Download ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY 1 Examining Role

ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
1
Examining Role Diversification through Dialog from Small-Group Interactions during Unit
Activities within Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning Classrooms
Cheryl L. Walker
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology
McGill University, Montreal
April 2013
A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy in School/Applied Child Psychology
© Cheryl L. Walker, 2013
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
2
Contributions of Authors
This thesis is the combination of three articles currently submitted for publication (Walker
& Shore, 2013; Walker, Shore, & Tabatabai, 2013a, 2013b). The first article is a review article,
whereas the second and third articles are the empirical follow-ups. The literature reviews for the
two empirical articles contain condensed reviews of the literature. As first author for all of these
articles, my role included researching relevant literature, refining the research questions and
methodology, deciding on and modifying the data collection tools including questionnaires,
interviews, and log questions, recruiting participants, conducting statistical analyses, condensing
and interpreting the results, and writing the manuscript. My supervisor and second author
Professor Bruce M. Shore assisted with conceptualization, extensive editing of style, flow,
grammatical structure, and coherence of all manuscripts. Through numerous conversations,
Bruce also guided me throughout the research process, helping to clarify ideas, facilitate the
collection of data, and synthesize my findings. Dr. Diana Tabatabai was an additional co-author
on the two empirical articles and she helped extensively with the data coding process and
completed all reliability in addition to participating in numerous discussions about the accuracy
of coding schemes, contributing ideas for how to make improvements, reviewing the final
manuscripts, and providing feedback for improvement.
Acknowledgements
Trying to adequately thank all of the people who have supported me through this process
is almost as difficult as writing the dissertation itself! I have to begin with my biggest source of
support and guidance, my supervisor Professor Bruce M. Shore. Bruce is a one of those rare
supervisors who is truly an expert in that role, however, having just completed my dissertation
examining roles, I do not believe that supervisor is the most accurate description of his role.
Bruce did much more than simply oversee my work. In a sense, he took on several roles. He
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
3
provided guidance, scaffolding, knowledge, feedback, encouragement, support, humor, patience,
kindness, and a calm demeanour. When I had ambitious deadlines, instead of telling me it was
not possible, he told me to “go for it” and that he would be there to help in any way possible. He
spent endless hours reading, and providing detailed and useful feedback on every draft I sent him,
always promptly. He truly cares about the success of his students and the wisdom he possesses is
inspiring. I feel blessed to have had the privilege to work with Bruce for the past five years and I
look forward to future collaborations. Thank you, Bruce, for understanding and supporting my
ambitions.
My next thank you needs to go to Diana Tabatabai, a great example of a caring,
supportive, and knowledgeable colleague. Diana graciously agreed to help with reliability and
double coding all of the transcriptions for the thesis, including numerous discussions to achieve
consensus. She also offered large amounts of time to help with revisions to the coding scheme,
editing, and providing suggestions for improvements of each article, and provided support and
encouragement. Thank you so much Diana for your dedication to helping others!
Many others have helped to make this work a success including Tanya Chichekian, her
two children, Kei Muto, and Frank LaBanca. These individuals took the time to provide me with
feedback on my original data collection instruments, leading to important revisions of my
methodology. Kei Muto was also extremely helpful and not only assisted with the data collection
process, but also completed the difficult transcriptions from noisy classrooms. Thank you to
Zohreh Khezri for also taking the time to come with me to the schools to assist with data
collection.
A huge thank you to the High Ability and Inquiry Research (HAIR) team for all of your
guidance and constructive feedback on my research, and for helping me to hone my presentation
skills. I enjoyed the weekly HAIR meetings, despite how my peers were jealous because they
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
4
mistakenly assumed that when my planner said “HAIR--12pm,” it meant I was getting my hair
done every week. Thank you to Dr. Marcy Delcourt for helping guide and organize some of my
early ideas on this project and for providing me with guidance on qualitative research. Thank
you to Liv Hua for always offering to help in any way possible. I also need to acknowledge and
thank Professor Mark W. Aulls for providing valuable feedback and advice regarding qualitative
coding and data analysis and for engaging in several conversations about my data set and
providing me with numerous useful resources. Merci beaucoup to Sarah Bélanger for taking time
out of her busy schedule to translate my abstract into French. Finally, thank you to Petra Gyles
for being a great colleague, conference buddy, and an amazing friend. I have learned so much
from you and I truly value your friendship.
I would also like to thank the people who helped me survive the comprehensive exam
experience. The following people offered to read through my paper, provide me with feedback or
suggestions for revisions, or steered me in the right direction theoretically; David Lemay, Petra
Gyles, Tanya Chichekian, Diana Tabatabai, Megan McConnell, Jessica Morden, Kathryn Walker,
Kevin Walker, and Dan Plouffe.
Thank you to the teachers, students, and principal who agreed to participate in this
research and who welcomed me into their school with open arms.
Thank you to my doctoral committee including Professors Annie Savard, Robert J.
Bracewell, and Victoria Talwar for providing me with useful feedback throughout the dissertation
process and for asking the important questions.
I also need to thank some of the most important people in my life. To all of my friends
who have been there for me over the years and who feel more like family, thank you for your
kindness, support, humor, and love. To my parents, Brian and Kathy, thank you for a lifetime of
support and encouragement, for always believing in me and for providing me with the tools to be
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
5
successful. I admire your work ethic and determination in life. Thank you to my brother Kevin,
for always making me laugh and relax, and for being an amazing brother and supportive friend. I
would also like to thank my soon-to-be in-laws Vicki and Paul Plouffe for their constant love,
support, and encouragement.
Finally, to my fiancé and best friend Dan Plouffe, thank you for helping me through
graduate school. Thank you for putting up with me during the process and for your unconditional
love and support. You have always been there to pick me up, wipe away my tears, and make me
laugh. You always encouraged and believed in me, even when I sometimes felt I could not
possibly keep up or my motivation waned. Your own motivation, ambition, and drive to succeed
are values that I truly admire. Thank you for tolerating the long-distance travelling for several
years and I cannot wait to marry you. I love you.
This study was supported by a Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate ScholarshipDoctoral through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, McGill
Graduate Studies Fellowships, and team research funding from the Fonds québécois de la
recherché sur la société et al culture (FQRSC), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada, the Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance (an FQRSC
Regroupement stratégique), and the Faculty of Education, McGill University.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
6
Table of Contents
Contribution of Authors
2
Acknowledgements
2
List of Tables
11
List of Figures
12
Abstract
13
Résumé
14
Introduction to the Manuscripts
16
Chapter 1. Understanding Classroom Roles in Inquiry Education: Linking Role Theory
18
and Social Constructivism to the Concept of Role Diversification
Social Constructivism and Inquiry
20
Social Constructivism
20
Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning
22
Concerns about Inquiry
23
Advantages to Inquiry
23
Roles within Inquiry
24
Role Theory
25
Role Taking
27
Role-Acquisition Models and Links to Inquiry
29
Thornton and Nardi (1975)
31
Yellin (1999)
33
Turner (2001)
34
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
7
Proposed Role Diversification Model in Inquiry
35
Exploration Phase
36
Engagement Phase
38
Stabilization Phase
40
Diversification Phase
41
Conclusions
45
Limitations
46
Implications
46
Teachers and students
46
Consultants
47
Researchers
48
Chapter 2. Linking Text
49
Chapter 3. The Many Faces of Inquiry: Examining Role Diversification through Dialog in
50
Small-Group Inquiry Activities
Methodology
53
Participants
53
Environment classroom (Group 1)
54
Government classroom (Group 2)
55
Research Design
56
Data Sources
57
Student and teacher survey data
57
Student and teacher log entries
57
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
8
Recorded student interactions
58
Semi-structured interviews of students and teachers
58
Field notes and researcher log
59
Observation checklists
59
Challenges to data collection
60
Reliability and validity
61
Data-Analysis Procedures
Results and Discussion
62
63
The Influence of Classroom Context on Role Diversification
64
Influence of Individual Teacher Personalities and Teaching Style on Role
81
Diversification
Influence of Individual Differences on Role Diversification
95
Influence of Group Selection and Group Dynamics on Role Diversification
100
Conclusion
105
Limitations
107
Implications
108
Teachers
108
Consultants
109
Researchers
109
Chapter 4: Linking Text
110
Chapter 5: Eye of the Beholder: Investigating the Interplay between Inquiry Role
111
Diversification and Social Perspective Taking
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
9
Types of Perspective Taking
113
Social Perspective Taking
114
Social perspective taking in schools
117
Research Rationale
121
Methodology
122
Participants
122
Data Sources
123
Audiorecorded student interactions
123
Field notes and researcher log
123
Student and teacher log entries
123
Social perspective-taking task
123
Interpersonal negotiation strategies (INS) interview
124
Reliability and validity
125
Data-Analysis Procedures
Results and Interpretation
126
128
Classroom Activities and Social Perspective-Taking Roles
128
Instructional Choices and Social Perspective-Taking Roles
130
Individual Differences and Social Perspective-Taking Roles
134
Group Dynamics and Social Perspective-Taking Roles
138
Conclusions
144
Limitations
147
Implications
148
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
10
Researchers
148
Consultants
148
Teachers and students
149
Chapter 6. Final Overall Conclusions
Original Contribution to Knowledge
150
153
References
155
Appendices
172
Appendix A: Social Perspective-Taking Questionnaire
172
Appendix B: Interpersonal Negotiation Strategies Interview
176
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
11
List of Tables
Table 1: Comparison of Role Acquisition Models
42
Table 2: Student Inquiry Roles With Associated Descriptions and Examples
68
Table 3: Teacher Inquiry Roles With Associated Descriptions and Examples
86
Table 4: SPT Roles With Associated Descriptions and Examples
126
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
12
List of Figures
Figure 1: Frequencies of student roles summed across all time points and by group
67, 98
Figure 2: Number of different roles adopted at each time point for each teacher
80
Figure 3: Number of different roles adopted at each time point for each group of
81, 85
students
Figure 4: Frequencies of teacher roles summed across all time points
Figure 5: Frequencies of the teacher roles Active Listener and Active Helper summed
92, 93
94
across all time points
Figure 6: Frequencies of group SPT roles summed across all time points
129
Figure 7: Frequencies of student SPT roles summed across all time points
135
Figure 8: Numbers of different Imagine Self roles adopted by each participant across
136
time
Figure 9: Numbers of different Imagine Other roles adopted by each participant across
137
time
Figure 10: Numbers of different SPT roles adopted by each group across time
139
Figure 11: Frequencies of different SPT roles adopted by each individual summed
140
across all time points.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
13
Abstract
Inquiry-based teaching and learning are rooted in social constructivism, and are central to
curricular reform. Students and teachers engage in specific roles in classrooms, and within
inquiry classrooms, these roles tend to be more varied compared to traditional settings. Teachers
may take on traditional student roles including the role of learner and students may take on the
additional role of question asker, traditionally reserved for the teacher. Role diversification, or
the different roles that students and teachers adopt within inquiry-based teaching and learning
environments, is currently not well understood, yet current curricular reform is based on inquiry.
Examining role theory, this manuscript evaluated how elements of previous frameworks can be
applied to inquiry. A developmental model for inquiry roles was outlined. The model includes
Exploration, Engagement, Stabilization, and Diversification phases. Roles within the
Diversification phase were more closely examined. Several of these roles are specific to
perspective taking, in particular, social perspective taking (SPT). SPT is critical to successful
social interactions and, because group work occurs frequently within inquiry, a better
understanding of SPT roles is required. Through audiorecorded group interactions, the nature of
roles within two different inquiry classrooms were closely examined. Further qualitative analysis
of questionnaires, interviews, student and teacher log responses, and field notes provided
insightful information to contextualize differences. Two teachers and eight students participated.
Results were summarized according to several different influences on the classroom including
instructional choices, individual teacher personalities, individual student personalities, and groupwork dynamics. There were differences in the nature and numbers of roles based on the above
influences. Evidence for complex inquiry was apparent for both groups and teachers.
Implications for researchers, consultants, students, and teachers were discussed.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
14
Résumé
L’enseignement et l’apprentissage par la démarche de l’investigation est une approche socioconstructivist qui est au cœur de la réforme scolaire. Dans les salles de classe où l’apprentissage
est basé sur la démarche de l’investigation, les élèves et les enseignants ont des rôles plus variés
comparativement aux rôles traditionnels : l’enseignant peut prendre le rôle de l’apprenant tandis
que l’élève peut prendre le rôle de l’interrogateur, un rôle qui est habituellement réservé à
l’enseignant. Même si la réforme scolaire est basée sur la démarche par l’investigation, la
diversification des rôles, ou les différents rôles que l’élève et l’enseignant adoptent lors de ces
situations d’apprentissage, ne sont pas bien compris jusqu’à présent. En examinant la théorie du
rôle, cette étude évalue comment les éléments d’études précédentes peuvent être appliquées à
l’approche de l’investigation. Les rôles de l’enseignant et de l’élève dans un contexte
d’investigation ont été mis en évidence par un modèle de développement. Ce modèle comprend
quatre phases : l’exploration, l’engagement, la stabilisation et la diversification. Dans le cadre de
cette étude, les rôles compris dans la phase de diversification ont été étudiés de plus près. La
plupart de ces rôles sont spécifiques à la prise de perspective et plus précisément dans le contexte
social. La prise de perspective dans le contexte social est essentielle à la réussite des interactions
sociales et puisque le questionnement fait souvent partie du travail de groupe, une meilleure
compréhension des rôles de la prise de perspective est requise. La nature des rôles parmi deux
différentes salle de classes a été examinée de près grâce à des enregistrements d’interactions de
groupes. Plus d’analyse qualitative provenant de questionnaires, d’entrevues, de réflexions
écrites des étudiants et enseignants et de notes de terrain a fourni de l’information pertinente sur
les différences contextualisées. Deux enseignants et huit élèves ont participé au projet. Les
résultats de la recherche démontrent que certains facteurs ont influencé la nature et le nombre de
rôles. Ces facteurs sont : la méthode d’instruction, la personnalité de l’enseignant, la personnalité
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
15
de l’élève et la dynamique du groupe. Des preuves de questionnement complexe pouvaient être
observées dans les deux groupes. Les implications pour les chercheurs, les spécialistes, les élèves
et les enseignants ont été discutés.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
16
Introduction to the Manuscripts
This collection of manuscripts was inspired by the ongoing work of the High Ability and
Inquiry Research (HAIR) team at McGill University. One of the objectives of a major research
grant underway aims to distinguish the ways participants in inquiry learn and teach differently
from others, and what is learned in an inquiry setting that is unique or different versus other
settings. Within this broader objective, the current research study aimed to further investigate the
different roles that students and teachers adopt in inquiry classrooms compared to traditional
settings. Although several frameworks have attempted to explain role exchanges, no model
exists to explain how this occurs in inquiry settings. Specifically, the process of role
diversification was investigated and a model for inquiry role diversification was proposed. In
addition, the interplay between inquiry role diversification and perspective-taking skills were
examined.
Some of the research questions that were posed prior to the collection of data were
modified slightly once the data were collected. The reason for this was that the collected data
provided important insight into the processes of study and the wording of the original research
questions were no longer appropriate. The first research question asked, from a student position,
what is the inquiry role shift? This question was addressed in the first manuscript, followed by a
proposal of four phases of inquiry diversification. Another research question asked how does the
level of inquiry exposure (both student and teacher) affect how role diversification is experienced
by students? This question was reframed not only because the two samples that were recruited
had similar levels of inquiry experience, but also because there were several identified influences
on the process of role diversification besides levels of inquiry exposure or familiarity. The final
research question asked how can role diversification be explained by or more clearly understood
through the lens of social perspective taking? This question was reframed to examine the
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
17
interplay between SPT and role diversification because the process was identified to be much
more reciprocal and fluid.
The first manuscript is a literature review summarizing social constructivism, inquiry, and
role theory. From this research, a four-phase developmental model applicable to both learners
and teachers was outlined. The second manuscript examined roles within two separate
classrooms and the influences of classroom context, individual teacher personalities, individual
student personalities, and group-work dynamics. This examination was primarily based on
audiorecorded dialog among two groups of students working in collaborative groups on inquiry
units and was triangulated with other qualitative information. The third and final manuscript
focused on a particular subset of roles related to social-perspective taking.
All three manuscripts are presented in the formats in which they have been submitted to
journals for review. The methodology for the second and third manuscript overlapped and
therefore the third manuscript only briefly summarized the methodology and a reference to the
second manuscript (accepted subject to revisions that are included here) was offered for the
reader to refer to a more comprehensive description of methodology. References for each
manuscript heavily overlapped and were therefore merged in this dissertation. Furthermore, one
general abstract is presented that summarizes the abstracts from the three publication versions.
Directly comparing two classrooms on variables including sex, grade, inquiry experience,
and social-perspective taking skills was the original intention for the research, however, given the
classrooms and participants who agreed to participate, it was not possible to make these
comparisons due to the lack of experimental control. The manuscripts therefore reflect variance
reflected by the groups rather than direct comparisons, and illustrate the breadth and depth of
inquiry opportunity. Inquiry, role diversification, and social perspective-taking skills were all
occurring in both classrooms, but in different ways, subject to various influences.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
18
Chapter 1
Understanding Classroom Roles in Inquiry Education:
Linking Role Theory and Social Constructivism to the Concept of Role Diversification
Inquiry education is central to curricular reform and is based on principles of social
constructivism. Inquiry-based curriculum has been recommended across subject matter
(International Baccalaureate Organization, 2005; International Reading Association, 2003;
National Council for the Social Studies, 1994; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
2000; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2010; National Research Council, 1996) and several beneficial student outcomes have
been identified including improved achievement, knowledge application, thinking and problemsolving skills, and attitudes towards learning (Saunders-Stewart, Gyles, & Shore, 2012). Despite
recommendations, there are barriers to inquiry implementation (Shore, Aulls, & Delcourt, 2008;
Yore, Henriques, Crawford, Smith, Gomez-Zwiep, & Tillotson, 2007), and certain components
are not well understood, for example, inquiry role shifts or exchanges. Within inquiry, role shifts
have been described as occurring when teachers and students adopt one another’s roles. The
phrase “role shift” does not fully reflect the reality of inquiry classrooms in terms of roles. Often,
students and teachers in inquiry settings will take on a varied number of either student or teacher
roles, therefore moving beyond a simple exchange of roles. A role shift does not imply adding to
the current repertoire of roles, however, inquiry role diversification does make this suggestion.
Drawing from tenets within different role theories, this manuscript proposes a
developmental model for the process of inquiry role diversification. This model includes the
phases of Exploration, Engagement, Stabilization, and Diversification. There is a theoretical gap
in this regard and an opportunity to better understand the roles that learners and teachers can play,
and that is what this manuscript tries to address. By better understanding these roles, more can
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
19
be learned about how to facilitate high-level academic achievement within inquiry.
Expanding on previous theories and frameworks on this topic from the domains of role
theory and social constructivism, a developmental model is proposed that includes a
Diversification phase. Although common in inquiry, there are other classroom environments in
which this model may apply including discovery-learning settings. The newly proposed model
does, however, differ from traditional settings, in which diversification is not as salient. This
model can be considered a developmental model because adopting a role requires certain
perspective-taking skills, skills that improve throughout development. In addition, taking on a
repertoire of roles parallels the loss of egocentrism. If a student is only focused on his or her own
roles, then he or she can be said to be in an earlier phase of development. Although several
frameworks have attempted to explain role exchanges, no model exists to explain how this occurs
in inquiry settings. Related principles from role theory and social constructivism provided the
guidelines for the development of a framework that includes a Diversification phase. Based on
specific tenets from different role theories and from research on inquiry-based teaching and
learning, a four-phase framework was proposed.
This framework provides new insight to the phenomena of what has previously been
referred to as inquiry role shifts and therefore has numerous implications for education. A better
understanding of role diversification in the classroom will allow teachers to more easily track the
progress of their students and also his or her own growth as an inquiry teacher. Few papers, if
any, have addressed the overlap and connections between these core theoretical bases of
knowledge. In doing so, a framework for role diversification emerged, providing a foundational
guideline for further research into this complex process.
A brief overview of social-constructivist and inquiry principles introduces a discussion on
role-theory research, including role taking, and role acquisition. The links to inquiry identified in
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
20
specific role-acquisition frameworks provided the basis for the proposed inquiry- framework.
This framework presents four phases: Exploration, Engagement, Stabilization, and
Diversification. Conclusions will be followed by implications not only for teachers and
researchers, but also for consultants.
Social Constructivism and Inquiry
Social Constructivism
In an educational context, constructivism can be described as learning that is constructed
or created by the individual and understanding occurs as a result of a learner’s mental activities.
While an individual actively constructs his or her own knowledge, social interactions strongly
influence this process (Bereiter, 1994; Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning, 1995) and social
constructivism describes this process well. Social constructivism describes student learning as
well as teaching. Based on Popper’s ideas, Bereiter (1994) explained that knowledge or student
learning is built upon, or improved, through a collective process of creation and construction.
Social constructivism therefore describes the interconnections among individuals and their social
worlds (Ernest, 1995). With regard to development, Vygotsky (1986) stated that verbal
communication among children and between children and adults is a powerful force in helping
them acquire conceptual knowledge. Such interaction provides a richer range of use of concepts
than an individual might construct on his or her own, and provides feedback and scaffolding for
that construction. Children learn to speak through conversation, and later understand the
meaning of speech by making subjective connections between concepts. Children therefore need
to be challenged with learning material that they would most likely be unable to complete on
their own, but, with help, could learn successfully. Llewellyn (2002) expanded on this by
considering internal factors including the learner’s prior cognitive experiences. These past events
influence the ways in which new information is interpreted and understood. Therefore,
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
21
knowledge and understanding are in a constant construction and reconstruction process. Smith,
Maclin, Houghton, and Hennessey (2000) also described a constructivist classroom as a place
where students develop their ideas through dialog with their peers. This hypothesis testing or
attempting to make sense of one’s own ideas as well as the ideas of one’s peers occurs within the
classroom and individuals in this type of classroom can also be considered a community of
learners (Brown & Campione, 1994). Learning is frequently scaffolded by the teacher. Teaching
in a social-constructivist environment therefore needs to encourage knowledge formation and
foster skill development, including judgment and organization (Bruning et al., 1995). Teachers
act primarily as coaches or facilitators, rather than mere information transmitters. For example, if
a student asks a question to the teacher, the teacher may redirect the question to the class rather
than simply provide the answer immediately to that student.
Smith and colleagues (2000) considered idea development as a complex process
involving multiple steps and also as a collaborative process in which colleagues work together
and evaluate each other’s ideas. Constructivist classrooms were described as emphasizing group
work, dialog, and shared norms. Students described how sharing ideas helps with understanding
one’s own ideas and also helps create new ideas and also described learning as a process of
perspective taking, and determining the interrelations of different perspectives. This emphasis on
learning through social interaction and perspective taking relates closely to the role taking that
occurs in inquiry.
Brown (1992) differentiated between a traditional classroom and an intentional learning
classroom. A traditional classroom focuses on basic content of a curriculum, often involves drill
and practice, and assessment is based on tests and fact retention. Students are passive recipients
of knowledge whereas teachers are classroom managers responsible for transferring knowledge.
Intentional learning classrooms are based on social-constructivist principles and differ because
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
22
the curriculum is focused more on thought processes and understanding. Assessment is more of a
process of knowledge discovery and students are partially responsible for creating their own
curriculum, while teachers act as guides. A “Jigsaw” approach (Brown, 1992) is common in
intentional learning classrooms. Students form research groups and each member of the group is
assigned a subtopic. Each student then must prepare teaching materials for their subtopic. The
group then reforms and the “experts” teach their newly learned material to the group. This form
of learning can be defined as a community of learners because it necessarily involves social
dialog and collaboration. Students work together with mutual respect for each other’s ideas. The
teacher in this community of learners often facilitates or scaffolds these interactions.
Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning
The frameworks described above relate closely to inquiry-based teaching and learning,
which is also largely based on social-constructivist notions and has been a central focus of
curricular reform throughout North America and beyond. The National Research Council (1996)
defined inquiry as “a multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions;
examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning
investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to
gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and
communicating the results” (p. 23).
Therefore, inquiry broadly involves learning through question asking based on curiosity
or interest. This helps create an authentic learning environment that contributes to an individual’s
inherent motivation to further one’s own knowledge (Aulls & Shore, 2008; Robinson & Hall,
2008). Aulls and Shore (2008) emphasized inquiry as an active process, driven by student
interest, with knowledge construction as the main goal while simultaneously building hypothesis
formulation and problem-solving skills.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
23
Concerns about Inquiry
Several researchers have opposed the social-constructivist approach to teaching and
learning. Crawford (2007) examined the beliefs, knowledge, intentions, and practices of five
high school science teachers across a one-year period as they began their teaching careers.
Partnerships were created between each teacher and a school-based mentor who supported and
provided opportunities for teachers to experiment with innovative teaching approaches, including
inquiry. A multiple-case method and cross-case comparison design was used to analyze semistructured interviews and the inquiry-based curricular units. Although all teachers were
enthusiastic at first, this enthusiasm decreased over time, and for some, disappeared altogether.
This was partially due to an increased workload, students’ resistance to the social-constructivist
environment, and the need to take on several different roles in the classroom. This article only
focused on science, although inquiry can be implemented across subject matter.
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) also reviewed several disadvantages to an inquiry
approach, which included the heavy demands problem-based learning places on working
memory. The amount of energy spent searching for solutions to problems can negatively impact
how much is learned. They determined that the literature overwhelmingly supports the benefits
of direct, instructional guidance as opposed to constructivist-based minimal guidance. This
conclusion overlooked the fact that inquiry instruction does require some structure and guidance,
and the teacher usually adopts a facilitator role to help scaffold learning and ensure that students
learn successfully (Bramwell-Rejskind, Halliday, & McBride, 2008).
Advantages to Inquiry
Given the concern and potential negative consequences of inquiry, why is inquiry driving
curricular reform and providing the basis for international curricula? Inquiry-based instruction
fosters motivation for independent learning, enhances critical-thinking skills and problem
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
24
solving, and promotes subject-matter understanding, curiosity, increased confidence, and
teamwork (Aulls & Shore, 2008). The International Baccalaureate (IB) program adopted inquirybased teaching and learning centrally in its curriculum. IB programs were originally developed
to provide standardized international entrance exams to university, recognizable in all countries.
They provide a challenging education that promotes active learning and cultural understanding
with inquiry intended as a privileged pedagogy (Chichekian & Shore, 2012; International
Baccalaureate Organization, 2005).
Roles within Inquiry
The broader school-wide role of inquirer involves some level of inquiry literacy. Shore,
Birlean, Walker, Ritchie, LaBanca, and Aulls (2009) described inquiry literacy as the ability to
critically understand and also be able to effectively use the language, symbols, and skills of
inquiry during an activity. Becoming inquiry literate requires explicit instruction from teachers,
parents, or peers, in addition to experience. Some of the indicators of inquiry literacy include the
ability to take ownership of one’s learning, pursuing one’s interests without depending on a
teacher, understanding why one is engaged in an inquiry process, the realization that there are
multiple approaches to problem solving, and understanding that learning is a process. Part of
being an inquirer or being inquiry literate therefore necessarily involves taking on different
classroom-based roles that one may not take on in a traditional classroom setting, such as the role
of question-asker, analyst, or communicator. There are numerous roles to be taken on,
particularly within inquiry learning environments.
Aulls and Shore (2008) addressed the differences in student and teacher roles in inquiry
environments compared to more traditional educational settings. Teacher roles in inquiry were
defined as “actions, verbal interactions with students, and responsibilities undertaken to support
students’ participation in components of inquiry such as projects, experiments, laboratories,
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
25
hypothesizing . . .” (p. 14). Roles in inquiry exist along a continuum from teacher-directed
inquiry, to teacher-guided inquiry, to student-centred inquiry. In teacher-directed inquiry, the
teacher is responsible for learning; in teacher-guided inquiry, the teacher and students share this
responsibility; and in student-centred inquiry, the students take the lead, and the teacher acts as a
consultant. In student-centred inquiry, teachers often shift from playing the role of instructor to
the role of facilitator and students tend to move from playing a more passive to an active role in
their learning (e.g., sharing in the evaluation of their own work; Aulls & Shore, 2008). As
opposed to surrendering a role in favor of another, in inquiry, students and teachers may simply
take on additional and sometimes overlapping roles, leading to a diversification of their
respective role repertoires. Overall, there are role differences when traditional classroom settings
are compared with inquiry settings.
Role Theory
In inquiry, conceptualization of roles has been limited. Role theory can assist
understanding the complexities in this process. Prominent role theorists including Moreno (1946;
1961), Mead (1934), and Linton (1936) have investigated this concept since the 1930s, and
although this research dates back more than three-quarters of a century, it remains informative.
The literature on social constructivism, for example, dates from a similar time, yet it has
substantially influenced current curricular reforms. The study of role research and theories does
offer advantages, however, the research is often fraught with inconsistent and conflicting
definitions, discrepant models, confusion, and a lack of integration (Biddle, 1986). Biddle
explained how role theorists differ in the conceptualizations of expectations responsible for roles.
For example, some role theorists consider expectations to be norms or prescriptive in nature,
whereas others assume expectations are beliefs or preferences. These differences therefore
generate roles for different reasons. Biddle also described differences in role theorists’
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
26
conditions for roles, for example, that roles occur within a social system. Examining the history
of role theory from its beginnings offers useful insights into the evolution of roles over time and
can help inform new models related to roles and role theory.
Turner (1978) described how roles involve a merger between the role and the person.
This blending becomes apparent when the person adopts the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors
accompanying the role. Social interaction facilitates the merger process and, in turn, affects
personality formation. A role was defined as a “cluster of behaviors and attitudes that are thought
to belong together, so that an individual is viewed as acting consistently when performing the
various components of a single role and inconsistently when failing to do so” (Turner, 2001, p.
233). Furthermore, individuals may take on multiple roles (Merton, 1957a). Merton (1957b)
also differentiated the notion of multiple roles from a role set. A role set is based on relationships
that emerge from specific social statuses. For example, a teacher’s role set includes students,
other teachers, the principal, and professional organizations.
Although there are discrepancies within role-theory definitions and models, there is
agreement among role theorists that individuals will behave in a predictable fashion based on the
context and their own social identity. Similar to Turner (2001) and Merton’s (1957a) focus on
social aspects of roles, Biddle (1986) summarized how most role theorists assume that the
primary force in determining roles arises from social expectations formed through experience and
awareness of the expectations for particular roles.
Several variables influence roles and role acquisition. Examining these factors provides
further context for the proposed inquiry framework. Several role influences have been explored
including attitudes and beliefs (Kedar-Voivodas, 1983; Kinchin, 2004; Lyons, 1990), norms and
expectations (Ryu & Sandoval, 2010; Webb, 2009), previous experience (Eick & Reed, 2002;
Kagan, 1992; Knowles, 1992), and social factors (Chandler & Helm, 1984; Kohlberg, 1969;
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
27
Reiman & Peace, 2002; Selman, 1980; Yackel, Cobb, & Wood, 1991; Zack & Graves, 2001).
Only some of these studies focused specifically on a social-constructivist or inquiry-based
teaching and learning context (Eick & Reed, 2002; Kinchin, 2004; Kohlberg, 1969; Reiman &
Peace, 2002; Webb, 2009; Zack & Graves, 2001), however, all pointed to the importance of these
variables in classrooms, and therefore they should be considered when developing a framework
for student-teacher role diversification.
Role Taking
Role taking has been extensively researched by Selman, who defined the concept as “the
ability to view the world (including the self) from another’s perspective” (Selman, 1971, p.
1722). Selman added that this skill requires the ability to understand another individual’s
capabilities, attributes, expectations, feelings, and reactions. Selman and Byrne (1974) later
defined role taking as “the ability to understand the self and others as subjects, to react to others
as like the self, and to react to the self’s behavior from the other’s point of view” (p. 803), and
proposed four role-taking levels. Selman (1980) later modified this framework to include a fifth
level and changed the term role taking to perspective taking. Each level described how an
individual’s development allows for increasing perspective-taking ability and included
undifferentiated and egocentric perspective taking, differentiated and subjective perspective
taking, self-reflective/second-person and reciprocal perspective taking, third-person and mutual
perspective taking, and in-depth and societal-symbolic perspective taking. More specifically,
during the third-person and mutual perspective-taking level, children aged 10 to 15 are able to
adopt a third-person perspective to consider how the perspectives of self and others are viewed by
third parties in a broader system. In other words, the individual is able to coordinate the
perspectives of oneself and others. The fifth and final level, in-depth and societal-symbolic
perspective taking, described the ability of individuals, aged 14 to adult, to understand that deeper
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
28
communication levels influence third-party perspectives, in addition to expectations and
awareness (Selman, 1980).
Role taking within classrooms may not be as clear-cut due to other variables of influence,
including student engagement, and levels of classroom interaction. Student engagement is
dependent on a sense of agency or independence (Engle & Conant, 2002). Herrenkohl and
