One thing the C3 Teacher team hears over and over when we introduce IDM to teachers is how they like the idea of it, but think they can only use it for certain classes: only advanced levels or for older grades or for one well-behaving class versus another, etc. Whatever qualification you want to use – the idea being that the structure is great, but only for those that are already at a certain cognitive level, whether based on age or ability.
Certainly, I’ve been guilty of these kinds of thoughts when introduced to any new pedagogical technique. When I first tested the IDM out, before C3 Teachers existed, my teaching schedule necessitated I use it in a general-level US History class and not my honors classes. I had plenty of reservations, but my concerns were misplaced. I wrote about implementing this inquiry in my very first blog post. Let’s just say, things went better than I anticipated.
Some of my teacher colleagues have said the same things about when and where they thought inquiry was appropriate – said they loved it for a particular class, but not others. In more recent conversations with the same people after using an IDM, either their own or one from C3 Teachers, their perspective has changed. One talked about the classes she had the most reservations about in terms of implementing IDM were now requesting more. They even offered to make their own!
Her conclusions as to why? It leveled the playing field. There was no single answer that they had to memorize. All students entered the inquiry at the same place. Different answers don’t mean one person is “right” or “wrong.” Learning is through the process of exploration.
And think about it – our inquiries cover all the grades, K-12. I’m not handing a text by Robespierre to a first grader. Scaffolding may be necessary with particular inquiries, as it is for all assignments. A well-structured inquiry has intellectual rigor, but challenging students is not a way to learn for just [fill-in-the-blank] students.