Running head: INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY:
EXPLORING TEACHER PERSPECTIVES OF THE TEN CHARACTERISTICS
OF INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING

A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education

Jason A. Henry
California University of Pennsylvania
August 2021

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

©Copyright by
Jason Alan Henry
All rights Reserved
August 2021

ii

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

Dedication

for my Mom and Dad, my wife and my children

iv

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

v

Acknowledgements
This capstone project was completed in a very challenging time during the Covid19 pandemic. Every professional educator was forced to redesign education within
months. Having extra time just was not part of many educational professionals this year. I
am forever indebted to all the professionals at Parkland School District that took time to
help me through this journey. It’s an honor to have the support of such fine people and be
able to call them my Parkland family. Their passion for quality education became a fuel
for my motivation. Along with my Parkland family, Dr. John Pfeiffer was the perfect
mentor for me. He was always willing to drop everything that he was doing to help me.
His encouragement started years before entering this program and has definitely help my
confidence as an administrator.
I must thank Dr. Mary Wolf for her guidance through the capstone process. There
were times she had more confidence in me then I had in myself. I am forever grateful for
the words, “You can do this!” Her guidance, comments, and suggestions had definitely
been a backbone for my research journey. Within the Cal U family, I must also thank Mr.
William Denny for his help throughout the research and writing process. He was always
there for guidance and support.
My wife, Kimberly, for the patience and support. She had a way of always
knowing when I needed help, even if that just meant a quiet house for a few hours. You
are an amazing wife and teacher that I’ve learned so much from. I love you very much!
To my amazing children, Kamryn and Jaxton, your daily smile is a driving force
for me to do my very best. I am so proud of everything you do. You both have proven to
be incredible student athletes. You inspire me to be great every day!

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

vi

Table of Contents
Dedication

iv

Acknowledgements

v

List of Tables

ix

List of Figures

x

Abstract

xi

CHAPTER I. Introduction

1

Background

1

Identification of the Capstone focus

2

Research Questions

3

Expected Outcomes

4

Fiscal Implications

5

Summary

7

CHAPTER II. Literature Review

8

Inquiry-Based Learning Theory

9

Models and Levels of Inquiry-Based Learning

14

Characteristics of Inquiry

22

Inquiry Online and Inquiry Equity

27

Teacher Effectiveness and Student Motivation Drives Positives/Negatives

32

Conclusion

39

CHAPTER III. Methodology

43

Purpose

44

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

vii

Setting and Participants

49

Intervention and Research Plan

54

Research Design, Method. and Data collection

57

Validity

63

Conclusion

65

CHAPTER IV. Data Analysis and Results

67

Data Analysis

69

Results

73

Discussion

101

Conclusion

102

CHAPTER V. Conclusions and Recommendations

104

Conclusions

105

Research Question 1 Conclusions

107

Research Question 2 Conclusions

111

Research Question 3 Conclusions

114

Limitations

117

Recommendations for Future Research

118

Summary

120

References

122

Appendix A - Parkland Problem Solving (STEM) Poster

128

Appendix B - Inquiry-Based Learning Teacher Survey

129

Appendix C - Volunteer Consent Form

135

Appendix D - Volunteer Interest Survey

137

Appendix E - IRB Approval Letter

138

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

viii

Appendix F - Classroom Observation Tool

139

Appendix G - Teacher Interview Questions

140

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

ix

List of Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of Inquiry-Based Learning (online vs face to face)

76

Table 2. Teacher Perspectives on Inquiry-Based Learning

93

Table 3. Inquiry-Based Learning Logistical Needs

94

Table 4. Total Male/Female Count in PLTW

100

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

x

List of Figures
Figure 1. Trevor MacKenzie - 10 Characteristics of Inquiry

23

Figure 2. Average Class Size for 74 Teachers Grades 6-12

70

Figure 3. Teaching Experience for Two Middle Schools and a High School

71

Figure 4. Overview of the Departments/Content Reflective in this Survey

71

Figure 5. Frequency of Inquiry-Based Learning from the Teachers’ Perspective

74

Figure 6. Low Income Comparison Inquiry Pathways

98

Figure 7. Gender Comparison Inquiry-Based Pathways

99

Figure 8. Ethnicity Comparison Inquiry-Based Pathways

101

Figure 9. Ten Characteristics of Inquiry-Based Learning

105

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

xi

Abstract
The purpose of this action research study was to analyze the teachers’ perspective
of 10 characteristics of inquiry-based learning. The review of literature framed inquirybased learning aligned to the past professional development sessions in Parkland School
District. The literature indicated that inquiry-based learning varied on level of inquiry and
type of inquiry. Furthermore, it also showed that inquiry-based learning was influenced
by teacher self-efficacy. The 10 characteristics of inquiry-based learning created a
constant variable for all models of inquiry with a focus on student choice and student
voice throughout. The perspectives of inquiry-based learning were measured through
teacher surveys, classroom observations, and teacher interviews. The global Covid-19
pandemic impacted this study by providing a unique learning environment for educators.
More specifically, this unique environment combines both face to face and online
learning in a hybrid model. The new environment allowed for a comparison of inquirybased learning in both face to face and online learning environments. Additionally, it
opened many questions about equity for all students. This study used a mixed research
design to pull demographic data of the learning environments and looked for trends based
on equity for all students. The fiscal implications of Parkland’s initiative to improve
inquiry-based learning was outlined based on past and potential future professional
development sessions. The findings of the research included evidence on the instructional
impacts of the 10 characteristics of inquiry. Finally, future research in this area should
continue to examine student voice, choice and equity with regards to inquiry-based
learning.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

1

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Parkland School District, Allentown, Pennsylvania, has focused on building a
culture of inquiry-based learning. As teachers focus on digitizing lessons, they lose some
of the characteristics of inquiry in their instruction. In a world filled with high stakes
testing pressures and school performance profiles, school leaders were always challenged
with a task that teachers did not have enough time to teach through inquiry. With a
dramatic shift in instructional practices due to a global pandemic (Covid-19), this
challenge of needed instructional time is intensified by online virtual learners and hybrid
model school systems. Focusing on the characteristics of inquiry for both face to face and
online learners will build an understanding of the school culture around inquiry and
teachers’ overall perspective on the inquiry approach to instruction.
Background
I have served as an educator in the secondary world (grades 6-12) for 24 years.
From the first moment I stepped into a classroom as a mathematics and computer science
teacher, I have always had a passion for inquiry-based learning. I struggled to understand
why teachers shied away from something students always seemed incredibly engaged in.
During my career, I have been fortunate to have many experiences that helped me build
an understanding around an inquiry-based culture. My perspective in my first 11 years of
my career was specifically from the vantage point of a teacher in a mathematics and
computer science classroom. During that time, I flipped my Cisco network engineering
classes from teacher led instruction to completely inquiry-based. From the classroom, I
left for an opportunity to engage in a statewide grant and push for technology use in the

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

2

classroom. I spent three years as an instructional technology coach at Parkland High
School and another year as the Coordinator of Educational Technology K-12 for Parkland
School District. During that time, I had the opportunity to truly dive into my passion and
start building a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) culture,
reaching a variety of content areas throughout the K-12 levels. My work with technology
instruction, inquiry, and STEM continues as I am currently in my 9th year as the
Supervisor of Secondary Education for Curriculum and Instruction for Parkland School
District.
Identification of the Capstone focus
Through my experiences, I have learned that school climate can change quicker
than the culture. Fun teacher led programs can uplift a climate. However, the instructional
practices and culture really takes time. We now sit ten years after my first STEM
committee meeting, and I still have many of the same questions on the teachers’
perspectives of inquiry-based learning. It feels like perfect timing to look deeper into the
perspectives in our district. In the last three years, my district has moved toward 1:1
computers in K-12 and a focus on inquiry-based instruction. We have facilitated
professional development with both Trevor MacKenzie and Ken Shelton for our faculty.
Trevor MacKenzie brought a focus on 10 characteristics of inquiry learning, while Ken
Shelton discussed equity within an inquiry-learning environment. As a district we value
student voice and equity, within a theme to “educate the whole child.” Teachers have
digitized lessons well and have done a great job with formative assessment through our
1:1 professional development. We also have some teachers that moved forward well as
they pulled together equity, student voice, and inquiry. The goal of this research is to

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

3

continually dig deeper into the perceptions of teachers using inquiry learning as we focus
on equity, student voice, and student overall success. Within the research, teachers will
give perspective and analyze their instruction as it moves to a digital online instructional
environment.
There is a paradigm shift in education to move teachers from the sage on the stage
to a facilitator in the classroom. This paradigm shift is no new hat for educators. It has
been in discussion for the past 20 years during my transition from a classroom
mathematics/computer science teacher, to an instructional technology specialist coach, to
a coordinator of educational technology K-12 and to my current position as a secondary
curriculum supervisor. Throughout this career, there have been very few instructional
conversations that did not circle back to inquiry-based authentic instruction. Recently,
many of our teachers digitized lessons well during professional development with
technology; nonetheless, the question falls within how many teachers are pulling together
inquiry, equity, and student voice. Being focused on digitizing lessons is not a bad thing
for education; it has paid off in trying times like the Covid-19 school closures, which
required teachers to deliver content through digital lessons. However, the emphasis on
digitizing lessons also means possibly less focus on inquiry-based learning. This research
is designed to dig deeper and evaluate how teachers have grown professionally with
inquiry-based learning in order to prepare our students with the essential team skills they
need for the future.
Research Questions
There is also a natural curiosity to see if inquiry continued during school
shutdowns with online instruction and digital lessons. Teacher self-efficacy could play a

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

4

role in their perception and overall time put into inquiry-based lessons. The research is
needed in this area because teachers struggle to make the connection between uses of
technology, inquiry-based education, equity, and student choice. More specifically, many
teachers look at these areas as individual initiatives, when in reality, they are needed to
interact together under one framework. In order to work toward a solution, Parkland
School District planned a professional development initiative that began with Trevor
MacKenzie engaging with our teachers to explore his “10 Characteristics of the Inquiry
Classroom'' (MacKenzie & Bathurst-Hunt, 2018). Trevor MacKenzie’s vision of inquiry
incorporates technology, equity, student choice, and inquiry-based education into one
framework. This research is a continued follow-up to the professional development
sessions on inquiry with a focus on both online and face to face environments.
The following research questions will be the focus of this study:
1.

What characteristics of inquiry classrooms are most frequently

addressed in both face to face and online instructional environments?
2.

How do teachers perceive inquiry learning as we focus on best

instructional practices that include student voice and equity?
3.

Within inquiry learning environments, what sub-groups

(economically disadvantaged, gender, race, ESL) are seen most frequently
enrolled and to what level of inquiry-based learning is the most evident?
Expected Outcomes
There are three modes of data that I plan to analyze in this research, which are
outlined in the following action steps. First, I will administer a research survey to
teachers to collect information regarding their perceptions on inquiry-based learning as it

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

5

relates to student voice, equity, and diversity. Second, I will observe multiple classes in
both the face to face and online classroom environments. My focus during these
observations will be to collect data on student voice and equity during inquiry. The
teachers observed will be on a volunteer basis, and the volunteers will be sought out
during the initial research survey. I hope to see that there are many interesting
connections between inquiry learning and student voice/equity that were stressed in past
professional development sessions for our staff. Third, I will gather demographic data on
a few classes with strong inquiry environments and compare that information with
demographic data from classes that are found without strong inquiry environments. There
are many studies that hypothesize that disadvantaged students do not have the same
access to inquiry-based learning. In the same way, when given access they may not take
advantage of that access for a multitude of reasons. A small part of this study is to cross
reference the student data inside classrooms of volunteer teachers and high-profile
inquiry-based programs like computer science, bio-medical, and engineering. Even
though this research is focused on inquiry-based education in all contents and all grade
levels from grades 6-12, I am hoping to see that the instructional pathways we have in
place are encouraging all students to take the programs designed fully around inquirybased learning.
Fiscal Implications
Through this research process, the financial implications are very minimal, as
they are built into what we are already doing for professional development at the district
level. We have had some free consultant presentations. However, we have paid for
consultants, Trevor MacKenzie and Ken Shelton, to present and do working sessions with

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

6

our staff. We also bought one online tool, Defined Learning, specific to inquiry-based
education. The majority of other costs would be fees to continue any collaborative work
with outside professionals. In the end, predicting costs of instructional changes can often
be tricky. In a world where things are changing so quickly, there is something new every
year. If itemizing all instructional tools and software for online inquiry-based learning,
then it could become costly. Since this research is not adding any instructional tools, then
the cost will be focused primarily on professional development costs. The major focus for
my research is to follow up the professional development sessions from Trevor
MacKenzee and Ken Shelton with instructional shifts for inquiry and equity. The largest
cost associated with this derives from building a professional development plan to
support the findings from the study. Built into that professional development plan is a
team of 12-14 lead teachers to facilitate learning for 380 professional staff. The second
cost is a fee to allow Ken Shelton to return to Parkland and facilitate teacher professional
development along with student forum conversations. The third cost planned in the
professional development budget is to develop Parkland Academy courses to continue
this learning in future years. Parkland hosts its own professional learning courses for our
staff, which are run by our Parkland Staff. It is critical that professional development is
not just a one-time wonder. I have been working on building a STEM and inquiry-based
learning culture in Parkland for about 10 years. Change takes time in education; some
people move faster than others. Persistence helps move those more resistant to change. If
a professional development does not have follow-up, it will be coined, “this too shall
pass.” The goal of this research, as well as this budget is to maintain and follow-up
professional development on inquiry and equity to keep it moving forward.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

Summary
To conclude, individual teaching styles are a result of many factors and
experiences. If a teacher does not naturally grow into an inquiry-based teacher or if a
teacher cannot quite see the characteristics of inquiry-based learning, then the outcomes
of the professional development and shift in culture may take time. Through this study, I
am looking for a better understanding of what inquiry-based instructional practices
teachers gravitate towards, what their perspectives are of inquiry-based learning, and
what have they taken from past experiences that revolve around the 10 characteristics of
inquiry. Teacher self-efficacy combined with opening a platform for student voice
ultimately varies and has levels that will need to be considered. The level of inquiry and
the type of inquiry may also vary depending on teacher perspectives and self-efficacy.
Undoubtedly, with the most motivated students, their voice can possibly uplift any
inquiry-based lesson. Whereas, the least motivated students may not offer much voice
and therefore may require guided inquiry. Within this research, the goal is to dig beyond
the surface and understand these variables in order to move an inquiry-based culture
forward.

7

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

8

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
The review of literature begins by a definition of Inquiry-Based Learning. The
definition of Inquiry-Based Learning is an instructional approach where students develop
understanding through their own exploration and questioning. Many authors approached
this definition with different wording and different models. Some maintained a
completely open world to inquiry, in the event that students start and finish the learning
with very little help from the teacher. In other cases, authors established a more
restrictive approach to inquiry. More specifically, this model uses a fully guided lesson
directed by the instructor, while the students follow the inquiry script. Early theories of
inquiry are based on a constructivist approach and practices built around self-efficacy.
This research is not building a case to side with one method over the other. This research
is to explore characteristics of inquiry by examining various models within a public
school secondary environment (grades 6-12). The research examined the theories,
characteristics and teacher perspectives on inquiry-based learning as a closer look into
what drives inquiry-based learning in the classroom. With that being said, the research
was conducted in a unique time of education (global pandemic for Covid-19) with a high
demand for online instruction during the 2020-2021 school year.
Examining teacher perspectives and their inquiry approaches is important, but
investigating if equity exists in those classroom opportunities is also necessary.
Furthermore, research must not only determine if the classroom demographics are
equitable, but also if the resources available to those students are equitable. A large

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

9

challenge for online inquiry-based projects, or even a project being required at home, is
that not all resources at home are equitable.
Inquiry-Based Learning Theory
An inquiry-based classroom is one in which the teacher uses different strategies
that allow the students to interact, imagine, and act as their own teacher. In this type of
classroom, students are able to model what they learn and understand, track their learning
by asking questions that clarify their misunderstandings, and explain why they interpreted
their ideas the way they did. There were many different inquiry-based characteristics and
inquiry-based learning strategies that can be used multiple ways to differentiate both
formal and informal assessments. Likewise, inquiry-based instruction can reach a wide
variety of learning styles. Individualized instruction built on inquiry-based learning
characteristics proves to be a highly effective method inside a classroom. As research
indicated, characteristics of inquiry-based learning helped better understand the needs for
each individual student.
Furthermore, in an inquiry-based classroom, students model what they have
learned as a way to show their understanding of different topics and track their learning.
Students should also participate in the class discussions, asking questions and interpreting
their ideas in their own ways. In order for this to happen, the teacher needs to show the
students evidence, make the lessons engaging and interactive, form life connections that
relate and interest the students, and create a safe place where students are encouraged to
learn in the way that works best for them. The teacher should have the mindset that no
one student is going to have the correct answer. Going off of the scenario given, there are
many possibilities for inquiry-based approaches to be made. One way to incorporate an

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

10

inquiry-based approach is to have the students create their own model of the solar system,
and then pair up with a partner to explain why they built the model the way they did.
Another way to integrate an inquiry-based approach is to have the teacher walk around
the classroom asking the students open-ended questions after they have explained their
models. Not only will these questions give students a way to defend themselves and the
work they have done, but it also provides the teacher with feedback on the student’s
understanding of the problem. Some possible open-ended questions to ask are, "Why did
you put Jupitar here?" and "What would happen if Saturn were to switch positions with
Mars?" In addition, another way this scenario can show an inquiry-based approach is for
the teacher to teach the lesson while also incorporating a real-world phenomenon along
with it. Relating standards to real-life phenomena proves to be a very effective way to
grab students' attention and get them interested in the topic presented.
Many theories can be applied to both elementary and secondary instructional
models. Inquiry is not a new term to education by any means. In fact, Rutherford (1964)
and Anderson’s (2002) researched (as cited in Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004):
Irrespective of how inquiry has been conceptualized during the past 50 years or
so, and conceptions of inquiry have changed during this period, research has
consistently indicated that what was enacted in classrooms was mostly
incommensurate with visions of inquiry put forth in reform documents, past...and
present. (p. 398)
Over a span of 50 years, the same basic discussion has reinvented itself around skills for
inquiry. As the world evolves, new terms and focuses arise. Regardless of these new
labels or focal points, there are two consistent points that measure inquiry instruction: the

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

11

model and the level. Taking into consideration the model explored and the level in which
the inquiry was approached may have a factor on the characteristics used. This research
will analyze the teacher perspective on these factors and their approach to inquiry.
There is also a new challenge to inquiry that did not exist 50 years ago: how does
one successfully implement inquiry-based learning in the online learning environment? In
2020, a global pandemic forced instructors to maintain education online during stay at
home orders directed by government officials. This was a new world of education that
has not been seen before. Teachers are faced with the challenge of balancing a hybrid
model of education, where students come to school face to face for two out of five days,
and an online model of education, in which students learn remotely all days of the week.
Moreover, the greatest struggle in this situation was that hybrid students and online
students are grouped together in the same classroom roster. This requires daily lessons to
accommodate both in person and remote learners. Some educators are teaching fully
online sections of students, and at any given time a shift in the pandemic could force
schools to move to 100% remote learning. The challenge of inquiry-based learning for an
online environment existed prior to the pandemic for various reasons. Often, teachers
define concepts with hands-on activities; undoubtedly, hands-on activities are a challenge
to simulate online. As a result, this has historically been a focus of discussion as
education transitions into the digital world. With this in mind, the pandemic’s demanding
times for online education has only heightened that need and discussion. It is very timely
to analyze the perspective of teachers for characteristics of inquiry within face to face and
online environments.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

12

Some authors advocated specific inquiry-based models, while other authors
expressed theories in inquiry-based themes. The world of inquiry-based learning is a
pedagogical shift in education that everyone seems to put their little twist on. Many
educators instantly think of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)
when they first hear the word inquiry. However, the problem-solving method for inquiry
is an instructional practice for all content areas. It is the skills that matter, illustrated
Freeman et al. (2014) findings (as cited in Tang et al., 2017) :
While this paper reports on teaching through inquiry, we see this pedagogy as a
subset of a collection of pedagogies termed active learning. Pedagogical
techniques used to engage students in active learning vary between instructors,
including group work, think-pair-share, student presentations, project-based
learning, worksheets or tutorials completed during class...active learning
techniques have a strong positive impact on student learning. (p. 4)
In addition, teachers incorporate these techniques using “personal response systems with
or without peer interaction” (Tang et al., 2017, p. 4). This was a common voice of inquiry
throughout many models.
A “Constructivist Approach” coupled with “Bloom’s Domains of Learning”
builds the foundation for the inquiry process. Within the theory of a constructivist
approach, students build a case from questions to solutions. They gain knowledge
through their own experiences in their lives. In a constructivist approach, there is no
room for a complacent learner (von Glasersfeld, 1990). Dewey (1982) argued that
learners need authentic learning experiences in order to gain knowledge. His belief on
the constructivist approach had no room for memorization of facts without learning

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

13

experiences. There are three Domains of Learning within Bloom’s Taxonomy, which
was built on a constructivist approach. In order to critically analyze, students need to be
equipped with all three domains of learning: Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor. The
teacher becomes the facilitator, and the student becomes the driver of his or her own
learning (Ștefan, 2017; Xu, 2019). The characteristics of inquiry-based learning stem
from the foundation of the learning domains. The three learning domains are the most
broadly used concept in education and directly apply to the research within inquiry-based
learning (Anderson et al., 2001). In summary, within the models and characteristics of
inquiry-based learning, the student learning domains, as outlined by Bloom, are a basis
for the constructivist approach.
Rasmussen and Kwon provided a description of inquiry that looked at teacher
planning and student activity within a math classroom. Regarding teacher planning,
teachers build inquiry lessons that have three functions. The overarching description
focused to ensure that there was an ardent space in the construction of various models.
The models provided how the students interpret and generate various mathematical ideas.
The approach described a distinct opportunity to ensure that teachers build problem
solving approaches concerning tasks and teaching functions (Rasmussen & Kwon, 2007).
inquiry-based learning provides a reliable approach in the innovation and learning
techniques coupled with the exploration of distinct learning options for the students and
the teachers. The most ardent definition of inquiry-based learning should be directed to
the student learning domains. The inquiry-based learning approaches are structured with
various needs to ensure that the learning approaches are initiated to capitalize on the
student generosity and curiosity levels. The employed approaches are centered on the

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

14

student's world, and this creates a distinct need to utilize active questioning. The inquirybased environment allows the student to work alone, which confirms that the student
develops a deep understanding via the exploration and the need to discover. This in turn
facilitates an innate understanding of the skills and content.
Research circled back to two main theories detailing the ideas of inquiry-based
learning: a constructivist approach and the theory of self-efficacy. Kilpatrick (1987)
claimed constructivism “seems to be having an especially strong impact on the thinking
and activities of mathematics educators” (p. 5). Furthermore, Kilpatrick’s claim can be
applied to all content areas, as the learner learns from his or her experience in that
content. In the theory of constructivism, knowledge was developed by the learner through
experiences in the environment (Kilpatrick, 1987). Von Glaserfeld’s theory on
constructivist learning proved to be consistent with Kilpatrick’s research:
The task of education … becomes a task of first inferring models of the students’
conceptual constructs and then generating hypotheses as to how the students
could be given the opportunity to modify their structures so that they lead to
mathematical actions that might be considered compatible with the instructor’s
expectations and goals. (von Glaserfeld, 1990, p. 34)
While these experiences are the main driver of learning within the constructivist theory,
self-efficacy also plays an important role. The confidence of the learner directly impacts
his or her ability to conduct a positive experiment in any learning environment.
Models and Levels of Inquiry-Based Learning
Several authors analyzed the overarching models in attaining the distinct skills in
inquiry-based learning. The models outline the various steps in the pedagogy in the

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

15

inquiry learning process. The employed languages are aimed at offering a reliable
balance between the various learning options. The scope of inquiry-based learning
approaches provides three distinct levels that work to enhance the learner agency. These
models are interlinked with distinct questioning, investigating, reflection, and acting
methods. Models vary in the amount of levels, labels, and the description for those levels.
For instance, Callison's model allows the students to learn through problem-solving via
the investigation and analyzing approaches. The three inquiry levels aim to ensure that
the employed approaches are guided, controlled, and free (Callison, 2014). Research has
affirmed that there was a dire need to establish the reliability of distinct inquiry-based
learning approaches in the teaching of sciences, especially in teaching specific science
content areas. The inquiry-based learning approaches help meet the need to implement
diverse strategies in teaching, including the delivery approaches in the teaching of
sciences. The world is changing at a very fast pace. The rationale implies that educators
need to focus on critical thinking approaches and the creation of distinct knowledge. The
approach can be traced to the fact that, in education, traditional instructional methods are
no longer effective. There is a a need to establish facts via inquiry-based approaches that
give the students exact scenarios to enhance the students’ thinking abilities and learning
approaches (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004). The viability of the implemented teaching
approaches lies in developing a reliable education system that intends to enhance the
students' learning process. The rationale comes from the need to teach modern research
values in the student learning processes. People have distinct perceptions of the rationale
of digesting information if the learning process approaches are utterly decontextualized.
The implications of repetitive tasks offered on the traditional learning domains mean that

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

16

the rationale of utilizing drills in repetitive tasks was meaningless. The distinguishing
aspects of inquiry-based learning are framed on the need to make subjects meaningful
(Allen & Penuel, 2015).
Furthermore, the implications of research in the current age have also ascertained
that students who are taught via the inquiry-based learning approaches perform well on
exams, unlike those taught via the traditional teaching methods. Jackson et al. (2015)
performed a detailed screening approach to providing a procedure via the administration
of distinct standardized approaches in mathematics learning and writing assignments in
mathematics in various grades. The accruing student performance was heavily influenced
by various instructional and environmental traits closely tied to the philosophy of inquirybased learning (Jackson et al., 2015). The essence of integrating inquiry-based learning
approaches was designed to maximize the overarching student performance levels. More
specifically, the most reliable aspect of inquiry-based learning can be traced to the fact
that the employed approaches are vital in developing students' critical thinking abilities.
There is a need to examine the importance of inquiry-based learning in facilitating the
knowledge based on critical thinking with a student centered approach. The traditional
approaches concerning inquiry-based learning are also intertwined with the scope of
memorizing, and this approach can be traced in the rote memorization approaches that are
vital in counting and decoding of texts during the learning process.
Additionally, past research has always been centered on identifying the success of
the actual implementation process in classroom teaching and the level of problem solving
that developed during that process. The framing of the variables has always been
entrenched with the need to compare students' performance both before and after the

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

17

implementation procedures of the inquiry-based learning domains. The results depict that
the approaches employed in inquiry-based learning approaches are a central function
between the students' performance and the implemented learning techniques and
methods. The dependent variable has always been centered on student performance. In
contrast, the independent variable has always been interlinked with the employed number
of tutors, the employed training facilities, and the overarching costs in implementing the
depicted teaching approaches. Therefore, the results have been interlinked with the need
to determine whether the employed inquiry-based teaching approaches are reliable in
diverse contexts, including the home education criteria. The traditional school teaching
approaches were framed to provide a reliable workforce for the industrial age, yet this is
no longer a primary focus. The outdated need for traditional school teaching approaches
has been replaced by the contemporary need for instructional approaches better aligned to
the informational age. The rationale implies that the current age requires creative thinkers
and innovators (Buckner & Kim, 2014).
Not only should current educational methods work to develop creative thinkers,
but in order for instructional approaches to be effective, they must also be engaging.
Inquiry-based learning is fun; hence, students enjoy it and are more inspired. It was also
interactive; hence, students tend to be engaged and are active participants in the learning
process. Finally, inquiry-based learning makes it possible for discussion and critical
thinking; hence, students learn more and remember what they have learned. In addition,
this type of learning guarantees in-depth comprehension of content. However, the
challenge of deploying cooperative learning within classrooms was problematic
(Blessinger & Carfora, 2014). Teachers who have used smaller groups for learning can

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

18

attest that just putting students into groups plus directing them to collaborate hardly
guarantees quality collaboration or learning. There was a need to set up positive social
interdependence, structuring shared aims, and instructing 'how' to work together.
(Baloche, & Brody, 2017). This research focused on secondary (grades 6-12);
undoubtedly, the instructional components in elementary are similar and help with full
understanding.
To fully understand levels and models of inquiry-based learning, the research
showed that every author has an authentic name for his or her explanation. Kilpatrick’s
model was simplified into 3 levels. The pedagogy and ideas of other research was
organized into an explanation of 4 levels relating to 4 models. To implement inquirybased learning, researchers all closely followed the following four levels: Level 1Confirmation Inquiry, Level 2-Structured Inquiry, Level 3-Guided Inquiry, and Level 4Open Inquiry (Banchi & Bell, 2008). The levels are progressive in the amount of
information given to the students. In teacher planning, the teacher gave more information
to the student in Level 1 and absolutely no information to the student outside a probe in
Level 4. The process of inquiry-based learning related greatly to the guidance given by
the instructor. Instructor control was a large part of the level of the lesson planned.
Moreover, in a confirmation inquiry-based lesson, the students were completely
guided by the teacher. Each process involved 3 sections of the lesson: questions,
procedures, and solutions. As the research explained, this level 1 of inquiry-based
learning handed the students information for all three of those sections. In this
model/level of inquiry-based learning, the students followed an experiment already
conducted. The end goal was for the students to “confirm” that the experiment results are

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

19

valid and reliable to the solution given. This was by far the easiest way to conduct
inquiry-based learning. The upside to this model was that instruction took place
consistently for all students and content was consistent for all students. The downside of
this model was that it does not tap student curiosity or spark their interest as much as a
topic they choose themselves.
As the solution was removed, the model moved to Level 2 of the inquiry-based
learning model. The most common example of Level 2 - Structured Inquiry approach,
followed the most typical science classroom with a scripted lab to follow. The typical lab
experiment where students followed a structured procedure, answered given questions
and developed their own conclusion exemplified this model. This model’s structure
closely resembled Level 1 with the solution being concluded by the students rather than
given by the teacher. Huag (2014) highlighted the importance of guiding students toward
conceptual knowledge rather than giving information. Huag (2014) illustrated the
difference between teachable and learnable moments moving from Level 1 to Level 2:
While teachable moments provide opportunities for learning, learnable moments
in this study refer to episodes during which students actually are helped toward
conceptual knowledge. Whether teachers capitalize upon teachable moments and
turn them into learnable moments was manifested in the interaction between
student and teacher and in teachers’ action to student responses. (p. 80)
In the Level 2 model, structured lessons and teacher interactions were critical in the
learning process. Again, in this model all students worked towards a common goal.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

20

Also, Haug (2014) emphasized the fundamental element of inquiry-based learning
as students seeking answers to questions. Cervetti et al. (2006) demonstrated (as cited in
Haug, 2014):
As mentioned, there was no specific definition of what inquiry was or agreement
on how to explicitly engage students in inquiry-based learning in ways that
enhance student conceptual understanding. What was collectively agreed upon
was that inquiry-based instruction involves students pursuing answers to a
researchable question and comparing their answer with what research was already
known about the world. (p. 80)
Within Level 3 - Guided Inquiry, the teacher-created procedure to obtain a solution was
removed from the sections of the lesson. The teacher still presented the questions;
consequently, the students needed to focus on a procedure to answer the questions. In
other words, Level 3 inquiry maintains that teachers provided only the questions. In
contrast, Level 1 inquiry involved teachers providing information for all questions,
procedures, and solutions. The problem solving skills needed to increase with this level
of inquiry, as the students needed to build their own logical steps/procedure to solve. This
level required the students to take more ownership in the experiments and the findings.
The positive side of this level fell in the promotion of student learning, problem solving
and student voice. On the other hand, it was only valuable if the teacher had the ability to
manage multiple solutions. Feedback to the students during the process was critical to the
success of the lesson and the ability of the teacher to facilitate.
To live at the highest level of inquiry-based learning, a teacher needed to release
control to their students. Level 4 - Open Inquiry, required the students to create the entire

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

21

process from the idea stage to the solution stage. This level had broad parameters that
often led teachers to difficulty in consistent content. However, this level had the highest
level of student ownership, student voice and student investment/engagement. As
students selected their own idea, research questions, and procedure to solve the problem,
they build a direct interest into the learning of that inquiry problem. This level for
teachers/students definitely reached the highest risk for planning/practice; however, it
also had the highest potential for reward in authentic learning. Engaging with students in
structuring and carrying out their very own logical examinations is a motivating method
for learning. A specific example of this was establishing an examination question.
Additionally, students find out how logical information was developed. Inquiry-based
learning has been recommended to emphatically influence students’ learning results by
methods for empowering open inquiries (Minner et al., 2010). In open inquiry-based
learning, teachers motivated pupils to carry out individually designed, interest-guided
inquiries to respond to their study questions.
Nevertheless, other research questioned the effectiveness of inquiry-based
learning when compared to more traditional teacher-centered models. The highest level,
Level 4 - Open Inquiry, pushed the ceiling for students’ problem solving and was a model
of the constructivist approach. Furtak et al. (2012) and Kirschner et al. (2006) stated this
level was unguided and showed negative impacts for that lack of guidance. Particularly,
there was evidence-based research that focuses on the lack of effectiveness for Level 4 Open Inquiry. Furtak et al. (2012) highlighted critiques of inquiry-based teaching:
“Critics of inquiry-based teaching have argued that its minimally guided approach,”
which was level 4 open inquiry, “does not provide sufficient structure to help students

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

22

learn the important concepts and procedures of science” (p. 301). Similarly, Kirschner et
al (2006) indicated that during inquiry-based learning, students lacked the support they
needed. Students’ lack of knowledge stressed bad procedures and created a lack of
student engagement as a result of this unsupported classroom environment. This was a
direct result of teachers relinquishing too much control in the process of the highest level
of inquiry. Kirschner et al. (2006) concluded that there was a lack of research that
supports advantages of minimally guided instruction:
After a half-century of advocacy associated with instruction using minimal
guidance, it appears that there was no body of research supporting the technique.
In so far as there was any evidence from controlled studies, it almost uniformly
supports direct, strong instructional guidance rather than constructivist-based
minimal guidance during the instruction of novice to intermediate learners. Even
for students with considerable prior knowledge, strong guidance while learning
was most often found to be equally effective as unguided approaches. No only
was unguided instruction normally less effective; there was also evidence that it
may have negative results when students acquire misconceptions or incomplete or
disorganized knowledge. (pp. 83-84)
Overall, critics of inquiry-based learning have promoted traditional, direct instruction in
which teachers presented information to students through deliberately crafted lessons and
lectures (Kirschner et al., 2006).
Characteristics of Inquiry
Regardless of the model, level, or style of teaching, the characteristics of inquiry
funneled into 10 distinct characteristics. According to research from MacKenzie and

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

23

Bathurst-Hunt (2018), Figure 1 highlights characteristics that surface in an inquiry
classroom across a span of time over several lessons, days, and weeks.
The characteristics are:
1. Nurture student passions and talents
2. Empower student voice and honour student choice
3. Increase motivation and engagement
4. Foster curiosity and a love for learning
5. Teach grit, perseverance, growth mindset and self-regulation
6. Make research meaningful and develop strong research skills
7. Deepen understanding to go beyond memorization of facts and content
8. Fortify the importance of asking good questions
9. Enable students to take ownership over their learning and to reach their goals
10. Solve the problems of tomorrow in the classrooms of today
Figure 1
The 10 Characteristics of the Inquiry Classroom

Note: Original from Inquiry Mindset: Nurturing the Dreams, Wonders, & Curiosities of Our
Youngest Learners by T. MacKenzie & Bathurst-Hunt, (2018), p. 14. Copyright 2018

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

24

Today, in the 21st century, most students are visual and hands-on learners
(MacKenzie, 2016). This being said, students need to be allowed to act as their teachers
and use the information given to them by the classroom teachers to create their own
understanding of the content. Teachers encourage their students to engage in dialogue
and work with other students and peers to gain new ideas and look at other viewpoints of
the topics. By creating an inquiry-based teaching environment where collaborations and
model-based learning are encouraged, and phenomena are used to captivate students,
students can show their understanding of different topics on a deeper level than they
would if they were to sit, take notes, and be lectured at. Using inquiry-based approaches,
students thought outside the box, learned with their own methods, and defended their
understanding and knowledge of the given topics.
This inquiry approach allows students to learn in their own ways, model what
they are learning as a way to track their process, and give students a more enjoyable
approach to the standards taught to them. According to MacKenzie (2016), this approach
was designed to “Foster curiosity and a love for learning” (# 4 in Figure 1). This
approach benefited not only the students, but also the teacher. With this approach, the
teacher differentiated lessons, encouraged collaboration and interaction of students in a
productive way, and assessed students in a manner other than a multiple-choice test. An
inquiry-based approach turned a lecture and test-based classroom into an explorative and
conceptual applicative learning environment. In lessons like this, teachers focused on a
growth mindset as referenced in MacKenzie and Bathurst-Hunt’s (2018) research (#5 in
Figure 1). To understand the growth mindset, research showed that the definition of selfefficacy best explained the central theme of growth mindset. More specifically, Bandura

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

25

(1977) and Maddux (2002) stated (as cited in Buenconsejo & Datu, 2020) to clarify the
meaning of self-efficacy:
Self-efficacy was the belief about one’s capability of showing skills and
performing actions needed to achieve a desired goal in a specific domain or
situation. Personal accomplishments (e.g., successes and failure in specific tasks),
vicarious experiences (e.g., observing others succeed or fail), verbal persuasions
(e.g., words of encouragement from mentors), as well as physiological and
emotional states (e.g., fatigue and anxiety level) influence self-efficacy beliefs.
(p.2)
In conclusion, students that lacked the confidence to do inquiry, have shown less of the
other characteristics.
Moreover, characteristics one, two, three and nine in Figure 1 all relate to intrinsic
motivation for students. Rudd’s (2008) argument (as cited in Song et al., 2012):
Rudd (2008) proposes that personalization should “increase learner choice and
voice” in which learners have the power and control over their learning. “Increase
learner choice” means that learners have the opportunities to make decisions on
the agenda of actions made by the teacher; and “increase learning voice” means
that learners have the opportunities to initiate the agendas for action, and are codesigners for their education with the educators. (p. 681)
The term engagement came to mind with this statement, and it was a deep level of
engagement to where that shifted to investment by the student. Nurturing the students’
passions strengthened the investment/engagement the students had in their work.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

26

Another key aspect in MacKenzie’s research was problem solving skills. The
research showed numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10 in the 10 characteristics (Figure 1) all revolved
around an engineer design mindset. That mindset stressed solid problem solving skills
with a desire to explore without a fear of failure. Research demonstrated inquiry-based
practice included the development of problem solving through inquiry. Engineer design
method skills such as “critical thinking, the ability to undertake independent inquiry, and
gaining responsibility for their own learning” developed as a positive instruction result of
inquiry (Vajoczki et al., 2011, p. 4). Research showed that inquiry-based learning
performed with these characteristics in mind produced many more positive results than a
memorization method of learning. Therefore, the growth mindset, student voice, and
problem solving centralized as the main focus areas of inquiry.
Within the 10 characteristics, problem solving surfaced to the top of every
discussion. Ruzaman and Rosli (2020) established this point in their research:
Inquiry-based education (IBL) was a form of active learning approach that was
strongly student-centered that was driven by inquiry or research. Students are
given a sequence of questions or task and are asked to solve and make sense of
them. In inquiry-based learning, students are challenged to engage in a deep
understanding of the particular courses. Effective inquiry-based learning courses
are making use of purposefully structured problems or scenarios that further can
develop and enhance students’ critical thinking skills, interpersonal skills and
group collaboration skills. (p.5)
The pros of the students given the questions related back to the positive features of a
guided model of inquiry. The teachers had the control of the direction of the unit within a

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

27

guided inquiry lesson. The negative result of the students being given the questions, lead
to the lack of student choice in the learning. According to MacKenzie (2016), when
teachers attempted to include the 10 characteristics, it became very difficult to hit all 10
within a guided lesson. The deep side of the pool was open inquiry and that was an area
that teachers only visited and did not stay all the time. Instruction flows through the
models as does the ability to embrace the 10 characteristics of inquiry (MacKenzie,
2016).
Inquiry Online and Inquiry Equity
The distinct characteristics of inquiry concerning face to face and online
instruction are closely interlinked with the type of instructional method to be employed in
the actual teaching and learning process. Research affirmed that the ingrained teacher's
characteristics concerning the approaches in teaching identify a key relationship between
the teachers' traits, the teaching content, the employed learning activities, and the
individual differences between the students. (Bandura et al., 2001) The other key
variable lies in the underlying objectives, which are to be attained at the end of the entire
learning process. MacKenzie’s (2016) research has also affirmed a direct relationship
between the denoted teacher characteristics and the effectiveness of the employed project
delivery methods. The most viable aspect of the project method was the proposition that
teachers are controlling and better positioning their students to construct specific
knowledge for the application of the denoted projects. According to Ruzaman and Rosli
(2020),
Simulations offer a chance for learners to perform experiments by changing
variables and observing the effects. Mobile technologies are literally

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

28

revolutionizing school education nowadays. Mobile technologies are converting
the conventional classroom setting with interactive classroom applications. For
example, Frog Virtual Learning Environment (Frog VLE), 1Note and Google
Classroom. With this revolution, subjects in school will be taught on virtual
learning platforms through interactive lessons. Students can complete their
homework and also do some revising of their studies on the gamified teaching and
learning platform. (p.5)
This was a direct correlation between the teacher traits and the content being taught. The
research showed that the teachers' interest in technology use and their interest in content
played a greater variable in the implementation of that technology. The question that
remained in the background of the inquiry-based learning through technology assumed
that all technology supplies are equitable for all students. Students may have all the
interest in the world with full student choice, but the access to technology resources may
have blocked the ability to follow through in some cases.
This research took place at a unique time in education - through a global
pandemic (Covid-19 pandemic in 2020). School systems were forced to think about
equity and technology as a means of redesigning the instructional delivery process. Some
schools closed entirely operating on 100% remote instruction. Other schools took a
chance to continue with a hybrid model and schedule some face to face time. Little
research currently exists on the effectiveness of these models, along with the ability to
continue learning through an inquiry-based approach. The research of Ruzaman and Rosli
(2020) was not the common practice in the pandemic as many teachers were forced into
using technology without the intrinsic values in that delivery model. The intrinsic value

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

29

may have existed in the content taught; however, the accelerated need for technology as a
delivery model impacted the instructional inquiry-based models in a much different way.
Teachers’ beliefs on how students learn impacted the classroom, whether that
classroom was face to face or online. If the teacher missed the positive values of learning
through online models, then the teacher believed that the students can not learn through
that online model. According to a research study by Wong (2016), “The results show
that the science and mathematics teacher participants significantly changed their beliefs
over the one-year period. It appears that the iSMART courses had an impact on the
teachers’ beliefs, which moved toward more student-centered positions” (p. 9). As the
teachers’ beliefs were impacted, the students’ progress became more evident. With this
same study, the researchers also found that veteran teachers' beliefs shifted much less
than the new teachers. Furthermore, the research also supported that teacher professional
development and educational learning programs had an impact on the mind shift of
instruction (Wong, 2016).
Teachers building relationships with students was a critical component to this
conversation for both understanding and equity. Stone et al. (2019) illustrated the
negative impact a poor student-teacher relationship could have on learning :
As expressed by Angela, ‘the whole point of being online is, I would have
thought, for flexibility, and to then encompass a much broader range of learners in
different circumstances’ (PreSemester). It was disappointing, and potentially
disengaging, when they experienced at times a lack of understanding or regard for
their circumstances as online students. In the words of Julie, ‘We all have
different circumstances and that’s why we’re studying online’. Julie described

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

30

how in one of her units the tutor had told all students, including those online, that
any contributions to the discussion forum posted after Wednesday each week
would not be looked at by the tutor, as this was considered to be too late in the
week to merit attention. (p. 30)
Inquiry-based learning approaches, models and characteristics supported that teachers
need to build relationships with students. Within Angela and Julie’s experience, the lack
of that relationship created a gap in learning. When students were turned off by the
logistics and inequities, the learning experience was blocked. This showed the barrier was
created when student voice is not heard.
In addition to the negative results that come from limiting student voice, another
problem in this current educational system is teachers watering down content when they
think a student is not capable of the skills needed to complete an inquiry-based project.
Should educators incorporate more open ended projects for higher achieving students or
should they attempt to keep it equitable? Although inquiry-based learning is not a
complete solution to equity issues, it can function as an entry point into an equitable
classroom. When done with the best interest of all students in mind and the perspective
that all students learn equally, inquiry builds a level ground for all students to reach the
future skills they need. Not only was it important to investigate teachers’ perspectives and
inquiry approaches, but it was also necessary to examine if equity existed in those
classroom opportunities. This research will address if the classroom demographics are
equitable and if the resources available to all students are equitable. A major challenge
for online inquiry-based projects, or even a project being required at home, was the fact
that not all resources at home are equitable.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

31

Equity for all students and the ability to access the technology proved to be a
greater challenge than many planned for during Covid -19, 2020. It could be projected
that analysis of 2020 and beyond will show even more variables related to equity for all
students. The overarching denotations were closely knit with the learning opportunities
and the student outcome levels. Research in the same field has been aimed at ensuring
that the students who are from poor backgrounds experienced stress during the entire
learning process. There was a dire need to ascertain the achievement gap between the
students from higher and lower income families. The income and the achievement gaps
indicate that there was a need to examine attainment gaps between children form
different income levels (Burchinal et al., 2011). This study was based on early childhood
education and related to the question, “Why aren’t more students from diverse
backgrounds engaging in higher level classes like STEM and inquiry-based learning
environments?” Further investigation of this question was necessary to fully grasp the
concern that STEM courses our predominantly male and not students with diverse
backgrounds.
Equally important, the classroom environment proved to be a critical contributor
to inquiry-based learning. The 10 characteristics from Figure 1 had a direct correlation to
building relationships and encouraging a positive learning environment. According to
Hernandez et al. (2019),
A caring, culturally responsive learning community was essential—one where all
students are well-known and valued and are free from social identity or stereotype
threats that exacerbate stress and undermine performance. These positive
relationships with adults and peers encourage students to engage their curiosities

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

32

and take learning risks while mitigating the effects of adversity that many students
face requires equitable access to curriculum and the removal of strategies, such as
tracking, that signal deficit views of some students’ capacities. Building the
relationships needed to ensure effective, personalized instruction requires
structures that allow for continuity in relationships—such as looping with teachers
for more than one year, advisory systems, small schools or learning communities,
and teaching teams. These can enable individualized supports, outreach to
families, and a sense of belonging crucial to student success. (p. 3)
Building relationships proved to be a great equalizer in helping students that faced equity
and diversity issues. The better the teachers knew their students' stories, the more help
accrued to create the highest quality of education for those students (Darling-Hammond
& Cook-Harvey, 2018). Equity should not be a roadblock to inquiry-based learning;
conversely, inquiry-based learning should be an opportunity to open student voice and
choice helping to provide an equitable learning opportunity.
Teacher Effectiveness and Student Motivation Drives Positives/Negatives
The underlying issue of why student-led learning can be a weakness fell in the
teacher's ability to deliver a high quality of instruction. The approaches in inquiry-based
learning are centered on distinct goals. They are not framed on the need to let go of the
learning process, but they need to retain ultimate control over the three learning domains
(Callison, 2014). The lack of proper and well-controlled teacher intervention approaches
in the learning process were a limitation to the envisioned scope of learning. This was
because the students' thinking can be restricted to their innate experiences, and this led to
lack of knowledge, which was vital in investigating a definite task or a proposed inquiry

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

33

line. The teacher should have an innate understanding of when it was most appropriate to
introduce new concepts and ideas that are aimed at serving as a guide to the postulated
student learning outcomes. The application of the interchange proposes a clear avenue for
the students to self-direct their learning outcomes. The effectiveness of the inquiry-based
learning outcomes should be tailored to ensure that it was appropriate for diverse learning
groups and ages (MacKenzie, 2016). This rationale maintains that the complexity of the
tasks is altered to match up the capabilities of the students in different ability levels. The
approach demonstrates the need to offer diverse well-tailored questions that are directly
intended to control and guide the presumed learning outcomes. Therefore, there is a need
to guide the students to choose specific topics that spark their interest from which they
should root their overarching research. The students should be guided in directing their
research to diverse topics and well defined parameters to drive the scope of their
research. The employed tasks should be adaptable to the specific abilities in line with the
ability of the students to deliver the tasks. The ability of the students in completing
diverse tasks should be examined in relation to the complexity of the task and the
student's ability. According to Anderson (2002), the utilized inquiry process proved to be
a significant advantage because it allowed the students to gain innate control over the
chosen learning direction, and it was the most appropriate approach to student learning in
diverse age groups. However, the effectiveness of the teaching process was highly
influenced by the teacher’s ability to apply the theory properly.
The review has affirmed that inquiry-based learning represents a student-centered
learning approach characterized by minimal directions from the tutor; therefore, it can be
effectively utilized in diverse learning criteria. The approaches were vital in distinct

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

34

subjects concerning the needs of the students of diverse ages. The inquiry-based learning
approaches employed in theory are diverse. They entail detailed inquiry through research
and a deep focus on student collaboration rationales, problem-solving approaches, and
the innovative application of the accruing knowledge. The practice's effectiveness
introduced new ideas and concepts by the student because the teacher acts as a facilitator
to the learning process. The learning approach's success was ingrained in the careful
application of the underlying approaches to diverse learning environments.
Moreover, the success of the implemented inquiry-based learning approaches also
relied on teacher effectiveness. The approach implied that teachers’ self-efficacy had an
innate and long interest in teaching the subject. If a teacher believes in his or her own
ability, then creating an avenue of exploring the concepts in other outside of the
classroom activities becomes routine. The underlying interest lies in ensuring that the
teachers overcome the overarching difficulties in teaching the subject. Teacher burnout
can drastically impact teacher self-efficacy. The scope of the extent in the inquiry-based
learning approaches led to the realization of innate interest traits among teachers with
higher self-teaching and self-efficacy levels. Research was based on the need to ascertain
the various effects of personal learning goals and the overarching efficacy in teaching via
the central inquiry-based approaches (Bandura et al., 2001). The results of numerous
studies have been compared with the need to employ diverse approaches concerning
teacher efficacy. The various inquiry-based learning models are interlinked with the
confirmation inquiry approaches, the structured inquiry, and the open inquiry rationales.
The various learning models' scope confirmed that teachers with high personal
values have a higher need to increase their personal goals. The teacher's role in the

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

35

teaching process was to ensure that all the student experiences are documented (Bandura
et al., 2001). The other method lies in providing the students with a viable learning curve
that was embedded in creating a team spirit. It was necessary that the student learning
experience was well-coordinated by incorporating well-prepared teaching and learning
materials. In conclusion, there was a positive relationship between teacher preparation
levels and student achievement levels.
The teachers who capitalized on articulating the syllabus and the teaching content
were most likely the ones to deliver superb teaching approaches that result in student
achievement. The results of several studies (Bandura et al., 2001; Makenzie, 2018; Allen
& Penuel, 2015) reflected that there was a direct relationship between the subject matter,
the teacher's knowledge, and the student attainments. This affirmed that the student's
confidence level has a direct impact on the utilized teaching approaches. The 10
characteristics in Figure 1 imply that students build confidence with investment in student
voice and choice (MacKenzie, 2016). Conversely, missing voice and choice broke down
confidence. Within the characteristics, the lack of a teacher's background knowledge has
a direct effect on the students' learning abilities. In an open inquiry-based learning
project, students may have confidence in a topic that a teacher lacks the knowledge to
support. The teachers' learning abilities suggest a need for the teacher to exercise mastery
of the instructional materials. The most rigorous approach for teacher planning lies in
employing various instructional methods interlinked with the subject matter's key details.
The instructional materials should be aimed at adjusting information concerning the
students’ learning needs. The reliability of the employed teaching approaches was
embedded in the rationale of active communication approaches between the teachers and

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

36

the parents to ensure that distinct instructional materials (i.e. iPads) facilitate the actual
learning process (Hong et al., 2017). The instructional materials are vital in ensuring that
the activities provide a clear rationale for the students to interact with the project
requirements.
In addition, the implemented teaching approaches' scope aimed to ensure that the
subject matter was appropriate and successful. The teacher should have vast knowledge
of the subject matter with a good mastery of the subject content. The teacher's role was
solely based on the need to impact a clear rationale characterized by ongoing knowledge
exchange. More specifically, the approach postulated that the teacher's qualifications
have a direct impact on the student's achievement levels. The school management
ensured that there are highly qualified teachers to spearhead classroom instruction. The
school management also established a reliable framework in defining and preparing the
staff members. The rationale of quality teachers was to confirm that the provided
instruction provoked the students' innate thoughts and demonstrates a clear avenue in
facilitating the classroom teaching approaches. The teachers exhibited high
professionalism levels by displaying desirable traits while upholding high standards and
norms in the teaching process. The scope of a teacher's ability lies in that they have a
vivid experience of the students’ learning abilities (Hong et al., 2017). The teachers were
better positioned to establish that they bring out the actual learning by capitalizing on
their experiences. They should be assessed by utilizing various normative attributes by
verifying that the learning process was logical and closely knit in distinct ethical
attributes. Research has affirmed a direct relationship between the teacher's effectiveness
and years of teacher experience. However, the teacher's years of experience are not

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

37

entirely linear with the actual classroom content delivery (Allen & Penuel, 2015). The
available information suggested that inexperienced teachers are always less effective
when compared to senior teachers. The accruing benefits of the teacher experience form
an ardent avenue in the actual classroom teaching approaches. The direct implications of
teacher experience and the postulated student attainment levels is solely based on the
teacher's motivation levels during the content delivery approaches.
Most importantly, effective teacher instruction required elements of
differentiation to meet the needs of a diverse group of learners. Differentiation was seen
in many different ways when it comes to an inquiry-based approach. To start, one method
had students work with partners. By students working with partners, they asked
questions, built off of each other, and saw the topic from a different perspective. Another
way differentiation was seen in an inquiry-based classroom was to use various hands-on
activities. An inquiry-based classroom proved to be model-based, which allowed students
to create their own models based on their understanding level. From the model, the
students explained what they did and why they did it. Assessments in inquiry-based
classrooms exhibited differentiation in many ways. One way was to have the students
defend their models. This can be done by asking open-ended and higher-order thinking
questions for the students to answer. From this, the teacher demonstrated a gauge of the
understanding level of the students. However, a teacher who was not able to manage
multiple styles of learning for inquiry did not get the same depth of knowledge from
students.
The scope of inquiry-based learning approaches was closely knit in the scope of
the overarching inquiry-based characteristics. First, there was a need to nurture student

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

38

passions and talents. In addition to nurturing student passions, inquiry-based learning
approaches must empower student voice by honoring the student choices. Moreover,
inquiry-based learning approaches address the need to increase the student's motivation
and engagement. The other approach lies in fostering curiosity and an innate love for the
learning approaches. Also, the teacher's grit works to preserve a reliable growth mindset
and the self-regulation approaches (Rutherford, 1964). The teacher's role was to develop
meaningful projects that produce reliable research from students with viable problemsolving skills. As stated in the constructivist approach fostering curiosity needs to deepen
an innate understanding, which goes beyond the actual memorization of the distinct facts
and the available content. In this research by Rutherford (1964) and MacKenzie (2016),
teachers often focused on content and lost sight of these inquiry-based rationales.
Inquiry-based learning aimed to teach students the essence of asking the right questions
instead of the teacher asking the right questions. The most experienced teachers created a
clear rationale, which was aimed at developing an innate ownership of the learning
process to attain the overarching goals. The right approach lies in creating an innovative
culture in the contemporary classroom to spearhead the actual learning domains. The
right rationale called for a dynamic teacher to understand a balance with characteristics,
levels, and depth of knowledge.
Conclusion
There are distinct approaches concerning inquiry-based learning methods. The
overarching synergy regarding the employed approaches ensures that all the inquirybased models are enacted under the key advantages of the inquiry-based learning
characteristics. The elements of inquiry-based learning approaches can also be confirmed

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

39

in relation to the basic problem-solving methods or processes. The critical consideration
was entrenched in underlying issues of inquiry-based learning methods. The key focus on
the overarching inquiry was interlinked with the need to employ the denoted approaches
in distinct contexts. Embedded within that context, 10 characteristics and 4 main levels
assembled that main theme of inquiry-based learning. However, challenges in pedagogy
and terminology often varied slightly due to the author at hand.
The long-term hybrid approaches can be examined via the scope of the traditional
lectures and the curricula. There is a dire need to examine the distinct disciplinary
contexts, and it can be employed to a range of scales in the contemporary learning
environments. The learning approaches can be altered to accommodate different learning
environments, which should also include the nature of the discipline at hand. The framing
of the inquiry-based approaches should be tailored to ensure that the students are
equipped with the necessary resources in spearheading the entire learning approach. The
key approaches demonstrate a need to solicit the vital time in gathering the necessary
resources to lead the entire learning process. The teacher's preliminary work can also be
interlinked with the need to ascertain the availability of the essential resources necessary
to guide instruction. The most veteran teachers capitalize on distinct information
searching skills to support the subject matter and support the entire learning timeline of
content delivery. Collecting the best materials requires a need to engage various skills in
searching for extra content aimed at enhancing the teaching process.
More specifically, inquiry-based learning represents a core teaching approach,
which revolves around the student's perceptions, ideas, and innate observations to guide
the learning process. The teacher acts as a facilitator, and his/her role is characterized by

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

40

the need to create an ongoing knowledge exchange platform by ensuring that the ability
of the students to understand and refine the key details lies at the core of the entire
learning process. Inquiry-based learning approaches are not centered on the need to
answer the right questions or get the right answers. Rather, they are concentrated on the
need to question, research, investigate and engage in a dedicated pursuit of the actual
learning process. Furthermore, the method was enhanced by the active involvement of
different learners in the same educational setting to enrich the scope of the ongoing
interactions in relation to the learning process (Tang et al., 2017). The actual learning
process's responsibility lies with both the teacher and the student because the general
focus was framed on the ongoing exploration and analysis of the available knowledge
rather than the need to unearth the correct answers in diverse situations. The entire
learning process in an inquiry-based approach was characterized by various open-ended
questions, which included the need to conduct knowledge transfers through the scope of
interpretation, hypothesis questioning, and reflective learning. In summary, inquiry-based
learning was not centered on self-directed research elements, but it revolves around the
rationale of student-based learning.
To further emphasize the student was at the core of inquiry-based learning, the
classroom instruction rationale was based on the need to nurture the student's discipline
stemming from the students' thinking and acting abilities rather than the need to work on
an individual project (Maab, 2018). The overarching goal lies in ensuring that the
students are better positioned to tackle real world questions to determine the truth
surrounding different controversies. The scope of the learning process relies on the
development of diverse communication and questioning skills. The accurate articulation

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

41

of the approaches mentioned facilitates the student's ability to develop a deep-rooted
understanding of the content knowledge.
Inquiry-based learning employs a number of teaching and learning approaches,
including problem-based and design-based learning criteria. The student learning
domains of design learning involve posing actual challenges to the students via offering
projects that require a hands on approach. The scope of design learning abilities extends
to the creation of project presentations to ensure that the students have an innate
understanding of what they have learned in the classroom. The distinct approaches in
inquiry-based learning can be integrated into a single task or diverse task in an approach
best suited to offering diverse learning styles (Dana et al., 2011). The pedagogical
approach emphasizes the need for the students to self-direct their learning in the scope of
the curriculum with minimal instruction from the tutors. The advantages can be traced to
the fact that the learning approach fosters student-based learning. An underlying
disadvantage was that not all students have the tools or background knowledge to
successfully learn in this environment. The fact that the learning approach was directed
by the student and not the teachers creates a distinct avenue in ensuring that the students
are in full control of what they learn. If education was equal for all students, then ultimate
control in the student learning domains serves as an innate stimulation to the student’s
learning and creativity levels. Not all students have the same motivation, even if the
education background is equal. The fact that the students are more self-driven in
understanding the diverse elements of their research, assumed that all students are selfmotivated. This was primarily due to the fear of students losing focus as well as a fear of
students lacking the ability to digest what they are learning.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

42

The world is changing very quickly, and the field of education must evolve in
order to support these dynamic times. The need to implement the most dynamic teaching
approaches is more important now than ever before. Moreover, the scope of
contemporary research regarding inquiry-based learning proves that there is a dire need to
ensure that students are well-positioned to engage with the subject matter via distinct
approaches in order to effectively stimulate the learning process. Student voice and
choice proved to be at the front of research evolving from the characteristics and levels of
inquiry. Not only is it necessary to evaluate the needs of the student, but it is also
essential to confirm the skills of the teacher to guarantee that there is ongoing quality
delivery of the content. In an inquiry-based classroom, the teacher is perceived as a
knowledge simulator and not a knowledge dispenser. As a result, the employed
approaches' validity serves as a key in uplifting the student's creativity levels to various
knowledge heights.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

43

CHAPTER 3
Methodology
Inquiry-based education is no new term to educational professionals. The world
surrounding our current instructional models have changed exponentially over the past 10
years. This research study is significant because it will dig deeper into what teachers
value about inquiry-based learning. There are many characteristics of inquiry-based
lessons that this study will analyze. Additionally, through the examination of teacher
perspectives, this study will identify the most valued or accepted characteristics in our
lessons. The year 2020 has even accelerated the change in education with a global
pandemic. Technology has become essential, and online education has become a normal
part of all educators' lives. This study will also take a look at any similarities and
differences in the teachers’ perspectives on their inquiry-based lessons in a face to face
and an online environment. This chapter will explain the purpose of this study as well as
build a greater understanding of the research questions by identifying the participants and
setting including fiscal needs, the research method, the plan for incorporating teacher
perspective, and an overview of data collection.
Additionally, this chapter will focus on the reasons to study inquiry-based
learning within the Parkland School District. This study is based off of three research
questions that will be listed within and highlighted by the goals throughout this study. In
order for readers to completely understand the need for this study in the Parkland School
District, they will need to recognize the background and district goals. Knowledge of the
dynamics within the school district will be explained and threaded through each section
of this chapter. This research is not a shallow look at the Parkland School District; the

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

44

reader will need to acquire an understanding of Parkland’s history over the past 10 years.
Even though this research concentrates on the characteristics of inquiry, the pedagogy is
critical and embedded throughout professional growth and goals internalized in the
school district as a whole. This will become more clear to the reader as this chapter
further discusses the make-up of the district and the resources available to the teachers.
To start, the data collection of this research will be a mixed research design. In
this design, the researcher is expecting to ascertain an understanding of the teachers’
perspectives on inquiry through a survey, classroom observations, and a few interviews.
This data will be used as a cross section to some demographic data pulled from our
district databases. More specifically, the demographic data will be analyzed to view the
make-up of high profile inquiry pathways, along with the student populations of the
classrooms observed. In the end, a section of this chapter will describe the validity of the
data. In other words, it will detail the measures that have been taken to assure
confidentiality and the steps taken to collect data in order to maintain credibility,
reliability, and dependability of the results.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to take a closer look at the characteristics identified in
past professional developments as essential characteristics for inquiry-based learning. As
we dig into these characteristics from a teacher perspective, we will analyze both the face
to face classroom and the online classroom. The research identifies the correlation
between the most frequent characteristics in both environments. It is also important to
note that this is not specific to any one content area. The research data will be collected
from grades 6th through 12th and open to all content areas for analysis.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

45

Within the past few years, the Parkland School District has made a mark with
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education. Parkland School
District has built partnerships in these fields and developed pathways of learning to
support STEM education. The school district has also rolled out a one to one computer
initiative over 3 years for all K-12 students. With each student having their own computer
and a strong STEM pathway in place, one would think that the research on inquiry-based
learning would become relatively easy and straightforward. However, even with those
initiatives in place, the district has seen hurdles for inquiry education and challenges with
building cultures around inquiry-based learning. This investigation will look at the
characteristics of inquiry-based learning and establish an understanding of the
characteristics as they relate to other district initiatives.
Furthermore, for a district to move forward collaboratively and cohesively,
initiatives need to be seen as interlocking gears with consistent goals. If teachers and
administrators feel they are getting hit with multiple new unrelated initiatives, there is
often a feeling of overwhelming workloads. It is incredibly important for readers to not
only know the characteristics of inquiry-based learning, but they must also understand the
other initiatives. This study would become too broad to analyze the characteristics in all
other district instructional goals. The core of this research is to investigate what
characteristics of inquiry-based learning are most often evident in instruction.
Within this study, a large part of the characteristics will bring attention to student
voice and student choice. This is an area that will naturally cross-over again with STEM
instruction and with any computer one to one initiative. The professional development
with inquiry-based learning does not stand alone. Also, it is important to note that within

