Flow, Achievement Level, and Inquiry-Based Learning

809659
research-article2018
JOAXXX10.1177/1932202X18809659Journal of Advanced AcademicsBorovay et al.
Original Article
Journal of Advanced Academics
2019, Vol. 30(1) 74–106
Flow, Achievement Level, © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
and Inquiry-Based Learning sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1932202X18809659
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X18809659
journals.sagepub.com/home/joaa
Lindsay A. Borovay1, Bruce M. Shore1,

Christina Caccese1, Ethan Yang1,2,
and Olivia (Liv) Hua1
Abstract
Beyond cognitive outcomes, inquiry instruction can have positive general and
differentiated affective outcomes. In this exploratory study, teacher-nominated high-
to low-average achievers in Grades 5 through 9 (N = 272, mean age 11.7 years), in
classrooms exhibiting rare, occasional, and frequent inquiry qualities, were assessed
on Csikszentmihalyi’s construct of flow, following a recent unit and reflecting on their
favorite subject. We focused on flow because it addresses education and life in general,
and flow and inquiry invoke challenge and persistence. Interviews complemented
these data. High-achieving participants reported most flow in inquiry and in their
favorite subjects; in both situations, they could participate in determining the content.
All students reported greater flow in inquiry-based activities and environments, and
in their favorite subjects versus recent units. All preferred challenging over easy work
although for different reasons. All highlighted feeling able to succeed and interest in
an activity to experience flow.
Keywords
achievement, motivation, inquiry, flow, outcomes, gifted
Inquiry-based teaching and learning or, more briefly, inquiry, is the instructional
context for this study. Inquiry generally refers to a range of educational approaches in
which there are some key common characteristics, including the curriculum taking
student interests into active account, students asking questions and undertaking
1McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada

2Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Bruce M. Shore, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University,
3700 McTavish, Montreal, QC H3A 1Y2, Canada.
Email: bruce.m.shore@mcgill.ca
Borovay et al. 75
authentic, discipline-based or cross-disciplinary extended units of individual or small-

group investigation, and expanded numbers and types of roles for learners and teach-
ers (Aulls & Shore, 2008; Kidman & Casinader, 2017). Some science educators now
prefer the terminology “practices of science” (POS) to refer to inquiry within their
discipline (National Research Council, 2012), and there has been political pushback in
some quarters to inquiry-based curricular frameworks such as the Common Core
Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of
Chief State School Officers, 2010) in the United States. Nonetheless, inquiry is recog-
nized internationally as a desirable pedagogical approach (e.g., United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2008), and international compari-
sons of mathematics accomplishment overall show superior performance in jurisdic-
tions with curricula geared toward inquiry (Irving, Oppong, & Shore, 2016). However,
such assessments focus on cognitive achievement by individual learners. Inquiry also
emphasizes learning in a social context as elaborated below and it therefore has social
and affective or motivational outcomes. Social effects have received attention in the
inquiry literature (Tolmie et al., 2010), but affective outcomes of inquiry have been
infrequently studied. We do not know why, but we can speculate that there is an impact
of strong, even exclusive, policy emphasis on cognitive outcomes in local and interna-
tional evaluation and accountability exercises (e.g., Every Student Succeeds Act,
2015; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2013).
Saunders-Stewart, Gyles, and Shore (2012) reviewed the literature and found 23
criterion-referenced potential student outcomes of engagement in inquiry. Only four
(Motivation to be informed citizens, increased social awareness and action; Motivation,
task commitment; Positive attitude toward subject or learning problem-solving skills;
and Self-esteem, self-confidence) were affective. A follow-up study (Saunders-
Stewart, Gyles, Shore, & Bracewell, 2015) of 181 students was conducted in Grades 9
through 12 in classrooms with low, medium, and high levels of inquiry. Teacher inter-
views were coded for how many of the 11 inquiry criteria from Llewellyn (2002) were
cited. Llewellyn’s 12th, types of displayed student work, was omitted because second-
ary teachers often circulate to multiple classrooms. High inquiry level meant all 11
were cited, and the cutoff for low was six or more criteria coded as rarely inquiry. The
authors asked learners to assess the extent to which the three groups experienced the
23 potential inquiry outcomes in their classes. Personal Motivation emerged as the
second component in a principal components analysis. Students in the highest inquiry
group (reported by teachers as offering, for example, more student-centered learning,
student–student dialogue, multiple authentic assessments, and student-led investiga-
tions) scored significantly above the others on motivation, enjoyment, and creativity
represented by this component.
Another exception to the rarity of these studies was Guthrie, Wigfield, and
VonSecker (2000). Integrating reading with inquiry-based science in Grades 3 and 5
led to higher motivation-to-read scores than similar content in teacher-centered
instruction. Inquiry has elsewhere been claimed to foster high student engagement
(Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shernoff, 2003), intrinsic motivation, mas-
tery—versus performance-goal orientation—focusing on the learning opportunity
76 Journal of Advanced Academics 30(1)
rather than grades or results compared with others (Ames, 1992; Cook & Artino, 2016;
Miserandino, 1996), and feelings of competence and autonomy (Tomlinson, 1996).
Positive motivation contributes to learning but is also an important outcome of a
good learning situation. Motivation enhances achievement, engagement, and subse-
quent learning (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004; Miserandino, 1996). It significantly pre-
dicts, beyond IQ, high academic achievement (Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996). Intrinsic
motivation, particularly, fosters high cognitive engagement within classrooms, leading
to adaptive outcomes (Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988). Among motivational the-
ories, flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) in particular has been widely cited as education-
ally relevant (e.g., Egbert, 2003; Gyllenpalm, 2018; Hamari et al., 2016). The concept
of flow is not restricted to school or giftedness by any definition; it is widely relevant
over the life span. We were therefore partly drawn to focusing on flow because it
allowed us to situate a study of high achievement within mainstream motivational
theory. In addition, flow and inquiry share emphases on challenge and task-commit-
ment or persistence, and previous studies have not examined flow in high-achieving
students with actual subject-matter differences. Although inquiry has been promoted
to foster intrinsic motivation in gifted and general education, unanswered questions
remain: Is inquiry-based instruction associated with motivational benefits for high-
achieving and other students? In particular, is flow an especially useful theoretical
window through which to examine high-achieving learners’ motivation in inquiry-
based instruction? To begin to answer these questions, this exploratory study exam-
ined high-achieving students’ experiences of flow, including intrinsic motivation and
goal orientation, in inquiry and traditional learning settings. We have applied the term
exploratory because this topic has not been examined widely in the past.
Literature Review
Flow
Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) flow construct has been defined as the ultimate state or
optimal experience of intrinsic motivation (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi,
1988; Jackson & Marsh, 1996). Whalen (1998) elaborated,
Flow denotes a state of immersed concentration in which attention is centered, distractions

are minimized, and the person attains an enjoyable give-and-take with the activity. In this
state people report they lose track of time and their daily problems; forget hunger, pain,
and fatigue; and pass from a stance of control and “efforting” into a mode sometimes
described as “active effortlessness.” (p. 22)
Flow also includes a balance between the challenges inherent in an activity and the
level of skill brought to it (Abuhamdeh & Csikszentmihaly, 2012; Csikszentmihalyi,
1975, 1990, 1997, 2012; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Engeser, 2012).
Flow experiences increase intrinsic motivation, self-esteem, and time devoted to doing
academic work (Hektner & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Flow fosters further learning and
Borovay et al. 77
the development of new levels of challenge and skill (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997;

Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi, 2005).
Educational researchers (e.g., Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988; E. M. Anderman
& Maehr, 1994) encourage classroom environments rich with flow opportunities.
Such classrooms offer students freedom to explore interests and take creative risks
within a safe, structured atmosphere that supports mastering new learning experiences
(Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993; Rea, 2000). Instructional environ-
ments that stimulate academic engagement by involving students in authentic and
challenging problems also foster higher engagement, increased intrinsic motivation,
and instances of flow (Hoekman, McCormick, & Gross, 1999; Rathunde &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2005). Higher student engagement significantly predicts future
motivation, commitment (e.g., Ames, 1992), and performance (Shernoff et al., 2003).
Inquiry and Flow

