1

Running Head: Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement:

Annotated Bibliography and Literature Review

Kimberly Wagner
80193113
ETEC 532 Technology in the Arts and Humanities Classroom
Instructor: Dr. Alexander De Cossen
University of British Columbia
July 10, 2012

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

Abstract
The purpose of this annotated bibliography and literature review is to determine the key findings
and current literature on effectively using inquiry-based learning (IBL) to improve student
engagement while improving confidence, motivation, and literacy skills in a senior college
English class (bound for college level post-secondary programs). The review includes an
annotated bibliography and a critical discussion of the research regarding IBL and its application
to a senior English classroom. The significance and need for this research within the current
body of knowledge will conclude this literature review.
Keywords: inquiry-based learning, engagement, authentic-learning, situated learning,
literacy, scaffolding, modeling

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

Annotated Bibliography
Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen
and S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahweh, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barab and Duffy (2000) outline how situated learning is more meaningful than content
acquisition because identities are constructed as well as meaning through the interaction involved
in being a part of a community of practice. This study is good because it challenges the idea of
contrived problem-based learning and inspires to engage in authentic learning. Their idea that
inquiry should involves novices and experts working with each other to solve an ill-defined
problem is challenging to achieve, but several projects involving technology use are critiqued in
terms of how well they achieved a community of practice model.
Brown, H. (2004, November). Walking into the Unknown: Inquiry-Based Learning Transforms
the English Classroom. The English Journal, 94(2), 43-48. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128772
This is an excellent case study of a teacher's inquiry into how to improve student engagement,
motivation, and research skills though IB in a high school English class. It describes Brown's
lack of success with traditional research and the inquiry project initiated with her class of Native
American (Tohono O'odham) students who were typically unengaged in English class. She
initiated the topic of "identity" with four sub-topics to engage students: ethnic, cultural,
teen/modern, social, and sexual/gender. Finally, she explains how their classroom dialogue,
motivation, and confidence improved as they studied topics that are personally relevant to them.
The article concludes with her positive findings.

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

Bruce, B. C., & Bishop, A. P. (2002). Using the Web to support inquiry-based literacy
development. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(8), 706. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN
=6629870&site=ehost-live
A main focus of this article is a website that was developed for the purpose of IBL that could be
used by teachers, students, and community members of all grades, subjects, and disciples. The
need to move away from traditional, content approach curricula delivery is outlined because it's
no longer adequate for our technologically advanced and information wealthy society. A spiral of
inquiry is advocated where students end by asking new questions. Through engagement in
meaningful inquiry, literacy (language learning) will naturally occur. Their web-based tools
inquiry project description models how a web environment could be effectively used for
language arts inquiry.
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), 75-85.
Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20650252&
site=ehost-live

These researchers reviewed guided and unguided instructional practices research and literature
of the last fifty years to debunk the use of unguided instructional methods as constituting
effective learning practices. The nature of memory (long-term, working, and cognitive load) is
articulated and exampled to establish how learning occurs. Research studies on guided and
unguided instruction practices are outlined to demonstrate that guided instruction methods are
more consistently effective while unguided methods are usually ineffective and have even

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

worsened learning. Although I disagree with some conclusions about IBL, excellent questions
were raised by these cognition experts.
Owens, R., Hester, J., Teale, W. (2002, April 01). Where do you want to go today? Inquirybased learning and technology integration. Reading Teacher, (7), 616, Retrieved from
http://elibrary.bigchalk.com
This article outlines effective use of IBL through the reflection on two case studies. They
present the use of inquiry as best balanced with other prescriptive components of a literacy
program at about 50% each. Criteria for success are outlined that have been developed as a result
of their experience with this learning method. Effective technology use is a focus since it's
motivating to the students, but the teacher needs to provide direction for effective use. The article
concludes with a summary of lessons learned.
Stripling, K, B. (2003, September 01). Fostering literacy and inquiry. School Library Journal,
(9), S5, Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com
The author outlines the importance of library services in creating an environment of inquiry and
literacy in a school. Regardless of the grade and subject, all students need to learn a universal
skill set that involves both literacy and critical thinking abilities. IBL is a perfect partner to
literacy because one must have literacy skills to effectively complete the inquiry process. Inquiry
is a guided process which involves direct teaching, scaffolding, and guided practice; it is not
simply the compiling of information but the development of greater understanding regarding self
and society.
Wilhelm, J. D., Wilhelm, P. J., & Boas, E. (2009). Section 1: Introduction to Inquiry. In
Inquiring Minds: Learn to Read and Write (pp. 7-24). Markham, Ontario: Rubicon
Publishing, Inc.

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

This introductory section to this practical resource for implementing IBL defines it as proactive
learning that involves the study of all content areas which engages students to improve literacy
and creates a social constructivist environment. The authors outline how to move from topical
research to critical inquiry that involves elaborating on found knowledge by making new
connections; then they create new knowledge, and finally, reflect on what they have learned.
They outline the inquiry process step, principles for success, and several reasons for using
inquiry with examples.

