Abstract
This year-long qualitative study explored third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade gifted students’ participation during inquiry explorations. We discovered that it took considerable time for students to balance the process and final product created. For instance, students focused on the process and planning of the outcome. However, when the outcome product was created, they may have only considered one element early in the academic year. There was a delicate balance between engaging in inquiry and developing a product that met expectations.
I think we should create a suspension bridge.
Okay, but we need to think about cables to suspend it over the span. How should we do that?
We need to think about compression and how the weight of the bridge is supported.
Yes, and it has to hold weight when it is tested.
This conversation occurred as a small group of students identified as gifted planned on which type of bridge they would build, the materials required, and their total cost to meet the expectations set by the teacher for their performance-based assessment. They just completed inquiry investigations centered on bridges during which they explored various types of bridges and how they were constructed. The inquiry-based product built upon the content knowledge that students developed through direct instruction and exploration of books and Internet resources during their unit of study.
Similar inquiry projects occurred throughout the year with third, fourth, and fifth graders who qualified as gifted and talented for instruction in their gifted and talented education (GATE) classroom. Their teacher provided multiple opportunities for students to use the content shared in more formal instruction to serve as a foundation for inquiry-based investigations. This instruction was similar to what Rogoff (2014) described as “learning by observing and pitching in” (p. 70). Students participated in instruction by observing, reading and discussing, and actively constructing representations to reveal their understandings.
However, as their teacher observed students completing products early in the year, she wondered about the process students engaged in and the products they created as culminations to their investigations. She noted that students’ conversations were grounded in appropriate science content. However, she observed that students struggled during the construction phase of product creation and many of them failed to meet the established expectations even with planning and collaboration. These observations led to a study where she partnered with a university researcher to examine the process and products created during inquiry-based learning opportunities throughout an academic year. This investigation was important, as there are numerous descriptions that support the importance of inquiry-based learning but none share the journey that students and their teachers participate in during these investigations.
Literature Review
In 1997, Eisner explored cognition and representation within schools. He wrote, We only want them [students] to have the appetite and ability to think analytically and critically, to be able to speculate and imagine, to see connections among ideas, and to be able to use what they know to enhance their own lives and to contribute to their culture. (Eisner, 1997, p. 349)
His thinking led to several core ideas centered on curriculum possibilities, such as a form of representation should be influenced by both the processes and products of thinking. These beliefs opened up the way students learn in schools as it shifted from a narrow, convergent type of learning to enacting disparate forms of understanding. Later, in 1999, Eisner built upon these ideas when he explored performance assessment and how it revealed the uniqueness of student thinking. These assessments supported teachers’ understanding of student learning as they revised and conceptualized student learning opportunities based on current student understanding. Eisner’s (1997, 1999) views on teaching and assessment served as a foundation for a better understanding of today’s inquiry-based instruction and learning.
Inquiry-based learning requires sophisticated thinking by students as they plan, question, and revise during the process of product creation (Herrenkohl, Tasker, & White, 2011). Furthermore, this instructional approach acknowledges that science theorizing and content development are based on uncertainty where multiple approaches to a task are required, as are shifts in conceptualization, to successfully achieve an instructional goal.
Because of its complexity, inquiry-based instruction/learning requires carefully planned instruction where students build deep understanding and learning through active exploration of a topic (Repinc & Juznic, 2013). Repinc and Juznic (2013) suggested that students are expected to sort through and evaluate multiple sources of data as they work collaboratively. Furthermore, the collaborative process offers opportunities for students to engage in teamwork and task persistence. Similarly, VanTassel-Baska (2013a) described this learning as grounded in social constructivist beliefs where students work together to construct knowledge. Within this instructional approach, students take ownership of the investigations and product creation with the guidance of their teachers. This type of instruction often connects to science as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) support the learning of scientific reasoning and inquiry skills though analyzing and interpreting information with peers (Clark & Lott, 2017; Patrick, Bangel, Jeon, & Townsend, 2005).
VanTassel-Baska (2013b) described criteria for inquiry-based learning and assessments of such learning. She called for the tasks to be “open-ended, focusing on higher level thinking and problem solving, and stressing articulation of the thinking processes employed” (VanTassel-Baska, 2013b, p. 41). She noted that students should provide evidence of their thinking when finding a solution within an inquiry project or during performance-based assessment.
Furthermore, inquiry-based instruction has as its foundation the art of questioning. Students and teachers must model open questioning where a variety of responses are possible. Moreover, students and teachers must be careful listeners as they use questions and responses to guide or revise their thinking. VanTassel-Baska (2014) suggested multiple ways to think about questioning, including a four-question strategy (cognition, convergence, divergence, and evaluation), Bloom’s taxonomy (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and creation), and Paul’s Model of Reasoning where issues are identified, concepts explored, purpose and point of view are considered, while simultaneously reflecting on assumptions, data and evidence, inferences, and, finally, consequences. Each of these models represents ways of crafting questions that are open to interpretation and distinguish themselves from more traditional single-answer questions.
Successful inquiry-based learning requires teacher planning. Projects must fit with the expected standards and learning expectations within a school, district, and state. From this background, teachers determine an appropriate topic and student learning goals. Then, the teacher identifies necessary materials, lesson development, and performance-based assessment. Once these teaching/learning expectations are prepared, a teacher is ready to begin instruction and to closely observe student learning to make any necessary modifications in the instructional plan (Education Development Center, 2001). Inquiry-based investigations typically culminate in a performance-based assessment (VanTassel-Baska, 2013b), which serves as a vehicle to determine learning in both content and group processing.
