Annotated list of sources
The following critically evaluates a selection of professional and scholarly sources which directly inform my primary inquiry question
1
Guided Inquiry Design: a framework for inquiry in your school by Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari (2012)
In this text, Kuhlthau, Maniotes and Caspari explicitly set out to create a “practical tool to use for implementing Guided Inquiry in schools” (p. xiv. This focus makes it an ideal text for exploring the supports teachers can offer to engage students in inquiry, with each stage linked to activities, strategies and resources. For example, during the ‘Explore’ phase it is suggested that teachers model the citation of sources (p. 90) and during the ‘Formulation’ phase a template for an idea cluster chart is presented (p. 103). Of particular interest to my inquiry was the addition of processes for supporting students through an initial phase of inquiry, by ensuring time to engage with the topic and formulate sufficient background knowledge to allow meaningful questions to be formed (pp. 61-66). Much research focusses on the inquiry process itself as a scaffold (for example, Wolf, Brush and Saye, 2003) and does not address the supports aligned to each stage of inquiry. In contrast, this source offers a highly practical set of tools with a rigorous academic foundation which directly informs my understanding of the nature of inquiry learning as a process which can be heavily supported without compromising the goals of student-centred learning.
The underpinning framework of this inquiry model is extensively justified in the companion text, Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2015) and the text rests on the research and expertise of authors who are leaders in their fields. Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process (ISP) provides a foundation for the Guided Inquiry Design Process (GID), which is further informed by Maniotes' research in ‘third space’ literacy and Caspari’s understanding of contexts beyond the school environment. All three are highly qualified and respected academics, with Kuhlthau arguably a leader in the field of information literacy and information seeking behaviours. This text therefore privileges this framework and does not align supports with alternative modes of inquiry. There are some concerns that the model is unnecessarily complex (see, for example, Alamettälä & Sormunen, 2018), and I personally found it initially difficult to navigate the alignment between the ISP and GID and to align strategies to each stage. Despite this, the credibility is internally supported by extensive academic research and the pedagogical value of GID has been externally confirmed, including by Chu, Tse and Chow (2011).
Inquiry-based learning: The key to student
success by Branch & Solowan (2003)
2
This paper explicitly aims to present strategies to support teachers and teacher librarians create inquiry learning experiences in line with the Alberta Inquiry Model (AIM), a Canadian structure for integrating inquiry learning into the curriculum which is elaborated in Alberta Learning’s Focus on Inquiry (2004). As well as providing an overall process, the article offers strategies and activities linked to each stage, making it highly useful to further my understanding of both the overall structure of an inquiry, as well as the specific supports that can be offered throughout. Despite similarities to Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process (ISP) it is a more explicitly iterative process, which places reflection at the centre of the model (p. 6). Similar insights into the varying structures and supports of an inquiry model could be gained from Ryan and Capra’s 2001 Information Literacy Program (ILPO). It also suggests an iterative process, although with ‘defining’ as the repeated element, but this article contained more practical suggestions for supporting the stages of inquiry.
The journal itself is now defunct, however its links to a professional association align with the authors’ purpose. The article itself is entirely unreferenced and therefore its credibility rests on that of authors and the supporting documentation in Alberta Learning (2004). Branch, a Professor in the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Education, publishes actively in the fields of librarianship and inquiry learning through a librarianship lens. As well as contributing to book chapters, she is published widely in peer reviewed journals including the by Q1 journal Library and Information Science Research. Solowan is a practicing teacher librarian who was undertaking her Masters in the area at the University of Alberta. It can therefore be assumed that this source relies on both professional and academic knowledge and despite a Canadian focus, the strategies contained are easily transferrable to a local classroom.
3
Design Principles for Scaffolding Technology-Based Inquiry by Hmelo-Silver (2011)
Hmelo-Silver -- professor at the Indiana University School of Education -- is both the chapter author and one of three editors of this text. She has published widely on problem based learning and scaffolding the process of inquiry, including papers in Q1 journals such as Educational Psychologist and Educational psychology review and Journal of the Learning Sciences (of which she has also been editor). She has also contributed to and edited several books exploring how people learn about complex phenomena and how technology can help support that learning. Hmelo-Silver’s credibility is further supported by a rigorous literature review, including dissenting voices, and the explicit identification of influences and funding (p. 165-6).
Although the focus on technology rich environment and scientific inquiry was less relevant to the broad scope of my inquiry, the identification of general scaffolding types and justification for rigorously scaffolded inquiry (p. 150) were highly relevant. Hmelo-Silver argues that students can engage with complex learning experiences is teachers “provide authentic inquiry experiences and scaffold students in dealing with the complexity” (p. 147)
This corroborate with other similar studies, including Fund (2009), who found that a similar scaffolding process when guided by the teacher rather than technology produced positive results in a secondary classroom. The text offers three broad types of scaffolding, ‘communicating process’, ‘coaching’, and eliciting articulation’. Furthermore, in noting that these structures are “meant to fade” (p. 150) the approach aligns with Puntambekar and Hubscher (2005, p. 2) who note it is essential to consider “ongoing diagnosis, calibrated support, and fading” when scaffolding inquiry. Despite lacking specific strategies for enacting these scaffolds, this text was fundamental in cementing my understanding that extensive scaffolding need not undermine the authenticity of an inquiry and in providing a broad set of scaffolding types to evaluate other models against.
