INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING LITERATURE REVIEW

Possibilities in Inquiry-Based Learning: A Literature Review

Karl McBurnett

Lamar University
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING LITERATURE REVIEW 2

Possibilities in Inquiry-Based Learning: A Literature Review

The history of education can be traced back some 4000 years to the first formal schools

set up in Egypt’s Middle Kingdom and the Xia Dynasty in China. Since then, significant

technological advancements vastly changed the living conditions of humanity. Many of these

technologies eventually made their way into classrooms as well, but not always in a form that

would inherently change the way instruction was delivered or consumed. An early 20th-century

apprenticeship program might teach about breakthroughs in electricity, but the model of learning

would seem similar to a 17th-century blacksmith’s apprentice. More recent advancements allow

students to readily interact with their subject in ways that promote more in-depth understanding.

The goal of this literature review is to support the implementation of an inquiry-based,

active learning environment in the classroom. The literature shows several models in which

blended learning facilitates this goal, and the review summarizes these. Search terms for research

included, flipped classroom, blended learning, inquiry-based learning, and peer tutoring. The

review emphasizes research dealing with the impact of these modes in student learning in science

classes. It also prioritizes research within the last ten years. Conclusions find these models are

effective in increasing both quantitative and qualitative measures of learning while at the same

time developing critical 21st-century skills in students.

Historical Context

While the technology that makes implementing inquiry-based learning in classrooms

easier is relatively new, the pedagogical basis for it is quite ancient. At the heart of blended

learning is the idea that learning is doing. Socrates’ dialogues with his students involved the

setting of a situation, response from pupils, and then a careful questioning of those responses to
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING LITERATURE REVIEW 3

elicit a deeper understanding of the situation. “The teacher here is not the ‘sage on the stage’ with

the student positioned as a passive receptor of information” (Friesen, 2013, p. 6).

In the modern era, Dewey emphasized experiential learning in which students actively

participated in authentic exercises in order to make meaning of it. (Roth, Jornet, 2014). Along

with Piaget, Bruner, and others, constructivist learning theories developed in which “generating

information and making meaning of it is based on personal or societal experience” (“Inquiry-

based Learning,” 2019). Models of inquiry-based learning exist solidly within these historical

contexts.

Learning Model Definitions

Inquiry-based learning is an over-arching term referring to the many models that

emphasize the posing of problems or questions to students. Students then come to an

understanding through active engagement with these situations. Blended learning as defined by

Michael Horn is “any formal education program in which a student learns at least in part through

online learning, with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace.” (Horn,

Staker, 2015, p. 34).

Benefits of Inquiry-Based Learning Models

Differing models of inquiry-based or active learning benefits students in numerous ways.

As active participants in inquiry, students experience an increase in qualitative values of

engagement and ownership in their learning. Quantitively, student test scores have been seen to

improve as well. Beyond the subject matter, inquiry helps develop 21st-century skills in students

and helps students “learning how to learn.”

COVA

Harapnuik, Thibodeaux, and Cummings developed COVA as “a learner-centered, active learning

approach that gives the learner choice (C), ownership (O), and voice (V) through authentic (A)

learning opportunities” (Harapnuik, Thibodeaux, & Cummings, 2018, p. 68). Each is an essential

component in learner success.

Choice. As active participation by students is a basic tenet of constructivism, allowing

students choice and control over their education is vital. “Learners are given the freedom to

choose how they wish to organize, structure and present their learning experiences” (Harapnuik,

Thibodeaux, & Cummings, 2018, p. 17). Student-centered learning provides students the ability

to have input in the direction of their education (Richmond, 2014). In a study of non-selective

California high schools with higher than average at-risk populations, personalization, and choice

resulted in increased course completion rates and persistence in college enrollment after

graduation(Friedlander, 2014).

Ownership. Traditional classrooms often provide no intrinsic sense of ownership or

engagement to students. Teachers own the work assigned in class, and students are only

recipients of it. Jeremy Finn (1989, 1993) found that engagement by at-risk students in

Washington, D.C. schools lead to higher achievement. Inquiry-based strategies give ownership to

students by actively engaging them in a problem and its solution. Taking part in data gathering

and analysis, as compared to independent study or traditional classroom activities, increase

reported engagement in the sciences (Hanauer, Dolan, 2013).

Voice. Instruction is traditionally a one-way process with a teacher delivering content to

students. Assessments rely mainly on students regurgitating this information back, requiring
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING LITERATURE REVIEW 5

lower levels of understanding. One way for students to better internalize learning is by teaching

others. Peer instruction and review forces the student to go through a level of metacognition that

increases academic achievement — even the act of preparing to teach results in improvements

(Muis, 2016).

Authentic Learning. Dewey’s belief that real learning results from actual participation in

a subject is most is evident in authentic learning environments. Students work through real-world

problems or situations in order to derive solutions. When made relevant to students, engagement

increases, as does achievement. The Modeling Instruction Program at Arizona University has

demonstrated statistically higher scores on their Forces Concept Inventory when students derive

physical laws through authentic data collection and analysis (Dao, Gorton, Preston, 2016).

