Content deleted Content added
m fixed dashes using a script, punct; fixed 8x invalid ref position using ARA |
GreenC bot (talk | contribs) Rescued 1 archive link. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#nih.gov |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
{{More citations needed|date=October 2023}}
'''Inquiry-based learning''' (also spelled as '''enquiry-based learning''' in [[British English]]){{efn|The UK dictionaries Collins and Longman list the spelling "inquiry" first, and Oxford simply calls it another spelling, without labeling it as US English.<ref>{{Cite web|title=enquiry (noun)|url=https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/enquiry?q=enquiry |website=www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |access-date=2021-04-02}}</ref>}} is a form of [[active learning]] that starts by posing questions, problems or scenarios. It contrasts with [[traditional education]], which generally relies on the teacher presenting facts and their knowledge about the subject. Inquiry-based learning is often assisted by a [[facilitator]] rather than a lecturer. Inquirers will identify and research issues and questions to develop knowledge or solutions. Inquiry-based learning includes [[problem-based learning]], and is generally used in small-scale investigations and projects, as well as [[research]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ceebl.manchester.ac.uk/ebl/ |title=What is Inquiry-Based Learning (EBL)? |website=Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning |publisher=University of Manchester <!-- |access-date=October 2012 -->}}</ref> The inquiry-based instruction is principally very closely related to the development and practice of thinking and problem-solving skills.<ref>{{citation |author=Dostál, J. |title=Inquiry-based instruction. Concept, essence, importance and contribution |year=2015 |url=https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkb3MwMDN8Z3g6MmU4MzM5YzA1YzcyNzM4 |___location=Olomouc |publisher=Palacký University |isbn=978-80-244-4507-6 |doi=10.5507/pdf.15.24445076|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
== History ==
Line 21:
#Phenomena are proposed but students must develop their own questions and method for research to discover relationships among variables
The graduated levels of scientific inquiry outlined by Schwab demonstrate that students need to develop thinking skills and strategies prior to being exposed to higher levels of inquiry.<ref name="Schwab, J 1966" /> Effectively, these skills need to be scaffolded by the teacher or instructor until students are able to develop questions, methods, and conclusions on their own.<ref name="
== Characteristics ==
[[File:Cover to cover reading versus problem or project based learning.png|thumb|370px|Example of problem/project based learning versus reading cover to cover. The problem/project based learner may memorize a smaller amount of total information due to spending time searching for the optimal information across various sources, but will likely learn more useful items for real world scenarios, and will likely be better at knowing where to find information when needed.<ref>Image by Mikael Häggström, MD, using source images by various authors. Source for useful context in problem-based learning: {{cite
Specific learning processes that people engage in during inquiry-learning include:<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Bell | first1 = T. | last2 = Urhahne | first2 = D. | last3 = Schanze | first3 = S. | last4 = Ploetzner | first4 = R. | year = 2010 | title = Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges | url = http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/21303| journal = International Journal of Science Education | volume = 3 | issue = 1| pages = 349–377 | bibcode = 2010IJSEd..32..349B | doi = 10.1080/09500690802582241 | s2cid = 3866279 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.inquired.org/what-is-inquiry|title=What is inquiry?}}</ref>
Line 37:
=== Levels ===
There are many different explanations for inquiry teaching and learning and the various levels of inquiry that can exist within those contexts. The article titled ''The Many Levels of Inquiry'' by Heather Banchi and Randy Bell (2008)<ref
'''Level 1''': Confirmation
The teacher has taught a particular science theme or topic. The teacher then develops questions and a procedure that guides students through an activity where the results are already known. This method is great to reinforce concepts taught and to introduce students into learning to follow procedures, collect and record data correctly and to confirm and deepen understandings.
'''Level 2''': Structured
The teacher provides the initial question and an outline of the procedure. Students are to formulate explanations of their findings through evaluating and analyzing the data that they collect.
'''Level 3''': Guided
The teacher provides only the research question for the students. The students are responsible for designing and following their own procedures to test that question and then communicate their results and findings.
'''Level 4''': Open/
Students formulate their own research question(s), design and follow through with a developed procedure, and communicate their findings and results. This type of inquiry is often seen in science fair contexts where students drive their own investigative questions.
