Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214 DOI 10.1007/s10755-006-9021-9
Inquiry in Higher Education: Reflections and Directions on Course Design and Teaching Methods Christopher Justice & James Rice & Wayne Warry & Sue Inglis & Stefania Miller & Sheila Sammon
Published online: 27 September 2006 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006
Abstract Our 5-year experiment with teaching and evaluating an inquiry course has led us to conclude that inquiry is a potent pedagogical tool in higher education, encouraging students to become self-directed and engaged learners. This article offers key ingredients and procedures for designing an inquiry-based course. It provides a pragmatic model of inquiry that describes the structure and function of such a course and the goals and learning objectives for students. This model of inquiry is widely applicable and will help faculty members from a variety of disciplines develop an innovative way of engaging and teaching students. Key words inquiry . education . learning . course design . teaching methods
Christopher Justice, Ph.D., is an anthropologist and health social scientist, and is an associate of the Centre for Leadership in Learning. e-mail:
[email protected] James Rice, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus in the School of Social Work. e-mail:
[email protected] Wayne Warry, Ph.D., is Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology. His interests include aboriginal issues, aboriginal health and health systems evaluation, and educational research. e-mail:
[email protected] Sue Inglis, Ph.D., is Professor in the Department of Kinesiology. Her interests include organizational behaviour and student inquiry. e-mail:
[email protected] Stefania Miller, Ph.D., is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science. Her interests include international human rights and democratization in post-communist systems. e-mail:
[email protected] Sheila Sammon, M.A., is Associate Professor, School of Social Work. Her interests include social work education and the integration of theory and practice. e-mail:
[email protected]
C. Justice (*) : J. Rice : W. Warry : S. Inglis : S. Miller : S. Sammon McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada e-mail:
[email protected]
202
Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214
Inquiry (also called inquiry-guided learning or inquiry-based learning) refers to a range of instructional practices that promote student learning through student-driven and instructor-guided investigations of student “centered” questions (Lee, Greene, Odom, Schechter, & Slatta, 2004). Inquiry has been used in a variety of teaching and learning contexts over the past two decades. Our concern here is with inquiry and its use in higher education. Inquiry refers both to the process of seeking knowledge and new understanding as well as to a method of teaching grounded in this process (Hebrank, 2000; Olson & LoucksHorsley, 2000). Similar to research, the inquiry process is about discovery and systematically moving from one level of understanding to another, higher level. Inquiry is what researchers do in the production of knowledge. Thus, in learning to do inquiry students begin to learn the processes and enabling skills involved in establishing concepts and facts, preparing the way for them to become researchers and lifelong learners (Budnitz, 2000). Inquiry is a model of pedagogy which functions to integrate research and teaching by reconceptualising students and instructors as compatriots in the search for knowledge (Boyer Commission, 1998; Brew, 2003). Inquiry is also a way of organizing a learning (or teaching) context such that students learn through a process of engagement. Inquiry-based learning is related to the educational theory of constructivism, which suggests that knowledge acquired through active engagement with content results in deeper understanding and greater integration and internalization than traditional didactic, memory-oriented modes of knowledge transmission (Abdal-Haqq, 1998). Inquiry can be considered an effort to translate constructivist theory into practice: a methodology of constructivism using curiosity, exploration, and active involvement to drive engaged learning. Our experiment with designing, teaching, and evaluating an inquiry course suggests that inquiry can be a potent pedagogical form and method in higher education (Inglis et al., 2004; Justice et al., 2002). Taking Inquiry 1SS3 (our course, described below) is associated with statistically significant positive differences in students earning passing grades, achieving Honors, staying on the Dean’s Honors List, and remaining in the university (Justice, Laurie, Rice, & Warry, in press). These results, along with other evidence, lead us to believe that taking Inquiry 1SS3 makes a difference to student’s performance at the university. This article offers what we believe is a useful recipe for designing inquiry-based courses. We draw upon our collaborative efforts in course design to outline what we consider to be key ingredients and procedures for engaging students in the inquiry process. We believe that the system outlined here, though couched in a social science context, will apply to the development of any inquiry course.
