“I am searching
I am not alone
I am searching
Please, give me some …”
HELP! Inxs’ lyrics talk of loosing direction and hoping tomorrow will bring a better day. I too am in need of direction and hope that unpacking Inquiry Based Learning (IBL), using Boolean Operators and various databases, will bring me direction and a brighter day.
So how do you go about unpacking a theory or methodology? In this instance, reflect on unpacking after a vacation and how tedious, yet memorable the disassembling of the bag minutiae can be – the shared experiences, new encounters and new learning can all come flooding back by picking up a single item. It’s a time for reflecting on the old (must discard those socks), the new, and steps you took along the way. Unpacking Inquiry Based Learning may not be the aftermath of that long awaited vacation, however, it has shared experiences, new discoveries/learning and reflection on the steps implemented to achieve a solution or outcome. Reflection is a dominant element of this process and supports learning through critical thinking skills.
Creating mind maps is just one method which can assist with the development of critical thinking skills and it offers the developer a point of reference for reflection.
To begin unpacking IBL, I found this exercise of mapping salient points and developing sub-criteria was imperative to clarifying my approach for conducting database searches. It is these elements which interest me, as they specifically relate to implementing IBL in an adult learning environment. From previous, general searches (QUT library, Google and Google Scholar), I have located only one article directly relates to the Australian Vocational and Training Sector and specifically refers to inquiry learning. I’m getting ahead of myself…
Searching! Can it be simplified and if so, where do you commence and in which direction do you head? To assist with this process the following table demonstrates –
- my initial search direction
- changes I applied to realise my specific results
- Boolean Operators I utilised to refine the parameters of my searches
- databases and search engines I accessed – Google, Google Scholar, A+ Education (via Informit) and ProQuest
- the results of searches I conducted.
|Search Terms & Boolean Operators||Search Engine & Database||Results|
|Inquiry based learning||Google – 10 million results – reviewed first 10 results||
|Inquiry based learning||Google Scholar – 175K – reviewed first 10 results||
|At this stage I refined the parameters of the search using Boolean and introduced another element from the mind map – information technology.|
|“inquiry based learning” AND “information literacy”||Google Scholar – 707 – reviewed first 10 results||
|“inquiry based learning” AND “information literacy”||A+ Education – 5 results – only 2 results covered areas in my mind map||
|My mission is to use the existing phrases and parameters and now introduce “enquiry” into the search.|
|“inquiry based learning” OR “enquiry based learning” AND “information literacy”||ProQuest – 11 educational databases searched with 2896 results – 18th result||
|Introducing enquiry into the equation blew out the results. Back to the previous search.|
|“inquiry based learning” AND “information literacy”||ProQuest – 11 educational databases searched with 220 results – majority of results referred to school based research||
|“inquiry based learning” AND “information literacy” NOT “schooling”||ProQuest – 11 educational databases searched with 177 – 28th result (usually I don’t go beyond first page of results||
This was not an exhaustive search for references relating to the criteria listed in my mind map, however, it was detailed, rewarding (at times a little frustrating), and time consuming. What did I learn from this task? Boolean Operators are extremely useful if used effectively. At times I felt like I had “L Plates” strapped to my back and I was directionless with the pedal firmly planted to the floor. To solve that dilemma I consulted the ever present YouTube videos on how to conduct searches using Boolean Operators in order to move to a “P Plate” (provisional) searcher. Yes this was successful, I learnt a few truths on how to use Boolean Operators, and I’ve now created my own how to video demonstrating one of my searches. View the video (below) to see the outcome. (Sorry for the sibilant overtones. Suppose a career change in voice overs is out of the question.)
From my searching I also verified a long held belief that the web is littered with articles which have not been critiqued. Some articles have been rigorously reviewed while others, well let’s just say, the lack of any referencing or links to sources had me packing my bag. This experience was as much about unpacking Boolean Operators and search terms and/or phrases as unpacking IBL. I hoped that consulting the Tips section for ProQuest would give me greater insight and refinement for conducting searches, however, the SU.EXTRA (inquiry based learning) search produced zero results. I will pursue these tips in the hope I can locate articles to support my research.
Final result – 10,000,000 (Google) to 9 for my researching. I located a few promising articles which I will review in my annotated bibliography. Until then keeping Googling!
There is nothing better I like than pontificating on a subject that has me hook, line and sinker, so sit back and wait for me to deliver relevant information about Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) to your neurons (IBL). On the other hand, in the spirit of IBL, you could actively approach these blogs by immersing,
exploring, identifying, sharing and evaluating the multiple elements of discussion which will arise throughout these episodes. Inquiry based learning isn’t new, and yet, in my consultative role for language, literacy and numeracy programs in adult education, it appears this methodology is like the unicorn, something which may be spoken about, but mythical. Constantly I receive queries regarding strategies to engage different student cohorts, but the moment IBL or Project Based Learning (PBL) is mentioned, the usual response is along the lines of, “it’s too hard” or “I can’t assess that way”. For this reason alone I would like to share the following quote from Albert Einstein and it’s my intention to take these words on board for the duration of my investigation in to IBL. “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” (Albert Einstein)
At times it feels like problems are the weight of the world resting on your shoulders and other days it feels like they have become the weight of the universe. Albert Einstein was a prolific problem solver and yet, he only had available to him the same tools as everyone else in his day – pen and paper. What did Einstein do that was different from his peers? What strategies did he employ to recognise, investigate and solve problems? In an interview with Jacques Hadamard (1945) Einstein suggested “…combinatory play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought …“. His quote revolves around the need to play around with elements and establish relationships which exist between them in order to discover a solution. Thanks Herr Einstein that sounds like the path of least resistance to solving problems.
