A comparison of inquiry-based learning (IBL), problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PJBL) in science education

Academia Journal of Educational Research 2(7): 120-128, July 2014 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15413/ajer.2014.0129 ISSN: 2315-7704 ©2014 Academia Publis...
Author: Kelley Wright
5 downloads 0 Views 814KB Size
Academia Journal of Educational Research 2(7): 120-128, July 2014 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15413/ajer.2014.0129 ISSN: 2315-7704 ©2014 Academia Publishing

Research Paper A comparison of inquiry-based learning (IBL), problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PJBL) in science education Accepted 14th April, 2014 ABSTRACT

Ayse Oguz-Unver1* and Sertac Arabacioglu2 1Mugla

Sitki Kocman University Faculty of Education Department of Elementary Science Education Kotekli, Mugla-TURKEY 2Mugla Sitki Kocman University Faculty of Education Department of Elementary Science Education Kotekli, Mugla-TURKEY Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +90 252 2238491, Telephone Number: +90 252 211 1926

While we are reading these sentences, each second, approximately thirty thousand new pieces of knowledge are being produced somewhere. Consequently, the view of education as solely knowledge transference has become an impossible tenet. Given this impossibility, the gaining of knowledge is abandoned in favor of the gaining of skills and, because the current age has brought with it both innovations and challenges, solving these challenges and turn them into innovations can be possible through the acquisition of problem solution skills. The goal of this paper is to provide a critical commonalities and differences between inquiry-based learning (IBL), problem-based learning (PBL), and project-based learning (PjBL). The comparison is based on four main dimensions: (1) The historical aspects of the approaches will be examined according to the philosophical aim and pioneers of the approaches; (2) the main principle of the approaches will be considered with respect to the criteria of key elements, principles, and purpose; (3) the instructional procedures of the approaches will be identified in accordance with instructor role and learner role; (4) the outcomes of each approach will be looked at with regard to the criterion of specific outcomes. What this study reveals is that IBL, PBL and PjBL have each suggested new perspectives and have each contributed to dealing with some of the limitations of science instruction. A comparison table is presented by the end of the study for science instructors for helping them to organize their instruction as being appropriate for their learners. Key words: Inquiry-based learning (IBL), problem-based learning (PBL), projectbased learning (PjBL).

INTRODUCTION Even though the idea of educational methods that try to involve learners in their own learning processes began in ancient times with dialogos, the practical transition of the idea through the school system has taken a considerable time. Until the 1950s, most teaching and learning theories depended on drills whereby, if facts were repeated often enough, learners would learn them by memorizing. Developments in cognitive psychology have made educators aware of the fact that teaching is not just about communicating facts or mechanical skills, but that it is a

process of coming to understand the world (National Research Council, 2000; Borich, 2011; Linn et al., 1996; Westwood, 2008). Moreover, all learning involves active thinking, and instructors should create more room for their learners to construct their own knowledge. The tendency of the instructional methods was then turned into the constructivism that all learning involves knowledge construction in one form or another. Thereafter, instructional formats based on learner-centered approaches began to grow like a snowball. On the one hand,

Academia Journal of Educational Research; Oguz-Unver and Arabacioglu.

