EDUC 673 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOURNAL CRITIQUE INSTRUCTIONAL PLANNING 2025.docx

JOURNAL CRITIQUE: INSTRUCTIONAL PLANNING

1

Nicole Schultz

School of Education, Liberty University

Centred Structured Inquiry Lessons

Education continues to evolve as new research emerges and influences classroom practice.

Educators must understand how their students become engaged and learn best with the material

they teach. That said, teachers also need to determine which instructional approaches will best

promote student growth. As a result, Sullivan et al. (2021) state that careful planning is essential

for effective mathematics instruction. As classrooms continue to change, teachers are expected to

use approaches that support a wide range of learners and build continued interest in mathematics.

At the same time, research shows that students learn more deeply when they take responsibility

for their own learning. For this reason, the article by Sullivan et al. is especially relevant, as it

presents a structured inquiry model designed to strengthen student engagement and improve

while this approach can help students build specific skills, it often discourages student choice,

thus making it harder to meet the needs of a diverse and exceptional group of learners. The

model draws heavily on the work of Smith and Stein (2011), who stress the value of thoughtful

classroom discussions in helping students understand mathematical ideas. Sullivan et al. (2021)

conclude that the phases of this model are intended to increase engagement and help teachers

select meaningful tasks, anticipate student thinking, support productive struggle, and guide

discussions that develop mathematical understanding.

used by teachers. According to Sullivan et al. (2021), the first and most critical component is the

Anticipate phase, which occurs before instruction as part of lesson planning. They state that at

this stage, teachers identify learning goals, determine essential questions, and consider how they

will prompt student thinking. Additionally, teachers must take these steps to ensure they are

The next phase is Explore, in which students are given time to think independently before

working collaboratively. Sullivan et al. (2021) explain that teachers circulate during this phase to

observe student approaches and monitor progress. They offer prompts to students who need

support and extended prompts to those who complete the task quickly. Teachers also select

examples of student work to share during later discussions. If many students struggle after

around ten minutes, teachers may encourage them to share partial ideas or address

misconceptions that have emerged. This phase requires teachers to promote individual student

thinking as they prepare for the next stage of the lesson.

Following this, the model moves into the Summarize/Review phase, which includes two

interconnected parts. In the Summarize portion, teachers sequence student work samples, support

important points, and record these ideas in a way that builds on student contributions.

Variation Theory. In this cycle, teachers create a new task that is similar to the original but varies

certain elements to deepen and consolidate understanding. The authors explain that during the

reLaunch, reExplore, and reSummarize/Review phases, teachers guide students through a second

round of problem solving, encourage them to extend their strategies, and help them connect new

have strengths; however, they argue that the inquiry model aligns more closely with goals such

as inclusion and engagement.

The intended audience for this article is classroom teachers seeking ways to improve

mathematics instruction. The authors clearly explain the main ideas by first describing traditional

Active Mathematics Teaching and then contrasting it with the Student Centred Structured Inquiry

argument more convincing and accurate. The article demonstrates effectiveness by not only

and student-centred inquiry can benefit a wide range of learners.

This article review led me to realize that it connects to my own classroom experiences. I have

found that students are often motivated by topics and activities they truly enjoy, which means

educators must make it a priority to learn about their students, their interests, and the ways they

know best. Our textbook details that understanding students personally is an essential part of

effective instruction, especially when using approaches like inquiry that rely on student

engagement and active thinking (Orlich et al., 2018). From a Biblical worldview, this connects to

the belief that God uniquely creates every learner, and that teachers are called to value each

student without bias. Scripture tells us in James 2:1, "My brothers, show no partiality as you hold

the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory" (English Standard Bible, 2021). This verse

encourages educators to treat all students with fairness, care, and respect.

Conclusion

Sullivan et al. (2021) guided teachers in planning and delivering student-centred mathematics

lessons. Additionally, I explained that both the Active Mathematics Teaching Approach and the

Student Centered Structures Inquiry Approach models are practical. However, educators must

understand their students' individual needs and be deliberate in their approach to promote student

engagement and thinking. In each phase of the model, I explained how these steps work together

to support deeper mathematical understanding. The review suggests that these approaches can

benefit all learners, provided teachers are willing to rely on research to guide their instructional

discussions. Reston VA: National Council of Teacher of Mathematics.

Sullivan, P., Bobis, J., Downton, A., Feng, M., Hughes, S., Livy, S., McCormick, M., & Russo, J.

(2021). An instructional model to support planning and teaching student centred

structured inquiry lessons. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 26(1), 9–12.