Introduction

During the past few decades, primary teachers worldwide ae more and more expected to be able to work in an inquiry-based manner (Papanastasiou and Karagiorgi, 2019). People believe that teacher involvement in inquiry-based working(ie. reflect on their classroom practices or school-level educational reforms building on research literature or conducting inquiries) is meaningful considering the theoretical and practical significance of inquiry-based working. The theoretical significance relates to expanding the current educational knowledge base (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2015). Teachers can present their tacit practical knowledge through systematic reflection, or apply research methods for creating educational knowledge. The practical significance relates to teacher professional development(Cordingley, 2015).Teachers use literature and data to reflect the problems in their classrooms, improve their teaching practices, and therefore develop a deeper understanding of teaching and learning in this process.

    Yet, despite increased attention in recent years, engagement in inquiry-based working still remains largely a minority activity in school(Bell et al., 2010, Borg, 2010). Researchers indicate many challenges teachers face in the process of engaging in inquiry-based working, including the limitation of time and available resources, insufficient research knowledge and skills, a mismatch between academic training in teacher education and school practice environment, a lack of opportunities for collaboration,  and examination-oriented school leadership (Gao and Chow, 2011, Baan et al., 2020, Borg, 2010, Geijsel et al., 2020, Baan et al., 2019). However, finer-grained understanding is still required. This further understanding is needed move beyond the current state of the art and to better understand the challenges teachers are confronted with and the support they need during the process of inquiry-based working.

    In so doing, a first needed step is to explore the heterogeneity among teachers based on their involvement in inquiry-based working, with the purpose of inspiring the learning opportunities and targeted school practice that supports them to become researchers. In this respect, a person-centered statistical approach could be promising, which will be discussed specifically in the section of the conceptual framework.

Conceptual framework

Inquiry-based working

Inquiry-based working refers to teacher involvement in research-related activities with the purpose of making well-informed decisions and adapting their teaching to developments in the school context (Baan et al., 2021, Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2015, Munthe and Rogne, 2015). Baan et al. (2021, 2020, 2019) identify three typical activities for the operationalization of teacher involvement in inquiry-based working in schools, including (1) systematic reflection, (2) using research, and (3) conducting research. These three forms of inquiry-based activities – can be both carried out at the classroom-level and the school-level. The classroom-level refers to teachers’ involvement in inquiry-based working in relation to their own classroom, whereas the school-level refers to teachers’ collaborative involvement to tackle school-related problems (Baan et al., 2019).

Person-centered approach

Depending on the research purpose, quantitative research methods can generally be divided into two categories, namely the variable-centered approach and the person-centered approach. The variable-centered approach(eg. regression analysis, factor analysis and structural equation modeling) focuses on testing the hypothetical relationship among interested variables. However, this assumes that research samples are homogeneous and that the same theoretical framework and empirical findings apply uniformly to all the teachers in general. The objective of using a person-centered approach (eg. cluster analysis and latent profile analysis) is to identify subgroups within a sample that differ meaningfully with regard to interested variables. A person-centered focus is useful in exploring the heterogeneity of individuals according to the involvement in inquiry-based working. Considering the fact that some teachers could be more involved in a specific type of inquiry-based working, such as conducting research, while others are not(Baan et al., 2020)

Sample Using an online questionnaire through Wen Juan Xing (Chinese online questionnaire platform), 6035 responses were collected between June 2020 and September 2020 from 7 cities in different parts of mainland China. After data screening, 5566 teacher responses (92.3%) from 114 schools were included for further analysis. In the sample, 1316 teachers (23.6%) from 37 rural schools, and 4250 teachers (76.4%) from 77 urban schools. 942 (16.9%) teachers are male and 4624 (83.1%) are female. The average age of teachers in the sample is 38.06 years (SD= 8.66) and the average years of teaching experience are 16.18 years (SD= 10.51). Measurement An available scale from current literature (Baan et al., 2019) was adopted for this study. This 26-item scale measures teacher involvement in (1)systematic reflection, (2)using research and (3)conducting research at both school level and individual level. All the items require teachers to respond in the form of self-report and rate following an 8-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 = ‘never’ to 7 = ‘always’.To develop the Chinese version of this English instrument, systematic back-translation steps are followed (WHO, 2010). Base on the data collected, the Cronbach's alpha was calculated. It ranged from .86 to .95, pending the subdomains. Data analysis Using Mplus 8.3, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is firstly conducted to explore the construct validity of the measurement instrument. For CFA, the model fit was evaluated by adopting the following fit indexes: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI). After that, Latent profile analysis (LPA) is used to identify subtypes of the sample using a set of continuous observed variables. For this study, this means that the subgroups of teachers can be identified by classifying teachers with a similar reported extent of involvement in inquiry-based working. Log Likelihood (LL), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), Akaike information criterion (AIC), Entropy and the bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT) were used to evaluate the model fit and most appropriated solution of LPA analysis.

The results indicated the acceptable validity of the measurement instrument, and reveal three different subgroups of participatory teachers that are different in the extent of involvement in inquiry-based working. The first profile refers to the “active teacher-researcher” and represents 32.6% of the sample. Teachers in this group report high involvement in six forms of inquiry-based working. Moreover, the extent of their involvement in each form of activity does not differ significantly from each other. The second profile refers to the “average participants” and comprises 42.2% of the sample. Teachers in this group report a moderate involvement in inquiry-based working. Besides that, they are more involved in systematic reflection, followed by using research, and less involved in conducting research. The third profile refers to the “inactive teacher-researcher” and represents 17.9% of the sample. Those teachers report less involvement in six forms of inquiry-based working compared with the other two profiles. The results based on a person-centered approach could inspire future practice and research. First. Understanding the heterogeneity of teacher involvement in inquiry-based working could inspire a more targeted school policy or learning opportunities that aim to support teachers to become inquirers. Since the fact that we cannot implicitly assume that all teachers have the same knowledge base or skill of inquiry. In this respect, for example, it’s meaningful to think about how to motivate teachers who are more involved in inquiry-based working to contribute to the research culture in the school, such as empowering them with a formal research function(Verhoef et al., 2020). Second. We suggest future research could combine the results of subgroups with qualitative data by following the methodological structure of mixed-methods research(Creswell and Creswell, 2017). This helps to unpack the potential factors that result in teachers’ heterogeneity in their practice of inquiry-based working.

(1)Baan, J., Gaikhorst, L., Noordende, J. v. t., & Volman, M. (2019). The involvement in inquiry-based working of teachers of research-intensive versus practically oriented teacher education programmes. Teaching and teacher education, 84, 74-82. (2)Baan, J., Gaikhorst, L., & Volman, M. (2021). Professional development in inquiry-based working; the experiences of graduates from academic teacher education programmes. European journal of teacher education, 1-20. (3)Baan, J., Gaikhorst, L., & Volman, M. L. L. (2020). The involvement of academically educated Dutch teachers in inquiry-based working. Professional development in education, 46(1), 21-34. (4)Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43, 391-429. (5)Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2015). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation: Teachers College Press. (6)Cordingley, P. (2015). The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and development. Oxford review of education, 41(2), 234-252. (7)Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches: Sage publications. (8)Furlong, J., Menter, I., Munn, P., Whitty, G., Hallgarten, J. & Johnson, N. 2014. Research and the teaching profession: Building the capacity for a self-improving education system. Final report of the BERA-RSA Inquiry into the role of research in teacher education. London: British Educational Research Association (BERA). (9)Gao, X., & Chow, A. W. K. (2011). Primary school English teachers’ research engagement. ELT journal, 66(2), 224-232. (10)Geijsel, F., Schenke, W., van Driel, J., & Volman, M. (2020). Embedding inquiry‐based practices in schools: The strategic role of school leaders. European Journal of Education. (11)Munthe, E., & Rogne, M. (2015). Research based teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 46, 17-24. (12)Papanastasiou, E. C., & Karagiorgi, Y. (2019). The involvement of school teachers in research-related activities: Extent, quality and predictors. European Journal of Education, 54(4), 621-634. (13)Raufelder, D., Jagenow, D., Hoferichter, F., & Drury, K. M. (2013). The person-oriented approach in the field of educational psychology. Problems of Psychology in the 21st Century, 5(2013), 79-88. (14)Verhoef, L., Volman, M., & Gaikhorst, L. (2020). The contribution of teachers of research-intensive teacher education programmes to a culture of inquiry in primary schools. Professional Development in Education, 1-17.