Scaffolded Inquiry-Based Learning Versus Direct Instruction Sequencing in Secondary STEM Classrooms: A Criterion-Referenced Comparative Analysis of Conceptual Transfer and Metacognitive Regulation

Abstract

The pedagogical tension between scaffolded inquiry-based learning (IBL) and direct instruction sequencing (DIS) remains a critical unresolved question in secondary STEM education. This study employs a quasi-experimental, criterion-referenced design across four secondary institutions (n = 412 students, Grades 9–11) to systematically evaluate differential outcomes in conceptual transfer, metacognitive regulation, and disciplinary literacy. Standardized pre/post assessments, validated metacognitive awareness inventories, and teacher observational protocols were triangulated to ensure construct validity. Results indicate that IBL cohorts demonstrated statistically significant gains in far-transfer performance (p < 0.01, d = 0.63), while DIS cohorts exhibited superior near-transfer consistency and procedural fluency. Moderating variables, including prior knowledge depth and instructional scaffolding fidelity, substantially influenced outcome distributions. These findings advocate for a differentiated, evidence-based instructional sequencing framework calibrated to learner epistemic readiness and content domain complexity.