Inquiry learning was something that I thought was so straight forward and what most teacher accomplish in one period. Pose a question, ask for ideas – tell them they are wrong, and you have the answer – or get them to do some research while you sit back and mark the roll. Easy.
But this is likely only the case if you don’t care, are setting your students up to fail, or, be unprepared for the challenges that an inquiry learning approach brings. Students in my experience need reminding on how to behave in a classroom each time they return after a two-week break. How would they be able to cope with the challenges and be prepared beyond school gates when investigating serious real-world issues if not properly prepared?
The inquiry learning model outlined by Kuhlthau (2004) is the OG! The ground works are laid here and have informed almost every model that has been introduced since. The key differentiation of the Kuhlthau model though, is the broad nature it categories and recognises the inquiry model form a user standpoint. I do not mean that it is necessarily user friendly, especially to be used directly with students, but it rather fully acknowledges the kinaesthetic, cognitive and emotional experiences of a learner at each stage of inquiry. Confusion, delight and fear are not always front of mind for a teacher or teacher librarian in their process driven planning of a unit of work. It is a great way to start thinking about how to support students through the inquiry process from a range of angles beyond just information literacy. This model is therefore a reminder to consider what it is like for the whole person and why I understood this model first.
The others including the Information Process used by the NSW Department of Education and the 8Ws (School Libraries, Learning Systems, 2015 & Information age inquiry, 2011) have the steps and scaffolds but seeing the emotional development written down clicked straight away. There is a little more user friendliness with these (apart from the excessive alliteration – I’m guessing an English teacher was involved there). So I concede that Kuhlthau has challenges that have been ironed out by those that follow, including Kuhlthau herself et. al. with the Guided Inquiry Design (2012).
I do personally baulk at the borrowing of ideas throughout the copious information literacy models and associated guided inquiry models, that as a student at a university I feel I would be hauled over the coals for! But acknowledgement is something to bear in mind as well. Additionally, that is what every teacher does, it makes our lives easier, and you don’t need to reinvent that round thing that makes you go – just make it better (spinning hub caps?).
Information age inquiry. (2011). Virtual information inquiry: 8Ws. https://eduscapes.com/instruction/inquiry/ws.htm
Kuhlthau, C.C. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services. Libraries Unlimited.
Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2012). Guided inquiry design: a framework for inquiry in your school. Libraries Unlimited.
School Libraries, Learning Systems. (2015). Information skills in the school: Engaging in construction knowledge. State of New South Wales. https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/media/documents/infoskills.pdf
