Beyond cognitive outcomes, inquiry instruction can have positive general and differentiated affective outcomes. In this exploratory study, teacher-nominated highto 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.

A number of characteristics are shared between attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and gifted populations. They include issues with sustaining attention, following directions, and completing tasks. When an individual is both gifted and has ADHD (gifted-ADHD) he has unique educational needs that may put him at risk for underachievement. To date the literature largely addresses how to remediate perceived deficits. Less has been written about how to develop the talent of these twice-exceptional individuals. The present semi-autobiographical narrative proposes that inquiry-based instruction within an authentic community of practice can play an integral role in talent development for gifted-ADHD undergraduate students.A few decades ago, universities were elitist institutions, designed to educate only ''the best'' students, or at least those who were perceived to be part of this population. Over the years, universities have seen their enrollment increase in numbers and diversity to include female students, students with disabilities, mature students, and others whose learning styles may not have fit the old norm. During the last two decades, policies have begun to address issues such as differences in learning styles in general, and the needs of students with disabilities in particular. In this article, we claim that one population

Research-based or scholarship-based teaching is better teaching because it leads to better learning and sustained motivation. Creating a mutually supportive link between teaching and research comprises the teaching-research nexus. In this chapter, the authors address the teaching-research nexus in undergraduate education by presenting a range of initiatives for inquiry-based instructional improvement through activities that require integrated, individual, and collaborative efforts in and across disciplines. The authors present theoretical and practical arguments of the theory of social constructivism in support of a professor’s own scholarship and teaching. They also highlight the importance of changing the nature of undergraduate teaching by offering examples of how undergraduate instructors can foster inquiry-based learning in their teaching as well as ways of facilitating these approaches to teaching. To be able to connect research and teaching in students’ minds, instructors must strengthen within undergraduate students some of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that enable the development and maintenance of inquiring minds.

Professors endorse a symbiotic relationship between research and teaching, but empirical evidence supporting this relationship is inconsistent. Many studies operationalized research and teaching too narrowly to detect the believed relationship. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 27 chemistry professors from a large research-intensive university. Six themes characterized descriptions of how professors' research engagement affects their teaching: it (1) enhances student interest, (2) promotes subject-matter currency, (3) generates research examples, (4) models ways of thinking in the discipline, (5) provides contextualization guidance for instruction and (6) helps them explain difficult concepts. Although most responses were conventional in the kinds of impact they reported, responses reflected professors regarding themselves as having taken some steps toward integrating their knowledge about the subject matter, how it is advanced in their field and how this can enhance their formal classroom teaching. Implications for undergraduate instruction were interpreted within Shulman's framework of teacher knowledge and beliefs.