Reply to comment

Yes, as Ashley says, "inquiry" means different things to different people and it was wonderful to have Ingrid here to provide her perspective and a rich and clear example of how it plays out in practice.  Ingrid and her colleagues have put a lot of thought, time, and effort into a "hands on, minds on" approach and it is enormously valuable both in itself as well as for the contrasts it offers to other approaches, and so as incentive for further inquiry into "inquiry."  Some thoughts along those lines to mull further ...

One thing that struck me is the distinction Ingrid made between "lecture/discussion" and "inquiry activity," which tends to equate inquiry with hands-on activity.  My own sense is that "inquiry" can take place (or not take place) both in the context of "lecture/discussion" and in the context of "hands-on activity."  We have, I think, spent the last week and a half engaged in "inquiry" even though there was relatively little "hands-on activity."  From this, I'd be inclined to define inquiry as that which goes on when people examine their current understanding, find things that challenge it, and construct new understandings.  That can occur in a laboratory or hands-on context but equally in a conversational context.  Being able to teach in an inquiry fashion (minds on) without necessarily making it it "hands on" may help with the problem that Ingrid noted about it being hard to develop hands on experiences for some materials one wants to explore, and with the bigger problem of time/equipment demands for hands on sessions.  And serve as a counterbalance to the tendency that Keith noted, to move toward teaching science out of kits.   

Along these lines, what also struck me was Ingrid's emphasis on being thoughtful about the objectives of one's teaching, and on matching teaching style/methods to the objective.  "Hands on" teaching is better for teaching process than it is for teaching content.  And it is particularly good/essential if one wants students to become familiar with the rigors and problems of experimental research.   One might raise the same issues about "inquiry."  If one is primarily concerned with conveying content, one might be better off with something other than an inquiry approach.  Content can be delivered more efficiently without the time required by an inquiry approach, and perhaps even be stablely learned if one follows content delivery with practical experiences that move content knowledge into the unconscious.  If one's primary educational objective is to further develop inquiry skills, then though it seems to me there is no reasonable alternative to taking the inquiry approach and taking the time needed for it.

I was also interested in Ingrid's flagging the "garbage in, garbage out" problem, and its relation to Keith's earlier story of a class getting hands-on results different from those in a textbook. Methodological rigor is one way to deal with the "garbage in, garbage out" problem, and Ingrid appropriately emphasized its usefulness and value in the hands on context.   An alternative way to address this is a "co-constructive dialogue" approach, one that sees any (and all) stories, both individual and collective, not as "accurate" or "misinformation" but rather as grist from which are constructed by generative conversation new and different understandings.  That approach relies not on some particular methodology or person to correct "misunderstandings" but rather on the dynamcis of intrapersonal and interpersonal exchange to move existing understandings, both individual and collective, to new ones.  While methodological rigor may be a preferred approach in particular contexts, it seems to me the conversational approach is more generally useful and that developing the skills of a conversational approach is an essential element of helping everyone become better inquirers.

Lots grist for further thought in all this.  Very glad to have Ingrid help us more clearly define the issues.