1.
Approaches to enquiry.................................................................................................................... 1
2.
Traditional phases of inquiry process to progressive inquiry ......................................................... 1
3.
Dialogic nature of enquiry and a variety of coding schema ........................................................... 6
This working paper reviews the literature review on enquiry (inquiry) learning to inform a schema for
the key stages and aspects of a dialogic enquiry process. The paper begins by refine the meanings of
dialogic enquiry arising from different perspectives on the topic. The paper continues by reviewing
work on comparing progressive inquiry with traditional phases of enquiry. The next section focuses
on reviewing work on dialogic nature of enquiry and the variety of staged accounts of enquiry process.
1. Approaches to enquiry
Learning occurs through a social process of inquiry (Dewey, 1938). There are different ways to
approach enquiry. Reflective enquiry seeks to draw attention on the coupling of metacognition and
inquiry in the context of solving open-ended, ill-structured investigations in science (Kyza & Edelson,
2003). The name “reflective inquiry” thus has a double meaning, and deliberately so. The first
meaning is reflection as in thinking seriously about something. The second meaning is to use a mirror
to reflect an image of oneself while working (Keating et al., 1996). de Jone et al. (2006) indicate
specific difficulties children have in engaging with inquiry learning, in order to general metacognitive
problems in failing to regulate their behaviour or plan effectively. Shared enquiry requires a
commitment to open up both literally and metaphorically the necessary time and spaces to try things
out, to play with variations, to probe the possibilities for enhancing motivation and learning, and to
take risks in entering new territory (Thomas & Oldfather, 1995). Brown and Campione (1996)
recognise that participation in an extended process of shared inquiry fosters children’s ability to ask
complex questions.
In science learning context, National Research council (2000, in Grandy & Duschl, 2006, p156)
strengthen dialogical processes of enquiry beyond conceptual learning goals and decided to added the
following dialogic features to inquiry learning process:
 Responds to criticisms from others
 Formulates appropriate criticisms of others
 Engages in criticism of own explanations
 Reflects on alternative explanations and not have a unique resolution.
Dialogic process of enquiry can also cultivate learners’ scientific thinking skills. There is a symptom
of the disjunction between newcomer and expert worldviews (Clancey, 1989). In particular, extensive
research has documented the depth of the disjunction between science students and professional
scientists (Carramazza, McCloskey, & Green, 1981; Halhoun & Hestenes, 1985; McDermott, 1984).
The gap between students' and scientists' worldviews is not localized at the level of "concepts" and
"misconceptions," but extends throughout the fabric of thinking -- including perception, focus of
attention, descriptions of the world, practices of interactions with the world, forms of valid knowledge,
and values.
2. Traditional phases of enquiry process to progressive inquiry
Table 1: An abstract description of the present five perspectives of inquiry process
List
of
phases/stages
Shimoda et al (2002)
 Hypothesis

Investigate
Bruce & Bishop (2002)
 Ask

Investigate

Analyse

Create

Synthesise

Discuss

Extend

Reflect

Question and
theorise.

Schwartz et al (1999)
 The challenge

Generate ideas

Multiple
perspectives

Research&
revise

Test your
mettle

Go public

Look ahead &
Reflect back
Llewelyn (2002)
 Introducing a
topic
Hakkarainen (2010)
 Share expertise

