Possibilities of Inducing Pupils’ Inquiry Activities during Instruction
Jiří Dostál
1
, Prasart Nuangchalerm
2
, Ján Stebila
3
and Belgin Bal
4
1
Faculty of Education, Palacký University in Olomouc, Zizkovo ná,. 5, Olomouc, Czech Republic
2
Faculty of Education, Mahasarakham University, Maha Sarakham, Thailand
3
Faculty of Natural Sciences, Matej Bel University, Banská Bystrica, Slovak
4
Faculty of Education, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey
Keywords: Inquiry based Learning, Education, Pupil, Instruction.
Abstract: The contemporary tendences emphasize the use of so-called inquiry-based learning (IBL). However, there
remains a question – by which ways should be the active inquiry of pupils induced? The author of this article
finds the answer in the union of the theory learning tasks and theory of the inquiry-based instruction. Via the
analytical and comparative approaches, it turns out that two categories of the inquiry tasks can be used. The
first one was provisionally marked as “instructive inquiry tasks”, the second one as “inquiry tasks with internal
activation”. Both stated tasks have different essence in how are the pupils induced to perform the inquiry
learning activities.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the education, we can be encounter a long-term
emphasized requirement of the development of the
individual thinking and increase of pupils’ activity
and creativity, which is still nowadays considered
important. In the context of these social requirements
on education, the crucial question is by which ways
should be the inquiry learning situations created and
how should pupils’ inquiry activities be induced
efficiently. We strive to search for a possible answer
by the union of the theory learning tasks and theory
of the inquiry-based instruction.
There comes a wide range of variables into the
process of the inquiry activities’ induction, mainly the
individuality of a pupil, specificity of the subject
matter, the base of teaching aids which have to be
taken into consideration. It is a task of a teacher to
have these variables under control and to influence
them appropriately to improve the quality of the
learning process. However, this is not always simple
and the increased effort is necessary, while the use of
teacher’s didactically-psychological knowledge and
skills is assumed. The teacher’s attitudes and
expectations are also significant. These can be called
as factors that make condition the success of teacher´s
activityconsiderably.
The learning activities may be realized only in
appropriate conditions that, as a whole, create the
learning situation. A classification of these
conditionals is largely influenced by the learning
tasks that are considered a driving force of the
acquisition of the new knowledge. Therefore, they
are, in the fields of educational science and didactics,
an important theme which was dealt by many authors,
both from the Czech Republic and from abroad, e.g.:
Vyšín, 1971; Tollingerová, 1971, Tollingerová &
Knězů, 1966; Wahla, 1978; Kuřina 1978; Mareš,
1980; Holoušová, 1987; Ellis, 2003; Molnár, 1990;
Nikl, 1997; Chupáč, 2007; Vaculová, Trna, and Janík,
2008; Slavík, Dytrtová, and Fulková, 2010; Slavík &
Lukavský, 2012; Mareš, 2013; and Knecht, 2014.
Many of the mentioned authors strove to define the
term learning task. Therefore, it is possible to
encounter definitions that basically understand
learning tasks as assignments contained in textbooks
and collections of tasks, but they can be also
understood as opportunities to learn (cf. Knecht,
Janík, Najvar, Najvarová, and Vlčková, 2010). This
broader definition seems to be the one bearing for the
mutual connection with the theory of the inquiry-
based instruction.
In relation to the theory of learning tasks, we
encounter Professor Tollingerová, who contributed
significantly to its development – the taxonomy of
learning tasks and process of taxation is connected to
her name. However, there were other authors that
continued with her research and her theory is still
elaborated and improved. If we analyze key areas of
the theory of learning tasks, our research would be,
Dostál, J., Nuangchalerm, P., Stebila, J. and Bal, B.
Possibilities of Inducing Pupils’ Inquiry Activities during Instruction.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2016) - Volume 2, pages 107-111
ISBN: 978-989-758-179-3
Copyright
c
2016 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
107
while solving the given issues, based on the two:
parameters of the learning tasks and projecting the
learning tasks.
2 METHODS USED
Those scientific methods were used while processing
the study in accordance with the current approaches
used in the field of study, cf. N. C. Kettley (2010), M.
Bray, B. Adamson and M. Mason (2007), M. G.
Lodico, D. T. Spaulding and K. H. Voegtle (2006), L.
Cohen, L. Manion, K. Morrison (2003). Those
include mainly theoretical methods which are based
on the study of published scientific treatises, research
reports, curricular documents and strategic
governmental documents.
