions about the world in which they live as
Revised: 12 December 2023 they investigate different phenomena [3]. In essence, students learn science by actively
Accepted: 14 December 2023 engaging in the practices of science. These practices involve learning to ask and answer
Published: 15 December 2023 questions and compare answers with what is currently known, collect and analyse data,
formulate and test their suppositions, and work collaboratively with others to resolve issues
with the intention of sharing the results of their investigations [4]. Being able to collaborate
with others often involves students working together on problem-based learning activities
Copyright: © 2023 by the author.
involving real-world contexts that are topical and of interest to students; for example, issues
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
on climate change where the goal is to solve a challenging problem. In this sense, students
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
have opportunities to collaborate with others on topics that are of socio-scientific interest
conditions of the Creative Commons
and likely to generate student discussion, motivation, and learning [1].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// However, many teachers appear to experience difficulties embedding inquiry-based
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ science approaches into their science curricula, possibly because enacting inquiry requires
4.0/). teachers to situate learning in authentic problems that often require them to guide and

Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1242. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121242 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1242 2 of 12

scaffold students’ investigations in the context of classrooms where they are expected to not
only teach the content but also simultaneously manage a variety of roles. In fact, Duschl
and Duncan [5] reported that it takes approximately 20 days of professional learning across
a period of two to three years for elementary teachers to feel skilled and competent in
teaching using an inquiry-based approach. This, Crawford [3] maintains, is why this type
of teaching is often not evident.
This paper provides a review of the role of inquiry-based learning in science where
students work in cooperative groups to investigate topics that challenge their curiosity,
encouraging them to ask questions to clarify their understandings, and evaluate possible
solutions to the problems they are confronting. Implementing inquiry-based science in-
struction involves extensive changes in classroom management practices with learning
situated in authentic problems that often require teachers to guide and scaffold students’
investigations. In this respect, teachers have a key role in inducting students into different
ways of thinking and reasoning and providing opportunities for them to discuss their
ideas with others. This type of teaching is referred to as dialogic teaching, where students
learn to engage in talk to promote thinking by exchanging ideas, negotiating meaning, and
reconciling their understandings with previous knowledge and experience. Finally, this
paper discusses these developments in the context of current research.

2. Inquiry-Based Teaching in Science

Given the importance attached to teaching science using an inquiry-based approach,
this section reviews current meta-analyses that report on the effects of inquiry-based
teaching on students’ academic outcomes in primary and secondary schools. It also reviews
the research on teachers actively guiding or structuring the learning tasks in contrast to
more open-inquiry situations where guidance is less evident or traditional transmission
approaches to teaching science.
Implementing and managing inquiry-based science instruction involves extensive
changes in classroom management practices [6]. The National Research Council [1], in a
report on teaching and learning science in K–8 classrooms, emphasise that if students are
to become proficient in science, they need to be able to: “know, use, and interpret scientific
explanations; generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations; understand the
nature and development of scientific evidence, and participate productively in scientific
practices and discourse” ([1], p. 36).
These proficiencies, the NRC [1] argues, are interrelated and connected and represent
ways of thinking about scientific ideas where conceptual understandings of natural systems
are linked to the ability to develop explanations of different phenomena and conduct
empirical investigations to evaluate knowledge claims. However, if students are to engage
productively in science, they need to understand how to participate in scientific discussions
where they are able to listen to others, share their thinking, and be willing to ask questions
to clarify their understandings or challenge others’ perspectives. Such ways of thinking,
though, only develop when teachers actively induct students into these ways of thinking
and reasoning and provide opportunities for them to interact with others in the context of
inquiry-based learning.
Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, and Briggs [7], in a meta-analysis of 37 empirical studies
of inquiry-based science published between 1996 and 2006, reported that inquiry-based
teaching contributed to improved student achievements with an overall mean effect size of
0.50. Furthermore, this result was greater than previous meta-analyses reviewed by the
authors (see p. 303). Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, and Briggs [7] also found that studies that
contrasted epistemic (E) activities (e.g., nature of science, conclusions based on evidence, or
generating and revising new theoretical perspectives) and the combination of procedural,
epistemic, and social (PES) activities had the highest mean effect sizes, with mean effect
sizes of 0.75 (epistemic) and 0.72 (PES). Moreover, studies that involved activities that were
led by teachers had mean effect sizes that were about 0.40 larger than those which were led
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1242 3 of 12

