Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
I shudder to think about some of my students being put in charge of coming up with their
own questions or investigations. I think inquiry would be a great method of learning for my
higher ability students, but I do not think many of my lower ability students would really
get it.
For Mike (2006), teaching through inquiry was uncomfortable because it meant
following an “unknown” path.
If I teach a traditional lesson I know, based on past experience, how long the lesson will
take and what I need to teach the lesson. With an inquiry lesson it is much more difficult to
know what time frame it will take to teach the lesson and exactly what I will need to support
the students.
Classroom inquiry, as it has been discussed in the reform literature is neither a
method, nor a set of methods. It can best be described as a
methodology
.Theterm
methodology, as used here, refers to more than a set of methods; rather it refers to
the rationale, assumptions, as well as methods that underlie a particular pedagog-
ical approach (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973). The course readings
were the primary resource for addressing the teachers' misconceptions. Classroom
inquiry was presented as a multifaceted approach with variations in the degree of
teacher direction. Thus inquiry can be “guided” or “open” or “full” or “partial”
depending on the extent to which the teacher structures learning experiences. While
inquiry was a “central part of the teaching standards,” it was not the only recom-
mended approach. It was therefore a “myth” that the national standards advocate
the use of inquiry for all subject matter (NRC 2000, p. 36). For some teachers, this
provided some validation for their instructional goals and practices. Jill (2006), for
example, wrote: “I'm always innovating something to try to engage more kids so
they want to find the answers. I have found out that there was a name to what I
was trying to do with the kids all these years!..inquiry.” Alex (2004) had started
out lukewarm about inquiry because he believed that “supporters of inquiry want
inquiry-based learning to be exclusive in the classroom.” He could not account for
the source of his belief. “I'm not sure if I just listened to the wrong people when I
first learned about inquiry, or if I simply didn't listen,” he commented. Inquiry, as
he had understood it, had “seemed like a huge time consumption, and a source of
frustration for me in trying to cover content standards.” He continued, “Honestly,
this is a big part of why I was hesitant to embrace inquiry.” As he reflected on the
readings he had concluded that his own perspectives were consistent with inquiry.
I knew that in my class I wanted to use 'open' inquiry some of the time, and to use what I
now know is called 'guided inquiry' more often. Little did I realize that what I was seeking
is just what the national standards call for, and that they have cool names for the varying
levels of inquiry.
The course experience validated the teachers' perspectives, but only up to a point.
Jack (2006) conceded that he felt “a little insecure about cutting the students loose.”
He continued, “My class and I swim on the shallow end of the pool, trying to muster
the courage for an occasional foray into the deep end. It becomes a delicate balance
between achieving my academic agenda and allowing the students a richer learning
experience.”