The excerpted findings were subjected to
comparative analysis and critical assessment in order
to put them into a context and new theoretical
framework. In certain sections, we strove to describe
issues linked to phenomena which occur within the
society, or in the educational theory and practice.
Additionally, analytically-synthetic approaches
were used in order to understand relationships which
are valid in the educational systems. Marginal
findings were abstracted during the process of
analysis which enabled their interpretation in new
meaning.
3 THE BOND BETWEEN THE
INQUIRY-BASED
INSTRUCTION AND THE
LEARNING TASKS
The opinions on the application of the inquiry-based
instruction differ. The ones mentioned below are the
more positive ones, however, it has to be mentioned
that there exist also the more critical ones that are
analyzed in more detail in the work of J. Dostál
(2015a). However, the criticism is not a complex one,
but the work mainly deals with conditions of its
successful implementation into the school education.
We see one of the basic assumptions of a successful
instruction in induction of situations which motivate
a pupil to perform the inquiry activities and, by that,
not only to acquire knowledge, skills and habits, but
also methods of how to acquire, use, enrich and
broaden the knowledge independently. As it was
already indicated above, one of the most significant
means to induce the learning situations is seen in the
learning tasks.
The mutual connection of the inquiry-based task
is clearly distinct in works of D. Tollingerová (cf.
Tollingerová, 1971). The starting point should be
searched in the taxonomy of the learning tasks that
the author created (ibidem). She created a category of
“Creative tasks” where she classified 5 types of tasks:
1) Tasks focused on the practical application;
2) Solving of problem situations;
3) Questions asking and tasks forming;
4) Discovery-based tasks based on one’s own
observation;
5) Discovery-based tasks based on one’s own
considerations.
The taxonomy significantly differentiated the
inquiry tasks that are based on discovery. Moreover,
she classified these tasks into two categories:
Discovery-based tasks based on one’s own
observation and Discovery-based tasks based on
one’s own considerations. Knecht (2014) similarly
highlighted the difference between the inquiry and
problem tasks. Nevertheless, there still exists an
overlap that is symbolized in the diagram below.
Figure 1: Overlap of the inquiry and problem tasks.
In case of the problem tasks, the crucial factor is
a “problem”, which is, as it is well-known, typical by
a disruption of the internal balance of an individual.
It is linked to the experiencing of a not-wanted state,
or difficulties. The disruption of the balance is in the
education seen as a motivational factor. The
boundaries of the balance disruption differs among
pupils and therefore the same task may one pupil
consider a problem task and another not (cf. Dostál,
2015b). In contrast to that, the inquiry tasks are not
based on experiencing difficulties. Their focus lies in
discovery, search, investigation… which has to be
taken in account during its projection and
preparations.
In the intersection, there are tasks that cause
among the pupils the experiencing of a not-wanted
state, feeling of difficulties (of both the theoretical or
practical nature), although, the essence of their
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
108
(re)solution is in the discovery of new approaches or
results. They belong to the most difficult ones and for
their solving, the pupils must be ready in a form of
acquired skills to solve tasks of a lower cognitive
difficulty.
The tasks applicable during the inquiry-based
instruction can be divided into three groups:
1) cognitive ones;
2) practical ones;
3) creative ones , see the graph on the next page.
Figure 2: Division of inquiry tasks.
The most significant role in the inquiry concept of
instruction is played by the tasks includible in the
third category. By the given graph, we suggest that to
teach by inquiry means to use only the creative
learning tasks. The typical example is performance of
the laboratory tasks whose purpose is to introduce
pupils to the applicability of the inquiry methods and
verification of findings’ validity.
In the right part of the image, the application into
the fields of technology may be noticed. The tasks
focused on the technical constructing may be seen as
a top-tasks where new technical objects are created.
A long way is necessary to achieve of this level – it is
necessary to develop special effort from the side of a
pupil. Only some students can achieve it.
4 ACTIVATION APPROACHES
TO THE INDUCTION OF
PUPILS’ INQUIRY ACTIVITIES
The essence of the induction of pupils’ inquiry
activities, i.e. in the school education, can be seen in
learning tasks which can be presented to pupils in a
written form, but also in other ones. It remains a
question though, how should they be framed in order
to achieve the aim to which the task was created for.
It is necessary to mention here that the measuring of
the level of aim achievement (evaluation) in the
inquiry tasks is not easy and it is always a long-term
process.
