Inquiry Based-Learning

Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) is a learning philosophy grounded in the Socrative and Deweyan educational theories that centers  “learners constructing knowledge through active investigation” (Jennings, 2010). IBL was born out of science education (see diagram to right), focusing on the scientific method. The specific of this model are: (a) orientation to concepts, (b) conceptualization of main course ideas to generate hypothesis, (c) investigation through the scientific method, (d) development of conclusions, and (e) discussion of findings through communication and reflection (Pedaste, et al., 2015).

Instructors determine the level of structure provided throughout this process and tends to be dependent on the developmental needs of students. Generally, IBL falls into three primary classifications based on the level of structure provided by the instructor: problem-based (least structured, students create inquiry), project-based (moderately-structured, faculty scaffold inquiry), and case-base teaching (most-structured, faculty control inquiry) (Adimoto, Goodyear, Bliuc, & Elli, 2013; Mills & Treagust 2003; Prince & Felder 2007). Structure refers to the level control students have in establishing their inquiry projects. An important feature of inquiry-based learning is that teachers and staff are “co-learners” who engage in instruction and creation of new knowledge through their research on teaching with IBL.

Scholars within the teaching and learning field have critiqued minimally-structured IBL for not recognizing that students are often novices with content, and therefore are unable to cognize both the content and the process of IBL in an effective and efficient manner (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Additional critiques of IBL assert that not all students’ learning styles are honored through IBL (Healy Kneale, & Bradbeer, 2005). However, most research and discussion on IBL is focused on its applications within the K-12 education system, making both the relevance and critiques limited within the context of higher education.

Inquiry Based Learning in Higher Education

Aditomo et al. (2013) identified eight primary forms of Inquiry Based Learning in Higher Education that vary along dimensions of both research applicability and practice/content orientation. The eight forms identified are: role playing, enactment of practice, applied research, simulated applied research, discussion-based inquiry, lecture-based inquiry, simplified research, and scholarly research. The focus on the research process and scholarly projects noted above aligns with the larger goals of higher education, to both create new knowledge and prepare students for lifelong inquiry (Sproken-Smith, Matthews, & Angelo, 2007). Brew (2012) documented the need for instructing faculty to strengthen the links between teaching and scholarship by using an integrative model that has striking similarities to Inquiry Based Learning, showing the potential for IBL to serve as an effective to blend instruction and research.  Implementation of this synergy within higher education occurs on various scales, with  individual class projects as the granular level to entire institutional cultures such as Hampshire College (Justice, Rice, Roy, Hudspith, & Jenkins, 2009).

The United States, the movement toward integrated teaching and learning came into the national spotlight with both “Scholarship Reconsidered” (Boyer, 1990) and The Boyer Commission’s “Reinventing Undergraduate Education” (1998). In the latter publication, Inquiry Based Learning is emphasized numerous times through curricular recommendations focused on Research-Based Learning, Inquiry Based First Year Experiences, Capstone Experiences, and a general reprioritization synergy between teaching and research within the faculty reward systems. Specific studies of Inquiry Based Learning in Higher Education are minimal, with most published scholarship focusing on case studies with little empirical data.

Service Learning as IBL

Absent from nearly literature on Inquiry Based Learning is the alignment between IBL and service learning. Service Learning is defined as “a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities” (The Carnegie Foundation). Service learning is based on Dewyan philosophies of education, with a learning process grounded in Kolb’s model of experiential learning. Scholars have identified three primary forms of service learning: direct service learning, indirect service learning, and advocacy based service learning (Furco, 1996). In direct service learning, students are placed into community sites and come in contact with people and service, whereas indirect service learning involves less contact with community members and service is often performed through full or partial research projects. Advocacy/Civic Action service learning is indirect and action-oriented, often with an emphasis on changing public policy or educating the general public or specific stakeholders around a community-partner identified issue.

Based on the definition of Inquiry Based Learning established above, certain features of service learning must be included for Service Learning to fall within Inquiry Based Learning. The most ambiguous form of service learning, Direct Service Learning, may not be inclusive of the investigatory nature of IBL. While direct service activities such as office support at a non-profit provides a rich learning environment, if the service experience is not grounded in exploration of academic questions created or co-created by the student, IBL is not met. Indirect service learning is more likely to align with IBL as students often engage on a research driven project with parameters established by their instructors and community partners. While the most extreme believers in IBL would find limitations based on the students’ more limited ability to shape their inquiry, the method, process, and applicability of this form of service learning fall in line with problem-based inquiry.

Moreover, indirect service learning experience often fit into a variety of disciplines and student learning experiences including capstones, community-based action research, service internships, and problem-based service learning (Heffernan, 2001). Many of these iterations of service learning follow the research progression described in the Inquiry Based Learning Process.  One strong alignment between Service Learning and IBL is that the service learning experience creates opportunity to maximize the integration of teaching and scholarship for faculty, by conducting research with students and community partners through community engaged scholarship (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995). However, intentional effort must be made by faculty who are seeking to bridge learning and scholarship with community partners to prevent exploitation and assure a relevant and reciprocal partnership.

