MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inquiry Learning: Instructor Perspectives

2011· article· en· W2074411234 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Susan Vajoczki, Susan Watt, Michelle M. Vine

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedagogySociologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rise of the research intensive university has led some critics to argue that teaching has been discounted in favour of research, and thus the academy has “failed...their undergraduate populations” (Boyer Commission, 1998, p .5). This paper examines instructor perceptions of inquiry at an institution with a significant history of providing inquiry learning opportunities to undergraduate students. Inquiry learning is typically seen as a pedagogical approach, both a method and a process, delivered in small class settings. Qualitative data were collected through interviews (n=16) with instructors who used inquiry in their teaching to elicit instructor perceptions of inquiry teaching. Content analysis was performed on the interviews to extract themes. Results suggest that instructors approached their inquiry teaching differently - some adopting an intentional and some an unintentional approach. There was general consensus that teaching and learning academic skills is valuable, inquiry instructors are facilitators, technology has only a modest place in the inquiry classroom, and larger classes inhibit inquiry. Responses were mixed about the importance of stand-alone inquiry courses. Teaching such courses appears to change the instructor’s perspective about inquiry. L’augmentation des universités qui sont de plus en plus axées sur la recherche a soulevé quelques critiques à l’effet que l’enseignement ait été délaissé au profit de la recherche et que, conséquemment, les institutions d’enseignement ont « laissé tomber… leurs étudiants de premier cycle » (Boyer Commission 1998, p. 5). Le présent article porte sur la perception des enseignants d’un établissement qui préconise depuis longtemps des pratiques pédagogiques notamment la - méthode d’enquête- pour favoriser l’apprentissage de leurs étudiants de premier cycle. Cette méthode est généralement considérée comme une approche pédagogique qui se préoccupe tant de l’objet que du procesus d’apprentissage. Des entrevues réalisées auprès d’enseignants qui utilisent cette méthode ont permis de recueillir des données qualitatives (n=16) afin de savoir ce qu’ils en pensaient. Les chercheurs ont analysé le contenu des entrevues pour en extraire des thèmes. Les résultats indiquent que les enseignants abordent la méthode d’enquête de manière différente : certains adoptant une approche intentionnelle et d’autres une approche non intentionnelle. Les enseignants s’entendent sur les éléments suivants : l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des stratégies pédagogiques sont utiles, les enseignants qui utilisent la méthode d’enquête ont un rôle de facilitateur, la technologie n’occupe qu’une faible place dans la classe où cette méthode est appliquée et les classes nombreuses nuisent à cette méthode. Les avis sont partagées quant à l’utilisation de cette méthode dans les cours sans préalables. Le fait de donner ce type de cours semble modifier l’opinion de l’enseignant quant à cette méthode.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0180.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.259
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207