Curiosité: Inquiry-Based Instruction and Bilingual Learning

Abstract

The issues that prompt this study are based on current research indicating the positive effects of inquiry learning onthe cognitive development of children. The purpose of this case study was to understand the effects of inquirylearning on the academic achievement and bilingual verbal ability of 5th grade bilingual students in a French/Englishdual immersion program. The treatment group of students completed research projects through a guided inquirylearning approach, while the control group experienced the traditional problem solving research approach. Initialfindings report a significant mean increase in mathematical reasoning, bilingual verbal ability, higher motivation tolearn, and increased self-efficacy in the treatment versus the control group of students.

Full text

http://jct.sciedupress.com
Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 2; 2016
Published by Sciedu Press
63
ISSN 1927-2677 E-ISSN 1927-2685
Curiosité: Inquiry-Based Instruction and Bilingual Learning
Cheryl M. McElvain1,* & Heidi A. Smith2
1Arts and Basic Teacher Credential Programs, Department of Education, Santa Clara University, USA
2Teacher and English Curriculum Coordinator, International School of the Peninsula, USA
*Correspondence: 15860 La Porte Ct., Morgan Hill, CA 95037, USA. Tel: 1-408-828-1671. E-mail:
cmcelvain@scu.edu
Received: September 1, 2016 Accepted: September 24, 2016 Online Published: October 16, 2016
doi:10.5430/jct.v5n2p63 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/jct.v5n2p63
Abstract
The issues that prompt this study are based on current research indicating the positive effects of inquiry learning on
the cognitive development of children. The purpose of this case study was to understand the effects of inquiry
learning on the academic achievement and bilingual verbal ability of 5th grade bilingual students in a French/English
dual immersion program. The treatment group of students completed research projects through a guided inquiry
learning approach, while the control group experienced the traditional problem solving research approach. Initial
findings report a significant mean increase in mathematical reasoning, bilingual verbal ability, higher motivation to
learn, and increased self-efficacy in the treatment versus the control group of students.
Keywords: inquiry-based instruction; bilingual children; bilingual verbal ability; bilingual learning; self-regulated
learning
Curiosity engages learning. Children naturally question, and form conclusions when they explore their environment.
Research on the cognitive development of children suggests that when learners are curious they develop explanations
based on observable patterns that lead to new discovery, and more effective learning (Williams & Lombrozo, 2010).
Related studies on curiosity, and memory have also found that when children are given answers to questions that are
perplexing they remember them better, indicating that learning increases with curiosity (Litman, 2005).
1. Introduction
This study investigates the effect of inquiry-based instruction on the cognitive and verbal development of bilingual
children. Although it is well documented that cognitive skills acquired in a child’s first language (L1) positively
transfer to thinking in a second language (L2) (De Groot, 2011; Laija-Rodríguez, Ochoa, & Parker, 2006; Yamashita,
2002), finding the best instructional approaches to promote the acquisition of bilingual verbal, and cognitive ability
continues to be a challenge for many bilingual teachers (Alanís, 2011). Recent studies of effective language
development approaches for English language learners have reported positive results using inquiry-based approaches
in math and science instruction (Weinburgh et al., 2014), however there is limited research exploring the effects of
inquiry-based instruction with bilingual children (Moses, Busetti-Frevert, Pritchard, 2015) in other subject areas
(Chu, 2009).
The purpose of this case study was to understand how inquiry-based instruction affects the academic achievement
and bilingual verbal ability of thirty-two 5th grade students in a French dual immersion program. Bilingual verbal
ability (BVA) is the “unique combination of cognitive and academic language abilities possessed by bilingual
individuals” (Munoz-Sandoval, et al., 1998, p. 1).
The study utilized a treatment and control group to explore the cognitive, linguistic, and psychosocial effects of
inquiry-based instruction compared to traditional problem-solving instruction. No pilot study was conducted prior to
this investigation. A mixed methods approach was utilized to examine the following questions:
1. How does inquiry-based instruction affect the academic achievement and bilingual verbal development of
French/English speaking 5th grade students compared to a control group receiving traditional problem-solving
instruction?

http://jct.sciedupress.com
Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 2; 2016
Published by Sciedu Press
64
ISSN 1927-2677 E-ISSN 1927-2685
2. How do the students in the treatment group perceive the effects of inquiry learning on their language and cognition
compared to the control group receiving traditional problem-solving instruction?
2. Literature Review
Inquiry-based learning utilizes a child’s natural curiosity to explore new information that is meaningful to the learner.
It is a cyclical process by which the learner selects a topic or question, explores multiple sources of information with
the intent to find and support a focused perspective, shares the discovery with others, and finally reflects on the
process as a whole. Research reveals that inquiry-based learning can heighten a child’s research skills (McNally,
2005), subject knowledge, writing (Chu, Chow, Luk, Cheung, & Sit, 2007) and motivation to read (Chu, Tse, Loh &
Chow, 2011).
Recent studies in science education exploring the effects of inquiry-based instruction on the academic achievement
in of bilingual children have been positive. Amaral, Garrison, and Klentschy, (2002) examined the effects of inquiry-
based science instruction on 4th and 6th grade English language learners (ELL) in California. Results reported an
increase in children’s science knowledge as well as their reading, writing, and mathematics achievement as
demonstrated on state standardized tests. In their investigation of effective science teaching for ELLs, Stoddart,
Bravo, Solis, Mosqueda, and Rodriguez (2011) reported that instruction for bilinguals utilizing inquiry-based
approaches provided an effective context for developing academic language and literacy skills. This finding was
supported in Westervelt’s (2007) study that explored the effects of scaffolded inquiry (Maata, Dobb, & Ostlund, 2006)
on ELL students’ life science concepts. Recognizing the developmental stages of inquiry learning the teacher
scaffolded students’ conceptual understanding through a series of outdoor walks, which developed their academic
science vocabulary. Results reported an increase in the students’ understanding of academic language in their
mainstream science classes.
2.1 Theoretical Constructs
Dewey’s (1916) foundational Democracy and Education provides key constructivist understandings utilized in the
inquiry approach. Espousing whole child learning, Dewey posited, “That education is not an affair of telling and
being told but an active and constructive process…” (p. 46). He suggested that it’s only when a parent or teacher
provides conditions that encourage children to wrestle with their own questions do they truly begin to think. Inquiry-
based learning perceives information as the working capital that motivates the learner to explore. It formulates
learning as a problem posing cycle that is guided by reflection and leads to higher-level understanding.
Recent research in neuroscience confirms Dewey’s theoretical constructs providing further support for inquiry-based
learning. Studies have shown increased connectivity and exuberance in the brain when exposed to new stimuli or
problem solving (Lee, 2011). The heightened emotional response experienced in inquiry-based learning causes
learners to investigate their environment with the enhanced receptivity needed to drive critical thinking and more
effectively facilitate the encoding of new information.
2.2 Stripling’s Model of Inquiry
The inquiry-based instructional program utilized in this study was guided by cyclical elements of inquiry found in
the Stripling (2003) Model of Inquiry. Originally intended to frame the learning of information technology the model
incorporates six phases in which the students connect, wonder, investigate, construct, express and reflect on their
learning (see Figure 1). Throughout each phase students actively process information with teacher guidance and
feedback from peers, rather than passively receiving facts through a transmission oriented model of instruction
(Castronova, 2002).

http://jct.sciedupress.com
Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 2; 2016
Published by Sciedu Press
65
ISSN 1927-2677 E-ISSN 1927-2685
Figure 1. Stripling Model of Inquiry
SOURCE: Used with permission from Stripling, B. (2010). Teaching students to think in the digital environment:
Digital literacy and digital inquiry. School Library Monthly, 26(8), 16-19.
Stripling juxtaposes the processes between inquiry-based and problem-solving research processes. She notes that in
the traditional problem-solving model the learner is asked to find an answer to an already existent problem
introduced by the teacher. The process is controlled, and usually results in a written report submitted to the teacher.
The cognitive processing is minimal because learners are typically copying what others have deduced.
In contrast, the inquiry-based learning model starts with a student-posed question. This question is posed during the
wonder phase in which students also make predictions and form hypotheses. Student inquiry continues to guide a
recursive process in the investigate phase in which the student researches, evaluates, and tests new information.
When students enter the construct phase, they consider new learning in light of their previous understanding, and
begin to draw conclusions. As students apply their understandings to new contexts, and situations they are invited to
share their learning with others in the express phase.
When sharing is complete students begin to contemplate about what they have learned during the reflect phase
through student journals, small group discussions, or individual teacher conferences. During the final connect phase,
students gain a perspective on their new learning and how it relates to the world around them.
3. Method
3.1 Participants
This ten-month study observed the instructional effects of inquiry-based learning in an English/History Social
Science class taught concurrently with a more traditionally structured class from September to June. Thirty-two,
fifth-grade bilingual children volunteered to participate in the study. The convenience sample was divided into two
groups, and randomly assigned to a teacher with an attempt to equalize gender, and language representation. The

http://jct.sciedupress.com
Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 2; 2016
Published by Sciedu Press
66
ISSN 1927-2677 E-ISSN 1927-2685
students assigned to be part of the treatment were placed in the inquiry-based classroom for two block periods per
day. The remaining fifth graders were assigned to a control classroom taught by a different teacher during the same
period.
Both the treatment and control groups had an equal number of students (N=16). There were seven males and nine
females in the treatment group, and six males and ten females in the control group. Each group had nine native
English speakers, five native French speakers, and two native Arabic speakers. All of the children were performing
at grade level or above as reported on their Comprehensive Testing Program 4 (CTP4) English, and French
proficiency tests. All subjects had participated in the French dual immersion program for six years.
The majority of the students came from high socioeconomic backgrounds with college-educated bilingual parents.
When asked about language use the children reported using French and English for different purposes. All of the
children in both the treatment and control groups reported using French with their Francophone parents and friends
in school. The children in both groups reported using English with parents, siblings, friends, and in the English
portion of the school day.
Two White, female teachers participated in the study. Both were native English speakers with a basic knowledge of
conversational French, however all of their instruction was in English. The teachers co-planned and taught the same
English/History Social Science concepts used in this study and submitted their lessons to the researchers during an
initial site visit. The researchers visited two times per month throughout the year to ensure the fidelity of each
teacher’s instructional plan.
Because research instruction is an important part of the English/History Social Science curriculum, the research
instructional themes were jointly developed and taught in each classroom in tandem. Both teachers spent the same
number of hours in research instruction with their students. The research pedagogical approach was the only element
that differed between both classrooms.
3.2 Setting
The study was conducted in a private international PreK-8th grade school with 580 students located in Northern
California. The French immersion program operates on trimester model. Each trimester includes three months of
instruction that promotes bilingualism, and international perspectives of the world. The students spend approximately
80% of their instructional time in French, and 20% in English. All content areas are taught in French. The English
portion of the curriculum focuses on English-Language Arts, and History-Social Science. Each student is provided
access to a laptop and extensive resources for research activities.
3.3 Procedure
This study investigated the effects of two diverse instructional approaches offered during the English Language
Arts/Social Studies time block of two hours per day, eight hours per week. Students in both the control and treatment
classes independently worked on research projects approximately two hours per week. Although all of the students in
the study were expected to report in English, both teachers gave them the choice to investigate research sources in
either French or English.
The control group of 5th graders experienced traditional problem solving instruction for their research assignments.
The pedagogy followed the historical transmission model of learning in which students were passive recipients of
teacher knowledge (Copsey Haydey, Zakaluk, & Straw, 2010). The research lessons were teacher directed. Students
were not given the opportunity to develop their own research questions, nor did they choose their own research
topics. The teacher assigned a topic as students utilized resources from the library, took notes, wrote a report, or
orally presented their findings.
The treatment group of students experienced an interdisciplinary approach to Stripling’s (2003) inquiry learning
model. Each trimester students participated in the following inquiry-based learning activities: 1) a mini inquiry, 2) a
curricular inquiry, and 3) an open inquiry (see Figure 2).
At the beginning of first trimester the teacher modeled inquiry research through a mini-inquiry using selected news
magazine articles related to sustainability. The students were asked to research sustainability practices such as
alternative energy resources in any U.S. state of their choice. In guided inquiry circles the students formed researchable
questions, read multiple non-fiction text sources, and used post-it notes to record their thinking. They met with their
research group weekly to discuss their responses as they worked through each phase of the inquiry. Students presented
their findings to the class in an oral presentation.

http://jct.sciedupress.com
Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 2; 2016
Published by Sciedu Press
67
ISSN 1927-2677 E-ISSN 1927-2685
Figure 2. Treatment Group Inquiry Learning Plan
Throughout the mini-inquiry the teacher guided the students through all six phases of Stripling’s inquiry process. She
engaged students in the connect phase by relating the topic to their preexisting knowledge of themselves, others, and
the world around them. The teacher also spent time building students’ background knowledge as they began to form
their own researchable questions. Through the wonder phase, the teacher guided, and deepened the students’
question constructions while encouraging them to hypothesize and form predictions. This phase activated the
students’ schema as they began to process, and relate new information to prior learning (Milligan, 1979). When the
students entered the investigate phase they learned research strategies that facilitated comprehension such as how to
search for information, discover answers, take notes, and read with a question in mind. Throughout the construct
phase the teacher intensified the students’ research skills by teaching them how to draw conclusions, infer, find
patterns, understand multiple points of view, evaluate sources, and clarify their thinking. The students learned how to
synthesize their thinking as they read for the gist and engaged in guided small group discussions and debates. Finally,
in the express and reflect phases, the students shared their knowledge with a real audience. They demonstrated new
learning, and understanding through an oral presentation. Students reflected on their knowledge, posed new
questions, and considered how learning affected their personal beliefs and behaviors.
In the second trimester the teacher used the theme of social justice to engage students in a curricular inquiry on civil
rights. Students continued to meet in their inquiry circles reading historical nonfiction, and a historically related
whole class novel. The teacher focused her lessons on visual literacy, various note taking strategies, understanding
features in non-fiction text, and utilized interactive read-alouds to model text annotations, inferencing, and
synthesizing. The students reported their research findings via oral presentation, Keynote slides, posters, visual
models, and student generated magazines.
!
!
!
!
!
!
I!
INQUIRY
LEARNING
PROCESS
FIRST TRIMESTER: MINI-INQUIRY (SUSTAINABILITY)
Teacher
* Models inquiry process
Inquiry Circles
* Read news articles
* Respond with post-it notes
* Discuss findings
Students Present
* Orally
SECOND TRIMESTER: CURRICULAR INQUIRY (CIVIL RIGHTS)
Teacher
* Develops visual literacy
* Introduces note-taking strategies
* Shares non-fiction textual features
Students Present
* Posters
* Visual models
* Keynote slides
* Student magazines
Inquiry Circles
* Form researchable questions
* Target key ideas and information
* Read with a question in mind
* Note thinking
THIRD TRIMESTER: OPEN INQUIRY
Teacher
* Develops validity, reliability constructs
* Refines synthesizing skills
* Models real work application
Inquiry Circles
* Form researchable questions
* Crosscheck source reliability
* Synthesize findings
* Reflect & apply
* Plan new learning
Students Present
* Podcasts
* Visual models
* Keynote slides
!
Six Phases of Inquiry
* Connect
* Wonder
* Investigate
* Construct
* Express
* Reflect

http://jct.sciedupress.com
Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 2; 2016
Published by Sciedu Press
68
ISSN 1927-2677 E-ISSN 1927-2685
During the third trimester the teacher introduced an open inquiry project in which the students were asked to identify
an essential question derived from anything they had read or experienced throughout the year. Borrowing from
Wiggins and McTighe’s (1998) enduring understandings essential questions were defined as focused, authentic
queries that were researchable, and essential to new learning. Student inquiry circles were organized around essential
questions as they read non-fiction texts, and historical fiction. The essential question came from culminating
thoughts recorded in their inquiry journal. Students read a multiple text genres from a variety of sources. The
teacher’s lessons taught students how to evaluate the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the information they
encountered. At the end of the year students shared their learning via an audio recorded essay podcast, Keynote
presentation, poster, or three dimensional model that was presented to the class, and their parents.
3.4 Measures
This 10-month study used a mixed methods approach to ascertain the effects of inquiry-based learning on the
academic achievement, bilingual development, and student learning perceptions of thirty-two, 5th grade students
assigned to a treatment or control instructional environment. Triangulated data were collected from the Educational
Records Bureau’s (2002) Comprehensive Testing Program 4, (CTP4), the Bilingual Verbal Ability Test (BVAT),
and 2 student questionnaires throughout the year (see Figure 3). Although the quantitative measures of this study
focused on the academic outcomes of inquiry-based learning, the qualitative measures helped the researchers
understand the total effects of the program.
Figure 3. Instrument Administration Timeline for Treatment and Control Groups
Treatment Control
Fall CTP 4
BVAT
Questionnaire #1 (pretest)
Spring CTP 4
BVAT
Questionnaire #1 (posttest)
Questionnaire #2
CTP 4
BVAT
Questionnaire #1 (pretest)
CTP 4
BVAT
Questionnaire #1 (posttest)
Questionnaire #2
NOTE: Three additional questions were added to Questionnaire #1 (posttest) for the treatm
group to help researchers ascertain student perceptions of inquiry instruction.
For this study the CTP 4 norm-referenced achievement test helped the researchers understand how inquiry-based
learning affected the overall academic achievement of the treatment group compared to the control group in multiple
cognitive domains. Fall and spring test scores were ascertained from the treatment and control groups to determine
achievement gains. The students took multiple-choice subtests in verbal reasoning, vocabulary, reading
comprehension, writing mechanics, writing concepts and skills, quantitative reasoning, and mathematical reasoning.
The reasoning assessments in English-language arts and mathematics compared what students knew with how well
they could use higher-level thinking skills to solve problems. The researchers chose to use the CTP 4 because it was
standardized on a national sample of 38,000 public and private school students and reported an internal consistency
reliability in the range of 0.78 (Fouratt & Owen, 2004).
The researchers chose to use the Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests (BVAT) because it is the only generally accepted
bilingual instrument available to assess skills associated with bilingual intelligence (Ortíz, 2002). The three BVAT
tests have their origins from the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised (WLPB-R) (Woodcock, 1991) and
the Woodcock-Johnson-Revised Tests of Cognitive Ability (WJ-R COG) (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989). The
comprehensive testing manual reports that the median BVA reliability observed in 1988 for 542 bilingual subjects
was .84 (Munoz-Sandoval, et al., 1998). Concurrent, predictive, and construct validity studies of the BVAT report a
correlation coefficient within the .7 to .9 range.

http://jct.sciedupress.com
Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 2; 2016
Published by Sciedu Press
69
ISSN 1927-2677 E-ISSN 1927-2685
Native speakers of English and French administered the oral version of the English and French BVAT in the fall and
spring. The procedures called for the administration of the following three subtests in the English language first, and
French second: (a) Picture Vocabulary, (b) Oral Vocabulary, and (c) Verbal Analogies. The overall subtest score was
based on the student’s bilingual knowledge and reasoning skills.
Student participants in both the treatment and control groups were given two questionnaires administered in the fall
and spring to ascertain perceptions of their respective instructional programs. All (N=32) students in both groups
responded to both surveys in English.
The first short answer questionnaire narratively assessed students’ perceptions of learning, inquiry research, and
bilingual cognition. The students were asked the following questions: (1) What is your favorite and least favorite
way of learning? (2) What does it mean to do research? Have you researched an interesting subject? (3) What is the
biggest challenge you currently face in bilingual learning? How is research in two languages difficult? Two
additional questions were added to the spring questionnaire for the treatment group only: (1) What did you learn by
doing inquiry research? (2) What did you like best/least about inquiry learning?
A second questionnaire administered in the spring utilized a short answer response format to help the researchers
understand students’ perceptions of the research activities they had experienced in both the treatment and control
groups. The Likert-type response was based on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly
disagree). The students were asked to respond to the following statements: (1) My research activities helped me learn.
Give examples. (2) My research activities influenced my motivation to learn. Give examples.
3.5 Data Analysis
The following methods were used to analyze the data identifying the cognitive and psychosocial impact of inquiry-
based learning on the academic achievement and bilingual cognitive development of a treatment group of 5th grade
students compared to their control peer group. Academic achievement and language development data were analyzed
using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) test of within-subject contrasts for each CTP 4 subtest and
the BVAT.
Content analysis and descriptive statistics were used to analyze emerging themes from the student questionnaires.
The researchers examined responses collected from two questionnaires. Questionnaire #1 was initially divided into
two corpus units separating the treatment and control groups. The questions were categorized into three areas of
student perception: (a) learning, (b) research, and (c) bilingual cognition. Each answer set was coded separately into
themed meaning units and analyzed using Giorgi’s (1975) empirical phenomenological method of analysis. This
method analyzes texts by looking for natural meaning units and discovering emerging themes. The technique utilized
for generating meaning was taken from one of thirteen such strategies developed by Miles and Huberman (1994).
The researchers attempted to read each student’s answer without prejudice when thematizing their statements.
Essential nonredundant themes were synthesized into a descriptive statement in order to condense the expressed
meanings into more specific understandings of student perceptions. When substantive differences in interpretation
arose, the researchers worked them together into a dialogue leading to an intersubjective agreement of .92
(Krippendorff, 1980).
Questionnaire #2 was a Likert-type, short answer form that was distributed to both groups in the late spring. The
researchers sorted the corpus by control and sample group responses, and then tallied the Likert-type items using
descriptive and summary statistics reporting numbers, percentages, and means of student responses. The researchers
analyzed the paired short answer responses accompanying this questionnaire using a priori coding (Weber, 1990).
They coded the field notes into recording units that were sorted into the following categories: (a) student learning, (b)
student successes, (c) student challenges. When substantive differences in interpretation were found, the researchers
negotiated a constructive dialogue, and resolved differences leading to an intersubjective agreement of .86
(Krippendorff, 1980).
4. Results
The results identifying the cognitive and psychosocial impact of inquiry-based learning on the academic achievement
and bilingual verbal ability of the treatment group compared to the control group are presented as they relate to the
two research questions posed for this study.
4.1 Research Question #1
How does inquiry-based instruction affect the academic achievement and bilingual verbal development of

