Critical Inquiry Design: Tensions and Possibilities

• In Event: Critical Inquiry in Social Studies Education: Clarifying Directions for Research and Practice

Abstract

Purpose: The C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards (NCSS, 2013) renewed emphasis on inquiry teaching and learning in social studies classrooms. As states adopted inquiry standards (New et al., 2021), the Inquiry Design Model (IDM, Grant et al., 2017) used three components (questions, tasks, and sources) to guide teachers in inquiry design. Critical scholars called for inquiries that considered power and injustice, leading to a critical inquiry framework (Author, 2018). We are interested in the challenges and opportunities that emerge in inquiry design as teachers ground their practice in social justice and inquiry.

Methods & Data Sources: Our data include K-12 teacher-created IDMs from two professional development experiences in Virginia focused on IDM principles and critical inquiry. We draw from the Virginia Inquiry Collaborative (VIC) and from elementary teachers who completed a series of workshops with Author 1. We explored teacher-created IDMs to identify areas of alignment and tension.

Using collaborative analysis (Cornish et al., 2013), we considered the inquiries through the tenets of IDM (Swan et al., 2018) and of critical inquiry (critiquing power, marginalized perspectives, alleviating injustice; Author, 2018). Swan and colleagues outlined a process of examining the vertical alignment of IDMs along three parts: the inquiry frame, formative work, and conceptual clarity (2018). Author 2 (2018) elaborated on how an IDM’s questions, tasks, and sources can infuse criticality.

Results: Despite similar framing of the professional learning and purpose of the inquiry projects, IDMs varied in strength of alignment and criticality. Generally, teachers’ inquiries struggled to adhere to IDM and critical inquiry when crafting questions and designing tasks while sources proved to have synergy between IDM and critical inquiry. We provide an example of a question, task, and source that informed our findings.

● Questions: Teacher products often contained questions that either lacked criticality (Which Ancient Chinese innovation had the greatest impact?) or that conflicted with the IDM principle of open-ended questions by steering students to particular answers (Was the New Deal a Fair Deal in the South?).
● Tasks: While questions and tasks generally aligned, summative tasks often lacked an action element, even if the inquiry included a focus on injustice or oppression. For example, a 3rd grade inquiry (What stories should statues tell about ancient Rome?) culminated with a student design of a new statue or proposal to revise a current statue. While the task allows for students to consider injustice, it is not required or explicitly stated.
● Sources: Teacher products demonstrated their ability to curate sources that adhered to both IDM and critical inquiry tenets. As an example, the sources from a 7th grade inquiry on the Harlem Renaissance were vertically-aligned, contained multiple perspectives, utilized multiple modalities, and centered the perspectives of marginalized groups.

Significance: Our study highlights tensions between the call for inquiry pedagogies and the call for a focus on power and injustice within social studies education. From our analysis, we aim to provide teachers and teacher educators with guiding principles to use when addressing these important aims of social studies education.

Authors

• Emma Sowards Thacker, James Madison University

• Ryan M. Crowley, University of Kentucky