Inquiry-based instruction/learning is particularly appropriate for gifted students. (By using this term, readers are cautioned that giftedness represents a full array of talents with variability among individuals.) These students understand content knowledge and are motivated to use this information in novel situations (VanTassel-Baska, 2013a, 2014). Gifted students thrive on intellectual challenge and are motivated to collaborate with other students about problems or issues that intrigue them (Gallagher & Stepien, 1996). Moreover, gifted students typically have strong analytical skills and, thus, they are effective problem solvers (Eysink, Gersen, & Gijlers, 2015). Furthermore, they “approach problems in a scientific way, which makes them strong in relating concepts and discovering general patterns” (Eysink et al., 2015, p. 63).
VanTassel-Baska (2013a) reviewed studies focused on inquiry with gifted students and identified the following outcomes:
Higher level thinking is obtained if a structured curriculum is used and constructivist and direct instruction are combined (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2009).
Gifted students mastered concepts and transferred this learning to new contexts and demonstrated engagement through inquiry-based investigations (Gallagher & Stepien, 1996).
Alternative assessments that were open-ended and focused on a problem were appropriate to demonstrate student learning (VanTassel-Baska, 2008).
Finally, VanTassel-Baska (2014) wrote, “Inquiry-based strategies were the most effective modes of delivery when working with the gifted on a differentiated curriculum” (p. 48).
Eysink et al. (2015) explored inquiry-based instruction/learning in elementary schools. They used an experimental design where students participated in unstructured, structured, or exposed inquiry. Students in structured and unstructured inquiry worked individually. They then completed structured (with teacher support) or unstructured worksheets (without teacher support). In the exposed inquiry condition, students participated with a teacher who posed questions as they watched a video and then completed a worksheet. They discovered that structured inquiry best suited gifted students as students identified this structure as their preference. They offered that gifted students were most successful when they were prompted to generate hypotheses and supported by their teacher during their investigations. In other words, gifted students needed direction during inquiry-based learning experiences and their engagement did not suffer with this guidance. Teacher support not only offered students structure but also sustained the inquisitiveness of students to solve a problem. They were surprised by this result as they assumed gifted students would appreciate less support during learning. Kuhlthau (2010) concurred in the importance of inquiry being guided by a teacher to ensure the development of deep understanding about a concept or topic. He observed teachers work with students on inquiry-based projects and noted the success or lack of success based on adult support. Without teacher guidance, students floundered in accomplishing their learning goals.
Robinson, Dailey, Hughes, and Cotabish (2014) connected inquiry-based learning and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instruction for gifted students. They explored how gifted students’ content knowledge, science understanding, and process skills were impacted during a STEM intervention. The intervention centered on an inquiry- or problem-based science curriculum unit. They recommended that science inquiry should begin in early grades to evoke students’ interest in science. They wrote, “To encourage student interest and enthusiasm in science, science curriculum should emphasize overarching concepts, higher level thinking, inquiry, technology, and scientific processes” (Robinson et al., 2014, p. 193). They advocated that STEM inquiry-based projects were an optimal match for the characteristics of gifted students, particularly their inquisitiveness in learning new information and solving problems.
Although inquiry-based instruction/learning is recommended for students who are gifted, collaboration with peers brings special challenges for gifted students, especially when they are grouped with other gifted students. Kaplan (2014) offered that for these groupings to be successful, students moved from working alone to working with others, and they needed to understand how to socially participate with peers. Within their groupings, they were expected to use critical thinking and be open-minded and respectful of others’ opinions. Gifted students often wanted quick solutions and instant success and found it difficult to contemplate and support the ideas of other students (Lim, 2006). Lim (2006) suggested that teachers work with students to develop a shared sense of inquiry, persistence in a search for solutions, analyzing potential solutions, fostering trust and tolerance for others, supporting dialogue among peers, and being responsible for one’s own views and honoring the views of others. Kanevsky (2011) designed an experimental study where she questioned gifted students about differentiation. Students reported liking to work at their own speed and working with a partner when they could choose him or her. Students indicated they liked to work on activities with multiple answers and a variety of solutions. Finally, Kanevsky acknowledged that the task given to gifted students must be sufficiently difficult so that authentic collaboration can occur within student groups.
This study built on the previous research where gifted students were grouped to participate in inquiry-based instruction/learning especially around STEM concepts. However, rather than just sharing the results of such learning or the importance of this structure for learning, we moved to the day-to-day experiences of students participating in inquiry-based instruction/learning. By considering the day-to-day learning, we offered descriptions of the process students participated in and the outcomes of their learning or products. These descriptions enriched the current understandings surrounding inquiry-based instruction/learning and supported teachers’ persistence in providing such learning opportunities.
Method
Our qualitative case study inquiry began at the beginning of the school year and concluded during its final weeks. We considered the third, fourth, and fifth graders who qualified for the GATE program as a case (Yin, 2014). This design best suited this study, as our goal was to describe the experiences of students during inquiry-based learning situations (Merriam, 1988) and to carefully illustrate the process that occurred during inquiry and the products that were its result. Furthermore, this case study was considered intrinsic (Stake, 2000), for it provided a better understanding of inquiry-based instruction, learning, and assessment with gifted students.