http://jct.sciedupress.com
Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 2; 2016
Published by Sciedu Press
70
ISSN 1927-2677 E-ISSN 1927-2685
French/English speaking 5th grade students compared to a control group receiving traditional problem solving
research instruction?
Table 1 presents the pretest (T1) and posttest (T2) results of the CTP4 and BVAT scores for the treatment and
control groups. The means reported for the CTP4 Mathematics subtest indicated that the students receiving inquiry-
learning instruction made significant gains in Mathematical Reasoning (T1 M = 63.6, SD = 14.4, T2 M = 73.0, SD =
12.3), compared to the control group of students (T1 M = 68.3, SD = 14.0, T2 M = 64.4, SD = 18.1). A repeated
measures ANOVA revealed that on the tests of within-subject contrasts there was a significant interaction in favor of
the treatment group F(1,27) = 12.76, p < .05. The partial η2 indicated that the interaction accounted for 32% of the
variance in scores.
Table 1 also suggests that the bilingual verbal ability (BVA) reported on the BVAT for the treatment group increased
at a faster rate (T1 M = 82.4, SD = 16.8, T2 M = 95.2, SD = 6.7) than the control group (T1 M = 90.2, SD = 12.4, T2
M = 95.2, SD = 5.7). On tests of within-subject contrasts, the repeated measures ANOVA analysis revealed that
growth in bilingual verbal ability for the treatment group over time was statistically significant, F(1,30) = 4.22, p
< .05.
Table 1. Repeated Measures ANOVA for Mean CTP 4/BVAT Scores (with Standard Deviations in Parentheses)
Category T C df F η2 p
CTP4 Subtests T1 T2 T1 T2
1 – Verbal Reasoning
3.2(1.2)
2.9(.9)
3.0(.9)
2.6(1.5)
1
.14
.005
.71
2 – Vocabulary
2.6(1.2)
2.2(1.3)
2.1(1.4)
2.3(1.5)
1
2.51
.07
.13
3 - Reading Comprehension
2.9(1.3)
3.0(1.4)
2.9(1.4)
2.4(1.1)
1
1.92
.06
.18
4 - Writing Mechanics
2.4(1.0)
1.9(.8)
2.6(1.4)
1.9(1.3)
1
.16
.005
.69
5 - Writing Concepts/Skills
3.2(1.3)
3.2(1.4)
2.5(1.3)
2.8(1.3)
1
.54
.02
.47
6 – Quantitative Reasoning
2.2(1.1)
2.0(1.0)
2.3(1.3)
1.7(1.4)
1
2.52
.08
.12
7 – Mathematical Reasoning
63.6(14.4)
73.0(12.3)
68.3(14.0)
64.4(18.1)
1
12.76
.32
.001*
BVAT
82.4(16.8)
95.2(6.7)
90.2(12.4)
95.2(5.7)
1
4.22
.12
.04*
Note: *p<.05. This study analyzed inquiry-based instruction in English Language Arts/Social Studies.
4.2 Research Question #2
How do the students in the treatment group perceive the effects of inquiry learning on their language and cognition
compared to the control group receiving problem-solving instruction?
The first question on questionnaire #1 distributed in the fall and spring asked students to describe their favorite and
least favorite way to learn. Most (30 out of 32) students in both the treatment group and control groups felt that their
favorite way to learn was to listen to interactive lectures on various topics and attend field trips. In addition, most (20
out of 32) students in both groups felt that their least favorite way to learn was to memorize math facts and grammar
rules, write irrelevant essays, and read boring textbooks. There were no response differences between the fall and
spring questionnaires on this item, supporting Dewey’s (1916) notion that learning is not merely a process of
transmitted knowledge - it is a two-way negotiation of “knowing” that is socially constructed.
The second question on questionnaire #1 asked students to define what it means to do research. In the fall all students
in both groups used typical problem-solving terms to describe research. One girl wrote, “I searched for information
on the internet.” Another wrote, “I looked up words on a computer.” A third student wrote, “I looked up information
in a book.”
On the spring questionnaire, while all of the students in the control group continued using traditional problem-
solving terms to describe their research experience, many (13 out of 16) students in the treatment group began using
terms more explicitly associated with inquiry-based instruction. One girl wrote, “I chose an interesting essential
question.” A boy wrote, “I found out cool facts because I dug deeper into the topic.” Another boy wrote, “I built a
project and presented it to the whole class and I had a lot of fun.” These responses exemplified learning in Stripling’s
(2003) wonder, investigate, construct, express, reflect, and connect phases of inquiry instruction. They were also
indicative of Dewey’s (1916) belief that the mind is not developed through memorization of isolated facts. Rather, it
exercises itself through direct application and “response to present stimuli” (p. 73).