these approaches triggered the development of instruction but, on the other hand, educators became confused as to which one to use. Accordingly, the goal in this paper is to provide a critical examination of commonalities and differences between the approaches. Realistically, it is impossible to cover all of them, and so the subject of this study will be the three most widely used ones in science education: inquiry-based learning (IBL), problem-based learning (PBL), and projectbased learning (PjBL). The comparison is based on four main dimensions: (1) The historical aspects of the approaches will be examined according to the philosophical aim and pioneers of the approaches; (2) the main principle of the approaches will be considered with respect to the criteria of key elements, principles, and purpose; (3) the instructional procedures of the approaches will be identified in accordance with instructor role and learner role; (4) the outcomes of each approach will be looked at with regard to the criterion of specific outcomes. The discussion is followed by a comparison table of the IBL, PBL and PjBL. INQUIRY BASED LEARNING (IBL) IBL, as a learning activity, refers to the activities of learners in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world (Anderson, 2002). IBL is the process of finding out, where children explore, compare, investigate, and repeat their actions in an attempt to discover. The history of IBL Historically, prior to the 1800s, science instruction was viewed as a body of knowledge that learners were to learn through direct instruction (National Research Council, 2000). This approach was accepted as quite an effective way to transfer large amounts of knowledge in a short time. However, the transfer of knowledge was not enough for child development. By the mid to late 1800s, laboratory instruction became popular between science societies because it was felt by many that first hand observation and manipulation were useful in “disciplining” the mind (Lawson, 2010). In the 1910s, John Dewey stated that science instruction was more than knowledge transference; it also includes the processes or methods of learning as well. Later, the bases of inquiry also began to be discussed as part of a reaction to the traditional laboratory instruction, which was believed to be too occupied with the teaching of facts (Schwab, 1962). Indeed, IBL’s origin could be traced to the early work of Robert Karplus at the

121

University of California-Berkeley during the late 1950s and early 1960s (Lawson, 2010). Between 1960 and 1966, the educator Joseph Schwab suggested that instructors should present science as inquiry, and that learners should work in the laboratory before being introduced to the formal explanation of scientific concepts and principles (National Research Council, 2000). This was later formalized by Marshal Herron in 1971 with the development of the Herron scale to evaluate the amount of inquiry within a particular laboratory exercise. The main principle of IBL The main principle of inquiry is that of acquiring knowledge from direct observations by using deductive questions. Therefore, inquiry is the art of questioning and the art of raising questions. The instructional procedure of IBL Inquiry is based on a scientific investigation through classroom practices such as posing questions, and it is concerned with knowledge acquisition and development (Blanchard et al., 2008; Loyens and Rikers, 2011). The main reason for its widespread acceptance and usefulness in science teaching is that it is compatible with human nature. From the moment of opening our eyes to nature, all of our learning, except our instinctive behaviors, is based on our observations and inquiries. Therefore, all of our observations, learning needs, and inquiries require raising the correct questions. IBL begins with questions based on real observations, and proceeds through discussions and explanations based on evidence (Cuevas et al., 2005). The questions generally have single-step answers based on observations, and require deeper thinking ability from learners. Inquiry questions also allow for the generating of new questions or puzzling situations that are open-ended in order to allow for several responses or solutions (Bell et al., 2005; Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Linn et al., 1996; Savery, 2006). Although there was a widespread philosophic persuasion in favor of inquiry, there are some frustrations and difficult challenges encountered by implementing inquiry based instruction. Therefore, the instructor’s role includes three points:“believing, learning and asking”. First, the creation of a belief in its effectiveness is important for the success of the method. Another point is that instructors should be aware of their own positions, activities, directions, facilitation and boundaries. Instructors should stimulate interaction, establish inquiry, and guide exploration. To explain basic concepts, instructors can direct investigation of the information, identify the concepts, and form

Academia Journal of Educational Research; Oguz-Unver and Arabacioglu.

operational definitions for concepts. Differences in the amount of guidance have led to distinctions between structured inquiry, guided inquiry and open inquiry (Biggers and Forbes, 2012; Chinn and Malhorta, 2002; Kuhn, 2000). According to Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007), IBL is not a minimally guided instructional approach, but rather provides extensive scaffolding and guidance to facilitate learning. Asking inquiring questions, instructors must help learners to process information. Instructors should guide learners in the learning process, pushing them to think deeply, and model the kinds of questions that learners need to be asking themselves, thus forming a cognitive apprenticeship (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). To carry out all of these functions, instructors must know their learners’ prior knowledge and zone of proximal development because learners need to change complex and difficult tasks in ways that make these tasks accessible, manageable, and within each learner’s zone of proximal development. Additionally, assessment is important in controlling learning. Instructors could interact with learners and groups and focus on what learners know and can do.

