Student Perception of Engagement in IBL Classrooms by Brandon Hopfenbeck A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah February 7, 2025 Approved Stephanie Speicher, PhD DeeDee Mower, PhD Andrea Garavito-Martinez, PhD STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Table of Contents Introduction​ ​ 3 Purpose​ ​ 4 Literature review​ ​ 5 ​ What is Inquiry-Based Learning​ 6 Theoretical Roots of IBL​​ 7 IBL and Student Engagement​ 11 Purpose of Study and Need for Further Research​ 12 Summary​ ​ 12 Method​ ​ 13 ​ 14 Data Analysis​ ​ 15 Results​ ​ 15 ​ 22 Participants​ Discussion​ ​ Student Choice and IBL Effectiveness​ 22 ​ Lecture-Based Instruction and Student Ownership​ 22 ​ IBL Techniques and Student Engagement​ 23 ​ Direct Instruction vs. IBL​ 23 ​ Mixed Preferences and Contradictions​ 24 ​ Student Perceptions and Engagement​ 24 ​ Overall Implications​ ​ 24 ​ 25 Areas for Future Research​ 26 Study Limitations​ ​ Conclusion​ ​ 26 References​ ​ 27 Appendices​ ​ 30 INTRODUCTION 3 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS ​ Inquiry-based learning (IBL) has long been proven to be an effective teaching tool. With roots in constructivist theory and tracing its lineage back to the writings of American psychologists Jerome Bruner and John Dewey, IBL has become a foundational fixture of education in the various scientific fields (Englin, et al., 2013). When implemented effectively, IBL has the potential to help students move beyond the simple acquisition of declarative knowledge, to the active integration and creation of new knowledge (Saunders-Stewart, et al., 2012). The promise of moving beyond the acquisition of declarative knowledge towards the active integration of knowledge is enticing for many fields outside of the traditional scientific fields. One field that could dramatically benefit from the incorporation of inquiry-based techniques in instruction is social studies, particularly history education. In the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards, the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) advocates for the implementation of inquiry-based learning methods in social studies classrooms (National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS], 2017). The NCSS noted that they seek to strengthen social studies programs by “1) enhancing the rigor of the social studies disciplines, 2) building the critical thinking, problem-solving, and participatory skills necessary for students to become engaged citizens, and 3) aligning academic programs to the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies.” (NCSS, 2017, p. vii) As can be seen from this statement, the NCSS places a high value on the development of critical thinking and other skills necessary for mastery of social studies. One of the main strengths of IBL is that the technique allows students to practice and develop skills that are essential for mastery of the discipline being studied (NCSS, 2017). Inquiry-based learning allows students to 4 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS actively “do” social studies and history by using the skills and techniques of the discipline, rather than passively learn about social studies and history. ​ Active engagement with social studies content is an issue that social studies educators have been contending with for generations. Despite evidence of the success of inquiry-based instruction’s ability to facilitate active engagement (Cian et al., 2018; Englin et al., 2013), direct instruction (DI), especially lecture-based instruction, is still the predominant method of instruction in the social sciences, especially in history education (Ragland, 2007). In 2007, The Society for History Education published the results of a study of middle and high school American History teachers who were enrolled in a professional development program aimed at teaching teachers how to “do history” in the classroom. The author of the study noted that while all teachers in the study indicated that they participated in “class discussions”, it was later determined that the teachers’ technique could better be described as “teacher-centered recitation or lecture on factual details, rather than discussion” (Ragland, 2007, p. 223). This study showed just how pervasive lecture-based instruction is in history and social studies education. ​ While IBL techniques have been shown to increase student engagement with content (Cian et al., 2018), little work has been done to test the students’ perception of engagement with content presented via IBL techniques in a social studies classroom. PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to analyze the effect the implementation of IBL techniques has on student perception of engagement in social studies classrooms. The end goal of this project was to encourage history educators to move past direct instruction, specifically the lecture-based 5 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS history format, and incorporate IBL techniques into their teaching repertoire to encourage active engagement with social studies content and deeper learning. LITERATURE REVIEW ​ Constructivist pedagogy has long been recognized as an effective means of educating students (Cian et al., 2018; Englin et al., 2013). In a constructivist classroom, knowledge is built (or constructed) from the ground up by the student, rather than transferred from the mind of the instructor to the student (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2020). Emphasis is placed on the means and methods used in the discipline to construct new knowledge. While constructivist pedagogy has a strong history in science education (Kang & Keinonen, 2017), it has yet to be adopted widely in many other educational fields, including social studies education. While the reasons are varied for this lack of adoption in social studies education, many clear benefits could be gained from implementing constructivist pedagogy in this field of education. Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a type of constructivist pedagogy that emphasizes student learning by focusing on questions. These questions can be either student-derived and/or teacher-derived and the questions are investigated by implementing the standard tools of the discipline (see Appendix A for a list of standard social studies tools). By implementing the disciplinary tools to investigate a question, students are actively engaged in exploring a topic and are moving away from accumulating simple declarative knowledge and towards creating new and active knowledge. Because of this, the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) has adopted and promoted the use of IBL techniques for learning history and other social studies topics. Despite the promotion of IBL by the NCSS and in contrast to the evidence of the 6 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS technique’s effectiveness, direct-instruction (DI) techniques still dominate the field of social studies education (Ragland, 2007). What Exactly is Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL)? Citing a 2009 article from the New Zealand Education Gazette, authors Bridges and Gilmore (2010) with the University of Canterbury note that “Inquiry learning is ... one approach in which students learn about learning, investigation, and research as they explore topics of interest” (p.80). This definition makes clear that IBL emphasizes learning the mechanics of the discipline, or as Bridges and Gilmore stated, the students “learn about learning, investigation, and research” to successfully engage with content using IBL. Students need to be taught how to learn, not simply learn how to be taught, as in the current paradigm of DI. In DI, education is viewed as knowledge transfer, primarily from educator to student. In this model, returning to a building analogy, the knowledge is “constructed” in the educator’s mind and then transferred intact to the learner’s mind, often through the medium of lecture (Bodner, et al., 2001). This model is based on the assumption that a) all learners’ minds are the same as the educators’, and b) all learners will successfully receive intact information from the educator’s mind without interference. As any practicing educator will note, neither of these assumptions bear out in the classroom. Instead, as Bodner, et al. (2001) note, constructivist educators work under the assumption that “knowledge is seldom transferred intact from the mind of the teacher to the mind of the student,” and that “useful knowledge is never transferred intact” (p. 4). These two assumptions will most likely ring true for any educator who has watched a student struggle to gain “useful knowledge” (actionable knowledge) in a lecture-based traditional classroom. 7 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS The second key concept of IBL is that students need to be deliberately taught how to properly investigate and research a question using appropriate disciplinary tools. Many teachers wrongfully assume that students enter their classrooms with the skills and knowledge necessary to engage with the content of their discipline. This is especially true in a social studies classroom, where teachers assume that students are entering with the ability to construct a question, investigate the said question, and select appropriately sourced material to create a finished argument (enter the five-paragraph “research” paper). These assumptions are invalid, and a simple review of any social studies teacher’s gradebook will bear testament to this fact. Many students in the class may lack at least one or more of the skills necessary to engage with social studies content effectively. As a result, educators employing IBL and constructivist pedagogy make it a priority to teach students the methods and techniques needed to effectively engage with social studies content. Bridges and Gilmore continue, saying that “learners are scaffolded by teachers, mentors, and fellow students to develop and explore essential and self-generated questions and wonderings through self-directed learning, which drives their meaningful and worthwhile learning experience” (Bridges & Gilmore, 2010, p. 80). According to the authors’ statements, the IBL process can be defined as an active, inquiry-driven exploration of a subject that is guided by the expert hands of educators. IBL units are developed around questions. These questions can be either student posed, or educator posed, depending on the needs and preferences of the educator structuring the class. As noted by the NCSS, “inquiry is at the heart of social studies” (NCSS, 2017, p. viii). From this statement, it is clear that IBL is a natural fit for social studies education. 