FLIPPED CLASSROOM

The flipped classroom is an inversion of the traditional classroom. Delivery of a

significant portion of content is transferred out of the classroom and delivered to the student

online. The delivery can take on varying forms, such as podcasts or readings, and can be

differentiated by the instructor to address individual student needs. It is a sub-model of blended

learning, but not a disruptive one.

By itself, flipped classrooms do not address issues of student motivation or engagement.

“Classroom time is no longer spent taking in raw content, a largely passive process. The

classroom becomes an interactive environment that engages students more directly in their

education” (Horn, 2016). The importance of flipping comes in the utilization of in-class time.

Literature shows that flipped classroom implementations positively affect areas of student

attitudes (Bolliger, Supanakorn, & Boggs, 2010), student behavior (Chester, Buntine, Hammond,

& Atkinson, 2011), and student performance (Alpay & Gulati, 2010). Muller (2018) found that
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING LITERATURE REVIEW 6

flipped content stimulates cognition and improves performance from pre-tests to post-tests by

addressing student misconceptions of subject early in their learning.

INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING

Learning methods that emphasized the active processing and application of information

produced significant results in student achievement. These include case studies, group projects,

design and build projects, fieldwork, and other similar activities. These types of inquiry-based

methods engage students by placing them in authentic learning situations.

A large meta-analysis of active learning research in college and university STEM courses

found an increase in scores on a concept inventory with an effect size of 0.88 (Weiman, 2014 p.

8329). The average effect size for an educational intervention is .57 (Dweck, 2016), so the results

are significant. Freeman found that failure rates in classes utilizing active learning were 30% less

than lecture classes. The same analysis found that performance between these two methods was

independent of the instructors. “Comparative results between lecture and active learning were the

same for one instructor using the two different methods or independent instructors using different

methods. Thus, there was no indication that the relative effectiveness of the different teaching

methods is instructor dependent.” (Weiman 2014, p. 8320).

Deslauriers, McCarty, Miller, Callaghan, & Kestin (2018) found similar results in their

comparison of active learning and passive lectures, with one point of concern. The study

compared both the measurable learning of students and a student’s feeling about their

performance on a standard Force Concept Inventory in a university physics course. While the

student’s quantitative performance (test of learning) increased significantly, their qualitative

performance (test of feelings) showed that students believed they had underperformed. These

beliefs may be a result of students needing to apply more effort on their part to participate in
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING LITERATURE REVIEW 7

active learning situations versus traditional lecture. Communicating this to students early in a

class may help alleviate student’s perceived performance.

Implementing an inquiry-based environment requires concerted effort on the part of

educators to ensure that students are involved in a productive cycle of learning. The 5E

instructional framework has proven to be a practical framework from which instructors can

readily develop curriculum. This framework emphasizes the significant components required of

inquiry in science classrooms. Engagement – promotes attention to a concept by introducing a

unique problem of general interest. Exploration – students are encouraged to apply the primary

inquiry skills of questioning, hypothesizing, testing, and communicating. Explanation – A more

teacher-centered component in which students are posed questions to help work through

misconceptions. Elaboration – a phase that encourages the application of students’ improved

understanding while reinforcing skills. Evaluation – assessment of understanding of concepts and

the application of skills gained (Duran, Duran, 2004).

PEER TUTORING

The process of teaching others offers a powerful capstone to new learning. It fully utilizes all

facets of COVA. Students decide the best way to present information using their unique vision

and voice. They are involved in an authentic task that requires ownership in its production. In a

flipped classroom, the unique opportunity arises to allow these student-produced products to

become part of the resources for future classes. One aspect of the proposed innovation plan is the

creation of a maker space for students to produce podcast videos on course topics. Hoban,

Nielsen, Shepherd (2013, p.34), said, “Students therefore not only learn from creating their own

digital representation to explain a science concept, but they can also learn from the other digital

explanations created by peers.”

21ST-CENTURY SKILLS

Throughout the entire process of inquiry-based learning, students not only come to

understand new concepts and ideas, but also develop skills that will serve them throughout all

aspects of their lives. These 21st-century skills encompass areas of critical thinking, creativity,

collaboration, communication, and technological literacy. In the same way that the factory-

modeled classroom of the 20th-century prepared students for factories, today’s schools must

prepare students to work in an increasingly knowledge-based society.

Seth Godin (2017) reports that 69% of managers in the workplace are uncomfortable

communicating with their employees. Such a valuable skill, he suggests, cannot merely be called

a “soft skill” because it implies that it is optional in today’s world. Instead, 21-century skills will

be powering much of the innovation of the future, making these essential vocational skills.

Because of this, he believes they must be an integral part of education.

