History literally means “inquiry.” I always love seeing teachers’ reactions when I share this insight in conversations about instruction, or during workshops, or whenever I get the chance to really. I have noticed that this somewhat trivial piece of information elicits an “A-Ha!” moments which, to some extent, reframes the teaching and learning in their class. When that happens, trivial knowledge has become an inspiration for change. I like to think of this an authentic case of synthesis among mindset, content knowledge, and skill sets.
So, how does the C3 approach relate or complement other contemporary pedagogical moves? That is a valuable compelling question. But, I think it needs to be focused a bit. Keeping relevance in mind for this post, let’s go with this compelling (C3) or guiding (PBL) question:
To what extent are C3 Inquiry Modules examples of Project Based Learning?
Our first stop on why a shift to inquiry is important takes us to John Hattie’s work Visible Learning . It his meta-analysis, Hattie “ranked 138 influences that are related to learning outcomes from very positive effects to very negative effects. Hattie found that the average effect size of all the interventions he studied was 0.40. Therefore he decided to judge the success of influences relative to this ‘hinge point’, in order to find an answer to the question “What works best in education?”
Expressed visually, Hattie’s categories looks like this:
Hattie’s findings for influences I am focusing on here, in my view, support the use of the C3 Inquiry modules. Hattie’s 2015 rankings are provided below:
- Self-Questioning – .64
- Questioning – .48
- Inquiry – .35
Although not a category in his study, Hattie has commented on PBL approaches to teaching and learning. He notes that effective teaching “combines, rather than contrasts, teacher-centered teaching and student-centered learning and knowing… The aim is to get the students actively involved . . . their role is not simply to do tasks as decided by teachers, but to actively manage and understand [their] . . . learning gains. This includes evaluating their own progress, being more responsible for their learning, and being involved with peers in learning together . . . “
Next, on to Doug Lemov, author of the Teach Like a Champion series. Questioning is a practice supported by Lemov, especially when coupled with requiring students to find evidence that supports the inquiry at hand. Although not one of his 49 techniques, questioning rather, is described as a “critical issues” in teaching. We recognize that teachers as questions to their students consistently. But the type, rate, and purpose of questioning all matter (i.e. open ended/closed, wait time, depth of expected response, spiraling). Lemov explains:
“First, make sure you ask one question at a time. When teachers are most excited about their teaching is when they often push ahead and ask too many questions at once…Furthermore, your questions should be clear and concise. Also, your questions should progress from the concrete to the complex. By starting with narrower and more fact-based questions, this jogs students’ memories of the facts and details necessary to help them answer broader questions more insightfully later. Furthermore, their success from answering simpler questions will give them the confidence to answer more challenging ones.”
The C3 IDM utilizes Lemov’s suggestions. The Inquiry Arc uses supporting questions to scaffold inquiries for students in order to ultimately take informed action about the compelling question.
Both Hattie and Lemov, current gurus of contemporary education, support the vision and instructional shifts promoted by C3 Inquiries. However, as you can see in the cartoon, inquiry at times is positioned as an element of PBL and not as an equivalent. To return to my compelling question, this is not the “extent” or relationship I am claiming exists between C3 and PBL. In order to support my claim that C3 Inquiry = Project Based Learning, we come to our third and final stop – The Buck Institute for Education.
BIE has a great mission: “our highest priority is to help teachers prepare students for successful lives. We do this by showing teachers how to use Project Based Learning in all grade levels and subject areas. As a mission-driven nonprofit organization, BIE creates, gathers, and shares high-quality PBL instructional practices and products and provides highly effective services to teachers, schools, and districts.”
To this end, BIE provides a convincing rationale (answering the Why?) that can be found here. Moreover, they have developed a design model, The Gold Standard, which teachers use to develop their PBL ( rubric for the design is found here). BIE explains “To help teachers do PBL well, we created a comprehensive, research-based model for PBL – a “gold standard” to help teachers, schools, and organizations to measure, calibrate, and improve their practice. This term is used in many industries and fields to indicate the highest quality process or product.”
Below you will find my crosswalk between the Buck Institute’s Gold Standard PBL (the 7 categories in red) and the C3 IDM. What happens during instruction and assessment are factors not fully explored –the crosswalk is based just on the design structure. In doing so, this is an attempt to explicitly recognize that C3 Inquiry Modules meet the demands of PBL initiatives in your school or system.
I first did this comparison in September of this year in order to demonstrate the shared aspects and expand teachers’ options when considering how to implement instructional shifts. I found the crosswalk to be informative and inspiring. In turn, I encourage educators to explore the current resources that have been developed in multiple states– over 100 inquiries K-12 –found in the C3 Hubs page. Your students will surely benefit from you doing so.
(Note: the Crosswalk is meant to match the language used by BIE and C3. Exploring each model will bring additional insight to the crosswalk.)
