Group question: How effective is Inquiry Based Learning in school?

Individual Question/Literature review: What strategies are effective for engaging

students effectively in inquiry-based learning?

Ernst, Hodge, and Yoshinobu (2017) have argued, inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a

pedagogical approach, catered towards student driven learning. This is achieved through

teachers whom pose questions, problems and/or scenarios for the students to solve within

lessons (Ernst, Hodge, & Yoshinobu, 2017). This form of learning has advantages over

traditional instructional guidance type lessons, with Stevens (2019) suggesting, inquiry-based

classes are better suited towards engaging students in developing complex and contested

concepts. This literature review will be an examination of what recent literature and research

presents, regarding the engagement of students during IBL lessons. This literature review is a

snapshot of a selected handful of theories regarding student engagement.

Ness’s (2016) article offers an interesting perspective on why students are disengaged in IBL

classrooms. The article argues, it is the combination of divergent thinking and contemporary

schools catering to students answering questions; rather than having students hypothesise and

ask their own questions (Ness, 2016). Divergent thinking involves considering many possible

solutions to problems and because school teaches curriculum, with limited correct answers, the

student’s ability to hypothesise slowly diminishes; as they progress through their schooling

career (Ness, 2016). Therefore, Ness (2016) believes students are disengaged because IBL

lessons require student’s autonomy in the research phase, rather than learning from a

curriculum provided by teachers. This is one theory for disengagement during IBL lessons;

however, other articles provide different reasons. Cian, Marshall, and Quinn’s (2018) research

project involved the collection of 422 secondary school teachers’ observations over a 5-year

period. When discussing IBL, the common trend between teachers was, “Cognitive
engagement tends to be high during the initial engage phases, lower during exploration … and

higher again during explanation of explored ideas” (Cian, Marshall, & Quin, 2018, p. 341).

Cian, Marshall, and Quinn (2018) believe the dip in engagement during exploration, comes

from the teachers themselves and their ability to facilitate lessons that begin with the right

questions, problems and/or scenarios (Cian, Marshall, & Quinn, 2018). This might be true;

however, other scholarly material has provided other reasons. Maab and Artigue (2013) have

suggested disengagement during the exploration phase, could be caused by the student’s

inability to do student driven research; no information on the student’s topic and/or students

not knowing how to undertake research. Students might be working on a topic irrelevant to the

student’s background which has a ‘knock on’ effect into the exploration phase (Maab &

Artigue, 2013). The dynamic of groupwork is also a potential agent for disengagement, if

students are working within a poor group dynamic, this might lead to disengagement during

the exploration phase (Maab & Artigue, 2013). This collection of research suggests there is no

‘one size fits all’ solution; however, any of these theories could lead to a classroom being

disengaged.

Cian, Marshall and Quin (2018) have argued, students are more likely to be disengaged during

the exploration phase of an IBL lessons; however, the Fifolt and Morgan (2019) article

counteracts this claim. Fifolt and Morgan (2019) suggest students can remain engaged during

IBL lessons if the exploration phase is done with some form of experiential or practical

learning. Within the research project, they combined IBL with experiential learning and

gardening/farming based programs. Inquiry-based learning was used as the ‘springboard’

before students would do practical lessons, teachers would give “students a prompt question

that challenges them to think beyond the curriculum” (Fifolt & Mogan, 2019, p. 102). This was

followed up by practical lessons, where students would work in the garden and/or farm to
develop an understanding of the inquiry. The article suggests, “inquiry-based approach to

teaching and learning was effective in maintaining student interest and involvement” (Fifolt &

Mogan, 2019, p. 105). Fifolt and Morgan (2019) suggest this is because, the garden and farm

work gave students a sense of responsibility, belonging and leadership as the students had

autonomy over their own gardening and farm work. It could be argued that a strategy for

maintaining engagement is to give students some level of autonomy/responsibility within a

practical, hands on IBL lesson.

Using practical lessons during the exploration phase, is also explored within the Ostergaard

(2016) article. Within the article, Ostergaard (2016) has used IBL lessons where the students

hypothesise questions involving, making sporting games more efficient for athletes. This was

then followed by students who “experimented with the rules of their game to see if they could

shed light on the hypothesis” (Ostergaard, 2016, p.10). Ostergaard (2016) argues students-

maintained engagement during the exploration phase because there was a sense of community

and autonomy within the groupwork (Ostergaard, 2016). Another reason for the engagement

was student’s saw a direct link between the IBL lesson and the development of the student’s

physical, cognitive and communication skills (Ostergaard, 2016). Kori, Maeots, and Pedaste

(2014) discuss reflection within IBL lessons. Within their research they found the most

effective form of reflection within an IBL lesson is class-based discussion. This is because

students are more likely to avoid making claims in their personal reflections, if they believe

only their teacher is going to read it (Kori, Maeots, & Pedaste, 2014). On the other hand, class

discussions create a comradery between the students, making them feel less awkward in

bringing up mistakes with their peers and teacher (Kori, Maeots, & Pedaste, 2014). Within the

Ostergaard (2016) article, there is discussion on maintaining engagement during the reflection
phase with class discussion. This is because students have already created a sense of

community through sport and are more susceptible to sharing their findings.