Flow and inquiry both address learning and teaching in relatively comprehensive or
complex ways. Because flow has been associated with powerful affective outcomes,
such as complete absorption in activities, feeling of control therein, intrinsic motiva-
tion, joyfulness (Engeser & Schiepe-Tiska, 2012), and overall life satisfaction (Han,
1988), it becomes valuable to understand what learning environments promote flow.
One such environment is likely inquiry, characterized by (a) students pursuing some of
their own interests, (b) collaboration and dialogue in the learning process, (c) diversi-
fying and interchanged roles among students and teachers, (d) students accessing out-
side resources within extended in-depth study, and (e) students contributing to the
curriculum (Aulls & Shore, 2008). We use the term “environment” to refer to the
instructional approach; this is in contrast to inquiry as content that can take two forms,
learning about or how to do investigations, or the substance of the actual investigations
that learners undertake within an inquiry-based environment. Students participate in
safe, supportive environments that provide the skills to carry out individual or small-
group investigations. Students become producers, not just receivers, of knowledge
(Renzulli, 1999; Tomlinson, 1996), and have more opportunities to direct and be
responsible for their learning (Renzulli, 1984; Robinson, Shore, & Enerson, 2006).
Inquiry thus enables opportunity for challenge to align with skill, together the core of
flow.
According to both inquiry and flow theories, “Optimal learning is facilitated when
educational opportunities are not only responsive to students’ interests, abilities, and
individual differences, but actually extend their prior knowledge” (Hoekman et al.,
1999, p. 173). Social interactions with more knowledgeable individuals are essential for
learners to understand new concepts and cognitive strategies. Such interactions support
grouping and tasks constructed around interests and complementary skills rather than
age. The construct of self-talk (Vygotsky, 1978) is evident when external scaffolding is
replaced by students’ guiding themselves through steps of complex thinking with
explicit instructions that are gradually internalized. As task complexity and variety
increase, students learn, alone and collaboratively, to frame more sophisticated
questions and problems, propose means to pursue them, make meaning together, and
communicate their reflections and conclusions. These are core inquiry activities. A key
tenet of Vygotsky’s social-constructivist theory is that learners must construct meaning
for themselves (as Piaget, 1954, had postulated) and, filling the gap in Piaget’s theory
regarding the mechanism by which this happens, Vygotsky proposed that the construc-
tion of meaning takes place through interactions with more knowledgeable other per-
sons, notably through dialogue. Both social-constructivism and flow theories highlight
appropriate social context and the importance of optimal level of challenge to build and
sustain intrinsic pleasure for learning (Hoekman et al., 1999).
Although flow and inquiry have not been extensively or explicitly linked in past
research (we cite an exception below), the professional literature has acknowledged
the link (e.g., Gyllenpalm, 2018), however, that literature, like our citation, is espe-
cially concentrated in science education and a lot of it is found not in peer-reviewed
journals but in unredacted websites and blogs. One such source offered this vignette
that illustrates the connection to which we refer:
Imagine a student arrives at school and begins to work on a project primarily of her own
design. Within a few minutes, she enters a state of flow . . . . Her sense of the passage of
time disappears in the background and she is very absorbed in her work. (“Inquiry Hub,”
2014, n.p.)
Flow, High Ability, and Inquiry

Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) described how successful art students were dis-
tinguished from their lower achieving classmates. Successful students commonly
redefined a still life assignment (a drawing of an arrangement of inanimate objects) to
answer a creative question related to their own interests, acting as problem finders, not
just problem solvers. Garces-Bacsal, Cohen, and Tan (2011) affirmed higher flow lev-
els among artistically talented students. Siegle, Rubenstein, Pollard, and Romey
(2010) provided evidence that highly able college students more positively assessed
their ability in areas in which they had higher interest; this reinforced the value of
specially attending to subject matter of student interest, not just what the teacher or
curriculum assigned.
Flow experiences are not unique to highly able or high-performing people, but the
link has been at least briefly suggested (Clinkenbeard, 2012). Csikszentmihalyi,
Montijo, and Mouton (2018) noted a strong possibility that the reward of being in the
flow state is the source of intrinsic motivation, which has been associated with high
ability and performance in a wide variety of domains, including education. Eysink,
Gersen, and Gijlers (2015) studied flow as an outcome in 59 high-IQ (>130) elemen-
tary students in identified gifted-education programs under three different levels of
support while doing an inquiry task. Flow was highest when the students explored and
experimented on their own, however, only when guided through the main steps. This
is consistent with the need to match the challenge with skills, and with guided inquiry
as optimal (vs. open inquiry); hence, the need for scaffolding within such a social-
constructivist pedagogy.
Borovay et al. 79
Research Questions
This exploratory study compared flow and motivational outcomes of high-, high-
average-, average-, and low-average-achieving students in classrooms incorporating
inquiry frequently, occasionally, or rarely, and in the students’ most recent and favorite
classes. These distinctions are explained in the following sections. Three operational
questions were posed:
1. Research Question 1: Do students who differ in achievement also differ in

their experiences of flow in classrooms in which inquiry experiences are more
or less frequent? If so, what are these differences?
2. Research Question 2: Do students who differ in achievement also differ in
their experiences of intrinsic motivation and goal orientation in classrooms in
which inquiry experiences are more or less frequent? If so, what are these
differences?
3. Research Question 3: Do students who differ in achievement in classrooms in
which inquiry experiences are more or less frequent also differ in the kinds of
situations in which they experience flow? If so, how do these situations differ?
If inquiry itself prompts flow, regardless of ability or achievement level, all students
receiving inquiry instruction at a suitable level of challenge should report more
instances of intrinsic motivation and flow compared with their peers in other class-
room settings. These are desirable outcomes in their own right. Under suitable instruc-
tional conditions, be they interest, difficulty level, instructional quality and opportunity,
or realistic goal setting, further achievement could also be a subsequent outcome.
Method
Framework
The methodology for this exploratory study is an explanatory sequential mixed-
methods study (Creswell, 2014). Quantitative data enabled us to examine relations
among the key measurable variables, and the qualitative data provided enabled us to
begin to understand or partially explain the relations. It is sequential because one
approach was followed by the other.
Participants
To explore this topic, we sought participant teachers who, across the sample, engaged
in a wide range of inquiry-based and traditional instruction and would know their
students well. We wanted students who could understand our questions and commu-
nicate effectively with us. We were in all cases subject to the willingness of schools,
teachers, plus parents and students to collaborate. Although past research on flow has
included postsecondary samples, inquiry does not yet have the same foothold in
undergraduate studies; instructors, in our estimation, often do not have comparable
knowledge of their students or student-achievement data until after a course is over.

A postsecondary sample might assure selectivity of previously high-achieving stu-
dents. Past research has also sometimes used after-school and summer programs. We
specifically sought a more authentic setting connected to achievement in real class-
rooms because we wanted (a) our research to be relatable to real schools, (b) teachers
to describe classes they have taught that can be connected to the broader school cur-
riculum, (c) teachers to have had time and opportunity across multiple evaluation
outcomes to have knowledge of their students’ academic achievement, (d) students’
recollections of flow experiences to be of recent events in the same school context,
and (e) students to reflect on both that recent class and their experiences in their
favorite subjects. Extracurricular activities might tap favorite subjects or interests,
but do not satisfy the other needs of the study, including multiple levels of inquiry
frequency and a sufficiently large sample size.
Following university ethics approval, we presented our research proposal to two
large suburban school districts and directly to the principal of one private elementary
school close to the city center with a commitment to inquiry. Ethics approval was
granted by all. The private school directly agreed to participate. The school districts
themselves invited the principals of schools to participate. Four additional principals
agreed, for a total of five. We asked the districts to ensure that each school offered
either the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) or French-immersion pro-
grams; one high school offered both but students could only be enrolled in one or the
other and classes were separate. IBO programs intentionally utilize some degree of
inquiry instruction throughout their curriculum (Poelzer & Feldhusen, 1997); although
its extent can be highly variable within and between schools (Chichekian & Shore,
2014), the IBO schools in our sample were strongly committed to inquiry as reflected
in overall buy-in through formal school-council (faculty), administrative, and school-
committee (faculty and parent representation) decisions; plus, up to 3 years of imple-
menting schoolwide thematic inquiry opportunities are part of the IBO certification
process. In the context of the overall inquiry-oriented general curriculum, there are no
totally traditional public schools we could have sampled, but teaching practices vary
widely within schools as teachers adapt to the curricular and instructional expecta-
tions. French-immersion programs represented traditional instruction because their
pedagogy is generally very structured or teacher-centered, in contrast to inquiry-based
programs (Karovitch, Shore, & Delcourt, 1996). Working with such schools was
intended to assure variability on the inquiry levels and types of activities the students
experienced. However, although some school districts offer 100% second-language
immersion, the districts that supported our study implemented immersion as 50% of
each day’s instruction; therefore, it was expected that the level of inquiry exposure
would vary widely.
We asked the principals to nominate teachers whom they regarded as effective and
who had good rapport with their students; we did not want to complicate the study
with teachers who were struggling for any reason or who did not get to know their
students well. This kind of criterion is difficult to standardize across a sample of vol-
unteers, but our primary concern was variability in inquiry experiences. This process
Borovay et al. 81
yielded 11 teachers of 14 classes and a sample of 272 upper elementary school (73
males, 88 females) and early secondary school students (48 males, 63 females) from
10 to 14 years old. The number of teachers was less than the number of classes due to
three groups of classes (one of three, and two of two) being team taught. Students from
these team-taught classes were treated as being from one class setting. The array of
classrooms, subject matter, and programs is contained in Table 1. There was no over-
lap of IBO and French-immersion classes or students, however, one secondary math-
ematics teacher taught different classes in both programs. Secondary schooling begins
in Grade 7 in the jurisdictions from which our samples were drawn. All five classes
coded as frequent inquiry were either IBO or from the private school that had an
inquiry emphasis. Except for the dual-role teacher, all four classes in the rare-inquiry
category were from French-immersion schools. The six occasional-inquiry classes
included three IBO classes, two immersion, and one from the private school. The
selection program worked as intended. Overall, this was, by design, a purposive sam-
ple, although our search for schools that we could readily travel to resulted in elements
of convenience sampling.
Classifying Student Achievement Level

The centrally authorized curriculum prescribed for all schools specifies norms for
expectations in every subject at every grade. These widely disseminated curricular
guidelines include specific minimum student competencies. We asked participating
teachers to categorize each student in their class as academically high-achieving, high-
average-achieving, average-achieving, low-average-achieving, or weak, based on
these norms, taking into account students’ grades, performance in class, and perfor-
mance on tests, reports, and projects, in their judgments. We did not further define the
categories. Each teacher therefore made individual distinctions, but did so in the con-
text of a comprehensive, detailed, and government-mandated curriculum. Sixty were
nominated as high-achieving, 86 high-average-achieving, 81 average-achieving, 31
low-average-achieving, and 14 as weak. We combined the last two groups.
We did not have direct access to student records. However, data were collected fol-
lowing at least two complete units of instruction, typically in the second half of the
school year, so teachers already knew their students well. The distribution reported
just above was reassuring; we did not set limits on how many should be in each group.
Also, our use of teacher nominations was not exceptional. Such procedures are, for
example, part of widely implemented models of gifted education (e.g., Renzulli &
Reis, 1997). Shore and Tsiamis (1986) previously demonstrated that teacher and par-
ent nominations identified student samples with almost identical profiles of high cut-
off-scores on both achievement and IQ.
Classifying Instructional Inquiry Approach

In interviews, teachers described an instructional unit currently in progress or soon to
be taught for each of the 14 classes, designated the recent unit. They also described
82
Table 1. Distribution of the Sample Across Levels of Inquiry in Their Most Recent Class.
Inquiry
Inquiry code total Program or school Subject of recent class takenb as reported in the
occurrence (max. 12) context Gradea teacher interview Number of students
Rare 0 IBOc 9 Mathematics 16
2 French-immersiond 5 Language arts and mathematics (integrated course) 49 combined, 2
2 French-immersion 6 Language arts and mathematics (integrated course) classes team-taught
4 French-immersion 5 Language arts and mathematics (integrated course) 26
Occasional 6 Private-inquiry 6 Language arts and mathematics (integrated course) 13
6 IBO 7 Science 19
7 French-immersion 7 French and geography (integrated course) 35 combined, 2
7 French-immersion 8 French and geography (integrated course) classes team-taught
7 IBO 8 French and geography (integrated course) 41 combined, 2
7 IBO 8 French and Geography (integrated course) classes team-taught
Frequent 10 Private-inquiry 5 Language arts and mathematics (integrated course) 24
12 IBO 5 Language arts and mathematics (integrated course) 49 combined, 3
12 IBO 5 Language arts and mathematics (integrated course) classes team-taught
12 IBO 6 Language arts and mathematics (integrated course)
Totals 14 classes 3 programs 5 grades 11 teachers 272 students
Note. IBO = International Baccalaureate Organization.

aElementary schooling is Kindergarten to Grade 6 and secondary schooling begins at Grade 7 in this jurisdiction.
bEnglish language arts and French as a second language are not taught as isolated subjects in the curriculum guidelines that apply to all public schools and private
schools that incorporate the public curriculum and teacher-education standards in exchange for some public funding; these are normally integrated with other
subjects, commonly mathematics and geography.
cThe teacher of this class also taught other students in the school’s French-immersion program.
d“French-immersion” refers to the language of instruction used in half the subjects taught between Grades 5 and 9 in these school districts; the grade range and
percentage can be higher in other districts. “French” refers to a course of study in French as a second language and literature.
Borovay et al. 83
their instructional approach. The semistructured interview included 16 questions, for

example, about their approaches to teaching and evaluation, collaborative roles, and a
forthcoming instructional unit (see Appendix A) that became the recently completed
unit for the students. This researcher-developed interview schedule was in two parts:
Questions 1 to 11, 15, and 16 about their usual approach to instruction, and Questions
12 to 14 specifically about the unit recently taught or about to be taught. The questions
about instruction in general were not specifically criterion-referenced to the research
literature, but they included prompts regarding the six inquiry qualities (directly
below) that would be used to code the extent of inquiry instruction in the class
described by the teacher designated as the recent class. For example, Question 5,
“Who asks the research or investigative questions when engaged in group or individ-
ual projects?” was directly linked to the first criterion, “Curriculum includes students
pursuing questions of their own interest.” Question 9, “Is emphasis placed on collabo-
ration?” directly addressed Criterion 4, “Value is placed on collaboration in the learn-
ing process, in the development of ideas or throughout the inquiry process.” Regarding
the recent unit, Question 12, “Can you tell me a unit that you are or will be teaching
that you are excited about that might suit the needs of this study?” mapped directly
onto our interest in identifying a recent class about which we could ask the students.
Other questions (such as Questions 1 to 3) were more general, but were designed to
encourage the teachers to describe their teaching, for example, Question 3: “Can you
tell me about how you introduce a new unit to your class?” Replies were audiore-
corded and transcribed verbatim; the recordings were later deleted as part of the assur-
ance to teachers that data would not be used to evaluate the inquiry level of their
instruction. To assign the 11 teachers and 14 classes to levels of inquiry, all replies
were examined through a template of six inquiry qualities selected from the McGill
Strategic Demands of Inquiry Questionnaire (MSDIQ) because the items depicted
important, common, observable, elements of inquiry instruction (highlighted, for
example, by Aulls & Shore, 2008; Shore, Chichekian, Syer, Aulls, & Frederiksen,
2012; Spronken-Smith & Walker, 2010) and brief teacher interviews can effectively
distinguish classroom inquiry levels (Oppong-Nuako, Shore, Saunders-Stewart, &
Gyles, 2015). Although the MSDIQ was validated overall, not solely for these six
items, previous studies (e.g., Ibrahim, Aulls, & Shore, 2016; Saunders-Stewart et al.,
2015) have similarly used only a selection of its items. The qualities were as follows:
1. Curriculum includes students pursuing questions of their own interest.

2. When introduced to a unit, students ask questions that will generate the research
and investigation.
3. At different points in time, roles diversify among students and teachers (e.g.,
teachers become collaborators and learners in addition to being facilitators and
instructors; students’ additional roles emulate those of experts as producers of
knowledge, sources of knowledge about their topic domain, and evaluators of
learning, beyond being apprentices and receivers of knowledge).
4. Value is placed on collaboration in the learning process, in the development of
ideas or throughout the inquiry process.
Table 2. Student Frequencies by Teacher-Rated Achievement and Classroom Inquiry Level.
Inquiry
Achievement Rare Occasional Frequent Totals

High 20 30 10 60
High-average 12 53 21 86
Average 33 16 32 81
Low-average 26 9 10 45
Totals 91 108 73 272
5. Students are encouraged to seek out and access new sources of information
that go beyond a textbook when pursuing personal subject-matter interests.
6. Students have opportunities for in-depth study (i.e., research) and are given
time to reflect on an issue or problem that leads them to feel there is room to
make a contribution to the subject matter by making it more complete.
Three independent raters globally assessed each interview in relation to these six
categories of classroom-inquiry enactment.
Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Three independent raters undertook content
coding (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014) using the complete interview rather than
segments. They coded every interview for the presence of each of the six above-men-
tioned, predetermined inquiry characteristic. Each of the six items was coded as 0 if
the inquiry quality was not mentioned, 1 if it was mentioned as being sometimes pres-
ent, and 2 if it was mentioned as frequently present. The six scores were summed, with
potential and actual ranges of 0 to 12. Interrater coding reliability was R = .92.
Classrooms were categorized, based on natural data-distribution breaks, as exhibiting
rare (0 to 4), occasional (6 or 7; there were no totals of 4 or 5), or frequent (10 or 12)
inquiry-instruction (see Table 1). Four classes with 91 pupils reflected rare inquiry,
seven with 108 pupils indicated occasional inquiry, and three with 73 students had
frequent inquiry. Frequency cross-tabulations of three inquiry levels with four levels
of student achievement are presented in Table 2.
Dependent-Variable Measures
Well-established, individual measures of flow, achievement-goal orientation, and
motivation were administered to every student (Table 3).
Flow. The Revised Flow State Scale (FSS-2; Jackson & Eklund, 2002, 2004; Jackson
& Marsh, 1996) was administered twice to compare students’ reflections about
their flow experiences. Previous studies (e.g., Eysink et al., 2015) have similarly used
written self-report measures of flow. Reliability, internal consistency, and construct
validity have repeatedly been shown for the FSS-2; in confirmatory factor analyses,
Borovay et al. 85
Table 3. Dependent-Variable Instruments.
Instrument What it measures Specific dimensions Reliability References