CONCLUSION

The schools that students attend today are no longer merely preparing them for a job that

existed a hundred years ago, one that is repetitive and unchanging for years. Even an auto

mechanic must have strong reading skills to interpret the manuals and schematics of ever-

increasingly sophisticated cars. By implementing an inquiry-based learning environment,

facilitated by a flipped classroom, this review has shown that students will benefit from an

increase in engagement and agency. By taking part in active learning lessons and communicating

out the results of these lessons, students develop transferrable, real-world skills. The greatest

lesson educators can teach their students is how to learn, and an inquiry-based learning

environment is a solid foundation to do so.

References

Alpay, E., & Gulati, S. (2010). Student- led podcasting for engineering education. European

Journal of Engineering Education, 35, 415– 442.

Bolliger, D. U., Supanakorn, S. & Boggs, C. (2010). Impact of podcasting on student motivation

in the online learning environment. Computers & Education, 55, 714– 722.

Chester, A., Buntine, A., Hammond, K., & Atkinson, L. (2011). Podcasting in education: Student

attitudes, behaviour and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14,

236–247.

Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual

learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the

classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201821936.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116.

Duran L, Duran E. (2004) The 5E Instructional Model: A Learning Cycle Approach for Inquiry-

Based Science Teaching. Retrieved September 15, 2019, from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1058007.pdf.

Dweck, C. (2018, July 23). Carol Dweck responds to recent criticisms of growth mindset

research - Mindset Scholars Network. Retrieved September 15, 2019, from Mindset

Scholars Network website: https://mindsetscholarsnetwork.org/carol-dweck-responds-

recent-criticisms-growth-mindset-research/.

Godin, S. (2017, January 31). Let’s stop calling them ‘soft skills.’ Retrieved September 15, 2019,

from Medium website: https://itsyourturnblog.com/lets-stop-calling-them-soft-skills-

9cc27ec09ecb?gi=b22e96133d40#.ym70tla6z.
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING LITERATURE REVIEW 10

Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.

Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center

for Education Statistics.

Friedlaender, D., Burns, D., Lewis-Charp, H., Cook-Harvey, C. M., Zheng, X., & Darling-

Hammond, L. (2014). Student-centered schools: Closing the opportunity gap. Stanford,

CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

Friesen, S., Scott, D. (2013) Inquiry-Based Learning: A Review of the Research Literature.

Retrieved from http: https://galileo.org/inquiry-based-learning-a-review-of-the-research-

literature/ .

Hanauer, D., & Dolan, E. (2104). The Project Ownership Survey: Measuring Differences in

Scientific Inquiry Experiences. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 149–158. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0123.

Harapnuik, D., Thibodeaux, T., & Cummings, C. (2018). Choice, Ownership, and Voice through

Authentic Learning [0.9].

Hoban, G., Nielsen, W., & Shepherd, A. (2013). Explaining and Communicating Science Using

Student-Created Blended Media. Retrieved September 15, 2019, from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9263/31d6ed51e2791100e338cc1cf72689a21d97.pdf.

Horn, M. B. (2016, March 3). The Transformational Potential of Flipped Classrooms –

Education Next. Retrieved September 15, 2019, from Education Next website:

https://www.educationnext.org/the-transformational-potential-of-flipped-classrooms/.

Horn, M. B., Staker, H., & Christensen, C. M. (2015). Blended: using disruptive innovation to

improve schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hoban, G., Nielsen, W., & Shepherd, A. (2013). Explaining and Communicating Science Using
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING LITERATURE REVIEW 11

Student-Created Blended Media. Retrieved September 15, 2019, from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9263/31d6ed51e2791100e338cc1cf72689a21d97.pdf.

“Inquiry-based Learning | Planning & Teaching Strategies” (2009). Retrieved September 15,

2019, from Lumenlearning.com website:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/educationx92x1/chapter/inquiry-based-learning/.

Kathy Dao, Sandra Gorton, Karen Preston (2016). Combining Qualitative Physics Ranking Tasks

with Modeling Instruction and its Effects on Students' Conceptual Understanding of

Basic Mechanic. Retrieved September 15, 2019 from http://modeling.asu.edu/Projects-

Resources/RankingTasks-Preston,Dao,Gorton.pdf

Muller, D.A. (2008). Designing Effective Multimedia for Physics Education, PhD dissertation,

University of Sydney, Australia.

Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Chevrier, M., Di Leo, I., & Lajoie, S. P. (2016). Learning by

preparing to teach: Fostering self-regulatory processes and achievement during complex

mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 474-492.

Richmond, E. (2014, October 24). What Happens When Students Control Their Own Education.

Retrieved September 15, 2019, from The Atlantic website:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/10/what-happens-when-students-

control-their-own-education/381828/.

Roth, Wolff-Michael; Jornet, Alfredo (2014). Toward a theory of experience. Science Education.

98 (1), 106–26.

Wieman, C. E. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear

message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8319–8320.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407304111.
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING LITERATURE REVIEW 12