Encouraging Curiosity with the Inquiry Training Model in Education

Most classrooms are built around one central assumption: the teacher knows, and the student receives. But what happens when we flip that? What if the most powerful learning begins not with an answer, but with a question – or better yet, a puzzle that refuses to resolve itself easily? This is precisely the insight that drove Richard Suchman to develop the Inquiry Training Model (ITM) in the early 1960s. More than six decades later, it remains one of the most compelling frameworks for building genuinely curious, independent learners.

Origins: where did the inquiry training model come from? 🔗

Richard Suchman developed the Inquiry Training Model by closely studying how creative scientists and researchers actually go about solving problems. He noticed that the best scientific minds didn’t just retrieve pre-stored facts – they actively interrogated evidence, formed hypotheses, and revised their thinking when data pushed back. His central conviction: these intellectual strategies are not the exclusive property of scientists. They can be taught to any student, at any age.

Suchman’s model drew on the foundational ideas of Jerome Bruner, Jean Piaget, and John Dewey. Piaget’s work on cognitive development suggested that children move through progressive stages of thinking – and that formal inquiry skills could be cultivated within those stages. Dewey had long argued that the scientific method should be introduced to all school children, not just those headed for laboratories. Suchman synthesised these perspectives and built a structured classroom model around them – one that uses natural curiosity as its primary engine.

The model belongs to what educational theorists call the information processing family of teaching approaches – those that focus on how learners gather, organise, and make sense of information. Crucially, as Suchman himself described, its objectives include developing the cognitive skills of searching and data-processing, building concepts through the analysis of concrete episodes, and capitalising on the intrinsic motivation that comes from the excitement of discovery and autonomous thinking.

The core idea: puzzlement as a teaching tool 🔗

Inquiry training begins by placing a puzzling event in front of students. Suchman’s logic was straightforward: when students face something they cannot immediately explain, they are naturally motivated to resolve that tension. This isn’t a trick or a gimmick. It is how human cognition actually works. Curiosity is triggered by gaps in understanding – and the Inquiry Training Model is designed to open those gaps deliberately, and then equip students with the tools to close them through structured inquiry.

The puzzlement can take many forms – a video paused at a surprising moment, an image stripped of its context, a physical object in a box, or a discrepant scientific event. What matters is that it is genuinely intriguing and not immediately resolvable. Too little information and students disengage; too much and there is nothing left to discover. The teacher’s skill lies in finding that productive middle ground.

Once the puzzlement is presented, students are allowed to ask only yes-or-no questions to gather information. This constraint is intentional. It trains students to think carefully before they speak – to ask broad, data-gathering questions rather than making premature guesses. A student who immediately asks “Is it a nitrogen molecule?” has skipped the reasoning process. A student who first asks “Is it a substance found in the air?” is thinking like a scientist.

The five phases of the inquiry training model 🔗

The ITM follows a clear, five-phase structure that moves students from initial confusion to reasoned explanation – and then turns that process itself into an object of reflection.

Phase 1: encountering the problem 🔗

The teacher presents a discrepant or puzzling situation and explains the rules of inquiry. Students are introduced to the event without any explanation of why it happens. The goal is to create a felt need to investigate – not to provide answers, but to generate genuine questions. The teacher’s role here is dominant: setting the stage carefully determines how productively students will engage in what follows.

Phase 2: data gathering – verification 🔗

Students ask yes-or-no questions to verify basic facts about the situation – the nature of the objects involved, the conditions present, what actually occurred. This data should be recorded visibly, on a board or data sheet, so the whole class can build on what has already been established. Students are reminded that their questions should gather information, not confirm guesses. If a question requires a complex answer, the teacher asks the student to rephrase it as a yes-or-no.

Phase 3: data gathering – experimentation 🔗

Here, students go beyond verifying facts and begin testing ideas. They introduce variables, propose hypothetical changes, and observe how those shifts affect the situation. Students identify a hypothesis from the data they’ve gathered and use further yes-or-no questions to test it. If the hypothesis holds up, they move forward; if not, they return to data gathering. This phase captures the iterative nature of real scientific thinking.