by students, indicating that students achieved higher learning outcomes when teachers
actively guided the learning tasks.
Firman, Ertikanto, and Abdurrahman [8] conducted a meta-analysis across 15 articles
that reported on the use of inquiry-based learning in science education in primary and
secondary schools. The results showed that 10 of the studies recorded median to large
effect sizes with the overall effect size being 0.45 (median effect). Of the five studies with
low effect sizes, none of them recorded negative effect sizes. The authors argued that
the results demonstrate that inquiry-based learning had a positive impact on students’
learning in science in comparison to students who learn via traditional teacher-centred
approaches. Interestingly, the effect sizes were higher when students were involved in
structured-inquiry or guided-inquiry where the teacher actively guided the activities in
contrast to more open-inquiry situations where guidance was less evident.
Similar results were reported by Heindl [9], who investigated the efficacy of inquiry-
based learning to improve students’ academic performance in comparison to students who
learn by traditional teaching approaches. Thirteen studies met the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria for inclusion in this
meta-analysis. Eight studies were conducted in secondary schools with an effect size of
0.81, and five were conducted in primary schools with an effect size of 0.67. The results
showed that inquiry-based learning is an effective teaching approach that can be used in
primary and secondary schools leading to higher academic outcomes for students learning
science. Moreover, Heindl [9] argued that inquiry-based learning is more effective when
teachers and students are well prepared for inquiry-learning through practice-coaching
or training.
In summary, meta-analyses by Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, and Briggs [7], Firman, Er-
tikanto, and Abdurrahman [8], and Heindl [9] demonstrate that inquiry-based learning in
science has a positive impact on students’ academic learning in science in comparison to
peers who learn via traditional transmission approaches. Furthermore, inquiry-learning is
more likely to have a greater impact when teachers actively guide the inquiry process.

3. Promoting Scientific Thinking and Reasoning

It is critically important that teachers induct students into different ways of thinking
and reasoning by explicitly teaching and modelling how to express ideas, ask for assistance,
challenge alternative perspectives, and reason logically. It is well known that learning
occurs when students have opportunities to discuss ideas with others, and emphasis in
recent years has been on encouraging teachers to engage students in class discussions
where they are able to interact with their teachers and peers on problem-based topics that
challenge their curiosity and understandings [10]. This type of teaching is known as dialogic
teaching, and it is designed to encourage students to be more active in their learning by
expressing their thoughts and understandings and asking questions to clarify topics they
do not understand. Interactions between teachers and students not only enable students to
demonstrate what they know but they also enable teachers to gain an understanding of
any misconceptions that students may hold. This allows teachers to adjust their teaching
so any misunderstandings can be discussed and clarified.
Alexander [10] maintained that dialogic teaching is predicated on teachers and stu-
dents addressing learning tasks together; listening to each other, sharing ideas, and consid-
ering alternative perspectives; encouraging students to share their ideas without feeling
self-conscious or embarrassed; and building on each other’s ideas in order to develop
rational and logical solutions. During this process, the teacher needs to guide classroom
discussions with the purpose of achieving specific educational goals.
When this occurs, Alexander [10] maintained, a number of changes occur in how
talk is enacted in the classroom, with more talk occurring among students and between
students and teachers. Student and teacher exchanges tend to be longer, with teachers
building on student responses to prompt and facilitate students’ thinking. Students, in
turn, begin to build on each other’s ideas as they seek to extend others’ ideas or clarify
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1242 4 of 12

misunderstandings. Their responses become more diverse as they learn to provide more
explanations, justifications, and suppositions on topics they are discussing. In short,
students are initiating more talk as they speculate, think aloud, and help each other as
they realise that they can be active in their own learning. There is also more participation
by children who are less academically able, as the chance to talk provides them with
the opportunity to express their opinions and demonstrate competence. This, in turn,
Alexander notes, leads to “the interactive culture in these classrooms is becoming more
inclusive” ([10], p. 108).
In a comprehensive account of the Dialogic Teaching Project, Alexander [11] discusses
the development and randomised control trial that was funded by the UK Education
Endowment Fund (EEF) between 2014 and 2017. The purpose of the intervention was to
invigorate classroom talk to promote student engagement, learning, and attainment in the
context of social and educational disadvantage. The intervention’s professional develop-
ment for teachers included a full day’s induction program where they were introduced to
dialogic teaching and the professional development program that would be implemented
across the following 20 school weeks. This included mentoring from experienced teachers
in the schools, guided planning and target setting with the mentees, reflections by teachers
on lesson video recordings of classroom talk, reading materials, and mentoring from the
Dialogic Project Team. Data were collected from 76 schools across three United Kingdom
cities that met the criteria of having at least 25% of their students eligible for free school
midday meals (a marker for social disadvantage).
Alexander [11] reported that the children in the Dialogic Teaching Schools gained
two additional months’ progress in English and Science and one additional month’s
progress in mathematics in comparison to children in the non-intervention schools. Fur-
thermore, the children who were eligible for a free school lunch (marker of disadvantage)
made a further two months’ progress on standardised assessments in English, Science,
and Mathematics compared to their peers in the non-intervention schools. Interestingly,
independent analysis of the video-recorded lesson episodes showed that classroom talk
in the intervention classrooms began to become more dialogic early in the intervention,
with marked differences between the intervention and the non-intervention classrooms.
Differences in talk were evident in both teacher and student talk by week 19, with talk
becoming more dialogic as teachers and students spent more time listening to each other
and incorporating each other’s ideas into their discussions. Additionally, the principals,
mentors, and teachers reported that the Dialogic Teaching approach had a positive effect
on students’ self-confidence and participation in learning.
While meaningful gains were recorded in the children’s progress in the intervention
schools in comparison to their peers in the non-intervention schools, feedback from the
teachers in the intervention schools felt it would take longer than 20 weeks to fully embed
the Dialogic Teaching approach in their curricula and suggested that the study should
be scaled up to a longer period of time to see the full effects. The outcomes achieved
by the Dialogic Teaching Project led Alexander [12] to acclaim that “evidence shows that
well-founded classroom dialogue improves student engagement and learning” ([12], p. 1).
The results obtained from the Dialogic Teaching Project [11] led to Alexander [13]
developing a framework on eight dialogic teaching repertoires designed to help teachers
to engage with the different forms of classroom talk between and among teachers and
students including the key areas of: questioning, extending talk to open up students’
thinking, discussing, deliberating and arguing, and finally, argumentation, where students
learn to advance reasons and evidence and challenge and refute claims to solve a problem
or address an identified question. (NB: Repertoires 1 and 2, involving Interactive Culture
[how talk should be managed] and Interactive Settings [ways students are grouped], will
be discussed in the section on Cooperative Learning).
Dialogic teaching, Alexander [13] argues, is a talk pedagogy that utilises the influence
of talk to excite and extend students’ thinking and learning to enable them to discuss,
reason, and argue as they participate in discussions with their teachers and other students.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1242 5 of 12

This includes engaging in talk to promote thinking where students learn to talk and
exchange ideas with others, which promotes a better understanding of different issues
under discussion. It also includes recognising that talk is very much a social process,
and in classrooms, talk engages students’ attention and motivations as they interact to
communicate in everyday transactions where they exchange and negotiate meaning.
When teachers engage in dialogic teaching with their students, Alexander [13] notes,
there is more talk about how the participants will interact with each other as well as
the procedures they will follow. Teachers, in turn, often ask more open questions that
encourage students to participate in the discussion, enabling students to feel more welcome
and able to contribute in ways that are more mutually beneficial to the discussants. Boyd
and Markarian [14] also noted that dialogic teaching is apparent when teachers engage
in conversations with students where they actively listen to what students have to say,
encourage them to share their thinking, or they ask questions to clarify issues. In dialogic
classrooms, students are encouraged to consider alternative propositions, make their
thinking explicit, and support each other so both students and teachers build on each
other’s ideas as they develop “coherent lines of thinking and enquiry” ([15], p. 8). The
following section on Dialogic Teaching in Classrooms discusses the way dialogic teaching
is enacted in classrooms by teachers and students and the evidence that supports this
approach to teaching and learning.

4. Dialogic Teaching in Classrooms

Teaching and learning in the dialogic classroom, Reznitskaya [16] argues, is charac-
terized by authority over the content and form of discourse shared among participating
group members, where students accept responsibilities for turn taking, asking questions,
reflecting on each other’s answers, and suggesting new topics. Teachers challenge students’
answers, ask for justifications, and provide meaningful feedback to help students negotiate
and construct new meanings. These types of dialogic discussions promote meta-level
reflections that challenge students to seek clarification and connect ideas across contexts.
In so doing, they learn to elaborate on their thinking as they collaborate with others to
construct new understandings and mutually agreed-upon knowledge.
Garcia-Carrion, Aguileta, Padros, and Ramis-Salas [17], in a review of the social impact
of dialogic teaching and learning, noted that there is a large volume of evidence from small-
and large-scale studies that dialogic teaching contributes to academic achievement and
social cohesion, resulting in classrooms that are more inclusive as students are invited
to take an active and meaningful role in discussions. In effect, it transforms classroom
relationships as students realise their contributions are valued as they cooperate to reach a
common agreement, enabling them to complete tasks.
Others who have investigated the role of different types of talk in classrooms are
Scott and Mortimer [18], who developed a framework for analysing the different ways
discussions are undertaken in science classrooms in secondary schools and the functions
they serve. One type of interaction that they highlighted is the interactive and dialogic
approach. This involves the teacher listening to students’ ideas, probing their thinking on
a particular topic, and working together to explore different ideas and suggestions. This
type of interaction tends to be characterized by high levels of interaction as teachers and
students participate in animated discussions with each other.
A second form of interaction is the interactive and authoritative approach, where
the teacher focuses mainly on one specific point of view and leads students through a
series of questions with the aim of helping them to gain a clearer understanding of the
topic. In this type of interaction, the teacher is active in guiding the discussion with the
students to help them develop an understanding of the specific goals of the lesson [19].
Scott, Mortimer, and Aguiar [20] argued that changes between these styles of interaction
are an unavoidable part of teaching science as the interactive and authoritative approach
is often used to introduce new information and ideas while the dialogic and interactive
approach provides opportunities to investigate the information presented in more detail.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1242 6 of 12

