The case for inquiry-based learning

In my previous post outlining the case against inquiry-based learning I referenced William Reville's critique of modern education methods.

Much of the criticism of traditional teaching methods and motivation for alternative approaches centres around this point. The world we live in and the environment students ultimately graduate into has changed substantially, even within the last few decades. Access to knowledge is near ubiquitous, and skills such as knowledge application, problem solving and argumentation are ever more important. Thus, international assessment frameworks, such as PISA, have been criticised for comparing countries on the basis of knowledge and recall, rather than application.

It is worth exploring in a little more depth what tests like PISA can tell us. Researchers found that 'science students who report experiencing low levels of inquiry-oriented learning activities are found to have above-average levels of science literacy, but below-average levels of interest in science, and below-average levels on six variables that reflect students’ engagement in science.' The opposite is observed for students who report experiencing high levels of inquiry-oriented learning.

Michael Seery discusses how to find the middle ground and the zone of proximal development.