Guerra (1998) examined student engagement, role taking, and social interaction within a science
class. Categories of intellectual roles were presented to the teacher and students, who were then
responsible for describing and operationally defining these categories. The role categories
included predicting and theorizing, summarizing results, and relating evidence or results to theory
and prediction. Intellectual audience roles were assigned by the researchers to one class, but not
another and these roles required that students check each other’s work, for example, checking to
ensure that a student assignment contained a prediction. When students were asked to take on
audience roles, the roles and responsibilities of the teacher shifted and most of the cognitive work
was distributed among the students rather than the teacher. Audience roles required that students
ask for clarification to fully understand and this resulted in more active engagement of the
students as they self-monitored, and challenged presented information. Student who took on
audience roles were more engaged and shared in the construction of knowledge with their peers,
which led to a shift in the teacher role to more of a mediator and monitor within the classroom.
In a later study, Herrenkohl, Palincsar, DeWater, and Kawasaki (1999) examined roles
within a scientific setting amongst students in Grades 3, 4, and 5. They created specific roles for
students to adopt depending on the classroom setting. For example, procedural roles were
developed for small group investigations and sociocognitive roles were developed for audience
participation settings. The procedural roles involved helping with task distribution, and
participation, whereas the audience roles were developed to help students take on questioner,
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
29
commentator, or critic roles. These roles were described to students and were then rotated so that
all students would have the opportunity to take on all of the different roles. Through transcript
analysis, the prescribed roles provided critical guidelines for the students, however, over time, the
students’ skills within their roles improved, and some students began using the roles more
flexibly. This relates well to the function of roles in inquiry.
Role-Acquisition Models and Links to Inquiry
There are several role-acquisition theories; however, none has specifically focused on an
inquiry-learning environment. Furthermore, descriptions of how individuals transition between
different phases of role acquisition are limited. Through closer examination, links to inquiry can
be identified, permitting the creation of a proposed framework to explain the inquiry role
diversification process. Role shifts or role diversification can occur in any environment; they do
not occur exclusively in inquiry, however, there are numerous characteristics of inquiry
environments in which these role changes are relevant and essential. For example, Shore et al.
(2009) identified several inquiry characteristics that involve a certain shift or diversification of
roles. As an example of essential inquiry student knowledge, they characterized inquiry as goaldriven, with shared objectives among students and teachers. This requires others’ collaboration
in order to negotiate a consensus regarding the goals of the learning task. These negotiation
skills require active engagement and may therefore necessitate a role change from passive
recipient to active collaborator. In addition, an essential student skill required for inquiry literacy
includes the ability to ask relevant and nontrivial questions, not just for oneself, but also for an
appropriate audience. Formulating relevant questions for an audience requires that an individual
adopt not only the role of presenter or question asker, but also the role of audience member to
ensure that the question will be relevant and nontrivial, therefore illustrating role diversification.
Aulls and Ibrahim (2010) asked the question: Are effective instruction and effective
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
30
inquiry instruction essentially the same? They acknowledged that students and teachers do take
on multiple roles, specifically defining a role as a “set of connected behaviors, rights and
obligations conceptualized by actors in a social situation” (p. 2). In addition to the abovementioned influences on roles, Aulls and Ibrahim recognized that roles are also affected by the
classroom context, for example, the type of lecture and activities taking place, and the discourse
among students and teacher. In their multiple case-study design, Aulls and Ibrahim examined
teachers’ perceptions of characteristics, actions, roles, and responsibilities. Twenty-one essays
written by preservice teachers describing effective instruction were selected. These essay
descriptions were then categorized as describing effective instruction or effective inquiry
instruction based on specific criteria including pedagogical content and the classroom
environment. Through open coding, content analysis, and effect-size analysis, they concluded
that within effective inquiry classrooms as compared to effective noninquiry classrooms, certain
teacher roles emerged more frequently as encourager, facilitator, evaluator, elicitor, and
connector, with the facilitator role standing as the most significant difference. Furthermore,
unique student roles emerged including explorer, imaginer, and experimenter, among others. In
the effective instruction group, the unique student role of memorizer emerged. Therefore, from
the perspectives of preservice teachers this suggested differences in both student and teacher roles
between effective instruction and effective inquiry instruction. Understanding role differences in
inquiry provides a useful first step towards uncovering part of the role diversification process.
Bracewell, LeMaistre, Lajoie, and Breuleux (2008) also examined role shifts in inquiry,
and specifically investigated changes in six teachers’ knowledge and beliefs in a technologydriven teaching environment. Through audiotapes, videotapes, and journal logs, Bracewell et al.
determined that technology in the classroom allowed students to take on more active and
differentiated learning roles. Although teachers were initially concerned about the greater
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
31
autonomy provided to students through technology use, these concerns eventually faded and the
increased student independence led to a change in teachers’ perspectives towards teaching and
learning. This was labelled a “release of agency” and defined as “the psychological decision that
accompanies (indeed, allows) a teacher to make the well-documented change in roles from a
didactic instructor to a coach who facilitates student academic inquiry” (p. 292). Finally, the
success meant that the teachers had to be comfortable with the changes spurred by technology in
their classrooms. Although this research specifically focused on the introduction of technology
into a classroom, it identified several ideas relevant to inquiry role diversification including the
“release of agency” concept that parallels the role diversification process.
Erikson and Lehrer (1998) collected data from a sixth-grade classroom across a two-year
period. Students worked in teams on a design product, involving a problem-oriented form of
learning. Team members were expected to assume a variety of roles according to interest, for
example, animation designer, or data analyst. Role shifts or exchanges were observed, for
example, instead of providing a solution, one teacher facilitated reflection among the team
members, and this later led the students to independently improve the efficiency of their project.
Similar to conflicting theories for roles, there are several proposed role-acquisition
models, none of which has been widely accepted (Yellin, 1999). Synthesizing these theories and
focusing on links to inquiry provided the foundation for the proposal of a coherent and
comprehensive role diversification model. Due to the large number of models, only the most
relevant to inquiry are presented here.
Thornton and Nardi (1975). Thornton and Nardi defined a role as behavioral,
attitudinal, and cognitive expectations imposed on a person within a particular social position.
They outlined a four-phase progression of role acquisition, whereby individuals move from
passive role acceptance to active role engagement. During the anticipatory phase, individuals
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
32
begin to socially and psychologically prepare themselves for the new role and have a general
notion of what will be required based on stereotypes. In an inquiry environment, students who
have minimal inquiry experience may enter a classroom with preconceived notions of traditional
classroom values (e.g., predominantly teacher-directed in which the majority of class time is in
lecture format), potentially leading to more difficulties adapting to their new role as an inquiry
student. Inquiry students are often expected to make certain curricular decisions, evaluate
evidence, and take initiatives in their learning (Aulls & Shore, 2008).
In the formal phase, individuals view their role from a more internal perspective. Formal
written rules or duties replace initial stereotypes. Although Thornton and Nardi believed this
phase carried a high degree of consensus, this may differ greatly in an inquiry classroom. Rules
or duties in a traditional classroom setting are also often overtly stated and can include rules such
as listening to the teacher, and remaining seated unless told otherwise. In an inquiry classroom,
these rules can be quite different, for example, asking questions, listening to your peers, and
challenging the evidence. A student unfamiliar with inquiry who expects to sit quietly and listen
to the teacher without questioning any of the information may be uncomfortable with the new
expectations to be more actively involved in the learning process.
During the informal phase, individuals begin to learn the new role’s informal rules
generally understood through interactions among individuals within the system. Increased
conflict and decreased consensus regarding different formal and informal expectations
characterize this phase. In an inquiry environment, a student expecting to sit and listen to the
teacher may have trouble asking questions, working as part of a team, or hypothesizing,
especially if that individual is shy. Once the student begins to adapt to this new environment, he
or she might encounter the informal rule of politely interrupting if one has a good idea during a
discussion. This may not be as difficult for the student to accept if he or she has learned formal
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
33
inquiry rules such as asking questions, or generating hypotheses.
In the personal phase, individual characteristics including personality, past experiences,
unique skills, and cultural beliefs may all impact the role. Individuals also modify the role by
imposing their own expectations to better fit their personality. This role flexibility relates well to
inquiry role diversification, because it recognizes the changing nature of roles, and acknowledges
the possibility for adopting new role behaviors.
Yellin (1999). A more recent model was proposed by Yellin, who aimed to better
understand role-acquisition dynamics. Yellin also considered a role to be a set of expectations
based on behaviors, attitudes, skills, and knowledge and believed that individuals influence
expectations through modification and negotiation. Differing from other models of role
acquisition, Yellin proposed that the transition between phases was marked by specific events
that signified a move to the next phase, and at these points, individuals would have a different
understanding of the role.
In the first phase of ambivalence, individuals are exposed to a new social network, and
therefore have a vague conception of what is expected in the new role. This can lead to role
ambivalence, or role disorientation. Individuals unfamiliar with inquiry may be overwhelmed by
the changed expectations in this educational context compared to a traditional setting.
In the second absorption phase, individuals familiarize themselves with the new role
through repetition, negotiation, and performance. Individuals begin to learn specific behaviors
and expectations of the role very quickly, leading to changes in one’s self-image. The individual
in the new role may feel overwhelmed or frustrated. This phase explains a workplace context
well, however, may not describe an inquiry educational setting as well because inquiry roles are
highly individualized based on student interest.
In the next phase, commitment, an acceptable performance in a particular role has already
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
34
been attained and therefore the person often receives positive feedback from others in similar
roles. Individuals identify with the role and commit to it, and this leads to improved self-worth
and self-concept. The role now becomes a part of oneself. Yellin noted that conflict at this phase
is also common because when an individual accepts that he or she is taking on a new role, this
new role may not match with the individual’s previously existing roles. For example, the role of
organizer at school may conflict with one’s disorganized environment at home. This is relevant
to inquiry in which the diversification process involves taking on multiple roles; however, it
differs in that these multiple roles are usually adopted in one setting.
In the final phase, confidence, the role becomes predictable and confidence is increased.
The individual is able to anticipate and plan responses in advance based on others’ expectations.
Although this can reduce anxiety, it can also lead to boredom because there are only slight
changes or performance variations in the role. The struggle in this phase therefore becomes
finding methods to renew motivation, for example, adding responsibilities to the role or taking on
a new role. This is relevant to inquiry environments, which are known to foster motivation in
students, perhaps due to the role diversification that is always occurring in inquiry, leading to
new challenges and promoting excitement when different roles are enacted.
Turner (2001). Most recently, Turner detailed several characteristics that related well to
role acquisition. Interactional theories assume that role behavior derives from social interactions
and that roles are broader and represent a “comprehensive pattern for behavior and attitude that is
linked to an identity, is socially identified more or less clearly as an entity, and is subject to being
played recognizably by different individuals” (Turner, 2001, p. 234).
This may especially be relevant to a more open-ended context such as inquiry, in which
students and teachers can take on multiple roles. The notion that expectations and interactions
with others shape the role-acquisition process was also described. Turner proposed that roles are
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
35
learned through observations made as children, and are learned in sets or pairs, for example, the
role of student and teacher. Furthermore, when individuals in the set learn about each other’s
roles, role transitions are facilitated. In addition, depth of roles can vary, they tend to persist, are
difficult to change, and therefore require extensive support during transitions. This may explain
why some students struggle in inquiry. If we can learn more about role diversification, we can
better support students during these transitions.
Specific to role acquisition is Turner’s role-allocation concept: The individual works
towards a certain role while others either facilitate or hinder his or her progression, which then
invokes a negotiation process. For example, if a student asked a genuine question in class but
during an inappropriate time, the teacher may view this student as disruptive rather than
inquisitive, hindering the acquisition of a questioner role.
Proposed Role Diversification Model in Inquiry
After closely examining several role and role-acquisition theories, literature gaps
emerged. No framework exists for the inquiry role process; however, existing models contain
several elements relevant to inquiry. Having a framework for the inquiry role process can
provide methods to better support students and teachers in implementing this form of education.
As previously highlighted, one must take into account attitudes and beliefs, behaviors, norms and
expectations, previous experience, and social factors. One other key variable that several models
did not address was an individual’s developmental level, which becomes especially applicable in
school settings. Entry into an inquiry classroom can occur at any point during a child’s
progression through school, and therefore the process may be slightly different depending on his
or her developmental phase. For example, Piaget and Inhelder (1969) proposed different
cognitive development phases in which children were able to achieve certain skills in a phase
(e.g., during the concrete operational phase, children learn perspective-taking skills), but
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
36
struggled with others (e.g., at this phase, children are still unable to employ hypotheticaldeductive reasoning). For the purposes of this discussion, examples will focus on elementary
school students. As Chandler and Boyes (1982) also recognized, the ability to understand the
role-taking process ultimately depends on the individual’s developmental level. Using Piaget’s
concrete operational phase of development as a framework, they considered how children begin
to understand that concrete and symbolic realms exist during this phase. In other words, children
understand that, even if individuals experience the same events, they may interpret them
differently and attach different meanings to them. This is similar to the process of adopting new
roles. Therefore, inquiry success may partially depend on developmental capabilities.
Unlike Piaget’s conceptualization, the proposed framework acknowledged that inquiry
phases are more flexible. Furthermore, many of the described models lack descriptions of
transitions that occur during movement between phases. The proposed model therefore
acknowledges that each phase exists along a continuum, and there are no clear or currently
identified indicators of progress to a new phase, but rather transitions.
Phases will be described predominantly from the perspective of the student for the sake of
simplicity; however, teachers or other individuals in the classroom system may also undergo a
similar process in an inquiry environment. Several of the described models focused heavily on
the cognitive components of role acquisition and diversification, whereas the proposed
framework emphasizes both cognitive and behavioral components. Based on the above models, a
role framework in an inquiry context is proposed including Exploration, Engagement,
Stabilization, and Diversification phases.
Exploration Phase
Inquiry environments often run against expectations, which heavily influence roles and
role acquisition. As supported by Thornton and Nardi (1975), the first phase involves learning
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
37
about the implicit and explicit school and classroom rules as they pertain to inquiry. Shore et al.
(2009) identified elements of student knowledge essential to inquiry success and suggested
inquiry can occur without an abundance of specific formal information, however, students do
require pertinent language, symbols, and skills in order to be considered inquiry literate.
Unlike more traditional classroom settings, in which students have some idea of what to
expect, an inquiry classroom contains several differences that might run counter to a student’s
initial expectations coming into the classroom. For example, some students expect to learn and
memorize facts instead of generalized skills that can be applied in many different settings
(Bramwell-Rejskind et al., 2008). This is also partially consistent with Yellin’s (1999)
conception of the initial ambivalence phase in which an individual only has a vague idea of what
to expect in their new role. Similarly, Yellin highlighted the challenges of continuing in the new
role once motivation is lost. This idea is relevant to students who struggle adjusting to an inquiry
environment and this may lead to underachievement in the student-inquirer role.
This initial phase may therefore take longer than the other models suggested due to
potential expectation differences. Conflicting expectations may also make it more difficult for
students to engage initially in the inquiry-student role. This is also dependent on the teacher’s
inquiry experience and how well the classroom environment is structured based on the students’
prior inquiry experience.
As a hypothetical example, consider Emily, a shy fifth-grade student beginning her very
first inquiry-based unit on the environment. Her teacher has just presented information about the
qualities that will be expected of them throughout the course of the upcoming unit including
taking risks and exploring new ideas. Emily has never heard of some of these inquiry qualities
and begins to feel overwhelmed by these initial expectations. The assignment for the day is to
work with a partner to choose one of the described qualities and select a magazine image that
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
38
illustrates that quality of an inquirer. Emily does not know many students well and is the last
student to choose a partner. Her partner, also not selected earlier by others, is similarly quite shy
and after five minutes they still have not decided which quality they should choose. The teacher
announces that it is time to present their image to the class, and Emily becomes anxious because
they are not finished.
This example illustrates how the Exploration phase involves learning about an inquiry
setting and how the rules in these environments may differ dramatically from what is expected in
a traditional classroom setting. For example, Emily not only had to make her own partner
selection, but she also was responsible for choosing the assignment theme and image. This
activity required initiative, team work, communication, and creativity. These differing
expectations can create difficulties for some students.
Engagement Phase
The second phase is Engagement in which the inquiry student begins to formally adopt
and engage as an inquirer. The pupil also begins to learn about the specific obligations that are
expected of an inquiry student, for example, generating questions, taking initiatives, listening and
discussing respectfully, organizing information, and interpreting data effectively for oneself and
others (Shore et al., 2009).
Conflict may arise during this phase when a traditional student role is contrasted with that
of an inquiry student. For example, some students do not believe that they should have input on
curricular content (Wolf & Fraser, 2008). In other cases, the inquirer role and cultural beliefs or
values may conflict. For example, Chinese students may consider questioning the teacher
disrespectful (Li, 2003).
This phase is similar to several previously described models but also differs in critical
ways. Matching Thornton and Nardi’s (1975) beliefs, prior expectations influence the
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
39
Engagement phase, however, consensus levels may differ. Thornton and Nardi conceptualized
their second phase as involving a high degree of consensus, however, in inquiry it may involve
some degree of conflict when expectations do not match the inquiry classroom’s reality.
Thornton and Nardi’s model may apply better to work environments in which a high degree of
role consensus is expected or even necessary, at least during the carrying out versus the planning
of work. Disagreements in inquiry occur often and can sometimes be advantageous when they
lead to an improvement in understanding another individual’s perspective (Barfurth & Shore,
2008). Although Yellin’s (1999) model was also well suited to specific workplace settings, the
element of learning specific role behaviors in Yellin’s absorption phase is similar to the inquiry
Engagement phase.
Continuing with the hypothetical example of Emily, her class is now well into the
environment unit. Emily has learned a lot about how an inquiry classroom works. The most
recent assignment involves working in a small group to brainstorm different ways to recycle or
re-use common household items. Although Emily is shy, one of the members in her group asks
her if she has any ideas. Emily timidly describes how at home she saves yogurt cups for
organizing her beads. Her group members excitedly write down her creative idea and later Emily
feels confident enough to ask a question to one of the members about his idea for recycling and
reusing items from home. Emily begins to adopt these specific inquirer roles as she learns the
value of question asking, and discussing respectfully in a team setting, indicating she is
functioning within the Engagement phase. Although all of the group members contribute during
the brainstorming activity, when the time arrives to organize the information to present to the
class, arguments erupt within the group in terms of who will get to speak, which ideas they want
to talk about, and how they will present the information. These disagreements are common
within the Engagement phase of inquiry roles.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
40
Stabilization Phase
The third phase, Stabilization, involves solidifying a student or teacher’s commitment to
inquiry. It occurs once the individual has explored what it means to be an inquirer, found it to be
a positive experience, and fully engaged in its expectations. At this point, inquiry-literate
individuals positively value collaboration, are comfortable with problems that are not well
defined, look for patterns across knowledge areas, think imaginatively and critically, and
acknowledge multiple solutions to problems (Shore et al., 2009).
As in Turner’s (2001) interactional role theory, interactions among those who have
committed to being an inquirer influence the role-acquisition process. Thornton and Nardi
(1975) considered the third phase to feature increased conflict, however in inquiry, due to the
struggle experienced during the Engagement phase, students’ conflicting sentiments will most
likely be resolved by this phase. Perhaps there are different kinds of conflicts, for example, while
acquiring the elements of an inquirer (relevant to the Engagement phase and to feelings about
inquiry) and then the competition between alternative solutions (possibly more characteristic of
the Stabilization phase)--this possibility does not appear to have been studied. Emerging
inquirers will have already frequently experienced differing expectations and may have accepted
a certain level of uncertainty. According to Yellin’s (1999) third phase, commitment, the role
becomes a part of the individual’s identity. Yellin’s assertion that this phase is characterized by
increased conflict may also be more relevant to the fourth inquiry role phase, when the individual
adopts multiple roles. Once again, the content and nature of the conflicts might be different.
Within Emily’s classroom, the students are working on another unit activity, and have
been asked to write a hypothetical letter to the mayor of the city proposing a new way for the city
to help protect the environment. With the new inquiry skills Emily has been learning throughout
the unit, including researching online and obtaining input from a fellow classmate, she has
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
41
proposed a yearly event in which members of the community join together to collect garbage
around the community, followed by a barbecue fundraiser. The money raised will be invested in
purchasing environmentally friendly products for local businesses. After finishing the
assignment, Emily began researching the possibility of making this proposal into a real
community event. In this example, Emily embraced and committed to being an inquirer. She
fully engaged in the assignment and through collaboration, but also independence, Emily
developed a creative and ambitious idea that she continued developing even after the assignment
was completed. Emily has more comfortably taken on a number of the actions and roles
associated with being an inquirer. The next step in her growth as an inquirer is to be able to take
on varied roles, especially roles a student or teacher might regard as being the domain of the
teacher, and be comfortable within each and in moving among these roles, or exercising several
at a time--the Diversification phase.
Diversification Phase
During this phase, the individual has become accustomed to inquiry and the
accompanying expectations. A desire for novelty or a search for challenge may lead the
individual to branch out and adopt different, additional roles. The student may therefore begin to
experience the full role-diversification range that occurs in an inquiry environment. For example,
the student may now take on a reasoner or explorer role while the teacher is able to take on
additional learner or co-partner roles (Aulls & Ibrahim, 2010). Appropriate scaffolding from the
teacher or from other students is critical to success here. The teacher is responsible for ensuring
that students will be successful in the roles they adopt. This can be overwhelming and this phase,
in particular, often represents what has been previously conceptualized as the role shift in inquiry
(Aulls & Shore, 2008; Crawford, 2000). If the students choose to adopt the inquirer role during
the Engagement phase, the Stabilization phase may not take as long or it may not need to occur as
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
42
a separate step. Although the above phases were primarily described from a student’s
perspective, teachers may go through a similar process when engaging in inquiry.
Within Emily’s classroom, the students have been working on their summative or
capstone unit activity. Working in small groups, students have been asked to prepare a short
presentation for a younger audience about the importance of recycling and reusing. The group
members have collected all of the pertinent information and are now deciding what information
should be presented. As one student is describing what information she would present, Emily
asks her how she might make the information easier to understand for the younger audience. The
group members then engage in a discussion about how the information can be presented in a
meaningful way. This is an example of Diversification because Emily has not only taken on the
role of presenter, but she has also engaged in the role of a younger audience member by
imagining if someone younger would be able to understand the presented information. Later,
Emily’s teacher walks by and asks Emily to further explain her section of the presentation
because this was something she had never heard before. This is a further example of
Diversification because Emily has taken on the role of both student and teacher, while the teacher
has now also taken on a learner role. For a summary of the described stage models, please refer
to Table 1.
Table 1
Comparison of Role Acquisition Models
Proposed Model of Role
Thornton & Nardi (1975)
Yellin (1999)
Exploration: learning implicit
Anticipatory: social and
Ambivalence: individuals are
and explicit school and
psychological preparation for
exposed to a new social
Diversification
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
classroom rules as they relate
role acquisition
to inquiry classrooms
43
network and have a vague idea
of what is expected in the new
role leading to ambivalence or
disorientation
Engagement: individual begins Formal: formal written rules or Absorption: individuals
to formally adopt and engage
duties replace initial
familiarize themselves with
as an inquirer and learn
stereotypes about the role
specific expectations of the
specific obligations of an
new role through repetition,
inquirer
negotiation, and performance
Stabilization: individual
Informal: learn informal rules
Commitment: individual
solidifies and commits to
of role though interactions
receives positive feedback
being an inquirer after finding
with individuals in the system
from others in similar roles
it to be a positive experience
and individuals identify and
commit to the role
Diversification: comfort with
Personal: individual
Confidence: role becomes
being an inquirer leads the
characteristics including
predictable, confidence is
individual to branch out and
personality and culture impact
increased, and struggles with
adopt numerous roles in the
the role
motivation may emerge if
classroom
boredom occurs
Social interaction and dialog are key qualities of an inquiry environment, and they will
influence the phase’s progress. For example, not all students will be at the same phase in the
inquiry process, and observing other students at various points during the process may facilitate
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
44
one’s progression.
Also relevant to inquiry collaboration is Turner’s (2001) functionality principle in which
there is a distributed division of responsibilities amongst individuals who adopt different roles
based on their skills, knowledge, and diversity. For example, in a group, each student may have
specific or unique skills, and with increased decision-making power in inquiry, members may
decide that each person will take on a specific role to accomplish the task including recorder,
investigator, or presenter. In addition, Turner recognized that when individuals learn about each
other’s roles, role transitions are facilitated. This may also apply to adopting new roles.
Thornton and Nardi (1975) recognized the importance of individual characteristics in their
final role-acquisition phase, the personal phase. They acknowledged role flexibility due to the
influence of expectations from previous experience, cultural beliefs, and personality. This also
applies to the final role Diversification phase and will specifically influence which additional
roles each student adopts. This final Diversification phase differs from Yellin’s (1999) final
confidence phase in which the role becomes predictable. In an inquiry environment, the student’s
role is always changing because it expands and incorporates several different roles. Yellin also
accepted that a predictable role can lead to boredom and decreased motivation. Focusing on
student interest in inquiry protects against these problems and facilitates motivation in the
classroom, making it advantageous, especially during this phase (Aulls & Shore, 2008). The
Diversification phase is more consistent with Turner’s (2001) interactional theory due to a role’s
changing nature as well as the possibility for creativity in roles, which becomes a reality during
this phase. Turner also recognized that some roles are resistant to change. Perhaps this helps
explain why some students struggle in inquiry environments. If they experience difficulty in
phases prior to Diversification, they may not be as successful in a setting in which role diversity
is embraced.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
45
The lengths of the above phases vary widely depending on the context, the individual
student, and how well the students are scaffolded in their learning. In addition, the phases can be
considered along a continuum, a notion supported by some research on teacher roles in the
classroom (Laferrière, Bracewell, & Breuleux, 2001). Laferrière and colleagues completed a
documentary review related to online tools and resources for elementary and high school students
and described four different components of classrooms including the teacher, content, learner,
and context. For example, the teacher component was considered along a continuum from
transmission to facilitation, in which the role of the teacher may vary from directly presenting
content to facilitating a learning activity with minimal didactic instruction. Furthermore,
individuals may loop or cycle through the phases at varying speeds depending on the complexity
of the inquiry demands, cognitively or socially. Overall, little is known about the process that
leads to achieving inquiry role diversification and further empirical validation and research into
each proposed phase is required, including the question about whether or not different roles are
discrete or continuous, or some combination of both.
Conclusions
Theory is important to practice and provides a foundation for understanding complex
phenomena. By reviewing tenets from role theory and role acquisition, a new or expanded
framework was proposed that included a previously missing conceptualization of inquiry role
diversification. Inquiry role diversification has been minimally conceptualized in previous
literature, and the present proposed framework presented a theory-based model to help
understand this process, applying tenets from role theory to a specific process common in
inquiry-based learning environments, that of role diversification. We need to sharpen the
language we use in order to accurately describe what happens in inquiry classrooms and to ensure
that these descriptions are consistent with current frameworks. Better understanding of this
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
46
process is important because inquiry education is central to numerous, ongoing curricular
reforms. Based on social-constructivist principles, inquiry can greatly improve the educational
learning environment. Currently, several inquiry phenomena are not fully understood, including
the role-Diversification phase that is frequently observed, but not well described.
The proposed model for inquiry roles contains four phases: Exploration, Engagement,
Stabilization, and Diversification. During Exploration, implicit and explicit inquiry classroom
rules are learned. Engagement is characterized by formally adopting a broad school-based
inquirer role and learning the specific expectations of inquiry. Stabilization is characterized by
commitment to being an inquirer. In the final Diversification phase, individuals adopt different
or additional roles in the classroom. Limited research has been conducted on this process, and
the proposed framework provides a previously unavailable conceptualization of this complex
phenomenon.
Limitations
Although the proposed framework for inquiry roles incorporated and synthesized several
role-related tenets, and was based on role theory, empirical evidence examining the phases and
their specific characteristics is not yet available. Ongoing research by the authors has begun to
examine the role diversification phase in several inquiry classrooms in order to validate this not
well understood phase, and this empirical process will benefit from wider consideration of the
model itself.
Implications
Teachers and students. A deeper understanding of role diversification can provide
teachers and students with a better sense of success in inquiry environments. Success in inquiry
is measured differently, and not all students achieve their full potential all the time in inquiry
classrooms. However, if greater knowledge is gained regarding roles, role acquisition, and role
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
47
diversification, then strategies can be developed to help facilitate transitions for students who are
struggling to adapt to inquiry’s role-diversification challenges.
Furthermore, a better understanding of these complex processes will help improve
evaluation criteria within inquiry settings. The proposed phases may provide the basis for
creating benchmark evaluation criteria for learning within inquiry, providing better tracking of
progress for teachers, and also for students. If students have a better understanding of how
learning occurs within inquiry, this may lead to a sense of empowerment, rather than frustration
in inquiry. For example, if a student is struggling to meet an assignment deadline, but is working
hard on a topic of great interest, this student may be penalized within a traditional classroom
setting. However, in inquiry, this student may be considered to be within the Stabilization phase
of inquiry, a very positive and advanced stage of learning.
Consultants. The proposed framework has multiple implications for school
psychologists, counsellors, and other professionals who work with teachers because it presents a
developmental understanding of a central phenomenon in inquiry classrooms. Specifically, this
research carries implications for assessment, and in planning interventions for struggling
students. As inquiry becomes increasingly central to curricula, classroom environments are
changing. The inquiry setting can be quite different from a traditional classroom; it can often be
busy and noisy due to students’ enthusiasm about playing a much more active role in their
learning. Examining student roles in the classroom and how this may impact learning would be a
useful tool during classroom observations for students with learning difficulties.
A consultant’s view of typical behavior in the classroom might need to be altered
considerably in inquiry environments. Typical behavior in an inquiry classroom (e.g., students
actively investigating their own educational interests including moving around the classroom)
may be considered inappropriate and dysfunctional in a traditional classroom setting. Properly
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
48
comprehending inquiry phenomena, for example, role diversification, in which the student may
take on the teacher role by challenging presented information and asking questions, will lead to a
better understanding of what should be considered appropriate classroom behavior. The same
applies to what constitutes success in a classroom. These conditions for success may vary
considerably in an inquiry context. Success on an inquiry task may not be based on a marking
system, but rather on how much the student persevered to investigate the concept, for example.
In addition, students often act out because they are bored. Such behavior may be
decreased in an inquiry setting in which learning is shaped by students’ interests. Furthermore,
inquiry regularly requires group problem solving and disagreements can therefore occur often,
but these can lead to important social and cognitive gains (Barfurth & Shore, 2008). These
interpersonal disputes should not necessarily be considered dysfunctional. Overall, the classroom
context has a huge impact on student and teacher behavior. Consultants require a thorough
understanding of this context to determine what constitutes appropriate and functional classroom
behavior.
Researchers. This review has implications for plotting the growth of inquiry in a
classroom, school, or among teachers and students. For example, if a student is experiencing
increased conflict in the classroom, perhaps this suggests that the individual is in the Engagement
or even Stabilization phase of inquiry and not necessarily failing or underperforming in terms of
inquiry. In addition, researchers could focus on the four phases of inquiry in future studies about
classroom interactions. For example, researchers may be able to develop a qualitative checklist
for a classroom observation based on the descriptions of each phase. This review and proposed
model provides a preliminary foundation for future research, however further empirical research
will be required to validate the proposed theoretical framework. Furthermore, research is
required to describe in more depth the transitions between phases.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
49
Chapter 2
Linking Text
As previously discussed, the first manuscript was a literature review and a developmental
model for the process of inquiry role diversification was presented. The following empirical
manuscript therefore does not contain an extensive literature review. Rather, the literature review
for this second manuscript focused more on specific research related to inquiry role
diversification and roles. The second manuscript examined the Diversification phase of the
previously proposed model in more depth and was a follow-up study based on the first review
manuscript, which identified the need for researchers to further investigate the phases of inquiry
roles through classroom interactions. Through an analysis of qualitative data based on classroom
interactions, four different characteristics were identified to influence role diversification
including the classroom context, individual teacher personalities and teaching styles, individual
student personalities, and group-work dynamics. The nature and numbers of roles were described
within each of these influences. This second manuscript presents the bulk of the data analysis for
the dissertation.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
50
Chapter 3
The Many Faces of Inquiry: Examining Role Diversification through Dialog in Small-Group
Inquiry Activities
Learning environments consist of a learner and a setting where the learner uses tools,
collects information, and interacts with others (Wilson, 1995). Inquiry-based teaching and
learning environments differ from traditional classroom settings. Central to inquiry is socialconstructivist theory which assumes that individuals make sense of the world around them
through social interactions with other individuals. Knowledge is both socially and culturally
constructed (Bereiter, 1994). The National Research Council (1996) defined inquiry as “making
observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is
already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of
experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers,
explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results” (p. 23). According to Aulls and
Shore (2008), inquiry involves authenticity in learning, active learning, a curriculum driven partly
by student interest, and co-construction of knowledge.
A student usually adopts several different roles in inquiry, roles that he or she may not
have necessarily undertaken in a traditional classroom setting, for example, the role of evaluator.
A role is a “cluster of behaviors and attitudes that are thought to belong together, so that an
individual is viewed as acting consistently when performing the various components of a single
role and inconsistently when failing to do so” (Turner, 2001, p. 233).
Role diversification can sometimes lead to what has been described as role strain, or
difficulty coping with all of the different role demands (Marks, 1977). In an examination specific
to sex roles, Ahrens and Ryff (2006) did not find support for the role-strain perspective and
proposed that, as the number of roles increased, well being and positive affect also increased.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
51
Snoek (1966, as cited by Keith, 1979) referred to adopting various roles as a series of
relationships that must be maintained, which can in turn contribute to role strain. Through
questionnaires, Keith confirmed that teachers in team settings did not experience more role strain
than teachers in self-contained classrooms. Although newly created roles often lack clarity,
organizational efforts may help mitigate role strain by clarifying expectations.
The classroom context directly influences roles and role diversification. Few studies have
examined role diversification within inquiry classrooms. Classrooms at their best are dynamic,
fast-paced, and engaging learning environments. In inquiry-based classrooms this is especially
true. Turner and Meyer (2000) defined the classroom context as the “beliefs, goals, values,
perceptions, behaviors, classroom management, social relations, physical space, and socialemotional and evaluative climates that contribute to the participants’ understanding of the
classroom” (p. 70). The instructional context overlaps with the classroom context and refers to
teacher, student, content, and activity influences on teaching, learning, and motivation.
Furthermore, Hirschy and Wilson (2002) focused on college and university level classrooms and
commented that the classroom climate, or learning environment, is a community with social
forces that impede or facilitate student learning. Variables discussed included sex, race, age,
social class, pedagogical approaches, and course design.
Leander, Phillips, and Taylor (2010) acknowledged that learner identities are directly tied
to the classroom and further addressed Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of “situated learning.”
Lave and Wenger described situated learning as the process in which an “agent, activity, and the
world mutually constitute one another” (p. 33). In addition, Weade (1987) proposed the term
“curriculum ‘n’ instruction” to denote a “dynamic and constructed process through which
students gain access to both the social and the academic content of lessons” (p. 15). This
dynamic and complex process involves knowledge transformation, which occurs when new
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
52
meanings are acquired and old meanings are modified or abandoned through the process of
interactions within the environment. Weade also discussed the different meanings that are
constructed during the curriculum ‘n’ instruction process, including the lesson content (academic
demand structure), the social expectations within the classroom (social participation structure),
and the nature of the classroom task (activity structure).
Aulls and Hou (2008) recognized that the teaching approach in secondary and postsecondary education impacts the different roles that students and teachers adopt. Teaching was
defined based on Anderson and Burns’s (1989) model suggesting that teaching is a part of
instruction consisting of social and academic processes including the classroom setting, social
arrangements, pacing and coverage, and verbal interactions. They hypothesized that, in
classrooms with effective teachers, the roles would be more academic in nature, whereas roles in
classrooms with ineffective teachers would be more social in nature. Descriptions from
preservice teachers about effective and ineffective teachers provided qualitative information
about the different roles common to each type of teaching. Both teachers and students in
effective teachers’ classrooms adopted more roles compared to individuals in ineffective
teachers’ classrooms. Furthermore, roles more social in nature were assigned to ineffective
teachers, hypothesized to be a result of a difficulty coordinating both social and academic
components within a single role. Less role conflict and role strain were also noted in classrooms
with effective instruction that was more student-centred and process-oriented.
Green and Dixon (1994) discussed how, through patterns of interaction over time,
students develop a social process or set of rules that guide these interactions and these can
include determining when, where, and how students will interact with each other or curriculum
materials. Through these interactions, a sense of identity as a unique community also develops
within the classroom. Green and Dixon therefore stressed the need for researchers to gather
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
53
knowledge of these specific and unique social and academic processes or rules including
discourse patterns, or common methods of interaction among members. Furthermore, classrooms
are dynamic and interaction patterns are fluid, and can be revised or abandoned at any time.
These interactions are also affected by individual factors such as personal histories of students,
and individual social, linguistic, and cognitive abilities (Green & Dixon, 1994).
Interactions within collaborative environments, such as inquiry, sometimes lead to
disagreements. Green, Yeager, Dixon, and Tuyay (2004) described the concept of critical
moments, which refer to daily differences in interpretations and understandings of events.
Alternatively, these are referred to as clashes in frames of reference or frame clashes. If these
instances are acknowledged and help to clarify misunderstandings, they can help to shape
understandings and interpretations (Green et al., 2004).
Barfurth and Shore (2008) investigated 24 specific disagreements within a group of four
fourth- and fifth-grade students in the process of collaboration in an inquiry classroom. They
discovered that, although student disagreements may have seemed unproductive in the classroom,
they were in fact quite productive. Social moves (pattern of disagreements between or among
individuals) were differentiated from cognitive moves (actions taken as a result of social
information). Student disagreements led to elaborative knowledge construction in attempts to
resolve and understand the source of the disagreement.
The primary goal of the present study was to further investigate role diversification and
determine the number and nature of the predominant roles as students and teachers participated in
authentic inquiry-based tasks in functioning classrooms. The final phase of Diversification was
specifically chosen as a focus because this is when traditionally described “role shifts” occur.
Methodology
Participants
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
54
Qualitative data were collected from two different elementary-school inquiry classrooms.
A sample of eight students and two teachers was purposefully selected from an elementary school
in suburban Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The neighbourhood consisted of middle to upper middle
class families, composed largely of single-family homes and high-tech industries and
distribution. The school was selected based on its active involvement with related research
projects with the High Ability and Inquiry Research (HAIR) team at McGill University. After
obtaining university and school-board ethics approval, the principal was contacted to ask if he
would be interested in participating. Two teachers from this school volunteered to participate and
consent forms and information packages were delivered to teachers and students. The researcher
met with each participant individually to introduce the study and explain its purpose, discuss the
types of tasks and the length of involvement, as well as to explain that participation for students
would not affect academic grades. Eight students and their parents consented to participate; all
were English-speaking. No data were collected regarding cultural or economic background.
Four female students were in Grade 4, one male and one female were in Grade 5, and one male
and one female were in Grade 6. Each classroom consisted of approximately 20 students. Two
inquiry-based projects were completed at a school-wide level in the previous two to three years
indicating that students at this school may have had limited previous exposure to inquiry.
Environment classroom (Group 1). The Grade 4 classroom had two teachers who
shared the teaching workload equally, one teacher was responsible for the French half of the
curriculum, whereas the other teacher was responsible for the English half. The researchers only
worked with the English teacher (T1) and classroom visits were scheduled during this teaching
time. According to the French teacher, the students preferred speaking English and French
vocabulary was the main focus during French classroom activities.
The class was just beginning its first complete inquiry unit and the topic of this unit was
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
55
the environment. In her third year of teaching, T1 commented, “We are at the beginning stages
of inquiry instruction. It is our first inquiry-based unit and it is a learning experience for all
involved.” When she was questioned about who is the most important or responsible person for a
student’s learning, she replied that the teacher is responsible for guiding students, while the
students are responsible for their own learning. She also added that meaningful topics are what
especially motivate students to do their best work. When asked if she felt her students were
experts in a particular domain, T1 commented that her students were experts in journal writing.
The group of students in T1’s classroom were a self-selected group of females who had
remained friends since kindergarten. According to two of the students in the group, this class
differed from classes in previous years in terms of increased group work, learning information
that he or she would use in adulthood, increased difficulty in the work, and increased homework.
Government classroom (Group 2). The combined Grades 5/6 classroom was also just
beginning its first complete inquiry unit, in this case on the topic of the structures of government.
In her 23rd year of teaching, this teacher (T2) commented, “We are moving toward inquiry
slowly. We are a candidate school for IB [International Baccalaureate]. As I learn more about
inquiry, I am trying to apply these new ideas to my teaching.” When asked who is the most
important or responsible person for a student’s learning, she also indicated that students are
responsible for their own learning because teachers cannot “be there every step of the way.” T2
added that students need to learn to trust that they can be successful learners when they rely on
themselves. When asked what especially motivates students to do their best work, she indicated
that encouragement, clear expectations, the target audience, and the teacher’s own level of
interest and excitement motivate students. When asked, T2 did not feel that her students were
necessarily experts. T2 chose the groups and selected students with strong personalities who she
believed would be outgoing and opinionated. She also chose an equal number of males and
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
56
females and an equal number of Grades 5 and 6 students. Group members were not previously
friends. When asked what was different in this class compared to previous years, students stated
increased work difficulty and technology use, less bullying, and having a nice teacher.
Research Design
This study was a form of interpretive inquiry, described by Anderson and Burns (1989) as
the understanding of social phenomena from an individual perspective. They stressed how
understanding human meaning often occurs through observation of participants in a naturalistic
environment, such as a classroom. Furthermore, careful consideration of the context is deemed
more important than replication.
The design of this qualitative study was also consistent with several of Turner and
Meyer’s (2000) reflections on qualitative research. Self-report data in the form of surveys and
questionnaires are advantageous for addressing student and teacher perceptions but had the
disadvantage of lacking information regarding events and interactions within the classroom. This
was avoided in the current study by examining both classroom events and interactions in depth
through audiorecorded segments. Interview data were also considered to be useful for informing
theories and adding value to empirical data through first-hand accounts of participants. Interview
data provided information about the classroom environment and helped check understanding of
the research questions being asked; however, reliability and consistency of interviewee responses
can vary with time and one’s memories of certain events. Furthermore, interview responses can
be biased by question phrasing, misinterpretations of responses, or a desire by the interviewee to
please the interviewer, and therefore provide socially desirable responses. Discourse analysis is
an advantageous and accurate way to interpret the classroom environment in great detail.
Overall, Turner and Meyer (2000) stressed the need for research designs to include
multiple or continuous observation of classrooms over time and with multiple forms of data
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
57
collection.
Data were collected on 17 school visits: 17 to one classroom, and 13 to the other. Nine of
the 17 visits to the Grade 4 classroom included audiorecording of group interactions for a total of
249 minutes, and 8 of the 13 visits to the Grades 5/6 classroom included audiorecorded
observations for a total of 259 minutes. One audiorecorded file from the Grade 4 classroom was
eventually dropped from the analysis because a supply teacher was present on that particular day
and this may have confounded the results. This left eight audiorecorded visits for a total of 217
minutes of recorded interaction in the Grade 4 classroom.
Information was collected from several different sources to ensure data triangulation.
School visits began in February 2011 and continued until the end of April 2011, occurring once
or twice weekly. Visits were scheduled to ensure that the times worked well for the teachers
while also limiting classroom disruption.
Data Sources
Triangulation of data was achieved through methods (interviews, audiorecorded dialog,
observations), document analysis (questionnaires, log entries, field notes), and informants
(teachers, students, researchers, supervisors). For the purposes of this report, only a subset of
these data were examined and analyzed in more depth.
Student and teacher survey data. To determine the amount and extent of inquiry
exposure within each group, the McGill Inventory of Student Inquiry Outcomes: Teachers
(MISIO-T; Gyles, 2010; Gyles & Shore, 2013) questionnaire was completed by each teacher, and
the McGill Inventory of Student Inquiry Outcomes--Students (MISIO-S; Saunders-Stewart, 2008;
Saunders-Stewart, Gyles, & Shore, 2012) questionnaire was completed by all students near the
beginning of data collection.
Student and teacher log entries. Journal entries were completed by teachers, students,
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
58
and the primary researcher throughout data collection to gather information about current
thoughts, opinions, and attitudes regarding the learning environment (Feichtner & Davis, 1984;
LaBanca, 2008; Reger, 2006; Shore et al., 2009). These data were useful for interpreting
information collected from observations and interviews. On classroom visits in which there was
time, questions were hand-written on individual sheets of lined paper and were distributed to each
student at the very end of the inquiry unit activities for that day. Students and teachers were
asked to respond to the question with a few sentences and usually wrote their responses within a
few minutes. Examples of student log questions included, “What do you remember best about
today?”, “What did you learn today when working in your group?”, “Do you think your group is
making good progress on your project? Why or why not?”, or “What did you enjoy most/least
about working in your group today?” Examples of teacher log questions included, “Has the
group been faced with any difficulties, hurdles, or challenges? If so, what are those challenges
and how has the group dealt with them?”, “Did anything unusual happen today in the group?”,
“How do you feel the group is progressing towards their goal?”
Recorded student interactions. Student interactions during group-work in inquiry were
audiorecorded, transcribed, and then coded using the MAXQDA computer software, designed for
qualitative analysis (VERBI, 2011). All the audiorecorded data were transcribed and
transcriptions were verified and double-checked for accuracy. Participants’ voices frequently
overlapped and background noise made it difficult to decipher the dialog at times.
Semi-structured interviews of students and teachers. Questions for the semistructured interviews were based on previous research (Barfurth & Shore, 2008; Blatchford,
Kutnick, Baines, & Galton, 2003; Hand, Treagust, & Vance, 1997; Hijzen, Boekaerts, & Vedder,
2006; LaBanca, 2008; Salon, 2008; Saunders-Stewart, 2008; Shore et al., 2009; Smith, Sheppard,
Johnson, & Johnson, 2005; Reger, 2006; Yamane, 1996). Examples of questions for students
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
59
included; “In what ways is this class different from your classes in previous years?”, “Did you
enjoy your unit?”, “Who was the leader of your group?”, “Do you think you were ever the leader
of your group?”, “Do you think you worked well with the others in your group?”, “Do you think
your group argued a lot?”, “Do you think that the other members in your group valued your
ideas?”, “Do you think that you could teach a lesson to the class on the topic?”, “Did you ever
explain something about your unit to your teacher?”, and “Do you think your group spent more
time discussing or more time actively working to complete your activities?” Example questions
for teachers included; “What do you think is the teacher’s role in developing the classroom
environment?”, “How are different types of students in your class affected by the different types
of classroom activities?”, “What role did you play in the group’s activities while they were
working through the unit?”, “What would you change if you mentored another group in the
future?”, “How do you balance your expertise with allowing the groups to be independent?”, and
“What do you think were some of the frustrations and milestones that the group encountered
while completing the unit?”
Semi-structured interviews were also audiorecorded, transcribed, and analyzed using
MAXQDA. These interviews corroborated and added important background information or
details and provided insight into teacher and student attitudes, opinions, and perceptions of the
classroom activities and dynamics. Each participant was interviewed once, near the end of data
collection. Student interviews lasted between seven and 12 minutes, and teacher interviews
lasted between 20 and 25 minutes.
Field notes and researcher log. The first author took detailed notes at the beginning and
end of every classroom visit in order to record information about the classroom layout, group
attendance, the nature of the activity, teacher instructions, time of day, and duration of visit.
Observation checklists. Several observation checklists were created based on inquiry
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
60
characteristics and role theory (Aulls & Ibrahim, 2010; Gyles, 2010; Shore et al., 2009; Shore et
al., 2012). These checklists were completed by the first author in an attempt to track inquiry and
role characteristics as students participated in their inquiry-based tasks. These checklists were
exploratory in nature and were not a part of the final data analysis due to the lack of reliability
and validity.
Challenges to data collection. Collecting data in classrooms can be challenging in terms
of maintaining control over the variables of study. For example, there were times during the
data-collection process that a group member was absent, and near the very end of the unit, one of
the group members moved away. In addition, although activities were group-based, members
would sometimes pair off to divide the work. This occurred more often in the Grade 5/6 class,
particularly with the females working together and the males working together. During these
times, the primary researcher and a research assistant took transcription notes to help decipher
any overlapping dialog during the transcription process. Also, questionnaires were often
completed over a period of time, rather than during one sitting. Members would sometimes work
on the questionnaires during the recess before or after the unit activity period or during the week.
Another challenge occurred during one of the interviews when the audio-recorder malfunctioned.
This particular interview could not be fully transcribed. The rest of the interview was completed
by taking detailed notes of the responses. Finally, there were some minor confidentiality
breaches. For example, for one particular log entry, the teacher asked the researcher if it would
be okay to have the students complete the log responses later on in the day and so the sheets were
left with the teacher. Two entries were subsequently misplaced. One of the teachers also
admitted to glancing at some of the students’ questionnaires responses, as these were stored in
envelopes at the school in case any of the participants had free time to work on completing the
questionnaires during the week.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
61
Reliability and validity. To ensure reliability, the third author and another researcher
familiar with qualitative analysis were consulted and the clarity and appropriateness of each
coding category was discussed. The coding scheme was revised multiple times as a result of
these discussions. One thousand lines of transcript were then selected from the approximate
6000 lines and were coded according to the developed coding scheme by the first and third
authors independently. The percentage of exact agreement was calculated at the most general
level of coding to be 62%. Through extensive and ongoing discussions (totaling approximately
27 hours), 100% agreement was obtained at the most specific third level of coding. Discussions
led to further revisions to the coding instructions. More coding was completed independently
totaling 36% of all lines of transcript and disagreements were again discussed until there was
100% agreement on the codes.
Consistent with Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) naturalistic inquiry, or trustworthiness of
qualitative data analysis, the principles of credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability were considered as additional measures of reliability and validity.
The principle of credibility refers to the validity of the data or one’s confidence in the
truth of the findings (Krefting, 1991). The length of the data-collection process allowed for a
more consistent and coherent picture of the nature of the classroom interactions across time. The
first author also kept a field journal detailing daily logistics, schedules, changes to protocols,
thoughts, feelings, or challenges throughout the process. Furthermore, triangulation of data was
an additional source of credibility and included questionnaires, interviews, observations,
transcripts, and journal entries from teachers, students, and the researcher.
The principle of transferability refers to how well the data apply to other contexts or
individuals. To ensure transferability, rich descriptions of the context, participant, and
methodology were provided. Responses from students and teachers were also transcribed
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
62
verbatim and these transcripts were double-checked for accuracy by the first author and another
student (Kei Muto).
The principle of dependability or consistency was addressed through discussion amongst
the McGill University HAIR team, and dissertation committee members. These discussions
focused on conceptualization, collecting and analyzing qualitative data, and phrasing of items on
data collection sources. Three members of the HAIR team provided detailed written feedback on
the various instruments including interview questions, log questions, and the social-perspective
taking tasks. The instruments specific to students were also pilot-tested with a 7-year-old and an
8-year-old child to ensure that children younger than the targeted age group would understand the
instructions and content. Feedback from these children led to further refinement of the questions.
During coding, instructions were continually revised based on numerous discussions with
members of the research team.
Confirmability refers to freedom from bias during the research process (Krefting, 1991)
and involves supporting all research claims. Continued discussion and consultation with the
HAIR team and the dissertation committee members helped to ensure neutrality.
The selected methods of data collection centered on language (e.g., interviews,
audiorecorded dialog, log entries). Spradley (1979) referred to language as a tool to construct
reality, and within an ethnographic approach, researchers must “search for the parts of a culture
and their relationships as conceptualized by informants” (p. 93). Spradley proposed that
language encodes cultural meanings and therefore ethnographic descriptions are translations.
Bloome, Power Carter, Christian, Otto, and Shuart-Faris (2005) similarly described the
advantages of using a micro-ethnographic approach to conceptualize research through examining
language.
Data-Analysis Procedures
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
63
A unique participant-identification code was assigned to the students and teachers and this
code was written on all data that were collected. Any names that were written were later
removed. All data collected were confidential and kept in a filing cabinet in a locked laboratory
at McGill University after the study was completed. Field notes and transcriptions from groupwork observations were coded using a priori codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994) guided by
previous research on inquiry (e.g., Llewellyn, 2002; Shore et al., 2009; Shore, Chichekian, Syer,
Aulls, & Frederiksen, 2012). In other words, codes were not part of an existing coding scheme,
rather, ideas for codes were generated based on previous research and then this constructed
coding scheme was applied to transcript dialog. The wording for coding scheme categories were
taken directly from the research of Aulls and Ibrahim (2010), Llewellyn (2002), Shore et al.
(2009), and Shore et al. (2012). These coding categories were then assigned descriptive labels
that became the roles of focus for the study. Each role was categorized as being social, cognitive,
or negative or positive emotional.
Sometimes during group-work activities, other students or teachers, or the researcher
would interact with the group members. If any other student was audiorecorded, this information
was not included in the data analysis and all involved names were removed from the transcripts.
Some of the other teachers who were audiorecorded provided verbal consent to be included in the
research, however, these instances, along with any researcher statements, were coded separately
and were not included in the analysis comparing teacher frequencies of codes because these
individuals’ codes were not of direct interest for the purposes of the current research. Codes were
then recorded on qualitative data-analysis software (VERBI, 2011).
Results and Discussion
This study focused on selected variables within the classroom and instructional context
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
64
including the classroom context, individual student and teacher personalities, teaching styles,
group selection, and group-work dynamics. Within each of these categories, interviews,
questionnaires, and teacher and student log data were summarized first followed by the impact on
the numbers and types of inquiry roles that were identified based on transcript analysis.
The Influence of Classroom Context on Role Diversification
In the current study, classroom context included the nature of the classroom activities.
Students were asked, “how often do you do group work in your class?” Response options
included never, sometimes, often, and always. There were no significant differences between the
groups on this item suggesting that both groups completed group work activities equally as often.
Students were also asked during individual interviews about what they believed the word
“inquiry” meant. Group 1 student responses included question asking, caring for others,
investigating, and researching and finding out new information. Every student in this group
provided a relevant response. One of the Group 2 students responded being a person who asks a
lot of questions, is curious, and wants to know about something. The other three students in this
group initially responded that they did not know or had forgotten, but after prompting them to
guess, two provided responses that included sticking to something and finishing what one started,
and staying focused. Overall, the responses from Group 2 were not as complex.
Student interest and enjoyment (typically reflected in engagement) are important
characteristics of inquiry environments. Students were individually asked during final interviews
if they enjoyed the unit topic. All Group 1 students enjoyed the unit and reasons for this included
having a previous interest in the topic, enjoying working in a group, enjoying presenting
information to a younger audience, inspiring change among family members at home, enjoying
class trips, and learning about something new. Most Group 2 members also indicated that they
enjoyed the unit, although one student indicated that the unit was not his favorite. Explanations
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
65
for why the students enjoyed the unit were similar to those for Group 1 and included enjoying
group work, having an interest in the content, guest-speaker visits, learning about different
viewpoints, and taking the unit test. Both groups of students referred to authentic learning
experiences, such as guest speakers or class trips, and these experiences are important elements
of inquiry classrooms that can greatly facilitate interest.
When asked if the students felt that their fellow group members had enjoyed the unit,
three of four Group 1 students responded yes, and one of the members responded that she did not
believe one of the members had enjoyed the unit because she had been told by her once that she
was bored. When Group 2 students were asked this same question, two of the students responded
yes, one student said he thought the other students had enjoyed the unit, but perhaps not as much
as he had, and one student responded that the other members “kind of” enjoyed the unit. Overall,
students’ perceptions of their group members’ level of interest was similar.
Related to interest is one’s comfort with a particular topic. When students were
interviewed and asked if they had ever explained something about the unit to their teacher, two
students from Group 1 indicated yes, one could not remember, and one said no. Within Group 2,
one student said she was not sure but thought she had, one student did not think so and the other
two responded no. When asked if they could teach a lesson to the class on their unit topic,
responses from Group 1 included, “probably,” “yeah, sometimes I can,” “I do know a lot so I’m
sure there would be at least five things that they do not know because I’ve been working on the
environment before the class started,” and “maybe, if I learned a little bit more about it.” When
Group 2 members were asked this question, they responded with, “if they had not already learned
about the government, then yes, but since we have all learned the same stuff, no,” “from all we
learned, maybe,” “I don’t think so because we all learned the same things,” and “I think that I
learned a lot about the government and the prime ministers.”
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
66
All students were similarly asked if they had ever explained the topic to someone who did
not know anything about the unit topic. Group 1 responses included explaining something to
younger siblings, and explaining to a group member who did not understand something. Group 2
responses also included explaining to family members including cousins and parents. Overall,
Group 1 students seemed to be slightly more comfortable with the content.
When the teachers were asked how students were affected by the different types of
classroom activities, T1 responded by explaining the importance of keeping students moving and
not having them sit at their desk for an entire day. She described trying to experiment with
different activities such as group work or pair-share activities and to incorporate different
activities throughout the day to keep students engaged. T2 similarly described:
I can’t imagine teaching in rows . . . I can’t imagine constantly expecting them to do their
individual work. I think they need each other. . . . I always tell the kids at the beginning
of the year that we’re going to become a family. (T2, April 1, Final Interview)
She also touched on the different atmosphere of teaching a 5/6 split class:
So my kids will sit together and even though the math programs are completely different,
they will help each other and . . . it doesn’t matter if you are a Grade 5 or Grade 6 . . . Any
parent could walk in, any other teacher could walk in and not know which ones are my
[Grade] 5s and which ones are my [Grade] 6s. (T2, April 1, Final Interview)
T2 also talked about adapting for students with special needs or individualized education
but at the same time, ensuring these students do not feel different from the rest. Both teacher
responses indicated elements of inquiry regarding the impact of classroom activities on students,
particularly encouraging student-student interaction by moving away from students sitting in
rows in a very traditional format.
When examining the influence of classroom context on the number and nature of roles,
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
67
interesting insights emerged. T1’s classroom activities addressed social and positive emotional
roles among students, whereas T2’s classroom activities addressed cognitive roles and at times
negative emotional roles (see Figure 1). Only role frequency differences of 25% or more
between groups were discussed.
Figure 1. Frequencies of student roles summed across all time points and by group
For example, Group 1 students frequently adopted inquiry roles that were more social in
nature including that of Collaborator (helping others or seeking advice from adult or peer
mentors), Communicator (sharing emotions, feelings, ideas, or opinions), Responder (clear
communication, expressing agreement or disagreement, or simple one-word communication),
Respectful Listener (respecting individuals and differing points of view, and demonstrating
patience), Audience-Appropriate Communicator (clearly communicating one’s learning with an
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
68
audience or deciding on appropriate vocabulary for an audience), and Open-Minded Collaborator
(comparing and contrasting data with someone else’s or anticipating and responding to arguments
in opposition to one’s view). In comparison, Group 2 students more frequently adopted the
inquiry roles that were cognitive in nature including Knowledge Connector (connecting old and
new knowledge), Knower (understanding instructions, understanding the goal of the task, or
expressing understanding of key concepts and content), Questioner (asking relevant questions
that lead to an investigation), Hypothesizer (developing expectations of what will happen next or
offering hypotheses about outcomes), Investigation Planner (developing an appropriate approach
to a problem or planning and carrying out an investigation), Information Finder (identifying
where to obtain data, or recording, classifying, and verifying data), Observer (noticing details,
patterns, sequences, changes, similarities or differences), and Critical Thinker (using formal
logical and analytical skills). For full role descriptions with examples, see Table 2.
Table 2
Student Inquiry Roles With Associated Descriptions and Examples
Student Role
Role Type
Role Description
Example (from
transcript)
Affirmer
Emotional
(AFF)
Valuing and enjoying the topic (e.g. “I
“Oh! ok. ok. Oh! This
love this!”), laughter
is so nice! Oh I love
it! I love it!” (S3,
April 19, Line 636)
Audience-
Social
Clearly communicate one’s learning
“S4: No, they won’t
Appropriate
with an audience (to individuals outside
know what that word
Communicator
of group unless group members take on
means.” (S4, April 13,
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
(AAC)
purposeful role of audience member),
69
Line 60)
using/deciding on appropriate
vocabulary for audience, sharing the
results of inquiry with others
Collaborator
Social
(CBR)
Collaborate with, seek advice from, and
“How about you put a
use adult or peer mentors effectively,
ruler there so it will
helping others to understand or make
all be even?” (S6,
observations (explanation), helping
February 16, Line
others in general if someone made a
383)
mistake, may include certain forms of
question asking, turn-taking issues
Communicator Social
Sharing of emotions, feelings, ideas,
“Yeah go on Google.”
(CMR)
opinions, giving a command
(S3, February 16, Line
8)
Content
Social
Seeking different viewpoints related to
“Just because his
Collaborator
content, comparing and contrasting
name is premier,
(CC)
content with someone else’s, reflecting
doesn’t mean he’s
with adults and peers about content,
first.” (S6, February 7,
anticipating and responding to
Line 14)
arguments in opposition to one's view
about content
Critical
Thinker
Cognitive
Using formal logical and analytical
“S7? It’s either that
skills, using imagination, and creativity
this is wrong or that’s
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
(CRIT)
70
wrong. Because he
married—wait, wait,
wait. He married
Margaret Harper in
1954 and he’s born on
1959.” (S6, February
23, Line 385)
Decision
Cognitive
Maker (DCM)
Evaluating the necessity and sufficiency
“The one with the
of resources (material, expertise, time,
loudest voice is going
relevance, authenticity, etc.) to make an
to speak the most.”
investigation worthy of investment at
(S1, April 13, Line
the time, deciding what information will
80)
be important to use, making a definitive
statement that indicates a decision has
been made, making decisions as to how
to communicate one’s work (e.g.,
writing and/or orally)
Engager
Positive
Showing an interest in the topic,
“That is just so cool.
(ENG)
Emotional
exhibiting curiosity and a desire to
Wait—so T1. T1!”
know more, pondering observations,
(S3, April 29, Line
interests and strengths guide decision
485)
making (e.g., “I found an interesting
fact!”), cuing group to stay on task or on
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
71
topic
Evaluator
Cognitive
(EVAL)
Describing one’s own strategies,
“Except you might not
assessing one’s work, evaluating
really see it. Oh
evidence, monitor and evaluate one’s
maybe. That’s good.
progress toward a solution, evaluate
That’s good.” (S3,
solutions, assess relevant and
April 29, Line 545)
authenticity of a proposed problem or
topic, foresee possible outcomes of
activity
Generalizer
Cognitive
(GEN)
Assessing the generalizability of ideas
“OK, so I thought we
to larger questions and others’ interests,
could make ours like
applying new knowledge to future
cowboy themed
experiences, extending inquiry beyond
because our greeting
the classroom
is ‘Howdy Friends’”
(S1, April 29, Line 2)
Hypothesizer
Cognitive
(HYP)
Developing expectations of what will
“Maybe it’s members
happen next, offering hypotheses about
of national assembly.”
outcomes, testing ideas and hypotheses
(S7, February 7, Line
19)
Information
Finder (FIND)
Cognitive
Identifying where to obtain data,
“This article does not
recognizing hidden meanings in data,
cite any references or
recording, classifying, and verifying
sources.” (S5,
data, searching for data beyond
February 7, Line 252)
