Re-framing the Instruction/Enquiry Debate

*Originally posted on my previous blog www.mrbowkerinmalaysia.com in May 2022*

Instruction or Enquiry?

This debate continues in teaching circles around the world. Pedagogical approaches that some seem to suggest are in opposition, others say can go side by side. I am still very much at the beginning of fully comprehending the answer to this debate, despite the time spent reading, researching, trialing and observing all manner of teaching. In terms of teaching and philosophy, I largely stick to my instructional routes - the evidence from cognitive load theory, cognitive science's explanation of memory formation, the way retrieval works, the best practices in Rosenshine's Principles, amongst others, are far too strong for me to ignore. However, I firmly believe there is a place for enquiry based learning, a pedagogy that so many teachers favour. Personally, I spent many hours being trained to implement it and I know educators far more experienced that me rave about it and colleagues that I admire utilise it regularly. As such, I still use an enquiry based method where I feel it is best for learning but not as the only pedagogy in my classroom. Recently I have had a huge revelation courtesy of a combination of CPD and a change of curriculum. It has changed the way I approach this debate, and they way I think about learning and pedagogy. It has clarified my instincts on the matter and explains my desire to use both in my classroom. For me it reframes this debate from being two pedagogies in conflict, to being two pedagogies that can work harmoniously, side by side in the same classroom - so I thought it worthy of sharing.

Firstly comes the premise that there are different types of learning. This is a crucial point, one that I've been aware of due to knowledge based or skills based curricula, but never fully realised the consequences of, until now. Put simply it goes like this - learning can be split into 3 identifiable subgroups. Knowledge. Skills. Understanding. Knowledge is the information pupils need to know - in my year 4 classroom setting this may be the times tables, important dates in Ancient Egypt or what alliteration is. Skills are something pupils are able to do - in my classroom this is our dance routine, building an electric circuit, following the correct sequence for column addition and subtraction. Understanding is a complex combination of these, connected with wider learning - explaining how the electric circuit works while building it, understanding and explaining the cultural significance of the dance routine, finding adverts, identifying alliteration and explaining how this supports the company in persuading people to buy the item. This distinction is intuitive, logical and I find it difficult to argue with. Knowledge requires the learner to be given the new information, and it is in this context that an instructional based approach will generally reap the best rewards. Cognitive science has done a great job at explaining how our brains process information and accumulate knowledge, how information is transferred from the short to the long term memory, and the role of retrieval in this. Cognitive Load Theory also explains the dangers of giving pupils too much to process. An instructional approach including, though not limited to teacher explaining, videos, quizzes, retrieval, reading, regular low stakes assessments will all be of use here. Learning Skills requires a different approach. A skill may take longer to master, need time to repeat and practice. It may need a teacher to model the skills, correct elements of it while being practiced. Depending on the task, this may create muscle memory. For this a teacher who acts as more of a coach, guiding, supporting, asking questions, identifying areas of improvement and supporting pupils in their own development by use of questions, feedback and modelling may work better than a traditional instructional approach or entirely enquiry based approach. I accept that as part of an instructional or enquiry based approach, these methods may from part of the teaching and could be classified within either of the pedagogical frameworks - but making this distinction here adds clarity the the differing pedagogies for the different types of learning. Finally, Understanding is a step beyond this. This requires the teacher to facilitate the opportunity for the pupils to put together their existing knowledge and skills in their own unique way. To combine elements from different curricula areas and fuse them together, potentially with some new knowledge, and then demonstrate this in a carefully set up environment taking into account previous learning, individual knowledge, skills, and preferences. For this an enquiry based pedagogy would be ideal, showing the pupils where to look, but not what to see.

This is where I think the disagreement comes from. We all want to teach for understanding, but there are steps to get there. Simply using enquiry 100% of the time may miss out key aspects of knowledge and skills. Similarly a solely instructional based practice may limit the opportunity for pupils to purposefully develop their own understanding. Yes, we need to aim for understanding, but we cannot by-pass the knowledge and skills to get there. To be able to get to understanding we need to start with an instructional approach and then be flexible enough to change pedagogy appropriately when learning skills and aiming for understanding. This may not happen in a chronological order, and a back and forth between the different approaches will be needed depending on the situation and learner needs. It is in this way, the two pedagogies can work in harmony. But, and this is vital, only when aiming for different types of learning. Reframing the debate in this way means that neither approach is better or worse per se, they are simply different, and as such should be used for different purposes when we are aiming for different types of learning. Going forward, into the classroom setting, there are 2 main practical applications of reframing this debate that can be applied: 1. Most importantly, the teacher can determine what type of learning is taking place and can then adapt their style of teaching accordingly to ensure pupils learn in the most effective way, maximising the learning during the time spent in the classroom. 2. The learning objectives can reflect the type of learning, in doing so support learner metacognition. e.g. Learning knowledge starting with an "I know...." statement Learning a skill starting with an 'I am able to ...." statement, and Learning understanding with and "I understand..." statement.

This, at least, is what I will be doing in my classroom from now on, and as ever I will be reflecting on how this impacts the learning in my class. Thanks for reading, and please do comment below if you have any thoughts, opinions or opposing evidence to what I have mentioned. Laurence