Our November discussion is the second stage of a 4-month journey where we will be reading and discussing Focus on Inquiry - A teachers guide to implementing inquiry-based learning.
This month we will focus on chapters 5-11 only. How do I teach all of the stages?
To catch up on part 1 click here and to join in part 3 click here
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE JOINING IN THE DISCUSSION BELOW...
The IFLA School Library Guidelines (2015) identify inquiry as a core instructional activity of the school librarian within the school library's pedagogical program. The Guidelines state the following about instructional models of the inquiry process:
Many countries, local authorities, and school libraries have worked out very successful models for designing instruction that develops media and information literacy skills within the context of inquiry projects. Creating models for inquiry-based learning involves years of research, development, and practical experimentation. Schools without a model recommended by their education authority should select a model that aligns most closely with the goals and learning outcomes of their curricula, rather than attempting to develop their own models. | p. 41.
Where there is no locally or nationally developed model for inquiry-based teaching and learning, a school librarian should work with the classroom teachers and school leaders to select a model. As the teachers and students apply the model they may wish to adapt the model to serve school goals and local needs. However, caution should be exercised in adapting any model. Without a deep understanding of the theoretical foundations of the model, adaptations may eliminate the power of the model. | p. 43.
Consider, for example, the development of the Alberta Model of Inquiry, which is taken from Promoting Information Literacies: A Focus on Inquiry, a paper presented by Dianne Oberg at the IFLA World Library and Information Congress in 2004:
Focus on Inquiry (2004) was predated by Focus on Research (1990), which was developed to support teachers and teacher-librarians in teaching students a model of the research process and in guiding students through inquiry-based learning activities. At the request of the Alberta ministry of education, work on Focus on Inquiry, a revision of Focus on Research led by Dr Dianne Oberg (Professor Emerita in theDepartment of Elementary Education at the University of Alberta) and Dr Jennifer Branch-Mueller (Professor in the Department of Elementary Education at the University of Alberta), began in 2003. Focus on Inquiry was also influenced by involvement in the final editing of Achieving Information Literacy: Standards for School Library Programs in Canada (2003), the joint project of the Canadian School Library Association and the Association for Teacher-Librarianship in Canada. The revised 1990 Alberta model of the research process was informed by other process-based models of library instruction, particularly the work of Ann Irving, Michael Marland and James Herring in Great Britain and the work of Carol Kuhlthau (Distinguished Professor Emerita in the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University) and Barbara Stripling (Professor Emerita in the iSchool at Syracuse University) in the United States, with the personal involvement of Carol Kuhlthau.
FOSIL (2012), by comparison, is based on the Empire State Information Fluency Continuum (2019) , which was originally developed in 2009 by the New York City School Library System (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) while under the direction of Dr Barbara Stripling. The New York City Information Fluency Continuum, as it was called, was endorsed by the School Library Systems Association of New York State (SLSA) in 2012 and renamed the Empire State Information Fluency Continuum (ESIFC). The ESIFC was re-imagined in 2019, again under the direction of Barbara Stripling, to adapt to the changing information, education, and technology environments, as well as the increasing diversity in student populations – the SLSA serves more than 3.2 million children in 4,236 schools in New York State (as of 30 October 2020). The ESIFC is endorsed by the New York State Library, the New York Library Association, the New York State Education Department, and as of April 2020, the FOSIL Group. FOSIL is also informed by the work of Carol Kuhlthau, particularly her work on the Information Search Process (ISP). For more on the history of FOSIL, see here.
No single model of the inquiry process can perfectly describe the inquiry process, which means that all models of the inquiry process will have comparative strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, the value of closely examining the Alberta Inquiry Model lies in the extent to which it deepens our understanding of the inquiry process and enables us to use our chosen model of the inquiry process more effectively.
As the Alberta Model is presented in guide form it is easier for the thought processes behind the model to be accessed in one place. This being the case I may have missed something in the FOSIL model because of this. What strikes me about the Alberta Model is it appears to place the student right at the centre of the Inquiry process, almost to the extent that it feels like a tailor-made and individual plan for a student inquiry can be created. It seems to ask directly- what kind of learner are you? and through asking this question the scope to address learning challenges can be addressed. I'm interested in learning styles and barriers to learning in schools which is why I am drawn to this.
I am months behind, I'm afraid - not just in this discussion, but in my thinking, hence my reply not entirely addressing the question! Before even being ready to think about the different types of inquiry models, I have to grapple with how the teaching and learning model in school, and the curriculum which sits underneath it, can have an inquiry framework which sits meaningfully underneath it. @Elizabeth made a very interesting point earlier in this discussion about getting stuck in the 'top level' with one of the excellent workbooks from FOSIL, and it struck me that this is exactly what appeals to teachers - the workbooks are easily amended to suit a topic or research project and means that time is not wasted on having to think any deeper about how to make it work; changing a way of working, or pre existing lesson plans is not an endeavour much appreciated by teachers who are time poor. The trick for librarians is to show them that applying one of these frameworks to their own thinking and planning means that it is saving time, not spending it! FOSIL's clear cycle and processes and excellent resources are what drew me to to it in the first place, but I really like the addition of the affective domain in the Alberta model.