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
72
textbooks, searching on Internet,
separating relevant and irrelevant data
and info, reading from a source
Initiative
Positive
Taking responsibility for one’s own
“I don’t know. But
Taker (IT)
Emotional
learning, taking initiative, using
I'm doing my own
investigations to satisfy one’s own
idea.” (S2, April 29,
questions, showing confidence in topic
Line 152)
area, demonstrating a willingness to
modify ideas
Investigation
Cognitive
Developing an appropriate approach to
“I’m looking it up.”
Planner
a problem, developing goals that are
(S8, February 7, Line
(PLAN)
clear, shared, and include learning “to
222)
do” and “about”, planning and carrying
out an investigation, acting as a
researcher or investigator
Knower
(KNOW)
Cognitive
Constructing new knowledge,
“So cabinet is
expressing a mental representation of
something, no, the
the task, using inquiry language,
cabinet’s stronger
symbols, or skills in context,
than the premier
understanding instructions,
because they’re the
demonstrating an understanding of the
ones that chose him.”
goal of the task, expressing specialized
(S8, February 7, Line
or deep understanding of concepts and
133)
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
73
content, understanding key concepts,
proposing explanations based on
evidence, verbal expressions of
understanding including one-word or
simple phrase utterances that are
relevant to the content
Knowledge
Cognitive
Understanding how preconceptions
“I know what a
Connector
affect learning, offer explanations from
cabinet is but I don’t
(KC)
a “store” of previous experience and
know what it is for the
knowledge gained as a result of ongoing
government.” (S7,
investigation, discussion of what has
February 7, Line 81)
been learned compared to what was
known before, connecting old and new
knowledge, applying previous
knowledge to new concepts
Negative
Negative
Reporting of individual or group
“It’s impossible to
Empowerer
Emotional
weaknesses, includes sarcasm, teasing,
work with you.” (S5,
put-downs, negative verbalizations
February 23, Line
(NEMP)
301)
Negative
Negative
Expressing a lack of motivation or self-
“Ok, who cares.” (S4,
Motivator
Emotional
motivation
April 18, Line 381)
Negative
Indication of not valuing or enjoying the “I don’t want to do
(NMOT)
Negator
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
(NEG)
Emotional
topic
74
Stephen Harper, just
because it’s probably
what everyone's
doing.” (S7, February
16, Line 87)
Observer
Cognitive
(OBSV)
Observing carefully instead of just
“April, whoa they’re
looking, noticing details, patterns,
on the same date.”
sequences, changes, similarities,
(S5, February 16, Line
differences, simply stating an
635)
observation about his or her own or
another’s work
Open-Minded
Social
Viewpoints: seeking different
“He’s not doing it like
Collaborator
viewpoints, comparing and contrasting
that.”
(OMC)
data with someone else’s, reflecting
(S7, February 16, Line
with adults and peers, anticipating and
317)
responding to arguments in opposition
to one’s view
Organizer
Cognitive
(ORG)
Locate, document, and organize relevant “And then on the
information, data, and evidence for
bottom we say
interpretation by self and others,
November 5th.” (S6,
organize the presentation of the project
February 16, Line
269)
Planner (PL)
Cognitive
Making plans, having different plans in
“But first let’s plan it
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
advance, having back-up plans
75
before. OK, now let’s
find good things that
recycling glass could
do that’s pirate-ish.”
(S1, April 29, Line
283)
Positive
Positive
Reporting of individual or group
“I like the way S5’s
Empowerer
Emotional
strengths and identifying areas to
doing it.” (S7,
improve upon
February 16, Line
(PEMP)
315)
Positive
Positive
Expressing motivation or self-
“I want it to be like,
Motivator
Emotional
motivation
really, really, really
(PMOT)
good.” (S1, April 29,
Line 25)
Questioner
Cognitive
(QUEST)
Asking questions verbally, using
“How does that affect
questions to lead to an investigation that
the government?” (S6,
generate or refines further questions or
March 14, Line 13)
ideas, questioning findings, follow-up
with further questions, asking relevant
questions for an appropriate audience
Reflector
Positive
A student reflects on or evaluates his or
“I want to have a
(REF)
Emotional
her inquiry experience, awareness of
house like that.” (S2,
how the inquiry experience affects him
April 29, Line 482)
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
76
or her personally, not necessarily an
overall statement about inquiry itself,
includes reflection on the current
activity or task, not related to
knowledge reflection
Rejecter (REJ)
Negative
Any negative dialog that relates to
“That doesn’t even
Emotional
interest (“This is really not interesting”)
make sense.” (S7,
February 16, Line
797)
Respectful
Social
Listener (RL)
Respect individuals and differing points
“I’ll tell you guys
of view, listening and discussing
what I found first but
respectfully, demonstrating patience
first let’s wait for S3
and S4. I found this.”
(S1, April 13, Line 1)
Responder
(RS)
Social
Clear communication among members
“Yes I do.” (S8,
or with teacher/researcher in a
February 7, Line 177)
cooperative sense, expressing agreement
or disagreement in a cooperative sense
(e.g., yes, no, I don’t know, maybe,
etc.), simple one-word communication
that is content neutral
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
Reviser (REV) Cognitive
77
Willingness to revise explanations and
“I can make a new
consider new ideas as knowledge is
one.” (S3, February
gained, keeping an open mind to
16, Line 26)
change, taking risks, displaying healthy
scepticism, persevering with ideas
Self Regulator
Cognitive
(SREG)
Divide tasks into do-able steps, make a
“Okay, these are the
concept map, restate or reformat the
ones you’re doing.
problem, brainstorm
You’re starting from
Johnny McDonald all
the way up to King
William Lyon
Mackenzie.” (S7,
February 16, Line
128)
Versatile
Cognitive
Expressing ideas in a variety of ways
“We can make it look
Representer
including journals, reporting about,
like a pirate map. We
(VR)
drawing, graphing, charting, be
can, like, maybe cut it
comfortable with existence of multiple
if we’re allowed.
approaches and multiple solutions
Make it look old and
we can take a picture
of a pirate map and
then--“ (S3, April 29,
Line 13)
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
78
The most frequent Group 1 role was Responder, whereas the most frequent Group 2 role
was Knower. The types of activities that Group 1 students completed lent themselves more to
social roles including developing a presentation to convince a younger audience about the
importance of recycling, brainstorming what could be made from recycled materials, and creating
a poster based on this brainstorming. These activities required extensive collaboration,
perspective-taking, communication, and flexibility or creativity, most of which are critical
characteristics for successful interpersonal relationships. For example, the role of AudienceAppropriate Communicator was adopted 365 times by Group 1 members and only once by Group
2 members, all mainly the result of Group 1’s discussions surrounding developing an oral
presentation targeted for a younger audience. Furthermore, many of these tasks involved
communicating knowledge to others, an inherently social task.
The types of activities that Group 2 students completed lent themselves more toward
cognitive roles and these activities included determining the structure of provincial government,
creating a drama tableau or pose that represents one of the characteristics of being an inquirer,
creating a timeline of when all the Canadian prime ministers held office, brainstorming answers
to questions posed about taxes, creating an oral presentation about the accomplishments of a
specific prime minister, and writing a letter to the mayor of the city of what could be changed or
created to help the families in the community. These tasks tended to be much more contentfocused, and therefore correlated more with cognitive roles.
A few particularly telling transcript examples summarized the dichotomy between the
social and cognitive roles. The first example involved Group 1 putting together an oral
presentation for a younger class and the second example involved Group 2 students answering
several different questions about government taxes. These examples provide the spoken dialog
as well as the associated code:
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
RS
79
S42: I don’t think we have to memorize. I think we are writing on. Oh yeah, we’re
getting cue cards. 00:02:11-2
RS
S44: We just have to say “Howdy!” 00:02:13-8
CBR
S42: Who is choosing who does what? 00:02:16-2
CBR
S44: Ya, who is choosing? 00:02:18-3
AAC
S43: Hello random citizens! 00:02:21-8
AAC
S41: Yeah, but I don’t think they’d like to be called that. And they’re gonna say, “Mrs.
X (teacher’s name), what does ‘random’ mean?” 00:02:29-6
(Group 1, April 13, 2011, Lines 34 to 39)
KNOW
S61: Ok wait, salaries are like, for salaries we have teachers, doctors and-- 00:03:58-8
CC
S54: Who cares? It’s the same as salaries. 00:04:00-8
KNOW
S62: Education. Yes we have to pay bills for education. 00:04:05-6
DCM
S54: I put salaries. We don’t need to say who we pay salaries for. 00:04:08-0
RS
S62: Education. Yeah, sorry I thought you put an “A.” 00:04:13-2
KNOW
S53: Education. X 00:04:17-8
KNOW
S62: Yeah because the government has to pay for the education. 00:04:22-8
QUEST
S54: Pay tax on education? 00:04:21-5
KNOW
S54: No we don’t. 00:04:23-3
CC
S62: No, like if something goes wrong with the school, the government has to pay
taxes for the electricity or whatever’s the problem. 00:04:30-0
CC
S54: Electricity is not education. 00:04:32-4
CC
S53: The government doesn’t pay taxes. If the government paid taxes, they’d just be
paying themselves. 00:04:36-5
(Group 2, February 21, 2011, Lines 86-97)
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
80
This example of a typical Group 1 discussion centered on deciding group-work
responsibilities, planning how to carry out the task, and the group members also considered the
younger audience’s perspectives by carefully selecting the vocabulary for the presentation.
Group 2 discussions tended to focus more on the content, brainstorming, and deciding on correct
answers to the task questions.
The variability of student and teacher roles that were adopted by both groups tended to be
quite cyclical and no distinct linear pattern was observed (see Figures 2 and 3). This suggests
that the nature of daily activities may have directly influenced the types and numbers of roles.
Figure 2. Number of different roles adopted at each time point for each teacher. Time points
range from February to April, 2011.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
81
Figure 3. Number of different roles adopted at each time point for each group of students. Time
points range from February to April, 2011.
Influence of Individual Teacher Personalities and Teaching Style on Role Diversification
Individual teacher personalities and teaching styles also impact the numbers and nature of
roles adopted. Turner and Meyer (2000) discussed the Flanders (1970) scale and how that study
of classroom climate through the coding of observational data provided one of the first
examinations of classroom context or environment. Flanders had concluded that teacher
flexibility positively related to student attitude and achievement.
When asked to provide their own definition of inquiry teaching and learning, T1 wrote,
“allowing the students to ask questions and then as an educator guiding them to find the answers.
Inquiry teaching makes learning more authentic because the students are making connections to
their own experiences” (T1, February 7). T2 defined inquiry teaching as:
A method by which teachers guide their students to become inquirers, thinkers,
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
82
communicators and to be reflective. They become the guiding force behind lessons.
Through the use of various resources they research and discover, independent of the
teacher, the answers to guiding questions they are curious about. (T2, February 7, 2011)
Both of these definitions demonstrated a complex understanding of inquiry-based
environments, both teachers were implementing their first full classroom-based inquiry units and
therefore, the level of inquiry knowledge and understanding was considered to be relatively equal
between these two teachers. Although there were similarities in levels of inquiry knowledge,
teaching styles did differ. These differences impacted the numbers and nature of the roles
adopted by each teacher. Before examining examples, information will be provided regarding
teaching style based on interview responses.
When asked what the teacher’s role is in developing the classroom environment, T1
described playing a large role in developing the classroom environment and establishing routines.
T2 discussed the role of teaching the basics and then setting the students free to see what they
discover. Each teacher was also specifically asked about the role she played in the group’s
activities throughout the unit, how well she thought she did in that role, and if she would change
anything when mentoring another group in the future. T1 believed that her role involved setting
up guidelines and expectations for the task to ensure that each group member knew what he or
she was responsible for and what was expected of him or her. She provided an example of when
she originally thought that her students would be able to write up an oral presentation on their
own. She soon realized that she needed to provide some more scaffolding, and developed a
sample script to help the students get started on their presentation because she had noticed they
were “bogged down in the details.” She decided to use the script idea because the students had
experience working with scripts from previous activities outside of her classroom. Once T1 had
overcome this obstacle, she viewed her role as being there to monitor, supervise, keep students on
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
83
track, and be there to answer any questions or help them navigate group arguments or
confrontations. When asked how she felt she had done in her role and if she would change
anything, she described the difficulties in being in several different places at once and feeling bad
about having to shorten her time with one group to ensure she made it to every group. She
described that in the future to improve effectiveness, she would call groups to her desk one at a
time to check in for equal amounts of time and to ask questions and monitor their progress. She
also would have altered how she presented the requirements for the final unit project in order to
make it less complicated. She would make the instructions clearer because she felt that she
“overestimated [their ability] to synthesize all that information but they are only in Grade 4.”
When asked how she balanced her expertise with allowing the groups to be independent, she
mentioned that she really did trust her students and did let them move forward without
intervening too much, but felt that it was really important for her to explain everything and then
send them off to see what they could accomplish on their own, and if that did not go well, she
would tweak it for the next time.
When asked about the role T2 played in the group’s activities as they worked, she
responded that she “hovered” because the group did not need her to guide them through
activities, but they did need her to make sure that everyone in the group was listened to. T2 also
indicated that she did not hover as much as she might have normally because of the presence of
the researcher and wanting the researcher to see how the group interacted. She explained how
she took on a guiding role and provided examples of questions she asked to the group including
“Did you hear what she was saying,” or “Why is it that you feel as strongly about that?” T2 felt
that she would not change anything if she were to mentor this group again and indicated that she
would let them be who they are and see where that leads. When asked how she balances her
expertise with allowing the groups to be independent, T2 provided the example of being able to
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
84
tell when a student is frustrated and knowing at that point that some form of teacher interaction is
required, but acknowledged that students need to cope with a certain level of disagreement and
frustration and be able to “work things out.” She also described how if she noticed that things
were not going well, then she would have a classroom discussion about working together as a
group. She described stopping the class at one point and saying to them, “What are your roles as
members of a group, because you are not [working individually] right now.” She also described
posing reflective questions to the class such as “What does it mean to compromise?”
Overall, responses about the teacher’s role in the classroom may be consistent with
teaching experience. T2 was in her twenty-third year of teaching and may have felt more
comfortable hovering--perhaps not the word an observer might have chosen, but intended to
mean keeping an active and close eye on what is happening while maintaining some distance, and
allowing her groups to work through activities with minimal guidance or intervention, unless the
nature of the discussion was considered by her to require intervention. T1, on the other hand,
seemed to emphasize equal and consistent monitoring and supervision of groups, setting up
guidelines and expectations, and answering questions in closer proximity. Furthermore, T2 felt
that she would not have changed anything if mentoring another group in the future, indicating a
certain confidence in her teaching style, whereas T1 did indicate areas she would have changed,
including developing a better method to more equally monitor group progress.
When students were asked how their teacher helped them with the unit, the answers from
students in Group 1 included answering questions and explaining, and providing ideas for a
presentation or examples. The answers from the students in Group 2 included providing hints or
tips, asking questions, acting as a helper when stuck, providing books, or through direct teaching.
The responses from both groups suggest several characteristics of an inquiry-teaching
environment, including question asking as a method of helping students, directing students to
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
85
resources, or providing hints or ideas.
When examining role frequencies for teachers, the numbers of different roles that were
adopted by each teacher or the role variability was relatively similar for both teachers. In other
words, each teacher adopted relatively similar numbers of different roles across different time
points (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Number of different roles adopted at each time point for each group of students. Time
points range from February to April, 2011.
A closer examination into the nature and frequencies of each role uncovered some
interesting differences. Of the 19 different role categories for teachers (see Table 3 for full role
descriptions with transcript examples), T1 showed the same or highest frequencies of roles across
42% of the categories, whereas T2 took on the same or highest frequencies of roles across 63% of
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
86
the categories.
Table 3
Teacher Inquiry Roles With Associated Descriptions and Examples
Teacher
Role Type
Role Description
Example (from transcript)
Active
Positive
Teacher addresses student needs
“OK so S2, flip your card and I
Helper
Emotional
Role
want you to use your notes to
(AH)
go through the steps of
recycling on the back.” (T1,
April 20, Line 324)
Active
Positive
Listening to student comments and
“Just be careful because certain
Listener
Emotional
becoming aware of misconceptions
things are companies
(AL)
themselves. HydroQuebec is
its own company.” (T2,
February 21, Line 54)
Animator
Cognitive
(ANM)
Encouraging communication skills
“So there has to be lots of
like listening and talking
discussion to figure out where
things go. (T2, February 7,
Line 5)
Connector
(CONN)
Cognitive
Using primary sources of info
“Okay, here’s the website.”
rather than textbooks, using
(T2, February 16, Line 31)
resources from inside and outside
the school setting, encouraging use
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
87
of concept maps and drawing
models to explain and demonstrate
newly acquired knowledge, using
investigations to anchor new
information to previous
Co-Owner
Cognitive
(CO)
Student and teacher share decision
“Did he die in 1878, 1891, oh I
making, share co-ownership of the
didn’t know that!” (T2,
question, share construction of the
February 16, Line 872)
curriculum
Encourager Positive
Encourages students to construct
“You can make it funny or you
(ENC)
own investigations, encourages
can stay on more of a serious
creative risk-taking
tone. It’s up to you.”
Emotional
(T1, April 13, Line 15)
Facilitator
Cognitive
(FCL)
Acting as a facilitator, mediator,
“How it will benefit families in
initiator, and coach while modelling the community and youths is
the behaviours of inquiry
very important in your letter.
That’s how you are selling it to
the city. You could have this
great idea but if it’s only going
to benefit you, they’re not
going to go for it.” (T2, March
16, Line 323)
Flexible
Cognitive
Focused yet flexible lessons, lesson
“I don’t want to hear that
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
88
Classroom
follows path of student questions,
somebody said in my group it
Manager
keeping students on task by having
must be at the bottom and you
(FLEX)
them support their findings through
just followed blindly. Okay?
debates, challenges and questions
Ask questions. If that person
conclusions
really doesn’t know, then
figure it out.” (T2, February 7,
Line 267)
Informer
Positive
Teacher acts as a mentor or tutor,
“Draw your material here. And
(INF)
Emotional
provides information, encourages
then start. You know what to
honest criticism of ideas
look for.” (T1, April 29, Line
339)
Motivator
Positive
Positive reinforcement for student
“Good. Keep going. Few more
(MOT)
Emotional
contributions, good work in
minutes.” (T2, February 21,
cooperative groups, and praise for
Line 135)
persistence
Nurturer
Positive
(NURT)
Emotional
Providing feedback that is sensitive
“You never know, maybe it
will go quickly and you will
be.” (T1, April 13, Line 265)
Positive
Cognitive
Establishing routines for group
“Yes, you’re staying on track.
Classroom
interaction, maintaining appropriate
You’re looking for what’s
Manager
classroom management by
made out of recycled materials.
(PCM)
displaying rules in a positive way,
Not who will be on American
includes re-iterating rules for task
Idol tonight or what time
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
89
SpongeBob Square pants is on
. . . You’re staying on track,
you’re sharing the computer,
those are all really good
suggestions. What else should I
see next time you meet in your
groups for those 20 minutes?
You only have 20 minutes.
X(student name)?” (T1,
February 16, Line 289)
Questioner
(QUES)
Cognitive
Posing prompts, initiating
“OK, anything else in the
classroom discussion and discourse
definition of a sovereign?” (T2,
by asking starter questions and
February 7, Line 347)
posing thought-provoking questions
throughout the lesson, asking
questions that require criticalthinking skills, holding longer
pauses to allow for students to
respond, clarifying and rephrasing
student questions and responses
rather than divulging answers,
asking follow up questions to
student answers
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
Rover
Cognitive
(ROV)
Scaffolder
Cognitive
(SCAF)
90
Moving about the classroom and
“Alright girls, how’s it going?”
rotating to each small group
(T1, February 16, Line 128)
Progress: assessing prior
“Boys and girls, the cabinet
knowledge before starting a lesson
should mean something to you,
or unit of study and using student’s
we just learned that Mr.
prior knowledge as a basis for
Kelley’s part of the cabinet so
introducing new concepts, assessing it should mean something to
student performance in a variety of
you.” (T2, February 7, Line
forms and monitoring student
127)
progress continuously, helping
students assess their own progress
Student-
Positive
Making learning meaningful by
“So, let’s see. Oh! You guys
Interest
Emotional
exploring student interests
are putting some--“ (T1,
Explorer
February 16, Line 131)
(SIE)
Teacher-
Positive
Teacher explores his or her own
“ Oh! See—repeat that again. I
Interest
Emotional
interest
want to hear that. I thought
Explorer
that was interesting.” (T1,
(TIE)
February 21, Line 19)
Time
Manager
(TIME)
Cognitive
Using time efficiently and flexibly,
“Ok, we have two minutes left
providing required time
for this morning.” (T2, March
16, Line 330)
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
Valuer
Positive
(VAL)
Emotional
Valuing student responses
91
“Oh like organics! OK, it could
help enrich the soil— yes.”
(T1, February 21, Line 6)
Therefore, although the variability in terms of the numbers of different roles that were
adopted by each teacher was similar, T2 had higher frequencies within more of the role
categories compared to T1. In other words, both teachers adopted similar numbers of different
roles, however, T2 tended to adopt each role more often.
In the following section, only role frequency differences of 25% or more between groups
were discussed. The most obvious difference was with the Questioner role (initiating classroom
discussion and discourse by asking starter questions and posing thought-provoking questions
throughout the lesson), in which T2 adopted this role a total of 133 times compared to T1 who
adopted this role in 29 instances. This was also consistent with teacher descriptions of the roles
that they felt they adopted in the classroom. T2 also more frequently adopted the Nurturer
(providing feedback that is sensitive), Active Listener (listening to student comments and
becoming aware of misconceptions), Informer (teacher acts as a mentor or tutor by providing
information), Flexible Classroom Manager (keeping students on task by having them support
their findings through debates, challenges, and questioning conclusions), Connector (using
primary sources of information rather than textbooks, or using resources from inside and outside
the school setting), Scaffolder (assessing prior knowledge before starting a lesson or unit of study
or using student’s prior knowledge as a basis for introducing new concepts), Co-Owner (student
and teacher share decision making), Positive Classroom Manager (maintaining appropriate
classroom management by displaying rules in a positive way), Time Manager (using class time
flexibly and efficiently), and Animator roles (encouraging communication skills like listening or
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
92
talking; see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Frequencies of teacher roles summed across all time points.
A good example of T2 adopting the Flexible Classroom Manager role occurred during
instructions for a group activity that involved putting the provincial structures of government in
order, “I don’t want to hear that somebody said in my group it must be at the bottom and you just
followed blindly. Okay? Ask questions. If that person really doesn’t know, then figure it out”
(T2, February 7, Line 267).
T1 more frequently adopted the Student-Interest Explorer (making learning meaningful
by exploring student interests), Teacher-Interest Explorer (teacher explores his or her own
interests), Motivator (positive reinforcement for student contributions or praise for persistence),
Active Helper (teacher addresses student needs), Rover (moving about the classroom and rotating
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
93
to small groups), and Facilitator Role (acting as a facilitator, mediator, initiator, and coach while
modelling the behaviours of inquiry). The largest difference of these was the Facilitator role, in
which T1 adopted this role a total of 24 times, versus T2 who adopted the role a total of 6 times
(see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Frequencies of teacher roles summed across all time points.
A good example of T1 adopting a Facilitator role occurred when T1 was rotating around
to each group to determine their progress on putting together the oral presentation to the younger
grades about the importance of recycling:
You’re still on S1’s question? Well it doesn’t stop you, S2, from writing on the back of
your cue card, maybe the different steps of recycling. So you have your first question on
the front and maybe the recycling process on the back. (T1, April 20, Line 314).
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
94
T1 adopting the facilitator role was evident in transcripts, but also during an interview
response when T1 described how the group’s “expertise is more than mine at this point because
they really delved into that particular material so even for me, I am learning new things” (T1,
April 27). Here, T1 was modeling the skills of learning and investigating, breaking down the
traditional hierarchical student-teacher relationship in which the teacher is the expert.
When examining the Active Listener and Active Helper roles, an interesting difference
emerged. T2 more frequently adopted the Active Listener role, whereas T1 more frequently
adopted the Active Helper role (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Frequencies of the teacher roles Active Listener and Active Helper summed across all
time points.
This is consistent with students’ comments regarding how their teacher helped them with
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
95
the unit. Group 1 felt that T1 answered questions, explained, and provided ideas (actively
helping) versus Group 2 who felt that T2 asked questions, provided books, or provided hints
(involving more active listening than active helping). This difference may be explainable based
again on years of teaching experience. T2 may have attained some level of comfort and
confidence with listening and letting the students work out a difficulty before actively moving in
to help the students. She also expressed this as described in the above interview summaries about
teacher roles. T1 on the other hand may have been quicker to provide active help in a time of
difficulty.
Some roles were adopted by T1 but not by T2 and vice versa. For example, T1 but not T2
adopted the roles of Student-Interest Explorer, and Teacher-Interest Explorer. T2, but not T1
adopted the roles of Flexible Classroom Manager, Connector, and Co-Owner. Overall, the most
frequent teacher role for both teachers was Questioner.
Influence of Individual Differences on Role Diversification
The classroom milieu is partly shaped by the individual differences among its students.
Dörnyei (2009) defined individual differences as “attributes that mark a person as a distinct and
unique human being” (p. 231). Individual differences can include motivation, abilities, learner
styles, and learner strategies. These strategies refer to a learners’ selection of a particular
learning route and relate to engagement in the learning process. Individual differences also
impact the different roles that students adopt in the classroom setting. López (2007) defined
classroom student diversity as “the differences among a classroom’s students with regard to their
attributes, unique learning needs, and modes of knowledge and skill acquisition” (p. 31). López
also defined classroom student diversification as “the process that occurs when a principal
assigns students to classrooms from these sources of student diversity” (p. 31).
During teacher interviews, additional insight was gained regarding the different
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
96
personalities of each student. According to T1, the students in Group 1 were very self-motivated,
showed interest in completing the tasks at hand, worked well together, listened effectively to each
other, were respectful of each other’s opinions, contributed equally, and were regularly
conscientious of their audience. On this point, T1 stated:
They have concern . . . Some of the other groups wouldn’t worry or even think that they
could frighten the kids but . . . they have concern for others, they have that empathy and
that’s . . . amazing to see at 10 years old. (T1, April 27)
She also added that the members knew each other well and were comfortable working
together. At least half of the group members were also identified as enjoying participation in
group discussion. T1 indicated that these students were high achievers and were not as likely to
be risk takers. “Sometimes they are not as much risk takers as I would like them to be. They get
a little hung up on doing something maybe wrong, so they like to check in and ask a lot.”
T2 provided more specific information about the individual personalities of Group 2
members. She discussed selecting the group members specifically for their strong personalities
and because they were outgoing and opinionated, which led to conflict when making
compromises and decisions as a group. Overall, these students were very strong-headed, with the
exception of S8. These students were animated and were not afraid to express their opinions,
however, this often led them to clash at times, similar to the ways adults with strong personalities
will clash. T2 saw this as a need to learn how to interact with one another. To facilitate this, she
reported taking each member aside individually to discuss this concept:
You need to work with everyone in this classroom. So if there’s something going on and
if you both want something strongly, plead your case and then compromise. . . . . Not
everybody is that headstrong but these are bright kids who have . . . opinions that they are
not ready to let go of, which I love! (T2, April 1, 2011)
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
97
Specifically, T2 described S5 as extremely bright, creative, and artistic, S7 who tries to be
a leader and express herself but this sometimes comes across as rough, S6 who does not know
how to give and fights for what she wants, and S8, whom she described as meek but wise beyond
his years, someone who wants to fit in very badly, has difficulty making decisions, and who also
had the hardest time getting through and being heard within the group.
T2 also reported how these personalities sometimes created challenges for the group and
described an incident in which S6 erased S7’s name with white-out on one of their group
activities because she felt that S7’s name did not deserve to be on this activity because S6 felt
that she herself had done all of the work. This is an example of the “free rider” effect that occurs
frequently in group-work situations; in this instance, S6 took a stand after feeling like the
“sucker” of the group (Orbell & Dawes, 1981). Another example was when S5 had a
confrontation with S8 because, as T2 explained, “it was not related to an activity they were doing
. . . they had just been together too long and got on each other’s nerves.” The incident ended up
in tears for both students, one student feeling as though he had been bullied, and the other student
feeling bad about being perceived as a bully. T2 then talked about how she had intervened in this
situation and the importance of showing patience with other people and working on getting along
together. She described how she
wish[ed] that they would give each other a chance and because they have strong
personalities, they can become really positive leaders but they have to learn to accept . . .
others’ shortcomings. They have to learn how to express themselves. (T2, April 1, 2011)
A good example of the different personalities within this relationship emerged during
group interactions. S5’s frustration with S8 and S8’s lower level of strong-headedness was
evident when S5 said, “It’s about the Tory members of Parliament? Okay. Why couldn’t you
just tell me that?” (S5, February 23, Line 339). S8 responded, “I was going to but you talked
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
98
over me while I was about to say something” (S8, February 23, Line 340).
The individual personalities of each group member therefore influenced the numbers and
nature of the roles that were adopted within each classroom. Overall, S3 took on the highest
frequency of roles across time and groups, whereas S4 took on the lowest frequency of roles
across time and groups. When looking at specific roles overall across groups, there were some
obvious differences in the amount that certain roles were adopted by each group. Group 1
students more often adopted social or positive emotional roles involving communication,
collaboration, perspective taking, positive interest in the topic, and motivation. Group 2 students
more often adopted negative emotional or cognitive roles involving either negative verbalizations
or constructing new knowledge (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Frequencies of student roles summed across all time points and by group
Within each group, there were individual differences in the numbers and types of roles
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
99
that were adopted. Within Group 1 students, S3 took on the same or highest frequency of roles
compared to her group members in 54% of role categories. S2 took on the same or highest
frequency of roles compared to her group members in 30% of role categories, whereas S4 took on
the fewest number of roles in 75% of the role categories. S3 more frequently adopted roles
involving collaborating with adult or peers effectively, clearly communicating, sharing learning
in appropriate ways for a target audience, seeking different viewpoints, being curious, valuing the
topic, asking questions, and developing hypotheses. The majority of these roles are social and
emotional in nature, compared to some of the more knowledge-based roles including Evaluator or
Critical Thinker. For example, S3, when discussing the organization of a presentation for a
younger class, asked her fellow group member, “So S1, S1, is it ok if you’re last saying your
name?” (S3, April 18, Line 141). Surprisingly, when this group was interviewed and asked if
there was a leader in their group, only one member identified S3 as the leader, most agreed that
there was no real leader or that they each took turns being the leader of the group.
When examining differences within Group 2, although each member adopted
approximately the same frequency of roles overall, S6 adopted the same or highest frequency of
roles in 11 out of 31 role categories (35%). For example, S6 adopted roles involving
collaborating with adult or peers effectively, valuing the topic, reporting individual or group
weaknesses, and finding data more often than her group members, but also took on the role
involving seeking different viewpoints the least often. S7 adopted the highest frequency of roles
in 32% of role categories, S5 adopted the highest frequency of roles in 19% of categories, and S8
adopted the highest frequency of roles in 13% of the categories. S8 took on the roles of
Responder and Knower more often than his other group members. In addition, S5 more often
took on the roles of Knower and Content Collaborator (comparing and contrasting content with
someone else’s or anticipating and responding to arguments in opposition to one’s view about the
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
100
content). S8 took on the role of Negative Empowerer the least often, which is consistent with his
less opinionated personality, and S5 took on the role of Affirmer least often. S7 took on the least
number of Knower roles, S6 the least number of Hypothesizer and Content Collaborator roles.
Although many different roles were being adopted in each class, the nature of these roles differed
in relation to the different personalities of members. In terms of role variability, out of the 33
different role categories, S1, S3, and S6 tied for taking on the most number of different roles at
27, and S5 took on the fewest number of roles at 20, followed by S4 at 22, S8 at 23, and S2 at 26.
Influence of Group Selection and Group Dynamics on Role Diversification
The individual personalities of group members directly contributed to the group
dynamics. Initial group selection based on personality can be an important consideration when
creating effective work groups. Group 1 students were self-selected and were friends heading
into the unit, whereas Group 2 students were selected by T2 to be representative of the population
of students in her class and were not previously friends. When asked during interviews to
describe what the teachers remembered best about how the group worked together and also about
the strengths of the group, T1 indicated that the group was optimistic and enthusiastic, and were
regularly on task and seemed excited to be working. Strengths included the group’s selfmotivation, independence, knowing what they wanted, and engagement with the activities. T2
mentioned the creativity of the group’s ideas as something she remembered best; she also
identified this as a core strength of the group.
When commenting on the group work dynamics and why the teachers felt the students
worked well together, T1 indicated that allowing the students to choose with whom they wanted
to work was important and led this particular group to be quite comfortable working together.
With high ability to discuss and express ideas, members contributed more or less equally, they all
wanted to succeed, and were willing to help each other if they were not at the same level of
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
101
understanding. Furthermore, T1 stated:
They are such a pleasant group. They never had any conflict; they were always able to
work things out. And usually, if they didn’t agree on something, they ended up laughing
about it . . . I mean, sometimes we don’t even see that with adults. (T1, April 27, 2011)
T2 commented that she felt the group did work well together or accomplish all of their
tasks and, although they required guidance at times, other groups required this as well.
Students also responded to interview questions about the group-work dynamics. When
asked if they thought that they worked well with the others in their group, T1 students all
responded that yes, they did work well together, specifically including that they remained on
topic, did not fight, liked each other, sometimes argued but overall were a good group, and
mentioned being friends for a long time. When asked if they felt that the group argued a lot and
if so, if the arguing was helpful in any way, only S2 indicated that they argued a little bit over
“what we should do” and also mentioned that she did not know if the arguing was helpful or not.
When further questioned if the group spent more time in discussion or more time actively
working on completing the activities, S4 mentioned how the group talked a lot, and did not get as
much work done as they had wanted to because they would be “talking and trying to figure out
things and then before we know it . . . it’s almost time to go” (S4, April 18, 2011).
Group 2 student responses were more mixed and acknowledged the conflict that was
present within the group. S5 stated, “I don’t really like the people as friends in the group so it
was harder to work with them but I think I did okay.” S6 and S7 both acknowledged the conflicts
