Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Aren't you in a special magnet school comprised of parents who are involved and educated themselves?
Our demographics are distinctly middle class compared to the surrounding school districts. NJ over all is a well educated state, so compared to the country we would appear to be wealthier.
And no, the parents are no more involved than in neighboring schools, though that is not a statistic we would be able to quantify. We have our share of helicopters, and plenty we have never met.
For the record this school started with both a vocational and academic STEM program. Those stats are similar even for the voc kids.
But even if you want to try to state our experience is not typical, shouldn't they be even more evidence for the power of inquiry based methods? Our students aren't succeeding in spite of these experiences, that can be easily shown by comparing them to their peers in some of the expensive private schools in the region. The two major private schools in our country both use more traditional lecture, test, repeat methods than we do. We are much better at science by most quantifiable measures than they are.
Our demographics are distinctly middle class compared to the surrounding school districts. NJ over all is a well educated state, so compared to the country we would appear to be wealthier.
And no, the parents are no more involved than in neighboring schools, though that is not a statistic we would be able to quantify. We have our share of helicopters, and plenty we have never met.
For the record this school started with both a vocational and academic STEM program. Those stats are similar even for the voc kids.
But even if you want to try to state our experience is not typical, shouldn't they be even more evidence for the power of inquiry based methods? Our students aren't succeeding in spite of these experiences, that can be easily shown by comparing them to their peers in some of the expensive private schools in the region. The two major private schools in our country both use more traditional lecture, test, repeat methods than we do. We are much better at science by most quantifiable measures than they are.
I am not knocking inquiry based methods. I am just curious to compare not how a middle class school handles this approach vs. an expensive private school or your surrounding upper middle class public schools, but rather how well this method would work in poor performing schools where students lack basic elementary school skills in English and math. Could you teach the exact same content with inquiry based learning in the worst performing schools in Newark or would you need to use some drill to teach basic addition, subtraction etc. first, as well as teach them the skills of learning how to learn. Your kids probably already "know" how to analyze, make connections, recognize cause and effect. Inquiry style learning works really well with young children because it teaches them to learn how to learn. Can you use this approach and still complete the required curriculum, be prepared for the testing, with kids who are not well prepared with the tools needed for learning or who have severe emotional issues that preclude them from staying on task, caring about school success, etc.?
I am not knocking inquiry based methods. I am just curious to compare not how a middle class school handles this approach vs. an expensive private school or your surrounding upper middle class public schools, but rather how well this method would work in poor performing schools where students lack basic elementary school skills in English and math. Could you teach the exact same content with inquiry based learning in the worst performing schools in Newark or would you need to use some drill to teach basic addition, subtraction etc. first, as well as teach them the skills of learning how to learn. Your kids probably already "know" how to analyze, make connections, recognize cause and effect. Inquiry style learning works really well with young children because it teaches them to learn how to learn. Can you use this approach and still complete the required curriculum, be prepared for the testing, with kids who are not well prepared with the tools needed for learning or who have severe emotional issues that preclude them from staying on task, caring about school success, etc.?
One of the failure modes for inquiry learning is lack of access to required prerequisite knowledge so I'd predict a dismal failure in poor performing schools. I would expect these programs to work better in private school than public. I'm finding that often my students just don't remember what they were taught last week let alone last year and I teach at an affluent school. (Maybe that's the problem ) My top kids do well with inquiry but they don't like it. They complain they'd rather be taught. My mindset is more of inquiry as the goal not the teaching method so I'm fine with that. I prefer to build a solid foundation and THEN ask my students to use it.
One thing I don't like about the modeling program is so much less is taught. The argument is that students truly understand what they do learn so it's ok that you never get to so much material. Personally, I see this as more dummying down. It's as if we expect our students to not be able to learn and understand if we don't slow down the pacing. Countries that beat us in TIMMS don't do this. You'd think we'd want to look at what they do and model ourselves accordingly but we think we're special and need something different than the rest of the world.
I agree with you. In addition, these things come in cycles. In a few years, some researcher will put out a paper that the "traditional method" works best and teaching strategies will change again. Public schools will spend millions on new textbooks and training teachers in the "old-new" methods.
Japanese created Kumon, which was repetitive math problems until mastery. This has been a tried and proved method. Why we moved away from it to inquiry based learning only yet Kumon centers operate successfully is beyond me. Inquiry based learning - especially for math problems do not provide enough practice problems. Practice problems are key!
My students often tell me mine is their favorite class (whether or not that has to do with my age or sense of humor is a different story!), that they feel they are learning a lot, or that certain topics they have struggled with in prior math classes because they had a "bad teacher" they understand now. So, I take that to mean it is working!
I can find nothing that supports the bolded statement, at least as written....
So unless you have something to counter some 138 studies which found a positive correlation between actual inquiry based learning and achievement, then your original bolded statement is just plain old not true.
Here is a pdf of the study. Inquiry Based Learning is near the bottom, #86
One of the failure modes for inquiry learning is lack of access to required prerequisite knowledge so I'd predict a dismal failure in poor performing schools. I would expect these programs to work better in private school than public. I'm finding that often my students just don't remember what they were taught last week let alone last year and I teach at an affluent school. (Maybe that's the problem ) My top kids do well with inquiry but they don't like it. They complain they'd rather be taught. My mindset is more of inquiry as the goal not the teaching method so I'm fine with that. I prefer to build a solid foundation and THEN ask my students to use it.
One thing I don't like about the modeling program is so much less is taught. The argument is that students truly understand what they do learn so it's ok that you never get to so much material. Personally, I see this as more dummying down. It's as if we expect our students to not be able to learn and understand if we don't slow down the pacing. Countries that beat us in TIMMS don't do this. You'd think we'd want to look at what they do and model ourselves accordingly but we think we're special and need something different than the rest of the world.
I'm in total agreement with all your points and I'm not a science teacher. I sub mostly for social studies and walk into classroom situations where the class has begun an inquiry-based learning activity. The inquiry-based activity might be something like this: imagine you are woman or a minority living on the homefront during WWII. Document the cultural changes you have experienced during the war. Working with your partner, prepare a one page summary and a poster board that you will present to the class.
The problem is most of these students, regardless of whether they are 8th grade or 11th grade, can't identify what century WWII took place and identify any of the countries that were involved, let alone know anything about the causes of the war.
The problem is we are doing inquiry-based learning instead of teaching. The students will do these projects, everyone gets at least a C for doing at least something, and the students still don't know if WWII occurred before or after the Civil War, or who Hitler was. But those would be facts and we don't want to clutter students minds with facts!
I'm in total agreement with all your points and I'm not a science teacher. I sub mostly for social studies and walk into classroom situations where the class has begun an inquiry-based learning activity. The inquiry-based activity might be something like this: imagine you are woman or a minority living on the homefront during WWII. Document the cultural changes you have experienced during the war. Working with your partner, prepare a one page summary and a poster board that you will present to the class.
The problem is most of these students, regardless of whether they are 8th grade or 11th grade, can't identify what century WWII took place and identify any of the countries that were involved, let alone know anything about the causes of the war.
The problem is we are doing inquiry-based learning instead of teaching. The students will do these projects, everyone gets at least a C for doing at least something, and the students still don't know if WWII occurred before or after the Civil War, or who Hitler was. But those would be facts and we don't want to clutter students minds with facts!
You make a very valid point. I never thought of inquiry based learning outside of math or science. You are right in that even though students do this activity, they still don't know the basic facts. (Same happens in math and science.)
In addition, how the heck can students try to even fathom what a woman or minority in WWII lived through? It is nearly impossible for us to ask them to do this when even we can't really do the same. I don't see the real value in this type of activity - especially if they can't even tell you when WWII happened, who Hitler was, etc.
You are correct! It is important to note: "Effect sizes of inquiry teaching are greater on process than on content, and higher for biology and physics than for chemistry. Effects were greatest at elementary level and decreased as students progressed through their school years.Results indicate inquiry based instruction can foster critical thinking which was transferable, improved achievement, and improved attitude towards the subject."
As someone who has done education in research, I can attest to the fact that most of this is very, very sloppily done. Wild conclusions are reached from studies that are done in less than optimal environments (i.e. qualitative studies with surveys asking the teacher and students how they felt after using a certain method (inquiry based learning) or program for about a month where gains in learning are measured using a pre and post-test.) I've been through countless of those studies and I really never understood quite how this stuff gets published in papers. Students complete less than half of the task, teachers start off teaching using inquiry but finish in the way that they are most comfortable with yet researchers still consider it "done" and give the post-test. Then, if results are not to the researchers' liking, data is "massaged" to fit the hypothesis. Then, we wonder why education is in the state that it is. Did I mention that these so called researchers are people who have never, ever set a foot in the classroom? Yet they think they hold all the answers. (I was just the "dumb" grad student with teaching experience. What the hell did I know questioning these "renowned" professors?)
Educational practices are always changing. What was good in the past is evil today. What was not used in the past is used today. Tomorrow, they will come up with new theories stating that we should go back to basics and do what they did in the 1930s.
The government needs to stop messing with education. Let teachers do their job. Stop funding these ridiculous projects that yield muddy data and are performed with every single threat to validity that you can imagine. Let teachers TEACH. What works for one teacher may not work for another. Stop throwing millions of dollars at the problem when that money can be better spent elsewhere. Give power back to the teachers and people who know what goes on in the classrooms since they're there every day.
Sorry for my rant but I feel so passionate about this.
Our demographics are distinctly middle class compared to the surrounding school districts. NJ over all is a well educated state, so compared to the country we would appear to be wealthier.
And no, the parents are no more involved than in neighboring schools, though that is not a statistic we would be able to quantify. We have our share of helicopters, and plenty we have never met.
For the record this school started with both a vocational and academic STEM program. Those stats are similar even for the voc kids.
But even if you want to try to state our experience is not typical, shouldn't they be even more evidence for the power of inquiry based methods? Our students aren't succeeding in spite of these experiences, that can be easily shown by comparing them to their peers in some of the expensive private schools in the region. The two major private schools in our country both use more traditional lecture, test, repeat methods than we do. We are much better at science by most quantifiable measures than they are.
Oh you must work at Bergen Tech then. I am very familiar with that school.
Boy, they are quite high performing. You need to pass a rigorous test to get in, like Bronx Science or Stuyvesant HS in NYC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) My top kids do well with inquiry but they don't like it. They complain they'd rather be taught. My mindset is more of inquiry as the goal not the teaching method so I'm fine with that. I prefer to build a solid foundation and THEN ask my students to use it. 
