Module 3 • Inquiry

Module 3: Inquiry Space

Collect evidence, map alternative interpretations, publish to a peer wall, and conduct peer review with a mini rubric.

Page image
Inquiry workflow

What the learner does

  1. Collect evidence (links, quotes, logs, observations).
  2. Map alternative interpretations (at least 2 frames).
  3. Publish a short synthesis to the peer wall.
  4. Peer review: score another submission + write feedback.
  5. Reflect: what transfers to a new context?
Embeds
Paste embed URLs (optional). Saved locally.
Embedded spaces
optional
Graasp
Miro
Google Form
Evidence builder

Capture inquiry evidence

Use this form even if you use external platforms. It creates export-ready artifacts.

Exports
      Reflection quality rubric
      Claim → Evidence → Alternative → Limitation
      exemplars
      For inquiry, cite at least 2–3 evidence items, compare two interpretations, and state what evidence would falsify your preferred explanation.
      What strong reflections include
      • Claim: your current hypothesis or decision.
      • Evidence: cite the log/source/observation that supports it.
      • Alternative: at least one competing explanation.
      • Limitation: what you still don’t know + next test.
      Common weak patterns
      • Vague actions (“I tried something”).
      • No evidence cited.
      • No Plan B or alternative frame.
      • Overconfidence; no uncertainty.

      We think it is DNS. We will try to fix it.

      Claim: The most likely cause is a local configuration mismatch (DNS or host mapping).
Evidence: Evidence item #1 (error message), Evidence item #2 (resolver output), Evidence item #3 (a successful control test).
Alternative: If DNS is correct, routing or access control could still explain the failure (e.g., blocked egress).
Limitation + next test: Collect one high-signal piece of evidence (direct IP test, traceroute, or policy check) to falsify the claim.
      Collaboration studio

      Peer wall + peer review

      —
      Publish a synthesis
      Post a concise interpretation so others can review it.
      —
      Peer wall
      Select a submission, then review it below.
      Peer review rubric (1–4)
      Score clarity, evidence, alternatives, and transfer potential.
      —
      Inline rubric scoring

      Module 3: Inquiry Space — FT rubric entry

      1–4

      Score how well your inquiry work demonstrates reframing, alternatives, evidence justification, and transfer (1–4).

      Reframing & Perspective Shift
      Did you shift frames (technical / learning-design / risk) when needed?
      Alternative Generation & Strategy Switching
      Did you generate and test alternatives (Plan A/B/C) instead of sticking to one path?
      Evidence-Based Justification
      Did you cite concrete evidence (logs/sources/observations) to justify decisions?
      Reflection & Transfer
      Did you articulate what transfers and propose a Plan B for new contexts?
      —
      Preview

      Rubric radar

      This radar is generated from your rubric entry in this browser.
      Tips
      • Anchor scores to concrete evidence (log line, source link, or observation).
      • Include at least one alternative frame or Plan B.
      • Use the exports in Tools & Evaluation for your thesis snapshots.