and difficulties they had with each other. S8 commented “some yes and some no” and indicated
that some group members were mean. Members were then asked more specifically if they felt
that the group argued a lot and if this arguing was helpful in any way. S5 and S6 indicated that
they thought the group argued a lot, S7 said “not really” and S8 responded “sometimes.” S5
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
102
reported that this arguing was not helpful “because it slowed us down and it just made sure . . .
we couldn’t be friends. . . . I don’t think anyone wanted to be friends.” S6 further commented
that “the arguing in our group wasn’t really . . . good arguing . . . and usually the girls won.” S7
indicated that this arguing was only helpful at times and S8 indicated that the arguing was helpful
to determine if the answer was right or wrong.
The differences in group dynamics between these two groups were also evident within
daily log responses that were completed by students and occasionally also by teachers. When
Group 1 and 2 students were asked on February 21, 2011 what they enjoyed most about working
on their activities that day, Group 1 student responses seemed to focus more on the social
enjoyment, in addition to learning new content, whereas Group 2 student responses focused more
on the content that was learned that day. For example, S1 wrote, “I like learning all the small
facts about the environment (and recycling). It was fun finding out things with my group. I was
a little happy to see people liked my idea on how to show the work.” S2 wrote, “It was fun to
find out all these cool things. It was fun to be in a group with all your friends.” S3 wrote, “I
liked it when we were joking around. I also liked it when we found good websites. I also liked
when we presented it. Finally, S4 commented using the netbooks, learning and having fun.
Group 2 students on the other hand indicated enjoying deciding on what taxes pay for, and
hearing about different government costs.
On February 23, 2011, Group 2 students were asked what they enjoyed least about
working on the activities that day and the conflict was very evident within the log responses for
each of the students. S5 commented, “the fact that S8 wasn’t listening to me.” S6 took the
opportunity to vent some frustration about a confrontation with S7:
The teacher talk[ing] to us about her [S7] taking my idea and saying we’re “the same.” I
didn’t really like this because she [S7] was saying much worse things than I did but I
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
103
didn’t say anything bad. I told her to stop politely and she did not. I was really sad when
she was calling me bad names because I found most of the information and she did not
because she is jealous. I did not like this part of the day. And we are NOT THE SAME!
(S6, February 23, 2011, Student Log Entry)
S7 similarly identified the disagreement with S6 as the least favorite part of the activities,
and S8 commented “that my partner [S5] doesn’t do a lot of work and that I do most of the
work.” This latter statement was an additional indication that the free-rider effect was in play
within Group 2 (Orbell & Dawes, 1981).
By February 23rd, 2011, it was noticed that the group tended to split into pairs when
working on group activities, the two boys and two girls each working together. Despite these
smaller groupings that formed within the larger group, the conflict became intense enough to
require teacher intervention. T2 described thinking to herself, “We were close to the end of the
unit, let’s separate them. And I actually asked them who they thought they would work best with
. . . . So because of those four, I changed all of the groups.” After this decision, T2 moved the
students to different groups and tables, however, the original groups were reformed during unit
activities involving researcher observation.
There were certain roles that were taken on by some groups but not by others. For
example, Group 2 students but not Group 1 students adopted the roles of Knowledge Connector,
Self-Regulator (dividing tasks into do-able steps), and Critical Thinker, whereas Group 1 students
but not Group 2 students adopted the roles of Versatile Representer (expressing ideas in a variety
of ways) and Generalizer (assessing the generalizability of ideas to larger questions and others’
interests). Again, Group 2 students tended to take on more cognitive roles such as Knowledge
Connector and Critical Thinker, whereas Group 1 students tended to adopt roles that included
social components, such as Generalizer or relating ideas to other’s interests.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
104
The group dynamics were distinctly related to the numbers and nature of the roles that
were adopted within each classroom. Group 1 students tended to more frequently adopt positive
emotional roles, versus Group 2 students who tended to more frequently adopt negative
emotional roles. Changes in roles occurred before and after T2 separated the members of Group
2. For example, the frequency of the Negative Empowerer role amongst Group 2 students
decreased substantially from 34 instances on February 23, 2011 to 8 instances on March 14,
2011. The groups were separated around February 23rd, 2011. On the other hand, the frequency
of the Affirmer role increased from 5 instances before the split, to 8 instances after the split, the
frequency of the Knower role increased from 12 to 27, the frequency of the Hypothesizer role
increased substantially from 4 to 33, and the frequency of the Content Collaborator role
(involving perspective taking) also increased substantially from 13 to 74.
Furthermore, within the role of Negative Empowerer, the quality of the statements
between the groups differed. For Group 1, in many cases, their disagreements may have helped
contribute to furthering their understanding and many of their statements may have been stated as
jokes among group members, but this was not overtly known due to the personal subtleties of the
nature of their interactions as a result of the longstanding friendships. For example:
NEMP
S42: It’s right there! God, S43! 00:02:26-5
No code S41: S42. 00:02:32-0
NEMP
S43: Well at least I don’t look like a hillbilly! 00:02:35-9
NEMP
X: Okay, S41 just randomly said “Let go of me you stinkin’ hillbilly!” 00:02:42-2
CBR
X: What? 00:02:41-8
IT
S43: I’m going to go find fact. 00:02:45-6
EVAL
S44: It doesn’t say in the introduction “Fun Facts.” 00:02:48-9
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
105
CMR
S41: Find out more. It’s there. 31. 00:02:55-9
ROV
T1: How’s it going here? Good guys? Yeah? 00:03:02-7
RS
X: Yeah. 00:03:05-1
AFF
S41: We’re having a good time. (laughs) 00:03:07-0
(Group 1, February 21, Lines 47-57)
Although the Negative Empowerer role was present in this exchange, a few statements
later, the group members indicated to T1 that they were having a good time. The quality of many
of their statements may have therefore been more playful in nature, despite still being coded as
negative verbalizations, whereas the statements in Group 2 had detrimental impacts on the
emotions of group members and these statements were therefore seen as more damaging to the
group interactions. For example, during a group activity that required members to put together
an oral presentation about the accomplishments of an assigned prime minister, S6 and S7 began
arguing about who would be responsible for which pieces of information, “Yes. Well I don’t
care. I saw it first. Write something else” (S6, February 23, Line 206). Another example was
when S5 said to S8, “It’s impossible to work with you” (S5, February 23, Line 301).
Conclusion
Inquiry classrooms are complex and dynamic teaching and learning environments. The
numbers and nature of roles that were adopted by each teacher and by the individuals within each
group differed, based on the classroom context, individual student and teacher personalities,
teaching styles, group selection, and group-work dynamics. Although teasing apart the specific
individual contributions of each variable was not possible, clear patterns emerged. The
collaborative nature of inquiry has an important influence on roles. For example, during the
process of group composition, allowing students to select their own members may have led to
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
106
less conflict and the adoption of more socially-based or positive emotional roles, such as that of
Collaborator.
Aulls and Hou (2008) observed that social roles were more present in classrooms with
less effective teachers, however, there was no apparent connection in the present study between
teacher competence and the distribution of social versus cognitive role-taking. These differences
were more likely connected to the decisions made regarding the formation of the groups (not an
outcome of competence differences), and the kinds of specific topics and activities in which the
students engaged following the teachers’ instructions or on their own initiatives.
In addition, for students who do not have a choice in the selection of their group
members, the free-rider effect may be more apparent, which may lead to the adoption of more
negative emotional roles, such as that of Negative Empowerer. These roles also correspond to
increased preferences for independent versus group work. Overall, the quality of the interactions
among group members and the group dynamics impact the number and nature of the different
roles that are adopted within a classroom.
The nature of the classroom task or activity also affects roles. Open-ended tasks may
lend themselves more to social roles, whereas information-seeking tasks may lend themselves
more to cognitive roles, such as that of Hypothesizer or Questioner. For example, an activity that
asks students to determine the structure of the provincial government might lead to more
hypothesizing compared to an activity that asks students to prepare a presentation on the
importance of the environment.
When considering individual differences of teachers and students, teachers with more
experience may feel more comfortable allowing students to work out difficulties on their own
before stepping in to help, whereas beginning teachers may be quicker to provide immediate
support and scaffolding. As for students, those with more outgoing personalities tend to adopt a
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
107
larger number of different roles and also adopt each role more frequently. Furthermore, those
students who are quite opinionated and outspoken tend to adopt roles that are more emotional in
nature, both positive and negative. These students also tended to ask more questions and seek out
information more often. Those students who were less opinionated may have been more likely to
adopt social roles such as Communicator, Open-Minded Collaborator, and Content Collaborator.
Inquiry was occurring within each classroom and this evidence emerged in different
forms through questionnaire data, interviews, student and researcher log entries, and through an
analysis of transcripts and a discussion of roles. Although inquiry was evident in both
classrooms, the nature of this inquiry differed and therefore the nature and numbers of roles also
differed between the classes. This suggests that there is more than one way to implement inquiry
in the classroom and students and teachers who are new to inquiry can still achieve role
diversification. Although it was not possible to differentiate the relative contributions of each
variable on the nature of roles, roles are likely influenced by some combination of all.
Limitations
This is the first in-depth study to investigate the nature and numbers of different roles
adopted within inquiry settings through transcript analysis of group interactions. Although the
sample size was small, it allowed for an in-depth analysis of the role processes occurring within
each group. Additional research will need to replicate this study in order to further validate the
observations and conclusions. Although two school-wide inquiry projects were completed in the
school in the previous two or three years, for both teachers, it was their first full classroom-based
unit of inquiry. Future research would benefit from an examination of teachers and students with
widely varied experiences in inquiry settings.
An additional limitation is that the repertoire of student and teacher roles is potentially
limitless and there may be additional roles within inquiry classrooms. Research of this nature
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
108
would also be beneficial in a traditional classroom setting, because it would allow for a
comparison of the nature and numbers of roles adopted within different types of classrooms.
There were differences in the amount of time that the groups were audiorecorded. Group
2 students were audiorecorded for an additional 42 minutes. In addition, sex differences may
have impacted the nature of roles. Group 1 students were all females, whereas there were equal
numbers of males and females within Group 2.
Implications
Teachers. There is not one specific method of implementing inquiry-based teaching and
learning practices in the classroom. Both experienced and beginning teachers have the ability to
understand and implement inquiry techniques and despite the differences within the categories of
student personalities, classroom activities, teacher personalities, and group dynamics, a host of
inquiry roles emerged for both students and teachers.
Often, teachers in their first few years of teaching are burdened with the demands of
transitioning to a classroom environment, and this responsibility can be overwhelming if also
implementing inquiry-based techniques that can at times differ dramatically from a traditional
teaching setting. Experienced teachers, in turn, face challenges in leaving behind highly teachercentered practices and ceding some roles to students. This may be related to the differences in
the natures of the roles observed in the students of the two groups. Teachers need to be provided
with information and support that will encourage use of inquiry-techniques early in one’s career.
A better understanding of different roles that are adopted within inquiry environments can inform
a teacher’s process of self-evaluation. Perhaps an observational checklist based on the above
described roles might help track the nature and numbers of roles that are adopted in the
classroom.
Furthermore, if the focus shifts toward addressing nonacademic outcomes, such as roles,
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
109
students who are currently not successful as measured through traditionally academic outcomes,
may now show success based on nonacademic measures. This may help overcome one of the
barriers of inquiry education related to difficulties monitoring student progress. Nonacademic
outcomes are, in fact, life-long skills that are strongly valued in the world of work, for example,
collaboration or team work, taking initiative, and critical-thinking skills.
Consultants. This research also has implications for consultants such as school
psychologists. A better understanding of the nature and numbers of roles in relation to
influencing variables such as classroom activities impacts the role of assessment and observation
in the classroom. For example, school psychologists need to be cognizant of how students
interact within inquiry classrooms and how these interactions vary. Furthermore, educational
planning needs to consider the larger repertoire of roles in inquiry compared to more traditional
settings. Furthermore, the nature of disputes needs to be closely considered before concluding
they are detrimental to classroom learning because certain disputes can be constructive.
Researchers. This research has implications for researchers in the field of inquiry-based
teaching and learning because inquiry roles may provide a window into the intricate learning
processes that occur in these environments. Furthermore, although this research did not focus on
academic outcomes, perhaps inquiry roles should be considered a nonacademic outcome for
assessing success of inquiry implementation. Ladwig (2010) stressed the need for an
examination of nonacademic outcomes and recognized difficulties in knowing which
nonacademic outcomes to promote.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
110
Chapter 4
Linking Text
The second (preceding) manuscript presented the bulk of the qualitative analysis of the
dissertation and, therefore, the third and final manuscript does not contain an extensive
methodology or reliability section. The reader was referred to the second manuscript (currently
resubmitted following acceptance subject to revisions that are included in this dissertation
version) for additional detail. A more extensive literature review was provided in the third
manuscript because the focus shifted to a particular aspect of roles and inquiry role
Diversification. The third (following) manuscript focused on social perspective-taking skills
because these skills are essential to success during social interactions and social interactions
occur frequently in inquiry environments because of increased group work opportunities. Results
again focused on the same classroom influences identified in the second manuscript. Social
perspective-taking roles varied depending on the different classroom influences and therefore
SPT skills were described as more fluid in nature than previous research has suggested. This
manuscript presented a more detailed follow-up to an interesting insight that was noted
throughout the data collection process. Table and figure numbers have been modified from the
submitted manuscripts so that they are sequentially numbered in this dissertation.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
111
Chapter 5
Eye of the Beholder: Investigating the Interplay between Inquiry Role Diversification
and Social Perspective Taking
Inquiry-based teaching and learning environments are distinctive learning settings, based
on social-constructivist principles. Inquiry refers to “making observations; posing questions;
examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning
investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to
gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and
communicating the results” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 23). Lee (2012) referred to
inquiry-guided learning as active learning involving inductive teaching and learning methods.
Student choice is also central within inquiry (Aulls & Shore, 2008; Clark & Shore, 2004).
A core part of inquiry involves social interaction. Aulls and Shore (2008) described how
the classroom culture is jointly constructed by teachers and students. Shore, et al. (2009)
provided a list of characteristics essential to inquiry literacy and several pertain to social
interactions or collaboration, for example: shared goals, co-owning knowledge, listening and
discussing respectfully, communicating clearly, asking relevant questions for an appropriate
audience, seeking advice from adult or peer mentors effectively, organizing information for
interpretation by self and others, positively valuing collaboration, and sharing the results of
inquiry with others. For example, Emily, a hypothetical inquiry student, is working in a group on
a poster about what can be made from recycled materials. As she researches on the computer,
she finds an interesting fact about how recycled glass is crushed and then mixed with road paint
to create greater reflectivity of lane markings at nighttime. After excitedly showing her group
members, she asks the teacher if she can come up to the front to share this fact with the rest of the
class. Emily not only has choice in terms of what particular aspects she researches, but she is
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
112
also seeking to share her knowledge with others.
Shore et al. (2009) also recognized that teachers adopt learner roles and vice versa.
Teacher roles can be defined as “actions, verbal interactions with students, and responsibilities
undertaken to support students’ participation in components of inquiry such as projects,
experiments, laboratories, hypothesizing, data collection, data analysis, dialog, theorizing, debate,
argument, and evidential reasoning” (Aulls & Shore, 2008, p. 14). Role exchanges among
teachers and students and among students have been conceptualized in inquiry as role shifts.
Crawford (2000) coined the term “collaborative inquiry” to refer to instruction that involves
“cognitive interactions between teacher and students with members of the community” (p. 933).
Collaborative inquiry requires different roles from a traditional classroom and Crawford
acknowledged that roles traditionally reserved for a teacher (e.g., knowledge provider) are
commonly adopted by students in inquiry-based teaching and learning environments. Students
take on a wider range of roles, requiring more complex and active involvement by the teacher.
Therefore, roles traditionally reserved for students are adopted by teachers (e.g., listener).
Collaboration is the primary method of developing conceptualizations of knowledge through a
process of shared learning.
Walker and Shore (2013) suggested that role shifts or exchanges could, in fact, be better
described as a process of role diversification and proposed a model that included four different
phases. Each phase exists along a continuum with no clear-cut boundaries between any two
phases. The Exploration phase involves learning implicit and explicit school and classroom
inquiry rules, which tend to differ from those in traditional classrooms. These differences can
lead to initial challenges for students. The Engagement phase involves initial participation as an
inquiry student. Students learn the specific and nuanced obligations of functioning as an inquiry
student, however, conflict can arise when traditional student expectations clash with inquiry
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
113
expectations, for example, disagreements among learners can be common within inquiry settings
and are not necessarily entirely disadvantageous. Stabilization is the third phase and involves
committing to one’s position or role as an inquiry student. The final phase of Diversification
involves adopting numerous roles within the classroom, for example, Reasoner or Explorer. The
length of phases is dependent on context, individual differences, and levels of scaffolding.
Role diversification involves not only social interaction but many of these roles also
require perspective-taking skills. In fact, what we now call perspective taking was originally
referred to as role taking. Selman (1971) described how role taking involves understanding other
individuals’ capabilities, attributes, feelings, and expectations, or the ability to see the world from
a different perspective. Selman and Byrne (1974) proposed four stages of role taking with each
stage indicating the attainment of more complex or advanced perspective-taking skills. These
stages move from Stage 0 (zero) or egocentric role taking, to subjective role taking, followed by
self-reflective role taking and finally, mutual role taking. Selman (1980) later added a fifth stage
to acknowledge the influences of deeper communication, expectations, and awareness and
changed the terminology of the stages from role taking to perspective taking.
The research question for the current study was: What is the relationship or interplay
between SPT skills and the adoption of numerous roles within inquiry classrooms? The different
forms of perspective taking will be described, followed by a type of perspective taking that
applies well to classroom settings, that of social perspective taking. To address the research
question, qualitative data were collected from two different classrooms. Comparisons between
two small working groups were primarily based on SPT roles identified through transcripts of
audiorecorded dialog.
Types of Perspective Taking
Perspective taking falls under the broader category of theory of mind and notably
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
114
involves placing oneself in another person’s proverbial shoes to understand what and how that
person is thinking and feeling (Berk, 1989). Chandler and Helm (1984) concluded that preschool
children are egocentric (Piaget, 1954) and are therefore rarely able to take the perspective of
someone else. Seven-year-olds also tended to exhibit egocentrism, particularly when the
experience was not shared. By the age of 11, children rarely if ever exhibited egocentrism.
Young adolescents have cognitive skills that continue to mature, and these skills allow for
perspective taking, even if the perspectives are unfamiliar.
At least five different types of perspective taking have been identified in the literature
including social (Johnson, 1975), conceptual (Pillow, 1989, 1995; Selman, 1971; Taylor, 1988),
academic (Gehlbach, 2011), affective (Dunn, Brown, Slomkowski, Tesla, & Youngblade, 1991),
and perceptual, visual, or spatial (Flavell, Everett, Croft, & Flavell, 1981; Flavell, Flavell, Green,
& Wilcox, 1980; Masangkay, McClusky, McIntyre, Sims-Knight, Vaughn, & Flavell, 1974;
Pillow, 1989; Rosser & Lane, 1993; Selman, 1971; Tarshis & Shore, 1991). Among these five,
social perspective taking was the primary focus for the current study.
Social Perspective Taking
Based on the different types of perspective taking listed above, social perspective taking
is the most relevant to classroom or group settings because classrooms are social settings that
provide numerous opportunities for individuals to interact in cooperative or collaborative ways.
These interactions require a certain degree of social perspective taking.
Social perspective taking (SPT) is defined as “the ability to understand how a situation
appears to another person and how that person is reacting cognitively and emotionally to the
situation. It is the ability to put oneself in the place of others and recognize that other individuals
may have points of view different from one’s own” (Johnson, 1975, p. 241).
There are several related conceptualizations of SPT including interpersonal negotiation
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
115
(how individuals meet personal needs during interactions with significant others during conflict
or disagreement--Mischo, 2005; Schultz, Yeates, & Selman, 1989), empathy (contains an
emotional component in addition to the cognitive component of perspective taking--Davis, 1983;
Stinson & Ickes, 1992), and interpersonal sensitivity (ability to use nonverbal cues to correctly
judge abilities, traits, and states of others--Carney & Harrigan, 2003). Empathy and interpersonal
negotiation will be discussed because they were directly incorporated into the data collection
tools for the current study.
Batson, Early, and Salvarani (1997) outlined two forms of SPT including imagining
another person’s perceptions and feelings about a situation (imagine other) or imagining one’s
own perceptions and feelings if placed in that same situation (imagine self). The former, in
particular, requires a certain degree of role shift or diversification. Abele and Wojciske (2007)
similarly determined that social judgements involve two dimensions, agency and communion.
Agency referred to social-information processing related to the perspective of self, and
communion related to the perspective of others.
Other approaches to studying perspective taking have included examining both cognitive
and emotional components. For example, Bernstein and Davis (1982) administered the
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) self-report questionnaire (Davis, 1980). The IRI examines
cognitive (taking another’s perspective and fantasizing) and emotional empathy (feeling
compassion or personally distressed for others). Individuals who scored highly on the IRI were
more accurate on a task that asked individuals to view subjects on a video tape and then match
these subjects with three-word self-descriptions. Therefore, frequently adopting another
individual’s perspective will lead to more accurate stereotypes.
More recently, Gehlbach extensively studied SPT and proposed a multidimensional
approach based on Richard Snow’s (1996) conceptualization of aptitudes. Gehlbach (2004)
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
116
recognized the motivational component of perspective taking in addition to the cognitive
component and acknowledged that empathy research overlooks the cognitive component
important to perspective taking. Gehlbach stressed the need to fully conceptualize social
perspective taking by considering the propensity to engage in SPT, cognitive abilities, situational
characteristics, outcomes of SPT attempts, and how outcomes impact other abilities including
conflict resolution. Traditionally, SPT accuracy has been studied with tasks involving two
individuals who are videotaped during an unstructured interaction. Afterward, each individual is
asked to report his or her thoughts and feelings at certain points during the replay of the video,
and then are asked about the thoughts and feelings of the other individual at these same points.
Accuracy of SPT ability is compared based on these independent descriptions. Gehlbach
concluded that higher SPT propensity should highly correspond to levels of motivation.
Furthermore, individuals with better emotional regulation skills should similarly more often
attempt perspective taking and show more accuracy, which can help facilitate conflict resolution.
Gehlbach also concluded that a higher propensity for perspective taking might correspond to
higher intelligence and that females may engage in SPT more frequently than males. Gehlbach
also identified features of SPT task designs that either facilitate or hinder SPT abilities (e.g.,
familiarity facilitates perspective taking).
Gehlbach, Brinkworth, and Wang (2012) defined a successful perspective taker as a
perceiver who “must first be motivated to try to understand one or more targets and then must
engage in a process that allows him or her to accurately ascertain the target’s mental state” (p.
199). They investigated the specific characteristics that motivate individuals to engage in SPT
because one’s motivation to engage in SPT might be more amenable to change compared to one’s
innate tendencies for SPT. Through surveys, performance tasks (video task as described in
Gehlbach, 2004), and semi-structured interviews, they determined that seven characteristics
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
117
considerably influenced participants’ motivation to engage in SPT, including targets or situations
that are especially important to the participant, prosocial goals, a desire for situational
knowledge, relationship goals, social influence, intrinsic interest, or a desire for self-knowledge.
Three characteristics negatively impacted SPT motivation: a lack of energy, hubris, and cognitive
load.
Social perspective taking in schools. School environments involve numerous ongoing
interactions with several different individuals, making SPT skills very relevant. Hale and Delia
(1976) administered a social perspective-taking task that asked university students to identify two
situations from the past year in which someone they cared about had hurt them or disappointed
them, or alternatively, someone whom they did not like had helped them. They were asked to
describe these situations in detail including the other person’s thoughts and feelings. Achieving a
high score on this task involved setting aside one’s own evaluative stance or attributional
orientation. The Role Category Questionnaire was also administered that asked participants to
produce written descriptions of one person they liked and one person they did not like. The
number of interpersonal constructs produced in the descriptions was representative of cognitive
complexity. Hale and Delia concluded that individuals who produced more complex
interpersonal constructs showed greater cognitive flexibility and therefore ease in shifting
attributional orientations. Shifting attributional orientations is similar to the process of adopting
new roles during the process of inquiry role diversification.
Gehlbach and Brinkworth (2012) applied SPT to social interactions in school
environments and proposed a taxonomy of SPT strategies. These strategies were categorized as
inferential strategies or information-cultivation strategies. Inferential strategies involved using
available information to make inferences, whereas information-cultivation strategies involved
attempts to obtain additional information to make inferences. They concluded that certain
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
118
strategies might be better suited to particular individuals, indicating implications for determining
the most appropriate SPT approaches for different individuals in the classroom.
LaMare and Rubin (1987) referred to Piagetian theory when describing how perspectivetaking ability develops as a result of interactions and exchange of information with others. Peer
sociability was related to perspective-taking abilities, more so among Grade 3 students compared
to Kindergarten students. A certain level of peer interaction was required to facilitate the
development of SPT; however, minimal improvements were noted as this ability improved
beyond a certain threshold. SPT skills did suffer if the levels of interaction were below the
threshold. Kohlberg (1969) proposed stages of social-personality development and determined
that one of the first prerequisites for role taking is participation in a group. This group
participation provides role-taking opportunities that facilitate moral development.
Gillespie and Richardson (2011) examined social perspective taking within cooperative
activities and how exchanging roles or social positions may allow the other individual to
experience the role demands for that person, therefore leading to less divergent perspectives.
Gillespie and Richardson differentiated between cooperative and collaborative activities by
describing how cooperative activities require a division of labor among members who adopt
different social positions. Furthermore, cooperation is required when faced with individual
differences. Collaboration, on the other hand, entails working together without differentiated
roles or responsibilities.
The theory of position exchange was defined as different from perspective taking because
cognitive perspective taking involves imagining another’s perspective without experiencing that
situation directly. Position exchange, however, refers to experiencing the situation of another
person directly, as is the case when adopting or exchanging roles during a cooperative activity.
They hypothesized that exchanging positions or roles would lead to greater perspective-taking
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
119
skills during a cooperative problem-solving task called the Communication Conflict Situation by
Blakar (1973). In this task, two individuals were provided with identical maps; however, only
one had a specific route outlined on it. The individual with the outlined route took on the role of
Director, while the other person took on the role of Follower. This cooperative task required the
Director to communicate the exact route to the Follower, who had to draw this route on his or her
map. Each participant was not allowed to see the other’s map; however, no other restrictions
were placed on communication. This was repeated for three trials and then a conflict situation
was introduced that changed a road on the Director’s map slightly compared to the Follower’s
map. Control conditions had participants maintain their same role throughout four trials,
however, in the position-exchange condition, Director and Follower roles were switched for the
second trial before reverting to the original roles for the remaining two trials. Position exchange
was determined to have a very powerful impact on perspective taking during the cooperative task.
In other words, no pairs successfully completed the task in the control condition but 55% of the
pairs were successful in the position exchange condition. They hypothesized that position
exchange reduced power asymmetry through the exchange of Director and Follower roles, or as a
result of self-attribution theory and the increased tendencies to blame the map instead of the
person. Concerns related to how this manipulation may have simply facilitated cognitive
perspective taking and therefore exchanging positions may not have had an impact.
In a second experiment to address this potential confound, the position-exchange
condition involved alternating roles across five trials. A cognitive-perspective-taking condition
was also introduced that asked participants to attempt to understand the task from the other
participant’s point of view in terms of thoughts, feelings, and expectations. Position exchange
still had a powerful impact on perspective taking beyond the possibility that this effect was the
result of priming cognitive perspective taking. In other words, there was no significant difference
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
120
in successful outcomes on the task between the control condition and the perspective taking
condition, however, there were significantly more solutions in the position exchange condition
compared to the control condition and the perspective-taking condition. They also determined
that exchanging roles twice was more effective than exchanging roles once. This relates well to
an inquiry classroom because roles are continually exchanged and adopted, perhaps facilitating
the development of social perspective-taking skills.
Barfurth and Shore (2008) examined social perspective taking within role exchanges
when they studied groups of four students working on science tasks. These tasks required
students to build a working Lego model to demonstrate mechanical advantage. Groups were
purposely organized to include strong-willed and soft-spoken members. Two different categories
of discourse were identified including social moves and cognitive moves. Social moves involved
discourse within the group, and cognitive moves occurred when one individual made a decision
based on another member’s suggestion. During arguments or disagreements among group
members, cognitive advances within the group were often dependent on a preceding social move.
For example, one social move involved a more strong-willed member asking the group to
consider one of the more soft-spoken member’s ideas. This instance of social perspective taking
involved a role exchange or diversification among the students in which one student adopted the
role of moderator. In addition, although it appeared that the groups were arguing and not acting
collaboratively, many of these disagreements facilitated knowledge construction.
Many disagreements in groups also relate to Orbell and Dawes’ (1981) free-rider effect.
A “free rider” is an individual who takes advantage of other’s efforts in a collaborative group in
order to minimize his or her own effort, while still reaping the benefits of the final outcome. A
“sucker” refers to that other individual who puts forth the considerable effort.
Student interest is central to inquiry environments and this interest can have an impact on
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
121
group dynamics. Gehlbach (2011) addressed student interest but also considered perspective
taking. He hypothesized that activities facilitating perspective taking should inherently facilitate
interest and engagement in social studies because perspective taking requires actively engaging in
taking on the perspective of someone else. Gehlbach differentiated between academic
perspective taking, “taking the perspectives of the historical and cultural figures they [students]
are studying,” and interpersonal perspective taking, “taking the perspectives of their [students’]
peers in class” (p. 311). Gehlbach also noted that these two forms will overlap and are not
discrete forms. Suggestions were provided for ways to target those individuals who might be
more comfortable with one form of perspective taking versus another, therefore allowing teachers
to modify classroom activities accordingly, for example, including both forms of perspective
taking (e.g., asking a small group to answer the question, “Why did this particular historical
figure act as she did?”--p. 315). Other suggestions included highlighting the benefits of peers as
valuable sources of knowledge. Exposing students to different viewpoints not only facilitates
perspective taking, but also facilitates engagement and mutual connectedness. The consideration
of peers as valuable sources of information is a central component of inquiry.
Research Rationale
Walker, et al. (2013b) examined the process of role diversification within two different
classrooms through dialog among two groups of four students interacting during inquiry-unit
activities. The goal was to determine the nature and numbers of predominant roles as students
and teachers worked through an inquiry-based unit of instruction. Student and teacher roles were
identified and other qualitative information was gathered through questionnaires, interviews, and
participants’ log entries. Four different influences were examined in the context of these roles:
classroom context, teacher personalities and teaching style, individual student personalities, and
group dynamics. One conclusion related specifically to perspective taking and group dynamics
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
122
and interactions. Specifically, the method by which the groups of students were created had an
impact on the nature of roles in terms of social and cognitive roles. Those students who did not
have a choice in the selection of their group members tended to experience more conflict and
negative emotional roles. They also tended to adopt fewer perspective-taking roles, but this was
also confounded by the nature of the task. The current study examined this conclusion in more
depth and further investigated social perspective taking within the same student and teacher
sample. Although the current study did not allow for specific conclusions regarding direct
influences on perspective-taking roles, several examples will be described that provide insight
into the interplay between role diversification and SPT.
Methodology
The current study was part of a larger study examining inquiry role diversification and
therefore an abbreviated methodology section is presented. For additional detail about the
methodology, please refer to Walker et al. (2013b).
Participants
Eight pupils and their parents, and two female teachers agreed to participate from an
elementary school in a generally middle-class suburb of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and all
participants were English-speaking. Six pupils were female and two were male. Four females
were in Grade 4, one female and one male were in Grade 5, and one female and one male were in
Grade 6.
The Grade 4 class (referred to as Group 1; S1, S2, S3, and S4) was beginning their first
complete inquiry unit on the topic of the environment. The Grade 4 teacher (Teacher 1 or T1)
was beginning her third year of teaching and allowed students to form their own groups. The
Grade 5/6 class (referred to as Group 2; S5, S6, S7, and S8) was also beginning their first
complete inquiry unit on the topic of the structures of government. The Grade 5/6 teacher
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
123
(Teacher 2 or T2) was beginning her 23rd year of teaching and she selected the working groups
