Let's Talk Evidence--The Case for Combining Inquiry-Based and Direct Instruction

Literaturnachweis - Detailanzeige

Trefferliste

Autor/inn/en	de Jong, Ton; Lazonder, Ard W.; Chinn, Clark A.; Fisher, Frank; Gobert, Janice; Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E.; Koedinger, Ken R.; Krajcik, Joseph S.; Kyza, Eleni A.; Linn, Marcia C.; Pedaste, Margus; Scheiter, Katharina; Zacharia, Zacharias C.
Titel	Let's Talk Evidence--The Case for Combining Inquiry-Based and Direct Instruction
Quelle	39 (2023), Artikel 100536 (15 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (de Jong, Ton) ORCID (Lazonder, Ard W.) ORCID (Chinn, Clark A.) ORCID (Fisher, Frank) ORCID (Gobert, Janice) ORCID (Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E.) ORCID (Koedinger, Ken R.) ORCID (Krajcik, Joseph S.) ORCID (Kyza, Eleni A.) ORCID (Linn, Marcia C.) ORCID (Pedaste, Margus) ORCID (Scheiter, Katharina) ORCID (Zacharia, Zacharias C.) Weitere Informationen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1747-938X
Schlagwörter	Teaching Methods; Direct Instruction; Inquiry; Active Learning; Science Instruction; Outcomes of Education; Concept Formation; Scientific Concepts; Prior Learning; Student Characteristics; Instructional Effectiveness; Correlation; Course Content; Educational Objectives; Instructional Design; Evidence Based Practice; Achievement Tests; Foreign Countries; International Assessment; Secondary School Students; Elementary Secondary Education; Mathematics Achievement; Mathematics Tests; Science Achievement; Science Tests; Program for International Student Assessment; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Direct instructional procedues; Direct instructional approach; Unterrichtsverfahren; Aktives Lernen; Teaching of science; Science education; Natural sciences Lessons; Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht; Lernleistung; Schulerfolg; Concept learning; Begriffsbildung; Vorkenntnisse; Unterrichtserfolg; Korrelation; Kursprogramm; Educational objective; Bildungsziel; Erziehungsziel; Lesson concept; Lessonplan; Unterrichtsentwurf; Achievement test; Achievement; Testing; Test; Tests; Leistungsbeurteilung; Leistungsüberprüfung; Leistung; Testdurchführung; Testen; Ausland; Sekundarschüler; Mathmatics sikills; Mathmatics achievement; Mathematical ability; Mathematische Kompetenz
Abstract	Many studies investigating inquiry learning in science domains have appeared over the years. Throughout this period, inquiry learning has been regularly criticized by scholars who favor direct instruction over inquiry learning. In this vein, Zhang, Kirschner, Cobern, and Sweller (2022) recently asserted that direct instruction is overall superior to inquiry-based instruction and reproached policy makers for ignoring this fact. In the current article we reply to this assertion and the premises on which it is based. We 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 than does direct instruction. We show that this conclusion holds for controlled, correlational, and program-based studies. We subsequently 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 and other student characteristics. Furthermore, inquiry-based instruction is most effective when supplemented with guidance that can be personalized based on these moderating factors and can even involve providing direct instruction. Therefore, we posit that a combination of inquiry and direct instruction may often be the best approach to support student learning. We conclude that policy makers rightfully advocate inquiry-based instruction, particularly when students' investigations are supplemented with direct instruction at appropriate junctures. (As Provided).
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01