There is no doubt that successful inquiry-based learning experiences are predicated

on teachers creating learning environments where students are not only amazed and
challenged by the experiences they have, but also are able to interact with their teacher
and peers to ask questions, seek clarification, offer explanations, justify their positions, and
build on the ideas of others: in short, dialogue with others [21]. This type of interaction,
Lehesvouri, Ramnarain, and Viiri [22] argue, improves students’ willingness to engage
in dialogic exchanges during inquiry-based learning activities. Moreover, it is through
teacher interactions that students learn how to engage in appropriate ways of interacting in
different classroom settings [23].
Rojas-Drummond, Littleton, and Velez [24] report on a study that investigated dialogic
literacy, essentially the interplay between talking, reading, and writing, among 120 Grade
6 students in two primary schools as they collaborated in small groups on a literacy task
involving reading and writing. The study utilized an intervention program called Learning
Together which uses collaborative learning to enhance the development of children’s
oracy and literacy skills. One school implemented the intervention program (experimental
condition), while the other continued with its regular literacy program (control condition).
Collaborative learning is critically important for helping students to understand the
guidelines that they need to follow if they are to explore topics together. The ground rules
that were proposed to help students to understand how they were to collaborate as they
worked together were adopted from Mercer, Wegerif, and Dawes [25] and included:
(a) All relevant information needs to be shared.
(b) Group members need to reach agreement on all topics under discussion.
(c) Members need to accept responsibility for group decisions.
(d) Members need to provide reasons for positions adopted.
(e) Members need to accept challenges from others both within and outside the group.
(f) Alternative propositions need to be considered before the group makes a decision.
(g) All group members are encouraged to participate in the discussion.
Concurrently to establishing the guidelines for collaborate discussions, Rojas-Drummond,
Littleton, and Velez [24] reported that the teachers played a key role in encouraging stu-
dents to share their thoughts, outline their reasons for adopting a particular position, and
explicitly state what they know about a topic and share this information with the class.
They also modelled ways of using language that children could adopt for themselves, in
peer group discussions and other settings, and they provided opportunities for students
to make extended contributions to the discussion, enabling them to express their current
understandings or communicate their difficulties [26].
The Learning Together program involved 18 sessions of 90 min each across a seven-
month period in which the students in the experimental condition worked together on
a variety of oral and written communication tasks [24]. Data on the written summaries
produced by the students in both conditions were analysed using the Test of Textual Inte-
gration (TTI). The results indicated that the students in the experimental condition scored
significantly higher on the quality of the text they produced and on each of the partial scores:
title (comprehensive, informative, and concise), main ideas (six main ideas), organization
of ideas (coherence of ideas), and level of expression (sophisticated expression).
Follow-up micro-analysis of the discussions and co-regulatory processes of four stu-
dent triads (two experimental and two control triads) in the Rojas-Drummond, Littleton,
and Velez [24] study while solving the group version of the Test of Textual Production (TTP)
is reported in Rojas-Drummond, Omedo, Cruz, and Espinosa [27]. The purpose was to
identify how the interactive, communicative, and co-regulatory processes emerged in each
group, as well as how these processes might give way to the utilization of these processes in
the written composition in the Learning Together groups (experimental groups). The results
showed that the experimental student triads (in comparison to their control peers) gradu-
ally learned to adopt a more collaborative, dialogic, and strategic way of working together.
The results highlighted the key role dialogic discussions and co-regulatory processes play
in facilitating the development of written text in primary students.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1242 7 of 12

Given that the knowledge-building practices of scientists are essentially social and
collaborative, cooperative small group learning provides opportunities for students to
investigate different observable trends, discuss potential solutions and research questions,
identify the data to be collected and analysed, and communicate their understandings to
others in ways that are seen as logical and well-thought through. However, many teachers
experience difficulties in establishing cooperative learning experiences where students have
opportunities to share, critique, and evaluate possible explanations for the phenomena
under investigation. The following section will discuss some of the perceived difficulties
teachers face.