8 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Theoretical Roots of Inquiry-Based Learning ​ As has been mentioned before, IBL is a constructivist pedagogy. Like all constructivist ideas, IBL can trace its roots back to great thinkers like Dewey, Vygotsky, and Bruner. These thinkers felt that knowledge was better created by the learner than transferred from the educator, and each had specific contributions to constructivist philosophy. While volumes can and have been published with the musings and findings of these three individuals, this project only briefly outlined each individual’s most important contribution to constructivist theory for the sake of brevity. American philosopher and psychologist, John Dewey, is often viewed as being the “father” of constructivism in education. Dewey was born in Vermont in 1859 and lived during an extremely pivotal time in US and world history (Westbrook, 1991). During his life, Dewey witnessed the rise of progressivism in education and the conflict it had with traditional education (Dewey, 1997). In his book, Experience and Education (1997, 19), he notes that in traditional education knowledge is “thought of as essentially static. It is taught as a finished product, with little regard either to how it was originally built-up or to changes that will surely occur in the future”. Here Dewey remarks that in the traditional system of education, knowledge is viewed as something that has already been figured out and is simply “transferred” to the minds of the students. He further notes that there is “little regard” for the methods and means of constructing that knowledge. This same approach to education can be seen in many of today’s social studies classrooms. Emphasis is placed on historical narratives, on knowing the who, what, when, and why of an event, but little regard is placed on the processes that allow students to discern for themselves the answers to these questions. Dewey strongly believed in democracy in education 9 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS and the freedom of the learner, both of which are ideas that have been incorporated into modern constructivist theory (Dewey, 1997). He also further noted that there is “an intimate and necessary relation between the processes of actual experience and education. If this is true, then a positive and constructive development of its own basic idea depends upon having a correct idea of experience” (Dewey, 1997, p. 20). This statement, perhaps more than any of his others, encapsulates the most basal tenant of modern constructivist thought. According to constructivist thought, and Dewey’s statement, education needs to incorporate experiential techniques that allow students to develop their own basic ideas. Soviet psychologist, Lev Vygotsky, is perhaps most famous in the realm of constructivist theory for his development of the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD) (Eun, 2017). The definition of the ZPD by Vygotsky (1978) himself is “the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). This definition of the ZPD is important to constructivism and IBL for several different reasons. First, it provides a way for educators to employ constructivist ideas to structure their lessons. Educators should always develop their lessons to be within the student’s ZPD. Later educational theorist Jerome Bruner (discussed later in this project) would use Vygotsky’s ZPD theory to develop the theory of instructional scaffolding (Stapleton & Stefaniak, 2018). Instructional scaffolding can be thought of as any technique that “help[s] pupils to perform a task they cannot complete by themselves and that is intended to bring pupils gradually to a state of 10 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS competence in which they can complete a similar task or process independently” (Smit, et al., 2012, p. 817). Secondly, it encourages problem-solving and learning under the guidance of a “more capable peer” (be that classmate or educator). This theory helps to lay the groundwork of a constructivist classroom in which the teacher moves from being the source of knowledge to a guide that shows students how knowledge is created and formed. Finally, it establishes learning as a social activity. All too often traditional teachers, especially social studies teachers, view learning as an individual activity, cut off from others. Some may find it ironic that in the study of people and cultures, students are expected to sit by themselves and learn from one individual. In constructivist classrooms, especially those implementing IBL techniques, collaboration is encouraged and often expected. Inquiry is difficult to do alone, and it is nearly impossible to understand people and cultures by assuming they live in a vacuum. For this reason, the ZPD is vital to student success when employing a constructivist method in a social studies classroom. American psychologist, Jerome Bruner, had perhaps the deepest and most lasting impact on the development of constructivism. He is most remembered as “the father of instructional scaffolding”, taking inspiration from Vygotsky’s ZPD theory (Stapleton & Stefaniak, 2018). As mentioned earlier in this project, instructional scaffolding is a process used to “help pupils to perform a task they cannot complete by themselves and