The researchers initially met in August of the school year to plan how data would be collected for the case study. Importantly, we structured the study so that data were collected throughout an academic year and the results did not focus on just one event; rather, we described students’ processes and products over time and provided evidence of student change (Flick, 2014; McLeod & Thomson, 2009).
Specifically, we decided that for this case study, we would craft each inquiry project so that it had a planning sheet where students recorded their initial thinking. And although there were numerous inquiry activities throughout the year, we would focus on those that were determined to be major in time allotted and content covered. During each instructional event, the researchers documented student comments through observations and field notes and, in some cases, through video recording to capture the exact words of students. We collected all student artifacts and photographed them to serve as data sources. The researchers met continuously throughout the academic year to reflect on students’ conversations, production processes, and final outcomes. At the end of the year, the entire data set was reviewed to better describe the process and products centered on inquiry investigations.
Researchers’ Background
The classroom teacher served as the primary researcher as she had day-to-day contact with students and she prepared the learning inquiry projects for students. She has been a teacher for more than 10 years and has conducted multiple studies where she observed and documented student learning. Her partner was a university researcher who spent multiple days in the classroom. Her role was to collaborate with the teacher to make meaning of the observations, discussions, and student products. Both researchers analyzed the data to determine themes.
School Context
Albert Elementary School is a Title I magnet school in a large urban area. The school is an IB World Academy and has a STEM focus. One of the major goals of this school is to develop inquiry to tackle world challenges to make the world a better, more peaceful place using action. For each grade level, there are targeted areas of inquiry that guide general education teachers’ instructional preparation. For instance, in third grade, students explore weather patterns and learn about climates throughout the world. Within the school are traditional classrooms and several labs to support student inquiry (hydroponics, outdoor garden, tinker and maker lab, robotic and teleconference lab, and an inflatable star lab). The school culture supports a worldview for all learning. Grade-level teachers build curriculum together and work as teams for instructional planning. Much of the instruction that students routinely engage in was inquiry-based.
The school consists of Grades 1 through 5 and has approximately 700 students. The majority of the students are Hispanic (65%), with 17% Caucasian, 9% Black, and 3% Asian. Approximately one third of the students are English Language Learners and about 5% are being supported with special education. State data reports show that in math and literacy 47% of third graders are proficient. In fourth grade, 52% of students are proficient in math, and 72% are proficient in literacy. In fifth grade, 37% of students are proficient in math, and 57% are proficient in literacy.
Gifted and talented students participated in instruction within their general education classes most of the week. Fourth and fifth graders met with their teacher for GATE twice each week for a total of 150 minutes. Third-grade students met for the same number of minutes but their time was split during three sessions.
Participants
We included all of the students who were qualified for instruction in GATE within this school. The program is limited to students from third to fifth grade, with most students being identified during second grade. To qualify for this program, numerous tests are individually administered to students and a parent or teacher has to recommend the student for the program. Although all the students met the expectations for the gifted and talented program, they were a very diverse group when considering racial and cultural identities, leadership qualities, creative skills, and so on (Reis & Renzulli, 2009).
There were a total of 84 students in the GATE program. Twenty-nine students were in third grade, 25 in fourth grade, and 30 in fifth grade. Of this total, 41 were girls and 43 were boys. Mirroring the diversity reported for the school, 45 students were Hispanic, 18 Caucasian, 10 Black, seven Asian, and four Pacific Island students. The diversity of this group of gifted and talented students is noteworthy, as most often students who are Hispanic or Black are underrepresented in this population (Esquierdo & Arreguin-Anderson, 2012), whereas in this school, representation is similar to school demographics.
Inquiry-Based Projects
The GATE teacher had freedom in developing her curriculum. She made decisions about topics for her projects, how students would interact throughout a project (direct instruction and collaborative opportunities), and how students were assessed. Each project she offered, students provided multiple opportunities for students to explore a topic. For instance, during the fourth-grade water project, students explored water supply and need throughout the world, water consumption, water quality, and so on. As a culminating performance assessment, collaborative groups shared this information with others. Student groups decided how to represent their information so that an audience learned with them and participated in an activity.
Each grade level participated in a variety of projects throughout the year with some more limited in time and focus and others more complex in expectations. Each project involved direct teaching, student investigation, planning, and a final product or assessment grounded in student learning.
Students in the third grade participated in the following inquiry-based projects:
insect structures,
snowflakes,
cultures and biomes, and
weather.
Fourth-grade students were engaged with the following inquiry-based projects:
migration,
covered wagons, and
water project.
Fifth-grade students explored the following inquiry-based projects:
sled challenge,
bridges,
black plague, and
crime scene investigation (CSI) forensics.
Projects varied in length, and students were also involved in other learning activities. For this study, we focused on the larger inquiry-based projects and their resulting performance-based assessment products.
Data Collection
There were a variety of data sources. We included observations, student planning sheets, photos of products, and student and teacher reflections.
Observations
Observations occurred during all learning interactions. The classroom teacher, as primary researcher, took notes about students as she interacted with their inquiry-based groups on a daily basis. She also filmed students using her phone as they worked on their products or shared them. The university researcher took notes during her observations and recorded student dialogue using her phone as they worked together. Her visits were arranged so that she was present during a project and for the final sharing of products. Field notes were all handwritten during moments of learning or written retrospectively immediately after an instructional event.