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

46

this research study it will be critical to analyze the equity within the demographics of a
classroom. As we evaluate student voice and choice within the characteristics of inquirybased instruction, learning if equitable opportunities exist will be an essential part of
analyzing the most commonly implemented characteristics.
It may seem complex to navigate STEM education, one to one computer
initiatives, equity concerns, and best instructional practices all in one research study.
However, the reason for this is a result of the complexity that a school district faces in
order to institute change. If the gears are not working together, it will be perceived as an
overwhelming task of accomplishing multiple initiatives. On the other hand, if the gears
all work together, it will be seen as one larger objective. This study will target one aspect
of that larger goal, while at the same time never forgetting that there are multiple
components working together to initiate instructional change. Within this study, data
regarding student voice and choice along with equity will hopefully shed light on current
teacher perspectives of inquiry-based learning. More specifically, the study will dig
deeper into 10 characteristics as outlined in professional development with Trevor
MacKenzie.
As discussed in the research, there are many levels of inquiry and multiple models
of inquiry-based learning that will all factor into the comfort level and self-efficacy of a
teacher. Each teacher has something different that motivates them. Some teachers are
incredibly motivated with STEM education. Other teachers are incredibly motivated with
technology and digitizing lessons. Some are just motivated by the pure love of their
content and passing that content to their students. The one common thread that fits into
any level, any model, or any reason for that motivation are the characteristics that

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

47

surround inquiry-based learning. According to research from MacKenzie and BathurstHunt (2018), the characteristics are:
1. Nurture student passions and talents
2. Empower student voice and honour student choice
3. Increase motivation and engagement
4. Foster curiosity and a love for learning
5. Teach grit, perseverance, growth mindset and self-regulation
6. Make research meaningful and develop strong research skills
7. Deepen understanding to go beyond memorization of facts and content
8. Fortify the importance of asking good questions
9. Enable students to take ownership over their learning and to reach their goals
10. Solve the problems of tomorrow in the classrooms of today
These characteristics can be identified in a wide range of instructional practices from
teachers with diverse backgrounds in inquiry-based education.
By narrowing this study to these 10 characteristics, this research will indirectly
analyze any level of inquiry. It also fits into multiple instructional models to see if the
characteristics of inquiry-based learning exist. During early STEM initiatives in Parkland,
some teachers never realized they were doing STEM activities or inquiry-based learning.
They were incorporating effective instructional methods, but they did not yet recognize
that these practices were rooted in STEM. Moreover, concentrating on the list of
characteristics will help analyze inquiry-based learning in all instructional environments.
The research questions are designed to open the data collection to all instructional
environments without limiting the study to any one content area. In Parkland School

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

48

District, we have been working toward building a culture of inquiry in all content areas.
The following research questions will guide this study:
1. What characteristics of inquiry classrooms are most frequently addressed in both
face to face and online instructional environments?
2. How do teachers perceive inquiry learning as we focus on best instructional
practices that include student voice and equity?
3. Within inquiry learning environments, what sub-groups (economically
disadvantaged, gender, race, ESL) are seen most frequently enrolled and to what
level of inquiry-based learning is the most evident?
These research questions are the focal point of this study and will facilitate data analysis
for all content areas by examining the characteristics of inquiry-based learning.
Equally important, recognizing the history of the Parkland School District is
essential for the purpose of this study. This study was specifically designed to embrace
multiple district goals that interlock into one larger instructional shift. This current year
has added new dimensions into that larger instructional shift with a fast demand for
online learning driven by the Covid-19 pandemic. Some of these necessary changes that
have taken place in just one year are changes that have been discussed for over 10 years.
The current crisis of a worldwide pandemic has moved that discussion along much faster.
Regardless of how we ended up in our current learning environment, this research has a
focus on characteristics that support inquiry-based learning for both face to face and
online learning. It will also take a look at student voice and choice as it aligns to both
inquiry-based learning and equity.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

49

Setting and Participants
The setting for this research study is Parkland School District. According to the
district profile located on the district website, Parkland School District is a suburban,
public school located in Lehigh County in eastern Pennsylvania. This region is a semimetropolitan area known as the Lehigh Valley. This Lehigh Valley area is made up of
Lehigh and Northampton Counties. There are three cities: Allentown, Bethlehem, and
Easton, which are the foundations for this Lehigh Valley as well as numerous townships
and boroughs. With approximately 675,000 residents and a $40.1 billion economy, the
Lehigh Valley is the third largest metropolitan area in the state. This region is made up of
many large employers that have been strong supporters of STEM education and building
a STEM ecosystem. A few of the top advocates and partners in education have been Air
Products, Amazon, B. Braun Medical, Crayola, and hospital systems including Lehigh
Valley Health Network and St. Luke’s University Health Network. Within Lehigh
Valley, Parkland School District encompasses three townships with a total population of
approximately 60,000. It covers 72 square miles with a wide socio-economic range as it
borders the city of Allentown on one corner and stretches to farmland on the other corner.
Parkland School District prides itself on a vision statement of, “Educating the
Whole Child: Arts, Academics, and Athletics.” Parkland maintains a reputation of
excellence as it has SAT results that are historically above both the State and National
means, a graduation rate of 96%, and offers 31 Advanced Placement College Board
courses. The total student population for grades K-12 is 9,572. The district personnel
consist of 670 teachers, 68 administrators, and 660 support staff. This study prioritizes
the secondary level and is reflective of 5,429 students and 299 teachers for grades six to

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

50

twelve. The total school district budget is currently $192 million for the current school
year. Having a solid financial foundation and many business partnerships invested in the
STEM field, Parkland has implemented pathways in Engineering, Bio-Medical and
Computer Science. We have embraced the engineering design method as a basis for
learning with the creation of a Parkland Problem Solving (Appendix A) method used in
all content areas to support inquiry. It is also a large part of the learning design method
that is supported in our makerspaces. The creative engineering learning of a makerspace
is supported in every Parkland school.
The student demographics have been changing in Parkland over the last 10 years.
Within the last five years, the student population eligible for free or reduced lunch has
increased significantly. More specifically, the percentage of eligible students for free or
reduced lunch in 2016 was 11% of the entire population. In 2020, that number has more
than doubled to 28% of our student population. The special education population is
currently at 15%. This number has been pretty consistent over the past ten years. In 2011,
our special education population was at 16%. Within the last 8 years, we have built
interventions and supports that have helped our struggling student population. However,
one statistic that has increased quite a bit is our English Language Learners (ELL). We
currently have 301 ELLs within grades K-12, with 38 native languages spoken. In 2011,
the ELL population was 130, with 20 native languages spoken. Lastly, the diversity of the
student population of Parkland School District is White (62%), Hispanic (16%), African
American (5%), Asian (13%) and Muli-Racial (4%).
Moreover, Parkland is a school district that has a wide variety of offerings and
pathways available for students. It has been financially successful in providing resources

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

51

needed to move forward in the fields of STEM education. The instructional models have
been supported by technology and the use of digital content in an inquiry-based learning
environment. The environment encompasses both face to face and online instruction in
which every student, regardless of instructional model, has a computer. The culture has
evolved to understand that STEM education exists within all content areas. Within that
culture has been a revolutionary shift in pedagogy to see that the inquiry-based learning
process is critical to student success. We understand that we are preparing students for
many jobs that have not even been designed or invented at this point. The problem
solving method is designed to help students be prepared for that ever changing world.
This research study is designed to help us better understand the perceptions of the
inquiry-based characteristics within this culture of Parkland School District.
Parkland has developed many initiatives to support inquiry-based learning and
build the knowledge around the problem solving process for our educators to better their
instruction. The participants in this study are teachers from grades 6th to 12th in all
content areas within the Parkland School District. There are 74 teachers that responded
to the initial survey (Appendix B). The volunteers for the classroom observations and
interview process have all been teachers within the district for at least 5 years. The
sample group has been open to all content areas and all experience levels. There are 6
volunteers for an extended study that cover: two high school math, one high school
science, two middle school English teachers and a middle school social studies teacher.
That was not something planned; however, those were the volunteers that came forward.
The anonymous survey (Appendix B) may have some teachers new to the district, as the
current data shows that three teachers have less than five years experience. The remainder

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

52

of the teachers that have answered the survey have 6 or more years of teaching
experience.
When the first survey was administered, the high school staff had just been
informed they would be switching from hybrid to fully online instruction starting
December 21st, 2020 as a result of increased cases of Covid in the building. The timing
of this survey was designed to catch teachers over the winter break after allowing for
some time of relaxation and reflection. The first semester was a whirlwind of balancing a
hybrid model in which class rosters have both face to face and fully online students.
When a Parkland school has hit a limit of Covid positive cases, it will switch to full
virtual. As a result, the participants in this study experienced instructional situations in
both face to face and virtual classrooms.
In order to get informed participant consent, the researcher created the inquirybased survey (Appendix B) which included an explanation of the study and a disclaimer
built inside the Google Form questionnaire. The survey part of this study was to remain
anonymous, so the informed consent was designed as an original disclaimer and extended
for the volunteers offering an interview and classroom observation. The participants are
completely voluntary and are a sampling of both middle and high school teachers
(Appendix C).
There were 289 teachers that received the original survey, and there are 74
responses. The 74 responses represent 25.6% of the secondary contracted teachers. The
researcher was hoping for a larger sample size. In the original planning the goal was to
get one third of the contracted teachers in the original survey. Given the fact that most
teachers feel overextended this year due to the circumstance surrounding the pandemic

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

53

and its impact on education, the sample size of one fourth can be considered a success.
The level of teacher stress is higher than I have ever witnessed in my 24 years in
education. Any task above the normal job is easily pushed off and considered too much.
Again, the timing of the initial survey was planned to reach teachers over winter break in
order to allow time off to de-stress. Then school buildings needed to shut down for
outbreaks of Covid-19 cases. At that point the researcher had received 54 responses. The
researcher decided to allow teachers time to complete their first semester grades and get
through the mid-term, ending in January. The researcher sent out a second effort to
collect data in February. In order to validate that there were no duplicate responses, the
Google Survey was designed to allow only one response per account. After the second
effort, 20 new responses surfaced to accumulate the 25% sample.
The survey to staff is just the beginning of the data collection. This data will be
cross referenced with observations and interviews. The process for the selection of
teachers involved with the class observations and interviews will be completely
voluntary. This year has been challenging enough, and the researcher was cautious to not
create additional stress for the staff. By using volunteers for the second phase, it will
allow the authenticity of the effort put in by the teachers. During the original survey
process, a separate questionnaire was issued to ask for additional volunteers needed for
extensive data collection within class observations and individual interviews. The
researcher’s goal was to gather six volunteer teachers to allow for a look deeper into the
perspectives of the staff. In the end, there were six total volunteers. There are three
participants from the high school and three participants from the middle school.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

54

Likewise, this group offers a nice span over all four core content areas (English,
mathematics, science and social studies).
Intervention and Research Plan
After a thorough review of literature, the research illustrated many natural
progressions in inquiry-based learning. There are many factors that influence this
instructional process. Teacher self-efficacy is a large factor in any instructional model.
After examining inquiry-based learning in the literature review, it became clear that
influence plays a great role and could be a factor that the researcher definitely wants to
keep in the foreground of this research plan. However, this research study is not designed
around that factor. This research study is designed to look deeper into the characteristics
that influence inquiry-based learning. Regardless of the model or level of inquiry, the
literature review identified a common thread of characteristics that were important to a
successful inquiry-based lesson. The study will also analyze the implementation of
inquiry-based instruction in a face-to-face environment versus an online environment.
To further understand these characteristics with any instructional practice
involving inquiry-based learning with equity in mind, this study was designed as a
mixed-methods study. Within the qualitative research, the researcher will analyze the
teachers’ perspectives through surveys, classroom observations, and interviews. The data
collection will consist of survey questions offered to all secondary teachers (grades 6 to
12) in Parkland School District. The survey, classroom observations, and interviews are
offered to all with a voluntary response incited. To understand any possible hurdles
through equity, there is an added quantitative part that will analyze student demographic
data in targeted classes and pathways.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

55

There are three major pathways in the high school that relate to STEM education
and a fully inquiry-based curriculum. The three pathways align to the Project Lead the
Way curriculum. Project Lead the Way (PLTW) is a non-profit organization offering
inquiry-based STEM education curricula for K-12 students. The PLTW curriculum aligns
to the design process that is very similar to the Parkland Problem Solving (Appendix A).
We also have 31 advanced placement courses aligned to the College Board curriculum
and have a strong inquiry-based learning foundation. Data from these areas will be a
critical component to understanding any equity concerns in inquiry-based learning
pathways.
Although the survey can only reveal the perceptions and opinions of the teachers,
it was designed to stay anonymous to pull a more reliable sample of positives and
negatives. The survey responses will be a starting gauge for the study followed by an in
depth look provided by a few additional teacher volunteers. In analyzing the research, we
hope to better understand the culture of Parkland School District, and in the future we
plan to design extensions for professional development sessions strengthening the
characteristics of inquiry-based learning. Historically, teachers have been seen as the sage
on the stage and the deliverer of content knowledge. Based on the literature review and
the models of inquiry-based learning, the contemporary teacher needs to act as a
facilitator in the classroom in order to successfully reach today’s learners. Also, the
literature review emphasizes the importance of student voice and student choice in the
learning process. Through teacher classroom observations and teacher interviews, the
researcher will be able to analyze the original survey perceptions up against these other
authentic experiences.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

56

The research may prove to be timely, as there has never been a shift in education
as quickly as this shift to online learning during the Covid-19 pandemic. This shift may
help understand inquiry-based learning in both face to face and online environments, or it
may completely hinder the process. The concerns that may impede the process is the
current work environment of the teachers, which has been taxing on their energy and time
planning. For the most part, teacher planning and preparation time has been greatly
consumed by supporting students in the classroom and students at home at the same time.
Prior to this year, there are few environments out there that model this current
environment in the Parkland School District. The literature review has detailed a
breakdown of models in face to face environments and the level of inquiry necessary to
build invested students in those environments. Similarly, the literature review also has
studies and documentation of instruction for remote learning along with the models used
in those online formats. The new hybrid educational world (combination of face to face
and online within one classroom) that Covid-19 has required to meet the needs of all of
our students has never been so widespread as it is currently. School districts across the
nation, not only Parkland School District, were shut down in March of 2020. This forced
a rapid shift to online education. A year later, in March of 2021, districts continue to
navigate the most effective and safe way to educate students. Within this last year,
schools have been utilizing 100% online learning, hybrid learning, or full time face to
face learning. Parkland School District has flipped models multiple times; however,
during this current year they have been mostly hybrid. This research plan is designed to
analyze the full spectrum of these experiences and gauge the characteristics of inquirybased learning in both environments.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

57

Furthermore, the fiscal implications of this research do not extend from what was
currently already budgeted by the district for improving inquiry-based learning. In other
words, this study will not require the district to accrue any additional costs beyond what
was already planned for professional development. However, the findings of this study
may discover areas to increase future professional development sessions. Prior to the start
of this study, the district had invested in two outside consultants, Trevor MacKenzie and
Ken Shelton, to work with our teachers. This collaboration is an ongoing process. The
work has been organized through our curriculum and instruction office and is already
aligned to district goals. Other costs for the district, including the one to one computer
initiative and software upgrades to improve online learning, were already in place prior to
the research study plan. To continue, one future cost that we are projecting and planning
for is a professional development cost to have teachers collaborate together and also to
work with student groups. The best time to accomplish this collaborative work with both
teachers and students is during normal school hours. This would require substitute
staffing costs. We have budgeted to allow 280 hours of substitute costs, which equates to
40 full days for teacher release time. This study itself has no overhead costs. The survey
used is through our Parkland Google Domain using Google Forms. The class
observations and interviews required no additional release time or compensation. The
tool used to transcribe the interviews is a free online tool.
Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection
The design of this research is an investigation into the perspective of our teachers
on the characteristics of inquiry-based learning. This study is an extension of work done
by Trevor MacKenzie with our staff. Within MacKenzie’s (2016) work, he states 10

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

58

characteristics critical for inquiry. In order to obtain an accurate reflection of the
teachers’ perspective on inquiry-based learning in the Parkland School District, the
research is designed to analyze the characteristics of inquiry-based learning and equity
within inquiry from multiple measures. The qualitative pieces of this research are the
classroom observation (Appendix F) and teacher interviews (Appendix G). The questions
on the teacher survey (Appendix B) are designed on a five-point Likert scale and seek
information regarding logistical purposes, online environments and face to face and
online environments that begin a quantitative look at data. This would imply that hybrid
classes will have students in both of those environments. Examining both the qualitative
and quantitative data collected will consistently check in on the teacher perspectives of
the 10 characteristics on inquiry-based learning. By examining the 10 characteristics
through a survey, classroom observations, and teacher interviews, the researcher’s goal is
to pattern consistent measures in the perspectives of inquiry-based learning.
In the shadows of the 10 characteristics of inquiry-based learning is a question on
equity. In order to triangulate data on equity, this research will move beyond just
qualitative data from the survey, classroom observation, and interviews to collect
quantitative data analyzing a few of the high-profile classes. The researcher will analyze
the quantitative data from all of the classrooms that were observed and cross reference
the data to the results of the interviews. The researcher will also analyze data on a larger,
more global perspective of the district in regards to the pathways aligned to the Project
Lead the Way (PLTW) curriculum. By analyzing these PLTW groups, we hope to see if
all students, regardless of demographic characteristics, have equal opportunity to excel in
these pathways. More specifically, the analysis of the demographic data will reveal a

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

59

snapshot of how the inquiry-based Parkland Problem Solving process, which is used in
all content areas of Parkland School District’s curriculum, influences the demographics
of the three pathways in PLTW. Project Lead the Way has proven to be a key factor to
success in inquiry-based learning within engineering, bio-medical, and computer science
fields (Utley et al., 2019). Overall, the mixed-methods approach will provide the
researcher with critical data to develop school improvement plans in any areas that
produce less than adequate for the Parkland School District.
Entering into this research, the researcher knew that participation of human
subjects was going to be required to secure a complete understanding of teachers’
perspectives pertaining to inquiry-based learning. This research project incurs very
minimal risk to participants. Volunteer participants completed an entry survey
(Appendix B) on their perceptions of inquiry-based learning and equity as they explored
10 characteristics learned in previous professional development sessions. Following the
initial survey to all staff, a sample of six teachers were selected from the participants that
responded to the volunteer survey (Appendix D). This selection will serve a purpose to
narrow the group for interviews and class observations. Furthermore, all information will
be confidential. The participants may opt out of the question(s) of their choice and may
opt out of the complete study at any time. The teacher consent form will be distributed
through email along with the survey by the researcher (Appendix C). This form clearly
states that participation is voluntary and participants may withdraw consent without
explanation at any time. The anonymous survey will have a question to approve consent
to start the survey. A written consent form will be signed and collected from all
participants volunteering for the classroom observations and interviews. The projected

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

60

time requirement for the completion of the survey, interviews, and class observation is a
maximum of two hours. As stated, all information is voluntary and confidential. In the
final stages of this study, I will collect and examine demographic student data on the
classrooms observed to see if there are any equity concerns. No student names or
confidential information will be used. For instance, all identifying information will be
hidden and only the overall percentages of students in each sub-group will be used in this
study. Additionally, this research plan was reviewed and approved by the Internal Review
Board (IRB) during the month of August 2020. The official approval was obtained from
IRB on September 10th, 2020 (Appendix E).
When the researcher started this study, there was a concern that his research had
little to no costs. However, the overview of this research stresses many actions that
revolve around the growth of teachers and observational practices to help those teachers
continue to grow. Therefore, this study is not based on an implementation of new costly
items. This forced the researcher to think in a different way, pondering the question:
“What does Parkland School District currently pay for and use, that if taken away, it
would have a hard time stressing inquiry and equity?” The budget began to grow quickly.
One of the largest areas of inquiry used by many teachers is makerspace items. In
particular, the 3D printing materials and printer inks are a starting point of needed
consumable materials. Next, the researcher reflected on the one to one initiative in which
every Parkland student has a district issued device. Not only is the cost of maintaining
those computers a huge expense, but addressing equity concerns by providing Kajeets to
students for leveling internet access at home also adds to the cost. If you add the equity
concerns the researcher has built into this research, then the researcher needed to also add

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

61

the cost of Kajeets for leveling internet access at home. These expenses are more
appropriately labeled as indirect costs rather than direct costs; however, the researcher
felt it was noteworthy to start that explanation here. It is essential for a reader to
understand and connect other potential initiatives that helped with inquiry-based learning
even if those other initiatives were not a direct result for an inquiry-based learning goal.
Another indirect cost to consider is the instructional software. Without software
tools, teachers may be limited on the level of inquiry they can provide students when
teaching face to face in a classroom. Certainly, teachers would be restricted to an even
greater extent in the level of inquiry they can deliver to remote learners. The top software
needed is our learning management system, Schoology. We have become very dependent
on this tool as online education is in the forefront of our current world. This tool is
critical for this study to exist. Schoology also has administrative tools that will help me
observe classes in an online setting. Additionally, this is a district-wide learning
management system, and consequently, it allows for a consistent online platform as
students move from teacher to teacher. Some other necessary online resources are
Newsela, Defined STEM, Breakout Edu, AutoCAD, WeVideo, Discovery Streaming,
EdPuzzle, and Nearpod, many teachers use these tools for some inquiry-based projects.
Parkland School district also has events that support inquiry-based learning like the
Science Fair. There is a minimal cost for the Science Fair; nevertheless, it must be noted
as this is one area the researcher may see inequities within students’ projects.
Moreover, the most direct fiscal implication is the plan for professional
development. Parkland School District currently has an annual budget for Professional
Development sessions of around $80,000. Prior to this research, we have invested around

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

62

$20,000 annually for the last three years towards inquiry-based learning professional
development sessions. Predicting costs of instructional changes can often be tricky. In a
world where things are changing so quickly, there is something new every year.
The primary objective of this research is to follow up on the professional
development sessions from Trevor MacKenzee and Ken Shelton with instructional shifts
for inquiry and equity. The costs for the supplies and outside speakers were accounted for
within the $20,000. We also built in a substitute cost for teacher leader collaboration and
professional learning community planning time. The largest cost associated with this
derives from creating a professional development plan to support the findings from the
study. Built into that professional development plan is a team of 12-14 lead teachers to
facilitate learning for 299 professional staff. In addition, the second cost planned in the
professional development budget is to develop Parkland Academy courses to continue
this learning in future years. Parkland hosts its own professional learning courses for our
staff, which are developed and administered by our Parkland staff. It is critical that
professional development is not just a one-time wonder. The researcher has been working
on building a STEM and inquiry-based learning culture in Parkland for about 10 years.
Change takes time in education; some educators move faster than others. Persistence
helps move those more resistant to change. If a professional development plan does not
have follow-up, it will be coined, “this too shall pass.” The research, as well as this
budget for the planned professional development, should support the need for follow-up
professional development sessions on inquiry and equity to keep it moving forward.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

