The Involvement in Inquiry-Based Working of Primary Teachers in China: A Large-Scale Study

Abstract

Worldwide, educational systems have shown a growing interest in teachers as inquiry-oriented professionals. The present study reports on a large-scale quantitative study to explore the current involvement of Chinese primary school teachers in inquiry-based working. The latter reflects three forms of activities at both the classroom and school levels, including systematic reflection, using research, and conducting research. Data were collected from a sample of 5566 primary teachers from 114 schools across seven cities. Multilevel analysis results show how primary school teachers feel challenged to engage in inquiry-based working when tackling school-level problems. Several individual-level predictors, such as educational level, research function, and teachers’ perception of research-related courses, could be identified as significant precursors of teachers’ involvement in inquiry-based working. At the school level, significant predictors are related to the location of the school. In this regard, large disparities were found in teacher involvement in inquiry-based working between rural and urban schools. The paper argues that these insights provide implications as to how teacher education and school policy can support primary teachers to become inquiry-oriented professionals.

1. Introduction

Broadly defined, inquiry-based working refers to teachers’ engagement in research-related activities (i.e., building on the research literature or conducting research) to reflect on their classroom practices or school-level educational reforms (Baan et al., 2020; Borg, 2010; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Papanastasiou & Karagiorgi, 2019; Ro, 2017). Theoretically, the idea that teachers work in an inquiry-based manner is grounded in reflections of Dewey (1929) about the gap between educational research and practice, Stenhouse’s conception (Stenhouse, 1975) of ‘teachers as researchers’ and Cochran-Smith’s emphasis on the relevance of developing ‘an inquiry as stance’ (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 120). Attention to teachers’ involvement in inquiry-based working is still very much alive today, with studies reporting its impact as a transformative force in teachers’ professional development (Amels et al., 2019; Borg, 2010) and as a hallmark of self-improving school systems (Furlong, 2014; Godfrey, 2017). Though the related literature base is growing, authors point to a lack of empirical evidence that is helpful to derive technical implications or to reflect on current practices and policies (Biesta, 2007).

Also, despite the promising character of inquiry-based teaching practices, they have not yet gained a strong foothold in schools (Taylor, 2017; Willegems et al., 2017). This seems to be dependent on the quality of and the extent to which research-based learning opportunities are being offered to ensure critical engagement with research in the field (Chua et al., 2018; Evans et al., 2017; Gleeson et al., 2017; Yuan & Burns, 2017). In addition, a teacher’s research engagement seems to depend on the practice of a relevant school improvement agenda that, e.g., builds on research networks among and within schools (C. Brown, 2018; Department of Education, 2016), and/or the existence of a research partnership between universities and schools (White et al., 2018).

Building on the call for setting up more empirical research in this field (Kowalczuk-Walędziak & Ion, 2024), the present study was set up in mainland China, where no related large-scale research has been conducted thus far. Thus far, only small-scale studies have been performed (e.g., Gao & Chow, 2012; D. Wang et al., 2017; T. Wang, 2016; Zheng et al., 2019). This inspired the design and implementation of a large-scale quantitative study to explore active teacher involvement in inquiry-based working (Jiao Ke Yan 教科研) and background factors associated with this involvement. A large-scale perspective also offers the advantage of adopting a multilevel perspective to such practices. This methodological perspective overcomes the violation of the independence assumption by single-level regression (Hox et al., 2017) and takes into account the theoretical model of ecosystem; that is, the behaviour of inquiry-oriented teachers cannot only be explained by personal characteristics but should also consider school-level characteristics that reflect the wider local, political, economic, and cultural ecosystem. The latter influences each school member and affects their inquiry-based working (Godfrey & Brown, 2019).

2. Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

2.1. Inquiry-Based Working in the Chinese Context

In this study, inquiry-based working is conceptualised as closely aligned with the tradition of teacher action research (also referred to as practitioner-oriented research). Specifically, it refers to teachers’ systematic, cyclical investigation and reflection on their own practice, as well as using and conducting research with the aim of improving teaching and student learning (Baan et al., 2020; Borg, 2010; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Kowalczuk-Walędziak & Ion, 2024). According to the current literature, the significance of teacher involvement in inquiry-based working can be looked at from both theoretical and technical angles. Theoretically, teacher involvement in inquiry-based working can be considered as a new paradigm for producing educational knowledge and may challenge the monopoly of professional academic institutions in educational knowledge creation (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Technically, teacher involvement in inquiry-based working could be a promising strategy for teachers to develop a deeper understanding of their teaching processes and students’ learning in view of their professional development (Cordingley, 2015; Nakata et al., 2022).

