Ma Thesis-The Impact of Using Inquiry-Based Learning On Developing Ninth Grade Students' Pragmatic Awarenes

Hebron University
College of Graduate Studies
Department of English
The Impact of Using Inquiry-Based Learning on Developing Ninth

Grade Students’ Pragmatic Awareness (A Case Study)
By:
Sarah Nabeel Zalloum
Supervised by:
Dr. Mohammed Farrah
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of
Applied Linguistics and the Teaching of English Language, College of Graduate Studies, Hebron
University, Palestine.
January, 2018
I
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to:
To my father who enlightens the darkness of this world by candles of hope.
To my mother for her endless love and care.
To my brothers and sisters whose attention and support make this work possible.
II
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my
supervisor Dr. Mohammed Farrah for his deep insights, critical comments and advanced
guidance from the earliest stages of this research to the latest. This wouldn‘t satisfy his
encouragement and assistant throughout this research and others those contribute to grow me up
professionally.
I would like to express my grateful thanks to Dr. Nadia Al-Qawasmi, the external examiner,
for her fruitful notes and suggestions. I would also like to express my sincerest gratitude and
appreciation to Dr. Nimer Abuzahra, the external examiner, for his help, advice, and valuable
and constructive comments.
All English words are restricted to express my appreciation to my professors at Hebron
University for their dedicated efforts that promoted me to stand firmly to achieve my aspirations.
My special thanks are also for my colleagues at Directorate of Education in Hebron for their
constant support during this graduate program.

III
Table of Contents
Contents Page
Dedication I
Acknowledgments II
Table of contents III-IV
List of Tables IV
List of Figures V
Abstract VI
Abstract in Arabic VII
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 The statement of the Problem 4
1.3 The Significance of the Study 4
1.4 Purposes of the Study 5
1.5 Questions of the Study 6
1.6 Limitation of the Study 7
1.7 Definition of Key Terms 7
Chapter Two: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction 10
2.2.1 Theoretical Background of Inquiry-Based Learning 10
2.2.1.1 Student-Centeredness 10
2.2.1.2 Constructivism 12
2.2.1.3 Social Constructivism 14
2.2.1.3.1 Assumptions of Social Constructivism 16
2.2.2 Definitions of Inquiry-Based Learning 17
2.2.3 What is Inquiry-Based Learning? 18
2.2.4 Why Inquiry-Based Learning? 19
2.2.5 Types of Inquiry-Based Learning 21
2.2.6 The Characteristics of Inquiry-Based Learning 22
2.2.7 Forms of Inquiry-Based Learning 24
2.2.8 Inquiry-Based Learning and Language Instruction 24
2.2.9 Advantages and Limitations of Inquiry-Based Learning 26
2.3 Pragmatics in the Classroom 28
2.3.1 Politeness in the Classroom 30
2.3.2 The Power of Politeness in the Classroom 31
2.3.3 Brown and Levinson‘s Theory of Politeness 33
2.3.4 Rising Students‘ Pragmatic Awareness 36
2.3.5 Implicature and Pragmatic Awareness 37
2.3.6 Grice‘s Implicature and Co-operative Principle 38
2.4 Previous Studies 41
2.4.1 Previous Studies related to Inquiry-Based Learning 41
2.4.2 Previous Studies related to Implicature in the Classroom 44
IV
2.5 Summary 45
Chapter Three: Methodology
3.1 Introduction 47
3.2. Research Design 47
3.2.1 Triangulation 47
3.3 Participants 48
3.1 Data Collection 49
3.5 Procedures 50
3.5.1 Teacher‘s Training 52
3.6 Instrumentation 54
3.6.1 The Tests 55
3.6.2 The Questionnaire 55
3.6.3 The Interview 56
3.7 Data Analysis 57
3.7.1 Statistical Analysis 57
3.7.2 Content Analysis 58
3.8 Research Objectivity 61
3.9 Validity and Reliability 62
3.10 Conclusion 63
Chapter Four: Results and Discussion
4.1 Introduction 64
4.2 Tests Results 64
4.2.1 Discussion of Tests Results 66
4.3 Questionnaire Results 68
4.3.1 Discussion of Questionnaire Results 74
4.3.1.1 Students‘ Attitude towards Inquiry-Based Learning 74
4.4 Interview Results 76
4.4.1 Discussion of Teachers‘ Interview 77
4.5 Politeness in Inquiry-Based Classroom 84
4.5.1 Positive Politeness Strategies 86
4.5.2 Negative Politeness Strategies 87
4.6 Implicature in Inquiry-Based Classroom 89
Chapter Five: Conclusion
5.1 Conclusion 95
5.2 Recommendation 98
References 100-114
Appendices
Appendix (A): Pre-Test
Appendix (B): Post-Test
Appendix (C): Questionnaire
Appendix (D): Interview
Appendix (E): Transcription of Inquiry-Based Classroom
Recordings
V
List of Tables:
Table (1): Comparison of Forms of Inquiry based Learning 24

Table (2): Bald on-Record Strategy 34
Table (3): Positive Politeness Strategy 35
Table (4): Negative Politeness Strategy 35
Table (5): Off-Record Strategy 36
Table (6): T-Test Results of Equality of Means in Pre-Test 65
Table (7): The Results of ANCOVA Examination for Tests 65
Table (8): The Results of ANCOVA Examination for Language Skills 65
Table (9): T-Test Results of Equality of Means in Pre-Questionnaire 68
Table (10): The Results of ANCOVA Examination for the Questionnaire 69
Table (11): The Results of ANCOVA Examination for the First Domain of 69
the Questionnaire
Table (12): The Percentages of Experimental Students‘ Responses towards 69
the First Domain in Post-Questionnaire
Table (13): The Results of ANCOVA Examination for the Second Domain 71
of the Questionnaire
The Second Domain in Post-Questionnaire
Table (15): The Results of ANCOVA Examination for the Third Domain of 72
the Questionnaire
the Third Domain in Post-Questionnaire
Table (17): Positive Politeness Strategies Used in Inquiry-Based Learning 85
Classes
Table (18): Negative Politeness Strategies Used in Inquiry-Based Learning 85
Classes
Table (19): Times of Frequency of Students‘ Violations of Grice Maxims 92
in Inquiry-Based Learning Classes
List of Figures
Figure (1): Brown and Levinson‘s Politeness Strategies 34

VI
Abstract:
Since traditional learning is no longer satisfying intended pedagogical goals of the 21st century,
Inquiry-based learning is proposed to support learners‘ acquisition of new competencies and
skills to enable them to tackle with the challenges accompanied by the 21st century (Barron &
Darling-Hammond, 2008). This study aims to investigate the effects of Inquiry-based learning on
Palestinian students‘ language skills achievement, attitude and pragmatic awareness towards
English as a foreign language. Given emphasis to the interaction in language classroom, the
study also examines the politeness strategies emerge in teacher-student interaction in Inquiry
class. Quantitative and qualitative methods are adopted to collect data. One hundred and twenty
ninth-grade female students from Rushdya Almohtaseb and Al-Mazinya basic schools are
selected to set for pre- and post-tests and to fill a pre- and post-questionnaire. As for the
qualitative data, the researcher observed and recorded four language classes to critically analyze
teacher‘s politeness strategies and students‘ pragmatic awareness. Also, twenty language
teachers are selected to be interviewed. The study reveals that Inquiry-based learning transforms
language classroom towards to a social-constructivist setting. The process of Inquiry doesn‘t
only create a joyful and interesting learning setting for the students, but it also develops their
pragmatic awareness and language skills. Students‘ investigation skills in Inquiry-based learning
could develop their ability to implicitly address their thoughts and messages. Positive and
negative politeness strategies are adopted in order to maintain students‘ motivation and
engagement. Although many challenges have been encountered in Inquiry classes, but still
teachers could provide their students with complex learning skills.

