Talk:Inquiry-based learning

Journal

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)

Debate - really two debates?

The debate section really looks like two debates to me

1. On the effectiveness of Enquiry based learning, which doesn't really cover much ground
2. On the suitability of Enquiry based learning for standardised assessment models (or traditional education, or 'fact based' curricula, or whatever).

Someone could perhaps split these, and beef both up a bit? Goodwin57 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

References

"A Cleanup"

Hi folks, I've just attempted a fairly major cleanup. No major deleting, just rearranging and consolidating. I've gone as far as to remove the cleanup template! I hope it is seen as helpful.

Also, a quick disclosure if it's necessary. I work as an "Educational Designer" at La Trobe University in Australia. The Faculty I've been assigned to use Inquiry-based learning as a described point of difference. In my attempts to familiarise myself - both with the concepts and how it is practiced at La Trobe, I'm editing this article to include what I learn.

A big thanks to all those who have helped create the article up to now, it has been a big help to me getting to know some of the ideas and readings that inform them. Leighblackall (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

An example of inquiry based teaching would be helpful!

This is the sort of topic that an example would really help in understanding this concept 80.1.138.214 (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/06/09/PDF/A101_Edelson_etal_99.pdf

  Triggered by \bhalshs\.archives-ouvertes\.fr on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I have deleted the original intro to the criticism section: "After a half-century of advocacy associated with instruction using minimal guidance, it appears that there is no body of research supporting the technique. In so far as there is any evidence from controlled studies, it almost uniformly supports direct, strong instructional guidance rather than constructivist-based minimal guidance during the instruction of novice to intermediate learners..."

The paragraph was simply wholesaled copied from the http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf article and used in the section without that context to imply a consensus. This paper seems to have been posted on many of the contructivist pages here. I'm not sure if it is so relevant to inquiry based learning either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 

The following section doesn't seem to make logical sense in the criticism section as it appears to describe a source arguing FOR inquiry learning, doesn't this mean it should be moved to another place in the article?

"Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn cite several studies supporting the success of the constructivist problem-based and inquiry learning methods. For example, they describe a project called GenScope, an inquiry-based science software application. Students using the GenScope software showed significant gains over the control groups, with the largest gains shown in students from basic courses.[48]"

Wearisometurtle (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wrong references

Please fix the references for the levels of inquiry, they don't match with the text: The article titled The Many Levels of Inquiry by Heather Banchi and Randy Bell (2008)<WRONG> clearly outlines four levels of inquiry.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2019 06 21 wikipedia inquiry learning afbeelding 1.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry-based learning in kindergartens

The term 'inquiry-based learning' is widely used (or at least claimed) in progressive kindergarten teaching (and I think it's basically the same concept), and should be included here. At the moment, this article has two highly specific mentions - Ontario's kindergarten program and Dutch learning to read - which should be generalised up to all kindergarten education. Onanoff (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: EDFN 508 Introduction to Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Holstem1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Holstem1 (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Learning to Read in the Netherlands Section

I've noticed a lot of problems in this section from it reading as an instruction manual to much of it being unsourced. I'm not an expert in this area, so I deleted a large section of the topic because of it reading as instructions. Please discuss here if you disagree Holstem1 (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional Citations for Verification

Are there any parts of the article that need further citations/references? Holstem1 (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Neuroscience Complexity Section

It doesn't seem to explain it in detail and the "Necessity for teacher training" part doesn't really fit in the section. Plasticvs (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)