Beyond Constructivist Orthodoxy: Interrogating the Epistemic Foundations of Inquiry-Based Learning in Secondary STEM Curricula

Abstract

Inquiry-based learning (IBL) has dominated secondary STEM pedagogical discourse for over three decades, yet its epistemological underpinnings remain insufficiently scrutinized. This study critically re-examines the constructivist axioms that legitimize IBL frameworks, drawing on a mixed-methods design incorporating curriculum discourse analysis, structured classroom observations (n = 412 students across 18 schools), and semi-structured interviews with 34 master teachers in three OECD countries. Findings reveal a persistent misalignment between IBL's theoretical scaffolding and measurable metacognitive outcomes, particularly among low-prior-knowledge cohorts. Statistical modelling indicates that explicit instructional sequences yield significantly higher conceptual transfer rates (p < 0.01) than open-inquiry protocols in controlled STEM contexts. The study proposes a post-constructivist instructional framework that reconciles cognitive load theory with disciplinary epistemic authenticity, offering actionable implications for curriculum designers and education policy architects.