Introduction On Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) : Project Name
Introduction On Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) : Project Name
Introduction On Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) : Project Name
Project Name:
Editor(s):
Contributors:
Content:
1.
Inquiry-based learning (IBL) .................................................................................................................................. 2
2.
Levels of inquiry-based learning ......................................................................................................................... 3
3.
The weSPOT IBL approach ..................................................................................................................................... 4
4.
Inquiry-based learning and technology ........................................................................................................... 5
5.
Skills trained with inquiry-based learning ....................................................................................................... 6
6.
References ................................................................................................................................................................... 7
According to Conole, et al. (2008) there are four main characteristics of inquiry learning:
Metacognition is the ability to use prior knowledge to plan a strategy for approaching a learning task, take
necessary steps to problem solve, reflect on and evaluate results, and modify ones approach as needed.
problem at hand and the appropriate method and the students work on the solution by collecting
and analysing the appropriate data.
The third level of inquiry is called guided inquiry. In this inquiry the question and procedure are
still provided by the teacher. Students, however, generate an explanation supported by the
evidence they have collected. The teacher provides students only with the research question or
hypothesis, and students design the procedure (method) to test their question/hypothesis and the
resulting explanations with guidance and/or mentoring support.
The most demanding level of inquiry is the open inquiry. In an open inquiry students have the
opportunity to act like scientists, deriving questions, designing and carrying out investigations as
well as communicating their results. This level requires experienced scientific reasoning and
domain competences from students. The teacher can provide guidance but the students
themselves should decide on the hypothesis, the method, the solution and the communication of
the solution.
Table 1. Levels of inquiry according to (Tafoya et al., 1980)
Main responsibility for:
Open
Inquiry
Guided
Inquiry
Structured
Inquiry
Conrma6on
Inquiry
Level of inquiry
Level 4 Open inquiry
Level 3 Guided inquiry
Level 2 Structured inquiry
Level 1 Confirmation/ verification
Problem
Student
(teacher)
(teacher)
(teacher)
Procedure
Student
Student
(teacher)
(teacher)
Solution
Student
Student
Student
(teacher)
of scientific inquiry. It leads finally to structured knowledge about a domain and to more skills and
competences about how to carry out research which is efficient and which can be communicated.
The World Wide Web and open shared data can provide access to older scientific work in
form of reports, data, presentations and articles together with the most recent ones on the
same topic, offering the opportunity to explore how scientific data, models and theories
are created, modified and refined over time. Computer technology can facilitate the
collection of data and manipulation of variables in experiments and models.
Simulations can support science and its teaching. Teachers can us it to demonstrate the
impacts of the choice of variables used in an experiment. Simulated experiments and
virtual labs can save time for both teacher and students normally spent on setups,
cleanups and other tedious procedures of lab work (Kubicek, 2005).
Tools such as sensors, mobiles and portable devices, previously only available to scientists,
permit students to directly interact with the environment and collect new first-hand data
within a practical time- frame.
Social media and other communication tools such as wikis, blogs, emails etc. can facilitate
synchronous and asynchronous communication between learners, teachers and scientists,
give access and create communities of practice, which in turn creates added potential to
enrich discussions on science and its subjectivity, its social/cultural embeddedness,
methods, observations and inferences.
However, the answer to the question, "Can technology has significant effect on learning?" is yes as
long as one determines the models of teaching and learning that underlie the instruction in the
classroom. Pedagogy is the key element in applying the use of technology effectively. Good
pedagogy, can be made significantly more effective by appropriate uses of technology.
Analytical skills to research a topic, develop a project plan and timeline, and draw conclusions
from research results.
Science skills to break down a complex scientific system into smaller parts, recognize cause
and effect relationships, and defend opinions using facts.
Information foraging skills to be able to gather valuable pieces of information from different
sources
Attention to detail to follow a standard blueprint, record data accurately, or write instructions.
6. References
American
Association
for
the
Advancement
of
Science
(AAAS).
