The most prevalent obstacle that impedes inquiry-based learning in educational settings is the instructor’s understanding of inquiry and pedagogical approaches as well as the ability to implement these successfully. This was shared through the expressed frustrations of the Jasper Series designers when teachers did not seem to recognize the value in exposing students to analog problems that were conceived for the purpose of improving transfer and abstraction of concepts and strategies, opting instead for adventures that introduced the need to use different skills overlooking the opportunity to increase adaptive expertise (Hatano, 1984). Within the WISE environment, customizing the platform for successful inquiry-based learning requires a level of competence that designers cannot necessarily assume teachers possess. The inquiry map alone, which directs students through the process, can present a significant challenge in that even Linn, Clark & Slotta (2003) caution that its level of detail affects student engagement. The prescriptive nature of WISE projects provide students with the necessary information to proceed independently, but also provide opportunities for teachers to misinterpret the structure of the investigation. Manipulating the available scaffolding steps along with the limited opportunities for socially constructing knowledge embedded within WISE provide a potential recipe for reinforcing the transmission model, albeit with animations and the technological affordances of accessing past progress. While the Jasper Series was founded on stronger pedagogical principles that provide valuable insight into TELEs and continue to describe essential qualities of powerful and effective learning environments, both it and WISE promote more of a packaged approach to inquiry that does not require teachers to explicitly understand the theory and pedagogy behind them before integrating them. As potent as they could be in bringing inquiry-based learning to the classroom, they could also be used to further entrench traditional instructional approaches that reinforce inert knowledge. It cannot be assumed that teachers possess the aptitude to integrate these TELEs. Just as students require explicit instruction to develop inquiry skills, teachers need to be “explicitly taught about interactions among pedagogy, content, technology, and learners” to develop their Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, or TPCK. This conceptualization is critical.
The Learning for Use design framework and T-GEM cycle of instruction, originally attached to My World and Chemland TELEs, offer the greatest potential for reform in the mathematics and science classroom. With a primary emphasis on the inquiry process rather than prescribed activity steps, it requires teachers and students to adopt an inquiry mind-set that becomes the foundation for implementing them. They are not distinctly tied to one particular curricular area or TELE, offering transportability to any number of educational contexts, within the classroom or outside of it. Their cyclical nature and use of abductive reasoning puts greater emphasis on the relationships between students and between students and the teacher highlighting the role social collaboration and collective understanding plays in the development of robust mental models that can help students conceptualize content and repair misconceptions. Understanding this pedagogy requires teachers to pursue a pedagogical model that exemplifies the development and refinement of useful and adaptive pedagogical knowledge because inert knowledge or memorization of a set of activities in an effort to apply either of these methods will not suffice. The broad scope of these two approaches compel educators to seek knowledge for understanding.
Integrating constructivist pedagogy into classroom practice is not a simple process. “The constructivist theories of learning apply to teachers and designers” as well as students (Edelson, 2001, p. 381). If teachers are going to be successful implement the Learning for Use framework or T-GEM instructional cycles, it is imperative that have parallel experiences with this learning process themselves to model best practice and become co-learners with students in a continued process of reflection and refinement.
image: Walking the line by Kalexanderson released under a CC Attribution – Noncommercial – Share Alike license
Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
Edelson, D., Salierno, C., Matese, G., Pitts, V. & Sherin, B. (2002). Learning-for-use in Earth Science: Kids as climate modelers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (1984). Two courses of expertise. Research and Clinical Center for Child Development Annual Report, 6, 27-36. Retrieved from http://eprints2008.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/25206/1/6_P27-36.pdfbe
Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.
Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.
Linn, M. Clark, D. & Slotta, J. (2003). WISE design for Knowledge Integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
Pellegrino, J.W. & Brophy, S. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In Ifenthaler, Pirney-Dunner, & J.M. Spector (Eds.) Understanding models for learning and instruction, New York: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 277-303.