“When we genuinely inquire into something, we rarely remain neatly inside a single topic or subject area. Instead, inquiry requires us to move between disciplines, to make connections between a range of skills and knowledge and most importantly, it invites us to bring our prior understandings, experiences and questions along with us. Learning becomes richer because it relates more closely to the reality of how human brains process the information we gather about the world around us. That world is not organised into curriculum boxes.”
I have been trying to find the words to express my own thoughts about inquiry based learning, as well as problem based learning. (Both are similar, but have their own niches). I prefer them over explicitly using explicit teaching.
I believe and am working on how to show the explicit teaching embedded in inquiry- and problem- based teaching. Yet when I try to defend my arguments, those who are for the I Do, We Do, You Do; just do not want to listen.
Hi Rustina, thank you for your comment! I think you’ve put your finger on one of the biggest misconceptions in this debate.
Many people talk about inquiry and explicit teaching as though they are mutually exclusive, when in reality the best inquiry and problem-based classrooms are full of explicit teaching. The difference is that the teaching is often driven by the needs of the inquiry as it develops, rather than delivered as a predetermined sequence.
I’ve always found it interesting that advocates of inquiry are frequently asked to explain where the explicit teaching happens, yet rarely hear the reverse question… Where are the opportunities for curiosity, agency, connection-making and authentic problem solving in highly prescribed models of instruction? I have worked in both contexts and in my experience, inquiry leads to higher engagement and greater well-being than classrooms where students struggle to see themselves reflected in the curriculum.
For me, inquiry isn’t the absence of explicit teaching but a recognition that the process of learning itself is rarely linear. Children encounter a problem, question or phenomenon, then move back and forth between knowledge, skills, reflection and action as they make sense of it. That’s much closer to how learning happens beyond school, where the world doesn’t arrive neatly packaged into subject areas or lesson sequences.
Perhaps the challenge isn’t proving that explicit teaching exists within inquiry but helping everyone see that inquiry provides a meaningful context for why that teaching matters in the first place!
Loved this… learning mathematics is rather like what you say: “ To be a ‘truth-teller’, every interpretation needs to remain open to challenge and every argument open to revision in the face of new evidence.” Except that what you call ‘evidence’ is better described as ‘what is inconsistent’ and doesn’t stand up to rigour… what will cause what you think to break down in the face of further thought. In this sense mathematics is a set of truth procedures. Being good at mathematics… near perfect at school level… led me into trouble as I started to discover a world filled with dishonesty and inconvenient truths that a person was asked not to question. For this very reason we must demand a better world that lives up to what we are taught when we are taught to think about ideas and to interpret. I do believe that young people of today will demand this!
I genuinely hope you’re right snd that the current trend in education to head backwards to polarised, dogmatic ideas won’t win the day. Teaching young students in inquiry settings has become more and more widely accepted as good practice, however the older they get, the less inquiry tends to be authentic and meaningful. This is why we get a drop off in engagement and why I believe, many students are struggling to see the point of school.
We know more and more about how people learn, and yet the current narrative which pushes AI as some holy savior in education, completely dismisses that learning is a fundamentally social process.
I can also be a strong mathematical thinker, but I hated maths at school. I think your point about this is intriguing - there’s a definite link there when it comes to seeing and questioning systems I think 🤔
Really enjoyed this, thank you. I've been reading a lot recently on the enquiry based learning vs explicit instruction debate and what struck me here was the way a simple observation of a spider opened up questions spanning science, literature, history and philosophy.
The spiderweb metaphor seems particularly apt as well. One of the things I find most compelling about enquiry is its capacity to reveal connections that are often hidden by subject boundaries and curriculum categories.
I'm curious where you see explicit instruction fitting into this picture. Do you think enquiry works best once children already have a substantial base of knowledge to draw upon, or can the enquiry itself be the thing that helps build that knowledge in the first place?
Hi! Thanks so much for the thoughtful comment. I really appreciate the connection you made with the spiderweb metaphor, because that sense of interconnectedness is exactly what struck me too. A simple observation can become a pathway into science, literature, history, philosophy and countless other areas when children are given the space to follow their questions.
As for the inquiry versus explicit instruction debate, I have to admit it’s one that often frustrates me because it is so frequently presented as an either/or choice. In any genuine inquiry classroom, there is a great deal of explicit teaching. The difference is not whether knowledge is taught, but when and why it is taught. In inquiry learning, explicit instruction emerges in response to the questions, interests and needs that arise during the investigation.
To your question, I don’t think inquiry should be seen as something that only happens after children have accumulated a substantial body of knowledge. Curiosity itself often drives the acquisition of knowledge. A child notices a spider, asks a question and suddenly has a reason to learn about biology, ecosystems, language, mythology, engineering or any number of related topics. The inquiry becomes the vehicle through which knowledge is built.
At the same time, prior knowledge matters. The more knowledge and experience children have, the more sophisticated their questions become and the more connections they are able to make. Knowledge fuels inquiry, and inquiry creates the motivation and context for acquiring new knowledge.
