Inquiry-Based Learning

As access to information becomes more ubiquitous, the role of teachers and students in the classroom is evolving, out of necessity. Today's world requires learners to be able to solve problems, evaluate solutions, research evidence, and collaborate with others. The traditional classroom environment is no longer supporting the development of skills necessary for success in the workplace. Instead, many educators are turning to inquiry-based learning as an alternative to the rote memorization of facts and figures that traditionally have dominated education. Inquiry-based learning is a practice that has emerged from the constructivist view of learning, and involves students creating and constructing their own ideas and concepts in order to making knowledge more meaningful to them. But is this always an effective tool for learning? Do all learners benefit from this type of learning across the different curriculum? I seek to explore the rationale behind inquiry-based learning and its implementation in the classroom, as well as evaluate both the proven benefits and unintended drawbacks or consequences that this type of learning produces. 

I am a high school Social Studies and Special Education instructor who has recently begun adopting inquiry-based learning into my classroom. The field of education is always evolving, and this is also true within the different subjects and curriculum that are taught within schools. I am primarily a social studies instructor, and so I have been experiencing the new push towards inquiry or problem based learning. Though I have used some inquiry-based instruction in my classroom, I feel that I could improve on its usage in my classroom. I also am a bit skeptical about its usage on a broad level, and I have seen some of the limitations it has in the classroom. If it is as beneficial as educational psychologists have argued, then I would like to know how to best apply it to my classroom while addressing the concerns I have about its continued usage. Because of my background, I will be focusing on IBL’s application to the Social Studies classroom, though I will give an overview of the process in its general form.

IBL has been lauded as revolutionary approach to learning that puts the student in the driver’s seat. As an instructor, I have seen my role change to more of a facilitator with students in this type of learning process. Because the students are constructing their own knowledge and understanding, IBL promises to improve students’ skills and retention, as well as aid students in understanding their own learning processes. Proponents of IBL also believe it helps students develop higher order thinking skills through the inquiry process. As someone who hopes to create critical thinkers in my classes, I am interested in learning more about the supposed benefits this approach holds to instruction and learning. Many of my colleagues are still very traditional in their instruction, and are hesitant to change the structure of their classes. I would like to be able to provide them (and myself) with tools that are proven to help students achieve, learn, and retain more.

Cycle of Inquiry

 Inquiry-based learning emerged out of the evolving field of constructivism. Constructivist psychology approaches learning as a an ongoing process in which students are constantly constructing meaning out of knowledge and information. Students reflect on new experiences and reconcile the new ideas and information with their previous experiences and views of the world. Students construct their own understanding cognitively and create their own knowledge, according to constructivists (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2001). Students are considered the active creators of their own schemas of knowledge, and constructivists believe that in order for learning to occur, students must inquire, research, challenge, and assess what they know on any given topic or new piece of information.

Constructivist psychology is generally believed to have emerged with developmental psychologist Jean Piaget. Piaget proposed the idea of schemas, or mental systems of organizing information and knowledge. As people learn new information, they must assimilate or accommodate their schemas in order to construct meaning. According to Piaget, learning is an ongoing process that involves students experiencing and interacting with the world, and then constructing knowledge out of those experiences and interactions. Piaget and constructivists believe that purpose of education is to help children learn in a fashion that supports each individual’s interests and needs. This is generally seen as the child or student-centered approach to education (Piaget, 1970).

In the student-centered approach to learning, it is assumed that children come to school with preconceived notions, ideas, experiences, and beliefs that must be altered or modified by an instructor who facilitates this adjustment through the creation of tasks and questions that students must solve or produce. The teacher is meant to be a guide or facilitator who encourages students to question, challenge, and formulate their own ideas, opinions, and conclusions (Abdal-Haqq, 1998). The focus tends to shift from the teacher to the student in constructivist classrooms, and the teacher is no longer thought of as the only source of knowledge or information. Students are encouraged to be more actively engaged in their own learning processes. The chart below, courtesy of the Educational Broadcasting Network (2004), shows the main differences between a traditional classroom and a constructivist one:

Inquiry-based learning (sometimes called problem-based learning) emerged as a response to the traditional educational practice of a teacher-led classroom environment. In many classrooms, students were still required to memorize facts and figures and then repeat those same memorizations for assessment. This is known as rote learning or memorization. Critics of this traditional approach tended to side with the constructivist psychology viewpoint that individuals need to be in charge or direct their own learning and acquisition of knowledge (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008). They believed that rote memorization did not lead to meaningful learning and knowledge acquisition and that the information was not retained because it was not meaningful to the individual students. Therefore, these constructivists believed, a new classroom dynamic needed to be designed.

Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a practice in which the learner is in charge of acquiring new knowledge and information. Though it may take many forms, which will be identified further, its general characteristics include students creating questions of their own, students engaging in research to obtain evidence to answer the questions they’ve created, and students then synthesizing that information into a response to their original questions. Depending on the different subjects or students, this process can differ in its execution, especially in the form of research, but the general aspects are the same across different curriculum.

IBL focuses on the investigation, explanation, and resolution of meaningful questions or problems and is meant to be an immersive experience for the student. The role of the teacher and the student are much different than in the traditional classroom. Instead of the teacher leading the students and being the source of knowledge, the teacher is instead a facilitator who aids students in the learning and problem-solving process. Students are at the center of the learning process. The application of IBL to the classroom will be discussed in the next section.

Spectrum of IBL

Inquiry-based learning is typically categorized into four different levels of application for the classroom (Tafoya, Sunal, & Knecht, 1980). These levels are based on the role of the teacher and student in the learning process. As the levels increase, the amount of direct instruction by the teacher decreases and the amount of student-directed inquiry increases.

Level One: Confirmation Inquiry

• This form of IBL involves the direct instruction of a particular topic or theme in a classroom. The teacher then provides questions for the students to research, and gives a specific method that the students should follow in order to find their answers. The teacher already knows the outcome in this situation. This level is used to reinforce concepts and ideas, teaches research methods of a particular subject to a student, and shows the student the importance of confirmation and evidence in order to foster deeper understanding.

Level Two: Structured Inquiry

• Level two involves less direct instruction. Instead, a teacher poses a question or questions to students for them to then research. The teacher usually provides the directions for how to research the answer to the question, but the answer is not known to the students in advance, though the teacher is aware. The students then create explanations for their findings and analyze the data they have collected.

Level Three: Guided Inquiry

• The teacher provides the research question to the students but does not provide instruction on how to find the answers or conclusions. Students must design and follow their own research procedures, and then explain and communicate their results as in the previous two levels.

Level Four: Open or True Inquiry

• This is what most inquiry-based learning psychologists are referring to when they discuss IBL. At this level, the student controls all of the learning process, including the formulation of a research question, the research method, and the evaluation and explanation of the results. The teacher is more of a facilitator who aids students as necessary in the process, but allows them to formulate their own knowledge and inquiry.

Some psychologists argue that teachers should begin at the lower level and move upward in order to scaffold to the true inquiry method (Banchi & Bell, 2008). Inquiry is supposed to be student-driven and move away from the traditional roles of the student and teacher in the classroom. It also moves away from the traditional structure of classroom activities, in which learners are usually researching in order to confirm already-proven facts. In open or true inquiry, there are not necessarily correct answers, but rather, interpretations and conclusions drawn based on the facts available and supported with such evidence.

IBL is not only divided into levels, but can also be categorized by the types of activities students are engaged in during the inquiry process. These activities can be divided into three main groups: project-based learning, problem-based learning, and learning by design.

Project-Based Learning

• In this approach, students are involved in completing complex tasks that result in a realistic product, event, or presentation (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008). Effective project-based learning involves that the project has five key components: it’s central to the curriculum, organized around driving questions that lead learners to important curricular concepts, focuses on developing investigatory skills, student-driven, and focusing on real-world problems that people care about (Thomas, 2000). The goal of this approach to IBL is to enable students to not only learn information but apply that knowledge to a problem-solving task.

Problem-Based Learning

• With this type of learning activity, students are engaged in small groups to investigate meaningful problems.This is similar to project-based learning, but focuses more specifically on using reasoning and resources to solve a specific problem. These problems are usually realistic and have multiple solutions that can be backed by evidence researched by the students. Students actively search for solutions to problems while the instructor is guiding the process and participation of group members in order to facilitate better learning.

Learning by Design

• This final division of inquiry-based learning focuses on the design and creation of an artifact based on understanding and the application of knowledge. Students are engaged in creating, assessing, and redesigning a product of some type. This work often requires collaboration among the students, who then generate ideas, create rough drafts or prototypes, and examine their creations for flaws and constraints. The instructor is typically a mentor in this type of scenario, with the creative and technical work being left up to the group of students. The teacher gives general guidance but allows peers to review each other’s work and offer feedback on creating better products (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008). (Does this sound familiar? I’m pretty sure it’s what Dr. Cope is doing with this course)

All three of these approaches are meant to increase students’ engagement in the learning process in order for them to construct their own understanding of curricular topics and concepts. The methods for research and inquiry really differ based on the subject area, though. For example, research in a science classroom will involve experimentation of some sort, as well as the creation of physical products. In a social studies classroom, though, students research through primary and secondary sources, and evaluate evidence in the historical context. Teachers may also have to adjust the amount of support of scaffolding they provide based on the individual students in their classroom. Students with underdeveloped skills will require additional help, and might spend more time on lower levels of inquiry before catching up to their classmates who do not need as much practice. This is why assessment is key in these types of activities.

Here's an example of historical artifacts being used in an inquiry-based activity: 

Assessing IBL can be difficult, but is usually based around the application of knowledge in the activities. For example, if a student does not consider multiple sources when gathering evidence for a particular solution to a problem, he or she would not earn as high of a grade because they did not consider all sides of the scenario. Students can also be assessed on their ability to defend their claims with evidence or explain why their conclusions answer the questions framed at the beginning of the assessment. Teachers should not only be assessing final products but also using their time as facilitators to monitor students’ progress in the inquiry process. Frequent check-ins with students allow teachers to see which students are successfully constructing their own knowledge and which students require more scaffolding and direction (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008).

IBL Process

Proponents of IBL argue that traditional learning environments are not preparing students for today’s world. Their main arguments include:

• Memorization of facts for memory storage is not relevant in today’s world, where information is ubiquitous and easily accessible
• Traditional academic approaches do not develop critical thinking skills, nor do they prepare students to write and read effectively
• The nature of work today requires employees to be collaborative problem-solvers, and the traditional approach to classroom education does not produce these types of thinkers
• IBL increases the skills necessary to be successful in today’s world, including the evaluation of evidence, problem-solving, collaboration, critical thinking, and the synthesis of information.

In general, IBL supporters believe that the traditional approach to learning is no longer relevant in today’s world, where obedience and memorization are less important than critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Because of this gap between the demands of today’s workforce and the preparation provided by schools, constructivists believe that inquiry-based learning should play more of a role in the classroom (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008).

The research generally supports the claims of the constructivists that IBL facilitates more meaningful and longer-retained knowledge when compared with traditional instruction. This growing movement is supported with research that indicates that students learn more and perform better on complex tasks if they are engaged in more “authentic learning - projects and activities that require them to employ subject knowledge to solve real-world problems” (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008, p. 3). One study of approximately 2000 students across multiple schools indicated that inquiry-based learning contributed to an increase in achievement on performance tasks, regardless of other factors such as sex, socioeconomic status, or race (Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran, 1995).

Skills Developed by Inquiry

Though inquiry-based learning has been praised for its student-centered approach, there are still many challenges to its implementation, as well as criticisms of its usage in the school environment. The main challenges that face the full and true implementation of open inquiry revolve around the role and training of the teacher, which is also one of the chief criticisms of the process, as well

Like other educational learning theories, it can often be difficult to translate theory into practice, especially in today’s world of high-stakes testing, standards, and requirements. One of the main challenges to fully implementing inquiry-based education is teacher training. Most education programs at universities today are still teaching traditional styles of instruction, which means that the majority of educators are not formally trained in inquiry-based instruction. Though this seems like a minor professional development issue to solve, the fundamental role of the teacher in the inquiry model is vastly different than the years of instruction that teachers have practiced and abided by. This poses a challenge in terms of schools and the prioritization of inquiry-based learning. Not only do schools have to educate their faculty in how to properly implement this practice, they also need to change the mindset of instructors about the roles of teachers and students in the classroom. Universities and colleges also need to evaluate their teaching programs in order to properly balance the instruction of specific curricular content with the best pedagogical practices for students (Abdal-Haqq, 1998).

Another limitation to inquiry-based learning is aligning this type of instruction with the standards, curriculum, and achievement tests that dominate the educational field today. With inquiry-based learning, students may reach very different conclusions based on evidence and evaluation. This can be a challenge for a variety of reasons: their understanding might not reconcile with the standards and objectives for the unit or their understanding might not translate to a standardized test. Teachers and administrators need to work together to create common objectives that focus on skill development rather than content knowledge development, or find a way to balance the two (Abdal-Haqq, 1998).