Creating context

Engaging in
question –driven
inquiry

Generating working
theories

Critical evaluation
as a component of
the process
Carrying out a
plan

Searching for new
information

Collecting data


Organising data
Engagement in
deepen inquiry

Communicating
results

Distributed
expertise

Comparing new
knowledge to
prior knowledge

Applying
knowledge to new
situation

Stating a new
question to
investigate

Assessing prior
knowledge

Providing
exploration

Raising and
revising questions

Brainstorming
solutions

circle
is This
circle
is
a This circle represents a
Focus of the This is a generic This circle aims for This
inquiry circle, names students to learn how to implemented as a constructivist
process
of
innovation
inquiry sustained
as a sequence of goals learn and metacognitive technology template to cycle from a more advancing and building
to be pursued by the skills, and stresses the need
learners.
to engage children as active
learners to collaborate and
to
understand
the
perspectives of others.
guide learners through detailed inquiry approach.
case-,
problem-,
project-based
learning.
knowledge
This section aims to compare progressive inquiry with other four traditional phases of inquiry process
as summarised in Table 1: Shimoda et al (2002); Bruce and Bishop (2002); Schwartz et al. (1999),
Llewelyn (2002) and Hakkarainen (1998). The idea of defining inquiry through phases that are
represented as a list, cycle or spiral is not new.
The Shimoda et al (2002)’s generic inquiry cycle is shown in Figure 1. This cycle is made explicit to
students and is presented as a sequence of goals to be pursued (Shimoda et al., 2002):
Error! Reference source not found. provides a top-level model of the inquiry process.
1) QUESTION: The students start by formulating a research question.
2) HYPOTHESIZE: They then generate predictions and come up with alternative, competing
hypotheses related to their question.
3) INVESTIGATE: Next, they design and carry out experimental investigations in which they
try to determine which of their hypotheses, if any, is accurate. (In our force and motion
curriculum, they do their experiments in the context of both the ThinkerTools computer
simulations and the real world. The computer simulations make it easy for them to conduct
and see the results of their experiments. Experimentation in the real world is more difficult
and is a good vehicle for enabling students to learn about problems that occur in the design
and implementation of real-world experiments.)
4) ANALYZE: After the students have completed their investigations, they analyze their data to
see if there are any patterns.
5) MODEL: Next they try to summarize and explain their findings by formulating a law and a
causal model that characterize their conclusions in a form that is extensible to other situations.
(Students’ models typically take the form: “If A then B because ...” For example, “if there are
no forces like friction acting on an object, then it will go forever at the same speed, because
there is nothing to slow it down.”)
6) EVALUATE: Once the students have developed their laws and causal models, they then try
to apply them to different real-world situations in order to investigate their utility and their
limitations. They also examine the limits of their investigations.
Determining the limitations of their conceptual models and investigations raises new research
questions, and the students begin the Inquiry Cycle again.
Bruce and Bishop (2002)’s inquiry cycle is shown in Figure 2. They argue that for students to learn
how to learn, and they must ask (find problems), investigate (multiple sources/media), create (engage
actively in learning), discuss (collaborate and debate), and reflect to do that.
Figure2: The inquiry cycle (Bruce & Bishop 2002)
Schwartz et al (1999)’s inquiry cycle in Figure 3 is designed to guide attempts to help students learn
from case-, problem-, and project-based learning (Schwartz et al., 1999).
Figure 3: the template of STAR.Legacy software cell (Schwartz et al., 1999)
Llewelyn (2002) takes a more detailed inquiry approach to illustrate the following sequence within
his model of a constructivist inquiry cycle:
(1) introducing a topic;
(2) assessing prior knowledge;
(3) providing exploration;
(4) raising and revising questions;
(5) brainstorming solutions;
(6) carrying out a plan;
(7) collecting data;
(8) organizing data, finding relationships, and drawing conclusions;
(9) communicating results;
(10) comparing new knowledge to prior knowledge;
(11) applying knowledge to new situations; and
(12) stating a new question to investigate.
Different from the previous four perspectives, Hakkarainen (1998) claims a sustained process of
advancing and building knowledge as progressive inquiry in Figure 4. He takes a broader view of
inquiry learning, in order to foster research-like process of inquiry in education (Bereiter, 2002).He
argues that learners should be guided to engage in processes of inquiry in which they are approaching
problems investigating at deepening levels of explanation. Although Hakkarainen proposes that the
agent of progressive inquiry is not an individual, but a knowledge building community (Bereiter, 2002;
Paavola et al., 2002, Scardamilia & Bereiter, 1999), the progressive inquiry model cannot clarify the
dialogic dynamics within a group of learners. Hence this paper continues reviewing work dialogic
nature of enquiry and the variety of staged accounts of shared enquiry process.
Figure 4: Progressive inquiry learning process (Hakkarainen & Muukkonen 1998)
3. Dialogic nature of enquiry and a variety of coding schema
Most scientific enquiries, whether professional or by students are collaborative (Driver et al. 2000), so
to support children being reflective to their collaboration, we need to orchestrate/stage the dialogic
process of enquiry at a micro level, e.g. communicative actions/moves; stages. Wells’ (2001)
framework for dialogic inquiry (Figure 5) can be regarded as a way to stage and orchestrate the
process of dialogic inquiry. It divides the process of inquiry into three stages, outlines the aims and
activities of each stage, the types of dialogue that could achieve the aims. Well’s model pays attention
to the sequencing of activities in terms of scientific epistemology (research, interpret, present).
Figure 5: Well’s framework for dialogic enquiry
Furthermore, Table 2 examines three coding schemas to scaffold collaborative learning, e.g.
argumentation and socio-construction of knowledge.
Table 2: An abstract description of the present three schema of collaborative learning
Focus of
innovation
Weinberger & Fischer
Core, M. and J. Allen (1997)
Wegerif et al. (2007)
multidimensional framework
dialogue coding scheme
(2006)
knowledge multiple labels in multiple layers to Dialogic
process
and
the argumentative
construction:
be applied to an utterance
thinking skills
Coding scheme 
structure



the participation dimension,

a. quantity of participation
b. Heterogeneity
of
participation
the epistemic dimension,

the argument dimension, and
a.sequence
of
argumentation
b. construction
of
argumentation
the dimension of social modes

of co-construction
a.Externalisation
b. Elicitation
c.Quick consensus
d. Integration-oriented
consensus
e.Conflict-orientated
consensus
Forward
communicative 
functions:

a. Representatives,
b. Directives;

c. Commissive
Backward
communicative
functions:
a. Agreement,
b. Understanding,
c. Answer;
d. Information Relation
Utterance features:
a. Information level;
b. Communicative Status;
c. syntactic features
Critical Reasoning
Creative Reasoning &
Dialogic Engagement
Moderation
Weinberger & Fischer (2006) propose to foster specific process dimensions of argumentative
knowledge construction in CSCL.
(1) The participation of the learners on CSCL discourse was described in terms of quantity and
heterogeneity of participation. These sub-categories of the participation dimension could be
objectively measured and may thus pose reliable indicators for learning processes in CSCL
environments.
(2) Regarding the epistemic dimension of CSCL discourse, the following questions are of relevance.
Do learners work on the task? How do they work on the task? And how do learners apply concepts to
solve the task?
(3) They have also investigated how learners build single arguments and sequences of arguments with
respect to how they warrant and/or qualify their claims, and with regard to how learners build
sequences of arguments, counterarguments and replies.
(4) Finally, they distinguished five sub-categories on the social dimension with increasing degrees of
transactivity ranging from externalization to conflict-oriented consensus building (Weinberger &
Fischer, 2006).
Core and Allen (1997) propose an annotation scheme for communicative acts in dialogue.
(1) The forward communicative functions consist of a taxonomy in similar style as the actions of
traditional speech act theory.
(2) The backward communicative functions indicates the types of responses to the previous utterances,
such as accepting a proposal, confirming understanding or answering a question.
(3) The utterance features represent an utterance’s form and contents, such as information level: task,
task management, communication management.
Wegerif et al (2009) propose a multi-dimensional and multi-level coding framework.
(1) They considered the settings of communication: pedagogical setting and group dynamics
dimension is aimed at understanding the conditions and ways in which students are participating in
their learning task, e.g, the group size and nature of the task.
(2) Building upon other coding schemes of argumentation, critical reasoning is focused on the
argumentative dimension,
(3) Creative reasoning and dialogical engagement dimension seeks to highlight the quality of student
interaction, perspective taking and mutual engagement through the discourse
(4) Moderation dimension describes the impact of interventions made during the online discussion
aimed at moderating and facilitating the quality of the discourse
However, we should be cautious to adopt the coding schemes to scaffold. Kollar, Fischer and Slotta
(2005) argue that students bring an ‘internal’ collaboration script with them to learning events, based
upon their previous experience of collaborative interactions, and their understanding of effective
argumentation processes. Dillenbourg and Jermann (2007) claim that scripts aim to enhance the
possibility that productive interactions will occur. However, contextual factors mean that learning
effects are not guaranteed. The key design issue is ‘which interactions need to be scaffolded in order
to reach the educational objectives?’ (p276).
Bibliography:
