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.

--Dlewis3 15:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Debate section

I removed the following text from the debate section because it misrepresents the source cited:

More recently researchers have begun to question this form of instruction. Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) suggest that although learners in the adavnced stages of learning can and should learn on their own via inquiry methods, that novices need to be eased into science-based instruction and describe inquiry-based methods of instruction is "unguided instruction." They suggest learners need some initial guidance and once developed an underlying schema, then they will be prepared to apply what they have learned in practice-based activities.

The problem here is that Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark make no such argument that any learners should use inquiry methods, regardless of their level of expertise. In fact, they argue against any constructivist learning even for medical residents; these are hardly novice learners. This is original research, simply attributed to another source. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

-- DONT MERGE I feel that the two articles are different in what they are actually talking about but the language is similar and they are linked. This article Inquiry-based learning is essentially (at the moment) focussed on Science Learning whreas the Inquiry Education article is looking at the philosophical questions posed by Postman and Weingartner around a curriculum of questions where the learner is encouraged to come up with questions that form the basis of the curriculum and to not just accept a societal view of what ought to or should be learnt. So the word inquiry is common to both and the articles might be cross referenced but they are not the same. BruceR1 (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)