Line 61:
Open learning has been developed by a number of science educators including the American [[John Dewey]] and the German [[Martin Wagenschein]].{{efn| name= MartinWagenschein| Wagenschein characterized his approach as Socratic, genetic, and example-based.<ref>[[:de:Martin Wagenschein]]</ref>{{Circular reference|date=April 2022}}}} Wagenschein's ideas particularly complement both open learning and inquiry-based learning in teaching work. He emphasized that students should not be taught bald facts, but should understand and explain what they are learning. His most famous example of this was when he asked physics students to tell him what the speed of a falling object was. Nearly all students would produce an equation, but no students could explain what this equation meant.{{citation needed|date=October 2012}} Wagenschein used this example to show the importance of understanding over knowledge.<ref>{{cite periodical |url=http://ed.fnal.gov/trc_new/sciencelines_online/fall97/activity_inserts.html |title=The Science Journal: Writing and Inquiry Development |access-date=2017-01-03 |author=Dahl, Susan | author2=Franzen, Pat | url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080908102608/http://ed.fnal.gov/trc_new/sciencelines_online/fall97/activity_inserts.html |magazine=Science Lines: A Newsletter from the Teacher Resource Center at Fermilab |volume=9 |issue=1, Fall 1997 |type=Activity |archive-date=2008-09-08}}</ref>
Although both guided and open/true inquiry were found to promote science literacy and interest, each has its own advantages. While open/true inquiry may contribute to students' initiative, flexibility and adaptability better than guided inquiry in the long run,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dorfman |first1=Bat-Shahar |last2=Issachar |first2=Hagit |last3=Zion |first3=Michal |date=2020-02-01 |title=Yesterday's Students in Today's World—Open and Guided Inquiry Through the Eyes of Graduated High School Biology Students |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9683-6 |journal=Research in Science Education |language=en |volume=50 |issue=1 |pages=123–149 |doi=10.1007/s11165-017-9683-6 |s2cid=254987400 |issn=1573-1898|url-access=subscription }}</ref> some claim that it may lead to high cognitive load and that guided inquiry is more efficient in terms of time and content learning.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bunterm |first1=Tassanee |last2=Lee |first2=Kerry |last3=Ng Lan Kong |first3=Jeremy |last4=Srikoon |first4=Sanit |last5=Vangpoomyai |first5=Penporn |last6=Rattanavongsa |first6=Jareunkwan |last7=Rachahoon |first7=Ganya |date=2014-08-13 |title=Do Different Levels of Inquiry Lead to Different Learning Outcomes? A comparison between guided and structured inquiry |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500693.2014.886347 |journal=International Journal of Science Education |language=en |volume=36 |issue=12 |pages=1937–1959 |doi=10.1080/09500693.2014.886347 |bibcode=2014IJSEd..36.1937B |s2cid=144105574 |issn=0950-0693|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
=== Inquisitive learning ===
Sociologist of education [[Phillip Brown (sociologist)|Phillip Brown]] defined '''inquisitive learning''' as learning that is [[Intrinsic motivation|intrinsically motivated]] (e.g. by curiosity and interest in knowledge for its own sake), as opposed to ''acquisitive learning'' that is [[Extrinsic motivation|extrinsically motivated]] (e.g. by acquiring high scores on examinations to earn credentials).<ref>{{cite journal |last=Brown |first=Phillip |author-link=Phillip Brown (sociologist) |date=March 2003 |title=The opportunity trap: education and employment in a global economy |journal=European Educational Research Journal |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=141–179 |doi=10.2304/eerj.2003.2.1.4|s2cid=145073344 |url=http://orca.cf.ac.uk/68242/ }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stiwne |first1=Elinor Edvardsson |last2=Alves |first2=Mariana Gaio |date=March 2010 |title=Higher education and employability of graduates: will Bologna make a difference? |journal=European Educational Research Journal |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=32–44 [33] |doi=10.2304/eerj.2010.9.1.32|citeseerx=10.1.1.1013.4278 |s2cid=145319261 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Nielsen |first=Gritt B. |year=2015 |title=Figuration work: student participation, democracy and university reform in a global knowledge economy |series=EASA series |volume=27 |___location=New York |publisher=Berghahn Books |isbn=9781782387718 |oclc=896861729 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=I9TtBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA136 136]}}</ref> However, occasionally the term ''inquisitive learning'' is simply used as a synonym for ''inquiry-based learning''.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Graseck |first=Paul |date=January 2005 |title=Where's the ministry in administration?: attending to the souls of our schools |journal=Phi Delta Kappan |volume=86 |issue=5 |pages=373–378 |doi=10.1177/003172170508600508|s2cid=143901370 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Marshall |first1=Jeff C. |last2=Smart |first2=Julie |last3=Alston |first3=Daniel M. |date=October 2016 |title=Development and validation of Teacher Intentionality of Practice Scale (TIPS): a measure to evaluate and scaffold teacher effectiveness |journal=Teaching and Teacher Education |volume=59 |issue=3 |pages=159–168 |doi=10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.007|bibcode=2003TeTeE..19..309T }}</ref>
The literature states that inquiry requires multiple cognitive processes and variables, such as causality and co-occurrence that enrich with age and experience.<ref name="ReferenceB">{{cite journal|last1=Kuhn|first1=D|last2=Black|first2=J|last3=Keselman|first3=A|last4=Kaplan|first4=D|title=The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning|journal=Cognition and Instruction|year=2000|volume=18|issue=4|pages=495–523|doi=10.1207/s1532690xci1804_3|citeseerx=10.1.1.527.1718|s2cid=8273319}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceC">{{cite journal|last1=Kuhn|first1=D|last2=Pease|first2=M|title=What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills?|journal=Cognition and Instruction|year=2008|volume=26|issue=4|pages=512–59|doi=10.1080/07370000802391745|s2cid=144373662}}</ref> ▼
Kuhn, et al. (2000) used explicit training workshops to teach children in grades six to eight in the United States how to inquire through a quantitative study. By completing an inquiry-based task at the end of the study, the participants demonstrated enhanced mental models by applying different inquiry strategies.<ref name="ReferenceB"/> In a similar study, Kuhan and Pease (2008) completed a longitudinal quantitative study following a set of American children from grades four to six to investigate the effectiveness of scaffolding strategies for inquiry. Results demonstrated that children benefitted from the scaffolding because they outperformed the grade seven control group on an inquiry task.<ref name="ReferenceC"/>
A new inquiry program tends to benefit from professional collaboration.<ref name="autogenerated1671"/> The teacher training and process of using inquiry learning should be a joint mission to ensure the maximal amount of resources are used and that the teachers are producing the best learning scenarios. Twigg's (2010) education professionals who participated in her experiment emphasized year round professional development sessions, such as workshops, weekly meetings and observations, to ensure inquiry is being implemented in the class correctly.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Another example is Chu's (2009) study, where the participants appreciated the professional collaboration of educators, information technicians and librarians to provide more resources and expertise for preparing the structure and resources for the inquiry project.<ref name="autogenerated1671">{{cite journal|last1=Chu|first1=K.W.S|title=Inquiry project-based learning with a partnership of three types of teachers and the school librarian|journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology|year=2009|volume=60|issue=8|pages=1671–86|doi=10.1002/asi.21084}}</ref>
== By subject ==
=== Science education ===
==== History ====
A catalyst for reform within North American science education was the 1957 launch of [[Sputnik 1|Sputnik]], the Soviet Union satellite. This historical scientific breakthrough caused a great deal of concern around the science and technology education the American students were receiving. In 1958 the U.S. congress developed and passed the [[National Defense Education Act]] in order to provide math and science teachers with adequate teaching materials.<ref name="science.education.nih.gov">National Institute for Health. (2005). Doing Science: The Process of Science Inquiry. [https://web.archive.org/web/20201017000813/https://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/Process%20of%20Scietific%20Inquiry.pdf [http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih6/inquiry/guide/info_process-a.htm]]</ref><ref>"National Defense Education Act | US Education Reform, 1958 | Britannica". ''www.britannica.com''. 2023-08-26. Retrieved 2023-10-04.</ref>
==== Science standards ====
America's [[Next Generation Science Standards|Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)]] embrace student centered inquiry-based pedagogy by implementing a three-part approach to science education: Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs), Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs), and Cross Cutting Concepts (CCCs).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Home Page {{!}} Next Generation Science Standards |url=https://www.nextgenscience.org/ |access-date=2023-10-24 |website=www.nextgenscience.org}}</ref> The standards are designed so that students learn science by performing scientific practices in the classroom. Students use practices such as asking questions, planning and carrying out investigations, collaborating, collecting and analyzing data, and arguing from evidence to learn the core ideas and concepts in scientific content areas. These practices are comparable to the [[21st century skills]] that have been shown to be indicators of success in modern societies and workplaces regardless of whether that field is science based.<ref>Gewertz, C. (2007, June 8). "Soft Skills" in Big Demand. ''Education Week''.