The concept of inquiry-based working is further defined and typified with three types of teacher activities: (1) systematic reflection, (2) using research, and (3) conducting research (Baan et al., 2019, 2023, 2020). The focus on these three activities is based on Baan et al.’s (2020) qualitative exploration of how teachers use an inquiry-oriented approach to improve their teaching in daily practice. Regarding the three forms of inquiry-based activities, systematic reflection refers to teachers’ reflective practice in their professional context. It is worth noting that the features ‘systematic’ and ‘initiative’ are being emphasised, in contrast to ad hoc and/or unintentional reflection in teachers’ daily lives (Borg, 2010). Using research refers to teachers improving their teaching practices based on research findings. Recent researchers stress in this type of activity the focus on ‘evaluation’, implying that teachers need to be able to critically evaluate available research evidence in terms of their usability in their personal teaching context (McFadden & Williams, 2020). Conducting research refers to teachers adopting a full research cycle to investigate a practice problem or fascination, including problem definition, research design, evidence collection, analysis, and interpretation (Willegems et al., 2017). The three types of inquiry-based working can be carried out at the classroom level and the school level (Baan et al., 2019). The classroom level refers to teachers engaging in inquiry-based working within their own classroom, whereas the school level refers to teachers’ collaborative involvement in tackling school-related problems.

Although the concept ‘inquiry-based working’—in the Chinese school context—has been imported from the West and is hardly being used in educational policy documents, available studies show how Chinese primary school teachers are actively engaged in the three core activities, both at the individual level and school level (Sargent & Hannum, 2009). Chinese educational researchers and practitioners usually adopt the related concept ‘Jiao Ke Yan’ (教科研) to express their appreciation for teachers’ reflection and collaborative inquiry in schools (T. Wang, 2016). However, despite being used in daily practice, ‘Jiao Ke Yan’ is still an ambiguous undertaking without a clear and measurable definition. Earlier quantitative studies explored and measured ‘Jiao Ke Yan’ by adopting the Western conception of ‘professional learning communities’ (e.g., Ke et al., 2019; T. Wang, 2016; Zheng et al., 2021). However, professional learning communities refer to a school’s institutional culture and organisational characteristics of ‘Jiao Ke Yan’ (Stoll et al., 2006). It refers as such hardly to teachers’ individual practice. Therefore, the present study systematically studies teachers’ engagement in ‘Jiao Ke Yan’ practices starting from an operational definition of inquiry-based working and by building on a promising and appropriate research instrument.

2.2. Factors Influencing Teacher Involvement in Inquiry-Based Working

Studies have highlighted factors related to teacher involvement in inquiry-based working, both at the individual level and at the school level (e.g., Baan et al., 2019, 2020; Lysenko et al., 2014; Papanastasiou & Karagiorgi, 2019).

At the individual level, demographics, work-related factors, and teachers’ previous experiences of research courses are considered as relevant influencing factors. Regarding demographics, authors (e.g., Cousins & Walker, 2000) have shown that gender, age, and educational level play a role and should be adopted as control variables when studying teachers’ involvement in inquiry-based working (e.g., Amels et al., 2019). Other research literature (Gao & Chow, 2012; Lysenko et al., 2014; Vrijnsen-de Corte et al., 2013) acknowledges the role of work-related factors, such as work experience, experienced workload, and whether research is a formal responsibility of the teacher. Concerning experience, the results are mixed. On the one hand, Lysenko et al. (2014) report that teachers’ work experience could be a negative predictor of the degree to which teachers use research information. On the other hand, Vrijnsen-de Corte et al. (2013) found that more experienced teachers were more engaged in evaluating and reporting research. Regarding experienced workload, studies revealed the encumbering impact of a heavy workload and limited availability of time for inquiry-based working (Gao & Chow, 2012). In addition, a recent qualitative study indicates that teachers with a formal research function tend to conduct research more frequently than others without a formal research responsibility (Baan et al., 2020). Another individual-level factor is teachers’ prior experience with research courses (Cousins & Walker, 2000; Papanastasiou & Karagiorgi, 2019). Successful and effective participation in those courses may result in the development of adequate attitudes, skills, and knowledge regarding inquiry (Van der Linden et al., 2012). However, teachers’ perceived usefulness to engage with research also plays a role (Daniel et al., 2018). Moreover, while initial teacher education and continuing professional development programmes in China emphasise the significance of developing research competence, according to our knowledge, few empirical studies have actually explored how teachers’ experience with research courses is related to their active engagement in inquiry-based working. Therefore, additional evidence related to the role of this factor is needed.

Apart from factors at the individual level, school-level factors are also expected to play a role (Baan et al., 2019; Kowalczuk-Walędziak & Ion, 2025; Luo et al., 2025, 2022). However, limited empirical evidence is available to understand the variance in teacher involvement in inquiry-based working associated with school-level factors. Nevertheless, Chinese researchers point to the importance of considering the region where schools are located, due to the large disparity in resources and environment between rural and urban schools (Liu & Hallinger, 2018). In China, the rural–urban divide is a structural factor impacting school effectiveness and teacher behaviour. For example, based on qualitative data, D. Wang et al. (2017) reported that the Chinese rural–urban divide is reflected in differences in school management and teacher evaluation, leading to possible differences in teacher participation in research. Thus, in this exploratory study, we adopt the rural–urban divide as a broad structural factor influencing teacher involvement in inquiry-based working.

In summary, prior research suggests that teachers’ involvement in inquiry-based working is jointly shaped by individual-level factors—such as demographics, work-related conditions, and prior research training and its perceived usefulness—and school-level contextual factors, particularly the school’s location or region, which determine the resources and support available for participating in inquiry-based working.

The former brings us to the following exploratory research questions guiding the present study:

How are Chinese primary school teachers involved in different forms of inquiry-based working?

What factors at the individual and school level affect teacher involvement in inquiry-based working?

3. Research Design

3.1. Sample and Procedure

To develop a representative sample of primary school teachers, a two-stage sampling approach was adopted. In the first stage, seven cities were randomly selected from northern, southern, western, eastern, and central China: (1) Zhengzhou (Henan Province), (2) Changsha (Hunan Province), (3) Qujing (Yunnan Province), (4) Guangzhou (Guangdong Province), (5) Guyuan (Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region), (6) Wenzhou (Zhejiang Province), and (7) Harbin (Heilongjiang Province). Though randomly selected, these cities are situated in provinces with very high differences in GDP. In the second stage, we contacted local educational authorities to randomly select 10 to 20 elementary schools from these cities. After obtaining permission from these authorities, an online questionnaire was distributed to teachers in the sampled schools through Wen Juan Xing (问卷星), a Chinese online questionnaire platform. Teacher participation was voluntary. Informed consent was obtained from the participants.

A total of 6035 surveys were returned between June 2020 and September 2020. After data screening, 55 (0.9%) outliers were removed from the analysis according to the Mahalanobis D² value and standardised value. In addition, to ensure the validity of the multilevel analysis, schools with fewer than ten participants and more than 69 missing values at the school level (e.g., missing school system, unrecognised school information) were excluded from further analysis (Hox, 1998). Eventually, the data from 5566 teachers (92.3%) from 114 schools were included in the analysis. This sample comprised 1316 teachers (23.6%) from 37 rural schools and 4,250 teachers (76.4%) from 77 urban schools. In terms of gender, 942 (16.9%) teachers were male, and 4624 (83.1%) were female, reflecting the predominantly female composition of the Chinese primary education workforce. The average age of teachers in the sample was 38.06 years (SD = 8.66), and the average years of teaching experience was 16.18 years (SD = 10.51). Regarding their educational level, 838 (15%) teachers obtained an associate degree or below, 4529 (81.4%) teachers obtained a bachelor’s degree, and 199 (3.6%) teachers held a master’s degree.

3.2. Research Instruments

3.2.1. Measuring Teacher Involvement in Inquiry-Based Working

The instrument of Baan and colleagues was adopted to assess teachers’ self-reported inquiry-based working (Baan et al., 2019). In line with its theoretical conceptualisation (see theoretical framework), this 26-item instrument consists of six subdomains that mirror the three types of inquiry-based working at the teacher level and the school level: (1) systematic reflection at the classroom level (three items), (2) systematic reflection at the school level (three items), (3) using research at the classroom level (nine items), (4) using research at the school level (four items), (5) conducting research at the classroom level (three items), and (6) conducting research at the school level (four items). The instrument requires teachers to rate each statement following an eight-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 = never to 7 = always.

To develop a conceptually equivalent Chinese version of the instrument developed by Baan and colleagues (Baan et al., 2019), cross-cultural translations were performed (World Health Organization, 2010). In a first step, the original instrument was translated into Chinese by the first author and two Chinese–English language teachers. Second, another group of Chinese–English language teachers (n = 3) back-translated this new version into English. Revisions and adjustments were made by comparing the original version and the back-translated version. In addition, further building on the recommendations of Baan et al. (2019), we emphasised the focus on systematic and intentional aspects of reflection more clearly in our adapted instrument. This resulted in replacing the following item: ‘By thinking about my actions, I have changed my usual approach in a number of ways’ was replaced by ‘I record my problems in the teaching practice intentionally.’ In addition, the item ‘My colleagues and I improve each other’s teaching through systematic reflection steps (reflect on the practice—identify the problem—solve the problems and make conclusion—keep on reflecting)’ was added. The scale was examined by nine educational sciences experts and 15 teaching educators. Finally, the survey instrument was piloted by 50 in-service primary teachers, not participating in the current study. This helped to further improve the comprehensibility and compatibility of all scale items.

The construct validity and reliability of the adapted Chinese version of the instrument initially developed by Baan et al. (2019) were studied using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and by calculating Cronbach’s alpha values. To calculate the model fit, the following fit indices were adopted (T. A. Brown, 2015): Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI). The results reflect a good fit: RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.06, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92. Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.86 to 0.95, depending on the scale subdomains. These analyses support the conclusion that the revised Chinese version of the instrument reflects good reliability and adequate construct validity. All scale items and corresponding factor loadings and reliability measures are summarised in Appendix A.

3.2.2. Measuring Factors Influencing Inquiry-Based Working

Individual-level demographic variables. The following variables were mapped with the instrument: gender (0 = female; 1 = male), age (teachers’ year of birth), and educational level (0 = bachelor’s degree and below; 1 = master’s degree and above). Gender, age, and educational level were included as control variables. Gender was controlled because men and women may face different expectations and opportunities regarding inquiry-based work at school. Age and educational level capture differences in research training, professional experience, and responsibilities that could otherwise bias the estimated relationships between our predictors and outcomes (e.g., Amels et al., 2019).

To study the individual-level work-related factors, questions were presented about work experience (number of years of teaching), teachers’ workload (number of courses per week), and research function (0 = the teacher did not have a formal research responsibility; 1 = the teacher had a formal research responsibility). Measurement of teachers’ individual-level research course experience in the TE programme and CPD programme was rated 0 = no or 1 = yes. Additionally, perceived usefulness of the research courses was rated as follows: 0 = ‘totally useless’ to 5 = ‘very useful’. School-level factors focused on coding teachers’ school region: 0 = rural and 1 = urban.

4. Data Analysis

Descriptive analysis using SPSS 26 was first carried out to explore the data. Paired t-tests were used to explore differences between school-level and classroom-level inquiry-based working measures. Next, multilevel analysis was performed using HLM 6.08 (Raudenbush, 2004). Five models were tested. Model 1 reflected the fully unconditional model and helped test whether variation in involvement in inquiry-based working exists between schools. Next, teacher-level factors were added step by step to three partially conditional models (Model 2, Model 3, and Model 4). Model 5 was the fully conditional model to which the school-level factor (rural–urban) was added. Consistent with the logic of hierarchical model building, the partially conditional and fully conditional models were interpreted in terms of changes in predictor significance. Differences across the six dimensions of inquiry-based working were therefore examined within the fully conditional model, where all predictors are included.

5. Results

The Extent of Primary Teacher Involvement in Inquiry-Based Working

Table 1. Descriptive analysis of the study variables.

	N	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
Gender	5566	0.17	0.37
Age	5492	38.06	8.66	0.16
Master	5566	0.04	0.19	−0.04	−0.10
Experience	5321	16.18	10.51	0.14	0.87	−0.12
Workload	5416	13.51	3.26	−0.00	−0.04	−0.02	−0.02
Function	5566	0.19	0.39	0.01	0.08	0.01	0.07	−0.08
Research courses (TE)	5566	0.60	0.49	0.02	0.05	0.09	0.06	0.03	0.07
Usefulness (TE)	3351	3.27	1.26	0.03	−0.04	0.06	−0.04	−0.00	0.01	0.00
Research courses (CPD)	5566	0.67	0.47	0.01	0.09	0.03	0.08	−0.06	0.14	0.29	0.14
Usefulness (CPD)	3740	3.38	1.19	−0.02	−0.07	0.01	−0.06	−0.06	0.03	0.03	0.70	0.00
SRC	5566	5.70	1.16	−0.07	0.04	−0.02	0.02	0.00	−0.01	−0.03	0.31	0.01	0.37
SRS	5566	5.36	1.39	−0.07	0.04	−0.05	0.03	−0.02	0.01	0.06	0.28	0.07	0.34	0.64
URC	5566	5.24	1.23	−0.06	0.04	−0.00	0.03	−0.00	0.02	0.10	0.34	0.10	0.41	0.68	0.74
URS	5566	5.10	1.41	−0.05	0.07	−0.05	0.06	−0.02	0.03	0.09	0.31	0.11	0.36	0.58	0.76	0.81
CRC	5566	4.89	1.43	−0.01	0.04	−0.02	0.05	0.02	0.02	0.13	0.32	0.12	0.36	0.56	0.67	0.79	0.82
CRS	5566	4.58	1.60	0.02	0.02	0.00	0.03	−0.02	0.04	0.16	0.32	0.16	0.35	0.44	0.64	0.70	0.76	0.83

Notes: N = sample number, M = means, SD = standard deviations. Research courses (TE/CPD) = Research courses experience in teacher education/continuous professional development programme; Usefulness (TE/CPD) = teachers’ perceived usefulness of their research courses experience in teacher education/continuous professional development programme. SRC = systematic reflection at the classroom level. SRS = systematic reflection at the school level; URC = using research at the classroom level. URS = using research at the school level. CRC = conducting research at the classroom level. CRS = conducting research at the school level.

summarises the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of the studied variables. According to the correlation coefficients, multicollinearity exists between age and teaching experience (r = 0.87). Hence, age was excluded from the multilevel analysis.

The descriptive statistics show average scores for each subscale. Regarding the aspects of systematic reflection, teachers score relatively high, with 5.7 at the classroom level and 5.36 at the school level on a seven-point scale. Concerning using research, teachers score 5.24 at the classroom level and 5.10 at the school level. Regarding conducting research, teachers score moderately, with 4.89 at the classroom level and 4.58 at the school level. The paired t-test reveals that the mean scores are significantly higher at the classroom level when compared to the school level: systematic reflection (t = 23.34, p < 0.000), using research (t = 13.52, p < 0.000) and conducting research (t = 25.45, p < 0.000).

6. Factors Related to Teacher Involvement in Inquiry-Based Working

6.1. Fully Unconditional Model (Model 1)

Table 2. Fully unconditional model.

Variable	SRC	SRS	URC	URS	CRC	CRS
Model 1
Fixed effects
Intercept
Coefficient	5.70	5.32	5.23	5.07	4.87	4.56
SE	0.03	0.04	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.04
T-ratio	214.53	147.18	167.74	145.72	146.28	122.76
p	***	***	***	***	***	***
Random effect
Between-school variance:
Variance	0.05	0.1	0.07	0.09	0.07	0.09
SD	0.22	0.32	0.27	0.3	0.27	0.3
X2	309.6	404.8	388.25	357.47	321.38	321.05
p	***	***	***	***	***	***
Within-school variance:
Variance	1.31	1.84	1.44	1.9	1.98	2.47
SD	1.14	1.36	1.2	1.38	1.41	1.57
ICC	0.04	0.05	0.05	0.04	0.04	0.04
DEFF	2.67	3.46	3.29	3.1	2.72	2.72
Reliability	0.58	0.67	0.65	0.63	0.59	0.59

Notes: SE = Standard error. *** denotes p < 0.001.

shows the results of the fully unconditional model. The between-school variance is significant, with intra-class correlations (ICCs) of the outcome variables ranging from 0.04 to 0.05. The ICC is relatively low but still reflects a school effect (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). At the same time, the values of the design effect (DEFF) are all larger than two. According to these statistics, along with theoretical and practical considerations, it is necessary to take the school-level variance into account and to build a multilevel model (LeBreton & Senter, 2008; Nezlek, 2008).

6.2. Partially Conditional Model (Model 2, Model 3, Model 4)

As can be derived from

Table 3. Partially conditional model.

Teacher-Level Variables	SRC		SRS		URC		URS		CRC		CRS
Model 2
	Est.	SE	Est.	SE	Est.	SE	Est.	SE	Est.	SE	Est.	SE
Fixed effect
Intercept	5.77	0.04	5.19	0.05	5.02	0.04	4.81	0.05	4.50	0.05	4.02	0.05
Demographic factors
Gender	−0.18 ***	0.04	−0.2 **	0.05	−0.18 ***	0.05	−0.16 **	0.05	−0.02	0.05	0.11	0.06
Master	−0.08	0.09	−0.43 ***	0.10	−0.08	0.09	−0.38 *	0.10	−0.16	0.11	−0.11	0.12
Work-related factors
Experience	−0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	0.01 **	0.00	0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00
Workload	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.02 *	0.01	0.02 *	0.01	0.02 *	0.01
Function	−0.02	0.04	−0.00	0.05	0.01	0.04	0.04	0.05	−0.01	0.05	0.08	0.06
Research courses experience
Research courses (TE)	−0.1 *	0.03	0.1 *	0.04	0.18 ***	0.04	0.18 ***	0.04	0.31 ***	0.04	0.39 ***	0.05
Research courses (CPD)	0.03	0.04	0.17 **	0.04	0.18 ***	0.04	0.23 ***	0.04	0.26 ***	0.04	0.37 ***	0.05
Random effect
Bet-school variance	0.04 ***		0.09 ***		0.06 ***		0.07 ***		0.06 ***		0.08 ***
Wit-school variance	1.3		1.83		1.41		1.87		1.93		2.36

Notes: Est = estimates. * denotes p < 0.05, ** denotes p < 0.01, and *** denotes p < 0.001.

, Model 2 shows that male teachers score significantly lower than female teachers on systematic reflection and using research at both the classroom and school level (estimates ranged from −0.16 to −0.20). Teachers with a master’s degree score significantly lower on the aspects of school-level systematic reflection (Est. = −0.43) and using research (Est. = −0.38). Teaching experience and workload appear to have a slightly positive influence on inquiry-based working, but a teacher’s research function seems irrelevant. The effect of research courses seems to vary. Teachers who have attended research courses in the context of their teacher education and continuing professional development programmes score significantly higher on systematic reflection at the school level and on using research and conducting research at both levels. Having research course experience during teacher education, however, seems to negatively predict participants’ involvement in systematic reflection in the classroom.

Two additional partially conditional models (Model 3 and Model 4, see

Table 4. Partially conditional model for teachers with experience of research courses.

Variables	SRC		SRS		URC		URS		CRC		CRS
Model 3
	Est.	SE	Est.	SE	Est.	SE	Est.	SE	Est.	SE	Est.	SE
Fixed effect
Usefulness (TE)	0.29 ***	0.02	0.30 ***	0.02	0.32 ***	0.02	0.33 ***	0.02	0.34 ***	0.02	0.37 ***	0.02
Random effect
Bet-school variance	0.04 ***		0.07 ***		0.05 ***		0.08 ***		0.06 ***		0.09 ***
Wit-school variance	1.23		1.68		1.23		1.6		1.61		1.96
Model 4
Fixed effect
Usefulness (CPD)	0.35 ***	0.02	0.36 ***	0.02	0.40 ***	0.02	0.41 ***	0.02	0.41 ***	0.02	0.44 ***	0.02
Random effect
Bet-school variance	0.07 ***		0.11 ***		0.07 ***		0.1 ***		0.08 ***		0.09 ***
Wit-school variance	1.14		1.54		1.12		1.52		1.55		1.91

Note: The factors shown in Model 2 are taken into account as control variables, and only the perceived usefulness is shown in the table. *** denotes p < 0.001.

) were built for the teachers while considering their research course experiences. In Model 3, teachers’ perceived usefulness towards research courses in TE was added for the sub-sample of participants who reported they have research course experience as part of their education. In Model 4, teachers’ perceived usefulness towards research courses in CPD was added for the sub-sample of participants who reported having experience with research courses in their continuing professional development programme. In both Model 3 and Model 4, the factors shown in Model 2 were considered as control variables. Teachers’ perceived usefulness of research courses in TE (est. ranged from 0.29 to 0.37) and CPD (est. ranged from 0.35 to 0.44) are all strongly and positively related to their involvement in all aspects of inquiry-based working.

6.3. Fully Conditional Models (Model 5)

The fully conditional model includes the predictors at the individual level as studied in Model 2 while adding school-level factors. As can be derived from

Table 5. Fully conditional model.

Variables	SRC		SRS		URC		URS		CRC		CRS
Model 5
	Est.	SE	Est.	SE	Est.	SE	Est.	SE	Est.	SE	Est.	SE
Fixed effect
Intercept	5.63	0.06	4.96	0.07	4.85	0.06	4.63	0.07	4.37	0.07	3.85	0.07
Individual-level
Gender	−0.16 ***	0.04	−0.18 **	0.05	−0.16 **	0.05	−0.14 **	0.05	−0.00	0.05	0.12	0.06
Master	−0.09	0.08	−0.44 ***	0.10	−0.09	0.09	−0.39 **	0.12	−0.17	0.11	−0.13	0.12
Experience	−0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	0.01 **	0.00	0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00
Workload	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.02 *	0.01	0.02 *	0.01	0.02 *	0.01
Function	−0.03	0.04	−0.00	0.05	0.01	0.04	0.04	0.05	−0.01	0.05	0.07	0.06
Research courses (TE)	−0.1 **	0.04	0.10 *	0.04	0.18 ***	0.04	0.18 ***	0.04	0.30 ***	0.04	0.39 ***	0.05
Research courses (CPD)	0.02	0.04	0.16 ***	0.04	0.17 ***	0.04	0.22 ***	0.05	0.26 ***	0.04	0.37 ***	0.05
School-level
Region	0.2 **	0.06	0.33 ***	0.07	0.25 ***	0.06	0.27 ***	0.07	0.19 **	0.07	0.25 **	0.08
Random effect
Bet-school variance	0.03 ***		0.06 ***		0.05 ***		0.06 ***		0.05 ***		0.07 ***
Wit-school variance	1.3		1.83		1.41		1.87		1.93		2.36

* denotes p < 0.05, ** denotes p < 0.01, and *** denotes p < 0.001.

