Empowering Learners Practical Integration of Inquiry-Based Learning and Scaffolding in the Classroom

Avelino G. Ignacio Jr., Head, Research Program Component of Research Management Office, Bulacan State University

Avelino G. Ignacio Jr., Head, Research Program Component of Research Management Office, Bulacan State University

Avelino is an Associate Professor at Bulacan State University, College of Education, currently serving as the Head of the Research Program Components of Research Management Office and the Head of the College of Education Research and Development Unit. He earned his BS in Mathematics and MA in Education degrees in the Philippines and has published in the areas of Mathematics Education, Assessment of Learning and Teaching & Learning. Currently, he is pursuing his EdD in Student-Centered Teaching and Learning at Far Eastern University, Philippines. He is an Associate Member of the National Research Council of the Philippines, Division XIII: Social Sciences.

Integrating Inquiry-Based Learning Is inquiry-based learning (IBL) possible to be integrated into a usual diverse classroom, and if so, how would it look? What practical strategies can the teacher use to appropriately provide the students with the support they need? Scaffolding is essential to enhance the implementation of IBL in a diverse classroom.

As a strategy for teaching and learning, IBL involves having students investigate a topic, problem or question. This makes the problem a vehicle for profoundly and actively participating in the process of learning. IBL is focused on an issue that needs to be answered. This is constructivist in nature as it lets the students have better ownership of their education by permitting ways and means for knowledge construction instead of spoon-fed knowledge. A crucial goal of IBL is to enable both students and teachers. Students are enabled via focused involvement with particular problems, questions and activities. A vital concern of teachers, consequently, is to design a challenging and supportive learning environment that stresses both emotional and social development as well as epistemic skills and knowledge. IBL is flexible, as teachers can create different forms of IBL environments for a variety of educational situations.

"As a strategy for teaching and learning, IBL involves having students investigate a topic, problem or question. This makes the problem a vehicle for profoundly and actively participating in the process of learning"

An IBL categorization in various levels is helpful in assisting interaction between students and teachers, as well as implementing IBL successively and successfully in classrooms. The earliest rubric to obtain extensive recognition for Herron (1971) that have been summarized by Blanchard et al. (2010), showing various levels of inquiry (see Table 1). In level 1, the teacher poses the problem or sets the task and chooses ways and means the students must undertake. The student has to carry out the problem/inquiry, compile the data, and analyze it. In level 2, the teacher still provides the problem or task to the students. But now, the students are open and/or have access to the methods/ways/means and answers. In level 3, students are required to pose the problem because they are confronted with the raw phenomenon. Students are assigned greater responsibility as the level of inquiry rises. Level 0 consists of activities where students just experience or observe specific unfamiliar phenomena.

Within the literature, a smaller amount of inquiry rubrics have been established for use at the undergraduate level. Despite these, one notably developed rubric to describe levels of inquiry at the undergraduate level was initiated by Bucks et al. (2008) (see Table 2). The rubric expands from the former rubrics described. More structure denotes an activity where the majority of the six characteristics are designed and provided for students. Less structure denotes an activity where the majority of the six characteristics are for students to design.

In creating powerful learning environments, scaffolding is gradually added, modified, and/or removed depending on the learner's needs. However, the realization of scaffolding in the school context is quite complex and challenging. It is a situated and/or dynamic act that is responsive to a specific set of situations in a particular classroom context. Some literature splits between static scaffolding (a.k.a. hard or macro-scaffolding) and dynamic scaffolding (a.k.a. soft or micro-scaffolding) (Ignacio & Paras, 2024). Static scaffolding can be constructed beforehand based on assumed predictable difficulties or struggles of learners accompanying the task. It is usually planned and stipulated in advance once. Dynamic scaffolding, on the other hand, responds to the actual classroom situation and is not scheduled in advance. They observe students' improvement and offer scaffolds, when needed, tailored to the realization of learning tasks.

Scaffolding and IBL combined can enhance learning by granting students the autonomy to explore and the tools they need to do their work well. Teachers could offer the topic of inquiry or problem, as well as some first ideas, to aid students in structuring their study and formulating questions. Through scaffolding, teachers provide clues, suggestions, or models in order to assist students in their inquiry-based work, e.g., via working examples, guided questions, or detailed instructions. The scaffolding is removed gradually as students obtain more confidence in their ability to run inquiries. Students take further control over their learning via critical thinking and problem-solving. By giving feedback, teachers aid students in reflecting on the inquiry process and results. It is beneficial to use both macro- and micro-scaffolding. Students must conduct inquiries on their own by the end of the investigations, showcasing their understanding of the subject matter and their ability to conduct inquiries

Construction