The Five Steps of Effective Inquiry
Dewey: Five Steps of Effective Inquiry
Background
Dewey spent considerable time researching how human beings think and what might be an effective way of directing those thinking skills for learning.
Step 1: Occurrence of a problem
- All inquiry begins with a genuine doubt.
- Inquiry starts when there is a disruption in activity and the person does not know how to go on.
- Practical reasoning is always reasoning for some value or some desired object.
Step 2: Specification of the problem
A problem well put is half-solved. Problems must be specified through:
- Curiosity.
- Orderliness.
- Alertness.
- Flexibility.
Step 3: Introduction of a hypothesis
- The inquirer must introduce a supposition, a hypothesis, or a suggestion that, if correct, would solve the problem.
- Students must distinguish carefully constructed hypotheses from wild guessing based on uncontrolled emotions, whimsical imagination, and wishful thinking.
Step 4: Elaboration of hypothesis
- The inquirer must elaborate the hypothesis to expose its possible outcomes.
- It must be compared with other hypotheses to determine its relative value.
- Inferences and implications need to be drawn out.
- The hypothesis must be elaborated by a course of reasoning.
Step 5: Test the hypothesis
- In the final phase, the inquirer must test the hypothesis experimentally.
- The hypothesis may not always turn out to be true.
- Dewey emphasised both the falsifiability of scientific claims and their complete possibility.
Dewey’s five-step model of inquiry is one of the most-cited pieces of his work. It describes how human beings actually think when they are working out a difficult question and gives an educator a clear sequence to support. The article works through each step in turn and shows how the sequence translates into a classroom practice.
| Step | What happens | What the student does |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A problem occurs | Notices a disruption and a genuine doubt |
| 2 | The problem is specified | Articulates the question with curiosity, orderliness, alertness, flexibility |
| 3 | A hypothesis is proposed | Offers a supposition that would, if true, solve the problem |
| 4 | The hypothesis is elaborated | Draws out the implications and compares with alternatives |
| 5 | The hypothesis is tested | Acts on the supposition and observes the result |
Step 1: A problem occurs
All inquiry, Dewey says, begins with a genuine doubt. The word genuine is doing work. A textbook question to which the student already knows the answer is not a genuine doubt; it is an exercise. A teacher’s question put to fill class time is not a genuine doubt; it is a performance. Real inquiry starts when the inquirer faces a question they actually do not know the answer to, in a situation where the answer matters.
The classical Deweyan description is that inquiry starts when a person feels a disruption in activity and does not know how to go on. The student is in the middle of doing something. The activity is flowing. Then something blocks the flow. The student stops, realises they do not know what to do next, and the inquiry begins. The disruption is the trigger.
Practical reasoning, Dewey adds, is always reasoning for some value or some desired object. The student is not inquiring in a vacuum. They are inquiring because the inquiry will let them resume an activity they care about, achieve an end they were trying to reach, or get something they want. The motivation is built into the situation; the educator does not have to supply external motivation if the situation produces a real disruption.
The teacher’s job at this stage is to set up situations in which real disruptions can occur. A classroom of pre-packaged exercises with known answers does not produce real disruptions. A classroom in which students are working on genuine problems, with genuine outcomes at stake, does. The harder design work is on the side of the classroom, not on the side of motivating students who would otherwise not care.
A genuine doubt arising from a disruption in activity
Real inquiry begins when the inquirer faces a question they actually do not know the answer to, in a situation where the answer matters. The trigger is a disruption in ongoing activity: the student is doing something, the activity is flowing, something blocks the flow, the student stops and realises they do not know what to do next. Practical reasoning is always reasoning for some value the student already cares about.
Step 2: Specifying the problem
A problem well put, Dewey writes, is half-solved. The second step of inquiry is the work of taking the rough disruption from step one and articulating it as a precise question.
This is harder than it looks and is often where inquiry breaks down. A student who knows that something is wrong but cannot say what is in poor shape to proceed. A student who can say precisely what they do not know and what they would need to know to fix it is in good shape. The work of moving from the first state to the second is the work of step two.
Dewey lists four qualities needed to specify a problem well.
Curiosity is the appetite for finding out. A student who is incurious will not stay with the problem long enough to specify it. A curious student will keep asking what and why until the question is precise enough to work on.
Orderliness is the discipline of arranging the elements of the problem in a workable sequence. A student who tries to think about everything at once cannot specify any of it. A student who can break the problem into pieces and put the pieces in order can work on each piece in turn.
Alertness is the readiness to notice details that would otherwise be missed. The specification of a problem often turns on a single detail. A student who is not alert to the detail will specify the wrong problem and waste the work that follows.
Flexibility is the willingness to revise the specification when new information comes in. The first specification is rarely the right one. A flexible student adjusts the specification as understanding deepens; an inflexible one freezes on the first try and cannot move forward when it turns out to be wrong.
The four qualities can be developed by practice. A teacher who gives students problems whose specification is itself the challenge is training all four qualities. The work pays off across every subject the student will encounter.
