Using Cooperative Learning to Enhance Students’ Learning and Engagement during Inquiry-Based Science

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is currently relevant and well written.  The specific focus contributes to the developing understanding of implementing inquiry based approaches in the science classroom, especially for practitioners.  I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article.

However, I do have some minor concerns that the authors may wish to consider that will hopefully enhance the article prior to publication.

1. The title of the piece could be revised to better reflect the content - while the current title is not misleading I feel it undersells the actual content and focus.  In particular I feel that the term 'promoting' is a little arbitrary.  Perhaps consider something more specific to science teaching practice - for example, Using a Cooperative Learning Approach to Enhance Students' Engagement in Inquiry Based Science Education'. Or, Cooperative Learning Strategies and IBSE.....something of that nature.

The first sentence on page one is a rather sweeping statement and requires delineation - there have been concerted efforts to teach science through inquiry based approaches across Europe, US, and SE Asia.  However, that is not the case in the UK and some Middle Eastern countries.   Also, by whom? Policy makers, Education academics, practitioners?  Perhaps the authors could be a little more specific regarding their claim.

The concluding statement at the bottom of page six, line 299 provides a bit of a sign posting issue....perhaps qualify the statement stating that the next section will describe/review some of the perceived difficulties teachers face.

Finally, there are one or two typos which I expect will be picked up prior to publication.

Minor issues for the authors to consider.  

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments on the manuscript. I have now revised the title (highlighted in yellow) as you suggested and included a transition sentence after line 299 to introduce the next section.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript aims to show that student learning and engagement are enhanced when students have the opportunity to work in co-operative groups on well-structured, inquiry-based science tasks, and it aims to review the literature that supports this. However, the manuscript does not have the structure of a review article as categorized by the authors. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not suitable for publication in the Education Sciences in its current form.

In support of the above, the main concerns are the following;

1)      It is not clear from the introduction what the aim of the manuscript is, what the chapters are about, which research questions are to be addressed, etc. It is also unclear why the authors have only one sub-chapter (Inquiry - based teaching in science) within the introduction.

2)      The authors do not mention any methods or sources for literature research in the area they describe. It is therefore not known which selection criteria, search procedures, data analyses etc. were used.

3)      The bibliography is incomplete. There is a lack of recent relevant systematic reviews as well as highly cited references, such as: 

·    Urdanivia Alarcon, D. A., Talavera-Mendoza, F., Rucano Paucar, F. H., Cayani Caceres, K. S., & Machaca Viza, R. (2023, May). Science and inquiry-based teaching and learning: a systematic review. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 8, pp. 1170487). Frontiers. 

·    Liu, C., Zowghi, D., Kearney, M., & Bano, M. (2021). Inquiry‐based mobile learning in secondary school science education: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 1-23. 

·    Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for Meaningful Learning: A Review of Research on Inquiry-Based and Cooperative Learning. Book Excerpt. George Lucas Educational Foundation. Cited by 1027

·    Aditomo, A., & Klieme, E. (2020). Forms of inquiry-based science instruction and their relations with learning outcomes: Evidence from high and low-performing education systems. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 504-525. Cited by 121

4)      The manuscript does not contain a clear overview of the published results and the corresponding discussion. There are no tabular and/or graphical representations (e.g. a summary of the articles with a list of the authors and their titles as well as the most important findings), as is usual for review papers.

5)      The manuscript lacks reflections on the implications of the results, the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research in this area.

6)      There are also technical shortcomings, such as inconsistent fonts and the same numbering of the first four chapters.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments on the manuscript. I have revised the numbering for each section as you suggested. Many thanks for your suggested articles. However, I have not chosen to use them as indicated in the Abstract, this paper is a review that focuses specifically on the role of inquiry-based science where students work in cooperative groups. It also examines the role teachers play in inducting students into ways of thinking and learning. Consequently, I have used a number of meta-analyses to that report on inquiry-based teaching in science, and a series of studies that report on dialogic teaching and its role in promoting thinking and learning for this review.

Reviewer 3 Report

The review paper presents a rich and thorough examination of the role of cooperative learning strategies in enhancing engagement and learning outcomes in inquiry-based science education. The detailed exploration of the relationship between cooperative learning and inquiry-based methodologies, along with a critical analysis of dialogic teaching and its impact in the classroom, is particularly enlightening. This manuscript offers valuable insights and practical implications for educators and researchers interested in inquiry-based learning. To further elevate the clarity of this literature review, I suggest the following minor modifications:

1.     On page 4, section 4 is titled "Dialogic Teaching in Classroom." Notably, section 3, focusing on "Promoting Scientific Thinking and Reasoning," also extensively discusses aspects of dialogic teaching. It would be beneficial for the reader if the author could clarify the rationale behind separating these closely related contents into two distinct sections.

2.     Considering the complexity and scope of the research trends and relationships discussed, the manuscript could be enriched by the inclusion of visualization tools, such as word clouds or clusters. These tools would not only aid in visually summarizing the research trends but also help in highlighting the key relationships and themes within this study.

3.     The special issue focuses on "Problem-Based Learning in Science Education," while this manuscript primarily discusses inquiry-based teaching and learning. It would be valuable to add a discussion in the introduction to clarify the relationship between these two approaches. This would align the paper more closely with the special issue's theme and provide readers with a clear understanding of where this manuscript fits within the broader context of science education methodologies.

Author Response

1. The rationale for separating scientific thinking and reasoning and dialogic teaching. On line 200, I have inserted the following:

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.  

2. Relationship between Problem-based learning and Collaboration. The following has been inserted:

Being able to collaborate with others often involves students working together on problem-based learning activities involving real-world contexts that are topical and of interest to students; for example, issues on climate change where the goal is to solve a challenging problem. In this sense, students have opportunities to collaborate with others on topics that are of socio-scientific interest and likely to generate student discussion, motivation, and learning [1].

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have not adequately addressed the main points I raised in the review. They have not considered most of my comments, but they have not even provided an adequate explanation as to why they have not considered them. Therefore, I still feel that the manuscript is not formulated well enough as a review paper. 

Author Response

Thank you again for your constructive comments which I appreciate. The following addresses your concerns.

1. Not clear from the introduction what the aim of the manuscript is.
2. Response: The abstract provides a clear overview of the aim of the manuscript.
3. Methods/sources for literature is unclear
4. Response: Key arguments that are addressed in each subsection and the relevant literature are presented and discussed
5. Incomplete bibliography
6. Response: Meta-analyses studies are used to highlight key trends/points not single studies
7. Overview of published results and discussion
8. Response: Conclusion recaps on the key studies that highlight the academic and dialogic benefits that students achieve when they have opportunities to participate in inquiry-based tasks.