5. Cooperative Learning: Creating an Interactive Culture and Setting

Inquiry-based science requires students to cooperate to investigate problems, ask
questions, challenge each other’s conceptions or misconceptions, and negotiate acceptable
solutions to the problem at hand. When students cooperate, they learn to listen to what oth-
ers have to say and reflect on their points of view, share their thinking on issues, challenge
and rebut misconceptions, and engage in the practices of building new understandings and
knowledge that promote learning. However, creating cooperative groups where students
are able to discuss tasks in a meaningful way can be quite challenging unless students have
a clear understanding of how they are expected to cooperate and what they are expected to
achieve [28].
Productive classroom talk, Alexander [12] argues, requires developing a shared un-
derstanding of the way talk should be managed, often requiring that some explicit ground
rules are established. These rules may eventually become part of the classroom routine, so
students understand that these are the accepted norms for communicating, as occurs when
an interactive culture is promoted. Alexander also maintained that talk is affected by the
way students are grouped. Interaction is facilitated when students work in small groups
(often three to four students) where they can see and hear each other as they work on a
designated task.
In a review of five studies where teachers explicitly structured cooperative small group
learning, Gillies [29] reported that students demonstrated higher levels of cooperation,
group interaction, and learning than peers who learnt in unstructured small groups. Fur-
thermore, “the benefits of cooperative learning are enhanced when groups do not exceed
four members, are gender-balanced and of mixed-ability, instruction is designed to meet
the groups’ needs, and teachers have been trained in how to implement this pedagogi-
cal strategy” ([29], p. 47). These results were consistent across both primary and high
school settings.
While cooperative learning is well established as a pedagogical approach that can be
implemented in science classrooms to promote students’ engagement and learning [30],
establishing the conditions for it to be employed effectively can be a challenge both for the
teachers and the students involved. Teachers are often reluctant to embrace cooperative
learning possibly because of the challenge it poses to their control of the instructional
process, where teaching tends to be more teacher-centred rather than learner-centred.
Furthermore, the changes that teachers need to make to accommodate this organisational
change to how they teach and the personal commitment they need to make to sustain their
efforts are often regarded as further impositions on their role as teachers. It may also be
due to a lack understanding of how to embed cooperative learning pedagogy into their
classroom curricula to foster open communication and engagement between teachers and
students to create learning environments where students feel supported and emotionally
safe and secure.

6. Conditions Needed for Successful Cooperative Learning

Placing students in groups and expecting them to work together does not ensure that
they will cooperate, as some students will often defer to more able students who may
assume the important roles and tasks for themselves, leaving the less able students to
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1242 8 of 12

undertake more diminished roles. One way to ensure that all students have opportunities
to participate in groups is to structure the group, so students understand that they are
linked interdependently around the task. When this structure is in place, students know
how they are expected to work together, what they are expected to achieve, and how they
are expected to behave [28, 29).
Research has identified five key components that need to be embedded in groups for
members to cooperate [30]. These components are:
1. Positive interdependence exists when group members perceive that they are linked
together in such a way that in order to achieve their goals, they must assist others
to do so as well. Positive interdependence can be structured in a group so that
each member has to complete part of the group’s task, for example, a group project
where each member works on one part of the larger task. Members then share their
contributions with other group members so the larger task can be completed. Johnson
and Johnson [31] found that when positive interdependence is established in a group,
two important psychological processes occur. The first involves members allowing
one member’s actions to substitute for the actions of another. This occurs when
one member undertakes an action that other members of the group accept as an
action they see as important to the group. The second psychological process involves
being open to the influence of others and willing to accept their ideas as valuable.
When these two processes are evident, the group members become psychologically
interdependent, with members realising they need to work together, be open to
assisting others, and contribute their ideas to ensure the group completes its task or
achieves its goal/s.
2. Promotive interaction enables group members to discuss topics with others and think
about issues in ways that they may never have considered previously. In so doing, the
information and ideas exchanged are transformed so they become part of their new
ways of knowing and doing. In fact, when this occurs in science classrooms, Ford
and Forman [32] found that the interactions that the students had with each other
encouraged them to work together to collaboratively construct and critique different
ideas and points of view. This participation in talk where students learn to give and
take in their discussions, Ford and Forman believe, is essential if productive scientific
talk is to occur. Moreover, it is these dialogic interactions that, in turn, support changes
to students’ reasoning and ways of thinking in science.
3. Interpersonal and small-group social skills are critically important if students are to
work successfully together. However, these skills do not develop automatically, and
teachers need to ensure that students understand how to interact respectfully and ap-
propriately with others. Gillies [33] reported that when students were trained in how
to use these skills, they demonstrated more cooperative behaviour, provided more
help to each other, and used more inclusive language or language that invited others
to participate than peers who had not been taught these skills. This may have been
because when students learned to interact appropriately with other group members,
they felt more supported by their group and were more willing to reciprocate in kind.
There is no doubt that social support tends to increase group cohesion and sense of
purpose, which, in turn, affect pressure to be a productive group member.
4. Individual accountability is evident when students accept responsibility for com-
pleting their part of the group task. When individual accountability or personal
responsibility is evident, group members realise that they are also contributing to
the group’s goals. This responsibility, in turn, helps create a sense of group cohesion
and motivation to cooperate as members realise the importance of their contributions
to the group’s goals. Johnson and Johnson [30] found that that individual account-
ability or personal responsibility increases the effectiveness of a group and the work
each member completes. By supporting each other as they work together, students
learn that they can not only achieve the group’s goal, but their own performances
also improve.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1242 9 of 12