‫‪VII‬‬
‫‪Abstract in Arabic‬‬
‫يهخص انذساعخ‬
‫أثش انزعهى ثبالعزقصبء عهٗ رطٕ‪ٚ‬ش انٕع‪ ٙ‬انجشاغًبر‪ ٙ‬نطهجخ انصف انزبعع (دساعخ زبنخ)‬
‫ثًب أٌ انزعهُّى انزمهُذٌ نى َعذ َحمك األهذاف انزشثىََّخ انًشجىَّح فٍ انمشٌ انحبدٌ وانعششٍَ‪ ،‬رى الزشاح انزعهُّى انمبئى عهً‬
‫االسزمصبء نذعى انطهجخ فٍ اكزسبة كفبَبد ويهبساد جذَذح رًكُهى يٍ يىاجهخ انزحذَبد انزٍ سافمذ انمشٌ انحبدٌ وانعششٍَ‬
‫(ثبسوٌ وداسنُُج هبيىَذ ‪ .)8002،‬رهذف هزِ انذساسخ إنً لُبط أثش انزعهُّى ثبالسزمصبء عهً رحصُم انطهجخ انفهسطٍُُُُ فٍ‬
‫يهبساد انهغخ اإلَجهُضَخ كهغخ أجُجُخ‪ ،‬ويىالفهى رجبِ انزعهُّى ثبالسزمصبء‪ ،‬وأثش رنك عهً وعُهى انجشاغًبرٍ نهغخ انًسزخذيخ فٍ‬
‫سُبلهب االجزًبعٍ‪ ،‬وثبنزشكُض عهً انزفبعم انصفٍ خالل رعهُّى انهغخ اإلَجهُضَخ ثبالسزمصبء‪ ،‬رزحشي انذساسخ عٍ أسهىة انزأدُة‬
‫انًزجع خالل رفبعم ثٍُ انًعهًِّخ وانطبنجبد‪ ،‬فزجُذ انجبحثخ األسهىثٍُ‪ :‬انك ًٍِّ وانىصفٍ نجًع انجُبَبد‪ ،‬فمذ رى اخزُبس عُُخ يٍ يئخ‬
‫وعششٍَ طبنجخ يٍ انصف انزبسع فٍ يذسسزٍ سشذَخ انًحزست وانًبصَُخ األسبسُزٍُ نهجُبد؛ ألداء اخزجبس لجم رُفُز انزجشثخ‬
‫وثعذهب‪ ،‬وكزنك نزعجئخ اسزجبَخ لجهُخ وثعذَخ‪ ،‬أيب ثبنُسجخ نهجُبَبد انىصفُخ فمذ حضشد انجبحثخ أسثع حصص صفُخ انزٍ وظفذ‬
‫انًعهًخ فُهب أسهىة انزعهُّى ثبالسزمصبء نًبدح انهغخ اإلَجهُضَخ ولبيذ انجبحثخ ثزسجُههب‪ .‬ولذ رى اخزُبس عششٍَ يعهًِّبً نًمبثهزهى‪،‬‬
‫وسصذ يىالفهى رجبِ انزعهُّى ثبالسزمصبء‪ ،‬ولذ ثُُذ انذساسخ أٌ انزعهُّى ثبالسزمصبء لذ ح َّىل انجُئخ انصفُخ إنً يحُظ اجزًبعٍ‬
‫ثُبئٍ‪ ،‬فهى رسزطع يُهجُخ انزعهُّى ثبالسزمصبء خهك ثُئخ يًزعخ وجبرثخ نالهزًبو فحست‪ ،‬ثم رً َّكُذ هزِ انًُهجُخ انزعهًُُخ يٍ سفع‬
‫وعٍ انطهجخ انجشاغًبرٍ حىل انهغخ انًسزخذيخ فٍ سُبلهب االجزًبعٍ‪ ،‬ورطىَش يهبساد انهغخ اإلَجهُضَخ‪ .‬فمذ يكٍ انزعهُّى‬
‫ثبالسزمصبء يٍ رطىَش انًهبساد انزٍ اكزسجىهب واسزخذايهب فٍ انزعجُش ضًُُب ً عٍ أفكبسهى‪ ،‬ورمذَى سسبئم ضًُُخ‪ ،‬ولذ كبَذ‬
‫سدود فعم انطهجخ واسزجبثزهى نزهك انشسبئم واألفكبس يزُبسجخ ثمبفُب ً ويزالئًخ يع انسُبق‪ ،‬ولذ ثُُذ انذساسخ أٌ انًعهًّخ لذ لبو‬
‫ثزجٍُ أسهىثٍ انزأ ُّدة اإلَجبثٍ وانسهجٍ نهًحبفظخ عهً دافعُخ انطهجخ‪ ،‬واَذيبجهى فٍ انحصخ انصفُخ‪ .‬ثبنشغى يٍ انًعُمبد انزٍ‬
‫َىاجهب انًعهًىٌ خالل اسزخذاو أسهىة انزعهُّى انمبئى عهً االسزمصبء‪ ،‬فهى لبدسوٌ عهً رعهُى انطهجخ يهبساد رعهًَُُّخ يعمَّذح ‪.‬‬
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Introduction:
Teachers are facing a challenge in getting their students involved in a learning context, so that
students will have the skills and knowledge needed. The traditional methods of teaching were
effective in the beginnings of 20th century; however, nowadays a new thinking about what
promotes a dynamic learning involvement with the explosion of ―knowledge society‖.
Traditional teaching approach with current knowledge doesn't recently meet the 21st century
pedagogical requirements (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008). Learning had become incapable
of serving world‘s knowledge that‘s what is able to work with knowledge in different settings.
World‘s knowledge in 21st century subscribes much thinking of problem solving skills which
is the vital purpose of Education for sustainable development, especially when English language
has become essential for cultural communication and community development (Eaton, 2010).
English language has been utilized in different forms of developmental schemes, mainly, in the
Language skills which are needed nowadays to be developed to enable learners to utilize
linguistic knowledge and skills to serve local community requirements (Wells, 1999).These
skills can be taught and enhanced through Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) (Barron & Darling-
Hammond, 2008).
The Chinese old adage ―Tell me and I forget, show me and I remember, involve me and I
understand‖ characterizes the essence of inquiry-based learning. The power of Inquiry-Based
Learning is its potentially to increase engagement and construct profound understanding through
1
making interconnection with knowledge constructions. It also provides opportunities for both
teachers and students to cooperatively build test and reflect on their learning and experience
(Bateman, 1990).
Inquiry-based learning is a student-centered approach that emphasizes higher order thinking
skills. That starts by questioning and discover a proper answer of a question in both classroom
and the community. The process of investigation includes analysis, problem solving, exploring,
discussing, searching and reflecting. Inquiry is also enhanced by engagement with a community
of learners within a social interaction. Students through Inquiry are responsible for processing
the data to reach their own conclusions (Savignon, 2001).
Dewey (1929) (as cited in Alberta learning, 2004) reinforces the importance of allowing
students to explore subjects which corresponds with their own questions as an essential stage of
inquiry. Thus, from these formulated questions, inquiry will be a tool that connects the
curriculum and their interest, abilities and habits.
According to Wells (1999) Inquiry is defined as ―Pursuing significant questions through using
questions and ways of researching from a range of knowledge systems‖ (p.19). This definition
emphasizes the ability of inquiry to bridge the gap between curriculum and research and to
connect students' known knowledge to the unknown concepts. The purpose of L2 learning and
teaching is to construct an appropriate interaction with people of target language in real social
setting.
Inquiry transforms the roles and the relationships between teacher and students through the
teaching process in the classroom. For example, Students will get the power over what is being
2
learned, whereas teachers monitor class instead of providing traditional instructions as it is used
to be teacher-centered learning in the schools (Myers, 2001).
Inquiry centers students' questions in the learning curriculum and poses much value on
discovery learning process which empowers cognitive and metacognitive skills (Bateman, 1990).
Unlike conventional models of direct instruction, Inquiry-Based Approach develops ―habit of
minds‖ that characterized by long-life skills. Students don‘t have to depend on memorization of
the text material; instead, they have to develop their skills of questioning, investigation,
exploration, solving problems, searching and reflecting (Beach & Myers, 2001). These skills
don‘t have limited portion of application on language learning only, but they are also applicable
to students‘ social lives and future employment in the future. It enhances students' intrinsic
motivation (Wells, 1999).
Inquiry correlates student‘s social life and curriculum content. Students get better
understanding when they combine texts for the same issue which actually goes within their social
lives. Learners are encouraged to discover knowledge and to generate underlying rules based on
posing critical questions and follow sequential skills that end up by applying discovered rules
and knowledge to everyday life situation (Myers, 2001).
The application of Inquiry-Based Learning in second or foreign language learning is
beneficial to language development and instruction in different aspects. Inquiry is applied to
increase students' vocabulary, to discover syntactic structures, engage negotiation of meaning
and to explore cultural implications. That increases the students attention and keeps L2 learning
experience active and dynamic (Yi Lee, 2014).
3
The discourse of inquiry in the classroom is designed to enhance interaction among students
themselves and with the teacher. Students‘ engagement in inquiry activities allows participants to
verbally share ideas, discuss knowledge, and negotiate meaning. The verbal discourse practices
accompanied by inquiry reflect a cultural aspect of the society. Students tend to make use of
questioning and discussion in order to get the answer. That includes different strategies of
politeness which are inverted in the language classroom (Bourdieu, 1983).
1.2 Statement of Problem:
Teaching English language as a foreign language in the Palestinian context faces many
challenges that allowed educators to think of new methodologies to suit Palestinian learning
needs. The Palestinian Ministry of Education has spent much effort to operate students-centered
learning in the classroom; instead of, being passive throughout listening to the teachers
exclusively. However, still students are not completely involved to learning material, and many
teachers depend on traditional teaching techniques. The responsibility getting students‘ involved
and improving students‘ language performance material in a language learning contexts lies upon
teachers. New teaching mechanisms are required to build up students' language skills in the
Palestinian context. Palestinian students lack the essential language skills and confidence to
flexibly communicate using English. Inquiry- based learning provides students with a support to
become thoughtful, motivated, collaborative learners and capable of involving their own
inquiries to the social setting.
1.3 Significance of the Study:
This study combined between IBL as a pedagogical method and a socio-cultural aspect of the
Palestinian learning context. This study highlighted on the power of politeness that enhances
4
collaboration among students in inquiry groups. Since it is supposed that politeness promotes an
effective interaction in the language context by creating a lively and friendly atmosphere (Jiang,
2010), the study investigated politeness strategies that students utilize throughout the process of
investigation. These codes used in Inquiry classrooms reflect perspectives of Palestinian culture
that other teachers can build on to elevate learning in Palestinian contexts. On the other hand, the
study examines the effects of IBL on students‘ language skills and if it affects students pragmatic
awareness. Although many studies discuss the effectiveness of implementing IBL in teaching,
few studies are conducted to investigate its effect on language classroom –to the best knowledge
of the researcher.
1.4 Objectives of the Study:
Although Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) has much replaced the Instructional approach of
language teaching in the classroom, few studies are conducted to investigate IBL effects on
English language performance and students‘ level of achievement. Inquiry based learning has
been largely implemented on scientific subjects; however, the core concept of question-answer
mechanism is equally-suited to language classroom. This study aimed to investigate the effects
of Inquiry- Based Learning on students‘ language skills.
Moreover, Inquiry-Based Learning reinforces the students‘ interaction with their teacher and
other students who work in the same area of Inquiry. While the processes of investigation,
exploration, negotiation and reflection take place, students contribute ideas within collaborative
Inquiry group. Some students may ask questions to illustrate fellows‘ responses; the others make
connection between ideas. Students may ask the teacher to clarify questions, and finally they
share knowledge with their teachers and mates in the classroom. The research also aimed to
5
investigate teacher-student politeness strategies. In addition to that, it aims to investigate if a
pragmatic awareness will be achieved when students are engaged in IBL learning context.
In summary, this study aimed to investigate the followings:
 If Inquiry-based learning (IBL) causes a statistical difference in students‘ performance
in language skills between the experimental and the control groups based on pre-and
post-tests results.
 If there is a statistical difference in students‘ attitudes towards using IBL between the
experimental and the control groups based on the results of pre-and post-questionnaire.
 Students‘ attitude towards using IBL from teachers‘ perspective.
 Analyze politeness strategies emerge in teacher-student interaction in inquiry classroom.
 If Inquiry-based learning (IBL) affects students pragmatic awareness.
1.4 Questions of the Study:
1. Are there any statistically significant differences in performance between the
experimental and control groups based on students‘ general performance in the pre and
posttests in writing, reading, listening and speaking due to Inquiry Based Learning?
2. Are there any statistically significant differences in students‘ attitudes towards Inquiry
Based Learning in the experimental and control groups between the pre and post
questionnaires?
3. What is the general attitude of the respondents within the experimental group towards
Inquiry Based Learning?
4. What are the politeness strategies emerged in teacher-student interaction in inquiry
classroom?
6
5. Does Inquiry-Based Learning affect students‘ pragmatic awareness of English language?
1.6 Limitation of the Study:
The results of this study should be carefully exercised or even referred to in further
investigations due to the followings:
 Regardless the fact that (120) students are selected to be the participants of this study
is, the sample is limited since it includes only female ninth grade students.
 The participants of the study are all from Hebron.
 The experiment of Inquiry-based Learning lasted only for three and half a month.
 Palestinian teachers who utilize Inquiry-based learning in language classroom are
few.
 The teacher who implements the study is newly trained on how to effectively teach
students by Inquiry.
However, the study aims to arrive to satisfactory conclusions that exactly answer the research
questions.
1.7 Definition of Terms:
1. Inquiry-Based Learning: Minner et al. (2010), define IBL as ―a cluster of strongly student-
centered approaches to learning and teaching that are driven by inquiry or research‖.
2. Constructivist: "It refers to the idea that learners construct knowledge for themselves- each
learner individually and socially constructs meaning as he or she learns. Constructing
meaning is learning; there is no other kind." (Hein, 1991)
7
3. Motivation: "It refers to reasons that underlie behavior that is characterized by willingness
and volition. Intrinsic motivation is animated by personal enjoyment, interest, or pleasure,
whereas extrinsic motivation is governed by reinforcement contingencies. Motivation
involves a constellation of closely related beliefs, perceptions, values, interests, and actions"
(Lai, 2011).
4. Triangulation: Adopting two or more than one method of data collection to have a
comprehensive result for a study. Although the affix ―tri‖ means three, it is used in
research to refer to the use of more than one method of data collection (Burns, 2010).
5. Academic achievement: "It refers to a student‘s performance in academic areas such as
reading, language arts, math, science and history as measured by achievement tests…
Academic achievement also depends on a child‘s circumstances and situations, the quality of
schools and teachers, and many other factors"(Cunningham, 2012)
6. Pragmatics: It is field of linguistics which deals with the utterances beyond their literal
meanings by which speakers implicitly code messages and his intention go far than exact
references of words (Yule, 1996).
7. Politeness: ―Politeness is one of the constraints on human interaction, whose purpose is to
consider others‘ feelings, establish levels of mutual comfort, and promotes rapport‖ (Hill et
al. 1986).
8. Co-operative Principle: It is a matter of one‘s required contribution to a discourse as it
occurs. It focuses on mutual communication among interlocutors by accepting and
understanding speeches of one another (Grice, 1975).
8
9. Implicature: ―It refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed
nor strictly implied by the utterance‖ (Grice, 1975). It is a process in which the speaker
implies massages and the addressee infers.
10. Power: It is the possession of influential dominance, control, authority, over others (Van
Dijk, 2001).
11. Critical Thinking: Edward Glaser (1941) defines critical thinking as ―The ability to think
critically, as conceived in this volume, involves three things: (1) an attitude of being
disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the
range of one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning,
and (3) some skill in applying those methods‖ (p.16).
12. Cognition: Nussbaum (2001) defines cognition as ―being concerned with receiving and
processing information‖ (p.23).
13. Metacognition: Hennessey (1999) defines metacognition as “Awareness of one‘s own
thinking, awareness of the content of one‘s conceptions, an active monitoring of one‘s
cognitive processes, an attempt to regulate one‘s cognitive processes in relationship to
further learning, and an application of a set of heuristics as an effective device for helping
people organize their methods of attack on problems in general‖ (p. 3).
9
Chapter Two
Literature Review
2.1 Introduction:
This chapter presents comprehensive view about Inquiry-Based Learning that is divided into
two main parts. The first one deals with Inquiry-Based Learning as a method of instruction by
providing clarifications under eleven sub-categories. In order to have more comprehensive view
about the context of Inquiry-Based Learning, the researcher introduces a background about the
pragmatic aspect of the study, mainly, politeness and pragmatic awareness in the classroom. The
pragmatic aspect addresses eight sub-categories
2.2.1 Theoretical Background of Inquiry-Based Learning:
2.2.1.1 Student-Centeredness:
Student-centered learning involves the methods of instruction that shifts the center of learning
towards students rather that teacher as being used in traditional learning (Jones, 2007). Theorists
like John Dewey (1929) (as cited in Alberta learning, 2004), Jean Piaget (1973) and Lev
Vygotsky (1987), whose collective work focused on how students learn, have informed the move
to student-centered learning. Also, Rogers' (1983) concept about the individual construction of
knowledge contributed to student-centered learning. Rogers (1983) wrote that "the only learning
which significantly influences behavior and education is self- discovered". Montessori (1948)
was also a forerunner of student-centered learning, that primarily focused on independent
10
learning of preschool stage through which children are independent self-directed to interaction
with some formerly presented activities.
Originally, student centered learning aims at improving learners‘ independent and
autonomous learning by centering students in the process of learning and motivating them to
handle the responsibility of independent knowledge construction (Jones, 2007). Student-centered
instruction focuses on skills and practices that enable lifelong learning and independent problem-
solving (Pedersen, & Liu, 2003). Student-centered learning theory and practice are based on
the constructivist learning theory that emphasizes the learner's critical role in constructing
meaning from new information and prior experience (wright, 2011).
In contrast with traditional learning, student-centered learning puts students‘ interest and
experience first. They can choose topics and subjects of their interest and how they can learn and
assess knowledge. In traditional learning students used to be passive recipient who mainly
depend on teachers‘ selection of what they should learn, how should they learn and how they can
be assessed (Johnson, 2013).
Usage of the term "student-centered learning" may refer to learning instructions that
characterize the role of individuality and self-discovery (Johnson, 2013). In this sense students‘
interest, tendencies, abilities, learning styles, towards learning are intensifies. This strategy
decreases teachers‘ intrusion in the classroom shifting their role form being the center of learning
process to facilitating knowledge construction.
Student-centered learning enhanced peer to peer-interaction and collaborative thinking that
increasingly place the teacher in a closer position to peer level benefiting the overall classroom
not only in knowledge construction but also by decreasing the level of anxiety (Jones, 2007).
According to Vygotsky's theory (1987) of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), students can
11
learn indirectly through one another. Students in such type of learning can scaffold knowledge
cooperatively and foster building independent learning skills. Vygotsky proclaims, "Learning
which is oriented toward developmental levels that have already been reached is ineffective from
the viewpoint of the child's overall development. It does not aim for a new stage of the
developmental process but rather lags behind this process" (p. 162).
2.2.1.2 Constructivism:
Dewey (1929) (as cited in Alberta learning, 2004), Piaget (1973), and Vygotsky (1978)
developed theories that forms Inquiry-Based Learning IBL bases. All of these theories introduce
learning as active and collaborative.
Dewey (1929) (as cited in Alberta learning, 2004) describes learning as an action where
knowledge and ideas are promoted by interaction with other learners in a social context. So that,
they would draw conclusions by connecting their previous experiences which has significance
and a sense with that knowledge they get while investigating. Dewey (1929) (as cited in Alberta
learning, 2004) believed that a child‘s cognitive development is enhanced through social
interaction in a community. He also believed that a child is by nature motivated to learn actively,
and the education he gets facilitates learning and makes it more possible. To illustrate Dewey‘s
theory, he instituted a laboratory school at the University of Chicago where students are
reinforced to participate actively in group work context, such as playhouse building to learn
geometry and the principles of measurements. In other words, Dewey believed that children
should be involved in collaborative learning activities in order to gain meaningful understanding
of numerous situations (Berding, 2000).
12
Unlike Dewey, Piaget (1973) didn‘t call for educational reforms. However, his theory,
basically, tackles a child‘s understanding that is interrelated to education. Piaget (1973) theorized
that understanding is produced by discovery. Unless an individual understands he will mainly
depend on repetition so, he would lose innovation and productivity. Piaget was first who
introduced that children are permanently testing their understanding of the world. He believed
that children don‘t own logic thinking as the adults do.
Piaget (1973), the founder of the constructivism, argues in his theory that humans can
generate their knowledge and meaning by interaction between their own experiences and ideas.
When an individual is exposed to new experience, he/ she filters the concepts through a mental
structural process (Schemata) which correlates an individual‘s previous knowledge, perspectives
or beliefs with new concepts he gets (Bruner, 1973).
Piaget‘s constructivist perspective is basically built upon his view of children‘s psychological
development which asserts that discovery is the foundation of his theory. Piaget (1973) argues
that to comprehend implies to reconstruct by possibilities of rediscovery. He discusses that
children accepting or refusing or later changing ideas through a sequential stages. Therefore,
understanding is successively established step by step within active engagement and
participation. As a result, learners throughout all steps can‘t be considered as passive but active
participant in learning process.
Vygotsky‘s (as cited in: Rice & Wilson, 1999) sociocultural theory possibly gives the most
credence at the children‘s cultural background and their interactions with peers which probably
has its significance on the child‘s overall cognitive development (ZPD). He believed that cultural
and social perspectives have an influence on the child‘s mental development. Vygotsky
presented the concept of the zone of proximal development which mainly focuses on the
13
difference of child‘s capability of accomplishment tasks in isolation than that which can be
accomplished with assistance. To illustrate more, a child has better ability to solve and dissect
complicated structures at a particular age of mental development if he gets an assistant from
teachers, peers or parents than that he can do separately (Rice & Wilson, 1999).
A thoughtful example of this theory that is a kindergarten child who was exposed to variety of
cultural experiences with accompany of his parents. The child obtains larger amount of
vocabulary, gains ability to relate to many contents presented in the classroom and child
becomes more eager to learn. Although that child has an average IQ, he looks bright at the age of
five years old. The child has an amount of experiences upon which he can replicate or build new
information. Vygotsky introduces the importance of determination where the child can develop
his/her ability to build up experiences, so many discoveries will emerge and further enhancement
to classroom instruction he will get (Rice & Wilson, 1999).
2.2.1.3 Social Constructivism:
Social constructivism intensifies the role of culture and understanding a social context in
constructing knowledge (Derry, 1999; McMahon, 1997). This perception is closely correlated
with contemporary theories, considerable developmental theories suggested by Vygotsky and
Bruner, and Bandura's social cognitive theory (Shunk, 2000).
The social constructivist theory is developed by Vygotsky in (1978). It focuses on the
significance of culture, social context and collaborative activities throughout language learning.
Many linguists came after Vygotsky and developed their views based on Vygotsky‘s
perspectives which stress the importance of social interaction, language and culture (Woo &
14
Reeves, 2007). In other words, basically socio-cultural context and collaborative learning are
fundamentals knowledge construction.
Derry (1999) and McMahon (1997) (as cited in Kim, 2001) pointed out that "the social
constructivism asserts the importance of culture and context in understanding what occurs in
society and constructing knowledge based on this understanding". In other words, constructivism
is a lively process for teaching and learning that promotes teaching and learning skills.
Depending on the cognitive approach, students may selectively pick information to construct
meaning of a status from real life.
The constructivist theory emphasizes the use of authentic activities in meaningful contexts. In
constructivist theory, Derry (1999) states that "Understanding the meanings of real-life situations
does not come from reality itself, but it comes from the interaction between subjects and objects"
(p.519).
Thus, the students can construct their knowledge actively through this process. Brooks and
Brooks and Brooks (1999) stated that: "As long as there were people asking each other
questions, we have had constructivist classrooms. Constructivism, the study of learning, is about
how we all make sense of our world, and that really hasn‘t changed" (p.76).
Constructivism believes that learner‘s perception of knowledge is basically promoted from
meaning-making search in which learners construct individual understanding of everyday
practices. Throughout the process of questioning, examining and analyzing activities to
construct knowledge would probably yield to correlated or external realities that actually learner
gains while experiencing everyday life. However, much of constructed knowledge is filtered
through social negotiation or distributed cognition (Brown, et.al, 1995).
15
Cook (1992) focuses on the importance of negotiation which generates meaning in the
curriculum. When leaners ask questions, negotiate and try to find answers themselves, they will
get more meaningful learning and better understating of intended curriculum. Learners, as a
result, will have a sense of ownership and commitment to the curriculum they learn.
Burner (1986) describes negotiating the curriculum as a deliberately planning of to encourage
students to add and to contribute to the learning process in the classroom. It is an opportunity for
investing both learning sequential stages and preferable outcomes. Additionally, negotiation
allows making explicit and after that confronting the restrictions of learning situation and other
non-negotiable requirements that are applied.
In addition to the positive effects of negotiation as an important aspect of constructivist
classroom on learning, it also connects teachers and students in a mutual purpose. Smith (2010)
asserts that negotiating curriculum means "custom-building classes every day to fit the
individuals who attend"(p. 10). Bruner (1973) confirms that a teacher to students‘ discussion
about constrains and negotiations must be openly occur.
2.2.1.3.1 Assumptions of Social Constructivism:
Social constructivism is primarily based on particular assumptions about reality, knowledge
and learning. That can be clarified as follows (Kim, 2001):
It is necessary to know the perspectives that underline each assumption before applying the
instruction models that are deeply rooted with the premises of social constructivists (Kim, 2006).
Reality: It is constructed through everyday social activities which are characterized by
complexity. Human interaction in a social context procedure composes the features of the world
(Kukla, 2000).
16
Knowledge: According to constructivist view, knowledge is human product that is socially and
culturally constructed (Ernest, 1999; Gredler, 1997). Meaningful negotiation may be taken place
among participants interacting in a context.
Learning: From a constructivist point of view, learning is a social process that occurs within
active interaction without being passive. Significant learning takes place when they are involved
in social activities, (McMahon, 1997).
2.2.2 Definitions of IBL:
Several definitions have been proposed by scholars and researchers about Inquiry-Based
Learning. It is a complex process which exceeds the traditional view of question-answer process
(Spronken-Smith et al., 2007). Earl and Katz (2002) describe it as a ―habit of mind‖. They
consider inquiry as a dynamic and coherent process that is interconnected with permanent
feedback to arrange concepts as steps forward to have closer understanding and to draw
conclusions.
On the other hand, (Justice et al. 2007; Spronken-Smith et al 2007.; Prince & Felder,2007;
Oliver, 2008) described Inquiry-Based Learning in the realm of inductive learning in which
students are engaged in the center an investigating process to real-world problems. They all
intensify the importance of engaging students in a collaborative active learning context that
enhance them to understand.
Moreover, Inquiry-Based Learning is defined as a process of discovering relative relations
among concepts and exploring conclusions by making observations (Pedaste et al. 2012). IBL is
viewed as a teaching approach that is conceptualized to solve problems (Pedaste & Sarapuu,
2006). Inquiry-Based Learning intensifies the learner‘s responsibility to search for related
17
concepts and build up knowledge throughout active participation (de Jong & van Joolingen,
1998).
Although the definitions above share common themes of IBL that are question- or problem-
oriented, IBL comprises students‘ investigations that are addressed by question or a challenge
that needs to be analyzed and solved. Also, the formality of IBL as an active learning that
embarks by asking questions is enormous to include further pedagogical activities (Aditomo et
al., 2013). These activities exceed the traditional concept of question-answer activity to
encompass other more complex cognitive skills that concerned with explication the content.
2.2.3 What is Inquiry-Based Learning?
―Inquiry is the dynamic process of being open to wonder and puzzlements and coming to
know and understand the world‖ (Galileo Educational Network, 2008).
Inquiry can be also described as, "A seeking for truth, information or knowledge-seeking
information by questioning" (Bateman, 1990). It indicates that an individual search about a topic
resulted from series of questions. Inquiry-Based Learning is an approach that encompasses the
process of exploration world‘s knowledge. Inquiry process is usually driven by a question that
enhances a learner‘s curiosity to realize a fact, an observation or an actual fact. The process starts
by noticing a phenomenon, questioning, making predications, searching, testing a hypothesis,
discussing, and constructing knowledge.
Asking questions maps the concepts which would be included in the learning material. The
questions formulated by students or enhanced by the teacher highlight central concepts of the
content material.Teacher usually plays the role of facilitator who develops main concepts and
engage the students to learning atmosphere in the classroom, while the power of learning and
18
constructing knowledge lies upon the students who is being learned deductively. The following
steps describe the process of inquiry according to (Bateman, 1990):
 Asking questions that matters, either they are formulated by a teacher or a student.
 Group Organization.
 Investigation and gathering data for the questions are through research.
 Create-shaping the new knowledge discovered into a product (paper, presentation,
video…etc).
 Discussion and sharing the discovery with others.
 Reflection and looking for students insights and asking what they learned, what they have
accomplished and what new issues they like to discover in further classes.
Inquiry-Based Learning is generated from analysis of teaching strategies that are utilized by a
number of teachers in different domains. The study revealed that expert teachers tend to employ
strategic principles of discovery, inquiry or Socratic approach (Ye Lee, 2014).
Learners through Inquiry usually make sense in relationship to the learner‘s prior experience
actual knowledge. As long as the learner interacts with others, makes observation, evaluate and
compare knowledge, a profound understanding would be actually emerged (Bateman, 1990).
Creating meaning from experience requires intermittent reflection, discussion and comparison of
results with others. Understanding knowledge and applying new concepts construct a new mental
framework (Alberta, 2004).
2.2.4 Why Inquiry Based-Learning?
According to (Bateman, 1990) Inquiry-Based Learning is more than a model for learning. It is
a step towards life that encompasses student‘s engagement to create strategic solutions for
realistic problems they face and search for. The model of Inquiry-Based Learning requires to
19
think critically and systematically to search for reasonable solutions. It is a student focus learning
that promotes collaborative work among students. Some important characteristics of IBL are:
• It encourages the development of critical thinking.
• It allows an active participation of students in the acquisition of knowledge.
• It facilitates problem solving skills.
• It guides students to form and express concepts through a series of questions
The opening tool of Inquiry-Based Learning; questioning, doesn‘t only encourage challenging
learning experience and excitement, but it also motivates students to start the discovery which
encompasses sequential steps. The process of questioning, investigation, searching, discussion,
analysis and reflecting possibly develop complex and order thinking skills which assist self-
regulated learning and future learning transfer (Alberta, 2004).
Although traditional approaches had influenced English language teaching for foreign
learners for decades ago, Inquiry-Based Learning proved its potentiality to enable students
improve students‘ acquisition of vocabulary, to govern syntactic rules, to engage in the
negotiation of meaning and to discover the embedded cultural perspective (Ye Lee, 2014).
The application of inquiry-Based Learning signifies second language teaching in all aspects.
It assists to keep classroom orderly and controlled when students attain the opportunity to
participate and employ their linguist knowledge in a collaborative learning context. Language
participation and practicing unfortunately wasn‘t permitted in the classical form of classroom
teaching. Students are also given the opportunity to correct errors they commit by coming across
authentic texts or by peer feedback they get through discussion. The teacher would be able to
evaluate teaching outcomes, after the students ask questions. So that teacher can recognize
pattern of errors they commit and classify students levels (Bonwell, 1998). Moreover, Inquiry-
20
Based Learning promotes students linguistic and communicative competence, because Students
will corporate numerous types of questions into a meaningful context in a natural discourse (Ye
Lee, 2014).
Throughout this model teachers‘ role oppositely change. They learning process becomes
student-centered by which students need to investigate and search for their questions, while
teacher facilitates students‘ participation in an investigation process to eventually come out by
reasonable conclusions. They introduce different tools and strategies based on the content of the
learning subject. They constantly become part of the group by observing their collaborative
work by talking to them, proposing suggestions, asking questions (Arauz, 2013).
2.2.5. Types of Inquiry-Based Learning:
Heather Banchi and Randy Bell (2008) suggest four types of IBL in education that become
structured to suit different classroom situations. The types are as follows:
 Conformity Inquiry: This type typically starts by teacher‘s initiates to develop a
question and involve students in an activity to end by results that are already known. This
type is used to reinforce students‘ knowledge they learned and enhances their capacities
to embark in further investigations.
 Structured Inquiry: In structured inquiry, the teacher develops a question and outlines
procedures to be followed. Students throughout collaborative group work are asked to
test, explain and analyze data with referring back to evidence.
 Guided Inquiry: The teacher provides the students with an open research question.
Students will be responsible of formulating procedures and introducing sources of data
collection by themselves.
21
 Open Inquiry: This type is a student-dependent investigation in which students
formulate their own questions, shape procedures, select methods of collecting data and
eventually present their results for discussion and expansion.
2.2.6 The Characteristics of Inquiry-based Learning:
There are seven characteristics of Inquiry-Based Learning that appears when
transforming learning environment to suit the IBL strategy (Galileo Educational Network,
2008). The features of IBL are as follows:
 Authentic: Authentic work needed in 21st century is purely original which is
characterized by knowledge building not consumed or regurgitated.
 Academic Rigour: The academic rigour in IBL context is established when students
are intellectually engaged to challenge tasks which need seriousness, discipline and
active participation. In IBL learning context, children are found more capable than
adult learners in challenging tasks. However, little evidence of research proved that
both adults and children are reacting similarly when community of inquiry is
established. The context of inquiry is an affective which influences students‘
developments.
 Learning in the World: Students introduce questions about learning material in the
curriculum and they relate these concepts on their surrounding world. After that they
need to project knowledge building, searching process and presenting conclusions.
That practice needs group communication, applying management skills with little
guidance of the teacher. In open inquiry, students are involved in a task that their
teacher undertakes.
22
 Digital Technologies: Convenient and meaningful integration of technology in IBL
context stimulates students to think for steps of investigation and knowledge building.
Exposing students to varied typed of technology such as (video conferencing,
simulation, databases, multimedia and hypermedia software) not only associate them
for building plans of exploration, but it also helps them to select an appropriate
technological application to communicate.
 Active Exploration: Active exploration with reference to rigour inquiries requires to
getting students involved in different possible means of authentic investigations by
using construction, fieldwork, interviews and studio work. IBL allows students to
avoid traditional instruction by active participation in knowledge building that
enhances students to be engaged in the community to search for authentic knowledge.
 Connecting with Experts: It is necessary to encourage students to communicate in
experts of the subjects that they are seeking to construct knowledge about. This
supports students to get original and authentic knowledge and allows having a
comprehensive picture relevant to topical explorations.
 Assessment for Learning: Students themselves or with little guidance of the teacher
develop clear criteria of assessment that permanently revisited and extended
throughout inquiry. Throughout frequent involvement in the assessment process
students will become self-reflective and critical thinker of their explorations. Students
also should be exposed to ongoing evaluations such as; formative assessment, peer
feedback or diagnostic assessment.
23
2.2.7 Forms of Inquiry-Based Learning:
Many learning approaches have been originated from a theory of constructivism. Although
they have some mutual features of IBL, differences emerges in terms of structure, process and
pedagogical emphasis as follows (Prince & Felder, (2007); Savery, (2006); Helle, Tynjala, &
Olkinuora, (2006); Mills & Treagust (2003); as cited in Anindito et al, 2013)
Table (1): Comparison of Forms of Inquiry-Based Learning
Aspect Problem-based Project-based learning Case-based teaching

learning
What Starts with a real world can be addressed. Starts with (usually)
provides problem which is Starts with clear real case narratives
structure unstructured, open specification of an that are written to
ended, end-product that is exemplify how
and thus needs usually tangible. concepts/theories can
to be refined before it be applied.
Typical Responsible In working to produce Students are

process for refining the the desired product, Students usually
problem, and also students encounter discuss cases in
identifying what they ‘mini-problems’ groups. They analyze
need to know and which need to be cases and answer
how to bridge any solved. questions already
Knowledge-gaps. composed by the
teachers.
Pedagogical Emphasis is on the Emphasis is on the Emphasis on process
emphasis process of solving the product of the of analyzing cases; the
and purpose problem; the main activity; the main main purpose is to
purpose is to acquire purpose is to practice acquire new
new knowledge. applying knowledge. knowledge.
2.2.8 Inquiry based-Learning and Language Instruction:
Recently, education has been placed differently from the previous perspective of learning
students by providing students with the essential information. It is positioned in the 21st century
24
in a higher rank that is mainly concerned by preparing learners to be critical thinkers with
intensity on the role of communication (UNESCO, 1998). Leaning, nowadays, starts to satisfy
the needs of the 21st century by modeling new learning frameworks to enhance effective
communication (Pinker, 1996; Stegmaier, 2011).
Language supports and enhances critical thinking since it shapes our ability for knowledge
construction (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2011). Language empowers learners‘
intellectual ability that supports them to develop conceptuality and critical thinking. ―To acquire
language, learning through inquiry has emerged as a means that allows for smoother and more
effective communication‖ (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2011). Inquiry-Based
Learning in language classroom is increasingly being widespread. In other words, utilizing the
framework of IBL in language classroom facilitates learners‘ acquisition of new language (Beach
& Myers, 2001).
Wells (1999) defines teaching language by inquiry as "Pursuing significant questions through
using questions and ways of researching from a range of knowledge systems" (p. 264). The
definition represents the focus of inquiry that is enhanced by making connection between the
surrounding social context and the questions proposed for investigations. Engaging students in
the inquiry cycle depends on the age, abilities, and interests of learners, the amount of time
available, other resources available, how it needs to be structured for a specific classroom, and
the desired outcomes, products, and learning as Wells (1999) suggests. Learning language by
inquiry puts the ―essence‖ of investigations on pedagogical learning goals, allowing students to
have the choice of topics they eager to explore. Therefore, they dependently or with little
guidance of their teacher undertake the process of investigation and final presentations of their
conclusions and reflections (Pinker, 1996).
25
Sadler (1989) illustrates that when using the type of open-inquiry, the teacher stimulates
students to use different methods to construct knowledge either individually or in groups. Thus,
the context of inquiry is not just the educators are concerned with but it also the cultural and
linguistic world. Sadler (1989) also highlights that Inquiry-Based Learning doesn‘t only teach
students, but also they teach how to impact the world.
It is intended that teaching language throughout IBL framework will introduce leaner‘ needs
of and expectations of language that are arranged into three main standers: oral communication,
written communication and visual communication. These communications are sub-categorized
under having command on language skills; speaking, reading writing listening including other
skills of presenting and viewing (Pinker, 1996).
2.2.9 Advantages and Limitations of Inquiry-Based Learning:
Inquiry- Based Learning enable learners to achieve many advantages through their academic
experiences, in addition to others that goes beyond the classroom and remain throughout daily
life practices, as follows :
Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) has a significant effect on student‘s motivation in the
classroom. The model of IBL offers the students the opportunity to satisfy their curiosity of
seeking the knowledge required. It also enables students to discover their own desires and
consequently getting engaged to learning atmosphere. Learners through their experience of
Inquiry may come across with different aspects of knowledge that they may never thought about
(Schank & Cleary, 1994).
Additionally, inquiry and problem solving have been proposed by many researchers because
they have significance in helping students to build meta-cognitive skills. According to Brown
(1994), students who are able to use these skills can learn language better. Inquiry-Based
26
Learning involves‘ students in untraditional classroom which arouses their capabilities to
centralize the learning process. Students‘ role in IBL classes is not limited into passive sitting
that specifies their function into note taking only, on the contrary, students have an active role in
selecting topics they are learning and developing till they finally produce outcomes for their
investigations. This stimulates students to have more close attention in the classroom. Students,
as a result, become more interested to use the target language because they feel that they have
control upon more appropriate language level (Arauz, 2013).
Because Inquiry-Based Learning allows students to propose the topics they are interested to
investigate about and generate questions to solve problems they seek for, students have much
opportunity to develop their knowledge of forming questions and real practice of figuring out
questions. Teachers can utilize students' question to teach corresponding structures of
appropriate questions, not only from the perspective of the content but also from a syntactic view
(Alberta, 2004).
Also, the process of Inquiry-Based Learning encourages more written and oral
communication in the classroom. That is because students need to discuss their findings with
peers through collaborative inquiry groups, and have to write reports about their results and
realizations. Many questions are formed throughout Inquiry to go deeper into a required
investigation. As a result, students get enhanced to develop both written and oral forms of target
language in meaningful context (Arauz, 2013).
Furthermore, Inquiry-Based Learning has the possibility to increase information retention of a
learner. Students who are involved in the Inquiry learning recall the activity that they practice
with peers and the steps they shift to. The possibility of Inquiry learner to report knowledge
results from the fact that they experience seeking knowledge themselves and participate with
27
peers after they get engaged to the learning material. Alleman and Brophy (1992) assure the
ability of IBL of information retention when they asked kindergarten and college students to
recall information of an IBL experiment they employed in a mathematics and language
classroom. Both adults and children were able to quickly recall information they were asked
about.
Research suggests that implementation of Inquiry-Based Learning doesn‘t only help ordinary
students to become more innovative, more positive and more independent, but it also concludes
that students with special needs, who need special care and individual attention throughout
learning process, have also developed these skills (Kühne, 1995).
Inquiry-Based Learning enables students to increase their academic achievement. When
students are engaged to the learning material and asked to talk about experience they will
develop their cognitive and meta-cognitive abilities that remain throughout everyday
experiences. That‘s because IBL allows students to connect their prior experience to the learning
activities. Students can also construct their knowledge through searching, synthesis, analysis and
reorganizing information they get. All these factors offered significant effects on students'
language performance and academic achievements and life experiences (Schank & Cleary,
1994).
2.3. Pragmatics in Language Classroom:
Pragmatic Competence can be referred to the ability of an individual to use the target
language appropriately in different social situations. Pragmatic competence includes the
capability to understand language and employ the target language in different contexts
(Bialystok, 1993). That encompasses speaker's ability to employ proper use of linguistic items for
different purposes such as greeting, requesting, informing, demanding and so on. As for the
28
second language learning SLA, Kasper (1997) defines Interlanguage pragmatics as the
following: "it is the study of non-native speakers‘ use and acquisition of L2 pragmatic
knowledge".
Second language learners, usually, face a challenge to acquire develop or use language
appropriately in different contextual situations. This question has been raised upon the teaching
approaches utilized in the language classroom and practicing English in authentic atmosphere.
This research examines the potentiality of Inquiry-Based Learning as a communicative teaching
approach to enable second language learners in the Palestinian context to develop pragmatic
competence.
Despite the fact that teacher-centered methodology of teaching increases the linguistic in-put
in a language classroom, it is well-documented that teacher-centered discourse design for
language classroom through which teachers basically depend on oral instruction, decreases the
opportunity for students to practice communicative skills, mainly, speaking (Chaudron,1988).
In the classical classroom learning context, if the communicative activities and language
pragmatic competence of non-native speakers they eager to gain for good language
communication outside the classroom are mapped against each other , it is obviously concluded
that the classical language classroom form doesn‘t serve students to get the required pragmatic
competences for language productivity (Long, 1976).
When teacher-centered teaching approach was compared to student-centered methodology of
teaching in language classroom over 20 years ago, it was concluded that students active
participation had been gradually grown up when student-center had been applied (Long, 1976).
Student-centered activities award students the opportunity to extend interaction where they
discuss, negotiate and reflect their linguistic knowledge with peers. Turning the point to
29
linguistic pragmatic abilities, student-centered classroom organization needed to develop
pragmatic competence (Nunan, 1989).
When students are organized for collaborative group work, an alternative interaction
discourse between speaker and hearer takes place. Collaborative activities may engage students
in variable speech events and communicative actions, so that students would gain the opportunity
to practice language skills after they discuss activity components and with peer (Crookes &
Gass, 1993).
2.3.1 Politeness in the Classroom:
Foreign language learning mainly aims to enable learner to communicate. Learners must
improve foreign language skills attain communicative competence which doesn‘t only include
linguistic competence, but it also equalizes socio-cultural, interactional, formulaic and strategic
competence. The former refers to the speaker‘s pragmatic knowledge (Celce-Murcia, 2007).
Kasper defines pragmatic knowledge (1997) as ―knowledge of communicative action and
how to carry it out‖ and ―the ability to use language appropriately according to context‖.
Language classroom can be described as sociolinguistic environment in which interlocutors
of distinct backgrounds interact. Foreign language teaching in the classroom must include
pragmatic aspects of social interaction which would be beneficial for learners. Being aware of
the concept of politeness is necessary in language classroom, because it influences the classroom
interaction. Politeness mechanisms which used by a teacher or among peers in the class can have
a vital role in learning and teaching process (Kasper, 1997).
30
2.3.2 The Power of Politeness in the Classroom:
Politeness is not only considered as a desirable valued virtue, but is also precious for tactful
preferable communication. Politeness is valuable in everyday communication that exceeds
speakers‘ faculty to negotiate, cooperate or minimize conflicts it penetrates classrooms‘
interaction affecting students‘ knowledge construction. Politeness is important in the classroom
discourse due to tow basic reasons. Utilizing politeness in the classroom enables teachers to
create a lively respectful atmosphere that enhances congenial collaboration that motivates
students to learn and response appropriately towards learning (Šubertová,2013). In polite such
contexts, students don‘t only feel unthreatened or discomfited by making mistakes, but sense of
belongings and affiliation motivates them to participate or excel in doing tasks. Thus, students
get engaged in the learning process facilitating their teachers‘ work (Allwright, & Bailey 1991)
On the top of that, students don‘t only learn subjects, but most importantly they adopt
teachers‘ strategies and implicitly re-express these in commutative situations. As ALFattah
(2010) formulates it: ―Learning a foreign language involves not only knowing how to speak and
write, but also how to behave linguistically; therefore, the speakers and users of the language
must be equipped with politeness formulas in speaking and must be aware of how to use
politeness in different communicative acts in their daily life.‖ (p.137) Although teachers attempt
to help students understand politeness by adopting explicit and implicit teaching strategies, the
classroom which is an informative discourse is given a very little attention as Lakoff (1989)
claims.
On the other hand, Garcés-Conejos & Torreblanca-López (1996) and Garcés-Conejos and
Torreblanca-López (1997) in their experiment of diagnosing aspect of politeness in the
classroom concluded that ―involvement strategies in positive evaluations and mainly
31
independence strategies in negative evaluations, and relate these findings with the effort teachers
make to lower the affective filter and promote participation and language learning‖. Bou-Franch
and Garcés (2003) observe that in the classroom context positive and negative strategies are
found to establish a tactful communication. They state ―Didactic communication involves the use
of positive and negative politeness at all levels (verbal, non-verbal and para-verbal) concerning
the interaction teacher-student‖(p.16).
In the current study, the researcher attempts to understand what the politeness strategies are
used in the classroom discourse that affect students involvement, participation, and knowledge
construction in the context of inquiry.
2.3.3 Brown and Levinson’s Theory of Politeness:
Brown & Levinson (1987) had developed the concept of politeness as one of the earliest
attempts to clarify how politeness works among interlocutors in communicative communication
contexts. Brown and Levinson's define the concept of face and present politeness strategies
emerged by interlocutors to mitigate face threatening acts FATs.
Brown and Levinson (1987) describe the notion of face as "something that is emotionally
invested, and can be lost, maintained, or enhanced"(p.66). They assume that each participation is
endowed with what they call face that can be presented into Negative/Positive face. One's
negative face damages the face of the addressee or the speaker by acting in opposition to desires
of the other. It includes claims to territories, to freedom of action and freedom from imposition.
While one‘s positive face is defined as: ―the want of every member that his wants be desirable to
at least some others executors‖ (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p.61). That can involve the needs for
social approval, or the want to be considered desirable by at least some others.
32
The purpose of politeness strategy that speakers tend to use through interaction mainly is
concerned by the strategy of protecting face. Speakers usually select speech acts that assist them
to possibly maximize positivity, and minimize the aspects that may avoid them from face losing.
These situations are generally based on four notions: cost and benefit, dispraise and praise,
disagreement and agreement, and sympathy and antipathy (Renkema, 1993).
Brown and Levinson explained that in order to evaluate the seriousness of an FTA, three
factors should be taken onto account: a) the social distance (D) between the speaker and the
hearer, b) the relative power (P) attained by both of them, and c) the ranking of imposition (R) in
a given context, as shown in the formula blow:
FTA Weightiness = D(S,H) + P(H,S) +R
Brown and Levinson's politeness theory (1987) classifies four strategies:
 To follow what it says, bald on record
 Perform speech acts using positive politeness (refers to the positive face),
 Perform speech acts using negative politeness (refers to the face of a negative),
 Indirect speech act (off the record)
In connection with this politeness strategy, here are the possible strategies for doing FTAs
followed by tables of illustrations:
Figure (1): Brown and Levinson's Politeness Strategies (1987, p.69)
33
Politeness strategies are used to save the (H) hearer‘s positive face when FTAs are likely and
preferable. Based on Brown and Levinson‘s theory of politeness (1987), the researcher in the
next following tables summarizes the four politeness strategies in terms of use, situations and
examples:
Table (2): Bald on –record strategy (Brown & Levinson’s, 1987, p.74):
Use and Explanation Situation and context Examples
-It is emerged if the purpose -Urgency or desperation -Watch out!
of the communication is -When efficiency is necessary -Hear me out...
known to interlocutors.
-Task-oriented -Pass me the hammer
-It doesn‘t mitigate the
hearer‘s positive face. -Little or no desire to maintain -Don't forget to clean the
someone's face blinds!
-It may be use within close
relationships. -Doing the face-threatening act is -Your headlights are on!
in the interest of the hearer
-It is used when response is -Come in
immediately in need. -Situations where the threat is -Leave it, I'll clean it up
minimized implicitly later.
-Welcomes -Eat!
-Offers
However, speakers indicate preform "redressive" FTAs in order to show that there is no
intention or damage hearers‘ Face. Therefore, they use on of the following strategies:
34
Table (3): Positive Politeness Strategy (Brown & Levinson’s, 1987, p.72):
-It is used when the speaker -Attend to the hearer's interests, -You look sad. Can I do
(S) intends to show needs, wants anything?
belongings and closeness -Use solidarity in-group identity -Heh, mate, can you lend
towards the hearer (H). markers me a dollar?
-Be optimistic -I'll just come along, if you
-It is used to represent don't mind.
-Include both speaker (S) and
respect.
hearer (H) in activity -If we help each other, I
guess, we'll both sink or
-Offer or promise
swim in this course.
-Exaggerate interest in H and his
-If you wash the dishes, I'll
interests
vacuum the floor.
-Avoid Disagreement
-That's a nice haircut you
-Joke got; where did you get it?
-Yes, it's rather long; not
short certainly.
Table (4): Negative Politeness Strategy (Brown & Levinson’s, 1987, p.72):
-It is used to by speaker (S) - Be indirect -Would you know where
in non-imposing way on the Oxford Street is?
-Use hedges or questions
hearer (H) -Perhaps, he might have
-Be pessimistic
-It shows that the speaker taken it, maybe.
(S) realized the hearer‘s (H) -Minimize the imposition
-Could you please pass the
negative face. -Use obviating structures, like rice?
-it minimizes the use of nominalizations, passives,
-You couldn't find your way
FTAs. or statements of general rules to lending me a thousand
dollars, could you?
-Apologetic -So I suppose some help is

out of the question, then?
-Use plural pronouns
-It's not too much out of
your way, just a couple of
blocks.
35
Table (5): Off –record Strategy (Brown & Levinson’s, 1987, p.70):
-It is used to allow speaker -Relies on implication -Wow, it's getting cold in
escapes from any potential here.
imposition.
-The speaker (S) indirectly
expresses an idea or specific
request.
Inquiry-Based Learning reinforces the social interaction between learners through the inquiry
process. It is also enhanced by a social interaction with the community. While learners seek for
knowledge, they ask, search, investigate, discuss and share their constructed knowledge with
others. Inquiry classroom includes variable teacher- student and student-student discussions. The
mechanism of ask-answer and discussion in Inquiry collaborative group work encompasses
different politeness strategy used that the researcher attempt to examine for understanding the
Inquiry context.
2.3.4 Rising Students’ Pragmatic Awareness:
Pragmatic awareness can be achieved if students are involved to regularly practice language
authentic activities that are designed to fill the gap between language use and students‘
understanding (McCarthy, 1998). Tudor (2001) believes that the nature of English language
teaching which is characterized by complexity and negotiability requires constructing
meaningful tasks. Teachers‘ task must redirect roles towards constructivist learning in which
students undertake the responsibility of knowledge building while the teacher facilitates their
job. He describes teachers task as ―more one of helping students to find a sense of personal
36
meaningfulness in the learning process in a context which is often shaped by perceptions, goals,
and priorities of a variety of other participants‖ (p.207)
Several learning techniques can be adopted to rise up students‘ pragmatic awareness.
According to Kasper (1997), two main teaching techniques are commonly used: First, teachers‘
presentation and discussion of research findings on different aspects of pragmatics.
Presentation/discussion techniques intensify the value of research findings about issues of
language that must be discussed either inductively (from data to rules) or deductively (from rules
to data). Second, Kasper (1997) explains the role of student-discovery procedure in which
students build up pragmatic knowledge throughout observations, questionnaires, and/or
interviews. In a discovery procedure the students are involved in authentic exploration of aspects
of language by setting out questions, collecting data through possible means and analyzing.
2.3.5 Implicature and Pragmatic Awareness:
In everyday communication, we speak what we think without coding utterances. Our
purposive intention is reflected throughout our linguistic choices. Thus, in order to decode
massages we should think beyond the linguistic selections taking into consideration the context
which we are involved in. More importantly, when literal meaning of our speech doesn‘t
correspond with our intentions, the addressee must rely on strategies to conclude implicit
messages. Bouton (1994) states that ―Given the pervasiveness of this inferencing process, which
Grice coined conversational implicature, in our daily interaction it is undeniable that this strategy
is highly significant in interpreting and conveying a message in a conversation.‖ (p.91). There is
no doubt that English language learners are exposed to little target-language input or have little
opportunity to practice language outside the classroom in comparison of those who are immersed
in the target language context (Rose & Kasper, 2001). Thus, the role of instruction is very
37
important to develop students‘ pragmatic perception. The research in field of interlanguage
pragmatics is concerned by language production rather judgement and perception. Pragmatic
instruction doesn‘t emphasize on learning the teaching content rather than raising students‘
awareness of pragmatic knowledge by encouraging them to use what they already know (Rose &
Kasper, 2001).
The importance of instruction validates Schmidt‘s (1993) Noticing Hypothesis which
assumes that raising students‘ pragmatic awareness helps to transfer input to an intake
(Takahashi, 2001). That means linguistic features will be transferred into intake if they were non-
concisely observed by students (Rose & Kasper, 2001). As Bardovi-Harlig (2001) states:
―Without input, acquisition cannot take place…we owe it to learners to help them interpret
indirect speech acts as in the case of implicatures‖ (p. 31).
Since classroom is an ideal environment to help learners to comprehend language use in
context. Language instruction can help learners to interrupt functions of linguistic choices. The
present study aimed at investigating if IBL can rise up students‘ pragmatic awareness after they
are exposed to various authentic learning materials throughout the experiment. The researcher
analyzes students‘ ability to produce implicatures.
2.3.6 Grice’s Implicture and Cooperative Principle:
Grice's (1975) is well-known theory of Cooperative Principle. Cooperative principle describes
how an effective conversational communication can be attained in a social context. It focuses on
the necessity of cooperative communication and mutual performance through which interlocutors
accept one another to be understood. Paul Grice (1975) introduces the concept of cooperative
principle by emphasizing on performing adequate speech for particular context. Grice states that
38
speakers should "Make contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the
accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged‖ (p. 76).
However, if the speaker violates the cooperative principle by uttering insufficient speech for a
specific context, the listener understands that the speaker is convey messages beyond the literal
level. Hence, the speakers‘ utterances that disobey with accepted truthful, sufficient, relevance
and clear words and extend exact speech in a context, it is called ―implicature‖. Implicaure
―refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed nor strictly
implied (that is, entailed) by the utterance‖ (Grice, 1975). Implicature is intentionally deduced
that requires the listener to abide certain maxims of conversational communication to
comprehend codes uttered by the speaker (Mey, 2001). Grice (1975) recognizes four main
maxims of conversation as follows (p. 183-98):
Maxim of Quantity: it focuses on speaker‘s informative speech that doesn‘t exceed required
utterances and no more. The speaker requires giving sufficient information not more than
needed. For Example:
A: What time do you work tomorrow?
B: Tomorrow I work at 2pm.
In the given example above, (B) responds adequately to A‘s question without adding other
information. In other words, speaker A strictly follows the cooperative principle, whereas the
following example violates the maxim of quantity:
A: Do you have school tomorrow?
B: I have classes all day but I must go to the doctor when I‘m finished.
39
In the example, B violates the maxim because too much information, rather than providing a yes
or no answer.
Maxim of Quality: it requires that the speaker produce truthful utterances by avoiding giving
false information without a supported indication, the following examples clarify the concept
given:
A: Why were you late last night?
B: My car broke down.
In the example, B gives truthful information that the car broke down and that‘s why they were
late.
However, the following example violates the maxim of quality:
A: Is Reno in Mexico?
B: Sure, and Philadelphia is in Florida.
In the example .B provides incorrect information to A, violating the maxim.
Maxim of Relevance: it requires speakers‘ pertinent speech to the situation. A Speaker needs to
avoid irrelevant information in a discussion, For example:
A: How is the weather today?
B: It is rainy and cloudy.
In the example, B provides accurate information that is relevant to A‘s question.
However, the speaker in the following example violates maxim of relevance:
A: Where is my Halloween candy?
40
B: Mine is missing too.
In the example, B does not provide a relevant answer to A‘s question, instead something
completely unrelated is said.
Maxim of Manner: it requires the speaker to be clear, brief, and as orderly as one can in what
they say, and where by avoiding expression of ambiguity. For example:
A: Where was the professor when class ended?
B: She left class and went to her office.
In the example, B responds with orderly information to the question posed by A.
However, the following example violates the rule:
A: How is Kate today?
B: She‘s the usual.
In the example, B violates the maxim by responding with a statement that is ambiguous; the 2
perceptions of Kate could be different.
As many studies have evidenced, that comprehension and applications of implicatures in
everyday conversation is a difficult task for the majority of EFL learners despite the fact that
they are widespread and known (Garci, 2004; Boxer & pickering, 1995). The present study
attempts to examine if IBL has the efficiency to affect students‘ perceptions of implecature that
indicates students‘ pragmatic awareness.
2.4 Previous Studies
2.4.1 Previous Studies related to Inquiry-Based Learning:
41
An IBL experiment is prepared to check the students‘ understanding based upon asking
authentic questions rather than examining what students already knew. The study indicated that
students have learned more. More than hundred patterns of questions during English language
classes were asked by the teacher to eighth and ninth grades in schools at Wisconsin and Illinois.
Test of literacy performance indicates that there is a distinct difference in student‘s language
performance by the end of the year. Varity of classroom discussion activities has significantly
improved students‘ level of achievement. Over that year, authentic questions permanently
enhanced open discussion. The whole class discourse dedicated to fixable exchange of ideas and
knowledge between ―uptakes‖ in which the teacher‘s question constructed on student‘s previous
comments (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991)
Over 1400 students with different socioeconomic status, gender and ethnic background are
involved in a study that investigates the effectiveness of IBL methodology on students‘ language
performance. The study concluded that IBL allows both low- and high achieving students to
score academic gains. Sixty four classrooms in California, Florida, New York, Texas, and
Wisconsin were observed during this experience of inquiry. The study found IBL approach was
effective across variable distinct social backgrounds and situations for students of dissimilar
levels (Applebee et al., 2003).
A comparative study is conducted to investigate whether activity-based approach, Inquiry-
Based Approach or textbook approach has more influence over the other on student‘s academic
achievement. Twenty-six junior high school students with learning disabilities were exposed to a
pre-and post-tests, after they studied two science units via IBL learning approaches. The
experiment revealed that students learned by Inquiry more than what they learned by traditional
methods. Students learned more indirect methods and they remembered more clues and ideas.
42
The research also revealed that students greatly preferred hands-on scientific activities over
textbooks activities. The research also found that 96% of students enjoyed the Inquiry approach
more, while over 80% considered the activities more facilitative and motivating (Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 1993).
Another study concluded that applications of Inquiry-Based Approach to science with English
language learners (ELLs) in a school district in California enable students gain greater
proficiency not only science, but also English language, reading , and math. The research found
that Fourth and sixth grade ELLs skills has been improved as a result of hands-on activities that
allows the learners to evolve positive attitude towards learning, construct their knowledge and
involve in authentic group discussion (Amaral, et al, 2002).
Moreover, thoughtful implementation of Inquiry-Based Approach has its significance over the
gap between home and school culture in Navajo reservation. Teachers at a school in Arizona
overcome the problem of students‘ adaptation to lessons and students‘ cultural norms of
speaking. The school engaged the students to collaborative work in inquiry projects rather than
depending on class-lecturing and whole discussion. A distinct change took place in students‘
participation, discussion and on their ability of drawing connections. Students tend to make
connections between the content of textbook and social, economic and cultural realities of their
society. Students who were formerly passive and silent became gradually active participants in
the classroom (McCarty & et al, 1991).
Alameddine and Ahwal (2016) investigated the effects of Inquiry-Based Learning on
students‘ achievement in literature classroom. The research results showed that the use of IBL
enabled students to have better achievement. Students perform better in the post-test. The
language students used is characterized by depth and intensity.
43
IBL has also significant effects on developing students‘ critical thinking skills. Duran &
Dökme, (2016) reported that IBL positively affects students‘ ability to think critically in science
and technology classroom. Post-test results showed that student who were engaged in IBL
experiment were able to answer complicated questions.
Based on the existing literature, it is obvious that IBL framework has a significant effect on
students‘ academic achievement, critical thinking and other learning skills. Regarding, language
instruction throughout Inquiry-Based Learning little studies are conducted to investigate its
effect, however, studies proved its considerable effects on language development.
2.4.2 Previous Studies related to Implicatures in the Classroom:
Bouton (1994) found that there is a meaningful correspondence between students‘ results in
English language placement test EPT and evaluations of IMPLC test. Non-native speakers of
English students involved in the study taught to use implicature with little or no direct
instruction. Bouton is considered as a pioneer in developing a test of implicature knowledge
(Derakhshan, 2014).
Also, Taguchi (2011) investigated if study-abroad experience influences second language
learners‘ pragmatic capability to comprehend nonconventional implicatures. The research
analysis revealed that studying abroad doesn‘t only positively affect students‘ proficiency in
English language but there is significant impact on performing implectures. Moreover, Taguchi
(2002) used relevance theory to second language research to examine its impact on students‘
inferential ability to understand conversational implicatures. The qualitative analysis revealed
that low-achievers who were involved in the study could similarly comprehend inferential codes
based on communicative contexts. Significantly, both groups of students‘ high- and low-
achievers comprehended 70% or more of the implicature items.
44
However, Garcia (2004) concluded that high-proficiency students outperformed low-
proficiency students in pragmatic comprehension, comprehension of speech acts and
conversational implicatures. The study included 16 advanced and 19 beginning English language
learners.
Although implicatures are a part of everyday interaction, and knowledge of the target culture
is needed to comprehend utterances (Bouton, 1994a, 1994b; Kasper & Rose, 2002), still the
textbooks conversations don‘t adequately satisfy learners‘ sufficient pragmatic knowledge
(Gilmore, 2004; Bardovi-Harlig et al, 1991). However, using authentic materials such as;
videotapes stimulate learners‘ capability to comprehend and perform pragmatic utterances
because it includes real life practices that bring the closes approximation authentic situations
(Birjandi & Derakhshan, 2014; Stempleski & Tomalin, 1990).
2.5 Summary:
To summarize, this chapter presents recognizable information about Inquiry-Based Learning
through theoretical background, definitions of IBL, advantages and limitations of IBL, types and
characteristics of IBL. In addition to that the chapter illustrates some pragmatic aspects that are
used to display more vivid and comprehensive view of IBL class. The researcher introduces
Brown and Levinson‘s theory of politeness that utilized to analyze teacher-student interaction in
IBL class. In addition, Grice‘s Implicature is presented to examine students‘ pragmatic
awareness in IBL classroom which shows if students can address their messages in different
situations. The existing literature confirms the efficiency of using IBL to motivate students,
direct students to become autonomous and develop lifelong learning skills. On the other hand,
previous studies shows different learning strategies used to develop leaners‘ use if implicature.
45
However, IBL has not been used to develop students‘ pragmatic awareness-to the best
knowledge of the researcher.
46
Chapter Three
Methodology
3.1 Introduction:
This chapter describes the research process adopted for data collection and analysis. It
includes the research design, selected sample and participants. The chapter also clarifies data
collection and procedures followed in building research instruments and tools. Furthermore, it
discusses the study variables, reliability, and validity of the study instruments.
3.2 Research Design:
Both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis were employed in
this study. The researcher built up quantitative and qualitative inquiries along within the study to
have comprehensive focus on IBL classroom. Integrating quantitative and qualitative data
produced reliable and valid results.
3.2.1 Triangulation:
Triangulation method multiplies conformity of concluded results by bridging data from
different resources to mutual ground on which each assessment of a utilized instrument assures
the others. Combining evaluations of research tools deepens understanding of the context. The
researcher in this study established triangulation throughout the following data collection
techniques:
1. Questionnaire.
2. Tests.
3. Interviews.
47
4. Content-coding analysis.
Triangulation method of data analysis minimizes individuality and inadequacy of concluded
results since it matches common themes found in angels of exploration such as the test, interview
and the questionnaire. In the present study, triangulation interconnects the advantages of
qualitative and quantitative research methods that are established in a multi-faceted way. The
quantitative data is collected from the students‘ questionnaire and the test is triangulated with a
form of qualitative data throughout teachers‘ interview to investigate the effects of IBL on
students‘ language skills and other learning skills. On the other hand, the current study
qualitatively analyzes Grice maxims in students‘ speeches emerged in collaborative groups of
inquiry which are attached by quantitative analysis for these maxims to investigate if IBL affects
students‘ pragmatic awareness. Using multiple research techniques mainly qualitative and
quantitative methods in investigating same area of inquiry aims to increase the credibility of the
study (Jick, 1979). This results in a better research design that is characterized by valid and
reliable conclusions. Creswell and Miller (2000) described triangulation as ―a validity procedure
where researchers look for convergence among multiple and different sources of information to
form themes or categories in a study‖.
3.3 Participants:
One hundred and twenty (120) female students from two schools belong to the Directorate of
Education in Hebron were the selected as subjects of this study. Students selected enrolled in
ninth grades at Rushdia Al-Mutaseb Primary school and Al-Mazinya Primary school. Four
sections are selected to present the experimental and the control groups. Fifty students who were
involved in both sections (A/B) at Rushdiya AL-Muhtaseb were exposed to the experiment of
Inquiry-Based Learning IBL. The results of the experimental group in Rushdiya AL-Muhtaseb
48
were compared to other seventy peers‘ from Al-Mazinya school whose teacher remained same
teaching instruction. Both control and experimental students sat for language exam, in addition
to questionnaire filling. However, speeches of twenty students at Rushdya Al-Muhtaseb primary
school were recorded and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively to examine if IBL affects
students‘ pragmatic awareness. Although, control and experimental groups are selected from
distinct schools, both are situated in the same area and they are about two kilometers far away.
This means that students have similar conditions since they belong to the same community. They
are intentionally selected to be two different schools in order to promote experimental group
encouragement and to avoid sensitivity among students who will not be exposed to IBL
experiment if they were selected from same school.
On the other hand, the study included twenty English language teachers who completely or
partially follow IBL method of instruction to be interviewed. The study included all language
teachers who implement IBL approach in schools of Hebron regardless the fact that that if IBL is
fully-adopted in their language classes or partially.
3.4 Data Collection:
Qualitative and quantitative data was collected to answer the research questions. As for the
quantitative data, all students will be exposed to an academic achievement pre- and post-tests
which are adopted from the content of the Palestinian English curriculum for the Ninth Grade.
Also, Questionnaires were also filled by all selected students who reflected their own evaluation
of IBL as an approach on their English language and other learning skills before and after the
experiment. Regarding students‘ pragmatic awareness, calculations of implicatures found in
students‘ speeches were take place.
49
As for the qualitative data, language teachers were also asked to set for a semi-structured
interview to collect data upon their reflections of Inquiry-Based teaching experiences. Also, the
researcher recorded authentic four classes of teacher-students who are selected to investigate the
politeness strategies used in inquiry classroom. the recording also included students speeches in
collaborative groups to examine if pragmatic awareness arises in the light of Inquiry-Based
Learning.
3.5 Procedures:
The experiment of IBL is basically targeted ninth graders who were involved in two schools
of Hebron. Students in both schools were exposed to similar material of the Palestinian English
curriculum for ninth grade. Four unites were taught to each group. The control group was
exposed to traditional teaching methods, whereas the experimental group was exposed to
Inquiry-Based Learning context where they are going to be engaged to the leaning material,
enhanced to pose questions, and gathered in groups to start their investigations. Students in
collaborative inquiry groups discussed their ideas to construct their knowledge. Finally students
shared constructed rules or knowledge with other groups.
The teacher‘s role in IBL focuses on facilitation and monitoring the classroom interaction.
The teacher helps students in doing textbook activities which involve the four skills: listening,
speaking, reading, and writing. The teacher encourages the students and supports them to
investigate for the required knowledge. A permanent feedback is introduced for students to have
effective group participations.
To illustrate more, the researcher approached the participants of the study throughout the
followings:
50
 Setting for Pre-test: Both experimental control and students were asked to set for doing
a pre-diagnostic test in the beginnings of February, 2016. This test is designed to make
sure that both groups have identical level of language achievement before actual use of
IBL.
 Filling pre-questionnaire: Both experimental control and students were asked to fill a
questionnaire before beginning the Inquiry experience.
 Setting for post-test: Both experimental control and students were asked to set for doing
post- test which is equivalent to the pre-test to investigate if there is a statistical
significance in the results of the experimental group compared to the control. The post-
test had been held in half of May, 2016.
 Filling post-questionnaire: Both experimental control and students were asked to fill the
same questionnaire they filled out before the experiment to examine if there is a statistical
difference in experimental students‘ responses towards IBL after finalizing the
experiment. That would be compared to the results of the control group‘s.
 Setting for an Interview: Selected language teachers had been asked to set for an
interview to investigate their perspectives towards IBL.
 Content-coding Analysis: Authentic speeches of teacher-students and student-student
interaction throughout collaborative group work had been recorded and transcribed four
times. Two times at the beginning use of IBL and the other two times at the ending of the
experiment. These recordings had been exposed to content-coding analysis in the light of
Brown and Levinson‘s theory of ―Politeness‖ (1987) and Grice‘s ―Implicature‖ (1975).
51
3.5.1 Teacher’s Training:
Before an inquiry mechanisms start, the teacher of the experimental group was trained about
how to implement the method of IBL in the classroom, modeling community of inquiry (COI),
the four types of IBL as well as, steps of IBL should be presented and explained to students.
Three months of training focused on primarily Modeling a community of inquiry (COI) in the
classroom is the first step that the teacher should take into an account before start the experiment
of Inquiry to prepare students to openly communicate and build shared understanding. It depends
on the teachers‘ skillful abilities to promote their presence, social and cognitive factors
(Andresen, 2009). The followings can be helpful to establish a community of Inquiry:
 Model social presence: ―To increase social presence, the instructor can model social cues,
such as being more personal or maintaining social norms, which can encourage students
to follow suit‖ (Bassani, 2011; Molseed, 2011).
 Promoting social presence in Inquiry-Based classrooms may support an atmosphere that
stimulates maximizing cognitive presence.
 Select a topic of discussion that promotes interaction and critical thinking.
 ―Provide prompt but modest feedback. Expert facilitation is often necessary to elicit
higher levels of cognitive presence‖ (Pawan et al., 2003; Yang et al., 2005).
 Facilitate Purposefully: ―Specific techniques, such as questioning and assuming a
challenging stance, were found to stimulate critical thinking‖ (Pawan et al., 2003; Yang
et al., 2005).
 Encourage peers to facilitate: ―The act of facilitation does not have to be solely assumed
by the instructor. Peer facilitation appears to stimulate discussion among the group‖
(Rourke & Anderson, 2002).
52
On the other hand, the training centered the teacher on mission of the teacher is to engage
students to the learning material by offering them a help to combine the text material with their
social settings. While the involvement emerges in the classroom, students are encouraged to
produce their questions. The teacher may enhance students to question by asking opening
questions that let them critically pose their own which will center the core concepts of the
learning material. Also, The researcher depended on analyzing some YouTube videos that
included actual language classes of Inquiry-Based Learning, the teacher was trained on how to
implement some activities of IBL such as designing mind maps of questions, internet research
techniques, making interviews, scaffolding textbook material into subjects and after all into
questions, ideas of engaging students to reflect their knowledge by presentations, posters, or
paragraphs, enhancing students on eliciting knowledge through means of digital media and
sharing stories through collaborative groups.
As for the next step, the teacher trained on how to implement the stages of using IBL. The
followings are going to be implemented sequentially according to (Bateman, 1990):
 Asking questions that matters, either they are formulated by a teacher or a student.
 Group Organization: students will be clustered in six groups for each experimental class.
Each group consists of five students. The teacher must pay much attention to the
students‘ level of proficiency. Each group should include different levels of language
performance ―high, intermediate, low‖. An explanation of group-work rules would be
highlighted, mainly, works distribution among group members which must be equally
divided.
 Investigation and gathering data for the questions are through research.
53
 Create-shaping the new knowledge discovered into a product (paper, presentation,
video…etc).
 Discussion and sharing the conclusions with others.
 Reflection and looking for students insights and asking what they learned, what they have
accomplished and what new issues they like to discover in further classes.
3.6 Instrumentation:
The present study investigated the effects of IBL on students‘ language skills, other learning
skills, performance and attitudes towards IBL. To achieve the purposes of the study tools and
instruments were built upon these purposes and they were refereed by professors and specialists
in the fields of language and education. Students sat to do pre-test before the actual
implementation of the IBL method and they were asked to do post-test after three and half
months of IBL experience. The test results of the experimental group were compared to the
control‘s throughout ANCOVA statistical test. Simultaneously, all participants were asked to fill
pre-and post-questionnaire to achieve the purposes of the study mentioned. Quantitative results
of the test and the questionnaire were compared to qualitative analysis of a teachers‘ interview
that was made by face to face meetings. Regarding the interaction in the context of Inquiry,
authentic speeches of twenty participants and their teacher‘s facilitation were recoded four times
and analyzed in the light of Brown and Levinson‘s theory of Politeness. These recordings were
also analyzed to investigate if IBL can develop students‘ pragmatic competence by calculating
Grice maxims emerged in students‘ speeches before and after the experiment. In addition to that,
maxims were qualitatively analyzed.
54
3.6.1 The Tests:
Before starting actual experience of IBL, a diagnostic test involved both experimental and
control groups who participated in IBL experiment in order to make sure that both groups have
same level of achievement in language skills (listening, reading, writing and speaking). The pre-
test consisted of four sections each diagnosed students‘ achievement in each language skill. The
sections are also equally-marked by 10 points for each that wholly-totaled by 40 points in the
final marking calculation of the test. The questions of the test are all adopted form the Palestinian
English Curriculum for Ninth Grade (see Appendix A). These questions are chosen from the
units determined by the Palestinian Ministry of Education to be studied during the first academic
semester. Students are informed that the test results will not be included in the final results in
their certificates of academic achievements. However, they are asked to do their best in the exam
to reflect their actual level and to provide the researcher with appropriate information that can be
helpful in further steps. Equivalent to the pre-test, a post-test is similarly designed for
experimental and control groups to examine if there is a significant difference in students‘
academic achievement compared to the previous assessment. The post-test has an identical
structure of the pre-test in terms of aims, source, marking and evaluation. Although the questions
are adopted from the Palestinian English curriculum and have mutual aims and characteristics,
the questions are taken from units that dedicated to the second academic semester according to
the Ministry‘s regulations (see Appendix B).
3.6.2 The Questionnaire:
The students‘ questionnaire was developed to investigate the effects of IBL, from students‘
perspectives, on language and learning skills, interaction in the classroom and their own
55
responses towards IBL (see Appendix C). Questionnaire is the most common method of data
collection for examining opinions and perspectives of a large group of participants (Mackey &
Gass, 2005). In the current study, it included thirty two items distributed in three main domains
which were designed to answer the questions of the study and achieve its purposes. Results of
the questionnaire will be also compered to test statistical examination and teachers‘ interview.
So, triangulation technique of analyzing data will be promoted. The first-twelve item domain
was developed to examine the effects of IBL on students‘ language and learning skills. This
domain was associated to answer the first two research questions. The results of this domain
were also designed to be compared to the statistical results of tests and teachers‘ interview that
reflects their perceptions towards IBL. The second domain was composed of ten items that
prepared to reflect students‘ attitudes towards IBL experience. Items of domain two will be
compared to teachers‘ evaluations of their students‘ attitudes in inquiry classes, while, the third
domain was constructed to understand the interaction in inquiry context. It also aims to provide
the researcher with further knowledge about students‘ attitudes towards the experience of
inquiry.
Students can respond to items by putting a (✔) into the scale that appeals to them. It is a five
Likert scale which includes the following evaluations: (strongly agree (5), agree (4), neutral (3),
disagree (2) and strongly disagree (1) options) and they are graded from one point (1) to five
points (5), as appears above. The participant can give the highest or lowest point to each item
that represents their satisfactions towards.
3.6.3 The Interview:
A semi-structured interview was designed to investigate the effects of IBL on students‘
language and learning skills from the perspectives of English teachers. It was also prepared to
56
reflect teachers‘ responses towards IBL strategy in terms of their teaching style, challenges,
changes in the classroom, students‘ reflections and achievement (see Appendix D). The
interview consisted of seven questions that typically started by asking teachers to describe their
way of using IBL to understand the reality of implementing IBL in their classes and to make sure
that IBL had been correctly utilized. This question was initially asked to help the researcher to
build on while analyzing further responses and details of IBL experiences, while the next five
following questions were destined to analyze changes escorted by IBL method including
teaching instruction, students‘ learning abilities and role taking in the classroom. To illustrate
more, questions two and three were included to examine if teachers changed language instruction
and to provide the researcher by details about these changes accompanied by. On the other hand,
the following three questions were asked to analyze teachers‘ responses and satisfaction of
students‘ learning capabilities, involvement and perspectives in IBL classrooms. Finally, the
interview ended up by highlighting teachers‘ recommendations and changes to decrease current
challenges that obstructed better use of IBL in language classroom.
3.7 Data Analysis
3.7.1 Statistical Analysis:

Statistical analysis for the tests and the questionnaires were performed by exposing
quantitative data to Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS), mainly, ANCOVA
examination. ANCOVA was selected due to the fact that it is statistically powerful examination
and it is used to increase the statistical power ―the ability to find a significant difference between
groups when one exists by reducing the within-group error variance‖ (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). In addition to the significance it tested, ANCOVA calculated the mean, standard deviation
upper and lower percentages for the control and experimental groups has been extracted.
57
In addition to that, T-test examination is prepared in order to make sure that means of the pre-
test and pre-questionnaire for both groups are equal. The effect of any new method of teaching
can be recognized if both groups have equal level of proficiency before starting any experiment
(Sawilowsky, Blair, 1992).
3.7.2 Content Analysis:
The researcher analyzed qualitative data which is collected throughout teachers‘ interview
and transcriptions of teacher-students interaction in inquiry collaborative group work distinctly.
As for the teachers‘ interview inductive approach had been adopted to analyze their perspectives
towards using IBL. According to (Burnard, Gill, Stewart, Treasure, & Chadwick, 2008, p. 429)
inductive approach involves ―analyzing data with little or no predetermined theory, structure or
framework and uses the actual data itself to derive the structure of analysis". Although data will
be categorized under the themes of interview that are; description of IBL approach adopted,
changes affected students and teachers teaching instructions, students responses towards,
challenges and recommendations accompanied by IBL, there will be no reference to any
theoretical background in thematic analysis of the interview. Aspects of interpretations,
categories of themes and areas of inquiries will develop the qualitative analysis of teachers’
perspectives. As for the scope of thematic content analysis, ―it is oriented to the reductive
processes formulated within the psychology of text processing‖ (Ballstead, et al, 1981; Dijk,
1980).
Regarding the pragmatic aspect of the present study, qualitative content coding analysis
which is theoretically-dependent technique was adopted. Based on Brown and Levinson‘s theory
of politeness, the researcher analyzed transcriptions of interactions in four inquiry classes to
examine politeness strategies used in teacher-student interaction. Also, students‘ pragmatic
58
awareness in inquiry classes was examined in the light of Grice maxims. Qualitative content
coding analysis adopted took place by following these steps (Berg, 2001):
 Preparation of data: In this step the researcher transcribed the data literally.
 Defining the unit or theme of analysis: Unit or theme of analysis means classifying the
content into themes which can be a word, phrase or a sentence.
 Developing categories and coding scheme: in this step the researcher developed sub-
categories and coding scheme for the analysis based on the theory adopted. In this
research of codes are categorized in the light of Brown and Levinson‘s theory of
politeness and Grice maxims that disobeys cooperative principle.
 Coding the text: After the coding consistency in the previous stage, it is important
to apply the coding process to the data.
 Drawing inferences on the basis of coding or themes: In this step, one has to draw
inferences on the basis of codes and categories generated.
 Presentation of results: Finally the researcher, present the results under each theme
with conclusions supported by authentic quotes or quantitative calculations from the
developed codes.
Later on, it is decided to include the Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory of politeness for
better interpretation of IBL context. First of all, politeness is determined by power which is in the
classroom has dominant effect on knowledge construction. Second, politeness shapes students‘
interaction that will not only determined by the borders of the language classroom but it also will
be inseparable other classes and during daily life practices. Therefore, teachers‘ critical
observation for students‘ interaction is valuable. Teachers also should be affect students behavior
and speech during their trails in establishing a community of inquiry.
59
As for enhancing students‘ abilities to be life-long lasted and not restricted to the borders of
the classroom, Inquiry based learning was originated also to develop social skills and interaction.
Understanding the conversational implicatures and the ability to perform language functions
appropriately in social contexts indicates students‘ pragmatic competence that will be reflected in
every day experience. As Bardovi-Harlig (2001) states: ―Without input, acquisition cannot take
place…we owe it to learners to help them interpret indirect speech acts as in the case of
implicatures‖ (p. 31). Students‘ ability to decode their messages and hide intention using maxims
reflects their complexity in using target language and consciences of their functions. Grice‘s
conversational implicatures (1975) will be utilized in order to check students‘ pragmatic
awareness after being exposed to the strategy of IBL.
This study integrates Inquiry-Based Learning, politeness in teacher-student interaction and
pragmatic awareness not only to focus on the Inquiry classroom to make it more comprehensive
for teachers and researchers but also due to the followings:
First, modeling a community of inquiry (COI) in the classroom is the first step that the teacher
should take into an account before start the experiment of Inquiry to prepare students to openly
communicate and build shared understanding. It depends on the teachers‘ skillful abilities to
promote their cognitive social presence (Andresen, 2009). Considering the steps mentioned in
the teachers‘ training above the cognitive presence depends basically teachers pedagogical
techniques that appears on students‘ development of language skills achievement while teacher‘s
social presence can be examined throughout analysis of teacher-student interaction.
On the other hand, the researcher examined the students‘ pragmatic awareness in this study
due to the fact that linguistic competence alone is not enough for learners of a language to be
competent in that language (Krasner, 1999). That is, learners need to be aware of the culturally
60
appropriate ways to address people, disagree with someone, express gratitude or make requests
(Peterson and Coltrane, 2003).
Therefore, taking an action to awareness-raising makes learners more sensitive to cultural
differences and language use (Kondo, 2004), especially, when 21st century learning skills are
needed to be promoted. Promotion of the 21st century skills basically depends on
communication, in which students‘ ability to understand and interpret messages is recognizable.
Exchanging messages in a communication requires utilizing several pragmatic functions (Eaton,
2010).
Students ability to address and interpret their messages are essential to achieve the skills of
21st century by transferring linguistic knowledge into conversations through which pragmatic
functions are utilized (Eaton, 2010).
3.8 Research Objectivity:
Regardless the fact that, there is no definite technique to achieve valid qualitative analysis, the
researcher tried to propose objective results and to avoid bias by peer reviews, clearly, English
supervisors and language teachers. English supervisors involved, have good experience in
classroom contexts and language issues. Other insights proposed by English supervisors were
taken into account when analyzing qualitative data. Moreover, an English supervisor attended
classes for experimental group when students presented final reflections of their investigations.
Further perspectives redirects the researcher towards better implementation by highlighting some
important remarks on students‘ performance and the use of IBL. On the other hand, tests done by
the experimental group had been corrected by the teacher of the experimental group at Al-
61
Mazinya school. Similarly, English language teacher at Rushdya Al-Muhtaseb School corrected
control group‘s tests.
3.9 Validity and Reliability:
The validity of research tools had been established throughout checking out the adequacy of
the designed instruments to the purposes of the study. Tests, questionnaire and the interview had
been presented to four professors who teach at Palestinian Universities and further three English
supervisors who finished MA. Studies in the field of language and literature and they currently
work at Directorate of Education at Hebron. Adjustments and modifications had been made
based on the referees‘ suggestions and recommendations. Therefore, instruments would
appropriately associate to achieve the purposes of the study. In addition to that, triangulation
research design that combines quantitative and qualitative data techniques constructs valid and
reliable results since common themes are correlated and compared to draw a comprehensive
conclusion (Jick, 1979; Creswell & Miller 2000). Also, Mason (2002:190) opined the value of
triangulation, "Encourages the researcher to approach their research questions from different
angles and to explore their intellectual problems in a more rounded, multi-faceted way".
On the other hand, tests had been exposed to Cronbach‘s Alpha test to examine the internal
consistency which calculates the extraction reliability coefficient. The results show that
reliability coefficient in this study equals (0.80). That indicates that this tool is characterized by a
considerable reliability for the research.
Referees List:
1. Dr. Hazem Bader Faculty of Arts/ Hebron University

2. Dr. Mohammed Tamimi Language Center/ Palestine Polytechnic University
3. Dr. Nabil Al-Jondi Faculty of Education/ Hebron University
62
4. Dr. Manal Abu-Munshar Faculty of Education/ Hebron University
5. Miss. Shireen Mujahed English Supervisor/ Directorate of Education at Hebron
6. Mr. Nidal Katebeh Bader English Supervisor/ Directorate of Education at Hebron
7. Mr. Hasan Karableyeh English Supervisor/ Directorate of Education at Hebron
3.10 Conclusion:
In brief, this section explained the every detail of methods of data collection and analysis.
Triangulation research design has been found to be the best to combine common themes of IBL
context. A comprehensive-vivid image about the experiment of inquiry would be portrayed.
Qualitative and qualitative analysis of research tools would help to answer the research questions
and achieve the aims proposed. In addition to the results of the tests, questionnaire and interview
that examined effects of IBL on language achievement, learning skills and attitude, further
qualitative analysis was used to understand the learning context of inquiry and to examine if
students acquire pragmatic awareness. Since many experimental studies ignored the development
of students‘ pragmatic competence, the experience of IBL included this element by testing
students‘ authentic speeches on the bases of Grice‘s implicatures. Not only, the instructional
method of teaching has an effect on students‘ interlanguage development, but also power of
politeness has a dominant power on students‘ knowledge construction. The theoretical
framework Brown and Levinson‘s ―politeness‖ is utilized to examine strategies found in verbal
communication.
63
Chapter Four
Results and Discussion
4.1 Introduction:
This chapter presents the results of the study followed by detailed discussion. The chapter
starts by presenting the statistical analysis of quantitative data brought by the test and the
questionnaire. After that the research introduces the analysis of the interview. Regarding the
pragmatic aspect, the researcher moves to present the qualitative analysis of the teacher-student
interaction and the implicaure used by the students. Some quantitative calculations are made to
support the qualitative analysis of implicatures.
4.2 Tests Results:
In reference to the first research question “Are there any statistically significant differences
in performance between the experimental and control groups based on students’ general
performance in the pre and posttests in writing, reading, listening and speaking due to Inquiry
Based Learning?”, test results answers the first research question.
To investigate the effects of IBL on students‘ language achievement, ANCOVA statistical
analysis is used for pre-and post-tests results of both groups. Students‘ level in the pre-test must
be similar to measure the difference that takes place in the results of experimental participants
compared to their control peers. To ensure that both groups have similar level of achievement,
the pre-test is conducted. Means of both groups are not distinctly different. No significant
difference appears in the students‘ level before starting the experiment. But after finalizing the
experiment vast observable difference appears as it is illustrated below.
64
Table (6): The Results of T-Test Examination for Pre-Test
Group N M SD d.f Sig.
Experimental 70 24.69 7.13 122 .256
Control 50 23.12 6.11
The pre-test results show equality of means between control and experimental group that are
enrolled before starting the experiment. This means that both experimental and control groups
have similar language level.
Table (7): The Results of ANCOVA Examination for the Tests

Experimental 70 30.85 6.11 -5.752- 0.01
Control 50 23.64 7.77
The researcher investigated if there is a significant difference between control and
experimental groups after finalizing the experiment. Table (7) reveals that there is a significant
difference between control and experimental groups in favor of the experimental. The
significance equals (0.01) which is considered as good because it is less than (0.05). Table (7)
generally answers the first research question as mentioned above. However, detailed analysis for
language skills is required to fully-answer the research question number (1). For that purpose, the
following table is established in reference to the post examination of the results.
Table (8): The Results of ANCOVA Examination for Language Skills

Listening Experimental 50 8.01 1.36 1 0.00
Control 70 6.30 1.99
Reading Experimental 50 7.95 1.30 1 0.00
Control 70 6.08 1.94
Speaking Experimental 50 7.58 1.52 1 0.00
Control 70 5.71 1.94
Writing Experimental 50 7.46 1.56 1 0.00
Control 70 5.56 2.00
65
Table (8) reveals that there is a significant difference in all language skills. This means that
Inquiry-Based Learning has positively affected students‘ language skills. Although it is obvious
that the student have better improved in receptive skills due to the highest two means that they
scored. Students‘ record (8.01) in listening which is the highest mean scored. In reference to
reading, students mean is (7.95) which is a little bit lower than the listening‘s. Regardless the fact
that means presented in table two are somehow similar, it seems to be that the students need a lot
of practice to produce appropriate language forms.
4.2.1 Discussion of Tests’ Results:
The results of the study indicate that majority of the students have performed well in the skill-
based. Similarly, the statistical analysis if the questionnaire concludes that most of the students
reveal that IBL can develop their language skills and other learning skills. Although there are no
currently conducted studies to investigate the effect of IBL on language skills and achievement –
to the best knowledge of the researcher, other confirmed that IBL improved students‘
achievement in science classroom This supports (Alameddine &Ahwal, 2016; Applebee,2003;
White et al, 1999; Scrugges & Masteropier,1993) conclusions in their empirical studies they
conducted
To illustrate more, students‘ achievement in the pre-and post-tests was significantly different
in favor of the experimental group. Although both groups have somehow similar means before
the experiment started, experimental students vastly exceed the levels of their control peers. In
the pre-test, the mean of the control group equals (23.1) and it equals (24.6) for the experimental.
This means that participants have similar level of achievement but, after the experiential students
were exposed to IBL instruction, a great difference in achievement papers. Although, instruction
for the control group remains traditional, their level is slightly improved after they set for post-
66
test. Control group mean is (23.6). It is expected to develop slightly because they keep
instructed, regardless the fact that they are traditionally taught, but larger opportunity of time is
given to practice English. However, experimental students scored a great higher mean that equals
(29.9). The significant difference between students score is (0.01). This indicates that the
instruction of IBL is sufficient to cause change.
Moreover, the post-test mean scores in language skills; listening, speaking reading and
writing are notable in the post-test. Improvements in favor of the experimental students occur
since they scored higher means than the controls‘ as follows:
Regarding the receptive skills
 Means of listening are (8.01) & (6.30) and the significance is (0.01)
 Means in reading are (7.95) & (6.08) and the significance is (0.01).
Regarding the productive skills
 Means of speaking are (7.58) & (5.71) and the significance is (0.01)
 Means of writing are (7.46) & (5.56) and the significance is (0.01)
It is quiet notable that the experimental group exceled their control peers in all language
skills. Receptive skills are better improved than productive skills. That is because the students‘
exposure to digital learning tools in the classroom and reading from different resources enabled
them to develop receptive skills. The opportunity provided for students to read and listen in- and
out the classroom is larger than that opened for them to present their findings in written or oral
forms due to limited time available, although all participated in the reflection stage.
IBL as a student-centered approach in which the student themselves undertake the
responsibility of learning throughout a process of investigation. Students search for information,
use order thinking skills making it more suitable for high- and middle- achievers to construct
67
knowledge by their own. However, low-achievers are participating in group work by sharing
their peers doing some simple jobs like preparing power point presentation, taking photos,
preparing work schedules etc. they may encounter a difficulty in doing complex tasks that needs
high-order thinking skills. Zohar and Dori (2003) have stated that teachers may face challenging
problems when order thinking skills are required to build knowledge or achieve pedagogical
goals. So, teachers need to implement new teaching strategies for long period of time is
necessarily must be adopted. In reference to (Kahle et al, 2000) investigation that conducted to
examine the effects of IBL on low-and middle achieving student in science and math classes,
IBL could fill the gap between students‘ level and develop students‘ level after a considerable
attention taken for students especially those who achieve low scores.
4.3 Questionnaire Results:
In reference to the second research question, “Are there any statistically significant
differences in students’ attitudes towards Inquiry Based Learning in the experimental and
control groups between the pre and post questionnaires?” questionnaire results will answer this
question.
Table (9): T-Test Result of Equality of Means in Pre-Questionnaire

Experimental 70 3.91 .392 4 2
Control 50 3.72 .388
As resented in table (9), the results pre-questionnaire show that both control and experimental
group have similar attitude towards using IBL in the language classroom. This result reveals
their attitude before starting the experiment. The results of pre-questionnaire are compared to the
ANCOVA test results of the questionnaire as seen in table (10).
68
Table (10): The Results of ANCOVA Examination for the Questionnaire
Experimental 70 4.173 .284 1 0.01
Control 50 3.872 .613
This table shows that there is a significant difference in the attitudes of control and
experimental after the experiment has finished. There is a significant difference in favor of the
experimental group. Similarly, the significance equals (0.01) which is considered as a good value
since it doesn‘t exceed (0.05). However, the following tables (6,7,8,9,10,11) present illustrative
results of the post-questionnaire.
Table (11): The Results of ANCOVA Examination for the First Domain of the
Questionnaire
Experimental 70 4.168 .317 1 0.01
Control 50 3.907 .622
With reference to the first Domain, “Students’ perspectives towards the influence of IBL on
language skills and other learning skills”. It is obvious that students generally agreed that IBL
positively impacts their language and leaning skills. Table (12) illustrates skills development
emerged after the use of IBL.
Table (12): The Percentages of Experimental Students’ Responses towards The First
Domain in Post- Questionnaire
Inquiry-based learning Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. improves my reading
0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 61.7% 31.9%
comprehension skills.
2. improves my speaking skills. 0.0% 6.4% 12.8% 53.2% 27.7%
3. improves my listening skills. 0.0% 0.0% 21.3% 36.2% 42.6%
4. improves my writing skills. 0.0% 2.1% 6.4% 59.6% 31.9%
5. improves my ability to use
0.0% 2.1% 14.9% 48.9% 34.0%
grammatical structures correctly.
6. enables me to use words in 0.0% 8.5% 23.4% 57.4% 10.6%
69
context.
7. develops my critical thinking skills. 2.1% 2.1% 17.0% 53.2% 25.5%
8. develops my ability to ask
0.0% 0.0% 21.3% 51.1% 27.7%
questions.
9. enhances my ability of making
connections between textbook 0.0% 6.4% 27.7% 40.4% 25.5%
content and daily life experiences..
10. improves my research skills. 0.0% 6.4% 25.5% 57.4% 10.6%
11. enables me to construct knowledge
0.0% 2.1% 31.9% 55.3% 10.6%
with little guidance of my teacher.
12. develops my ability of gain
0.0% 4.3% 21.3% 53.2% 21.3%
meaningful knowledge.
Regarding students‘ perspectives‘ towards their skills‘ development, it is clear enough that the
experimental student agree that IBL improve their language skills and other leaning skills that
students utilize in the process of inquiry. In terms of the receptive skills, (42.6%) percent of
students strongly agree that IBL has improved listening skills, whereas (31.9%) percent of
students strongly agree that reading is developed throughout IBL. In the other hand, (31.9%)
percent of students strongly agree that students‘ ability to write. Also, other hand, (27.7%) of
students strongly agrees that their speaking skills have been better improved. On other words,
both productive and receptive skills are improved.
Complex skills of Inquiry-Based Learning have been also developed through considerable
practice. It is clear that students have developed their abilities to think critically, to make
connections between learning text book and surrounding context, to improve research skills and
to ask questions. Significantly, students reveal that they become able to learn in a student-
centered environment (55.3%) percent of students confirm that they get able to construct
knowledge with little guidance of their teacher and further (10.6%) of students agree on that.
In conclusion, It is obvious that experimental students pointed out that they there is a notable
correlation between the use of IBL and development of students‘ language and learning skills.
70
IBL as a type of instruction statistically prove its efficiency to positively influence students
language skills, complex practical skills and replacing classroom setting to student-centered.
Table (13): The Results of ANCOVA Examination for the Second Domain of the
Questionnaire
Experimental 70 4.202 .359 1 0.04
Control 50 3.873 .698
In response to the second Domain, “Students’ general perspectives towards (IBL)”,
ANCOVA post results for the second domain show that the students are generally positive
towards this method of instruction. The significance difference equals (0.04) which is considered
as a good on that doesn‘t exceed (0.05).
Table (14): The Percentages of Experimental Students’ Responses towards The Second
Disagree Agree
13. is an effective way to learn foreign
languages. 0.0% 0.0% 12.8% 53.2% 34.0%
14. enhances motivation for

4.3% 0.0% 10.6% 51.1% 34.0%
learning
15. makes me more engaged in
0.0% 2.1% 29.8% 25.5% 42.6%
language classroom.
16. compared with other learning
approaches, Inquiry-based learning
2.1% 0.0% 17.0% 48.9% 31.9%
functions better in drawing my
attention.
17. integrates learning with fun and
0.0% 2.1% 10.6% 53.2% 34.0%
excitement.
18. is the most suitable approach
among learning approaches for 0.0% 4.3% 10.6% 44.7% 40.4%
learning language topics.
19. maintains participation in
0.0% 12.8% 17.0% 44.7% 25.5%
language classroom.
20. reinforces my learning and
17.0% 27.7% 36.2% 8.5% 10.6%
understanding.
21. I don‘t like the teacher using the
42.6% 19.1% 17.0% 12.8% 8.5%
inquiry teaching method in the
71
language class.
22. decreases my anxiety level in
0.0% 0.0% 12.8% 53.2% 34.0%
language classroom.
It appears that the students feel that use of the IBL influences the levels of interest, enjoyment
and efficiency for the experimental group. The followings generally summarize students‘ attitude
towards the use of IBL in language classroom:
• Interest and Enjoyment: it appears that students‘ interest towards learning English throughout
IBL is ultimate positive since more than half of the student respond by agreement towards items
(14,15,17,21) which all indicate that IBL increases students‘ interest, enjoyment, and
involvement.
• Efficiency: In response to items (13,16,18,19,22), students revealed IBL is efficient method
that attracts their attention, promotes better understanding of language issues and most
importantly students show their preference towards using IBL in the language classroom
compared to other learning approaches. They also reveal that they like their teacher more when
IBL is implemented in language class. However, it seems to be that the student miscomprehend
item (20), because they responded to all items positively except that one.
Table (15): The Results of ANCOVA Examination for the Third Domain of the
Questionnaire
Experimental 70 4.214 .339 1 0.00
Control 50 3.828 .653
Table (15) reveals that the students show their preference to interact with each other in IBL
learning context. The statistical result of domain (3) ―Students’ perspectives towards the
influence (IBL) on interaction in the classroom” shows a significant difference in favor of the
experimental group.
72
Table (16): The Percentages of Experimental Students’ Responses towards The Third
Disagree Agree
23. enhances collaborative work. 0.0% 0.0% 12.8% 53.2% 34.0%
24. enhances interaction in class. 4.3% 0.0% 10.6% 51.1% 34.0%
25. stimulates students‘ discussion. 0.0% 2.1% 29.8% 25.5% 42.6%
26 improves peer's ability to develop
2.1% 0.0% 17.0% 48.9% 31.9%
common knowledge.
27. allows me to share knowledge
0.0% 2.1% 10.6% 53.2% 34.0%
with peers.
28. allows me to reflect on what I
0.0% 4.3% 10.6% 44.7% 40.4%
learnt.
29. in language classroom enhances
0.0% 12.8% 17.0% 44.7% 25.5%
self-investigation.
30. includes polite discussions with
4.0% 4.5% 36.2% 22.6% 27.7%
peers.
31. causes harassments among peers. 12.8% 8.5% 17.0% 42.6% 19.1%
32. I don’t like the inquiry learning
and I prefer the teacher to deliver
0.0% 0.0% 12.8% 53.2% 34.0%
instruction by giving lectures
instead asking questions.
The overall percentages for items 2.8% 4.5% 17.9% 45.1% 29.7%
IBL satisfies intended students‘ interaction in Inquiry-Based classroom. Table (16) reveals
that students' collaboration after finalizing the experiment of inquiry is enhanced through IBL.
Collaboration is an important step of IBL process which has scored the percent of (57.8 %)
reflecting favorable agreement towards. In the presence of appropriate politeness in the inquiry
context, harassment among participants is decreased. Students‘ interaction in the inquiry groups
can stimulate group discussion, peer ability to develop common knowledge, sharing and
reflecting on investigations since more than (60%) percent is scored for these items. It is obvious
that the students don‘t only improve communication and interactional skills, as presented above,
but also more than (65%) percent is scored for item (29) that focuses on students‘ individual
ability to make self-investigation.
73
4.3.1 Discussion of Questionnaire Results:
Regarding the third research question “What is the general attitude of the respondents
within the experimental group towards Inquiry Based Learning”, discussion of the
questionnaire‘s results, as well as, teachers‘ interview will answer this question. The following
part quantitatively analyzes students‘ attitudes from their own perspective.
4.3.1.2 Students’ Attitude towards Using Inquiry-Based Learning:
The finding of this study reveals that the attitudes of students involved in the experiment of
inquiry are dominantly positive. Aside from favorable, joyful and motivating learning, students
engagement and interest towards language classroom allow them to gain further complex
learning skills that are considered as long life ones. Students‘ attitude towards learning English
language is increasingly becoming positive. The statistical analysis of students‘ contribution of
IBL instruction to learning process is of great pedagogical value, particularly, on language skills
that have scored considerable significance for all language skills (reading, writing, listening and
speaking). In addition to that, students‘ ability to produce grammatical sentences that include
appropriate expressions has been better improved.
Based on the statistical analysis, the use of IBL pushes students steps forwards to attain the
21st century skills. Among the central skills of 21st is that the students could build their ability to
become autonomous learners. It appears that learning by inquiry supports the acquisition of these
skills in various ways throughout the process of investigation. These skills are preciously
promoted when students are motivated to build individual reflections, as well as, throughout
interactional activities in which participants behave politely. Students could develop personal
and interactional skills. Most of the students reveal that they are able to critically think and
making connections between their every-day experiences and leaning material and research skills
74
to develop meaningful knowledge. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (http://www.p21.org/)
enhanced this point: ‗when students realize the connection between what they are learning and
real world issues that matter to them, their motivation soars, and so does their learning‘ (p. 3).
On the other hand, students‘ positive reactions towards collaboration in IBL classes promote
the success of the experiment. With reference to Leadbeater (2008), collaboration is the best
teaching technique that can be adopted ―learning is best done with people rather than to or for
them. It is more effective when learners are participants rather than merely recipients‘ (p. 19).
Learners in collaborative groups work of inquiry are not only responsible for handling a process
of questioning, setting procedures, collecting data, analyzing and reflecting on, but they are also
responsible for each-others‘ leaning as well as their owns. According to (Srinivas, cited in Laal,
Laal and Khattami-Kermanshahi, 2012), there is a notable evidence that collaboration in Inquiry-
Based Learning contributes for individual and collective knowledge growth. In contrast to
traditional-based classes, students‘ engagement in Inquiry-Based Learning can develop content
knowledge and gradually learn complex skills of the 21st century skills, such as questioning,
reapplying knowledge to similar social contexts and critical thinking (Barron & Darling-
Hammond, 2008).
However, if the collaboration in this study is not taking place in polite and engaging setting,
teaching pedagogical goals will no longer be achieved. Students‘ responses towards polite
interaction and collaboration are obviously positive since more that (60%) percent is scored for
these aspects in inquiry classroom. It can be concluded that politeness is complementary for
proper interaction or collaboration. The power of politeness in the classroom exceeds our needs
of being respected and accepted, it is a monitoring tool for helping students building a
meaningful knowledge. Benceze (2009) throughout his investigation about ―Polite directiveness‖
75
in science inquiry, stresses on the vital function of politeness in inquiry classroom states that
―uses of polite discourse practices for facilitating students‘ science inquiry activities has many
strengths. The summer institute that emphasized relationships between teacher discourse
practices and student engagement in science inquiry activities did appear to be effective,
particularly for a teacher whose use of politeness in interactions with students appeared to be
associated with their relatively low level of engagement‖.
Healthy relationships in inquiry class room offers opportunities for students to get motivated,
engaged to participate in the classroom and co-creating new knowledge. Leadbeater (2008) states
that ―individuals learn best when they are supported by the right set of relationships that
motivate, engage, care about and reward them‖ (p.22). Relationships in the classroom is
definitely critical because it don‘t only affect the process of learning, it establishes their
identities.
4.4 The Interview Results:
The qualitative analysis of the teacher‘s interview provides further details about how IBL
takes place in the language classroom and explores aspects of influence regarding students‘
language performance, attitude and changes accompanied by IBL. It ends up by teachers‘
recommendations and challenges they encounter throughout their attempts to appropriately
implement IBL method. The qualitative analysis of the interview is triangulated with the
questionnaire to combine themes of investigation. This section, supports the statistical analysis of
the tests and the questionnaire, additionally, it presents some specifications. The analysis below
answers the third research question which is concerned by the students‘ general attitude towards
IBL form the teachers‘ perspectives. It also supports the results of the first and second research
questions by providing some details about areas of development and expanding knowledge about
76
IBL learning context. The following part qualitatively analyzes students‘ attitudes from their
teacher‘s view.
4.4.1 Discussion of the Teachers' Interview Results:
1. Regarding the first research question; ―Describe how you are typically using (IBL) in your
classroom‖. It is obvious that more than half of the teachers don‘t know how IBL method can be
used in the language classroom appropriately can. Fifty five percent (55%) of teachers reveal that
they are partially using the method of IBL due to their lack of adequate knowledge about the way
that this method can be utilized. However, personal attempts of expanding their proficiency in
teaching and the desire to improve students‘ language performance motivated them to search for
further methods. Compared to those who partially use IBL in their classes, only forty five
percent (45%) of teachers involved in the study are fully-aware of the proper use IBL method.
Most of the teachers adopt the type of the structured-inquiry in which they themselves
formulate questions and draw orienting guidelines that can be followed throughout the process of
investigation. Only two teachers reveal that they adopt the open-inquiry technique which is a
purely a student-dependent type through which students undertake the responsibility of setting
plans, questions, procedures and reflection. Students who are involved in open-inquiry are eager
to have authentic knowledge by making empirical visits, interviews and by using YouTube
videos that match themes of inquiry. One of the teachers expresses that ―my students keep
thinking of learning outdoors, they like to visit sites and specialist. For example, they could
handle critical interviews with specialist in Palestinian heritage whom they meet in a visit to one
of the Palestinian museums‖. Other three teachers followed the strategy of guided-inquiry that
focuses on teachers‘ opening questions followed by students‘ formulation of procedures,
methods, plans and finally present their conclusions and reflections. Teachers who follow this
77
type reveal that their students need to be properly engaged in learning by enhancing them to
express their experiences towards themes presented in their text book and cooperatively work
after the teacher himself/herself formulate an open question, so they can ask secondary questions
based on their every-day experiences. However, more than half of the teachers involved, mix
between the traditional cooperative learning and Inquiry-Based Learning. They think that giving
students the opportunity to discuss textbook exercises in groups is IBL. Students are not involved
in a cycle of investigation by setting plans, strategies or methods of inquiry.
2. Regarding teachers‘ answers for the second question ―Has the way you are doing inquiry
instruction changes since last semesters‖. All teachers involved in the study, have confirmed that
the way they teach English has been gradually changed. In comparison with their method of
instruction in the previous semester they feel that their ability to provide skills and learning tools
for the students affects students motivation and preference to practice language skills mainly,
speaking. Other teachers agreed that their use of Inquiry-Based Learning has been a good
opportunity to help students to increase their input by authentic use of words and expressions.
3. In terms of changing roles in IBL classroom as stated in question three ―Have there been
changes in your classroom role as a teacher/ describe‖.
All teachers assure that classroom is moving steps towards student-centered setting. Teachers
who practice structured-inquiry reveal that their role is increasingly shifting from imparting
knowledge forwards facilitating a process of investigation by giving frequent feedback,
discussing steps of investigations and evaluating final products. However, a few teachers reveal
that they face difficulties with low-achievers through their frequent trails to engage them
properly in student-centered learning. Low-achievers are highly-dependent on teachers‘ written
notes that they rewrite on their notebooks and try to memorize with little or no comprehension.
78
Low-achievers can only produce short written unstructured sentences with no actual participation
in classroom activities. When they are involved in IBL context and as result of students‘
negotiation of meanings, little advancement is documented throughout reading and vocabulary
questions which are included in English exams throughout previous semester. But, still they need
a lot of language practice and notable engagement.
On the other hand, in open-inquiry classes teachers become ―learning coaches‖. In the context
of inquiry, Learning coaches try to develop students‘ skills by providing them with some
guidelines that vary from one student to another depending on their actual level and skills.
Teachers reinforce students‘ intellectual ability of criticizing, solving problems and most
importantly constructing meaningful and authentic knowledge. Learning coaches in open-ended
inquiry are surprised by students‘ language performance by the end of the semester. They don‘t
only score quite-better marks in the final exam, but they can critically reflect on themes and
handle considerable investigations.
4. Regarding question four, ―Since you began using an inquiry, have there been changes in
the way students work together?‖
Teachers emphasize on the quality of learning and teaching that are promoted by powerful
relationships. In inquiry-based learning classes teachers try to create healthy atmosphere that is
characterized by respect, trust and belongingness to enable students to share and construct
knowledge. Most of the teachers excelled in preparing fruitful learning community of inquiry.
However, Forty percent (40%) of teachers encountered refusal from high-achievers at the early
beginnings of IBL application in their classes. Teachers‘ permanent trails to develop a sense of
belongings fail to satisfy students desire to be the best of. High-achieving students are arrogant to
share their knowledge with competitive peers who all like to be the first in the class, especially,
79
when they meet at the same group. Thus, teachers attempt to allow these students handle more
complex investigation that imposes them to think of further interactional strategies to share
knowledge. These students feel incompetent to present considerable conclusion alone. They feel
that they need to communicate well with their competitive peers to accomplish the activity.
Hence, students get prepared for real investigations.
5. As for teachers‘ answers for question five, ―Since you began Inquiry-Based Learning, have
you noticed any changes in students‘ attitude towards learning English?‖
All teachers confirm that their students show their positive reactions in inquiry classes. IBL
learning increases in-class participation and explode the desire to take an active role via steps of
inquiry, regardless of their actual level. Although some teacher complains that low achieving
students don‘t satisfy their expectation and negatively respond to instruction by inquiry. By
permeant attention to these students they increasingly show interest towards language class.
These students are usually asked to rewrite questions on paper, distribute roles for group
member, control time, help peers to search for some short videos and finally low achievers
become able to introduce the group when conclusions are ready to be presented. Teachers who
use open-inquiry type are amazed by their students‘ conclusion, reflection and field activities
they handle. Student ability to establish meaningful knowledge as one of them describe is
competitive to peers in other countries. English language teacher of one of participating schools
won the ISA International School Award after the teacher involve students in Inquiry-Based
activities. In other words, IBL gradually change students‘ attitude towards English class. It seems
to be that using IBL in language classroom is favorable, active, joyful and lively.
6. Regarding ―Has Inquiry-Based Learning affected the quality of students‘ learning? If so, in
what aspects?‖
80
Teachers reveal that deeper learning is supported by actual practice. Teachers say that ‗doing
and applying knowledge simultaneously emphasize students‘ in the center of learning‘. Students
get motivated throughout highly participative and dynamic learning activities in inquiry classes.
Inquiry-Based Learning maximizes opportunities for teachers and students to meet, discuss and
share knowledge. Teachers agree that IBL can definitely develop students‘ learning complex
skills and language skills, mainly, listening and speaking. Teachers reveal that IBL develop
listening and speaking skills because they used to watch and bring short videos. Students tend to
imitate some words and expressions used in the videos and represent in their reflections. The
possibility to maintain using authentic material to IBL classroom that corresponds to the
textbook‘s content and using the digital literacy in the classroom assist thinking out doors. This
adds to the unique results of IBL instruction in two different ways. First, by providing students
with the opportunity that allows them to make self-investigation based on the questions they
themselves proposed. Second, by enhancing students to have greater focus and concentration on
learning preferable ways of expressing themselves in different situation. That usually takes place
by imitating speeches included and employing these in similar contexts.
7. In response to the final question, ―Are there any external factors that are influencing the
implementations of (IBL), such as major changes in school or district?
The researcher documented four main challenges that prevent engaging students in meaningful
process of inquiry; these are as follows:
First of all, although Inquiry-Based Learning creates compelling learning opportunities,
students sometimes lack the appropriate background knowledge about topics of inquiry. Thus,
teachers spend much time and effort to get them prepared for the steps inquiry by using other
resources, such as, videos, cartoons and post cards. Some teachers ask students to watch or read
81
some related material to the topics presented in textbooks before the class time. But, some
students don‘t have accessible technological research instruments. They depend on computer
labs at their schools which are not sometimes available before English classes.
Second, students don‘t have accessible research methods or techniques. Students are not
well-prepared to use the methods of research such as collecting data or making interviews.
However, it is not required for students to be accurately knowledgeable of scientific research
methods. Little or basic knowledge is indeed which is intended to be developed throughout
actual practice of IBL. This needs more classes and training students about how to handle these
issues in an investigation. In addition to that, availability of technological resources undermines
students‘ motivation compared to other peers who own various technological devices and tools.
The teachers‘ attempts to equally compromise students‘ opportunities for having adequate access
to technology by using school computer laps doesn‘t satisfy students‘ needs in some cases due
to insufficient technological readiness to assimilate these students.
Third, students lack the properly needed management skills to expand activities in ultimate
open-ended inquiry. Students‘ ability to organize and plan for complex process of investigation
requires to be prepared for coordination to accomplish activities, manage resources and present
final products. Students are not used to expand complex activities due to frequent traditional
arrangement they are involved in throughout typical learning activities. According to one of the
teachers ―Changing traditional methods of teaching to more social-based ones needs rebuilding
the system of scholastic activities‖.
Finally, large-sized classes and conflicting available time are the most frequently-mentioned
obstacles among teachers who are involved in the interview. Managing complex activities in
inquiry classes that are characterized by large number of students needs much exceeding time
82
than that determined to equally open opportunities for students to present their reflection and
conclusions. A failure to work with actual learning class context by fitting with time schedule
and number of students cause practical constrains that doom to failure.
Although, many challenges have impeded teachers‘ use of IBL, they show their preference to
follow the process of inquiry in language classroom rather than adopting traditional teaching
approaches. Teachers grantee proper implementation of IBL if the following recommendations
are taken into account:
 Phasing activities: Phasing activities help students to adopt proper investigation
techniques which help them to build up background knowledge about themes of
inquiry.
 Building up social scholastics activities: Since IBL requires students to use and
develop complex social skills, the typical scholastic activities needs to be changed
to ones that suit the process of inquiry. The scholastic activities that students get
regularly involved don‘t need practicing complex skills. In most cases school
activities can be individually achieved or with little guidance of teachers.
Involving students in collaborative activities prepares them to handle sophisticated
work that requires good management, coordination and planning.
 Minimizing textbook materials: Since most of the teachers complain from
workload originated from increasing number of students, they recommend
minimizing the text book material, so they can follow-up and evaluate students‘
productions.
 Managing meaningful technological predispositions: Headmasters/mistresses need
to accommodate technological resources to embark an inquiry. Meeting the needs
83
of technology in inquiry schools is a critical consideration that needs much care.
Expanding computer labs by increasing their numbers and by doing sufficient
technological rehabilitation permanently creates good learning environment that
decreases practical obstacles.
In reference to the questionnaire results, both teachers and students confirm that IBL has the
faculty to develop language skills, learning skills and collaboration. Although IBL classes
increases motivation, engagement and participation in the classroom, still many pedagogical
challenges hinder IBL context.
4.5 Politeness in Inquiry-Based Classroom:
Regarding the fourth research question ―What are the politeness strategies used in teacher-
student interaction in Inquiry classroom?”, this section answers this question.
Language classroom in EFL context is a special setting for application of politeness
strategies emerge in teachers‘ use of language. Senowarsito (2013) confirms that the classroom
interaction is vastly dominated by teachers. Students‘ responses towards teachers‘ instruction are
overpowered by language selections of their teachers. Teachers control their classes by giving
instruction, providing clarifications, managing classroom activities, evaluating students‘
production and encouraging students. To understand how the teacher conducts inquiry–based
language classroom, the researcher collects the data of teacher-student interaction by decoding
recordings of language classes into written forms.
With reference to Brown and Levinson‘s Politeness (1987), although there are four main
politeness strategies emerge in communication as mentioned in the previous chapter, in Inquiry-
based classroom only positive and negative politeness strategies are found throughout teacher-
student interaction. Language teacher alters negative and positive politeness strategies based on
84
students‘ responses to motivate them and to maintain concentration and engagement. Based on
the frequency of situations used to accommodate the learning setting, the researcher calculates
the times of frequency emerged. The researcher also classifies politeness aspects emerged in the
Inquiry-Based classroom into four main categories. These four main categories are: 1)
Classroom Instruction 2) Enhancing Motivation 3) Reflecting on students‘ investigations 4)
Facilitating collaborative group work. Table (17) illustrates positive politeness strategies adopted
by language teacher while Table (18) clarifies teachers‘ negative politeness utterances found.
Table (17): Positive Politeness Strategies Used in IBL Classes

Situation Authentic Examples extracted form IBL context
1. Classroom 1. Today we will learn about wild life in danger.
Instruction. 2. Who would like to start reading?
3. let us begin our lesson for today.
4. Who would like to write it on the board?
2. Enhancing 1. You can do it Leen.
Motivation. 2. You did a brilliant job in previous task. You can do it.
3. Reflecting on 1. You are wonderful group members. Thank you.
students‘ 3. Brilliant!
Investigations. 4. Well-done!
5. Keep the hard work. Thank you.
4. Facilitating 1. You have a good idea. Write down.
Collaborative Group 2. Time is over. Would you please prepare yourself for collecting
Work. data.
3. Now it is a time for group discussion.
Table (18): Negative Politeness Strategies Used in IBL Classes

Situation Authentic Examples extracted form IBL context
1. Classroom Instruction 1. Now look at the blackboard and think about questions here.
2. I appreciate that you are doing well, but try to be on time.
3. That‘s all for task one. Now I want you to talk about you
experience.
2. Enhancing Motivation 1. Shymaa‘ please. Tell us about your experience.
2. I‘m thinking, perhaps, you can try.
3. Reflecting on Students‘ 1. Well-done. You are a great student.
Investigations
4. Facilitating 1. Now please discuss Lana in this point.
Collaborative Group 2. Can you prepare a poster about it?
Work 3. Can you write a list of questions?
85
4.5.1 Positive Politeness Strategy in Inquiry Classroom:
Regarding Brown and Levinson (1987) positive politeness can be achieved when efforts meet
persons‘ positive face wants and by minimizing face-threatening acts to one‘s positive face in
order to keep on interacting. The study reveal that positive politeness strategies followed by the
teacher to keep students‘ encouragement and involvement to learn. The following are the most
frequently occurring situations:
The teacher‘s perception of the student-centered classroom setting influences students‘
responses towards language instruction since teacher‘s predisposition to embark such a learning
strategy is dominated by his/her attention of using appropriate politeness strategy (Senowarsito,
2013). In Inquiry-Based Learning students endure the responsibility of their learning by
themselves to construct knowledge throughout a process of investigation. Student, as a result,
needs a teacher‘s permanent facilitation and supervision. The teacher uses, in Inquiry-Based
classes, positive politeness strategy in different situations to allow student feel trusted that they
can establish meaningful knowledge. Although, the teacher attempts to minimize the gap
between herself and the students, still she is placed as respected older person and the only
authorized power in the classroom. The findings reveal that the power of the teacher in Inquiry-
Based instruction is quietly decreased, but still the students‘ show obvious respect for their
teacher. For example:
Teacher: Any other questions?

Student: (no response)
Teacher: Are you sure my Dear?
Student: No. Thank you my teacher.
Calling students with the phrase ―my dear‖ instead of students‘ name or even ignore their
names completely is another politeness strategy that the teacher frequently uses. The teacher
86
doesn‘t position herself in a powerful situation or keeps her in a far distance from students. This
strategy minimizes students‘ negative face by avoiding face threatening acts (FTA). Although
the teacher extracted her own power to empower students to keep them involved in, she is still
respected. The phrase ―my dear‖ creates closeness, trust and belongingness.
Teacher: Can you start reading my dear?

Student: Yes.
Teacher: Thank you my dear.
In introductory part of inquiry class in which teacher stimulates students to make connection
between their every-day experiences and content material, the teacher gives weight to students‘
participation by allowing them to express ideas, talk about life practices and give opinions. The
teacher wants students to get engaged and participate to let them ask questions to start an
investigation. Such activity may reduce the power of the teacher, but students would keep
engaged:
Teacher: My dears let us talk about your experiences in visiting gardens?

Student: (no response) students look hesitant to talk about.
Teacher: You can talk about the one we did last year?
Student: (Surprisingly). Yes.
4.5.2 Negative Politeness Strategies in Inquiry Classroom:

Negative politeness strategies are intended to avoid acts that threat others by avoiding the use
of offensive words. These strategies include questioning, hedging, and presenting disagreements
as opinions (Brown and Levinson, 1987). The following are the most frequently occurring
situations:
In the following situation, the teacher uses negative politeness strategy to maintain speaker‘s
and addressee‘s involvement in the classroom. The teacher compromises the gap between
87
students in collaborative group discussion between students to keep both engaged in the class by
modifying politeness marker using the expression ―please‖ as follows:
Student (A): we don‘t need to save our time.

Student (B): But this idea deserves more searching.
Teacher: (speaks quietly) please. Please discuss with other peers your priority.
The teacher tries to use direct expressions in order to motivate students who are feeling
reluctant to participate in the classroom. She avoids putting imposition on students by using the
word ―little‖ and implicitly express that the student are not asked to do very much. For example:
Teacher: Before we start our lesson for today.

We would like to start by allowing you to review little of your experiences.
Little experiences.
Student: Yes.
Teacher-student interaction in the final stage of inquiry is characterized by patience and
tactfulness. Reflecting on students‘ investigation is a critical stage that all students keep thinking
of how they can save their face throughout that time. The Teacher shows enough awareness
towards this sensitive phase, because students are not used to be instructed by inquiry before.
The teacher keeps shifting between positive and negative politeness strategies throughout
evaluating students‘ products to maintain their motivation and engagement. For example:
Teacher: Group A it is you turn?

Students: We distributed slides for all of us.
Teacher: Very good you can start.
Student A: (Look hesitant).
Teacher: My dear you have the potential to do it.
Student: Good mourning. I will tell you about animal in danger. (she stopped). I don‘t remember.
Teacher: My dear you can have you seat until you are well prepared.
Another example:
Teacher: It is your turn.
Student: (performed well but with little mistakes) … the animals is in danger in Palestine ..
Palestine is our homes. We needs to keep it clean and beautiful…
88
Teacher: Well done! You are a great student.
In conclusion, classroom interaction in Inquiry-Based Learning is dominated by teachers‘
support and trails to get students engaged. The teacher is switching politeness strategies
depending on students‘ response and interaction in inquiry classroom. Although the teacher
minimizes her power by using some technical terms such as ―please‖ ―my dear‖ and other
expressions, but she redirects her power to empower students‘ capacity to participate and keep
up with the inquiry groups.
4.6 Implicature in Inquiry-Based Classroom:

Regarding the fifth research question “Does Inquiry-Based Learning affect students’
pragmatic awareness of English language?” this section answers the fifth research question.
As English becomes an international language and was learnt as a tool to communicate with
non-native speakers (Jenkins, 2003). Grice contribution to language pragmatics by proposing
maxims of speech in every-day communication offered an opportunity to look at conversations
beyond the literal level. The awareness of the target of using and interpreting implicautre in
different culture requires close attention in future EFL classrooms and interpreting cooperative
principle will be called for (Bouton, 1999).
Data analysis revealed that Palestinian students have good pragmatic awareness. That means
that they are aware of implicatures throughout their communication in Inquiry-Based Learning
classes. However, students‘ speeches don‘t include many Grecian maxims. Kasper (2001) states
that understanding implicature is an intellectually complex cognitive process that needs to be
referred to the target structure and culture. In addition to that implicature needs to be referred to
the context and textual information. Taking this into account, understanding the indirect meaning
requires discovering skills and being more complex than merely choosing correct interpretation.
89
In Inquiry-Based language learning, students need to develop and use complex skills of
analyzing, synthesizing, negotiating meaning and drawing meaningful conclusions.
Compared to students‘ use of maxims before the experiment, students‘ speeches don‘t include
many maxims. But after finalizing the experiment of Inquiry all they produce implicit massages
and language codes. This means that Inquiry-Based Learning enable leaners to sophisticate their
speeches and language use.
Maxim of quantity is the most violated in Inquiry-Based Learning classroom. Students after
three and half a month of being instructed by inquiry, they become able to understand each other
more and are able to infer what peer means if she utters little words less than required. May be
that takes place because of frequent collaboration that takes place in the classroom. However,
students are able to understand peer messages and respond positively. For example:
A: hmmmm
B: what you are thinking of?
A: Photos.
B: Photos for presentation are ready. They are copied on the flash memory.
C: They are clear and beautiful.
A: I searched for them several times to insert to the presentation.
D: Yes. It is time to make presentation.
E: let us do it.
Student (B) interprets student‘s (A) need of inserting photos , although student (A) uttered
only one word ―photos‖. Speaker (B) interprets what (A) means.
Students‘ violation of maxim of relevance comes at the second rank. In Inquiry-Based
Learning classes the addressee responds irrelatively to the speaker‘s utterances. The student
wants by violating the maxim of relevance to show an importance of accomplishing a specific
task over the other. Although sometimes the speaker may lose face, students‘ relationship is
characterized by closeness. For example:
90
A: Are these photos good for wild life in danger?
B: This webpage is valuable. It has a lot of information.
C: Yes. It is valuable.
A: Yes, the page includes different types of animals.
Student (B) utterances were not relevant to student‘s (A). Student (A) wants to show that
looking at this web page is more important than searching for good photos for the presentation.
Although, student‘s (A) response is critical to student (B), (B) positively responded and confirms
that the webpage includes a lot of information. This indicates that they students have good
relationship.
Furthermore, students violate the maxim of quality to express their feelings or attitudes
towards certain tasks or situation, so peers respond appropriately to the situation. Students often
make use of similes and metaphors to express their feeling towards. For example:
C: hhh..It is a piece of cake.

D: Yes our preparing for the presentation is easy.
E: Well done for all of us.
Student (D) comprehends student (C) message by commenting that preparing for the
presentation is easy. However, it is not true that that process is a piece of cake. But the metaphor
introduced in the idiom definitely means that the job was easy.
However, students‘ speeches don‘t include any violation to the maxim of manner throughout
the experiment. Table (1) presents quantitative calculations of students‘ speech emerge in inquiry
classes.
Table (19): Times of Frequency of Students’ Violations of Grice Maxims in Inquiry-based

