Inquiry based Learning

Identifying and Justifying the Pedagogical Approach

After twenty-four years in education, I’ve learned that the deepest learning happens when curiosity and structure coexist. My chosen pedagogical approach, Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL), allows students to actively question, explore, and make meaning through authentic problems. Yet, as research and experience have shown, inquiry without structure can lead to cognitive overload and surface-level engagement. Thus, my model is a guided inquiry-within-structure approach, combining Kath Murdoch’s inquiry cycle with the principles of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) and trauma-informed, whole-child design.

IBL coheres with my philosophy of learning as relational, rigorous, and agency-driven. It is not a free-for-all but a “structured improvisation” — much like jazz — where the teacher sets a rhythm that enables creativity within boundaries. As Murdoch (2015) emphasises, inquiry is a “disciplined process of wondering, investigating and reflecting,” not an unstructured exploration. My stance balances explicit instruction with authentic investigation, ensuring that learning is both challenging and emotionally safe.

This synthesis draws from constructivist theorists such as Dewey (1938), Vygotsky (1978), and Bruner (1977), but also from cognitive scientists like Sweller, Ayres, and Kalyuga (2019), who remind us that guided instruction maximises working memory efficiency. I also integrate Dr Pamela Cantor’s (2018) research on the malleability of the brain and the centrality of relationships in learning. In practice, this means embedding co-regulation, feedback, and belonging within inquiry cycles — recognising that emotional safety is the precondition for cognitive growth.

In my school context, this approach reflects the values I lead: equity, wellbeing, and student voice. Guided inquiry enables transdisciplinary connections (for example, science and literacy), promotes metacognition, and fosters intrinsic motivation. It also honours Australian Professional Standards for Teachers 1 and 3, emphasising both deep content knowledge and the capacity to engage students in purposeful learning.

My position statement is simple:

Inquiry is most powerful when it is guided, relational, and cognitively intentional — a dance between explicit teaching and curiosity that enables all learners to flourish.

Application in Practice

Unit Concept: Year 3 Science × Literacy — “Stories in Stone”Driving Question: How do rocks tell the story of our place?

This unit embodies the dialectic between theory and practice. It is structured around Murdoch’s inquiry cycle and informed by CLT, belonging science, and Australian Curriculum v9.

Tuning In:Students explore real rock specimens using “See-Think-Wonder.” Pre-assessment probes misconceptions (e.g., “all rocks are the same”). This phase primes curiosity while establishing shared language.

Finding Out:Guided mini-investigations (hardness, layering, texture) integrate literacy through scientific texts and teacher “micro-bursts” of explicit teaching on vocabulary and explanation writing. Cognitive load is managed through worked examples and visual anchors.

Sorting Out:Students co-construct concept maps and engage in structured talk routines. I model scientific explanations, then gradually fade prompts as learners develop confidence and schema.

Going Further:Students connect classroom learning with local fieldwork or virtual site visits. They interview a local geologist or watch short clips to explore real-world relevance.

Making Connections:This phase intentionally integrates local Indigenous perspectives, exploring how stories of Country and geological formations intersect. Students reflect on how land and story shape identity and belonging.

Taking Action:Students curate a class “museum” with labelled rock specimens, QR-coded audio explanations, and field journals that combine observation, diagrams, and text.

Assessment:

·     Formative: Exit slips, peer/self-assessment using co-constructed success criteria, ongoing conferencing.

·     Summative: Rubrics for museum labels (accuracy, clarity, vocabulary) and field journals (depth, explanation, conventions).

Wellbeing & Equity:Predictable routines and emotional regulation strategies (grounded in Cantor’s framework) ensure inclusion. Students have multiple ways to demonstrate learning (oral, visual, written) and feel safe to take intellectual risks.

Evidence of Impact:Growth will be measured through pre/post concept maps, writing fluency samples, and student voice reflections, aligning with Visible Learning principles (Hattie, 2009).

This design transforms IBL into an integrated ecosystem of rigour, care, and curiosity — demonstrating that deep learning occurs where boundaries and belonging meet.

The Dialectic: Theory into Practice

In this work, I do not merely apply theory; I engage in a dialogue between seemingly opposing paradigms. Inquiry’s constructivist heart meets the clarity of cognitive science, creating a model I describe as “Guided Inquiry Design for Wellbeing and Deep Learning.”

This model repositions teachers as architects of conditions rather than deliverers of content. It recognises that safety and structure are not constraints on inquiry — they are its enablers. When belonging, scaffolding, and curiosity intersect, learning becomes both disciplined and alive.

Reflection and Professional Growth

Leading inquiry across diverse teams has taught me that teacher mindset — beliefs about control, autonomy, and trust — determines whether inquiry flourishes. My ongoing challenge is supporting teachers to feel safe releasing control while maintaining clarity. As a leader, I see my role as co-regulating adults so they can co-regulate students.

Looking ahead to Assignment 3, I will refine my guided inquiry framework further by collecting data on student engagement, cognitive load, and wellbeing. My aim is to contribute to a school-wide model of inquiry that is both trauma-informed and evidence-based, aligning with Cantor’s Whole-Child Design principles and the Australian Curriculum’s focus on “connecting learning to life.”

Figure 1. Stories in Stone – Year 3 inquiry infographic (Grant, 2025)

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.

Cantor, P. (2018). The science of learning and development: Defining the science of learning and development. Turnaround for Children.

Cantor, P., Osher, D., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2019). Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context. Applied Developmental Science, 23(4), 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2017.1398649

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.

Grant, C (2025). Stories in Stone – Year 3 inquiry infographic [Unpublished infographic]. Canva.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

Murdoch, K. (2015). The power of inquiry: Teaching and learning with curiosity, creativity and purpose in the contemporary classroom. Seastar Education.

Murdoch, K. (2019). The art of inquiry: Inquiry-based learning through a thinking lens. Seastar Education.

Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching and learning. Routledge.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.

Tom Bennett. (2020). Running the room: The teacher’s guide to behaviour. John Catt Educational.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.