Maab and Artigue (2013) suggested disengagement occurs during the exploration phase

because, students do not fully understand how to find information relevant to the question

and/or not know how to undertake research. The article by Hwang, Chiu, and Chen (2015)

discusses a strategy involving the design of a role-playing computer game that teaches students

about finance and investing; the computer game requires students to do self-research and

develop an understanding of these concepts before progressing through the game. Hwang,

Chiu, & Chen (2015) have stated, “Utilizing technology as a cognitive support during the

inquiry-learning process can not only provide students with opportunities for developing high-

order abilities but can also motivate them” (p.14). This is because, the game is designed with

the intent of having students avoid obstacles in finding research. Students must research their

questions; however, through an assisted learning system there were fewer obstacles for the

students to overcome. Which in turn, means less chance of disengagement because students

can carry out the tasks, feel challenged and not feel defeated because of ‘impossible’ barriers.

Lamsa et, al. (2018) discuss the negative effects of Information Communication Technology

(ICT) within IBL lessons. Technology can be a learning crutch and even a hinderance to the

students gathering and collecting research. This is because some students do not have the ability

to sort distinguish truth from half-truth (Lamsa et, al. 2018). Without lessons prior that enable

students to distinguish what is fact and what is fiction, there is an increased likelihood that

students will believe the information presented to them online. This refers to Maab and Artigue

(2013) where if something is impeding the students learning they are less likely to complete

the task. Therefore, in an IBL lesson there needs to be some level of scaffolding from the
teacher, the student must not be given too much autonomy as structure to IBL lessons can

prevent disengagement.

In conclusion, this literature review has been a collection of ideas regarding student

engagement within schools. The collection of research demonstrates there is no ‘one size fits

all’ strategy to get students engaged; however, the collection of materials suggests trends. The

literature collected suggests exploration after inquiry needs to involve forms of practical and/or

experiential learning to maintain engagement. Students will be disengaged because if they are

blocked by an impedance within doing student driven research. Experiential learning in IBL

lessons has the potential to engage students; however, without forms of scaffolding from the

teacher during the exploration phase, students can be disengaged.

Action Research Protocol

This Action Research Protocol (ARP) will discuss how a class survey can be used to identify

if students were engaged throughout an IBL lesson. The questions being asked in the survey

are directly linked to the discussions within the literature review. This ARP also considers the

constraints of what the university requires from this assignment and the school. Therefore, this

survey will be a class survey for one IBL lesson. The IBL lesson should incorporate inquiry,

exploration and class discussion/reflection; however, if there are time constraints this survey

can be completed after a second lesson, where students will have more time to complete tasks.

The lesson must have students experiencing some form or experiential learning and/or ‘hands

on’ activities; preferably by themselves but group work is allowed, if the school is unable to

facilitate. The overarching question for this survey is, do students remain engaged during the

‘hands on’ exploration phase of an IBL lesson?

The Fifolt and Morgan (2019) article discussed how experiential learning can give students

responsibility, belonging and leadership possibilities. This is because students were given

autonomy over their gardening/farming work. Therefore, I believe it is important to include

some form of practical activity where students can demonstrate autonomy. Within the survey,

the first 8 questions are scale questions that directly relate to student responsibility, belonging

and leadership. Using scale questions in the survey, is an effective way of measuring these

concepts. This is because the scale questions are ambitious with neither right or wrong answers

instead, degrees of agreement and/or disagreement (Jonge, Veenhoven, & Arends, 2014).
Another aspect of the survey is looking at disengagement during an IBL lesson. Maab and

Artigue (2013) have suggested, if students have obstacles when collecting the research, it is

highly likely they will be disengaged during the exploration phase of the lesson. Therefore, this

survey has included open ended questions to target why students might be disengaged during

the practical parts of the IBL lesson. The use of open-ended questions provides qualitative

answers, this is because we are not looking for, if they are disengaged but why. Ladonna et, al.

(2018) have suggested open ended questions alone do not provide conclusive qualitative data

instead, the combination of questions. Ness (2016) suggested students prefer being taught from

a curriculum rather than student driven research. The survey questions will ask closed questions

on whether students prefer autonomy or, if they prefer being taught from a curriculum. This

survey introduces closed questions to ensure students are not just ‘ticking off’ boxes and

ensures the students have made an attempt to read through the questions (Ladonna et, al. 2018).

Kori, Maeots, and Pedaste, (2014) discussed how students might feel awkward if they are

sharing personal reflections with the teacher. Therefore, it is important to establish that these

surveys are anonymous, and the students will be deidentified after the data is collected. This

survey will not definitively prove if students remain engaged during practical activities of IBL

lessons. Instead, this survey could be used to further aid in the understanding that practical

and/or experiential learning could be used as a tool to keep students engaged during the

exploration phase of IBL lessons.