Student planning sheets
Before students engaged in a project, they worked with their group to plan how the project would be accomplished and what materials they would need. A total of 100 student planning sheets were collected. The planning sheets provided a window into the process of the inquiry-based instructional events. Students were given time within a project to revise the planning sheet as needed. Revision was not consistent throughout the groups as some students revised and other students never thought about revision without teacher prompting. Teacher prompting was kept to a minimum as the teacher only suggested that students reread their planning sheet for clarity.
Student products
The products provided information about how students moved from process to product. They allowed for students to reflect on what went well and what issues they encountered during the creative process. We photographed all 100 final products. Most product development followed the engineering process of ask, imagine, plan, create, and improve (Engineering Is Elementary, 2018).
Student and teacher reflections
During the final days of schools, students wrote about their inquiry-based projects and products throughout the year. They reflected on the process and products of their learning. The teacher routinely engaged in reflection in determining the next steps of a project or for curricular decisions based on student observations. There were 75 reflections used in this data source.
Limitations
One limitation was the variable time for each project. Depending on student interest, some projects took longer and were more involved than others. Thus, some projects had richer data support than did others. Furthermore, student groupings were changed throughout the year with the result that some groupings were more effective and efficient than others even when students chose their own groups. For instance, in a few circumstances, students required more support to work with each other. They struggled with accommodating all ideas into a product and often neglected to listen to each other.
Data Analysis
The data were investigated sequentially from the beginning to the end of the year. Importantly, students did not engage in the same inquiry-based projects at the beginning and end of the year, so direct comparison was never possible. Each project was studied by first reviewing the student planning sheets, then observational notes (which included student and teacher dialogue), and finally products. We considered the relationships between the process and products. Our data analysis revolved around the students’ use of content during the process and product creation during each inquiry-based activity. We used the first inquiry-based projects as a foundation for comparison as we carefully analyzed following projects. Each project was, therefore, a part of the analysis, as we understood from each one how students participated in inquiry-based instruction/learning. Then, we reviewed students’ and their teacher’s comments about the process and products they created to insure all voices were a critical part of the analysis (see Table 1 for a sample of the data analysis).
Sample of Data Analysis.
Results
We discovered three major themes through our analysis. Those themes included a focus on process, a focus on product, and the persistence required of teachers to continue teaching inquiry-based learning activities with gifted and talented students. The journey of inquiry-based learning activities and product formation throughout the academic year is shared within each theme.
Balance of Process and Product
The balance between process and product was interesting to observe and document. Students spent considerable time working on planning where they talked with one another to determine how to best meet the expectations for a product. Their conversations and planning became more sophisticated throughout the year where students included divergent views within their thinking and were more aware of the multiple expectations within an inquiry-based performance assessment. They also became more skilled in having conversations and listening to other ideas as this skill was facilitated and modeled by their teacher. Similarly, as students matured throughout the year, the products they created became more complex and the majority met the expectations of the task or challenge provided by their teacher.
The following sections teased out both process and product creation. A caution is offered in interpreting the themes as both intertwined and were interrelated. For instance, the process students engaged in supported or hindered their final product development. For clarity in presenting the results, this separation was necessary.
A focus on process
We observed that students varied in the way they took on an inquiry-based product challenge. Some groups planned together and collaborated as they created their products where all students worked together on all aspects. Other groups divided the tasks as they planned together but then each student worked on a part of a product and eventually connected the pieces for final construction. Each preferred way of working offered strengths and challenges. Working collaboratively allowed students to revise as they created, but students often had to resolve conflicting opinions as they built their product. Working individually within a project permitted students to revise their part of the product; however, they often had to negotiate during final construction. During either mode of collaboration, students found they had to rely on each other to successfully complete a product.
We shared conversations from multiple groups to show how students talked about important concepts and how they applied this knowledge during their project planning phases. These examples were representative of all of the small groups working on projects. For instance, when fifth graders were creating sleds to see which would go the furthest down an embankment, they talked about resistance and friction.
I think we should have a curved bottom. I saw skis and the fronts are curved up. They must make them that way so the skier can go faster down the mountain.
Okay, like runners. That might help with friction. They need to be smooth though.
I get what you are saying, but they need support or they won’t hold up a sled. We need to think about force too. Our sled has to get down that ramp. How can we make it strong?
As this group of three worked on the details of their sled, they decided to cover the whole thing in duct tape to add weight and to create less friction with the surface of the embankment. Another detail they considered was size; just how big should the sled be to reach maximum distance? They talked about velocity and momentum as they planned the optimal sled. These were concepts and questions the students pursued as they planned for their sled creation. See Figure 1 to view their planning sheet that recorded the details from their conversation. Figure 2 offers a view into the testing of their sleds.
Planning sheet of sled.
Testing of sleds.
Similar to fifth graders, fourth graders planned extensively when they were creating covered wagons during their migration exploration. With their teacher, they talked about Westward expansion as one example of migration. During this discussion, they chatted about how pioneers used covered wagons to move their families and personal belongings west. Their teacher challenged students to create a wagon that could hold the weight of a soda can. For materials, they used paper, pipe cleaners, toothpicks, cardboard, tape, and straws and they had 75 minutes to complete their planning and product. Students considered the challenge and the materials that were offered and planned on how to create a wagon. This assessment reflected the knowledge gained about Westward migration and the limitations of a wagon as the transporting vehicle.
