Heading photo credit: Sina Farhat. Enjoying a cup of tea. Available under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license
These comments are my feedback to two peers undertaking the same program analysis and rewrite as I have just completed.
This first comment was made on the blog, Inquiry Learning: Just another Edublogs site, in response to the post “Analysis and Recommendations”:
The following comment was written in response to a post on the blog An Inquiry Learning Journey found here. Whilst the comments field had not been enabled on this blog, the blogger, Amy, shared her email address at the bottom of the page. As such, I have emailed the comment to her, and copied the text below:
Thank you for sharing this post.
I was drawn your post particularly because of the common ground between your analysis and mine. (I also analysed a history program, and found that it reflected a significant degree of teacher-led inquiry, with a lot of the sources and information provided to students.) I was very interested in your suggestion about changing the structure of the inquiry to move away from what you identified as a series of mini structures to provide a greater flow – a more integrated flow. This suggestion would have been perfect for my learning program re-write as, in hindsight, it could be argued that the learning program I was analysing suffers from a similar problem. Thank you for opening my eyes to this angle of approach – I feel it could prove handy in the future!
The only suggestion I would have is that sometimes I got a little lost in your changes of theories/concepts focus. For example, in paragraph six, when you discuss the general capabilities it took me a bit of searching around to determine exactly whose/what general capabilities you were talking about. Whilst you have referred to the ACARA in your referencing (and provided a very helpful link), I thought it would be worthwhile to introduce the Australian Curriculum a little more clearly to ensure you don’t lose your readers.