Collaborative Inquiry Core Concepts
My Growth So Far
My Take on Collaborative Inquiry
As stated in the Collaborative Inquiry: A Facilitator's Guide, “Collaborative inquiry is a process in which participants come together to examine their own educational practice systematically and carefully using techniques of research. (i)” I feel it is a process which is also holistic in nature which changes according to the findings that are experienced and the data that is collected.
As Spiro and DeSchryver (2009) stated a prospective teacher can take a dozen courses on “methods,” but once in the field it becomes clear that “it’s not that simple”, “it depends”. (108) It’s not to say that well structured domains present better results versus ill structured domains. I feel it’s a healthy medium between the two. Inquiry is important and there is a place for flexible inquiry in both well and ill structured domains, which I am in support for the “middle path” approach or the cognitive flexibility theory. (114) Evidence is there to inform educational decisions not to simply look at it as black and white - there is grey.
Katz and Dack (2013) make a very important argument, that data should be used as a tool for thinking. (35) We have varying cognitive biases, which we should be conscious of, but sometimes we are not, which is where collaboratively working with a team would assist in questioning our perspectives and introspectively as well. Something does need to change for sustainable and authentic learning to happen from our practice. (37) In addition to this we should be conscientious of planning and wicked problems as outlined by Rittel and Webber (1984). However I feel that we have “meaningful problems” (Jonassen, 63), which call upon solving the problems that are contextual.
Jonassen (2000) stated two thinking processes to the General Problem Solver: (a) understanding processes and (b) search processes. There is also the IDEAL model which assumes that these processes are applied differently in different situations. (65) After completing the reading, I couldn’t help but question the process in the Facilitator’s Guide. Shouldn’t we be analysing our findings as we collect our data? I feel inquiry is not linear as differentiated in Spiro and DeSchryver’s paper. So as we understand the problem we frame in Stage 1 wouldn’t we be making realizations as we go along to add on to our understandings that adds value to our solution? What are your thoughts as we ‘tweak’ the problem we gain insight and feedback on the problem we are solving?
As I dig deeper into the concept of CI the more I realise how complex it is. This complexity can be seen below in my concept map.
As Spiro and DeSchryver (2009) stated a prospective teacher can take a dozen courses on “methods,” but once in the field it becomes clear that “it’s not that simple”, “it depends”. (108) It’s not to say that well structured domains present better results versus ill structured domains. I feel it’s a healthy medium between the two. Inquiry is important and there is a place for flexible inquiry in both well and ill structured domains, which I am in support for the “middle path” approach or the cognitive flexibility theory. (114) Evidence is there to inform educational decisions not to simply look at it as black and white - there is grey.
Katz and Dack (2013) make a very important argument, that data should be used as a tool for thinking. (35) We have varying cognitive biases, which we should be conscious of, but sometimes we are not, which is where collaboratively working with a team would assist in questioning our perspectives and introspectively as well. Something does need to change for sustainable and authentic learning to happen from our practice. (37) In addition to this we should be conscientious of planning and wicked problems as outlined by Rittel and Webber (1984). However I feel that we have “meaningful problems” (Jonassen, 63), which call upon solving the problems that are contextual.
Jonassen (2000) stated two thinking processes to the General Problem Solver: (a) understanding processes and (b) search processes. There is also the IDEAL model which assumes that these processes are applied differently in different situations. (65) After completing the reading, I couldn’t help but question the process in the Facilitator’s Guide. Shouldn’t we be analysing our findings as we collect our data? I feel inquiry is not linear as differentiated in Spiro and DeSchryver’s paper. So as we understand the problem we frame in Stage 1 wouldn’t we be making realizations as we go along to add on to our understandings that adds value to our solution? What are your thoughts as we ‘tweak’ the problem we gain insight and feedback on the problem we are solving?
As I dig deeper into the concept of CI the more I realise how complex it is. This complexity can be seen below in my concept map.
Concept Map: Collaborative Inquiry
Sources:
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
Spiro, R. J., & DeSchryver, M. (2009). Constructivism: When It’s the Wrong Idea and When It’s the Only Idea. In Signmund Tobias & Thomas M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure (p. 106-123). New York, NY: Routledge.
Katz, S., & Dack, L. A. (2014). Towards a culture of inquiry for data use in schools: Breaking down professional learning barriers through intentional interruption. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 35-40.
McDonald, K. (2013, June 26). Retrieved January 10, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe1dKDLJjoA&feature=youtu.be
Donohoo, J. (2011). Collaborative Inquiry: A Facilitator's Guide[PDF]. Ontario: Learning Forward Ontario.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
Spiro, R. J., & DeSchryver, M. (2009). Constructivism: When It’s the Wrong Idea and When It’s the Only Idea. In Signmund Tobias & Thomas M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure (p. 106-123). New York, NY: Routledge.
Katz, S., & Dack, L. A. (2014). Towards a culture of inquiry for data use in schools: Breaking down professional learning barriers through intentional interruption. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 35-40.
McDonald, K. (2013, June 26). Retrieved January 10, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe1dKDLJjoA&feature=youtu.be
Donohoo, J. (2011). Collaborative Inquiry: A Facilitator's Guide[PDF]. Ontario: Learning Forward Ontario.