Well, it’s that time again. Time for the almost-annual blog post about cycles of inquiry, intended to address a misconception or misinterpretation and to, hopefully, help take our collective thinking further and deeper.
Most of the posts I have written about the cycle of inquiry (for example, here and here) have attempted to clarify the fact that is not - and never was – a ‘step by step’ process. Gratifyingly, I see much less of this ‘recipe’ style adoption these days, and much more understanding of the iterative and recursive nature of the phases. I do want to emphasise that while no two inquiry journeys unfold identically, there does need to be a broad sense of forward movement. Learners should experience gradual deepening of understanding as they encounter and re-encounter information, synthesize, and reflect. It is not linear of course, but neither is it haphazard and without flow and connection.
The use of the word ‘cycle’ to describe this process is important. But it is not to be confused with, say, a simple circle. The ‘cycle’ concept connects to evolution and transformation and repetition. The act of investigation is inevitably cyclical. We are curious, we have questions, theories, hypotheses or predictions which lead us to investigate. We engage in experiences that help us ‘find out’ more and these very encounters prompt us to revisit questions, adjust theories, form new hypotheses, and so it goes on. Over the arc of an inquiry, students will often ‘cycle’ through wondering, investigating and meaning-making several times over. Each ‘revolution’ takes the thinking deeper and opens up even more questions. Certainty and uncertainty are in a continual dance throughout the process.
Far from being restrictive or recipe-like, having words or labels to describe the elements of this nuanced and beautiful process allows us to engage in deeper professional dialogue as we plan. This language helps avoid the ‘activity trap’ where planning meetings become less about the emergent process and more about creating a menu of disconnected, mostly teacher-led tasks. Recognising recurring elements of the process of an inquiry journey elevates our thinking above ‘activates’ and can gradually support children to use the same meta language as they design their own journeys.
The process supported by the cycle is also one that demands an emergent approach to planning – positioning the educator as researcher: noticing, analysing, designing and re-designing in response to the data they gather through careful observation and dialogue. There is a cyclical element to quality emergent and responsive planning. We return to our intentions, return to children’s early theories, we re-launch and loop back gradually working towards the transformation from ‘knowing’ to understanding.
While the concept of an inquiry cycle is helpful in considering the design of a learning journey, it does not and should not stand alone. Our planning doesn’t begin with designing learning experiences – it begins with intention. The context for any journey of inquiry is what gives it purpose. For many years, I have used the metaphor of a ‘frame’ to help explain this idea. Framing a journey of inquiry is all about the considerations we give to the knowledge, concepts, skills and dispositions underpinning the journey. The frame is built and modified both in anticipation of and responsive to our observations of and conversations with the children themselves. Treating the cycle as the 'main character' in planning is like building a house without first considering its design or the supporting frame it requires. The conceptual underpinnings help guide our thinking. The cyclical process of tuning in, investigating and meaning making supports children to share theories, encounter new information, reflect, meaning make and take their thinking deeper and wider.
Closely related to the concept of a cycle is that of a spiral – another metaphor that supports the idea of revisiting, reflecting and deepening understanding over time. Halbert and Kaser’s application of the ‘spiral of inquiry’ to teacher-led school improvement projects is a powerful example of this, as is Bruner’s idea of a ‘spiral curriculum’ where children re-visit concepts over time and through different contexts throughout their years at school – gradually deepening and widening their understanding.
Ultimately, the images of spirals and cycles are designed to work against the fragmented, disconnected experience of discrete and ‘stand-alone’ lessons experienced by far too many children (and teachers). Cycles suggest flow, connection and rhythm. Like the cycle of the seasons or indeed the lifecycle itself, there are expected patterns within which there is enormous variety and plenty of unexpected moments. And like cycles in nature, there is no real ‘end’ to the process. Each cycle births a new one holding traces of the past and the promise of a new learning adventure.
What’s your perspective on the notion of an inquiry cycle?