What is the difference between finding out and figuring out?

At its core, inquiry-based history instruction actively involves students with questions and sources. But simply putting a question in front of students and asking them to answer it using sources won't ensure that they engage in historical inquiry. That is because historical inquiry is a constructivist endeavor, and any learning activities aimed at fostering historical inquiry need to provide students with the opportunity to construct historical claims and narratives. Too often history instruction presents students with a question and sources, but simply asks them to find an answer.

Herein lies one of the most important distinctions for history educators: finding out vs. figuring out. In a "finding out" lesson, students are practicing the skill of reading for information, but they are not engaging in historical reasoning (questioning, comparing, connecting, reconciling, etc.). In a "figuring out" lesson, students need to grapple with the fragmentary evidence we have about the past, evaluate that evidence in light of other evidence as well as their own knowledge, and construct a theory - a claim - about the past. The endeavor is inherently generative, and it is the student who generates the thinking.

Finding out vs. figuring out designs

Finding out lessons and figuring out lessons can look an awful lot alike. On paper, both will be designed around a central question and use a set of sources. The core learning activity in the classroom will involve students in purposeful reading, and perhaps discussion, focused on the central question. The lesson will likely involve some thesis-driven writing. Teachers will probably target their instructional support toward effective use of evidence.

When observing a finding out lesson, even from the position of the teacher, it can look a lot like a figuring out lesson. The key difference is the thinking that students are doing. While finding out lessons ask students to extract ideas (i.e. to read carefully), figuring out lessons ask students to construct ideas. This requires students to read sources carefully AND to situate those sources, evaluate those sources, and consider those sources in relation to one another as well as to their own knowledge.

The sources in finding out lessons tend to lead students toward a particular response to the question. Before the lesson even begins, the teacher knows what answer the students should arrive at if they read the sources accurately. It follows then, that the sources in "finding out" lessons tend toward two scenarios: multiple sources essentially say the same thing, or each source indicates its own response and the student simply concludes that "there are 3 reasons for..." In the latter scenario, there usually isn't any tension between the answers, so the student is able to respond to the question by extracting the answers from each document and simply putting them into a list. I call this an "additive claim." If students are writing additive claims or simply repeating back answers they "found" in the text, then they are probably engaged in a finding out lesson.

Finding out vs. figuring out in the classroom

When I begin professional development series on inquiry-based social studies with school teams, I usually start by distinguishing between finding out and figuring out, using two demonstration lessons that help teachers and leaders feel the difference as learners. As I share with participants, both lessons focus on an important historical question, use sources, and engage students in reading, writing, discussion, and revision. And both lessons focus on the origins of slavery in the North American colonies. But the first lesson, the finding out lesson, includes three sources that each offer direct answers to the question. The second lesson, the figuring out lesson, includes three sources that each offer only clues about the origins of slavery, and together those clues don't suggest one tidy answer. Rather than informational texts or thesis-driven secondary texts, they are primary sources from which students can draw evidence in support of claims. Multiple legitimate interpretations of the sources, as well as multiple legitimate responses to the question of inquiry, are possible. Students, using their knowledge and reasoning skills, read the sources, grapple with questions and ideas (their own and peers'), and construct claims. Below are participants reflections on their experiences of the two demonstration lessons:

In sum, a finding out task/text requires “looking up” information. You can simply “lift” a line or two from a text to answer the question. A figuring out task/text requires questioning, paying attention to the source and context, and reasoning. Fundamentally, inquiry-based instruction involves “figuring it out” – not “finding out.”

• In a finding out lesson:

  • Reading = EVIDENCE HUNTING

  • Discussion = REPORTING OUT

  • Writing = PARROTING OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS

• In a figuring out lesson:

  • Reading = INTERROGATING THE TEXT

  • Discussion = RECONCILING, DEBATING AND BUILDING ON

  • Writing = A PROCESS OF MAKING MEANING AND A PRACTICE OF REASONING

Inquiry-based history instruction asks students to grapple with the questions and the fragmentary evidence of the past to construct historical claims and narratives. And it requires rigorous and meaningful thinking. Inquiry-based history instruction puts students to work at figuring things out. Teachers and instructional leaders need to understand the importance of the distinction between finding out and figuring out and be able to recognize finding out lessons masquerading as inquiry-based history instruction.