Revised Flow Student flow (a) Challenge-skill α = .85 to Jackson and Eklund
State Scale experiences, balance .90 (2002, 2004);
adapted for (b) Action Jackson and
the classroom awareness Marsh (1996);
context. merging Peterson and
(c) Clear goals Greenleaf (2014)
(d) Unambiguous
feedback
Adapted Goal Students’ goal Personal goals of α = .70 (M), Midgley et al.
Orientation orientation attaining mastery .76 (P) (1998); Pintrich
Scales mastery (M), and of learning in (2000)
performance (P) class
Intrinsic versus Intrinsic (I) versus Influence of school α = .90 (I), Harter (1981);
extrinsic extrinsic (E) context in the .70 (E) Harter, Whitesell,
Orientation in orientation for classroom on and Kowalski
the Classroom learning motivation (1992)
Scale
intercorrelations among the nine a priori factors have varied from .18 to .72 (median
r = .50), indicating separation of the flow factors (Jackson & Eklund, 2002, 2004;
Jackson & Marsh, 1996); also see Table 3. Peterson and Greenleaf (2014) also reported
FSS-2 test–retest relationships for its nine subscales to be adequate, ranging between
.78 and .90.
Students were first asked to focus on their most recent classroom-unit experience,
the teacher-identified unit. On the second occasion, students’ attention was focused on
their favorite school subject. Minor adaptations were made in FSS-2 instructions, but
not the substantive items, to maintain these foci.
Goal orientation and motivation. Midgley et al.’s (1998) Goal Orientation Scale mea-
sured performance versus mastery-goal orientation. Harter’s Intrinsic versus Extrinsic
Orientation in the Classroom Scale (Harter, 1981; Harter, Whitesell, & Kowalski,
1992) provided more general motivational information.
Missing data. The 272 students completed 96 items on the outcome measures, generat-
ing 26,112 data points. Only 21 (.08%) were missing, none regarding group member-
ship. We substituted the mean item value within the subscale for the achievement and
instructional cell in which the student was located; high internal consistency estimates
(Table 3) implied that the most likely response on a nonsystematically omitted item
would be close to the mean for the subscale of items in that cell. Multiple imputation
was impossible with SPSS used for analysis. Given minimal missing data, their
dispersion, and not substituting a grand mean, there was little risk of spurious results
(Howell, 2015).
Student Interviews
We interviewed 18 randomly selected students from the total sample of 272. This was
not a stratified sample. The resulting distribution consisted of nine students who were
high-achieving, five high-average-achieving, three average-achieving, and one low-
average-achieving. This differed significantly from the distribution of total numbers of
students in each group (see Table 2) and did not parallel the distributions of numbers
shown in the far right column of Table 2 (χ2 = 7.91, p < .048). Three raters together
read each transcription and by consensus extracted when students tended to experience
flow, in which learning environment this occurred, and common elements among flow
experiences. We asked questions, for example, about what they like about learning,
instructional roles, and what they understand about the term “flow” and if and where
they ever experienced it (see Appendix B). Unlike the teacher interview that was used
to code class-inquiry level, one of the two main independent variables along with
achievement level, this researcher-developed interview schedule was intended solely
to generate illustrative or potentially explanatory information about the experience of
flow as measured by the FSS-2 and motivation outcomes from the two measures used
to assess those. Except for the questions specifically about flow, the questions were
derived from those asked to teachers in case there were divergences in their descrip-
tions of the classes; such divergences, were they to occur, would suggest unreliability
in the teachers’ reports of their teacher. For example, teacher Question 3 asked, “Can
you tell me about how you introduce a new unit to your class?” and student Question
4 was “How does she or he introduce new topics to you?” Question 5 was “When you
are introduced to a new topic, who decides what you will learn about?” Anticipating to
some extent the results of the study, the students’ and teacher’s responses turned out to
be highly consistent about their teachers’ classroom-instruction descriptions; there-
fore, this topic was not further addressed.
Statistical Analyses
A three-way, within-subjects MANOVA was conducted with a within-factor of
task type (recent-unit vs. favorite-subject flow, two levels) and between-factors of
group (inquiry frequency, three levels) and achievement (four levels). A within-
subjects MANOVA further explored flow states using the nine FSS-2 subscales. A
MANOVA was conducted to explore whether or not high-achieving students dif-
fered from high-average-, average-, and low-average-achieving students in experi-
ences of intrinsic motivation and goal orientation in frequent-inquiry versus other
environments. For multivariate tests, we used Type III sums of squares and Wilks’s
Lambda.
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with discriminant analysis could have been
an elegant approach to analyzing these data, but jumping to a CFA in an exploratory
study such as this seemed ambitious. At the secondary level, as well, we had limited
variability on the FSS-2 and no highest level inquiry classes at the secondary level. A
canonical correlation analysis offered the ability to consider more complex relations
Borovay et al. 87
among the predicting and outcome variables in a single set of analyses; however, the
approach we took allowed us to more directly answer each of the research questions.
Univariate tests followed all multivariate analyses, and planned (rather than post
hoc) contrasts were conducted because these differences were theoretically anticipated
between the highest achieving group and the other levels, and among instructional
environments. Correlation matrices were examined to further explore the relations
among variables. Reported effect sizes are partial eta-squared (pη2).
Qualitative data, replies to questionnaires, were used to describe the teaching situ-
ations, and illustrate and elaborate the quantitative results.
Results
Methods of instruction were similar in the elementary and secondary classrooms
within instructional groups. Correlation matrices within levels echoed correlations for
the total sample. Student-interview responses were consistent and there were no sex
differences. These checks assured that levels of nesting in our sample (schools in dis-
tricts, teachers and classes in schools, students in classes) were not biasing the out-
comes. The total sample was therefore used.
We were concerned about our choice of statistical analyses in light of the uneven
distribution of students across subgroups, but our total sample size was large and the
MANOVA is a robust statistic that can tolerate some violations of the assumptions
(Howell, 1997; Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). The present design, however, met all
MANOVA assumptions.
For each of the main statistical results, we selected complementary examples of
student statements from the transcripts in search of a potentially better understanding
of the differences. These qualitative data are oriented more toward guiding further
study than serving as our primary evidence.
Research Question 1: Flow Experiences in Classrooms in Which Inquiry

Experiences Are More or Less Frequent
To answer this question, we used FSS-2 data from the most recent class the students
experienced, not the class they recalled in their favorite subject. The most recent
classes were presumed to be more representative of their typical classroom-inquiry
experiences. Regardless of achievement level, students experiencing inquiry-based
instruction (means ranging from 136.48 to 139.20) reported significantly higher states
of flow in the recent unit than students from classes occasionally (one mean of 113.78
for the lowest achieving participants and the other four ranging from 122.55 to 136.43)
or rarely incorporating inquiry (means ranging from 124.15 to 128.07), Wilks’s
λ = .95; F(4, 518) = 3.06, p < .01. Significant differences occurred for flow experi-
ences in the recent unit, F(2, 260) = 4.97, p < .007: Regardless of achievement level,
students from frequent-inquiry settings reported more flow experiences than students
from occasional-inquiry, F(1, 260) = 8.34, p < .004, or rare inquiry-based instruction,
Table 4. Mean Flow Outcomes.
Flow on FSS-2 for the recent unit

Instructional Achievement
group group M SD
Rarely inquiry Low-average 124.15 18.93
Average 127.88 20.07
High-average 130.83 16.67
High 131.70 10.12
Total 128.07 17.52
Occasional Low-average 113.78 22.37
inquiry Average 133.19 20.52
High 136.43 19.47
Total 129.70 21.57
Frequent Low-average 137.00 20.08
inquiry Average 136.94 20.52
High 139.20 12.28
Total 137.12 16.62
Note. Effect size, pη2 = .04, was available only for the main effect of instruction. FSS = Flow State Scale.
F(1, 260) = 7.19, p < .007. The latter two did not significantly differ from one another.
These overall differences are illustrated in Table 4 and Figure 1. The effect size (Kiess,
1996), pη2 = .04, however, was small, because with two exceptions (10.12 and 12.28)
standard deviations ranged from 16.62 to 22.37.
In interviews related to these data, students from every instructional environment
reported enjoying inquiry-related activities. Flow was especially experienced when
the setting provided opportunities to explore personal interests, undertake challenging
activities that demanded concentration, and influence course content. Especially
among high-achieving students from inquiry settings, flow was reported when interac-
tions with knowledgeable peers and mentors facilitated understanding new concepts,
for example,
Not only in independent projects, but mostly in class discussions when we’re talking
about a particular thing and many people get involved and we have to think and have to
ask questions about it and we get really involved in that. (Participant 080)
High-achieving students in inquiry reported liking inquiry because they enjoyed chal-
lenging learning. In contrast, average-achieving and high-achieving students from
lower inquiry settings engaged for other extrinsic, for example, social reasons. An
average-achieving student from a rare-inquiry Grade 8 reported,
Borovay et al. 89
Figure 1. Instructional groups’ mean FSS-2 flow scores (and SDs) for recent subject.
Note. Differences were significant between columns 1 and 3 (p < .007) and between columns 2 and 3
(p < .004). FSS = Flow State Scale.
I mostly get into the zone or flow with my friends because we don’t really talk about
science but talk about other stuff like what happened on the weekend, but when I’m like
so caught up in that I won’t even hear the bell ring. (Participant 094)
Research Question 2: Goal Orientation and Motivational Experiences in

Classrooms in Which Inquiry Experiences Are More or Less Frequent
The outcome data for this question were, instead of the FSS-2, students’ scores on
Midgley et al.’s (1998) Goal Orientation Scale and on Harter’s Intrinsic versus
Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom Scale (Harter, 1981; Harter et al., 1992). Across
achievement levels or favorite versus recent subject-matter (instructional environ-
ment), students receiving frequent inquiry instruction had higher average scores for
mastery-goal orientation (23.33 vs. and 20.85 for occasional inquiry and 21.64 for rare
inquiry) and for intrinsic motivation (means of 22.30, 19.51, and 20.90, respectively);
Wilks’s λ = .92; F(8, 514) = 2.67, p < .007. Students from frequent-inquiry classes
reported higher intrinsic motivation than students from occasional-inquiry, F(1, 260)
= 12.76, p < .0004, but the effect size was small, pη2 = .04. There was no significant
overall achievement-level effect or Inquiry × Achievement interaction (Table 5).
These differences plus standard deviations are illustrated in Figure 2.
Dependent variables were significantly positively correlated; mastery-goal ori-
entation was correlated with intrinsic motivation, r =.78, p < .001, recent-unit flow,
Table 5. Multivariate ANOVA for Goal Orientation and Motivation.
Variance source Wilks’s λ Numerator df Denominator df F p

