Wikipedia talk:Student assignments

To discuss assignment issues not directly relevant to this information page, please see the education noticeboard.

Advice for students about bad assignments from instructors?

While having infrastructure set up to help instructors use editing Wikipedia for education purposes is great, it's inevitable that some teachers are going to give their students assignments which, likely unknowingly, require their students to break some rule of the site. For example, what if a well-meaning teacher were to ask their students to make a Wikipedia article for themselves, not knowing this violates WP:NOTE and WP:ORIGINAL? It seems wrong to bend the rules and have the site clogged up with junk articles, but it also seems wrong to fail an entire classroom of kids for something out of their control. Is this just an unfortunate circumstance we shouldn't be responsible for, or should we provide some guidance on this page for students in this sort of situation? --Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Via IRC Help I was informed about a student assignment from a political science class: Students were to deliberately inject false information into articles about living politicians and then observe if and how Wikipedia "healed" from this attack.

Of course, this is a terrible way to learn about how our anti-abuse policies work and I think we were able to convince this student to pass on the message to his professor. As far as we know this particular assignment never happened, but I am sure many like it have. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should give advice to students about that here, because it would involve telling them to disobey their instructor's requirements. Instead, the way to handle these situations as soon as they become apparent is to report them at WP:Education noticeboard. In my experience, this typically resolves the problem pretty efficiently. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Guidance for moving drafts into mainspace

The current advice to students says to have your instructor review and approve the text before adding material to existing articles, but it doesn't explicitly say anything about doing so before creating new articles. This seems something of an oversight. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, thanks. I'd be happy to add something, but first, I'd appreciate a few pointers on what to say about New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation in this regard (especially as students typically work on a shorter time scale than our reviewers do). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't actually know much about RPP or AfC; I tend to hang out at AfD (which perhaps speaks to a mean streak in my personality, though I think I'm happiest when we can save a page). It does seem like asking students to wait on a Wikipedia backlog would be rather unfair. XOR'easter (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

That's OK. I want to think about it for a while, and maybe I'll ask at those two projects. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and do this. How does that look? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I like it. Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There have been problems with instructors being in charge of this and there is currently a discussion at ANI about it. We are considering a proposal that the drafts go through the regular AfC process, like all other drafts by new users. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"content that promotes social change"?

A ton of content that is neutrally presented and backed up by RS promotes social change. We don't disallow that. I think Sj's edit makes more sense, being clear that it's not about the nature of the subject but rather the relationship between that content and RS/DUE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Our content describes social change, but we do not allow content whose purpose is to use Wikipedia to advance an agenda. (See the principle adopted by ArbCom here: [1].) An RS can promote social change, and we report that the RS does that, but that is not the same thing as Wikipedia promoting it ourselves. After all, there isn't much difference between using Wikipedia to "right great wrongs" or to use it to "promote" any kind of "change". The wording came about following the discussion here: [2]. A professor had assigned a class to create new pages, many of which got deleted at AfD. The problems with those pages that were identified by AfD editors centered on containing original research that promoted a particular POV. "Righting great wrongs" is well-understood internally here as a Wikipedia term of art, but it is less accessible to the target audience (academics with little WP editing experience) than "promoting social change". Also "righting great wrongs" has the sound of doing something big, whereas an academic who misunderstands how we do things might reasonably think "I'm just trying to get Wikipedia to cover this cutting-edge idea that I've been thinking about" (but that isn't yet published in RS). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Content that describes social change and content that promotes social change are not mutually exclusive. Having a solid article about feminism promotes social change. Increasing access to free knowledge in general promotes social change. The meaning of "promote" as a form of activity on Wikipedia that conflicts with NPOV is itself wikijargon like "righting great wrongs" and ideally we wouldn't assume knowledge of either one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's good to discuss things. ;-) I now understand better the distinction you are making, between content whose purpose for being added to the page is to promote change, and content that, when read, will make readers more aware of and receptive to change. I made this edit: [3]. Does that help? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems awkward to attribute an agenda to the content itself IMO. I'd probably go with something like: "When assigning topics to students, please understand that Wikipedia does not allow content which prioritizes social change over Wikipedia policies like neutral point of view and using reliable sources, even if the course itself is about promoting social change." (The connection between social change/justice and course content is, in my experience, more likely to be relevant than the professor's personal research, which isn't to say it's always the case). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, attributing to the content sounded wrong to me too. I like your points about social change being associated with justice, and about it being better to focus on what the course is about, than on the instructor's research. The other WP policies get a lot of coverage elsewhere on the page, so I wanted to keep that part more succinct. I did this: [4], and I think this discussion has improved the page a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It's better, but I feel like the contrast with policies is needed to avoid confusing jargon with off-wiki terms. I'll leave it at that and let others opine, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and made another change, making it explicit that this comes from policies: [5]. The sentence immediately before this one refers to all those policies, so I don't see a need to repeat them again. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It might also be useful to add an explanation that a Wikipedia article never expresses an opinion. It reports, with attribution, the existence of opinions, but neither supports or disapproves of any such opinions. (Avoid unsourced/unattributed adjectives!) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It does discuss NOR and NPOV – a lot. Can you suggest a place where an addition would be useful? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tryptofish Actually a careful reading of the entire page will find NPOV mentioned once in the lead and a single brief sentence about it in the "Advice for students" section.

I find that student contributions quite frequently contain "<this> is important" or "note that" language, probably mimicking the way lectures and textbooks might emphasize the salient points of a topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. I did this: [6], which I hope addresses that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Now the sentence simply seems inaccurate :) What WP policy forbids [well-sourced, neutrally worded, proportionate] editing, based on the agenda or intent behind it? There is nothing special about being motivated by 'promoting social change or justice' vs being motivated by 'promoting knowledge' or 'promoting numeracy' that makes an edit taboo. Depending on your point of view, we may even allow editing whose agenda is 'to promote the pure goodness that permeates every action of my favorite corporation'. So calling out 'justice' in this way seems perverse. So far we've had more classes focused on social change than those at Megatrend University spot-shining a brand, but that's no reason to mislead readers of this page. – SJ + 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, this gets difficult (we need to say more about policies; this isn't about polices). I did this: [7]. I took RGW out of it entirely, and instead used WP:NOT and WP:Notability, and tried as best I could to make the language match with what those pages say, and I tried to avoid picking on "justice" while still addressing the problems that precipitated these revisions. If editors still don't like it, please suggest actual revisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Tagging and extension of academic student drafts

(Any final policy discussion will take place only on related policy talk page This is just preliminary inputs round.)

Proposal  : Student's academic drafts be tagged as 'Academic Student's draft' in draft namespace and extend draft life for academic student drafts up to four years from present six months.

Reasoning:

Positive part is academic books are available with students and they can work on assigned topics to fill information and knowledge gaps not touched by non-academic Wikipedians compared to usual focus of popular topics by non-academic Wikipedians.

To my understanding academic assignments by students are supposed to be peer reviewed by other students and then approved by their professor before being posted on Wikipedia. My observation is peer review by other students and final review and corrections by professors are usually missed.

Same time various batches of student seem to be working on the same topic year after year. What I propose here is student's academic student draft be tagged as 'Academic draft' in draft namespace and extend draft life for academic student draft up to four years from present six months. So next batch students can peer review content of previous batches and improve. Four year term will give enough time to professors also for evaluation of the content being posted by their students and get necessary course correction. -- Bookku (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging @Boud, Ahunt, and BilCat: Since I read their certain concerns at Draft talk:Women's Participation in Peacekeeping and User talk:Ahunt. Bookku (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with the concept of tagging these articles as "academic drafts", but don't see the point of a longer deletion cycle. In my experience these drafts normally get abandoned at the end of the semester (three months max) and so the normal six month cycle seems to be a good idea. I think a longer draft period will just increase the number of abandoned drafts. - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I think six months would work just fine for now. If each successive class begins within 6 months of the previous one ending, the draft will still be there. If some classes are only once a year, and it becomes a problem with them being deleted, then we can revisit this. For now, having a professor request an undelete should suffice.