63

Validity
In order to triangulate data to ensure the results are consistent from multiple
measures, the researcher will analyze inquiry-based learning through a teacher survey
(Appendix B), classroom observations (Appendix F), and teacher interviews (Appendix
G). Hendricks (2017) states that it is necessary to triangulate data in action research. This
is a critical step to the validity of the findings and something this researcher is very
mindful of. Within those three components, both characteristics of inquiry and also equity
of students in those classes will be studied. To fully analyze the equity in the classrooms,
the researcher will pull student demographic data from the classes observed and the
major inquiry-based learning pathways of the PLTW curriculum. This pragmatic view of
concrete data will help to better interpret and understand the data collected through
classroom observation and survey results. The research is purposely designed as a mixedmethods study to bring the actual numbers for student groups into the analysis of the
research.
Hendricks (2017) further explains four criteria for increasing credibility and
validity: Credibility, Transferability, Dependability, and Confirmability. According to
Hendricks (2017), triangulating data is at the core of his view on the four criteria. Some
other factors within the four criteria are prolonged observations, accurate data recording,
peer debriefing, and biases made clear. All of these factors have been taken into account
while designing the plan for this research. To explain in more detail, it is important to
recall the timeline discussed earlier in this chapter. The work on inquiry-based learning
has been ongoing for a couple years in the Parkland School District. The first survey was
planned in December after ample time for the outcome of previous training to take effect.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

64

The last inquiry-based training occurred 14 months prior to the survey, and the last equity
training occurred right before the Covid-19 shutdown of school, 9 months before the
initial survey. The timeline for classroom observations and interviews were planned to
follow the survey; however, these will be spread out over the months in the second half
of the year. As a result of allowing this time, it was critical to use tools to not only record
the data but also access the data to review multiple times. The researcher created a
process of collecting interview transcripts and Google Meets recordings, all with
complete confidentiality, to allow for future review and reflection on the data. Another
factor in this plan and process to build credibility and validity was having an external
committee member available for continued discussion. This member is an employee of
Parkland School District; however, this individual has no connection to the inquiry-based
training or equity committees. He has been a valuable asset to keeping the researcher
reflective and non-bias throughout this process.
In the beginning of planning, the researcher reflected on the timeline of the
classroom observation and the teacher interviews. It became clear that the teacher
interviews should occur following a classroom observation. It was a concern if the
teachers knew the interview questions prior to the observations. Knowledge of the
questions could influence their instructional delivery of the lesson. The concern would be
if teachers accentuate on the key areas acquired from the interview questions. Therefore,
the researcher made sure that all classroom observations were complete prior to the
teacher interviews. The interview questions were designed to be a reflective measure for
both the teacher and the researcher during this data collection process.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

65

Conclusion
In the end, the intention of this research is to determine the scope of our teachers’
perspective of inquiry-based learning characteristics and equal opportunity for all
students in inquiry-based education. The results of this study will help design a plan to
improve upon the characteristics that were the least evident and also enhance the
characteristics that were most frequently observed. In addition to the characteristics of
inquiry-based learning, student voice and student choice flow as an underlying theme in
all areas of this study. The mixed-methods approach will allow the researcher to analyze
equity and student voice/choice through multiple angles. The Covid-19 global pandemic
brought a shift in education that will help this study evaluate and build a deeper
understanding of face to face and online learning. The researcher will observe the
characteristics in the two environments and draw conclusions in an unbiased manner.
There is no need for bias because the goal of this study is to identify what is working and
what is not working within the system as a follow-up to inquiry-based learning
professional development sessions.
Finally, the themes of the research questions driving this study are built to better
understand student voice and student choice through the background knowledge of the
inquiry-based learning characteristics. As the research takes a deep dive into the world of
inquiry, the education environments of both face to face and online learning will become
an essential factor in the data collection and analysis. This is one area that the research
had to migrate towards given the current learning environment for the next school year.
This natural migration has strengthened the research study and action plan. Additionally,
it brought into focus a new factor of equity as students learn remotely and not all students

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

have the same resources at home. The true reflection of the data and results from this
study will help better support our teachers and students in the future years of inquirybased learning.

66

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

67

CHAPTER 4
Data Analysis and Results
The objective of this study was to examine teachers’ perspective of inquiry-based
learning as it related to10characteristics that all content teachers in grades 6 to 12 were
taught during a previous professional development session. In order to dig deeper into the
learned characteristics, three major goals were identified and aligned to the research
questions. While analyzing this data, the first goal was to look at a broad scope of
perceptions from the staff members who responded to the inquiry-based survey. Data was
collected on the perspectives for both an online learning environment and face to face
learning environment. Moving beyond that survey, the second goal was taking a more indepth look into the classroom instructional model. Teachers’ lessons were analyzed
through classroom observations and teacher interviews with volunteer teachers. The final
goal was to analyze equity within the high-profile inquiry-based learning pathways at
Parkland High School. Demographic data was pulled from our database in the Project
Lead the Way (PLTW) pathways and measured against the demographic data of the
district as a whole.
The classroom instructional model prior to 2020 functioned much differently than
the structure of the classrooms during this global pandemic and this study. Traditionally,
inquiry-based learning was an instructional model where students were face to face in
one classroom and usually worked in groups. It is important to understand that during the
professional development session in the fall of 2019 on inquiry-based learning, this was
the instructional environment most commonly seen in teachers’ classrooms. During the
collection of data, that traditional classroom environment was uprooted, and something as

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

68

simple as students working in groups could no longer happen. For this entire school year,
students had to work six feet apart to meet social distancing regulations. It is also
important to note that during the data collection, students were mostly on a hybrid
schedule where some students were online and some were face to face at same time. This
allowed for data collection in both environments (face to face and online) within the same
teacher’s classroom on a given lesson.
Furthermore, this chapter will present the data analysis and the process the
researcher used to analyze the data. The survey was developed based on a Likert scale
and designed as a broad-brush survey yielding results that can be cross referenced to the
observations made in the classrooms and the teacher responses in the interviews. The
following sections of this chapter include data triangulated from the original survey
overview and data collected over a few months following that survey. The data collected
on the classroom observation tool (Appendix F) created a profile of a lesson from the
researcher’s observation. The data collected on the interview was a transcribed discussion
following each classroom observation analyzing the teacher perspective on their
classroom and lesson. The classrooms observed were intentionally not from the high
profile PLTW courses. This will allow areas of inquiry to be analyzed up against the
equity of the PLTW pathways. The data shared in the next section of this chapter paints a
picture of inquiry-based learning through multiple lenses for Parkland School District.
The chapter concludes with a clear and comprehensive summary that illustrates inquirybased learning for student voice, choice and equity.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

69

Data Analysis
Using a Google account through the Parkland School District, a survey was
created and shared with all secondary teachers in grade 6-12 (Appendix B). The survey
consisted of five sections. The first section collected data based on particular
demographics of each teacher. Section two collected data specifically on the perspectives
of inquiry-based learning. This section is a general overview of inquiry and not specific
to the characteristics of student voice, choice and equity. The third section unpacks
logistical questions to get a feel for the structure of each classroom and the work
environment of the teachers. Sections four and five compare the face to face and online
environments based on the characteristics of inquiry-based learning. These sections are
the heart of this research digging deeper into student voice, choice and equity.
Additionally, they are the two sections most frequently cross referenced with data from
the classroom observations, teacher interviews and demographic information.
Moreover, one goal in the data collection process was to have a sample that
covered as many demographics as possible. Within this process, a sample size covering
various ages, experience levels, and contents were a large portion of the validity
explained in chapter two. More specifically, out of 74 teachers, there are 42 who teach in
the high school, 31 who teach in the middle schools, and 1 who teaches at both the
middle school and high school. The classrooms are very average in size. The district’s
average classroom size is 24 students per roster in a classroom. The study shows that
81.1% of the teachers that responded have class rosters of 19 students or more. Figure 2
represents a complete overview of class roster size. Within this figure, the class size of 0-

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

70

10 students topped at 8.4%. Also, the sample is reflective of a majority of veteran
teachers.
Figure 2
Average Class Size for 74 Teacher Grades 6 - 12

In Figure 3, 83.8% of the teachers have 11 years of experience or more. Taking a
look at the next decade of teachers, 39.2% of the teachers surveyed had 20 or more years
of experience.
In addition, it is important to identify the content areas that were represented in
the data collection. In Figure 4, there are 11 different content areas represented and three
responses in the other elective areas. The four core subject areas are heavily represented
with 11 in English, 13 in mathematics, 14 in science, and 12 in social studies. The core
subjects represent 67.5% of the survey responses.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

Figure 3
Teaching Experience for Two Middle Schools and a High School

Figure 4
Overview of the Departments/Content Reflective in this Survey

71

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

72

The original survey was the beginning of the data collection process. The
goal of the classroom observations and teacher interviews was to have a smaller more
concentrated group to dig deeper but also represent multiple demographic areas. The
volunteers for the teacher observations and interviews were broken down into three high
school teachers and three middle school teachers. More specifically, the six teachers
covered the four content areas of Mathematics, English Language Arts, Social Studies
and Science. In the data collection process the teachers were labeled as Teacher 1 to
Teacher 6, and all information was kept confidential. During this part of the data
collection process, open dialogue was used to allow reflection. Even though open
dialogue was encouraged, data collection tools (Appendix F) and interview questions
(Appendix G) were used to help structure the data flow.
Finally, the last stage of the data collection process was to utilize our student
database system and pull demographic information of the students in the Project Lead the
Way course pathway in the fields of Bio-medical, Computer Science and Engineering.
These pathways are very high-profile inquiry-based learning opportunities in Parkland
School District. Furthermore, gender, ethnicity, and economic status were the focal points
in the review of the demographic information. The overview of the demographic data
can be found in the upcoming section.
After all the data was collected, an organizational chart was created based on the
three research questions. Data was sorted into areas that best fit for each research
question. At that point, comparisons were made between the survey, interview questions,
and classroom observations. To better analyze the data from the survey, calculations were
made to create a comparison based on standard deviations of a Likert scale. In order to

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

73

calculate a standard deviation, a calculation was made for a mean and a mean 2. The
mean is a calculation where the response value equaled a multiplier of: Strongly
Disagree =1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree =5. The total was then
divided by total responses. The mean 2 values are calculated in a similar manner;
however, the response value equaled a multiplier of: Strongly Disagree =1, Disagree = 4,
Neutral = 9, Agree = 16, Strongly Agree =25. This creates a weighted mean that is
needed to calculate the standard deviation. This allows for the data to be spread in a
larger curve for analysis as the standard deviation is then calculated from the square root
of the difference of mean 2 and the mean. The purpose for calculating the standard
deviation allows for an analysis of the full set data for each Likert Scale question. The
extremes on the high and low end of the standard deviation scores were then analyzed to
generate comparable points for the sharing of the results as it related to each research
question.
Results
To start, this section will address each research question from multiple data
points. The organization and analysis of the survey allowed the researcher to compare the
larger view to the focused classroom observations and interviews. This comparison
allowed for a thorough understanding of the teachers’ perspectives, and the common
threads from the survey, observations, and teacher interview became critical data points
for each research question. In other words, data from the survey, observations, and
interviews was relevant for all three research questions. However, the quantitative data on
student demographics was pertinent to research question three only. The pieces of data
from all data collection tools are presented within the section for that individual question.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

74

The research data shows a high number of veteran teachers that gave feedback
during the survey (Figure 2). However, a more reflective piece of data for inquiry-based
learning is how often those teachers express using inquiry-based learning in the
classroom. When asked, “How many times a month would you estimate that you use an
inquiry approach in your classroom”, there are six teachers in Figure 5 that express doing
inquiry-based learning daily, and there are four teachers who share that they never use
inquiry-based learning. The teacher volunteers for the extended study do not fall on either
of these extreme ends. In particular, all the volunteers responded between weekly and
monthly to the question asking how often they use inquiry-based learning in the
classroom. This was not intentionally planned by the researcher, as all teachers who
volunteered were accepted into the extended study. However, it is noteworthy to identify
that the extended study is not a voice of either extreme end of inquiry-based learning use.
Figure 5
Frequency of Inquiry-Based Learning from the Teachers’ Perspective

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

75

Analyzing research question one, “What characteristics of inquiry are most
frequently addressed in both face to face and online instruction?” It is important to note
that sections four and five of the survey gathered information from a broad brush of 74
teachers in regard to this question. There were 16 categories of inquiry-based learning
characteristics based on a Likert scale used to analyze the teachers’ perspectives
investigated in research question one. The results of the survey show that most categories
have a very different perspective between online and traditional face to face learning.
When looking at respectful interactions between teachers and students, it is important to
highlight the difference between the 43 total responses strongly agreeing with face to face
and only 15 responses for online inquiry. During the interviews and class observations,
there were no noticeable differences in respect between teachers and students. On the
contrary, data was collected during the class observations on participation and cameras
being on that could be interpreted as respect. Through six classroom observations, 84%
of the participation came from the students in the face to face environment and 22% of
the students online did not have cameras turned on. This leads into another area to
highlight in Table 1: active student participation. The data from the classroom
observations directly correlates with the data collected in this category on the survey.
More specifically, student participation for face to face students ranked much higher than
students joining in class online. Overall, the responses in Table 1 highly support student
voice and choice along with a strong sense of inquiry-based learning. During the teacher
interviews, four out of the six teachers, when asked to define inquiry-based learning
strategies, all stated students having voice and choice as a critical characteristic. That is
very consistent with the face to face environment in Table 1 for categories questioning

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

76

student ownership and student voice and choice. Similarly, to participation, these areas
also reveal a lower ranking on the Likert scale when shifting to an online environment.
The responses of face to face mostly have standard deviations of three or higher, and the
results show many standard deviations below three for online learning.
Table 1
Characteristics of Inquiry-Based Learning (online vs face to face)
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly
Agree

Mean

Face-to-Face

2

1

10

18

43

4.34 19.72 3.92

Online

1

8

24

26

15

3.62 14.05 3.23

Face-to-Face

0

3

11

24

36

4.26 18.85 3.82

Online

1

14

25

21

13

3.42 12.74 3.05

Face-to-Face

0

6

12

23

33

4.12 17.91 3.71

Online

4

14

25

19

12

3.28 12.01 2.95

Face-to-Face

1

6

11

24

32

4.08 17.68 3.69

Online

10

27

21

11

5

2.65 8.22

Face-to-Face

1

4

18

21

30

4.01 17.09 3.62

Online

8

17

23

18

8

3.01 10.42 2.72

Face-to-Face

1

4

14

20

35

4.14 18.08 3.73

Online

5

17

25

17

10

3.14 11.08 2.82

Face-to-Face

1

5

11

25

32

4.11 17.84 3.71

Online

8

13

27

17

9

3.08 10.81 2.78

Equitable resources for all students - knowledge of
students' needs

Face-to-Face

1

6

14

27

26

3.96 16.66 3.56

Online

14

21

19

13

7

2.70 8.81

Meaningful research and strong research skills students show curiosity about research

Face-to-Face

3

6

16

22

27

3.86 16.19 3.51

Online

8

20

22

22

2

2.86 9.30

Increased motivation and engagement

Face-to-Face

1

9

14

25

25

3.86 16.05 3.49

Online

Respectful interaction between teacher and students
Respectful interactions among students
Student and teacher pride in the work
Active student participation
Nurture student passions and talents
Encourage the growth mindset
Foster curiosity and a Love for Learning

Mean 2

Standard
Deviation

2.36

2.47
2.54

13

23

21

13

4

2.62 8.14

Rigorous learning tasks - Is the problem challenging Face-to-Face
the students' thoughts?
Online

1

4

12

35

22

3.99 16.69 3.56

7

21

18

22

6

2.99 10.20 2.69

Face-to-Face

2

6

12

27

27

3.96 16.77 3.58

Online

8

20

23

18

5

2.89 9.57

Students take ownership in what, why, and how they Face-to-Face
are doing it
Online

1

7

14

29

23

3.89 16.14 3.50

7

20

21

19

7

2.99 10.20 2.69

Instructional tools and strategies support student
choice and voice

Face-to-Face

1

7

16

26

24

3.88 16.07 3.49

Online

5

16

26

17

10

3.15 11.15 2.83

Encourage good questioning from students

Face-to-Face

1

6

12

24

31

4.05 17.46 3.66

Online

7

17

22

22

6

3.04 10.47 2.73

Face-to-Face

1

5

11

28

29

4.07 17.47 3.66

Online

7

17

22

23

5

3.03 10.35 2.71

Higher-level student thinking - solving tomorrow's
problems in today's classroom

Understanding of the content beyond the facts

2.35

2.58

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

77

Moreover, the highest-ranking category in Table 1 falls in encouraging a growth
mindset. Throughout the teacher observations and interviews, a common theme of
discussion was that, “failure is success.” Five out of the six teachers interviewed
emphasized a passion for reflecting on failures to learn from mistakes and still progress
forward. However, the teacher responses when directly asked to define the growth
mindset did not reflect this. Teacher 2 stated, “I am not confident and comfortable
answering that question.” Yet, in response to other questions, Teacher 2 included
elements of a growth mindset such as students advocating for themselves, students taking
responsibility for their own learning, and students not shying away from failure and the
opportunity to improve. Likewise, Teacher 2 in the observation process allowed an open
project that gave students voice and choice within the final product. Students completed
projects using wordart, anagram’s, Venn Diagrams, and written reports. The choice was
up to the students. On the contrary, when asked to define a growth mindset, Teacher 3
stated, “ A growth mindset, opposed to a fixed mindset, is one that believes every student
is capable of making progress/getting better. Classrooms that follow a growth mindset are
intentional about reflection. Students are encouraged to set goals and then to notice their
successes, the progress they have made, and to link those with the work they have done.
Growth, rather than achievement alone, is noticed and rewarded.” Within the classroom
observation, Teacher 3 used an online tool called Desmos to keep the student in a guided
form of inquiry. In addition to Teacher 2, Teacher 6 was also not able to define a growth
mindset. During the classroom observations, Teacher 6 did a random analysis using dice
and allowed for students to collaborate building conclusions. Although some teachers
were not able to provide a definition of a growth mindset in that particular question, all

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

78

six teachers explained characteristics of a growth mindset and student voice and choice
within each interview and showed evidence in the classroom observations. During the
observation process, all six teachers had clear evidence of building relationships and trust
with their students. Teacher 1 used a picture of a little girl that was her as a little girl to
tell a story to guide the inquiry process. Teacher 3 made a great connection to the real
world with a bicycle demonstration in class. The interview process allowed the teachers
to share their thoughts on the observation, as each interview followed the observation
process. Highlighted below are questions that were used in the teacher interview to help
triangulate data for research question one (Appendix F).
Interview Question 2 (Appendix F): How do you define inquiry-based teaching
strategies? What does this involve?
•

Teacher 1 responded, “Inquiry-based teaching strategies require teachers to give
up some control of their instruction. Yes, it still must be planned and organized,
but it involves providing students some freedom to learn from experiences about
topics that are truly important to them. It emphasizes the students’ role in the
learning process. In its most basic form, students must begin with questions about
a larger concept, then they must research in order to find some answers, then they
communicate their findings.”

•

Teacher 2 responded, “Well it's a tough one. I mean I know that inquiry is not new
kind of new to us being exposed to. I believe his last name was Mr. MacKenzie, that
we met with about a year or two ago or the beginning of last year. And I think it's
more of a, getting away from just here's the answer to a, what could be the answer or
what's another way to get about it. As far as, you know, I think back to like when you
think of when you're making a test. Are they all knowledge based questions. So for

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

79

me inquiry is more of a kind of a, what's another way to do this, what's, what's a
different way to do this, how can we do this, and there might not be just a set answer,
it can be more of a, you know there's multiple answers multiple options for, you
know, like when kids are brainstorming ideas.”

•

Teacher 3 responded, “I believe inquiry-based teaching strategies are defined by
their focus on student choice. To varying degrees, students have choice in what
they study or what materials they use to study.”

•

Teacher 4 responded, “Inquiry-based teaching strategies are those that start with
an end goal in mind, and provide a framework to students, but allow them to build
within that framework as they more organically develop an understanding of the
material, guided by key questions along the way.”

•

Teacher 5 responded, “Inquiry by definition is the process of asking questions and
driving understanding from those questions. Inquiry teaching strategies can take
many different forms and reach different levels of inquiry. The act of a student
asking a question from a lesson, video, or activity can be classified as inquiry, but
this is at the most basic level of inquiry instruction.”

•

Teacher 6 responded, “I feel that inquiry-based learning challenges students to
find ways to both ask and answer overarching questions (more “whys” than
“hows”). It is the job of the teacher develop/acquire skills which allow students to
inquire successfully.”
Interview Question 6 (Appendix F): What do you consider to be the important

outcomes of inquiry-based teaching and learning?

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

•

80

Teacher 1 responded, “Important outcomes of inquiry-based teaching and learning
are fostering curiosity about a topic that is relevant and important to the specific
student, providing students a voice to share their own ideas, questions, and
research, deepen understanding of a topic, increases engagement, and allowing
students to take ownership and agency of their learning.”

•

Teacher 2 responded, “I think the important outcome would be that students feel
comfortable maybe stepping out of their shell, because sometimes inquiry-based
learning requires that. I think it's feeling comfortable to say something they may
not be 100% comfortable in, or as confident in themselves. Being able to work
with students collaboratively.”

•

Teacher 3 responded, “The most valuable outcome of inquiry-based teaching is
engagement. Students are tasked with finding a piece of the curriculum that
interests them or connects to an interest. They feel ownership over their learning
because it is somewhat self-directed, and this promotes engagement as well.”