Designing Inquiry 1SS3 Inquiry 1SS3 (Inquiry in the Social Sciences) was born of several motivations and forces. Its home, McMaster University, is a mid-size Canadian university with a reputation for innovation in teaching and research. At the time of conception, there was a growing belief that undergraduate education should produce students who were lifelong learners (Knapper & Cropley, 1999). This concern led to a number of initiatives at McMaster such as experiential education, problem-based learning, and inquiry intended to increase the level of engagement of undergraduate students. Within the faculty of Social Science there was recognition that first-year students needed to be engaged in the learning process and encouraged to develop intellectual tools to help them thrive in what is largely an
Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214
203
impersonal, research intensive university. In addition, students needed to develop skills appropriate for navigating diverse, complex, and changeable careers. In response to the Dean’s open call for instructors interested in developing an inquiry course for first-year social science students, a group of seven faculty members from six disciplines came together. The seven shared an interest in pedagogy and a desire to provide new learning opportunities for students. After an introduction to the idea of inquiry by the Centre for Leadership in Learning and a few weeks of discussion and debate, an agreement emerged that the fundamental goals of the course would focus on the development of broad academic and intellectual skills in the context of student self-directed learning. The course focus would be on process, skills development, and student interchange rather than on specific social science content. In summary, we wanted students to emerge from the course being more likely to approach their studies deeply and to think critically and reflectively about the production of knowledge. We wanted students to improve their collaborative learning skills while at the same time taking more responsibility and gaining the tools for self-directed learning. We wanted to improve students’ written and oral communication skills and hoped they would emerge from the course with an enhanced love of learning. These goals were accomplished in part by designing specific learning activities (Justice et al., 2002) and in part through their integration into an inquiry-based course structure and process.
The Stages of Inquiry The diagram in Fig. 1 (adapted from Justice et al., 2002) represents our model of the inquiry process. On the principle that students will more easily develop skills which are immediately useful to them and which they can immediately practice, the course unfolded week by week through the stages of this process. Each week skills were introduced and training and resources made available at the moment students needed them. We began by helping students explore a topic, within the context of the course content, that was personally interesting to them and to develop a specific question that was to be the basis for their inquiry. We introduced tools to help them think through research strategies and to gather information about their question. We encouraged discussion and debate about the value of evidence to be used in reaching balanced conclusions about their issues. We helped them develop skills in writing, both short précis and longer research essays, and in communicating ideas orally; and we helped them see the process as a whole and selfFig. 1 The inquiry process (adapted from Justice et al., 2002).
Taking responsibility for learning
Evaluating success
Communicating new understandings
Engaging a topic & building basic knowledge Developing a question
Self reflection & Self evaluation
Weighing evidence and synthesizing understandings Assessing information
Anticipating possible answers and determining relevant information
Identifying resources and gathering information
204
Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214
evaluate their progress. The process is circular to represent the continuing nature of inquiry which ends in some answers, enhanced understanding, but always more questions. The sections that follow describe each of the stages in our model of inquiry process and some of the specific measures we took to enhance students’ abilities at each step. Though the stages are represented as if they are discrete, the process is actually dynamic and dialectic. For example, when students determine what sort of information might help them answer a question, they gain insight into how to improve the question, which in turn informs what new information needs to be gathered. Though we designed the course collaboratively down to the details of what needed to be achieved in a given week, the classroom activities were primarily left to individual instructors. The techniques and methods described here represent a best-practice model which developed over time. We shared techniques and methods during informal meetings after class, as well as more formally at periodic meetings during the term. We exchanged written accounts of exercises and other resources. Over a number of iterations of the course, there was convergence toward a set of activities that proved to be effective. The Inquiry 1SS3 course was taught in sections of no more than 25 students assigned to one instructor. All of the sections had the same curriculum, reading material, process of assessment, and goals that were outlined in a detailed syllabus. We used Hubbuch’s (1996) Writing Research Papers Across the Curriculum to provide students with a foundation for discussions about reading critically and assessing evidence, options for organizing and writing research papers, and basic information on citation methods and writing style. The classes met for 12 3 hours concurrent sessions each Wednesday evening. Class activities consisted of a combination of exercises and tasks for building the students’ critical abilities and provided time for students to share ideas about their individual inquiries with other students. Because we considered small group, collaborative learning both a goal in itself and a facilitating process, much of class time involved groups of four or five students assisting each other in such tasks as clarifying understanding or planning research strategies.
Taking Responsibility An important assumption underlying our model of inquiry is that learning is enhanced when the learner takes more active control of the learning process. Taking responsibility is the only way onto the inquiry roundabout. It is thus the important first step in an inquirybased course. In designing Inquiry 1SS3 we sought to create conditions in which students felt they were in charge of what they learned and in which the learning process was more focused on the students than on the instructor or the course. We developed several techniques to encourage students to take responsibility for their learning. For a start, we discussed responsibility and what it means. Students talked in small groups about what it means to be responsible for their own learning and how this changes dynamics in the classroom. It became clear to them that it is important to study the course documents and to develop and maintain a schedule. We created conditions that slowly transferred responsibility by assigning substantive readings for only the first few weeks and then allowing students to participate in group or individual decisions about subsequent weekly readings. We also experimented with self-evaluation as a means of facilitating the taking of responsibility, asking students to complete regular self-assessments reflecting on their efforts, contributions, and development. We required the development of a fairly elaborate inquiry proposal, which was structured to function as a self-directed learning contract. Finally, we designed
Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214
205
the course with no exams, assessing student performance through assignments and papers, which we believed might lead to students taking more responsibility for structuring and integrating ideas and knowledge. Engaging with and Exploring an Issue Deep engagement with an issue is of prime importance in developing and maintaining the energy necessary to move through the inquiry process. We believe the deeper the engagement with a topic the more likely students are to expend energy developing a question and gathering the information they need to understand the pertinent issues related to their interests. Allowing students to decide on their own topics, particularly topics that relate directly to issues with which they are dealing, encourages engagement and fosters feelings of personal ownership. Though Inquiry 1SS3 was designed to develop a range of academic and intellectual skills, thematic content was seen as an important end in itself. Inquiry 1SS3 introduced students to social constructionist theory through examination of various social identities and the way images, in the broadest sense, define the other. We assumed that because students are interested in self-identity and in the identity of others, this topic would provide a broad range of personally engaging inquiry possibilities within a cohesive area for which we could provide some necessary theoretical and substantive background. We represented the general topical area as the question: “Why do images of ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality, age, class, or abilities help to create aspects of personal and community identity?” We felt that this question was a good starting point for an inquiry because it is complex and open to various approaches and interpretations. We found that most students became deeply absorbed as they came to see how the course question could apply to themselves and their relationships to kith, kin, and community. We used several techniques to ensure students understood the relevance of the theme and the possibilities for their own related but independent inquiries. For example, in the first class meeting we focussed on an introductory exercise on identity. Students were paired, given 5 minutes to interview their partner asking particular questions about identity, and then given a few minutes to prepare an introduction which they subsequently made to the rest of the class. Reporters were asked to describe such things as where the person was from, how they were a different person as a result of attending the university, and what groups and communities they felt they belong to and are excluded from. In debriefing, the instructors picked up on themes that had to do with identity and pointed to various interpretations of the questions students had been asked to investigate. In the second class meeting, instructors guided students through analysis of the course question and discussion of the connotations and denotations of the key terms and possibilities for research. Thus, for example, we discussed how “images” might be narrowly interpreted as symbols or advertisements or more broadly as sets of ideas we keep in our collective heads. We asked students to think about the question between class meetings and to return with a response to “Why is this question important?” as the basis of a continuation of a discussion of the theme. Over the first few weeks of the course, we experimented with various readings and films which we thought compelling and thought-provoking and, through class discussions, would provide engagement with and understanding of the course theme. For example, we used Evans (1994) work on socialization into deaf culture to provoke discussion of how groups can stereotype or marginalize each other, encouraging students to reflect on how the “other” is created through the political and social discourse between cultural groups.
206
Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214
We dedicated the third weekly meeting to a modified version of the cross-cultural simulation BAFA BAFA (Inglis et al., 2004; Shirts, 1977) a compelling and engaging example of experiential learning that provides participants with a visceral sense of being, and being treated as the Other. Oral and written responses to the simulation encouraged students to explore their feelings about being treated in a particular way and to move into an analytical mode of engagement, to relate their experience to the course theme, and to provide initial thoughts on a personal issue that relates to the simulation. Students were able to use the energy arising out of their feelings about the simulation to fuel their learning process. Inglis et al. (2004) provided evidence of the effectiveness of this exercise in achieving these goals.
Developing a Good Question Developing and asking questions is central and fundamental to inquiry. The formulation of a question is not a trivial aspect of the inquiry process; the identification of a suitable problem and its phrasing as a question require considerable understanding. It is also important for questions to stay flexible and to evolve as the research is being undertaken. Though the importance of asking the right question is widely recognized, Alford (1998) contended that it is seldom treated as a central issue in the research process; and very few published works deal with how to formulate research questions. It is evident that there are better and poorer questions and that developing a good question is a key step in an inquiry. However, what is a good question? We have concluded that different question types are appropriate for different subject areas, disciplinary approaches, learning objectives, and experience levels. After several iterations of the course and using some prior thinking (e.g., Hudspith & Jenkins, 2001), we arrived at a list of the qualities of a good question for Inquiry 1SS3 (Fig. 2). One of the methods we used to get students to move toward formulating good questions is the deconstruction of pre-formulated questions that met some or all of the criteria (Fig. 3). For example, we might ask students in small groups to rank the “goodness” of questions based on the number of criteria they fulfilled or ask them to comment on how a given question fit each criterion. To move toward a good question, we asked students to do enough background research so that they could identify something puzzling to them such as a contradiction between evidence or opinion or a logical dilemma. The contradiction can be between two opposing ideas, between two knowable facts, or between an explanation and a
a. INTERESTING; the question is both relevant to the course theme and personally significant and compelling to the asker b. ANALYTICAL; the question leads to answers that cannot be descriptive but require balanced consideration of evidence and opinions. (Often we asked students to ask ‘Why’ questions) c. PROBLEMATIC; the question is based in a contradiction, puzzle or dilemma d. COMPLEX; the question has more than one realistic possible answer e. IMPORTANT; the question is either publicly argued (controversial) or its answer would have some real effect on the world f. GENUINE; the question is something that the asker really wants to answer but presently cannot, as opposed to a question which the asker assumes the answer to and wants to prove g. RESEARCHABLE; there is evidence that pertains to it (as opposed to, for example, “Why does God not answer prayers?”)