Another suggestion is that academic drafts could be copies of mainspace articles that students could work on without fear of their edits being reverted as being "unencyclopedic". Certain issues, such as BLP and copyvios, would of course still need to be enforced. At the end of the semester/term, a professor could post a request on the main article page for editors to review the drafts, and incorporate any good material into the main article. (Such editors would probably need access to the academic sources used to verify that the content is actually supported by the sources. BilCat (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

.. If some classes are only once a year, and it becomes a problem with them being deleted, then we can revisit this. ..

My impression is in most cases new batch of students join annually.

.. If some classes are only once a year, and it becomes a problem with them being deleted, then we can revisit this. For now, having a professor request an undelete should suffice. ..

WP:NOTBURO ?

Bookku (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I really don't see any reason to treat student drafts differently than any other drafts. Part of what should be the learning process in a class project is for the students to experience Wikipedia editing the same as anyone else does, so carving out any kind of special dispensation gets in the way of that. We already deal with large backlogs of drafts, so I'd rather not add further complexity to the process. If an instructor wants to keep material from one semester to another, the instructor can simply move the content into userspace. I also would object to using the word "academic" for "academic drafts", because this is not scholarly work in the sense of what faculty and other academic scholars publish. Rather, if we were to call them anything, it should be "student drafts". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I do endorse what User:Tryptofish has written here. - Ahunt (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

.. a class project is for the students to experience Wikipedia editing the same as anyone else does ..

The way topics are assigned IMO it's generally part of student studies plus faculty's interest in addressing information and knowledge gaps in Wikipedia and not just experiencing Wikipedia. How much individual student succeeds in given assignment is different aspect- that's becoming our concern.

..In my experience these drafts normally get abandoned at the end of the semester ..

My point is particular student is abandoning the draft, faculty is not abandoning the topic.

If drafts are topic wise, Continuation of draft for longer period does not increase number of drafts rather would reduce number of abandoned drafts.

From Wikipedia ambassador once they know unless draft - if any topic is not worked by four students from four batches and they clearly improving it things are not going to progress I suppose co-operation and monitoring level and quality may improve.

Bookku (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You quoted me about the purpose of a class project being for students to experience Wikipedia editing the same as anyone else, and I stand by that. When the instructor makes a decision to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool, they are doing so in such a way that they are using Wikipedia as it actually exists. If they think that they can expect Wikipedia to change the way we do business simply as a courtesy to the instructor, they are grievously mistaken, to the point of being WP:NOTHERE. They have lots of alternatives when designing a class. They can have students look at Wikipedia articles and create new material that is submitted in class, but not posted on Wikipedia servers. So they do not have to design the class in a manner that includes hitting the "publish" button. Rather, that's an educational choice. By the way, I'm the primary author of this information page, and I wrote that editors are not unpaid teaching assistants for a reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Opposed to the proposal, as there's no good reason for it. And if it passes, somehow, then I'm opposed to the name, which is essentially WP:PUFFERY. There's no reason to puff up the submission of one brand new editor over any other, by labeling their contributions in a certain way, just because they happen to be enrolled in a Wikipedia education-monitored class. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is just one of the idea suggested, in an effort to find solution to our common concerns. A very basic level discussion to seek inputs, we are not expecting votes, we can not finalize policies here that what is clearly mentioned in this talk page instructions.

  Name means 'academic drafts'? , the point is taken I would be okay with wording 'student draft' too. As such original suggestion about tagging 'student draft' is not mine. I just took initiative to facilitate discussion to find solutions for concerns being discussed. Bookku (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Opposed – my experience is that one day after their course ends, a student editor is gone, and will no longer respond to comments or questions on their Talk page, user sandbox, or anywhere else. Four years won't make any difference; at that point, they are probably trying to get into grad school or are already there, and are even busier than before, or they are otherwise busy finding their footing in adult life. Keeping it open for four years won't do much. Just my two cents, but I've watched a lot of student editing, and exceptions to that pattern are rare. I'll bet my paycheck that shortening the life of student draft from six months to six days after the class end date (or six hours) will likely generate zero requests for WP:REFUND. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  The disappearance of student editors immediately after the course is done, never to return, has been my experience, as well. Most of the instructors also follow this pattern. Until, lo and behold, several months or a year later when they're back with a new crop to start the same pattern. With only one exception, their contribs and interactions have been frustrating and a waste of time. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

I appreciate the large amount of effort jc37 put into revising the page over the past day. However, I dislike the overly brief and bland lead section, and would like to take it back to something more like what it was before. I won't be hasty about it, and would like to take a little time to think it over, so I thought I'd post this here and invite comments from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There was a gaggle of various things there, which I tried to merge to some sensibility. I won't say I was wholly successful lol. The page really could use work on clarity.

