Across contemporary education systems, competence-based curricular reforms increasingly emphasise higher-order thinking, argumentation, and research-oriented learning as essential outcomes of secondary education. International studies highlight that students’ success depends not only on content knowledge but also on their ability to interpret information, evaluate sources, identify causal patterns, and construct justified conclusions (Hattie, 2023; OECD, 2019). These competencies are particularly central in History and Geography, where disciplinary learning requires evidence-based reasoning, interpretation of multiple representations (texts, maps, graphs), and the integration of historical and spatial perspectives.

Diagnostic assessments conducted with Grade 12 students at a Nazarbayev Intellectual School in Kazakhstan indicated that many learners remained at a descriptive level when responding to inquiry tasks. Students experienced difficulty in formulating research questions, linking evidence to claims, and building coherent explanations grounded in sources. Classroom observations further revealed a reliance on intuitive reasoning rather than systematic argument structures. This suggests the need for structured cognitive scaffolding that can support learners in making analytical thinking visible and transferable across tasks.

This action research investigates the pedagogical potential of the Claim–Analysis–Evidence(CAE) framework as a structured reasoning tool designed to strengthen students’ research competence. CAE operationalises academic reasoning by requiring learners to (1) state a claim, (2) explain causal and analytical reasoning, and (3) support ideas with relevant evidence and examples. The framework aligns with principles of cognitive scaffolding, which supports learners in managing complex thinking processes through structured prompts, gradual release of responsibility, and explicit modelling.

The CAE approach also draws on disciplinary literacy and inquiry-based learning, which emphasise that students learn best when they engage in authentic disciplinary practices such as source evaluation, reasoning with data, and argument construction (Spires et al., 2020; Kostaris & Chatzakis, 2022). From an international and European educational perspective, CAE supports key goals in competence-based reforms by promoting critical thinking, structured argumentation, and academically responsible communication.

Research Questions

1. To what extent does the systematic use of CAE cards improve Grade 12 students’ research skills in History and Geography (e.g., argumentation, source-based thinking, analytical reasoning, and conclusion drawing)?
2. How do students perceive the CAE framework in relation to learning motivation and metacognitive awareness during inquiry tasks?

The study employed a mixed-methods action research design implemented in two Grade 12 classes (N ≈ 40) in History and Geography. The action research cycle included four phases: planning, action, observation, and reflection. During the planning stage, teachers collaboratively developed inquiry-based tasks aligned with the national curriculum and designed around authentic disciplinary problems (e.g., interpreting statistical trends, analysing historical sources, and reasoning with geographical representations). Each task required learners to generate a research question, interpret evidence, justify a claim, and formulate conclusions using the CAE structure. The intervention consisted of systematic classroom integration of CAE cards as cognitive scaffolding prompts. Students completed tasks individually and collaboratively (pair/group work) to compare arguments, refine claims, and co-construct explanations. Teachers modelled CAE responses and provided feedback through structured peer- and self-assessment. Data Collection Tools • Student inquiry task samples (pre- and post-intervention) • Classroom observation protocols (engagement levels: high/medium/low) • Analytical rubric scores (argumentation, analysis, evidence use) • Student reflective journals and self-assessment forms Data Analysis Quantitative rubric data were analysed descriptively to identify trends in skill development. Qualitative data from reflections and written responses were coded thematically (e.g., organisation of reasoning, evidence use, metacognitive comments). Triangulation across instruments strengthened validity.

Findings indicate that the systematic use of CAE cards contributed to measurable improvement in learners’ research competence and reasoning quality. Student work showed a shift from descriptive responses toward more structured arguments that integrated defensible claims, causal explanations, and source-based evidence. Quantitative rubric results demonstrated progress in: • clarity and strength of claims, • depth of analytical reasoning, • relevance and accuracy of evidence selection, • coherence of conclusions. Qualitative analysis revealed greater engagement with disciplinary sources, including historical documents, maps, and statistical datasets. Students increasingly referenced evidence explicitly and used analytical connectors to demonstrate causal logic. Reflective journals suggested growth in metacognitive awareness; students reported that CAE helped them organise thinking, communicate ideas academically, and understand expectations for summative assessment tasks. However, limitations emerged: some students’ language proficiency constrained the complexity of reasoning, and producing strong real-world examples required continuous modelling. Time constraints occasionally limited completion of extended inquiry tasks. Conclusion Overall, the CAE framework appears effective in strengthening inquiry-based learning outcomes and supports transferable competencies aligned with international educational priorities. The study suggests implications for interdisciplinary teaching and scalable classroom implementation.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2021). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(5), 542–560. Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel—A synthesis of meta-analyses on achievement. Routledge. Kostaris, C., & Chatzakis, E. (2022). Inquiry-based learning in secondary education: Effects on students’ critical thinking and engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, 103548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103548 OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results: What students know and can do (Volume I). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en Özüdoğru, G. (2021). Participatory Educational Research (PER). Participatory Educational Research, 8(4), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.92.8.4 Panadero, E. (2020). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00422 Spires, H. A., Kerkhoff, S. N., & Graham, A. C. (2020). Disciplinary literacy and inquiry-based learning: Promoting deep learning in secondary education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1046 Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2019). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. Springer.