5. Group processing and reflecting are processes that are critically important for students’
learning, as they allow students to discuss how well the group is working to achieve its
goals and maintaining effective working relationships [30]. Johnson and Johnson [34]
argue that this includes making decisions about what behaviours to continue or
change; discussing how to streamline the learning process so all group members
understand what they need to do; reviewing the group’s progress as they complete
specific tasks; and evaluating how they are working together as a team.

7. Inquiry-Based Science and Cooperative Learning

Successful implementation of an inquiry-based science approach in classrooms is very
dependent on students working cooperatively together to investigate problems, search for
possible solutions, make observations, ask questions, consider different perspectives on
the issue, think innovatively, and use their intuition. Given the emphasis attached to the
importance of students being actively involved in their own learning, as inquiry-based
investigations enable them to do, questions naturally arise about the effectiveness of this
approach to learning in the context of cooperative learning. Howe et al. [35] reported on a
study of twenty-four classrooms across twelve schools where students worked in small
cooperative groups on inquiry-based science tasks (intervention condition), while the three
classrooms in the control schools participated in their regular classroom science program.
The results showed that the students in the intervention condition achieved significantly
higher scores on their inquiry-based science tasks than students in the control condition.
Furthermore, the students in the intervention condition obtained significantly higher scores
in their dialogic interactions (proposition, disagreement, explanations, and questions) than
students in the control condition. Howe et al. [35] attributed the success of the students’
progress in science to their cooperative group experiences.
Thurston et al. [36] reported on a two-year longitudinal study of the effects of coopera-
tive learning on science attainment, attitudes towards science, and the social connectedness
of 204 students involved in the Howe et al. study [35]. The study investigated whether
the gains recorded in the Howe et al. study in science understanding, attitudes, and social
relationships transferred and persisted even though the students were now in high school
in comparison to students in the control condition. The study found that attainment gains
that were recorded during the original study persisted over time and were maintained
in the intervention condition 18 months after the original cooperative learning project.
Furthermore, the social relationships that were developed by students before the transition
were significantly related to higher post-transition attainment. In short, the use of coopera-
tive learning during inquiry-based science may allow the transfer of knowledge and skills
acquired to new learning environments.
Gillies, Nichols, and Burgh [37] reported on a study that involved thirty-five groups of
sixth grade students in eighteen classrooms from nine elementary schools who worked on
two inquiry-based units of science in three conditions: the cognitive questioning condition,
the philosophy for children condition, and the regular classroom (comparison) condition.
Teachers from all three conditions participated in four professional development days
that provided them with background information on the inquiry-science units and the
cooperative learning strategies they were to implement. Each inquiry-science unit ran
for 6–10 weeks and required students to work together in small cooperative groups to
investigate topics, test out ideas, evaluate their conceptions, and build new working theories
or understandings in a continuous cycle of inquiry, the outcomes of which were shared
with the wider class.
While the children in the cognitive questioning condition and the philosophy for
children condition were taught specific ways of asking questions to prompt discussion
and think carefully about issues that emerged, the results showed that the children in all
conditions demonstrated more helpful discourses or discourses known to mediate learning.
This outcome was encouraging because it is the way the students were taught to help each
other by providing explanations, elaborating on points, and providing reasons for their
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1242 10 of 12

thinking that promoted follow-up learning. In effect, it was the opportunities that the
students had to participate in the inquiry-based science units where they were taught how
to cooperate that promoted the dialogic interactions that occurred.
Ting et al. [38] reported on a meta-analysis of the effects of active learning (i.e., collab-
orative learning, discovery learning, experiential learning, group inquiry-based learning,
problem-based learning, and activity-based learning) on Asian students’ performance in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects. A main criterion for
inclusion was Asian students’ experience with an active learning experience in comparison
to traditional, didactic lecture-based pedagogy. All the active learning approaches were
defined as “any instructional method that engages learners in their own learning process
through their active involvement in class” ([38], p. 381). Forty-four studies met the criteria
for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The results showed that a moderately large effect of 0.66
was detected, indicating a positive effect of active learning on Asian students’ academic
performance. Moreover, the effect sizes for active learning pedagogies in the different
STEM disciplines were similar, and there were no significant differences between different
countries or regions in Asia.
Ting et. al. [38] concluded that by changing traditional learning to active, learner-
centred, inquiry-based, and collaborative approaches, Asian students became fully engaged
and found learning more relevant to their needs. “The deep learning process that results
from this active learning instructional approach as opposed to the passive and rote learning
approach, ultimately leads to higher order learning, meaningful learning outcomes and
enhanced academic performance” ([38], p. 389).
Nugroho, Suranto, and Masykuri [39] reported on a meta-analysis of the effectiveness
of inquiry learning in science on the development of argumentation skills: skills needed to
make claims, explain reasons, justify decisions, and provide evidence for decisions taken.
Seventeen inquiry learning studies that had focused on developing argumentation skills
met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. All studies investigated the effectiveness
of inquiry learning on the development of argument in biology, physics, chemistry, and
integrated natural science in secondary schools and colleges. The results showed that
argumentation skills had a positive impact on the quality of students’ written and oral
arguments, with effect sizes ranging from 0.41 (moderate effect size) to 2.00 (very large effect
size). The authors concluded that “scientific activities in inquiry provide opportunities for
students to discuss and debate arguments, do their assignments to make valid conclusions,
and are supported by original evidence” ([39], p. 100011-4).

8. Conclusions
The research by Howe et al. [35], Thurston et al. [36], Gillies, Nichols, and Burgh [37],
Ting et al. [38], and Nugroho, Suranto, and Masykuri [39] highlight the academic and
dialogic benefits that students achieve when they have opportunities to participate in
inquiry-based tasks in science in comparison to peers who learn through traditional trans-
mission approaches.
Inquiry-based learning emphases the importance of students investigating problems,
making observations, asking questions, testing out ideas, challenging the ideas of others,
and thinking creatively as they work cooperatively on solutions to the problem at hand.
There is no doubt that the inquiry process is complex, as it requires students to be adept at
engaging with others, sharing their ideas, acknowledging the contributions others make,
evaluating new information, and communicating their various understandings in ways
that are logical and well-reasoned. In such situations, teachers need to play an active role
in not only structuring inquiry-based experiences that will help students to develop an
understanding of the content, but also the dialogic practices that will help them to engage
in well-reasoned discussions that facilitate critical thinking and learning.
When teachers dialogue with students, they not only model and scaffold different
ways of talking, but also provide feedback to help students develop clearer understandings
of their learning. These types of dialogic discussions promote meta-level reflections that
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1242 11 of 12

help students to connect ideas across contexts, promoting higher order thinking that leads
to learning that is more meaningful and enhanced academic outcomes. In short, student
learning and engagement is promoted when they have opportunities to work cooperatively
together on inquiry-based science tasks that have been well-structured.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

There are three limitations to the research reported in this paper. Firstly, the focus
is on inquiry-based teaching in science where students work in cooperative groups to
investigate challenging problems. This requirement automatically limits the number of
studies that have addressed these issues. Secondly, while meta-analyses are used to
describe the impact of inquiry-based learning on students’ achievements, no information
is provided on how teachers can implement inquiry-based teaching in science in their
classrooms; this is a clear indication of the limitations of meta-analyses. Finally, the paper
focuses specifically on academic achievement and does not address student motivation to
learn during inquiry-based science activities. Future research will need to address these
limitations if inquiry-based teaching in science is to be fully embedded in science curricula.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created of analysed in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. National Research Council (NRC). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8; National Academy of
Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; 387p.
2. Llewellyn, D. Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry and Argument-Based Science Standards in Grades 3–8; Corwin: Thousand Oaks,
CA, USA, 2014.
3. Crawford, B. Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2007, 44, 613–642.
[CrossRef]
4. Metz, K. Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own
design. Cogn. Instr. 2004, 22, 219–290. [CrossRef]
5. Duschl, R.; Duncan, R. Beyond the fringe: Building and evaluating scientific knowledge systems. In Constructivist Instruction:
Success of Failure? Tobias, S., Duffy, T., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2009; pp. 311–332.
6. Harris, C.; Rooks, D. Managing inquiry-based science: Challenges in enacting complex science instruction in elementary and
middle school classrooms. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2010, 21, 227–240. [CrossRef]
7. Furtak, E.; Seidel, T.; Iverson, H.; Briggs, D. Experimental and quasi-Experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A
meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2012, 82, 300–329. [CrossRef]
8. Firman, M.; Ertikanto, C.; Abdurrahman, A. Description of meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning of science in improving
students’ inquiry skills. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1157, 022018. [CrossRef]
9. Heindl, M. Inquiry-based learning and the pre-requisite for its use in science at school: A meta-analysis. J. Pedagog. Res. 2019, 3,
52–61. [CrossRef]
10. Alexander, R. Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. In Exploring Talk in School; Mercer, N.,
Hodgkinson, S., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 91–114.
11. Alexander, R. Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Res. Pap. Educ. 2018, 33, 561–598. [CrossRef]
12. Alexander, R. Whose discourse? Dialogic pedagogy for a post-truth world. J. Dialogic Pedagog. Int. J. 2019, 7, 1–19. [CrossRef]
13. Alexander, R. A Dialogic Teaching Companion; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; 246p.
14. Boyd, M.; Markarian, W. Dialogic teaching: Talk in service of a dialogic stance. Lang. Educ. 2011, 6, 515–534. [CrossRef]
15. Wolfe, S.; Alexander, R. Argumentation and Dialogic Teaching: Alternative Pedagogies for a Changing World. 2008. Available
online: http://www.robinalexander.org.uk/index.php/publications/ (accessed on 15 December 2013).
16. Reznitskaya, A. Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language during literature discussions. Read. Teach. 2012, 65, 446–456. [CrossRef]
17. Garcia-Carrion, R.; Aguileta, G.; Padros, M.; Ramis-Salas, M. Implications of social impact of dialogic teaching and learning.
Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1242 12 of 12

