My experience is quite the opposite… especially with anything abstract (such as math concepts or big ideas in science) and reflected in the previous comment by Vince Wolfe: Novice students need exploratory experiences in order to understand the abstractions shared in direct instruction. Students with more prior knowledge and familiarity can benefit from direct instruction because they can relate the abstractions to existing funds of knowledge and experiences.

Then, the students dive in and dissect the frog. The find organs, they are grossed out, they laugh. And they likely get something out of the whole experience. BUT, in my experience as an educator for almost 20 years, I’ve found that the “winners” in the class, those who seem to always do well, get more out of the activity than those who feel they are always behind, who are struggling to understand textbook material, who might be intimidated by school.

Scenario 2: Teacher hands out the frogs. She gives them one simple instruction: cut the frog in half and see what you find. Students do, and they start asking all kinds of questions. They laugh, they are grossed out, they wonder. At the right time, when students want the information, the teacher puts up the same diagram of the cross-section. The students look to see if their guesses were right. They look to find answers to the questions they formed. In other words, information is given when students most want it.

Anyone who how the brain learns knows that this is the best time for new information to be integrated and processed. And, while there are no guarantees, the open-ended nature of this type of experiencial and inquiry-based activity makes it more likely that all students benefit and have an opportunity to ask questions, notice things, and have curiosities. It’s not just the top 30% of students (although this activity is great for them as well, to sharpen and extend their thinking).

I’m an academic coach, and I work with a teacher who did both scenarios. She did scenario one for many years before trying the second. She is now a huge proponent of scenario 2. She said the level of engagement was pretty high with both, but in the second scenario, the questions and discussions were more scientific, and that the students were begging for the teacher to tell them the “answer”. She said she’d never go back to Scenario 1.

My take is that if we want students to think like scientists, and approach the world using empirical reasoning, we have to let them have the same experiences that scientists have on a regular basis. We have to create conditions for some open-ended noticing and wondering before dropping “teacher-knowledge” into the mix.

Sometimes, inquiry based learned can be doing the exact same activity, with the same materials, as explicit direct instruction. The difference is the order, where there is time given (usually at the start) for students to think in an open-ended way with no immediate answer.

Finally, in all of these articles about which method is more successful, I’m aways asking myself, “why aren’t we talking about the validity of the assessment that was used to qualify which method is more successful?” Having 2 kids of my own in middle school, I can say that I don’t really care if my kids have memorized facts that allow them to ace a multiple-choice test about plate techtonics or the Krebs cycle. I’d much rather that they have the opportunity to think and wonder about plate Techtonics or the Krebs cycle, to work collaboratively with others, do research, and to figure out how to find the information they need to reach the teacher’s goals. I want the teacher to allow, or even promote “messy thinking” where the students are struggling to make sense of something before finally understanding. These are skills that my kids will use in college, work, and life.

I think we need to be very careful about drawing conclusions about the success or failure of a method when we haven’t carefully examined what the assessment actually measures.