•

Teacher 4 responded, “To provide students with a framework of looking at the
world and the problems they encounter through a lens of, ‘I don’t understand this
yet, but I will if I ask the right questions’ rather than ‘this is too hard for me.’”

•

Teacher 5 responded, “One of the most important outcomes is to instill the inquiry
process of being curious, asking questions, and conducting the necessary research
to dive deeper into understanding. With that said, it is beyond critical to teach
students how to research and find primary sources that can be trusted.”

•

Teacher 6 responded, “I think that a successful inquiry-based environment will
give students the courage to question data.”

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

81

Interview Question 7 (Appendix F): What are the most essential skills you want
your students to demonstrate during inquiry?
•

Teacher 1 responded, “The Four C’s! Critical thinking, collaboration,
communication, and creativity.”

•

Teacher 2 responded, “Everybody gets a voice, everybody gets to speak if they're
working in a group, if they're not working in a group that they have that option.
You may not be good at everything, but you know you can with the inquiry
having those choices.”

•

Teacher 3 responded, “During an inquiry lesson, I want students to demonstrate a
willingness to go down a path that may not lead to the answer they set out to find.
I want them to reflect on whether they are making progress toward finding that
answer and turn around to try something different.”

•

Teacher 4 responded, “Taking academic risk and putting themselves out there to
gain knowledge. Sharing their ideas in a way that others can learn from them.
Being resilient and persistent in finding the answer/achieving the goal. Being
willing to both accept and offer assistance as needed.”

•

Teacher 5 responded, “I want my students to be able to engage in the question
asking process (when learned often completed in your head) and researching
without me prompting them. This is a skill I did not truly develop until engaging
in college level research. I try to be mindful of this and think how I can promote
them to be curious and engage in learning without me driving it.”

•

Teacher 6 responded - “analysis of data, make connections, evaluate methods and
ultimately create and answer their own questions.”

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

82

Interview Question 10 (Appendix F): Define a classroom that follows a “growth
mindset.”
•

Teacher 1 responded, “A classroom the follows a growth mindset embraces the
idea that making mistakes are a part of the learning process. Students are
determined to achieve a goal and show tenacity and resilience when trying to
achieve it. They understand that the journey to meet a goal will be challenging,
but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. Lastly, students recognize that their
attitude determines their success.”

•

Teacher 2 responded, “I don't I don't know if I feel comfortable that I can answer
that the right way.”

•

Teacher 3 responded, “A growth mindset, opposed to a fixed mindset, is one that
believes every student is capable of making progress/getting better. Classrooms
that follow a growth mindset are intentional about reflection. Students are
encouraged to set goals and then to notice their successes.”

•

Teacher 4 responded, “A growth mindset classroom is one where grades are seen
as taking a backseat to learning, asking questions is a way to show you understand
AND a way to get more information, sees the power of “yet” (as in, I don’t
understand “yet”) and works collaboratively, not competitively.”

•

Teacher 5 responded, “My classroom! I STRONGLY believe this is a life skill.
Everything in life can benefit from positive growth. It must be intrinsically driven
and it is never settling with “this is good enough” or “this is too hard”. It is goal
setting. It is productively struggling as defined above. If there is a will there's a

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

83

way! At the end of the day, growth is what matters and it looks different for
everyone.”
•

Teacher 6 responded, “As the name implies, a growth mindset is more about a
way of thinking than a method of teaching. The exact definition is something that
I can’t comment on at this time.”
The data collected for research question two has some overlap with research

question one, as the instructional practices relate closely to the characteristics of inquiry.
However, the data for research question two focused more on the logistical aspects and
perspectives of planning instruction for inquiry-based learning. During the classroom
observations, one thing was very apparent in all six observations that helped analyze
research question two, “How do teachers perceive inquiry learning as we focus on best
instructional practices that include student voice and equity?” That one recurring idea
was that balancing the online students and the face to face students doubled the amount
of time teachers spent on planning lessons. All teachers use live streaming through
Google Meets to have a planned lesson and activity that functioned coherently within that
single class period. Teacher 5 staggered the activity and hands on work so the in person
students could be completing group and physical experiments while the online students
were focused on the inquiry questions to dig deeper. While all other teachers observed,
conducted class concurrently with online students engaging from home. Table 3 shows
that teachers feel they do not have adequate time to plan inquiry-based lessons. This
stress and extra planning were clearly evident in all classroom observations. Research
question two is followed by sub questions used in the interview process. During those
interviews, four out of six teachers expressed concerns regarding not having adequate

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

84

time for planning inquiry-based lessons as well as not having adequate class time as a
result of balancing face to face and online learning. The teachers interviewed stressed a
strict classroom management routine was critical to make sure students were engaged in
order to progress through the lesson. The most utilized type of inquiry-based learning was
a guided inquiry lesson. More specifically, during the classroom observation five out of
six teachers implemented inquiry lessons that were structured with teacher guidance.
Only Teacher 2 conducted a lesson that offered student choice and voice in the way they
wanted to complete the final project.
Data collection for research question two became more evident in the teacher
interviews over the data collected in the observation process. During the observation
process, all teachers appeared extremely confident within inquiry while conducting
instruction to their students. It was during the interview process that teachers 2, 3, and 6
showed questionable confidence in an aspect of inquiry. Teacher 2’s observation was a
high level of student voice and choice with open inquiry for projects and problem
solving. During Teacher 2’s interview, they showed the most instructional method used
in their classroom is stand and deliver. Teacher 1 and 4 showed evidence during
classroom observations of student voice and choice by using breakout rooms in Google
meets. The following interview questions were used to dig deeper into research question
two.
Interview Question 1 (Appendix F): What instructional methods of teaching and
learning are used most often in your classroom?
•

Teacher 1 responded, “Considering the global pandemic we are living through,
instructional methods have changed in a few ways this year. Typically, I prefer

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

85

students to have hands-on learning experiences where they are manipulating
materials, collaborating closely with peers, and having opportunities for discovery
learning. This year, I found myself focusing on short, meaningful whole group
instruction with most of the class period being focused on application. I am not
the type of teacher to stand and lecture for 40 minutes. I teach quick mini lessons
on a concept and then provide time for guided and independent application.
Students will often work with peers while utilizing breakout rooms in Google
Meet, but will also have opportunities to work independently. I make it a
requirement to work one on one with students who need the extra push, but also to
check in with students who are doing well.”
•

Teacher 2 responded, “This year due to COVID. It's a model of teaching with
students that are currently in front of me, which can range from 11 to 14 to
another 11 to 14 of them that are on a Google meet live streaming through home.
So the instruction is based on the subject. If it's math, you know where I'm
teaching the lesson on my board, the kids in front of me can see that the kids at
home can see that as well they're working along at home with a file that they have
the cost is working along here, science and social studies we read the book
together with kids taking turns at home and in the classroom reading and then
they work on some notes some outlining. There's times where they individually
work. And there's times where we'll do breakout rooms with Google meets.”

•

Teacher 3 responded, “Direct instruction is used most often and usually
accompanied by a guided notes page. Direct instruction is sometimes delivered
through a prerecorded video lesson to be viewed outside of class so that class time

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

86

can be utilized for practice. Prior to 2020, the station-rotation model of blended
learning was used often so that students had designated times to work both
collaboratively and independently. I also make an effort to use focused
questioning and discovery techniques, often in conjunction with Desmos.”
•

Teacher 4 responded, “I’m willing to try any and every instructional method out
there to get my students to comprehend a topic or concept, but I probably rely
most heavily on discussion and demonstration. As a language arts teacher,
discussion is important for two reasons: one, the discourse allows me to hear their
thinking and gauge their understanding, and two: it allows them to develop the
skills necessary for clear communication – listening to others, formulating an
opinion and rebuttal, arguing a point and not a person, etc. Demonstration is also
really big in my class because I want students to be able to show that they know
something deeply, not just regurgitate facts to me. There’s a lot of “prove it” said
in my room.”

•

Teacher 5 responded, “During the 2020-21 school year I deliver instruction to
concurrently enrolled sections of hybrid and remote students. To deliver
instruction for two environments, I require students to attend google meets
synchronously because all students are members of the class and benefit from
classroom interactions and collaboration whether in person or virtually. For
science instruction, laboratory experiments drive student learning, inquiries, and
retention of concepts and skills. To deliver science instruction has been difficult
this year with concurrent sections. For example, hybrid students will conduct labs
in class while remote students will conduct a virtual lab. Sometimes the concepts,

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

87

inquiries, and skills parallel when students conduct alternate laboratory activities;
however, other times there is no “good” replacement.”
•

Teacher 6 responded, “In recent years, I have tried to adopt the “Experience first,
formalize later” (EFFL) approach. This is an approach to statistics which makes
the content much less boring. Rather than needing to lecture constantly, the
students acquire much of the requisite content by working through problems and
activities.”
Interview Question 3 (Appendix F): What are the most important routines in your

classroom instruction on a typical day?
•

Teacher 1 responded, “On a typical day, before jumping into any content, it’s
vital to connect with the students and build those important relationships.
Sharing stories, experiences, or just a simple “how are you?” are ways to allow
my students to feel connected and comfortable with me. I’ve found that once
students see you as more than someone that delivers content, the more willing
they are to focus and work. After greeting each other and connecting for a brief
time, we begin some sort of grammar review.”

•

Teacher 2 responded, “Timeline and Goals! For online this year, I have found
that when I'm done teaching and I give something for them to do or just for me to
just say, Okay, you guys can go work on it, a kids will just close out and be like,
I'm done and they'll go eat lunch or they'll play video game or whatever at home.
Whereas if I make them stay on the Google mean, and I say I'm here if you have
any questions, they stay on more kids get it done that way, then I have less kids

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

88

that I have to hunt down the next day and say hey you never handed in this
assignment because they walked when they forgot about.”
•

Teacher 3 responded, “Greeting each student and interacting intentionally with
each student daily is one of the most important routines in my classroom. This
includes asking open ended questions as formative assessment. Questions do not
always have a “correct” answer. The goal is to establish a safe environment for
exploration, mistakes and for students to ask their own questions.”

•

Teacher 4 responded, “Given our current learning situation (some students at
school, some at home but coming to school other days, and some totally at home,
all learning in the same class at the same time), one of the most important routines
is how I start class. All students are expected to join me live, whether online or in
person, by the time class is scheduled to start. I try to keep some friendly chatter
going with them to help foster relationships between them and with me.”

•

Teacher 5 responded, “My most important routine is facilitating students’ learning
from a real-world connection or story line from the Project Lead the Way.
Further, I explain the goals for the day and often let students dive into their
learning with activities I create on Schoology. I employ different models of
inquiry where some instructional days are more scaffolded than others. Also,
some instructional days have more flexibility for exploration of biotechnologies,
career exploration, or laboratory experiences beyond the foundational content
knowledge.”

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

•

89

Teacher 6 responded, “On most days, my goal is to create a happy and safe place
for students to ask questions. I know that sounds kind of general, but I feel that
students shut down if they are unhappy or if they feel guarded.”
Interview Question 4 (Appendix F): What skills are you hoping your students will

achieve in your class?
•

Teacher 1 responded, “I hope that my students learn to be independent thinkers
and gain a collaborative work ethic.”

•

Teacher 2 responded, “Be an advocate for yourself. When they don't understand
something. There's not always that ability when there's one teacher and 25 kids in
the room and she can focus on them all day long. I've got two groups of kids, I
may not know that a student might be struggling until it's assessment time. I
mean, if I do like, even if I do like a daily check in, they might be able to get one
or two right, but sometimes it could be assessment time. Do you realize they don't
know what they're doing, advocacy and speaking up and taking responsibility for
your learning?”

•

Teacher 3 responded, “My biggest goal is for my students to gain the ability to
use logical reasoning and to evaluate information in context. I often refer to this
as “sense-making”. Many students find success in math classes by memorizing
formulas and procedures without any understanding of where these formulas
come from or why the procedures are useful. They can find answers but cannot
determine whether those answers are reasonable.”

•

Teacher 4 responded, “Think critically about their reading and writing. Develop a
strong vocabulary and understanding of how roots work in words. Be able to

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

90

verbally share an idea in a clear way that others can follow. Be able to listen to
others and respond appropriately in both written and oral format. Be able to look
at a story – visually or in print – and recognize how key elements work together to
convey that message.”
•

Teacher 5 responded, “My goal as an educator is for students to actively engage
in the learning process even if it is challenging. My goal is to provide students
with the necessary skills to “productively struggle” towards learning versus giving
up when concepts are challenging, and I am not there to help them. I teach
students about growth mindset at the beginning of the school year and emphasize
the idea that growth looks different for everyone.”

•

Teacher 6 responded, “I hope to help students critically analyze data so that they
can make informed inferences and conclusions. A lofty goal, for sure! But you
must help your students “reach” so that they gain confidence in their abilities.”
Interview Question 9 (Appendix F): Have you tried inquiry in online lessons? If

so, explain the successes and the challenges.
•

Teacher 1 responded, “Yes, students created a “Shark Tank” project online. I
placed students in groups that were mixed with both face-to-face and online
students. The objective was to consider the current economy and trends, and
create a product, or service to sell. They needed to first identify a product or
service they would like to provide, determine their target population/consumer,
identify the location, discover who their competition is, identify and negotiate the
necessary capital to get started, determine problems they may encounter, consider
advertising, and create long and short-term goals. I was so incredibly impressed

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

91

with what the students created. I would consider every outcome a success. There
will always be the challenge of a student who isn’t “into it” and needing to find a
way to motivate them.”
•

Teacher 2 responded, “The successes were that they had a choice. The successes
were that they got to go with what they felt they were good at, meaning, some
kids, you know, don't want to write. So, the idea of, there's an option of a just and
there was an option of reading an article and writing about it, or there was an
article or as an option of doing a Venn diagram where they didn't really have to
write, they just had to kind of know the differences and the similarities so I think
that was definitely a positive.”

•

Teacher 3 responded, “I have tried some two to three day inquiry lessons in my
geometry and precalculus classes during periods of remote or hybrid learning. It is
interesting to observe the different ways that students approach problem solving
when it is open-ended. Most of the successes and challenges are not unique to the
online platform, but just from a new/different lesson style. Many students wonder
“what this has to do with calculus” or “why we are doing this”. If students were in
the same space and working collaboratively, they might feel more permission to
be open and creative.”

•

Teacher 4 responded, “Since literally every lesson I teach is online in some
capacity, yes. Some of the challenges have been getting kids to actually have
discussions in this format. It's a lot harder than just “circle up and let’s go” for
various reasons. The successes have been that a lot of the kids will participate and

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

92

just roll with it, so much of this year has been different that they just figure it’s
one more “covid creation” of the teachers.”
•

Teacher 5 responded, “I’ve tried facilitating inquiry online through exploration
activities and discussion boards. They work well but lack the collaborative, hands
on experiences in person instruction lends itself to. It is also harder to conduct
formative assessment online as I cannot monitor their explorations like walking
around the classroom and instead have to question them which sometimes makes
it awkward and or not student driven. Online students miss out on inquiry-based
labs that do not have a virtual, interactive option. Watching videos of a lab is
okay. But, not the same as the classroom experience.”

•

Teacher 6 responded, “I am not sure what I do would be called pure inquiry, but I
have tried to have students experience stats in contexts which are more
meaningful and, therefore, more memorable to them. We have done lots of
simulations as a class. It would be a lot better if the students could easily work in
small groups, but I find that breakout rooms do not function quite as well as inperson group work.”
In Table 2, it is important to highlight that the teacher comfort level is high. In

spite of this, they do not feel very confident in inquiry-based learning helping to prepare
students for state standardized tests. With a standard deviation of 2.83, the teachers’
perception of inquiry-based learning helping standardized testing is among the lowest
ranking in the survey as illustrated in Table 2. The other low-ranking category is a
standard deviation of 2.81 on teachers participating in outside professional development
sessions for inquiry. In contrast, the highest ranking in Table 2 is that almost all teachers

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

93

participated in the Parkland School District Professional Development session showing a
standard deviation of 3.81. The second highest value is contradictory to the standardized
test question. With a standard deviation of 3.62, teachers are saying inquiry-based
learning is important for achievement. However, this does not hold true for the survey
responses regarding achievement on standardized tests.
Table 2
Teacher Perspectives on Inquiry-Based Learning
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Mean

Mean 2

Standard
Deviation

Inquiry-based lessons are important for
my students' achievement.

5

2

14

22

31

3.97

17.11

3.62

I am confident in teaching through
inquiry

3

6

22

20

23

3.73

15.14

3.38

I have no issues with managing inquirybased lessons

1

7

18

26

22

3.82

15.64

3.44

I have attended school-based professional
development for inquiry-based learning

3

5

8

18

40

4.18

18.69

3.81

I have attended professional development
outside of the school-based offering on
inquiry-based learning

27

11

9

4

23

2.80

10.69

2.81

I feel inquiry-based lessons prepares my
students for state standardized tests

7

14

29

11

13

3.12

11.15

2.83

Inquiry-based lessons benefit all students
including students with disabilities

2

5

17

21

29

3.95

16.70

3.57

In Table 3, the comfort and support of teachers comes out in survey results with
standard deviations higher than 3.15 in all categories but one. Teachers do not feel they
have adequate time to collaborate with colleagues. This low score in Table 3 is very
consistent with the results of the teacher interviews. To clarify, four out of six teachers
recorded that they felt a hurdle of inquiry-based teaching was time to collaborate with

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

94

colleagues. The teachers in the interviews expressed limited time in planning and limited
time in working with colleagues. The limited planning time is consistent with the
standard deviation of the survey statement, “Teaching through inquiry is time-consuming
and I don't have enough planning time to prepare for inquiry-based lessons.” With a
value of 3.34 this data point was negative in nature: therefore, it needed to be analyzed as
a data point in reverse of the positive outcome. It holds true to the perceptions collected
during the teacher interviews.
Table 3
Inquiry-based Learning Logistical Needs
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Mean

Mean 2

Standard
Deviation

I have adequate time to collaborate with
colleagues on inquiry-based lessons

11

22

18

10

13

2.89

10.08

2.68

I have enough supplies to teach inquirybased lessons

7

12

16

21

18

3.42

13.31

3.15

I feel supported to teach inquiry-based
lessons

5

6

14

29

20

3.72

15.12

3.38

My classroom has adequate space to
teach lessons through inquiry

11

7

14

24

18

3.42

13.50

3.18

Teaching through inquiry is timeconsuming and I don't have enough
planning time to prepare for inquirybased lessons

4

5

21

24

20

3.69

14.82

3.34

Outside of the classroom instruction, the third research question was designed to
investigate equity within the inquiry-based learning environment. The third research
question asks, “Within inquiry learning environments, what sub-groups (economically
disadvantaged, gender, race, ESL) are seen most frequently enrolled and to what level of
inquiry-based learning is the most evident?” For this research question there is an equity

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

95

question in the survey cross referenced with the data collected through our Performance
Matter and eSchool data base. In the survey, teachers responded that in a face to face
environment most students have equitable access to learning, but in an online
environment, equitable access to learning is much lower. The standard deviation seen on
Table 1 for face to face is 3.56 compared to 2.47 for online learning as it relates to
“equitable resources for all students-knowledge of students’ needs.”
Furthermore, Figure 6 is based on the record of free or reduced lunch and the
economic status of students within the school program. The baseline data is the overall
school data. The economic data of the classrooms observed was compared to the baseline
data. Additionally, this study also analyzed data in the Project Lead the Way Pathways to
look for answers on research question three. Data observation during classroom
observations on research question three was not evident. All students had equal access to
computers, internet and no evidence of inability to engage in classroom activities was
seen. The following interview questions were used to see if the teachers noticed
challenges or goals that would show equity concerns.
Interview Question 5 (Appendix F): What are the critical goals that students learn
about or learn how to do in your class?
•

Teacher 1 responded, “Develop a strong foundation in grammar and writing,
become an active listener and an effective speaker, foster strong comprehension in
both literature and nonfiction in order to analyze complex texts, and become a
creative, critical thinker.”

•

Teacher 2 responded, “How to find information, learning, learning how to use
context clues, learning how to use those subtitles and headings. Because scientists

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

96

are studying a lot of this, they don't have a lot of background knowledge, so they
can't make a lot of connections, so they really need to know how when they're
looking for information in a book and they have a question and when they have a
discussion they have to know what exactly am I looking what am What am I
looking for what are some key words.”
•

Teacher 3 responded, “They can find answers but cannot determine whether those
answers are reasonable or what they mean in the context of the larger world. My
hope is that students being to think more deeply about these things in my class.”

•

Teacher 4 responded, “When they leave me, I want them to feel comfortable
reading both critically and for pleasure, be able to write clearly and have their
voice heard and understood and be able to formulate their own opinions based on
research they have done themselves, rather than following blindly something that
someone else claims is true.”

•

Teacher 5 responded, “Some non-content goals include but are not limited to
growth mindset, self-advocacy, and demonstrating respect.”

•

Teacher 6 responded, “Students learn to question data. Students look beyond
numbers by questioning the design of studies and experiments. Additionally, they
become attune to biases and confounding variables which can make data
irrelevant.”
Interview Question 8 (Appendix F): What are the roadblocks or hurdles you face

during inquiry-based lessons?
•

Teacher 1 responded - Time! It’s a challenge to balance the demand of standardsbased learning, following the curriculum, and ensuring you’re hitting all the

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

97

content needed to prepare for state assessments, while still providing adequate
time for inquiry.
•

Teacher 2 responded, “The students that don't like to work with other people,
students that just want to get the work done because inquiry is not always just
about A, B and C, and D and knowledge-based questions, there's a little bit more
to it.”

•

Teacher 3 responded, “It is difficult to plan for an inquiry-based lesson because I
don’t know what questions students might ask. If the questions are truly student
generated, it’s unlikely that multiple students will be working toward the same
goals. It is also unlikely that I will know the answers to their questions. This is ok,
but it’s daunting to think about how much time would be needed to guide each
group when I’m also starting at square one. And then there’s the question of
evaluating the end result, which might be the biggest roadblock.”

