A Systematic Review on Assessment in Inquiry-Based Science Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33830/ijrse.v7i1.1744Keywords:
assessment, inquiry-based instruction, science education, systematic review, performance-based assessment, digital platformsAbstract
Despite increased advocacy for the use of inquiry-based learning as part of innovative science teaching in various countries over the last decade, research on the assessment of inquiry-based instruction in science education has lagged, with few assessments being implemented and validated. Furthermore, there appears to be a lack of systematic assessment grouping in inquiry-based science education. This systematic review examines 53 empirical studies published between 1996 and 2022, guided by specific assessment design principles and coded using the existing inquiry-based learning framework to identify and categorize key features of inquiry assessment tasks. Results show that most studies adopted the National Research Council's inquiry framework and used constructed-response items as the dominant assessment form. It was also discovered that most studies assessed inquiry tasks at the exploration, interpretation, conclusion, experimentation, questioning, hypothesis generation, and communication sub-phase level. Finally, most of the inquiry assessments were administered via paper-based testing. However, some of the studies reviewed also delivered inquiry assessments using other platforms, such as computer-based, laboratory-based, and mobile device inquiry. Educational implications for future research include using performance-based assessment to comprehensively assess students' inquiry skills.
References
Abdusselam, M. S., Kilis, S., Sahin Cakir, C., & Abdusselam, Z. (2018). Examining microscopic organisms under augmented reality microscope: A 5E learning model lesson. Science Activities, 55(1-2), 68-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2018.1517717
Ahmed, S., & Parsons, D. (2013). Abductive science inquiry using mobile devices in the classroom. Computers & Education, 63, 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.017
Baker, R. S., Clarke Midura, J., & Ocumpaugh , J. (2016). Towards general models of effective science inquiry in virtual performance assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 267-280. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12128
Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015). The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590-1612. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1045958
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is Inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science education, 94(4), 577-616. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20390
Bunch, G. C., Shaw, J. M., & Geaney, E. R. (2010). Documenting the language demands of mainstream content-area assessment for English learners: Participant structures, communicative modes and genre in science performance assessments. Language and Education, 24(3), 185-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780903518986
Cheung, D. (2005). Investigating: Toothpastes through Inquiry-Based Practical Work. Science Activities, 42(3), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.3200/SATS.42.3.31-37
Chi, S., Wang, Z., & Liu, X. (2019). Investigating disciplinary context effect on student scientific inquiry competence. International Journal of Science Education, 41(18), 2736–2764. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1697837
Clark, D., & Linn, M. C. (2003). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 451-493. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_1
Clarke-Midura, J., Code, J., Zap, N., & Dede, C. (2012). Assessing science inquiry: A case study of the Virtual Performance Assessment project. In L. Lennox, and K. Nettleton (Eds.). Cases on Inquiry through instructional technology in math and science: Systematic Approaches (pp. 138–164). IGI Global Publishing.
Clarke-Midura, J., Code, J., Zap, N., & Dede, C. (2012). Assessing science inquiry: A case study of the Virtual Performance Assessment project. In Lennex, L.C., & Nettleton, K.F. (Eds.). Cases on Inquiry through instructional technology in math and science (pp. 138-164). USA: IGI Global.