I think, in essence, what I am trying to say is that FOSIL is more easily explained to teachers because it provides a clear visual framework and resources which they can use quickly; however, reading the Alberta model, and more of the Learning Memos, and @Darryl Toerien's comments here, it is clear that it deserves a more thorough and considered approach to really understand how it meshes into the curriculum, and doesn't just sit on top as an easy way to deliver a lesson.
Good morning, all.
The following may shed further light. The image below shows the skill sets (called Indicators in the Empire State Information Fluency Continuum) that enable each stage in the FOSIL model of the inquiry process, and each of these skill sets consists of subsets of skills that develop from Reception through to Year 13 - "the framework of the literacy, inquiry, critical thinking, and technology skills that students must develop at each phase of inquiry over their years of school and in the context of content area learning" - which I am still mapping. You will see from the skill sets in Reflect in particular that there is an explicit concern with the affective dimension of the inquiry process, although this concern is present in the subsets of skills in other stages.
I have clipped this image from the full Empire State Information Fluency Continuum (attached), which makes the broader concern with the affective dimension of inquiry even more explicit, especially in Anchor Standard IV - Personal Growth and Agency.
Again, this highlights the importance and value of committing to and working with(in) a sound model of the inquiry process. I, for example, have been working with(in) FOSIL/ ESIFC since 2012, and am still plumbing its depths (as is Barbara Stripling :) - insight is truly the outcome of a long-term iterative process (Matthew Sayed).
Have a good day.
I have read all of this with interest. As I am not directly teaching these skills to students, just making those new to school libraries aware of the different models to help, I really don't have the experience in practice to say what has worked for me and what doesn't. I did notice the emphasis on feelings mentioned in the Alberta model which I didn't remember from FOSIL, but Darryl Toerien knows it much better, so happy to take another look at that part. I'm not sure many librarians could present the Alberta model as a whole to their school for use now as it is from 2004 (mention of CD-Roms!) whereas FOSIL has been brought up to date. But I expect most librarians have adapted any model for use for their school and to be practical I think you would have to do so.
I'm all for starting children in KS2 on the basics so it can be taught from a young age and where primary and secondary phases communicate that will work.
Things that did resonate with me in the Alberta model were
"Creative endeavour requires multiple versions" referring to editing your work, as I always have to throw something down on paper and go back and rewrite and rewrite. (Why I hated exams).
Also "Teach audience appreciation to your class" I think is good advice as helping students critique their peers, helps them to do the same to their own work.
I also thought the mention of transferable skills in the Alberta model a useful reminder to students as I know many librarians/teachers despair when they have taught a skill only to find the pupils don't use it when they do work for another subject.
Some great observations in this discussion which will prompt a bit more research on my part
The two models do seem broadly similar and I'm sure both provide an excellent framework for Inquiry.
It is interesting that the architects of the Alberta model chose to place 'Reflecting on the Process' in the centre of all the other phases as this does highlight that Reflection is something that is ongoing throughout the whole process and not just something that happens at the end. I understand that FOSIL does encourage reflection throughout the process and the need for a learner to go back and forth between the phases as they discover new information and make new connections, but perhaps the Alberta model makes this more explicit at the top level.
I like the unpacking of 'Planning' (Alberta) into 'Connect' and 'Wonder' in FOSIL as this serves to highlight that time should be spent introducing the topic to learners and helping them to become engaged in the topic - something which is vital in order to sustain learners through the inquiry. Reading through 'Focus on Inquiry' it is clear that this sort of preparation is intended to be part of the 'Planning' phase but, again, it is a question of emphasis at the top level.
I guess 'Express' and 'Sharing' are broadly analogous but 'Sharing' does seem to emphasis that learners are creating something that will be shared with an audience, even if that audience is sometimes just a teacher, and that it is important when creating anything to keep ones end-user / reader in mind. Perhaps it also encourages us, as educators, to create ways in which projects can be shared.
I agree with everyone's comments so far, and yes @Elizabeth I think the fact both models lend themselves well in comparison to each other, is comforting and my understanding is that FOSIL is based on many models of inquiry as indeed was the Alberta model.
The main differences that struck me are that the Alberta model appears to recognise the affective domain (feelings) more than FOSIL, and I think this is something we discussed last month. I think it's really useful to compare models, as we can easily incorporate aspects into our own planning. These were my initial thoughts, but I do take aboard your comments @Darryl Toerien .
Apologies for repeating what @Stephanie has shared, but I too can see Planning equating to Connect. I also see it in Wonder, especially with identifying questions, other than to simply seek information, but to develop into more challenging questions, of an inquiry nature. I think, although both models suggest mind-mapping and brain-storming, the Alberta model in Planning, is more explicit in identifying what is already known and how that is known.
Retrieving and Investigate correspond to the bare bones of research, and where Librarians traditionally feel more at ease in assisting. I note in Retrieving, the Alberta model mentions this is where students often feel 'information overload' and while FOSIL may not have direct mention to it, I think educators have always recognised this. I also see Processing in Investigate, with the evaluation of resources. Creating links to Construct, (perhaps the most obvious connection), but also in Express with sharing peer reviews etc, although Sharing is the best fit with Express.
Evaluating compares with Reflect and I agree with @Darryl Toerien & @Elizabeth , it's easy to see this with EPQ, but I need to remind myself to consider this within the whole FOSIL framework throughout all year groups.
Thank you @Elizabeth , comparing the models has helped consolidate my understanding of how both models work.
I was just going to pop in and share something that might be helpful in this discussion, and am delighted to see that it is already underway.
I have just published Barbara Stripling's Epistemology and Learning Memo - E&L Memo 1 | Learning to know and understand through inquiry - on the FOSIL Group website. Not only does Barbara provide deep insight into the development of the model that FOSIL is based on, but also into the inquiry process and underlying skills more generally.
Before I go, what is becoming increasingly clear to me is that many of the distinguishing features of each model are not visible in the model itself, hence the word of caution accompanying the commitment to inquiry in the IFLA School Library Guidelines. This reminds me of what Daniel Callison wrote about Barbara's doctoral studies (emphasis added):
They [Barbara Stripling and Judy Pitts] tied the library to the classroom and demonstrated how the library could be a center for learning across the school and were early movers for involving teachers with media specialists as co-instructional designers. ... In both [their respective doctoral] studies, these two exceptional leaders in the school library instructional field found, from the vantage point of the researcher, with greater observation and analysis, that moving students as well as their teachers toward grasping the principles of inquiry was an extremely formidable task. School library media specialists are not likely to accomplish that task without a deep understanding of inquiry as well as being accepted fully into a co-instructional role. This implies extensive education in inquiry principles and application for those who seek a position as an educator in a twenty-first-century learning environment.
This is the real value, I think, of what we are doing here - helping each other to build a deep understanding of inquiry and educating ourselves, which is entirely appropriate, in inquiry principles and application.
Darryl
P.S. In case it is not clear, the combined FOSIL-ISP that @Elizabeth shared is not limited to the Extended Essay, or EPQ for that matter, just an example of its application. Also, once you get down to the level of skills, and take the full Empire State Information Fluency Continuum into account, FOSIL has a lot to say about feeling and dispositions.
The big differences that stand out for me are:-
Reflecting on the process. I think the Alberta model does this really well whereas FOSIL seems to expect you to be able to explain this to your students. (I might have missed where it does that though...)
Retrieving. There is much talked about how students feel at this stage within the Alberta model. Understanding the anxiety that goes with research is as much part of the process as anything else. FOSIL does cover this within Extended Essay Timetable which you can see in the picture below. However, it does not really mention feelings throughout the framework itself.
Skills framework. The big stand out for me is the fact that FOSIL recognises the need to build skills up over time, starting in reception. Creating building blocks to create independent learners. The Alberta model seems to expect all ages to do the same thing although at the ability of the child. There is an assumption with the Alberta model whereas FOSIL is explicit.
I agree @Stephanie the two models are very similar which I think is very comforting. Knowing that they follow similar routes for me makes me worry less about which model I am following but very interested to see the small differences.
The Alberta phases are:
Planning
Retrieving
Processing
Creating
Sharing
Evaluating
Planning might equate in FOSIL to Connect. Both Alberta and FOSIL talk about brainstorming and mindmapping as part of this first phase.
Wonder might also link to Planning in the sense of coming up with their own questions as identifying these questions is an important part of the planning process.
Retrieving and Investigating seem like comparable sections as these are both the research stage of the inquiry.
Processing and Considering are the next stage when students transform what they have learned from their research into organised knowledge of that topic. Alberta also has an additional phase at this point termed Creating.
Express links to Sharing with students taking that knowledge and presenting it in an appropriate fashion.
Both processes then encourage students to reflect upon everything in Reflect and Evaluating.
The two models, therefore, seem reasonably comparable in broad scheme. However, there also appear to be slight differences with FOSIL dividing the initial pre-research phase into two steps that are only one in Alberta, and with the reverse being true in the post-research phase where Alberta has two steps and FOSIL one.
There is only one question this month.
With this in mind, compare the Alberta Inquiry Model with FOSIL (or your own model of the inquiry process if different), and reflect on their distinguishing features. For more information on each of the 6 stages in the FOSIL Cycle of Inquiry, see:
Connect
Wonder
Investigate
Construct
Express
Reflect