based on their personalities. T2 selected students with outgoing and opinionated personalities to
hopefully facilitate interesting discussions and she also balanced the group by grade and sex.
Data Sources
Anderson and Burns (1989) highlighted how understanding human meaning frequently
occurs through observations within naturalistic settings, for example, pupils within a classroom.
Research in classrooms should also include multiple or continuous observations with multiple
forms of data collection (Turner & Meyer, 2000). The current study included several different
forms of data to meet these criteria and ensure data triangulation. Triangulation of data was
achieved through methods (interviews, audiorecorded dialog), document analysis (questionnaires,
log entries, field notes), and informants (teachers, students, researchers, supervisors).
Audiorecorded student interactions. Student interactions within each group were
audiorecorded, and then transcribed by Kei Muto, a volunteer student. The first author verified
the transcriptions for accuracy and then imported the transcriptions into the MAXQDA computer
software, designed for qualitative analysis (VERBI, 2011).
Field notes and researcher log. The first author took detailed notes at the end of every
classroom visit. Information about classroom layout, attendance, the nature of the activity,
teacher instructions, time of day, and duration of visit was recorded.
Student and teacher log entries. Teachers and students regularly completed very short
journal entries and these journal entries were written responses to questions provided by the first
author at the end of certain unit activities. Questions aimed to gather information about current
thoughts, opinions, and attitudes regarding the learning environment. These data complemented
and provided triangulation for the other forms of data.
Social perspective-taking task. An adapted social perspective-taking task was
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
124
administered to each student in the group near the beginning and end of the unit to determine if
perspective-taking ratings changed over the course of completing an inquiry unit (see Appendix
A). If students had questions about any of the items, the items were verbally reworded to
facilitate understanding.
This questionnaire combined different social perspective-taking tasks and examined
interest and motivation as well as social perspective taking (Gehlbach et al., 2008). Demographic
information was collected first, followed by an item that asked students to rate group-work
frequency in the classroom. The next item asked students to rank a list of school subjects in
order from most to least important. This item was followed by four different five-point rating
scale items asking the student to rate how interested the student was in the current unit topic.
Items were modified for each group depending on the topic of the unit (government or
environment). The next three items contained five-point rating scales asking students to rank
how often they attempt to figure out how another person might be thinking or feeling.
Davis’s (1983) Interpersonal Reactivity Index was also incorporated into the
questionnaire section; it consists of four subscales that examine different global aspects of
empathy, including perspective taking. These seven items were based on a five-point scale
ranging from “does not describe me well” to “describes me very well,” and asked students to rate
how well they discern the thoughts and feelings of others (e.g., “I believe that there are two sides
to every question and try to look at them both”).
Interpersonal negotiation strategies (INS) interview. This interview examined
interpersonal negotiation strategies, defined as, “the means by which one individual tries to meet
personal needs via interaction with another individual, usually during conflict or disagreement
within a relationship that has some personal meaning” (Schultz et al., 1989, p. 8). The first
researcher studied the full interview manual prior to interviewing the students so as to increase
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
125
the validity of the results, for example, to ensure appropriate question probing. Interviews were
conducted in empty classrooms for the most part, however, for two of the tasks, teachers briefly
entered the room. This interview was revised from the original due to time constraints (see
Appendix B). Only two dilemmas were presented to each participant as opposed to four. Results
from this instrument should therefore be interpreted with caution.
Reliability and validity. Coding descriptions were written for each code. These
descriptions were revised for clarity and appropriateness multiple times through discussions with
the second and third author, both very experienced with qualitative analysis: 284 lines of
transcript were selected from 922 lines (30.8% of all codes) and these lines of transcript were
coded independently by the first and third authors. The percentage of exact agreement was
calculated at the more general level of coding to be 76.8%. Through ongoing discussions
(totaling approximately four hours), 99.6% agreement was obtained at the more specific second
level of coding.
For the interpersonal negotiation-strategies interview, the manual was consulted and used
as a guide to score the transcribed interview responses. Two of the eight interviews were selected
(25%) and were independently coded by the first and third author according to the scoring
manual. The third author initially coded interviews according to the presented coding scheme
and achieved only 39.6% agreement with the first author. The third author recoded the
interviews based only on the scoring examples provided in the manual and 58.6% agreement was
achieved. Through discussions (totaling approximately two hours) that considered both the
coding scheme and examples from the manual, 100% agreement was obtained.
According to Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) trustworthiness of qualitative data analysis, the
principles of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability were also met. For
more detailed descriptions, please refer to Walker et al. (2013b) [Chapter 3 in this dissertation]
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
126
Data-Analysis Procedures
School visits occurred between February and April 2011, once or twice weekly. All data
were marked with a unique participant code. Audiorecorded data were transcribed and coded
using a priori codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). These codes were not part of an existing coding
scheme, rather, ideas for codes were generated based on previous inquiry research (Llewellyn,
2002; Shore et al., 2009; Shore, et al., 2012) and then this constructed coding scheme was applied
to the transcript dialog. Codes were imported into qualitative data-analysis software (VERBI,
2011). From these codes, the ones most relevant to perspective taking were selected for further
analysis in the current study. These selected codes were then recoded using an additional set of
codes that were created based on previous research on perspective taking (Batson et al., 1997;
Flavell, Shipstead, & Croft, 1978; Gehlbach et al., 2008; Selman, 1971; see Table 4).
Table 4
SPT Roles With Associated Descriptions and Examples
SPT Role
Role Description
Example (from transcript)
Imagine self
Imagining how you would think in someone’s
“No but, I don’t think it’s a
thinking (Self
position (putting self in others’ proverbial
good idea to write that.”
Thinker)
shoes) and includes the verb “to be”
(S3, February 16, Line 122)
Imagine self
Imagining how you would feel in someone’s
“Yeah exactly, that’s why I
feeling (Self
position and includes the verb “to want”
want to write it. That’s why
Feeler)
I was--” (S3, April 18, Line
126)
Imagine self
Imagining how you would act in someone’s
“We’re going to be like in
acting (Self
position and includes the verb “to be”
front of the whole class.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
Actor)
127
Like, they’re probably going
to sit on the carpets.” (S2,
April 13, Line 85)
Imagine self
Imagining how you would visually perceive a
visual/perceptual situation in another person’s position
“No, but I saw it first.” (S6,
February 23, Line 201)
(Self Visualizer)
Imagine other
Imagining how someone would think in a
“Just because his name is
thinking (Other
certain situation (imagine how a person would
premier, doesn’t mean he’s
Thinker)
think in his or her proverbial shoes) and
first.” (S6, February 7, Line
includes the verb “to be”
14)
Imagine other
Imagining how someone would feel in a
“I don’t think it will scare
feeling (Other
certain situation and includes the verb “to
them actually S3. I think it
Feeler)
want”
will, like, interest them to
not do it.”
(S2, April 18, Line 627)
Imagine other
Imagining how someone would act in a certain
“The government doesn’t
acting (Other
situation and includes the verb “to be”
pay taxes. If the
Actor)
government paid taxes,
they’d just be paying
themselves.” (S5, February
21, Line 97)
Imagine other
Imagining how someone would
visual/perceptual visually/spatially perceive a certain situation
“Look how big the poster
is.” (S2, April 29, Line 528)
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
128
(Other
Visualizer)
Results and Interpretation
Four specific roles identified by Walker et al. (2013b) that related to social perspectivetaking included Respectful Listener, Audience-Appropriate Communicator, Open-Minded
Collaborator, and Content Collaborator. For every transcript segment identified as one of the
above four roles, more specific social perspective-taking roles were also assigned.
The present study also focused on specific variables within the classroom, including the
nature of the classroom activities and instructional choices, individual student personality
differences, and group-work dynamics. Within each category or variable, interview data,
questionnaire data, and teacher and student log data were summarized in relation to perspective
taking. Furthermore, the numbers and types of social perspective-taking roles were examined
based on transcript analysis from classroom visits.
Classroom Activities and Social Perspective-Taking Roles
Walker et al. (2013b) determined that the classroom activities in Group 1 corresponded
more with social roles including Collaborator, Communicator, and Respectful Listener versus
Group 2, in which the classroom activities tended to correspond with roles more cognitive in
nature including Knower, Questioner, and Hypothesizer. When examining the relationships
among classroom activities and social perspective-taking roles in the present study, similar
insights emerged. When comparing frequencies of social perspective-taking roles across groups,
there was a very large difference in the frequency of the Self Actor role. Group 1 members more
frequently adopted a Self Actor role (imagine how oneself would act in a certain situation)
compared to Group 2 members (365 instances for Group 1 versus 20 instances for Group 2; See
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
129
Figure 6).
Figure 6. Frequencies of group SPT roles summed across all time points.
This large difference corresponds with the nature of Group 1’s assigned unit activity of
putting together a presentation for a younger audience. When looking specifically at the
Audience-Appropriate Communicator role category (from Walker et al. (2013b), Group 2 was
only represented in one instance. This suggests that Group 2 simply did not have the opportunity
to take on this particular role due to the nature of the classroom activities: The highest role
frequency for Group 2 was the role of Other Thinker (111 instances), which is also consistent
with the more cognitive nature of Group 2’s assigned unit activities (e.g., creating a chronological
timeline of Canada’s prime ministers). Overall, both groups were adopting social perspectivetaking roles, but the nature of these roles varied according to the classroom activities or teacher’s
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
130
instructions.
Instructional Choices and Social Perspective-Taking Roles
Classroom activities are typically decided by the teacher and so, naturally, the
instructional choices also seem to impact social perspective-taking roles. The interplay between
instructional choices and SPT became clearer in researcher field notes of classroom visits.
Teacher 1 often began discussions that facilitated social perspective-taking roles based on events
in the news or based on occurrences in the classroom. For example, on February 7, 2011, T1
introduced a lesson on the environment. A student had approached the SmartBoard in order to
answer a question about what materials are recyclable but had a short whispered conversation
with T1 before responding with a correct answer. Teacher 1 then stated to the class that the
student had first provided a different answer to her during their whispered conversation and asked
the class to guess what question she might have asked the student to help this student. This style
of questioning requires students to engage in social perspective-taking in order to imagine what
T1 might have asked.
Another example of facilitating social perspective-taking occurred on March 14, 2011.
Teacher 1 began the class with a discussion about the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
She asked the class how they feel when a disaster happens in another part of the world, and asked
them to think about ways they might be able to help. This question may have led students to
reflect on what it might be like to be in that situation or to imagine how the Japanese people
affected by the tragedy might be feeling.
One of the most striking examples of the facilitation of social perspective taking occurred
in T1’s class on February 21, 2011. A small group of students (not Group 1 students) were
presenting to the class a poster that they had made, demonstrating how to use recyclable materials
to create something new. Group 1 students were sitting in the audience and immediately noticed
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
131
that this group had presented the information in the same creative way that they had. Both
groups had drawn a picture of a recyclable material (e.g., piece of rope), followed by an addition
sign followed by a picture of another recyclable material (e.g., tire), followed by an equal sign,
followed by what can be made by combining the two materials (e.g., tire swing). Group 1
members were immediately upset because they viewed this as plagiarism of their innovative idea.
Following is a summarized account of what happened in the classroom, not from
audiorecordings, but from field notes by the first researcher.
After the group finished presenting their poster, one of the members in this group
commented about how the presentation had gone horribly. Teacher 1 immediately asked the
members what had not gone well. One member answered that the writing on the poster was
messy. Teacher 1 then asked, “What could you have done beforehand so you could share well?”
This student answered that the group could have practiced. When T1 asked what else could have
been done to make the presentation run more smoothly, S2 spoke up from the audience and stated
that the group members could have kept their eyes on their own paper. Teacher 1 responded, “Is
it possible that people used the same websites or books?” S1 and S2 called out, “They copied!”
Teacher 1 soon realized that Group 1 members were talking about the copying of presentation
style and not the information as such. She then responded by asking, “Is it possible that when I
shared your work with the class earlier, another group was inspired by your ideas?” S2 again
responded, “We don’t like when people copy us!” At this point T1 responded, “OK, let’s address
this because I can tell you are frustrated. As a group we need to get over the copying thing, S2,
they were probably inspired by your work, it’s a form of flattery. I don’t think their poster looks
the same, they are both different, and maybe some parts are similar, but you are still going to get
credit for coming up with the idea first, so it doesn’t take anything away from you.” Teacher 1
then provided an example from her own personal life to help demonstrate social perspective
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
132
taking. In reference to two teachers who had visited her classroom earlier in the day to learn
about some of T1’s different teaching techniques, she asked the class, “If I went to their
classroom and saw them using my mental math exercise, is it fair for me to tell them to not use
my ideas? Well, Miss [Teacher 1] did not invent mental math, I got the idea from another
teacher. How do you feel now?” S2 responded, “Those are teachers, this is different. You
invited those teachers to come.” Teacher 1 then said, “This is a good debate to have. I am giving
you all credit as the first group who depicted the information in that way. You inspired others,
and just like when we use information in a book, we say, I used this book as a source. Maybe
others used you as a source.” T1 provided another example from her personal life, specifically
about how her dance group in high school had used a similar dance move to another group. After
this example, S3 apologized and S2 indicated that she was happy that the other group had liked
their idea. T1 finished the discussion by stating, “Would it have been better if maybe they had
asked you first? So from now on, we will give each other a heads up before we use a similar
idea.”
T1’s flexibility during classroom time allowed for the facilitation of several different and
important skills. First, acknowledging individual student concerns sent the message that the
student’s ideas and opinions were important and worth discussing. Second, T1 facilitated dialog
among classmates about the sensitive topic of plagiarism. Third, T1 asked questions that
encouraged social perspective-taking skills and used relevant personal examples to facilitate
interest and to demonstrate different perspectives. Fourth, T1 helped the group come to a
consensus on the topic and helped them accept a different perspective regarding the issue.
Finally, T1 taught the class a valuable lesson about plagiarism and the sharing of ideas.
Similarly, several of the questions that T2 asked throughout her lessons encouraged
students to put themselves in the proverbial shoes of the person of interest. For example, on
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
133
February 16th, 2011, T2 asked the class, “What do you think some of the major accomplishments
of these prime ministers are? Did some of them have a harder time in office than others?” In
addition, on February 23rd, 2011, T2 asked, “Do you think the prime minister’s accomplishments
came from a goal?”
T2 also closely monitored each group’s progress and intervened during serious
disagreements or exchanges in which she felt that a member’s perspective was being ignored.
For example, on February 2nd, 2011, one group was in a heated discussion and T2 intervened to
say, “Why are you negating other’s ideas?” During that same class, T2 had originally instructed
the groups to come to a consensus on the answers, however, after hearing all of the conflict, made
a class announcement stating, “I should have told you that everyone’s ideas count.
Brainstorming would have avoided conflict so I should not have had you reach a consensus. That
was my mistake.” This particular instance facilitated social perspective-taking because T2
directly intervened to ensure that all perspectives were considered and then later communicated
to the class the importance of considering all ideas and perspectives during group discussions.
In another example on February 9th, 2011, T2 was reviewing the different characteristics
of inquiry learning including Communicator and asked the class, “Would you be a good
Communicator if you talked the same way to a five-year-old or to your peer? Would you talk the
same way to me as to your brother?” These questions directly taught the students that
communicating requires taking the perspective of the person you are communicating with to
ensure that the communication is appropriate.
Overall, T1 tended to use world events or classroom events as opportunities to facilitate
and build upon social perspective-taking skills (more social in nature) whereas T2 tended to ask
reflective questions based on lesson content (more cognitive in nature). Therefore, both teachers
were facilitating SPT skills, but in different ways.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
134
Individual Differences and Social Perspective-Taking Roles
Individual differences among students impacted the numbers and types of social
perspective-taking roles. Social perspective-taking skills for each participant were assessed in
two different ways at the beginning of the unit. A social perspective-taking questionnaire was
administered near the beginning and again near the end of the unit activities. In addition, an
interview that examined interpersonal negotiation skills, an important component of social
perspective taking, was administered near the beginning of the unit activities.
On an independent-sample t test, there were no significant differences between the two
groups on any item related to social perspective taking. On a paired-samples t test, there were no
significant differences for either group on pre- versus post-items of the SPT questionnaire. In
other words, neither group showed any significant change in social perspective-taking skills over
the course of the unit activities. On a task assessing interpersonal negotiation strategies, there
were no significant differences across students in grades 4, 5, or 6, or between the two different
groups for overall interpersonal negotiation strategies based on a one-way ANOVA and an
independent samples t test, respectively. In addition, the INS task categorized responses into
orientations including self-transforming (changing oneself to meet the needs of another), othertransforming (attempting to change another person’s perspective to meet one’s own needs),
collaborative (consideration of both perspectives equally), and indeterminate (strategies do not fit
into one of the above categories; Schultz et al., 1989). There were no significant differences
between grades or groups on INS orientations. Overall, there were no significant differences
between groups or across grade level indicating that all participants could be considered to have
the same level of social-perspective taking skills before and after the presented units of inquiry.
The frequencies of SPT roles for each individual were also compared (see Figure 7).
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
135
Figure 7. Frequencies of student SPT roles summed across all time points.
Group 1 students tended to adopt more SPT roles compared to Group 2 students. S3
(Group 1) took on SPT roles more frequently than any other student at 262 role instances, and S6
(Group 2) took on the fewest number of SPT roles at 27 instances. When considering individual
personalities, S3 and S6 tended to be the most outspoken members in each group, but were
outspoken in different ways. S3 tended to be outspoken but considerate of all members’ ideas
(e.g., “I know. So now we say--What did you write S1?”; April 18, Line 503), whereas S6
tended to be outspoken but stubborn at times (e.g., “Who cares? It’s the same as salaries.”;
February 21, Line 87). Perhaps being outspoken but considerate leads one to adopt more SPT
roles compared to someone who is outspoken but maybe not as considerate of all perspectives.
Within the Imagine Self role category, S3 adopted the highest frequency of the Self
Thinker, Self Feeler, and Self Actor roles compared to all other participants (see Figure 8).
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
136
Figure 8. Numbers of different Imagine Self roles adopted by each participant across time.
Therefore, S3 was often able to imagine how she might think, feel, and act in different
situations. Similarly, within the Imagine Other role category, S3 adopted the Other Feeler role
more frequently than other participants (see Figure 9).
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
137
Figure 9. Numbers of different Imagine Other roles adopted by each participant across time.
S4 adopted the Other Actor role more frequently compared to all other participants
whereas the Other Thinker role was adopted most often by S5 followed by S8 (38 and 36
instances respectively), and was adopted least often by S6. Overall, within the Imagine Other
roles, Imagine Feeler and Imagine Actor roles were most often adopted by Group 1 members
whereas the Other Thinker role was most often adopted by Group 2 members. This may have
related to the nature of the classroom activities as described above, but individual differences
may have also contributed to some of these differences. For example, S3 was considerate of her
group’s needs and therefore may have been more likely to adopt roles that involved imagining
how another person might feel. In addition, S5 tended to be quite confrontational at times (e.g.,
“No, that doesn’t have to do with anything though!”; February 23, Line 247) and, as a result of
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
138
this debate-like challenging, may have been better equipped and more likely to imagine how
another person might be thinking. Although the Other Visualizer role was very infrequent, S2
adopted this role more frequently than all other participants. This role was only adopted in one
other instance by S3. Perhaps S2 was better able to imagine the visual conditions of a situation
rather than how another person might be thinking, feeling, or acting.
A better understanding of individual differences in personality and interpersonal
dynamics became clearer when examining interview data for each participant. Interviews were
conducted near the end of the unit activities. Each participant was asked who the leader of the
group was throughout the unit. Interestingly, S6 identified herself as the leader of the group, and
indicated that she would tell the members what to do and did most of the work. This is consistent
with her outspoken but sometimes stubborn personality. S3 claimed that there was no leader of
the group and that they worked as a team and that every member was a leader in her own way.
S4, meanwhile, identified S3 as the leader of the group. This is consistent with the high number
of roles that S3 adopted. All other participants indicated that there was no leader of the group
and that this responsibility was a shared one.
Group Dynamics and Social Perspective-Taking Roles
Although individual differences influence interactions within inquiry environments and
social perspective-taking roles, how individuals interact within their interpersonal situations
provides a clearer window into the perspective-taking process. Group 1 students were previously
friends and therefore tended to get along very well throughout the unit activities. Group 2
students were not previously friends and were selected by T2 in what she believed would be a
good group for the first author to examine. The conflict among members within Group 2 became
so great that eventually T2 had to separate the members for the remainder of the unit. Group 2
did temporarily reassemble during researcher visits.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
139
As a first examination of group differences, variability of roles across time were
compared. Values of 0 indicate that a transcript was not obtained on that particular day. No clear
patterns emerged in terms of the frequencies of SPT roles across time. Time therefore did not
seem to influence the pattern of SPT roles adopted by either group (see Figure 10).
Figure 10. Numbers of different SPT roles adopted by each group across time.
When comparing Group 1 with Group 2, Group 1 students tended to more frequently
adopt Imagine Other roles, specifically Other Feeler, Other Actor, and Other Visualizer roles (see
Figure 11).
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
140
Figure 11. Frequencies of different SPT roles adopted by each individual summed across all
time points.
There were very few, if any, arguments within this group. Imagine Other roles tend to
require a higher level of perspective taking because, instead of imagining how oneself might act
or feel in a certain situation, this person must imagine how another person might act or feel in a
certain situation. This relates well to the process of role diversification in inquiry. Perhaps
cooperation and friendship facilitated a higher level of perspective taking in terms of more
frequently adopting Imagine Other roles. This is consistent with Gehlbach’s (2004)
multidimensional approach to SPT, specifically, that engaging in SPT requires a motivational
component and that familiarity facilitates perspective taking. Friends may therefore be more
motivated to engage in SPT. Gehlbach also discussed that females may engage in SPT more
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
141
frequently and this group was entirely female. Gehlbach, Brinkworth et al. (2012) also identified
several characteristics that increase one’s motivation to adopt other’s perspectives and several of
these related to friendships including prosocial goals, relationship goals, social influence, and the
importance of the target to the person engaging in SPT.
Group 2 students argued frequently and had to be separated (after the February 23
classroom visit). These members infrequently adopted Other Feeler, Other Actor, and Other
Visualizer roles. Group 2, did however, more frequently adopt the Other Thinker role. Perhaps
certain or heated discussions can facilitate social perspective taking, specifically, imagining how
other people think in certain situations. This is also consistent with Walker and Shore’s (2013)
Engagement phase of inquiry role diversification because conflict may arise during this phase due
to conflicting expectations of roles. Perhaps Group 2 students spent more time within the
Engagement phase as opposed to the fourth phase of Diversification. Furthermore, facilitating
social competence within peer discussions requires participants to not only provide and criticize
explanations, but also involves a willingness to adopt another individual’s explanations and to
believe these explanations (Mischo, 2005).
Several interview questions provided additional insight into the group dynamics and the
impact on social perspective-taking skills within each group. All participants were specifically
asked if they believed that they worked well with the other members in their group. All Group 1
members responded yes to this question, often citing the fact that they were all friends prior to
beginning the unit. S3 answered yes and stated that although sometimes they might have argued
about who would complete what activities, she identified the group as a good group. Group 2
members responded differently to this question. S8 responded with a yes and a no to the
question, indicating that there were some members in the group who were “mean.” S7 indicated
that although there were ups and downs, it was “pretty good,” and added that there were some
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
142
problems with S6 because they were not friends prior to beginning the unit. S6 similarly
identified the difficulties with S7. S5 responded that it was harder to work with the group
members because he did not consider them to be his friends.
When asked if participants felt that their group argued a lot, Group 1 responses included
“no,” “a little bit,” “no, not a lot,” and “not really.” Group 2 responses included “sometimes,”
“no, not really,” “yes,” and “yes.” Students who responded “yes” or responded with anything
other than “no” were further asked if this arguing was helpful in some way. Group 1 members
responded with “I don’t know,” “maybe a little bit,” and “maybe, yeah.” Group 2 members
responded with “yes,” “sometimes, sometimes not,” “no,” and “no.” S6 commented, “well the
arguing in our group wasn’t really like good arguing” (March 28, Line 189).
Another question related to group dynamics and social perspective taking and asked
students if they thought that their group members valued their ideas. The majority of Group 1
members responded affirmatively to this question, specifically indicating that, yes, they felt that
their ideas were valued by other group members. S3 responded, “Some of them, not all. I
remember some they wouldn’t, they would say, ‘It’s not a good idea’ or ‘I don’t really feel like
doing that’” (April 27, Lines 168-169). Among Group 2 students, responses were more varied.
Two students responded that sometimes they felt that their ideas were valued and other times
they felt that their ideas were not valued. One student responded “yes, definitely,” and another
student responded “not all of my ideas, but most of them.”
Participants were also asked if they felt that their group spent more time in discussion or
more time actively working to complete the assigned activities. Three of the four Group 1
members indicated that more time was spent in discussion and one member felt that with one
activity, more time was spent in discussion and in another activity, more time was spent actively
completing the activity. Similarly, three out of the four Group 2 members indicated that more
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
143
time was spent in discussion and one member felt that half of the time was spent in discussion
and half of the time was spent actively working.
T1 specifically acknowledged social perspective taking among the Group 1 members in
her final interview with the first author. In a discussion about her perceptions about the group
dynamics within Group 1, T1 mentioned that she felt the group had worked very well together
and that they were very effective at listening to each other and respecting one another’s opinions.
She also stated that these students tended to be very conscious of their audience. Commenting on
a unit activity that involved creating a presentation for the younger grades about the importance
of recycling, T1 said, “through discussion they realized what’s appropriate to tell the younger
grades and what’s not, and that was through discussion. You know some of the students were
scared that they would scare the younger ones, so that was interesting” (April 27, Line 66-68).
Later in the interview, T1 reiterated, “That’s amazing to hear and just to see that they’re
conscientious of their audience. I think that’s important. . . . They have concern for others, they
have that empathy and that’s amazing to see at 10 years old” (April 27, Lines 372-376).
Further insight into group dynamics was gathered from student log responses written on
individual sheets of paper in response to a written question posed by the first author. On
February 23, 2011, students were asked what they enjoyed least about working on the activities
that day. Group 2 responses were particularly telling in terms of some of the conflicts that had
emerged at this stage in the group’s progression through the unit. The following responses were
grammatically corrected for easier reading: “The fact that S8 wasn’t listening to me,” “I think it
was when me and S6 had our disagreement,” “That my partner doesn’t do a lot of work and that I
do most of the work.” One student in this group also wrote a paragraph referring to a
disagreement with another member that required teacher intervention. This log entry detailed the
student’s side of the argument and expressed frustration about not feeling heard by the teacher.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
144
On March 16, 2011, T2 was asked if the group had faced any difficulties, hurdles, or
challenges and, if so, what they were and how the group dealt with them. T2 identified listening
to one another as a challenge for this particular group of students, along with respecting that
everyone has an opinion, and compromising. She indicated that the group required intervention
and guidance to make compromises including discussion about respecting other’s opinions.
On April 27th, 2011, near the end of the unit, Group 1 members were asked if they
believed that they were making good progress on their project. The responses were as follows,
“yes, because we are really putting our heads together and discussing what we think--if someone
in our group says something average, we try to make it better and build on it,” “yes my group is
making good progress because we’re working hard and not fooling around,” and “I think we are
doing better because we are now staying on topic.” The group dynamics within Group 1 and
Group 2 differed dramatically, and this was related to the social perspective-taking roles that
were adopted within each group. Perhaps the conflict within Group 2 or the lack of friendships
among members decreased the motivation to engage in the more emotional forms of SPT,
including Other Feeler and Self Feeler roles.
Conclusions
Social perspective taking is a complex process and examining these skills within the
dynamic and complex social environment of a classroom can be difficult. This research
investigated the interplay between social perspective-taking skills and role diversification within
inquiry classrooms. Several influences provided the framework for investigating this relationship
including nature of the classroom activities, instructional choices, individual personalities, and
group dynamics. There were no significant t-test differences on the social perspective-taking
questionnaire and interview data, suggesting that perspective-taking skills were the same or very
similar between the two groups and across the three grade levels. These t-tests were exploratory,
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
145
and the absence of significant differences, especially in the face of low power due to small
sample sizes does not strongly assert that there are no underlying differences, only that none were
detected here on this occasion. Any differences that were observed in terms of SPT roles can be
at least partially attributed to the nature of the classroom activities and instructional choices,
individual student personalities, and group dynamics.
One of the most interesting insights from the current study related to the nature of the
perspective-taking roles. Historically, perspective taking has been largely conceptualized as a
stable trait that one gradually acquires throughout childhood development (Selman, 1980).
Furthermore, individuals can differ in their level of perspective-taking ability. The current study
suggests that in addition to SPT skills being stable, these skills may also have a state-like
characteristic and be more fluid, dynamic, or susceptible to external influences than originally
suggested. This hypothesis cannot be adequately tested from the current series of observations,
however, it does warrant further investigation.
Furthermore, the group that engaged more frequently in emotionally-oriented and actionoriented SPT roles tended to work very well together and successfully completed all unit
activities. The other group tended to exhibit more cognitively-oriented SPT roles and eventually
required teacher intervention to resolve conflicts within the group. This suggests that the proper
conditions must be implemented to allow students to take on more emotionally-based SPT roles
in order to function well as a group. To create this ideal environment, teachers need to take into
consideration the nature of the classroom activities and the instructional methods, individual
personalities, and group-work dynamics. For example, Group 1 students may have thrived
because the assigned activities inherently required considering others’ perspectives, the students
were allowed to choose their own group members, the group members’ individual personalities
meshed well together, and members knew each other well and were previously friends.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
146
Reflecting back on previous research, several studies support and relate well to some of
the observations within the current study. Gehlbach, Brinkworth et al. (2012) noted how hubris
or a lack of energy can hinder SPT while prosocial goals and relationship goals can facilitate
SPT. This was consistent with the conflict that was experienced within Group 2 and the
corresponding SPT roles that were more cognitive in nature and less frequent use of more
complex, other oriented SPT roles. Group 1 worked very well together and this corresponded
with higher frequencies of emotional roles and more complex other-oriented roles. Allowing
groups to self-select may be advantageous in certain situations for the facilitation of perspective
taking and collaboration in inquiry group-work settings.
Cooperative activities require a division of labor among members whereas collaboration
requires working together without well-defined roles (Gillespie & Richardson, 2011). Within
inquiry, collaborative activities are the norm, therefore offering additional opportunities to adopt
numerous roles, diversify existing roles, and adopt roles that are often non-traditional in nature
(e.g., question asker role). Gillespie and Richardson (2011) determined that exchanging roles
leads to less divergent perspectives and therefore better perspective taking skills and the more
frequently that roles are exchanged, the larger the effect. Within the current study, both groups
frequently participated in collaborative inquiry activities and both groups also demonstrated
similar levels of social perspective-taking ability. Furthermore, both groups demonstrated a wide
range of social perspective-taking roles. Although there were differences in the nature of some of
these roles, the role diversification that occurs within inquiry can be hypothesized to be
comparable to how exchanging roles facilitates perspective-taking abilities.
Creating a successful inquiry environment requires careful consideration of social
perspective taking within the classroom. Social perspective taking is important to classroom
success within inquiry environments, but caution is warranted in assuming that SPT or the ability
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
147
to engage in SPT is the only influence on what happens in the class. This manuscript presented
several examples within classrooms that at the very least suggested connections between inquiry
group dynamics and the social perspective-taking skills of pupils. Engagement in inquiry can
influence the types of social perspective-taking roles that are adopted and the quality of this SPT
influences the quality of inquiry learning, creating a mutually cyclical or mutually supportive
relationship that leads to dynamic and complex interactional patterns and SPT roles.
Limitations
There were limitations with the current research, primarily related to the nature of the
environment under study. Although classroom activities, instructional choices, individual student
differences, and group-work dynamics were discussed as influences on social perspective-taking
roles, it is possible that there are additional influences that were simply not evident within this
study, for example, cultural beliefs. The other difficulty arises from the complexity of studying
an authentic classroom environment. Teasing out the relative contributions of classroom
activities, instructional choices, individual personalities, and group dynamics on SPT skills is
challenging. Although the smaller sample size allowed for a more in-depth examination of these
