Inquiry: I Can’t Define It...But I Know It When I See It

Fifteen years ago I was guest-teaching in a first-grade classroom in Oakland, California. The FOSS staff was developing the Solids and Liquids Module. We had spent several weeks exploring the properties of solid materials, followed by another several weeks investigating the properties of a number of liquids.

At the end of a liquid properties summary discussion, a young fellow raised his hand and asked, “So, what is toothpaste?” Incredulous, I asked in return, “What is toothpaste?” “Yeah,” he replied. “Is it solid or liquid?”

It took me a couple of seconds to recognize the power in this apparently simple question. And another second to formulate precisely the right answer. “I don’t know,” I responded.

So where were we? It would have been easy enough to provide a cogent answer, giving a reasoned explanation for toothpaste being a mixture of both solids and liquids, recalling the observations we had made as evidence for my conclusion. But I didn’t, because to do so would have dispatched the question with one burst of teacher gusto, bypassing student engagement altogether.

The toothpaste question started an inquiry. The question went up on the board. Students shared thoughts and opinions. They presented evidence and proposed tests. I showed interest, but remained noncommittal as students advanced their ideas.

Then it was my turn to ask a question. What happens to liquids when they are mixed with water? Students went back to their familiar liquids, added water, and observed the results. A couple of days later I asked another question. What happens to solids when they are mixed with water? Students added water to familiar solids and observed.

When we turned our attention once again to the toothpaste question, students were ready. They knew what they wanted to find out. They added a dab of toothpaste to water in a bottle. They observed carefully. They then shook the bottle and observed. They let the contents of the bottle settle and observed. They evaporated the liquid and observed. Then they drew their conclusions. Some students concluded that toothpaste is solid. Some claimed it is liquid. Still others suggested that it is both solid and liquid. Each student’s claim was supported by observations and evidence. Each student defended his or her determination with data.

The Oakland first-graders were engaged in inquiry—the process of discovering or creating answers to questions. This is quite different than answering questions, a recall process, bringing existing knowledge forward. Inquiry is an excursion into the unknown to create new knowledge about how the world works.

But was the toothpaste investigation real inquiry? Does it count as inquiry if students are answering someone else’s question? From my experience, yes. I’ve determined, to my satisfaction, that it doesn’t matter where the question comes from. What matters is how students engage the question.

A team of researchers at the Education Development Center’s (EDC) Center for Science Education tackled the question, how has inquiry science instruction impacted student outcomes? After an exhaustive literature review and consultation with experts in the field, they developed a descriptive structure for inquiry science. At the heart of the descriptive structure was what they call the Elements of the Inquiry Domain, characterized by three student behaviors: motivation, responsibility for learning, and active thinking. If students are not motivated to learn, are not taking personal responsibility for learning, or are not actively thinking about data and evidence, they are not engaged in inquiry.

This makes sense to me. This characterization of inquiry education places the emphasis on behaviors of students, not on pedagogies and methods practiced by teachers. Inquiry is not something teachers do; inquiry is something students do. Teachers can create the environment in which inquiry can happen, but cannot create inquiry itself.

So, is FOSS an inquiry program? Do students engage in real inquiry? Absolutely. Some inquiry discussions include matrices describing levels of inquiry—guided inquiry, scaffolded inquiry, open inquiry, and so on—detailing what teachers and students do in each condition. Others describe inquiry as complete or partial. Such systems either explicitly or implicitly evaluate the quality of the inquiry based on the degree to which the student initiates the inquiry question. This suggests that students’ motivation, responsibility for learning, and critical thinking are more closely related to the source of the question than the conceptual significance and interest potential of the question. In our work designing the FOSS curriculum we strive to introduce the right questions at the right time in the learning sequence to capture students’ attention and curiosity. When the question is right and the conceptual context has been established, students adopt the question and run with it.

That’s how the toothpaste inquiry found its way into the published Solids and Liquids Module for grades 1 and 2. A generation of students has grappled with this pressing question: Is toothpaste solid or liquid? And the experts in the field, the students providing answers, are divided.