The meaningful inquiry is composed of many
individual steps that follow each other and their
sequence cannot be changed (cf. Dostál, 2015a). The
pupils go through different fragments of the process
of inquiry during their inquiry activities, which was
described in works S. Ch. Kong and Y. Song (2014,
p. 129) who set a model called “5E” (5E inquiry-
based learning model). The projected model is
composed by these following fragments:
- [to] engage in the inquiry topics and questions;
- [to] explore via the inquiry methods and
processes;
- [to] explain the results of the inquiry process;
- [to] evaluate the process of inquiry and the
results;
- [to] extend the topic of inquiry and questions.
During the process of projecting the inquiry
learning tasks, it has to be considered the question to
what extent the content is it going to be complex, i.e.
whether every pupil has to take part in all fragments
or in just some of them. Mainly during the group
work, it is necessary to divide the activities with
respect to the individual educational needs among the
individual pupils.
The first analyzed approach here will be
provisionally called instructive inquiry tasks. This
category of tasks is characterized by more or less
specific, exact instructions that lead pupils to perform
inquiry activities. The induction of the activities is
mainly caused “from the outside”. The activities are
used mainly in cases where there is desirable to
expect which way would the pupil’s inquiry go, what
course would it have, and what results would be
reached. The pupil gets instructions that he/she, at
first, has to identify with and then they comes to the
stage of performing them, i.e. they explores,
discovers and acquires new knowledge and skills. In
some cases, the attitudes are even formed.
However, it cannot be stated that the instructive
inquiry tasks would be worthless thanks to the focus
of pupils’ activities by the instruction stated before
the activity itself. They are didactically valuable
mainly in the phase when the pupils are learning how
to perform the inquiry. Based on the works by R. J.
Rezba, T. Auldridge and L. Rhea (1999), who classify
the inquiry of many forms (according to Banchi and
Bell, 2008), then this type of the inquiry tasks
induces:
- confirming inquiry – a question and a method
of solution are given to pupils, results are
Possibilities of Inducing Pupils’ Inquiry Activities during Instruction
109
known, the purpose is to prove it by the
practice itself;
- structured inquiry – the teacher tells pupils
question and possible method of solution –
based on that, pupils formulate explanation of
the studied phenomenon.
The second approach can be called inquiry tasks
with internal activation. This category of learning
tasks is characterized by their possibility to start the
“internal motor” of a pupil without any instruction
that would instructively induce their inquiry activity.
The essence is based in placing of the pupil in a
conflict between their current knowledge, skills,
attitudes and behavior, and a form of the real world
and/or needs that cannot be satisfied by the current
cognition of the pupil, the level of the pupils’ skills
and their readiness to solve the occurring situation.
The pupil is led by the conflict, activated to the
inquiry, to search for ways of how to resolve the given
state, how to reach new cognition and to place the
current level of cognition into the balance with the
surrounding world. In order to let the pupil feel the
conflict, they can be led by artificial situations created
via learning tasks. They do not instruct pupil, they
suitably set the situational conditions. Additionally,
also the inner motives, causing the sceptical view at
the world, and stimuli that they cognizes or comes
into interaction with, may activate the pupil. This is
typical mainly for the informal and non-formal
education.
It is important to create conditions on whose base
a need to cognize and to adopt the ways of human’s
behavior and thinking is developed. The conditions
that cause the intellectual difficulties are based in a
fact that a pupil is unable to accomplish the given task
by known ways. In order to accomplish it, they has to
find a new way to (re)solve the task.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The induction of inquiry activities may be seen as one
of the crucial phases of inquiry-based instruction. It
would be positive if the inquiry is started by pupils
spontaneously, without any obvious external cause;
however, we encounter this in a real instruction
rarely. The activity needs to be induced more
frequently.
In the article, we have not focused on the
motivation to perform the inquiry, but on the ways,
how the pupils’ inquiry activities may be induced.
Based on the theory of learning tasks, two approaches
(marked as instructive inquiry tasks and inquiry tasks
with internal activation) were described. The result of
both types of learning tasks is the inquiry and the
inquiry induced by both ways may cause positive
effects.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The paper was created i.a. in the project "Mezi
adorací a rezistencí: vnímání a možnosti využití
informačních a komunikačních technologií ve
vzdělávání z pohledu učitelů" (Between the Adoration
and Resistance: perception and posibilities of ICT in
the education from the teachers' perspective), which
was fund by the means of Palacký University,
Olomouc.