that is intended to bring pupils gradually to a state of competence in which they can complete a similar task or process independently” (Smit, et al., 2012, p. 817). The concept of instructional scaffolding can be thought of similarly to the process of building a wall. A student will have a base level of knowledge (the foundation of the wall), however, they may not be able to reach higher levels of knowledge and learning (the 11 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS top of the wall). To help the student reach those higher levels of learning an educator provides the student with a structure (the “scaffold”), generally, in the form of a process or procedure, that will allow them to attain the next level of knowledge. ​ Bruner’s concept of scaffolding is a concept that is almost completely non-existent in traditional education’s teaching of social studies. As noted earlier, in traditional education, knowledge is pre-constructed in the mind of the educator and then transferred to the learner. In this model, there is no construction of knowledge in the minds of the learner. They are not concerned with the methods and procedures of knowledge construction as they are simply meant to receive the constructed knowledge from the educator. This problem is especially acute in the field of social studies education, where the emphasis is put on places and dates as opposed to the construction of actual historical thought and knowledge (Ragland, 2007). IBL and Student Engagement ​ Many educators agree that student engagement is critical in the learning process. Engagement is difficult to measure, partially because it is a difficult concept to define (Klem & Connell, 2004). Citing previous work, Klem & Connell (2014) noted that engagement is “a psychological process, specifically, the attention, interest, investment, and effort students expend in the work of learning” (p. 262). Investment, or buying into the work of learning is an especially important concept when discussing engagement. According to statistics advanced by Klem & Connell (2014), by the time a cohort of students reaches high school, 40%-60% of students have become chronically disengaged from school, meaning they no longer have investment or buy-in to learning. Disengagement in social studies classrooms is particularly prevalent among adolescents when they perceive the subject as “boring [and] with little relevance to their lives” 12 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS (Taboada Barber et al., 2017, p. 739). IBL techniques have been identified as a possible way to increase student engagement and investment in their studies. The NCSS released a position statement (2016) in which they stated that “a powerful and rigorous social studies curriculum provides strategies and activities that engage students with significant ideas, and encourages them to connect what they are learning to their prior knowledge and to current issues, to think critically and creatively about what they are learning, and to apply that learning to authentic situations” (p. 180). Archer-Kuhn, et al., (2020) noted that “inquiry allows students to explore individual interests and develop critical-thinking skills that lead to personal discovery and deeper understanding of their central question” (p. 187). The theory that personal ownership of the learning process (i.e. allowing students to explore and discover) leads to deeper understanding and learning is supported by work conducted in 2018 by Cian et al. According to their findings, more student ownership of the learning process led to deeper thinking (p. 341). Put more succinctly by Archer-Kuhn, et al., (2020), “Inquiry-based learning offers choice, and with that choice, students discover their responsibility for their learning” (p. 197). This means that IBL methods that allow the student to feel an increasing level of ownership over the learning process are more effective at engaging students than DI methods. Purpose of Study and Need for Further Research ​ While the usefulness of IBL has long been established, there is a need for further research in the realm of student perceptions of IBL, particularly in the field of social studies. Despite the proven success of IBL techniques to help students engage and perform in fields such as science 13 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS and medicine, little research has been done on IBL’s effect on student engagement in social studies classrooms. This study tested the efficacy of implementing IBL techniques in a social studies classroom and the effect IBL has on student perceptions of engagement to fill in some of the gaps in this subject. SUMMARY Inquiry-based learning has been proven to be a successful way of teaching students. By implementing IBL techniques, schools have shown increases in student engagement (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2020; Cian et al., 2018; Taboada Barber et al., 2017). In addition to the increases in student engagement with content material, students who have been taught via guided IBL often feel an increased ownership over their learning (Cian et al., 2018). The National Council for the Social Studies believes that IBL techniques are so successful at increasing student engagement and achievement, that they advocate using them in their C3 Framework to help students master