The outcomes of IBL IBL produces several learning outcomes. However, the main role given to this instruction at the policy level was prompted because it was believed to promote a deeper understanding of the subject matter as well as facilitating transference of knowledge (Blanchard et al., 2008). IBL stimulates one’s intelligence and creativity through mental processing (Lawson, 2010) since it is known that the mind is thinking, understanding and comprehension. Intelligence is the independent thinking about the events, the adaptation of new situations, and the ability to collect together actions and attitudes in the center of one idea or purpose. Inquiry based learning also promotes the acquisition of scientific literacy, vocabulary knowledge, conceptual understanding (Anderson, 2002), attitudes toward science (Anderson, 2002; Shymansky et al., 1983), critical thinking (Anderson, 2002; Panasan and Nuangchalerm, 2010), scientific processing skills, cognitive achievement (Anderson, 2002; Panasan and Nuangchalerm, 2010; Shymansky et al., 1983, Lawson, 2010) learning content as well as discipline-specific reasoning skills and practices (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007).

PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL) The history of PBL Inquiry based learning and problem based learning are very similar, yet not same. Both are grounded in the

122

philosophy of John Dewey, who believed that education begins with the curiosity of the learner (Savery, 2006). During the 1960s and early 1970s, Van Deventer in 1958, and Washton in1967, discussed a variation on the inquiry method called problem based learning (Lawson, 2010). A first application of these methods was designed for medical students at McMaster University based on the gaps in conventional medical training, and most of the ideas about PBL have evolved from innovative clinical teaching programs (Savery, 2006; Savery and Duffy, 2001). PBL aims to show medical learners the relevance of the subject matter by putting it in a realistic context (Schmidt, 1983). The success of PBL in medical schools has spread globally in all forms of undergraduate institutions including nursing, economics, pharmacy, dentistry, physiotherapy, architecture, business, law, engineering, social work and science, as well as in elementary and secondary education. The main principal of PBL The main principle of PBL is based on maximizing learning through investigation, explanation, and resolution by starting from real and meaningful problems. Therefore, PBL is the art of problem solving. The instructional procedure of PBL PBL is constructed around ill-structured problems. Problems used in PBL must be ill-structured and allow for free inquiry (Savery, 2006). Therefore, PBL starts as inquiry based learning, but goes beyond it. The instructor constantly asks, “Why?” “What do you mean?” “How do you know that’s true?” to model higher order thinking by asking questions which probe learners knowledge more deeply (Savery et al., 2001). The instructor’s role is that of facilitator and coach rather than leader. In addition, it is important to clarifying what the main characteristics of the real problem are because a real problem must create a need to know. For example, medical cases involve complex problems being tested through a number of variables. Finding solutions for these problems is inherently interesting and consists of a requirement for different information in order to solve the cases. Moreover, the likely solutions can continually change as new information is found, and this presents the problems as ambiguous, unique, alternate as well as ultimately manageable. The problem solving element of PBL requires learners to look at multiple perspectives and domains. According to Savery (2006), learners should be able to access, study and integrate information from all the disciplines and these multiple perspectives lead learners to a more thorough understanding of the issues and the development of a more robust solution through PBL.

Academia Journal of Educational Research; Oguz-Unver and Arabacioglu.

PBL needs prerequisite skills and knowledge in order for learners to succeed with this method. In the initial stages, during identification of the problem, observational skills are identified as having a high priority (Barrows and Tamblyn, 1980; Mills and Treagust, 2003). PBL requires learners to have skills of scientific literacy, to explore in depth, to test ideas and scientific processes, and also to draw on skills, group working and knowledge of variables to solve problems. The development of effective problem solving skills includes the ability to appropriate metacognitive and reasoning strategies (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Metacognitive skills include learners’ automatic awareness of their own knowledge and ability to understand, control, and manipulate their own cognitive processes. Reasoning skills are utilized in the decisionmaking process and refer to specific cognitive abilities, some of which include assessing probability and thinking systematically or abstractly (Fischhoff et al., 1999). The outcomes of PBL PBL can provide learners with several important goals. According to meta-analysis results from Dochy et al. (2003), there are no studies that have reported significant negative findings about the outcomes of PBL in terms of knowledge and skills. PBL is challenging, motivating and enjoyable (Norman and Schmidt, 2000). This important outcome comes from the finding of a solution, if the solution is acceptable, in that learners can become intrinsically motivated to learn. The PBL process can construct an extensive and flexible knowledge base. This is related to the multidisciplinary nature of PBL because learners can incorporate prior knowledge from different fields. Therefore, PBL aims to produce better outcomes for clinical knowledge and skills (Albanese and Mitchell, 1993). PBL also develops effective problem-solving, self-directed, lifelong learning skills. It aims to achieve higher-order outcomes by identifying and providing learners in advance with all the steps required solving a particular problem (Borich, 2011). PROJECT BASED LEARNING (PJBL) Project-Based Learning is a model that organizes learning around tangible projects. It is definitely predicated on real– world problems that involve learners in design, problemsolving, decision making, or investigative activities, giving learners the opportunity to learn relatively (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Jones et al., 1997; Marx et al., 1994). The history of PjBL The basic applications of PjBL can be traced back to 16th