(2009).
The
Nature
of
Science.
http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?chapter=1
(accessed
20/04/13)
Anderson,
R.
D.
(2002).
Reforming
science
teaching:
What
research
says
about
inquiry?
Journal
of
Science
Teacher
Education,
13(1),
1-12.
Barstow, D. (Ed.). (2001). Blueprint for change: Report from the national conference on the
revolution in earth and space science education. Cambridge, MA: TERC.
Bell,
T.,
Urhahne,
D.,
Schanze,
S.,
&
Ploetzner,
R.
(2010).
Collaborative
Inquiry
Learning:
Models,
tools,
and
challenges.
International
Journal
of
Science
Education,
32(3),
349-377.
Conole,
G.,
Scanlon,
E.,
Kerawalla,
L.,
Mulholland,
P.,
Anastopoulou,
S.,
&
Blake,
C.
(2008).
Inquiry
learning
models.
World
Conference
on
Educational
Multimedia,
Hypermedia
and
Telecommunications
2008
(pp.
20652074).
Chesapeake,
VA:
AACE.
Crawford, S., & Stucki, L. (1990). Peer review and the changing research record. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 41(3), 223-228.
Dewey,
J.
(1933).
How
We
Think:
A
Restatement
of
the
Relation
of
Reflective
Thinking
to
the
Educative
Process.
Boston,
MA:
Heath.
Dewey,
J.
(1938).
Logic:
The
theory
of
inquiry.
New
York:
Holt,
Rinehart
and
Winston.
Dewey, J. (1916/2009). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
New York: WLC Books. (Original work published 1916)
de
Jong,
T.
(2006).
Computer
simulations
-
Technological
advances
in
inquiry
learning.
Science,
312(5773),
532-533.
Edelson,
D.,
Gordin,
D.,
&
Pea,
R.
(1999).
Addressing
the
challenge
of
inquiry-based
learning
through
technology
and
curriculum
design.
Journal
of
the
Learning
Sciences,
8(3/4),
391-450.
Grandy,
R.,
&
Duschl,
R.
(2007).
Reconsidering
the
Character
and
Role
of
Inquiry
in
School
Science:
Analysis
of
a
Conference.
Science
&
Education,
16(2),
141166.
Hunt, F. E., & Colander, D. C. (2010). Social Science: An Introduction to the Study of Society:
International Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., & Fishman, B. (2000). Inquiry based science
supported by technology: Achievement among urban middle school students. Paper presented at
the American Educational Research Association, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Kubicek, P. J. (2005). Inquiry-based learning, the nature of science, and computer technology: New
possibilities in science education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1).
http://cjlt.csj.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/149/142 (accessed 03/02/13).
Novak, A. (1964). Scientific inquiry. Bioscience, 14, 25-28.
Novak, A. M., & Gleason, C. I. (2001). Incorporating portable technology to enhance an inquiry,
project-based middle school science classroom. In R.F. Tinker & J.S. Krajcik (Eds), Portable
technologies Science learning in context. New York, N.Y: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academic Press.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). 2004. NSTA Position Statement: Scientific Inquiry.
http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx (accessed 22/03/13).
Osborne,
J.,
Simon,
S.
A.,
&
Monk,
M.
(2005).
Enhancing
the
Quality
of
Argument
in
Science
Lessons.
Final
report
to
ESRC
(R000237915).
Spronken-Smith,
R.
(2007).
Inquiry-based
Learning:
Meaning,
Theoretical
Basis
and
Use
in
Higher
Education
(pp.
117).
Wellington.
Spronken Smith, R., & Walker, R. (2010). Can inquiry based learning strengthen the links between
teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 723-740.
Tafoya,
E.,
Sunal,
D.,
&
Knecht,
P.
(1980).
Assessing
Inquiry
Potential:
A
Tool
for
Curriculum
Decision
Makers.
School
Science
and
Mathematics,
80(1)
43-48.