social studies-specific skills and engage more effectively with social studies content (NCSS, 2017). METHOD​ The purpose of this project was to measure student perceptions of engagement in social studies classrooms using IBL techniques as well as to compare their perceptions of IBL to traditional lecture-based social studies classes. To accomplish this task, a survey measuring student perception of engagement in social studies classrooms employing IBL teaching techniques and traditional lecture-based methods was given to the students. The survey contained a modified Likert Scale and employed several questions about student experience with the IBL lessons and traditional lecture-based lessons (see Appendix B for questions). Survey questions 14 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS focused on student engagement with and preferences toward social studies classes where IBL techniques were employed and classes that employed traditional lecture-based techniques. Information gathered from the survey was used to determine the effect implementing IBL lessons had on student perception towards engagement compared to traditional lecture-based lessons in a social studies classroom. This information was used to determine the feasibility of implementing additional IBL-based lessons in future social studies classrooms. The survey was based on a modified Likert Scale. This scale contained four options to mark student perception, as opposed to the traditional five options in a traditional Likert Scale. No “neutral” or “unknown” option will be included in the survey. This was done to force participants to make a decision (either positive or negative) and avoid apathy towards the question. Before students were given the survey, they were provided with a short presentation about Inquiry-Based Learning. This lesson is included in Appendix E below. Students were taught about IBL by the researcher and then asked to think about their previous social studies classes and answer the survey questions about IBL based on their experiences in those social studies classes. After students were given the lesson, those who had signed appropriate informed consent and parental consent forms were presented with the survey. Before dissemination of the survey, it was sent for approval by Weber State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB approval letter Appendix C). After the project and survey were approved by Weber State University’s Institutional Review Board, the survey was sent to Davis School District’s IRB for approval as well (DSD approval letter Appendix D) 15 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Participants The participants of this study were students who were currently enrolled in the researcher’s World History, AP World History, and Economics classes at a large high school located in one of Northern Utah’s largest school districts. The subject high school consists of grades 10 through 12, and participants in the survey were all in the grades 10-12 grade range. According to Fall 2020 enrollment data, the school consists of 2020 students. The school is relatively evenly split between males and females, with 1066 males to 954 females, a .89 female to male ratio. Demographically, the school consists of.15% American Indian, 1.1% African American/Black, .59% Asian, 11.7% Hispanic, 3.2% Multiple Race, 1.5% Pacific Islander, and 81.7% White students. Furthermore, 16.4% of the students are classified as Economically Disadvantaged, 2.5% are classified as English Language Learners, 10% are classified as a Student with a Disability, and 2.1% are classified as homeless (Data and Statistics, 2021). The high school employed an A day/B day schedule, with students attending certain classes based on the day. For this experiment, students on both days enrolled in World History, AP World History, or Economics classes received a brief presentation about IBL and traditional direct instruction methods and were then asked to complete a survey. The average participant size for all classes is 30. The demographics of the classes being studied mirror the general demographics listed for the school. In total, the study consisted of 67 respondents to the survey questions drawn from the researchers' classes. 16 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS DATA ANALYSIS ​ Following the presentation of the set of lessons (IBL and Lecture-based), students were given a short survey via Microsoft Forms to measure their preferences towards and perceptions of IBL and lecture-based learning. Students were provided time to complete the survey in class. Once the survey was administered responses were gathered, analyzed, and grouped into the following categories: 1.​ Student perceptions towards traditional lecture-based teaching techniques 2.​ Student perceptions towards IBL teaching techniques 3.​ Student perceptions about engagement with traditional lecture-based techniques 4.​ Student perceptions about engagement with IBL teaching techniques Finally, the data was coded to fit into the corresponding categories and was analyzed for patterns and indications of student preference towards IBL and traditional lecture-based learning. RESULTS​ ​ ​ 17 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Figure 1 Question 1: I enjoy exploring topics I consider interesting. Figure 2 Question 2: I prefer it when the instructor presents important information to me instead of looking for the information myself. 