Instructional group .92 8 214 2.67 .007
Achievement group .95 12 680.25 2.07 .38
Instructional group × .94 24 897.78 0.58 .95
Achievement group
Figure 2. Mean scores (and SDs) for recent subject for mastery-goal orientation and
intrinsic motivation for each instructional group.
Note. Columns 1 and 3 (p < .02) and 1 and 2 (p < .0001) differed significantly for mastery-goal
orientation. Columns 2 and 3 (p < .0004) differed significantly for intrinsic motivation. “Mastery” refers
to Midgley et al.’s (1998) Goal Orientation Scale. “Intrinsic” refers to Harter’s intrinsic versus extrinsic
Orientation in the Classroom Scale (Harter, 1981; Harter, Whitesell, & Kowalski, 1992).
r = .47, p < .001, and favorite-subject flow, r = .41, p < .001. Intrinsic motivation
was positively correlated with recent-unit, r = .51, p < .001, and favorite-subject
flow, r = .42, p < .001. Performance-goal orientation was correlated with extrinsic
motivation, r = .31, p < .001, recent-unit, r = .51, p < .01, and favorite-subject flow,
r = .22, p < .001. Extrinsic motivation was significantly related to recent-unit and
favorite-subject flow, r = .15, p < .009, and r = .25, p < .001, respectively.
Univariate analyses of the MANOVA revealed a significant main effect for inquiry
frequency for both mastery-goal orientation, F(2, 260) = 7.82, p < .001, and intrinsic
motivation, F(2, 260) = 6.41, p < .001. Effect sizes were small, pη2 = .06 and
p η = .05. In planned contrasts, students from frequent-inquiry classrooms, F(1, 260)
2
= 5.41, p < .02, and students from occasional-inquiry settings, F(1, 260) = 15.63,
Borovay et al. 91
p < .0001, reported more mastery-goal orientation than students from lower inquiry
environments. Mastery-goal orientation did not differ between frequent- or occasional-
inquiry classrooms, F(1, 260) = 3.34, p < .06. These data are illustrated in Figure 2 in
which the right-most two columns are the highest.
Student interviews signaled subtle differences in motivational approach and goal
orientation among high-achieving students across settings. Their motivation arose
from wanting to learn and succeed at challenging material (mastery-goal orientation)
because the work stimulated personal interests. They mentioned enjoying learning for
its own sake (intrinsic motivation). A high-achieving student from an occasional-
inquiry classroom reflected,
We had a brain twister and we had to find out the length of the surface of a wave length
and I was so into it that when I finished my work, to me it seemed like I finished in 2
minutes when really an hour had gone by and the bell had just rang. When I was in flow
I was so confident and I was so aware of what my work was and what I had to do that it
didn’t seem hard to me. (Participant 166)
Students from occasional- and rare-inquiry settings, although they enjoyed chal-
lenges, remarked instead on enjoying challenge because it demanded their full atten-
tion and enhanced their ability to focus or enjoying activities at which they were
successful, reflecting a more performance-goal orientation and extrinsic motivation.
For instance, a high-achieving student from a rare-inquiry setting reported experienc-
ing flow in examinations: “I’m in flow when I’m doing a test because that’s when I’m
usually more concentrated and I want to do good on the test so I’m more focused”
(Participant 098). He further remarked that he preferred challenging work because “if
I know all the answers, then that’s great, I can start talking but I won’t do the work.”
Research Question 3: Flow Differences Between Recent and Favorite

Classes
Flow was measured in the recent and favorite subjects because some students might
not have found optimal enjoyment in the recently completed class. The analysis paral-
leled that for Research Question 1. Because little information could be gathered about
the instructional methods employed in each student’s favorite academic subject, these
flow states reflected more on students’ personal interests rather than on the particular
pedagogy. For all students, however, flow experiences were higher in their favorite
subjects (142.45 vs. 135.32 for the highest achievers, then 141.93 vs. 130.19, 142.31
vs. 132.51, and 130.49 vs. 124.93 for the low-average achievers; Table 6 also shows
these descriptive data by achievement-level) and highest among the high-achieving
group.
Within-subjects MANOVA revealed a significant main effect for achievement,
Wilks’s λ = .95; F(6, 518) = 2.19, p < .04. Univariate analyses indicated that the main
effect for achievement occurred for the favorite subject, F(3, 260) = 3.75, p < .01, but
for which there was a small effect size, pη2 = .04. In planned contrasts, high-achieving
Table 6. Differences Between FSS-2 Mean Scores for the Within-Subjects Effect for Inquiry
and Achievement Levels.
Difference between mean flow responses on FSS-2
Instructional Achievement Favorite Within-effect

group group subject Recent unit (difference) ES (pη2)
Rarely Low-Average 129.35 124.15 5.20 .20
inquiry Average 144.76 127.88 16.88 .84
High-average 141.08 130.83 10.25 .50
High 144.65 131.70 12.95 .93
Total 139.85 128.07 11.78 .57
Occasional Low-average 121.67 113.78 7.89 .25
inquiry Average 139.69 133.19 6.50 .31
High-average 140.32 127.55 12.77 .58
High 140.43 136.43 4.00 .20
Total 138.70 129.70 9.00 .41
Frequent Low-average 141.40 137.00 4.40 .19
inquiry Average 141.09 136.94 4.15 .20
High average 146.48 136.48 10.00 .57
High 144.10 139.20 4.90 .35
Total 143.10 137.12 5.98 .35
Total Low-average 130.49 124.93 5.56 .21
(all Average 142.31 132.51 9.80 .55
classes) High average 141.93 130.19 11.74 .62
High 142.45 135.32 7.13 .44
Total 140.26 131.14 9.12 .50
Note. FSS = Flow State Scale; ES = effect size.
students’ reported higher flow states than low-average-achieving students, F(1, 260)
= 8.55, p < .003; low-average-achieving students’ flow experiences for their favorite
subjects differed from average-achieving students, F(1, 260) = 8.04, p < .004, and
high-average-achieving students, F(1, 260) = 8.62, p < .003, and from the high-
achieving and high-average-achieving students’ combined, F(1, 260) = 10.73, p <
.001. However, high-achieving students did not differ from high-average- or average-
achieving students in their reported flow experiences (see Figure 3).
The within-subjects effect also allowed comparison of each student’s recent-
unit and favorite-subject flow. There was a within-subjects effect for flow responses,
F(1, 260) = 48.39, p < .0001, and the effect size was moderate, pη2 = .16. Students
reported higher flow states in their favorite subjects. In contrast to the small and one
moderate overall effect sizes reported so far, the effect sizes (pη2) were nearly all large,
ranging from .19 to .93 (Table 6), especially for the high- and high-average-achieving
groups. There were no interactions between instructional group or achievement group
Borovay et al. 93
Figure 3. FSS-2 mean flow scores (and SDs) for favorite subject among the different
achievement groups.
Note. Columns 1 and 2 (p < .004), 1 and 3 (p < .003), and 1 and 4 (p < .003) differed significantly. FSS =
Flow State Scale.
and flow, F(1, 260) = 1.82, p < .16, and F(3, 260) = .84, p < .47, nor a three-way
interaction, F(6, 260) = 1.09, p < .37.
The overall correlation between the FSS-2 for the most recent and favorite subjects
was high and significant, r = .91. Scores were higher in favorite subjects, but the fact
that the two FSS-2 measures are correlated without regard to the inquiry-level or
achievement suggests that the FSS-2 reliably taps flow levels consistent with the
inquiry level of the learning environment in both instructional settings. That also sup-
ports the FSS-2 as a valid measure of flow in terms of the idea of a balance between
challenge and ability in flow: Students experience more flow in their favorite subjects,
and the highest flow was overall in the occasional-inquiry setting because the chal-
lenge-ability match was optimal.
All 18 interviewed students mentioned experiencing flow when engaged in indi-
vidual projects or specific inquiry activities. However, students from inquiry settings
particularly reported flow when they were learning new, interesting, and challenging
material in both their favorite and other academic subjects. The importance of favor-
ite-subject context was not directly asked or addressed, but comments contained rele-
vant clues. An average-achieving student remarked, “I think that classes that allow me
to do things that are more of an interest to me will get me into flow because it’s some-
thing that I want to do and not something that I’m forced to do” (Participant 167). A
high-achieving student stated, “I love [algebra], and I just love learning new stuff and
when I’m learning new stuff about it, I just stay in flow” (Participant 076). This stu-
dent joined an after-school mathematics club. His teacher
lets me decide what I’m going to do and I like it better [that way] . . . . For me, it has to
be a little challenging so that I’m learning something . . . . I’m at the point where I’m
really ahead so [my teacher] lets me decide what I’m going to do and I like it better
because I can go at my own pace and if I want to learn more I can go higher.
Students did not explicitly link flow to high or easy achievement.

