Research-based resources for Inquiry Learning

This page is divided into two sections:

1. Selected research curated on inquiry teaching and learning (references only); and
2. Published research of the National Center for Inquiry Learning and partner organizations on inquiry teaching and learning (annotated bibliography)

—–1.—–

American Academy for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Apple, Inc. (2009). Challenge based learning: Take action and make a difference. Cupertino, CA: Apple, Inc.

Atkin, J.M. & Atkin, A. (1989). Improving science education through local alliances: a report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Santa Cruz, CA: Network Publications.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2009). The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for the Global Economy. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, L., Coletta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007). Cognitive apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practices. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 195-213.

Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R. & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Costenson, K & Lawson A.E. (1986). Why isn’t inquiry used in more classrooms? The American Biology Teacher, 48, 150-158.

de Jong, T., Wilhelm, P., & Anjewierden, A. (2012). Inquiry and assessment: Future developments from a technological perspective. In M. C. Mayrath, J. Clarke-Midura, D. Robinson, & G. Schraw (Eds.) Technology-based Assessments for 21^st Century Skills: Theoretical and Practical Implications from Modern Research. (pp. 249-265). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Edelson, D., Gordin, D., & Pea, R. (1999). Addressing the challenge of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391-450.

El-Nemr, M.A. (1979). Meta-analysis of the outcomes of teaching biology as inquiry. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.

Ferguson, R. F., Phillips, S. F., Rowley, J. F. S., & Friedlander, J. W. (2015). The influence of teaching beyond standardized test scores: Engagement, mindsets, and agency. Cambridge, MA: The Achievement Gap Initiative at Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.agi.harvard.edu/projects/TeachingandAgency.pdf.

Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 99-120.

Greeno, J. (1978). Natures of problem-solving abilities. In W. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (pp. 239-270). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hammer, D., & Schifter, D. (2001). Practices of inquiry teaching and research. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 441-478.

Herron, M.D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review, 79, 171-212

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Ducan, R. G, & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Jonassen, D.H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 65-94.

Kanter, D. E., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The impact of a project‐based science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry‐based practices. Science Education, 94(5), 855-887.

Ku, K. Y. L., Ho, I. T., Hau, K-T., & Lai, E. C. M. (2014). Integrating direct and inquiry-based instruction in the teaching of critical thinking: An intervention study. Instructional Science, 42, 251-269.

LaBanca, F., Oh, Y. J., Lorentson, M., Jia. Y., Sibuma, B., & Snellback, M. (2014). BLENDED INSTRUCTION: Measuring the impact of a technology-enhanced student-centered learning environment on underserved student engagement, 21st century inquiry skill acquisition, and science achievement. Quincy, MA: Nellie Mae Education Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nmefoundation.org/getattachment/Resources/Student-Centered-Learning/Blended-Instruction/Blended-Learning-Report-April-2015.pdf?ext=.pdf

LaBanca, F., Worwood, M., LaSala, J., Schauss, S., & Donn, J. (2013). Blended instruction: Exploring student-centered pedagogical strategies to promote a technology-enhanced learning environment. Litchfield, CT: EDUCATION CONNECTION. Retrieved from http://www.skills21.org/writable/images/Blended_Learning_Paper-Skills21.pdf

Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86 (3), 681-718.

Linn, M. C., Eylon, B-S., Rafferty, A., & Vitale, J. M. (2015). Designing instruction to improve lifelong inquiry learning. Eurasia Journal of Math, Science, and Technology Education, 11, (2), 217-225.

Mao, S., & Chang, C. (1998). Impacts of an inquiry teaching method on Earth science students’ learning outcomes and attitudes at the secondary level. Proceedings of the National Science Council ROC (D), 8, 93-101.

Marshall, J. C. (2009, April). The Creation, Validation, and Reliability Associated with the EQUIP (Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol): A Measure of Inquiry-Based Instruction. Research paper presented at National Association of Researchers of Science Teaching (NARST) conference. Orange County, CA

Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69, 34-37.

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2009). Inquiry-based science instruction-What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47,(4), 474-496.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Nwagbo, G. (2006). Effects of two teaching methods on the achievement in and attitude to biology of students of different levels of scientific literacy. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 3, 216-229.

Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Penguin Group, Inc.

Prince, M. (2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231.

Roehring, G.H., & Luft, J.A. (2004) Inquiry teaching in high school chemistry classrooms: the role of knowledge and beliefs. Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 1510-1516.

Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (50), 410-422.

Shore, B. M., Birlean, C., Walker, C. L., Ritchie, K. C., LaBanca, F., & Aulls, M. W. (2009). Inquiry literacy: A proposal for a neologism. LEARNing Landscapes, 3, 139-156.

Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.V., & Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment of effects of inquiry-based science curriculum of the ’60s on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 127-144.

Smith, D. (1996). A meta-analysis of student outcomes attributable to teaching science as inquiry as compared to traditional methodology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.

Tytler, R. (1992). Independent research projects in school science: Case studies of autonomous behavior. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 393-411.

Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the teacher in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 221-243.

Wallace, C.S., & Kang, N-H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: an examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 936-960.

Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” how preservice teachers reproduce discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481-512.

—–2.—–

Work of the National Center for Inquiry Learning and partner organizations: EDUCATION CONNECTION and the High Ability and Inquiry Research Group (McGill University)

PUBLISHED TOOLS

Educational and Career Interest Scale in Science, Technology, and Mathematics for High School Students. (Oh, Jia, Lorentson, & LaBanca, 2013). http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1038529 A self-report instrument measuring high school students’ educational and career interest in STEM. The measure assesses self-efficacy, indirectly related to inquiry based on what students understand to be the nature knowledge and acquiring knowledge in STEM domains. A sample item is “I believe that I can get into college after high school to study science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) if I want.” (p. 99)

McGill Classroom Level of Inquiry Checklist. Oppong-Nuako, Shore, Saunders-Stewart, & Gyles (2015). New literature searches of inquiry-indicative statements, goals, outcomes, advantages, and benefits generated a criterion-referenced checklist–an expanded, updated MISIO–of 25 inquiry-outcome categories that can be use together with the MITSI, MTALIR, or any interview protocol or open-ended questionnaire response. Most-Inquiry classroom teachers mentioned 21 or 25 of the 25 criterion-referenced inquiry items in Table 2 (respectively 84% and 100% of the properties). Middle-Inquiry teachers noted 17 or 18 items each (68% and 72%). In the Least-Inquiry classrooms, 6 and 9 items were mentioned (25% and 36%). The wide range of tallies (from 6 to 25) with natural breaks was a welcome result, and offered considerably more potential to plot progress than High versus Low (even with the addition of Middle), or the use of 11 or 12. Nonetheless, a ceiling effect was found in that for one science and two English classes the teachers mentioned all 25 (100%) inquiry categories.

McGill Inventory of Student Inquiry Outcomes-Student Questionnaire. Saunders-Stewart, Gyles, Shore, & Bracewell (2015); also see Aulls, Tabatabai, & Shore (2016). The MISIO was developed into a student inquiry-outcomes questionnaire with 23 basic items plus prompts and subquestions yielding 31 items. Principal-components analysis generated four factors from their responses: Learning Competencies (e.g., content knowledge, learning-process skills), Personal Motivation (e.g., creativity, enjoyment, motivation), Student Role (e.g., autonomy, sense of responsibility) and Teacher Role (loading negatively–e.g., encouraging factual recall).

McGill Strategic Demands of Inquiry Questionnaire. Shore, Chichekian, Syer, Aulls, & Frederiksen (2012); also see Boisvert & Roumain (2000)–student version; Saunders (2004)–teacher and parent versions; Syer (2007); Syer, Chichekian, Shore, & Aulls, (2013). An 11-point Likert-type scale with 79- criterion-referenced questionnaire items (2 of which are distractors) grouped according to Schön’s three inquiry phases and generating three subscores–planning, enactment, and reflection–at a relatively fine level of granularity of specific tasks that students and teachers undertake when engaged in inquiry, but across disciplines. Each question asks how important each task is to learning or teaching through inquiry. Chichekian (2011); Chichekian & Shore (2014, 2016, 2017a, in preparation); Chichekian, Shore, & Tabatabai, 2016); D. Leung (in progress); Getahun (2014); Ibrahim (2014); Ibrahim, Aulls, & Shore (2016b, under review–c), and Leung, Shore, & Williams (in preparation). Adaptations include MAVIES, McSELFIE, MCSESILT, and MEIT-SET in these lists.

STEM College-Going Expectancy Scale for High School Students. Oh, Jia, Sibuma, Lorentson, & LaBanca, (2013). “The study modified the CGSES (Gibbons, 2005) to measure college-going expectancy in STEM learning and work in college” (p. 100). “The STEM CGES is a self-report instrument measuring college-going expectancy, specifically for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) domains. In Study 1, 95 students in an urban high school completed an 11-item online questionnaire to measure college-going expectancy in STEM domains. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) retained 6 out of the 11 items for inclusion. In Study 2, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) used data collected from 658 students in 31 urban, suburban, and rural high schools. The results provide strong evidence that the STEM CGES is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring college-going expectancy for STEM domains” (p. 93). The measure is one of self-efficacy, indirectly related to inquiry based on what students understand to be the nature knowledge and acquiring knowledge in STEM domains. A sample item is “I believe that I can get into college after high school to study science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) if I want.” (p. 99) (available online from Yueming Jia_reprint 3.pdf)

PUBLISHED ARTICLES, CHAPTERS, BOOKS, and REPORTS

Aulls, M. W. (2008). Developing students’ inquiry strategies: A case study of teaching history in the middle grades. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulls, & M. A. B. Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education: Overcoming barriers to successful implementation (pp. 1-46). New York, NY: Erlbaum (Routledge). [E, S] Illustrates the detail and complexity of making inquiry work well in a classroom.

Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Inquiry in education (Vol. I): The conceptual foundations for research as a curricular imperative. New York, NY: Erlbaum (now Routledge). [E, S, H] Three characteristics that seem to be common to all conceptualizations or implementations of inquiry in education are (a) it is based on student interest and curiosity, (b) student-student dialog is central to learning, and (c) and the exchange (better described as diversification) of roles among learners and teachers.

Barfurth, M. A., & Shore, B. M. (2008). White water during inquiry learning: Understanding the place of disagreements in the process of collaboration. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulls, & M. A. B. Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education (vol. II): Overcoming barriers to successful implementation (pp. 149-164). New York, NY: Erlbaum (Routledge). [E] Resolution of cognitive conflicts is frequently preceded by social moves to broaden the inclusion of individuals and ideas. The path to effective collaborative problem solving is not necessarily smooth.

Chichekian, T., Shore, B. M., & Tabatabai, D. (2016). First-year teachers’ uphill struggle to implement inquiry instruction: Exploring the interplay among self-efficacy, conceptualizations, and classroom observations of inquiry enactment. SAGE Open, 6(2), 1-19. doi:10.1177/2158244016649011 [H] “This longitudinal study followed a sample of six first-year teachers during the transition from student-teacher to novice teacher and focused on three main variables: teachers’ conceptualizations of inquiry-based pedagogy, their self-efficacy for inquiry-based teaching, and their actual practice of teaching with inquiry. We administered a self-report survey to measure their sense of self-efficacy for inquiry-based instruction and conducted individual interviews at the beginning and end of their first year of teaching. We also observed the six teachers in their classrooms five times over the course of the year. At the end of their first year of professional practice, self-efficacy for teaching using inquiry underwent a general decline as was also found for the frequencies of concepts teachers used to describe inquiry enactment. Moreover, their descriptions of inquiry were based more on a set of interrelated procedures and less on a form of conceptual knowledge. Classroom observations revealed that teachers were least observed in pedagogical actions that required enabling students to communicate findings and the most in student engagement, however, over time observations of student engagement declined. Consistent patterns were observed between shifts in self-efficacy and enactment of inquiry as well as shifts between self-efficacy and conceptualizations of inquiry enactment. There was also evidence of beginning steps toward links between teacher’s conceptualizations and classroom practice.” Support from school leaders is important. (Fits with the “lots of practice” idea we expressed elsewhere.) (Report of early use of the McGill Enactment of Inquiry Questionnaire-Self-Efficacy-Teachers, MEIQ-SET, that is based on part of the MSDIQ with items reworded to reflect efficacy rather than attainment value.)

Delcourt, M. A. B. (2008). Where students get creative-productive ideas for major projects in the natural and social sciences, In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulls, & M. A. B. Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education volume II: Overcoming barriers to successful implementation (pp. 63-92). New York: Routledge. [S] By understanding and developing their own creative-productive behavior, students are better prepared to think of new ideas for scientific investigations. This information is related to the development of self-regulatory behavior in adolescents, namely: forethought regarding actions, actual performance, and self-reflection after activities are completed. Students revealed insights into how they matched their interests with ideas for projects (forethought), how they carried out their investigations (performance), and what they learned from their efforts (self-reflection).

Delcourt, M. A. B., & McKinnon, J. (2011). Tools for learning: Improving questioning in the classroom. LEARNing Landscapes, 4(2), 145-160. http://www.learninglandscapes.ca/images/documents/ll-no8/mabdelcourt.pdf [E] Building higher-order questioning skills also facilitates critical thinking.

Delcourt, M. A. B., & Renzulli, J. S. (2013). The three-ring conception of innovation and a triad of processes for developing creative productivity in young people. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation Education (pp. 128-141). New York, NY: Routledge. [E, S] Links creativity and inquiry-based instruction.

Huang, X., & Kalman C. S. (2012). A case study on reflective writing. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(1), 92-99. [H] This paper reported a “multiple case study in two science courses in which students engaged in reflective writing. . . . Students with higher scores on an epistemology survey tended to use reflective writing in a more effective way to enhance their learning of textual material” (p. 92).

LaBanca, F. (2011). The 21st century oral presentation toolbag: How to effectively implement oral presentation in your science classroom. The Science Teacher, 78(7), 51-55. [S] A “how to” paper on strategies to improve the quality and engagement of students for effective oral presentations. This is one of the skills that are part of being able to learn to be an inquirer.

LaBanca, F. (2016). Developing an inquiring community of practice: Case stories from one middle school’s efforts for partnership. Learning Landscapes, 10(1), 135-152. [E, S] “At a start-up urban magnet middle school, we are committed to a student-centered inquiry-based learning environment that values extended project-based learning. In order to make projects relevant, we work with community members to harness their expertise in the design, execution, and evaluation of student work. We recognize that partnerships that allow community members to showcase their own talents, skills, and knowledge forge meaningful relationships that enhance student learning.”

LaBanca, F., & Ritchie, K. C. (2011). The art of scientific ideas: Teaching and learning strategies that promote effective problem finding. The Science Teacher, 78(8), 48-51. [S] This paper defines problem finding as a creative and open-ended problem solving task, and outlines strategies for teachers and for students to successfully engage in the problem-finding stage of the inquiry process.

Manconi, L., Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Teachers’ use and understanding of strategy in inquiry instruction. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulls, & M. A. B. Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education (vol. II): Overcoming barriers to successful implementation (pp. 247-270). New York, NY: Erlbaum (Routledge). [E, S, H] “Four postulated constructs of inquiry, process, content, strategy, and context [these are the first dimension of the Aulls-Shore model], were found in the literature and in experienced inquiry teachers’ detailed conceptualizations of inquiry as shown in their definitions, interviews, and concept maps. Inquiry teachers were distinguished from the non-inquiry teachers by the relative difference in the frequency of their use of the four constructs. The inquiry teachers each had one predominant construct that they emphasized more in their teaching, and their identity could be expressed in terms of their pedagogical use of these four constructs. The non-inquiry teachers made fewer inquiry statements when compared to the literature.

