1) The document discusses challenges in designing, implementing, and researching inquiry-based learning (IBL), and argues that IBL should be viewed as a practice rather than just a pedagogical approach. 2) Key challenges for IBL include student motivation, accessibility of investigation techniques, background knowledge and skills, and practical constraints, but the document suggests reframing these as issues of developing an IBL culture of learning. 3) True IBL involves engaging students in continuous, meaningful inquiry activities organized around shared goals and applying skills/attitudes for participation in a community of inquiry.

1. Challenges in IBL
design, implementation and
research methodology
A practice perspective
F.R. Prinsen, Open University of the Netherlands

2. Inquiry research trajectory
PhD: Differences in participation and learning outcomes in CSCL
Postdoc: Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology
Knowledge Building International
Working Environment with Social and Personal
Open Tools for Inquiry-Based Learning
The collective nature of science

3. Research concerns
• Access to knowledge (communities)
• Learner identity development and motivation
• Developing learner agency (related to
structure)

4. Definitions matter…
“Inquiry science is a hands-on constructivist approach
to science education. Students address teachers’ and
students’ questions about natural phenomena or
events by conducting scientific investigations in which
they collaboratively develop plans, collect and explain
evidence, connect the explanations to existing scientific
knowledge, and communicate and justify the
explanations” (Anderson, 2002).

5. Challenges in IBL
• Student motivation,
• Accessibility of investigation techniques,
• Background knowledge & skills, and
• Practical constraints in the learning context*
Why do students not respond to our pedagogical and
technological IBL designs in the way we anticipate?
*Edelson, Gordin, & Pea (1999!)

6. Reframing these challenges
In our IBL designs, implementation and
research…
to what degree do we regard IBL as a practice?
For instance, do we consider the necessary
change in the culture of learning?
[Re: Yael Kali]

7. Inquiry Based Learning (Practice)
• Engagement in continuous, immersive and meaningful
inquiry activities,
• organised around recognised and shared goals,
• applying a repertoire of skills and attitudes necessary
for participation in a community of inquiry,
• while negotiating, mastering and appropriating its
cultural tools.
Darwin:
"there is grandeur in this view of life"

8. Factors to consider

9. (Tool) Design issues
Take the practice of IBL as a starting point;
• Examine existing social learning processes encouraged in
the classroom
• Use adaptable toolsets (so teachers can act as co-
designers; agile design [Re: Camillia Matuk])
• Make sure that the system allows for scaffolding, feedback,
and reflection
• Consider pedagogical usability
• Apply and negotiate evaluation structure, e.g. Social
learning Analytics
(at appropriate level of analysis [Re: Dillenbourg; Erkens])

11. Agile software development
• Iterative evaluation workshops with teachers
• Trac tickets (trac.wespot.nl) and
• Sprint meetings
#3
7
Quote from
Workshop
[To] divide learners in smaller or larger groups [or
even] double groups in some cases for discussing input.
Trac-
ticket #
615
Context of the "Quote" Response of the participant to the question "which
additional activities would you carry out during the
phases "Data collection and data analysis"?
Status CLOSED (fixed)
Proposed solution Provide the possibility to “copy” an inquiry so that
different groups can work together. This should be
adaptable, i.e. it should be possible to add / exclude
students from such group inquiries.
Source OUNL1
Implementation Group / user management has been improved: The inquiry owner (usually the teacher) can
either clone an inquiry (i.e. duplicate it) or create several sub-inquiries. Individuals or groups of
students can be invited to these sub-inquiries. This enables them to work together on a
particular inquiry (including collaborative discussions on input from peers or the teacher).

12. Configuration interface

13. Dojo IBL mobile app
Angel Suarez (PhD)

14. Learning dashboard

15. Methodological issues
accounting for CoP
• Follow students’ activities in context and over time
[Re: Dillenbourgh’s orchestration graphs;
C.P. Rosé & Gaesevic ProSolo and DALMOOC]
• Focus on students’ interaction trajectories*
[Re C.P. Rosé DALMOOC; Erkens Social Networks;
Jennifer Tan Social Reading networks]
• Provide for feedback and reflection on collective understanding,
preceptions and views
[Re: Jennifer Tan; e.g. feedback from peripheral participants as
evidenced by Learning Analytics]
* Ludvigsen et al., 2011

16. Implications
• Developing a new view on knowledge and
learning
[Re: C. Krist; Shifts in epistemological considerations]
• How do we study student response to design?

17. Reflection
• Is all the uncertainty, discomfort and hard
work that go into supporting IBL as a practice
worth it?
• What level of authenticity can we provide in
and outside the classroom?
• Authentic learning challenges, according to
Knight et al. (2014), provide the opportunity
for developing transferable skills and
competencies, and the qualities needed to
thrive in complexity and uncertainty

18. Discussion
• Do we examine students’ proximal knowledge of the
Nature of Science (Hogan 2000; Sandoval 2005) and
their Practical epistemology (Wu & Wu, 2011; in terms
of nature of knowledge, approach of production, and
criteria of evaluation)?
[Re: Bereiter]
• Are the learning opportunties we are providing
equitable in access and quality? (Also - Prinsen, 2012;
Prinsen, Terwel, Zijlstra, & Volman, 2013; Schreiner &
Sjøberg, 2007; Costa, 1995; Bøe, Henriksen, Lyons &
Schreiner, 2011; Hung and Chen, 2007)

19. Further inquiries ;)
Fleur.prinsen@ou.nl
frprinsen@gmail.com