==== Pedagogical applications ====
Inquiry-based pedagogy in science education has been shown to increase students' scientific knowledge and literacy when compared to when students are taught using more traditional pedagogical methods.<ref name=":02">{{Cite thesis |title=Lego TC logo as a learning environment in problem-solving in advanced supplementary level design & technology with pupils aged 16–19 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b3862630 |publisher=The University of Hong Kong Libraries |first=Ting-kau |last=Lo|date=1992 |doi=10.5353/th_b3862630 |url-access=subscription |hdl=10722/51432 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last1=Gormally |first1=Cara |last2=Brickman |first2=Peggy |last3=Hallar |first3=Brittan |last4=Armstrong |first4=Norris |date=2009-07-01 |title=Effects of Inquiry-based Learning on Students' Science Literacy Skills and Confidence |url=http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol3/iss2/16 |journal=International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning |volume=3 |issue=2 |doi=10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030216 |issn=1931-4744|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last1=Nichols |first1=Kim |last2=Musofer |first2=Reshma |last3=Fynes-Clinton |first3=Liz |last4=Blundell |first4=Rosanne |date=November 2022 |title=Design thinking and inquiry behaviours are co-constituted in a community of inquiry middle years' science classroom context: Empirical evidence for design thinking and pragmatist inquiry interconnections |url=https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10798-021-09711-4 |journal=International Journal of Technology and Design Education |language=en |volume=32 |issue=5 |pages=2527–2551 |doi=10.1007/s10798-021-09711-4 |s2cid=239497656 |issn=0957-7572|url-access=subscription }}</ref> However, even though students in inquiry-based classrooms are shown to have higher scientific knowledge, they have also been shown to have increased frustration and decreased confidence in scientific ability when compared to their peers taught using traditional methods.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Makkonen |first1=Taina |last2=Tirri |first2=Kirsi |last3=Lavonen |first3=Jari |date=November 2021 |title=Engagement in Learning Physics Through Project-Based Learning: A Case Study of Gifted Finnish Upper-Secondary-Level Students
In cases where students' scientific knowledge in an inquiry based classroom was not significantly different than their peers taught in traditional methods, student problem solving ability was found to be improved for inquiry learning students.<ref name=":02" /> Inquiry as a pedagogical framework and learning process fits within many educational models including Problem Based Learning and the 5E Model of Education.
===== Problem-based learning =====
Inquiry as a pedagogical framework has been shown to be especially effective when used along [[problem-based learning]] (PBL) assignments.<ref name=":02" /><ref name=":42">{{Cite journal |last1=Saleh |first1=Asmalina |last2=Phillips |first2=Tanner M. |last3=
===== 5E Model of Science Education =====
Line 111 ⟶ 118:
Robert Bain in ''[[How Students Learn]]'' described a similar approach called "problematizing history".<ref>Bain, R.B., Donovan, M.S. & Bransford, J.D. (Eds). (2005). "They thought the world was flat?": Applying the principles of How People Learn in teaching high school history. How Students Learn. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309074339</ref> First a learning curriculum is organized around central concepts. Next, a question and primary sources are provided, such as eyewitness historical accounts. The task for inquiry is to create an interpretation of history that will answer the central question. Students will form a hypothesis, collect and consider information and revisit their hypothesis as they evaluate their data.
==By region==
=== Ontario ===
After Charles Pascal's report in 2009, the Canadian province of [[Ontario]]'s Ministry of Education decided to implement a full day kindergarten program that focuses on inquiry and play-based learning, called The Early Learning Kindergarten Program.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Pascal|first1=Charles|title=With Our Best Future in Mind|url=http://ywcacanada.ca/data/research_docs/00000001.pdf|access-date=11 October 2014|archive-date=20 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161020211653/http://ywcacanada.ca/data/research_docs/00000001.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> As of September 2014, all primary schools in Ontario started the program. The curriculum document<ref name="MoE"/> outlines the philosophy, definitions, process and core learning concepts for the program. Bronfenbrenner's ecological model, Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, Piaget's child development theory and Dewey's experiential learning are the heart of the program's design. As research shows, children learn best through play, whether it is independently or in a group. Three forms of play are noted in the curriculum document, pretend or "pretense" play, socio-dramatic play and constructive play. Through play and authentic experiences, children interact with their environment (people and/or objects) and question things; thus leading to inquiry learning. A chart on page 15 clearly outlines the process of inquiry for young children, including initial engagement, exploration, investigation, and communication.<ref name="MoE">{{cite web|author=Ministry of Education|title=Early Learning Kindergarten Program|url=http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/kindergarten_english_june3.pdf|access-date=11 October 2014}}</ref> The new program supports holistic approach to learning. For further details, please see the curriculum document.<ref name="MoE"/>
Line 117 ⟶ 126:
Since the program is extremely new{{As of?|date=October 2023}}, there is limited research on its success and areas of improvement. One government research report was released with the initial groups of children in the new kindergarten program. The Final Report: Evaluation of the Implementation of the Ontario Full-Day Early-Learning Kindergarten Program from Vanderlee, Youmans, Peters, and Eastabrook (2012) conclude with primary research that high-need children improved more compared to children who did not attend Ontario's new kindergarten program.<ref>{{cite report |last1=Vanderlee |first1=Mary-Louise |last2=Youmans |first2=S |last3=Peters |first3=R |last4=Eastabrook |first4=J |title=Final report: Evaluation of the implementation of the Ontario full-day early-learning kindergarten program |url=http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/kindergarten/FDELK_ReportFall2012.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140325185736/http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/kindergarten/FDELK_ReportFall2012.pdf |archive-date=2014-03-25 |date=Fall 2012}}</ref> As with inquiry-based learning in all divisions and subject areas, longitudinal research is needed to examine the full extent of this teaching/learning method.
===
Since 2013, Dutch children have participated in a curriculum of learning to read through an inquiry-based pedagogical program. The program, from the Dutch developmental psychologist Ewald Vervaet, is named {{lang|nl|Ontdekkend Leren Lezen}} (OLL; 'Discovery Learning to Read') and has three parts.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ontdekkendleren.nl/boeken |title= There is a fourth book. It is for children who are not reading mature and generally in kindergarten: Klank- en vormspel (Sound and form play)|access-date=2019-04-27|author=Ewald, Vervaet }}</ref>
==Benefits==
Chu (2009) used a mixed method design to examine the outcome of an inquiry project completed by students in Hong Kong with the assistance of multiple educators. Chu's (2009) results show that the children were more motivated and academically successful compared to the control group.<ref name="autogenerated1671"/>▼
Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn cite several studies supporting the success of the constructivist [[Problem-based learning|problem-based]] and inquiry learning methods. For example, they describe a project called GenScope, an inquiry-based science software application. Students using the GenScope software showed significant gains over the control groups, with the largest gains shown in students from basic courses.<ref name="hmelo">{{cite journal | last1 = Hmelo-Silver | last2 = Duncan | last3 = Chinn | year = 2007 | title = Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) | url = http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf | journal = Educational Psychologist | volume = 42 | issue = 2 | pages = 99–107 | doi = 10.1080/00461520701263368 | s2cid = 1360735 | access-date = 27 December 2007 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101223152831/http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf | archive-date = 23 December 2010 | url-status = dead }}</ref>▼
== Misconceptions ==
Line 127 ⟶ 141:
There are several common misconceptions regarding inquiry-based science, the first being that inquiry science is simply instruction that teaches students to follow the scientific method. Many teachers had the opportunity to work within the constraints of the scientific method as students themselves and assume inquiry learning must be the same. Inquiry science is not just about solving problems in six simple steps but much more broadly focused on the intellectual problem-solving skills developed throughout a scientific process.<ref name="National Science Education Standards 1996">National Science Education Standards. (1996). National Academy Press. Washington, DC.</ref> Additionally, not every hands-on lesson can be considered inquiry.