Crujeiras-Perez, B., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2017). High school students' engagement in planning investigations: findings from a longitudinal study in Spain. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00185H
Davies, D. J., Collier, C., & Howe, A. (2012). A matter of interpretation: developing primary pupils’ enquiry skills using position-linked datalogging. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(3), 311-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2012.738420
Davies, D., Collier, C. & Howe, A. Assessing scientific and technological enquiry skills at age 11 using the e-scape system. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 22, 247–263 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9191-3
Davis, J. P., & Bellocchi, A. (2018). Objectivity, subjectivity, and emotion in school science inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(10), 1419–1447. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21461
Day, H. L., & Matthews, D. M. (2008). Do Large-Scale Exams Adequately Assess Inquiry? An Evaluation of the Alignment of the Inquiry Behaviors in New York State's Living Environment Regents Examination to the NYS Inquiry Standard. The American Biology Teacher, 70(6), 336-341. https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2008)70[336:DLEAAI]2.0.CO;2
De Jong, T. (2006). Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312(5773), 532-533. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.112775
de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579
Demircioglu, T., & Ucar, S. (2015). Investigating the effect of argument-driven Inquiry in laboratory instruction. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.1.2324
Di Mauro, M. F., & Furman, M. (2016). Impact of an inquiry unit on grade 4 students’ science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 38(14), 2239-2258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1234085
Donnelly, D. F., McGarr, O., & O'Reilly, J. (2014). ‘Just Be Quiet and Listen to Exactly What He's Saying': Conceptualizing power relations in inquiry-oriented classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 2029-2054. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.889867
Eslinger, E., White, B., Frederiksen, J., & Brobst, J. (2008). Supporting inquiry processes with an interactive learning environment: Inquiry Island. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 610-617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9130-6
Fang, S. C., Hsu, Y. S., Chang, H. Y., Chang, W. H., Wu, H. K., & Chen, C. M. (2016). Investigating the effects of structured and guided Inquiry on students’ development of conceptual knowledge and inquiry abilities: a case study in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 1945-1971. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1220688
Garcia Mila, M., Andersen, C., & Rojo, N. E. (2011). Elementary students' laboratory record keeping during Scientific Inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 33(7), 915-942. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.480986
Gobert, J. D., O'Dwyer, L., Horwitz, P., Buckley, B. C., Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Examining the relationship between students’ understanding of the nature of models and conceptual learning in biology, physics, and chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 653-684. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003720671
Haertel, G., Mislevy, R., Long, K., Kennedy, C., Wilson, M., & Songer, N. (2005). PADI: Principled assessment designs for Inquiry. Poster presented at the IERI PI Meeting, Washington, DC. Available at https://padi.sri.com/publications.html
Harlen, W. (2013). Assessment & Inquiry-Based Science Education: Issues in Policy and Practice. Global Network of Science Academies (IAP) Science Education Programme (SEP): Trieste, ItalyHaworth, C. M., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2010). Sex differences in school science performance from middle childhood to early adolescence. International journal of educational research, 49(2-3), 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2010.09.003
Hein, G. E., & Lee, S. (2000). assessment of science inquiry. In National Science Foundation(Ed.), Foundations inquiry: Thoughts, views, and strategies for the k- 5 classroom (Vol. 2, pp.99-108). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf99148/htmstart.htm
Herranen, J., & Aksela, M. (2019). Student-question-based Inquiry in science education. Studies in Science Education, 55(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2019.1658059
Hickey, D. T., Ingram-Goble, A. A., & Jameson, E. M. (2009). Designing assessments and assessing designs in virtual educational environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2), 187-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9143-1
Hoffman, A., & Turner, K. (2015). Microbeads and engineering design in chemistry: No small educational investigation. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(4), 742-746. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500623k
Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070342
Hsu, C. C., Chiu, C. H., Lin, C. H., & Wang, T. I. (2015). Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific Inquiry. Computers & Education, 91, 46-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.009
Huang, C. J., Wang, Y. W., Huang, T. H., Chen, Y. C., Chen, H. M., & Chang, S. C. (2011). Performance evaluation of an online argumentation learning assistance agent. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1270-1280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.013
Jeskova, Z., Lukac, S., Hancova, M., Snajder, L., Gunis, J., Balogova, B., & Kires, M. (2016). Efficacy of inquiry-based learning in mathematics, physics and informatics in relation to the development of students inquiry skills. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(5), 559.
Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 898–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/Tea.10115.
Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher-order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01036.x
Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge: The MIT Press Kremer, K., Specht, C., Urhahne, D., & Mayer, J. (2014). The relationship in biology between the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Biological Education, 48(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.788541
Kruit, P., van den Berg, E., Schuitema, J., & Oostdam, R. (2017). Assessing inquiry skills of grade 5&6 students through performance assessments. In GIREP-ICPE-EPEC 2017: Bridging Research and Practice in Physics Teaching and Learning.
Kuang, X., Eysink, T. H. S., & Jong, T. (2020). Effects of providing partial hypotheses as a support for simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(4), 487-501. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12415
Kuo, C. Y., Wu, H. K., Jen, T. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2015). Development and validation of a multimedia-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(14), 2326-2357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1078521
Kusmawan, U. (2024). Beyond Traditional Practicums: Exploring the Potential of Scalable Practicum in Science Courses. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 5(3), 622-637. https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v5i3.505
Kusmawan, U. (2024). Transforming digital learning and assessment strategies in higher education. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8(1), 2025016. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025016
Kyza, E. A., & Edelson, D. C. (2005). Scaffolding middle school students' coordination of theory and evidence. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(6), 545-560. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500254857
Lau, K. C. (2017, December). Teaching about nature of science through short lab activities in Hong Kong classroom. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching, 18 (2).
