Blog post #2

The spirit of inquiry-based learning can be traced back to the period of ancient Greek when Socrates proposed that both teacher and students are responsible for pushing forward the dialogue through questioning in class (Ross 2003). In the early 19th Century, Dewey clarified the process of inquiry-based learning, which turned out to be sensing perplexing situations, clarifying the problem, formulating a tentative hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, revising with rigorous tests, and acting on the solution (Barrow 2006). These early pioneers emphasized the importance of the collaboration between teacher and students, the previous experiences of students, and the possibility to summarize phenomena to problems and solve them in real-world scenario.

The definition of inquiry-based learning is a shared topic contributed by various scholars, e.g. Newmann et al. (2001) focused on the authenticity of pedagogy, which involved original application of knowledge and skills, rather than just routine use of facts and procedures. The Galileo Educational Network Association (2008) figured out the discipline-based inquiry, the keywords included on going formative assessment loops, detailed feedbacks, questions, interaction between students and expertise, culminating products and presentation. Barron and Darling-Hammond (2008) suggested project-based learning, problem-based learning, and design-based instruction, which shared some similarities with the former one. In summary, inquiry-based learning is made up of scaffolding activities, such as powerful guiding questions, formative assessment, such as ongoing descriptive feedback and self-assessment based on clear assessment criteria, and powerful, critical, and essential questions raised from situations related to students.

I believe that inquiry-based learning is an appropriate learning method for acquiring the fundamental concepts of the Internet. First, students need to learn basics through direct teaching. Then, we can let students use the network speed test tool and various network plug-ins and let them explore on their own, guessing and trying out the actual meanings of the words in the network tool through what they have learned in the first lecture. We will give some tasks for students to analyze on their own using the network tools to gain hands-on experience. Finally, students are encouraged to cooperate with each other and give presentations, the audience can question about their findings and the teacher may leave some comments while the speaker and other group members defending for themselves.

Reference:

Ross, V. (2003). The Socratic method: What it is and how to use it in the classroom. Standford University Newsletter on Teaching, 13(1), 1-4

Barrow, L. (2006). A brief history of inquiry-From Dewey to Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 265-78.

Newmann, F., Bryk, A., & Nagaoka, J. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Galileo Educational Network Association (2008). Retrieved from http://www.galileo.org/research/publications/rubric.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Introduction: Teaching and learning for understanding. Powerful Learning: What We Know About Teaching for Understanding (pp. 1- 9). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Comment: