articles

October 2009

The Cycle of Inquiry: A Process for Leading Improvement in Teaching and Learning

By Mike Copland

Sometimes a story offers a clear means of teaching an important idea. In working with groups of leaders from Washington State Leadership Academy (WSLA) districts, we've used a parable* that relates the tale of a little town along a river. Some years before, the people of the little town had discovered that, frequently, bodies were appearing in the river—some were sick or dying, some already dead. Over many years, as the daily body count continued to mount, the townsfolk developed elaborate and humane processes for dealing with the bodies—burying the dead, caring for the sick. These processes, in fact, became a strong source of civic pride within the community. However, at no point did the community members explore what was occurring up river in an effort to understand what was producing the constant stream of bodies in the river.

The story produces strong reactions among groups of educational leaders. Many make immediate connections to the way schools operate—elaborate systems for dealing with a perpetual stream of achievement gap issues, institutionalized in ways that, despite good intentions, serve only to maintain the status quo. The use of a cycle of inquiry perspective, a curricular emphasis throughout the WSLA effort, offers leaders a way of thinking about and working on long-standing disparities in teaching and learning, often split along the lines of race, social class, and language, that begins by exploring what is going on "up river." To inquire critically is to explore the assumptions, beliefs and values that underpin the way things are in our schools, how they got to be the way they are, and to understand whose interests are being served by the way things are. From this exploration, we believe leaders are able to act with greater clarity and resolve as they move to action within their individual school and district contexts.

Working through a cycle of inquiry involves WSLA teams in exploration of what is going on "up river" that impedes improvements in teaching and learning for all students. In all cases, these explorations operate at both the individual level—what do I know, believe and value as an educator—and the organizational level—what does the way we operate as a collective community indicate about what we know, believe and value as educators.

 

We introduce five elements of a critical inquiry process for thought and action. Each element is framed with some key questions for our teams of system-level leaders to ask. These include:

• Start with a problem of practice: Develop a clear initial understanding through exploration of existing information about the specific nature of the problems or challenges we face. School or district reform efforts often fail due to insufficient attention to defining the problem; rather, leaders tend toward solutions, leaping on the next band wagon. Engaging in identifying a problem of practice involves answering:
  • What is our system-level problem of practice?
  • How do we know one when we see one?
  • Of all the problems out there, which ones are "good" for us to focus on?
  • Where does our problem of practice start and end?
  • How can we limit the scope of the problem we're addressing so it is manageable and meaningful?
• Develop a system-level plan and theory of action: With a solid framing of the problem of practice, the work of figuring out what to do about it can begin in earnest. This work involves generating possible solutions or strategies, deciding on a set of strategies or solution, and clarifying the rationale for why the chosen strategies are likely to help solve the problem teams have identified (the "theory of action" for the particular way a district team chooses to proceed). Questions include in the inquiry process ask teams to consider:
  • Why a systems-level plan of action?
  • How do we develop one?
  • How do I develop a "good" one?
  • What does it mean to have a theory of action, or rationale, for what we choose to do, and why do we need one?
  • On what evidence should we base our plan and theory of action?
• Identifying evidence of progress: In concert with the focus on planning for action, the cycle of inquiry asks teams to envision and decide on both short term and long term evidence of progress. Having this conversation early in the process of inquiry prepares the team to be ready to look for evidence as the work unfolds. The cycle of inquiry asks teams to consider:
  
  • What will be different as a result of our work on the problem?
    
  • How will we know? Which types of evidence could we collect as evidence of our progress?
    
  • Which evidence should we actually plan to collect over what period of time?
    
  • How can we plan well to increase the chances that evidence will get used?
    
• Take action: Given a problem, well-founded plan for strategies, and a picture of the sort of evidence of progress that teams are looking for, they engage in the work of taking focused action. The cycle of inquiry asks teams to consider:
  
  • How do we imagine things being different?
    
  • What will we do to make things different?
    
  • Who is responsible for doing the work we've identified?
    
  • On what timeline?
    
• Understand what happened: Evaluation is an ongoing element in the process, assessing progress made toward addressing the problem in light of new data. The cycle of inquiry asks:
  
  • Are we making progress?
    
  • How do we know?
    
  • How are we gathering and using the evidence of progress we established earlier, in ways that inform what we do next?
    

Embedded throughout the cycle of inquiry is the idea of working from data. In problem identification and framing, teams seek out information that bears upon the problem. Working from data implies more than simply looking over annual standardized assessment results. It means identifying those data that actually help clarify problems, and provide leaders with ongoing, specific evidence of whether or not their efforts are addressing the identified problems or challenges. In determining strategies and a theory of action, teams rely on data about the impact of various approaches, and root their strategies in a rationale that is founded in more than "just intuition." Identifying evidence of progress is all about deciding which data the teams will bring together, and how that adds up to a means for assessing progress. Data collection and use doesn't take a hiatus when teams are engaged in action; rather, they continue to reflect on data and evidence in real time as their efforts unfold. Finally, the process of understanding evidence of progress requires the implementation of data gathering and use strategies.

While presented in a linear fashion here, these elements operate in more of a cyclical manner that involves a continual renewal of leaders' efforts to understand and deal productively with the problems their schools and districts face. In the WSLA effort, we believe that the use of a cycle of inquiry perspective for guiding the improvement of teaching and learning helps leaders to see more clearly, reflect more deeply, and act with greater certainty in service of all students' learning.

* Kudos to Gonzaga University colleague, Dennis Connors, who first introduced us to this parable.