classroom variables and social perspective-taking roles, additional research of this kind would be
helpful in verifying some of the above conclusions. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to
replicate this research with groups that are in different stages of inquiry implementation.
Although one teacher was new to teaching and inquiry techniques in particular, and one teacher
was quite experienced, all the pupils were new to inquiry and so examining these variables in a
classroom well versed in inquiry would provide useful comparisons. Other ideas for additional
research directions include a greater focus on the student-teacher relationship and potential
teacher SPT roles. Some research has already started to address SPT within teacher-student
relationships (Gehlbach, Brinkworth, & Harris, 2011). For example, teachers reported better
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
148
relationships with those students who were better at adopting the perspective of their teacher.
Social perspective taking was consistently associated with teacher-student relationship quality.
For practitioners, these results underscore the promise of social perspective taking as a means to
improving teacher-student relationships; for researchers, these findings signal the need to account
for motivation, accuracy, and context in the future.
An additional limitation related to sex and age differences.. In an attempt to maintain
some consistency in terms of environmental characteristics, only one school was selected and
from within this school, two classes were selected based on the teachers who were willing to
participate. Some research has suggested females may be better able to engage in SPT. In terms
of the different ages, some of the younger students may have been at an earlier phase of cognitive
development (e.g., Piaget’s concrete operational phase; Piaget, 1954), and may have therefore
struggled to engage in more of the cognitively-based roles that involve more abstract
developmental thinking and hypothesizing.
Implications
Researchers. The current study provides researchers with a framework for
conceptualizing a particular subset of inquiry roles related to social perspective taking including
Other Thinker, Other Feeler, Other Actor, Other Visualizer, Self Thinker, Self Feeler, Self Actor,
and Self Visualizer. Within inquiry settings, students and teachers may often adopt additional
roles in the classroom that they may not have adopted in a traditional classroom. This
diversification of roles may necessarily require social perspective-taking skills.
Consultants. For consultants, the information from the current study provides an
interesting look into the importance of the social lives of elementary school students. For school
psychologists, it provides insight into interpersonal relationships within collaborative settings.
Identifying classroom conditions that facilitate social perspective-taking skills can be applied to
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
149
promoting friendship development and can help inform the debate about the link between
perspective-taking skills and bullying behaviors (Caravita, Di Blasio, & Salmivalli, 2009; Sutton,
Smith, & Swettenham, 1999). Many researchers have also begun to examine if perspectivetaking skills can be specifically taught (Chandler, 1973; Gehlbach, Young, & Roan, 2012; Heagle
& Rehfeldt, 2006).
Teachers and students. Teachers may want to involve students in the decision process
when developing working groups. Similarly, students may want to consider how their own
individual personalities and characteristics can shape their interpersonal relationships and
abilities to engage in social perspective taking. If the conditions that facilitate social perspective
taking are addressed and investigated, then the probability for healthy interactions in the
classroom can be increased. Teachers benefit from being able to anticipate which instructional
decisions will make learning accessible for all of their students and students need to be prepared
for the increasingly diverse multicultural settings that bring with them several different
perspectives requiring advanced SPT skills. Galinsky and Moskowitz (2000) also examined
social perspective taking and through an experimental manipulation determined that perspective
taking can reduce biased social thought and stereotypes. Teachers could also assign tasks that
more easily facilitate emotionally-based SPT roles when group work is involved.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
150
Chapter 6
Final Overall Conclusions
Inquiry classrooms are complex educational settings. Inquiry presents numerous
opportunities to engage in a wider range of roles compared to traditional settings. Role
exchanges that occur frequently in inquiry classrooms are not yet well understood. The first
research question asked, from a student position, what is the inquiry role shift? The phrase “role
shift” was replaced with the phrase “role diversification” to better reflect the process of adopting
a wider range of roles as opposed to simply giving up a role in favor of a new role. When
students are comfortable in inquiry-based teaching and learning environments, they tend to adopt
additional and varied roles in the classroom, thereby engaging in role diversification. A
developmental model of inquiry role diversification based on a review of pertinent role theory
literature was presented outlining four phases including Exploration, Engagement, Stabilization,
and Diversification. During the first phase of Exploration, the implicit and explicit inquiry
classroom rules are learned, and in the Engagement phase, students and teachers adopt the
inquirer role and learn specific role expectations. Stabilization involves commitment to being an
inquirer. A closer look at the Diversification phase was the second research goal.
A further investigation into inquiry role diversification revealed a fluid and dynamic
process. In other words, the participants did not appear to progress through the four phases in a
linear fashion. At times, some of the participants did not take on any additional roles during the
activity and therefore were not considered to be within the Diversification phase, however, all
participants did adopt varied roles at different points throughout the unit. Furthermore, the nature
of the numerous roles that were adopted by participants changed frequently depending on several
influences.
The second research question asked how the level of inquiry exposure (both student and
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
151
teacher) affects how role diversification is experienced by students? This question had to be
reframed because the two recruited samples had similar levels of inquiry experience, even though
the teachers differed extensively in their years of experience and general approaches. In addition,
several influences on this process were identified over and above the levels of inquiry experience.
Differences in roles were observed according to specific classroom influences including
classroom context, individual teacher personalities and instructional choices, individual student
personalities, and group-work dynamics. The relative contribution of these four influences is
currently unknown, however, several conclusions were made regarding each influence. For
example, allowing students to select their own group members may lead to less conflict and the
adoption of more socially-based roles, however, there are also advantages for students to learn to
work with various individuals whom they might not choose as their first choice for a group-work
activity. Also, if there are unequal contributions among group members, more negative
emotional roles may be apparent. Furthermore, tasks that facilitate perspective-taking skills may
lead to more socially-based roles versus information-seeking tasks that may lead to more
cognitively-based roles. Therefore, despite the wide range of previous teaching experience, all
participants demonstrated complex and varied roles, suggesting there is no one correct way to
implement inquiry that will lead to successful diversification.
The third and final research question asked how role diversification can be explained by
or more clearly understood through the lens of social perspective taking. This question was
reframed to examine the interplay between social perspective-taking (SPT) and role
diversification because the process was identified to be much more reciprocal and fluid than
originally anticipated. Social perspective-taking roles are a subset of inquiry roles, and although
perspective-taking is often conceptualized as developing through a set of stages, SPT roles were
also quite variable and dynamic, depending on the same influences noted above. This is
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
152
inconsistent with previous literature that suggests SPT skills are gradually acquired throughout
development and tend to be quite stable once acquired. Although both groups demonstrated
social perspective taking, many differences were observed in terms of SPT roles. The
participants who worked well together in their groups adopted more emotionally- and actionoriented SPT roles. The other group members who did not work well together demonstrated
more cognitively-oriented SPT roles and, when conflict arose, these same students eventually
required teacher intervention to successfully complete the unit. This suggests that getting along
socially with work partners is critical to successful SPT in group settings. Furthermore, the
frequent diversification of roles among participants may facilitate SPT skills because role
diversification requires adopting a new perspective each time a new role is adopted.
Overall, the three separate research questions revealed some of the role complexities
within inquiry-based teaching and learning environments. Both teachers in the current study
were beginning their first explicit classroom unit of inquiry instruction and all students adopted
varied and complex roles in the classroom, including many social perspective-taking roles. More
important than just inquiry experience, teachers need to consider the instructional choices,
individual student personalities, their own personalities, and group work dynamics when
determining the types of roles they want their students to adopt in the classroom. Social roles
may be facilitated by allowing students to select their own group members at least some of the
time, or by selecting activities that facilitate perspective taking (e.g., creating a presentation
suitable for a younger audience). Cognitive roles may be facilitated by placing opinionated and
outspoken students together in a group, however, one must be careful that if conflict arises, it
does not have a detrimental impact on the functioning of the group.
Future research should now focus on extending this research to additional classrooms to
determine other potential influences on the process of Diversification. Although this study only
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
153
focused on the Diversification phase, more information is needed about other phases including
Exploration, Engagement, and Stabilization. Additional research should focus on facilitators and
barriers to role diversification in inquiry classrooms to help ensure that all students are successful
in these environments. Longitudinal research over the course of a full school year would also
provide a more detailed picture of the phases of role diversification. Finally, this research needs
to extend to all grade levels and to teachers with varied teaching experience and varied inquiry
teaching experience.
Overall, regardless of instructional choices, teacher personalities, individual student
characteristics, and group interactions, inquiry was still happening in both classrooms and
students were engaging in numerous roles. This research has begun to help teachers identify
what characteristics to keep in mind when creating effective working groups.
Original Contribution to Knowledge
Very little prior research has examined students and teachers as they work through
inquiry-based tasks and there has been limited research on role diversification within inquirybased teaching and learning environments. No known research to date has incorporated socialconstructivist theory with role theory and elements of theory of mind. Furthermore, the proposed
developmental model based on these three theoretical frameworks is the first known model that
examines the process of role diversification in inquiry classrooms.
This research provides a direct contribution to role theory, theory of mind, and inquiry.
For example, within role theory, most role theorists focus their research on the workplace setting,
and some on the family, however, the current research is focused on the classroom setting.
Furthermore, many researchers have examined the process of adopting a single role at a time, and
the current research focuses on the process of role diversification, or adopting many different
roles, much more relevant to inquiry classrooms.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
154
This research contributes to the theory-of-mind literature as well. Although many theoryof-mind skills have been thought to be primarily developmentally-acquired skills, the current
research suggests an additional consideration when examining these skills: Perhaps certain skills,
such as social perspective taking can be state-like and can be influenced by external factors.
Although research has examined how to facilitate and improve social perspective-taking, this has
not been examined in the context of inquiry classroom settings, in which this particular skill
seems especially relevant for the common occurrence of role diversification.
Finally, this research contributes in an original way to the evolving framework of inquiry.
There are often many barriers to implementing inquiry in the classroom (Shore & Aulls, 2009),
and some teachers become too overwhelmed or intimidated by the nontraditional expectations
common to inquiry. Teachers should be encouraged to learn that, despite the 20-year difference
in teaching experience between the teachers in the current study, students and teachers all
adopted varied and complex roles. Therefore, teachers with relatively little teaching experience
and limited experience in inquiry can still create successful inquiry environments. In other
words, there are numerous ways to implement inquiry in the classroom, all of which still lead to
the role complexity that was shown by all student and teacher participants.
Therefore, complex learning emerged in both of these socially-constructivist based
classrooms, indicating that social constructivism is an advantageous theory-based approach to
creating effective learning environments.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
155
References
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self
versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751-763.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751
Ahrens, C. J. C., & Ryff, C. D. (2006). Multiple roles and well-being: Sociodemographic and
psychological moderators. Sex Roles, 55, 801-815. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9134-8
Anderson, L., & Burns, R. (1989). Research in classrooms: The study of teachers, teaching, and
instruction. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Aulls, M. W., & Hou, D. (2008, March). Students’ perceptions about teacher and students’ roles
in effective and ineffective instructional contexts. Paper presented at the Centre for the
Study of Learning and Performance Conference, Montreal, QC.
Aulls, M. W., & Ibrahim, A. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of effective inquiry
instruction: Are effective instruction and effective inquiry instruction essentially the
same? Instructional Science, 1-21. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9164-z
Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Inquiry in education, Volume I: The conceptual
foundations for research as a curricular imperative. New York, NY: Routledge.
Barfurth, M. A., & Shore, B. M. (2008). White water during inquiry learning: Understanding the
place of disagreements in the process of collaboration. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulls, & M.
A. B. Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education, Volume II: Overcoming barriers to successful
implementation (pp. 149-164). New York, NY: Routledge.
Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels
versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,
751-758. doi:10.1177/0146167297237008
Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper’s world 3. Educational
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
156
Researcher, 23, 21-23. doi:10.3102/0013189X023007021
Berk, L. E. (1989). Child development. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bernstein, W. M., & Davis, M. H. (1982). Perspective-taking, self-consciousness, and accuracy
in person perception. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 1-19.
doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0301_1
Biddle, B. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Reviews in Sociology, 12, 67-92.
doi:10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435
Blakar, R. M. (1973). An experimental method for inquiring into communication. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 415–425. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420030405
Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M (2003) Toward a social pedagogy of
classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 153-172.
doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00078-8
Bloome, D., Power Carter, S., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). Discourse
analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bracewell, R. J., Le Maistre, C., Lajoie, S. P., & Breuleux, A. (2008). The role of the teacher in
opening worlds of inquiry-driven learning with technology. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulls,
& M. A. B. Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education, Volume II: Overcoming barriers to
successful implementation (pp. 287-300). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bramwell-Rejskind, F. G., Halliday, F., & McBride, J. B. (2008). Creating change: Teachers’
reflections on introducing inquiry teaching strategies. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulls, & M.
A. B. Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education, Volume II: Overcoming barriers to successful
implementation (pp. 207-234). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating
complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2,
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
157
141-178. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K.
McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G., & Ronning, R. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and instruction (2nd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Caravita, S. C. S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Unique and interacting effects of
empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18, 140-163.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00465.x
Carney, D. R., & Harrigan, J. A. (2003). It takes one to know one: Interpersonal sensitivity is
related to accurate assessments of others’ interpersonal sensitivity. Emotion, 2, 194-200.
doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.2.194
Chandler, M. J. (1973). Egocentrism and antisocial behavior: The assessment and training of
social perspective-taking skills. Developmental Psychology, 9, 326-332.
doi:10.1037/h0034974
Chandler, M. J., & Boyes, M. (1982). Social cognitive development. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.),
Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 387-402). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Chandler, M. J., & Helm, D. (1984). Developmental changes in the contributions of shared
experience to social role-taking competence. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 7, 145-156. doi:10.1177/016502548400700203
Chichekian, T., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Inquiry teaching and learning in the International
Baccalaureate. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Clark, C., & Shore, B. M. (2004). Educating students with high ability (Rev. ed.). Paris, France:
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
158
UNESCO.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937. doi:10.1002/10982736(200011)37:9<916::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2
Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613-642. doi:10.1002/tea.20157
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.
Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/index.aspx
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning
environment. Language Learning, 59, 230-248. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00542.x
Dunn, J., Brown, J., Slomkowski, C., Tesla, C., & Youngblade, L. (1991). Young children’s
understanding of other people’s feelings and beliefs: Individual differences and their
antecedents. Child Development, 62, 1352-1366. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.3.442
Eick, C. J., & Reed, C. J. (2002). What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? The influence
of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education,
86, 401-416. doi:10.1002/sce.10020
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary
engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom.
Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399-483. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
Erickson, J., & Lehrer, R. (1998). The evolution of critical standards as students design
hypermedia documents. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 351-386.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
159
doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_4
Ernest, P. (1995). The one and the many. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in
education (pp. 459-486). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feichtner, S. B., & Davis, E. A. (1984). Why some groups fail: A survey of students’ experiences
with learning groups. Journal of Management Education, 9, 58-73.
doi:10.1177/105256298400900409
Flanders, N. (1970). Analyzing teacher behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flavell, J. H., Everett, B. A., Croft, K., & Flavell, E. R. (1981). Young children's knowledge
about visual perception: Further evidence for the Level 1-Level 2 distinction.
Developmental Psychology, 17, 99-103. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.17.1.99
Flavell, J. H., Flavell, E. R., Green, F. L., & Wilcox, S. A. (1980). Young children’s knowledge
about visual perception: Effect of observer’s distance from target on perceptual clarity of
target. Developmental Psychology, 16, 10-12. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.16.1.10
Flavell, J. H., Shipstead, S. G., & Croft, K. (1978). Young children's knowledge about visual
perception: Hiding objects from others. Child Development, 49, 1208-1211. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1128761
Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression,
stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 708-724. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708
Gehlbach, H. (2004). A new perspective on perspective taking: A multidimensional approach to
conceptualizing an aptitude. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 207-234.
doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034021.12899.11
Gehlbach, H. (2011). Making social studies social: Engaging students through different forms of
social perspective taking. Theory Into Practice, 50, 311-318.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
160
doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.607394
Gehlbach, H., & Brinkworth, M. E. (2012). The social perspective taking process: Strategies and
sources of evidence in taking another’s perspective. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-29.
Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/
Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., & Harris, A. D. (2011, April). The Promise of Social Perspective
Taking to Facilitate Teacher-Student Relationships. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/
Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., & Wang, M.-T. (2012). The social perspective taking process:
What motivates individuals to take another’s perspective? Teachers College Record, 114,
197-225. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/
Gehlbach, H., Brown, S. W., Ioannou, A., Boyer, M. A., Hudson, N., Niv-Solomon, A., . . .
Janik, L. (2008). Increasing interest in social studies: Stimulating simulations, selfefficacy, and social perspective taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 894914. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.11.002
Gehlbach, H., Young, L. V., & Roan, L. K. (2012). Teaching social perspective taking: How
educators might learn from the Army. Educational Psychology: An International Journal
of Experimental Educational Psychology, 32, 295-309.
doi:10.1080/01443410.2011.652807
Gillespie, A., & Richardson, B. (2011). Exchanging social positions: Enhancing perspective
taking within a cooperative problem solving task. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41, 608-616. doi:10.1002/ejsp.788
Green, J. L., & Dixon, C. N. (1994). The social construction of classroom life. In A. Purves
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of English studies and language arts (vol. 2, 1075-1078). New York,
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
161
NY: Scholastic Press.
Green, J., Yeager, B., Dixon, C, & Tuyay, T. (2004). Tools for identifying critical moments in
everyday classroom interactions. Language Arts, 82, 45. Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/
Gyles, P. D. T. (2010). Student outcomes in inquiry instruction. (Unpublished master’s thesis).
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Gyles, P. D. T., & Shore, B. M. (2013). Teachers’ inquiry experience matters: Predicting student
outcomes. Manuscript in advanced state of preparation.
Hale, C. L., & Delia, J. G. (1976). Cognitive complexity and social perspective-taking.
Communication Monographs, 43, 195-203. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rcmm20/current
Hand, B., Treagust, D. F., & Vance, K. (1997). Student perceptions of the social constructivist
classroom. Science Education, 81, 561-575. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098237X(199709)81:5<561::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-8
Heagle, A. I., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2006). Teaching perspective-taking skills to typically
developing children through derived relational responding. Journal of Early and Intensive
Behavioral Intervention, 3, 1-34. Retrieved from http://www.baojournal.com/JEIBI/jeibiindex.html
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and
student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 433-475.
doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1604_3
Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing
scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 8, 451-493. doi:10.1080/10508406.1999.9672076
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
162
Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., & Vedder, P. (2006). The relationship between the quality of
cooperative learning, students' goal preferences, and perceptions of contextual factors in
the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 9-21. doi:10.1111/j.14679450.2006.00488.x
Hirschy, A. S., & Wilson, M. E. (2002). The sociology of the classroom and its influence on
student learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 77, 85-100.
doi:10.1207/S15327930PJE7703_5
International Baccalaureate Organization. (2005). Program standards and practices. Cardiff,
Wales: Author.
International Reading Association. (2003). Standards for reading professionals. Newark, DE:
Author.
Johnson, D. W. (1975). Cooperativeness and social-perspective taking. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 31, 241-244. doi:10.1037/h0076285
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 129-169. doi:10.3102/00346543062002129
Kedar-Voivodas, G. (1983). The impact of elementary children’s school roles and sex roles on
teacher attitudes: An interactional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 415-437.
doi:10.3102/00346543053003415
Keith, P. M. (1979). Correlates of role strain in the classroom. Urban Education, 14, 19-30.
doi:10.1177/0042085979141003
Kinchin, I. (2004). Investigating students’ beliefs about their preferred role as learners.
Educational Research, 46, 301-312. doi:10.1080/001318804200277359
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,
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
163
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86. Retrieved
from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653642
Knowles, J. G. (1992). Models for understanding preservice and beginning teachers’ biographies.
In I. F. Goodson (Ed.), Studying teachers’ lives (pp. 99-152). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Phase and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization.
In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization, theory and research (pp. 347-480). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 214-222. doi:10.5014/ajot.45.3.214
LaBanca, F. (2008). Impact of problem finding on the quality of authentic open inquiry science
research projects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation in Instructional Leadership, Western
Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT.
Ladwig, J. G. (2010). Beyond academic outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34, 113141. doi:10.3102/0091732X09353062
Laferrière, T., Bracewell, R. J., & Breuleux, A. (2001). The emerging contribution of online
resources and tools to classroom learning and teaching: An update (January 2005).
Invited report submitted to SchoolNet/Reschol by TeleLearning Inc.
LaMare, L. J., & Rubin, K. H. (1987). Perspective taking and peer interaction: Structural and
developmental analyses. Child Development, 58, 306-315. doi:10.2307/1130508
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning:
Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34, 329-394.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
164
doi:10.3102/0091732X09358129
Lee, V. S. (2012). What is inquiry-guided learning? New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
129, 5-14. doi:10.1002/tl.20002
Li, J. (2003). U. S. and Chinese cultural beliefs about learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 258-267. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.258
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbery Park, CA: Sage.
Linton, R. (1936). The study of man: An introduction. New York, NY: Appleton-Century.
Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
López, O. S. (2007). Classroom diversification: A strategic view of educational productivity.
Review of Educational Research, 77, 28-80. doi:10.3102/003465430298571
Lyons, N. (1990). Dilemmas of knowing: Ethical and epistemological dimensions of teachers’
work and development. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 159-180. Retrieved from
http://her.hepg.org/home/main.mpx
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and
commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921-936. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094577
Masangkay, Z. S., McClusky, K. A., McIntyre, C. W., Sims-Knight, J., Vaughn, B. E., & Flavell,
J. H. (1974). The early development of inferences about the visual percepts of others.
Child Development, 45, 357-366. Retrieved from
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0009-3920&site=1
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K. (1957a). Social theory and social structure (Rev. and Enl. ed.). Glencoe, IL: Free
Press.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
165
Merton, R. M. (1957b). The role set. British Journal of Sociology, 8, 106-120. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/587363
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis.
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mischo, C. (2005). Promoting perspective coordination by dilemma discussion: The effectiveness
of classroom group discussion on interpersonal negotiation strategies of 12-year-old
students. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 41-63. doi:10.1007/s11218-004-1884-y
Moreno, J. L. (1946). Psychodrama. Beacon, NY: Beacon House.
Moreno, J. L. (1961). The role concept: A bridge between psychiatry and sociology. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 118, 518-523. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.118.6.518
National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Curriculum standards for social studies:
Expectations of excellence. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact,
change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=R1
Orbell, J., & Dawes, R. (1981). Social dilemmas. In G. M. Stephenson, & J. H. Davis (Eds.),
Progress in applied social psychology (vol. 1, pp. 37-65). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
166
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child (H. Weaver, trans.). New York,
NY: Basic Books. (Original work published 1966).
Pillow, B. H. (1989). Early understanding of perception as a source of knowledge. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 47,116-129. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(89)90066-0
Pillow, B. H. (1995). Two trends in the development of conceptual perspective-taking: An
elaboration of the passive-active hypothesis. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 18, 649-676. doi:10.1177/016502549501800405
Reger, B. H. (2007). How does participation in inquiry-based activities influence gifted students'
higher order thinking? Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and
Social Sciences, 67, 3306. Retrieved from http://www.umi.com/enUS/catalogs/databases/detail/dai.shtml
Reiman, A. J., & Peace, S. D. (2002). Promoting teacher’s moral reasoning and collaborative
inquiry performance: A developmental role-taking and guided inquiry study. Journal of
Moral Education, 31, 51-66. doi:10.1080/03057240120111436
Robinson, A., & Hall, J. (2008). Teacher models of teaching inquiry. In B. M. Shore, M. W.
Aulls, & M. A. B. Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education, Volume II: Overcoming barriers
to successful implementation (pp. 235-246). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rosser, R. A., & Lane, S. (1993). Children’s computation of viewpoint from locational
descriptions: Initial steps in the coordination of perspectives. Child Study Journal, 23, 1-16.
Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/library/p179/Child%20Study%20Journal
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2010). Listen to each other: How the building of norms in an
elementary science classroom fosters participation and argumentation. Proceedings of the
9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 1, 1095-1102. Retrieved from
http://www.isls.org/icls2010/conf_proceedings.html
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
167
Salon, C. M. (2008). Student perceptions of the development of mathematical self-efficacy in the
context of the instructional setting and problem solving activities. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT.
Saunders-Stewart, K. S. (2008). Students’ perceptions of the important outcomes of inquirybased teaching and learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Saunders-Stewart, K., Gyles, P. D. T., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Student outcomes in inquiry
instruction: A literature-derived inventory. Manuscript accepted for publication in the
Journal of Advanced Academics.
Schultz, L. H., Yeates, K. O., & Selman, R. L. (1989). The interpersonal negotiation strategies
(INS) interview: A scoring manual. Cambridge, MS: Harvard Graduate School of
Education.
Selman, R. (1971). Taking another’s perspective: Role-taking development in early childhood.
Child Development, 42, 1721-1734. Retrieved from
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0009-3920&site=1
Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical
analyses. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Selman, R. L., & Byrne, D. F. (1974). A structural-developmental analysis of levels of role
taking in middle childhood. Child Development, 45, 803-806. Retrieved from
http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0009-3920&site=1
Shore, B. M., Aulls, M. W., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (Eds.). (2008). Inquiry in education, Volume
II: Overcoming barriers to successful implementation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shore, B. M., Birlean, C., Walker, C. L., Ritchie, K. C., LaBanca, F., & Aulls, M. W. (2009).
Inquiry literacy: A proposal for a neologism. LEARNing Landscapes, 3, 139-155. Retrieved
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
168
from http://www.learninglandscapes.ca/
Shore, B. M., Chichekian, T., Syer, C. A., Aulls, M. W., & Frederiksen, C. H. (2012). Planning,
enactment, and reflection in inquiry-based learning: Validating the McGill Strategic
Demands of Inquiry Questionnaire. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 10, 315-337. doi:10.1007/s10763-011-9301-4
Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’
epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological
development. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 349-422. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1803_3
Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of
engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education Special Issue
on the State of the Art and Practice of Engineering Education Research, 94, 87-102.
doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00831.x
Snoek, J. D. (1966). Role strain in diversified role sets. American Journal of Sociology, 71, 363372. doi:10.1086/224125
Snow, R. E. (1996). Aptitude development and education. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
2, 536-560. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.2.3-4.536
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Stinson, L., & Ickes, W. (1992). Empathic accuracy in the interactions of male friends versus
male strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 787-797.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.5.787
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social
inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17,
435-450. doi:10.1348/026151099165384
Tarshis, E., & Shore, B. M. (1991). Perspective taking in high and above average IQ preschool
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
169
children. European Journal for High Ability, 2, 201-211. doi:10.1080/0937445910020209
Taylor, M. (1988). Conceptual perspective taking: Children’s ability to distinguish what they
know from what they see. Child Development, 59, 703-711. doi:10.2307/1130570
Thornton, R., & Nardi, P. M. (1975). The dynamics of role acquisition. American Journal of
Sociology, 80, 870-885. Retrieved from
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/journals/journal/ajs.html
Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional
contexts of classrooms: Using our past to forge our future. Educational
Psychologist, 35, 69–85.doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3502_2
Turner, J. H. (2001). Role theory. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbooks of sociology and social
research (pp. 233-254). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Turner, R. H. (1978). The role and the person. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1-23.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/page/journal/amerjsoci/about.html
VERBI. (2011). MAXQDA Qualitative Data Analysis Software. Berlin, Germany:
Sozialforschung GmbH.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (Trans. A. Kozulin). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2013). Role diversification in inquiry education: Linking role
theory and social constructivism. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Walker, C. L., Shore, B. M., & Tabatabai, D. (2013a). Eye of the beholder: Investigating the
interplay between inquiry role diversification and social perspective taking. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Walker, C. L., Shore, B. M., & Tabatabai, D. (2013b). The many faces of inquiry: Examining role
diversification through dialog in small-group inquiry activities. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
170
Weade, R. (1987). Curriculum ‘n’ instruction: The construction of meaning. Theory into
Practice, 26, 16-25. doi:10.1080/00405848709543244
Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1-28. doi:10.1348/000709908X380772
Wilson, B. G. (1995). Metaphors for instruction: Why we talk about learning environments.
Educational Technology, 35, 25-30.
Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among
middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in
Science Education, 38, 321-341. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9052-y
Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning
opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 22, 390-408. Retrieved from
http://www.nctm.org/publications/jrme.aspx?id=8596
Yamane, D. (1996). Collaboration and its discontents: Steps toward overcoming barriers to
successful group projects. Teaching Sociology, 24, 378-383. doi:10.2307/1318875
Yellin, L. L. (1999). Role acquisition as a social process. Sociological Inquiry, 69, 236-256.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1999.tb00501.x
Yore, L. D., Henriques, L., Crawford, B., Smith, L., Gomez-Zwiep, S., & Tillotson, J. (2007).
Selecting and using inquiry approaches to teach science: The influence of context in
elementary, middle, and secondary schools. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. C. Silva
(Eds.), Inquiry in the classroom: Realities and opportunities (pp. 39-87). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Zack, V., & Graves, B. (2001). Making mathematical meaning through dialogue: “Once you
think of it, the z minus three seems pretty weird.” Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46,
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
229-271. doi:10.1023/A:1014045408753
171
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
172
Appendix A
Social Perspective-Taking
Questionnaire
Please answer the following questions. This will take approximately 30 minutes. Please do not
write your name anywhere on these pages.
Birthdate:
Month______________
What grade are you in?
Date ________
Year __________
.
I am a (CIRCLE ONE):
Girl Boy
How often do you do group work in your class? (CIRCLE ONE)
Never
Sometimes
Often
Always
Please rank the following subjects where 1 = most important to 4 = least important to you.
English
Math
Science
Social Studies
Please continue onto the next page.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
173
Please check the most appropriate box after each question.
Not at all
Slightly Moderately
Quite
Extremely
interesting interesting interesting interesting interesting
1. Overall, how interesting do
you find your unit on the
environment?





2. When you hear about the
environment in the news,
how interested are you?





3. How interesting are the
different topics you study in
this unit on the
environment?





4. How interesting are the
assignments you are given
for this unit?





Please continue onto the next page.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
174
Please check the most appropriate box after each question.
Almost
never
Once in a
while
Sometimes
Often
Almost all
the time
1. How often do you try to
figure out how the people
around you view different
situations?





2. If you are having a
disagreement with your
friends, how often do you
try to imagine how they are
feeling?





3. How often do you try to
understand your classmates
better by trying to figure out
what they are thinking?





Please continue onto the next page.
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
175
Please check the most appropriate box after each question.
0
1
2
3
Does not
describe
me well
4
Describes
me very
well
1. I believe that there are two
sides to every question and
try to look at them both.





2. When I’m upset at someone,
I usually try to “put myself
in his shoes” for a while.





3. I try to look at everybody’s
side of a disagreement
before I make a decision.





4. I sometimes find it difficult
to see things from the “other
guy’s” point of view.





5. Before criticizing
somebody, I try to imagine
how I would feel if I were in
their place.





6. If I’m sure I’m right about
something, I don’t waste
much time listening to other
people’s arguments.





7. I sometimes try to
understand my friends better
by imagining how things
look from their perspective.





ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
176
Appendix B
Interpersonal Negotiation Strategies Interview (Selman, 1989)
“Everyone runs into problems with other people all the time and has to work out ways to solve
these problems. I’m going to read you some make-believe examples of these kind of problems
and then ask you a series of questions about them. There are no right or wrong answers to these
questions; we’re just interested in your ideas about solving these problems.”
Dilemma 3: Bob (Debbie) and Steve (Anne) are classmates. They don’t know each other very
well, but their teacher has assigned them to work together on a social studies project about
Africa, and they are trying to decide on a topic. Bob (Debbie) wants to do the report on wild
animals, but Steve (Anne) wants the report to be about different tribes, like pygmies.
8. What is the problem here? Why is that a problem?
9. How do you think Bob (Debbie) feels? Why does he (she) feel that way? How do you think
Steve (Anne) feels? Why does he (she) feel like that?
10. What are all the things you can think of that Bob (Debbie) can do to solve his (her) problem
with Steve (Anne)? How would that solve the problem? What else could he (she) do? Why
would he (she) do that?
11. What would be the best way for Bob (Debbie) to solve his (her) problem with Steve (Anne)?
Why is that the best way to solve the problem?
12. How would Bob (Debbie) and Steve (Anne) feel if Bob (Debbie) did that? Why would they
feel like that?
13. What could go wrong with Bob’s (Debbie’s) solution of
mess it up?
? Why might that
14. What would Bob (Debbie) do next if that happened? Why would he (she) do that?
15. How would Bob (Debbie) know if he (she) had really solved the problem?
Dilemma 7: Jimmy’s (Bonnie’s) class has a substitute teacher named Mr. Jones for the day.
Jimmy (Bonnie) is working on some difficult math problems that he (she) is supposed to finish
before lunch. He (she) needs some help from Mr. Jones, but Mr. Jones seems very busy with
other kids in the class.
16. What is the problem here? Why is that a problem?
17. How do you think Jimmy (Bonnie) feels? Why does he (she) feel that way? How do you
think Mr. Jones feels? Why does he feel like that?
ROLE DIVERSIFICATION IN INQUIRY
177
18. What are all the things you can think of that Jimmy (Bonnie) can do to solve his (her)
problem with Mr. Jones? How would that solve the problem? What else could he (she) do?
Why would he (she) do that?
19. What would be the best way for Jimmy (Bonnie) to solve his (her) problem with Mr. Jones?
Why is that the best way to solve the problem?
20. How would Jimmy (Bonnie) and Mr. Jones feel if Jimmy (Bonnie) did that? Why would they
feel like that?
21. What could go wrong with Jimmy’s (Bonnie’s) solution of
mess it up?
? Why might that
22. What would Jimmy (Bonnie) do next if that happened? Why would he (she) do that?
23. How would Jimmy (Bonnie) know if he (she) had really solved the problem?