REFERENCES
Banchi, H. and BELL R., 2008. The Many Levels of
Inquiry. Science and Children. Vol. 46, Issue 2, p. 26 –
29.
Bray, M., Adamson, B. and Mason, M., 2007. Comparative
education research : approaches and methods. Hong
Kong, China: Comparative Education Research Centre,
the University of Hong Kong : Springer, 444 p.
Chupáč, A., Úlohy z chemie pro základní školy. MSD, 66 p.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K., 2003. Research
methods in education. London; New York:
RoutledgeFalmer, 446 p.
Dostál, J., 2015b. Badatelsky orientovaná výuka:
Kompetence učitelů k její realizaci v technických a
přírodovědných předmětech na základních školách.
Univerzita Palackého, 254 p.
Dostál, J., 2015a. Badatelsky orientovaná výuka: Pojetí,
podstata, význam a přínosy. Univerzita Palackého, 151
p.
Ellis, R., 2003. Task-based Language Learning and
Teaching. Oxford Applied Linguistics.
Holoušová, D., 1987. Příspěvek k srovnávací analýze
marxistických teorií učebních úloh. 1st Ed. Univerzita
Palackého.
Kettley, N. C. (2010). Theory building in educational
research. New York: Continuum International Pub.
Group, 210 s. ISBN 9781441110084.
Knecht, P., 2014. Příležitosti k rozvíjení kompetence k
řešení problémů v učebnicích a ve výuce zeměpisu. 1st
Ed. Masarykova univerzita, 207 p.
Knecht, P., Janík, T., Najvar, P., Najvarová, V. and
Vlčková, K., 2010. Příležitosti k rozvíjení kompetence
k řešení problému ve výuce na základních školách.
Orbis scholae, Vol. 4, no. 3, s. 37-62.
Kong, S. C. and SONG, Y., 2014. The Impact of a
Principle-based Pedagogical Design on Inquiry-based
Learning in a Seamless Learning Environment in Hong
Kong.
Educational Technology & Society. Vol. 17,
Issue 2, p. 127 – 141.
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
110
Kuřina, F., 1978. Geometrické praktikum: (Pro učit. 1.
stupně zákl. šk.). 1st Ed. Hradec Králové.
Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T. and Voegtle, K. H., 2006.
Methods in educational research : from theory to
practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 413 p.
Mareš, J., 1980. Fridmanova teorie učebních úloh.
Pedagogika, Issue 5, p. 595 - 610.
Mareš, J., 2013. Pedagogická psychologie. 1st Ed. Portál,
702 p.
Molnár, J. (ed), 1990 Extremální a kombinatorické úlohy z
geometrie: Pro 4. roč. gymnázií se zaměřením na
matematiku. 1st Ed. Praha,
Moore, R., Lopes, J., 1999. Paper templates. In
TEMPLATE’06, 1st International Conference on
Template Production. SCITEPRESS.
Nikl, J., 1997. Metody projektování učebních úloh. 1st Ed.
Gaudeamus, 71 p.
Rezba, R. J., Auldridge T. and Rhea. L., 2014. Teaching &
learning the basic science skills. In: Virginia.gov
[online]. Available at: http://www.pen.k12.va.us/
VDOE/instruction/TLBSSGuide.doc.
Slavík, J., Dytrtová, K. and Fulková. M. 2010. Konceptová
analýza tvořivých úloh jako nástroj učitelské reflexe.
Pedagogika. Vol. 60, p. 223-24.
Smith, J., 1998. The book, The publishing company.
London, 2
nd
edition.
Tollingerová, D. and Knězů, V., 1996. Programované
učení. 1st Ed. Praha.
Tollingerová, D., 1971. Úvod do teorie a praxe
programované výuky a výcviku. Praha,
Vaculová, I., Trna, J. and Janík, T., 2008. Učební úlohy ve
výuce fyziky na 2. stupni základní školy: vybrané
výsledky CPV videostudie fyziky. Pedagogická
orientace, Vol. 18, Issue 4, p. 35–56.
Vyšín, J., 1971. Vybrané úlohy z matematické olympiády.
1st Ed.. Praha.
Wahla, A., 1978. Zeměpisné úlohy a cvičení a jejich
frekvenční analýza, formulační a operační analýza. In
Studia geographica. No 50. GÚ ČSAV, p.129 - 130.
Possibilities of Inducing Pupils’ Inquiry Activities during Instruction
111