123

century architecture and engineering education in Europe. In the period 1765-1880, it was used in architecture schools in America as an instructional method. Later, the 19th century Industrialism movements were the turning point. The theoretical and philosophical principals of the project method originated from John Dewey’s ideas on progressivism and existentialism, Kilpatrick’s project method, Bruner’s learning through discovery, and Thelen Group investigation. Their learner centered views and ideas on critical examinations and inquiry have created a new age in science education. However, the use of PjBL in science education started again with the works of Rufus Stimson in 1908, an instructor at Smith Agricultural School in Northampton, Massachusetts. With this work, three basic ideas became the core values of PjBL: “child-centered learning”, “learning by doing”, and “applying the school’s teachings in the home” (Colley, 2008). The first applications were at the J. J. Rousseau Institute in 1912, but it was not until 1965 that the project idea was revived. There has been tradition in schools for “doing projects”, incorporating “hands-on” activities, developing interdisciplinary themes, conducting field trips, and implementing laboratory investigations for over twenty years (Thomas, 2000). The main principle of PjBL PjBL is based on a learning process whereby the learner is working on authentic or real-world problems to producing a tangible product over extended periods of time. The instructional procedure of PjBL PjBL is nourished from “real-life” like IBL and PBL, but its perspective is different from both of them. PjBL projects are focused on problems that “drive” learners to encounter (and struggle with) the central concepts and principles of a discipline (Thomas, 2000). For successful PjBL, problems are identified by learners while working in groups. They think of an area of study that is full of interesting problems or challenges and both related to their current sciencecourse content and relevant to their lives (Colley, 2008; Krajcik et al., 1998). The end products of the problems are an important factor for PjBL. Learners must produce end products in the amount of time available, at a reasonable cost, or without purchasing expensive materials. The end products serve as the basis for learning through discussions, feedback and revisions (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Krajcik and Blumenfeld, 2006). PjBL is a learnerdriven activity to a significant degree. Most of the activities are very hands on, practical matters (Colley, 2008). Therefore, when working on projects, learners need prerequisite skills and knowledge. First, they need to have patience, observing things closely, recognizing patterns,

Academia Journal of Educational Research; Oguz-Unver and Arabacioglu.

they need the ability to taking measurements, record data accurately, use tools appropriately and look for alternative explanations of data. The instructor’s role is to facilitate, advise, guide, monitor, and mentor learners, not just to conduct lectures and laboratory work (Colley, 2008). Sometimes, the instructors act only as an instructor to provide direct instruction or give explanatory knowledge or research skills, and sometimes as a facilitator, helping learners find resources or resolve problems (Brooks-Young, 2005). The learner’s role is to be an active learner who contributes to the learning process (Colley, 2008). Learners must learn to take responsibility for task completion and to engage in the give-and-take required for effective group work (Brooks-Young, 2005). Learners have a chance to solve interdisciplinary problems by themselves, and they can also respond to activities outside the school environment (Holubova, 2008). The outcomes of PjBL In reaching instructional goals, some of the determining factors are learners’ perceptions of achievement, understanding of learning, study habits and interactions with others in the teaching and learning environment. PjBL also enhances motivation (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). However; the intended outcomes of PjBL are generally related to the types of projects (Colley, 2008). There are four types of project in PjBL. The first is problem-solving projects, intended to teach problem-solving skills and critical-thinking skills. The second is process-skill projects, aimed at learning the abilities of a real scientist. Third, designing and engineering projects that are designed for production. The final is the content or the subject-matter projects, designed for teaching science concepts, knowledge, facts, history and nature of science. DISCUSSION One may think that all of these methods offer nothing new. In order to clarify these ideas, therefore, in this part of the paper, the three methods will be discussed in terms of their similarities, history, principles, instructional implications and outcomes. At the end of the discussion, a comparison table (Table 1) will be presented. History The philosophy of inquiry is a key determinant of the IBL, PBL and PjBL. However, the three methods utilize inquiry from different positions. IBL lessons are driven by raising questions based on real observations, which then continue