As we observed students and listened in to this inquiry-based product creation early in the year, we noticed that they often were focused on the construction of a wagon, but did not consider all the necessary elements. For instance, they planned how to cover the wagon and how to make the wheels. In making the wheels, they thought more about the image of a wheel and not how it supported the weight of the wagon with a soda can on it. Listening in to students’ conversation shared their more singular focus on construction and how the project would be divided up within the team.
I think we should use toothpicks for the wheels. They look like spokes. See here (Showing an image from a book).
Okay and we can use straws for the bottom of the wagon and paper to cover it. Maybe we could use pipe cleaners for the form for the wagon. The paper would go over them.
How about Alyssa creates the wheels and Alberto does the cover. I will do the body of the wagon.
Their planning sheet shared their thinking about the materials needed and the vision for the resulting wagon (see Figure 3 for planning sheet and Figure 4 for photo of product).
Planning sheet of a covered wagon.
Final covered wagon project.
When considering both of these groups of students, they relied on each other to solve the problem; however, the fifth-grade group worked collaboratively, whereas, the fourth-grade group divided the task responsibilities. The fifth-grade group revised as they constructed their sled. As they worked together on all aspects of the sled creation, they adjusted size and the weight of the cubes on the back of the sled. This way of dividing the responsibilities of the task resulted in a final product that met all of the expectations of the task. The group that divided the responsibilities struggled as they constructed their wagon. They saw each part of the task as their own and did not consider how all the parts would fit together to complete the challenge. They had to adjust their wagon as each piece was completed to be a part of the whole wagon without collaboration during the building process. Furthermore, as they built their wagon with each person offering a unique part of the wagon, they failed to consider how the wagon would bear weight. Although the wheels were beautiful, the toothpick construction did not support weight.
A focus on product
Early on students focused on one part of the product and not the entire challenge. For example, third graders explored insects’ body structure early in the year. They used straws and paper clips to make an insect exoskeleton. They had to build their exoskeleton so that it held weight similar to the insects they had studied. Although some of the groups were successful, other groups had insect parts that did not hold together or they created insect exoskeletons that were flat on a desk (see Figure 5 for an example). Although their conversation and planning were rich in that they talked about the parts of the insect and discussed how they would create theirs, their products were single dimensional. Their insects had all the critical body parts but most did not hold the weight expected in the challenge. Within this challenge, they also did not use the planning sheet as a guide as they planned together and created their part of the product. Their teacher began every class with the groups to reflect on their plan, yet they continued to work as parallels. After a few sessions like this, she had the students write out a plan of task roles and once that happened, the students were more successful.
Exoskeleton example.
Students reflected on their final products and commented the following:
The insect straws/paper clips did not work out because the weights were too strong.
When me and my group [sic] made our insects it was a little tricky trying to put it all together. It was tricky getting the straws to go together.
It looked so much better on paper than we could make it.
It was hard to make it from the plan.
I didn’t talk to my teammates enough so it was hard to put together.
These comments reflected that students were aware of the difficulty of moving from a plan to a product. They used the knowledge they acquired to plan a model, but the construction phase was difficult. Interestingly, the students were not frustrated by this difficulty; they accepted it as part of inquiry-based learning. They were also aware that developing teamwork was hard and they were not always successful.
Within the instruction provided by the teacher and discussion, students learned the content necessary to move to the creation of a product. She moved between books and Internet resources to provide appropriate background knowledge for students. As students planned in small groups, they used the concepts and knowledge that had been shared and investigated. In effect, they made this content their own by thinking with each other and referring to Internet and book sources for clarification when needed.
Students were challenged to consider how concepts connected, thus adding to the rigor of instruction. For instance, students considered the construction of a sled through discussion of resistance, force, friction, and velocity. They were expected to consider all of these concepts simultaneously as they planned their product. We noticed students grappling with multiple concepts and how to incorporate them all, sometimes giving preference to one over another early in the year.
Three other lengthy projects revealed students’ focus on product later in the academic year. Third graders examined biomes, fourth graders studied access to water, and fifth graders explored bridges. The fourth-grade project moved to sharing their knowledge with other students and adults. As they studied the issue of access to clean water, they wanted to take action, which is a significant element in their IB education. This shift to action was similar to the expectations within project-based instruction where the goal is for students to address real-world problems (Duke, 2016).
The third-grade biome project involved multiple aspects of inquiry. First, students explored biomes (tundra, taiga, temperate deciduous forest, grassland, scrub forest, desert, and tropical or temperate rain forest). Working with their teacher, they learned about the qualities and resources of each of these biomes. Following this exploration, students were grouped by biome. Within their group, students more thoroughly explored clothing, food, tools, language, history, and animals within the biome. Student groups took careful notes of the information they located. Once they had the basic information, they created clothing appropriate to the biome, a menu with food that grew within the biome, a possible language, and an animal that could survive in the biome. Students described how the animal adapted to the biome, as they created their own. For instance, Leyla wrote about her desert animal: It can camouflage from predators. It has to have sharp teeth and be a carnivore to eat. It needs big ears to stay cool. It needs a long tongue for drinking and it has to have good night vision. It can store water in its body and it is nocturnal.
Once these decisions were made, she was ready to create her animal and write about 1 day in its life. See Figure 6 to view her animal and to read its description.
Animal and description.
