Framing the Inquiry

Overview

In this third lesson of Investigate, Evaluate, Conclude, students move from a broad topic to a focused issue or question and formulate a hypothesis that can be investigated. They build on prior work identifying possible areas of interest and begin the systematic inquiry process by making purposeful information needs clear.

Learning intentions

• WALT develop a clear direction for an inquiry.
• WALT write a specific, arguable hypothesis.
• WALT identify evidence that could support or challenge a hypothesis.
• WALT use precise language to communicate an information need.

Success criteria

• I can state a focused inquiry topic or question.
• I can write an arguable hypothesis rather than an opinion.
• I can explain what evidence would support or challenge my hypothesis.
• I can revise my hypothesis in response to useful feedback.

Curriculum links

• Use information literacy skills to form developed conclusions by framing an authentic inquiry and identifying information needs.
• Analyse significant aspects of written, visual or oral texts by considering how evidence can support an interpretation.
• Analyse significant connections across texts by identifying what information may need to be compared.
• New Zealand Curriculum Refresh: develop critical, literate and effective communicators who question information, consider perspectives and create purposeful texts.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–10 min · Model the move from topic to hypothesis. Teacher opens with the provocative inquiry hook and modelling slides and displays the broad topic “Social media and teenagers”. Model narrowing it to the question, “How does algorithmic content recommendation affect the news young people encounter?” Then compare a weak hypothesis—“Social media is bad”—with a stronger hypothesis—“Algorithmic recommendations can narrow the range of news encountered by teenagers because they repeatedly prioritise content similar to what users already engage with.” Students identify what makes the stronger example specific, arguable, connected to the topic and open to investigation.

2. 10–25 min · Sort and justify hypotheses. Teacher distributes the hypothesis sorting and drafting sheet and presents six examples on the slides, including topics such as artificial intelligence in education, school start times, youth voting, fast fashion and streaming services. Students sort each hypothesis into “not investigable”, “developing” or “strong”, then annotate reasons using the prompts: Is it focused? Can evidence support or challenge it? Does it invite investigation rather than simply express a preference? Pairs compare decisions and justify one disagreement to the class.

3. 25–45 min · Draft an individual inquiry direction. Teacher directs students to choose a relevant topic connected to their interests, learning, community or contemporary issues. Students complete Task 2 on the worksheet by recording a broad topic, narrowing it to a significant issue or inquiry question, and drafting a hypothesis. Provide the frame “This investigation will explore whether…” for students who need it, while encouraging others to use precise conditions, groups, timeframes or effects. Confer briefly with students whose ideas are too broad, factual, personal or difficult to research.

4. 45–55 min · Give and receive focused feedback. Teacher models feedback that improves the inquiry rather than rewriting it: “Your topic is clear, but what specific effect will you investigate?” Students exchange drafts with a partner and use the checklist on the worksheet to identify one strength and one question. They must also suggest one type of evidence that could support the hypothesis and one possible finding that could challenge it. Students return feedback respectfully and explain any changes they intend to make.

5. 55–60 min · Revise and submit an exit response. Teacher returns to the success-criteria and plenary slides and asks students to revise their hypothesis independently. Students complete the final section of the worksheet: “My revised hypothesis is…”, “Evidence that would support it could include…”, and “Evidence that could challenge it could include…”. Invite two students to share how feedback changed their wording.

Resources

• inquiry hook, weak/strong comparisons, sorting examples, task instructions and plenary
• hypothesis sorting, inquiry framing and peer-feedback sheet
• Projector or interactive whiteboard
• Pens or highlighters
• Students’ previous topic-generation notes
• Timer

Assessment

• Listen to pair justifications during the hypothesis sort, checking whether students distinguish an arguable claim from an unsupported opinion.
• During conferencing, check that each inquiry has a clear topic, a manageable focus and a realistic evidence pathway.
• Collect the revised hypothesis and evidence response as an exit check. Identify students needing support to narrow their question before the next lesson.

Differentiation

• Support students with the frames “This investigation will explore whether…”, “This matters because…” and “Evidence could support this if…”. Offer the weak/strong comparison and a short conference before drafting.
• Provide a choice of teacher-suggested contemporary topics for students who are unsure where to begin, while allowing students to select a personally meaningful issue.
• For EAL learners and students with literacy needs, pre-teach focused, arguable, evidence, support and challenge; allow oral rehearsal with a partner before writing and accept speech-to-text where appropriate.
• Extension students should qualify their hypothesis with conditions, such as “when”, “for whom” or “in what circumstances”, and acknowledge a plausible counterargument or alternative explanation.

Extension

• Rewrite the hypothesis in two versions: one suitable for a general audience and one using more precise academic language.
• Identify two contrasting source types that could test the hypothesis and explain why each might offer useful evidence.