Over the hedge: Final reflections

Throughout this exploration, it did indeed feel like I was navigating a maze at times. Most particularly because there is so much innovative work being done on inquiry, it's tempting to want to try everything.

I started this blog knowing a little about inquiry - namely through big names like Kath Murdoch - and being enthusiastic about the possibilities. I wanted to think about how to marry these with the MYP without engaging entirely with open inquiry (Bell, Smetana, & Binns, 2005). I found new kinds of models here, like the Guided Inquiry Design model, and gained a more precise and distinct understanding of the differences between models. I particularly like guided inquiry (Bell, Smetana, & Binns, 2005; Martin-Hansen, 2002) for the junior years especially, as a way of scaffolding the process for the students in the hopes that it becomes internalised (Kulthau, Maniotes, & Caspari, 2012). I have practiced it in the past, but if I'm honest, not especially well and it is my hope that in designing future units I will be more cognisant of the care and deliberate actions needed to make an inquiry unit effective and meaningful.

The other most valuable thing I've gained from this exploration is the use of GeTSE windows (Lupton, 2016) as a way of monitoring the ways in which unit planning and inquiry units themselves are engaging with critical information literacy. The value of the Transformative and Expressive windows in particular is a reminder that students should be in the middle of learning - shaping it and using it to shape themselves and their worlds.

For myself, I remembered that inquiry should be difficult and rewarding. Learners should struggle, feel challenged and - importantly - enjoy learning. Here I like James Nottingham's 'Learning Pit' where students (and adults!) grapple with uncertainty, become comfortable being uncomfortable, in order to gain deeper understanding. I think it is important to be explicit about this and role of that uncertainty in inquiry, lest students (and adults!) wind up feeling lost, confused or defeated.

I still have questions about where time is best spent in inquiry and the 'ratio', for lack of a better word, of different stages and I have questions about how to ensure parity in assessment when students want to create very different products (perhaps this is just good differentiation? but how to mark it fairly... no marking would be great!). In future I want to incorporate more student development of criteria and of questions, and build-up my students' capacity for self- and peer- assessment and reflection - to this end I will enter a new maze and puzzle my way out again.

Photo by beasty. on Unsplash

Feedback to peers

References

Bell, R., Smetana, L. and Binns, I. (2005). “Simplifying inquiry instruction.” The Science Teacher 72(7): 30-33.

Challenging Learning (n.d.). The Learning Challenge: Guiding students through the learning pit. Retrieved from https://www.challenginglearning.com/learning-pit/

Guided Inquiry Design. (2018). Retrieved from https://guidedinquirydesign.com/gid/

Kuhlthau, C., Maniotes, L.K. & Caspari, A.K. (2012). Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century. Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited.

Lupton, M. (2016). Critical evaluation of information: GeSTE windows overview. Retrieved from https://inquirylearningblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/critical-evaluation-of-information-geste-windows-overview

Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). “Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom.” The Science Teacher 69(2): 34-37.