Discovery Learning and Guided Inquiry (was Re: AP students)

[Robert A Cohen <bbq@ESU.EDU>]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Joseph Bellina wrote:

> I have real problem with language like "discovery learning" because it
> implies that to learn students have to play around until they figure it
> out for themselves.  I think that lanquage does a disservice to a
> pedagogy that tries to consciously create situations in which students
> can learn for themselves, because that it the best way for them to
> learn.  It isn't random play...it is guided inquiry.

I agree. I think that many people mistakenly equate inquiry or
constructivist with discovery learning.

My understanding (someone please correct me if I am wrong) is that the
central idea of constructivism is that people construct knowledge (as
opposed to knowledge being transmitted into their minds). Most people do
not have a problem with this because most agree that students "interpret"
their experiences in class and try to make sense of them, particularly
when grappling with scientific concepts (as opposed to rote memorization
of terms). Thus, the problem or difficulty is not typically with
constructivism per se but with:
a.recognizing the difference between when students are "constructing"
knowledge vs. simply absorbing and regurgitating, and
b.what constructivism implies about the types of teaching methodologies
one should use.

Regarding (b), there is no one single teaching methodology that is
"constructivistic teaching." For example, constructivistic teaching is not
limited to discovery learning (where students learn through discovery) nor
does it necessarily imply that lecturing cannot be part of constructivist
teaching. It only implies the need to diagnose what is already in the
student's mind (usually used to initiate instruction) and that the focus
is on student learning rather than teacher teaching (see Hugh Haskell's
quote from Fri, 27 Apr 2001).

"Inquiry" is an interesting term in that, in science teaching, the word
"inquiry" is used to describe two things. In one sense, it is used to
describe one characteristic of what science is.  In another sense, it is
used to describe what students do in a constructivistic lesson. When
students are inquiring, they are questioning and evaluating the
information they are obtaining and/or observations they are making (e.g.,
by comparing theories/laws with evidence or by applying/extending their
understanding to new situations). Such inquiry is a pre-requisite if they
are to "interpret" their experiences in class and try to make sense of
them. As with constructivistic teaching, there is no one single teaching
methodology that is called "inquiry".  There is a whole continuum, of
which discovery may be one approach.  I suppose the only crucial feature
is an emphasis on formative assessment or self-reflection play.

> It will take more time, we will have to cover less content, but I don't
> think the model suggested in Hugh's note is a fair assessment of what
> needs to be done.  It rather reads like an excuse for not doing it.

I'm not sure if it will take more time and we'll have to cover less
content.  I am hopeful that, with practice, the students can cover the
same amount of content that I used to cover.  For example, I find I now
cover much less material in class than I used to.  However, the students
can now cover the remaining content on their own.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Hugh Haskell wrote:

> All too, often, in the hands of an ill-prepared
> teacher, it becomes just that (unguided play) and enables the student
> to come to incorrect conclusions that go uncorrected by the teacher.

Agreed.

> My comment about "if we had time" is just that. Even in the guise of
> guided inquiry, this method takes up time by the barrelfull, and a
> course that bills itself as a "survey" could not hope to cover even a
> reasonable fraction of the relevant topics in the time allowed.

As I wrote above, I'm not convinced that it takes more time to do guided
inquiry.

> What
> is reasonable, it seems to me, is to do some things via the "guided
> discovery," route, but to use other methods as well, for different
> topics.

I agree that guided discovery, as one possible guided inquiry approach,
takes more time but there are other guided inquiry approaches (see below).

On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Mike Ugawa wrote:

> I have mixed feelings about most of this,
> but I am willing to accept that any given approach--including the "guided
> discovery and constructivist ideas" mentioned above may not work well for
> many students.

It seems to me that you are using "constructivist ideas" more as a
particularly methodology (like discovery learning) rather than a
philosophy of how people learn.  Certainly, people have different
preferences regarding the environment in which they learn best or how they
can best recall information.  Is this what you are talking about?

> It is very popular these days to "bash" the lecture as an
> ineffective way to teach. Yet there are students--myself among them--who
> learn very well from lecture.

I don't believe lecture is anti-inquiry.  It is just hard to do formative
assessment during a lecture.

> The best teachers, by student consensus
> among my fellow physics majors, were a few professors who were noted for
> being outstanding lecturers--eloquent, passionate, clear and
> well-organized in their lectures.

Yes...but what did the students learn?  Do you have evidence that they
learned better?

----------------------------------------------------------
| Robert Cohen               Department of Physics       |
|                            East Stroudsburg University |
| bbq@esu.edu                East Stroudsburg, PA  18301 |
| http://www.esu.edu/~bbq/   (570) 422-3428              |
----------------------------------------------------------