Learning Class
Maxim Frequency of maxims Frequency of maxims

before using IBL before using IBL
1. Maxim of Quantity 1 time 5 times
2. Maxim of Quality 1 time 3 times
91
3. Maxim of Manner 0 0
4. Maxim of Relevance 1 time 5 times
Total times of 3 times 13 times
maxims’ violation.
Although implicature is an important tool for interpreting codes, massages and meaning in
every-day communication, Palestinian students as EFL learners have restricted opportunities to
use the target language outside the classroom. Therefore, further authentic tasks should be
included in the classroom to analyze interlocutor‘s speech and indirect massages used in
contexts. With reference to the results presented in the Table (19) students‘ use of implicatures is
improved. Students‘ development in interpreting and using implicatures in the classroom is
basically resulted from the improvement of their research skills that they utilized throughout
IBL. In the previous analysis of students‘ test, questionnaire and teachers‘ interview, students
learning abilities and language skills have been developed throughout IBL. Their skills of
analyzing and drawing conclusion help them to analyze speech and comprehend messages.
Students‘ responses in the classroom interaction don‘t include any unacceptable responses
culturally, although they exposed to the target language. Palestinian students prepare their
priorities and do works based on its importance since they violated the maxim of quantity and
relevance. They were the most violated one among others which show that Palestinian setts their
goals and priorities and produce irrelevant utterances to focus on the importance of doing a job
over the other. Rose and Kasper (2001) confirms that language testing affect the teachers‘ style
and method of instruction. Taking this into consideration, we believe that they type of instruction
should more effective if the subjects have been told that the L2 structure will be included in tests
so that they would be motivated to learn. For foreign leaners of English who are not immersed
in the target culture it is important to equip them by an appropriate tool for speech analysis.
92
Moreover, authenticity of Inquiry-Based Learning that emerges when students search for
knowledge throughout exploring authentic resources of the target culture, mainly, YouTube
video, has some merits over traditional exposure to language. Many researchers have assured the
effectiveness of naturally occurring language resources to raise students‘ pragmatic awareness
(Bardovi-Harlig et al., 1991; Boxer &Pickering, 1995; Myers Scotten & Bernsten, 1988).
(Derakhshan et al, 2014) states that ―videotapes offer more contextual information in a more
efficient manner than do textbooks‖. They bring more comprehensive view about naturalistic
setting of the target culture that appears when interlocutors observe para-linguistic features such
as setting, posture, gestures all of which lead to politeness in interactions (Gass & Houck, 1999;
Stempleksi & Tomalin, 1990). In addition to para-linguistic features found in authentic videos, in
Inquiry-Based learning setting students‘ need to analyze linguistic expression and use these in
presenting their reflections. Building authentic knowledge by being exposed to authentic
resources for Palestinian students who never experienced the target culture and whose
opportunity to practice English in naturalistic setting is restricted, can minimize the gap between
language use in naturistic setting and students‘ existing pragmatic knowledge.
Based on the discussion above, the researcher believes that Inquiry-Based Learning can rise
up students‘ pragmatic awareness due to two main reasons: (a) discovery process and inquiry
process have mutual steps and methods of collecting data. (b) discovery learning is a form of
inquiry based learning, regardless of some distinct features, that both shares similar theoretical
background that is ―constructivism‖ (Bruner, 2009) . However, research doesn‘t prove the
effectiveness of IBL in rising up students‘ pragmatic awareness–to the best knowledge of the
researcher.
93
In summary, Inquiry-Based Learning as a student-centered approach can make a difference in
students‘ ability to comprehend indirect meaning of the implicatures. Leaners‘ demonstration of
authentic language material throughout a process of investigation that focuses on social
interaction in the classroom or with target figures in the Palestinian community considerably
improved students‘ inferring indirect massages. Since the video include naturalistic interaction
between subjects and the skills needed to accomplish inquiry tasks, students‘ acquisition of the
target pragmatic awareness is promoted, although interpreting implicatures is culturally
inherited. ―We were to consider the fact that the same utterance in the same context could be
interpreted differently in different cultures‖ (Keenan 1976, Bouton 1994b). Student could relate
speech to their existing culture.
94
Chapter Five
Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusion:
Since calls of global movement focuses on originating a new model that adapts with learning
and teaching in the 21st century, it has been argued that reforms for formal education is urgently
in need to accommodate with real-life problems of this century. The new models of learning such
as, inquiry-Based Learning, is used to enable learners to tackle with complex global issues. What
the learner needs is rethinking of new learning approaches that enhance critical thinking and
communication skills. Transforming towards the pedagogy of inquiry-Based Learning in the
Palestinian context could support students to better acquire language skills needed to
communicate and other complex learning skills.
Inquiry-Based Learning is a profitable learning model to inductively teach students the skills
of 21st century by focusing on researching and being autonomous learners. Using this IBL
method properly allows teachers to achieve the intended pedagogical goals that enable learners
to deal with problems of the 21st century (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008). In this study,
quantitative and qualitative data analysis reveals that inquiry based learning could make a
significant difference in various aspects.
Students are positive in Inquiry-Based language instruction. Teachers and students responses
towards IBL as a model for language teaching and learning manifest that this method of Socratic
teaching is valid and efficacious. Students‘ choices of appropriate questions and the sachem of
presenting final conclusions require employment of vocabulary, grammar, writing and speaking
skills, after a process of investigation in which the learner utilizes reading and listing skills to
elicit proper knowledge. A natural and meaningful knowledge exchange is likely take place if
95
the teacher facilitates students‘ organization by generating students to search for knowledge
using selective polite expression and words. The power of politesses in inquiry classroom
exceeds our expectation of showing respect for participants to generate considerable trust that
students can construct knowledge by themselves. Politeness is dominating variable affect
students‘ significant results of this study; successful implementation of IBL in the selected
context includes collaborative students and teachers‘ ability to establish respectful, relaxed and
pleasant setting. Teachers‘ shifting between positive and negative politeness strategies
throughout IBL classes encouraged students to get engaged properly in the process of inquiry,
although that reduces teacher‘s power is some cases. If the teacher maintains the power of
authority in the classroom, students feel coerced as a result of this dominating power.
In addition to that, teachers‘ observation of students‘ logically arrangement of data and
proposed questions sequences students‘ productions of relevant formats to contextual and
personal experiences‘ learning by inquiry offers the students‘ the opportunity to have better
insights towards target language and mother tongue language. Thus, students‘ would activate
their metacognitive skills.
Students throughout IBL manage a process of planning, monitoring and evaluating
understanding in two mean stages. First, students in collaborative group work evaluate one
another ideas before drawing meaningful conclusions that will be shared and discussed with
other peers. Second, students‘ will receive another assessment and comments from their teacher
and other group member. This creates metacognition. It is simply ‗thinking about one‘s thinking‘
and it reflects an individual‘s critical awareness of how they think and learn, and their
assessment of themselves as a thinker and learner (Leadbeater, 2008).
96
Furthermore, utilizing digital educational tools such as, videos, cartoons, flash-based lessons
and other multimedia programs is not only favorable feature for students, but it is also an
authentic resource of target language that helps them to raising up awareness towards language
in social use. Students' awareness towards pragmatic aspect of language can be enhanced by a
process of investigation in which the students negotiate meaning, search for knowledge analyze
and build knowledge. Palestinian students show their capacity to develop their pragmatic
awareness. Students can decode meaning from massages and respond appropriately. Their
responses are culturally accepted by their peers. It seems to that Palestinian student arrange their
responsibilities and focus on the important issues and try to ignore minor jobs till appropriate
time.
To sum up, appropriate application of Inquiry-Based Learning in language classroom enables
teachers to achieve language learning goals that are focused on stimulating students‘
communication skills and advocating the interaction in the classroom. IBL as constructivist
approach can be incorporated to the language classroom that echoes the concerns and needs of
the 21st century requirements. Since Inquiry-Based Learning is characterized by question-answer
investigations in interactive knowledge exchange, it encourages students to actively be involved
in a social and cognitive process that aims at knowledge construction. The qualitative and
quantitative results of the study confirms Socratic assumption that active teaching process
promotes dynamics in class, deepens learner‘s understanding, attracts students‘ attention,
reinforces meaningful communication and facilitates learner‘s transfer (Savignon, 2001).
Further favorable findings are approved, the qualitative and quantitative analysis indicates
that students‘ show their preference to be enrolled in IBL classrooms. They expressed their
97
enthusiasm to learn English throughout IBL which indicates that this method of instruction
reinforces language learning and fosters meaningful learning experience.
5.2 Recommendations:
Based on the current study, the researcher proposes a number of recommendations for
teachers, Ministry of Education and other researchers:
As for teachers, to achieve the pedagogical goals of raising students‘ ability to better
communication the 21st century, you can adopt the following:
 Before you start Inquiry-Based instruction, It is important to create a Community of
Inquiry with cooperation with headmasters/mistress by taking care of cognitive factors,
social factors and teachers‘ presence in the classroom.
 It is helpful to prepare database of lessons and visual aids that include authentic language
material and to feed this data with latest update regularly.
 It is considerable to make a record on accumulated Inquiry-Based products that may be
helpful for further inquiry generations.
 It is important to create an inquiry context that characterized by sense of belongingness,
respect and trust.
 It is important to be selective of your expression when you address politeness strategies
in the classroom by reducing your power to enhance the power of politeness in the
classroom.
 It is valuable to use or direct students towards utilizing authentic language learning
resource as a step to contribute for rising their pragmatic awareness.
 Going steps towards beyond-constructivism in the 21st century, establish a blog or any
other appropriate application of social media to follow up students‘ work and products.
98
As for the Ministry of Education, the followings are recommended:
 It is important to train teachers to properly utilize IBL learning.
 It is considerable to equip schools by means of the 21st century technological tools such
as, establishing computer lab with adequate number of computers, integrating
―Interactive Whiteboards‖, providing digital cameras and IPads.
 It is valuable to minimize textbook material to give teachers the opportunity to teach
students language skills so that they can practice English and reinforce their ability to
communicate.
 It is important to include pragmatic aspects in school textbooks.
 It is important to rebuild the system of school activities to more constructivist one.
From a research perspective, it is important to continue to examine the various aspects of IBL
to have further clarifications about Inquiry-Based Learning, the followings can be investigated:
 The impact of establishing community of inquiry (COI) for language classes the in
Palestinian schools.
 Politeness strategies emerge in student-student interaction throughout the process of
Inquiry-Based Learning.
 Speech acts used by language teachers in Palestinian Community of Inquiry.
 The role of 21st technology used in Inquiry-Based Learning.
 Integrate Palestinian male schools to study the impact of Inquiry-Based Learning on
language skills.
 Using Inquiry-Based Learning to teach Palestinian students the 21st century skills. That
can be conducted with reference to the ―Four Cs‖ model of ―Skills of the 21st Century‖.
99
References
Aditomo, A., Goodyear,P. Bliuc, A.M., & Ellis, R.A., (2013). Inquiry-based learning in higher
education: principal forms, educational objectives, and disciplinary variations, Studies in
Higher Education, 38:9, 1239-1258, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2011.616584
Alameddinea, M.M, Ahwal, H.W. (2016). Inquiry-based learning in Literature Classroom.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232 (2016): 332 – 337
Alberta Learning. (2004). Focus on Inquiry: A Teacher’s Guide to Implementing Inquiry-Based
Learning. ERIC number: ED491498. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED491498.pdf .
ALFattah, M. H. A.( 2010). Pragmatic Analysis of Politeness Theory. Language in India, 10 (2),
: 183-207.
Alleman, J. & Brophy, J. (1992). College students‘ reports of learning activities experienced in
elementary school social studies. EDRS Clearinghouse. ED365583.
Allwright, D. & Bailey K. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to
Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alford, R. (1998). The Craft of Inquiry: Theories, Methods and Evidence. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Amaral, Olga., Garrison, Leslie. & Klentschy. Michael, (2002). Helping English learners
increase achievement through inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research
Journal, 26 (2): 225-234.
Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous online discussions: Success factors, outcomes,
assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249-257.
Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_1/19.pdf
Applebee, Arthur N., Langer, Judith A., Nystrand, Martin. & Adam Gamoran. (2003).
Discussion-Based Approaches to Developing Understanding: Classroom
100
Instructionand Student Performance in Middle and High School
English. American Educational Research Journal, 40 (3): 685-730.
Arauze, P.Z. (2013). Inquiry-Based Learning in an English as a Foreign Language Class: A
Proposal. Revista de Lenguas ModeRnas, 19: ( 2013), 479-485
Bailystok, E. (1993).Symbolic Representation and Attention Control in Pragmatic Competence.
Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ballstaedt, S.-P.; Mandl, H.; Schnotz, W. & Tergan, S.-O. (1981). Texte verstehen, Texte
gestalten. München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
Banchi, H. & Bell, R. (2008). The Many Levels of Inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26-29.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001) Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in
pragmatics? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. (pp. 13-32).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B.A.S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M.J., & Reynolds, D.W.
(1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45, 4-15.
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of
research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning (PDF). Powerful Learning: What We
Know About Teaching for Understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bassani, P. B. (2011). Interpersonal exchanges in discussion forums: A study of learning
communities in distance learning settings. Computers & Education, 56(4), 931-938.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.009
Bateman, W. (1990). Open to Question: The Art of Teaching and Learning by Inquiry. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beach, R., & Myers, J. (2001). Inquiry-based English instruction: Engaging students in life and
literature. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bell, T.; Urhahne, D.; Schanze, S.; Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models,
101
tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 3 (1): 349–377.
Bencze, J.L. (2009). ―Polite directiveness‖ in science inquiry: A contradiction in terms? Cultural
Studies of Science Education, 4, 855–864
Berding, J. W. A. (2000). John Dewey‘s participatory philosophy of education: Education,
experience and curriculum [Online]. Available:
http://www.socsci.kun.nl/ped/whp/histeduc/dewey01.html.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berg, B.L. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence.
In Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.) Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 43-57). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Birjandi, P., & Derakhshan, A. (2014). Pragmatic comprehension of apology, request, and
refusal: An investigation on the effect of consciousness-raising video-driven prompts.
Applied Research on English Language, 3(1), 67-85.
Bonwell, C. C. (1998). Active Learning: Energizing the Classroom. Green Mountain Falls, CO:
Active Learning Workshops.
Bou-Franch, P. & Garcés-Conejos, P. ( 2003) ―Teaching linguistic politeness: A methodological
proposal.‖ IRAL: international review of applied linguistics in language teaching.
Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag, 41, (2003): 1 - 24.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood
Bouton, L.F. (1999) ‗Developing non-native speaker skills in interpreting conversational
102
Implicatures in English: Explicit teaching can ease the process‘. In Hinkel, E. (ed.)
Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: University
of Cambridge.
Bouton, L F. (1994a). Can NNS skill in Interpreting Implicature in American English be
Improved Through Explicit Instruction? a pilot study. Pragmatics and Language
Learning, 5, 89-109.
Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials:
The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49, 44-58.
Bransford, J. D. Brown A.L. & Rodney R. Cocking. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience and School. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. pp. 3-23.
Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-
based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and
Development 22, 3-18.
Brown, D.H. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. USA: Prentice Hall.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown AL, Ash D, Rutherford M, Nakagawa K, Gordon A & Campione JC. (1995). Distributed
expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:
Brooks, M. G., & Brooks, J. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational
Leadership, 57(3). Retrieved October 2, 2015 from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ597075
Bruner J. (1973). Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.
103
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (2009). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
Bruner JS. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Burnard, P. Gill, P. Stewart, K. Treasure E, Chadwick, B. (2008). Analysing and presenting
qualitative data. British dental journal official journal of the British Dental Association:
BDJ online, 204(8):429-32
Burns, A. (2010). Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A Guide for
Practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge.
Celce-Murica, M. (2007). Rethinking the Role of Communicative Competence in the Language
Teaching. Intercultural language use and language learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University press.
Chaudron, C.(1988). Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook J. (1992). Negotiating the curriculum: Programming for learning. Negotiating the
curriculum: educating for the 21st century, 15-31.
Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
Practice, 39(3), 124-131.
Crookes, G. & Gass, S.M. (1993). Tasks and Language Learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Cunningham, J. (2012). Student achievement. Retrieved from:
http://www.ncsl.org/documents/educ/CharterSchoolStudentAchievement.pdf
de Jong, T. & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer
simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
104
Derakhshan, A. (2014). The effect of consciousness-raising video-driven prompts on the
comprehension of implicatures and speech acts. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Allameh
Tabataba‘i University, Tehran, Iran.
Derry SJ. (1999). A fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes. Cognitive
perspectives on peer learning, 197-211.
Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. New York: Minton.
Dijk van, T.A. (1980). Macrostructures. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Disney Learning Partnership. Inquiry-based Learning. Retrieved October 6, 2015, From:
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/inquiry/
Duran, M. & Dökme, I.(2016). The effect of the inquiry-based learning approach on student‘s
critical-thinking skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education.
12(12), 2887-2908.
Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2002). Leading Schools in a Data Rich World. The Second International
Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer
Eaton, S.E. (2010). Global Trends in Language Learning in the Twenty-first Century. Calgary:
Onate Press.
Edward M. Glaser. (1941). An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking, Teacher‘s
College, Columbia University.
Ernest, P. (1999). Social Constructivism as a Philosophy of Mathematics: Radical
Constructivism. Retrieved from: http://www.ex.ac.uk/~PErnest/soccon.htm
Galileo Educational Network Association (2008). Retrieved from:
http://www.galileo.org/research/publications/rubric.pdf
Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. TESL-EJ,
105
8(2), 1-15.
Garcés Conejos, P. & Torreblanca López, M. M.(1996). "La clase de inglés como L2: ¿Discurso
interactivo o informativo?. Una aproximación desde la teoría de la cortesía lingüística",
BABEL 3: 123- 145.
Garcés Conejos, P. & Torreblanca López M. (1997). "Estrategias de énfasis y mitigación en el
discurso del profesor de inglés como L2." en M. Martínez Vázquez (ed) Gramática y
Pragmática. Huelva: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Huelva
Gilmore, A. (2004). A comparison of textbooks and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 58,
362-374.
Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and Instruction: Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Grice, H.P. (1975). "Logic and Conversation," Syntax and Semantics. Academic Press. Reprinted
as ch.2 of Grice 1989, 22–40.
Hein, G. E. (1991). Constructivist learning theory [Electronic version]. Paper presented at the
meeting of the International Committee of Museum Educators, Jerusalem.
Helle, L., P. Tynjala, & E. Olkinuora. (2006). Project-based learning in post-secondary education
– Theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Educatio, 51: 287–314.
Hennessey, M. G. (1999). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications for conceptual
change teaching-learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Hill,B., S., Ide,s. Ikuta, A.kawaski and Togino (1986) . ―Universals of linguistic politeness:
Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English‖. Journal of
Pragmatics.(10).347-171
106
International Baccalaureate Organization. (2011). Primary Years Programme, Middle Years
Programme and Diploma Programme Language and learning in IB programmes. UK:
International Baccalaureate Organization. Retrieved from:
https://msturnerealforum.wikispaces.com/file/view/LanguageandlearninginIBprogrammes.pdf
Jenkins, J. (2003) World Englishes: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Jiang, X. (2010). A Case Study of Teacher‘s Politeness in EFL Class. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 1(5), 651-655.
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
Jones, Leo. (2007). The Student-Centered Classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Justice, C., J. Rice, W. Warry, S. Inglis, S. Miller, & S. Sammon. 2007. Inquiry in higher
education: Reflections and directions on course design and teaching methods. Innovation
in Higher Education, 31: 201–14.
Kahle, J.B., Meece, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African-American middle school
science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference? Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 37, 1019–1041.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K.R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden:
Blackwell Publishers.
Kasper, G. (2001) Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper
(Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G. (1997). The Role of Pragmatics in Language Teacher Education. New York:
McGraw. Hill company.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of subject. Subject and Topic, ed. by
Charles N. Li, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.
107
Kennedy, A., and Navey-Davis, S. (2004). Inquiry-guided learning and the foreign language
classroom. In V. S. Lee (Ed.) Teaching and Learning Through Inquiry: A Guidebook for
Institutions and Instructors. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus, pp. 71-80.
Kim, B. (2006). Social Constructivism. Retrieved from http//www. coe.uga.edu/epltt/Social
Constructivism.htm at 16/11/2014
Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and
technology, In M. Orey (Ed.).
Kondo, S. (2004). Raising pragmatic awareness in the EFL context. Sophia Junior College
Faculty Bulletin, 24, 49-72.
Krasner, I. (1999). The role of culture in language teaching. Dialog on Language Instruction,
13(1-2), 79-88.
Kühne, B. (1995). The Barkestorp project: Investigating school library use. School Libraries
Worldwide, 1(1), 13–27.
Kukla, A. (2000). Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.
Laal, M., & Khattami-Kermanshahi, Zh. (2012). 21st century learning; learning in collaboration.
Journal of Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1696-1701.
Lai, E. R. (2011). Motivation: A literature Review. Retrieved from Pearson‘s Research
Reports:http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/Motivation_Review_final.pdf
Lakoff, R. (1989 ).The limits of politeness. Therapeutic and court room discourse. Multilingua,
8 (2/3): 101-129.
Leadbeater, C. (2008). What’s Next? 21 Ideas for 21st Century Learning. London, The
Innovation Unit. www.innovationunit.org/sites/ default/files/What‘s%20Next%20-%2
021%20ideas%20for%20 21st%20century%20learning.pdf (Accessed 20 October, 2017).
108
Long, M. H. (1976). Doing Things with Words - Verbal Interaction in Lockstep and Small Group
Classroom Situations. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005.
Mason, J. (2002) ‗Qualitative Interviews: Asking, Listening and Interpreting‘ in T. May (ed.)
Qualitative Research in Action, London: Sage.
McMahon, M. (1997). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web - A Paradigm for
Learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference. Perth, Australia.
Mey, Jacob. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introductiol. Blackwell.
McCarthy, M. (1998). Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
McCarty, T.L., Lynch, R.H., Wallace, Stephen. & Benally, AnCita. (1991). Classroom Inquiry
and Navajo Learning Styles: A Call for Reassessment. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 22 (1):42-59.
McMahon M. (1997). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web - A Paradigm for
Learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference. Perth, Australia.
Mills, J.E., & D.F. Treagust. (2003). Engineering education – Is problem-based or project-based
learning the answer? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education .http://www.aaee.com.
au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J. & Century, J. (2010), Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it
and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of research
in science teaching, 47: 474–496.
Molseed, T. (2011). An analysis of peer review response types in threaded discussions of an
online graduate class. American Journal of Distance Education, 25(4), 254-267.
109
doi:10.1080/08923647.2011.618401.
Montessori, M. (1948). The Discovery of the Child. Madras: Kalkshetra Publications Press
Myers, J.(2001).Inquiry-Based English Instruction. New York, New York: Teachers college
press.
Myers Scotten, C., & Bernsten, J. (1988). Natural conversations as a model for textbook dialog.
Applied Linguistics, 9, 372–384.
Nelson, J.R., Morgan, R.L., Marchand-Marlella, N.E. (2013). Experimental Designs.
Understanding and interpreting Educational Research. The Guilford Press.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nussbaum, Martha C. (2001). Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge:
Nystrand, Martin. & Adam Gamoran. (1991). Instructional Discourse, Student Engagement, and
Literature Achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25: 261–290.
Oliver, R. 2008. Engaging first year students using a web-supported inquiry-based learning
setting. Higher Education, 55: 285–301.
Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C.-F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of
engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology,
7(3), 119-140. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/pawan/default.html
Pedaste M., Mäeots M., Leijen Ä., Sarapuu S. (2012), Improving students' inquiry skills through
reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and
Learning, pp. 81-95
Pedaste M., Sarapuu T. (2006) Developing an effective support system for inquiry learning in a
Web-based environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22 (1); 47-62.
110
Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers‘ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a
student-centered learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development,
51(2), 57-76
Peterson, E., & Coltrane, B. (2003). Culture in Second Language Teaching. ERIC Clearinghouse
on Languages and Linguistics, EDO-FL-03-09.
Piaget, J. (1973). To Understand is to Invent. New York: Grossman.

Pinker, S. (1996). Language is a human instinct. In J. Brickman, The third culture. USA: Simon
& Schuster. Pp 223-238.
Prince, M., & R. Felder. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 36 ( 5): 14–20.
Renkema, J. (1993). Discourse studies: An introductory textbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.
Rice, M. L. & Wilson, E. K. (1999). Constructivism in the Social Studies Classroom. Social
Studies. New York: Grossman.
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to Learn for the 80's. New York: Charles E. Merrill Publishing
Company, A Bell & Howell Company.
Rose, K., & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of
Interactive Media in Education, 2002(1). Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/article/2002
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional
science, 18(2): 119-144.
Savery, J.R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1 (1): 9–20
111
Savignon, S. J. (2001). Communicative Language Teaching for the Twenty-First Century. In M.
Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston.
Sawilowsky, S.S. & Blair, R.C. (1992). "A More Realistic Look at the Robustness and Type II
Error Properties of the t Test to Departures From Population Normality". Psychological
Bulletin. 111 (2): 352–360. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.352
Schank, R. & Cleary, C. (1994). Engines for Education [Online]. Available:
http://www.ils.nwu.edu/~e_for_e/nodes/I-M-INTRO-ZOOMER-pg.html.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S.
Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Scruggs, T. E. & M.A. Mastropieri. (1993). Reading Versus Doing: The Relative Effects of
Textbook Based and Inquiry-Oriented Approaches to Science Learning in Special Education
Classrooms. Journal of Special Education, 27 (1):1-15.
Senowarsito, S. (2013). Politeness Strategies in Teacher-Student Interaction in an EFL
Classroom Context. TEFLIN Journal, 24, 82-96.
Shunk DH. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Šubertová, A. (2013). Aspects of Politeness in Classroom of English as a Second Language.
(Diploma Thesis). Retrieved from: https://is.cuni.cz/webapps/zzp/detail/132051?lang=en
Smith C. (2010). What is a person?: Rethinking humanity, social life, and the moral good from
the person up. University of Chicago Press.
Spronken-Smith, R., T. Angelo, H. Matthews, B. O‘Steen, & J. Robertson. (2007). How
effective is inquiry-based learning in linking teaching and learning. Paper presented at the
112
International Colloquium on International Policies and Practices for Academic Enquiry,
April 19–21, in Marwell, Winchester, UK.
Stegmaier, W. (2011). Fearless findings, instinct and language in book V of the Gay Science. In
J. Canstancio & M.J.M Branco (eds.) Nietzsche on instinct and language. Berlin: Hubert &
Co. GmbH. Pp 185-202.
Stempleski, S., & Tomalin, B. (1990). Video in action: Recipes for using video in language
teaching. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Tabachnick, B. G.; Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Pearson
Education.
Taguchi, N. (2002). An application of Relevance Theory to the analysis of L2 interpretation
processes: The comprehension of indirect replies. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 40, 151-176.
Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience in pragmatic
comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 904-939.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K.
Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
The Partnership of the 21st Century Skills. Retrieved October 15, 2017, from:
http://www.p21.org/
Tudor, I. (2001).The Dynamics of the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
UNESCO. (1998). Challenges and tasks for the twenty-first century, viewed in the light of the
regional conferences. TOWARDS AN AGENDA 21 FOR HIGHER EDUCATION. Paris.
Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/principal/ag-21-e.html
Van Dijk, T. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H.
113
Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.352-364). Massachusetts:
Blackwell Publisher Inc.
Vygotsky, LS. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wells, Gordon. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry, Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University
Press.
Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-Centered Learning in Higher Education. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23 (3): 93–94.
Woo, Y. and Reeves, T.C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social
constructivist interpretation. Internet Higher Education Journal, 10: 15-25 DOI:
10.1016/jiheduc.2006.10.005.3
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher Order Thinking Skills and Low Achieving Students: Are
They Mutually Exclusive? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 145-181.
Yang, Y. C., Newby, T. J., & Bill, R. L. (2005). Using Socratic questioning to promote critical
thinking skills through asynchronous discussion forums in distance learning environments.
American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 163-181.
Yi Lee, Horng. (2014). Inquiry-Based Learning Teaching in Second and Foreign Language
Pedagogy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5 (6): 1236-1244.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
114
Appendix (A): Pre-Test
This test is prepared to measure students' English language level before the researcher start
implementing the strategy of inquiry-based learning in Ninth Grades in schools of Hebron.
Please read the questions below carefully and answers sections (1) , (2) and (3). Your answers
will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous.
Ninth Grade / Section: (A / B ) School: (Rushdeya Al-Muhtaseb / Al Mazinyah)
Section (1) : Listening (10 Points)
Listen to the followings, then add new words from the box and make any
changes needed.
1) A. We need a leader who will be honest and fair to everyone.

B. Yes, all of us will ______________ a leader like that and support him in every
way.
2) A. The _______________ Mohammad (PBUH) brought the world the message of

Islam.
B. All Muslims believe that there is just one _______________ .
3) A. The _______________ went on for about 200 years, but what were they about?
B. The _______________ wanted to take Jerusalem from the Muslims.
4) A. They certainly fought a lot of terrible _______________ . What happened in

the end?
B. The Muslims _______________ the crusaders, and the crusaders went home.
5) A. Salah Al-Din was a great _______________ in bringing the Muslim World

together, wasn‘t he?
B. Yes, and he also _______________ that Jerusalem should not be in crusader
hands.
6) A.. I‘ve read that he defeated the crusaders in a battle and _______________ the
city.
B. That‘s right, and Jerusalem remained _______________ for a long time after
that.
Section (2) : Reading (10 Points)
Read the following reading passage then answer the questions below:
1.Read and mark the statements true ( ✔ ) or false ( ✘ ). (4 Points)
1. Until almost the end of Salah Al-Din‘s life, Jerusalem had remained under Muslim control.( )
2. Salah Al-Din took Jerusalem soon after he and his men had defeated the crusaders at the
Battle of Hittin. ( )
3. A new crusade began immediately after Jerusalem had fallen. ( )
4 In the end, the peace between Salah Al-Din and King Richard gave each side something
important. ( )
2. Read again and complete the history notes. Add the dates. (2 Points)
____ Started preparing to free Jerusalem.

____ Salah Al-Din won the Battle of Hittin.
____ He took Jerusalem.
____ The next crusade began.
3. Now say what the underlined words and phrases mean. (4 Points)
1. Line 3: …, he turned to Jerusalem.

2. Line 11: Weeks later, Jerusalem fell.
3. Line 13: It was the opposite in Europe, …
4. Line 23: … Jerusalem remained in Muslim hands, …
Section (3): Writing (10 Points)
1.Match the pieces of information. (3 Points)
2.Agree on the words you will use. Then write the captions. (3 Points)
3. Write a short paragraph about your favorite leader. (4 Points)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Section (4): Speaking (10Points)
Talk about your favorite leader.
Who is your favorite leader?
What makes him/her a good leader?
What are the most distinguished achievements he/she makes?