Some educators believe that there is only one true method of inquiry, which would be described as the level four: Open Inquiry. While open inquiry may be the most authentic form of inquiry, there are many skills and a level of conceptual understanding that the students must have developed before they can be successful at this high level of inquiry.<ref name="
Not every student is going to learn the same amount from an inquiry lesson; students must be invested in the topic of study to authentically reach the set learning goals. Teachers must be prepared to ask students questions to probe their thinking processes in order to assess accurately. Inquiry-science requires a lot of time, effort, and expertise, however, the benefits outweigh the cost when true authentic learning can take place{{citation needed|date=October 2015}}.▼
▲== Neuroscience complexity ==
▲The literature states that inquiry requires multiple cognitive processes and variables, such as causality and co-occurrence that enrich with age and experience.<ref name="ReferenceB">{{cite journal|last1=Kuhn|first1=D|last2=Black|first2=J|last3=Keselman|first3=A|last4=Kaplan|first4=D|title=The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning|journal=Cognition and Instruction|year=2000|volume=18|issue=4|pages=495–523|doi=10.1207/s1532690xci1804_3|citeseerx=10.1.1.527.1718|s2cid=8273319}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceC">{{cite journal|last1=Kuhn|first1=D|last2=Pease|first2=M|title=What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills?|journal=Cognition and Instruction|year=2008|volume=26|issue=4|pages=512–59|doi=10.1080/07370000802391745|s2cid=144373662}}</ref>
▲Kuhn, et al. (2000) used explicit training workshops to teach children in grades six to eight in the United States how to inquire through a quantitative study. By completing an inquiry-based task at the end of the study, the participants demonstrated enhanced mental models by applying different inquiry strategies.<ref name="ReferenceB"/> In a similar study, Kuhan and Pease (2008) completed a longitudinal quantitative study following a set of American children from grades four to six to investigate the effectiveness of scaffolding strategies for inquiry. Results demonstrated that children benefitted from the scaffolding because they outperformed the grade seven control group on an inquiry task.<ref name="ReferenceC"/> Understanding the neuroscience of inquiry learning the scaffolding process related to it should be reinforced for Ontario's primary teachers as part of their training.
▲=== Necessity for teacher training ===
▲emphasized year round professional development sessions, such as workshops, weekly meetings and observations, to ensure inquiry is being implemented in the class correctly.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Another example is Chu's (2009) study, where the participants appreciated the professional collaboration of educators, information technicians and librarians to provide more resources and expertise for preparing the structure and resources for the inquiry project.<ref name="autogenerated1671">{{cite journal|last1=Chu|first1=K.W.S|title=Inquiry project-based learning with a partnership of three types of teachers and the school librarian|journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology|year=2009|volume=60|issue=8|pages=1671–86|doi=10.1002/asi.21084}}</ref> To establish a professional collaboration and researched training methods, administration support is required for funding.
== Criticism ==
===Empirical evidence===
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006)<ref name="ksc">{{cite journal | last1 = Kirschner | first1 = P. A. | last2 = Sweller | first2 = J. | last3 = Clark | first3 = R. E. | year = 2006 | title = Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching | url = http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf | journal = Educational Psychologist | volume = 41 | issue = 2 | pages = 75–86 | doi = 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 | hdl = 1874/16899 | s2cid = 17067829 | access-date = 30 December 2007 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170919025626/http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf | archive-date = 19 September 2017 | url-status = dead }}</ref> review of literature found that although constructivists often cite each other's work, empirical evidence is not often cited. Nonetheless the constructivist movement gained great momentum in the 1990s, because many educators began to write about this philosophy of learning.