One area of limitation between the two theories is the focus of learning as noted in the discussion above. IBL prioritizes student learning, whereas SL requires that instructor balance competing interests between students and community partners’ needs, ultimately limiting the level of control students’ have over their projects and experiences. Another major difference between the two learning philosophies is their orientation toward social justice. Service learning, as a scholarly field, is moving toward a social justice oriented approach toward instruction (see Butin, 2015; Mitchell, 2008; Stoecker, 2016) whereas little within the specific literature on IBL is speaking to equity. On the whole, service learning allows for further alignment of teaching and scholarly practices and for integration of inquiry-based student learning.

References

Aditomo, A., Goodyear, P., Bliuc, A. M., & Ellis, R. A. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in higher education: principal forms, educational objectives, and disciplinary variations. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1239-1258.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, S. S. Kenny (chair). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities. State University of New York–Stony Brook, 1998.

Brew, A. (2012). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 101-114.

Butin, D. (2015). Dreaming of justice: Critical service-learning and the need to wake up. Theory Into Practice, 54(1), 5-10.

Healey, M., Kneale, P., & Bradbeer, J. (2005). Learning styles among geography undergraduates: an international comparison. Area, 37(1), 30-42.

Jennings, L. B. (2010). Inquiry-Based Learning. In Encyclopedia of Educational Reform and Dissent. (pp. 467-468). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Justice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2009). Inquiry-based learning in higher education: administrators’ perspectives on integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum. Higher Education, 58(6), 841.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Mills, J.E. and Treagust, D.F. (2003). Engineering education – is problem-based or project-based learning the answer? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 11, pp. 2-16.

Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2).

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., … & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational research review, 14, 47-61.

Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of college science teaching, 36(5), 14.

Spronken-Smith, R., Angelo, T., Matthews, H., O’Steen, B., & Robertson, J. (2007). How effective is inquiry-based learning in linking teaching and research. An international colloquim on international policies and practices for academic enquiry. Marwell, Winchester.

Stoecker, R. (2016). Liberating service learning and the rest of higher education civic engagement. Temple University Press.

By Christine Lowe

Each year the Office of Public Engagement hosts Constitution Day. Constitution Day commemorates the actual signing of the United States Constitution which occurred on September 17th, 1787. All educational institutions that receive Federal funds are required to develop a Constitution Day program for their students. This program must coincide during the week commemorating the actual signing of the constitution.

SchmeiserThis year the Office of Public Engagement along with the Department of Political Science presented a two-part Constitution Day Program: Loving v. Virginia: At the Heart of Racial and Marriage Equality. The first part of the program occurred on September 18th, 2017 with a screening of the Oscar-nominated movie “Loving” in the Student Union Theater. This movie which depicts an interracial couple whose landmark legal battle for their right to marry would result in the Supreme Court’s historic 1967 decision: Loving v. Virginia.

The Constitution Day events continued on September 19th, 2017 with a student poster presentation and discussion with Susan Schmeiser, Ph.D., J.D. in the Wilbur Cross South Reading Room.

Dr. Susan Schmeiser is a faculty member of the UConn School of Law and holds a  Ph.D. in English Literature from Brown University, where she spent five years as a teaching assistant and advanced teaching fellow, and a J.D. from Yale Law School.

Students from Dr. Virginia Hettinger’s POLS 3837: Civic Rights and Legal Mobilization course created six posters for the event each with a specific perspective on the landmark decision. After the poster presentation, Dr. Schmeiser concluded the program with a presentation and discussion on the landmark decision.

By Mackenzie Rafferty

Hello readers, my name is Mackenzie Rafferty and for the past academic year, I served as the Communications Assistant for UConn’s Office of Public Engagement. I’m quickly wrapping up my junior year at UConn and reflecting on the experience I had with at Office of Public Engagement this past year. I applied for this position over the summer of 2016, eager for the opportunity to engage in my first professional employment position at UConn.

At UConn, I’m studying both Political Science and Communication. These two areas of focus, when partnered together have aided in giving me a unique and creative voice. This voice, from the beginning of my education experience at UConn, craved an environment to be further curated and refined. The Office of Public Engagement seemed like the perfect match, and I couldn’t have been more correct. At the Office of Public Engagement, I was able to use the skills I learned through my communication courses in a way that furthered some of my very own political agendas and passions.

For those who need a brief refresher, the mission of UConn’s Office of Public Engagement is as follows: “Our mission is to assist in the development of engaged citizens through coordination, advocacy and capacity building for engagement activities.” Taken directly from our website, the mission of the Office of Public Engagement is full of promise for civic engagement and community development. This is accomplished through offering “service learning, engaged scholarship, university-assisted community schools, strategic partnerships, and communities as partners and collaborators.”

