当前位置: X-MOL 学术Educ. Res. Rev. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Let's talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction
Educational Research Review ( IF 11.7 ) Pub Date : 2023-05-09 , DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100536
Ton de Jong , Ard W. Lazonder , Clark A. Chinn , Frank Fischer , Janice Gobert , Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver , Ken R. Koedinger , Joseph S. Krajcik , Eleni A. Kyza , Marcia C. Linn , Margus Pedaste , Katharina Scheiter , Zacharias C. Zacharia

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.



中文翻译:

让我们谈谈证据——结合探究式教学和直接教学的案例

多年来出现了许多调查科学领域探究性学习的研究。在此期间,探究性学习经常受到赞成直接教学而非探究性学习的学者的批评。在这方面,Zhang、Kirschner、Cobern 和 Sweller (2022) 最近断言,直接教学总体上优于基于探究的教学,并指责政策制定者忽视这一事实。在当前的文章中,我们回复了这一断言及其所依据的前提。我们回顾了证据并认为,对文献的更完整和正确的解释表明,与直接教学相比,基于探究的教学在获取概念知识方面产生了更好的总体结果。我们证明这一结论适用于受控、相关和基于项目的研究。我们随后认为,基于探究的教学和直接教学各有其特定的优点和缺点,并且每种方法的有效性取决于调节因素,例如学习目标、涉及的领域、学生的先验知识和其他学生特征。此外,基于查询的指导在辅以可以根据这些调节因素进行个性化甚至可以涉及提供直接指导的指导时是最有效的。因此,我们认为探究和直接指导相结合通常可能是支持学生学习的最佳方法。我们的结论是,政策制定者正确地提倡基于探究的教学,特别是当学生的调查在适当的时候得到直接指导的补充时。

更新日期:2023-05-09
down
wechat
bug