Examining Role Diversification through Dialog from Small ...collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/vol2/QMM/TC-QMM-1171… · Bracewell, and Victoria Talwar for providing me with

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

http://www.mcgill.ca/study/2012-2013/faculties/education/graduate/programs/doctor-philosophy-phd-schoolapplied-child-psychology


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


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


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


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 Scholarship-

Doctoral 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.


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

and Social Constructivism to the Concept of Role Diversification

18

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


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

Small-Group Inquiry Activities

50

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


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 62

Results and Discussion 63

The Influence of Classroom Context on Role Diversification 64

Influence of Individual Teacher Personalities and Teaching Style on Role

Diversification

81

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

Diversification and Social Perspective Taking

111


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 126

Results and Interpretation 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


Researchers 148

Consultants 148

Teachers and students 149

Chapter 6. Final Overall Conclusions 150

Original Contribution to Knowledge 153

References 155

Appendices 172

Appendix A: Social Perspective-Taking Questionnaire 172

Appendix B: Interpersonal Negotiation Strategies Interview 176


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


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

students

81, 85

Figure 4: Frequencies of teacher roles summed across all time points 92, 93

Figure 5: Frequencies of the teacher roles Active Listener and Active Helper summed

across all time points

94

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

time

136

Figure 9: Numbers of different Imagine Other roles adopted by each participant across

time

137

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

across all time points.

140


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 group-

work 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.


Résumé

L’enseignement et l’apprentissage par la démarche de l’investigation est une approche socio-

constructivist 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


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.


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


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.


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 problem-

solving 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


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


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,


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


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.


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 semi-

structured 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


solving, and promotes subject-matter understanding, curiosity, increased confidence, and

teamwork (Aulls & Shore, 2008). The International Baccalaureate (IB) program adopted inquiry-

based 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,


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’


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;


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


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,


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 goal-

driven, 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


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 above-

mentioned 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 technology-

driven 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


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


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


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


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


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


struggled with others (e.g., at this phase, children are still unable to employ hypothetical-

deductive 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


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


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


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.


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


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


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

Diversification

Thornton & Nardi (1975) Yellin (1999)

Exploration: learning implicit

and explicit school and

Anticipatory: social and

psychological preparation for

Ambivalence: individuals are

exposed to a new social


classroom rules as they relate

to inquiry classrooms

role acquisition network and have a vague idea

of what is expected in the new

role leading to ambivalence or

disorientation

Engagement: individual begins

to formally adopt and engage

as an inquirer and learn

specific obligations of an

inquirer

Formal: formal written rules or

duties replace initial

stereotypes about the role

Absorption: individuals

familiarize themselves with

specific expectations of the

new role through repetition,

negotiation, and performance

Stabilization: individual

solidifies and commits to

being an inquirer after finding

it to be a positive experience

Informal: learn informal rules

of role though interactions

with individuals in the system

Commitment: individual

receives positive feedback

from others in similar roles

and individuals identify and

commit to the role

Diversification: comfort with

being an inquirer leads the

individual to branch out and

adopt numerous roles in the

classroom

Personal: individual

characteristics including

personality and culture impact

the role

Confidence: role becomes

predictable, confidence is

increased, and struggles with

motivation may emerge if

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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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 social-

constructivist 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.


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 social-

emotional 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


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 post-

secondary 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


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


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


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


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


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,


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 semi-

structured 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


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


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.


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


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


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 group-

work 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


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


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.”


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,


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


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

(AFF)

Emotional Valuing and enjoying the topic (e.g. “I

love this!”), laughter

“Oh! ok. ok. Oh! This

is so nice! Oh I love

it! I love it!” (S3,

April 19, Line 636)

Audience-

Appropriate

Communicator

Social Clearly communicate one’s learning

with an audience (to individuals outside

of group unless group members take on

“S4: No, they won’t

know what that word

means.” (S4, April 13,


(AAC) purposeful role of audience member),

using/deciding on appropriate

vocabulary for audience, sharing the

results of inquiry with others

Line 60)

Collaborator

(CBR)

Social Collaborate with, seek advice from, and

use adult or peer mentors effectively,

helping others to understand or make

observations (explanation), helping

others in general if someone made a

mistake, may include certain forms of

question asking, turn-taking issues

“How about you put a

ruler there so it will

all be even?” (S6,

February 16, Line

383)

Communicator

(CMR)

Social Sharing of emotions, feelings, ideas,

opinions, giving a command

“Yeah go on Google.”

(S3, February 16, Line

8)

Content

Collaborator

(CC)

Social Seeking different viewpoints related to

content, comparing and contrasting

content with someone else’s, reflecting

with adults and peers about content,

anticipating and responding to

arguments in opposition to one's view

about content

“Just because his

name is premier,

doesn’t mean he’s

first.” (S6, February 7,

Line 14)

Critical

Thinker

Cognitive Using formal logical and analytical

skills, using imagination, and creativity

“S7? It’s either that

this is wrong or that’s


(CRIT) 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

Maker (DCM)

Cognitive Evaluating the necessity and sufficiency

of resources (material, expertise, time,

relevance, authenticity, etc.) to make an

investigation worthy of investment at

the time, deciding what information will

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)

“The one with the

loudest voice is going

to speak the most.”

(S1, April 13, Line

80)

Engager

(ENG)

Positive

Emotional

Showing an interest in the topic,

exhibiting curiosity and a desire to

know more, pondering observations,

interests and strengths guide decision

making (e.g., “I found an interesting

fact!”), cuing group to stay on task or on

“That is just so cool.

Wait—so T1. T1!”

(S3, April 29, Line

485)


topic

Evaluator

(EVAL)

Cognitive Describing one’s own strategies,

assessing one’s work, evaluating

evidence, monitor and evaluate one’s

progress toward a solution, evaluate

solutions, assess relevant and

authenticity of a proposed problem or

topic, foresee possible outcomes of

activity

“Except you might not

really see it. Oh

maybe. That’s good.

That’s good.” (S3,

April 29, Line 545)

Generalizer

(GEN)

Cognitive Assessing the generalizability of ideas

to larger questions and others’ interests,

applying new knowledge to future

experiences, extending inquiry beyond

the classroom

“OK, so I thought we

could make ours like

cowboy themed

because our greeting

is ‘Howdy Friends’”

(S1, April 29, Line 2)

Hypothesizer

(HYP)

Cognitive Developing expectations of what will

happen next, offering hypotheses about

outcomes, testing ideas and hypotheses

“Maybe it’s members

of national assembly.”


19)

Information

Finder (FIND)

Cognitive Identifying where to obtain data,

recognizing hidden meanings in data,

recording, classifying, and verifying

data, searching for data beyond

“This article does not

cite any references or

sources.” (S5,

February 7, Line 252)


textbooks, searching on Internet,

separating relevant and irrelevant data

and info, reading from a source

Initiative

Taker (IT)

Positive

Emotional

Taking responsibility for one’s own

learning, taking initiative, using

investigations to satisfy one’s own

questions, showing confidence in topic

area, demonstrating a willingness to

modify ideas

“I don’t know. But

I'm doing my own

idea.” (S2, April 29,

Line 152)

Investigation

Planner

(PLAN)

Cognitive Developing an appropriate approach to

a problem, developing goals that are

clear, shared, and include learning “to

do” and “about”, planning and carrying

out an investigation, acting as a

researcher or investigator

“I’m looking it up.”


222)

Knower

(KNOW)

Cognitive Constructing new knowledge,

expressing a mental representation of

the task, using inquiry language,

symbols, or skills in context,

understanding instructions,

demonstrating an understanding of the

goal of the task, expressing specialized

or deep understanding of concepts and

“So cabinet is

something, no, the

cabinet’s stronger

than the premier

because they’re the

ones that chose him.”


133)


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

Connector

(KC)

Cognitive Understanding how preconceptions

affect learning, offer explanations from

a “store” of previous experience and

knowledge gained as a result of ongoing

investigation, discussion of what has

been learned compared to what was

known before, connecting old and new

knowledge, applying previous

knowledge to new concepts

“I know what a

cabinet is but I don’t

know what it is for the

government.” (S7,


Negative

Empowerer

(NEMP)

Negative

Emotional

Reporting of individual or group

weaknesses, includes sarcasm, teasing,

put-downs, negative verbalizations

“It’s impossible to

work with you.” (S5,

February 23, Line

301)

Negative

Motivator

(NMOT)

Negative

Emotional

Expressing a lack of motivation or self-

motivation

“Ok, who cares.” (S4,

April 18, Line 381)

Negator Negative Indication of not valuing or enjoying the “I don’t want to do


(NEG) Emotional topic Stephen Harper, just

because it’s probably

what everyone's

doing.” (S7, February

16, Line 87)

Observer

(OBSV)

Cognitive Observing carefully instead of just

looking, noticing details, patterns,

sequences, changes, similarities,

differences, simply stating an

observation about his or her own or

another’s work

“April, whoa they’re

on the same date.”


635)

Open-Minded

Collaborator

(OMC)

Social Viewpoints: seeking different

viewpoints, comparing and contrasting

data with someone else’s, reflecting

with adults and peers, anticipating and

responding to arguments in opposition

to one’s view

“He’s not doing it like

that.”


317)

Organizer

(ORG)

Cognitive Locate, document, and organize relevant

information, data, and evidence for

interpretation by self and others,

organize the presentation of the project

“And then on the

bottom we say

November 5th.” (S6,

February 16, Line

269)

Planner (PL) Cognitive Making plans, having different plans in “But first let’s plan it


advance, having back-up plans before. OK, now let’s

find good things that

recycling glass could

do that’s pirate-ish.”

(S1, April 29, Line

283)

Positive

Empowerer

(PEMP)

Positive

Emotional

Reporting of individual or group

strengths and identifying areas to

improve upon

“I like the way S5’s

doing it.” (S7,

February 16, Line

315)

Positive

Motivator

(PMOT)

Positive

Emotional

Expressing motivation or self-

motivation

“I want it to be like,

really, really, really

good.” (S1, April 29,

Line 25)

Questioner

(QUEST)

Cognitive Asking questions verbally, using

questions to lead to an investigation that

generate or refines further questions or

ideas, questioning findings, follow-up

with further questions, asking relevant

questions for an appropriate audience

“How does that affect

the government?” (S6,

March 14, Line 13)

Reflector

(REF)

Positive

Emotional

A student reflects on or evaluates his or

her inquiry experience, awareness of

how the inquiry experience affects him

“I want to have a

house like that.” (S2,

April 29, Line 482)


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

Emotional

Any negative dialog that relates to

interest (“This is really not interesting”)

“That doesn’t even

make sense.” (S7,

February 16, Line

797)

Respectful

Listener (RL)

Social Respect individuals and differing points

of view, listening and discussing

respectfully, demonstrating patience

“I’ll tell you guys

what I found first but

first let’s wait for S3

and S4. I found this.”


Responder

(RS)

Social Clear communication among members

or with teacher/researcher in a

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

“Yes I do.” (S8,



Reviser (REV) Cognitive Willingness to revise explanations and

consider new ideas as knowledge is

gained, keeping an open mind to

change, taking risks, displaying healthy

scepticism, persevering with ideas

“I can make a new

one.” (S3, February

16, Line 26)

Self Regulator

(SREG)

Cognitive Divide tasks into do-able steps, make a

concept map, restate or reformat the

problem, brainstorm

“Okay, these are the

ones you’re doing.

You’re starting from

Johnny McDonald all

the way up to King

William Lyon

Mackenzie.” (S7,

February 16, Line

128)

Versatile

Representer

(VR)

Cognitive Expressing ideas in a variety of ways

including journals, reporting about,

drawing, graphing, charting, be

comfortable with existence of multiple

approaches and multiple solutions

“We can make it look

like a pirate map. We

can, like, maybe cut it

if we’re allowed.

Make it look old and

we can take a picture

of a pirate map and

then--“ (S3, April 29,

Line 13)


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 Audience-

Appropriate 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 content-

focused, 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:


RS 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)


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.


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,


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


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


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


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


the categories.

Table 3

Teacher Inquiry Roles With Associated Descriptions and Examples

Teacher

Role

Role Type Role Description Example (from transcript)

Active

Helper

(AH)

Positive

Emotional

Teacher addresses student needs “OK so S2, flip your card and I

want you to use your notes to

go through the steps of

recycling on the back.” (T1,

April 20, Line 324)

Active

Listener

(AL)

Positive

Emotional

Listening to student comments and

becoming aware of misconceptions

“Just be careful because certain

things are companies

themselves. HydroQuebec is

its own company.” (T2,


Animator

(ANM)

Cognitive Encouraging communication skills

like listening and talking

“So there has to be lots of

discussion to figure out where

things go. (T2, February 7,

Line 5)

Connector

(CONN)

Cognitive Using primary sources of info

rather than textbooks, using

resources from inside and outside

the school setting, encouraging use

“Okay, here’s the website.”

(T2, February 16, Line 31)


of concept maps and drawing

models to explain and demonstrate

newly acquired knowledge, using

investigations to anchor new

information to previous

Co-Owner

(CO)

Cognitive Student and teacher share decision

making, share co-ownership of the

question, share construction of the

curriculum

“Did he die in 1878, 1891, oh I

didn’t know that!” (T2,


Encourager

(ENC)

Positive

Emotional

Encourages students to construct

own investigations, encourages

creative risk-taking

“You can make it funny or you

can stay on more of a serious

tone. It’s up to you.”

(T1, April 13, Line 15)

Facilitator

(FCL)

Cognitive Acting as a facilitator, mediator,

initiator, and coach while modelling

the behaviours of inquiry

“How it will benefit families in

the community and youths is

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


Classroom

Manager

(FLEX)

follows path of student questions,

keeping students on task by having

them support their findings through

debates, challenges and questions

conclusions

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)

Informer

(INF)

Positive

Emotional

Teacher acts as a mentor or tutor,

provides information, encourages

honest criticism of ideas

“Draw your material here. And

then start. You know what to

look for.” (T1, April 29, Line

339)

Motivator

(MOT)

Positive

Emotional

Positive reinforcement for student

contributions, good work in

cooperative groups, and praise for

persistence

“Good. Keep going. Few more

minutes.” (T2, February 21,

Line 135)

Nurturer

(NURT)

Positive

Emotional

Providing feedback that is sensitive “You never know, maybe it

will go quickly and you will

be.” (T1, April 13, Line 265)

Positive

Classroom

Manager

(PCM)

Cognitive Establishing routines for group

interaction, maintaining appropriate

classroom management by

displaying rules in a positive way,

includes re-iterating rules for task

“Yes, you’re staying on track.

You’re looking for what’s

made out of recycled materials.

Not who will be on American

Idol tonight or what time


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,


Questioner

(QUES)

Cognitive Posing prompts, initiating

classroom discussion and discourse

by asking starter questions and

posing thought-provoking questions

throughout the lesson, asking

questions that require critical-

thinking 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

“OK, anything else in the

definition of a sovereign?” (T2,



Rover

(ROV)

Cognitive Moving about the classroom and

rotating to each small group

“Alright girls, how’s it going?”


Scaffolder

(SCAF)

Cognitive Progress: assessing prior

knowledge before starting a lesson

or unit of study and using student’s

prior knowledge as a basis for

introducing new concepts, assessing

student performance in a variety of

forms and monitoring student

progress continuously, helping

students assess their own progress

“Boys and girls, the cabinet

should mean something to you,

we just learned that Mr.