Fig. 2 Qualities of a good inquiry 1SS3 question.
Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214
207
Why do some children apparently become violent after watching violent cartoons while others seem to be unaffected? Why does the movie industry portray cops as tough, mean guys, when in reality the police force is made up of a variety of personality types?
Fig. 3 Two examples of good inquiry 1SS3 questions.
piece of evidence that contradicts the explanation. Often framing a question in terms of why these dilemmas exist results in a question that fulfills many of the criteria of “goodness.” Getting students to ask genuine questions is both challenging and of prime importance. Genuine questions are scary; students worry that they may not arrive at an answer. There seems to be a great temptation to work backwards from a conclusion drawn from a preconception or preliminary research, to invent a question that allows the proving of what is already believed. To deal with this challenge, we constantly reinforced the message that such non-genuine questions were contrary to the spirit of inquiry. They would lead to explorations that close issues rather than open them and result in prejudiced and one-sided understandings. We promised students that in the marking of their inquiries, the process, more than their conclusions, would be of importance, explaining that arriving at the right answer or even a convincing conclusion was neither expected nor required. We emphasized that we wanted them to focus on thoughtfully exploring possibilities and balancing evidence and that the answers to their questions should be tentative and lead to deeper questions. It is important that students know their question intimately. We asked students to freewrite about their question and to share their ideas in small groups. We encouraged them to carefully consider the assumptions that underlie the question and its possible answers. This process leads the students to begin to assess their information requirements. Determining the Information Needed A key to the inquiry process is an active orientation to searching for information that can be used to test the possibilities embedded in the research question. Inquiry is characterised by the anticipation of multiple and complex research findings; understanding is generated testing the evidence, both for and against, hypothetical answers to a question. The inquiry process is iterative; it allows new possible answers to emerge, other answers to be dismissed where little or no evidence exists or is available, and promising lines of inquiry to emerge over time. Student understanding develops through the continuous consideration of possible answers. By week 6 we required students to hand in a working proposal and tentative bibliography. In the proposal, students were asked to outline a minimum of three hypothetical answers to their question. We asked that these answers be realistic, logically related, clear, and expressed in full sentences which include the question. An example of a student’s hypothetical answer to the question “Why does the movie industry portray cops as tough, mean guys when in reality the police force is made up of a variety of personality types?” is, “The movie industry portrays cops as tough, mean guys, when in reality the police force is made up of a variety of personality types because such characters are what the movie-watching audience demands and pays for.” Another example is “The movie industry portrays cops as tough, mean guys, when in reality the police force is made up of a variety of personality types because the film industry is controlled by left-leaning, anti-authoritarian people who benefit from developing this stereotype.”
