Busting some myths about 'the inquiry cycle'....

I once read an interview with a hero of my early teaching days – Donald Graves.  He was asked about the way people had misinterpreted his ‘process writing’ model and replied that sometimes he wished he’d never written it down! Years later I understand the frustration behind that sentiment.  It’s hard to do justice to the complexities and nuances of inquiry in writing.  So much gets lost. Something that is rich, layered and multidimensional can come across as flat, linear and recipe-like. Over the years,  I have published several books that share a ‘cycle of inquiry’ and the kinds of learning engagements that we might design within a cycle.   I have seen hundreds of interpretations of this idea in classrooms.  Many have been gratifying and exciting. Teachers who really ‘get’ the intention, understand the complexity and invite their students into the learning have blown me away with what they have done.   And I have also seen (and heard) many bewildering versions or iterations of the cycle that are such a long way off the original conceptualization and intent!  Ironically, I have seen slavish adherence to a cycle actually impede rather than enhance inquiry.

So why even ‘have’ such a cycle? 

Articulating a model or framework for the process of inquiry is a helpful way to support and guide our practice. The intention of the ‘cycle’ is to guide the teacher’s  (and learner’s ) thinking beyond simply coming up with ‘activities’ and towards a more thoughtful process that assists students to move from the known to the new.    The need to ‘name’ some kind of process was first revealed to me as a young teacher by my fabulous mentors Marilyn Woolley and Keith Pigdon. They helped me move beyond thematic planning and into a more rigorous way of thinking about how to guide learning.  Once I understood constructivism  -  it made sense to me to describe what was such a natural process of building understanding over time.  My job as a teacher was to help design experiences for learners that would support the brain’s best inclinations to wonder, look for patterns, seek new information, link to prior learning and transfer.  While it has changed over time, the cycle I now use owes much to Woolley and Pigdon’s visionary work.

Here are some of the more common misconceptions about ‘the cycle’ and my response to them.  I hope it is as useful to read as it has been to write!!

Misconception 1: Inquiry is all about ‘the cycle’. We DO the cycle….therefore, we DO inquiry.

Simply using an inquiry cycle does not make us inquiry teachers.  As I have written before, inquiry is a ‘way of being’ in the classroom.  Yes, there are planning frameworks that can support the ways in which we design learning experiences for and with students but this is only part of the inquiry story.  An inquiry teacher knows how to question students in ways that enhance and deepen thinking, how to offer choice and honour voice, how to seize an unexpected moment for investigation and how to embed learning in purposeful context   It’s a pedagogy – not just a planning framework.

Misconception 2:  The cycle is a recipe. We need to follow the stages in sequence for it to ‘work out’ in the end.

Nope. It’s a flexible framework. Not a recipe.  Essentially, inquiry cycles provide labels for a process that is common to many disciplines.  Most people agree that inquiry :  involves time to establish your current thinking, your needs and questions, some ‘hunting and gathering’ of information/ideas/ data, some sorting organizing and meaning making and some kind of creation/application/transfer/use.  And most agree that this process is cyclical in nature. New discoveries lead to new questions and so on.  But this process is much neater on paper than it is in practice.  True inquiry is often messy and recursive. We gather and sort then realize we have new questions so we return to some more gathering.  In the cycle I use, I place great emphasis on the role of ‘tuning in’ to students’ thinking to establish pathways for investigation. While it often sits at the ‘start’ of the process – I return to ‘tuning in’ regularly.  These are phases more than they are stages, elements more than they are steps.  There is nothing contained, neat or particularly orderly about a lot of inquiry BUT having a relatively simple iteration of it in the form of this cycle can help us think more clearly and actually better manage the messiness without getting overwhelmed!

#Misconception 3: All inquiries go through the same phases over a similar time frame.

Much as it would be convenient, no two inquiries are the same.  Although most journeys will contain elements of this cycle, starting points, emphases and time frames vary from context to context and depend on the group of students, their age level and what they bring to the journey in the first place.    I have seen some beautiful inquiry journeys travelled within an hour. I have seen some that last a year.  I have seen some that really don’t involve much ‘action’ but are highly worthwhile and engaging and others that are really all about the action.

# Misconception 4: Using a ‘cycle’ as a guide, we can plan a complete unit of inquiry for students

I think this is the most troubling use of the cycle I see. The cycle should INFORM planning, guide it but it doesn’t mean we can create the whole thing before we start.   When I use a planner with the elements of the cycle in it – I see that planner as a guide throughout the process – not as a template to be filled in one sitting.  The cycle is emergent….how kids ‘sort out’ the ideas information depends on what they gather – and that is not something we can determine in detail.  The cycle unfolds.

#Misconception 5: The cycle is for teachers.

Students benefit from having some ‘meta-language’ to attach to processes they use as inquirers.  Some kind of framework should be developed for and WITH students that helps everyone gain a shared language. Making this visible to students helps them think about how journeys of inquiry are both similar and different. It is really useful to display the cycle but only if it is referred to, analysed, played with and critiqued!

#Misconception 6: The cycle only applies to ‘units of inquiry’ in disciplines like science and social studies.

I see many examples of this cycle in action in a range of disciplines and contexts.  Some ‘tweaking’ is needed at times to best fit the nature of the discipline but it is interesting to explore this kind of transfer.  Check out for example – the great work done on http://www.iphys-ed.com about inquiry based PE or Bruce Ferrington’s application of the cycle to math inquiry - http://authenticinquirymaths.blogspot.co.at/

# Misconception 7: It’s my way or the highway or ‘there is only one cycle’….

There are many versions of a ‘cycle of inquiry’. The fact that there ARE many versions is healthy and affirming. I love the different emphases, language and uses of these cycles and think that, together, they help offer us lots to consider as we continue to clarify this intriguing process in our own minds .  Explore various cycles. Look for patterns…where do they all agree? Find one that works for you and your students. Create your own – but be consistent. Shared language across a school has great benefits.

A cycle of inquiry helps us plan and teach with intention.   When it is understood, it pushes us beyond simply coming up with ‘activities’ and challenges us to think about how skills and concepts can be developed and deepened over time.   It gives us some shared ‘meta’ language to use with students and colleagues

How do YOU use a cycle of inquiry to inform your work as an inquiry teacher?

…Just wondering….

First impressions and the inquiry classroom…

Plato once said “The beginning is the most important part of the work”.  For teachers in Australia and New Zealand, the school year is now into its third week – or thereabouts.  Over the last three weeks I have worked in many of these schools and enjoyed the opportunity to sit with teams of teachers to consider how we might best ‘set the scene’ for a great year of inquiry. We are acutely aware that our students are forming impressions about how their year is going to unfold based on the way their teachers interact with them in these first vital weeks (I hear this discourse first hand at my own kitchen table!)  First impressions count. I wonder what impression we are making? In this blog post, I share some of the questions we have asked ourselves.  Although our colleagues in other countries are now well into their school year – these questions are likely to remain relevant throughout and may still be useful for a moment’s reflection.  This list can be read as questions to ask yourself or – if you replace the ‘I’ with ‘we’ questions to reflect on as a collaborative team of inquiry teachers.  What questions would you add?

1.  Have I asked my students about what they want to learn about / to do this year?  Do I know what they hope to inquire into?  Are they sharing their passions and interests? What have the students revealed about themselves?

2. Am I learning about how my students see themselves as learners? Have I asked them to share the skills, qualities, strengths and needs they believe they have as a learner? Have I shared mine?

3. Have I invited my students to participate in decisions made about how the learning space is organised? Have we discussed the connection between the physical environment and effective learning? Have I helped them to own and care for our learning space? Is there  flexibility for learners in this space? Choice? Movement?

4. Have I considered how I will use the visual space to support inquiry this year?  And how will the students be involved in this? Have I started to use my walls as 'second teacher' ?  Have we begun to share:

- our big inquiry question/s

- the learning asset/ transdisciplinary skills signs and specific learning intentions

- a cycle/language for/ processes of inquiry as a common reference for the students

5. Have we started to build some menus/ anchor charts to assist students in selecting learning tools ( eg for thinking skills, team work, self management, research, communication)

6. Does this learning space nurture curiosity? Am I offering provocations such as visuals, objects, clips, wonderful literature....is this a place that I invites 'awe and wonderment' about the world?

7. Have I deliberately focussed on building an 'inquiry community' in which it is safe to take risks, share ideas, ask questions. Have we discussed protocols and ways of learning together that are respectful and communicative?  Are my students helping build a community for learning?

8. Am I staying open to possibilities of spontaneous inquiries linked to current issues/problems/events/ interests? Am I planning in response to student interest and need as well as curriculum demands?

9. Am I being a model inquirer to my students?  Do they see me as a wondering, curious, questioning person who is eager to find out about the world? Do they see/hear me reflecting on my learning? Am I thinking out loud?

10. Have I set myself an inquiry challenge? Am I working on or inquiring into something new at the moment?  Am I being an inquirer too?

11. Is this going to be a true inquiry classroom? Am I being an inquiry teacher...not just a teacher who 'does' inquiry sometimes....

12. Am I learning? Am I wondering? Growing? Reflecting? Am I enjoying the journey so far..?

Inquiry is an approach, not a 'subject'.

In my last post, I described the importance of walking the world with questions in our head.  Well….there has been one question in my head all year and, quite frankly, it has really been bugging me.  A teacher raised the same question during a meeting last week.  I figured it was time I put it out there (thanks Vanessa!) Is it time for a shift in the language we use to describe approaches to ‘inquiry’ in many of our schools?  I have become increasingly uncomfortable when I hear teachers and kids describe a certain session as “inquiry time” – as if inquiry were a subject. You all know what I mean:

 “After lunch we will be doing inquiry – so have your inquiry folders ready”

“ This is the unit of inquiry we are doing – we will get on with that after writers’ workshop”

“What are we going to “do” for inquiry this year? (always referring to the topic/focus of the inquiry)

“OK kids – it's inquiry time!”

“ We are doing maths, then music – then inquiry.”

 In Australia in the nineties, we saw an important shift from what was often described as “integrated” units towards more inquiry-based learning journeys.  While the “integrated units” were in themselves a great improvement on the shallow themes that dominated the previous decade, the emphasis was still more on teacher-centred curriculum organization (integration) and less on student-centred approaches to learning (inquiry).   Gradually, integrated units (that generally focused on science, social studies and health content while blending literacy, numeracy and the arts as appropriate) became less rigid, less choreographed, less activity-based and began to morph into more problem-based, inquiry oriented journeys with understanding at their heart.   Integration of learning areas was still a viable and important goal but the deep understanding and engagement afforded by an inquiry approach became more apparent.  Recent times have seen a growing emphasis on inquiry vehicle for learning to learn – or building ‘learning power’ as Claxton puts it.  Understanding remains critical but,  as access to content becomes increasingly straightforward - it is the skills and dispositions students gain from each journey that carry greater kudos.

“Units of inquiry” have become a mainstay of the inquiry school. They provide important vehicles through which to help students develop the concepts, skills and dispositions they need as 21C learners.  Quality programs of inquiry include robust, challenging and dynamic investigations for students to experience over their years of primary schooling.

So it’s not the “units” I have a problem with per se.  But if we continue to describe this as ‘inquiry’ time and fail to help students see themselves as inquirers across the day – the message is confusing.

When I facilitate a readers’ workshop – I position students as inquirers.  I use essential questions; the students act as researchers as they engage with text; we seek patterns and connections and identify further problems for investigation.  In addition, students are often engaging with texts that are directly linked to their “inquiry” into an essential question about the world.  Our focus may be on reading – but we are inquiring all the way.

How might I re-think my language to better reflect the reality of a day in the life of an inquiry classroom? Our learning involves us inquiring as readers, as writers, as mathematicians, as scientists, as historians, as musicians – as team members and as self-managers.  How to I let my students know that they are inquirers more often than when they are simply “doing” a unit?

I’d love to hear some thoughts about this – I doubt there is a straightforward answer as this issue reflects the complex and nuanced entity that is how we both organize AND name what we do each day.  But blocks of time in the timetable labeled “inquiry” just aren't right…. And the language we use matters.

What do you think?

Just wondering….

Walking the world with questions in our heads...

 “There are never complete answers. Or rather, if there is an answer, it is to remind myself that there is uncertainty in everything.”” — Amy Tan

 Over the last few years, a small but significant shift has occurred in many teachers’ practice in relation to “naming” a journey of inquiry for or with their students.  For a long time, we delighted in coming up with fun, snappy titles for units of inquiry:  “May the force be with you” (for an inquiry into force and motion); “Getting around” (an inquiry into transport);  “Skin, scales, feathers and fur” (an inquiry into animals) and so on.  While these titles were engaging in their own way, they were problematic.  The classroom discourse was more about “doing” a topic rather than investigating.  On asking students what they were actually inquiring into, it became clear that there was a divide between the perceived focus of the unit and the learning intentions the teacher had in mind. These units were most often thematic rather than deeply integrative; topic rather than concept based;  narrow rather than broad and driven by activities rather than inquiry and understanding.  

 There are a number of strategies we can use to reframe a journey of inquiry so that the focus is conceptual and investigative.  Identifying a powerful, overarching “big idea”  is now more commonly used to identify the broader territory in which the inquiry exists.  A big idea runs ‘through’ the learning journey and helps students (and teachers)  see the connection between the specific tasks they are undertaking and a more substantial, enduring concept.  Like the shades on a paint sample strip, student understanding gradually deepens over the journey.    Clarifying the ‘big idea’ (or ideas) that drive an inquiry is a critical element in the planning process.  In its development, teachers themselves become inquirers – thoughtfully identifying what lies beyond the “topic” – what significant, unifying and transferable ideas makes this learning journey worthwhile. 

 Another strategy I have found very useful over the last decade, is to devise (and display) a compelling or rich QUESTION to drive the inquiry.  This doesn’t take the place of the big idea or understanding goal but can serve a similar function.  The thing I most like about driving inquiry through a compelling question is the way it immediately positions that learning as an investigation.  We are not “doing” – we are investigating.  The journey of inquiry is about exploring this question and thinking about/responding to it in new ways. We know that the question will live on beyond our temporary findings.   A compelling, overarching question invites many more questions to support it. This is where the thrill of inquiry teaching lies -  we start out driven by an interesting and compelling question – but we don’t really know where that journey will take us. 

 Sharing or constructing a compelling question with students is a great way to activate prior thinking and experience before further investigation. The question travels the arc of the inquiry – being returned to again and again with new thinking, new perspectives.   As students embark on the journey, I encourage them to walk the world with that question in their head – not trying to answer it as such but to use it as a kind of filter through which the information they gather and the experiences they have can be sifted, sorted and reflected upon.   My ultimate aim, of course, is that this disposition - walking the world with questions in our heads - is something my students will embrace as a way of being.  By framing teaching and learning through questions, I elevate the status of curiosity, I value the unknown and I emphasise learning AS inquiry. 

This way of thinking about a driving question was really crystallized for me  a few years ago when I listened to Amy Tan’s amazing 2008 TED talk on creativity:

 “When I have the question, it is a focus and all these things that seem to be flotsam and jetsam in life actually go through that question….and what happens is that these things become relevant…you are noticing it more often”

 Many educators have identified some of the key elements or characteristics of essential/powerful questions for inquiry.   These include:

• The question can be investigated in multiple ways using a wide variety of sources
• The question invites multiple responses and perspectives
• The question connects to the world beyond me right now – it matters and is relevant
• There is ‘intellectual bite’ in the question – or it is unsettling and thought provoking.
• There concept/s within the question can be transferred to other contexts/situations even time periods.

I am so fortunate to work in a wide range of inquiry classrooms. This experience gives me an insight into compelling questions that ‘work’ for shared inquiry. I love seeing students tackle these questions across time and the increasing depth in which they respond to them as they explore.    Over the next few weeks – I intend to ‘tweet’ a compelling question each day – something that may trigger an idea for inquiry or help some of you re-frame current units that might be constrained by ‘topics’ rather than opened up by  big picture throughlines and compelling questions.   Here are just a few examples:

What does it mean to be healthy?