This office acts as a facilitative resource for faculty, staff, and students to incorporate this form of education and engagement into their academic journey through research, programs, etc. Together, this office aims to further the University’s impact on local communities with whom it engages, by enabling relationships and fostering long-term, reciprocal partnerships within the community.

Throughout the past two semesters, I’ve had first-hand experience this mission in action. Before my employment here, I had never been exposed to Service Learning at the University of Connecticut. Once exposed, my entire perspective of education and the potential role of the university had changed.

It’s important to add in that one of my classes during the Fall Semester of 2016 was coincidentally a Service Learning course. So, for the first time, I was in a Service Learning course and also working with the very office that made these courses possible in the University. The course I was enrolled in was Constitutional Rights and Liberties with Doctor Kimberly Bergendahl. Our Service Learning Component was to help the Office of Public Engagement hold their annual Constitution Day Celebration. If you’d like to read more about this particular event and how our class pulled it off, check out the article here: http://s.uconn.edu/3p0

This experience allowed for me to garner a better understanding of Service Learning and gather my own unique perspective. I mention this further in the article, but this element of Service Learning really transformed the classroom atmosphere and our student-teacher relationship. When the responsibility was put on us, as students, to curate this event and present it on our own, we were given an entirely new role in the classroom. At that moment, we were no longer strictly students, but collaborators with responsibility with a real, tangible, product to show as our own.

This is simply one example of Service Learning and how it is applied to courses in our University. Service Learning, as I learned this past year, is a discipline of education that can be applied to any area or focus of study. For example, I wrote an article on Dr. John Redden at the University of Connecticut and his Service Learning Science course. What was so amazing about Dr. Redden’s course, was that it partnered with a global-community partner. His partner was Jolly Lux, the founder of Guiding Light Orphans, a non-for profit organization based in Uganda. (My apologies for self-promoting, but this information is too good to keep all to myself). If interested, I urge you check out the article here: http://s.uconn.edu/3p1

Dr. Redden’s example of Service Learning really encapsulated the future potential that Service Learning can have for the University. Redden and his students created a service that reached far beyond the walls of the University of Connecticut; their impact can be felt across borders. Service-Learning doesn’t have to simply impact the local communities (despite that being a very important and beneficial goal), but it can reach far beyond into international and global affairs.

These are just two of an abundance of first-hand examples of Service Learning that I experienced during my time at the Office of Public Engagement. I’m eternally grateful for this position, as it instilled in me a knowledge that I could not have learned inside of a classroom. This knowledge is that there is more than one correct form of teaching. I also learned that education can have an effect far beyond the educator and student. Education has the potential to strengthen relationships outside of the university, create tangible products, and have a lasting charitable impact.

Additionally, Service Learning really transforms the student experience. With Service Learning, students become active “stakeholders” in their education, as often cited by my manager and mentor Julia Yakovich, the director of Service Learning here at the Office of Public Engagement. Yakovich is correct, this form of learning allows for students to take real responsibility and foster a sense of confidence and awareness that is crucial once entering the workforce. Additionally, Service Learning allows for students to create and strengthen bonds with their local community. Once created and strengthened, these bonds foster a potential for students to stay in their local communities post-graduation.

All in all, my experience at the University of Connecticut’s Office of Public Engagement has been extremely formative for me as a student-employee. I hope to take this knowledge and experience with me as I further strengthen my civic and political voice. I know that the Office of Public Engagement will continue to grow and foster community partnerships and student engagement, while also implementing a new, innovative, and vital pedagogy throughout the University.

By Johanna Tiarks

To coincide with the upcoming move of the Hartford Campus to its new Downtown Location, UConn Cities Collaborative has been working to build a platform to aggregate and disseminate information on volunteer and internship positions within Hartford. Launching in fall 2017, this platform will be available at the Office of Public Engagement website. The development of this platform has been a collaborative effort between many community-based organizations within Hartford and UCC. If you are interested in posting a position, please follow this link and fill out the form to publicize an opportunity.

Following the interest expressed after the launch and presentation of the Diversity Training Module in Spring 2017, UCC has been working to develop a classroom-based diversity curriculum for implementation in Service Learning and other courses. The Diversity Training Module was presented at the Eastern Region Campus Compact Conference hosted by New York University in March 2017. During this presentation, the need for an interdisciplinary curriculum to teach diversity in the classroom was a theme voiced by many attendees from the numerous universities represented. Starting in Fall 2017, the diversity curriculum will offer classroom-based instruction on salient issues of inequity occurring as a result of power differentials between groups of people holding minority status and those in positions of privilege. This curriculum will be available as a series of short lectures and discussions that can be utilized in and customized for any class. An implementer training is in development to assist professors who wish to incorporate this diversity curriculum into their course.

If you have any questions about the volunteer and internship platform or the developing diversity curriculum, please contact Johanna deLeyer-Tiarks at citiescollaborative@uconn.edu.