18 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Figure 3 Question 3: I like to learn about topics by researching on my own. Figure 4 Question 4: I prefer to feel responsible for my own learning. 19 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Figure 5 Question 5: I enjoy having a say in what I’m learning. Figure 6 Question 6: Exploring a topic is too much work. 20 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Figure 7 Question 7: I enjoy listening to lectures. Figure 8 Question 8: I find “doing history” (creating an argument, exploring evidence, communicating results) exciting. 21 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Figure 9 Question 9: The idea of “learning by doing” in history is exciting to me. Figure 10 Question 10: I just want to show up to class, listen to a lecture, and take notes. 22 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Figure 11 Question 11: Describe your ideal method of learning (in other words, if you could have a lesson presented in any method, what method would you choose). Figure 12 Question 12: Please indicate what feeling you associate with the following word: Lecture. 23 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Figure 13 Question 13: Please indicate what feeling you associate with the following word: Historical Exploration. Figure 14 Question 14: Please indicate what feeling you associate with the following word: Presentation. Figure 15 Question 15: Please indicate what feeling you associate with the following word: Inquiry. 24 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Figure 16 Question 16: Please indicate what feeling you associate with the following word: History. Figure 17 Question 17: Please indicate what feeling you associate with the following word: Learning. DISCUSSION Student Choice and IBL Effectiveness The first question aimed to explore the role of student choice in Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL). A significant 97% of respondents enjoyed exploring topics of interest, supporting Archer-Kuhn et al.'s (2020) assertion that choice enhances student responsibility in learning. This suggests that IBL, particularly when offering choice, should be more widely adopted in social studies classrooms. However, the specific impact of choice within IBL warrants further research. 25 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Lecture-Based Instruction and Student Ownership Question two revealed a discrepancy: 74.6% of respondents preferred instructor-led information presentation. This contrasts with the preference for choice and ownership indicated in other questions. The incongruity could stem from unclear phrasing or perhaps indicate a need for structured guidance alongside IBL techniques. Furthermore, the results are strongly different from the results gathered in the other questions, and therefore, the results to this question appear to be an outlier caused by poor word choice or lack of context. IBL Techniques and Student Engagement Questions three and four assessed students' affinity for IBL techniques and their willingness to take responsibility for their learning, respectively. A majority of students (64.1% and 62.7%) agreed or strongly agreed with these statements, reinforcing the idea that IBL fosters engagement and self-responsibility, as outlined by Klem & Connell (2014). These results strongly show that more students are engaged in the learning process when IBL techniques are employed in social studies classrooms. Instructors wishing to activate more students in the learning experience should consider adding more IBL techniques to their teaching toolboxes. Direct Instruction vs. IBL Questions five to ten compared traditional direct instruction with IBL. While 95.6% of respondents favored choice in learning, only 52.3% enjoyed lectures. These findings align with Klem & Connell's (2014) statistics on student disengagement and suggest that IBL is generally more engaging than lecture-based methods. While the amount of students “enjoying” lectures was higher than expected, it is clear that they truly enjoy choice in learning. It is all but 26 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS impossible for instructors to incorporate student choice into traditional lecture-based learning. Therefore, it is clear that instructors need to incorporate IBL techniques with student choice aspects into their teaching to engage students and allow them to have a say in their learning experience. Mixed Preferences and Contradictions Question eleven revealed that 36% of respondents preferred lectures, albeit often in combination with other methods. This contrasts with the 19% who found lectures "boring" in question twelve, suggesting that students may not be fully aware of their preferred learning styles. While students may not fully understand which learning technique they prefer the most, these findings show that a minority of students are going to be engaged in a learning activity that solely (or mainly) employs traditional lecture-based learning techniques. If engagement is to be prioritized and achieved, IBL techniques need to be incorporated into a suite of tools being used by an instructor. Student Perceptions and Engagement Questions thirteen to sixteen explored students' emotional responses to different teaching methods. Words like "research," "questioning," and "interesting" were commonly associated with IBL techniques, indicating higher levels of engagement compared to traditional methods, which were often described as "boring" or "uninteresting." These responses trend with other information from previous studies done about student engagement and IBL (Cian et. al, 2018). These findings further support the theory that IBL techniques increase student engagement in social studies classrooms, especially when combined with some amount of student choice. 