Inquiry-based

Activity Development
Process
Proposal for Toronto District School Board
Developed by a senior engineering team for the multidisciplinary capstone engineering course
at the University of Toronto:
4/28/2014
Lobna El Gammal
Nikita Dawe
Maguy Jbeili
Document Overview
The Inquiry-based Activity Development (IAD) design was developed by a team of three senior
engineering students as a part of their Multidisciplinary Capstone (MCP) design project. The design is
intended to guide high school science teachers in developing inquiry-based activities for classroom use.
This document outlines: the need for the IAD, its theoretical underpinnings, and its functionality and
implementation.










Client Need
Toronto District School Board (TDSB) representatives approached an MCP team at the University of
Toronto (UofT) in October of 2013. TDSBs original request was to redesign high school science
laboratory teaching materials, with an emphasis on inquiry and/or innovation in teaching and learning.
Problem Definition
The MCP team engaged with TDSB stakeholders and reviewed inquiry research and literature to define
TDSBs need as an engineering design problem. It became clear that instructors lacked a systemic
method of inquiry activity development and implementation (Gleeson, Lebourveau, Meyer, Blake, &
Paterson, 2013). In fact, each stakeholder and literature source expressed a different perception of
inquiry. Stakeholder interactions allowed the MCP team to narrow and specify the client need. TDSB
teachers would benefit greatly from a formalized approach to inquiry activity development; a process
that teachers can use and reuse to develop inquiry activity plans. The MCP team developed three
higher-level objectives for the design development. Specifically, the designed process should:
apply to multiple curriculum areas
teach and facilitate student inquiry
foster student engagement





Theoretical Underpinnings
The MCP team integrated aspects of literature and the Ontario Science Curriculum to form a theoretical
framework upon which the design is based and defended.
Literature
In line with the three higher-level objectives generated from stakeholder interactions, the literature
researched during design development centered about: inquiry, cooperative learning, and active
learning. The IADs theoretical framework is derived from this literature.
Inquiry
Inquiry is an educational technique that the majority of literature and instructors agree is essential to
students learning (Nilson, 2010) (Education, 2008) (Gleeson, Lebourveau, Meyer, Blake, & Paterson,
2013). Yet inquiry lacks a singular, agreed upon definition in literature and between instructors.
Furthermore, techniques for implementation are seldom provided along with more abstract definitions.
A number of prominent understandings and definitions of inquiry have influenced design's literature-
based foundation. Hudspith and Jenkins define inquiry learning as a self-directed, question-driven
search for understanding (Hudspith & Jenkins, 2001). They explained this search as a process that
involves students focusing on a specific area of interest, formulating a research question, developing a
research strategy, and reaching conclusions based on the results of these strategies (Nilson, 2010). This
provides a general overview of the inquiry process, but does not outline or cover all steps that must be
taken to implement this process in a classroom. Another understanding of inquiry, as presented in
guidebooks for institutions and instructors, simplifies it into two steps: students generate a research
question, and then follow the scientific method to arrive at results and conclusions (Lee, 2004). This
definition proposes a more specific implementation process for inquiry; one that follows the scientific
method. Central to these and other prominent definitions of inquiry is the process of generating and
answering questions (Nilson, 2010) (Rothstein & Santana, 2011). Teachers at TDSB also relate inquiry
teaching to the development of questions, most of which is student-directed (Gleeson, Lebourveau,
Meyer, Blake, & Paterson, 2013).
Some theories consider inquiry to be independent of question-formation, limited to the process of
working through a provided challenge that may or may not come in the form of a question (Prince &
Felder, 2006) (Prince & Felder, 2007). Prince and Felder view inquiry as an umbrella teaching-learning
approach that encompasses a number of instructional methods such as problem-based learning,
project-based learning, and discovery learning (Prince & Felder, 2007) (Nilson, 2010). In this way, Prince
and Felder conform to the perspective that inquiry is a form of inductive learning. Many definitions of
inquiry learning classify it as learning that originates from concrete factual examples, and moves
towards abstract and conceptual learning (Nilson, 2010) (Prince & Felder, 2007). Inductive teaching is
the opposite of deductive teaching, which begins by introducing general theories and concepts, and
then moves on to provide more specific examples.
In many ways, inquiry learning drives scientific innovation and progress (Firestein, 2013) (Chuy,
Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Prinden, 2010). Inquiry does so by investigating the scientific unknown as
opposed to the known. This implies practicing an inquiry approach centered more about falsification
than about verification (Barseghyan, 2013). Verification is a philosophy of science concept that involves
the search for verifying results and data (Godfrey-Smith, 2003). The scientific and philosophy of science
communities abandoned verification as the basis of scientific progress over 80 years ago (Barseghyan,
2013). It is replaced by the concept of falsifiability as the driver of scientific progress (Lakatos, 1970)
(DeWitt, 2010). Scientific progress is now motivated by the search for evidence and results that
disprove scientific beliefs (Firestein, 2013) (Barseghyan, 2013). If inquiry teaching is to represent the
state of the scientific community, it must be centered about falsification and seek to challenge
verification (Chuy, Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Prinden, 2010).
In science education, inquiry teaching and learning is considered to be either a means or an end (Abd-el-
Khalick, Boujaoude, Duschil, & Lederman, 2004). In the cases where inquiry is considered a skill, it
serves as a means to learning science and is exhibited through a number of different practices, such as
the scientific method (Hudspith & Jenkins, 2001). In the cases where inquiry is considered a trait,
science education focuses on learning about inquiry. Rarely is inquiry addressed in science education as
both a means and an end simultaneously (Nilson, 2010).
Inquiry is classified into categories: demonstrated, structured, closed, and open. Mr. Christopher
Howes, science/technology facilitator at the Durham District School Board, succinctly identifies the
differences between the four types of inquiry as presented in Figure 1 (Howes, 2012):







