This new and improved Inquiry Process Map (a.k.a Action Research Process Map) asks inquiry teams to record the steps of their inquiry (or action-research) cycles for two reasons: first, by laying out each decision and testing it against all data, hypotheses, and observations available, teams can more readily spot any logical gaps, mis-alignments, or leaps of faith that would undermine the effectiveness of their efforts.  Second, looking back after several intervention cycles, these completed artifacts can serve as a form of data that teams can interrogate to glean feedback on their own work: What “moves” made certain interventions more or less effective?  Is our default to intervene on the same condition of learning or at the same organizational level?

It is intended to support inquiry teams as they build the skills and habits that give data-driven inquiry its power: designing short-term instruction to achieve mastery of high-leverage skills; continually assessing both their own actions and the student learning that results; responding to new data with strategic next steps.

How This Version Differs from Prior Versions

­This revised inquiry explicitly emphasizes the Cyclical Nature of data-based inquiry.  The circular nature of “Asses Effects, Hypothesize, Define Success, Plan and Act, Assess Effects” is shown through the graphics near each section and through stressing that assessing current effects is not just the end of one cycle but the start of the next one.

­The sequence of this cycle asks teams to define success and plan to assess it before planning an intervention.  Teams that have clarified exactly what they want to see students doing can often design more direct, precise, and efficient actions to move students on learning targets.

­This version does not include the checkboxes of prior versions where teams could indicate which condition of learning they were action on and at what level of school organization.

Tips for Effective Use

­When introducing cycles of inquiry and this map, use the Toddler Example to provide a concrete out-of-school example of inquiry in action.  It’s a filled-out inquiry process map describing how one facilitator tried to reduce her toddler’s tantrums by engaging in inquiry.  Teachers and administrators new to inquiry found this example to be straight-forward, revealing, and very analogous.  When team members are ready to consider school-based examples, use the Sample Middle School Writing and High School Attendance inquiry maps.

­The version with the questions, many of which have been newly added to elicit more evidence and forethought, may prove helpful to anyone facilitating inquiry.  Although the questions will not be answer fully on the map itself, the questions should b the basis of teams’ conversation and decision-making at each step.

­Teams that have conceived of a “constellation” of related learning targets will be able to move most swiftly from one cycle to the next, analyzing data.  This is why they’re asked to consider “what else could it be” when choosing a learning target so they can design future assessments to reveal possible new learning targets when they assess mastery of current learning targets

­Monitor lag time, particularly around how long it takes to collect, analyze, and act on the assessment data. Facilitator support may be needed to maintain momentum until teams develop efficient systems and—even more important—the hunger for fresh data that comes from confidence that data does contain the clues that can guide teams to success.

­This tool also allows teams to assess the quality of their decision-making: Over time, are decisions increasingly (a) based on evidence of what students know and need to learn next (b) responsive to new data as it becomes available, and (c) aligned with other instructional decisions?