Richard E. Mayer from the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote in 2004 that there was sufficient research evidence to make any reasonable person skeptical about the benefits of discovery learning—practiced under the guise of cognitive constructivism or social constructivism—as a preferred instructional method. He reviewed research on discovery of problem-solving rules culminating in the 1960s, discovery of conservation strategies culminating in the 1970s, and discovery of LOGO programming strategies culminating in the 1980s. In each case, guided discovery was more effective than pure discovery in helping students learn and transfer.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Mayer | first1 = R | year = 2004 | title = Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction | url = http://www.davidlewisphd.com/courses/EDD8001/weeklys/2004-Mayer.pdf | journal = American Psychologist | volume = 59 | issue = 1| pages = 14–19 | doi=10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14 | pmid=14736316| citeseerx = 10.1.1.372.2476 | s2cid = 1129364 }}</ref>▼
▲Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn cite several studies supporting the success of the constructivist [[Problem-based learning|problem-based]] and inquiry learning methods. For example, they describe a project called GenScope, an inquiry-based science software application. Students using the GenScope software showed significant gains over the control groups, with the largest gains shown in students from basic courses.<ref name="hmelo">{{cite journal | last1 = Hmelo-Silver | last2 = Duncan | last3 = Chinn | year = 2007 | title = Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) | url = http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf | journal = Educational Psychologist | volume = 42 | issue = 2 | pages = 99–107 | doi = 10.1080/00461520701263368 | s2cid = 1360735 | access-date = 27 December 2007 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101223152831/http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf | archive-date = 23 December 2010 | url-status = dead }}</ref>
▲In contrast, Hmelo-Silver et al. also cite a large study by Geier on the effectiveness of inquiry-based science for middle school students, as demonstrated by their performance on high-stakes standardized tests. The improvement was 14% for the first cohort of students and 13% for the second cohort. This study also found that inquiry-based teaching methods greatly reduced the achievement gap for African-American students.<ref name="hmelo" />
===Excess===
In a 2006 article, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's president, Chester E. Finn Jr., was quoted as saying "But like so many things in education, it gets carried to excess... [the approach is] fine to some degree."<ref name="thomson">{{cite news | last = Thomson | first = Robert | date = 2006-01-19 |title = What's the Right Formula? | url = https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113763977423350560}}</ref> The organization ran a study in 2005 concluding that the emphasis states put on inquiry-based learning is too great.<ref name="fordham">{{cite report | last = Gross | first = Paul | date = December 2005| title = The State of State Science Standards | url= http://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/Science%20Standards.FinalFinal_8.pdf | publisher = Thomas B. Fordham Institute }}</ref>
===Teacher and student effort===
▲Richard E. Mayer from the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote in 2004 that there was sufficient research evidence to make any reasonable person skeptical about the benefits of discovery learning—practiced under the guise of cognitive constructivism or social constructivism—as a preferred instructional method. He reviewed research on discovery of problem-solving rules culminating in the 1960s, discovery of conservation strategies culminating in the 1970s, and discovery of LOGO programming strategies culminating in the 1980s. In each case, guided discovery was more effective than pure discovery in helping students learn and transfer.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Mayer | first1 = R | year = 2004 | title = Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction | url = http://www.davidlewisphd.com/courses/EDD8001/weeklys/2004-Mayer.pdf | journal = American Psychologist | volume = 59 | issue = 1| pages = 14–19 | doi=10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14 | pmid=14736316| citeseerx = 10.1.1.372.2476 | s2cid = 1129364 }}</ref>
It should be cautioned that inquiry-based learning takes a lot of planning before implementation. It is not something that can be put into place in the classroom quickly. Measurements must be put in place for how students knowledge and performance will be measured and how standards will be incorporated. The teacher's responsibility during inquiry exercises is to support and facilitate student learning (Bell et al., 769–770). A common mistake teachers make is lacking the vision to see where students' weaknesses lie. According to Bain, teachers cannot assume that students will hold the same assumptions and thinking processes as a professional within that discipline (p. 201).
▲Not every student is going to learn the same amount from an inquiry lesson; students must be invested in the topic of study to authentically reach the set learning goals. Teachers must be prepared to ask students questions to probe their thinking processes in order to assess accurately. Inquiry-science requires a lot of time, effort, and expertise, however, the benefits outweigh the cost when true authentic learning can take place{{citation needed|date=October 2015}}.
▲While some see inquiry-based teaching as increasingly mainstream, it can be perceived as in conflict with [[standardized testing]] common in [[standards-based assessment]] systems which emphasise the measurement of student knowledge, and meeting of pre-defined criteria, for example the shift towards "fact" in changes to the National Assessment of Educational Progress as a result of the American [[No Child Left Behind]] program.{{citation needed|date=March 2016}}
▲Chu (2009) used a mixed method design to examine the outcome of an inquiry project completed by students in Hong Kong with the assistance of multiple educators. Chu's (2009) results show that the children were more motivated and academically successful compared to the control group.<ref name="autogenerated1671"/>
==See also==
* [[Action learning]]
* [[Critical thinking]]
* [[Design-based learning]]
* [[Discovery learning]]
Line 191 ⟶ 186:
{{Standards-based Education Reform}}
{{Education}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Inquiry-Based Learning}}
[[Category:Applied learning]]
| |||