The nature of inquiry as a teaching method makes it an effective learning method (Nilson, 2010)
(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). This is because it requires higher-order thinking: the acquisition
and comprehension of knowledge, data analysis, the evaluation of evidence, and the application of
findings (Nilson, 2010). Research has also shown that inquiry-based teaching is more engaging for
Figure 1: Types of Inquiry as presented by Christopher Howes (Howes, 2012)
students than traditional lecture-based teaching methods (Oliver-Hoyo & Allen, 2005) (Maria, Allen, &
Anderson, 2004). This is primarily because it draws on students interests and motivations.
Inquiry has been prominent in recent calls to reform science education at the secondary education level
(Anderson, 2002) (Rothstein & Santana, 2011) (Fisher, 2000) (Gleeson, Lebourveau, Meyer, Blake, &
Paterson, 2013). The Ontario Science Curriculum documents identify inquiry as a core skill that must be
developed in eleventh and twelfth grade science classes (Education, 2008). Inquiry is presented as a
flowchart of four stages, as replicated in Figure 2, without further implementation guidelines (Gleeson,
Lebourveau, Meyer, Blake, & Paterson, 2013).

Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning, more commonly referred to as group work, is practiced often in science
classrooms (Gleeson, Lebourveau, Meyer, Blake, & Paterson, 2013) (Nilson, 2010). Cooperative learning
defined as a teaching method in which students work in pairs or groups to complete common tasks or
achieve common goals (Cooper, Robinson, & McKinney, 1993). The benefits of cooperative learning
have been assessed in over six hundred studies since the 1990s (Nilson, 2010). Specifically, research has
consistently found that cooperative learning experiences: create greater student achievement and
productivity, develop positive interpersonal relationships, and motivate students (Johnson & D.W.,
1994) (Johnson, T., & K.A., 1991) (Nilson, 2010). Specifically, research has indicated that optimal group
sizes are composed of between two and four students. Cooperative learning has proven especially
Figure 2: Inquiry as presented in the Ontario Science Curriculum (Education, 2008)
effective in science and engineering disciplines (Felder & Brent, Cooperative Learning in Technical
Courses , 1994).
Active Learning
Inquiry teaching is effective when incorporated into active learning experiences (Nilson, 2010). Active
learning engages students in the material they are studying, for example through: writing, reading,
discussing, experimenting, or performing project-work (Minnesota, 2008). Research on the benefits of
active learning has found that student motivation increases in active learning environments, because
students have a role to play in their learning (Nilson, 2010) (Felder & Brent, Active Leanring: an
introduction , 2009) (Johnson, T., & K.A., 1991).
Theoretical Framework
The IAD design builds on research and literature to identify inquiry as:
inductive learning
questioning approaches and findings
challenging verification
driving scientific progress and innovation
The IAD borrows its conceptual framework of inquiry teaching stages from the Ontario Science
Curriculum, which presents inquiry as a flowchart of four stages: awareness, emergence, refinement,
and extension.
The implementation process at the core of the IAD incorporates cooperative learning techniques, active
learning methods, and inquiry learning methods that draw from a range of inquiry literature and
research.
Inquiry-based Activity Development Process
The IAD design is a planning process for teachers. The outputs of this process are lesson plans that are
then implemented in the classroom to create inquiry-based activities for students to engage in. Figure 3
contextualizes this design, indicated in blue.






