Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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?