Inquiry-based learning

Inquiry-based learning (also enquiry-based learning in British English)[1] is a form of active learning
that starts by posing questions, problems or scenarios. It contrasts with traditional education, which
generally relies on the teacher presenting facts and his or her knowledge about the subject. Inquiry-based
learning is often assisted by a facilitator rather than a lecturer. Inquirers will identify and research issues and
questions to develop knowledge or solutions. Inquiry-based learning includes problem-based learning, and is
generally used in small scale investigations and projects, as well as research.[2] The inquiry-based
instruction is principally very closely related to the development and practice of thinking and problem
solving skills.[3]

Contents
History
Characteristics
Levels
Open/true inquiry learning
Inquisitive learning
Inquiry-based learning in academic disciplines
Inquiry learning in science education
Inquiry learning in social studies & history
Inquiry learning in Ontario's kindergarten program
Inquiry learning to read in the Netherlands, for reading mature children only
Misconceptions about inquiry
Neuroscience complexity
Notes for educators
Necessity for teacher training
Criticism
Additional scholarly research literature
See also
References and further reading
External links

History
Inquiry-based learning is primarily a pedagogical method, developed during the discovery learning
movement of the 1960s as a response to traditional forms of instruction—where people were required to
memorize information from instructional materials,[4] such as direct instruction and rote learning. The
philosophy of inquiry based learning finds its antecedents in constructivist learning theories, such as the
work of Piaget, Dewey, Vygotsky, and Freire among others,[5][6][7] and can be considered a constructivist
philosophy. Generating information and making meaning of it based on personal or societal experience is
referred to as constructivism.[8] Dewey's experiential learning pedagogy (that is, learning through
experiences) comprises the learner actively participating in personal or authentic experiences to make
meaning from it.[9][10] Inquiry can be conducted through experiential learning because inquiry values the
same concepts, which include engaging with the content/material in questioning, as well as investigating and
collaborating to make meaning. Vygotsky approached constructivism as learning from an experience that is
influenced by society and the facilitator. The meaning constructed from an experience can be concluded as
an individual or within a group.[8][9]

In the 1960s Joseph Schwab called for inquiry to be divided into three distinct levels.[11] This was later
formalized by Marshall Herron in 1971, who developed the Herron Scale to evaluate the amount of inquiry
within a particular lab exercise.[12] Since then, there have been a number of revisions proposed and inquiry
can take various forms. There is a spectrum of inquiry-based teaching methods available.[13]

Characteristics
Specific learning processes that people engage in during inquiry-learning include:[14][15]

Creating questions of their own

Obtaining supporting evidence to answer the question(s)
Explaining the evidence collected
Connecting the explanation to the knowledge obtained from the investigative process
Creating an argument and justification for the explanation

Inquiry learning involves developing questions, making observations, doing research to find out what
information is already recorded, developing methods for experiments, developing instruments for data
collection, collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data, outlining possible explanations and creating
predictions for future study.[16]

Levels

There are many different explanations for inquiry teaching and learning and the various levels of inquiry
that can exist within those contexts. The article titled The Many Levels of Inquiry by Heather Banchi and
Randy Bell (2008)[16] clearly outlines four levels of inquiry.

Level 1: Confirmation Inquiry

The teacher has taught a particular science theme or topic. The teacher then develops questions and a
procedure that guides students through an activity where the results are already known. This method is great
to reinforce concepts taught and to introduce students into learning to follow procedures, collect and record
data correctly and to confirm and deepen understandings.

Level 2: Structured Inquiry

The teacher provides the initial question and an outline of the procedure. Students are to formulate
explanations of their findings through evaluating and analyzing the data that they collect.

Level 3: Guided Inquiry

The teacher provides only the research question for the students. The students are responsible for designing
and following their own procedures to test that question and then communicate their results and findings.

Level 4: Open/True Inquiry

Students formulate their own research question(s), design and follow through with a developed procedure,
and communicate their findings and results. This type of inquiry is often seen in science fair contexts where
students drive their own investigative questions.

Banchi and Bell (2008) explain that teachers should begin their inquiry instruction at the lower levels and
work their way to open inquiry in order to effectively develop students' inquiry skills. Open inquiry
activities are only successful if students are motivated by intrinsic interests and if they are equipped with the
skills to conduct their own research study.[17]

Open/true inquiry learning

An important aspect of inquiry-based learning is the use of open learning, as evidence suggests that only
utilizing lower level inquiry is not enough to develop critical and scientific thinking to the full
potential.[18][19][20] Open learning has no prescribed target or result that people have to achieve. There is an
emphasis on the individual manipulating information and creating meaning from a set of given materials or
circumstances.[21] In many conventional and structured learning environments, people are told what the
outcome is expected to be, and then they are simply expected to 'confirm' or show evidence that this is the
case.

Open learning has many benefits.[20] It means students do not simply perform experiments in a routine like
fashion, but actually think about the results they collect and what they mean. With traditional non-open
lessons there is a tendency for students to say that the experiment 'went wrong' when they collect results
contrary to what they are told to expect. In open learning there are no wrong results, and students have to
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the results they collect themselves and decide their value.

Open learning has been developed by a number of science educators including the American John Dewey
and the German Martin Wagenschein. Wagenschein's ideas particularly complement both open learning and
inquiry-based learning in teaching work. He emphasized that students should not be taught bald facts, but
should understand and explain what they are learning. His most famous example of this was when he asked
physics students to tell him what the speed of a falling object was. Nearly all students would produce an
equation, but no students could explain what this equation meant. Wagenschein used this example to show
the importance of understanding over knowledge.[22]

Inquisitive learning

Sociologist of education Phillip Brown defined inquisitive learning as learning that is intrinsically
motivated (e.g. by curiosity and interest in knowledge for its own sake), as opposed to acquisitive learning
that is extrinsically motivated (e.g. by acquiring high scores on examinations to earn credentials).[23][24][25]
However, occasionally the term inquisitive learning is simply used as a synonym for inquiry-based
learning.[26][27]

Inquiry-based learning in academic disciplines

Inquiry learning in science education

Inquiry learning has been used as a teaching and learning tool for thousands of years, however, the use of
inquiry within public education has a much briefer history.[28] Ancient Greek and Roman educational
philosophies focused much more on the art of agricultural and domestic skills for the middle class and
oratory for the wealthy upper class. It was not until the Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, during the late
17th and 18th century that the subject of Science was considered a respectable academic body of
knowledge.[29] Up until the 1900s the study of science within education had a primary focus on memorizing
and organizing facts.

John Dewey, a well-known philosopher of education at the beginning of the 20th century, was the first to
criticize the fact that science education was not taught in a way to develop young scientific thinkers. Dewey
proposed that science should be taught as a process and way of thinking – not as a subject with facts to be
memorized.[28] While Dewey was the first to draw attention to this issue, much of the reform within science
education followed the lifelong work and efforts of Joseph Schwab. Joseph Schwab was an educator who
proposed that science did not need to be a process for identifying stable truths about the world that we live
in, but rather science could be a flexible and multi-directional inquiry driven process of thinking and
learning. Schwab believed that science in the classroom should more closely reflect the work of practicing
scientists. Schwab developed three levels of open inquiry that align with the breakdown of inquiry processes
that we see today.[30]

1. Students are provided with questions, methods and materials and are challenged to discover
relationships between variables
2. Students are provided with a question, however, the method for research is up to the students
to develop
3. Phenomena are proposed but students must develop their own questions and method for
research to discover relationships among variables

Today, we know that students at all levels of education can successfully experience and develop deeper level
thinking skills through scientific inquiry.[31] The graduated levels of scientific inquiry outlined by Schwab
demonstrate that students need to develop thinking skills and strategies prior to being exposed to higher
levels of inquiry.[30] Effectively, these skills need to be scaffolded by the teacher or instructor until students
are able to develop questions, methods, and conclusions on their own.[32] A catalyst for reform within North
American science education was the 1957 launch of Sputnik, the Soviet Union satellite. This historical
scientific breakthrough caused a great deal of concern around the science and technology education the
American students were receiving. In 1958 the U.S. congress developed and passed the National Defense
Education Act in order to provide math and science teachers with adequate teaching materials.[16]

America's National Science Education Standards (NSES) (1996)[31] outlines six important aspects pivotal to
inquiry learning in science education.

1. Students should be able to recognize that science is more than memorizing and knowing facts.
2. Students should have the opportunity to develop new knowledge that builds on their prior
knowledge and scientific ideas.
3. Students will develop new knowledge by restructuring their previous understandings of
scientific concepts and adding new information learned.
4. Learning is influenced by students' social environment whereby they have an opportunity to
learn from each other.
5. Students will take control of their learning.
6. The extent to which students are able to learn with deep understanding will influence how
transferable their new knowledge is to real life contexts.

Inquiry learning in social studies & history

The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards was a joint
collaboration among states and social studies organizations, including the National Council for the Social
Studies,[33] designed to focus social studies education on the practice of inquiry, emphasizing "the
disciplinary concepts and practices that support students as they develop the capacity to know, analyze,
explain, and argue about interdisciplinary challenges in our social world."[33] The C3 Framework
recommends an "Inquiry Arc" incorporating four dimensions: 1. developing questions and planning
inquiries; 2. applying disciplinary concepts and tools; 3. evaluating primary sources and using evidence; and
4. communicating conclusions and taking informed action.[33] For example, a theme for this approach could
be an exploration of etiquette today and in the past. Students might formulate their own questions or begin
with an essential question such as "Why are men and women expected to follow different codes of
etiquette?" Students explore change and continuity of manners over time and the perspectives of different
cultures and groups of people. They analyze primary source documents such as books of etiquette from
different time periods and form conclusions that answer the inquiry questions. Students finally communicate
their conclusions in formal essays or creative projects. They may also take action by recommending
solutions for improving school climate.[34]

Robert Bain in How Students Learn described a similar approach called "problematizing history".[35] First a
learning curriculum is organized around central concepts. Next, a question and primary sources are
provided, such as eyewitness historical accounts. The task for inquiry is to create an interpretation of history
that will answer the central question. Students will form a hypothesis, collect and consider information and
revisit their hypothesis as they evaluate their data.

