SynthesisF1000Research2026
Does Inquiry-Based Learning Improve Students' Critical Thinking? A Meta-Analysis Accounting for Control Group Variations.
Synthesis in F1000Research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Inquiry learning is widely recognized, through empirical studies, as an appropriate instruction in enhancing students' critical thinking, yet the results were varied across context. The previous meta-analysis did not include the control group variations as a potential moderator and the studies subject domain was limited only to science subjects. Consequently, it is difficult to generalize the effectiveness of IBL in enhancing critical thinking. This meta-analysis aims to investigate whether inquiry learning is effective in improving the students' critical thinking skills and examine the moderating roles of each study characteristic. Methods The literature search applying the PRISMA protocol 2020 was conducted by utilizing SCOPUS, ERIC, and DOAJ databases. A total of 57 studies from 51 articles, published from 2015 to 2025, were synthesized using a random-effects model with standardized mean difference (SMD). Results: The analysis revealed that IBL has a large and significant effect on enhancing students' critical thinking (g = 1.336; 95% CI [1.061, 1.611]). However, substantial heterogeneity was observed (I Conclusions: The present meta-analysis highlighted that IBL is effective in improving students' critical thinking. However, the effectiveness of IBL was relative to the type of control group variations. Its effect on critical thinking was greater when compared with teacher-centered learning but smaller when compared with other student-centered learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.