In Part 2 of our conversation with Gabrielle Mace, we continue exploring the ideas behind Teaching Inquiry as Conversation. You can listen to Part 1 here. This time, we ask a deceptively simple question: who is actually doing the thinking? We explore what it means for students to construct knowledge rather than simply acquire information; why changing our minds in response to evidence is an important part of inquiry; and what happens when teachers provide so much support that they begin doing the intellectual work for students. We also consider how generative AI changes the information environment, and why the role of the school librarian in developing increasingly independent inquirers may matter more than ever. And, as usual, the conversation leaves us with more questions than answers. These are the questions that Gabrielle posed… 1. Inquiry as conversationA central proposition of Inquiry as Conversation is that inquiry is fundamentally conversational: with ideas, information, other people and ourselves. What becomes possible when we understand inquiry in this way, rather than primarily as a process students move through? Reference: Chapter 2, p. 15-22 2. From research process to knowledge construction When Barbara discusses the development of her model, she describes a shift from a research-driven process model towards an inquiry model grounded in constructivism and social constructivism, where learners actively construct knowledge through their experiences and interactions rather than simply acquire information. What changes in our teaching when we genuinely understand inquiry as knowledge construction rather than information acquisition? And what does the social dimension of constructivism add to that process? Reference: Chapter 3, p. 31-35 3. Revision, evidence and intellectual humilityOne idea in the book that particularly interests me is the changing relationship between the inquirer and what they think they know. In my own inquiry design, I deliberately use new evidence that can destabilise an earlier, perfectly plausible interpretation. Darryl and Barbara discuss ‘adaptability and resilience’ and the dynamic nature of inquiry requires this mindset. Is the willingness for students to say “I may have been wrong” and to reconstruct understanding when the evidence demands it, an essential disposition of genuine inquiry? Reference: Chapter 4, p.49 4. Where does inquiry reside? The book has made me think about where the intellectual work of inquiry actually resides. In The Student Detective, I deliberately create a bounded, curated information environment so that students can spend more of their time reading closely, evaluating evidence, making connections, discussing competing interpretations and constructing and revising explanations rather than formal research. How do you think about the relationship between information-seeking and these other dimensions of inquiry? Are there different ways of designing the information environment depending on the kind of inquiry thinking we are trying to develop? 5. Inquiry in the age of generative AIThe book’s argument feels particularly urgent in an environment where generative AI can provide an immediate, fluent answer and potentially remove much of the productive struggle involved in inquiry. At the same time, AI makes questions of authority, evidence, interpretation and reliability even more important. Does inquiry as conversation become more important, rather than less, in an AI-rich information environment? 6. Instructional mindset and the gradual release of skillsIn the chapter on Teaching the Skills and Attitudes of Inquiry, you and Barbara argue that before we plan instruction, we need to clarify our own instructional mindset - including what we want students to understand, how we teach through conversation rather than delivery, and ultimately how we enable students to become independent learners. You also draw on the Gradual Release of Responsibility, where the cognitive work shifts from teacher-driven, to shared, and ultimately to student-driven. What does that gradual release look like in genuine inquiry? How do we know when we’re providing the scaffolding students need, and when we’re actually doing too much of the intellectual work for them? Reference: Chapter 8, p.105 - 106 We didn’t get to this next question, so we will be discussing it in our next episode. 7. Reading as inquiry conversationYours and Barbara’s concept of inquiry as conversation has made me think differently about reading. I’ve been observing what happens when students need to read because they genuinely need the information to resolve uncertainty, including voluntarily returning to something they’ve already read because new evidence has changed its possible meaning. Do you see reading itself as an inquiry conversation, and are reading and inquiry more deeply connected than we sometimes acknowledge in schools? Links The Student Detective - A structured inquiry experience that transforms the way students read, think and collaborate. Teaching Inquiry as a Conversation: Bringing Wonder to Life by Darryl Toerien and Barbara Stripling Thanks for listening to FOSIL, Education and School Libraries! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit elizabethhutchinson.substack.com
