Main Article Content
Both incentive and inquiry-based learning are among trending approaches in the field of education. The pretest-posttest non-randomized style known as quasi-experimental research design was used. The present study sought to rationalize the implementation of incentive-based learning in combination with inquiry-based learning approaches and assessed their combinatorial effect on learners’ overall academic performance. The study population comprises 52 senior four learners from the College of Saint Jean Nyarusange in Muhanga district. Learners were distributed into two groups namely control (Z) and experimental (W) groups. The two groups were taught the same topic extracted from the chemistry curriculum by using different teaching and motivational approaches and a subsequent paper-based test was administered for overall performance evaluation. The stand and deliver method was applied to learners in the control group in contrast to the experimental group taught by using IBA in combination with IBLA. In addition, the interactive behavior acquisition by students in the experimental group was tracked. Descriptive statistics performed indicated that learners subjected to IBA combined with IBLA performed better as shown by the mean difference between means of the pretest and posttest of 58.75000 and 74.10985 respectively as well as standard deviations of 6.95018 and 9.29708 respectively. Contrary, there was no significant difference in means and standard deviations for the pretest and posttest in the control group. Overall, learners in the experimental group outperformed those in the control group, therefore, researchers recommend the use of IBA and IBLA as effective combinatorial strategies to improve learners’ academic performance as well as promoting interactive behavior acquisition within an academic environment.
Montmarquette C. et al. Redesigning teams and incentives in a merger: An experiment with managers and students. Management Science. 2004;50(10):1379-1389.
Bishop J. Drinking from the fountain of knowledge: Student incentive to study and learn–externalities, information problems and peer pressure. Handbook of the Economics of Education. 2006;2:909-944.
Lestari S, Florentinus TS, Sudana IM. The effect of incentive, principal leadership, and motivation toward teacher professionalism in conducting learning activity at vocational high schools. Educational Management. 2019;8(1):34-43.
Cooper MM. The New MCAT: An Incentive for Reform or a Lost Opportunity? Journal of Chemical Education. 2013;90(7):820-822.
Haydon T, Maheady L, Hunter W. Effects of numbered heads together on the daily quiz scores and on-task behavior of students with disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2010;19(3):222-238.
Slavin RE, When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological bulletin. 1983;94(3):429.
Ravenscroft SP, et al. Incentives in student team learning: An experiment in cooperative group learning. Issues in Accounting Education. 1995;10(1):97.
Carrasco GA, Behling KC, Lopez OJ. Evaluation of the role of incentive structure on student participation and performance in active learning strategies: Acomparison of case-based and team-based learning. Medical Teacher. 2018;40(4):379-386.
Roy S, Saha B. Goal setting as a motivator for student performance: evidence from lab experiments. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice. 2019;19(3).
Bilgin I. The effects of guided inquiry instruction incorporating a cooperative learning approach on University students achievement of acid and bases concepts and attitude toward guided inquiry instruction. Scientific Research and Essays, 2009;4(10):1038-1046.
Dai DY, Gerbino KA, Daley MJ. Inquiry-based learning in China: Do teachers practice what they preach, and why? Frontiers of Education in China. 2011;6(1):139-157.
Edelson DC, Gordin DN, Pea RD. Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 1999;8(3-4): 391-450.
Van Joolingen WR, De Jong T, Dimitrakopoulou A. Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2007;23(2):111.
Basaga H. The effect of the inquiry teaching method on biochemistry and science process skill achievements. Biochemical Education. 1994;22(1):29-32.
Aktamiş H, Hiğde E, Özden B. Effects of the inquiry-based learning method on students’ achievement, science process skills and attitudes towards science: A meta-analysis science. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 2016;13(4):248-261.
Wildan W., et al. A stepwise inquiry approach to improving communication skills and scientific attitudes on a biochemistry course. International Journal of Instruction. 2019;12(4):407-422.
Vlassi M, Karaliota A. The comparison between guided inquiry and traditional teaching method. A case study for the teaching of the structure of matter to 8th grade Greek students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013;93:494-497.
Hussain A, Azeem M, Shakoor A. Physics teaching methods: Scientific inquiry vs traditional lecture. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 2011;1(19):269-276.
Bell T, et al. Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education. 2010;32(3):349-377.
Borovay LA, et al. Flow, achievement level, and inquiry-based learning. Journal of Advanced Academics. 2019;30(1):74- 106.
Jerrim J, Oliver M, Sims S. The relationship between inquiry-based teaching and students’ achievement. New evidence from a longitudinal PISA study in England. Learning and Instruction. 2020;101310.
Amos R, Knippels M-C, Levinson R. Socio-scientific inquiry-based learning: Possibilities and challenges for teacher education, in Science Teacher Education for Responsible Citizenship. 2020;Springer:41-61.
Rodríguez G. et al., Developing creative and research skills through an open and interprofessional inquiry-based learning course. BMC Medical Education. 2019;19(1): 134.
Nagarajan S, Overton T. Promoting systems thinking using project-and problem- based learning. Journal of Chemical Education. 2019;96(12):2901-2909.
Kelly MDC. Pedagogical changes in higher education to promote higher-order thinking: An exploration of practice in a federal university in the UAE; 2019, University of Liverpool.
Hamzah H, Setyarini M, Jalmo T. The importance of animation in guided inquiry of human excretory system material. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education. 2020;10(2):51-55.
Renzaho A, et al. Cooperative Learning Approach: A Learner-Centered Methodology for Alleviating the Nonrepresentational Nature of Science Education among Learners of Secondary Schools in Rwanda. Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science. 2020;14(2):45-56.
Gu Q, Day C. Challenges to teacher resilience: Conditions count. British Educational Research Journal. 2013;39(1):22-44.
Wicaksono R, Susilo H. Implementation of problem based -learning combined with think pair share in enhancing students’ scientific literacy and communication skill through teaching biology in english course peerteaching. in Journal of Physics: Conference Series; 2019. IOP Publishing.
Kwok AP, Lau A. An exploratory study on using the think-pair-share cooperative learning strategy. Journal of Mathematical Sciences. 2015;2:22-28.
Neppe V, Consciousness, science and spirituality: The broad conceptualization of Consciousness through the prism of extending to the new physics Beyond EPIC applying the mnemonics PIERCED MOCKS. J Psychol Clin Psychiatry. 2020;11(1):18-38.
Twizeyimana E, Renzaho A, Mujawimana E. Effectiveness of locally made instructional materials on students academic performance and retention in science education in eastern province of rwanda. International Journal of All Research Writings. 2020;1(11):29-37.
Abd‐El‐Khalick F. et al., Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science education. 2004;88(3):397-419.
Marx RW, Harris CJ. No Child left behind and science education: opportunities, challenges, and risks. The Elementary School Journal. 2006;106(5):467-478.
Levitt, K.E., An analysis of elementary teachers' beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education. 2002;86(1):1-22.
Knight JK, Wood WB. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education. 2005;4(4):298-310.
Michael RD, et al. Facilitators and Barriers to movement integration in elementary classrooms: Asystematic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2019;90(2):151-162.
Mullins NM, et al. Elementary school classroom physical activity breaks: student, teacher, and facilitator perspectives. Advances in Physiology Education. 2019;43(2):140- 148.
Felder RM, et al. The future of engineering education II. Teaching methods that work. Chemical Engineering Education. 2000;34(1):26-39.
Persaud V, Persaud R. Increasing student interactivity using a think-pair-share model with a web-based student response system in a large lecture class in Guyana. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology. 2019;15(2):117-131.
Davies P. Review and reward within the computerised peer‐assessment of essays. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2009;34(3):321-333.
Cauley KM, McMillan JH. Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and achievement. The clearing house: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 2010;83(1):1-6.
Lin YG, McKeachie WJ, Kim YC. College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning. Learning and Individual Differences. 2003;13(3):251-258.