All that said, as I mentioned inn the edit summary when I wrote the current sentence in the lead - it really needs work. And really was just a place holder. So if you've got better ideas, great : )

But I think we should avoid the lead being quite as negative as the stuff I merged from the lead and the overview section into "challenges". It probably should be something more neutral and explanatory. What do you think? - jc37 20:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually think a certain amount of negativity is a feature, rather than a bug. Not that I want to scare anyone off, but the original impetus for creating this page was that there are problems, and that remains as true now as it was then. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think they should go away, but the title of the page is "student assignments". We should be providing tools for usage right at the start. I particularly was uncomfortable how far down, deeply buried in walls of text, the caution about student usernames and privacy was.

It's like this page has been morphed to serve two main duties. A guide for starting and running an ed course, and also how to interact with that pesky community : )

I think the page needs to draw a clearer line between those two goals, for clarity, understandability, and really just so someone who needs info can get to it quickly and not have to skim through walls-of-text. - jc37 21:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

John Dewey and his contribution to Inquiry-Based Learning as an Instructional Design Approach

“Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself” John Dewey. On October 20, 1859, John Dewey was born to Archibald Dewey, a merchant, and Lucina Rich Dewey in Burlington, Vermont, and was the third of four sons. Dewey grew up in Burlington and was raised in the Congregationalist Church. He attended public schools where he studied Latin and Greek in high school and entered the University of Vermont at age 15 under the tutelage of H. Torrey in 1879. He earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Vermont and a doctorate in philosophy from Johns Hopkins University in 1884.

Dewey began teaching at a seminary in Oil City, Pennsylvania, where he worked for two (2) years. After this, he returned to Vermont, where he taught in private schools and read philosophical books recreationally. After receiving his doctorate, he began teaching philosophy and psychology at the University of Michigan. While in Michigan, he met Harriet Chipman, and they got married in 1886. Their union produced six (6) children, and they adopted one (1) child. His wife passed in 1927, and he remarried at age eighty (80) to Roberta Grant. Dewey later died of pneumonia in New York City on June 1, 1952. He spent his lifetime working as an American Philosopher and Educator. While reading philosophy books, he became interested in experimental psychology emerging in the US. Additional study of child psychology prompted him to develop a philosophy of education that met the needs of the then-changing. Society. Dewey joined the philosophy faculty at the University of Chicago in 1894, where he further developed his progressive pedagogy. He was instrumental in founding the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where he put his educational theories into practice, influencing students' learning. A few years later, he left Chicago for Columbia University, where he became a professor and spent most of his career. While there, he wrote his famous philosophical work Experience and Nature (1925). John Dewey was a prolific writer, having published more than a thousand (1000) essays, articles, and books in his 65-year career. He wrote on various subjects such as democracy, religion, art, culture, nature, philosophy, and ethics. However, his most significant achievement was transforming schools by connecting students to real-life situations and fostering critical thinking and idealism. Today, there are many John Dewey quotes that are used in education globally.

Dewey's writings shared the common belief that a democratic society comprised of informed and engaged individuals was the best way to promote human interests. He worked at Columbia University from 1904 to 1930, after which he retired. It is worth noting that Dewey served as the president of the American Psychological Association in 1899 for one year and the American Philosophical Association in 1905. To develop and materialize his philosophical systems, he first exposed what he perceived as flaws or shortcomings in the current system. According to Dewey, the hallmark of contemporary philosophy is its claim to truth. Rather than existing as an unchanging, perfect, and eternal source of reality, this philosophy recognizes that all things are subject to change and impermanence. Dewey firmly rejected any notion of a duality between being and experience, instead arguing that the two are inextricably linked. He believed that a philosophy of nature that fails to embrace this dynamic nature needs to be revised and improved. Furthermore, he thought that experience is entirely subjective because the human mind is one with nature. Dewey advocated that human experiences are the outcomes of various interacting processes and worldly events. Therefore, he underscored that the challenges of human life are how to live with these changes and not transcend them.