Brown, A. L. & Campione, J. C. (1996). 'Guided discovery in a community of learners.' In K. McGilly
(Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bruce, B. and A. Bishop (2002). "Using the web to support inquiry-based literacy development."
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 45(8): 706-714.
Carramazza, A., McCloskey, M., & Green, B. (1981). Naive beliefs
Misconceptions about trajectories of objects. Cognition, 9. 117-123.
in "sophisticated" subjects:
Clancey, W.J. 1989. The knowledge level reconsidered: Modeling how systems interact. Machine
Learning, 4(3/4)285-292.
Core, M. and J. Allen (1997). Coding dialogs with the DAMSL annotation scheme, Citeseer.
de Jong, T. (2006b). Scaffolds for computer simulation based scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen &
R. E. Clark (Eds.), Dealing with complexity in learning environments (pp. 107-128). London: Elsevier
Science Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Dillenbourg, P. and Jermann, P. (2007), Designing integrative scripts. In F.Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl
and J.M.Haake (eds) Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning, NY: Springer.
Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argument in the
classroom. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
Grandy, and Duschl, R. (2007) Role of inquiry in school science, Science & Education,
Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Emergence of progressive-inquiry culture in computer-supported
collaborative learning Learning Environments Research 6: 199–220.
Hakkarainen, K. (2010). "Learning Communities in the Classroom." International Handbook of
Psychology in Education: 177.
Halhoun, I.A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students.
American Journal of Physics, 53,1056-1065.
Keating, C., Robinson, T., and Clemson, B. (1996). Reflective inquiry: a method for organizational
learning. The Learning Organization. Vol 3 (4). pp. 35–43
Kollar, I., Fischer, F. & Slotta, J. (2005) Internal and external collaboration scripts in web-based
science learning at schools, Proceedings of conference on Computer support for collaborative
learning, 331-340, Taipei, Taiwan.
Kyza, E. A., & Edelson, D. C. (2003). Reflective inquiry: What it is and how can software scaffolds help.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Chicago,
IL
Llewellyn, D., 2002, Inquire Within (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press).
McDermott, L.C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, 37,
24-32
Shimoda, T.A., White, B.Y. Frederiksen J.R. (2002). Student goal orientation in learning inquiry skills
with modifiable software advisors. Science Education, 86 (2), 244 – 263.
Scharwtz, D., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. (1999). Toward the development of flexibility
adaptive instructional design. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new
paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 183–214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thomas, S. & Oldfather, P. (1995). Enhancing student and teacher engagement in literacy learning: A
shared inquiry approach. The Reading Teacher, 49 (3), 192-202.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction
in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71-95.
Wells, G. (2001). "The case for dialogic inquiry." Action, talk, and text: Learning and teaching through
inquiry: 171-194.
Wegerif, R., B. M. McLaren, et al. (2009). Recognizing creative thinking in graphical e-discussions
using artificial intelligence graph-matching techniques. Proceedings of the 9th international
conference on Computer supported collaborative learning - Volume 1. Rhodes, Greece, International
Society of the Learning Sciences: 108-112.