Phase 4: formulating an explanation 🔗

Students now synthesise what they have learned into a coherent explanation of the puzzling event. They articulate the relationship between variables, draw conclusions based on evidence, and frame their findings as rules or principles. The teacher does not evaluate these explanations yet – the focus is on students constructing meaning for themselves, using the data they have gathered through their own questioning.

Phase 5: analyzing the inquiry process 🔗

This final phase is what truly distinguishes ITM from other problem-solving approaches. Students reflect on their own thinking – examining which questions were productive, which led them in the wrong direction, and which strategies worked best. Questions like “Which question had the biggest impact?” or “Which question now seems the silliest?” push students to become aware of their own reasoning processes. This metacognitive dimension is critical: it transforms inquiry from a one-time activity into a transferable skill.

The teacher’s role: guide, not gatekeeper 🔗

The Inquiry Training Model fundamentally redefines what a teacher does in the classroom. In the opening phase, the teacher is the architect of the puzzlement – selecting the right event and structuring the inquiry rules. But from Phase 2 onward, the teacher becomes a facilitator. They answer yes-or-no questions honestly, prompt students to rephrase unclear questions, record findings visibly, and resist the urge to evaluate student hypotheses prematurely.

The classroom climate that ITM requires is one of cooperation, intellectual freedom, and equality. Students must feel safe enough to ask questions that might be wrong, to propose hypotheses that don’t hold up, and to revise their thinking without shame. The teacher’s restraint – not jumping in with the answer – is itself a pedagogical act. It communicates to students that their reasoning process matters, not just the destination.

This does not mean the teacher is passive. As educators who have implemented ITM in practice observe, the quality of the puzzlement, the timing of when to open the floor to hypotheses, and the depth of the post-inquiry debrief all depend on skilled teacher decision-making. ITM is structured, not improvised.

Benefits: what does the inquiry training model actually develop? 🔗

Independent learning and intellectual confidence 🔗

The inquiry process helps students approach future problems with confidence in their own ability to seek solutions, and to begin treating both success and failure as information rather than as reward or punishment. This shift in orientation – from performance anxiety to epistemic curiosity – is one of the most durable outcomes of well-implemented ITM. Students who have practised inquiry stop waiting for teachers to validate their thinking. They develop an internal compass for evaluating evidence.

Research in inquiry-based learning shows that students involved in inquiry-based practices report higher levels of academic self-efficacy, are less afraid to take risks, and are more likely to keep trying different approaches when they encounter failure. These are not peripheral skills – they are foundational to lifelong learning.

Critical thinking and higher-order skills 🔗

The structured questioning at the heart of ITM does something that most classroom activities do not: it forces students to distinguish between productive and unproductive thinking in real time. Inquiry-based learning develops critical thinking by improving mental activities such as interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, and self-regulation. In ITM, these aren’t abstract competencies discussed in a framework document – they are practised, repeatedly, within each inquiry cycle.

Research on inquiry-based approaches in science education found that involvement in scientific inquiry activities assists students in cultivating critical thinking abilities, with particularly strong effects observed in secondary school learners – a group that brings heightened curiosity and interest to investigative tasks.

Creativity and problem-solving 🔗

Open-ended puzzlements do not have single correct paths. Students pursuing the same inquiry may ask different questions, form different hypotheses, and arrive at equivalent explanations through entirely different reasoning chains. This variability is a feature, not a bug. Inquiry-based learning challenges students to consider many ways of approaching a problem, using creativity and critical thinking to find new solutions – and when one approach doesn’t work, to try another. ITM institutionalises this iterative creative process within a structured, classroom-appropriate framework.

Metacognitive awareness 🔗

The fifth phase of ITM – analyzing the inquiry process itself – is where the model moves beyond problem-solving into something more lasting. Students who regularly examine their own thinking begin to notice patterns: the kinds of questions that open up inquiry, the cognitive traps that lead them astray, the moments when they jumped to conclusions too quickly. When students take ownership of their own inquiry, they retain knowledge more effectively, because they are involved in the process of discovery – not just the receipt of conclusions.