As a result, he developed a metaphysics approach that examined characteristics of nature that consist of human experiences. Traditional philosophers have either ignored or misrepresented this idea. The factors discussed were precarious, histories, and ends, essentially the focus of his philosophical project. Precarious essentially focused on how an ongoing experience can become problematic. Therefore, disruptions, dangers, obstacles, or surprises were considered precarious. However, he purported that human knowledge is interconnected with precariousness, which constantly changes with nature. Histories, however, he argued that it changes and does not denote a lack of continuity. Dewey firmly believed that history is a constantly changing process with a clear outcome. As such, it is necessary to identify the constituent processes of history, modify them as required, and secure the resulting work. In his proposal, he argued that fate is not solely determined by human nature, temperament, character, talent, or social role. He suggested that various factors, including personal choices, opportunities, environment, and chance occurrences, determine an individual's fate. His perspective challenges the deterministic view that one's life path is predetermined and emphasizes the agency and potential for self-determination. Therefore, he was deeply concerned with developing a philosophy of education that would help individuals shape their lives. Dewey's focus was on intentionally constructing an outcome for history. From the mid-19th century to the early 20th century, John Dewey joined and guided American pragmatism. Dewey was a crucial figure in the development of the school of pragmatism. Dewey was deeply fascinated by the rapid advancements in science and technology during his lifetime, which significantly impacted his philosophical views. His principles were deeply rooted in the scientific method, and he believed that acquiring knowledge is only possible through rigorous experimentation and keen observation. Dewey's work continues to be widely studied and applied in education, psychology, and philosophy. He, along with other pragmatists, recognized the significance of empirical research and experimentation in understanding the world around us. This early emphasis on experimental inquiry became a central theme in the pragmatist movement. It aimed to narrow the divide between theoretical knowledge and practical application and to promote practical problem-solving as a means of improving society. Dewey's ideas on experiential learning and his belief in the importance of education as a tool for social change continue to influence modern education and philosophy. Instrumentalism was Dewey’s specific view of pragmatism, and it focused on knowledge outcomes that are discerned from connections between events and processes of change. Active participation is required for inquiry processes.

Inquiry-based learning is cemented in Dewey’s philosophy, which emphasizes that education begins with the inquisitiveness of the learner and that learning and researching are correlated activities. Essentially, it focuses on the cognitive processes. This learning approach is defined as a student-centered active learning approach that requires students to participate in the whole research process. This process starts with presenting a question, problem, or situation that differs from the traditional educational system, which is generally teacher-centered. Dewey believed that questioners should identify and investigate issues and gain additional knowledge and insight by asking questions and developing possible and plausible solutions. This learning approach involves problem-based learning and is used as an instructional tool for research, investigative reports, and projects.

This teaching approach became prominent in the 1960s as a response to traditional instructional forms that encouraged memorization and rote learning and occurred during the discovery learning advancement. The foundation of this theory is grounded in constructivism, where the work of Dewey, Vygotsky, Piaget, Freire, and others was highlighted and is considered a constructivist philosophy. Constructivism argues that creating information and getting meaning based on personal or societal experiences. The experiential learning pedagogy comprises the learner’s participation within personal and real-life contextual environments that allow the learner to make meaning from it. There is a strong correlation between inquiry and experiential learning, as both utilize questioning to investigate content and collaborate in constructing meaning. As such, inquiry can be conducted through experiential learning. These meanings are usually derived from the experience and can be concluded individually or within a group. A facilitator and not a teacher usually hosts these instructional classes. Inquiry was divided into four (4) different levels in the 1960s, with Joseph Schwab as the key individual of this, and was subsequently formalized by Marshall Herron in 1971. Since then, inquiry-based learning has evolved in many ways and has taken on various forms.

