RSA1: Inquiry-Based Learning
Online
Links: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1015764.pdf
Inquiry-based learning is
essentially learning through exploration.
While this may seem to be a chaotic and uncontrollable event, when
applied by a competent teacher to a classroom of students, the outcome can
exceed expectations. According to
Concept to Classroom’s workshop on inquiry-based learning, inquiry is learning
with active involvement that brings about understanding (2004). This understanding will lend itself not only
to the task at hand, but will also develop skills that will help students deal
with future situations in which they will be questioning things around them, as suggested by Crombie
(2014). If students are able to be
introduced to, and adequately develop these skills, they will in turn be better
prepared to be a functioning member of society.
The responsibility of the teacher is to create lessons and situations
utilizing IBL that not only accomplish teaching the necessary lesson, but also
nurturing the inherent skills required for everyday problem solving. According to Heick’s 4 Phases of
Inquiry-Based Learning: A Guide For Teachers (2013), the lesson, or activity’s
focus should naturally flow from a broad spectrum curiosity, to a specific
purpose, ending with the creation of an end product that demonstrates what has
been learned. Through proper questioning
techniques, the teacher can make sure that general purpose or goal of the
lesson is met, while keeping intact the student’s control of what is learned,
and how it is learned. When this
ownership over the learning process is had by the students, the knowledge
gained is more practical for them, and more likely to be used in the
future. Inquiry-based learning, when
applied effectively, not only teaches a concept or lesson intended by the
teacher, but develops real-world problem solving skills that all students can
benefit from in their present and future lives.
The article “Life cycle analysis and
inquiry-based teaching in chemistry teaching” from Science Education International (2013), explains the attempt to
increase the efficiency of life cycle analysis (LCA) lessons through the use of
IBL techniques. The authors suggest that
environmental science is a subject that requires more attention and student
preparation for the needs of the planet in the present and future, so there
need to be more productive approaches in its instruction, which may be IBL. This successful attempt to incorporate IBL
into the teaching of the life cycles of various products was implemented in a
range of classrooms including elementary school grades, through high school and
adult education classes. What was
discovered after discussions with the involved teachers was that students were
able to address any issues or concerns that came up, and when given freedoms
over what to investigate, or how to express their findings, they were motivated
and invested in the outcomes. The
teachers, in turn, focused their assessments on the process of learning and the
skills used to find and communicate the learned information, rather than the
rote fact elements. The authors also
made mention that the students with exposure to only traditional instruction
struggled with the concepts early on, but were able to find success as the
process continued.
The authors of “Using Inquiry-Based
Instruction for Teaching Science to Students with Learning Disabilities” in International Journal of Special Education
(2012) discussed the effectiveness of IBL strategies when applied to lessons
involving elementary special education students. The strategies being used were all based on a
science curriculum which used lab kits requiring IBL methods to highlight
various scientific concepts, each linked to electricity. The authors also voice concerns about students
with learning disabilities failing science presented in a traditional way, or
not being given enough time to learn concepts, which result in the development
of negative attitudes about science in general, creating yet another obstacle
in the way of learning material in the future.
The implementations of IBL strategies and methods have shown increased
success in students with learning disabilities. In fact, the authors mention
that those students show an even greater increase in understanding and
retention, than those without disabilities.
In the study discussed, all five of the students observed showed
enormous increases in understanding, with the average increase in each sub
category of seventy to eighty percent.
They also found that students’ interest and enjoyment of the subject matter
increased as well.
Overall, the content in each of the
articles supports the information found in the module, with a few exceptions.
In the article from Science Education
International (2012), they used a range of IBL strategies. The strategies
used were based on what amount of control the students could successfully
possess. These levels were described as
being structured, guided, or open. The
three levels mentioned were those detailed in the video by Crombie (2014), when
he discusses various levels of inquiry based on student understanding of the
method. This shows that students at
various levels can achieve success in a lesson when the teacher acts as a
guide, providing feedback and structure when necessary. On the other hand, the article also mentioned
a teacher using a lecture and individual assignments that seem to counter the
theme presented which stressed cooperative learning among students. One item
addressed by the article in the International
Journal of Special Education (2012) that was not discussed at length in any
of the module readings, was the impact of IBL on those students with special
needs. While IBL was spoken of as a
method that reaches all students, it is clear that some students with special
needs require the structured level, and may never succeed with less teacher
involvement. To use Heick (2014) as an
example, students with special needs will most likely require more support and
teacher guidance than an average student in the design phase, where a product
must be designed or created to show understanding.
These concepts and practices can
easily be applied to my classroom. As the
teacher of a gifted class, where alternative methods are more accepted and
encouraged, and where a broader depth of content knowledge is expected, IBL is
the obvious choice. The easiest specific
application would be in science class.
Currently, I am teaching about electricity. Lab kits like the ones mentioned in the
article from International Journal of
Special Education (2012), are used in my school. As I have done several labs with my class
this year, I would most likely use the open IBL structure as described by
Crombie (2014). After reading through
the textbook lesson on electricity, I could provide groups with electricity lab
kits. After examining the contents,
students could form their own questions for which to search for answers. In doing this, a sense of ownership and pride
about the rest of the lesson would be bolstered, as supported by Concepts to
Classroom’s workshop on IBL (2004).
After researching their questions and experimenting through practical
means with the materials provided, they would be able to report out to the
class their findings. This is the
culminating final step in Heick’s 4 phases of inquiry-based learning (2013). Having used forms of IBL in subjects like
math and reading before, I feel my class would be comfortable with the format
as well as successful.
References
(2004).
Workshop: Inquiry-based learning.
Concept to classroom. Ed online. Retrieved from http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/inquiry/
Aydeniz,
M., Cihak, D., Graham, S., & Retinger, L. (2012). Inquiry-based instruction
for teaching science to students with
learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 27(2), pages 189-206. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ982873.pdf
Crombie,
S. (2014, May 26). What is Inquiry Based Learning? Inspiring Science Education Project. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u84ZsS6niPc
Heick,
T. (2013, October 11). 4 phases of inquiry-based learning: A guide for teachers. Retrieved
from http://www.teachthought.com/learning/4-phases-inquiry-based-learning-guide-teachers/
Juntunen,
M. & Aksela, M. (2013). Life-cycle analysis and inquiry-based learning in
chemistry teaching. Science Education International, 24(2),
pages 150-166. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1015764.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment