Inquiry based method on academic achievement of Biology students at secondary level in Hazara divison, Pakistan


Zahid Mehboob
Misbah Mehboob
Motunrayo Iyabode Adeyemi


Introduction: Inquiry based method is one of the innovations in teaching techniques. Despite its benefits, inquiry based method has not got due popularity in the Pakistani context.

Purpose: The objectives of the study were to examine the effects of Inquiry Based Method on the academic achievement of students Biology at secondary level, to compare the academic achievement of low-achievers of Biology at secondary level taught through inquiry Based Method and Lecture Method, and to compare the academic achievement of high-achievers of Biology of secondary level taught through Inquiry Based Method and Lecture Method.

Methodology: Two null hypotheses were formulated in order to achieve the objectives. One hundred twenty (120) science students of grade 10th (2017-2018) from GGHS No. 2 Haripur were considered as population. Sixty (60) Science students of grade 10th from GGHS No. 2 Haripur were selected as sample of the study. These students were divided into two equivalent groups i.e. control (n=30) and experimental group (n=30) on the basis of mean scores of pre & post- test on Biology. Experimental group was taught through Inquiry Based Method and control group was taught by Traditional Lecture Method for eight weeks.

Results: The analyzed data revealed that experimental group significantly performed better than the control group. Similarly, the lower achievers of experimental group showed significantly better performance than lower achievers of the control group.

Recommendations: It was recommended that teachers who are teaching Biology at secondary school level may be trained to teach Biology by applying Inquiry group learning method.


How to Cite
Mehboob, Z., Mehboob, M., & Adeyemi, M. I. . (2021). Inquiry based method on academic achievement of Biology students at secondary level in Hazara divison, Pakistan. Journal of Educational Research in Developing Areas, 2(2), 100-109.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans.
  2. Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349-377.
  3. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 20-24.
  4. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (2012). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 129-156). Routledge.
  5. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, Co: BSCS, 5, 88-98.
  6. Bybee, R. W. (2006). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 1-14). Springer, Dordrecht.
  7. Cavallo, A. M., Miller, R. B., & Saunders, G. (2002). Motivation and affect toward learning science among preservice elementary school teachers: Implications for classroom teaching. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 14(2), 25-38.
  8. Champagne, A. (1987). The psychological basis for a model of science instruction. Commissioned paper for IBM-supported design project. Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.
  9. Fielding, M. (2012). Beyond student voice: patterns of partnership and the demands of deep democracy: Más allá de la voz del alumnado: patrones de colaboración y las exigencias de la democracia profunda. Ministerio de Educación. Revista de educación, 359, 45-65.
  10. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Merrill/Pearson.
  11. Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry‐based science program on middle school students' attitudes toward science. Science education, 86(5), 693-705.
  12. Hashmi, A., Hussain, T., & Shoaib, A. (2018). Alignment between Mathematics Curriculum and Textbook of Grade VIII in Punjab. Bulletin of Education and Research, 40(1), 57-76.
  13. Alleman, J., Brophy, J., & Knighton, B. (2008). How a primary teacher protects the coherence of her social studies lessons. Social studies and the Young Learner, 21(2), 28-31.
  14. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Sadle River: Prentice Hall.
  15. Miller, S., & Sambell, K. (2003). What do parents feel they need? Implications of parents' perspectives for the facilitation of parenting programmes. Children & Society, 17(1), 32-44.
  16. Ozgelen, S., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Exploring the development of preservice science teachers’ views on the nature of science in inquiry-based laboratory instruction. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1551-1570.
  17. Poon, C. L., Tan, D., & Tan, A. L. (2009). Classroom management and inquiry-based learning: Finding the balance. Science Scope, 32(9), 18.
  18. Safdar, M. (2013). Meaningful learning and rote learning in physics: A comparative study in city Jhelum (Pakistan). Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, 6, 60-77.
  19. Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows, 9, 5-15.
  20. Zareen, R., & Kayani, M. (2014). Higher Secondary Biology Instruction in Pakistan in Constructivist Perspectives. Bulletin of Education and Research, 36(2), 39-56.
  21. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
  22. Yager, R., & Simmons, P. (2013). Results of the Salish projects: Summary and implications for science teacher education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology, 1(4), 259-269.