This design takes the Ontario Science Curriculum's definition of inquiry as four distinct stages. These
stages are expanded into specific actions and formalized based on evidence from literature and theory.
The resulting classroom inquiry activity is presented in Figure 4.
Figure 3: Overview of the IAD Design

Design Components
The design is made up of three components, each provided in electronic and paper forms. Each
component targets a single stakeholder group. The three components, also presented graphically in
Figure 5, are:
1. Planning Resource
2. Implementation Resource
3. Design Rationale
Figure 4: In-class implementation

Planning Resource
The planning resource is intended for use by high school teachers. It prompts the user to create an
inquiry activity plan. Each activity plan is tailored to suit specific teacher and classroom needs.
The resource provides a worked example of an activity plan for a grade 11 physics unit inquiry activity
on the right-hand side. On the left-hand side is an empty template with the same format as the worked
example. The template prompts teachers to consider and make decisions required for each stage of the
inquiry process such as: determining learning expectations, preparing materials for student use,
developing worksheets and prompting questions, and choosing methods of summative assessment. The
planning resource also guides teachers in organizing the timeline of the activity and determining
evaluation methods when necessary. Finally, the resource provides teachers with guiding questions and
Figure 5: Components of IAD Design
prompts that lead students through the four stages of inquiry. These can be used either as discussion
points or worksheets. In this way, teachers create tailored and specific activity plans.
This planning resource is intended to be short and clear, so that teachers find it appealing and easy to
use multiple times. Interactions with stakeholders indicate that teachers do not desire long documents
composed mostly of literature and theory. For this reason, this document does not include the evidence
upon which the design is developed.
Implementation Resource
The Implementation Resource is a brochure that familiarizes users with how the activity plan developed
using the Planning Resource is implemented in the classroom. It is intended to be read by teachers to
motivate and persuade them to use the IAD design's Planning Resource
On one side, the resource outlines the four stages of inquiry and the steps teachers and students take in
the classroom to achieve each stage. This is presented as a flowchart that includes check-in points at
which teachers can confirm that students are on track, and evaluation points that offer opportunities for
assessment. On the other side, a brief overview of the inquiry literature is provided. Specifically, the
brochure addresses the importance of inquiry, inquiry as defined in the IAD design, and what makes this
design unique.
Design Rationale
The Design Rationale is intended to be received by policy- and curriculum- level officials once the design
is considered for implementation. It outlines the evidence motivating each design feature and provides a
detailed description of the theoretical underpinnings of the design. For interested teachers, the Design
Rationale also provides troubleshooting information and options for activity variation in the form of
annotated versions of the Planning Resource and Implementation Resource.
Design Credibility
The IAD design is unique from other resources made available to teachers. The design has also been
prototyped by a high school teacher. This prototyping process resulted in a number of changes. Further
prototyping is forthcoming.
Unique Design Features
The IAD design is unique in that it:
is tailored to Ontarios curriculum: the four phases of inquiry identified emerge from Ontario
Ministry of Educations definition of inquiry. The IAD provides frameworks and implementation
methods to be used in the classroom
emphasizes inquiry as a means and an end: this process uses inquiry as both a means and an
end. When the activity plan developed by teachers is implemented in a classroom, it assures
that inquiry is achieved through the four stages. The final stage of refinement allows for a
discussion to emerge around the importance of inquiry and of questioning science and scientific
methodologies.
presents inquiry as holistic: the IAD design draws on a number of existing theories of inquiry. By
doing so, inquiry as practiced through this process is holistic, addressing a number of important
inquiry concepts such as: inductive learning, the questioning of science, challenging scientific
verification, and scientific progress and innovation
provides unique implementation resources: this design provides a number of resources, each
tailored to suit certain stakeholder groups. Unique to other supplementary teaching material,
this design provides teachers with simple, clear, and easy to implement resources. A more in-
depth research-based description of the design and its features is provided in the Design
Rationale document, upon request
Prototyping and Improvements
The IAD design has been prototyped, used to develop an activity plan and implemented in a classroom,
by a grade 11 Physics teacher. The feedback that was provided from this prototype iteration led to
significant changes in the teacher resource, namely the simple two-column structure. The
implementation resource was also developed based on feedback from a number of science teachers
(Gleeson, Lebourveau, Meyer, Blake, & Paterson, 2013). The design will be prototyped in future
iterations, and with different teachers. The IAD design is intended for teachers, which makes teachers
input necessary and crucial. The IAD design is unique from other designs in that it has been tested and
used by teachers, and enhanced based on feedback from these uses.









Works Cited
Abd-el-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschil, R., & Lederman, N. (2004). Inquiry in Science Education:
International Perspectives. Culture and Comparative Studies .
Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming Science Teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science
Teacher Education .
Barseghyan, H. (2013). Introduction to the Philosophy of Science . University of Toronto , Toronto ,
Ontario, Canada.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school . Washington DC: National Academy Press .
Chuy, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Prinden, F. (2010). Understanding the neature of science and
scientific progress: A theory-building approach. Canadian Journal of Learning and Teaching .
Cooper, J., Robinson, P., & McKinney, M. (1993). Cooperative learning in the classroom . In D. Halpern,
Changing College Clasrooms (pp. 74-92). Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
DeWitt, R. (2010). Falsifiability. In R. DeWitt, Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy
of Science (pp. 65-71). West Sussex : Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Education, O. M. (2008). The Ontario Curriculum; Science Grades 11 and 12. Ontario: Queens Printer .
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses . Washington DC : National
Science Foundation .
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009). Active Leanring: an introduction . ASQ Higher Education Brief .
Firestein, S. (2013). The Pursuit of Ignorance. TED Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Fisher, S. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Science Scope , 68.
Gleeson, M., Lebourveau, S., Meyer, C., Blake, L., & Paterson, A. (2013, December ). Stakeholder
Interaction Meetings . (L. El Gammal, N. Dawe, & M. Jbeili, Interviewers)
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and Reality. University of Chicago Press .
Howes, C. (2012). Differentiated Science Inquiry. Durham, Ontario, Canada.
Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2001). Green guide: No. 3. Teaching the Art of Inquiry . Ontario, Canada :
Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education .
Johnson, D. W., T., J. R., & K.A., S. (1991). Active Learning: Cooperation in the college classroom . Edina:
Interaction Books .
Johnson, R. T., & D.W., J. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning . In J. Thousand, V. A., & A. Nevin,
Creativity and Cooperative Learning (pp. 31-44). Baltimore : Brookes Press .
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes:. In I. Lakatos, &
A. Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (pp. 91-196). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press .
Lee, V. S. (2004). What is Inquiry-guided Learning? A guidebook for institutions and instructors . Sterling,
VA: Stylus .
Maria, O.-H., Allen, D., & Anderson, M. (2004). Inquiry-guided Instruction. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 20-24.
Minnesota, U. o. (2008, May 8th ). What is Active Learning? Minneapolis, Minnesota , United States of
America .
Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching At Its Best . San Francisco, California : Jossey-Bass.
Oliver-Hoyo, M. T., & Allen, D. (2005). Attitudinal effects of a student-centred active learning
environment. Journal of Chemical Education, 944-949.
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons,
and research bases . Journal of Engineering Education , 123-138.
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of
College Science Teaching , 14-20.
Rothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2011). Make Just One Change: Teach students to ask their own questions.
Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.