Talk:Inquiry-based learning

message: the teaching of a discipline as inquiry (i.e., a curricular emphasis on the research processes within a science) with the teaching of the discipline by inquiry (i.e., using the research process of the discipline as a pedagogy or for learning). (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, 2006, p.78)}}
Please see the following journal article for a good discussion of this topic:
* 
:I fully agree with your point. But mine is that both articles already focus on pedagogy, so they should be merged. --Homunq 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that inquiry-based learning describes a multidisciplinary approach to learning not confined to the sciences.  Inquiry-based science is a subset of this approach to learning.
Something tells me the real problem here is that the Inquiry-based science article needs to be rewritten to remove the pedagogy elements to focus on science instead of learning... Guess I should get to it. Please help if you feel you are qualified.
--Dlewis3 15:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Journal

message: I removed the following text from the debate section because it misrepresents the source cited:
More recently researchers have begun to question this form of instruction. Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and 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 suggest that although learners in the adavnced stages of learning can and should learn on their own via inquiry methods, that novices need to be eased into science-based instruction and describe inquiry-based methods of instruction is "unguided instruction." They suggest learners need some initial guidance and once developed an underlying schema, then they will be prepared to apply what they have learned in practice-based activities.
The problem here is that Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark make no such argument that any learners should use inquiry methods, regardless of their level of expertise. In fact, they argue against any constructivist learning even for medical residents; these are hardly novice learners. This is original research, simply attributed to another source. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate section 

message: The debate section really looks like two debates to me
# On the effectiveness of Enquiry based learning, which doesn't really cover much ground
# On the suitability of Enquiry based learning for standardised assessment models (or traditional education, or 'fact based' curricula, or whatever).
Someone could perhaps split these, and beef both up a bit?
Goodwin57 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate - really two debates?

message: Hi folks, I've just attempted a fairly major cleanup. No major deleting, just rearranging and consolidating. I've gone as far as to remove the cleanup template! I hope it is seen as helpful. 
Also, a quick disclosure if it's necessary. I work as an "Educational Designer" at La Trobe University in Australia. The Faculty I've been assigned to use Inquiry-based learning as a described point of difference. In my attempts to familiarise myself - both with the concepts and how it is practiced at La Trobe, I'm editing this article to include what I learn. 
A big thanks to all those who have helped create the article up to now, it has been a big help to me getting to know some of the ideas and readings that inform them. Leighblackall (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "A Cleanup"

message: This is the sort of topic that an example would really help in understanding this concept 80.1.138.214 (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  An example of inquiry based teaching would be helpful! 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/06/09/PDF/A101_Edelson_etal_99.pdf
*:Triggered by \bhalshs\.archives-ouvertes\.fr on the global blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: I have deleted the original intro to the criticism section: "After a half-century of advocacy associated with instruction using minimal guidance, it appears that there is no body of research supporting the technique. In so far as there is any evidence from controlled studies, it almost uniformly supports direct, strong instructional guidance rather than constructivist-based minimal guidance during the instruction of novice to intermediate learners..." 
 The paragraph was simply wholesaled copied from the http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf article and used in the section without that context to imply a consensus. This paper seems to have been posted on many of the contructivist pages here. I'm not sure if it is so relevant to inquiry based learning either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The term 'inquiry-based learning' is widely used (or at least claimed) in progressive kindergarten teaching (and I think it's basically the same concept), and should be included here. At the moment, this article has two highly specific mentions - Ontario's kindergarten program and Dutch learning to read - which should be generalised up to all kindergarten education. Onanoff (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquiry-based learning in kindergartens 

message: — Assignment last updated by Holstem1 (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: EDFN 508 Introduction to Research

message: I've noticed a lot of problems in this section from it reading as an instruction manual to much of it being unsourced.  I'm not an expert in this area, so I deleted a large section of the topic because of it reading as instructions.  Please discuss here if you disagree Holstem1 (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learning to Read in the Netherlands Section 

message: Are there any parts of the article that need further citations/references? Holstem1 (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Citations for Verification