124

with learner observations of laboratory experiment, natural phenomena and so on. However, PBL lessons are focused on the solution of ill-structured problems, problems that provide the main framework of the inquiry. PjBL is also intended to produce a tangible product to solve authentic or real world problems or to produce a desired product, and so how to produce the desired product is at the center of inquiries. Many curriculum developers, educational technologists, and educators have worked on IBL, PBL and PjBL. In this paper, we have only focused on the scientist whose initial ideas were built upon by others in that, for the most part, the three methods are based on John Dewey’s ideas. However, the first principal of IBL was proposed for science instruction by Robert Karplus, Joseph Schwab, Marshal Heron, and Atkin and Lawson. PBL was first discussed by Borrows, Savery, Duffy, Williams, Stepien and Gallagher, and PjBL was firstly mentioned as a learning method by Kilpatrick, Bruner, Thelen, Rufus Stimson, Blumenfeld, Tinker, Laffey, Krajcik, and Moje. The main principle When considering these three methods, available research underlines specific elements for each of them. The teaching of the discipline by inquiry has exploration, invention and application elements. However, those of PBL are identifying problems, activating prior knowledge, encoding, specifying and the elaboration of knowledge, and presenting and defending a conclusion. PjBL is organized around finding open-ended driving questions or challenges, creating new ideas, conducting investigative activities and, ultimately, the application of knowledge into producing a product. IBL lessons are principally managed through direct observations by using deductive and inductive questions for acquiring knowledge from natural phenomenon, whereas PBL lessons aim to maximize learning through investigation, explanation, and resolution by starting from real and meaningful problems. A PjBL lesson, in contrast, includes working on authentic or real-world problems to producing tangible products over extended periods of time. Each of the three methods can be used in all learning environments, but the reason why we prefer one of these methods is determined by particular characteristics of each. For example, IBL is the best learning approach for human nature, PBL is preferred for best outcomes and learning for problem solution, and PjBL allows us to experience real life in the educative environment by creating authentic or desired production. Instructional procedures Instruction is planned in accordance with educational

Academia Journal of Educational Research; Oguz-Unver and Arabacioglu.

125

Table 1. Comparison between IBL, PBL and PjBL.

IBL Raising questions

PBL Problem solution

PjBL Producing tangible product

John Dewey Robert Karplus Atkin Lawson Joseph Schwab Marshal Herron

John Dewey Barrows Savery& Duffy Williams Stepien& Gallagher

John Dewey, Kilpatrick, Bruner, Thelen, Rufus Stimson, Blumenfeld, Tinker, Laffey, Krajcik, Moje

Key elements

Exploration, invention, application.

Prior knowledge activation, encoding specificity, elaboration of knowledge.

Learning by producing an artifact, creating artifact within an extended time frame.

Principle

Acquiring knowledge from direct observations by using deductive questions.

Maximize learning with investigation, explanation, and resolution by starting from real and meaningful problems.

Working on authentic or realworld problems to produce tangible products over extended periods of time.

Purpose

Best learning approach for human nature.

Best outcomes and learning for problem solution.

Optimum example of real life in education by creating authentic production.

Outcomes

Instructional implications

Principle

History

Philosophical aim

Pioneers

Learners prior knowledge/skills

Not important-learner can produce knowledge from their observation.