For me, the spider example illustrates that learning rarely happens in neat subject boxes. Inquiry helps make connections visible and, along the way, creates countless opportunities for explicit teaching. Rather than being opposites, inquiry and explicit instruction work best when they are thoughtfully woven together.
Thanks for getting back. What you’re describing is a kind of reciprocal relationship between enquiry and explicit instruction, both reinforcing the other. Very interesting. There’s a lot out there at the moment on Substack and elsewhere, particularly in light of Kirschner Swellor and Clarke’s famous paper on guided enquiry learning, which argues that the order of knowledge first enquiry second is best. But your take here is very refreshing to hear and has some real merit. A hybrid of the two in parallel seems to be a great balance. Definitely keen to continue looking into this though. Thanks again for coming back on this, and I look forward to reading more from you
No problems at all. This is a debate that has been going on for far too long and, in my view, often ignores the reality of how teaching and learning actually work.
One of the issues I have with the way the Kirschner, Sweller and Clark paper is often interpreted is that it starts from a definition of inquiry that is incorrect to begin with - what they are actually describing is unguided unstructured inquiry, which in a ‘traditional’ understanding would be called ‘independent research projects’. Genuine guided inquiry on the other hand, is not minimally guided. It is highly scaffolded, carefully planned and full of explicit teaching.
The difference is not that inquiry classrooms abandon knowledge objectives. We still have plenty of those. The difference is that instead of mapping out every lesson, provocation and piece of content six weeks in advance, we introduce knowledge, concepts and skills in response to the questions and needs emerging from the inquiry itself.
In practice, both approaches may cover very similar knowledge-based content. What changes is who is driving the learning journey. In one model, the pathway is largely curated by the teacher while in the other, the teacher is still guiding, teaching and scaffolding, but the children’s curiosity helps shape the sequence and context in which that learning occurs.
That’s why I’ve always seen inquiry and explicit instruction as partners rather than opponents. The question isn’t whether explicit teaching happens. It’s how, when and why it happens. Hope all that makes sense!!
That's a helpful distinction, and it's very interesting to hear an alternative view on the Kirschner, Sweller and Clark paper as, while of course being very insightful, I find it is often treated as something of holy gospel in this conversation. Like you say, I think a lot of people end up talking past each other on this because they're using different definitions of enquiry. Seeing the two as partners rather than opponents is not something you often hear in this debate, so thank you for taking the time to share
“When we genuinely inquire into something, we rarely remain neatly inside a single topic or subject area. Instead, inquiry requires us to move between disciplines, to make connections between a range of skills and knowledge and most importantly, it invites us to bring our prior understandings, experiences and questions along with us. Learning becomes richer because it relates more closely to the reality of how human brains process the information we gather about the world around us. That world is not organised into curriculum boxes.”
I have been trying to find the words to express my own thoughts about inquiry based learning, as well as problem based learning. (Both are similar, but have their own niches). I prefer them over explicitly using explicit teaching.
I believe and am working on how to show the explicit teaching embedded in inquiry- and problem- based teaching. Yet when I try to defend my arguments, those who are for the I Do, We Do, You Do; just do not want to listen.
Hi Rustina, thank you for your comment! I think you’ve put your finger on one of the biggest misconceptions in this debate.
Many people talk about inquiry and explicit teaching as though they are mutually exclusive, when in reality the best inquiry and problem-based classrooms are full of explicit teaching. The difference is that the teaching is often driven by the needs of the inquiry as it develops, rather than delivered as a predetermined sequence.
I’ve always found it interesting that advocates of inquiry are frequently asked to explain where the explicit teaching happens, yet rarely hear the reverse question… Where are the opportunities for curiosity, agency, connection-making and authentic problem solving in highly prescribed models of instruction? I have worked in both contexts and in my experience, inquiry leads to higher engagement and greater well-being than classrooms where students struggle to see themselves reflected in the curriculum.
For me, inquiry isn’t the absence of explicit teaching but a recognition that the process of learning itself is rarely linear. Children encounter a problem, question or phenomenon, then move back and forth between knowledge, skills, reflection and action as they make sense of it. That’s much closer to how learning happens beyond school, where the world doesn’t arrive neatly packaged into subject areas or lesson sequences.
Perhaps the challenge isn’t proving that explicit teaching exists within inquiry but helping everyone see that inquiry provides a meaningful context for why that teaching matters in the first place!
Loved this… learning mathematics is rather like what you say: “ To be a ‘truth-teller’, every interpretation needs to remain open to challenge and every argument open to revision in the face of new evidence.” Except that what you call ‘evidence’ is better described as ‘what is inconsistent’ and doesn’t stand up to rigour… what will cause what you think to break down in the face of further thought. In this sense mathematics is a set of truth procedures. Being good at mathematics… near perfect at school level… led me into trouble as I started to discover a world filled with dishonesty and inconvenient truths that a person was asked not to question. For this very reason we must demand a better world that lives up to what we are taught when we are taught to think about ideas and to interpret. I do believe that young people of today will demand this!