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

History
IBL is associated with constructivist and social constructivist pedagogies that are not
teacher-centered which are rooted in the ideology of Socrates and John Dewey. Since the 1950s,
there have been several movements under different names, such as discovery, problem-based,
inquiry, experiential, and constructivist (Kirschner, Swellar, & Clark, 2006) which are associated
by their more active, student-centered practices, and there has been controversy over whether
those methods produce learning. Although there is existing research based on science teaching,
there is very little regarding the humanities; however, in the last hundred years of educational
reform, there's been a general move in all disciplines to more hands-on approaches (Jennings,
2010). The method has largely been misunderstood as an unorganized, undisciplined method of
instruction because of its active and individual nature. There are four main premises of this
instructional method: the focus on learning the process and procedures of a discipline as well as
content, the interdisciplinarity of knowledge construction; the interaction with experts within the
discipline area; and the teacher as a mentor who scaffolds and models universal critical thinking
skills to students as needed (Jennings, 2010).
Introduction
IBL is not frequently used in education despite the benefits that have been demonstrated
in case studies by those who have tried it. The current availability of information and
technological tools makes it meaningful to engage in this instructional method with students.
Dissenters have raised some valid questions about whether learning actually occurs; however,
some premises and assumptions are flawed. The need for balance between direct teaching and
guided practices is highlighted by several advocates. It is agreed that the teachers role is crucial

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

to its success. Finally, some researchers believe IBL should be authentic and develop
communities of practice.
Selection of Studies
The majority of research available on this subject is case-study and reflection on
experience (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Brown, 2004; Owens, Hester & Teale, 2002; Stripling, 2003;
Wilhelm, Wilhelm, & Boas, 2006) with the exception of Kirstchner, Sweller and Clark (2006)
who complete an extensive review of empirical studies over the last 50 years to argue against the
effectiveness of inquiry-based learning. Barab and Duffy (2000) and Bruce and Bishop (2002)
share the perspective that inquiry-based learning needs to progress even further to be truly
authentic and to create communities of practice.
Analysis, Synthesis, and Critique
While IBL can be completed without technology, the availability of it has resulted in a
wealth of information and resources that makes effective inquiry-based learning possible; a
traditional "delivery of content approach" is no longer adequate for our rapidly changing world
(Bruce & Bishop, 2002, pg .707). The increased complexity of society brings into question the
idea of teaching a particular set of knowledge to all students, since it is impossible to know
everything. Thus, students "need to able to examine complex situations and define solvable
problems[while] work[ing] with multiple sources and media" (pg. 707). The inquiry process
involves a set of framing steps that involve asking critical questions, activating prior knowledge,
complete investigation, scaffolding / modeling of procedural skills, meaningful product /
performance, reflection, and asking new questions (Brown, 2004; Bruce & Bishop, 2002;
Owens, Hester & Teale, 2002; Stripling, 2003; Wilhelm, J. D., Wilhelm, P. J., & Boas, 2009).
Advocates of IBL strongly believe, as a result of their personal experience using this instruction

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

method, that this hands-on learning is more meaningful because the students interests and
society intersect and the student is engaged (Bruce & Bishop, 2002, pg. 707).
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) are adamantly opposed to IBL (and other 'unguided'
instructional methods) arguing that learning is poor and ever worsens without 'guided'
instructional methods (pg. 77). They argue that there are limitations to the working memory, so
allowing students to explore topics for which they do not have prior knowledge causes cognitive
overload (pg. 80). Empirical research on memory is cited to support 'guided' methods that
involve worked examples, process worksheets, and graphic organizers (pg. 80). One study cited
showed that high aptitude learners were unaffected by the method of instruction but disliked the
'unguided' methods, but low aptitude learners scored worse in post-tests when given 'unguided'
instruction but reported liking it more (pg. 82). They conclude that guided methods are more
desirable for both groups to achieve the best learning yield.
These conclusions do not necessarily mean ILB is not effective because they assume that
there's no structure to the process. It is true that the students may be exploring a subject without
schema, but that will develop through study. They also assume there will not be a balance
between direct scaffolding and modeling of skills and inquiry. In addition, they have not proven
that the low aptitude students would have improved much in their learning using guided
methods if they were not engaged in the content. Finally, they do make one significant point
the lack of empirical studies.
Advocates of IBL agree that this approach to learning is difficult for the teacher because
the process is not as straight-forward as direct teaching. The guidance of the teacher is crucial to
the success of this instructional method in engaging students through their enthusiasm,
stimulation of curiosity, forming effective questions for inquiry (topic selection), scaffolding