Appendix (B): Post-Test
This test is prepared to measure students' English language level after the researcher start
implementing the strategy of inquiry-based learning in Ninth Grades in schools of Hebron.
Please read the questions below carefully and answers sections (1) , (2) and (3). Your answers
will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous.
Ninth Grade / Section: ( A / B ) School: (Rushdeya Al-Muhtaseb / Al Mazinyah)
Section (1) : Listening (10Points)
Listen to the followings, then add new words from the box and make any
changes needed.
a bit close duty fridge grow up in trouble

look after piece simple though
1 Read. Add new words from the box. Make any changes needed.
1. A ) I‘d like a _______________ of cheese to put on my bread.
B) No problem. Go to the _______________ , and you‘ll find some on the top
shelf.
2. A) It‘s freezing now, and I think those people on the mountain are _____________
_______________ .
B) Yes, and I‘m a mountain guide, so it‘s my _______________ to go and find
them.
3. A) Tell me, are you and your brothers and sisters _______________?
B) Yes, we did everything together while we were _______________
_______________ , and we‘re still great friends now, too.
4. A) In my new job, I do the housework, and I also cook _______________
_______________ .
Section (2) : Reading (10 Points)
Read the following reading passage then answer the questions below:
1. Read and mark the statements true ( ✔ ) or false ( ✘ ). (5 Points)

A) Many forms of life in the oceans are in danger. ( )
B) Fishing is the only cause of the problem. ( )
C) Only a few countries agreed to stop catching whales. ( )
D) Whale numbers are now rising, but quantities of fish are still falling. ( )
E) The writer thinks that fish farms will soon cover the land near the coasts. ( )
2. Say what the underlined words refer to. (5 Points)

1) Line 2: …, they are often caused by pollution.
2) Line 2: Farther out, the cause …
3) Line 6: … the job was being made easier …
4) Line 12: Sadly, almost certainly not.
5) Line 10: Finally, the world took action.
Section (3): Writing (10 Points)
Your school won some money for a special project and your head teacher wants
the students to help choose the project. (4 Points)
1.Which facility of followings do you think that your school urgently need?
…………………………………………………………………………
2.Which facility of followings do you think that your school don‘t need? why?
…………………………………………………………………………
3. Write a short paragraph about what do you recommend to establish / to buy to
your school and provide your answer by justifications.(6 Points)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________ .
Section (4): Speaking (10Points)
Your teacher asks you to prepare a presentation about one of the following
topics:
Healthy life
Palestinian culture
Organizing time
Ceramics
Smoking
Our food
Wild life in danger
Introductory speech (2 Points)
Choose one of these topics and tell us why did you choose it ?(3 Points)
Tell us in details about your topic. (5 Points)

‫‪Appendix (C): Students’ Questionnaire‬‬
‫التعلم باالستقصاء بالمدراس الفلسطينية ‪ :‬دراسة اجتماعية وثقافية للصف التاسع‬

‫لبو انجبحث ثإعذاد هزِ االسزجبَخ نهزحشٌ عٍ يىالف انطهجخ ارجبِ رطجُك اسزشارُجُخ انزعهى ثبالسزمصبء‬
‫ورنك اسزكًبالً نشسبنخ انًبجسزُش انزٍ َعذهب انجبحث‪ .‬رزكىٌ االسزجبَخ يٍ جضئٍُُ ‪ ،‬نزا َشجً يُك عضَضرٍ‬
‫انطبنجخ لشاءح انجُبَبد ثذلخ واإلجبثخ عهُهب يع انعهى أٌ إجبثزك سزجمً سشَخ ويجهىنخ‪.‬‬
‫انًغزٕٖ األكبد‪ : ًٙٚ‬انصف انزبعع ( أ ‪-‬‬ ‫اندضء األٔل‪ :‬انًذسعخ‪ :‬سشذ‪ٚ‬خ انًسزغت – انًبصَ‪ٛ‬خ‬
‫ة)‬
‫اندُظ ‪ :‬أَثٗ‬
‫اندضء انثبَ‪ٚ :ٙ‬دش٘ انزسش٘ عٍ أثش رطج‪ٛ‬ق اعزشار‪ٛ‬د‪ٛ‬خ انزعهى ثبالعزقصبء ف‪ْ ٙ‬زِ االعزجبَخ ضًٍ ثالثخ‬
‫يسبٔس سئ‪ٛ‬غ‪ٛ‬خ ْٔ‪ ٙ‬كبنزبن‪:ٙ‬‬
‫انًسٕس األٔل ‪ :‬وجهبد َظش انطهجخ َحى أثش اسزشارُجُخ انزعهى ثبالسزمصبء عهً يهبساد انهغخ اإلَجهُضَخ‬
‫األسثعخ ويهبساد رعهًُُخ أخشي‪.‬‬
‫انًسٕس انثبَ‪ : ٙ‬وجهبد َظش ويىالف (عبيخ ) انطهجخ َحى رطجُك اسزشارُجُخ انزعهى ثبالسزمصبء ‪.‬‬
‫انًسٕس انثبنث ‪ :‬وجهبد َظش انطهجخ َحى رطجُك اسزشارُجُخ انزعهى ثبالسزمصبء عهً انزفبعم ثبنغشفخ انصفُخ‪.‬‬
‫‪Students’ Questionnaire:‬‬
‫‪The purpose of this questionnaire is to measure students' attitude towards Inquiry-based‬‬

‫‪learning. Please read the statements carefully and answer PARTS 1 and PART II. Your answers‬‬
‫‪will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous.‬‬
‫‪PART ONE:‬‬
‫‪Gender: Females‬‬ ‫‪Academic Level: 9th Grade‬‬
‫_____________________ ‪School:‬‬
‫‪PART TWO:‬‬
‫‪To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Put (✔) next the statement that‬‬
‫‪applies to you‬‬
‫إنٗ أ٘ دسخخ رزفق يع انعجبساد انزبن‪ٛ‬خ ‪ٚ ،‬شخٗ يُك ٔضع إشبسح) ✔) رسذ انذسخخ انز‪ ٙ‬رًثم قجٕنك‬
‫نهعجبساد ‪:‬‬
‫‪This questionnaire consists of three main Domains:‬‬
‫‪Domain (1): Students‘ perspectives towards the influence of IBL on language skills and other‬‬
‫‪learning skills.‬‬
‫‪Domain (2): Students‘ perspectives towards (IBL).‬‬
Domain (3): Students‘ perspectives towards the influence (IBL) on interaction in the classroom.
‫ وجهبد َظش انطهجخ َحى أثش اسزشارُجُخ انزعهى ثبالسزمصبء عهً يهبساد انهغخ اإلَجهُضَخ األسثعخ ويهبساد رعهًُُخ‬: ‫المحور األول‬
.‫أخشي‬
‫غير‬ ‫أوافق أوافق محايد غير‬ ‫التعلم القائم على االستقصاء‬
‫موافق موافق‬ ‫بشدة‬
‫بشدة‬
.‫عبة‬ٛ‫ ثبنقشاءح ٔاالعز‬ٙ‫سغٍ يٍ يٓبسار‬ٚ .1
improves my reading comprehension skills.
.‫ ثبنًسبثخ‬ٙ‫سغٍ يٓبسار‬ٚ .2
improves my speaking skills.
.‫ ثبالعزًبع‬ٙ‫سغٍ يٓبسار‬ٚ .3
improves my listening skills.
.‫ ثبنكزبثخ‬ٙ‫سغٍ يٓبسار‬ٚ .4
improves my writing skills.
.‫ر‬ٛ‫خ ثشكم صس‬ٕٚ‫ت انُس‬ٛ‫ اعزخذاو انزشاك‬ٙ‫ ف‬ٙ‫سغٍ يٓبسار‬ٚ .5
improves my ability to use grammatical structures correctly.
‫ر‬ٛ‫بقٓب انصس‬ٛ‫ يٍ اعزخذاو انًفشداد ثغ‬ُُٙ‫ًك‬ٚ .6
enables me to use words in context.
.٘‫ش انُقذ٘ نذ‬ٛ‫طٕس يٓبساد انزفك‬ٚ .7
develops my critical thinking skills.
‫ ثطشذ األعئهخ‬ٙ‫سغٍ قذسر‬ٚ .8
develops my ability to ask questions.
‫خ‬ٛ‫بر‬ٛ‫ ٔانخجشاد انس‬ٙ‫ٍ يسزٕٖ انًقشس انذساع‬ٛ‫ عهٗ انشثظ ث‬ٙ‫سغٍ يٍ قذسر‬ٚ .9
‫خ‬ٛ‫ٕي‬ٛ‫ان‬
enhances my ability of making connections between textbook
content and daily life experiences.
ًٙ‫ ثبنجسث انعه‬ٙ‫سغٍ يٍ يٓبسار‬ٚ .11
improves my research skills.
.ٙ‫م يٍ يعهًز‬ٛ‫ّ قه‬ٛ‫ يٍ ثُبء انًعشفخ ثزٕخ‬ُُٙ‫ًك‬ٚ .11
enables me to construct knowledge with little guidance of my
teacher.
ٖ‫ الكزغبة يعشفخ راد يغض‬ٙ‫طٕس قذسر‬ٚ .12
develops my ability of gain meaningful knowledge.
. ‫ وجهبد َظش ويىالف (عبيخ ) انطهجخ َحى رطجُك اسزشارُجُخ انزعهى ثبالسزمصبء‬: َٙ‫انًسٕس انثب‬
‫غير‬ ‫غير‬ ‫محايد‬ ‫أوافق‬ ‫أوافق‬ ‫التعلم القائم على االستقصاء‬
‫موافق‬ ‫موافق‬ ‫بشدة‬
‫بشدة‬
‫خ؟‬ٛ‫هخ فعبنخ نزعهى انهغبد األخُج‬ٛ‫ ْٕ ٔع‬.13
is an effective way to learn foreign languages.
‫خ َسٕ انزعهى‬ٛ‫عضص يٍ انذافع‬ٚ .14

enhances motivation for learning
. ‫ دسط انهغخ‬ٙ‫ أكثش اَخشاطبً ف‬ُٙ‫دعه‬ٚ .15
makes me more engaged in language classroom.
ْٙ‫ عهٗ االعزقصبء اَزجب‬ُٙ‫دزة انزعهى انًج‬ٚ ، ٖ‫خ أخش‬ًٛٛ‫ يقبسَخ ثًُٓبج رعه‬.16
.‫ثشكم أكجش‬
compared with other learning approaches, inquiry-based
learning functions better in drawing my attention.
.‫خ ٔانًزعخ‬ٛ‫ٍ انزعهى ٔانزغه‬ٛ‫ذيح ث‬ٚ .17
integrates learning with fun and excitement.
.‫خ‬ٕٚ‫ نزعهى يٕضٕعبد نغ‬ًٙ‫ ْٕ أفضم يُٓح رعه‬.18
is the most suitable approach among learning approaches for
learning language topics.
‫خ‬ٛ‫سبفع عهٗ انًشبسكخ انصف‬ٚ .19
maintains participation in language classroom.
.٘‫عضص انزعهى ٔانفٓى نذ‬ٚ .21
reinforces my learning and understanding.
.‫خ‬ٚ‫ض‬ٛ‫ دسط انهغخ اإلَده‬ٙ‫قهم يٍ يغزٕٖ انقهق نذ٘ ف‬ٚ .21
decreases my anxiety level in language classroom.
‫ زصخ‬ٙ‫ عُذيب رٕظف اعهٕة انزعهى ثبنزسش٘ ( االعزقصبء) ف‬ٙ‫ ال ازت يعهًز‬.22
.‫خ‬ٚ‫ض‬ٛ‫انهغخ اإلَده‬
I like the teacher using the inquiry teaching method in the
language class.
.‫ وجهبد َظش انطهجخ َحى رطجُك اسزشارُجُخ انزعهى ثبالسزمصبء عهً انزفبعم ثبنغشفخ انصفُخ‬: ‫انًسٕس انثبنث‬
‫غير‬ ‫غير‬ ‫محايد‬ ‫أوافق أوافق‬ ‫التعلم القائم على االستقصاء‬
‫موافق‬ ‫موافق‬ ‫بشدة‬
‫بشدة‬
َٙٔ‫عضص انزعهى انزعب‬ٚ .23
enhances cooperative work.
‫خ‬ٛ‫ انغشفخ انصف‬ٙ‫عضص انًشبسكخ ف‬ٚ .24
enhances interaction in class.
‫سفض يُبقشخ انطهجخ‬ٚ .25
stimulates students‘ discussion.
‫ش يعشفخ يشزشكخ‬ٕٚ‫طٕس قذسح انضيالء نزط‬ٚ .26
improves peer's ability to develop common knowledge.
ٙ‫الر‬ٛ‫ انفشصخ نزجبدل انًعشفخ يع صي‬ٙ‫ر ن‬ٛ‫ز‬ٚ .27
allows me to share knowledge with peers.
ّ‫ًب رعهًز‬ٛ‫ش ٔانزأيم ف‬ٛ‫ ثبنزفك‬ٙ‫غًر ن‬ٚ .28
allows me to reflect on what I learnt.
‫خ‬ٚ‫ض‬ٛ‫ دسط انهغخ اإلَده‬ٙ‫ ف‬ٙ‫ عهٗ االكزشبف انزار‬ٙ‫عضص قذسر‬ٚ .29
in language classroom enhances self-investigation.
‫ٍ انضيالء‬ٛ‫زضًٍ يُبقشبد يٓزثخ ث‬ٚ .31
includes polite discussions with peers.
‫ٍ انضيالء‬ٛ‫قبد ث‬ٚ‫غجت يضب‬ٚ .31
causes harassments among peers.
‫ انًعهًخ‬ٙ‫ ٔافضم أٌ رهق‬،‫ عهٗ االعزقصبء‬ُٙ‫قخ انزعهى انًج‬ٚ‫ اَب ال ازت طش‬.32
‫يسبضشح ثذال يٍ طشذ األعئهخ‬
I don’t like the inquiry learning and I prefer the teacher to
deliver instruction by giving lectures instead asking questions.
‫شكراً لتعاونكم‬
Appendix (D): Teacher’s Interview
Learning by Inquiry in Palestinian Schools; 9th Grade as a Socio-Cultural Study
Questions for Teachers:
1. Describe how you are typically using (IBL) in your classroom.

2. Has the way you are doing inquiry instruction changes since last semesters.
3. Have there been changes in your classroom role as a teacher/ describe.
4. Since you began using an inquiry, have there been changes in the way students work
together?
5. Since you began inquiry-based learning, have you noticed any changes in students‘
attitude towards learning English?
6. Has inquiry-based learning affected the quality of students‘ learning? If so , in what
aspects?
7. Are there any external factors that are influencing the implementations of (IBL) , such as
major changes in school or district?
Appendix (E): Transcription of Inquiry-Based Classroom Recordings
Class One and Two (these classes are following each others):
Teacher: Good mourning my Dears.
Students : Good mourning teacher.
Teacher: How are you?
Students: Fine thank you.
Teacher: Thank you sit down.
Teacher: Let us begin our lesson for today. Today we will continue about helping hands. Would
you like to tell us about your experiences about? Yes please my dear you can start.
Teacher: Before we start our lesson for today.
We would like to start by allowing you to review little of your experiences.
Little experiences.
Student: Yes.
Student A: it was time of examinations. But my friend didn‘t have time to eat due to studying. I
bought some food for her. She was happy.
Teacher: Thank you. What would you do if you have further friends like yours?
Student: mmmmm … ii want to talk to the headmistress.
Teacher: Wonderful my dear. Another experience. (Looking at a student who is reluctant to
speak) Yes Shyma you can do it.
Student B: I have a lot of experiences about voluntary work in Hebron. Once upon a time, I
moved to Hebron hospital where many patients are waiting for their turns. I helped the employee
to hand patients their numbers. They were very ill. They can‘t get it. They were like weak trees
who needs water. I wonder my teacher how can we help patient people more? They need a lot of
care.
Teacher: Yes my dear. This is a very good question that you can insert in you investigation. You
can discuss that with peers. Who wants to talk any more my dears?
Student C: I remember one day that we cleaned all classes of our school. It was tiring but very
nice.
Teacher: Well-done my dear. That is a good issue. How can we support our school? Or in other
words how we help our staff at school?
Student C: can wwe discus those in groups?
Student A: let us arrange our duties.
Student B: what about questions?
Student A: let us make questions.
Student D: voluntary work at school.
Student D: how can we help school staff?
Student A: Arranging and cleaning classes.
Student B: drawing.
Student C: let me write down.
Student D: arranging for medical day.
Student B: but these are our ideas how we can build investigations.
Teacher: you can discuss that with partner.
Student E: let us look at the book.
Student D: woo.. in the web we have other related videos Let us watch.
Student B: we will ask the teacher for that.
Student C: To go to the lap in the break is better. We need to save time.
Student A: yes .. let us draw our map of roles
Student D: first, watching video.
Student B: second, discussion and drawing maps of questions..
Student E: third, writing five short paragraphs each will do one.
Student C: fourth, looking for photos
Student A: and videos .. I will do the job
Student D: then, arranging data.
Student B: why to keep searching for data at home and send ideas on Face.
Student E: at four o‘clock?
Student C: yes good time.
Student D: and each will have time to speak out.
Teacher: time for group discussion id finished. I hope that you continue your work at break to get
reading for the presentations next week. Now I will give you this work sheet to try to do in pairs.
Student spent time for doing exercises in the work sheet.
Teacher: time is over my dears. Meet you tomorrow.
Class Three and Four: (these classes are following each others)
Teacher: Good mourning my Dears.

Students: Good mourning teacher.
Teacher: How are you?
Students: Fine thank you.
Teacher: Thank you sit down.
Teacher: Let us begin our lesson for today. Today we will continue about wild life. Would you
like to tell us about your experiences about. Yes please my dear you can start
Student A: it was Friday I was watching national geography. It was about lions. A big lion look
for something to eat and found a rabbit there but he couldn‘t catch it. The lion found a lot of
lions there who look for food.
Teacher: Thank you. will you write done on the board some key words about that. My dear.
Another experience. (looking at a student who is reluctant to speak) Yes Leen you can do it.
Student: Iiiii want to talk about .. I am not ready now my teacher …
Teacher: Ok Leen.. Can you read task one please.
Student B: reads. Techer can I answer?
Teacher: Yes my dear.
Student B: answers correctly.
Teacher: Can you start reading next question my dear? (looking to a quiet student)
Student: Yes. (she read and answered correctly)
Teacher: Thank you my dear.
Teacher: Well-done you are a great student. Who wants to continue to question 3. I‘m thinking
that perhaps you can (looking at a student who doesn‘t participating)
Student C: No.. sorry I cant
Teacher: Try my dear.
Student: Are there any other animals in danger in Palestine? Gazelle (reads slowly and
reluctantly but could finally answer)
Teacher: You have a good answer. Write it down please.
Teacher: Please my dears try to answer the rest of the questions in pairs.
Teacher: after the time to pair work, the teacher asked the students to write their answers on
papers to correct. That is all about task one let us talk about you experiences. Can you shyma? I
guess you can
Student D: when I was at Cairo. I visited the zoo. It was wonderful. I saw tigers, chimpanzee,
giraffe, birds and many of these. But why we don‘t save others in the zoo my teacher?
Teacher: Thank you it is a good question you can write it down and investigate about. Looking at
another student wants to talk. Yes my dear you can.
Student: teacher why don‘t we have a zoo in Palestine? We have a lot of animals that we can
reserve?
Teacher: This is a brilliant question. You can manage to do that by talking about the importance
of having that in Palestine in your investigation and why?
Student: ok .. I will
Teacher: Can you prepare a poster about after you finish?
Student: Yes I will.
Teacher: My dears let us talk about your experiences in visiting gardens?
Student: (no response) students look hesitant to talk about.
Teacher: You can talk about the one we did last year?
Student: (Surprisingly). Yes.
Student C:We want to Dura garden last year its name was ―Rozana‖. We found some animals
there .. it is a wonderful place .. we played and eat delicious food (the student makes mistakes
and doesn‘t speak in sequence)
Teacher: I appreciate that you are doing well but we need more elaborations. Any way my dear.
Now it is a group discussion time.
Student A: hmmmm
Student B: what you are thinking of?
Student A: Photos.
Student B: Photos for presentation are ready. They are copied on the flash memory.
Student C: They are clear and beautiful.
Student A: I searched for them several times to insert to the presentation.
Student D: Yes. It is time to make presentation.
Student E: let us do it.
Student A: let us continue our work. Are these photos good for wild life in danger?
Student B: This webpage is valuable. It has a lot of information.
Student C: Yes. It is valuable.
Student A: Yes, the page includes different types of animals.
Student D: what about our names they are not listed
Student C: distribution is due.
Student D: ohhh… that is right
Student A: I want to present conclusion
Student B: who wants to present the group?
Student C: let us think about roles in sequence.
Student D: yes … (they distributed works finally)
Student B: oh… not good photos
Student C: let me see.
Student D: you can use the Photoshop to make all clear.
Student D: I will do never mind. Think of your speech
Student C: what about the poster?
Student A: I need to color the animals only.
Student D: our names?
Student B: they are presented well.
Student A: our list of questions?
Student E: they are in slide 4.
Student A: Well done.
Teacher: let us start presenting your data.
Teacher: Group A it is you turn?
Students: We distributed slides for all of us.
Teacher: Very good you can start.
Student A: (Look hesitant).
Teacher: My dear you have the potential to do it.
Student: Good mourning. I will tell you about animal in danger. (She stopped). I don‘t
remember.
Teacher: My dear you can have you seat until you are well prepared.
Teacher: It is your turn.
Student: (performed well but with little mistakes) … the animals is in danger in Palestine..
Palestine is our homes. We need to keep it clean and beautiful…
Teacher: Well done! You are a great student.
Student C: hhh..It is a piece of cake.
Student D: Yes our preparing for the presentation is easy.
Student E: Well done for all of us we were sweet roses.
Student F: sweet roses with the royal perfume
Students laugh.
Student C: (looking at the teacher) can we use posters next times?
Teacher: why not? .. But, inaddition to that I prefer vedios.
Student C: Yes.
Silence.
Teacher: Any other questions?
Student: (no response)
Teacher: Are you sure my Dear?
Student: No. Thank you my teacher.
Teacher: time is finished now we will finish next class. Thanks a lot for wonderful trials.

Ma Thesis-The Impact of Using Inquiry-Based Learning On Developing Ninth Grade Students' Pragmatic Awarenes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ma Thesis-The Impact of Using Inquiry-Based Learning On Developing Ninth Grade Students' Pragmatic Awarenes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ma Thesis-The Impact of Using Inquiry-Based Learning On Developing Ninth Grade Students' Pragmatic Awarenes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hebron University

College of Graduate Studies

The Impact of Using Inquiry-Based Learning on Developing Ninth

This thesis is dedicated to:

To my father who enlightens the darkness of this world by candles of hope.

To my mother for her endless love and care.

and constructive comments.

All English words are restricted to express my appreciation to my professors at Hebron

constant support during this graduate program.

Table (1): Comparison of Forms of Inquiry based Learning 24

Figure (1): Brown and Levinson‘s Politeness Strategies 34

Inquiry-based learning is proposed to support learners‘ acquisition of new competencies and

language classroom towards to a social-constructivist setting. The process of Inquiry doesn‘t

teachers could provide their students with complex learning skills.

promotes a dynamic learning involvement with the explosion of ―knowledge society‖.

understand‖ characterizes the essence of inquiry-based learning. The power of Inquiry-Based

Inquiry-based learning is a student-centered approach that emphasizes higher order thinking

the data to reach their own conclusions (Savignon, 2001).

curriculum and their interest, abilities and habits.

to be teacher-centered learning in the schools (Myers, 2001).

Unlike conventional models of direct instruction, Inquiry-Based Approach develops ―habit of

motivation (Wells, 1999).

and knowledge to everyday life situation (Myers, 2001).

The application of Inquiry-Based Learning in second or foreign language learning is

beneficial to language development and instruction in different aspects. Inquiry is applied to

increase students' vocabulary, to discover syntactic structures, engage negotiation of meaning

experience active and dynamic (Yi Lee, 2014).

politeness which are inverted in the language classroom (Bourdieu, 1983).

1.2 Statement of Problem:

inquiries to the social setting.

1.3 Significance of the Study:

1.4 Objectives of the Study:

of Inquiry- Based Learning on students‘ language skills.

In summary, this study aimed to investigate the followings:

 If Inquiry-based learning (IBL) causes a statistical difference in students‘ performance

 Students‘ attitude towards using IBL from teachers‘ perspective.

 Analyze politeness strategies emerge in teacher-student interaction in inquiry classroom.

 If Inquiry-based learning (IBL) affects students pragmatic awareness.

1.4 Questions of the Study:

1. Are there any statistically significant differences in performance between the

Inquiry Based Learning?

4. What are the politeness strategies emerged in teacher-student interaction in inquiry

1.6 Limitation of the Study:

investigations due to the followings:

 The participants of the study are all from Hebron.

 Palestinian teachers who utilize Inquiry-based learning in language classroom are

1.7 Definition of Terms:

learner individually and socially constructs meaning as he or she learns. Constructing

meaning is learning; there is no other kind." (Hein, 1991)

and volition. Intrinsic motivation is animated by personal enjoyment, interest, or pleasure,

whereas extrinsic motivation is governed by reinforcement contingencies. Motivation

5. Academic achievement: "It refers to a student‘s performance in academic areas such as

schools and teachers, and many other factors"(Cunningham, 2012)

references of words (Yule, 1996).

7. Politeness: ―Politeness is one of the constraints on human interaction, whose purpose is to

8. Co-operative Principle: It is a matter of one‘s required contribution to a discourse as it

occurs. It focuses on mutual communication among interlocutors by accepting and

understanding speeches of one another (Grice, 1975).

implies massages and the addressee infers.