, this model shows how urban schools have a significant advantage in all subdomains of inquiry-based working as compared to rural schools (Est. ranged from 0.19 to 0.33).

In summary, the analysis shows that teachers are mostly involved in systematic reflection, followed by using research and conducting research. In addition, less engagement in inquiry-based working is noted at the school level compared to the classroom level.

How individual- and school-level factors predict teachers’ involvement in each of the six forms of inquiry-based working was also examined (see Table 5).

At the individual level, several predictors showed significant associations with specific outcomes. Gender differences were mainly found for systematic reflection and using research, while no significant gender effect was observed for conducting research. Educational level also displayed a differentiated pattern: holding a master’s degree was related to lower engagement in some school-level forms of systematic reflection and using research, whereas it was not significantly associated with classroom-level outcomes. Work-related characteristics such as teaching experience and workload showed small but positive associations with using and conducting research, suggesting that teachers who teach more and have slightly longer experience tend to be more involved in these activities. Research training variables emerged as important predictors for inquiry-based working. Teachers who had participated in research courses, either in initial teacher education or in continuing professional development, generally reported higher levels of using and conducting research. Among those who had taken such courses, higher perceived usefulness of research courses was consistently related to higher scores on all six inquiry-based working outcomes. This indicates that not only the presence of research training but also teachers’ perceived quality and relevance of this training matter for their engagement in inquiry-based work.

At the school level, school region (urban vs. rural) remained a robust predictor when individual characteristics were controlled for. Across all six outcomes, teachers working in urban schools reported higher levels of systematic reflection, using research and conducting research than teachers in rural schools. This pervasive rural–urban gap might suggest that structural differences in resources and professional support between regions play a substantial role in shaping teachers’ opportunities to engage in inquiry-based working.

7. Discussion

Teachers’ involvement in various forms of inquiry-based working is widely understood to contribute to their professional development and to school improvement. By engaging in such work, teachers help bridge the gap between educational research and everyday classroom practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). According to Farrell et al. (2022), teachers’ inquiry-based working can also be viewed as a form of learning at the boundaries between research and practice. Through systematic inquiry and collaboration, teachers engage in boundary practices that connect research evidence with classroom realities. At the same time, it enables knowledge to flow across professional communities, fostering organisational learning that contributes to sustainable school improvement (Luo et al., 2025; Verhoef et al., 2022).

In this study, the results reveal that the extent to which teachers are involved in inquiry-based working varies depending on the nature of the research activities. On average, the Chinese teachers taking part in our study were especially involved in systematic reflection and using research but found it more challenging to participate in conducting research. This is not surprising, as conducting research typically requires more advanced academic expertise and greater organisational support. Consistent with this, prior studies have demonstrated that undertaking research demands higher levels of methodological competence and substantial school-based resources. For instance, Kowalczuk-Walędziak and Ion (2025) reported that even experienced teacher–researchers initially perceived research activities as demanding, requiring analytical skills, mentoring, and supportive organisational structures. In our results, the following in particular draws our attention: teachers score lower in their engagement in school-level inquiry-based working. This raises questions about ways to support teachers to work collaboratively to tackle school-level problems through research. These findings and observations are in line with comparable studies in European contexts (e.g., Baan et al., 2019; Papanastasiou & Karagiorgi, 2019). Previous findings from studies about the nature of teachers’ collaborative work in China also confirm our results. Chinese teachers tend to work collaboratively because of adherence to collectivist cultural values and requirements of the school administrative system (Sargent & Hannum, 2009). However, studies in China reveal that meaningful inquiry and reflective dialogue rarely occur in daily teacher collaboration (Zheng et al., 2021). The first reason for this is that most collaborative activities are usually institutionalised, with teachers being engaged on a non-voluntary basis. A second reason is that teachers tend to remain quiet or rather voice consensus opinions to maintain social harmony in the school community, rather than being engaged in reflective communication. Additional research is needed to substantiate these explanations, and we suggest that future studies take a step further and explore these considerations.

Also, the findings about factors influencing teacher involvement in inquiry-based working reflect interesting results. At the individual level, we surprisingly found that teachers with a master’s degree scored lower in systematic reflection and in using research at the school level than their counterparts. This finding may imply some dilemmas for teachers with master’s degrees in Chinese primary schools. Chinese master’s degree teachers are usually more experienced in doing academic research. But they are a minority. Of the 6.5 million primary school teachers in mainland China, only 1.6% hold a master’s degree (Ministry of Education of China, 2022). The disparity of research experience and being in the minority may challenge these teachers to build a local research network (Baan et al., 2020). Another interesting result relates to pre-service teacher education and continuing professional development programmes. Our results reflect the overall positive impact of involvement in research courses. However, the effectiveness of structured academic training to subsequently engage in systematic reflection is a concern. The present study also confirms that teachers’ perceived usefulness of research courses is positively related to their involvement in inquiry-based working. This might imply that research courses that are closely related to teachers’ classroom practices might be better to support them in developing inquiry-based working (Niemi & Nevgi, 2014).

The results of the multilevel analysis show that urban schools offer a more favourable environment to foster teacher involvement in inquiry-based working compared to rural schools. The results are in line with the qualitative findings of D. Wang et al. (2017). According to their explanation of the school evaluation system, rural primary schools tend to focus more on test scores and adopt an outcome-oriented evaluation approach, while urban schools place a larger emphasis on the collaborative process related to daily teaching duties instead of solely focusing on exam scores. Therefore, teachers in rural areas are more likely to regard teacher inquiry as a burden. However, we also need to be cautious about this interpretation, considering the lack of additional empirical evidence. Further exploration of this rural–urban gap has the potential to inspire practice and research related to regional inequalities in teacher effectiveness. These findings could therefore be the starting point of further studies.

8. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study is subject to limitations. First, we only focused on the rural–urban divide as a school-level predictor in our model. This binary variable can be seen as a container concept pulling together a larger number of school-level factors. Previous research can help to define these underlying factors, such as a strong disparity between rural and urban schools in many dimensions, such as resources, leadership, management, teachers’ salary, opportunities for promotion, and quality of training (Echazarra & Radinger, 2019; Liu & Hallinger, 2018; D. Wang et al., 2017; Qin & Zeng, 2018). Therefore, future research could consider related operational school-level factors to further map why primary school teachers in rural areas lag in their involvement in inquiry-based working. In addition, considering the cross-sectional nature of this study and the use of a self-reported instrument, we refrain from making causal inferences. Future studies could adopt a longitudinal design and add a mixed-methods perspective to study teacher involvement in inquiry-based working. In this respect, teachers’ self-reported data, along with their reflection diaries or research products, could contribute to a deeper understanding.

9. Conclusions

To sum up, the present study contributes in three ways to the local knowledge base and worldwide discussion of teachers as inquiry-oriented professionals by analysing data resulting from a large-scale study from mainland China.

First, the European concept and a measurement instrument (see Appendix A) for mapping teacher involvement in inquiry-based working were validated in the Chinese context. This implies that inquiry-based working, as an umbrella concept, could be adopted in this diverging educational context to provide an operational framework to explore the extent and nature of teachers’ interaction with educational research.

Second, the exploratory evidence echoes available qualitative research findings and can be considered as a stepping stone for future research in China or countries with similar contexts. Future research could—for example—adopt a longitudinal design to study the impact of an intervention or research courses presented to in-service teachers. Moreover, the use of a multilevel perspective takes into account the theory of ecosystem in understanding teacher involvement in inquiry-based working (Godfrey & Brown, 2019). Follow-up studies and practice are suggested to focus on the continuum of teacher education and school context for developing inquiry-oriented professionals in rural schools. This might provide an innovative perspective on improving teacher quality in professionally challenging rural school landscape.

Finally, the call for paying more attention to teacher involvement in inquiry-based working also fits the increasing complexity of teaching. During the past few years, teachers in China have been faced with far-reaching educational reforms, including the double reduction (双减) project, the adoption of competence-based curricula (核心素养为本的课程改革) and the implementation of new curriculum standards for compulsory education in 2022 (2022 年义务教育新课程标准) (Xue & Li, 2022; T. Wang, 2019). All these reforms challenge the traditional approach and thinking of teaching. Inquiry-based working should be emphasised in this continuously changing educational landscape. Education is no longer “teacher-proof”, which would suggest that teaching can be implemented by simply following technical guidelines (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 154). In contrast, inquiry-based working requires teachers who develop a holistic and in-depth understanding of the nature of their own teaching and constantly reflect, interpret and innovate their taken-for-granted practice in the ever-changing educational policy context. Thus, teachers who engage in inquiry-based working serve as agents of change, bridging the gap between educational theory and classroom practice and driving ongoing improvements in the education context.