208
Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214
In the proposal the students were also asked to provide operating definitions of the key words in their questions. They were told to look beyond dictionary definitions by considering both the connotations and denotations of terms and how they want to use them. We asked students to develop lists of secondary questions which need to be answered in order to make judgements about the strength and likelihood of the possible answers to their primary question. Examples of secondary questions related to the example might include: Are there successful films that portray cops as sensitive, gentle people? Is there evidence that the making of movies depicting tough mean cops correlates with the political views of film-makers? As a final step in the proposal, we asked students to link secondary questions to potential data sources by providing references, with a brief annotation signifying the relevance of the reading to the inquiry question. We encouraged students to share their proposals with fellow students and to ask for and accept critiques. They met in small groups and discussed each others’ work. Our goal was to have students open up to other possibilities and to expand their list of possible answers. In sum, the process of anticipating what information is needed to arrive at an answer to an inquiry question involves first considering alternative possible answers and then considering what sorts of evidence would be useful in assessing the likely value of each alternative. This, not the original question, leads to the identification of relevant sources of information: Inquiry Question → Alternative Answers → Secondary Questions → Sources of Evidence
Accessing Information Effectively and Efficiently Accessing needed information effectively and efficiently is of course a key set of skills in the inquiry process. It includes not only constructing and implementing effective searches but also identifying gaps in the information retrieved, managing information and its sources, understanding the elements and syntax of citation, and understanding the issues surrounding the use of information ethically and legally. Inquiry 1SS3 students were limited to secondary sources of information. We allowed students to consult texts or other reference books for background, but strongly counseled students to use academic journal articles in their research. We encouraged the use of various web-based materials and provided instruction and guidelines on how students could identify reliable and authoritative web sources and e-journals. In conjunction with University library staff members we developed three library training sessions outside of scheduled class time. Each session was accompanied by a short practice exercise (checked by instructors but not graded). The first session provided the opportunity to learn essential skills for searching the library’s online retrieval system and locating books, how to collect and locate citations in the library, and how to arrange an inter-library loan. The second library session provided orientation to software, training and practice in searching electronic journal databases including the use of Boolean operators and wildcard symbols and the limiting of searches by search field and date. The third library session was oriented to locating high quality information on the web. Library training sessions were timed to coincide with appropriate stages of students’ unfolding inquiries. The first session occurred in the early phases of initial topic explorations and background reading. The second session coincided with the development of their proposal and their immediate need to create an initial annotated bibliography of journal articles. The third coincided with the full research phase of their inquiries and an assignment on the critical assessment of web based material.
Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214
209
Finally, we provided theoretical and hands on practice in citation and referencing. For example, we developed an exercise in which students working in small groups read a passage and try to reach consensus on which of a number of citations are appropriate. Critically Evaluating Information and Its Sources Inquiry involves approaching evidence with what some of us came to call a critical spirit (Hare, 2000), which represents a melding of open-mindedness and critical thinking. Openmindedness is necessary to move towards accurate comprehension and to be able to reconstruct accurately what has been said, avoiding making judgments that interfere with concentration needed to decipher words and meaning. A critical reading phase should begin when material is fully understood, involving analysis of the piece through the asking of questions related to the nature and production of its knowledge and the rhetoric of its presentation. An effective technique for beginning a conversation of critical spirit involved asking students in small groups to review a list of intellectual qualities and habits, such as “resists having ideas imposed on her or him by others” and to identify whether a given quality refers to open-mindedness or to critical thinking. The conclusion which students reach and which they find surprising is that open-mindedness and critical thinking are often indistinguishable. This understanding can be useful in encouraging students to recognize and balance two modes of receptivity in the way they approach written material. We provided practice in critical reading to demonstrate for students a conscious attempt to discern arguments, an author’s assumptions, evidence, inferences, and judgments (statements of opinion). We encouraged students to see the works of others not as collections of facts but as the arguments and opinions of other human beings (Hubbuch, 1996). Students were asked to read a short section of the course book out loud and then to summarize what they had read. Others in the small groups were asked to describe what the passage meant and in this way to read as deeply into the material as possible. We also encouraged students to analyze critically the materials they were using for their inquiries by asking them to write about this process in a particular way. Following Hubbuch (1996), we nudged our students toward the writing of critical summaries instead of notes, as a way of keeping records of material they read. The writing of critical summaries helps students to see the material as a whole and allows them to distance themselves from the 1) Summary provides a complete reference for the article 2) Summary answers the following questions What argument(s) is the author making? What assumptions is the author making? What information or evidence is the author using? What inferences does the author make? What judgments (statements of opinion) does the author make? How does this article advance your understanding? 3) In addition, summary (may) do one or more of the following State an alternative argument that could be made to the author’s main argument or thesis Question the author’s assumptions by making an alternative assumption State alternative or additional types of information or evidence the author could have used State an alternative inference that you could draw from the author’s evidence Fig. 4 Components of a critical summary of a research article.