http://jct.sciedupress.com
Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 2; 2016
Published by Sciedu Press
71
ISSN 1927-2677 E-ISSN 1927-2685
The third question on questionnaire #1 asked students to describe their biggest challenges in bilingual learning and
the difficulties they encountered when doing research in two languages. Most (29 out of 32) students in both groups
identified few challenges in bilingual learning and research on both the fall and spring questionnaires. Identified
challenges were associated with second language comprehension in reading and writing. One boy in the treatment
group wrote, “I felt confused when I read in French because I didn’t understand all of the vocabulary.” No students
in the control group indicated that their bilingualism affected their research ability. However 81% (13 out of 16) of
the students in the treatment group reported that it was easier to do research bilingually because multiple sources in
two languages increased their information access.
In the spring distribution of questionnaire #1, two additional questions were given to the treatment group related to
inquiry learning. The first question asked students what they learned by doing inquiry research. Most (15 out of 16)
students reported that they better understood the research process because they got to pose their own questions, and
answer them using various bilingual resources.
The second question asked students what they liked best about inquiry learning. Most (12 out of 16) students favored
activities in the wonder, construct and express phases of Stripling’s inquiry process. One student wrote, “I’m glad I
got to choose my own topic.” Other students wrote about how much they enjoyed sharing their new learning with
others.
When asked what they liked least about inquiry learning many (6 out of 16) students expressed frustration during the
investigative phase. One student wrote, “I struggled to find information related to my question.” Another wrote, “I
had a hard time combining all of my little questions into one essential question.” A third student wrote, “It was hard
for me to read the reference books. I didn’t understand all of the words.”
More than half (14 out of 16) of the students in the treatment group stated that they enjoyed everything about inquiry
research. Their words described classic reflective thinking that embedded throughout the Stripling (2003) model.
They also embodied what Dewey (1916) describes as “the joy of intellectual constructiveness – of creativeness” (p.
88).
Questionnaire #2 was distributed in the late spring. Each question on this Likert-type questionnaire asked students to
support their response with examples. The first question examined how classroom research activities affect learning.
Descriptive analysis reported that both groups of students felt that all of the research activities helped them learn
(Treatment M=1.8, Control M=1.6). No students in the control group supported their responses with examples. Over
half (9 out of 16) of the students in the treatment group supported their responses with examples reporting that their
research activities helped them direct their own learning. Content analysis of the student examples indicated that
many (14 out of 16) experienced improved subject matter comprehension, enhanced technology skills, better
understanding of bilingual conversations with their parents, and higher confidence levels in class presentations. One
boy in the treatment group wrote, “I got to direct my learning so I felt more confident about what I learned.” Another
stated, “When I was having dinner with my dad and I told him about my inquiry research question and we had an
actual conversation that rarely happens.” A third student wrote, “Inquiry research is a fun and educational way of
learning. I would rather do inquiry research than a worksheet.”
The second question on questionnaire #2 asked students to rank how well the research activities influenced the
students’ motivation to learn. A Likert-type questionnaire provided the following choices: 1=strongly agree, 2=agree,
3=neutral, 4=disagree, 5=strongly disagree. Although significance was not found in the data analysis, descriptive
analysis of the questionnaire reported that 15 out of 16 students in the treatment group (compared to 10 out of 16
students in the control group) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement “My research activities positively
influenced my motivation to learn.”
Short answer responses to the second question further clarified and supported these results. Responses to the
statement “My research activities influenced my motivation to learn” tended to be very general in nature for the
control group. Content analysis revealed that most (14 out of 16) students desired to learn through research. One boy
wrote, “I liked doing research about famous people because it helped me learn more facts.” A girl wrote, “Reading
about my famous African American made me want to learn more about his life.”
In contrast most (14 out of 16) of the short answer responses from the treatment group reflected an awareness of the
differences between inquiry-based and traditional problem-solving research processes. One boy wrote,
Well, I feel more confident about doing research on my own now. When its something I like, I go home and look up
more things about it. Like when we were reading Time Magazine for Kids about animals and humans communicating
together. I liked it and I learned that dogs have lots of ways to tell you they are sad or hungry or tired. Then I went

http://jct.sciedupress.com
Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 2; 2016
Published by Sciedu Press
72
ISSN 1927-2677 E-ISSN 1927-2685
home and started looking up more answers to my questions.
Another girl in the treatment group wrote, “The inquiry research project helped me learn how to read even better.
That is what affected my learning the most.”
Most (12 out of 16) students in the treatment group reported that inquiry-based research activities provided a deeper
understanding of the topic, increased reading comprehension, and improved my vocabulary in both languages. One
girl wrote, “Well, I learned things that related to what we were learning in French, so I comprehended more. I think
it’s because I learned words in my research that have some French roots.” Another boy expressed his ability to use
metalinguistic competencies across each language as they exist in what Cummins (1981) refers to as Common
Underlying Proficiency (CUP),
If I research in English, I think in English. If I research in French, I think 85% in French. I don’t think researching in
English makes you think in French or vice versa. For example when I researched for the Airpod, the website was in
French, so I had to convert it to English to use the information in my presentation, which proves that I think in each
language separately.
5. Discussion
The results of this study provide a deeper understanding of effective instruction for bilingual children. The
researchers explored how inquiry-based instruction affected the overall academic achievement of thirty-two 5th
graders in a French dual immersion program. Although there was no statistical significance to report on between
group effects on the CTP4 subtest for Mathematical Reasoning the repeated ANOVA findings reported a significant
finding on tests of within-subject effects in favor of the treatment group (see Table 1). The significant interaction
indicated that the treatment group math scores increased at a faster rate over time.
Although both groups were exposed to the same mathematics curriculum in the same class, the positive effect of
inquiry-based instruction on the mathematical reasoning of the treatment group could possibly be explained by skills
students attained through inquiry learning in their English/Social Studies class. In the inquiry learning environment
students in the treatment group may have experienced what Stripling (2003) describes is a recursive “relationship
between thinking skills and content” (p. 6). Students were not just passively constructing knowledge by searching for
answers to problems - a practice commonly found in the problem-solving approach for mathematics and science.
They were practicing what Kharkhurin (2007) describes as enhanced divergent thinking ability and cognitive control
often experienced by bilinguals exposed to such tasks.
Recent studies in mathematic achievement among elementary aged children found a significant correlation between
divergent thinking and mathematical achievement (Bahar & Maker, 2011). Through inquiry learning the treatment
group of students in this study actively engaged in subject matter study, which may have deepened their content
knowledge, and strengthened the critical thinking processes needed to solve complex problems in mathematics. The
learning that transferred between subjects potentially activated what De Corte (2007) refers to as “adaptive expertise”
(p.21), thus preparing students for new learning. Posing questions, synthesizing relevant information, and forming
plausible conclusions possibly motivated student confidence, and catalyzed essential cognitive reasoning skills.
The effects of inquiry learning also had a positive effect on the treatment group’s English/French bilingual verbal
ability (BVA), which increased at a significantly faster rate than the control group of students. The BVAT
Comprehensive Manual (Muñoz-Sandoval, Cummins, Alvarado, & Ruef, 1998) explains that bilingual verbal ability
represents the verbal, and cognitive ability that is distributed across different domains of a child’s L1 and L2.
The significant increase in bilingual verbal ability experienced by the treatment group could possibly be explained
by enhanced executive functioning, strengthened through inquiry-learning tasks, that activated students’ heightened
bilingual ability to monitor their environment. Collective evidence from a number of studies suggest that when
bilingual children are engaged in active learning environments they experience finely tuned metalinguistic
awareness and attention processes used for planning, increased cognitive flexibility, multicompetence in problem
solving, and the ability to form conclusions utilizing divergent, and convergent thinking (Kharkhurin, 2008;
Bialystok, 2006). A recent meta-analysis of multilingual research (European Commission, 2009) reported that when
multilingual children experience enhanced executive functioning, they demonstrate an increase in “abstract thinking
skills, creative hypothesis formulation, higher concept formation skills, and overall higher mental flexibility” (p. 11).
Through guided inquiry learning the students in the treatment group learned how to interpret, and process
information through student centered investigations that taught them how to discern important from unimportant
questions and facts. This process likely activated strategic bilingual problem solving competence that led to an
increase in bilingual verbal cognitive ability.