Let’s go play! Combinatory play! My aim is to introduce this concept into my blogs. Play with the definitions and models of Inquiry Based Learning and experience the research elements from the dizzying heights of the monkey bars. (Okay last time I was on monkey bars I did fall and break a wrist, but this did not stop me from playing.) On with the play and learning and I’ll leave the last word to Einstein – “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”
Norton, J.D. (2007). How Did Einstein Think?. Retrieved 22 August, 2014 ,from http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Einstein_think/
Hand (a little sweaty) poised over the buzzer, the quiz master pauses for attention and to dramatise the moment, there’s an air of an – tic – i –pa – tion, a correct answer and the money is in the bank. “And the $1,ooo,ooo question is – “What is Inquiry Based Learning?”. The studio audience gasp, the viewing public lean forward asking themselves, “What is it? How would I know? How can I found out, quickly?” The timer is ticking and my answer is…….
Sorry dear readers and colleagues to leave you hanging in mid-air as I embark on a Google Scholar search to address this question. Typing at the speed of a 50 something year old, I enter a general search – define inquiry based learning, and not to my surprise in 0.16 seconds I can trawl through one million results. Time is of the essence, I introduce Boolean into the search parameters by placing the original search into inverted commas (“”), presto, in half the time I now have a manageable 38 results.
From this outcome I select four articles which will support the next phase of my study, however, Hmelo-Silver et al’s article “Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller , and Clark (2006), caught my attention and coalesced a few areas I want to address while researching inquiry based learning (IBL). From the article I formulated the following question for future investigation – What scaffolding needs to be developed to actively engage and support adult learners, studying in a vocational environment, in order to develop skills and actualise life-long learning? Question formulated, research to be conducted in the next phase.
As sand passes through the hour glass at a sickening pace, I relocate my search from Google Scholar to Pro-Quest. Simultaneously I refine and edit the parameters of the search to – “impact of the use of inquiry-based learning” AND “critical thinking”. Eureka!!! Fourteen results and I believe I’ve hit the mother-lode. The fourth result, Buckner and Kim’s article, “Integrating technology and pedagogy for inquiry-based learning: The Stanford Mobile Inquiry-based Learning Environment (SMILE)” (and I do), captures my eye and it’s an immediate click. To put this article into perspective, in 2013 the section I work for in TAFE Queensland rolled out over six hundred iPads to institutes for students who are enrolled in language, literacy and numeracy programs. Rolling out the hardware was easy, placing devices into classrooms and expecting teachers to incorporate them into their daily practices, now that is the ongoing challenge. “Technology must be tied to meaningful educational content and to contextualised pedagogy” (Buckner & Kim, 2014, p.100). This quote forms the basis for my second question – How can mobile devices support the introduction and ongoing implementation of IBL into adult language, literacy and numeracy classes?
The shot at a $1,000,000 (better odds than any lottery prize) is becoming increasingly elusive, the sand is trickling, the clock is ticking, and I’ve moved from a sweaty palm to a saturated mass. What’s that? Maaß and Doorman (2013, p887) discuss inquiry based learning as an educational culture which is evident in teaching practices which are directly relating to classroom instruction. Crucial to this methodology is learners developing their knowledge through posing questions, exploration of material, evaluation of their findings and reflection on the processes they implement to construct an understanding of the raw learning matter. Teachers are guides and facilitators not knowledge selectors and distributors, and as such, must develop strategic platforms to engage and support learners in an environment where “…a shared sense of ownership exists” (Maaß and Doorman, 2013, p887) . In their article, Maaß and Doorman develop a model for implementing IBL across a broad range of teaching facilities. Their conclusion leads me to pose my third question – What model of inquiry based learning would be most effective for developing and disseminating IBL methodologies to teachers working in the Vocational Education Sector (VET) in TAFE Queensland?
The buzzer sounded like a klaxon and the audible sigh was like a tornado. An opportunity for the easy million goes begging, but all is not lost. The frenetic searches have provided me with a wealth of information for my ongoing research into Inquiry Based Learning. Readers and colleagues come with me on my inquiry and follow my blogs as I share with you the answers to my three questions and more (sorry not the steak knives).
Buckner, E., Kim, P. (2014). Integrating Technology and pedagogy for inquiry-based learning: The Stanford Mobile Inquiry-based Learning Environment (SMILE), Prospects, 44, 99–118. doi: 10.1007/s11125-013-9269-7.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Duncan, R.G., Chinn, C.A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Krischner, Sweller and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. doi: 10.1007/s11125-013-9269-7.
Maaß, K., Doorman, M. (2013). A model for a widespread implementation of inquiry-based learning. ZDM Mathematics Education 45, 887-899. doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0505-7.