Where and how to apply the inquiry training model 🔗

Suchman originally designed ITM for the natural sciences, and it remains especially powerful there – physical phenomena, chemical reactions, biological events, and ecological patterns all lend themselves to discrepant-event puzzlements. But the model is not confined to science classrooms. ITM can be adapted to various learning situations and used across subjects including science, social studies, and languages. A history teacher can present a primary source document stripped of its context. A literature teacher can share a passage whose speaker and setting are initially withheld. A mathematics teacher can pose a number pattern that breaks expected rules.

The model also scales across age groups. With younger learners, puzzlements can be concrete and tactile – an object in a box, a short video clip, a simple scientific demonstration. With older or higher-education learners, the discrepant events can be more abstract: a policy outcome that contradicts economic predictions, a historical event that runs counter to established narratives, a research finding that challenges received wisdom in a discipline.

In digital and blended learning environments, virtual labs, simulations, and multimedia presentations can prompt students to ask questions, formulate hypotheses, and seek solutions – extending the ITM structure beyond the physical classroom without losing its essential character.

Limitations worth knowing 🔗

The Inquiry Training Model is not without constraints. It requires significant preparation from teachers – finding the right puzzlement, anticipating the range of questions students might ask, and managing a classroom dynamic that is inherently less predictable than direct instruction. It also demands a certain classroom culture: students who have been conditioned to wait for answers may initially resist the responsibility of generating their own questions. Building that culture takes time and repeated practice.

Additionally, not every topic lends itself naturally to an ITM structure. Abstract concepts with no observable discrepant event, or highly technical content that requires substantial prior knowledge before inquiry is productive, may require different instructional approaches. ITM works best when there is a visible, concrete puzzle at its centre – one whose resolution is reachable through student-led questioning within a reasonable timeframe.

These are real considerations, but they do not diminish the model’s value. They simply point to what good implementation requires: deliberate teacher preparation, a supportive classroom culture, and careful selection of content.

Why the inquiry training model still matters 🔗

The 21st-century learning landscape is characterised by information abundance and complexity. The ability to ask good questions, evaluate evidence, form provisional conclusions, and revise them in light of new data – these are not skills that emerge automatically. They have to be taught and practised. Inquiry-based teaching fosters a culture of curiosity and exploration that prepares students to thrive in an ever-changing world.

Suchman’s Inquiry Training Model offers exactly this: a structured, replicable, classroom-tested method for developing the habits of mind that independent learners need. It starts with a puzzle. It ends with students who are more capable of generating – and answering – their own questions. In between, something important happens: students begin to think like inquirers rather than recipients of information.

What do you think? If you were designing a lesson using the Inquiry Training Model, what kind of puzzling situation would you choose to open it – and what stops most classrooms from making space for this kind of structured inquiry more regularly?

References

1. https://www.worldwidejournals.com/international-journal-of-scientific-research-(IJSR)/recent_issues_pdf/2013/March/March_2013_1362230881_c12da_35.pdf__35.pdf
2. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1149&context=stemps_fac_pubs
3. https://www.samareducation.com/2022/06/inquiry-training-model-of-teaching.html
4. https://www.byrdseed.com/inquiry-training/
5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379404297_Inquiry-Based_Learning_Encouraging_Exploration_and_Curiosity_in_the_Classroom
6. https://sfleducation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40862-020-00090-2
7. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1408841.pdf
8. https://www.gcu.edu/blog/teaching-school-administration/6-benefits-inquiry-based-learning-classroom
9. https://www.studentcenteredworld.com/what-inquiry-based-learning-is/
10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320664014_Inquiry-Based_Training_Model_and_the_Design_of_E-Learning_Environments
11. https://www.edmentum.com/articles/fostering-inquiry-based-learning/
12. https://www.graduateprogram.org/blog/exploring-the-benefits-of-inquiry-based-teaching-and-learning/