II THE QUEST MODEL
The QUEST model illustrates the cyclical nature of Internet inquiry. The QUEST model visually reminds students that Internet inquiry is a multistep process, not a one-time event, much like our predecessors in writing instruction (Calkins, 1994; Graves, 1983) have shown. We like to point out to students that the word
“research” is composed of the prefix “re-” and the root word “search,” thus emphasiz-ing the notion that the process is recursive. For example, as readers move through the Understanding Resources phase, they may find that they need more practice with using search engines or selecting keywords before continuing on to the Evalu-ating phase. Learners cycle through the EvaluEvalu-ating phase repeatedly as they encoun-ter new websites and new information and must decide if what they find meets their information needs.
Note that there are several preparatory steps that must be taken before students actually start reading and Synthesizing information; this is analogous to the prewriting activities that good writers use and the prereading activities that profi-cient readers use. These preparatory activities are time well spent because they help activate prior knowledge and set the stage for strategic, reflective learning. In schools where resources are scarce, it is especially prudent to engage students in pre-search activities before they actually sit down in front of the computer to begin searching for information.
The QUEST model is based on our observations of hundreds of learners and is consistent with existing models of information literacy, most of which do not differ significantly in concept but use diverse terminology (e.g., Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 2001, Big6; Macrorie, 1988, I-Search; Kuhlthau, 1993, ISP; McKenzie, 1999, Research Cycle; Pappas & Tepe, 1997, Pathways to Knowledge). Having used several of these models in the classroom, we have found that a visual model with a memora-ble acronym is optimal for students and teachers.
The teacher’s role during Internet inquiry is to scaffold all aspects of the pro-cess until learners are able to self-reflect and self-regulate. This may take the form of frequent metacognitive reminders, such as “What are you trying to find out?,” “Is this the best search engine for your question?,” “Why did you click on that link?,” “Does this webpage have the information you’re looking for?,” or “How do you know this information is reliable?” This will also take the form of frequent teacher modeling of both the process and, if applicable, the final product. We strongly suggest that teachers conduct authentic inquiry alongside their students so the learners can observe what an expert inquirer thinks and does.
Part II of this book is separated into seven chapters. Chapter 3 provides logisti-cal tips and assessment tools from which to choose when preparing for a QUEST.
Chapter 4 provides teaching ideas and activities for the Questioning phase. Chapter 5 focuses on Understanding Resources. Chapter 6 emphasizes the Evaluating phase.
Chapter 7 covers the Synthesizing step. Chapter 8 offers strategies for helping
stu-“I think your graphic of the Internet search process is outstanding. It’s a graphic that all of us are using on the seventh grade team now.
There are different ways of viewing the research process, but I think that the cyclical nature of this one is really great.”
—Deborah, special education teacher
dents through the Transforming phase. Finally, Chapter 9 presents ideas for reflect-ing on the entire process. We use a traditional framework for our discussion of each phase of the QUEST model—that is, WHY we use it, WHAT it is, WHEN we use it, and finally, HOW strategies for each phase can be taught. Each chapter includes numerous classroom-ready reproducibles that are easily identified by upper case let-ters and numbers; for example, Handout Q-1 is the first form in Chapter 4 on Ques-tioning. Many of these resources are also freely available for downloading from our companion website (www.ReadingTheWeb.net).
As you read, please keep in mind that internalizing complex strategies and skills takes a long time, so you can’t teach the entire QUEST model in one brief lesson.
Internet inquiry strategies must be taught recursively throughout the K–12 curriculum (Leu, Leu, & Coiro, 2004; Wallace et al., 2000). Our approach has been to focus on one strategy at a time; for example, we have done 6-week Internet inquiry units focusing just on keyword selection strategies and 4-week units empha-sizing notemaking techniques. While focusing on one strategy, remember to provide scaffolds (models, templates, etc.) for the
other strategies so that students are not overwhelmed with too many challenges at once. Please note that although we have provided numerous handouts for each phase of the QUEST, these re-producibles and lesson plans should be treated as a menu of possibilities rather than a prescription for using them all.
Happily, Internet inquiry is an effective way for students to develop and apply traditional literacy skills, as well as newly emerging electronic literacy skills while practicing generative metacognitive strategies that lead to more self-regulated learning. The teachers with whom we’ve worked value Internet inquiry because it fulfills multiple instructional objectives necessary for success in all subject areas. To demonstrate this, we include examples of pertinent learning standards across several diverse con-tent areas applicable to grades 3–8: language arts, science, math, library media, and social studies. The standards were collected by our friend and colleague Julie Coiro and drawn from state and local standards applicable to the Windsor Public School District in Connecticut, USA (Connecticut State Department of Education, 1998, 2005; Windsor Public Schools, 2001,
2002a, 2002b, 2004). Because the stan-dards are representative of typical learn-ing standards across the country, we have elected not to clutter the text with cita-tions for each standard.
[It is helpful to have] goals specifying which aspects of instruction and assessment are central (and therefore, must be held constant) and which aspects are not central (and therefore, can be varied).
—Rose and Meyer (2002, p. 104)
“Inquiry accomplishes about 20 things I feel I need to do as a language arts teacher. . . . It supports writing, nonfiction reading, putting text into your own words, and documentation.”
—Tracey, eighth-grade English teacher