4
The Big 6 inquiry model by www.thebigsix.org (2020)
The Big 6 inquiry model claims to be “the most widely used information literacy program in the world” (thebig6.org, 2020), an assertion which is widely repeated but lacks empirical verification. The organisation is currently made up of original co-creator Eisenberg – formerly Dean of the University of Washington’s Information School --, Bartlow – a trained teacher librarian with a masters in Curriculum –, and Marino, who is an assistant professor at the University of North Texas. They bring both professional and academic knowledge to the model. The site aims to use their “model, approach, and programs to promote essential, lifelong information problem-solving skills thinking, learning, and teaching in schools and informal learning contexts” (thebig6.org, n.d). This rather altruistic goal is supported by their statement of permissions, which allows the sharing and adaptation of all resources for educational, non-profit and instructional purposes. However, it is not made clear if the organisation has a wider financial imperative. The website contains a wealth of instructional materials, from note-taking methods, checklists, and research project organisers, to model assessments, lesson plans and activities. It also contains guiding documents about the model and supporting literature from external sources. A study by Wolf, Brush, & Saye (2003) found the Big 6 model acted as an effective metacognitive scaffold for students, however noted a tendency for over-reliance on the scaffold and a lack of time for the ‘fading’ that out to be a feature of scaffolding. Regardless, the included resources that made it an excellent professional source for expanding my repertoire of tools that teachers can use to support the stages of inquiry.
5
Information skills in the school: engaging in construction knowledge by NSW Department of Education and Training (2020)
This source is explicitly described as a professional resource intended to outline a “framework for developing student skills to enhance information literacy” (p. 3). It outlines the value of inquiry and key concepts related to the information process, the skills and – interestingly – attitudes that students require to engage with this, strategies for finding and using sources, and steps that all members of the school community, including parents, can undertake to support this. Although it relates directly to the New South Wales context, it is a clear and professionally produced PDF document which is useable by teachers across the range of experience. The intellectual debt of the model to previous work on inquiry learning is confirmed by concluding references, including to the works of Kuhlthau, but as a working text it is largely unreferenced throughout.
The purposefully simplified model proposed is broken into six stages: defining, locating, selecting, organising, presenting and assessing. Similarities can be seen to all the models already analysed, and the very simplicity was one reason I included it. Each stage is accompanied by a short list of skills students require to undertake it and steps they can follow to achieve it. For example, when ‘selecting’, students need to “skim each source for information” and consider “How relevant is the information I have found?” (p. 9). Specific strategies, such as “Develop a note-taking system, selected from a range of options, including electronic”, are overtly focussed on student agency, a distinction which is missed in some works on scaffolding. Overall, the steps and the associated cognitions are consistent with the general form of the inquiry processes suggested by other authors, and the clarity and practicality of the document makes it a valuable contribution to my understanding of the methods in which teachers can support student inquiry, without undermining its authenticity.
References
Alamettälä T., Sormunen E. (2018). Lower secondary school teachers’ experiences of developing inquiry- based approaches in information literacy instruction. In: Kurbanoglu S., Boustany J., Špiranec S., Grassian E., Mizrachi D. & Roy L. (Eds.), Information literacy in the workplace. (pp. 683 -692). Cham, Switzerland: Springer
Alberta Learning. (2004) Focus on Inquiry. A teacher’s guide to implementing Inquiry based learning. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/media/313361/focusoninquiry.pdf
Big 6. (2020). The Big 6. Retrieved September 14, 2020 from https://thebig6.org/
Branch, J. L., & Solowan, D. G. (2003). Inquiry-based learning: The key to student success. School Libraries In Canada,22(4), 6-12.
Chu, S.K.W., Tse, S. & Chow, K. (2011). Using collaborative teaching and inquiry project-based learning to help primary school students develop information literacy and information skills. Library and Information Science Research, 33(2), 132–143.
Flick, L. B. (2000) Cognitive Scaffolding that Fosters Scientific Inquiry in Middle Level Science, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11:2, 109-129.
Fund, Z. (2009). Scaffolding problem-solving and inquiry: From instructional design to a “bridge model.” In Handbook of Research on New Media Literacy at the K-12 Level: Issues and Challenges. 1. (pp. 216–242). IGI Global.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2011). Design Principles for Scaffolding Technology-Based Inquiry. In A. O’Donnell, A., C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens, (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 147-170) Routledge.
Kuhlthau, C.C., Maniotes, L.K. & Caspari., A.K. (2012). Guided Inquiry Design: a framework for inquiry in your school. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Kuhlthau, C.C., Maniotes, L.K. & Caspari., A.K. (2015). Guided inquiry: learning in the 21st century (Second edition.). Libraries Unlimited.
NSW Department of Education and Training [DET]. (2015). Information skills in the school: engaging in construction knowledge. Retrieved September 28, 2020 from https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/media/documents/infoskills.pdf
Puntambekar, S. & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for Scaffolding Students in a Complex Learning Environment: What Have We Gained and What Have We Missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.
Ryan, J. & Capra, S. (2001) Information literacy planning for educators: the ILPO approach. School Libraries Worldwide, 7, 1, 1-10.
Wolf, S., Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2003). The big six information skills as a metacognitive scaffold: A case study. School Library Media Research, 6.