{"id":5568,"date":"2020-03-30T08:00:09","date_gmt":"2020-03-30T13:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/blog\/?p=5568"},"modified":"2020-03-26T13:20:48","modified_gmt":"2020-03-26T18:20:48","slug":"pure-inquiry-guided-inquiry-and-pisa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/pure-inquiry-guided-inquiry-and-pisa\/","title":{"rendered":"Pure Inquiry, Guided Inquiry, and PISA"},"content":{"rendered":"

Because scientists work by\u00a0inquiring<\/em>, it makes rough-n-ready sense that we should teach science\u00a0through the process of inquiry<\/em>. Indeed “inquiry-based learning,” like “problem-based” and “project-based” learning, has emphasized students’ construction of their own understanding.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

According to a well-known definition, this pedagogy focuses on students…<\/p>\n

… asking questions,<\/p>\n

… planning and conducting investigations,<\/p>\n

… using appropriate tools and techniques to gather data,<\/p>\n

… thinking critically and logically about relationships between evidence and explanations,<\/p>\n

… constructing and analyzing alternative explanations,<\/p>\n

And so forth.<\/p>\n

Of course, we should also inquire: does inquiry-based learning in fact help students learn<\/em>? This question leads to lots of controversy…<\/p>\n

Many Methods<\/h2>\n

We can explore that question in several ways.<\/p>\n

We might, for instance, have one group of students learn a topic through inquiry learning, and a control group learn it through direct instruction. When we test them later, we’ll get a good sense of who learned the material better.<\/p>\n

That method — if we do everything right — gives us a clear answer.<\/p>\n

But: it focuses on a small group of people<\/em> learning only one<\/em> thing. Who knows if that clear answer applies in other circumstances?<\/p>\n

Or, we might look at large<\/em> groups of people who studied many<\/em> things. If we can find out what method their teachers used, and measure how well they learned, we’ve got another useful strategy for answering our question.<\/p>\n

Of course, we’ll be less certain about the\u00a0quality<\/em> of the teaching than in the highly-controlled environment. Who knows if the inquiry-based teaching was, in fact, well done?<\/p>\n

Following this second approach, researchers in the UK<\/a> looked at PISA data (PISA = Program for International Student Assessment ), and aligned it with high-stakes testing scores in England: the GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education).<\/p>\n

The PISA data help here because students rank how much time they spent in various inquiry-learning practices<\/em>: “every lesson, most lessons, some lessons, never.” For instance, students rate how often they are “allowed to design their own experiments.”<\/p>\n

So: by linking PISA data about teaching practices with GCSE scores, those researchers can draw some conclusions about the effectiveness of inquiry learning.<\/p>\n

What did they find?<\/p>\n

Negotiating Our Own Biases<\/h2>\n

Before I answer that question, let’s acknowledge a problem.<\/p>\n

Many teachers already have opinions —\u00a0strong opinions<\/strong> — about inquiry learning.<\/p>\n

Those opinions bias our responses to new information.<\/p>\n

If (for example), I don’t<\/strong> think inquiry learning works, and this research shows that it does<\/strong>, I’m inclined to dismiss the study.<\/p>\n

“Well, look at all of these methodological problems!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yet (the contrary example) if I’m an inquiry-learning champion, research showing its effectiveness automatically seems wise and well-designed<\/em>.<\/p>\n

“Gosh: it’s hard to think of a fairer way to answer this question! Now we KNOW it works…”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, here’s my suggestion: decide right now — before you know what the researchers concluded<\/em> — whether or not you’re confident in this study design.<\/p>\n

All study designs have some flaws. This one, for instance, relies on student self report. And, as noted above, it doesn’t have any way to control for the quality<\/em> of inquiry learning practices.<\/p>\n

You might reasonably conclude those flaws are too great. In that case, you don’t get to cite this study\u00a0even if it ends up confirming your beliefs.<\/em><\/p>\n

Or, you might reasonably conclude that — on average — errors in self-report and quality control will balance themselves out; and this research method gives a big-enough data pool to draw meaningful conclusions. In that case, you have to pay attention to the study\u00a0even if it contradicts your beliefs<\/em>.<\/p>\n

So: push yourself to decide now…<\/p>\n

The Envelope Please<\/h2>\n

Now that you’ve decided to give credence to this methodology (or not to do so), here’s what they found.<\/p>\n

“In summary, neither high inquiry<\/strong> with low guidance<\/strong>, nor high guidance<\/strong> with low inquiry<\/strong> are related to improved science attainment.” (emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That is: pure inquiry learning doesn’t result in more learning<\/em> that plain-old explanation. And, (as Professor Christian Bokhove notes) it doesn’t result in less learning<\/em> either.<\/p>\n

But:<\/p>\n

“There is, however, some tentative evidence that moderate levels of inquiry <\/strong>delivered in conjunction with high guidance<\/strong> may have a small positive impact upon science achievement.” (emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That is: lots of<\/em> plain-old guidance PLUS a moderate<\/em> amount of inquiry gives a little boost.<\/p>\n

By the way: what do the researchers count as “guidance”? Here, they’re looking at PISA questions about teachers’ suggestions for improving performance, meeting learning goals, extra help, and so forth.<\/p>\n

Teaching Implications<\/h2>\n

As I noted above, the “direct instruction vs. inquiry” debate generates A LOT of passion.<\/p>\n

I think this study invites us to step back and get some perspective. It seems that — at least in this research paradigm — a healthy dose of teacher explanation and support helps students learn. And, some degree of independent inquiry enhances that result. (“Small positive impact.”)<\/p>\n

But: inquiry learning neither yields a whole new level of scientific understanding, nor prevents students from learning much at all.<\/p>\n

I suspect that, ultimately, we need to ask more granular questions<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Does inquiry give a greater lift in later<\/em> grades than earlier<\/em> ones? Perhaps it helps when scientific findings confirm<\/em> our prior knowledge, but not when then\u00a0contradict <\/em>it? Does the teacher’s experience level<\/em> matter?<\/p>\n

Research into these questions might give us specific and practical classroom guidance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A recent study looking at PISA data gives a fresh perspective on the Inquiry Learning debate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":5577,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[113],"class_list":["post-5568","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lb-blog","tag-constructivism-direct-instruction"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5568","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5568"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5568\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5579,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5568\/revisions\/5579"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5577"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}