Inquiry learning as a continuum is a great way of looking at it. I honestly cannot teach without using some sort of inquiry (although I’ve been a Montessori teacher for many years & don’t usually use the term ‘inquiry’ it’s just part of independent follow up work). Students get bored senseless with long days of being explicitly instructed. I just wrote an article connected with this if you’re interested.
‘However, research suggests…’ - your argument here would be helped by explicit references. Likewise - which critics? Your argument will be strengthened by providing references to their work, so readers can fact-check your claims.
Peter, one day over a beer, I would love to tell you a story about a VIU (Vancouver Island University) critique of the B.C. social studies curriculum around inquiry. Yours, Dale
I particularly value the emphasis on epistemic practices. Inquiry isn’t “go and explore whatever you like.” It’s induction into how a discipline thinks — how claims are justified, how evidence is weighed, how arguments are tested. That requires strong teacher guidance and clear norms.
The equity point is important too. Unguided discovery can widen gaps. But structured, scaffolded dialogue — where reasoning is made visible and explicitly taught — can actually surface misconceptions and support deeper understanding.
Nicely written. I like how you made the clear distinction between inquiry learning and unguided learning.
I remember being forced to sit through a keynote where the speaker was promoting the benefits of unguided learning but regularly calling it inquiry based and it was so frustrating. It is such a common misconception, even amongst supposed thought leaders.
Inquiry learning as a continuum is a great way of looking at it. I honestly cannot teach without using some sort of inquiry (although I’ve been a Montessori teacher for many years & don’t usually use the term ‘inquiry’ it’s just part of independent follow up work). Students get bored senseless with long days of being explicitly instructed. I just wrote an article connected with this if you’re interested.
Such a great explanation. So many truly misunderstand the practice of inquiry learning.
‘However, research suggests…’ - your argument here would be helped by explicit references. Likewise - which critics? Your argument will be strengthened by providing references to their work, so readers can fact-check your claims.
Peter, one day over a beer, I would love to tell you a story about a VIU (Vancouver Island University) critique of the B.C. social studies curriculum around inquiry. Yours, Dale
I wish I could distribute this to my fellow teachers in Japan who have an aneurysm every time someone mentions inquiry learning.
🤣
I particularly value the emphasis on epistemic practices. Inquiry isn’t “go and explore whatever you like.” It’s induction into how a discipline thinks — how claims are justified, how evidence is weighed, how arguments are tested. That requires strong teacher guidance and clear norms.
The equity point is important too. Unguided discovery can widen gaps. But structured, scaffolded dialogue — where reasoning is made visible and explicitly taught — can actually surface misconceptions and support deeper understanding.
Nicely written. I like how you made the clear distinction between inquiry learning and unguided learning.
I remember being forced to sit through a keynote where the speaker was promoting the benefits of unguided learning but regularly calling it inquiry based and it was so frustrating. It is such a common misconception, even amongst supposed thought leaders.