Introducing Inquiry Maths into a department

At an Inquiry Maths conference workshop recently, Rob Smith raised the issue of introducing inquiry into a secondary school department. Rob, the leader of the Maths Department at Northampton Academy (UK), wanted advice on the best way to promote Inquiry Maths with his team. Andrew Blair, who has led mathematics departments in three schools, replied:

The approach a middle leader takes will depend on the culture and practice of the department. If the department is like the majority in England described in Made to Measure, then teachers will not expect students to solve multi-step problems or reason mathematically on a regular, or even infrequent, basis. In this context, the introduction of Inquiry Maths is unlikely to succeed without a considerable investment in support and training. 

It is not sufficient, for example, to write prompts into the schemes of learning as optional activities and expect teachers to use them. This approach underestimates the obstacles teachers face. Firstly, Inquiry Maths is not simply another resource that can be assimilated into existing practice; the full model might involve fundamental changes to a teacher's practice and the culture of their classroom. Secondly, teachers in the UK state sector rarely have the time to engage with new ideas on their own. Consequently, when the use of inquiry prompts are at the individual's discretion, teachers are likely to reject them in favour of tasks that fit with their existing practice.

The leader who wants to embed Inquiry Maths in the department's practice must appraise the level of support for or opposition to inquiry and develop a plan accordingly. We consider three cases: widespread support, minority interest, and general hostility:

(1) The majority of the department is interested in inquiry learning. 

When the majority of the department is open to inquiry, the middle leader can oversee a collaborative professional development cycle in which each teacher uses the same prompt with one of their classes. 

The members of the department meet in directed time to try out the inquiry. They would anticipate their students' questions about the prompt, consider which level of inquiry is appropriate, discuss potential lines of inquiry that might arise in the classroom, and prepare resources for those lines of inquiry. After the inquiry, teachers evaluate the type and content of learning that occurred during the inquiry before planning for the next inquiry. 

As the teachers' expertise grows, the team might split into small groups or pairs to work on separate inquiries. At each stage they report back to the wider group and receive critical comments that advance their thinking. By the end of the first year, the leader might feel confident to include inquiries as compulsory activities in the scheme of learning.

(2) A minority of the department is interested in inquiry learning. 

It is more common for the minority of teachers in a department to be open to inquiry. Perhaps two other teachers are prepared to embrace new ideas and keen to develop their students' agency and initiative through inquiry. In this case, the head of department could work with the interested teachers using a lesson study model. (Read Helen Hindle's report on an inquiry lesson study here.) Teachers observe each other running the same inquiry, focusing on the learning of identified students. Once again, time is a key issue. The leader would endeavour to arrange time off timetable to prepare for and reflect upon the lesson study. 

The aim of the lesson study would be that the two teachers became advocates for inquiry within the department, spreading their enthusiasm to others. This phase might last a year or less depending on how quickly others are drawn in. In the second year, the two advocates would lead their own lesson studies with four other colleagues and in the following year - that is, the third year - inquiries would become compulsory for all.

(3) The members of the department are opposed to inquiry learning. 

It is difficult to envisage a situation in which an established head of department attempts to introduce Inquiry Maths against the opposition of the rest of the department. Hopefully, the leader has built sufficient relationships and trust and laid enough groundwork to convince one or two colleagues to at least try out inquiry. Otherwise, the situation could easily deteriorate into acrimony and frustration for the leader. 

Another possibility is that a new head of department arrives at a school intent on using Inquiry Maths. Even if the headteacher supports the idea at interview, the middle leader's task is rarely any easier in practice when the department is set against inquiry. Indeed, the headteacher might employ the new head of department as part of an agenda to 'shake up' a recalcitrant team that is resistant to change. In this scenario, teachers can, at worst, view the newcomer as a stooge of senior leaders and block all attempts to innovate.

...............................

Even if the department is supportive of inquiry, the introduction of Inquiry Maths involves cycles of planning, implementation, and evaluation that require dedicated time and space. However, when the department receives the right level of support and guidance, the experience of inquiry classrooms can quickly excite and enthuse colleagues. Before long discussions about inquiry among the team become an everyday feature of the department's culture, 

July 2016