Inquiry-Based Learning & Constructivism

My group has decided to focus on constructivism as a base for our blueprint and learning resource as it best aligns with our goals for designing a meaningful, student centred learning resource. This theory emphasizes that learners actively construct meaning based on prior knowledge and new experiences. In this blog however I will delve into how inquiry-based learning (IBL) as a learning environment approach relates to our topic of constructivism. At the root, IBL relates in its direct connection to critical thinking and engaging student agency. 

In IBL practices, though commonly scaffolded by the teacher, the student leads their own learning and discovery. Students “gather evidence, reflect, and build understanding through exploration” (Sorensen-Unruh, 2019). This allows them to actively work in individualistic ways to navigate problem solving and constructing their own meaning within diverse subjects. Compared to other approaches the focus of IBL is not just finding an answer but having students analyze and explore real world problems to gather evidence and build understanding this way. In this way IBL takes into account active learning techniques like those mentioned by Sorensen-Unruh (2019) to “often stimulate neurons by piquing student interest, tying concepts to other topics or real life.” This highlights one of IBL’s key purposes to build deeper, more meaningful understanding by enhancing student engagement and relevance.

The IBL method further aligns with the constructivist theory because it fosters these “deep approaches to learning,” which are characterized by learners using “high level cognitive skills” (EdTech Admin, 2023a), the goal of constructivism. It moves away from the less effective “Tell-ask” sequence by focusing on “what learners do” (EdTech Admin, 2023a). IBL requires learners to engage in significant cognitive effort. As Merrill (n.d.) directly states, “Information alone is not instruction”, and IBL goes beyond memorization or fact recall, making learners need to, “activate a mental model of their prior knowledge as a foundation for new skills” (Merrill, n.d.). Using this approach students are required to connect new information to existing frameworks then adjust these based on new discoveries, which is a foundational piece in constructivist learning. 

Considering motivations and neuroscience perspectives as well inquiry based learning is meant to spark motivation and again support optimal learning, both necessary outcomes of constructivist learning. Merrill (n.d.) states that, “Motivation comes from learning”, and people must be interested in wanting to learn which can be enhanced by integrating IBL to give students ownership over their learning. Furthermore, by actively engaging multiple senses and higher-level cognitive functions, IBL promotes the vital brain changes “neuroplasticity and neurogenesis” essential for optimal learning (Sorensen-Unruh, 2019). This active analyzing and application also directly supports the three core processes for long-term memory, encoding, consolidation, and retrieval (Sorensen-Unruh, 2019), fundamental to the constructivist framework in building lasting understanding

References

EdTech Admin. (2023a, May 1). Constructive Alignment – EDCI 335. EDCI 335. Retrieved from https://edtechuvic.ca/edci335/constructive-alignment/

EdTech Admin. (2023b, May 1). What is learning? – EDCI 335. EDCI 335. Retrieved from https://edtechuvic.ca/edci335/what-is-learning/

Merrill, M. D. (n.d.). Using the First Principles of Instruction to Make Instruction Effective, Efficient, and Engaging. [Presumed to be an unpublished paper or conference presentation, as no publication details are provided in the text].

Sorensen-Unruh, R. (2019, April 20). 5R ADULT LEARNING ASSIGNMENT 5: LEARNING – THE NEUROSCIENCE AND THE NEUROMYTHS. [Blog post]. Retrieved from [Insert actual URL if available, otherwise note “Personal Blog Post, 2019”].

[PROMPT] Learning Design II