Inquiry learning in Ontario's kindergarten program

After Charles Pascal's report in 2009, the Canadian province of Ontario's Ministry of Education decided to
implement a full day kindergarten program that focuses on inquiry and play-based learning, called The Early
Learning Kindergarten Program.[36] As of September 2014, all primary schools in Ontario started the
program. The curriculum document[37] outlines the philosophy, definitions, process and core learning
concepts for the program. Bronfenbrenner's ecological model, Vygotsky's zone of proximal development,
Piaget's child development theory and Dewey's experiential learning are the heart of the program's design.
As research shows, children learn best through play, whether it is independently or in a group. Three forms
of play are noted in the curriculum document, pretend or "pretense" play, socio-dramatic play and
constructive play. Through play and authentic experiences, children interact with their environment (people
and/or objects) and question things; thus leading to inquiry learning. A chart on page 15 clearly outlines the
process of inquiry for young children, including initial engagement, exploration, investigation, and
communication.[37] The new program supports holistic approach to learning. For further details, please see
the curriculum document.[37]

Since the program is extremely new, there is limited research on its success and areas of improvement. One
government research report was released with the initial groups of children in the new kindergarten
program. The Final Report: Evaluation of the Implementation of the Ontario Full-Day Early-Learning
Kindergarten Program from Vanderlee, Youmans, Peters, and Eastabrook (2012) conclude with primary
research that high-need children improved more compared to children who did not attend Ontario's new
kindergarten program.[38] As with inquiry-based learning in all divisions and subject areas, longitudinal
research is needed to examine the full extent of this teaching/learning method.

Inquiry learning to read in the Netherlands, for reading mature children only

Since 2013 Dutch children have the opportunity of inquiry learning to read. The program is from the Dutch
developmental psychologist dr. Ewald Vervaet, is named ‘Ontdekkend Leren Lezen’ (OLL; Discovery
Learning to Read) and has three parts.[39] In 2019 OLL is only available in Dutch. As we will see soon, an
English version is feasible.
OLL's main characteristic is that it is for children who are reading mature. Reading maturity is assessed with
the Reading Maturity Test. It is a descriptive test that consists of two subtests.[40] We present here the
essentials.

In the writing test (‘schrijfproef’) the child writes his name, the words ‘mam’ and ‘dad’ and some names
more, which he happens to know. In the reading test (‘leesproef’) the tester makes new, transparent
(common, rare or nonsense) words which the child then tries to read. Testwords consist of three or four
letters.

Suppose, Tim writes TIM, MAM, DAD and SOFIE (Tims sister). Good testwords are SIT, (nonsense word)
FOM and MIST. When Tim reads SIT as ‘s, i, t’, he only analyses the sounds of the word. He is definitely
not reading mature then.

However, when Tims reaction on SIT is first ‘s, i, t’ and then ‘sit’, he analyses-and-synthesizes. He then is
reading mature of almost so for there are some conditions more such af analysing-and-synthesizin of words
of four letters and absence of mirror writing in the writing test.

If a child is reading mature, he can start with OLL. The essential element of OLL are the discovering pages.
See the discovering page for the letter ‘k’ below. The Dutch word ‘kat’ is the English word ‘cat’; Dutch
‘slak’ is English ‘snail’, Dutch ‘kers’ is English ‘cherry’ and Dutch ‘vork’ is English ‘fork’.

In earlier chapters the child has discovered the letters ‘a’, ‘t’, ‘s’, ‘l’,
‘e’, ‘r’, ‘v’ and ‘o’ in similar discovering pages. Consequently, the
novelty in the discovering page for the letter ‘k’ is the figure ‘k’:
obviously, the figure ‘k’ is a letter in the Dutch alphabet, but how
does ‘k’ sound? The child finds this out by making hypotheses: is
the one animal perhaps a snail, ‘slak’ in Dutch? If so, the word
below sounds as /slak/; the child reads ‘s, l, a, k; slak’; hypothesis
confirmed! Similarly with ‘k, a, t; kat’, ‘k, e, r, s; kers’ and ‘v, o, r, k;
vork’. Consequently, the hypothesis ‘That is a snail’ has broadened
itself to the hypothesis that ‘k’ sounds like /k/ as twice in the English
word ‘clock’, and that hypothesis had proven to be tenable. Not just
that: the process to find out how ‘k’ sounds, is rightly called a
discovering process and Discovering Learing to Read clearly is a
form of discovery or inquiry learning.

