Let's talk evidence: The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction

Many studies investigating inquiry learning in science domains have appeared over the years. Throughout this period, inquiry learning has been regularly criticized by scholars who favor direct instruction over inquiry learning. In this vein, Zhang, Kirschner, Cobern, and Sweller (2022) recently asserted that direct instruction is overall superior to inquiry-based instruction and reproached policy makers for ignoring this fact. In the current article we reply to this assertion and the premises on which it is based. We review the evidence and argue that a more complete and correct interpretation of the literature demonstrates that inquiry-based instruction produces better overall results for acquiring conceptual knowledge than does direct instruction. We show that this conclusion holds for controlled, correlational, and program-based studies. We subsequently argue that inquiry-based and direct instruction each have their specific virtues and disadvantages and that the effectiveness of each approach depends on moderating factors such as the learning goal, the domain involved, and students' prior knowledge and other student characteristics. Furthermore, inquiry-based instruction is most effective when supplemented with guidance that can be personalized based on these moderating factors and can even involve providing direct instruction. Therefore, we posit that a combination of inquiry and direct instruction may often be the best approach to support student learning. We conclude that policy makers rightfully advocate inquiry-based instruction, particularly when students' investigations are supplemented with direct instruction at appropriate junctures

Macroeconomic Policies of Korea to Cope with the Crisis

TRU

The Newcastle exercise project - key messages are misleading and conclusions are not evidence based

Article responding to Newcastle exercise project by Harland et al. The authors believe that Harland et al have asked the wrong questions and therefore drawn the wrong conclusions. Harland et al wanted to know whether there was a difference between the various interventions and control in changes in physical activity score from 12 weeks to one year. Since there were no differences, the headline for This week in the BMJ stated that prescription of exercise is a waste of scarce resources. A better question would be to ask whether any group had increased their activity at one year compared with baseline. According to the data Harland et al present in table 2, the percentage of participants who had increased physical activity scores at one year compared with baseline ranged from 23% in the control group to 31% in intervention 3. If these are significant changes from baseline then the conclusion might have been that even the control condition can have a substantial impact in increasing physical activity over one year. Further economic analysis might then determine that the control (which seemed to include the basis of many intervention techniques such as assessment, feedback, and the provision of information) was the most cost effective intervention. The authors' conclusion that brief interventions are of questionable effectiveness is wrong since none of their interventions or even the control condition could be described as brief. In our own research we have shown that much briefer interventions (provision of an information booklet alone) can still increase physical activity up to six months