Prior knowledge and skills application.

Prior knowledge and skills application, finishing in extended period of time, selfmanagement, and project management.

Instructor role

Leader, coach, model, facilitator.

Facilitator, coach rather than leader.

Facilitator, advisor, guide, monitor, mentor, not just lecturer or leader

Learner role

Interprets, explains, hypothesizes, designs and directing own tasks, shares answers with authority.

Determining whether a problem exists, creating an exact statement of the problem, identifying information, data, and learning goals, creating a working plan.

For which field

For all fields, but especially for elementary schools.

For all fields, but especially medicine, law etc. (which includes case studies).

For all fields, but especially architecture, engineering (which aims to create artifacts)

For which level

For all levels, but especially for early educational levels.

For all levels, but especially for higher ones.

For all levels, but especially for higher ones.

Specific Outcomes

Conceptual understanding of science principals. Comprehension of the nature of scientific inquiry and a grasp of applications of science knowledge to societal and personal issues, creativity, intelligence.

Effective problem-solving skills. Self-directed, lifelong learning skills. Effective collaboration.

Problem solving, science process skills, ability to produce authentic production, deep content knowledge.

Deeper investigation, managing work plan and time schedule, producing product.

Academia Journal of Educational Research; Oguz-Unver and Arabacioglu.

purposes which determine how to organize the learning environment. Therefore, these three different methods have different starting points. IBL begins with questions on our observations, PBL begins with real and meaningful problems from the environment, and PjBL begins with authentic or challenging problems or demanded products. IBL, PBL and PjBL integrate subject-specific problem solving, learning for understanding, confronting misconceptions, being aware of one’s own thinking, meaningful connection to solutions, active learning, generating explanations, learning by doing and group learning. However, IBL intends for learner to construct their own knowledge and, although the process of knowledge construction could be based on learners’ prior knowledge, the process of IBL only needs the use of very simple and basic prior knowledge. Therefore, learners do not need to rely on resources to find information about their problems (Savery, 2006). However, both PBL and PjBL necessitate having comprehensive and subject-specific prior knowledge because; the process in each is mainly based on the application of knowledge. The instructor assumes different roles for each method such as leader, facilitator, coach and so on. A successful IBL instructor, as a leader, stimulates interaction, establishes inquiry, and guides exploration to form operational definitions for concepts. The instructor also coaches learner actions, models the learning process, and plays a key role in facilitating the learning process and may provide content knowledge on a just-in-time basis. For PBL, instructors are frequently facilitators and coaches rather than leaders while, for PjBL, the instructors are facilitators, advisors, guides, monitors, and mentors. The PBL, PjBL and IBL processes generally needed to create driving questions. In IBL, these questions are created by the instructor in order to organize and direct inquiry but, in PBL and PjBL, the driving questions are constructed by learners to test their hypotheses about problems. IBL lessons generally begin with learners’ observation about a phenomenon. Therefore, learners interpret and explain their observation, hypothesize their theories, design and direct their tasks, and they share their answers with authority. However, the learner role in PBL is determining whether a problem exists, creating an exact statement of the problem and a working plan, identifying information, data, and learning goals, and finally producing a tangible solution. In contrast to these two approaches, learners in PjBL are focused on investigation of the central concepts and principles of a discipline, and conduct more hands on activities before finally producing a tangible product. PBL is used successfully in nursing, economics, pharmacy, dentistry, physiotherapy, architecture, business, law, engineering and social work. However, the problems related to the above mentioned fields are well-matched and

