Dueling Claims and Sketchy Support: Diving into Classroom Pedagogy
The debate between inquiry-based and direct instruction has long divided the educational community, with interesting arguments on both sides. A recent article in The Hechinger Report analyses the latest research on these competing teaching philosophies, adding nuance to this complex issue.
As the article explains, two groups of academics recently brought this debate into sharper focus through dueling journal articles (here and here). One camp argues that evidence shows minimal support for inquiry-based methods in building content knowledge, instead favouring more explicit teaching. However, another group contends that whilst findings are ‘complicated,’ inquiry overall produces stronger conceptual understanding over the long term.
The Hechinger Report article attempts to provide a balanced overview of the current research landscape. It acknowledges ‘merits’ to both approaches, whilst conveying the intricacies involved in interpreting a vast body of literature on this topic. A one-size-fits-all solution appears unlikely. As we well know, different students and learning objectives respond differently. However, they argue, room for compromise exists. As the author writes, experts on ‘both sides’ now agree: direct instruction benefiting novices should be gradually complemented by more independent inquiry as students’ foundations grow.
Diving deeper, this piece underscores how terminology itself contributes confusion. Inquiry proponents admit students need considerable guidance during exploration, at times resembling direct instruction. With definitions blurred, is it truly still inquiry-based learning? Such questions showcase the density still surrounding this debate—explaining its endurance despite attempts at resolution. However nuanced the research, successfully translating these insights into classrooms remains pivotal above all.
Deconstructing inquiry’s argument
As a SpEd RSP teacher, I’m often tasked with providing the direct instruction called for in students’ IEPs in classes that feature “inquiry” or “productive struggle.” So I want to begin with the inquiry side and see what they’re on about. I admit that I was triggered a bit by this part, “… 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.”
Th statement argues that a ‘proper review’ of the full body of research literature shows that overall, inquiry-based instruction is more effective than direct instruction for helping students gain conceptual knowledge. So what is that ‘proper review’ and how was it conducted?
Consider that:
“A more complete...interpretation” suggests that prior analyses defending direct instruction are ‘selectively highlighting’ evidence that supports their view, and ignoring a broader set of studies favoring inquiry. It argues a full accounting of the diverse research is needed.
“Acquiring conceptual knowledge’ specifically focuses the comparison on building students’ understanding of concepts, rather than just memorizing facts or procedures. Conceptual knowledge refers to deeper principles and connections in a domain.
“Better overall results” implies there may be some studies favouring each approach, but holistically ‘inquiry’ tends to show better outcomes, even if not every single study does. The authors thus argue that the totality of evidence tips toward ‘inquiry’ over direct methods.
A glaring omission in the defence of inquiry-based learning is the lack of discussion regarding students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs). The evidence presented focuses broadly on outcomes for general student populations rather than specific subgroups who may require more specialised instructional accommodations. However, education laws mandate that IEPs outline support measures tailored to a child’s particular needs. For many students, especially those with specific learning disabilities or ADHD, direct instruction is an essential IEP element aiding content access and academic progress. Yet proponents of inquiry methods fail to analyse evidence specifically examining outcomes among special needs students afforded legal protections. Does inquiry instruction adequately scaffold learning for children with working memory deficits? Are self-directed investigations beneficial for those struggling with reading comprehension or information processing? Without disaggregated data, questions persist over inquiry learning’s suitability and accessibility for vulnerable students already facing disadvantage. More research explicitly linking inquiry pedagogy to IEP-mandated adjustments for diverse learning differences remains sorely lacking (queue the ‘evidence mills’).
The quality of the evidence
The article “There is an Evidence Crisis in Science Educational Policy” critiques the quality and interpretation of evidence used to promote inquiry-based teaching in several ways:
It argues policy documents rely heavily on “program-based studies” which test an entire inquiry curriculum/program but cannot isolate the effects of inquiry alone from other elements. The quality of evidence from these to support inquiry is questioned.
The article argues large-scale controlled studies and correlational research overwhelmingly favour direct instruction. It therefore questions conclusions from standards citing evidence that ignores or contradicts this research.
The article expresses skepticism over how prior analyses used evidence selectively to reach conclusions supporting inquiry. It implies questionable or biased quality in interpretation of evidence.
When citing the meta-analysis by Minner et al., the article notes most included studies had no control groups or non-equivalent controls. It critiques reliance on this ‘evidence’ base to advance inquiry teaching practices.
The article says the claim that inquiry teaching improves various student outcomes has not been “seriously tested” despite being assumed valid for decades - questioning strength of inquiry evidence.
In general, the article repeatedly challenges the quality, validity, interpretation, and selectivity of evidence used to promote student-centered exploration over more explicit direct instructional techniques. It faults policies for dismissing contradictory evidence.
Final thoughts …
Sadly, the debate between inquiry-based and direct instruction shines an unflattering light on the wider status of education research. As regular readers know, those producing curricula or pedagogical programs sponsor tiny ‘evidence mill’ studies to support marketing claims about their products. Rarely robust or rigorously conducted, these small-scale projects permeate the literature, passed off as quality evidence.
Even university-based research falls prey to this crisis in credibility. Graduate students and professors frequently engage in “action research” projects with sample sizes no respectable scientist would deem valid or reliabile. Yet education schools churn out hundreds of micro-studies annually that add little generalisable knowledge to the field yet still get cited uncritically.
The role of financial motive further muddies the water. Inquiry advocates accuse direct instruction researchers of being shills for traditional textbook companies. Meanwhile, inquiry curricula themselves yield healthy profits for designers should favorable reviews bolster sales. Ideological commitment to one’s own “camp” blinds education scholars to conflicts of interest undermining research integrity.
Until the field faces this ‘epidemic of bias’ head on, the endless debates over reading programs, maths methods, and science approaches will only entrench. We urgently need funding agencies, regulators, university departments and journal editors to demand increased rigor, objectivity and quality in education studies. Only then can policymakers access clear evidence upon which to base decisions rather than ambiguous findings weaponised to serve narrow agendas. Our children’s education hangs in the balance.