Abstract :

The motivation behind this study was to investigate the effect inquiry-based instruction methodologies had with respect to students’ achievement. Besides, the review recognized a university that showed elevated degrees of performance in the Sayed Jamaluddin Afghani university, Kunar province 2022. These recognized university lecturers, who were lined up with detailed victories, were welcome to take part in this review. The participants who partook in the review gave a record of the educational methodologies operated among those students who generally showed elevated degrees of achievement. The collected information permitted the researcher to sum up the picked techniques and besides report on the serious level of recurrence in which request-based methodologies were utilized. It was presumed that request-based educational methodologies were successful systems lined up with successful students.

---

Keywords :

direct instruction approach, inquiry-based instruction, practical Constraints, student-center approach, teaching and learning, traditional pedagogy.

---

References :

1. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of engineering education, 95(2), 123-138.
2. Correiro, E. E., Griffin, L. R., & Hart, P. E. (2008). A constructivist approach to inquiry-based learning: A TUNEL assay for the detection of apoptosis in cheek cells. The American Biology Teacher, 70(8), 457-460.
3. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science education, 88(1), 28-54.
4. Wu, H. K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Inscriptional practices in two inquiry‐based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders’ use of data tables and graphs. Journal of research in science teaching, 43(1), 63-95.
5. 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.
6. Jacobs, H. H. (2010). Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world. ASCD.
7. King, K., & Gurian, M. (2006). Teaching to the Minds of Boys. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 56.
8. Castle, S., & Arends, R. I. (2003). Faculty supply and demand in education. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 112-121.
9. Kintsch, W. (2009). Learning and constructivism. In Constructivist instruction(pp. 235-253). Routledge.
10. American College Health Association. (2006). American college health association national college health assessment (ACHA-NCHA) spring 2005 reference group data report (abridged). Journal of American College Health, 55(1), 5.
11. Littky, D., & Grabelle, S. (2004). The big picture: Education is everyone’s business. ASCD.
12. Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning. ASCD.
13. Castle, S., & Arends, R. I. (2003). Faculty supply and demand in education. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 112-121.
14. Van Deur, P. (2010). Assessing elementary school support for inquiry. Learning Environments Research, 13(2), 159-172.
15. Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Nevin, A., & Liston, A. (2005). Successful inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. American Secondary Education, 33-50.
16. Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of Research on Children’s Learning for Standards and Assessment: A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic-Molecular Theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary research and perspectives.
17. Cafagna, J. J. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction: The impact on student achievement in New Jersey public schools(Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).
18. Kimmelman, P. (2006). Implementing NCLB: Creating a knowledge framework to support school improvement. Corwin Press.