210
Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214
words of the author. We taught them that a critical summary expresses their own thoughts about what the author is doing and saying and is analytical; students provide their own answers to a series of questions that deconstruct the article (Fig. 4). Finally we provided training in the critical assessment of web based information sources. We used both computer labs and in-class discussion of downloaded web literature to help students evaluate specific criteria such as sponsorship, gate keeping, bias, authority, and validity that a site illustrates. We emphasized methods for identifying and comparing information obtained from government and academic web sites to that of independent or privately operated sites. This training was followed by a graded assignment in which students were asked to assess critically both a good and poor web site relating to their inquiry topics. Synthesizing into a Coherent Whole Putting information together into an answer is an essential step in the inquiry process. Synthesis involves weighing and balancing evidence, both for and against a number of possible hypothetical answers to a question. Sound synthesis should embrace the complexity of the issues and avoid simplifying for the sake of developing an argument. By having students think and talk about synthesizing their findings into a coherent whole we knew they would find insightful connections between seemingly unrelated issues. Other members in the small groups were encouraged to develop imaginative responses to the possible answers as a way of stimulating innovative thinking. In Inquiry 1SS3 we encouraged students to retain a critical stance and to balance evidence in organizing their secondary data even as they moved toward writing. We discouraged simple “cause and effect” arguments and instead promoted an understanding of correlations between variables and the complexity of social behaviors. We allowed students to move toward previously unconsidered hypotheses and/or entirely new inquiry questions as aspects of their answers. And we asked students to consider the outcomes of their inquiries as enhanced understanding, rather than a convincing conclusion. The distinction between the stages of synthesizing information and communicating understanding is particularly blurry, in part because of the way we tend to use writing or the preparation of an oral report as opportunities to find and construct meaning. We found it useful to provide students with instruction and practice in understanding the range of possible forms for written accounts of an inquiry, ranging from the thesis driven argument to the process revealing report. The process revealing report has the advantage of being process-focussed and allows the sorts of non-conclusive results we were encouraging students to reach as it can include accounts of dead-ends and failed attempts. On the other hand, the thesis-driven persuasive argument is more typical of published literature and of social science expectations for research papers. The important thing is that students come to understand that the thesis-driven argument paper does not imply a thesis-driven approach to research (as one might deduce from the papers form). Good inquiry may arrive at a conclusion but cannot begin with one, whether or not the end result is process-revealing or thesis driven. We told students to make use of their critical summaries during the writing process and to convey to the reader whatever trends and patterns they recognised in the evidence they reviewed. These patterns include identifying correspondence between conclusions drawn and researchers’ theoretical perspectives, patterns in researchers’ assumptions or trends over time in the way research is done. We suggested that papers need to be organised by looking for relationships among concepts and combining these into arguments (useful statements with supporting evidence).
Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214
211
Communicating the Product and Process of Inquiry Effectively Communicating what has been learned and the process by which it was learned is an integral part of the inquiry process, functioning as a way of clarifying and testing thoughts and linking an individual effort of understanding to the cumulative growth of knowledge. In Inquiry 1SS3, we gave students training and practice in communicating their inquiries using three different media: (1) a short written summary; (2) an extended written paper; and (3) an oral presentation (see also Justice et al., 2002). The course was structured to help students with oral communication in a number of ways. First we gave students many opportunities to speak in class. We gradually moved from informal presentations in small groups, to more formal, large-group presentations, and then to a final formal presentation of about 20 min. We dedicated the final three classes to formal presentations, a quarter of the entire course. Second, we spent time discussing presentations. We had students read a short instructional paper on making class presentations. Based on their own experience, students brainstormed lists of characteristics that contribute to successful or unsuccessful presentations. We discussed issues of organization, technique, and anxiety. Third, we encouraged peer and self-evaluation of all levels of presentation. For the formal presentation, in addition to instructor feedback, students received a written formative evaluation from every other student in the audience. Students were trained in giving useful feedback and got to practice, anonymously, on the instructor who could then give feedback on the type of feedback they were giving. In the oral presentation students were instructed to communicate the process and results of their inquiry effectively. Considerable variation occurred in the style of presentations, from formal “read” papers, to PowerPoint presentations, to more ad hoc or extemporaneous presentations of work in process. Students were assessed on the overall effectiveness of the presentation as a “communication of information” but given feedback on the two major causes of communicative effectiveness: organization, which can enable people to receive information, and presentation style, which can engage people to want to receive information. We helped students develop their written communication in a number of ways including a series of weekly readings from Hubbuch (1996), discussions about writing, and assignments on which students received prompt writing-related feedback. We encouraged students to imagine the reader when they were writing and discussed different types of potential readers, suggesting they write for a group of “skeptical peers” who have similar backgrounds and intelligence, who know little about the topic at hand, and who will approach the paper asking themselves questions like “Why should I accept this? What is the logic? Where is the evidence?” We encouraged them to write drafts of their papers, to have them edited and proofread by peers, and to include these edited drafts with their assignments or in a dossier or notebook. We asked students to prepare a short written summary (no more than 300 words) of their inquiry paper and to circulate it to all members of the class as a handout before their oral presentation. In sum, we asked them to do for their own inquiry just what they had been doing to the published papers they had been reading—to write a critical summary. The summary should thus include a statement of research question, hypotheses, a description of evidence, an outline of any argument or conclusions, and the potential for new research. Usually the summary preceded the completion of the paper and thus functioned as an outline or could be transformed into the abstract for the written paper. We developed a checklist (Fig. 5) for the final inquiry paper, which provides a full outline of the parameters of this assignment. We wanted students to consider the purpose of communicating their inquiries as their contribution to the cumulative growth of knowledge.
212
Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214
Many students have requested clarification regarding what an inquiry paper looks like. We have created this checklist to remind you of some of the important issues and components of an inquiry paper as we have discussed it. A second function of this checklist is to provide you with a guideline for self-evaluating your paper. Please thoughtfully check the appropriate boxes. Do not tick boxes that do not apply. Please attach this sheet in between your title page and abstract. # My paper clearly demonstrates my critical stance: it shows that I have been both open-minded to new possibilities and a critical thinker with regard to assessing evidence. # The question I have come to is a good one, and conforms to the following criteria # interesting, # analytical, # complex, # problematic, # important, # do-able # genuine. # My hypotheses (or possible answers) are full sentences which logically answer the question I have posed # I have not attempted to prove my hypotheses, but rather to assess them fairly # I have a defined introduction (which builds upon my inquiry proposal) that introduces the topic, the question, the hypotheses and my inquiry methodology (including how terms were defined, my secondary questions, the sources of information I turned to, etc.). # The main body of my paper contains a well organised review and assessment of a wide variety (both for and against) evidence which pertains to my hypotheses and secondary questions. # In my conclusion, I have summarised the conclusion that I have come to with regard to my research question. I have also thoughtfully linked my conclusion to the broader course theme and have suggested new questions that arise out of this inquiry. # At the beginning of my paper, I have included an abstract which critically summarises my paper. (It is updated and adapted from the summary circulated before my presentation). # My paper cites at least 5 academic journal article sources (as well as other material I have used) # I have used a minimum of quotes. I have expressed others’ ideas in my own words but given them credit. # The source of every idea, fact or argument (including my own) is obvious to the reader # There is a list of all references cited appended to my paper. It contains only works I have cited in the text # When I have used non-academic material such as magazines, textbooks, “poor” web sites, etc., I have critically assessed them and conveyed this to the reader # I have used a system of author-date-page referencing consistently and correctly (including web sources) # I have carefully proof-read and copy-edited this paper several times. # I have had other people read the paper and they have helped me identify clarity issues such as awkward sentences, confusing paragraphs, organisation problems, etc. which I have now fixed Based in an assessment of the above criteria I believe the paper itself deserves a grade of _______* Considering the effort I made and the progression of my understanding regarding my inquiry question, I believe that my inquiry (the research, thinking, writing, consulting, analysing, etc) deserves a grade of _______* * This is your self-assessment. The instructor will determine your grade in the paper and in the course. Signature__________________________ Date_________________________
Fig. 5 Inquiry 1SS3 inquiry paper checklist.
Thus, students are told that the purpose of the paper is to communicate to others what they have learned and what they have done to learn it. Evaluating Success at Progressing Through the Inquiry Process Though we see self-evaluation of success as a fundamental step in the inquiry process, we also see self-evaluation as an on-going attitude and practice relevant to every step. The process of self-evaluation involves establishing evaluative criteria of what success is, developing techniques and methods to determine success, knowing how to use the indicators of success, and being able to appraise critically the process of assessment. Students were asked to evaluate their own work—written and oral. They were expected to describe their evaluations in small groups and to give and receive evaluations from others. During this process we encouraged them to talk about the criteria they used in the evaluation, to identify whose interest the evaluation was serving, and to describe how they would know when they had been successful.
Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214
213
In Inquiry 1SS3, we experimented with both asking and requiring students to maintain a journal or log of their activities and reflective writing on their progress which we called the Inquiry Notebook. The notebook is a persuasive vehicle allowing students to feel that otherwise invisible work is meaningful and is given credit. We believe this provided impetus for doing some of the things we suggest are critical to the inquiry process, such as revising the inquiry question based on consultation, feedback, or deeper understanding or reflecting on and adapting search strategies. We also asked students to provide us with regular bi-weekly self-evaluations of their progress and to reflect on their success in written and oral work. Reasoning that being able to self-evaluate progress through the inquiry process requires a holistic understanding of the process, we went to some effort to develop an understanding of how the steps of inquiry fit together. In addition to regularly contextualizing the steps we were teaching, we developed several exercises to help students see the forest for the trees. For example we developed an exercise to assist students in preparing their inquiry proposals in which the class moves together through the initial inquiry steps, beginning with a provocative reading, identifying areas of interest, developing research questions, building hypothetical answers and planning a research strategy. Toward the end of the course, we asked students to reflect on their progress in a number of ways. For example, we asked them in their oral presentations and in their written accounts to compare their new understanding with their prior understanding. Our Paper Checklist which students complete and attach to their papers is a framework for self-evaluation of the paper and its components and also of progress made through the inquiry process as a whole.
Conclusion Though it is not the purpose of this article to describe our evaluative research on the course, we have a variety of evidence—both formal and informal, qualitative and quantitative, descriptive and comparative, and relating to both short and long term effect. This evidence shows that the course was effective in achieving many of its goals and has benefited the students who took it (Cuneo et al., 2000; Inglis et al., 2004; Justice et al., in press; Justice et al., 2002). In a complex environment like an inquiry course with multiple goals, activities and players, it is challenging to know which variables, or sets of variables, underlie the overall potency. However, we hypothesise that locating learning in a self-directed and engaged process of discovery and explicitly teaching both the process and steps of inquiry underlies much of the demonstrated success of the course and that inquiry is an effective pedagogical form and method for higher education. In this article, we have described how we designed a particular inquiry course and some effective techniques and activities for the teaching of inquiry—and through inquiry—in higher educational settings. The article is descriptive but can be taken as prescriptive. Reflecting on our course close to a decade after its initial development, we have offered what we have come to see as key ingredients and procedures that we think make inquiry a distinctive form of teaching and learning. We believe our model of inquiry to be applicable to a wide variety of objectives and substantive contents. Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge McMaster University reference librarians Nora Gaskin and Olga Perkovic for their creative input and work in designing and conducting the library training sessions described in this article. We thank Dale Roy, Bob Hudspith, and Chris Knapper for their suggestions and critical feedback on this article.
214
Innov High Educ (2007) 31: 201–214
References Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for those who would link practice to theory. Washington, District of Columbia: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED426986) Retrieved February 20, 2006, from ERIC database: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED426986. Alford, R. (1998). The craft of inquiry: Theories, methods and evidence. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Boyer Commission (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Stony Brook, New York: Carnegie Foundation. Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(1), 3–17. Budnitz, N. (2000). What do we mean by inquiry? Retrieved February 15, 2005, from http://www.biology. duke.edu/cibl/inquiry/what_is_inquiry.htm. Cuneo, C., Inglis, S., Justice, C., Lee, B., Miller, S., Rice, J., et al. (2000). Turning the page: Student learning through a collaboratively taught social sciences inquiry course. Paper presented at 5th Annual EvNet Conference. Ontario, Canada: Cornwall (June). Evans, D. (1994). Socialization into deafness. In M. L. Deitz, R. Prus, & W. Shaffir (Eds.), Doing everyday life: Ethnography as human lived experience (pp. 129–142). Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: Copp Clark Longham. Hare, W. (2000). Teaching and the barricades to inquiry. Journal of General Education, 49, 88–109. Hebrank, M. (2000). Why inquiry-based teaching and learning in the middle school science classroom? Retrieved February 15, 2005, from http://www.biology.duke.edu/cibl/inquiry/why_inquiry_in_ms.doc. Hubbuch, S. M. (1996). Writing research papers across the curriculum (4th ed.). Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2001). Teaching the art of inquiry (Green Guide #3). Halifax, Novs Scotia, Canada: Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Inglis, S., Sammon, S., Justice, C., Cuneo, C., Miller, S., Quirke, L., et al. (2004). BaFa BaFa as a crosscultural simulation to advance student inquiry. Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal of Theory, Practice and Research, 35, 476–487. Justice, C., Laurie, I., Rice, J., & Warry W. (in press). Does teaching inquiry make a difference? A comparative analysis of student learning. Active Learning in Higher Education. Justice, C., Warry, W., Cuneo, C., Inglis, S., Miller, S., Rice, J., et al. (2002). A grammar for inquiry: Linking goals and methods in a collaboratively taught social sciences inquiry course. In Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (Ed.), The Alan Blizzard award paper: The award winning papers. Windsor, Ontario, Canada: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Knapper, C. K., & Cropley, A. J. (1999). Lifelong learning in higher education (3rd ed.). London, England: Kogan Page. Lee, V., Greene, D., Odom, J., Schechter, E., & Slatta, R. W. (2004). What is inquiry guided learning? In V. S. Lee (Ed.), Teaching and learning through inquiry: A guidebook for institutions and instructors (pp. 3–16). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus. Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, District Columbia: National Academy Press. Shirts, G. (1977). BaFa’ BaFa’: A cross cultural simulation. Del Mar, California: Simile II.