27 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Overall Implications The survey results indicate a general preference for IBL techniques, which appear to foster greater engagement and responsibility in learning. However, some students also appreciate aspects of direct instruction, suggesting a blended approach may be most effective. Given the higher engagement levels associated with IBL, educators should consider incorporating these techniques into their teaching strategies. By incorporating IBL techniques into their teaching repertoires, teachers can boost student interest and engagement in social studies classrooms. The overall results also raise additional questions that could lead to future research opportunities. While it is clear that IBL techniques do benefit student outcomes and students do generally enjoy them, it is clear that a balanced approach incorporating multiple methods of instruction must be employed. This opens future avenues for research in mixed-method techniques and the best ways to incorporate them into a holistic teaching repertoire. STUDY LIMITATIONS ​ Throughout this study, several factors could be limiting for the results. The first limitation that will be discussed involves generalizability. The participants for the study were gathered using convenience, meaning that the population it was drawn from was not the general population. There could be inherent discrepancies in the groups from which the participants were drawn that do not reflect the general population overall. This could have led to results that may not fit all populations and circumstances and could be a problem if generalizations about the overall population are trying to be made. 28 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS ​ The second limitation is students in the study had been previously taught by the researcher. Because the students were taught by the researcher, they may have answered in ways they thought the researcher preferred, therefore potentially skewing some results. Additionally, it is possible that the students may have picked up on some bias from the researcher and have translated that into the responses listed, thereby affecting the results. ​ The final limitation is the sample size. Only 67 individuals participated in this survey. To make the results more accurate, more participants would need to be recruited to complete the survey. This would help even out any extremes that may occur during the sampling process. As it stands, however, the sample size for this survey is small, meaning that there could be more extremes in the data. This could have an impact when trying to generalize the results against the overall population. Areas for Future Research ​ While this study was aimed at student perceptions of engagement in social studies classrooms employing IBL techniques, it did not focus on the efficacy of specific types of IBL techniques. There is ample room for breaking down the field of IBL techniques and testing how effective each of these techniques is. Further research could be done to see if there are changes in student engagement between the different techniques. This information could be used to determine which IBL techniques were the most effective for engaging students in the learning process. ​ Another area of study that could be engaged in based on the results of this study could be discovering the reasons why many social studies educators do not use more IBL techniques in their teaching toolboxes. It is suspected that they are simply not instructed on these techniques, 29 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS as social studies education, particularly history in higher education, is taught through the medium of lecture. Further research into this could elucidate the reason more clearly and lead to changes in the social studies education field. CONCLUSION ​ IBL has been determined to be an effective technique for engaging students in the learning process. Students showed a preference for IBL techniques and used more active words when describing their feelings about those techniques when compared with traditional lecture-based techniques. This can be interpreted to mean that students feel more invested and engaged when IBL techniques are employed than when lecture-based techniques are used. Overall, the results showed the potential for engaging and activating more students using IBL techniques than lecture-based techniques. This means that social studies educators who are looking to improve engagement rates in their classes should consider implementing IBL techniques in their classrooms over traditional lecture-based techniques. 