I genuinely hope you’re right snd that the current trend in education to head backwards to polarised, dogmatic ideas won’t win the day. Teaching young students in inquiry settings has become more and more widely accepted as good practice, however the older they get, the less inquiry tends to be authentic and meaningful. This is why we get a drop off in engagement and why I believe, many students are struggling to see the point of school.
We know more and more about how people learn, and yet the current narrative which pushes AI as some holy savior in education, completely dismisses that learning is a fundamentally social process.
I can also be a strong mathematical thinker, but I hated maths at school. I think your point about this is intriguing - there’s a definite link there when it comes to seeing and questioning systems I think 🤔
Really enjoyed this, thank you. I've been reading a lot recently on the enquiry based learning vs explicit instruction debate and what struck me here was the way a simple observation of a spider opened up questions spanning science, literature, history and philosophy.
The spiderweb metaphor seems particularly apt as well. One of the things I find most compelling about enquiry is its capacity to reveal connections that are often hidden by subject boundaries and curriculum categories.
I'm curious where you see explicit instruction fitting into this picture. Do you think enquiry works best once children already have a substantial base of knowledge to draw upon, or can the enquiry itself be the thing that helps build that knowledge in the first place?
Hi! Thanks so much for the thoughtful comment. I really appreciate the connection you made with the spiderweb metaphor, because that sense of interconnectedness is exactly what struck me too. A simple observation can become a pathway into science, literature, history, philosophy and countless other areas when children are given the space to follow their questions.
As for the inquiry versus explicit instruction debate, I have to admit it’s one that often frustrates me because it is so frequently presented as an either/or choice. In any genuine inquiry classroom, there is a great deal of explicit teaching. The difference is not whether knowledge is taught, but when and why it is taught. In inquiry learning, explicit instruction emerges in response to the questions, interests and needs that arise during the investigation.
To your question, I don’t think inquiry should be seen as something that only happens after children have accumulated a substantial body of knowledge. Curiosity itself often drives the acquisition of knowledge. A child notices a spider, asks a question and suddenly has a reason to learn about biology, ecosystems, language, mythology, engineering or any number of related topics. The inquiry becomes the vehicle through which knowledge is built.
At the same time, prior knowledge matters. The more knowledge and experience children have, the more sophisticated their questions become and the more connections they are able to make. Knowledge fuels inquiry, and inquiry creates the motivation and context for acquiring new knowledge.
For me, the spider example illustrates that learning rarely happens in neat subject boxes. Inquiry helps make connections visible and, along the way, creates countless opportunities for explicit teaching. Rather than being opposites, inquiry and explicit instruction work best when they are thoughtfully woven together.
Thanks for getting back. What you’re describing is a kind of reciprocal relationship between enquiry and explicit instruction, both reinforcing the other. Very interesting. There’s a lot out there at the moment on Substack and elsewhere, particularly in light of Kirschner Swellor and Clarke’s famous paper on guided enquiry learning, which argues that the order of knowledge first enquiry second is best. But your take here is very refreshing to hear and has some real merit. A hybrid of the two in parallel seems to be a great balance. Definitely keen to continue looking into this though. Thanks again for coming back on this, and I look forward to reading more from you
No problems at all. This is a debate that has been going on for far too long and, in my view, often ignores the reality of how teaching and learning actually work.
One of the issues I have with the way the Kirschner, Sweller and Clark paper is often interpreted is that it starts from a definition of inquiry that is incorrect to begin with - what they are actually describing is unguided unstructured inquiry, which in a ‘traditional’ understanding would be called ‘independent research projects’. Genuine guided inquiry on the other hand, is not minimally guided. It is highly scaffolded, carefully planned and full of explicit teaching.
The difference is not that inquiry classrooms abandon knowledge objectives. We still have plenty of those. The difference is that instead of mapping out every lesson, provocation and piece of content six weeks in advance, we introduce knowledge, concepts and skills in response to the questions and needs emerging from the inquiry itself.
In practice, both approaches may cover very similar knowledge-based content. What changes is who is driving the learning journey. In one model, the pathway is largely curated by the teacher while in the other, the teacher is still guiding, teaching and scaffolding, but the children’s curiosity helps shape the sequence and context in which that learning occurs.
That’s why I’ve always seen inquiry and explicit instruction as partners rather than opponents. The question isn’t whether explicit teaching happens. It’s how, when and why it happens. Hope all that makes sense!!
That's a helpful distinction, and it's very interesting to hear an alternative view on the Kirschner, Sweller and Clark paper as, while of course being very insightful, I find it is often treated as something of holy gospel in this conversation. Like you say, I think a lot of people end up talking past each other on this because they're using different definitions of enquiry. Seeing the two as partners rather than opponents is not something you often hear in this debate, so thank you for taking the time to share