Inquiry-Based Instruction
During the last couple of weeks, we’ve been focusing on Chapter 5 (Howe’s book) entitled ‘Teaching Science as Inquiry’. The author explains that inquiry-based instruction leads to deeper understanding, and that “the National Research Council recommends this method for teaching science at all levels” (p.108). She explains that "The rationale for inquiry is that learning is more meaningful and lasting if children are given opportunities to ask questions, explore materials, gather data, come to conclusions, and discuss results" (p.108).
My question is: Do you think inquiry-based instruction can be used to teach other content areas besides science? If so, would it be as effective? If not, why not? And is inquiry-based instruction appropriate for teaching all students (all learning intelligences) equally? Why or why not?
My question is: Do you think inquiry-based instruction can be used to teach other content areas besides science? If so, would it be as effective? If not, why not? And is inquiry-based instruction appropriate for teaching all students (all learning intelligences) equally? Why or why not?
posted by M. Cristina at 3:07 PM
16 Comments:
I am not taking the Science class (and thus not reading Howe). However, what I understand from “inquiry-based instruction” is knowledge that is gained from the students’ own work, more student centered than teacher centered. An inquiry-based instruction would then be something that springs from the students’ own interests and it is from their research, or manipulation of the material that they learn. In this case, teachers need to provide students with the right opportunities and design to create this type of instruction in order to fulfill our curriculum (we can’t just have them learn about alligators, for ex. , just beacause “they are interested in them.”)
If my understanding of inquiry based is following the right track, then I definitely think that this method can be effective in all other areas, specially in language instruction. There is plenty of evidence (in the education, psych and neuroscience) that proves that kids internalize info (and store it as long term memory in their brains) when they are able to conduct their own learning and be active in this process. (Robert Greenleaf has written about it).
As a second language teacher, I try to provide many opportunities for students to manipulate their own learning. For example, instead of giving them a vocab list of new words, they have to create the lists themselves (they use their books as a source), organizing them, illustrating them and/or translating them. In this way, I am letting them choose their own method to remember words better, (tapping into multiple learning intelligences) and as they are manipulating the words, they tend to internalize them more.
Another activity that I do with vocab is putting a list of 20 or so familiar words on the board (animals, for example), and instead of going over each word, I ask them to organize this list in any possible way, whatever they think works (so they organize them alphabetically, by length of the word, by type of animal, etc.). Then, as a group we discuss the different sortings and why they chose to do it, and how different animals would fit different categories. In that way, my students are allowed to really think about the word, the meaning and play around with it. Strategies like this help them learn the word and not just memorize it.
In Hisory too, for example, the children do a lot of time-lines that hang around the classroom. Instead of just writing the year and event, they have to connect it to something in their own lifes (it can be a word or number association, etc.) In that way the time-line becomes more meaningful and thus will stick in their brains better. (That last sentence just sounds bad, but I literally mean that).
I did not read Howe’s book. My comment is based on the quote: “The rationale for inquiry is that learning is more meaningful and lasting if children are given opportunities to ask questions, explore materials, gather data, come to conclusions, and discuss results".
I think inquiry-based instruction can be used to teach almost every content area. The effects of this method largely depend on the planning and management of instruction. In order to effectively direct students, teachers should give them suggestions on their independent inquiry processes, such as what questions can sucessfully lead to the desired result and what kind of materials students could explore. Students who have little experience in using this learning method must be given more instruction and help. For example, teachers could design an inquiry learning process and just ask unexperienced students to follow the steps to ask questions, explore materials, gather data, conclude and discuss results.
No teaching method will lead to equal results in different students. Different students have different characteristics, such as habits and movivation for learning, therefore they have their preferences on instruction methods and diverse results through their preferred instruction methods.
I strongly think that inquiry based instruction can be used for content areas because for AP classes and especially English literature this is the instruction method that teachers always use. I think that it can be effective if used properly, a teacher has to know all the appropriate ways to execute instructions for the specific content. I think that the best way to teach all students with also regarding all types of intelligence is to include different ways to instruct them, only the teacher can really know how to implement inquiry-based instruction with others. I believe this because if multiple intelligences and learning ability exist then there has to be different ways to meet those needs. A teacher cannot have only one strategy and one instruction mode, he/she must have multiple. There is a reason why there are so many, and that is to meet all students' needs and ensure adequate learning.
I strongly believe that inquiry-based learning can be used in many content areas. Research has shown that students remember something and create a deeper understanding when they actually experience it for themselves. When I look back on my own educational experience, the tasks and project I remember in most detail are the ones that were hands-on and required students to dive into the material and experience it, not the lectures where teachers revealed interesting facts and ideas.
