Talk:Inquiry-based learning
Standards
Will all contributors please log-in before editing here and sign their contributions with ~~~~. -- RHaworth 06:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think that this is the better name, but the article there is clearly superior.
I disagree! There is a clear distinction between learning a discipline and practicing a discipline.
| “ | Despite this clear distinction between learning a discipline and practicing a discipline,many curriculum developers, educational technologists, and educators seem to confuse the teaching of a discipline as inquiry (i.e., a curricular emphasis on the research processes within a science) with the teaching of the discipline by inquiry (i.e., using the research process of
the discipline as a pedagogy or for learning). (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, 2006, p.78) |
” |
Please see the following journal article for a good discussion of this topic:
- Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and 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. 41 (2): 75–86.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- I fully agree with your point. But mine is that both articles already focus on pedagogy, so they should be merged. --Homunq 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would argue that inquiry-based learning describes a multidisciplinary approach to learning not confined to the sciences. Inquiry-based science is a subset of this approach to learning.
Something tells me the real problem here is that the Inquiry-based science article needs to be rewritten to remove the pedagogy elements to focus on science instead of learning... Guess I should get to it. Please help if you feel you are qualified.