My two cents: A critique of the recent uproar of Inquiry and Explicit instruction

Strap in, this will be a long one. As you all may have noticed, the pedagogy wars are beginning to boil over. In the right corner we have Inquiry learning, and in the left, explicit instruction. From the recent narrative, it’s clear that these two cannot play nice.

This all started when John Sweller teamed up with the Centre for Independent Studies to pen a paper titled “Why inquiry-based approaches harm student learning”. Greg Ashman, a student of John’s, who is completing is PhD at UNSW on this very topic, and the head of research at Clarendon College Ballarat, fanned the flames of the conversation by writing two blogs buttressing John’s article. As is the case with education, it was received well by some and not by others.

Noel Pearson, Indigenous leader, academic, lawyer, and advocate for Indigenous education, is one of the people who received John’s article positively, and thus, wrote about his perspective in The Australian. However, this addition to the narrative only prompted a response from The Conversation and Professor Alan Reid.  Alan hit back at Pearson and Sweller all at once, stating three reasons to discredit Sweller’s conclusion, although while he mihit back at explicit instruction, he did not really provide the evidence for the benefits of inquiry learning either; and it is his assumptions about Sweller’s conclusions that I will argue are not clear.

The first point made by Alan: Teachers use more than one approach. There is a bit of equivocation going on here, what does he mean “approach”? Does he mean pedagogy? or does he mean strategies? I only ask because he tries to illustrate his point by saying that “most educators move up and down a teacher-centred and student-centred continuum on a daily basis”. I think he means strategies, but I am not sure, and that is point – its unclear. What is the teacher-centred and student-centred continuum, anyway? Is it a dressed-up constructivist/instructivist dichotomy? Regardless, what does teacher-centred and student-centred ‘approaches’ look like? Where would worked examples be on these continua? Given that worked examples are both teacher-centred and student-centred, and it can be high and low on both? Alan then attempts to link this to his following statement “They select, from a toolkit of teaching approaches”.  My understanding is that Alan means strategies, but I will reserve my judgement for now. He clarifies by saying “teachers sometimes employ explicit teaching and sometimes inquiry-based approaches.” Hmmmm…..this first point isn’t really convincing me of Alan’s position. Nonetheless, while Alan argues that teachers use a “toolkit of approaches”, teachers really shouldn’t when delivering novel information, they should be using explicit instruction, and this is the position Sweller is arguing from – explicit teaching when delivering novel information. Alan’s first point, I think, was that when delivering novel information, teachers should use both inquiry and explicit instruction. I am not so sure.

Alan’s second point: Not all inquiry-based methods are the same. Essentially, Sweller has mischaracterised inquiry learning, setting up a straw man and attacking the straw man. Alan states “there is no homogenous model of inquiry-based learning. If people want to criticise inquiry-based approaches they need to be explicit about which model they are judging.” I would agree with Alan on this, Sweller has not clearly defined what he means by inquiry, although he points to all the inquiry approaches that emphasise the discovery of information, which to me are problem-based learning, constructivist learning, open inquiry, structured inquiry, guided inquiry, and confirmation inquiry, have I missed some? I may have missed some. I am concerned, though, about Alan’s statement that there is no “homogenous model of inquiry-based learning” because it sets up a narrative that Inquiry-based learning cannot be proven wrong as there are no homogenous models of Inquiry.  Nonetheless, Sweller argues that any discovery method is not as effective as explicit instruction for the delivery of novel information. On this point, I would have to agree with Sweller, there is a lot of experimental and correlational studies that support this assertion. Any Cognitive Load Theory research supports Explicit teaching over problem solving conditions (Inquiry), which is concluded upon rigorous experimental research; but not only that, a lot of PISA data also predicts that inquiry-based instruction is negatively related to higher academic achievement. To sum up my point: Yes, Sweller did not explicitly define which inquiry learning process he was choosing to challenge, but he didn’t need to because he was talking about all of them, and he provides the evidence, where Alan did not. The burden of proof remains with Alan to support his position. As a side, Sweller also states just before the conclusion “With respect to inquiry learning, problem solving practice can be superior to explicit instruction rather than the reverse, but only once learners’ levels of expertise in an area have increased sufficiently for them to understand the procedures being taught.” This concession from Sweller, is not really a concession, and it is not Inquiry learning, this attempted reconciling more aligns with the “you do” component from the “I do, we do, you do” model, or an understanding of Expertise Reversal effect from Cognitive Load Theory – nice try, John, nice try.

The third point that Alan makes, flowing from his second point: Alan says that “Flawed data is used to justify the argument”. Just before I go into this, this is a HUGE statement. Let me unpack this: Alan suggests that McKinsey’s statistical analysis and understanding of Inquiry learning are wrong, and the OECD’s understanding and statistical analysis are wrong… I mean if they can’t get it right, who can? Further to this, Alan mischaracterises the McKinsey report findings. The McKinsey report actually found that there is a “sweet spot” when using explicit instruction and inquiry-based approaches, something akin to expertise reversal effect, I assume. Getting back on track, Alan said “data that are contaminated by the confusion about what constitutes inquiry-based learning.” Hmmmm….. this is what I was worried about (as I mentioned in the previous paragraph) Alan has suggested that this data haven’t accurately defined what inquiry-based learning is and, thus, does not reflect a “true” inquiry-based learning approach, and instead, provides a “very narrow view of inquiry-based learning” (This is classic No true Scotsman logical fallacy). Again, My understanding of what Alan suggests is that this research has missed the mark because it starts from a false premise. However, Alan has not provided research that defines Inquiry-based learning appropriately to draw reasonable conclusions. I would be interested to see how Alan defines and operationalises Inquiry-learning. Alan clarifies his argument. “There’s a variety of useful teaching models — and this includes explicit instruction — which have been designed for different purposes. It is the educator’s task to select the most appropriate given the context.”. I agree with this statement. It is our job as educator’s tp choose which teaching model to choose, and when delivering novel information, it should be explicit instruction.

In My Opinion, Alan lays blame to the idea of dichotomies, but he also looks into the misrepresentation of Inquiry Learning and how it hasn’t been accurately represented. I like his piece because it opens up conversation. However, the research is clear on this one. When delivering novel information, teachers should be using pedagogies that are supported by evidence, and for novel information, it’s explicit instruction.