There was much to absorb in these readings. Much of the writing was focused on challenges related to CI theory and practice, starting with an admission that there has not been a great deal of validating research. (Deluca, 2014, p.641) The authors note that “The absence of systemic data on CI is concerning, given its growing popularity for teacher professional learning. (Butler & Shnellert, 2012; Webster-Weight, 2009)(Deluca et al., 2014, P.2)

I have heard colleagues share some of the reservations raised by the teachers in Table 4 (Deluca, et al., 2014 p.74) Is this a 'cart before the horse' situation where we've jumped on the CI bandwagon before we've proven its effectiveness as a method? Some staff members have questioned whether (eg) school/admin-organized collaborative inquiry oversteps teacher autonomy?(see also Deluca et al., 2015).

Deluca et al. note that some notable challenges to successful collaborative inquiry are: teacher buy-in, leadership, temporal constraints, and data literacy (Deluca, 2014, p.16). Personally, I have had both positive and negative experiences with collaborative inquiry. I have been both a ‘buyer-in’ and a ‘seller-out’ (Hmm… that’s not the right phrase!) For example, a group of colleagues and I received a grant to explore reading resources and practices to help improve our students' reading skills. We worked on this project for the better part of 6 months, and found it rewarding and useful because we were invested in the inquiry question, and we were also given release time to pursue our inquiry.

However, I've also participated in 'forced' collaborative inquiry that felt inauthentic, and 'just one more thing to do'. I think that’s a major key. As one of the teachers in the study commented, inquiry for inquiry’s sake can feel as if it’s just another task (see table 4). Authenticity and relevance, for me at least, is very important for teacher buy-in. When collaborative inquiry seems forced or inauthentic, I find myself siding with the teachers in Table 4 who question whether their time (often away from their classes) is being used effectively.

The second article states that “Cyclical learning, where one inquiry leads logically into the next, is integral to CI. However, our data indicate that teachers are not fully engaging in this ‘iterative’ aspect.”(Deluca et al., 2017, p. 10). I can think of a couple practical hurdles to this: 1) staff turnover is an unfortunate reality in many schools, so it often difficult/impossible to maintain a consistent collaborative school group from year to year; and 2) District, school, staff and student goals and needs also change from year to year. Perhaps that is one reason why goals shift from time to time, whether that’s from year to year, or on a shorter/longer timeframe. On that note, how does one know when a collaborative inquiry has reached its end? Is it when we start seeing student results? Or when we feel like we have a deeper understanding of the question we’ve been working on? Or...?

I do agree with the writers of all articles that reflection is one of the key pieces to honing your skills as a teacher and thinker. It’s only by reflecting on your practice that you see what your students need, where you can improve your own effectiveness, and then, throughout the process of inquiry, what the next step is.

References:

DeLuca, C., Bolden, B., & Chan, J. (2017). Systemic professional learning through collaborative inquiry: Examining teachers' perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 67-78.

DeLuca, C., Shulha, J., Luhanga, U., Shulha, L. M., Christou, T. M., & Klinger, D. A. (2015). Collaborative inquiry as a professional learning structure for educators: A scoping review. Professional Development in Education, 41(4), 640-670.