In trying to understand what made a subject a student’s favorite, even if the inquiry
frequency was rare, we found the following student comments. A high-achieving stu-
dent from a traditional classroom revealed that science was her favorite subject not
only because of the topics that were covered but also because of the way in which it
was taught. Students were provided with more flexibility to help coconstruct the
curriculum.
We were doing this whole thing on water and how you create stuff. So you had the whole
choice of all these experiments of water. So I chose mine and that was fun because you
chose it for yourself . . . . [I like] that [the teacher] tells us the big topic and we get to go
through the little topics and choose the experiments ourselves. (Participant 004)
When asked how this science teacher differed from other teachers, this student shared
that in science
[my teacher] sometimes makes us write about all these topics we would like to learn
about. I like to learn about fish, so I wrote that down and we ended up doing that. So
she’ll just read about what we want to do.
Another high-achieving student from a setting that rarely incorporated inquiry instruc-
tion reported enjoying history because
We ask a lot of questions and tell him about what we really want to learn. We really just
use the textbook for our math class but our history teacher kind of teaches us what we
want to know. [Our history teacher] makes it fun for us to learn and if we wanted to learn
about one thing during that other thing he’d tell us why they are doing that and he’d go
into what we’re interested in. (Participant 098)
Another high-achieving classmate also reported that
[In English] you’re allowed to read a lot more so you get to kind of pick what you want
to read and what you want to explore. I enjoy it when I can decide what I’m going to do
. . . . For me, being in flow means to understand what you’re doing and to feel like there’s
no outside world and to just feel like you’re doing something because you’re doing it, and
it’s a good feeling. (Participant 171)
High achievers were not alone in making this connection (consider average-achieving
Participant 078’s comment cited earlier) but they articulated it clearly.
Borovay et al. 95
Another example of the subtle differences that were identified with regard to flow
occurred in students’ descriptions of their experiences when reading and writing.
Students from more-inquiry settings often reported flow when creating new written
works or engaging in books to generate new ideas for their writing. Students from less-
inquiry environments reported experiencing flow when they were more passively get-
ting “lost” in the book itself. For example, one student from an inquiry setting said,
“reading gives me more ideas [about things] to write about” (Participant 074). A high-
average-achieving student from a rare-inquiry classroom remarked how she experi-
enced flow: “Often, especially when I’m reading books, because you just get so into
the topic that you’re reading that you feel that everything around you is the exact way
that the book is telling it” (Participant 010). Although engaged, she did not comment
beyond the written work with regard to the details or what would happen as the story
unfolded.
Conclusion
Regarding the motivational benefits of inquiry-based instruction for all students,
intrinsic motivation, mastery-goal orientation, as well as flow, were higher for all stu-
dents who participated in inquiry-based activities (e.g., projects or experiments) and
were experienced more often and to a higher degree in more inquiry-based learning
environments, likely because more of the activities in every school day are inquiry-
based. Despite statistical significance, effect sizes were small, perhaps indicating that
more frequent classroom inquiry contributes to student motivation, but as one of many
contributors (others include, for example, feeling supported by teachers, parents, and
peers—L. H. Anderman, Andrzejewski, & Allen, 2011, decreased tension in dialogue
within group-work—Tolmie et al., 2010, and having meaningful and achievable
goals—Zimmerman, 1990).
Students at all achievement levels reported more flow experiences in their favorite
subjects versus the most recently completed unit, supported by statistical significance
and large effect sizes. This highlights the importance of considering students’ interests
in successful inquiry implementation. In all instructional environments, students pre-
ferred challenging over easy work, regardless of their reason for this preference.
Students emphasized the importance of feeling able to succeed and needing to be
personally interested in the particular topic or activity to experience flow.
We also explored differential impact on high-achieving students and the possibil-
ity of a special role for flow as a motivational construct through which to observe
such differentiation. Consistent with prior theorizing and research about the special
suitability of inquiry for high-ability students, high-achieving learners in this study
reported the most flow in inquiry and in their favorite subjects. Possible clues to stu-
dents’ underlying reactions included some high-achieving students from rare-inquiry
settings having enjoying their favorite subjects because they were able to participate
in determining the content. High-achieving students from inquiry classrooms recalled
experiencing higher flow states in their favorite subjects, however, the interviews
indicated that these subjects were also being taught using inquiry methods, so the two
influences need to be teased apart.
Flow theory seems indeed to be a useful framework within which to explore student
motivation in inquiry instruction, especially the experiences of high-achieving stu-
dents and affective outcomes of participation. This link between flow and inquiry is
related to enjoying challenge, sharing in curricular decisions, and love of learning.
Implications for Future Research Arising From Limitations in the Study

Whether or not inquiry experience fosters desire among high-achieving or variously
defined gifted and other students to be engaged in challenging work or whether high-
achieving or gifted students by a range of definitions, in particular, bring to any setting
a preference for demanding tasks still needs to be explored. We recruited teacher-
identified high-achieving children who, more than others, might like school and learn-
ing and invent challenges when they can. This might explain their higher flow states
in inquiry-related activities. For other students, flow theory shows positive signs of
having useful explanatory power, but their responses might have been mediated by
other variables not fully revealed by this study, for example, a special relationship with
a teacher (e.g., a student and teacher who especially like to talk with each other, a
teacher who identifies high potential and mentors a child in a school subject, sport,
artistic, or community activity, or a child who volunteers as a teacher’s helper), suc-
cessful performance, or the opportunity to collaborate with friends. These possibilities
deserve exploration; however, no student comments in the present study suggested
that states of flow arose outside the classroom experience, even if not curriculum-
related, but we did not ask about such situations. Further study is also needed of how
much inquiry is needed for different students to experience its motivational benefits;
this might vary in relation to ability and prior achievement.
Within-subjects differences highlighted a potential interaction between flow and
inquiry environment: Students from rare-inquiry settings reported greater differences
in flow experiences between recent-unit and favorite-subject contexts than did stu-
dents from the other two settings, but the differences were nonsignificant. It might be
useful to explore whether or not this interaction evaporates as inquiry becomes more
common with a particular teacher’s pedagogy or student’s experience. We also found
some overlap in interviews between favorite subject and whether that class was
inquiry-based; these influences need to be separated.
The FSS-2 can detect differences in flow experiences as they relate to the nine
dimensions of flow for athletes (as originally validated), but only globally in these
academic contexts. Perhaps the target statements were too generic (e.g., “the goals of
the activity were clearly defined”). Most flow studies use the Experience-Sampling
method (“beepers”) but this interrupts ongoing classroom activities. Perhaps the FSS-2
is an adequate measure, but the classrooms in this study might not have been as
extremely diverse in their pedagogy as the inquiry-frequency tallies indicated. Integration
of inquiry into the curriculum is growing slowly and this appears to include IBO pro-
grams. Similarly, many so-called traditional environments incorporate some inquiry
Borovay et al. 97
such as allowing students to investigate topics of individual interest. Wider variation

in independent variables and more sensitive measures might be useful in the future,
but meaningful outcomes were observed despite these constraints.
Understanding why a subject was a student’s favorite was not our focus when the
study was designed. However, understanding pedagogically why these subjects dif-
fered would provide useful insight into the relation between classroom instruction and
optimal motivation. Information concerning students’ favorite subjects was gleaned
primarily from a few open-ended questions. A future study could usefully explore
inquiry in favorite subjects versus others, especially among diverse learners, and also
include a wider age range. Seeking more inquiry-based classes at the secondary level
should be part of such follow-up.
It was difficult to separate students’ enjoyment of pedagogy from having a particu-
lar teacher. Charismatic, empathic, supportive, and stimulating teachers directly influ-
ence classroom enjoyment and motivation (Bishop, 1968). We tried to minimize this
teacher effect by selecting only highly regarded teachers. A future direction could be
to explore different teacher variables (e.g., personality, empathy, sense of humor,
experience, training) in relation to student inquiry, flow, and student ability. Perhaps
having volunteer teachers leads to having more positive teachers, but greater diversity
would only have increased the differences already observed and, practically speaking,
it is impossible to involve teachers other than volunteers. It would also be desirable,
based on hypotheses generated from the present study, to directly observe the connec-
tions between inquiry and flow within functioning classrooms. This would also vali-
date the principals’ nominations. We could not be certain that all teachers internalized
the student-identification criteria in the same way. It would be useful in future studies
to question teachers about this process before they begin and to explain how the crite-
ria applied to a selection of their decisions.
Methodologically, working with a narrower grade range within a single level of
education would facilitate using more powerful statistical tools such as CFA and dis-
criminant analysis, or canonical correlation analysis, at the same time reducing the
need to convert continuous measures to categorical data and conduct separate planned
or post hoc comparisons.
Theoretical Implications
Flow is a useful theoretical window through which to examine high-achieving learn-
ers’ motivation in inquiry-based instruction. To experience flow, the individual must
bring a degree of ability that matches the activity’s challenge. Inquiry-based learning
specifically focuses on the relation between challenges presented in the learning envi-
ronment and the student’s ability to succeed, while capitalizing on students’ interests.
The quality of the match is more critical than the extent of the challenge alone.
Our results are consistent with Rathunde and Csikszentmihalyi’s (2005) conclu-
sions that, when engaged in student-centered environments, students report higher
intrinsic motivation and higher flow experiences. Students from less-frequent-inquiry
settings, although they perceived schoolwork to be important, often performed their
work because it would benefit them in the future. Their engagement was more instru-
mental, that is, they were not as intrinsically motivated to learn; they were tied to the
prospect of success and doing well on tests, or being engaged by the content more than
being in a creative mode. This is consistent with prior motivational research (e.g., Deci
& Ryan, 1985; Eccles et al., 1993). Although everyone spends some time in a state of
flow, the experience is different for high-achieving students. They experience flow for
the sake of the task at hand. Perhaps higher achieving students whom we contrasted
with average- and low-average-achieving students already enjoy enough school suc-
cess that they do not need to dwell on the prospect of success.
Although high-achieving students reported higher flow in both moderate and high
inquiry settings, the threshold seemed to be higher for less academically successful
students. We can at best speculate, but perhaps moderate inquiry settings do not sup-
port lower achieving students’ motivation as effectively as high levels of inquiry.
Higher intrinsic motivation and flow experiences reported in inquiry situations,
especially by high-achieving students, suggest a link between social constructivism
and flow theory. Instructional situations that provide opportunities to advance to new
cognitive levels, that is, to do unassisted what students could previously do with scaf-
folding, locates inquiry-based instruction as suitable pedagogy for moving the upper
boundary of the “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978). During these
kinds of pedagogical experiences, flow experiences also peak. High-achieving or,
more broadly speaking, gifted students, especially thrive in such environments
(Robinson et al., 2006), even though all learners can benefit. Flow is therefore a suit-
able motivational model for exploring performance or achievement in inquiry-based
environments, especially for high-achieving and possibly otherwise-defined gifted
learners.
Implications for Practice

Whatever the instructional arrangement, taking initial steps toward inquiry affects stu-
dents. Even a single assignment or project that includes basic inquiry steps such as
student choice, a chance to pursue an element of personal interest, personal challenge
on which success is possible in dialogue with the teacher and other students (fitting
Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development”), and opening possibilities for cross-cur-
ricular linkage, could affect all students. More inquiry also especially enhances the
flow experiences of the highest achieving learners. For example, students from one
rare-inquiry setting all reflected on the one occasion they were able to do a project in
mathematics that linked other curricular material (history and geography) and students
referred to this project when they described their flow experience in that classroom.
Even years after leaving the learning environment, the most prominent memories stu-
dents have of their time in school are the memories of the projects and in-depth activi-
ties that they engaged in rather than the general content of the courses (Field, Reis, &
Sedam, 2006).
Inquiry environments are beneficial for all learners because they target individual
interest, a characteristic essential to the experience of flow, and a predictor of success
Borovay et al. 99
in school. They also create circumstances in which children enjoy learning novel and
challenging material. Although this was not the focus of our study, inquiry might be
especially valuable for gifted underachievers who have been documented to lack
engagement and motivation in school (Davis & Rimm, 2004; Field et al., 2006; Reis
& McCoach, 2000).
Supporting Csikszentmihalyi et al. (1993), Tomlinson (1996) suggested that “learn-
ing experiences well suited to [gifted] students will cause their brains to function at a
level of moderate arousal, neither in a state of anxiety nor relaxation” (p. 163). The
high states of flow reported in the inquiry environment in the present study suggest
that this setting is one that allows students to function at a level of “moderate arousal”
in which they are neither anxious nor bored. Whether or not high-achieving students
are in a specialized program, inquiry-based learning can enhance their learning
experience.
Another potential motivational benefit of inquiry instruction arises because stu-
dents often experience a decline in motivation during middle school years (e.g., E. M.
Anderman, Maehr, & Midgley, 1999; Eccles et al., 1993; Liu, 2003; Ryan & Patrick,
2001). This age group was targeted for the present study because students aged 10 to
14 years would understand the questionnaire and could describe their experiences
accurately. Inquiry might contribute to stemming the motivational decline. In the pres-
ent study, middle school–age students experienced flow and intrinsic motivation,
especially within inquiry settings and their favorite subjects.
The notable impact of favorite subject also implies that students should have oppor-
tunities to explore many subjects and to elect to spend extra time in some that espe-
cially attract them (cf. Renzulli, 1977). This does not preclude compulsory subjects.
Why does inquiry work and especially well with high-achieving students? It fosters
challenge commensurate with ability, learner influence on instructional decisions,
confidence in learning, and enjoyment in exploring the boundaries of learning. Social
constructivism, the theoretical heart of inquiry instruction, does not fully explain what
is especially motivating about inquiry learning. It does describe the main instructional
mechanisms, namely, dialogue and building on learner interests. Inquiry succeeds
because it goes with the flow.
Appendix A
Teacher Interview Questions
1. Can you tell me about your approach to teaching?
2. What is your philosophy of teaching?
3. Can you tell me about how you introduce a new unit to your class?
4. Do you find your students are able to help decide what will be taught or is the
curriculum predetermined by you?
5. Who asks the research or investigative questions when engaged in group or
individual projects?
6. What are your method(s) of evaluation?
7. When does evaluation take place?

8. Do students in your class typically work independently?
9. Is emphasis placed on collaboration?
10. If so, when is this emphasized?
11. Where do students typically get their information from?
12. Can you tell me a unit that you are or will be teaching that you are excited
about that might suit the needs of this study?
13. Is this unit one that the students will likely be engaged in?
14. Can you describe this unit and how it will be introduced?
15. How were you trained as an educator?
16. Do you find yourself learning from your students’ endeavors?
The recent unit was identified from replies to Questions 12 to 14.
Appendix B
Student Interview Questions
1. Can you tell me what you like about learning?
2. What makes you want to learn?
3. How does your teacher get you to be excited about what you are learning?
4. How does she or he introduce new topics to you?
5. When you are introduced to a new topic, who decides what you will learn
about?
6. Do you feel you get to participate in making these decisions?
7. Does your teacher ask for your input as to what you will learn?
8. Are the units organized for you so that there are clear goals outlined for you?
9. When you are doing a project, who asks the questions of investigation?
10. If your teacher has decided the topic for you, do you get to choose what aspects
of the topic you will inquire about?
11. Who decides how the information will be presented?
12. Do you usually work in groups or alone? Which do you prefer?
13. Where do you get your information from?
14. Can you describe the unit on [the topic] that you have been working on in
class?
15. How did your teacher introduce the topic to you?
16. How do you get evaluated?
17. Do you know what being in the zone means or flow? (if not, briefly explain)
18. Have you ever had this experience in school? Can you tell me about it?
19. What is that feeling like?
20. When does it usually occur in school for you?
21. What types of activities that you do in your classroom get you into flow?
22. What are some characteristics that these activities have to have in order for you
to experience flow?
Borovay et al. 101
23. What do you have to bring to the situation to be able to get into flow?
24. Can you tell some examples of when you were in flow?
25. Have you ever been in flow in [teacher’s name] classroom? When?
26. You said your favorite subject was [subject], and your favorite activity was
[activity], can you tell me why this is your favorite subject?
27. Are you in flow in your favorite subject? Favorite activity?
28. What about the activity that gets you into flow?
29. Does your teacher differ in the way he or she introduces topics to you and
teaches you in your favorite subject than in [the teacher’s name] class?
30. What do you like about the way your favorite subject is taught?
31. Does the way you are taught influence whether or not you’ll be in flow?
32. Can you describe some experiences in your favorite subject when you were in
flow?
Acknowledgments
We thank the Lester B. Pearson School Board and St. George’s School of Montreal for their
generous participation in this study, and Dr. Lisa Rubenstein for many helpful suggestions on
an interim draft of the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grants and fellowships from
the American Psychological Foundation’s Esther Rosen Katz Fund, The Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada, and Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Société
et la Culture.
References
Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihaly, M. (2012). The importance of challenge for the enjoy-
ment of intrinsically motivated, goal-directed activities. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 38, 317-330. doi:10.1177/0146167211427147
Ames, C. A. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Ames, C. A., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strat-
egies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades.
Review of Educational Research, 6, 287-309.
Anderman, E. M., Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1999). Declining motivation after the transition
to middle school: Schools can make a difference. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 32, 131-147.
Anderman, L. H., Andrzejewski, C. E., & Allen, J. (2011). How do teachers support students’
motivation and learning in their classrooms? Teachers College Record, 113, 969-1003.
Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Inquiry in education: Vol. I. The conceptual foundations
for research as a curricular imperative. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bishop, W. E. (1968). Successful teachers of the gifted. Exceptional Children, 34, 317-325.
Chichekian, T., & Shore, B. M. (2014). The international baccalaureate: Contributing to the
use of inquiry in higher education teaching and learning. In J. M. Carfora & P. Blessinger
(Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for faculty and institutional development: A conceptual and
practical resource for educators (pp. 73-97). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. doi:10.1108/
S2055-364120140000001006
Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2012). Motivation and gifted students: Implications of theory and research.
Psychology in the Schools, 49, 622-630. doi:10.1002/pits.21628
Cook, D. A., & Artino, A. R. Jr (2016). Motivation to learn: An overview of contemporary
theories. Medical Education, 50, 997-1014. doi:10.1111/medu.13074
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Play and intrinsic rewards. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
15, 41-63.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY:
HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2012). Foreword. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in flow research
(pp. v-vii). New York, NY: Springer.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological
studies of flow in consciousness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Montijo, M. N., & Mouton, A. R. (2018). Flow theory: Optimizing elite
performance in the creative realm. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-
Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 215-229). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of
success and failure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behav-
ior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Iver, D.
M. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young
adolescents’ experiences in school and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90-101.
Egbert, J. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language
Journal, 87, 499-518. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1192800?seq=1#page
_scan_tab_contents
Engeser, S. (Ed.). (2012). Advances in flow research. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007
%2F978-1-4614-2359-1
Engeser, S., & Schiepe-Tiska, A. (2012). Historical lines and an overview of current research on
flow. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 1-22). New York, NY: Springer.
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub L. No. 114-95
§ Stat. 1177 (2015-2016).
Borovay et al. 103
Eysink, T. H. S., Gersen, L., & Gijlers, H. (2015). Inquiry learning for gifted children. High
Ability Studies, 26, 63-74. doi:10.1080/13598139.2015.1038379
Field, G., Reis, S. M., & Sedam, C. (2006, November). Using technology to enrich and differen-
tiate curriculum: Introduction to Renzulli learning. Symposium Conducted at the Meeting
of the National Association of Gifted Children, Charlotte, NC.
Garces-Bacsal, R. M., Cohen, L., & Tan, L. S. (2011). Soul behind the skill, heart behind the
technique: Experiences of flow among artistically talented students in Singapore. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 55, 194-207. doi:10.1177/0016986211413574
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of
problem finding in art. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motiva-
tion in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 40, 179-183.
Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (2004). Toward the development of a conceptualization of
gifted motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 121-132.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on
motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 331-341.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.231
Gyllenpalm, J. (2018). Inquiry and flow in science education. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 13, 429-435.
Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016).
Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immer-
sion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170-179. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2015.07.045
Han, S. (1988). The relationship between life satisfaction and flow in elderly Korean immi-
grants. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience:
Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 138-149), New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511621956.008
Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the
classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology,
17, 300-312.
Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Kowalski, P. (1992). Individual differences in the effects of
educational transitions on young adolescents’ perceptions of competence and motivational
orientation. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 777-807.
Hektner, J. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996, April). A longitudinal exploration of flow and
intrinsic motivation in adolescents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Hoekman, K., McCormick, J., & Gross, M. U. M. (1999). The optimal context for gifted stu-
dents: A preliminary exploration of motivational and affective considerations. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 43, 170-193. doi:10.1177/001698629904300304
Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury
Press.
Howell, D. C. (2015, June 25). Treatment of missing data—Part 2. Retrieved from https://www.
uvm.edu/~dhowell/StatPages/Missing_Data/Missing-Part-Two.html
Ibrahim, A., Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2016). Development, validation, and factorial com-
parison of the McGill Self-Efficacy of Learners For Inquiry Engagement (McSELFIE)
survey in natural science disciplines. International Journal of Science Education, 38, 2450-
2476. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.12495
Inquiry hub: Engaging students through themes and inquiry within a blended learning envi-
ronment. (2014, December 18). HUB BLOG. Retrieved from hubblog.inquiryhub.org/
kenspencerapp/
Irving, J. A., Oppong, E., & Shore, B. M. (2016). Alignment of a high-ranked PISA math-
ematics curriculum and the Parallel Curriculum for gifted students: Is a high PISA math-
ematics ranking indicative of curricular suitability for gifted learners? Gifted and Talented
International, 31, 114-131. doi:10.1080/15332276.2017.1356657
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State
Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 133-
150. doi:10.1123/jsep.24.2.133
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2004). The Flow Scales manual. Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure
optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18,
17-35.
Karovitch, S. K., Shore, B. M., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (1996). Gifted and nongifted students’ rea-
sons for leaving French-immersion programs. Gifted and Talented International, 11, 30-33.
Kidman, G., & Casinader, N. (2017). Inquiry-based teaching and learning across disciplines:
Comparative theory and practice in schools. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
doi:10.1057/978-1-137-53463-7
Kiess, H. O. (1996). Statistical concepts for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Liu, P. (2003). Transition from elementary to middle school and change in motivation: An
examination of Chinese students. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18, 71-83.
Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Meece, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive
engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M. L., Urdan, T., Anderman, L. H., . . . Roeser,
R. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal
orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113-131.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived
competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
88, 200-214.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross-
cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Oppong-Nuako, J., Shore, B. M., Saunders-Stewart, K. S., & Gyles, P. D. T. (2015). Using
brief teacher interviews to assess the extent of inquiry in classrooms. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 26, 197-226. doi:10.1177/1932202X15588368
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). What students know and
can do: Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Vol. 1). Paris, France:
Author.
Borovay et al. 105
Peterson, R. J., & Greenleaf, C. A. (2014). Exploring flow among NCAA Division I and intra-
mural athletes. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 33, 421-440.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.
doi:10.1037/11168-000
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learn-
ing and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.
Poelzer, G. H., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). The international baccalaureate: A program for gifted
secondary students. Roeper Review, 19, 168-171.
Rathunde, K., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005). Middle school students’ motivation and quality
of experience: A comparison of Montessori and traditional school environments. American
Journal of Education, 111, 341-371.
Rea, D. W. (2000). Optimal motivation for talent development. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 23, 187-216.
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we
know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152-170.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs
for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1984). The triad/revolving door system: A research-based approach to identifi-
cation and programming for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 163-171.
Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-
five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 3-54.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for
educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enerson, D. L. (2006). Best practices in gifted education: An
evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adoles-
cents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research
Journal, 38, 437-460.
Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Gyles, P. D. T., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Student outcomes in inquiry
instruction: A literature-derived inventory. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 5-31.
Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Gyles, P. D. T., Shore, B. M., & Bracewell, R. J. (2015). Student out-
comes in inquiry: Students’ perspectives. Learning Environments Research, 18, 289-311.
doi:10.1007/s10984-015-9185-2
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B. H., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School
Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158-176.
Shore, B. M., Chichekian, T., Syer, C. A., Aulls, M. W., & Frederiksen, C. H. (2012). Planning,
enactment, and reflection in inquiry-based learning: Validating the McGill Strategic
Demands of Inquiry Questionnaire. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 10, 315-337. doi:10.1007/s10763-011-9301-4
Shore, B. M., & Tsiamis, A. (1986). Identification by provision: Limited field test of a radi-
cal alternative for identifying gifted students. In K. A. Heller & J. F. Feldhusen (Eds.),
Identifying and nurturing the gifted: An international perspective (pp. 93-102). Bern,
Switzerland: Huber.
Siegle, D., Rubenstein, L. D., Pollard, E., & Romey, E. (2010). Exploring the relationship of
college freshmen honors students’ effort and ability attribution, interest, and implicit theory
of intelligence with perceived ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 92-101.
Spronken-Smith, R., & Walker, R. (2010). Can inquiry-based learning strengthen the links
between teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education, 35, 723-740.
doi:10.1080/03075070903315502
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Tolmie, A. K., Topping, K. J., Christie, D., Donaldson, C., Howe, C., Jessiman, E., & Thurston,
A. (2010). Social effects of collaborative learning in primary schools. Learning and
Instruction, 20, 177-191. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.005
Tomlinson, C. A. (1996). Good teaching for one and all: Does gifted education have an instruc-
tional identity? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 155-174.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2008). ICT competency stan-
dards for teachers: Competency standards modules. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001562/156207e.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes
(M. Cole Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whalen, S. P. (1998). Flow and the engagement of talent: Implications for secondary schooling.
NASP Bulletin, 82, 22-38.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
Educational Psychologist, 21, 3-17.
About the Authors

Lindsay A. Borovay holds a PhD in School/Applied Psychology from McGill University. She
is currently a licensed psychologist in private practice in Ottawa, Ontario.
Bruce M. Shore is emeritus professor of Educational Psychology at McGill University. His
research focuses on inquiry across levels of educational practice, and on the cognitive and social
qualities of giftedness.
Christina Caccese holds a BA with majors in Psychology and History from McGill University.
She is currently advancing to graduate professional education in Psychology.
Ethan Yang holds a BEng from McGill University. He is a graduate student in Engineering at
l’Université de Montréal.
Olivia (Liv) Hua holds a PhD in Educational Psychology with a Concentration in the Learning
Sciences from McGill University. She is embarking on a new career in higher education research
and development, based in Columbia, Missouri.

Flow, Achievement Level, and Inquiry-Based Learning

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

Flow, Achievement Level, and Inquiry-Based Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

809659

Lindsay A. Borovay1, Bruce M. Shore1,

1McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada

authentic, discipline-based or cross-disciplinary extended units of individual or small-

Flow denotes a state of immersed concentration in which attention is centered, distractions

the development of new levels of challenge and skill (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997;

Inquiry and Flow

Flow, High Ability, and Inquiry

1. Research Question 1: Do students who differ in achievement also differ in

knowledge of their students or student-achievement data until after a course is over.

Classifying Student Achievement Level

Classifying Instructional Inquiry Approach

Note. IBO = International Baccalaureate Organization.

their instructional approach. The semistructured interview included 16 questions, for

1. Curriculum includes students pursuing questions of their own interest.

Achievement Rare Occasional Frequent Totals

Table 3. Dependent-Variable Instruments.

Instrument What it measures Specific dimensions Reliability References

Research Question 1: Flow Experiences in Classrooms in Which Inquiry

Table 4. Mean Flow Outcomes.

Flow on FSS-2 for the recent unit

Research Question 2: Goal Orientation and Motivational Experiences in

Table 5. Multivariate ANOVA for Goal Orientation and Motivation.

Variance source Wilks’s λ Numerator df Denominator df F p

Research Question 3: Flow Differences Between Recent and Favorite

Difference between mean flow responses on FSS-2

Instructional Achievement Favorite Within-effect

Note. FSS = Flow State Scale; ES = effect size.

Students did not explicitly link flow to high or easy achievement.

Another high-achieving classmate also reported that

Implications for Future Research Arising From Limitations in the Study

such as allowing students to investigate topics of individual interest. Wider variation

Implications for Practice

7. When does evaluation take place?

The recent unit was identified from replies to Questions 12 to 14.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

About the Authors

You might also like