I just wanted to thank Walt and Lanny (see Comments at the end of my Post)for the well written and very thoughtful responses to my post. Walt and Lanny both raise very valid and important points about my comments; and more importantly they raise important points about the Inquiry Process.
Perhaps I am naive because I expected to increase my knowledge about inquiry as I surveyed the available research, but all I earned for the effort was more questions.
These two (Lanny and Walt as well as others in UEI) constantly push me to reflect more deeply and think on new levels about teaching and learning. It is exactly this kind of meaningful dialogue that keeps all of us coming back to the Faculty Learning Community: Undergraduates Engaging in Inquiry.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The scoop on Inquiry Learning - Thanks, Judy
I have had several people ask me over the past few months about the research data that demonstrates that inquiry-based learning is in fact effective. On a personal level this seems a ridiculous question. Much of anything that we learn, either individually or collaboratively, occurs because we are employing an inquiry process, although this often may be occurring automatically. That is my way of viewing inquiry. So the prospect that inquiry-based learning could be anything but effective does not enter into my thinking at all.
Nevertheless, it is appropriate to see where we are in terms of "sound data" supporting the value of inquiry learning. After hearing Peter Doolittle test the bogus-icity of several commonly held pedagogical principles, I challenged Judy with the task of seeing what research was available. I want to thank her for an excellent overview in the previous blog entry and in last week’s discussion of the inquiry learning community. Here are a few of my thoughts relative to her observations.
First, the point is made about developing an accepted definition of inquiry on campus. A precise definition of inquiry would lead to exclusivity, rigidity, and narrowness of how we think about inquiry, not to mention discussions of semantics. I am less concerned that we define inquiry than that we lend ourselves readily to engaging in the process and encourage our students to routinely engage.
Second, Judy makes an excellent point about gauging effectiveness of employing the inquiry process based on typical learning endpoints such as content mastery, or even longer-range impacts such as critical thinking abilities, etc. My approach at the moment is based on the notion that engaging my students in the inquiry process with respect to course content results in their personalizing their learning about content and models the process for them to address challenges to their future thinking. I have come to think about the desired outcome of learning by my students not in the context of how much they remember, or even how many bits of information they may “know,” but rather can they engage in an intelligent and insightful conversation with someone who is an expert in the field. Can the student, even in the position of being a novice in a field (which most still are when they graduate), challenge an expert to reexamine the expert's own knowledge or reconsider their own perspectives of their expertise? That is a very different relationship than the typical authoritarian one between teacher and student. It is the difference between "I am teacher, therefore I know more than you the student," vs "Let's share our knowledge, understanding, and perspectives, as well as our ignorance, and all learn from that collaboration."
A third point that Judy makes is relative to the research that has been done on inquiry learning, specifically that “… a good deal of the research on Inquiry Learning is qualitative. In many cases those studies raise more questions than they provide answers.” Hmmm, that sounds familiar. It sounds exactly like the outcome of engaging in the cyclic nature of the inquiry process. The question is, why don’t we have better answers to those second and third generation questions?
Finally, Judy observes that “Successful use of the Inquiry Learning Process requires the instructor to use judgment, be reflective and responsive, balance classroom components effectively, and many other things that constitute being a good teacher. Oddly enough it seems to require the same things of students.” From my perspective, it is the very responses of my students to the challenges of engaging in the inquiry process, both the successes and failures, which have enhanced my own reflection about teaching and learning and affected everything that I try to do in any interaction with students. Again, I get back to the notion that my active role in engaging my students in inquiry results in me being a part of their inquiry process, and therefore collectively, collaboratively, we are all enjoying the fruits of learning through inquiry, even if we are learning different things.
Again, thanks to Judy for summarizing some of the literature in this area.
Nevertheless, it is appropriate to see where we are in terms of "sound data" supporting the value of inquiry learning. After hearing Peter Doolittle test the bogus-icity of several commonly held pedagogical principles, I challenged Judy with the task of seeing what research was available. I want to thank her for an excellent overview in the previous blog entry and in last week’s discussion of the inquiry learning community. Here are a few of my thoughts relative to her observations.
First, the point is made about developing an accepted definition of inquiry on campus. A precise definition of inquiry would lead to exclusivity, rigidity, and narrowness of how we think about inquiry, not to mention discussions of semantics. I am less concerned that we define inquiry than that we lend ourselves readily to engaging in the process and encourage our students to routinely engage.
Second, Judy makes an excellent point about gauging effectiveness of employing the inquiry process based on typical learning endpoints such as content mastery, or even longer-range impacts such as critical thinking abilities, etc. My approach at the moment is based on the notion that engaging my students in the inquiry process with respect to course content results in their personalizing their learning about content and models the process for them to address challenges to their future thinking. I have come to think about the desired outcome of learning by my students not in the context of how much they remember, or even how many bits of information they may “know,” but rather can they engage in an intelligent and insightful conversation with someone who is an expert in the field. Can the student, even in the position of being a novice in a field (which most still are when they graduate), challenge an expert to reexamine the expert's own knowledge or reconsider their own perspectives of their expertise? That is a very different relationship than the typical authoritarian one between teacher and student. It is the difference between "I am teacher, therefore I know more than you the student," vs "Let's share our knowledge, understanding, and perspectives, as well as our ignorance, and all learn from that collaboration."