Other student comments about biomes included the following:
When me and my group [sic] were doing language for our group we struggled to share our ideas and we had to be creative.
When we made our clothes it turned out well because we had the right materials.
When we did our language it really didn’t turn out well because sometimes we disagreed.
My tool was good because I had the right materials. When you have the right materials it goes as planned and it’s originally modified on the blueprint for that design.
These comments indicated how students worked together as they created their product. They believed that having the right materials was critical to success and that working together was difficult.
Fifth graders studied multiple bridge structures (arch, beam, truss, cantilever, cable-stayed, and suspension) and for each structure, they read about and viewed multiple examples of each structure. They also created models of each structure using everyday objects such as paper and straws, as well as K’nex bridge building kits. As an assessment piece to culminate their study, students were expected to create a bridge and a budget for their product. Following are the expectations shared with students:
Choose a bridge design.
The bridge is expected to span 40 cm and hold 5 washers in weight.
You must plan your materials for use and create a budget. Paper 5 dollars—per sheet of paper Tape 1 dollar—per 10 cm Paper clips 1 dollar—2 paper clips Straws 1 dollar—1 straw Pipe cleaners 2 dollars—1 pipe cleaner String 1 dollar—10 cm of string
What you don’t use in materials you can sell back at ½ the cost.
If you need more materials, they cost double the original price.
The bridge must span 40 cm, hold 5 washers of weight, and be the lowest total price to be considered a winner.
For this challenge, students spent a week planning and constructing their bridges. In Figure 7, students showed their bridge and their planning sheet. Once students had their design, they conversed about the needed materials. Some students wanted to buy more than they needed because they did not want to pay double and other student groups were frugal and only wanted to purchase exactly what they perceived was needed. Although student groups revisited the store multiple times, the majority of the bridges met the challenge. Figure 8 shared one of the bridges being put to the span and weight tests.
Planning sheet for bridge construction.
Bridge testing.
Fourth graders explored access to clean water around the world. They investigated the types of water available and the issues surrounding the attainment of clean water. Once they achieved basic knowledge, each group decided on what aspect of water they shared with other students in their school and adult visitors. Some issues that students investigated were time spent collecting water and how this impacted education, virtual water footprints, and areas in the world without clean water. This activity expected students to motivate other students and adults to take action and reduce their virtual water consumption.
Each group came up with unique ideas. One group, for instance, had other students carrying water so they experienced what it was like in communities where women had to carry water back to their families (see Figure 9). Another group had students participate in a quiz on their own water use so that they reduced the consumption of water in their own homes (see Figure 10). Another group showed inexpensive filtration methods that could be used in developing countries. A game was also created to illustrate the likelihood of drinking contaminated water.
Water walk.
Water quiz created by students.
There were multiple expectations for this performance-based assessment. Students learned about water and access to clean water throughout the world. They planned and created an engaging way to share their information where audiences were actively participating. Then, they communicated their information with students and adults. Some comments from students included the following:
The water walk didn’t turn out to be what I wanted because my Prezi was longer than I intended.
It didn’t go well because we either didn’t explain enough or there were flaws in our plan.
What I thought in my mind was different than what happened.
I think during our water walk we were successful because I made both our Prezis.
In the water walk, some good things that happened were I was able to explain things by having my work in front of me.
I was part of the water walk project, some things didn’t go as planned, but some did. The PowerPoint came out excellent. I expected people to walk with water until they got tired, but we only had a limited amount of time. It was still cool.
Each of the activities demonstrated the way students engaged in the inquiry process and then met the expectation for an outcome. Students became more proficient at balancing the different elements expected in each challenge throughout the year. They were also more nuanced in the ways they interacted within their groups. They listened more attentively to other students and they balanced the input of all students within their products.
Persistence With Inquiry-Based Learning
As we watched inquiry-based groups and the teacher participating with her students, we learned that inquiry-based learning takes persistence. Even though the school where our research took place was inquiry-based and every general education classroom had curriculum structured around inquiry and student-driven questioning, students in GATE classes found working in groups to meet a STEM challenge difficult. This theme was identified through repeated passes through the data set, as it was not initially coded. However, through reading and rereading the data, it was noted how the teacher consistently supported students in their efforts and that this support was required through an entire academic year for student success.
When Becky (the second author) began teaching at this school, she created lessons and units that were inquiry-based with performance-based assessments. When looking at insects, for instance, students engineered exoskeletons to test their strength. During a fourth-grade water unit, students created their own questions about access to clean water and then constructed ways for those questions to be answered. We believed, with the inquiry-based activities throughout the school, these students would have no problem creating a product from their questioning and research. That assumption was wrong. Although her students questioned, discussed, pondered, and revised their thinking, creating a final product was difficult.
In many cases, gifted and talented students in general education classrooms assimilated and generalized information quickly. Many gifted and talented students liked to work alone because it was faster and they did not have to negotiate with their peers. Becky noted, “In my classroom, students were expected to work together.” She felt that this was one reason the “products” were never created to match the students’ vision. They didn’t really know how to work collaboratively.
GATE students in her school district were not evaluated on a grade system, but rather by a rubric that included thinking and interpersonal skills. One of the skills assessed was cooperative and collaborative work. This skill was put into the progress report because a characteristic of gifted students was that it was hard for them to negotiate with peers. For example, it was hard for students to create one group plan for their product and have all the students stick with it. Each student wanted to be the leader and have his or her ideas represented and so that is what each one did. Individual students ignored the plan created by their group and focused on their own ideas.
Becky noticed this difficulty with collaboration over and over during her instruction. In particular, the third-grade insect unit was where this realization became evident. When students were creating their straw/paper clip insect, there were many days of planning and revising, and then the students worked independently without reference to what they had planned as a group. She stated, This behavior was frustrating, as we would begin each day with revision and discussion. They appeared to be stuck on the thinking part and could not move to the creation. They asked interesting questions of each other that were open-ended like “How will your insect hold weight?” and students considered the questions but then went back to their independent working style.
She observed this planning and revision focus each day during this project. What she noticed was that students did not know how to work collaboratively; rather, they engaged in parallel work where each student worked alone but next to other students in his or her group. As discussed previously, many gifted and talented students in general education classrooms worked independently or in some cases avoided the work altogether if forced to work in groups. Gifted students frequently exhibited the choice to work alone as they struggled to work with others.
A close look at one student
A vivid example of this preference to work alone was observed when watching Osiris with his group. During the insect project of building an exoskeleton, Osiris avoided the plan and his part altogether. He took the paper clips and made a chain of them and then broke them. He was happy while he was doing it and talked about the plan and what his part was within the plan, but he never completed that part. In many instances throughout the year, Osiris avoided working. He was very verbal and talked and described what he was supposed to do, but he never moved to action. After observing him within his general education classroom, these behaviors were exhibited there as well. He was classified as a behavior problem because he never finished his work. He was not disruptive as he only interacted with the teacher, but he had that “reputation” as described by his classroom teacher.
During his time in GATE, Becky supported him in completing or at least starting a project. Becky had expectations for him to finish his tasks and they decided on short-term goals each week. Although he still did not always complete these goals, this goal setting helped with progress toward the product. He figured out that he could talk to Becky and that she would listen to him, and that he was expected to put what was in his brain into his product and collaboratively work with his group.
When third grade began their culture unit, Osiris was very excited. He told Becky that he loved to be creative and that he knew he could be an important part of his team. This unit was done after winter break, so Osiris knew the expectations within the class. During this unit, students worked as a group, but in many cases had individual products to put toward a whole, final product. For example, when students were creating clothing for their culture, many groups had students create their own piece of clothing within a subcategory such as “formal wear.” Within this group structure, Osiris began to complete products. The product that surprised Becky was when the students created their creature as Osiris spent many days planning his creature, illustrating it, and writing a story about it. When Becky looked at his writing, it was the first product Osiris created that had exceeded expectations for the product. Becky talked with Osiris and he told her that he “loved to be creative and write,” and that if he were given more time to do those sorts of things, “he would finish all his projects” (see Figure 11 for his writing).
Student writing.
Becky continued to work with Osiris throughout the year. He performed when he had short-term goals and when he thought the project was creative. In this example, it was clear that one academic year was not sufficient for Osiris to become a fully participating, collaborative partner. Becky will continue to work with him during the next 2 years to further develop this skill.
Supporting all students
This cooperative/collaborative group work became the skill that Becky focused on with all her students. She noted, “I had to take back some of the independence of group work and put together a specific framework to help my students cope and develop as team members.” She shared a framework to help students learn to collaborate. She taught them how to discuss without interrupting by using the QUACKback strategy. After a student talked, the others could QUACKback using a question, asking for clarification for understanding, agree or disagree, cite evidence, or add additional knowledge. This framework allowed students to stop and really listen to each other instead of talking over each other or only wanting to share their own ideas. This strategy helped students to work together on a plan of action.
Another strategy that was effective was giving each student a set time to talk within groups. For example, 2 minutes would be placed on a timer and one student in each group would talk for that 2 minutes while the others listened. When that student was done, the entire group would have 2 minutes to QUACKback. Also, she and the students decided that within any plan of action, students would be assigned specific roles to be carried out. For example, when they were working on the straw/paper clip insect, they finally decided that each group member would work on a specific part of the insect.
These strategies did not create the perfect solution, but they did help. And with persistence in implementing them, we only saw a few students stuck on their ideas and not wanting to compromise. Fewer students worked on their part of the plan without consulting with the group. We slowly saw progress. Students listened to each other and authentically responded without the need for the QUACKback strategy. Products, although not perfect, became much more like their plan.
This process was a long journey of persistence and reflection. Because the philosophy of the school was inquiry-based, Becky allowed students time to inquire about how they would get their thoughts and planning into a final product that represented their vision. Becky and the students discussed why their products were not corresponding with their plan and much of this discussion centered on collaborative and cooperative work. They used their progress report as a guide and really defined what collaboration looked like and how to work cooperatively. Although Becky initially gave them the strategies to work cooperatively and collaboratively, throughout the year her presence in this process became more of the facilitator. By allowing ample time for discussion before each expected product, Becky and her students focused on the plan of action and not just the end result. Each session started with a discussion of what needed to happen that day. Students carved their own roles within groups and did not need Becky’s direction to assign or develop those roles. Students realized that within the GATE classroom, risk taking was essential and supported. In general education classrooms, her students described that they were working for the top grade. One student said, “If I didn’t get the best grade, I gave up.”
In Becky’s classroom, the progress report was in the background and instruction was the focus. Students knew upfront which skill they were working on for that week and they learned to trust that there really was not a grade assigned. The risk of creating a final product that might not be perfect was now an acceptable idea. We think that the lack of grades allowed students to engage in many revisions of a product, and they did not worry about failure or partial success resulting in negative consequences. In the end, this focus on thinking and creation of a product, even with flaws, allowed for persistence for both the teacher and for the students. Groups decided how they worked together and whether they wanted to have one big project or smaller projects to be integrated into a final product. Students asked Becky for flexibility within a project so they could influence the final product outcome. Within the GATE classroom, groupings of students were supported, as the curriculum was flexible. These student-led shifts in instruction revealed the agency that students had in tailoring their instruction and the development of their assessment product.
Discussion
Our investigation allowed us to tease apart the recommendations from others. For instance, Repinc and Juznic (2013) and Clark and Lott (2017) described inquiry-based projects and their importance to student learning. Patrick et al. (2005) shared how inquiry-based projects supported student collaboration. Finally, VanTassel-Baska (2013b) noted the importance of open-ended tasks especially for gifted and talented students. Our research supported these findings surrounding inquiry-based instruction for gifted and talented students. Moreover, it moved beyond the recommendations by offering a unique perspective in that it documented the challenges of working in groups and creating a product that met task expectations.
As was seen in the multiple examples, inquiry-based instruction and learning required a delicate balance between process and content. As students participated in collaboration, they were explicit on how the groups worked well together and when there were issues. They learned how to include all perspectives into a final product or to kindly offer evidence when an idea was doomed to failure. Furthermore, they acquired sophisticated content knowledge about the topics they explored and displayed this knowledge by balancing multiple variables in an outcome task. Building from the research of Eysink et al. (2015), they utilized their analytical skills as they participated in problem-solving tasks.
Eysink et al. (2015) discovered that structured inquiry best suited gifted students and Robinson et al. (2014) connected inquiry-based learning and STEM instruction for gifted students. Similarly, our research connected inquiry-based instruction with STEM. Students used the vocabulary and constructs surrounding their inquiry as they moved to an application of this knowledge through the products they completed. They shifted from singular understandings of complex topics to balancing complicated, multivariable understandings of such constructs.
Although research described the importance of inquiry-based instruction for gifted and talented students, it did not reveal the day-to-day persistence required of teachers to manage this instruction and to support learners. We discovered that this support was needed for group collaboration and in developing students’ ability to consider multiple variables as they constructed a product. In this study, the classroom teacher worked with students to collaborate even when they wanted to work alone. Collaboration was an ongoing part of instruction and required teacher support on a daily basis. Similarly, the content of instruction required interesting questions from the teacher to move students from a singular focus to a multidimensional focus. An example of this support came during the sled building exploration where students mainly concentrated on friction. Their teacher quietly asked students as they were planning, “Now that your sled is smooth, what might you consider so that it goes to the bottom of the incline?”
We believed that there were three critical aspects of the inquiry-based instruction that made it successful. These aspects provided a foundation for teachers as they initiated similar practices. First was the expectation that students worked in collaborative groups. Although students avoided group work and were relentless in pestering to work alone, working collaboratively allowed students to negotiate with others to meet the expectations of a challenge. Through this process, they listened to others, balanced ideas, reconciled disparate opinions, and collaborated together. This aspect was supported by the work of Gallagher and Stepien (1996) and VanTassel-Baska (2013a). Second, it was necessary that there were no grades attached to the inquiry-based instruction. We believe gifted and talented students would have avoided collaborative work if they thought the final product was graded. By not having the collaborative product graded, students trusted the process and learned to create objects that met expectations. Third, the products had to be challenging enough that they required students to ponder potential solutions. Simple projects would not have engaged gifted and talented students to participate. This aspect was supported by the research of Clark and Lott (2017), Kanevsky (2011), and VanTassel-Baska (2013b).
Finally, we offer recommendations for teachers participating in inquiry-based instruction. Importantly for gifted and talented students to successfully participate in inquiry-based instruction, a teacher who is patient and persistent is essential. At the beginning of the academic year, students were frustrated with working in groups and their products were painful to view as they met few of the established criteria. However, through consistency with the collaborative expectation, time to plan and revise, and no grading of final products, students were successful working together and creating projects that matched their expectations. Second, teachers who are contemplating inquiry-based instruction with gifted and talented students must take a long-view perspective. One single excursion into this kind of teaching will not result in optimal results. It took multiple, ongoing explorations to result in successful collaborative engagement and learning outcomes.
Eisner (1997) provided the foundational ideas for inquiry-based instruction when he suggested that it was important for students to be nudged to “think analytically and critically,” so that they can “see connections among ideas” to “enhance their own lives” and those of others (p. 349). His suggestions led educators to tease out a curriculum where students had opportunities to speculate, refine, and revise tentative understandings. This study provided a view into such a curriculum where students and their teacher learned side-by-side how to support one another as they explored complex topics collaboratively. The insiders’ perspective revealed the nuances of presenting such a curriculum and provided educators with some of the dilemmas and rewards for enacting inquiry-based instruction themselves.
As we reflected on this research endeavor, several questions were left unanswered. For instance, we did not explore cultural or gender difference in how students participated collaboratively. We did not explore development from grade to grade to see if working in inquiry-based instruction has a developmental trajectory. Last, we did not tease out differences between teacher determined outcomes and negotiated teacher–student outcomes. Answering these questions would provide additional, necessary information about inquiry-based instruction and learning.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.