30 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS REFERENCES Archer-Kuhn, B., Lee, Y., Finnessey, S., & Liu, J. (2020). Inquiry-based learning as a facilitator to student engagement in undergraduate and graduate social work programs. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 8(1), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.13 Bodner, G., Klobuchar, M., & Geelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed078p1107.4 Bridges, S., & Gilmore, F. (2010). Getting it straight: The difference between inquiry-based learning and teaching as inquiry as taught to prospective teachers. Waikato Journal of Education, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v15i1.124 Cian, H., Marshall, J., & Qian, M. (2018). Inquiry classroom patterns of student cognitive engagement: An analysis using growth curve modeling. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(4), 326–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560x.2018.1456884 Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone. Englin, K., Euler, M. & Maass, K. (2013) Inquiry-based learning in mathematics and science: A comparative baseline study of teachers’ beliefs and practices across 12 European countries. ZDM Mathematics Education 45, 823–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0507-5 31 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Eun, B. (2017). The zone of proximal development as an overarching concept: A framework for synthesizing Vygotsky’s theories. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(1), 18-30. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1421941 Kang, J., & Keinonen, T. (2017). The effect of student-centered approaches on students’ interest and achievement in science: Relevant topic-based, open and guided inquiry-based, and discussion-based approaches. Research in Science Education, 48(4), 865–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9590-2 Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08283.x National Council for the Social Studies. (2016). A vision of powerful teaching and learning in the social studies. Social Education, 80(3), 180–182. National Council for the Social Studies. (2017). Social studies for the next generation: Purposes, practices, and implications of the college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Silver Spring, MD. Ragland, R. G. (2007). Changing secondary teachers' views of teaching American History. The History Teacher, 40(2). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036989 Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Gyles, P. D. T., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Student outcomes in inquiry instruction. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(1), 5–31. doi: 10.1177/1932202x11429860 32 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Smit, J., Eerde, H. A., & Bakker, A. (2012). A conceptualisation of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817-834. doi:10.1002/berj.3007 Stapleton, L., & Stefaniak, J. (2018). Cognitive constructivism: Revisiting Jerome Bruner’s influence on instructional design practices. TechTrends, 63(1), 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0356-8 Taboada Barber, A. M., Buehl, M. M., & Beck, J. S. (2017). Dynamics of engagement and disaffection in a social studies classroom context. Psychology in the Schools, 54(7), 736–755. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22027 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Westbrook, R. B. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 33 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Appendix A Davis School District Essential Skills 34 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Appendix B Questions Used in the Study 1. I enjoy exploring topics that I consider interesting. 2. I prefer it when the instructor presents important information to me instead of looking for the information myself. 3. I like to learn about topics by researching on my own. 4.I prefer to feel responsible for my own learning. 5.I enjoy having a say in what I am learning. 6.Exploring a topic is too much work. 7.I enjoy listening to lectures. 8.I find "doing history" (creating an argument, exploring evidence, communicating results) exciting. 9.The idea of "learning by doing" in history is exciting to me. 10.I just want to show up to class, listen to a lecture, and take notes. 11.Describe your ideal method of learning (in other words, if you could have a lesson presented in any method, what method would you choose). 12.Please indicate what feeling you associate with the following word: Lecture 13.Please indicate what feeling you associate with the following word: Historical Exploration 14.Please indicate what feeling you associate with the following word: Presentation 15.Please indicate what feeling you associate with the following word: Inquiry 16.Please indicate what feeling you associate with the following word: History 17.Please indicate what feeling you associate with the following word: Learning 35 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Appendix C Weber State IRB Approval 36 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS 37 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Appendix D Davis School District IRB Approval 38 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS Appendix E IRB Presentation 39 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ENGAGEMENT IN IBL CLASSROOMS