Ingredients for a perfect storm …
- A report suggesting teacher burnout should be addressed by providing teachers with more scripted lesson plans so they don’t need to plan so much
- A conference featuring a prominent academic who continues to characterize inquiry as an approach that is all about ‘minimal instruction’ and high cognitive load.
- A visiting principal of a radically strict, highly conservative school in London that has produced stellar results
All three things have happened in Australia in the last couple of weeks and seem to have reignited the annual fire, fuelled by media reports claiming inquiry-based/student centred learning is a ‘wacky’ pedagogy and asserting that parents are longing for the same kind of instruction they had at school, etc. etc. etc. The language used in print and social media is often littered with war vocabulary: ‘battle’, ‘sides’, rebels’ or blinding us with science (‘science of … ‘evidence’, ‘data’) almost gleefully pitting educator against educator with breathless claims that one or other pedagogy is ruining the lives of our children.
It's all a bit much and, quite frankly, each time it happens, my instinct is to crawl into bed, pull the covers over my head and wait until it dies down.
Which may, in fact, be the most constructive thing to do …
Because it certainly isn’t constructive to share – with ever so carefully crafted language, a response to these articles on twitter. I made the mistake of doing that on Sunday and within minutes was hit by a couple of nasty replies. I don’t have the stomach for that stuff. I muted the conversation and then deleted the tweets and reminded myself why I keep twitter as a space for simple sharing of nice things. It can’t handle anything more.
And yet – I DO feel some responsibility to respond. So I am choosing this space to share my response. I know I am preaching to the choir but that may not be such a bad thing. Perhaps, my attempts to offer (another) response to this futile, fabricated ‘war’ might help provide some language if you should find yourself confronted by a confused parent who has read the articles or simply as some discussion points with your colleagues.
OK – so here goes. Some thoughts …
On definitions …
Just as explicit instruction has many definitions, interpretations and manifestations – so does inquiry. Simply stating that inquiry ‘means letting kids do what they want without little teacher guidance’ is as simplistic and ridiculous as saying explicit teaching means kids in silent rows reading powerpoint slides. Before we weigh in on the argument, it is always useful to ask people to define their terms ‘What do you mean by explicit teaching/ inquiry learning? What actually happens? What do you do? What do kids do? When I do that, I often find we have much more common ground than we assume.
On quality teaching
There is (very) poor teaching in every approach. As I have said before, I would prefer to have a passionate, skilled, hardworking, knowledgeable teacher who wants the best for their kids using more teacher directed approaches than a half-hearted, ill-informed and unskilled teacher attempting to use inquiry. Teacher quality matters.
On diversity
In an ecosystem of ‘schooling’ we may well need diversity of approaches. Inquiry does not suit every teacher (nor does it suit every student.) No one has ever said it does.
On being explicit
Teachers who bring an inquiry stance to their work understand the importance of being explicit. It is more a matter of timing and emphasis. Inquiry teachers will generally design opportunities for exploration before detailed explanation but even this will depend on what is being inquired into and the degree of experience and background knowledge a student has. Being explicit is about being clear and intentional - this is as important in an inquiry approach as it is in any approach. A blend of explaining, modelling and demonstrating with problem solving, exploring, testing is often what a good lesson entails. Again, my hunch is we meet more in the ‘messy middle’ than we might think. For example, we ALL seem to talk about activating schema, linking to past learning, checking for understanding …
On evidence
There are many research papers supporting the effectiveness of inquiry-based approaches just as there are for more traditional methods. There is ample support for the approach amongst some cognitive scientists just as there is criticism from others. I am not sure that flinging evidence at counter evidence is particularly helpful. What is helpful is a strong, clear focus on the impact of how we work with the children and families in our communities.
On knowledge
Although an inquiry-based approach favours conceptual understanding, it is impossible to develop that understanding without knowledge and you can’t ask questions about something of which you have no knowledge. Concepts are built from facts. While knowing isn’t understanding – it is the basis of it. Knowledge is important in an inquiry classroom.
On the curriculum
Inquiry approaches are sometimes seen as anti-curriculum. I often get asked that very question “but what about the curriculum that we have to cover?’ My recommendation is always to know the curriculum inside out. Then better you know it, the better equipped you are to help support students’ grasp of the ideas and skills it outlines. It is about how we address the curriculum. The Australian curriculum is full of references to skilled inquiry across several learning areas. The fact that there is certain knowledge identified in the curriculum should not cause hand wringing angst for those who use an inquiry approach. That content may not lend itself to inquiry OR, if it does, then help children uncover it.
On success
Claiming one method is more successful than another requires further interrogation. What do we mean by success? What is our view of the purpose of school? What is being measured? Stellar exam results are one measure of success but as we all know too well – there is so much that is not measured that many people value – particularly in current contexts. The development of character, the capacity to learn independently, curiosity, flexibility, creativity and collaborative skills to name a few.
On staying open
Fuelling the unnecessary, simplistic and inaccurate polarization of approaches to teaching is unhelpful. The media does it and so do those with extreme views but for most of us, a more nuanced approach fits best. Let’s all refuse to be positioned as warring tribes. Without wishing to sound too Polyanna about it all – there is a LOT we can learn when we take time to listen to the views of others that have different perspectives and beliefs to our own. I have a whole section in my new book on the lessons I have learned from those who criticize inquiry. Staying open minded, willing to really listen, staying curious and willing to give ground feels much more productive and much less stressful – for me anyway
On values
We all owe it to our kids to stay informed about our craft. Make no mistake, I come from a constructivist perspective and my deeply held values of learner agency, curiosity, collaboration and authenticity remain at my core and continue to guide my work. I believe in and have witnessed around the world, the power of high-quality inquiry based teaching and learning. We need to keep reading, talking, listening and learning. Finding the sweet spot between having clear values and beliefs about teaching and learning while staying receptive to the kaleidoscope of viewpoints out there is not easy … but ultimately if inquiry is at my core, I need to live the philosophy as I engage with different and often challenging perspectives - and refuse to be sent to war.