Motivation is another limiting factor. Inquiry-based instruction works best when students are highly motivated, interested, and curious about a topic or subject. This can be incredibly hard for instructors to achieve in a classroom full of 30 very different individuals. Though students might be able to create their own questions in order to formulate their own understanding, they might not be motivated to learn about a particular topic, or even content area. Though psychologists like Piaget would argue that students should not be forced to learn about something that does not interest them, it is not realistic in today’s world. Students need to be well-versed in many areas, but motivating them to learn in each of these areas in order to create meaningful learning is very difficult. Teachers can plan incredible projects and lessons that are student-centered, but need the cooperation and intrinsic motivation of the students to be utilized in order for true learning to be achieved.

One of the biggest criticisms of inquiry-based learning comes from educational psychologists like Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006), who argue that there is no strong body of evidence that supports the technique of minimal instruction for inquiry based learning. According to these educational psychologists, “not only is unguided instruction normally less effective; there is also evidence that it may have negative results when students acquire misconceptions or incomplete or disorganized knowledge” (p 84). These educational psychologists, and others like them, believe that cognitivists are overemphasizing the practical application and methods of a discipline’s content and under-emphasizing the basic knowledge that accompanies each discipline (2006).

Proponents of IBL have addressed these criticisms and claims, and argue that learning the skills to attain knowledge is still more important than learning the content itself. They maintain that learning skills is more important for the creation of lifelong learners and citizens in a knowledgeable society. These constructivists also argue that the levels of inquiry exist in order to offset the limitations of the approach. If students are reaching conclusions that are based on false evidence, then teachers should be putting more scaffolding in place to aid them in learning to find unbiased and reliable sources or methods. These psychologists argue that the role of the teacher is still vital and is not minimal; instead, it’s simply a different role in the development of skills rather than the owner of knowledge (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007).

Within the ever-evolving field of education, inquiry-based learning seems to be on the rise. It seems to come at the perfect time in terms of technology, due to the ease of which information can be accessed. Teacher are no longer the only beacons of knowledge in the classroom, and schools are rushing to adjust to this new reality. Inquiry-based learning seems to hold many benefits for students. It helps them to construct their own understanding of curriculum and develop skills necessary for success in today’s workforce. Students learn more about their world through this experiential and immersive process, and develop vital skills like collaboration and problem-solving. The limitations to this practice are real and cannot be dismissed, though. This is a really hard practice to implement within the limitations of today’s traditional schools. This practice must be done with purpose, planning, and finesse. It cannot be taken lightly, and the instructor must realize that their changed role is not a diminished role. Inquiry-based learning helps students take control of their knowledge and become critical thinkers and lifelong learners. Though it might be hard to motivate students to develop these skills and practices, it has always been the challenge of the instructor to motivate the unwilling. In this new method of instruction, though, teachers can directly connect the skills being practiced to the real-world applications that will be honed for the future. Inquiry-based learning may not always be the most appropriate tool to use in the classroom for every single lesson, but it is a strong instructional technique and learning theory that informs a lot of instruction today, and will likely continue to do so in the future.

• Expeditionary Learning in Middle School: http://www.edutopia.org/king-middle-school-expeditionary-learning
• Cooperative Learning and Social Emotional Skills: http://www.edutopia.org/anchorage-social-emotional-learning-video
• Social Studies Inquiry Resource Toolkit: https://www.engageny.org/resource/new-york-state-k-12-social-studies-resource-toolki 
• From Teacher-Guided to Student-Driven: 
  Media embedded July 19, 2017

   

Abdan-Haaq, I. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for those who would link practice to theory. Published for ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education: Washington DC.

Banchi, H. & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Published in Science and Children; October 2008: p. 26-29. Accessed from http://static.nsta.org/files/sc0810_26.pdf.

Barron, B. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. John Wiley & Sons Inc: San Francisco, CA.

Brooks, J.G. (2004). Workshop: Constructivism as a paradigm for teaching and learning. Designed for Educational Broadcasting Corporation.

Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Duncan, R.G., & Chinn, C.A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist. Vol 42(2).

Jones, M.G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2001). The impact of constructivism on education: Language, discourse, and meaning. American Communication Journal. Vol.5:3, p.1-10.

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist. Vol. 41(2).

Newmann, F.M., Marks, H.M., & Gamoran, A. (1995). Authentic pedagogy: Standards that boost student performance. Issues in Restructuring Schools. Vol. 8: p. 1-4.

Piaget, J. (1970). Logic and psychology. New York: Basic Books.

Tafoya, E., Sunal, D.W., & Knecht, P. (1980). Assessing inquiry potential: A tool for curriculum decision makers. Published in School Science and Mathematics. Vol. 80(1).

Thomas, J.W. (2000). A review of project-based learning. Prepared for Autodesk Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf