Inquiry-Based Learning Training Course

Participants can align inquiry activities with explicit science or mathematics learning objectives.

• Backward design links inquiry outcomes, evidence and learning experiences
• Disciplinary core ideas separated from engaging but peripheral activity
• Science objectives specify concepts, practices and evidence expectations
• Mathematics objectives distinguish procedures, concepts and strategic competence
• Success criteria written for explanations, models and justified solutions
• Curriculum sequencing protects prerequisite knowledge before extended investigation

Participants can write questions and problems that produce meaningful disciplinary investigation.

• Investigable science questions identify variables, observations or comparative conditions
• Driving questions retain intellectual challenge while defining a feasible scope
• Low-floor, high-ceiling mathematics tasks admit multiple productive entry points
• Problem contexts avoid irrelevant detail that obscures mathematical structure
• Question stems separate prediction, explanation, modelling and evaluation demands
• Task revision removes hidden assumptions, ambiguous wording and answer cues

Participants can select evidence sources and representations that support disciplinary sense-making.

• Anchoring phenomena reveal patterns requiring scientific explanation
• First-hand data compared with secondary datasets and simulation outputs
• Tables, graphs and diagrams chosen for specific analytical purposes
• Multiple representations connect quantities, structures, patterns and relationships
• Measurement uncertainty introduced through repeated readings and sensible precision
• Data displays expose variation, outliers and limitations before conclusions

Participants can plan coherent inquiry lessons using the five phases of the 5E model.

• Engage prompts surface prior ideas through puzzling observations
• Explore activities generate evidence before formal teacher explanation
• Explain discussions connect learner findings with disciplinary language
• Elaborate tasks test concept transfer under changed conditions
• Evaluate evidence gathered through products, talk and performance
• Phase transitions planned to preserve learner ownership and conceptual clarity

Participants can use prompts and wait time to extend reasoning without supplying answers.

• Wait time increases participation and quality of learner reasoning
• Pressing prompts request evidence, assumptions, methods and alternative explanations
• Funnelling questions replaced with focusing questions that preserve thinking
• Productive struggle distinguished from unproductive confusion and disengagement
• Hint ladders provide graduated support without revealing solution pathways
• Teacher talk moves connect, restate, challenge and extend learner contributions

Participants can design safe, feasible investigations with valid evidence-gathering procedures.

• Variables classified as independent, dependent and controlled within investigations
• Fair-test design matched to causal questions and available resources
• Observation protocols support descriptive investigations without manipulated variables
• Risk assessments identify hazards, controls, supervision and disposal requirements
• Sampling decisions address population, sample size and selection bias
• Method instructions distinguish essential constraints from learner design choices

Participants can structure mathematical inquiry around patterns, conjectures and proof.

• Notice-and-wonder routines launch inquiry from mathematical images and data
• Pattern tasks move from examples toward generalisation and proof
• Multiple solution strategies compared for efficiency, validity and generality
• Representations translated among symbolic, graphical, verbal and concrete forms
• Counterexamples used to test conjectures and refine mathematical claims
• Proof prompts distinguish empirical verification from deductive justification

Participants can structure equitable discussion around evidence, reasoning and disciplinary disagreement.

• Think-pair-share sequences prepare learners for accountable whole-class discussion
• Talk moves press for reasoning, connect ideas and surface disagreement
• Accountable Talk stems support evidence-based responses among peers
• Group roles distribute investigation, recording, checking and reporting responsibilities
• Consensus protocols distinguish shared conclusions from unresolved competing explanations
• Discussion norms protect respectful critique of claims rather than people

Participants can teach and assess written and spoken disciplinary arguments.

• CER Framework separates claims, evidence and scientific reasoning
• Evidence selection requires relevant observations, measurements and data patterns
• Reasoning links evidence to claims through accepted scientific ideas
• Mathematical justification states definitions, properties and logical steps
• Exemplar responses calibrated against age-appropriate quality criteria
• Sentence frames support argument structure without scripting learner thinking

Participants can collect and act on evidence of learning during inquiry activity.

• Hinge questions test pivotal concepts before proceeding to new tasks
• Mini-whiteboard responses reveal whole-class reasoning within minutes
• Exit tickets capture claims, questions and remaining misconceptions
• Observation checklists record collaboration, evidence use and strategic choices
• Diagnostic prompts distinguish procedural errors from conceptual misunderstandings
• Responsive teaching decisions regroup, reteach, extend or revise task conditions

Participants can create valid criteria for inquiry processes, explanations and solutions.

• Analytic rubrics separate inquiry process from conceptual understanding
• Criteria assess question quality, method choice, evidence and reasoning
• Single-point rubrics clarify standards while allowing descriptive feedback
• Moderation protocols compare judgments against annotated learner work
• Assessment tasks require transfer beyond rehearsed investigations and procedures
• Feedback comments specify next reasoning moves rather than generic praise

Participants can identify likely misconceptions and plan responses that promote conceptual change.

• Elicitation tasks reveal prior conceptions before instruction begins
• Predict-observe-explain sequences confront mismatches between expectations and evidence
• Concept cartoons expose competing explanations without singling out learners
• Bridging analogies connect familiar ideas to target scientific concepts
• Error analysis identifies mathematical misconceptions embedded within correct-looking answers
• Refutation texts address common misconceptions using evidence and explanation

Participants can adapt inquiry participation and evidence expression for diverse learner needs.

• Universal Design for Learning plans multiple engagement, representation and expression routes
• Language demands unpacked through vocabulary, syntax and discourse supports
• Visual instructions reduce working-memory demands during complex investigations
• Manipulatives and digital tools support access without reducing cognitive demand
• Flexible grouping balances peer support, independence and equitable participation
• Extension pathways deepen reasoning rather than simply add more questions

Participants can select digital resources that strengthen inquiry evidence and analysis.

• Simulations selected when phenomena are inaccessible, hazardous or time-intensive
• Virtual investigations distinguish model outputs from real-world observations
• Spreadsheets organise data, calculate measures and generate appropriate graphs
• Dynamic geometry software supports conjecture testing and invariant exploration
• Source evaluation checks data provenance, method, limitations and intended use
• Digital tool choices remain subordinate to learning goals and reasoning

Participants can manage time, materials and learner movement in inquiry-based lessons.

• Lesson timelines allocate investigation, discussion, explanation and reflection periods
• Material stations reduce downtime and clarify shared equipment procedures
• Attention signals reset groups without interrupting productive collaboration
• Checkpoint routines verify progress before groups continue independently
• Contingency plans address absent resources, unexpected results and incomplete data
• Closure routines consolidate claims, evidence and unanswered questions

Participants can support consistent inquiry teaching through observation and collaborative planning.

• Observation look-fors identify inquiry quality without prescribing teacher personality
• Evidence-based feedback references learner actions, talk and completed work
• Instructional rounds compare patterns across classrooms and subject teams
• Co-planning protocols clarify learning goals, task design and anticipated responses
• Lesson study cycles test, observe and revise shared inquiry lessons
• Implementation measures track task quality, learner reasoning and teacher confidence

Participants can build, review and present a complete inquiry-based science or mathematics lesson sequence with aligned assessment and facilitation plans.

• Curriculum objective translated into a focused inquiry learning sequence
• Phenomenon or rich task selected with explicit evidence requirements
• 5E lesson phases mapped to learner actions and teacher prompts
• Investigation or problem-solving procedures checked for feasibility and inclusion
• CER or justification rubric aligned with success criteria and evidence
• Peer review applies design criteria, safety checks and anticipated misconceptions
• Final presentation explains instructional choices, assessment evidence and implementation adaptations