Inquiry learning and key competencies Perfect match or problematic partners? Rosemary Hipkins New Zealand Council for Educational Research

The spirit of change in NZC Learning how to learn – developing an identity as a ‘lifelong learner’ and a greater emphasis on developing student autonomy School-based curriculum design is more explicit and linked to NAGs. A more holistic approach – interconnected nature of knowledge A more participatory view of learning (just having knowledge is not enough – you need to be able to do things with your learning) 2007 cf. 1993

The potential match to inquiry (1) Learning to learn School-based curriculum design Interconnected nature of learning A more participatory view of learning Inquiry skills/disposition Huge range of potential inquiry contexts Fertile questions often span learning areas Students active at all stages of inquiry process

“Fertile questions” prompt inquiry.. Problem solving where the solution is not already known Actively questioning learning – traditional and less familiar types of questions Contexts that make ‘real’ connections to learners’ lives (the outcomes/solutions genuinely matter) Challenging and rich, deep topics/situations – there is much to be explored (List based on Claxton, 2006, “fertile questions” = Harpaz, 2005)

Broad parameters of inquiry learning Students are actively involved in any or all of Determining inquiry questions/directions Finding and processing information Shaping a response/report Doing something with what they have found out

Many types of inquiry Traditional information-based “research” Many kinds of discipline-specific investigations (arts, sciences, social sciences, maths, technology, literature etc.) Problem solving/ action competence projects (E4E, E4S, Health/PE etc)

Problematic partners (1) Student-centered or co-constructed? (What is the role of the teacher?) Grand production or horses for courses? (Does an extended time frame necessarily characterise “inquiry”?) The “right” way or any way that works? (How is the process linked to purposes for inquiring?

The potential match (2) Lifelong learners (vision) Literate and numerate Critical and creative thinkers Active seekers, users, and creators of knowledge Informed decision makers Key competencies Using language, symbols and texts Thinking Participating and contributing Managing self Relating to others

KCs locate learning in students’ lives

Knowing the science: easy Using content knowledge when making good personal decisions (P+C fore-grounded) ARB item LW0542 How safe are your sunglasses? Pupil reflex protects eyes from UV Sunglasses shade eyes and so pupils dilate If glasses are not good UV filters, more UV can then enter eye Damage to the retina could be a consequence of wearing such glasses Knowing the science: easy Constructing the simple chain of reasoning: very difficult Seeing the big picture: priceless (NB Year 9/10 students)

Real issues don’t sit neatly in subject slots – but keeping a disciplinary focus still matters

The central alignment/integration argument When students engage critically within each learning area in the curriculum, they have opportunities to develop the key competencies. By refocusing the way we currently teach, each learning area becomes a vehicle for developing key competencies, rather than the key competencies being another ‘add on’ to an already crowded curriculum. Let’s be very clear: KCs do not replace knowledge! But they can powerfully transform what we can do with it! Often the social aspects of Key Competencies seem to be emphasised. Alan Reid (2006) described 3 ways implementation of KCs in National Curriculum were likely to proceed: Name and hope Raising consciousness – Teachers are required to design a plan for inclusion of KCs in each subject. Embedded – Curriculum support documents for each learning area are designed to illustrate links to KCs (NOS) Reid proposes an alternative model where knowledge becomes the vehicle through which KCs are taught – they really are central to the curriculum. Draw attention to science plan

Which purposes for inquiry could be fore-grounded? Developing inquiry skills Learning to learn/fostering lifelong learning dispositions Developing deeper understanding of a topic/ issue/ context/ concept/ system or etc Learning about research as a process of knowledge building (the constructed and contested nature of knowledge)

Problematic partners (2) Does the fore-grounded purpose impact on the role of the teacher? What might evidence of learning look like when different purposes are fore-grounded? How aware are students of the intended purpose(s)?

Learning how to find stuff fast on the Internet Learning how to find stuff fast on the Internet. You can find anything once you have learnt how to do it. Copy and paste. Copy and paste. In history and physics it is more like getting facts. In English it is translating what you have found into your own words and stuff. History taught me how to use focusing questions to scan through resources. It was useful but I only use this tactic in history. How some students see traditional “research” inquiry

Learning about history as a discipline To research like a “real historian” requires: Learning to choose and evaluate sources Learning to compare and contextualise multiple sources of information Learning to corroborate information from different sources Weaving a story based on the sources - learning to generalise (based on Wineburg, 1991) What could support students to learn in this disciplinary frame? How might learning here differ from and/or compliment student-led inquiry approaches?

Rethinking learning What you already know determines what you can see (Davis, Sumara and Luce-Kapler, 2008) If learning about “researching like a historian” is the focus, students should learn about the topic before they undertake inquiry activities (Stahl et. al. 1996) If teachers want students to experience the differing perspectives of different sources, they may choose to locate these rather than relying on students to do so. Students still undertake an active inquiry after locating information has been done for them. (Wineburg, 1991)

What does “deeper understanding” look like? One of the hallmarks of teaching for understanding is to seek rich and multi-dimensional connections between school subject matter and students’ lives, and specifically with the initial concepts students form by their life experiences Zohar, 2006 We would add that a related challenge is to stretch those connections, supporting students to experience less familiar ideas and contexts, and the diversity of ideas, peoples and cultures

A similar message adds the dimension of context Skills must be imparted in an authentic context in which learners/researchers experience them as essential for developing their understanding; dispositions must be cultivated through embodying them in ongoing behaviour, dealing with them in adequate opportunities, and experiencing intellectual activities that invite them Harpaz, 2007

“Connecting questions” help students build links Relating more general conceptual ideas to specific contexts Making coherent links between topics and ideas within a discipline area Developing multi-disciplinary links across learning areas Building bridges between powerful conceptual learning and everyday life

The “take home message” Key competencies and inquiry can potentially act as a bridge between the aspirational framing of the front end of NZC and the learning areas. But …teachers need to be very clear about the purposes for which they are using inquiry, and what they want their students to get out of it. If inquiry continues to be framed within traditional views of learning as “getting” disciplinary knowledge as expeditiously as possible, no “big picture” curriculum changes will actually be achieved.

References Claxton, G. (2006). Expanding the capacity to learn: A new end for education? Paper presented at the British Education Research Association (BERA), Warwick, September 6. (Google this – it’s on the internet) Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging minds: Changing teaching in complex times. Second Edition. New York and London: Routledge. Hipkins, R. (2006). Learning to do research: Challenges for students and teachers. Wellington: NZCER Press. Stahl, S., Hynd, C., Britton, B., McNish, M., & Bosquet, B. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 430-456. Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73-87. Zohar, A. (2006). Connected knowledge in science and mathematics education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1579-1599. Harpaz, Y. (2007) Approaches to teaching thinking: Toward a conceptual mapping of the field. Teahcers College record, 109, 8, 1845-1874 Harpaz, Y. (2005). Teaching and learning in a community of thinking. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 20(2), 136-157.