Can war be justified?

Who’s got the power?

Why do we eat what we eat?

Are we more the same or more different?

How do we know if it is true?

What does it mean to belong?

What does it take to make?

How does where we live affect HOW we live?

Why Earth?

Can art change us?

Do compelling questions drive inquiry in your classroom? What questions have worked for you?  

Just wondering….

Minding our language: teaching in the inquiry classroom

 I’ve been re-reading some of John Hattie’s work – coincidentally during a period when I have been spending a great deal of time teaching in various classrooms and working with teachers on our day to day “instructional practices” in inquiry based learning.  It has been great to return to Hattie’s mantra – that, in the end, it is the teacher that makes the most difference.  It is what the teacher says and does that impacts most on student learning.  

Steven Covey once said “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing”.  In our efforts to create a quality whole-school approach to inquiry,  the focus can too often dwell endlessly on documentation, mapping curriculum,  filling in planners, programming to attend to standards through inquiry, resourcing through technology, making displays of inquiry cycles; appropriate timetabling, getting the wording of the central idea just right, skills and strategies checklists and so on.  While all these elements are undoubtedly important  (and can help us do our job more effectively)….do we sometimes lose sight of the “main thing?“   

Re-visiting Hattie’s work reminds me of the importance of approaching all my teaching as an evaluator - indeed as a researcher.   As students engage in inquiry learning, it is MY role to inquire into their thinking.  Like an archeologist at work, I need to use questions as probes. Teaching becomes the art of helping students make their learning ‘visible’ and this, in turn, allows me to plan, adjust and of course give more constructive and useful feedback.   One of the key challenges for the inquiry teacher is to speak less and listen more.  And when we DO speak, to choose our language carefully.  Peter Johnson’s book “Choice Words” reminds us of the power of even single words to impact on students’ thinking and participation:

—“I wonder…” represents a class of linguistic lubricants. It marks the offering of a possible hypothesis, or a tentative idea with an invitation, (but not an insistence) to pick it up and improve it or take it further.  For group discussions to take place such lubricants are necessary.  Other examples include “maybe”, “seems like”, “perhaps” or “I think”…this kind of “exploratory talk” brings multiple minds together to work on the same problem in powerful ways.”

 I am more and more aware of the power of the words I DO choose. Words can shut down or open up the inquiring mind.  Lately, I have been trying to document the questions and prompts that help students reveal their thinking to me and each other as I teach.  Here are some favourites:

• What are you noticing?
• That’s interesting, keep going/tell us more…
• What makes you say that?
• How is what your thinking connected to…..’s thinking?
• Can you make a connection?
• What else is like this?
• What puzzles you about this?
• Might there be another way of thinking about this?
• What did you notice about yourself/your thinking when you said/did/heard that?
• So what has helped you decide that? What evidence do you have for that idea?
• Which part is making sense?
• Which part is still confusing?
• What are you wondering?
• What are you planning to do?/do next?
• Is there something else you would like to tell us about this?
• Is your thinking changing?  How?  (I used to think…now I think)
• How could you use this again?
• Where/when have you done this kind of thinking/learning before?
• What’s the most important part of this?

 A skilled inquiry teacher is constantly ‘tuning in’ to student’s thinking – not just in the early stages of a learning journey but throughout the process. To do this well, we need a repertoire of questions and strategies that help students to reveal those to us.  And then – like an excited archeologist sharing his or her discoveries – we share the artifacts of student learning with our colleagues and ask “how can I challenge this student further? What does this say about my teaching? What next?”  When we do this – we keep our focus on the “main thing” – the quality of our teaching.

Inquiry approaches to teaching set the scene beautifully for visible learning.  Inquiry pedagogy requires the teacher to  probe, listen and to observe; to provide open ended tasks, to explore rather than assume ‘the known’; to treat the understanding as a process of construction and reconstruction over time and to help students learn to reflect both on the process of learning as well as the content.   The mindful use of inquiry based strategies positions the teacher as evaluator and encourages more strategic, emergent teaching.  

 Do you inquire as you teach?  Do you mind your language?

Just wondering….

How healthy is your team planning?

Over the last few weeks I have spent a lot of time 'at the planning table' with teams in several schools. I always relish the opportunity to be part of a healthy collaborative planning session - I love the energy generated by ideas, the sense of possibility and the creative and social process that is authentic planning.  I have also recently spent time in another institution  - a hospital - caring for a family member.  

Today, as I listened to and watched the medical staff at work, I was reminded of the importance of stopping to closely examine ourselves professionally.   Taking time to reflect on our work is vital - but we need to be mindful of what it is we are looking for.  

A planning/teaching team in healthy condition is a joy to be part of.  Conversely, unhealthy teams who have not taken time to be mindful and caring of what they do and how they work together can miss golden opportunities for both student learning AND professional growth.  

When did you last stop to "take the pulse" of your team's planning practices?   What is considered "healthy" planning for inquiry (and, no, "planning" and "inquiry" are not contradictory terms!!) ?  Is it time for a check up?  

Here are 20 indicators that may help your consultation!

20 indicators of good health!

1. We have talked about our processes and expectations of ourselves and each other.  We have some basic, shared agreements about how we want to work together, use our time, communicate and document our thinking.
2. We recognise that our planning meetings are a great opportunity for professional learning.  We reflect and discuss our own thinking. We bring questions and insights to the meeting and try to articulate what we are learning and thinking to each other.
3. We respect the individual skills and talents of each team member. We don’t expect a carbon copy of an inquiry to unfold in each class but we do recognise the importance of some shared conceptual intentions.
4. We talk with students about our planning and include them in the process.  We find ways to bring their voices (questions/theories/interests) to each meeting and use this to inform the next step.  We keep student learning at the centre.
5. We limit logistical, housekeeping tasks to a minimum and try to attend to these in other ways and at other times.
6. Previous year’s inquiries (if relevant) may be used as a resource – but not until we have started with the needs and interests of THIS group of students (and this year’s teaching team).  Every inquiry is a new inquiry.
7.  We allow big ideas to drive inquiry journeys.  Even if our students are focused on investigating something very specific – we take care to consider the bigger picture beyond that focus.  We care about transfer and avoid getting seduced by “topics.”
8. We take time to think about HOW our students are learning – not just what.  We use ‘split screen thinking” in our conversations – careful to emphasise the skills and processes our students are gaining through their investigations
9. Authenticity and purpose are really important to us. We want our students to see how this learning is real and connected to their lives now and in the future  - so we try to situate their learning in authentic contexts using real people, real places, real objects and real actions.   
10. We take time to discuss what WE understand about this big idea -  we know our own knowledge-base and learning experiences with it may impact on our teaching.  We enjoy thinking about our own understandings! Planning is a process of inquiry itself. 
11. We think about the natural connections we can help students make across learning areas. We use our core inquiry to ensure students can integrate their learning in other areas.  We have dialogue with specialist teachers to enhance inquiry into both process and concepts.
12. We think carefully about how we can establish the “known” – we want to get a good understanding of where our students are at so we can use this to inform our teaching.
13. We are informed by – but not a slave to – a basic cycle of inquiry so the journey has some kind of structure – not just a bunch of good activities.
14. We resist the temptation to fill our "planner" all at once! We document sparingly at first and then add to the planner as the inquiry unfolds.
15. We see reflective thinking –and action – as ongoing. We prompt both on a regular basis. Inquiry is all about reflection – students’ AND teachers'. We plan with an inquiry mindset. 
16. We include transferable strategies (such as thinking routines) into our planning so we are building our students’ tool kits.
17. We use digital resources to inform and document our planning and to assist students to plan, research, create, record, share and act on their learning.
18. We see ourselves as collaborative inquirers – with each other, with our students…and with others beyond our team/school.
19. We have courageous conversations with each other when we need to – exercising both professional and personal care in our communication
20. We (mostly) really enjoy the planning process and find it energizing!!