Lederman, J., Lederman, N., Bartels, S., Jimenez, J., Akubo, M., Aly, S., Bao, C., Blanquet, E., Blonder, R., Soares de Andrade, B.S., Buntting, C., Cakir, M., Elzorkani, E.-D A., Gaigher, E., Guo, S., Hakanen, A., Al-lal, S.H., Han-Tosunoglu, C., Hattinhg, A., Hume, A., Irex, S. & Zhou, Q. (2019). An international collaborative investigation of beginning seventh-grade students' understandings of scientific Inquiry: Establishing a baseline. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(4), 486-515. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21512
Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3).
Lee, J., & Yoon, J. Y. (2008). Teaching Early Childhood Teacher Candidates How to Assess Children's Inquiry Skills in Science Learning. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 9(3), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2008.9.3.265
Leijen, A., Valtna, K., Leijen, D. A., & Pedaste, M. (2012). How to determine the quality of students’ reflections?. Studies in Higher Education, 37(2), 203-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.504814
Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander& P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511–544). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumLinn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Multifaceted assessment of inquiry-based science learning. Educational Assessment, 15(2), 69-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.491067
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Trends and issues of regulative support use during inquiry learning: Patterns from three studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 795-803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.010
McNeill, K. L., Pimentel, D. S., & Strauss, E. G. (2013). The impact of high school science teachers’ beliefs, curricular enactments and experience on student learning during an inquiry-based urban ecology curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2608-2644. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.618193
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction–what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347
Mislevy, R. J., Chudowsky, N., Draney, K., Fried, R., Gaffney, T., & Haertel, G. (2003). Design Patterns for Assessing Science Inquiry. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Moon, J. A., & Brockway, D. (2019). Facilitating learning in an interactive science simulation: The effects of task segmentation guidance on adults' inquiry-based learning and cognitive load. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1566038
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-results/
Mupira, P., & Ramnarain, U. (2018). The effect of inquiry-based learning on the achievement goal-orientation of grade 10 physical sciences learners at township schools in South Africa. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(6), 810-825.
National Research Council. (1996). Introducing the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.nap/edu/readingroom/books/intronses/
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press
National Research Council. (2012). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nehring, A., Nowak, K. H., zu Belzen, A. U., & Tiemann, R. (2015). Predicting students’ skills in the context of scientific Inquiry with cognitive, motivational, and sociodemographic variables. International Journal of Science Education, 37(9), 1343-1363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1035358
Newman Jr, W. J., Abell, S. K., Hubbard, P. D., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science teacher education, 15(4), 257-279. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JSTE.0000048330.07586.d6
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington: The National Academies Press.
Osborne, J. (2015). Practical work in science: Misunderstood and badly used. School Science Review, 96(357), 16–24.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Leijen, Ä., & Sarapuu, S. (2012). Improving students’ inquiry skills through reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 9(1–2), 81–95.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., … Tsourlidaki, E. (2015).
Peterson, S. M., & French, L. (2008). Supporting young children's explanations through inquiry science in preschool. Early childhood research quarterly, 23(3), 395-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.01.003
Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.edurev.2015.02.003
Prayitno, B. A., Corebima, D., Susilo, H., Zubaidah, S., & Ramli, M. (2017). Closing the science process skills gap between students with high and low-level academic achievement. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(2), 266.
Quellmalz, E.S. & Pelligrino, J.W. (2009). Technology and testing. Science, 323,75–79.
Ramnarian (2014). Questioning the validity of inquiry assessment in a high stakes physical sciences examination. Perspectives in Education, 32 (1), 179 -191.
Ramnarian (2014). Teachers’ perception of inquiry-based learning in urban, township and rural high schools: The context-specificity of science curriculum implementation in South Africa. Teaching and teacher education, 38, 65-75.
Rhea, M., Lucido, P., & Gregerson-Malm, C. (2005). Using Process and Inquiry to Teach Content: Projectile Motion and Graphing. Science Activities, 42(3), 10-15. https://doi.org/10.3200/SATS.42.3.10-15
Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643-670. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21069
Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1050–1078. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20437
Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modelling. Cognition and instruction, 23(2), 165-205. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1
Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., and Pine, J. (1991). Performance assessments in science. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4): 347-362.
Shivolo, T., & Mokiwa, H. O. (2024). Inquiry-Based Science Education: Perspectives from Namibian Teachers. International Journal of Research in STEM Education, 6(1), 97-112.