126

meaningful for PBL. Therefore, because of their origin, multiple domains, the requirement of pre-knowledge and skill, and also the related research results, the application of PBL is more suitable for high-level classes (although it is also possible that suitable problems could be found to attract learner attention in elementary schools). Knowledge construction in IBL, by contrast, starts from organizing basic and lower-level pre-knowledge and skill, which enables this method to be used with learners who do not know anything. In this respect, using IBL in elementary classes seems quite conventional. PjBL can also be used with different levels of complexity. The complexity and the level of detail in learners’ projects can be vary depending on grade, ability level, maturity, subject matter, curriculum goals, instructor’s time, and resources available (Colley, 2008). According to Westwood (2008), the principles and procedures of a suitable method for any given class are determined by the nature of the subject matter to be taught, and by our beliefs or theories about how learners learn. Therefore, the most appropriate grade level and field of application have been a matter for fierce debate for some time. Mills and Treagust (2003) have stated that the project-based learning method may be more appropriate and acceptable for engineering education. For Savery (2006), however, there is a lack of evidence for expanding PBL into elementary learner classes, and there are some misapplications and misconceptions about PBL. The outcomes of three methods Learners who have learned to produce tangible products using PjBL, those who have learned to raise question through IBL, and those who have learned problem solving with PBL do not have different learning outcomes because IBL, PBL, and PjBL are each appropriately efficient and effective. However, each method places more emphasis on different learning achievements. For example, IBL can be effective in comprehending the nature of scientific inquiry, intelligence and conceptual understanding. PBL is about learning problem-solving skills and collaboration. PjBL enables the gaining of science process skills, the ability to organize working, planning and one’s time, and the ability to produce authentic production. Process is the key word for identifying the differences in these methods. Unlike PBL and PjBL, the IBL learning process is completed with successful learning outcomes. The PBL process performs the function of solving problems, and project based learning is targeted toward an achievable end product that is visualized before the process is begun (Borich, 2011). CONCLUSION In the past, the direct instruction method was accepted as

Academia Journal of Educational Research; Oguz-Unver and Arabacioglu.

quite an effected way to transfer large amount of knowledge in a short time. However, it did not provide permanent learning. Therefore, the educator researchers search for a method that provides permanent learning in a short time. Many methods and strategies were developed and discussed in this manner. What this study reveals is that IBL, PBL and PjBL have each suggested new perspectives and have each contributed to dealing with some of the limitations of science instruction such as the need to raise questions, problem solving, or producing a product. However, it is obvious that IBL is the main framework for PBL and PjBL. They both have to include IBL, yet the opposite is not the case because IBL performs the function of corresponding to learners’ learning needs during knowledge construction. Although IBL includes the transference of knowledge into different areas, this process is carried out in later stages. Primarily, IBL focuses on knowledge construction and, taking account of knowledge transference, IBL gives way to PBL and PjBL overtime. In all three methods, learners are not just active learners; the activation is also in the learners’ minds. The learner is asking and refining questions, planning and designing how to answer their ideas, sharing ideas, making sense of data and designing and conducting experimental work. All these activities are mental processes and engage learners to become active learners. Subsequently, it becomes clear that learners need time to explore new phenomena at their own pace with their own preconceptions. Learners learn content, strategies, and self-directed learning skills through collaborative problem solving, reflecting their own experiences, and engaging in self-directed inquiry. If the learner’s background is not sufficient for the investigation, then new term or concepts should be introduced by the instructor, the textbook, a video, or another learner. Concept application activities aid learners whose conceptual reorganizations took place more slowly than average or who did not adequately relate the instructor’s original comments to their experiences. Term introduction allows instructors to introduce new terms and learners to initially try to link patterns, ideas, and the new terms. What is suggested if the instructor’s experience and knowledge are insufficient on these matters is they can collaborate with each other. Instructors should collaborate with peers and experts because collaboration is a powerful stimulus for the reflection which is fundamental to changing beliefs, values and understandings. Another important point is that instructors can share their inquiry experiences, questions, and learners’ views on topics. For example, one cannot produce inquiry questions to all topics, but one can share questions through collaboration. Overall, the main principles of IBL, PBL and PjBL derive from different historical contexts, stress different social and educational needs, and have different theoretical considerations. Therefore, in teaching practice, in order to