Teachers can create activities using inquiry-based learning in almost any subject. For example, a social studies teacher could have students work in groups to discover a particular time period. Furthermore, each group could look at the time period through the eyes of a different group (white men, women, latinos, black, so forth). This would be a way that students could learn about different cultures in minority groups that are often leftout of textbooks. A language arts teacher could have students explore the works of their favorite author and determine what styles the author incorporates into their writing to make it enjoyable. I think the important thing is for the teacher to give students a task and let the students explore the possibilities. The students may decide they want to write their own story using their favorite author's style of writing.
I think that inquiry-based learning is appropriate for all students because as Ana Stefany said, it allows students to work using the multiple intelligences. Each student is talented in different ways. If students are working on a project as a group, they can divide up the work so that each person is assigned a task that alllows them to learn most effectively.
I believe when you are dealing with a variety of different learners as well as students from different backgrounds it can be a challenging task. The good thing about inquiry based instruction is that children can bring thier own prior knowledge and expiriences into classroom learning. This is valuable for students who are multicultral because they can compare and contrast ideas that may be the same or different from thier own. At the same time, students, can use thier own knowledge and learning styles to grasp to material.
I'm all for inquiry-based learning. Even as adults, are strongest convictions and most cherished beliefs are founded in personal experience. But I think it is important to consider this approach may not work for all students. Some students need more structure than others. Some students' behavior and personality might not allow for effective inquiry. I'm sure there are times when this approach is not the best for certain students, but I think we as teachers should know our students well enough to make that decision.
Another point that I think is equally important to consider is that inquire-based learning is not appropriate for EVERY TEACHER. It requires a lot of planning, being able to think on your feet, problem solve, resourcefulness, etc. And if it is not done properly, it all falls apart. I've seen some teachers try inquiry, but get nowhere because of poor classroom management and organization. Also, a lot is determined by the rapport the teacher has with their class. I guess overall, I think inquiry is a great approach under the appropriate circumstances. It's not a quick fix for all problems and it's not something to be adapted at whim.
I am completely supportive of "inquiry-based instruction" and truly believe this approach is appliable to every content area.
To implement this approach, the class should be organized as student centered. However, that does not mean teachers take a minor part in the whole process of instruction;to the contrary, teachers need to input more time in planning carefully in their preparation. It is considerably crucial that teachers are capable to direct the students in a right track when they themselves are discovering,exploring the hidden rules behind the facts. Teachers are also supposed to correct the students' previous wrong or inaccuare conceptions from which they might extrapolate further conclusions. It is just like a negative chain reaction.
Thus, careful daily observations of different students is also a very important part when teachers conduct a "inquiry-based instrution" in their classrooms.
There is another facet of this issue: the assessment of the students' achievements. Since this method creates more elusive assessment standards for teachers to follow, more attention should be paid to each student on a daily basis in order to weigh their academic improvements.
I definitely think inquiry-based instruction can be used to teach other content areas besides science. Students learn through question will give them the motivation to find out the answers to their questions. The same idea could apply to all subject areas. For example, students might ask questions about different artists and their styles in an art class. Through inquiry-based instruction, students will be able to explore the ideas by researching information about different artists and their styles. Students could even experience making art using different styles to come to conclusions with a class discussion.
Inquiry-based instruction would be effective if the teachers plan the lessons well. Teachers need to teach student show to ask questions so they learn to ask appropriate questions to the unit. Students also need to learn to narrow down their questions to a more specific area. In addition, teachers need to set a time frame for the unit, so students know exact how much time they’ll have to explore materials and gather data. Students would know that within the freedom they have, there is a constriction.
I don’t think any instruction will teach all students equally. One of the biggest reasons is because students from different culture learn differently. Some might learn it better through tradition way of teaching. (i.e. lecture based instruction) These students might find too much freedom in inquiry-based instruction. However, with appropriate planning and proper guidance, I believe everyone will be able to learn something through inquiry-based instruction.
Inquiry-based instruction can work for other content areas besides science. However, the instruction/lesson execution must be profoundly and thoroughly developed. As discussed in chapter 5, inquiry-based instruction takes time to plan and time to be fully digested by students. Once we have triggered our student’s natural curiosities, we will just have to serve as facilitators and allow them to endure and explore their understandings. I can see this model being developed when we are attempting lessons in math through “informal” techniques (which we have discussion in our Math Curriculum course). It would work well in this setting because inquiry-based instruction feeds off children’s interests and if you are able to engage a student in wanting to know how many video games he/she could buy with $100, for example, his/her interest would be sparked. However, implementing that suggested lesson could also derive a student from learning if he/she gets too excited and goes off topic. That is why it would take expertise and practice on behalf of the teacher to re-direct their attention and learning. I agree with Ana-Stephany that an effective inquiry-based lesson plan, if well executed, can develop content knowledge. By doing so it also taps into the student’s multiple intelligences, therefore enriching their creative learning as well as their enduring understandings.
