Beyond inquiry or direct instruction: Pressing issues for designing impactful science learning opportunities

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

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)
307 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

We recently published a paper in this journal (de Jong et al., 2023) that presented an overview of the literature on learning in science domains through direct instruction and guided inquiry-based learning. This paper was, in part, a response to Zhang et al. (2022) who argued that the evidence firmly supported the superiority of direct instruction over inquiry learning. Sweller et al. (2024) recently replied by repeating this claim and also argued that we had ignored evidence against our position, questioned our analysis of the evidence, and claimed that direct instruction (unlike inquiry learning) is grounded in a strong theory. In this rebuttal we start by reemphasizing the conclusion from our previous paper: adequate instruction always involves different strategies, which should be thoughtfully selected based on contextual factors. Next, we demonstrate that inquiry-based learning is firmly rooted in both cognitive and socio-cultural theories of learning and conclude from recent literature that Sweller et al.‘s belief that direct instruction is overall more effective than inquiry learning is not supported by the data from empirical studies.

Original languageEnglish
Article number100623
Number of pages8
JournalEducational research review
Volume44
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2024

Keywords

  • UT-Hybrid-D
  • Evidence-based instruction
  • Inquiry-based instruction
  • Instructional design
  • Direct instruction

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Beyond inquiry or direct instruction: Pressing issues for designing impactful science learning opportunities'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this