http://jct.sciedupress.com
Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 2; 2016
Published by Sciedu Press
73
ISSN 1927-2677 E-ISSN 1927-2685
The data regarding student program perceptions indicated that both the control and treatment group of students
preferred active, teacher guided learning activities. Although both groups specified that research activities strongly
correlated with their learning, students in the treatment group reported a better understanding of the research process
because instruction specifically targeted the development of metacognitive processes and self-regulatory capabilities.
As the treatment group of students directed their own research inquiries they reported increased self-efficacy, and a
stronger motivation to learn, or what Dewey (1916) describes as “creativeness” (p. 88), or the ability to problem
solve using original thoughts. This could possibly be explained by the constructivist philosophy embedded in the
inquiry learning approach. Inquiry learning taught children how to regulate their behaviors. They learned such
strategies as predicting outcomes, planning ahead, time management, comprehension monitoring, and how to use
background knowledge. These metacognitive processes and self-regulatory capabilities were not developed in the
problem-solving learning experiences of the children in the control group.
6. Limitations of the Study
Several limitations found in this study preclude generalizability in its findings. The small sample size limited the
statistical power in the treatment group’s increased mathematical reasoning, and bilingual verbal development;
therefore generalizations cannot be made to broader bilingual student populations without further research.
Another limitation of the study was found in the narrow linguistic and sociocultural demographics of the participants.
All of the children in the study came from high socioeconomic backgrounds with highly educated parents. They were
all proficient bilinguals with above average competence in English. Additionally, all of the children were enrolled in
a dual immersion program that valued their bilingual competence, and increased their perceived student status.
Although the limitations found in this study were significant, the conclusions support its micro analytical design.
They provided the researchers with an in depth understanding of effective instructional differences that may not have
occurred in more varied contexts.
7. Conclusion
The inquiry-based instructional approach described in this study supports our current understanding of how people
learn. Stimulating learning environments that pique students’ natural curiosity are linked to issues that are especially
important in processes of bilingual cognition and competence. These processes seem to be positively or negatively
affected by the degree to which learning is student-centered, knowledge-centered, community-centered and
authentically assessed.
Recommendations for future research include: a) extending the study to a broader context in diverse school settings,
(b) examining the cognitive effects of inquiry learning on bilingual children enrolled in English only programs, and
(c) studying the effects of inquiry-based instruction on the academic language use of ELLs who are partial bilinguals.
This study examined the effect of inquiry learning on a very narrow pool of proficient bilinguals with high cognitive
and socioeconomic advantages. Because the results suggested a positive effect on students’ bilingual verbal ability
and mathematics reasoning skills, the researchers would like to observe the cognitive effects of inquiry learning in
bilingual students with lower socioeconomic status who struggle to succeed in public school English immersion
programs. Because of the new emphasis on the Common Core Standards, it would be also be interesting to study the
program’s effect on student reasoning and higher order thinking skills in such contexts.
Effective instruction for all students begins with acknowledging the child’s inherent need to explore the world.
Teaching to the child’s curious bent celebrates individual student interests, and levels of understanding for all
children. Creative educational experiences crafted within an authentic community context enable students to build a
body of shared knowledge that motivates future learning. Inquiry-based instruction provides an empowering
platform for all children to exercise their natural curiosity, and simultaneously increase cognitive abilities in an
increasingly globalized world.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the subjects whose participation made this study possible. We also thank P. Boustiha for
individually administering the pre/post French BVAT subtest to each student in the study, and M. France, who
provided assistance with statistical data analysis. This research was supported through a Dean’s Grant from the
Education Department at Santa Clara University.

