Reply To: Locating ourselves in the epistemological landscape

29th February 2024 at 3:05 pm #82636

Keymaster

I have been meaning to return to and develop this post, and hope to have an opportunity to do so soon.

In the meantime, I want to briefly update the direct instruction Vs inquiry debate with some more recent articles, and note two things:

Kirschner/ Sweller et al. appear to get more attention for their case against inquiry.
However, their conception of inquiry remains distorted – at least from our perspective – and so seemingly goes around in circles.

The articles below are listed in reverse chronological order, which I will add to:

Sweller, J., Zhang, L., Ashman, G., Cobern, W., & Kirschner, P. A. (2024, February). Response to De Jong et al.’s (2023) paper “Let’s talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction”. Retrieved from Educational Research Review: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100584
De Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Chinn, C. A., Fischer, F., Gobert, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., . . . Zacharia, Z. C. (2023, May). Let’s talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction. Retrieved from Educational Research Review: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100536
Sweller, J. (2021, August). Why Inquiry Based Approaches Harm Students’ Learning. Retrieved from Centre for Independent Studies: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/why-inquiry-based-approaches-harm-students-learning/
Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2020). Why discovery learning is a bad way to discover things/why inquiry learning isn’t. In P. A. Kirschner, & C. Hendrick, How Learning Happens: Seminal Works in Educational Psychology and What They Mean in Practice (pp. 165-174). Abingdon: Routledge.
Tytler, R. (2019, August 9). Inquiry vs Direct Teaching for Interdisciplinary STEM. Retrieved from STEME: Science Technology Engineering Mathematics and Environmental Education Research Group: https://deakinsteme.org/blog/inquiry-vs-direct-teaching-for-interdisciplinary-stem/
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Kirschner, P., 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. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

The polemic against inquiry is ‘grounded’ in evidence drawn from the field of cognitive science, but this ground is less stable than it appears. This is explored very accessibly in the following blog post by Matthew Evans (a headteacher): Evans, M. (2024, February 13). Is CogSci in education a surging wave? Retrieved from Matthew Evans: https://educontrarianblog.com/2024/02/13/is-cogsci-in-education-a-surging-wave/

Makes a distinction between Cognitive Science as a discipline (CS-dis) and the way in which cognitive science “has been deployed by advocates in education in the UK and elsewhere in the last decade or so” (CS-edsoc, or #CogSci on #EduTwitter, although the use of #CogSci conflates the discipline with the social movement in education, and so should more properly be #EduCogSci).
Identifies factors that strengthened the wave, as well as warning signs that it is breaking, or more likely dissipating.

Evans’ blog post was prompted by the following blog post by Christian Anderson, which is also worth reading:

Anderson, C. M. (2024, February 12). Evidence-based educational movements are actually games. Retrieved from Teaching Biology: https://cmooreanderson.wixsite.com/teachingbiology/post/educogsci-is-a-pedagogy-game