 Please rate the following information on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “strongly agree” and 1
being “strongly disagree”.

I was bored throughout the practical/hands-on part of the lesson.

1 2 3 4 5

During the practical/hands-on phase, I remained on task.

1 2 3 4 5

I was given full control on how I did the research/task/tasks

1 2 3 4 5

I felt I was given a sense of responsibility during the lesson

1 2 3 4 5

I felt a sense of belonging with my peers during the lesson

1 2 3 4 5

The lesson gave me an opportunity to be a leader.

1 2 3 4 5

I want to do another lesson like this

1 2 3 4 5

I dislike being given complete control over my learning

1 2 3 4 5

Were you disengaged at any point within the lesson? If you were, why were you off-task?

Were there any obstacles that prevented you from finishing your work and what were they?

Were any of your peers not completing their work? If so, what were they doing when they were ‘off-
task’?
True or false. Please circle one.
I prefer this type of lesson where I am doing my own research True / False
I would prefer a lesson where the teacher was in charge of the learning True / False
I found this lesson enjoyable True / False
I was motivated to complete the tasks True / False
I was able to complete all of the tasks True / False
When the teacher wasn’t giving me instructions I found learning more fun True / False
If I had a more structured lesson I would feel more engaged during the lesson
True / False
Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled Inquiry based learning in classrooms for the class, ‘Researching Teaching
and Learning 2,’ at Western Sydney University. As part of the project, I am collecting information to help
inform the design of a teacher research proposal.

I am looking to collect data in the form of a survey from a class. The survey will be a questionnaire
involving student engagement during a practical ‘hands-on’ activity.

By participating in this survey, I acknowledge that:

 I have read the project information and have been given the opportunity to discuss the
information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s.
 The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to me, and
any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction.
 I consent to taking part in the survey and having the data collected for research purposes.
 I understand that my involvement is confidential and that the information gained during this
data collection experience will only be reported within the confines of the ‘Researching Teaching
and Learning 2’ unit, and that all personal details will be de-identified from the data.
 I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my relationship
with the researcher/s, now or in the future.
By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time university student
who is 17 years old.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am the legal guardian of a person who is 16 or 17 years old, and
provide my consent for the person’s participation.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________
References

Cian, H., Marshall, J., & Qian, M. (2018). Inquiry classroom patterns of student cognitive
engagement: An analysis using growth curve modelling. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 29(4), 326-346. doi: 10.1080/1046560X.2018.1456884

Ernst, D., Hodge, A., & Yoshinobu, S. (2017). What is inquiry-based learning?. Notices of the
American Mathematical Society, 6(64), 570-574. Retrieved from https://www-ams-
org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/journals/notices/201706/rnoti-p570.pdf

Fifolt, M., Morgan, A. (2019). Engaging K-8 students through inquiry-based learning and
school farms. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 24(1), 92-108. doi:
10.1080/10824669.2018.1545583

Hwang, G., Chiu, L., & Chen, C. (2015). A contextual game-based learning approach to
improving students’ inquiry-based learning performance in social studies courses.
Computers & Education, 81(1), 13-25. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.09.006

Jonge, D., Veenhoven, R., & Arends, L. (2014). Homogenizing responses to different survey
questions on the same topic: Proposal of a scale homogenization method using a
reference distribution. Social indicators research, 117(1), 275-300. doi
10.1007/s11205-013-0335-6

Kori, k., Maeots, M., & Pedaste, M. (2014). Guided reflection to support quality of reflection
and inquiry in web-based learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences,
112(1), 242-251. Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/science/article/pii/S1877042814011781

Ladonna, A., Kori, T., Taylor, A., & Lingard, A. (2018). Why open ended survey questions are
unlikely to support rigorous qualitative insights. Academic Medicine 93(3), 347-349.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002088

Lamsa, J., Hamalainen, R., Koskinen, P., & Viiri, J. (2018). Visualising the temporal aspects
of collaborative inquiry-based learning processes in technology-enhanced physics
learning. International Journal of Science Education, 40(14), 1697-1717. doi:
10.1080/09500693.2018.1506594
Maab, K., Artigue, M. (2013). Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day
teaching: a synthesis. ZDM, 45(6), 779-795. Retrieved from https://link-springer-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/article/10.1007/s11858-013-0528-0

Ness, M. (2016). When readers ask questions: Inquiry-based reading instruction. Reading
Teacher, 70(2), 189-196. Retrieved from https://doi-
org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1002/trtr.1492

Ostergaard, L. (2016). Inquiry-based learning approach in physical education: Stimulating and

engaging students in physical and cognitive learning. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 87(2), 7-14. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2015.1119076

Stevens, R. (2019). In defence of inquiry-based pedagogies. NSW Department of Education

Authorities. Retrieved from https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-
learning/professional-learning/scan/past-issues/vol-38,-2019/in-defence-of-inquiry-
based-pedagogies