The characteristics of inquiry-based learning are specific, and the processes facilitate the learner creating their questions, finding supporting evidence in response to those questions, describing said evidence and connecting it to the findings, and an explanation from the research process mounting arguments and justifying them. Inquiry-based learning involves developing questions, noting observations, conducting research, developing experimental methods, and constructing equipment for data collection. Additionally, a detailed outline of possible explanations and future predictions for research should also be made. The four (4) levels of inquiry-based learning are confirmation, structured, guided, and open/true inquiry. Several science instructors, including John Dewey, developed open learning.

Researchers over the years have had a lot to say about the work of John Dewey’s inquiry-based learning. In educational research, inquiry-based learning is considered the cornerstone of progressive education and has gained significant attention. This approach emphasizes active student engagement in the learning process through questioning, investigation, and problem-solving. Research indicates that Dewey's approach effectively promotes critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and student motivation. Consistently, the benefits of inquiry-based learning have demonstrated its efficacy in improving student outcomes. Research conducted by Hattie in 2009 revealed that inquiry-based teaching methods have been found to have a significant positive impact on student achievement. This approach to learning motivates students to ask questions, explore topics, and construct their understanding, which fosters more profound learning and retention (Banchi & Bell, 2008). Inquiry-based projects not only facilitate learning but also promote communication and collaboration skills among students. Blumenfeld and his colleagues conducted a study in 1991 to examine the impact of inquiry-based projects on students' communication and teamwork skills. The education department has reported that the study revealed a significant improvement in these skills among students who participated in such projects. This highlights the potential of inquiry-based learning as a practical approach to fostering essential skills in students beyond traditional classroom instruction. This was evident in their ability to engage in constructive discussions, effectively convey their ideas and opinions, and work collaboratively with their peers toward achieving their common goals. The study further suggests that inquiry-based learning can be a practical approach to developing these essential skills in students, which can be beneficial for their academic and professional growth in the long run. According to Windschitl and Andre's study in 1998, inquiry-based methods have been proven to enhance students' problem-solving abilities.

Dewey's emphasis on practical applications is closely linked with research on contextual and authentic learning. Bransford et al. (1999) have suggested that contextual learning, which forms the foundation of Dewey's philosophy, can help students transfer their knowledge to new situations more effectively. Nevertheless, the successful implementation of inquiry-based learning often hinges on the expertise and resources of teachers (NRC, 2000). Therefore, mastering the intricacies of this approach is crucial for educators, and effective professional development plays a vital role in achieving this goal. (Fishman et al., 2003). Research shows that inquiry-based learning requires scaffolding and guidance to support student's cognitive demands. (Van Meter et al., 2014). In conclusion, the research shows that John Dewey's inquiry-based learning approach offers significant benefits to students, including improved learning outcomes, critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and motivation. However, effectively implementing this approach requires proper teacher training and support. Dewey's ideas remain relevant in modern education as they align with the contemporary demand for more student-centered and authentic learning experiences. His contributions have left an enduring educational legacy, inspiring generations of educators to prioritize active student engagement, critical thinking, and real-life relevance in their teaching practices. His philosophy has transformed how we approach teaching and learning, with research indicating that Dewey's approach leads to improved student outcomes. The impact of Dewey's ideas highlights the importance of fostering inquisitiveness, problem-solving skills, and independent thinking in education, creating a lasting influence on educational practices worldwide.

References

Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46 (2), 26-29.

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, et al. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3-4), 369-398.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., et al. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.

Cherry, K. (2023, July 25). Biography of John Dewey: Philosopher and Educator. Dotdash Meredith Publishing Family.

Cross Teaching. (n.d.). Inquiry-based learning. https://crossteaching.org/research/research-inquiry-based-learning/#:~:text=Inquiry%2Dbased%20learning%20is%20grounded,are%20focused%20on%20cognitive%20processes.

Fishman, B., Penuel, W., et al. (2003). Design and Implementation of an Online Professional Development Environment for Inquiry-Based Science. Educational Research and Development, 51 (3), 51–73.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. National Academies Press.

Thayer, H. (n.d.). Pragmatism philosophy. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/pragmatism-philosophy

Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., (2014). College-educated adults’ self-regulated learning: An aptitude-by-treatment interaction experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 (2), 581-599.

Windschitl, M., & Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: The roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Journal Research in Science Teaching, 35 (2), 145-160. Lammoy (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)