Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40208867›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2025

Enhancing secondary school students' science process skills through guided inquiry-based laboratory activities in biology.

Ashebir Mekonnen Chengere, Beyene Dobo Bono, Samuel Assefa Zinabu, Kedir Woliy Jilo

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ashebir Mekonnen ChengereDepartment of Biology, College of Natural and Computational Science, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia.ORCID 0009-0009-4003-8824
Beyene Dobo BonoDepartment of Biology, College of Natural and Computational Science, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia.
Samuel Assefa ZinabuSchool of Education, College of Education, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia.
Kedir Woliy JiloDepartment of Biology, College of Natural and Computational Science, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Science process skills (SPS) are vital for enhancing student engagement, critical thinking, and academic achievement in science education. However, Ethiopian secondary schools often rely on traditional, rote-based laboratory methods that hinder SPS development. This study examined the effect of Guided Inquiry-Based Laboratory Experiments enriched Instructional (GIBLEI) approach on improving students' SPS in biology. GIBLEI promotes active, inquiry-based learning, encouraging students to investigate, hypothesize, experiment, and draw conclusions. By shifting from passive observation to hands-on exploration, GIBLEI addresses limitations of traditional methods, fostering deeper understanding, problem-solving skills, and reducing educational disparities in science classrooms. In this quasi-experimental study, two biology classes from selected schools were randomly assigned to experimental (EG, N = 46) and control groups (CG, N = 29). The EG received GIBLEI-based instruction for eight weeks, focusing on inquiry-based laboratory activities that require students to investigate, hypothesize, and draw conclusions. The CG, meanwhile, received traditional lab instruction with a focus on observation and confirmation of set procedures. Data on SPS development were gathered using essay tests scored with rubrics. Welch's t-test revealed that post-test SPS scores in the EG were significantly higher than those in the CG, with a large effect size (82%), demonstrating GIBLEI's effectiveness. ANCOVA further confirmed that the improvement was attributable to the GIBLEI approach rather than initial group differences. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed significant SPS improvement within the EG from pre-test to post-test, underscoring the approach's effectiveness over time. Additionally, an independent samples t-test indicated no significant gender differences in SPS within the EG, suggesting that GIBLEI benefits both male and female students equally. The findings highlight GIBLEI as a promising tool to foster SPS, supporting its integration into biology curricula to enhance student engagement, skill acquisition, and equal learning outcomes across genders.

Indexed as

BiologyProblem-Based LearningScienceStudentsAdolescentEducational MeasurementEthiopiaFemaleHumansLaboratoriesMaleSchools

Identifiers

PMID40208867
PMCPMC11984731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.