Oh, Y. J., Jia, Y., Lorentson, M., & LaBanca F. (2013). Development of the Educational and Career Interest Scale in Science, Technology, and Mathematics for High School Students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 780-790. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1038529 [S] The Educational and Career Interest scale, a self-report instrument measuring high school students’ educational and career interest in STEM, was developed and validated in two studies conducted during 2010 and 2011. Study 1 included data from 92 high school students, in which exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with an initial item pool of 20 items. EFA identified three factors: educational and career interest in science, educational and career interest in technology, and educational and career interest in mathematics. Study 2 utilized data from 658 students to revisit the three-factor model using confirmative factor analysis. The two studies provide strong evidence that the scale is both valid and reliable.

Oh, Y. J., Jia, Y., Sibuma, B., Lorentson, M., & LaBanca, F. (2013). Development of the STEM College-Going Expectancy Scale for High School Students. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 93-105. [S] “This study tested, developed, and validated an instrument to assess high school students’ belief in their capability to attend college to study STEM and persist in college activities successfully in the future. The study modified the CGSES (Gibbons, 2005) to measure college-going expectancy in STEM learning and work in college” (p. 100). “The STEM CGES is a self-report instrument measuring college-going expectancy, specifically for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) domains. In Study 1, 95 students in an urban high school completed an 11-item online questionnaire to measure college-going expectancy in STEM domains. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) retained 6 out of the 11 items for inclusion. In Study 2, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) used data collected from 658 students in 31 urban, suburban, and rural high schools. The results provide strong evidence that the STEM CGES is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring college-going expectancy for STEM domains” (p. 93). The measure is one of self-efficacy, indirectly related to inquiry based on what students understand to be the nature knowledge and acquiring knowledge in STEM domains. A sample item is “I believe that I can get into college after high school to study science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) if I want.” (p. 99) (available online from Yueming Jia_reprint 3.pdf)

Oppong-Nuako, J., Shore, B. M., Saunders-Stewart, K. S., & Gyles, P. D. T. (2015). Using brief teacher interviews to assess the extent of inquiry in classrooms. Journal of Advanced Academics, 197-226. Retrieved from joa.sagepub.com, doi:10.1177/1932202X15588368 [S] A three-question teacher interview (MITSI) provides sufficient data to make an estimate of the extent or level of inquiry practice in a classroom, validated against more complex measures and classroom observations. The interview needs to be coded or scored with a suitable template (e.g., MCLIC or MISIO) that tallies references to students’ inquiry outcomes in the teachers’ responses. (Source for the MITSI and MCLIC tools.)

Ritchie, K. C., Shore, B. M., LaBanca, F., & Newman, A. (2011). The impact of emotions on divergent thinking processes: A consideration for inquiry-oriented teachers. LEARNing Landscapes, 5(1), 211-225. [E, S] Divergent thinking is a key component to creativity, and learning processes that we aim for in inquiry approaches to teaching and learning. A review of theory and existing research that explains the role of emotions in divergent-thinking processes.

Saunders-Stewart, K., Gyles, P. D. T., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Student outcomes in inquiry instruction: A literature-derived inventory. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 5-31. doi:10.1177/1932202X11429860 [E, S] Through a criterion-referenced literature search, a list of 23 main inquiry outcomes in inquiry (MISIO) was identified for students. Some items included sub-items and prompts. This checklist became the basis of other tools (MISIO-S, MISIO-T, and MCLIC).

Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Gyles, P. D. T., Shore, B. M., & Bracewell, R. J. (2015). Student outcomes in inquiry: Students’ perspectives. Learning Environments Research, 18, 289-311. doi:10.1007/s10984-015-9185-2 [S] Inquiry provides optimal conditions for students to achieve outcomes less likely to be found in a more traditional classroom, for example, learning competencies, personal motivation, and increased responsibility for their own learning, and to engage less in such outcomes as memorization out of a larger context. Consistent with social-constructivist theory.