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

10

necessary skills, motivating, and directing toward relevant resources (Owens, Hester, & Teale,
2002). Wilhelm, Wilhelm & Boas (2009) outline 18 criteria for successful inquiry that relate to
success at one or more of the steps in the process, and advocate most must be met, which
requires a motivated and organized teacher to manage the needs and demands of the students (pg.
11). IBL can be challenging to implement because of its open structure, but an experienced
teacher can address learning needs as they arise from the students' work and ensure the learning
is rigorous in nature (Jennings, 2010). It's agreed that important universal skill development
occurs through engagement in the IBL process: research, leadership, collaborative, critical
thinking, and production (Berab & Duffy, 2000; Brown, 2004; Owen, Hester, & Teale, 2002;
Stripling, 2003; Wilhelm, Wilhelm, & Boas, 2009). Finally, it's agreed that literacy is supported
through IBL because literacy and engagement are connected (Wilhelm, Wilhelm, & Boas, 2009).
Stripling (2003) and Owens, Hester, & Teal (2002) agree that teachers should scaffold direct
literacy instruction into the process so that IBL occurs about 50% of the time creating a balance
between direct and guided (according to IBL advocates definition and not Kirschner, Sweller, &
Clarks) instruction. Bruce and Bishop (2002) purport that "literacy involves a full range of
interpretive abilitiesnot only the capacity to use language" (pg. 708), which is consistent with
the New London Group (1996) concept of the grammar of multiliteracies that are critical to
learning in modern society: linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, spatial, and multimodal (pg. 78).
There's a significant group within the IBL experts who believe that it should also be
authentic, meaning that it has a real-world relevance in terms of solving a meaningful problem
that is useful to society. Brown (2004) reported that authenticity was an important part of the
IBL with her Native American students (Tohono O'odham) who chose different topics related to
identity. Many of the students chose topics related to their Aboriginal heritage and engaged in

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

11

primary research by conducting surveys and interviews (pg. 44). A meaningful website was
produced to provide information to others in an effort to effect positive change (pg. 48). Stripling
(2003) advocates for the authenticity of students, teachers, and community members being
involved in the meaning-making process since learning is preparation for living in society (para.
8). Barab and Duffy (2000) believe that situated learning is more meaningful than content
acquisition because identities are constructed as well as meaning through the interaction involved
in being a part of a community of practice. IBL is not always situated but initiated as a fictitious
problem-based scenario; however, situativity is crucial because the engagement in the activity is
derived from our natural social and cultural elements as there is no boundary between the
individual and the world (pg. 4). Most significantly, they believe that developing a community of
practice is the most important ideal in this learning because of the "importance of activity in
binding individuals to communities, and of communities to legitimizing individual practices"
(pg. 11). They give several examples of learning projects which were focused on IBL which
have many characteristics of situated learning; however, they do not believe that they constituted
communities of practice usually because the situation was contrived. Are teens capable of
building a community of practice? Can a community of practice be created purposely, or does it
sometimes happen because a particular group of people chooses to engage in the shared
enterprise?
Conclusion
Engagement is definitely the main reason why IBL is touted as an effective instructional
method; however, even though it's enjoyable to the students, especially struggling students,
further research on this topic is definitely needed to determine if its methods do in fact result in
literacy improvement. There needs to be empirical studies completed in the humanities because

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

12

currently they are non-existent. Available case studies and reflection on experience help to
outline best practices and possible pitfalls, but it would be beneficial to see empirical results
focused on humanities. . Kirschner, Sweller,and Clarks (2006) review of empirical study is
content acquisition focused in a science setting; although they present concerns that should not
be ignored, but they are not wholly convincing mainly because of the premise that IBL is
unguidedwhich is not the intent in using this method correctly. Finally, an empirical study for
the humanities would be difficult to design since in IBL students direct their own content
learning; thus, it is questionable as to how pre- and post-tests could produce valid results.
Additional sharing of case studies would continue to be helpful in modeling best practices for
teachers wanted to try it.

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

13

References
Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). Fron practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen
and S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahweh, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, H. (2004, November). Walking into the Unknown: Inquiry-Based Learning Transforms
the English Classroom. The English Journal, 94(2), 43-48. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128772
Bruce, B. C., & Bishop, A. P. (2002). Using the Web to support inquiry-based literacy
development. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(8), 706. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN
=6629870&site=ehost-live
Jennings, L. (2010). Inquiry-Based Learning. In T. C. Zalta, J.C. Carper, T. J. Lasley II, and C.
D. Raisch (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Reform and Dissent. (pp. 467-69).
Retrieved from http://sage-reference.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/view/educationalreform/
n219.xml?rskey=OIfr1s&result=1&q=inquiry-based learning
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), 75-85.
Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20650252&
site=ehost-live
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review. 66(1), 60-92. Retrieved from http://www.hepg.org/her/abstract/290

Inquiry-Based Learning to Improve Student Engagement and Achievement

14

Owens, R., Hester, J., Teale, W. (2002, April 01). Where do you want to go today? Inquiry-based
learning and technology integration. Reading Teacher, (7), 616, Retrieved from
http://elibrary.bigchalk.com
Stripling, K, B. (2003, September 01). Fostering literacy and inquiry. School Library Journal,
(9), S5, Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com
Wilhelm, J. D., Wilhelm, P. J., & Boas, E. (2009). Section 1: Introduction to Inquiry. In
Inquiring Minds: Learn to Read and Write (pp. 7-24). Markham, Ontario: Rubicon
Publishing, Inc.