Inquiry-based learning

Definition

Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is supported by constructivist and socio-constructivist theories of learning (Eick & Reed, 2002).

Inquiry-based learning is often describe like a cycle or a spiral, which implies formulation of a question, investigation, creation of a solution or an appropriate response, discussion and reflexion about the result (Bishop et al., 2004).

This is so an learning process by exploration of natural or material world, which leads the learner to ask some questions and do discoveries in the seeking of new understanding.

With this pedagogy, children can learn science by doing it (Aubé & David,2003). The purpose is conceptual change.

Inquiry-based learning is so a students-centred process students-lead process. The purpose is to engage students in an active learning ideally based on their own questions. Learning activities are organized in cyclic way, independently of the subject. Each question lead to the creation of new ideas and other questions.

IBL follows from socio-constructivism because of collaborative work in which students find ressources, use tools ans ressources given by inquiry partners.Thus, students make progress by work-sharing, talk and building on everyone's work.

Models

Cyclic Inquiry model

The purpose of IBL is the creation of new ideas and concepts, and their spreading in the classroom. The activity often finish by the writing of a document which try to response the initial questions.

Inquiry cycle is the process which try to permit the student to answer these questions with his collected informations which allowed the creation of new ideas and concepts.

The cycle of inquiry has 5 global steps: Ask, Investigate, Create, Discuss and Reflect. I will give an exemple for each step with the example of the rainbow scenario from Villavicencio (2000), who works light and colors every year with 4 or 5 years old children.

from : [The Inquiry Page]

During the preparation of the activity, the teacher have to think about how many cycles to do, how to end the activity (at the Ask step) : to rephrase the questions or answer it and express the following questions.

Ask

Ask begins with student's curiosity about the world. Ideally with their own questions, but the teacher can stimulate the student curiosity by an early talk on their concepts about the subject. The important is that student have to formulate questions because they show then their concepts about the subject.

This Step focuses on a problem or a question that student begins to define. These questions are naturally redefine again and again during the cycle. Step's borders are blurred :a step is never completely left when student begin the next one.

Rainbow Scénario : The teacher gives some mirrors to children, so they can play with the sunlights which are passing trought the classroom's windows. With these manipulations, there are happening questions about light and colors

Investigate

Ask leads naturally to Investigate which consists in taking curiosity and continue it in seeking information. From then on, students or groups of students collect informations, study, watch ressources, experiment, look, interview, draw,... They can already redefine the question, make her clear or take another direction, which could not be anticipated by initial question. Investigate is so a self-motivating process totally owned by the active student.

Rainbow Scénario : Once questions asked, the teacher gives children some prismes which allow to bend the light and a RLS (Round Light Source), a big cylindic lamp with four colored windows through a light ray can pass. then children can mix colors and see the result of their mixed ray light on a screen. they began so to collect informations.

Create

Collected informations begin to merge. Student begins to do some links. Here, ability to synthetize meaning is the spark which make new knowledges. Student make some new thoughts, ideas and theories which are not directy inspired by his own experience. Then he write them in some kind of report.

Rainbow Scénario : Some links are created from collected informations and children understand that rainbows have to be created by this kind of phenomenon.

Discuss

Since here, students share their ideas with the other, and ask them about their own experiences and investigations. knowledge-sharing is a community process of construction and they begin to understand the meaning of their investigation. Comparing notes, discussing conclusions and sharing experiences are examples of this active process.

Rainbow Scénario : children are often and spontaneously sitten around RLS. They discuss and share their new acquired knowledges in purpose of understanding the mix of colours. Then, they are invited to share theirs findings with the rest of the class, while the teacher write notes on the blackscreen.

Reflect

This step consists in taking time to look back. Think again about the intial question, the taken way, and the actual conclusions. Student look back and take maybe some new decisions : "Has a solution been found ?", "Have New questions appeared ?", "What could they ask ?",...

Rainbow Scénario : teacher and students take time to look back and see again the notions seen in the early steps of the activity. They try to synthetize and to plan further with the knowledge basis of their recently acquired notions.

Then what?

Une fois le cycle bouclé, on se retrouve à nouveau dans l’étape de départ avec deux voies possibles : a) Questionner : on recommence un cycle, nourri par les nouvelles questions apparues ou les reformulations de celles déjà étudiées, et il peut être adéquat de constituer des groupes afin de stimuler les discussion et l’intérêt ; b) Répondre : on termine l’activité. L’enseignant doit alors prendre garde à finir par une ouverture du sujet : les questions qui ont trouvé réponse, celles qui ont été reformulées, les nouvelles questions apparues en cours d’activité. Pour ce faire une mise en commun des différents travaux est toujours souhaitable, même si cette étape n’a pas fait le sujet d’un cycle.

Rainbow Scénario : Arrivé à ce stade, l’enseignante leur laisse le loisir de répéter leurs expériences ou de tenter des choses différentes. Certains essayent ce que certains de leurs camarades avaient fait, d’autres répètent leurs expériences, avec ou sans variantes. Le cycle d’investigation est ainsi répété.

L’avantage de ce modèle est qu’il peut être appliqué à toutes sortes d’apprenants et de domaines traités. De plus, il est possible de construire une activité d’apprentissage par investigation en se focalisant sur un une partie du modèle (un seul cycle) ou en arrangeant certaines étapes en fonction des besoins. L’étape d’enquête peut par exemple être arrangée en précisant les sources dans lesquelles les apprenants doivent chercher. Il est rare que l’activité se limite sur un seul cycle. Au contraire, plusieurs cycles (formels ou non) sont souvent nécessaires et c’est pourquoi ce modèle est aussi parfois représenté sous forme de spirale.

Tools

Websites:

PostNuke Module :

See Also

constructivism, socio-constructivism, discovery learning, web quest,...

References

Lattion, S.(2005). Développement et implémentation d'un module d'apprentissage par investigation (inquiry-based learning) au sein d'une plateforme de type PostNuke. Genève, Suisse. Mémoire de diplôme non-publié
Internet: http://tecfa.unige.ch/staf/staf-i/lattion/staf25/memoire.pdf

Ackermann, E.K. (2004). Constructing Knowledge and Transforming The World. In Tokoro, M. & Steels, L. (2004). A Learning Zone Of One's Own. pp17-35. IOS Press

Aubé, M. & David, R. (2003). Le programme d’adoption du monde de Darwin : une exploitation concrète des TIC selon une approche socio-constructiviste. In Taurisson, A. & Senteni, A.(2003). Pédagogie.net : L’essor des communautés d’apprentissage. pp 49-72.

Bishop, A.P.,Bertram, B.C.,Lunsford, K.J. & al. (2004). Supporting Community Inquiry with Digital Resources. Journal Of Digital Information, 5 (3).

Chakroun, M. (2003). Conception et mise en place d'un module pédagogique pour portails communautaires Postnuke. Insat, Tunis. Mémoire de licence non publié.

De Jong, T. & Van Joolingen, W.R. (1997). Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains. University of Twente, The Netherland

Duckworth, E. (1986). Inventing Density. Monography by the North Dakota Study Group on Evaluation, Grand Forks, ND, 1986.
Internet : www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/classroom/inventingdensity.html

Drie, J. van, Boxtel, C. van, & Kanselaar, G. (2003). Supporting historical reasoning in CSCL. In: B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.). Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press, pp. 93-103. ISBN 1-4020-1383-3.

Eick, C.J. & Reed, C.J. (2002). What Makes an Inquiry Oriented Science Teacher? The Influence of Learning Histories on Student Teacher Role Identity and Practice. Science Teacher Education, 86, pp 401-416.

Gurtner, J-L. (1996). L'apport de Piaget aux études pédagogiques et didactiques. Actes du colloque international Jean Piaget, avril 1996, sous la direction de Ahmed Chabchoub. Publications de l'institut Supérieur de l'Education et de la Formation Continue.

Kasl, E & Yorks, L. (2002). Collaborative Inquiry for Adult Learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 94, summer 2002.

Keys, C.W. & Bryan, L.A. (2001). Co-Constructing Inquiry-Based Science with Teachers : Essential Research for Lasting Reform. Journal Of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (6), pp 631-645.

McKenzie, J. (1999). Scaffolding for Success. From Now On, ,The Educationnal Technology Journal, 9(4).

Nespor, J.(1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, pp 317-328.

Vermont Elementary Science Project. (1995). Inquiry Based Science: What Does It Look Like? Connect Magazine, March-April 1995, p. 13. published by Synergy Learning.
Internet: http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/classroom/inquiry_based.html

Villavicencio, J. (2000). Inquiry in Kindergarten. Connect Magazine, 13 (4), March/April 2000. Synergy Learning Publication.

Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A. & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction ,11, pp 381-419.

Watson, B. & Kopnicek, R. (1990). Teaching for Conceptual Change : confronting Children Experience. Phi Delta Kappan, May 1990, pp 680-684.