Shute, V. J., Hansen, E. G., & Almond, R. G. (2007). An assessment for learning system called ACED: Designing for learning effectiveness and accessibility. RR07-26. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Strand Cary, M. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209-223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9144-8
Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87(4), 490-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10085
Stone, E. M. (2014). Guiding students to develop an understanding of scientific Inquiry: A science skills approach to instruction and assessment. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 90-101. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe-12-11-0198
Turkan, S., & Liu, O. L. (2012). Differential performance by English language learners on an inquiry-based science assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2343-2369. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.705046
Van Uum, M. S., Verhoeff, R. P., & Peeters, M. (2016). Inquiry-based science education: towards a pedagogical framework for primary school teachers. International journal of science education, 38(3), 450-469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1147660
Vitale, J. M., McBride, E., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Distinguishing complex ideas about climate change: knowledge integration vs specific guidance. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1548-1569. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1198969
Wang, J., Guo, D., & Jou, M. (2015). A study on the effects of model-based inquiry pedagogy on students’ inquiry skills in a virtual physics lab. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 658-669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.043
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modelling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and instruction, 16(1), 3-118. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2
Wu, H. K., Kuo, C. Y., Jen, T. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2015). What makes an item more difficult? Effects of modality and type of visual information in a computer-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities. Computers & Education, 85, 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.007
Wu, P. H., Wu, H. K., & Hsu, Y. S. (2014). Establishing the criterion-related, construct, and content validities of a simulation-based assessment of inquiry abilities. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1630-1650.https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.871660
Yeh, S. S. (2006). Tests worth teaching to: Constructing state-mandated tests that emphasize critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 30, 12–17.
Zuiker, S., & Whitaker, J. R. (2014). Refining inquiry with multi-form assessment: Formative and summative assessment functions for flexible Inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 1037-1059. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.834489
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ayodele Ogegbo, Johnson Enero Upahi, Umesh Ramnarain, Hsin-Kai Wu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Content Licensing, Copyright, and Permissions
1. License
International Journal of Research in STEM Education has CC-BY NC or an equivalent license as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work for non-commercial purposes. The non-commercial use of the article will be governed by the Creative Commons Attribution license as currently displayed on Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons License
2. Author’s Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by the stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author(s).
3. User Rights
The International Journal of Research in STEM Education's objective is to disseminate articles published as free as possible. Under the Creative Commons license, this journal permits users to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work for non-commercial purposes only. Users will also need to attribute authors and this journal on distributing works in the journal.
4. Rights of Authors
Authors retain the following rights:
Copyright, and proprietary rights relating to the article, such as patent rights,
The right to use the substance of the article in future own works, including lectures and books, The right to reproduce the article for own purposes, The right to self-archive the article, the right to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the article's published version (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal (International Journal of Research in STEM Education).
The author has a non-exclusive publishing contract with a publisher, and the work is published with a more restrictive license, the author retains all the rights to publish the work elsewhere, including commercially, because she/he is not subject to the conditions of her / his own license, regardless of the type of CC license chosen.
5. Co-Authorship
If the article was jointly prepared by other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
6. Termination
This agreement can be terminated by the author or International Journal of Research in STEM Education at two months’ notice where the other party has materially breached this agreement and failed to remedy such breach within a month of being given the terminating party’s notice requesting such breach to be remedied. No breach or violation of this agreement will cause this agreement or any license granted in it to terminate automatically or affect the definition of the International Journal of Research in STEM Education.
7. Royalties
This agreement entitles the author to no royalties or other fees. To such extent as legally permissible, the author waives his or her right to collect royalties relative to the article in respect of any use of the article by This agreement can be terminated by the author or International Journal of Research in STEM Education upon two months’ notice where the other party has materially breached this agreement and failed to remedy such breach within a month of being given the terminating party’s notice requesting such breach to be remedied. No breach or violation of this agreement will cause this agreement or any license granted in it to terminate automatically or affect the definition of the International Journal of Research in STEM Education or its sublicensee.
8. Miscellaneous
International Journal of Research in STEM Education will publish the article (or have it published) in the journal if the article’s editorial process is successfully completed and the International Journal of Research in STEM Education or its sublicensee has become obligated to have the article published. International Journal of Research in STEM Education may conform the article to a style of punctuation, spelling, capitalization, referencing, and usage that it deems appropriate. The author acknowledges that the article may be published so that it will be publicly accessible, and such access will be free of charge for the readers.