A third point that Judy makes is relative to the research that has been done on inquiry learning, specifically that “… a good deal of the research on Inquiry Learning is qualitative. In many cases those studies raise more questions than they provide answers.” Hmmm, that sounds familiar. It sounds exactly like the outcome of engaging in the cyclic nature of the inquiry process. The question is, why don’t we have better answers to those second and third generation questions?
Finally, Judy observes that “Successful use of the Inquiry Learning Process requires the instructor to use judgment, be reflective and responsive, balance classroom components effectively, and many other things that constitute being a good teacher. Oddly enough it seems to require the same things of students.” From my perspective, it is the very responses of my students to the challenges of engaging in the inquiry process, both the successes and failures, which have enhanced my own reflection about teaching and learning and affected everything that I try to do in any interaction with students. Again, I get back to the notion that my active role in engaging my students in inquiry results in me being a part of their inquiry process, and therefore collectively, collaboratively, we are all enjoying the fruits of learning through inquiry, even if we are learning different things.
Again, thanks to Judy for summarizing some of the literature in this area.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Is inquiry learning a trendy apparition or the real thing?
There are many reasons to believe that Inquiry Learning is a useful and beneficial tool that positively impacts student learning. Much anecdotal information supports that premise. Reputable and widely accepted theories of student development form its foundation. Positive short-term effects are observable in the classroom. Intuitively, the Inquiry Process just makes sense.
Nevertheless, it seems reasonable--even wise-- to take a critical look at learning through inquiry. Has the impact of the Inquiry Process on student learning been documented or is it just an urban myth? In search of an answer, I turned to the available research. Fortunately, there are a number of studies that look at various effects, which should make finding an answer relatively simple. But, it turns out that documenting the effectiveness of Inquiry Learning is anything but simple.
Searching through the literature, the first thing I noticed was that people call the process by different names. Sometimes it is difficult to tell if a study is really about inquiry learning (as I understand it) or about something else. Determining whether the Inquiry Process positively impacts student learning, first depends upon our definition of it. Virginia Lee (2004) notes in her book that institutions would be wise to generate a definition of inquiry learning that is widely understood and accepted across campus. According to Lee a good working definition of inquiry learning creates a language that fosters productive discussions among disciplines.
The second thing I noticed was that no matter how you define or what you call the process, it is difficult to gage effectiveness. Are we looking for outcomes? Inquiry learning is a continuous unending process. Are we looking for content mastery? Then we better all agree on proficiency standards. Are we looking for real long-term understanding, sensitivity to the complexity of life, the ability to think critically, and so on? We can all meet again in 25 years to test that issue.
Thirdly, I noticed that a good deal of the research on Inquiry Learning is qualitative. In many cases those studies raise more questions than they provide answers. Are the findings generalizable or unique? It seems that to some degree using and evaluating Inquiry Learning is a value laden activity. Successful use of the Inquiry Learning Process requires the instructor to use judgment, be reflective and responsive, balance classroom components effectively, and many other things that constitute being a good teacher. Oddly enough it seems to require the same things of students.
All that said here is a quick and simplified survey of research findings:
· Problem-based or inquiry-based learning was developed as a tool to teach medical students (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). Two meta-evaluations (Albanses & Mitchell, 1993; Vernon & Blake, 1993) investigated the effectiveness of this learning technique in the medical school environment. Findings indicated that students showed better clinical problem-solving skills and were motivated by the process.
· College students believed that they developed better problem solving skills; were more active and interested (Lieux, 1996).
· Students had more positive perceptions of the learning environment, more confidence problem-solving, and were more positive about life-long learning (Woods, 1996).
· Students reported frustration, uncertainty, and discomfort with the ambiguous and open ended nature of the process (Edens, 2000).
· The inclusive character of inquiry learning benefited students at both ends of the spectrum: learning disabled (Ferretti, Macarthur, & Ojolo, 2001) and talented (Naisbett, 1997).
· One of the first tangible changes in teaching practice was in the way the instructor asked questions in the classroom (Baumfield, 2006). Instructors reported having a better understanding of students’ thinking. Better feedback on teaching. Both student and teacher self-esteem were promoted (Wilks & Emery, 1997; Zohar, 1999).
· Instructors reported a better sense of professional autonomy and stronger motivation to teach (Baumfield, Higgins, & Lin, 2002).
· Positive effects on students when learning was carefully guided (Chall, 2000; Singley & Anderson, 1989).
· Better outcomes were noted when the instructor used guidance combined with some direct instruction (Klahr and Nigam (2004).
Nevertheless, it seems reasonable--even wise-- to take a critical look at learning through inquiry. Has the impact of the Inquiry Process on student learning been documented or is it just an urban myth? In search of an answer, I turned to the available research. Fortunately, there are a number of studies that look at various effects, which should make finding an answer relatively simple. But, it turns out that documenting the effectiveness of Inquiry Learning is anything but simple.
Searching through the literature, the first thing I noticed was that people call the process by different names. Sometimes it is difficult to tell if a study is really about inquiry learning (as I understand it) or about something else. Determining whether the Inquiry Process positively impacts student learning, first depends upon our definition of it. Virginia Lee (2004) notes in her book that institutions would be wise to generate a definition of inquiry learning that is widely understood and accepted across campus. According to Lee a good working definition of inquiry learning creates a language that fosters productive discussions among disciplines.
The second thing I noticed was that no matter how you define or what you call the process, it is difficult to gage effectiveness. Are we looking for outcomes? Inquiry learning is a continuous unending process. Are we looking for content mastery? Then we better all agree on proficiency standards. Are we looking for real long-term understanding, sensitivity to the complexity of life, the ability to think critically, and so on? We can all meet again in 25 years to test that issue.
Thirdly, I noticed that a good deal of the research on Inquiry Learning is qualitative. In many cases those studies raise more questions than they provide answers. Are the findings generalizable or unique? It seems that to some degree using and evaluating Inquiry Learning is a value laden activity. Successful use of the Inquiry Learning Process requires the instructor to use judgment, be reflective and responsive, balance classroom components effectively, and many other things that constitute being a good teacher. Oddly enough it seems to require the same things of students.
All that said here is a quick and simplified survey of research findings:
· Problem-based or inquiry-based learning was developed as a tool to teach medical students (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). Two meta-evaluations (Albanses & Mitchell, 1993; Vernon & Blake, 1993) investigated the effectiveness of this learning technique in the medical school environment. Findings indicated that students showed better clinical problem-solving skills and were motivated by the process.
· College students believed that they developed better problem solving skills; were more active and interested (Lieux, 1996).
· Students had more positive perceptions of the learning environment, more confidence problem-solving, and were more positive about life-long learning (Woods, 1996).
· Students reported frustration, uncertainty, and discomfort with the ambiguous and open ended nature of the process (Edens, 2000).
· The inclusive character of inquiry learning benefited students at both ends of the spectrum: learning disabled (Ferretti, Macarthur, & Ojolo, 2001) and talented (Naisbett, 1997).
· One of the first tangible changes in teaching practice was in the way the instructor asked questions in the classroom (Baumfield, 2006). Instructors reported having a better understanding of students’ thinking. Better feedback on teaching. Both student and teacher self-esteem were promoted (Wilks & Emery, 1997; Zohar, 1999).
· Instructors reported a better sense of professional autonomy and stronger motivation to teach (Baumfield, Higgins, & Lin, 2002).
· Positive effects on students when learning was carefully guided (Chall, 2000; Singley & Anderson, 1989).
· Better outcomes were noted when the instructor used guidance combined with some direct instruction (Klahr and Nigam (2004).
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Faculty Teaching Retreat
We had a great time at the recent Annual Faculty Teaching Retreat. Peter Doolittle was excellent. One of the underlying themes that he repeatedly addressed was the need for students to be put into situations where they can not only receive information, concepts, etc, but also for them to be able to process what they are learning, observing, experiencing. As we have come to understand the inquiry cycle better, it seems that explicitly using that as a strategy for student activity and learning allows for that processing to occur, especially through the discussion and reflection components of the cycle.
In addition, Prasanta and I were extremely pleased with the turn out at our concurrent session. We gave an overview of the inquiry cycle and summarized some of the things that we feel we learned from the our learning community discussions of the fall semester. We thank all who attended that session. That gave us confidence that we are providing a learning community in which many find value.
One activity that we used was called the Seven-Fingered Hand exercise. This was an extremely successful activity in engaging the audience. We only scratched the surface of discovering what we can do with that type of activity. If you are interested in what that exercise is, see the Creative Think website.
We will be discussing these and other concepts more during the Spring semester. Come and join us.
We also have started a wiki that contains some of the materials and discussion summaries from last semester of the Undergraduates Engaging in Inquiry community. This wiki, called Learning Through Reflection, Inquiry and Innovation, is a compilation of work by Walt Hurley and Judy Sunderman. More to come on that website.
In addition, Prasanta and I were extremely pleased with the turn out at our concurrent session. We gave an overview of the inquiry cycle and summarized some of the things that we feel we learned from the our learning community discussions of the fall semester. We thank all who attended that session. That gave us confidence that we are providing a learning community in which many find value.
One activity that we used was called the Seven-Fingered Hand exercise. This was an extremely successful activity in engaging the audience. We only scratched the surface of discovering what we can do with that type of activity. If you are interested in what that exercise is, see the Creative Think website.
We will be discussing these and other concepts more during the Spring semester. Come and join us.
Thursdays at 3:15-4:45, 428 Armory.
We also have started a wiki that contains some of the materials and discussion summaries from last semester of the Undergraduates Engaging in Inquiry community. This wiki, called Learning Through Reflection, Inquiry and Innovation, is a compilation of work by Walt Hurley and Judy Sunderman. More to come on that website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