Kelley’s part of the cabinet so

it should mean something to

you.” (T2, February 7, Line

127)

Student-

Interest

Explorer

(SIE)

Positive

Emotional

Making learning meaningful by

exploring student interests

“So, let’s see. Oh! You guys

are putting some--“ (T1,


Teacher-

Interest

Explorer

(TIE)

Positive

Emotional

Teacher explores his or her own

interest

“ Oh! See—repeat that again. I

want to hear that. I thought

that was interesting.” (T1,


Time

Manager

(TIME)

Cognitive Using time efficiently and flexibly,

providing required time

“Ok, we have two minutes left

for this morning.” (T2, March

16, Line 330)


Valuer

(VAL)

Positive

Emotional

Valuing student responses “Oh like organics! OK, it could

help enrich the soil— yes.”


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


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


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).


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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 self-

motivation, 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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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 teacher-

centered 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,


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


(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)


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


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


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 perspective-

taking 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


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


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


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


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


(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


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


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]


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

thinking (Self

Thinker)

Imagining how you would think in someone’s

position (putting self in others’ proverbial

shoes) and includes the verb “to be”

“No but, I don’t think it’s a

good idea to write that.”

(S3, February 16, Line 122)

Imagine self

feeling (Self

Feeler)

Imagining how you would feel in someone’s

position and includes the verb “to want”

“Yeah exactly, that’s why I

want to write it. That’s why

I was--” (S3, April 18, Line

126)

Imagine self

acting (Self

Imagining how you would act in someone’s

position and includes the verb “to be”

“We’re going to be like in

front of the whole class.


Actor) Like, they’re probably going

to sit on the carpets.” (S2,

April 13, Line 85)

Imagine self

visual/perceptual

(Self Visualizer)

Imagining how you would visually perceive a

situation in another person’s position

“No, but I saw it first.” (S6,


Imagine other

thinking (Other

Thinker)

Imagining how someone would think in a

certain situation (imagine how a person would

think in his or her proverbial shoes) and

includes the verb “to be”

“Just because his name is

premier, doesn’t mean he’s

first.” (S6, February 7, Line

14)

Imagine other

feeling (Other

Feeler)

Imagining how someone would feel in a

certain situation and includes the verb “to

want”

“I don’t think it will scare

them actually S3. I think it

will, like, interest them to

not do it.”


Imagine other

acting (Other

Actor)

Imagining how someone would act in a certain

situation and includes the verb “to be”

“The government doesn’t

pay taxes. If the

government paid taxes,

they’d just be paying

themselves.” (S5, February

21, Line 97)

Imagine other

visual/perceptual

Imagining how someone would

visually/spatially perceive a certain situation

“Look how big the poster

is.” (S2, April 29, Line 528)


(Other

Visualizer)

Results and Interpretation

Four specific roles identified by Walker et al. (2013b) that related to social perspective-

taking 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


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 perspective-

taking roles, but the nature of these roles varied according to the classroom activities or teacher’s


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


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


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


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.


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), other-

transforming (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).


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).


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).


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


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.


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).


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


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


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


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.


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,


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 action-

oriented 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.


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


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


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


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 perspective-

taking 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.


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


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


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 action-

oriented 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


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 inquiry-

based teaching and learning environments. No known research to date has incorporated social-

constructivist 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.


This research contributes to the theory-of-mind literature as well. Although many theory-

of-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.


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


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,


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:


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:10.1002/1098-

2736(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.


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.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034021.12899.11


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, self-

efficacy, and social perspective taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 894-

914. 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,

http://dx.doi.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.11.002

http://www.skeptron.ilu.uu.se/broady/sec/p-greendixon.htm#The%20Social%20Construction%20of%20Classroom%20Life


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)1098-

237X(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/jeibi-

index.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


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.1467-

9450.2006.00488.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,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076285


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, 113-

141. 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.


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.


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.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-004-1884-y


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/en-

US/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


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 inquiry-

based 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


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, 363-

372. 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

http://jxliu.com/click/?s=63452&c=512919


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.


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,


229-271. doi:10.1023/A:1014045408753


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______________ Date ________ Year __________

What grade are you in? .

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.


Please check the most appropriate box after each question.

Not at all

interesting

Slightly

interesting

Moderately

interesting

Quite

interesting

Extremely

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?




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?




0

Does not

describe

me well

1 2 3 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.


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 ? Why might that

mess it up?

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?


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 ? Why might that

mess it up?

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?