Is Inquiry Based Learning the Panacea for our Education System?

A recent article has highlighted the concern some parents have about the inquiry teaching model implemented by Hobsonville Point Secondary School. Rangitoto College principal David Hodge said he received applications from parents who wanted their children moved from Hobsonville Point School. Parents "believed that the style of education that the child was receiving at their current school completely disadvantaged their child in terms of academic progress" 

So are newer teaching methods like the inquiry based model implemented at HPSS inferior to the older teaching methods they are replacing? William Reville has highlighted a 30% difference between summative assessment examination scores in China, where whole-class teaching is employed, and those where student-centered methods are used. 

His article referred to a 2006 article which critiqued the effectiveness of the constructivist, discovery based inquiry teaching method. The authors characterize inquiry-based learning with two key assumptions:

1. That students constructing solutions to authentic problems in information-rich settings results in an effective learning experience.
2. That knowledge is best acquired in adopting the methods employed by that subject. For example, in science, this would mean that scientists experiment to approach and solve problems, therefore the process of learning science should adopt that approach. 

These assumptions are based in the theory of constructivism, in which learning occurs by incorporating students experiences into current knowledge, and in the process of incorporation, new knowledge and understanding develops. 

This is appealing to teachers as it creates active and engaged students. Crippen and Brooks summarised this as:

‘People often become fully engaged in a task or activity. That is, people often work under conditions where all available working memory energy is applied to the task at hand. This condition has been studied and is called flow ... Athletes refer to this as being ‘in the zone’ … People report flow as a very positive experience; put simply, flow feels good.’

This contrasts with what is known from research on human cognition. We now know that prior knowledge is critical in how we learn and use new information. Without prior knowledge, learners are overwhelmed with new information. It is impossible and unfair to ask learners both to process new information and simultaneously apply it to a particular problem. Learning as characterized by the two assumptions stated cannot occur. Crippen and Brooks state:

‘Well-designed, open-ended projects bring about flow and flow feels good. Experiencing flow, however, may not be the best way to learn. In fact, without working memory energy set aside for self-regulation and input from a teacher, learning is not likely to occur.’

‘The major fallacy of [the inquiry-based] rationale is that it makes no distinction between the behaviors and methods of a researcher who is an expert practicing a profession and those students who are new to the discipline and who are, thus, essentially novices.’

Consideration of short and long-term memory shows that student-centered minimum-guidance-during-instruction teaching methods cannot lead to effective learning. Problem-solving skills draw on the extensive experience stored in long-term memory. The aim of all instruction is to add to long-term memory, and, if nothing is added, nothing is learned.

Working memory can only process a small number of ideas, and almost all information stored there and not rehearsed is quickly lost. Minimal guidance methods proceed as though working memory has no relevant limitations when dealing with new information. On the other hand, whole-class teaching aims to give specific guidance on how to cognitively manipulate information and store the results in long-term memory.

A review of more than 200 research studies to identify teaching strategies with the strongest evidence of improving achievement was published by the UK’s Sutton Trust. It identified common practices that have no grounding in research but can be harmful, including using praise lavishly, allowing learners to discover key ideas by themselves, grouping students by ability and presenting information to students based on their preferred learning style.

This raises the question, why do we continue to experiment with these approaches if there is a substantial body of evidence backing teacher-centered direct instruction?

Research indicates that students have substantial problems with the processes of inquiry. The most effective learning results are found by structuring the learning process, providing students with predefined hypotheses and background information which helped students plan (e.g., by providing a sequence of assignments), or give hints for efficient experimentation. For example, students offered simulations and assignments performed better in tests of the knowledge of the physics of oscillation.

Unguided inquiry is generally found to be an ineffective way of learning. Mayer has concluded that guided discovery learning is effective. These guided inquiry environments are starting to enter educational practice, especially in secondary education, and large-scale evaluations are promising. 

Sound curricula should combine different forms of teaching, both inquiry learning and direct instruction. Inquiry learning may be more effective in acquiring intuitive, deep, conceptual knowledge once direct instruction and practice has given a factual and procedural knowledge framework to allow deeper inquiry. Ultimately, we want students to gain a well-organized base to their knowledge that allows them to reason and solve problems. Finding the right balance between inquiry learning and direct instruction, therefore, is a major challenge for our education system.