Discovery Learning to Read (DLR) in English

Ontdekkend Leren Lezen (Dutch)
Phonemically speaking the Dutch language is much less transparent (OLL; Discovery Learning to Read)
than almost completely transparent languages like Italian, Finnish picture 1
and Czech, but much more transparent than languages like English
and Danish. The classification of the British reading expert Debbie
Hepplewhite (born in 1956) yields 217 letter-sound-combinations. The letter symbol ‘a’ for instance sounds
on at least four ways: ‘car’, ‘fat’, ‘saw’ and ‘table’. Conversely, the sound in ‘table’ is written on at least
seven other ways: ‘sundae’, ‘aid’, ‘straight’, ‘say’, ‘break’, ‘eight’ and ‘prey’. And so on.

Maybe a native speaker of English can construct enough discovering pages for all these 217 letter-sound-
combinations, but the time being Discovery Learning to Read (DLR) looks only feasible with one or more
auxiliary letters.

The very first discovering page could be with the word ‘ɑnd’ and would actually be a
discovering page for the letters ‘ɑ’, ‘n’ and ‘d’.
 In the second discovering page the letter ‘m’-/m/ is
discovered with ‘mɑn’, ‘dɑm’ and eventually ‘mɑd’ as
discovering words.
In the third discovering page the letter ‘t’-/t/ is discovered
with ‘mɑt’ en ‘ɑnt’ and possibly ‘tɑn’ as discovering words.
In the fourth discovering page the letter ‘e’-/e/ is discovered
with ‘ten’, ‘net’, ‘tent’ and ‘men’ as discovering words.
In the fifth discovering page the letter ‘r’-/r/ is discovered
with ‘rɑt’, ‘trɑm’ and ‘red’ (for instance on the basis of the
British/USA-flag, with an arrow near the red parts).
In the sixth discovering page the letter ‘s’-/s/ is discovered
with ‘stem’, ‘nest’, ‘sɑnd’ and ‘ɑnts’.
In the seventh discovering page the letter ‘p’-/p/ is
discovered with ‘pen’, ‘tɑp’, ‘pɑn’ and ‘mɑp’. Ontdekkend Leren Lezen (Dutch)
In the eighth discovering page the letter ‘i’-/i/ is discovered (OLL; Discovery Learning to Read)
with ‘pin’, ‘tin’, ‘pit’ and ‘mist’. picture 2
In the ninth discovering page the first auxiliary letter could
be discovered: the /ai/-sound of ‘my’, ‘pie’, ‘find’ and ‘ice’,
for instance with the discovering words ‘night’-/nait/, ‘mice’-/mais/, ‘pie’-/pai/ and ‘rice’-/rais/.

To make it clear to the child from the outset that ‘ai’ is not a standard
letter but an auxiliary letter, this is told to him and this letter is
presented in a different way than the standard letters, for example
with a line through it and/or against a gray instead of white
background: as ‘ɑi’, ‘ɑi’ or ‘ɑi’.

There are two conditions for a discovering page with a non-standard

letter symbol. The first is that such a letter symbol resembles the
standard alphabet as much as possible. And the second condition is
that in the case of a combination of letters, the child is familiar with
the composing parts. With ‘ɑi’ both conditions are fulfilled: the parts
are derived from the standard alphabet and the child knows ‘ɑ’ and
‘i’ from the first and the eighth discovering pages.
Ontdekkend Leren Lezen (Dutch)
In Vervaets opinion, the aim should be to keep the number of non- (OLL; Discovery Learning to Read)
standard letter symbols as low as possible. After all, whatever kind picture 3
of positive purpose is aimed for with non-standard letter symbols,
the child learns them for the time being and should replace them –
preferably as early as possible – and thus unlearn them. The number of things to be unlearned should
therefore not be greater than strictly necessary.

In later discovering pages the child discovers the correct spelling. The /ɑi/-sound has at least these six
spellings:

1. 'igh’ – ‘bright’, ‘fight’, ‘flight’, ‘high’, ‘knight’, ‘light’, ‘might’, ‘nigh’, ‘night’, ‘plight’, ‘right’, ‘sigh’,
‘sight’, ‘slight’, ‘thigh’, ‘tight’;
2. 'ie’ – ‘die’, ‘hie’, ‘lie’, ‘pie’, ‘tie’, ‘vie’;
3. ‘i(nd)’ – ‘behind’, ‘bind’, ‘blind’, ‘find’, ‘kind’, ‘mind’, ‘rind’, ‘wind’;
4. ‘y’ – by’, ‘cry’, ‘dry’, ‘fly’, ‘fry’, ‘my’, ‘pry’, ‘shy’, ‘sky’, ‘spy’, ‘try’, ‘why’;
5. ‘ei’ – ‘eider’, ‘eiderdown’;
 6. ‘i(consonant)e’ – ‘jibe’, ‘nice’, ‘tide’, ‘life’, ‘oblige’, ‘bike’, ‘file’, ‘time’, ‘fine’, ‘ripe’, ‘wise’, ‘kite’,
‘dive’, ‘size’.

Misconceptions about inquiry

There are several common misconceptions regarding inquiry-based science, the first being that inquiry
science is simply instruction that teaches students to follow the scientific method. Many teachers had the
opportunity to work within the constraints of the scientific method as students themselves and figure inquiry
learning must be the same. Inquiry science is not just about solving problems in six simple steps but much
more broadly focused on the intellectual problem-solving skills developed throughout a scientific
process.[31] Additionally, not every hands-on lesson can be considered inquiry.

Some educators believe that there is only one true method of inquiry, which would be described as the level
four: Open Inquiry. While open inquiry may be the most authentic form of inquiry, there are many skills and
a level of conceptual understanding that the students must have developed before they can be successful at
this high level of inquiry.[32] While inquiry-based science is considered to be a teaching strategy that fosters
higher order thinking in students, it should be one of several methods used. A multifaceted approach to
science keeps students engaged and learning.

Not every student is going to learn the same amount from an inquiry lesson; students must be invested in the
topic of study to authentically reach the set learning goals. Teachers must be prepared to ask students
questions to probe their thinking processes in order to assess accurately. Inquiry-science requires a lot of
time, effort, and expertise, however, the benefits outweigh the cost when true authentic learning can take
place.

Neuroscience complexity
The literature states that inquiry requires multiple cognitive processes and variables, such as causality and
co-occurrence that enrich with age and experience.[41][42] Kuhn, et al. (2000) used explicit training
workshops to teach children in grades six to eight in the United States how to inquire through a quantitative
study. By completing an inquiry-based task at the end of the study, the participants demonstrated enhanced
mental models by applying different inquiry strategies.[41] In a similar study, Kuhan and Pease (2008)
completed a longitudinal quantitative study following a set of American children from grades four to six to
investigate the effectiveness of scaffolding strategies for inquiry. Results demonstrated that children
benefitted from the scaffolding because they outperformed the grade seven control group on an inquiry
task.[42] Understanding the neuroscience of inquiry learning the scaffolding process related to it should be
reinforced for Ontario's primary teachers as part of their training.

Notes for educators

Inquiry-based learning is fundamental for the development of higher order thinking skills. According to
Bloom's Taxonomy, the ability to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information or new understandings
indicates a high level of thinking.[43] Teachers should be encouraging divergent thinking and allowing
students the freedom to ask their own questions and to learn the effective strategies for discovering the
answers. The higher order thinking skills that students have the opportunity to develop during inquiry
activities will assist in the critical thinking skills that they will be able to transfer to other subjects.

As shown in the section above on the neuroscience of inquiry learning, it is significant to scaffold students
to teach them how to inquire and inquire through the four levels. It cannot be assumed that they know how
to inquire without foundational skills. Scaffolding the students at a younger age will result in enriched
inquiring learning later.[41][42]

Inquiry-based learning can be done in multiple formats, including:

Field-work
Case studies
Investigations
Individual and group projects
Research projects

Remember to keep in mind...[44]

Teacher is Facilitator in IBL environment

Place needs of students and their ideas at the center
Don't wait for the perfect question, pose multiple open-ended questions.
Work towards common goal of understanding
Remain faithful to the students' line of inquiry
Teach directly on a need-to-know basis
Encourage students to demonstrate learning using a range of media (https://.yifindia.com)

Necessity for teacher training

There is a necessity for professional collaboration when executing a new inquiry program (Chu, 2009;
Twigg, 2010). The teacher training and process of using inquiry learning should be a joint mission to ensure
the maximal amount of resources are used and that the teachers are producing the best learning scenarios.
The scholarly literature supports this notion. Twigg's (2010) education professionals who participated in her
experiment emphasized year round professional development sessions, such as workshops, weekly meetings
and observations, to ensure inquiry is being implemented in the class correctly.[10] Another example is Chu's
(2009) study, where the participants appreciated the professional collaboration of educators, information
technicians and librarians to provide more resources and expertise for preparing the structure and resources
for the inquiry project.[45] To establish a professional collaboration and researched training methods,
administration support is required for funding.

Criticism
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006)[46] review of literature found that although constructivists often cite
each other's work, empirical evidence is not often cited. Nonetheless the constructivist movement gained
great momentum in the 1990s, because many educators began to write about this philosophy of learning.