Shore, B. M., Aulls, M. W., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (Eds.). (2008). Inquiry in education (Vol. II): Overcoming barriers to successful implementation. New York, NY: Erlbaum (now Routledge). [E, S] Inquiry teaching is complex but worth the effort. The book gives several diverse examples of barriers and facilitators to making inquiry happen in learning.

Shore, B. M., Birlean, C., Walker, C. L., Ritchie, K. C., LaBanca, F., & Aulls, M. W. (2009). Inquiry literacy: A proposal for a neologism. LEARNing Landscapes, 3(1), 139-155. (available online at http://www.learninglandscapes.ca) [E, S] “Literacy definitions, the growth of inquiry literacy in science education, and the developmental nature of inquiry literacy within learners’ experiences in diverse content domains are outlined. . . . A preliminary list of qualities of student inquiry literacy is presented.”

Shore, B. M., Chichekian, T., Syer, C. A., Aulls, M. W., & Frederiksen, C. H. (2012). Planning, enactment, and reflection in inquiry-based learning: Validating the McGill Strategic Demands of Inquiry Questionnaire. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 315-337. doi:10.1007/s10763-011-9301-4 [H] Publication version of part of Cassidy Syer’s PhD thesis. Groups that “had different types of exposure to the inquiry approach varied in how they understand inquiry instruction. Fourth-year Elementary preservice teachers held more sophisticated conceptualizations of the inquiry approach and greater appreciation for the components involved in carrying out an inquiry curriculum compared to first-year Elementary preservice teachers. After the completion of an inquiry-oriented course, Continuing Education students (including experienced teachers) were similar to fourth-year Elementary student teachers in conceptualizing and identifying important components of inquiry instruction. First-year Elementary and Secondary student teachers were different in their views of inquiry instruction. Finally, Honours Psychology students, who were engaged in scholarly research, held sophisticated conceptualizations of the inquiry approach. However, they did not use this knowledge of the inquiry method as extensively as fourth-year preservice teachers to identify important aspects of inquiry instruction. Therefore, although experience with the inquiry method may be necessary for conceptualizing inquiry as a pedagogical approach, it is not sufficient to enable undergraduates to identify important aspects of planning, enacting, and evaluating an inquiry curriculum.” Includes validation study of the MSDIQ, McGill Strategic Demands of Inquiry Questionnaire.

Syer, C. A., Chichekian, T., Shore, B. M., & Aulls, M. W. (2013). Learning “to do” and learning “about” inquiry at the same time: Different outcomes in valuing the importance of various intellectual tasks in planning, enacting, and evaluating an inquiry curriculum. Instructional Science, 41, 521-537. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9242-5 (available online at http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s11251-012-924) [H] Senior student teachers who learned about inquiry as pedagogy (albeit mostly in procedural terms as shown in other studies in this list) had comparable understanding of the importance of inquiry tasks compared to psychology students who had done an honors thesis or major project. The student-teachers could also better articulate how to help others undertake inquiry. Merely having done inquiry is insufficient to being able to teach through inquiry. The study included material relevant to validation of the MSDIQ that was later adapted to measure self-efficacy as well (by Chichekian, Getahun, Ibrahim, and D. Leung).

Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2015b). Understanding classroom roles in inquiry education: Linking role theory and social constructivism to the concept of role diversification. SAGE Open, 5(4), 1-13. doi:10.1177/2158244015607584 [E, S] Role diversification in inquiry is a good fit to social-constructivist theory. These should, therefore, be an important part of the theory taught to teachers as they learn techniques to implement inquiry.

Walker, C. L., Shore, B. M., & Tabatabai, D. (2013). Eye of the beholder: Investigating the interplay between inquiry role diversification and social perspective taking. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 144-192. doi.org/10.4471/ijep.2013.23 [E, S] Social perspective-taking roles were dynamic and susceptible to influences including the nature of the classroom activities and instructional choices, student personality differences, and group-work dynamics. Students active in choosing their work partners and who were assigned a task that required a consideration of the audience’s understanding tended to adopt more Imagine Other roles as opposed to Imagine Self roles and also adopted more emotionally-based SPTs compared to students in teacher-formed groups who were assigned more cognitively-based assignments.