18. Scott, P.; Mortimer, E. Meaning Making in high school science: A framework for analysing meaning making interactions. In
Research and the Quality of Science Education; Boersman, M., Goedhart, M., de Jong, O., Eikelhof, H., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, 2005; pp. 395–406.
19. Aguiar, O.G.; Mortimer, E.F.; Scott, P. Learning from responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension.
J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2010, 47, 174–193. [CrossRef]
20. Scott, P.; Mortimer, E.; Aguiar, O. The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of
meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Sci. Educ. 2006, 90, 605–631. [CrossRef]
21. Scott, P. Talking a way to understanding in science classrooms. In Exploring Talk in School; Mercer, N., Hodgkinson, S., Eds.; Sage:
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 17–36.
22. Lehesvouri, S.; Ramnarain, U.; Viiri, J. Challenging transmission modes of Teaching in science classrooms: Enhancing learner-
centredness through dialogicity. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1049–1069. [CrossRef]
23. Webb, N. The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 79, 1–28. [CrossRef]
24. Rojas-Drummond, S.; Littleton, K.; Velez, M. Developing reading Comprehension through collaborative learning. J. Res. Reading
2014, 37, 138–158. [CrossRef]
25. Mercer, N.; Wegerif, R.; Dawes, L. Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. Br. Educ. Res. J. 1999, 25,
95–111. [CrossRef]
26. Rojas-Drummond, S.; Mercer, N. Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2003, 39,
99–111. [CrossRef]
27. Rojas-Drummond, S.; Omedo, M.; Cruz, I.; Espinosa, M. Dialogic interactions, co-regulation and the appropriation of text
composition abilities in primary school children. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 2020, 24, 1–13. [CrossRef]
28. Gillies, R.; Ashman, A. Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative Groups in lower and middle elementary grades.
J. Educ. Psychol. 1998, 90, 746–757. [CrossRef]
29. Gillies, R. Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2003, 39, 35–49. [CrossRef]
30. Johnson, D.; Johnson, R. Learning together and alone: Overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 2002, 22, 95–105. [CrossRef]
31. Johnson, D.; Johnson, R. An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educ.
Res. 2009, 38, 365–379. [CrossRef]
32. Ford, M.J.; Forman, E.A. Uncertainty and scientific progress in classroom dialogue. In Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk
and Dialogue; Resnick, L.B., Asterhan, C.S.C., Clarke, S.N., Eds.; AERA: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; pp. 143–156.
33. Gillies, R.M. Cooperative Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007.
34. Johnson, D.; Johnson, R. Cooperative learning in 21st century. An. De Psicol. 2014, 30, 841–851. [CrossRef]
35. Howe, C.; Tolmie, A.; Thurston, A.; Topping, K.; Christie, D.; Livingston, K.; Jessiman, E.; Donaldson, C. Group work in
elementary science: Towards organisational principles for supporting pupil learning . Learn. Instr. 2007, 17, 549–563.
36. Thurston, A.; Topping, K.; Tolmie, A.; Christie, D.; Karagiannidou, E.; Murray, P. Cooperative learning in science: Follow-up from
primary to high school. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2010, 32, 501–522. [CrossRef]
37. Gillies, R.; Nichols, K.; Burgh, G. Promoting problem-solving and reasoning During cooperative inquiry science. Teach. Educ.
2011, 22, 429–445. [CrossRef]
38. Ting, F.; Shroff, R.; Lam, W.; Garcia, R.; Chan, C.; Tsang, W.; Ezeamuzie, N. A meta-analysis of the effects of active learning on
Asian students’ performance in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 2023, 32,
379–400. [CrossRef]
39. Nugroho, A.; Suranto, S.; Masykuri, M. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness ofinquiry learning towards scientific argumentation
skills. AIP Conf. Proc. 2023, 2619, 100011.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.