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.[47]

In contrast, Hmelo-Silver et al. also cite a large study by Geier on the effectiveness of inquiry-based science
for middle school students, as demonstrated by their performance on high-stakes standardized tests. The
improvement was 14% for the first cohort of students and 13% for the second cohort. This study also found
that inquiry-based teaching methods greatly reduced the achievement gap for African-American students.[47]
In a 2006 article, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's president, Chester E. Finn Jr., was quoted as saying
"But like so many things in education, it gets carried to excess... [the approach is] fine to some degree.".[48]
The organization ran a study in 2005 concluding that the emphasis states put on inquiry-based learning is too
great.[49]

Richard E. Mayer from the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote in 2004 that there was sufficient
research evidence to make any reasonable person skeptical about the benefits of discovery learning—
practiced under the guise of cognitive constructivism or social constructivism—as a preferred instructional
method. He reviewed research on discovery of problem-solving rules culminating in the 1960s, discovery of
conservation strategies culminating in the 1970s, and discovery of LOGO programming strategies
culminating in the 1980s. In each case, guided discovery was more effective than pure discovery in helping
students learn and transfer.[50]

It should be cautioned that inquiry-based learning takes a lot of planning before implementation. It is not
something that can be put into place in the classroom quickly. Measurements must be put in place for how
students knowledge and performance will be measured and how standards will be incorporated. The
teacher's responsibility during inquiry exercises is to support and facilitate student learning (Bell et al., 769–
770). A common mistake teachers make is lacking the vision to see where students' weaknesses lie.
According to Bain, teachers cannot assume that students will hold the same assumptions and thinking
processes as a professional within that discipline (p. 201).

While some see inquiry-based teaching as increasingly mainstream, it can be perceived as in conflict with
standardized testing common in standards-based assessment systems which emphasise the measurement of
student knowledge, and meeting of pre-defined criteria, for example the shift towards "fact" in changes to
the National Assessment of Educational Progress as a result of the American No Child Left Behind
program.

Additional scholarly research literature

Chu (2009) used a mixed method design to examine the outcome of an inquiry project completed by
students in Hong Kong with the assistance of multiple educators. Chu's (2009) results show that the children
were more motivated and academically successful compared to the control group.[45]

Cindy Hmelo-Silver reviewed a number of reports on a variety studies into problem based learning.[51]

Edelson, Gordin and Pea describe five significant challenges to implementing inquiry-based learning and
present strategies for addressing them through the design of technology and curriculum. They present a
design history covering four generations of software and curriculum to show how these challenges arise in
classrooms and how the design strategies respond to them.[52]

See also
Action learning
Design-based learning
Discovery learning
McMaster Integrated Science
Networked learning
Phenomenon-based learning
POGIL
Problem-based learning
 Progressive inquiry
Project-based learning
Scientific literacy
Three-part lesson

