This month we are going to delve into the arguments for and against inquiry-based learning v's direct instruction. Here is the link to the article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000295?via%3Dihub
Highlights
Inquiry-based methods are generally effective for acquiring conceptual knowledge.
Learners must have appropriate prior knowledge to benefit from inquiry learning.
Inquiry-based approaches usually provide learners with (initial) scaffolding.
Many contextual factors determine the success of an instructional approach.
A smart combination of direct instruction and inquiry is often the most effective.
Once you have read the article please use the question prompt below to join in the conversation.
It's an interesting article, although I will admit I didn't understand all the teacher vocab & terminology. It seems to demonstrate that there are advantages to a combination of teaching methods, both direct and investigation, althought more research is needed to be more conclusive. Certainly, it recogniszes that students are individuals and some will benefit more from one teaching method while others benefit more from another. The biggest challenge to wider uptake of inquiry learning in the classroom, as I understand it from this article, is that it requires more hands-on staff time, new IT, etc. to deliver, whereas direct instruction is less labour-intensive. I don't know that there is a political appetite for teaching students to think for themselves, particularly if it is going to be more expensive to deliver?