http://jct.sciedupress.com
Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 2; 2016
Published by Sciedu Press
74
ISSN 1927-2677 E-ISSN 1927-2685
References
Alanís, L. (2011). Learning from each other: Bilingual pairs in dual-language classrooms. Dimensions of Early
Childhood, 39(1), 21-28.
Amaral, O.M., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase achievement through
inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 213-239.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2002.10668709
Bahar, A.K., & Maker, C.J. (2011). Exploring the relationship between mathematical creativity and mathematical
achievement. Asia-Pacific Journal of Gifted and Talented Education, 3(1), 33-48.
Bialystok, E. (2006). Effect of bilingualism and computer video game experience on the Simon task. Canadian
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 68–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cjep2006008
Castronova, J.A. (2002). Discovery learning for the 21st century: What is it and how does it compare to traditional
learning in effectiveness in the 21st century? Action Research Exchange, 1(1), 1-12.
Chu, K.W.S. (2009). Inquiry project based learning with a partnership of three types of teachers and the school
librarian. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1671-1686.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21084
Chu, S., Chow, K., Luk, W. Y., Cheung, K., & Sit, D. K. N. (2007). The development of primary four students'
information literacy and information technology skills. Paper presented at the Conference on Integrated
Learning. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education December.
Chu, S., Tse, S.K., Loh, E., & Chow, K. (2011). Collaborative inquiry project-based learning: Effects on reading
ability and interests. Library and Information Science Research, 33, 236–243.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2010.09.008
Copsey Haydey, D., Zakaluk, B.L., & Straw, S. (2010). The changing face of content area teaching. Journal of
Applied Research on Learning, 3(3), 1-29.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language
minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students:
A theoretical framework. (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center,
California State University.
De Corte, E. (2007). Learning from instruction: The case of mathematics. Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 19-30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11519-007-0002-4
De Groot. (2011). Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Educational Records Bureau (2002). CTP 4 Content Standards Manual. New York, NY: Educational Records
Bureau.
European Commission (July 2009). Multilingualism and creativity: Towards an evidence-base. Brussels, Belgium:
Commission of the European Communities.
Fouratt, S., & Owen, C. (2004). CTP 4, Comprehensive testing program 4 [Technical Report]. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Giorgi, A. (1975). An application of phenomenological method in psychology. In A. Giorgi, C. Fischer, and E.L.
Murray (Eds.), Duquesne studies in phenomenological psychology. (Vol. 2, pp. 82-103). Pittsburgh, PA:
Duquesne University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/dspp197529
Kharkhurin, A. (2008). The effect of linguistic proficiency, age of second language acquisition, and length of
exposure to a new cultural environment on bilinguals’ divergent thinking. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 11(2), 225-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728908003398
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Laija-Rodríguez, W., Ochoa, S.H., & Parker, R. (2006). The crosslinguistic role of cognitive academic language
proficiency on reading growth in Spanish and English. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National
Association for Bilingual Education, 30(1), 87-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2006.10162867

http://jct.sciedupress.com
Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 2; 2016
Published by Sciedu Press
75
ISSN 1927-2677 E-ISSN 1927-2685
Lee, V. (2011). The power of inquiry as a way of learning. Innovative Higher Education, 36, 149-160.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-010-9166-4
Litman, J. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasure of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and
Emotion, 19(6), 793-814. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930541000101
Maata, D., Dobb F., & Ostlund K. (2006). Strategies for teaching science to English learners. In A. Fathman and D.
Crowther, (eds.), Science for English language learners, 37–59. Arlington: NSTA Press.
McNally, M.J. (2005). Analysis of students' mental models: Using the Internet in an authentic learning situation.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(5), 1541A. (UMI No. 3176205).
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Milligan, J.R. (1979). Schema learning theory: An approach to perceptual learning. Review of Educational Research,
49(2), 197-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002197
Moses, L., Busetti-Frevert, R., & Pritchard, R. (2015). Inquiry as ESL: Supporting emerging bilinguals’ content and
language development. The Reading Teacher, 68(6), 435-447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1333
Muñoz-Sandoval, A.F., Cummins, J., Alvarado, C.G., & Ruef, M.L. (1998). Bilingual Verbal Abilities Tests. Rolling
Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Ortíz, S.O. (2002). Best practices in non-discriminatory assessment. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds), Best practices
in school psychology - IV (pp. 1321-1336). Washington DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Stoddart, T., Bravo, M., Solis, J.L., Mosqueda, E., & Rodriguez, A. (2011). Effective science teaching for English
language learners (ESTELL): Measuring pre-service teacher practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Stripling, B.K. (2003). Inquiry-based learning. In B.K. Stripling & S. Huges-Hassell (Eds.), Curriculum Connections
through the Library (3-39). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Weber, R.P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412983488
Weinburgh, M., Silva, C., Smith, K.H., Groulx, J., & Nettles, J. (2014). The intersection of inquiry-based science and
language: Preparing teachers for ELL classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(5), 519-541.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9389-9
Westerveldt, M. (2007). Schoolyard inquiry for English language learners. The Science Teacher, 47-51.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Williams, J., & Lombrozo, J. (2010). The role of explanation in discovery and generalization: Evidence from
category learning. Cognitive Science, 34, 776-806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01113.x
Woodcock, R.W. (1991). Woodcock language proficiency battery-revised. Rolling Meadows, IL: The Riverside
Publishing Company.
Woodcock, R.W., & Johnson, M.B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson-revised tests of cognitive ability. Rolling Meadows,
IL: The Riverside Publishing Company.
Yamashita, J. (2002). Mutual compensation between L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency in L2 reading
comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 81–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00160