Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study examined AI-integrated inquiry-based learning practices, scientific inquiry competence, and the moderating role of AI literacy among Grade 6 Cambridge Primary Science learners in Jakarta, Indonesia. A quantitative, nonexperimental, cross-sectional predictive-correlational design used total enumeration of 91 learners across four sections. Data came from two learner-report questionnaires and a scenario-based competence assessment. Analyses included descriptive statistics, Pearson and Spearman correlations, multiple regression, and moderated regression. Learners reported occasional AI-integrated inquiry practices (M = 2.321), with Investigation highest and Discussion lowest. They averaged 11.220 out of 12 independently scored competence items, although a ceiling effect and limited internal consistency (KR-20 = .485) constrained interpretation. Self-assessed AI literacy was generally favorable (M = 3.359). The Pearson association between inquiry practices and competence was negative (r = −.251, p = .016), while the Spearman association was nonsignificant. In multiple regression, AI literacy was a positive predictor (B = 0.650, p = .028), whereas inquiry practices were nonsignificant. The interaction was nonsignificant (B = 0.257, p = .729). The study proposed an AI Literacy-Responsive Science Inquiry Integration and Decision Guide emphasizing purposeful AI use, evidence verification, and independent scientific reasoning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rowena Alagar (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: