Inquiry and Direct Instruction

There has long been a discussion on how to best integrate active learning, especially knowing that this approach to teaching has been shown to be effective, but also requires substantially more time. It is no secret why historically many instructors choose direct instruction as it was the most efficient at “telling” information, although there has been little evidence as to how this approach actually enhances learning. As we all consider how to continually enhance the design of our learning experiences, I would like to share the recent article entitled, “Let's talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction,” by de Jong, et al. (2023).

The authors review the evidence and argue that a more complete and correct interpretation of the literature demonstrates that inquiry-based instruction produces better overall results for acquiring conceptual knowledge and applications. They argue that inquiry-based and direct instruction each have their specific virtues and disadvantages and that the effectiveness of each approach depends on moderating factors such as the learning goal, the domain involved, and students' prior knowledge.

The National Research Council (2013) has redefined the term “inquiry” replacing it with the term “scientific practices” to reflect the interconnected nature of science and the role of shared norms that undergird scientific activity. Underlying these practices are two new competencies: “developing and using models” and “using mathematics and computational thinking.” The National Science Foundation, 2000) have discussed inquiry processes that clearly have a link to the six components identified by Chinn and Duncan (2021). Examples are “making discoveries” (finding out), “planning and conducting investigations,” “gathering data,” “interpreting data” (using evidence), “thinking critically,” and “asking questions” and “constructing and analyzing alternative explanations” (epistemic agency).

The authors further remind us of broader operational definitions for “direct instruction.” Direct instruction conveys information directly—for example, by lecturing and by giving a leading role to the teacher. Students can also be active in making sense of the information offered through note taking or practicing by solving problems (Hughes, 2017). Although, students are not asked to invent, construct, or discover any of the critical practices, concepts, or principles on their own.

Therefore, instructors should align their instructional and assessment methods with the kind of learning outcomes they expect from students. Early instructional design theories (Reigeluth, 1983) acknowledged the importance of aligning learning strategies with learning outcomes. Inquiry-based strategies were seen as more appropriate for promoting deep understanding and transfer of the subject matter, which students who followed traditional instruction often lacked (Ortiz, 2005).

There are of course other student characteristics beyond prior knowledge which can be an asset for inquiry-based learning. These include students' reading and math ability, inhibitory control, self-efficacy and self-regulated/directed learning.

So, it appears that the research supports a combination of inquiry and direct instruction and is most effective when intentionally designed. Remember there are several ways to design learning opportunities, two broad categories include:

Deductive (Teacher-centered), learners given a general rule, which is applied to specific examples; teacher explains concepts then asks students to complete tasks; and
Inductive, Noticing (Learner-centered), learners detect patterns and work out rules for themselves; associated with Inquiry-Based Teaching.

Determining which approach to offer first can be decided on whether students need their prior knowledge gaps filled; or active learning can be efficiently “unpacked” through discourse, productive struggle and frustration.

References

de Jong, T., Lazonder, A., Chinn, C., Fischer, F., Gobert, J., Hmelo-Silver, C., Koedinger, K., Krajcik, J., Kyza, E., Linn, M., Pedaste, M., Scheiter, K., & Zacharia, Z. (2023). Let's talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction, Educational Research Review, 39, 100536, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100536