The quibble between direct instruction proponents and inquiry focused enthusiasts seems less about finding the best way to teach but rather focusing on what to learn. As a relatively new teacher, I am well acquainted with the concept of inquiry-based learning. As a former physics undergraduate student, I am painfully aware of lecture-based teaching. To scrap over which one is the superior pedagogical technique is, to me, akin to trying to figure out the which utensil is best: the spoon or the fork. There is a time and a place for both and in some situations, the decision is clear (ever tried to eat soup with a fork?). I think that the most effective educators, especially at the high school level, blend direct instruction with inquiry-based methods (and many others) so that students feel supported and free to make decisions about their learning.
Jeff Hopkins, principal of the Pacific School of Inquiry and Innovation, pictures teaching and learning as the sparking of a flame. Teachers question and guide while students set their course and follow through with meaningful learning based on their interests. Through this process, educators can ensure that students pick up the important skills that serve the ultimate goal of education: making good citizens. When students leave high school, we hope that they are critical, thoughtful, kind, and passionate. We hope that they use their rationality and care to make informed decisions and shape our world into a better place. While these aims are noble and just, teachers face a pragmatic issue; the standards set by our institutions often include objectives that do not immediately serve the goal of making good citizens. These superfluous objectives inject an urgency to our teaching and eat away at our hours.
In my environment, we deploy the International Baccalaureate Diploma program which espouses global mindedness, care for local community, and stewardship for the environment. These benchmarks for balanced citizenship are difficult to argue and are continuous with Hopkin’s notion of inquiry driven learning. It would be an absolute dream to unleash my students on projects of their own choosing for weeks at a time before regrouping and disseminating our learning. Unfortunately, these lofty goals are undercut by hundreds of content-related understandings and a final exam worth 80% of their final grade. It is a struggle to see how the immense volume of content can be digested through inquiry alone. The question then becomes: can content heavy programs like the IB (or AP) be compatible with effective teaching and learning practices like inquiry? Or, is it best to approach these programs with a more classic approach like direct instruction?
Connections to my M.Ed project
Wherever we fall on the spectrum from direct instruction to free inquiry, it is in the best interest of our students (especially at the high school level) for us to loosen our control on their learning. Whether that be through inquiry-based units or flexible student select assessment methods, giving students a choice about how they learn or how they’ll be assessed not only improves motivation, it also leads to better outcomes in the future. The ultimate goal of high school education is to encourage students to take responsibility for their learning. This includes making decisions about what and how they learn as well as demonstrating their understanding of the concepts they are inquiring about.
