Home › Forums › The nature of inquiry and information literacy › Guided Inquiry Design and FOSIL › Reply To: Guided Inquiry Design and FOSIL
To aid discussion, I have produced a table with the descriptions of the Guided Inquiry Design phases (taken from Guided Inquiry Design, by Carol C. Kuhlthau, Leslie K. Maniotes, Ann K. Caspari) and FOSIL stages and skill sets as I see it.
The Connect stage – which covers Open, Immerse and Explore – may be as long or as short as is needed and/ or time permits (which is also the case for the other FOSIL stages). One of the reasons why I based FOSIL on Barbara Stripling’s model/ ESIFC – apart from being available via Creative Commons – is because it outlined the inquiry process more simply at the phase/ stage level without a loss of meaning. At the next level (skill sets in FOSIL), it is clear that Connect covers the same ground as Open, Immerse and Explore, and it is not apparent to me why three distinct phases are necessary.
By “characteristic move from general to particular” being explicit in the GID stages, do you mean “Identify inquiry question” and “Decide direction”? If so, then that seems to me to correspond to all of Wonder.
Connect definitely depends on resources of a general nature, and there is another shift to more specific sources, and then evidence within those sources, in Investigate.
By “expected emotions at Explore and possibly at Create” do you mean those identified in the ISP (confusion, frustration and doubt leading to clarity)? If so, these are implicit at the stage and skill set level in FOSIL, as in GID. Although we initially produced the following reflection on the ISP in relation to FOSIL to help us better understand the inquiry process underlying the IB Diploma Extended Essay, its application is obviously broader and the insight provided by the ISP, which we are very grateful for, informs all of our work (note that the FOSIL colours blend into each other here because we are not suggesting an exact correspondence – in revisiting the ISP/ GID for this post, I have noticed an alignment between the ISP and GID, so this may benefit from further refinement).
Also, another reason why I based FOSIL on the ESIFC is that there is a more detailed layer than the skill sets, which is the PK-12 continuum of skills, which include but are not limited to the stages in the inquiry process. I will return to this later.
Reflection is integral to the process at every stage and more or less explicit in the descriptions of the FOSIL stages and associated skill sets. This is also reflected in the double-headed arrows between stages, because we may need to revisit one or more stages in the course of an inquiry, which is not a linear process, and I also tried to reflect this in the FOSIL ‘head’ or ‘mind’, which is central to the process, and with unfolding insight borne of reflective thought (see below). I will return to this. Barbara was deliberate in naming the final stage Reflect, and I will see if I recorded my conversation with her about this.
Having spent quite some time discussing the Alberta Model with Dianne Oberg and Jennifer Branch-Mueller (see Focus on Inquiry, and also Dianne’s E&L Memo, Focus on Inquiry: Reflections on Developing a Model of Inquiry), which was heavily influenced by the ISP/ GID, there is no essential difference that I am aware of in the process or underlying skills between robust models of the inquiry process. Having said that, each of model has its relative strengths and weaknesses, and on balance I favoured the body of work reflected in the ESIFC. I will return to this.
I hope that this goes some way towards answering your questions.
Darryl