Curiosity, orderliness, alertness, and flexibility
(1) Curiosity: the appetite for finding out, which keeps the student with the problem. (2) Orderliness: the discipline of arranging the elements in a workable sequence. (3) Alertness: the readiness to notice details that would otherwise be missed. (4) Flexibility: the willingness to revise the specification when new information comes in. The four can be developed by practice on problems whose specification is itself the challenge.
Step 3: Introducing a hypothesis
Once the problem is specified, the third step is to introduce a hypothesis: a supposition, a suggestion, or a guess that, if correct, would solve the problem. The inquirer does not yet know whether the hypothesis is right. The hypothesis is a candidate answer that can now be examined.
A common failure at this stage is to skip the disciplined work of constructing a hypothesis and substitute wild guessing. Dewey is clear about the distinction. Students must distinguish carefully constructed hypotheses from wild guessing based on uncontrolled emotions, whimsical imagination, and wishful thinking. The two look superficially similar; both produce candidate answers. The difference is in the quality of the thought behind them.
A carefully constructed hypothesis takes the specification of the problem seriously. It addresses the specific question that was articulated in step two. It is consistent with the evidence the inquirer already has. It is plausible enough that working out its consequences will be worth the effort. It is testable: there is some way of finding out, in practice, whether it is right.
A wild guess fails some or all of these conditions. It may not actually address the specified problem. It may ignore evidence the inquirer already has. It may be so implausible that working out its consequences is a waste. It may be untestable, so that no amount of work could ever show whether it is right.
The teacher’s job at this stage is to train students in the discipline of hypothesis-construction. A student who has the habit of producing carefully constructed hypotheses will inquire effectively across many subjects. A student who can only guess wildly will succeed only by accident.
A good hypothesis addresses the specified problem, fits the evidence, is plausible, and is testable
The two look similar on the surface; both produce candidate answers. A carefully constructed hypothesis takes the specification of the problem seriously, is consistent with what the inquirer already knows, is plausible enough to be worth working out, and is testable in practice. Wild guessing based on uncontrolled emotions or wishful thinking fails some or all of these conditions.
Steps 4 and 5: Elaboration and testing
The fourth and fifth steps complete the inquiry by taking the hypothesis through elaboration and testing.
In step four, the inquirer elaborates the hypothesis. They work out, in detail, what would follow if the hypothesis were true. What other things would we observe? What other claims would be supported? What predictions does the hypothesis make? The elaboration also involves comparison with other hypotheses to determine the relative value of each candidate. A hypothesis that explains more, predicts more, or fits better with other things we know has more value than one that does less. The elaboration is done through a careful course of reasoning, drawing out the inferences and implications of each candidate.
The work of step four is essentially deductive. The inquirer takes the hypothesis as a premise and derives what would follow. Some of the derivations will be checkable; those become the testable predictions of step five. Others will be too distant to check; those help the inquirer see how powerful the hypothesis is in principle.
In step five, the inquirer tests the hypothesis experimentally. This is the empirical pay-off of the whole process. The inquirer takes one of the testable predictions from step four, sets up a situation in which the prediction can be checked, and observes what actually happens. If the prediction comes true, the hypothesis is supported. If it does not, the hypothesis is undermined and must be revised or replaced.
Dewey is clear that the hypothesis may not always turn out to be true. The work of inquiry sometimes ends with the discovery that the hypothesis was wrong, and the inquirer has to start over with a new specification or a new candidate. This is not a failure of the method; it is the method working. A real inquiry must be capable of being wrong; that is what makes the success of a successful inquiry meaningful.
Dewey’s emphasis on falsifiability (the requirement that a hypothesis must be capable of being shown wrong) was ahead of his time. The philosopher of science Karl Popper would make falsifiability famous later in the twentieth century. Dewey was already insisting on it as a working principle for classroom inquiry. He also allowed for the complete possibility of the hypothesis: a well-tested hypothesis that survives serious attempts to falsify it is genuinely supported, even if it cannot be proved with certainty.
The five-step model has been one of Dewey’s most influential contributions to practical teaching. It maps directly onto the scientific method as it is taught in many countries today. It is also the foundation for what later progressive educators called inquiry-based learning and problem-based learning. The lineage is unbroken; the model is still in working use.
Elaboration of the hypothesis (working out implications and comparing alternatives), then experimental testing
In step 4, the inquirer takes the hypothesis as a premise and derives what would follow if it were true. They compare with other hypotheses, draw out inferences, and identify testable predictions. In step 5, they take one of the testable predictions, set up a situation to check it, and observe what happens. The hypothesis may not turn out to be true; the method must be capable of being wrong, which is what makes its successes meaningful.
Because a real inquiry must be capable of being wrong; otherwise its success is meaningless
If a hypothesis cannot be shown wrong, then no test of it can really support it either. The work of inquiry sometimes ends with the discovery that the hypothesis was wrong, and the inquirer has to start over. This is the method working, not failing. Dewey’s emphasis on falsifiability was ahead of his time; Karl Popper would make falsifiability famous later in the twentieth century.
How was this article?