Guided Discovery Learning for Student Participation and Educational Well-Being in Islamic Religious Education: A Qualitative Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70211/wesw.v3i2.578Keywords:
Discovery Learning, Educational Well-Being, Islamic Religious Education, Learner Motivation, Qualitative Case Study, Student Participation, Student SupportAbstract
This study aims to examine how guided discovery learning is implemented in Islamic Religious Education (IRE) and how it supports learner motivation, participation, and educational well-being in a junior secondary school setting. A descriptive qualitative case study was conducted in one Grade VII IRE class at State Junior Secondary School 17 of Jambi City, Indonesia. Evidence was generated through classroom observation of 32 learners, interviews with the principal, one IRE teacher, and five students, and relevant instructional documents. Iterative thematic analysis and source-technique triangulation were used to interpret the evidence. The findings show that the teacher enacted discovery learning through stimulation, problem identification, evidence seeking, collaborative processing, verification, and generalization. This guided sequence promoted curiosity, peer-assisted reasoning, independent information seeking, confidence to voice ideas, and the application of Islamic values to everyday conduct. Peer support, school encouragement, and constructive competition enabled implementation, whereas constrained lesson time, classroom-management demands, and unequal confidence limited participation. The study positions guided discovery learning as a human-centered instructional system that can broaden equitable participation and strengthen educational well-being in values-based education.
References
[1] J. M. Halstead, “An Islamic concept of education,” Comparative Education, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 517–529, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006042000284510
[2] S. Niyozov and N. Memon, “Islamic education and Islamization: Evolution of themes, continuities and new directions,” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 5–30, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2011.556886
[3] A. Sahin, “Critical issues in Islamic education studies: Rethinking Islamic and Western liberal secular values of education,” Religions, vol. 9, no. 11, Art. no. 335, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel9110335
[4] Akrim, “A new direction of Islamic education in Indonesia: Opportunities and challenges in the Industrial Revolution Era 4.0,” Edukasi Islami: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 35–48, 2022. https://doi.org/10.30868/ei.v11i01.1799
[5] J. A. Fredricks, P. C. Blumenfeld, and A. H. Paris, “School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 59–109, 2004. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
[6] R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 61, Art. no. 101860, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
[7] D. H. Schunk and M. K. DiBenedetto, “Motivation and social cognitive theory,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 60, Art. no. 101832, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
[8] R. Pekrun, “The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 315–341, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
[9] Z. Y. Wong and G. A. D. Liem, “Student engagement: Current state of the construct, conceptual refinement, and future research directions,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 107–138, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09628-3
[10] J. Reeve, G. Basarkod, H.-R. Jang, and R. Gargurevich, “Specialized purpose of each type of student engagement: A meta-analysis,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 37, Art. no. 13, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09989-z
[11] S. Freeman et al., “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8410–8415, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
[12] M. Prince, “Does active learning work? A review of the research,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 223–231, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
[13] M. T. H. Chi, “Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities,” Topics in Cognitive Science, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 73–105, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
[14] L. Alfieri, P. J. Brooks, N. J. Aldrich, and H. R. Tenenbaum, “Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning?,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
[15] R. E. Mayer, “Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?,” American Psychologist, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 14–19, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
[16] P. A. Kirschner, J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark, “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 75–86, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
[17] C. E. Hmelo-Silver, R. G. Duncan, and C. A. Chinn, “Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 99–107, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
[18] A. W. Lazonder and R. Harmsen, “Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 681–718, 2016. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
[19] E. M. Furtak, T. Seidel, H. Iverson, and D. C. Briggs, “Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 300–329, 2012. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
[20] T. de Jong, A. W. Lazonder, C. A. Chinn, F. Fischer, J. Gobert, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, K. R. Koedinger, J. S. Krajcik, E. A. Kyza, M. C. Linn, M. Pedaste, K. Scheiter, and Z. C. Zacharia, “Let’s talk evidence—The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction,” Educational Research Review, vol. 39, Art. no. 100536, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100536
[21] N. M. Dah, M. S. A. M. Noor, M. Z. Kamarudin, and S. S. S. A. Azziz, “The impacts of open inquiry on students’ learning in science: A systematic literature review,” Educational Research Review, vol. 43, Art. no. 100601, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100601
[22] S. Areepattamannil, “Guided inquiry in school science: A mini review of orchestration, assessment, and AI,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 10, Art. no. 1534358, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1534358
[23] L. Darling-Hammond, L. Flook, C. Cook-Harvey, B. Barron, and D. Osher, “Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development,” Applied Developmental Science, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 97–140, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
[24] D. L. Roorda, H. M. Y. Koomen, J. L. Spilt, and F. J. Oort, “The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 493–529, 2011. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793
[25] D. Quin, “Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher-student relationships and student engagement: A systematic review,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 345–387, 2017. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669434
[26] H. Jang, J. Reeve, and E. L. Deci, “Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 588–600, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
[27] J. Reeve and H. Jang, “What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 209–218, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209
[28] J. Reeve and S. H. Cheon, “Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 54–77, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657
[29] D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, “An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning,” Educational Researcher, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 365–379, 2009. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
[30] E. Kyndt et al., “A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning: Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings?,” Educational Research Review, vol. 10, pp. 133–149, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002
[31] R. M. Gillies, “Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice,” Australian Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 39–54, 2016. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3
[32] B. J. Zimmerman, “Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview,” Theory Into Practice, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 64–70, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15430421TIP4102_2
[33] E. Panadero, “A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 8, Art. no. 422, 2017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
[34] C. Dignath and G. Buettner, “Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students: A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level,” Metacognition and Learning, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 231–264, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x
[35] J. Hattie and H. Timperley, “The power of feedback,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81–112, 2007. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
[36] P. Black and D. Wiliam, “Developing the theory of formative assessment,” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 5–31, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
[37] D. J. Nicol and D. Macfarlane-Dick, “Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 199–218, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
[38] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
[39] L. S. Nowell, J. M. Norris, D. E. White, and N. J. Moules, “Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
[40] M. E. Kiger and L. Varpio, “Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131,” Medical Teacher, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 846–854, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
[41] B. C. O’Brien, I. B. Harris, T. J. Beckman, D. A. Reed, and D. A. Cook, “Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations,” Academic Medicine, vol. 89, no. 9, pp. 1245–1251, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
[42] H. M. Levitt, M. Bamberg, J. W. Creswell, D. M. Frost, R. Josselson, and C. Suarez-Orozco, “Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report,” American Psychologist, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 26–46, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151
[43] S. J. Tracy, “Qualitative quality: Eight big-tent criteria for excellent qualitative research,” Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 837–851, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fuad Imali, Hasirah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.