One of my ‘favorite’ pedagogical approaches, as I may say so, is inquiry learning (or inquiry-based learning), which is about learning through asking questions (question-driven learning). This is a constructivist approach, based on natural learning processes. Inquiry learning holds that students try to find out how something works by asking questions in order to understand the content (as opposed to ‘just’ knowing) and to be able to explain how this works to someone else.
I found two very interesting research articles regarding this approach, each with another perspective on it. One is written by Wu and Hsieh (in 2006) and focuses on the inquiry skills of sixth graders and the other is written by Hogan and Berkowitz (2000), who focus on inquiry guidance by teachers.
Wu and Hsieh (2006) state that students need scaffolds in this process of inquiry learning in order to construct solid explanations. These are to be offered by the teacher, who asks questions to the students in order to help them to understand the content better and by this also helps them to reformulate their explanations.
Hogan and Berkowitz (2000) describe a one-year project in which ecology teachers learn to work according to the inquiry learning approach (i.e. professional development). After this year, most ecology teachers found inquiry learning a good method in ecology teaching. Hogan and Berkowitz mention that it’s important that the students’ explanation needs to be given by the students, which means that teachers should not influence the students’ reasoning too much. This is also referred to by the term ‘scaffolding’: help students more in the beginning and decrease this support during the learning process.
One of the most interesting parts of inquiry learning to me is the role of the teacher. Within this approach, students are to find the explanations themselves, so what does the teacher need to do? They can be guiding them, but to which degree? If they ask too many questions, the students don’t learn anything; but if they ask too little questions, the students might get stuck. Teachers need to find a balance in this, for example by scaffolding. These articles try to find a solution to this dilemma, which makes them really interesting to read.
During the last lecture we discussed different kinds of flexibility (learning). One of the most important scientific works on this topic is Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations by Betty Collis and Jef Moonen, published in 2001. They mention five kinds of flexibilities in learning: related to time, content, entry requirements, instructional approach and resources and delivery and logistics. I will explain them and show some (dis)advantages of each kind of flexibility.
Flexibility related to time
This type of flexibility regards to when the course starts/finishes, how much time students have for an assignment, how much time teachers have to correct these assignments and the pace of the student (is s/he a fast or slow learner?) (Collis & Moonen, 2001, figure 1-1).
If this time is very flexible, this can be an advantage to both the student and the teacher. They can both decide when they would like to pay attention to the learning content, so that it fits in both their schedules. This also makes it possible to treat students as individuals, because they get separate attention. This is beneficial to the student, because then s/he can work in his/her own pace and doesn’t have to wait for the rest of the class when s/he already understood it (or doesn’t have to get frustrated because everyone else is faster than him/her).
However, when there are no set times for lectures, for example, then the student works on the task at one time, sends it to the teacher, who can decide when to look at it. If the teacher only has time the next week, the student has to wait for (the feedback of) the teacher before s/he can continue working. This might interrupt the student’s working pace. If the student works fast, the teacher might not be able to adjust to that, due to this extreme flexibility – which will not be very convenient for the student.
Also, when both teacher and student can plan their work flexibly, there is a risk of never getting done. One of them can decide to work only one hour per week on a task (because that fits best into his/her schedule), so that it takes a really long time to finish it. This will take even longer when they have to wait for each other in order to continue.
High time flexibility will also raise the work for the teacher, because s/he has to communicate with each student individually. This takes much more time than teaching a whole group at the same time. This implies more teachers needed or more burn-out amongst teachers.
This is why I think that time flexibility is a good thing, but only when there are some restrictions to it. For example, I think that there should be some deadlines (e.g. halfway through the course and in the end) in order to keep the learning process going without too much waiting for either the student or the teacher.
Flexibility related to content
This relates to course topics, sequence of course parts, course orientation (theoretical/practical), learning materials, assessment standards, etc. (Collis & Moonen, 2001, figure 1-1).
This kind of flexibility already exists to some degree in higher education, where students are free to choose courses outside of their study field. They do, however, also have to take some courses that are obligatory to the program.
Content flexibility makes the students able to choose their own path and profile themselves in order to get a better position in the labor market later on. Choosing courses they like will also make them more motivated, which will be an advantage for the teacher as well.
One disadvantage of this situation is that students will only choose courses that they like but will not be very useful to them. For example, a student can take a course on Russian grammar because s/he is very interested in this, but might not be using this later on (in his/her studies or job).
Also, students who don’t know what they want yet might get overwhelmed by all the courses that are offered by university. They can just randomly take some courses that sound appealing, which might be fun and interesting to them, but can also prolong the study period, because it will take more time before they have a degree in a certain area. This is what the current system implies, as one cannot get a ‘general’ degree after having studied topics that are not very related to each other.
Flexibility related to entry requirements
This kind of flexibility is about conditions for participation (Collis & Moonen, 2001, figure 1-1). When these conditions are very flexible, anyone could enter a course or study program.
A positive side of this is that this lack of requirements will attract more people from different backgrounds. This way, students will earn a wider perspective on the topics discussed in class. They will also learn more about social skills and cultural differences. However, when really anyone could enter a course, the prior knowledge of the students will be so different that it’s hard to find a basic point to start from (which is an essential point in education). I do think that people from different backgrounds should be together in one classroom, but their prior knowledge levels should be more or less equal. If it’s not, the differences within the classroom will be too big, which will delay the study progress of students with a higher level of prior knowledge.
Flexibility related to instructional approach and resources
This relates to the social organization of learning (group/individual), language to be used in the course, learning resources and instructional organization of learning (Collis & Moonen, 2001, figure 1-1).
If everyone could choose their own favorite instructional approach, this would be very beneficial to them. A student decides how s/he wants to be instructed. This, again, individualizes, which increases the workload of the teacher immensely. If one student would prefer a behavioristic approach in learning whereas another prefers a constructivist approach, the teacher has to adjust to this.
Another example: language. Students will probably prefer to learn in their own language, but if the teacher doesn’t speak that language, teaching in it will be difficult. Or even more difficult: when the class of students consists of different nationalities, so that they can’t understand each other if they would speak their native language. When the teacher has another native language, the most common solution is to speak a language that is a second or third language to both the students and the teacher (e.g. English or Spanish). This is not beneficial for both parties, but probably the best solution to the problem.
Flexibility related to delivery and logistics
This is about students and teacher not being together at the same place and time, technologies for support and contact, delivery channels for course information and communication (such as Blackboard), etc. (Collis & Moonen, 2001, figure 1-1).
Due to the increasing amount of technology available, teachers and students don’t need to be together at the same time and place anymore. There are many ways to keep in contact, such as Skype, e-mail, Facebook, chatting and many, many others. If you missed a class, you can look up the video-taped version of it online and send the teacher an e-mail if you have a question about it. This can be very beneficial, because the student’s schedule isn’t limited to set lecture times anymore, you just get the lecture anytime you want. The same is true for the teacher: s/he can teach in the middle of the night, record it and put it online for the students.
For me, one big disadvantage of this type of learning is the lack of immediate interaction between student and teacher. In a classroom setting, teachers can adjust their lectures to the verbal or non-verbal signs from the students. For example, if many students look very confused, the teacher will try to explain it once again. The teacher can’t see this while teaching a video camera. This also works the other way around: if a student doesn’t understand the teacher’s story anymore, s/he can’t interrupt the teacher to ask about it right away, so that the student can understand the teacher’s message completely wrong.
To conclude, I think flexibility can be a very powerful addition in education, especially when students and/or teachers from different backgrounds are involved. I do, however, feel that complete flexibility will just cause chaos. When every student can decide on his/her own which courses s/he wants to take, how much time s/he would like to spend on the course content and when s/he would like to have a lecture/get feedback/be assessed etc., which learning approach s/he would prefer, which form of assessment, and which ways of communication s/he would want to use, and how, the possibilities will be countless and different for each student. Add the same possibilities for flexibility for teachers to this, and it will become even more complex. It will be hard to find a way through it.
However, a less extreme kind of flexibility will be very valuable, because both students and teachers will get more out of the education. The student can study what s/he wants, but with a clear goal and a time limit.
Teachers and students can be individuals, who do what they want, but within the boundaries of practicality.
Source:
Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001, second printing 2002). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page.
I’m attending a new master’s course: Pedagogies for flexible learning supported by technology. Quite a name, but it sounds very interesting.
I hope to learn more about how teachers can integrate technologies in their lessons, so that these can be a meaningful attribution to the learning content, and how to support teachers with this (or maybe even how to get teachers to use more technology in their classes).
Another thing that I would hope to find out is how technologies can be used for flexible learning, mainly regarding time and content flexibility, for example when the teacher and student aren’t together at the same place at the same time or when students of different levels are together in one class: can technology help the teacher (and the student) in settings like these?