References and further reading

1. The UK dictionaries Collins and Longman list the spelling "inquiry" first, and Oxford simply calls
it another spelling, without labeling it as US English.
2. What is Inquiry Based Learning (EBL)? (http://www.ceebl.manchester.ac.uk/ebl/) Centre for
Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning. University of Manchester. Retrieved October 2012
3. Dostál, J. (2015). Inquiry-based instruction : Concept, essence, importance and contribution.
(https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkb3MwMDN
8Z3g6MmU4MzM5YzA1YzcyNzM4) Olomouc: Palacký University, ISBN 978-80-244-4507-6,
doi 10.5507/pdf.15.24445076
4. Bruner, J. S. (1961). "The act of discovery". Harvard Educational Review 31 (1): 21–32.
5. Dewey, J (1997) How We Think, New York: Dover Publications.
6. Freire, P. (1984) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Continuum Publishing Company.
7. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Bachtold, Manuel (2013). "What do students "construct" according to constructivism in science
education?". Research in Science Education. 43 (6): 2477–96. Bibcode:2013RScEd..43.2477B
(https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RScEd..43.2477B). doi:10.1007/s11165-013-9369-7 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11165-013-9369-7).
9. Roth, Wolff-Michael; Jornet, Alfredo (2013). "Toward a theory of experience". Science
Education. 98 (1): 106–26. Bibcode:2014SciEd..98..106R (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2
014SciEd..98..106R). doi:10.1002/sce.21085 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fsce.21085).
hdl:10072/67780 (https://hdl.handle.net/10072%2F67780).
10. Twigg, Vani Veikoso (2010). "Teachers' practices, values and beliefs for successful inquiry-
based teaching in the International Baccalaureate Primary years Programme". Journal of
Research in International Education. 9 (1): 40–65. doi:10.1177/1475240909356947 (https://do
i.org/10.1177%2F1475240909356947).
11. Schwab, J. (1960) Inquiry, the Science Teacher, and the Educator (https://www.jstor.org/stable/
10.2307/1083585). The School Review © 1960 The University of Chicago Press
12. Herron, M.D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The school review, 79(2), 171–212.
13. Wilhelm, J. G., & Wilhelm, P. J. (2010). Inquiring minds learn to read, write, and think:
Reaching all learners through inquiry. Middle School Journal, May 2010, 39–46.
14. Bell, T.; Urhahne, D.; Schanze, S.; Ploetzner, R. (2010). "Collaborative inquiry learning:
Models, tools, and challenges" (http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/21303).
International Journal of Science Education. 3 (1): 349–377. Bibcode:2010IJSEd..32..349B (htt
ps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010IJSEd..32..349B). doi:10.1080/09500690802582241 (http
s://doi.org/10.1080%2F09500690802582241).
15. "What is inquiry?" (https://www.inquired.org/what-is-inquiry).
16. National Institute for Health. (2005). Doing Science: The Process of Science Inquiry.
http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih6/inquiry/guide/info_process-a.htm (https://sci
ence.education.nih.gov/supplements/Process%20of%20Scietific%20Inquiry.pdf)
17. Yoon, H., Joung, Y. J., Kim, M. (2012). The challenges of science inquiry teaching for pre-
service teachers in elementary classrooms: Difficulties on and under the scene. Research in
Science & Technological Education, 42(3), 589–608.
18. Berg, C A R; Bergendahl, V C B; Lundberg, B K S; Tibell, L A E (2003). "Benefiting from an
open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus
an open-inquiry version to the same experiment". International Journal of Science Education.
25 (3): 351–372. Bibcode:2003IJSEd..25..351B (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003IJSE
d..25..351B). doi:10.1080/09500690210145738 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F095006902101457
38).
19. Yen C F and Hunang S C (2001) Authentic learning about tree frogs by preservice biology
teachers in an open-inquiry research settings. Proc. Natl. Sci. Counc. ROC(D) 11, 1–10.
20. Zion, M.; Sadeh, I. (2007). "Curiosity and open inquiry learning". Journal of Biological
Education. 41 (4): 162–168. doi:10.1080/00219266.2007.9656092 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F
00219266.2007.9656092).
21. Hannafin, M., Land, S., Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundation, methods,
and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models. A new
paradigm of instructional theory Volume II (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
22. Dahl, Susan; Franzen, Pat. "The Science Journal: Writing and Inquiry Development" (http://ed.f
nal.gov/trc_new/sciencelines_online/fall97/activity_inserts.html). Retrieved 3 January 2017.
23. Brown, Phillip (March 2003). "The opportunity trap: education and employment in a global
economy" (http://orca.cf.ac.uk/68242/). European Educational Research Journal. 2 (1): 141–
179. doi:10.2304/eerj.2003.2.1.4 (https://doi.org/10.2304%2Feerj.2003.2.1.4).
24. Stiwne, Elinor Edvardsson; Alves, Mariana Gaio (March 2010). "Higher education and
employability of graduates: will Bologna make a difference?". European Educational Research
Journal. 9 (1): 32–44 [33]. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1013.4278 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/s
ummary?doi=10.1.1.1013.4278). doi:10.2304/eerj.2010.9.1.32 (https://doi.org/10.2304%2Feer
j.2010.9.1.32).
25. Nielsen, Gritt B. (2015). Figuration work: student participation, democracy and university
reform in a global knowledge economy. EASA series. 27. New York: Berghahn Books. p. 136
(https://books.google.com/books?id=I9TtBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA136). ISBN 9781782387718.
OCLC 896861729 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/896861729).
26. Graseck, Paul (January 2005). "Where's the ministry in administration?: attending to the souls
of our schools". Phi Delta Kappan. 86 (5): 373–378. doi:10.1177/003172170508600508 (http
s://doi.org/10.1177%2F003172170508600508).
27. Marshall, Jeff C.; Smart, Julie; Alston, Daniel M. (October 2016). "Development and validation
of Teacher Intentionality of Practice Scale (TIPS): a measure to evaluate and scaffold teacher
effectiveness". Teaching and Teacher Education. 59 (3): 159–168.
Bibcode:2003TeTeE..19..309T (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003TeTeE..19..309T).
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.007 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tate.2016.05.007).
28. National Research Council. 2000. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A
Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. Murphy, M. (2006). The History and Philosophy of Education: Voices of Educational Pioneers
Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 0130955507
30. Schwab, J. 1966. The Teaching of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
31. National Science Education Standards. (1996). National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
32. Ban chi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The Many Levels of Inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.
33. "College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance
for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History" (https://www.soci
alstudies.org/c3). 2013.
34. Resor, Cynthia Williams (2017). Exploring Vacation and Etiquette Themes in Social Studies:
Primary Source Inquiry for Middle and High School (https://teachingwiththemes.com/index.ph
p/book-1-info/). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-4758-3198-6.
35. Bain, R.B., Donovan, M.S. & Bransford, J.D. (Eds). (2005). "They thought the world was flat?":
Applying the principles of How People Learn in teaching high school history. How Students
Learn. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?
isbn=0309074339
36. Pascal, Charles. "With Our Best Future in Mind" (http://ywcacanada.ca/data/research_docs/00
000001.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 11 October 2014.
37. Ministry of Education. "Early Learning Kindergarten Program" (http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/c
urriculum/elementary/kindergarten_english_june3.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 11 October 2014.
38. Vanderlee, Mary-Louise; Youmans, S; Peters, R; Eastabrook, J. "Final report: Evaluation of the
implementation of the Ontario full-day early-learning kindergarten program" (http://www.edu.go
v.on.ca/kindergarten/FDELK_ReportFall2012.pdf) (PDF).
39. Ewald, Vervaet. "There is a fourth book. It is for children who are not reading mature and
generally in kindergarten: Klank- en vormspel (Sound and form play)" (https://ontdekkendleren.
nl/boeken). Retrieved 27 April 2019.
40. Ewald, Vervaet. "Writing test and reading test ('Schrijfproef en leesproef')" (https://ontdekkendl
eren.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/formulieren-schrijfproef-en-leesproef.pdf) (PDF).
Retrieved 27 April 2019.
41. Kuhn, D; Black, J; Keselman, A; Kaplan, D (2000). "The development of cognitive skills to
support inquiry learning". Cognition and Instruction. 18 (4): 495–523.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.527.1718 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.527.17
18). doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1804_3 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs1532690xci1804_3).
42. Kuhn, D; Pease, M (2008). "What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills?".
Cognition and Instruction. 26 (4): 512–59. doi:10.1080/07370000802391745 (https://doi.org/1
0.1080%2F07370000802391745).
43. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
44. "Inquiry-based Learning" (http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/CB
S_InquiryBased.pdf) (PDF). Ontario Ministry of Education.
45. Chu, K.W.S (2009). "Inquiry project-based learning with a partnership of three types of
teachers and the school librarian". Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology. 60 (8): 1671–86. doi:10.1002/asi.21084 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fasi.2108
4).
46. Kirschner, P. A.; Sweller, J.; 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" (https://web.archive.org/web/20170919025626/http://
www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf) (PDF). Educational
Psychologist. 41 (2): 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15
326985ep4102_1). hdl:1874/16899 (https://hdl.handle.net/1874%2F16899). Archived from the
original (http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf) (PDF) on 19
September 2017. Retrieved 30 December 2007.
47. Hmelo-Silver; Duncan; Chinn (2007). "Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and
Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006)" (https://web.archive.org/
web/20101223152831/http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf) (PDF).
Educational Psychologist. 42 (2): 99–107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368 (https://doi.org/1
0.1080%2F00461520701263368). Archived from the original (http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publ
ications/hmelo_ep07.pdf) (PDF) on 23 December 2010. Retrieved 27 December 2007.
48. Thomson, Robert (19 January 2006). "What's the Right Formula?" (https://www.wsj.com/article
s/SB113763977423350560).
49. Gross, Paul (December 2005). The State of State Science Standards (http://edex.s3-us-west-
2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/Science%20Standards.FinalFinal_8.pdf) (PDF) (Report).
Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
50. Mayer, R (2004). "Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The
case for guided methods of instruction" (http://www.davidlewisphd.com/courses/EDD8001/wee
klys/2004-Mayer.pdf) (PDF). American Psychologist. 59 (1): 14–19.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.372.2476 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.372.24
76). doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066x.59.1.14).
PMID 14736316 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14736316).
51. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004) Problem Based Learning: What and how do students learn (http://thor
ndike.tc.columbia.edu/~david/MTSU4083/Readings/Problem-%20and%20Case-based%20ID/
hmelo.pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20121016180532/http://thorndike.tc.columbi
a.edu/~david/MTSU4083/Readings/Problem-%20and%20Case-based%20ID/hmelo.pdf) 16
October 2012 at the Wayback Machine. Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 16, No. 3,
September 2004
52. Edelson, D., Gordin, D., Pea, R. (1999) Addressing the Challenges of Inquiry-Based Learning
Through Technology and Curriculum Design (http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/06/
09/PDF/A101_Edelson_etal_99.pdf) Journal of the Learning Sciences 8.3 (1999): 391–450.

External links
Inquiry-based middle school lesson plan: "Born to Run: Artificial Selection Lab" (http://www.indi
ana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/BornToRun.html)
Teaching Inquiry-based Science (https://sites.google.com/site/inquiryschoolscience/)
What is Inquiry? (https://www.inquired.org/what-is-inquiry)
[1] (http://www.inquirypartners.com)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inquiry-based_learning&oldid=950717304"

This page was last edited on 13 April 2020, at 13:41 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.