Inquiry instruction is defined as curriculum where students participate in open-ended, student-centered, hands-on activities (Colburn, 2000). Often, inquiry implies using strategies modeled after investigative research that challenges students to discover fundamental principles of science (Kirschner et al., 2006). The terms discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning, inquiry learning, and constructivist learning essentially describe similar educational strategies according to Kirschner et al. (2006). This paper will refer to these related concepts describing educational techniques that give students more control over the learning process as inquiry learning.
Instructor intervention in the inquiry process varies with different types of inquiry. Structured inquiry, which includes the most instructor intervention, describes activities where students receive the materials and procedure to investigate a problem. In this approach to inquiry, students are unaware of the expected outcomes and create their conclusions. The guided inquiry approach is like structured inquiry, except students must also develop a procedure to solve the problem. Open inquiry requires students to identify a problem to investigate, create a procedure, and draw conclusions. The final inquiry approach that requires the least instructor intervention is the learning cycle. In learning cycle activities, students are introduced to a new concept and must apply the concept in a new context (Colburn, 2000). This essay will outline debates on the validity of inquiry instruction. I argue that structured and guided inquiry can only lead to critical thinking and problem-solving skills when activities fall into students’ zone of proximal development (ZPD).
Advocates of inquiry-based curriculum highlight its ability to engage students and foster higher-level thinking skills. All inquiry learning approaches ideally allow students to take control of the learning process. While some approaches give students more control than others, all types of inquiry give students more space to think and draw their own conclusions than many traditional instructional techniques. Educational practices that view students as active participants in the learning process effectively engage students and can dismantle unhelpful power dynamics between teachers and students (Freire, 1970/2005). Researchers in favor of inquiry instruction often differentiate between doing science and doing science activities. For example, Moscovici and Nelson (1998) argue that doing science through inquiry effectively fosters higher-order cognitive skills. The inquiry process forces students to practice deductive reasoning when coming up with conclusions and promotes critical thinking when developing a procedure to solve a problem. If inquiry activities do not go as planned, reflection on these learning experiences can further develop higher-order thinking skills. Those who support inquiry instruction identify that this process requires significant time, planning, and flexibility on the instructor's part and is not the most effective instructional technique for every topic (Colburn, 2000).
Not all educational researchers agree that inquiry instruction is an effective teaching model. Critics of inquiry instruction argue that the inquiry process is not conducive to learning based on what is known about cognitive processing and memory: the working memory, long-term memory, and the relationship between the two influence how humans learn. Working memory processes new information, while long-term memory influences how we experience all stimuli. The process of learning occurs when information is stored in long-term memory (Kirschner et al., 2006). Kirschner et al. (2006) argue that the process of inquiry overloads the working memory, limiting our ability to transfer knowledge to the long-term memory. This overload ultimately limits the process of learning. Critics of inquiry also caution against emphasizing learning a subject through experiencing the processes and procedures of the discipline over teaching knowledge of a subject (Kirschner et al., 2006). Both the critics and advocates of inquiry instruction make compelling arguments. This essay will attempt to identify when inquiry is helpful and when other instructional methods would be more effective.
Structured and guided inquiry can lead to critical thinking and problem-solving skills when delivered in students’ ZPD. Kirschner et al. (2006) argue that instructional techniques should be based on cognitive learning research. Advocates and critics of inquiry instruction agree that inquiry activities must be developmentally appropriate for students (Coburn, 2000). My views on learning and development align with the ideas described by educational theorist Lev Vygotsky. Students' cognitive development contains two levels. First is a student's actual development level, which includes all processes they can do independently. The other describes processes that a student can understand with the assistance of an adult and is called the level of potential development. The area between the two levels is called the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). Instruction focusing only on a student's actual development level is ineffective at developing new skills. Thus, inquiry instruction that aims to develop new critical thinking and problem-solving skills must exist within students' ZPD.
Approaches to inquiry instruction that still include significant instructor intervention can access the ZPD and develop higher-order thinking skills. At the TREE Semester, I had the opportunity to create and teach a science inquiry unit to 5th-grade students. My unit focused on exploring how the presence of humans impacts the presence of small rodents through the scientific method. Most of my unit fell into the category of guided inquiry instruction. At the beginning of the unit, I was still figuring out what inquiry approach was appropriate for my students; this part of my instruction fell into open inquiry. Initially, while implementing my activity for identifying the specific problem and research question that my unit would focus on, students were challenged to develop a research question. All of my students struggled to come up with a question independently. Fortunately, this was something I had anticipated and I was prepared to guide them through creating a research question. The skills needed for this activity were possible to unlock in my students' ZPD but were not a part of their actual development. I then guided my students through creating their hypotheses. Some of my students initially struggled to understand the definition of a hypothesis and how to structure one. However, with my assistance, they could all develop original hypotheses. This guided inquiry approach allowed my students to practice problem-solving skills as they overcame the challenge of developing a hypothesis.
Later in my lesson, I took a guided inquiry approach and had my students develop a procedure to answer our research question. I provided my students with materials and prompted them to brainstorm potential methods to answer the research question. After some brainstorming, my students arrived at the idea of using an ink pad and bait to see if rodents were present in the area. This guided inquiry activity allowed my students to work in their ZPD and successfully use problem-solving skills to create a procedure. In my teaching experience, students practiced critical thinking and problem-solving skills when the activity existed in their ZPD.
My personal teaching experiences and views on the relationship between learning and development highlight how some approaches to inquiry instruction can develop higher-order thinking skills. Educators who wish to use inquiry instruction to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills must be aware of their students' ZPD and ensure that their inquiry activities exist just beyond their actual developmental level. Inquiry instruction within students' actual developmental level may not challenge them to develop higher-order thinking skills. At the same time, inquiry instruction with insufficient instructor intervention and assistance may overload students' working memories and will not be conducive to learning or skill development. Inquiry instruction will take significant time, flexibility, and preparation but can be an effective teaching strategy.
Effective inquiry instruction can be a valuable tool to support the goals and objectives of Environmental Education (EE). The Tbilisi Declaration (1977) outlines five categories of EE objectives: awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and participation. Inquiry instruction supports the objectives of knowledge and skills. The knowledge objective attempts “to help social groups and individuals gain a variety of experiences in, and acquire a basic understanding of, the environment and its associated problems” (Tbilisi Declaration, 1977). The hands-on nature of inquiry can provide students with experiences that lead to environmental knowledge. Additionally, the skills objective aims “to help social groups and individuals acquire the skills for identifying and solving environmental problems” (Tbilisi Declaration, 1977). Critical thinking and problem-solving are key skills for identifying and addressing environmental issues. Therefore, educators able to include inquiry instruction that fosters these higher-order thinking skills support one of the main objectives of EE.
Works Cited
Colburn, A. (2000). An Inquiry Primer. Science Scope, 42–44.
Freire, P. (1970/2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Kirschner, P. A., 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.