•

Teacher 4 responded, “Time is ALWAYS a factor in everything. Sometimes
“sage on the stage” is just faster, and sometimes that speed is necessary. Also,
middle schoolers can be really hesitant to put themselves "out there” in front of
their peers, so it can sometimes be hard to encourage them to take those academic
risks.”

•

Teacher 5 responded, “Inquiry is challenging to drive in concurrent sections due
to lack separated sections and specifically designed instruction for student needs
and environment. Truly I have tried my best and feel I’ve been split in half and
cannot give my entire effort and attention to one style of learning for the
appropriate environment.”

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

•

98

Teacher 6 responded, “I think that there is still a place for direct instruction, but
we need to create classrooms where it is safe to explore. Unfortunately, exploring
does not follow a neat timeline. Also, the online learning environment introduces
new challenges to the exploratory process.”
Having a classroom sample for the observed classes is very important to the

research, and the data in Figure 6 shows that the Parkland High School as a whole has
27.7% free or reduced lunch program students, which signifies lower income families.
The classrooms observed come very close to that figure with 22.1% in that same
category.
Figure 6
Low Income Comparison Inquiry Pathways

The teachers' perspectives voicing a significant concern for some students not
having the necessary resources at home is reflective of that data. The teachers stress that

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

99

being in a face to face classroom allowed for resources to become more equitable. More
importantly, there is a significant discrepancy between the baseline data and the Project
Lead the Way Pathway (PLTW) data. That data shows that the PLTW courses are not an
equitable sample of our student population. Figure 6 displays that only 8.2% of the
students in the three PLTW pathways are in a low-income category.
To further investigate the PLTW data, the research analyzed gender, race and the
ELL (English Language Learner) population. Figure 7 shows that the female population
is slightly under-represented in PLTW pathways.
Figure 7
Gender Comparison Inquiry-Based Pathways

It should be noted that the research did not identify any transgender, gender neutral, or
non-binary identifications. It was not excluded, it just did not show in the database. The
demographic data illustrated which pathway, within the PLTW pathways, has the largest
differences in gender population. For example, in Table 4, the female population in BioMedical is larger than the male population by 62 students. On the contrary, the computer
science and engineering courses are 83% male.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

100

Table 4
Total Male/Female Count in PLTW
GENDER

Pathway

Count of GENDER

Female

Bio-Med

153

Female

Comp Sci

23

Female

Tech Ed

24

Male

Bio-Med

91

Male

Comp Sci

101

Male

Tech Ed

135

In addition to gender, this research explored the data for Ethnicity in the Project
Lead the Way courses, which demonstrated a higher population of Asian students taking
advantage of this inquiry-based learning pathway. There is an underrepresentation for
Black and Hispanic students. Even though the data shows the white population is still a
majority of the students taking PLTW courses, the percentage compared to the overall
white population is 10% lower. Figure 8 shows a side-by-side comparison of the overall
population of the high school and the ethnicity breakdown for the students in the three
Project Lead the Way pathways. Within the PLTW pathways, there was only one student
who was currently enrolled in an ELL (English Language Learner) program. The high
school has a total of 89 ELL students. That is 2.9% of the total enrollment of 3022
students.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

101

Figure 8
Ethnicity Comparison Inquiry-Based Pathways

Discussion
The data collection began with a survey to teachers in grades 6 to 12. The
perceptions collected on that survey became a gauge for the deeper dive into the research.
Looking for data from multiple angles in order to validate findings became a large part of
the data analysis. The categories of the characteristics of inquiry-based learning was the
focus. As a result of the educational environment of 2020, online versus face to face
comparisons became a natural part of the data collection process. Teachers were faced
with many challenges during this study, and all data collected is reflective of teachers
balancing classrooms in a hybrid environment having students in both face to face and
online.
The deeper dive into the data started with the classroom observations and teacher
interviews. There were opportunities for teachers to reflect on their lessons and also share
thoughts on inquiry-based learning. All lessons were observed through Google Meets and
had students both online and in person within one classroom. The teacher interviews were
collected and transcribed using an online tool. During classroom observations, a look for

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

102

tool (Appendix F), broken down into building relationships and invested learners, was
used to identify characteristics of inquiry-based learning throughout the lesson.
Following each observed lesson, an interview was conducted with 10 follow-up questions
(Appendix G).
The data was compiled and cross referenced with the original survey to compare
teacher perspective with observable measures. Within the teachers’ perspectives and
classroom observations, notes were gathered on any noticeable equity concerns. During
the observations, no equity issues were identified. A few were noted in the teachers’
reflections. However, the demographic information gathered from the database shows
many inconsistencies in the equity of students regarding the Project Lead the Way
pathway. The goal of reaching all students with inquiry-based learning assumes the
representation would be a direct relationship in the data.
Conclusion
In summary, analyzing the data from the survey, the classroom observations and
the teacher interviews allowed a thorough interpretation of the teachers’ perceptions of
the characteristics of inquiry-based learning. The survey was developed based on a Likert
scale and designed as a broad-brush survey yielding results that can be cross referenced
to the observations made in the classrooms and the teacher responses in the interviews.
The next chapter will develop conclusions on the data triangulated from the original
survey overview and data collected over a few months following that survey. Also, this
research provided a larger than normal view of online learning compared to in person
learning. It is important that school leaders understand the challenges of the 2020 school
year when analyzing this data and building a plan for the future. The data presented in

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

103

this chapter was collected during unprecedented times. It provided for unique
opportunities in both face to face and online learning that provided challenges in the
world of inquiry-based learning. The success, challenges, opportunities and plans will be
presented in Chapter 5.
In Chapter 5, the conclusions will address the most frequently seen inquiry-based
characteristics, the understanding of growth mindset, students' voice and choice, and
equity concerns within an inquiry-based environment. The chapter will also highlight
professional development opportunities planned for the future and areas for teachers to
individualize their goals and learning. Finally, the opportunities for all students to excel
in inquiry-based learning will be explored. A plan to build student programs outside of
the classroom to promote equity in inquiry-based pathways will be presented. These
conclusions will drive the goal of enhancing the school culture to continue to build on the
characteristics of inquiry-based learning within each classroom.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

104

CHAPTER 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
Inquiry-based learning becomes complex with different models and levels as
teachers advance into deeper steps of the instructional model. Often, the interpretations of
teachers differ, and the definition of inquiry-based learning varies. This chapter will draw
conclusions about inquiry-based learning from data collected in Parkland School District
from grades six through twelve. The focus of the data collected was aligned to a
professional development session on the characteristics of inquiry-based learning. The
characteristics of inquiry all tie back to three common ideas of student voice, student
choice and equity for all students. The teachers in this study faced many challenging
conditions as they managed hybrid learning through a global pandemic. In that hybrid
learning model, teachers were balancing courses that were split into students who were
participating face to face and students who were participating online. In this chapter, the
research conclusions will also separate the teacher perspectives of each environment
(online and face to face) as it pertains to student voice, choice and equity for all students.
The purpose of this study was to determine a plan to increase inquiry-based
learning in all content areas by evaluating the current teacher perspectives following a
focused professional development session. The analysis of the teacher perspectives and
the data collected during this research will be used to draw conclusions on the
characteristics of inquiry-based learning, which will include both the characteristics the
teachers feel most comfortable implementing as well as the ones they find to be the most
challenging to incorporate. The conclusions in this chapter will recognize the positives
with the intent to reinforce and celebrate those successes with the staff. Conversely, the

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

105

conclusions will also identify the shortcomings in inquiry-based learning and develop
plans to increase the effectiveness of all characteristics of inquiry-based learning.
Conclusions
This Capstone Project was conducted to identify the teacher perspective of
inquiry-based learning following a professional development session that was
administered to all teachers in grades six through twelve. The inquiry-based learning
professional development had a focus on10characteristics of education as well as
providing equitable learning experiences for all students. As stated in earlier chapters,
according to research from MacKenzie and Bathurst-Hunt (2018), Figure 9 highlights
characteristics that surface in an inquiry classroom across a span of time over several
lessons, days, and weeks. The10characteristics were the focal point of research questions
one and two.
Figure 9
Ten Characteristics of Inquiry-Based Learning
The characteristics are: (Bold = most commonly seen in data)
1.

Nurture student passions and talents

2.

Empower student voice and honour student choice

3.

Increase motivation and engagement

4.

Foster curiosity and a love for learning

5.

Teach grit, perseverance, growth mindset and self-regulation

6.

Make research meaningful and develop strong research skills

7.

Deepen understanding to go beyond memorization of facts and content

8.

Fortify the importance of asking good questions

9.

Enable students to take ownership over their learning and to reach their goals

10.

Solve the problems of tomorrow in the classrooms of today

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

106

Moreover, this chapter will draw conclusions from teacher perspectives on the overall
instructional practices used most often in the classroom and the characteristics of inquirybased learning within that instructional practice. The interpretation of perspectives on
the10characteristics leads into the second and third research questions, which were
specifically designed to know the overall thoughts of inquiry-based learning and the
student voice, choice, and equity built into instructional practices. These conclusions will
be reviewed based on each research question within this chapter.
The following plans developed to address the conclusions will have both a group
plan and an individualized plan for inquiry-based learning. The researcher has learned
from the data that although there are many consistent measures, there are also teachers at
multiple levels of their learning. It will be critical to create individualized professional
development plans as the teacher's perceptions should include a range of comfort and
knowledge in the inquiry-based learning characteristics. The conclusions shared within
this chapter will show multiple levels of comfort and learning on the instructional
practices shared throughout this research. The data collected throughout this study
revealed areas to increase learning for teachers through future professional development
sessions and will be included within the conclusion of each research question.
Furthermore, within the individual plans for our teachers to grow, it is important
to keep our eye on reaching and inspiring every student through inquiry-based learning.
When considering student voice and choice, it is essential to provide opportunities for
students to take ownership of their own learning. The equity data in this research
provides a view of the need to inspire students who may not normally look into careers of
bio-medical, engineering or computer science. Opening doors and exposing students to

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

107

the problem-solving process (Appendix A) in all content areas will help to build a
comfort level for students to explore with an understanding that failure is success if you
are willing to learn from those failures.
Research Question 1 Conclusions
The first research question, “What characteristics of inquiry classrooms are most
frequently addressed in both face to face and online instructional environments?” for this
study is focused on factors that surround the10 characteristics of inquiry-based learning.
It also examines these aspects for both face to face and online environments. During a
professional development session in a year prior to this study, the 10 characteristics were
presented to all secondary teachers with a focus on questioning techniques for any
content. The presenter, Trevor MacKenzie, had an English teaching background and
concentrated on amplifying learning in English and empowering student voices. The data
collected on research question one supports the goals of past training sessions and is
aligned to those instructional practices.
In reviewing the data, the researcher identified that teachers most often associate
inquiry with questioning techniques. The survey results shared in Figure 5 have two
major polls to review for questioning and content. More specifically, in the category of,
“Encouraging good questioning from students,” the standard deviation of 3.66 shows a
high correlation to the professional development focus. The researcher also believes that
the categories of, “Understanding of the content beyond the facts” and “Solving
tomorrow’s problems in today’s classroom” had a huge impact during the professional
development session and supports the high standard deviations. Likewise, when the six
interviewed teachers were asked to define inquiry-based learning, five of the six teachers

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

108

emphasized questioning strategies as the important factor. The research and data supports
that a strength of Parkland School District teachers is the understanding of questioning
and problem solving techniques functioning as a critical component of inquiry-based
learning. Also, this conclusion highlights characteristic numbers seven, eight, and ten
inside Figure 9 as the top strengths of the district’s teachers. These particular
characteristics are at the core of solving problems and building questions to understand
those problems, and this conclusion is supported by the Parkland Problem Solving
process (Appendix A) implemented prior to this research.
To address research question one, the data demonstrated that guided inquiry was
most often used. The data also showed that most students wanted to be given specific
instructions on exactly what they needed to do. Accordingly, teachers stressed that open
ended inquiry-based learning was a challenge for their students. With that, there are two
conclusions in this research that tend to be a cause and effect within the characteristics of
inquiry-based learning.
First, improvements can be made to increase the level of inquiry-based learning to
an open inquiry-based learning. Parkland teachers are fluent in questioning and problem
solving at a guided inquiry-based learning level. However, in order to stress the “research
and redesign” step of the Parkland Problem Solving process (Appendix A), it is
recommended to provide professional development sessions on open inquiry-based
learning with a focus on the growth mindset.
Second, it can be concluded that the engagement levels or investment of students
is not as high in guided inquiry-based learning. Unfortunately, the survey data for the
category, active participation, does not support this conclusion as the standard deviation

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

109

is 3.69 for a face to face environment. The standard deviation for another category,
“increased motivation and engagement,” in that same face to face environment is only a
bit lower at 3.49. The level of inquiry-based learning will limit allowing students’
interests to be included in the process, as guided inquiry-based learning does not easily
allow students to research topics of their own interest. Moreover, in all six classroom
observations, the content to be researched by the students was set by the teacher, and the
approaches to allow student choice in solving the problem varied. Even when teachers
allowed for multiple solution methods, the students were limited to a number of choices,
which dampens the creativity and interest of the student. To grow into an open inquirybased learning environment, it is recommended that the district stresses that the process
to be researched is driven by the interest of the students and the skills required for that
class. Following a curriculum does not always allow for all lessons and instructional
practices to be of an open inquiry-based model; however, it is recommended that the
district facilitates professional development sessions to build a deeper understanding of
when open inquiry-based learning would best lend itself to the curriculum.
To further interpret data relating to research question one, it must be noted that all
data was collected for both online and face to face environments. The conclusions and
data shared up to this point have been reflective of face to face environments. Every data
point was respectively lower in an online environment. The data high points and the data
low points were very consistent per characteristics, as the most frequent characteristics
were still the same just at lower values. The conclusion overall is that meeting inquirybased learning characteristics online is more challenging than in a face to face
environment. In one teacher's case, the students online were not able to complete the

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

110

inquiry-based learning activity. The exact reason for that lower perception and data is
inconclusive in this research. However, the nature of the Covid-19 pandemic and students
being at home for online learning presented a challenge that was new to both teachers and
students. All teachers expressed in their interviews that student participation online was a
challenge, and that they worked hard to find ways to keep online students engaged. This
conclusion was also supported in the classroom observations as through six classroom
observations, 84% of the participation came from the students in the face to face
environment, and 22% of the students online did not have cameras turned on. Likewise,
the survey data also reaffirmed this conclusion as the largest difference between a face to
face environment and an online environment was in the area of participation.
In summary, the researcher concluded the three most frequent characteristics of
inquiry-based learning are to fortify the importance of asking good questions, enable
students to take ownership of their learning to reach their goals, and solve the problems
of tomorrow in the classrooms of today. It was also concluded that even though inquirybased learning online was more challenging than face to face, these three characteristics
were the most frequently presented within the planned online instruction as well. As the
district recognizes these strengths, it is recommended to build professional development
sessions starting with the administrative team. The administrative team plans to use the
classroom observation tool as a framework for conducting walk through observations and
data collection throughout this school year. Additionally, the administrative instructional
leadership professional development meetings will be followed with a consistent district
wide message of supervision for teachers to grow inquiry-based learning to a higher
level. This message will also stress the importance of all the characteristics of inquiry-

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

111

based learning. Following this research, the district focus will be on building
relationships and knowing student interests. Within this plan, the cost to the district is
budgeted within the substitute coverage needed for teachers to meet and collaborate
during school hours. Specifically, the plan is to work with lead teachers in key content
areas to support the building level administrative teams during professional development
sessions. The district is not planning any further outside consultants at this time as the
intention is to grow within the knowledge base we have. The district goal is to build a
solid understanding of the growth mindset within a higher level of inquiry-based
learning. To do that, the key will be understanding all characteristics of inquiry-based
learning starting with relationship building.
Research Question 2 Conclusions
The second research question, “How do teachers perceive inquiry learning as we
focus on best instructional practices that include student voice and equity?” in this study
provides a closer look at the teachers’ perception of inquiry-based learning as it targeted
instructional practices that included student voice and equity. Within the interview
process, all the teachers stressed the importance of students having a voice and ownership
in their learning. The survey also had a high standard deviation in characteristic numbers
one, two and five in Figure 9. These characteristics are focused on student interest,
student voice and choice, and the growth mindset. However, during the observation
process the data collected did not support a high correlation of student voice and choice.
The inquiry-based learning models observed were very guided and limited in open ended
questions that gave little opportunity for student voice and choice. The data collected
from the classroom instruction highlighted many opportunities for students to explore,

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

112

gather data, and make their own conclusions. However, the student voice and student
choice characteristics were again limited to guided options for assessments. The students
were not given open options for their interests to be included in the learning process or
assessment of skills. One teacher allowed for six different methods to complete the
activity and allowed for some interest; nevertheless, an open choice allowing students to
create their own inquiry-based learning process was not offered.
During another interview, the teacher emphasized the importance of fostering
curiosity and topic importance to the student. The activity for that specific teacher
allowed students to collaborate, explore, and ask questions. On the other hand, it was
completely guided by the teacher. As a district, it is important to celebrate these inquirybased learning activities that are good quality instruction. Even though it is not supportive
of the conclusion to include student voice and choice in the inquiry-based learning
activity, it does not mean these lessons are below standard in any way. What the
researcher observed in each classroom was a very well planned out inquiry-based lesson
on a guided level. Therefore, it is important to expand on student voice and choice and
equity within the district.
However, expanding on student voice and choice often becomes a challenge when
teachers are focused on standardized testing. Table 2 displays a low 2.83 standard
deviation indicating that not all teachers perceive inquiry-based learning as an
instructional practice that prepares students for standardized tests. The survey statement,
“I feel inquiry-based lessons prepares my students for state standardized tests” yielded
this low standard deviation. It is recommended that the district develops professional
development sessions on inquiry-based learning that support being prepared for the tested

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

113

standards. Furthermore, the district has a purchased product called Defined Learning to
help with lesson planning for inquiry-based learning. This cost is already accounted for
within the district budget; yet, substitute costs and additional professional development
costs from this company would need to be considered. The researcher concluded that
teachers are more likely to take risks for open inquiry-based learning in non-tested
subject areas; therefore, a search for additional resources to incorporate inquiry-based
learning in tested subjects is essential. As identified, it is recommended that the district
creates professional development opportunities with both target groups in mind:
standardized tested subjects and non-tested subjects.
Whether it is a tested subject or a non-tested subject, when discussing equity
within a lesson, students with different backgrounds have different interests. Allowing for
students to bring interests into their learning and opening their minds with creative
opportunities to solve a problem will build greater interest and invested learners. This
opportunity to build invested learners improves learning regardless of the content. This
research concluded that the district understands the concept of student voice and choice
as it fosters equity through student interest. However, there is an evident need for
professional development sessions to help teachers explore the instructional practices to
build student voice and choice into lessons. In certain areas like our Project Lead the Way
courses, the content, problems to solve, and skills naturally lend themselves to student
voice and choice. As discussed in the plan for instructional walk-throughs with research
question one, this recommendation needs to be part of that same plan. The planned
professional development with building leaders will need to include best practices and

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

114

discussion points for observations that support student voice and choice offering equity
through student interests.
The recommendations for the district will be to build instructional plans that offer
student voice and choice in all content areas. In fact, this recommendation will closely
align to the recommendation for research question one. The administrative team has
planned to use the classroom observation tool as a framework for conducting walkthrough observations and data collection throughout this school year. The administrative
instructional leadership professional development meetings will be followed with a
district wide consistent message of supervision for teachers to grow inquiry-based
learning to a higher level and stress the importance of student voice and choice allowing
for equitable opportunity aligned to student interest. In other words, the district focus
following this research should again be on building relationships and knowing student
interests. It is recommended that a district walk-through form is created to help guide
these observations. This form should have five categories for data collection. More
specifically, those categories are Instructional Choice and Grouping, Building Trust and
Relationships, Engagement and Invested Learners, Inquiry-Based Characteristics, and
Assessment Options. Teachers are at varying levels of comfort executing inquiry-based
instruction. As a result, the district leaders will need to individualize professional
development opportunities that focus on different instructional models of inquiry-based
learning.
Research Question 3 Conclusions
The third research question, “Within inquiry learning environments, what subgroups (economically disadvantaged, gender, race, ESL) are seen most frequently

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

115

enrolled and to what level of inquiry-based learning is the most evident?” for this study is
focused on equity in inquiry-based learning environments. Throughout this research, the
word equity was examined in two different ways. Within the characteristics of inquirybased learning, equity constitutes an instructional practice that equalizes student interest
and enables student voice and choice. This allows for equitable opportunities for students
of all backgrounds. Next, the second look at equity inside this study was directly related
to the demographics of classrooms in our high-profile inquiry-based learning pathways.
These classes are some of the non-tested courses referred to in the prior sections that
align to the Project Lead the Way curriculum. The research concluded that when it comes
to gender, English Language Learners, economic status, and ethnicity, the inquiry-based
pathways are not an equitable sample of the demographics of the district. On the other
hand, it was concluded that the classrooms observed during the data collection were a
very close sampling of the entire population. However, those observed classes were
outside of the Project Lead the Way pathways.
Furthermore, it is recommended that the district focuses on a few areas to develop
an interest in inquiry in students at an earlier age. By building curiosity for inquiry-based
learning more students from various backgrounds will look to enter the inquiry-based
pathways. The data collected showed that the female percentages when looked at from a
whole were very equitable. When broken down, this was not true in areas of computer
science and engineering. It is recommended that the district creates more opportunities in
our middle school for females in computer science and engineering. The district has a
“Girls Who Code” club in the middle school that was started in the last two years. It will
be interesting to see if that helps increase female participation in the high school

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

116

computer science pathway for future years. The district should stay focused on this as a
goal and look to expand opportunities. Additionally, the researcher recommends that the
district builds more partnerships in the STEM businesses in the community and invites
female engineers and computer scientists to speak with students. Although the initial data
appears equal regarding the male female population in the Project Lead the Way
pathways, the contradiction in the data is caused by the large number of females in the
biomedical program. The biomedical program is lower in male numbers, and
consequently, the district should create additional opportunities in the middle school that
would spark more interest in males to pursue medicine.
Moving beyond gender, the data supported that equity for the inquiry-based
pathways was not seen in areas of lower income families, English Language Learners,
and specific ethnicities. These are also areas that need to be addressed within any
additional programs or student clubs like “Girls Who Code.” These additional programs
must not only be accessible to all students, but they must also provide comfortable
environments for all students regardless of their gender, economic status, or ethnicity.
Finally, the recommendation within this third research question is no different
than the guidance discussed regarding research questions one and two. To expand on that
recommendation, these goals are about building a culture of inquiry. The
recommendation will have planned professional development for both administrators and
teachers. Moreover, it is recommended that the district makes inquiry-based learning with
equity part of their district plan. In addition to fostering relationships with students, the
goals and professional development created will need to build relationships between
administrators and teachers as well. By understanding the importance of inquiry-based

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

117

learning characteristics, all team members can work towards building and maintaining a
culture of inquiry within each school.
Limitations
During this Capstone Project, the researcher was able to identify several
limitations to the research. The largest limitation was the environment created by the
2020 global pandemic. In order to accommodate the social distancing requirements
mandated by the government, the schools had to limit the student population in each
school. Classrooms were made up of 50% face to face and 50% students online at home
to meet social distancing requirements. This impacted the ability to design full teamwork
style inquiry-based lessons that included group work and labs as was done in the past.
Although this was a limitation on the study of a face to face inquiry classroom, it
provided a very unique opportunity to view inquiry-based learning online. Due to the
unique classroom environment consisting of in person and remote learners
simultaneously, the research allowed for a study to be conducted with online and face to
face classroom settings at the exact same time. On one hand, the pandemic created a
school environment that was something unique to study. However, we may never see this
blended environment again, and that environment limited the planning of lessons to meet
the inquiry-based learning characteristics. Teachers were overwhelmed with the fast pace
changes, and their time was consumed by double planning to meet the needs of face to
face and online students in the same class.
Another limitation was the number of responses to the survey. The survey was
sent out to 185 teachers in grades six through twelve. The number of responses received
was a 40% return with 74 total responses. The researcher’s goal of gathering a sampling

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

118

from all content areas and all grade levels was accomplished; however, a second goal of
60% survey participation was not met. The results could be influenced by teachers that
favored inquiry-based learning and felt more compelled to respond. The researcher sent
three messages for the survey over a month. If it was possible to identify and reach out
directly to non-responders, the researcher may have been able to pull some more
alternative opinions into the research. This was not an option because the survey
submissions were anonymous.
The final limitation is the authenticity of the teachers’ responses during the
interview process. The researcher felt as if the responses by the teachers were very
sincere, as they expressed both positive and negative aspects of inquiry-based learning.
There was no reason to believe that the responses were not 100% truthful. However, this
is always a risk in a designed methodology where the supervisor is the interviewer and
the teacher being supervised is the individual being interviewed. This was the least
concerning limitation in the study, but unfortunately in a work environment, it is a
notable concern.
Recommendations for Future Research
This Capstone Project provided the researcher with data related to the teachers’
perceptions on inquiry-based learning with a focus on the student voice and choice. It
allowed the researcher to examine a growth mindset in both a face to face setting and an
online setting during a global pandemic. This research concentrated on the 10
characteristics of inquiry-based learning that the teachers learned about during a prior
professional development session. Recommendations for future research include the
following:

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

119

1. Examine inquiry-based learning within face to face and online learning
environments that are not blended. The data collection process would include the
same mixed study with a survey, interviews, classroom observations and data on
equity. The difference would be targeting classrooms that are solely face to face
and comparing to classrooms that are solely online. The collection of data without
blended classrooms would allow the researcher to focus on the instructional
practices for each environment separately without teachers balancing both
instructional practices at the same time.
2. Investigate the perspectives of the students on inquiry-based instruction. There
was a comment in one of the classroom observations from a student that said,
“Inquiry-based learning is so much harder.” This research was not designed to dig
deeper into the students’ perspective on inquiry-based learning; however, that
comment made the researcher more curious about the students’ views on the 10
characteristics of inquiry.
3. Explore the reasons that there is a lack of equity seen within the higher-level
inquiry-based pathways. This proposed study is very closely related to the
suggestion in number two. The research would again collect data on student
perspectives as number two suggested; however, this would target groups of
students that are not represented inside the inquiry-based pathways to learn why
they are not interested or entering in those fields of inquiry. This Capstone Project
focused on three pathways of the Project Lead the Way curriculum (Engineering,
Computer Science, and Biomedical), but there are many other inquiry-based
pathways to explore that were not examined in this study.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

120

4. Conduct a study to look deeper into individualized student voice and choice as it
relates to equity. The format of this type of research would require teachers to be
at a level of inquiry-based learning with open opportunities for students to
incorporate their diverse ideas. Data collection would require reflection interviews
and classroom observations on the perceptions of students. A gauge would be
needed to conclude the level of investment and engagement from the students.
Summary
This Chapter 5 presented conclusions related to the 10 characteristics of inquirybased learning. The researcher identified that student voice and choice within the world
of equity is a critical aspect of the 10 characteristics. The analysis of the data showed the
teachers’ perspective of inquiry-based learning also supports student voice and choice as
a critical attribute to quality classroom instruction. Moreover, the data also revealed that
instruction is often guided and limited on the options for students to have a voice and
choice in their learning. Teachers gravitated towards problem solving skills and
questioning techniques within the guided level of inquiry. The teachers' lessons varied on
level of inquiry-based learning and at times provided an opportunity for student voice and
choice.
Furthermore, this study does support the researcher’s belief that the 10
characteristics of inquiry-based learning construct a solid framework of best practices of
instruction. To incorporate all 10 characteristics is the highest level of inquiry-based
learning. Classroom instruction may not always reach the high level of inquiry-based
learning; instruction hitting a few characteristics is still considered quality instruction. A
single district initiative to focus instruction around the 10 characteristics will also help

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

121

meet many other districts goals including building relationships, equity within
instruction, and developing a growth mindset. Therefore, the 10 characteristics form a
valid framework for instructional discussions and supervision.
Finally, this study has affirmed the researcher’s conviction to build professional
development sessions and leadership training around the 10 characteristics of inquirybased learning. The tiered approach starting with building instructional leadership teams,
working with the teachers, and following a common instructional practice will help
develop a school culture centered around inquiry-based learning. Establishing a culture of
inquiry education will inherently meet the needs of district goals for building
relationships, equity within instruction, and developing a growth mindset.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

122

References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R.,
Hofstein, A., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International
perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.
Allen, C. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2015). Studying teachers’ sensemaking to investigate
teachers’ responses to professional development focused on new standards.
Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 136–149.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E.,
Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational
objectives. Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Baloche, L., & Brody, C. M. (2017). Cooperative learning: Exploring challenges, crafting
innovations. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(3), 195-274.
Banshee, H., & Bell R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2),
26-29.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy
beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child
Development, 72(1), 187–206.
Blessinger, P., & Carfora, J. (2015). Inquiry-Based Learning for science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) programs : A conceptual and practical resource
for educators, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

123

Buckner, E., & Kim, P. (2014). Integrating technology and pedagogy for inquiry-based
learning: The Stanford mobile inquiry-based learning environment (SMILE).
Prospects, 44, 99–118.
Buenconsejo, J., & Datu, J. (2020). Growth and fixed mindsets about talent matter for
career development self-efficacy in selected Filipino adolescents. Children and
Youth Services Review, 118, 105470.
Burchinal, M., McCartney, K., Steinberg, L., Crosnoe, R., Friedman, S. L., McLoyd, V.,
& Pianta, R. (2011). Examining the Black-White achievement gap among lowincome children using the NICHD study of early child care and youth
development. Child Development, 82(5), 1404–1420.
Callison, D. (2014). Information literacy to inquiry: A timeline. School Library
Monthly, 31(1), 14–25.
Cervetti, G., & Pearson, P. D. (2012). Reading, writing, and thinking like a scientist.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(7), 560-580.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. (2018). Educating the whole child:
Improving school climate to support student success. Learning Policy Institute.
Dewey, J. (1982). Looking back: My pedgogic creed. Language Arts, 59(6), 539–542.
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasiexperimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review
of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–320
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., &
Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in
science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

124

Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Haug, B. S. (2014). Inquiry-based science: Turning teachable moments into learnable
moments. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(1), 79-96.
Hendricks, C. C. (2017). Improving Schools through Action Research: A Reflective
Practice Approach, 4th Ed. Pearson.
Hernández, L. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Adams, J., Bradley, K., & Learning Policy
Institute. (2019). Deeper learning networks: Taking student-centered learning
and equity to scale. Deeper learning networks series. Learning Policy Institute.
Hong, J.-C., Hwang, M.-Y., Tai, K.-H., & Tsai, C.-R. (2017). An exploration of students’
science learning interest related to their cognitive anxiety, cognitive load, selfconfidence and learning progress using inquiry-based learning with an iPad.
Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1193–1212.
Jackson, K., Cobb, P., Wilson, J., Webster, M., Dunlap, C., & Appelgate, M. (2015).
Investigating the development of mathematics leaders’ capacity to support
teachers’ learning on a large scale. The International Journal on Mathematics
Education, 47(1), 93–104.
Kilpatrick, J. (1987). “What Constructivism might be in Mathematics Education”, in
Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on the Psychology of
Mathematics, Volume 1, Montreal, Canada. (pp. 3-27)
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). 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, 41(2), 75–86.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

125

Maaß, K. (2018). Scaling up innovative teaching approaches in mathematics: Supporting
teachers to take up a new role as professional development course leaders for
inquiry-based learning. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(7), 1–16.
MacKenzie, T. (2016). Dive into inquiry: Amplify learning and empower student voice.
EdTech Team Press.
MacKenzie, T, & Bathurst-Hunt, R. (2018). Inquiry mindset: Nurturing the dreams,
wonders, and curiosities of our youngest learners. Elevate Books Edu.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction--what
was it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
Dana, N., Thomas, C., & Boynton, S. (2011). Inquiry: A districtwide approach to staff
and student learning. Corwin Press.
Rasmussen, C., & Kwon, O.N. (2007). An inquiry-oriented approach to undergraduate
mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behaviors, 26(3), 189–194.
Ruzaman, N. K., & Rosli, D. I. (2020). Inquiry-based education: Innovation in
participatory inquiry paradigm. International Journal of Emerging Technologies
in Learning, 15(10), 4–15.
Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 2, 80–84.
Song, Y., Wong, L.-H., & Looi, C.-K. (2012). Fostering personalized learning in science
inquiry supported by mobile technologies. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 60(4), 679–701.
Ștefan, M. A. (2017). Using constructivist theory in e-learning effectively. ELearning &

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

126

Software for Education, 1, 244–249.
Stone, C., Freeman, E., Dyment, J. E., Muir, T., & Milthorpe, N. (2019). Equal or
equitable? The role of flexibility within online education. Australian &
International Journal of Rural Education, 29(2), 26–40.
Tang, G., El Turkey, H., Cilli-Turner, E., Savic, M., Karakok, G., & Plaxco,
D. (2017). Inquiry as an entry point to equity in the classroom. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(1) 4-15.
Utley, J., Ivey, T., Weaver, J., & Self, M. J. (2019). Effect of project lead the way
participation on retention in engineering degree programs. Journal of PreCollege Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), Article 3.
Vajoczki, S., Watt, S., Vine, M. M., & Liao, X. (2011). Inquiry learning: Level,
discipline, class size, what matters? International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 5(1).
von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In
R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on teaching
and learning mathematics (pp. 19-29). National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Wong, S. S. (2016). Development of teacher beliefs through online instruction: A oneyear study of middle school science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about
teaching and learning. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health,
2(1), 21–32.
Xu, F. (2019). Towards a rational constructivist theory of cognitive development.
Psychological Review, 126(6), 841–864.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

APPENDICES

127

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

Appendix A
Parkland Problem Solving (STEM) Poster

128

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

Appendix B
Inquiry-Based Learning Teacher Survey

Survey Questions:
Check the Box/boxes that best fit:
1.

Your Gender: __ Male __Female

2.

Average Class Size: __ 0-10 __11-18 __19-25 __more then 25

3.

Grade Level Taught: __6 __7 __8 __9 __10 __11 __12

Complete the following questions:
4.

Age:___

5.

Years of Experience:____

6.

Building you are currently teaching in:____

7.

Subject Taught:____

8.

How many times a month would you estimate that you use inquiry in your
classroom: ____

129

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

130

Select: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- Agree, 4 – Strongly Agree
Perspective Questions

9.

inquiry-based lessons are important for my students’
achievement.

10.

I am confident in teaching lessons through inquiry

11.

I have no issues with managing inquiry-based lessons

12.

I have attended the school based professional development
for inquiry-based lessons

13.

I have attended professional development outside of the
school offerings on inquiry-based lessons

14.

I feel inquiry-based lessons prepares my students for state
standardized tests

15.

inquiry-based lessons benefit all students including students
with disabilities

1

2

3

4

3

4

Select: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- Agree, 4 – Strongly Agree
Logistical Questions

16.

I have adequate time to collaborate with colleagues on
inquiry-based lessons

1

2

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

17.

I have enough supplies to teach inquiry-based lessons

18.

I feel supported to teach inquiry-based lessons

19.

My classroom have adequate space to teach lessons
through inquiry

20.

Teaching through inquiry is too time consuming. I don’t
have enough planning time to prepare for inquiry-based
lessons

131

Reflect on your most recent (face to face) inquiry-based lesson.
Select: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- Agree, 4 – Strongly Agree
Characteristic for Building Relationships

21

Respectful interactions between teacher and student

22

Respectful interactions among students

23

Student and/or teacher pride in work

24

Active student participation

25

Nurture student passions and talents

26

Encourage the growth mindset

1

2

3

4

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

27

Foster curiosity and a love for learning

28

Equitable resource for all students – Knowledge of
Students

132

Select: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- Agree, 4 – Strongly Agree
Characteristic for Building Relationships

29

Meaningful research and strong research skills - students
show curiosity of research

30

Increased Motivation and engagement

31

Rigorous learning tasks – Is the problem challenging the
students thoughts?

32

Higher level student thinking – solving tomorrow’s
problems in today’s classroom

33

Empower Student choice and voice

34

Students take ownership in what they are doing and why
and how they are doing it in order to demonstrate
success (learning how to learn)

35

Instructional tools and strategies support student choice
and voice and are aligned to instructional goals.

1

2

3

4

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

36

Encourage good questioning from students and the
importance of questions to find a solution

37

Understanding of the content beyond the facts is evident

133

Reflect on your most recent (online) inquiry-based lesson.
Select: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- Agree, 4 – Strongly Agree
Characteristic for Building Relationships

38

Respectful interactions between teacher and student

39

Respectful interactions among students

40

Student and/or teacher pride in work

41

Active student participation

42

Nurture student passions and talents

43

Encourage the growth mindset

44

Foster curiosity and a love for learning

45

Equitable resource for all students – Knowledge of
Students

1

2

3

4

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

134

Select: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- Agree, 4 – Strongly Agree

Characteristic for Building Relationships

46

Meaningful research and strong research skills students show curiosity of research

47

Increased Motivation and engagement

48

Rigorous learning tasks – Is the problem challenging
the students thoughts?

49

Higher level student thinking – solving tomorrow’s
problems in today’s classroom

50

Empower Student choice and voice

51

Students take ownership in what they are doing and
why and how they are doing it in order to demonstrate
success (learning how to learn)

52

Instructional tools and strategies support student choice
and voice and are aligned to instructional goals.

53

Encourage good questioning from students and the
importance of questions to find a solution

54

Understanding of the content beyond the facts is
evident

1

2

3

4

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

135

Appendix C
Volunteer Consent Form

Dear Faculty Member,
As a contracted educational professional that participated in the inquiry-based and equity
professional development during the 2019-2020 school year, you are being asked to
participate in a research studying teacher perception regarding Inquiry for Student Voice
and Equity. The research will focus on the 10 characteristics of inquiry examined during
the professional development opportunities. Your participation in this study will help the
researcher learn more about how you perceive the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning
both face to face and online. Your participation is voluntary and all information will be
kept confidential.
What will I be asked to do if I take part in this study?
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete one Google Form
electronic survey. Following the survey, you may be selected randomly to participate in
a controlling sampling to further participate in one interview (no longer than 30 minutes)
and one classroom observation (no longer then 30 minutes). This observation could also
be an observation digitally online through Schoology. All information will be kept
confidential and stored within my personal google account, so no other district
administrator can access. All records will be deleted following the completion of the
study.
Where will this study take place?
There will be a combination of an online survey using a secure website, interviews (in the
teacher’s classroom or virtually through google meets), and classroom observation (in the
teacher’s classroom or virtually through Schoology.)
There is also an aspect of
student data (demographic data: race, economic status, gender, ELL, and academic goals)
that will be collected and analyzed from the voluntary teachers’ classroom data. All
information will be kept confidential and stored within my personal google account, so
no other district administrator can access. During observations, no student names or
personal data will be collected. If observation is completed in a virtual environment, the
researcher will not be recording the virtual session. The observation is designed to be a
real time observation with a list of look-for data to collect. All information will be kept
completely confidential.
What happens if I decide to not continue after starting the study?

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

136

There is no penalty if you decide to withdraw from the study at any time. The researcher
will not ask any questions and no reason is needed to withdraw.
What are the risks?
This data collection is NOT anonymously collected. You will not be asked personal
questions or questions of sensitive nature. Participants are asked to be completely honest
in their responses. This is often a moment that may make an individual feel
uncomfortable, however, there is no judgement on your responses and all information
will be kept confidential. Participants are not required to answer questions that they
choose not to answer. This is completely voluntary and confidential, however, due to the
nature of some questions there is a risk of identification to the researcher through
triangulation. All information will be kept confidential.
How will I benefit from participating?
You will help the researcher better understand the teachers’ perception of inquiry and
equity. We all grow as a team. Your participation will help planning for future
professional developments that will better instruction for our students.
Who do I contact if I have questions about this study?
If you have questions about this study, please contact the researcher, Jason Henry at
HEN5815@calu.edu or 610-351-5542. If you would like to talk to someone other then
the researcher, please contact Dr. Mary Wolf, Assistant Professor at California
University of Pennsylvania, at email wolf@calu.edu.
I have read this form. Any questions I have about participating in this study have been
answered. I agree to take part in this study, and I understand that taking part is
voluntary. By signing below, I agree to participate in this study. I am indicating that I
have read this form and had my questions answered. I understand that it is my choice to
participate and I can stop at any time.
Signature required for interviews and classroom observation:

Signature: _____________________________________________________________

Print Name: ____________________________________________________________

Date: ________________

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

Appendix D
Volunteer Interest Survey

137

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

138

Appendix E
IRB Approval Letter
Institutional Review Board
California University of Pennsylvania
Morgan Hall, 310
250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Melissa Sovak, Ph.D.

Dear Jason,
Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal titled
“Inquiry for Student Voice and Equity: Exploring 10 Characteristics”
(Proposal #19-074) has been approved by the California University of
Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board as submitted.
The effective date of approval is 9/10/20 and the expiration date is 9/09/21.
These dates must appear on the consent form.
Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly
regarding any of the following:
(1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your study
(additions or changes must be approved by the IRB before they are
implemented)
(2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects
(3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are
necessitated by any events reported in (2).
(4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of
9/09/21 you must file additional information to be considered for continuing
review. Please contact instreviewboard@calu.edu
Please notify the Board when data collection is complete.
Regards,
Melissa Sovak, PhD.
Chair, Institutional Review Board

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

139

Appendix F
Classroom Observation Tool
Building Relationships and Trust:

● Building Blocks of learning/ Foundation for effective instruction
LOOK FORS: Building Relationships and Trust:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Respectful interactions between teacher and student
Respectful interactions among students
Student and/or teacher pride in work
Active student participation
Nurture student passions and talents
Encourage the growth mindset
Foster curiosity and a love for learning
Equitable resource for all students – Knowledge of Students

Engagement/ Invested learners:

●
●
●
●

Disengagement
Multiple Modalities of Learning
Authentic Learning Activities
Highly Invested Students

LOOK FORS: Engagement/ Invested learners:

1. Meaningful research and strong research skills - students show curiosity of

research
Increased Motivation and engagement
Rigorous learning tasks – Is the problem challenging the students thoughts?
Higher level student thinking – solving tomorrow’s problems in today’s classroom
Empower Student choice and voice
Students take ownership in what they are doing and why and how they are doing
it in order to demonstrate success (learning how to learn)
7. Instructional tools and strategies support student choice and voice and are
aligned to instructional goals.
8. Encourage good questioning from students and the importance of questions to
find a solution
9. Understanding of the content beyond the facts is evident

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

INQUIRY FOR STUDENT VOICE, CHOICE, AND EQUITY

140

Appendix G
Teacher Interview Questions
Inquiry Interview Questions:
Teacher:
Grade Level/Subject:
1.
What instructional methods of teaching and learning are used most often in
your classroom? (Describe these methods in more detail)
2.
How do you define inquiry-based teaching strategies? What does this
involve?
3.
What are the most important routines in your classroom instruction on a
typical day?
4.

What skills are you hoping your students will achieve in your class?

5.
What are the critical goals that students learn about or learn how to do in
your class?
6.
What do you consider to be the important outcomes of inquiry-based
teaching and learning?
7.
What are the most essential skills you want your students to demonstrate
during inquiry?
8.

What are the road blocks or hurdles you face during inquiry-based lessons?

9.
Have you tried inquiry in online lessons? If so, explain the successes and the
challenges?
10. Define a classroom that follows a “growth mindset”?