Not being in the science section of this course, I am not sure exactly what the book listed as positive and negative aspects of inquiry-based instruction, however, I definitely see it as being a great tool in any classroom. I am sure it is more easily applied to science, but would apply it to any content area whenever I could. I believe that students should have a major role in their own learning, rather than being like cups we just fill with information without getting anything from them in return. I don’t think there is any one style of instruction that should be used exclusively, but when used alongside other types if instruction, I can see a lot of potential. Students are more interested in the information being presented to them when they have been active in acquiring the knowledge. I agree with Kris’ comment that not only is this not appropriate for all students, but it is not appropriate for all teachers either. Her second paragraph mirrored my thoughts exactly. It is also something that cannot be repeated in the same way from year to year. Classroom dynamics can change how each student will react to different teaching methods, and having a student who thrived with inquiry-based instruction the previous year may not mean he or she would with the group he is in the following year.
Like we have seen in the Getting to Know Your Mealworm experiment, science allows teachers to create engaging lessons that take advantage of “enactive representation”(Bruner). This type of representation or experience allows children to use a form of manipulative to familiarize themselves with important science processes. Students that may have limited language skills would still be able to achieve the objectives of this science experiment. Science is a content area that is not as dependent upon language as others. Because of this freedom I think inquiry-based instruction is most affective for science but it will work with other content areas. The continual use of this type of instruction, in as many content areas as possible, will increase its effectiveness and eventually yield independent learners.
Inquiry-based instruction is not hindered by the need to address various learning styles. The teacher simply needs to select initial experiences that benefit the many different ways of learning. For example, a teacher could have the students listen to a popular song or maybe even take them to see play about something that they could identify with. After having the experience they will be able to take over and begin interpreting things and later presenting their interpretations in the best way they see fit.
Yes, I believe inquiry-based instruction can be used to teach other content areas, by virtue of the fact that an investigation will not limit itself to one specific content area. It is interdisciplinary by nature. For example, should a group of students wish to study trees, they could do so in all the content areas.
Allowing students to engage in their own learning, beginning with building off of student’s curiosity, I believe is something that can be beneficial across content areas. The structure that is instilled in inquiry-based instruction is what I have found to be the most important when developing a child’s knowledge on a given subject or topic. How inquiry-based instruction is processed in the classroom is of definite concern because it can be difficult to modify and maneuver through inquiry-based instruction accordingly, so that is beneficial for all students. Although when done right, I think it’s one of the most engaging ways to learn and easiest way to teach when the teacher has mastered it. Given that inquiry-based instruction is one of the most engaging ways to learn, it allows room and leeway for touching upon multiple intelligences because it precisely feeds off how children’s learn.
(I'm sorry, I was confused and waited for the second question to come up, but it didn't so, I"m answering now) I think inquiry-based instruction is good, as long as the end goal is kept in mind. I have seen inquiry based instruction just follow the student ideas, but, in the end, the project did not contribute to the curriculum or help build student understanding in any subject. As long as the teacher is following their interests while giving the students challenges, inquiry-based instruction should be integrated in each classroom.
I agree, I believe inquiry-based instruction can be used to teach other content areas. As Jeanne said, if the students want to investigate trees, let them do it in as many different areas as is applicable. They can see how trees have been used in literature, how they have affected us historically (the logging industry), they can calculate/graph/do whatever math skill is neccessary to create the clearest picture of the way trees currently affect our life in addition to the scientific exploration of the way trees work. This to me seems to be a part of the idea of an integrated curriculum. I see no reason why an integrated curriculum could not be inquiry based, keeping in mind the warnings other bloggers have pointed out about keeping focused, knowing your students, and knowing how (and having the ability) to implement an inquiry-based lesson.
I think “inquiry-based instruction” is very useful and effective. The students will interest in what they learn everyday and want to learn more. However, there is one thing that we need to keep in mind: as teachers, we are the facilitators. Thus, we need to have a very detail and organized lesson/learning plans for our students. We can not let the students only learn what they interest in. We are still the leaders of the classroom. If we let the students only learn what they interest in, why we need the standards? I also believe “inquiry-based instruction” can be used in other subject areas. Of course, the way we teaching in Math class should be different from teaching English class. As teachers, we should keep “inquiry-based instruction” in mind. This is a concept and it can be applied to different area.
Post a Comment
<< Home