127

apply these methods effectively and efficiently, practitioners should take the following questions into account: who the learners are, what their current level of language proficiency is, what sort of communicative needs they have, and the circumstances in which they will be using science in the future, and so on. Science instructors could also implement all of these teaching methods in the organization of activities as being appropriate for learner achievement in the future. In a word, no single method on its own could guarantee successful learning. REFERENCES Albanese MA, Mitchell S (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Acad. Med. 68(1):52-81. Anderson RD (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry? J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 13(1):1-12. Barrows HS, Tamblyn RM (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Bell RL, Smetana L, Binns I (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Sci. Teach. 72(7):30-33. Biggers M, Forbes CT (2012). Balancing Teacher and Student Roles in Elementary Classrooms: Preservice elementary teachers’ learning about the inquiry continuum, Inter. J. Scien. Educ. 34(14):2205-2229. Blanchard MR, Southerland SA, Granger EM (2008). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Sci. Teach. Educ. 93:322-360. Blumenfeld PC, Soloway E, Marx RW, Krajcik JS, Guzdial M, Palincsar A (1991). Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4):369-398. Borich GD (2011). Effective teaching methods-research based practice. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Brooks-Young S (2005). Project-based learning: technology makes it realistic! Today’s Catholic Teacher. 38(6):35-39. Chinn CA, Malhorta BA (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical frame work for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86:175-218. Colley K (2008). Project-based science instruction: A primer. The Science Teacher, 75 (5-9). Cuevas P, Lee O, Hart J, Deaktor R (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. J. Res. Scien. Teach. 42(3):337-357. Dochy F, Segers M, Bossche PV, Gijbels D (2003). Effects of problem based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction 13:533-568. Fischhoff B, Crowell NA, Kipke M (1999). Adolescent decision making: Implications for prevention programs. Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Hmelo-Silver CE (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educ. Psychol. Rev. 16(3):235–266. Hmelo-Silver CE, Duncan RG, Chinn C.A (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educ. Psychol. 42(2):99-107. Holubova R (2008). Effective teaching methods: Project-based learning in physics. US-China Education Review, 5(12). Jones BF, Rasmussen CM, Moffitt MC. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Krajcik J, Blumenfeld PC, Marx RW, Bass KM, Fredricks J, Soloway E (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. J. learn scien. 7(3-4), 313-350. Krajcik JS, Blumenfeld P (2006). Project-based learning. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge.

Academia Journal of Educational Research; Oguz-Unver and Arabacioglu.

Kuhn D, Black JB, Kesselman A, Kaplan D (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18:495-523. Lawson AE (2010). Teaching inquiry science in middle and secondary schools. Los Angeles: Sage. Linn MC, Songer NB, Eylon BS (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. In R. Calfee & D. Berliner (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 438-490). Riverside, NJ: Macmillan. Loyens SMM, Rikers RMJP (2011). Instruction based on inquiry. In R.E Mayer & P.A Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 361-381). New York: Routledge Press. Marx RW, Blumenfeld PC, Krajcik J, Blunk M, Crawford B, Kelly B, Meyer K (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers. Elemen. Sch. J. 94(5):499-516. Mills JE, Treagust DF (2003). Engineering education is problem-based or project-based learning the answer? J. Austra. Asso. Eng. Educ. Retrieved from http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf. National Research Council (2000).Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Norman GR, Schmidt HG. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Theory, practice and paper darts. Med. Educ. 34:721-728. Panasan M, Nuangchalerm P (2010). Learning outcomes of project-based and inquiry-based learning activities. J. Soc. Scien. 6(2):252-255. Savery JR, Duffy TM (2001). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. CRLT Technical Report No. 1601. Indiana University: Center for Research on Learning and Technology. Savery JR (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The Interdiscipl. J. Prob-Based. Learn. 1(1). Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context= ijpbl. Schmidt HG (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education. 17:11-16. Schwab JJ (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J.J. Schwab, & P.F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 3-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shymansky JA, Kyle WC, Alport JM (1983). The effects of new science curricula on students performance. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 20(5):387-404. Thomas JW (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.bie.org/files/researchreviewPBL.pdf. Westwood P (2008). What teachers need to know about teaching methods. Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

128

Cite this article as: Oguz-Unver A, Arabacioglu S (2014). A comparison of inquiry-based learning (IBL), problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PJBL) in science education. Acad. J. Educ. Res. 2(7): 120-128. Submit your manuscript at: http://academiapublishing.org/journals/ajer

Suggest Documents