Inquiry, stretched: A new approach to education and learning

December 2017, SPOKES #36

MARIA XANTHOUDAKI Director of Education and of the Centre of Research in Informal Education (CREI) National Museum of Science and Technology Leonardo da Vinci Milan, Italy @XXanthoudaki BOOK OR ARTICLE

Inquiry, stretched: A new approach to education and learning Maria Xanthoudaki surveys recent pedagogies Flipped classroom Precision pedagogy Making Integrated teaching Scenario-based learning Design thinking Project-based learning Peer education Experiential learning Technology-enabled active learning Service learning Place-based education Digital learning

Introduction The above, listed randomly, are only some of the new terms I have come across in the past few years when studying academic literature, reading policy documents or attending professional discussions on learning and education. All these terms convey a clear intent to catch the essence of contemporary changes in education and society. But does any of them represent a ground-breaking pedagogy today? Pedagogy: the practice of the learning theory as well as the art of teaching. This article seeks to assess whether what appears to be the most innovative or, at least, debated practices today can be considered the ‘next pedagogy’, one that would re ect the needs and characteristics of education and society in the 21st century. To start with, such an assessment is based on the consideration that technology and the notion of 21st century citizenship are increasingly challenging traditional schooling systems and education models ; both are at the same time part of the rationale calling for new approaches to learning and tools for ‘survival’ in 21st century society [1]. In other words, we are increasingly seeing educators and policymakers, as well as business and the job market


1

internationally, talking explicitly about ‘ 21st century skills and competences [2] ’; while the use of technology is regarded as the key to cutting-edge education [3]. However, if we really want to make a difference in the quality and ef cacy of learning and to be in line with what contemporary society asks for, what we should be looking for cannot just be a matter of new goals (21st century skills) or new means (technology). We need instead to re ect on the pedagogy that forms the new basis of the way we design and deliver education experiences. You will notice that in the discussion that follows I do not mention learning in museums. This is because the debate over ground-breaking pedagogies is more general and should not be limited to our eld. The question is however of fundamental importance for our work given that museums, science centres and other informal learning settings are, without doubt, among the key players when it comes to learning and the wellbeing of society. This article does not aspire to come up with the one and only answer but, rather, aims to suggest a lens to look at museum learning practice and to stimulate discussion across our science engagement community. Pedagogy has always been my rst eld of professional interest. It lies at the basis of my training and, inevitably, is the lens through which I look at my work at the National Museum of Science and Technology Leonardo da Vinci everyday; and this is one of the reasons why I wanted to write this piece. My academic friends will forgive the words of a practitioner, sometimes inappropriate, sometimes lacking the necessary depth ; but this is exactly the point: it is rather too often that museum learning practitioners distance themselves from what is considered an academic topic, maybe because of its ‘awe’, maybe because of lack of formal training. By doing so, however, we are not tapping into a fundamental body of knowledge and expertise. In my view, it is absolutely necessary to take up the challenge and consider bridging theory with practice as an integral part of our ever more complex role in societal learning and wellbeing, however inappropriate or super cial our arguments might sound at the start.

New terms = new pedagogies? I begin by exploring the underlying methodological features of the practices listed at the beginning, aiming not to evaluate their popularity, reputation or learning ef cacy (something neither possible nor the objective of my contribution); but rather to examine whether there is a hint of a disruptively innovative pedagogical potential in any of them. Flipped classroom claims a reversal in traditional teaching. ‘Exposure’ to new material takes place outside of class, usually via reading or lecture videos, while class time is used to do the harder work of assimilating knowledge through problem-solving, discussion or debates. [4] Precision pedagogy suggests that teachers break down objectives into smaller manageable steps in order to systematically plan for the success of their learners. [5] Integrated teaching invites learners to explore, gather, process, re ne and present information about topics they want to investigate without the constraints imposed by traditional subject barriers. It encourages students to see the interconnectedness between different curriculum areas. Skills are built around a theme that is relevant to the students. [6] Scenario-based learning (SBL) uses interactive scenarios to support active learning strategies, such as problem-based or case-based learning. It normally involves students working their way through a storyline applying subject knowledge, critical thinking and problem solving skills in a safe, real-world context. [7] Peer education is a strategy whereby individuals from a target group provide information, training, or resources to their peers (individuals belonging to peer groups share social or demographic characteristics, such as age, education or type of work). [8] Experiential learning emphasizes the central role that experience plays in the learning process. In most cases follows Kolb's widely-used ‘experiential learning cycle’ that puts concrete experience, re ective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation into a circular relationship. [9] Service learning is a form of experiential education where learning occurs through a cycle of action and


2

re ection as students seek to achieve real objectives for the community and deeper understanding and skills for themselves. [10] Technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) is a teaching practice that merges lectures, simulations, and hands-on desktop experiments to create a rich collaborative learning experience. [11] Digital learning is facilitated by technology and gives students some element of control over time, place, path and/or pace. It harnesses the potential of digital learning technologies to help connect theory and application more adeptly and engage in learning more readily, while also improving instructional techniques, leveraging instructor time, and facilitating the widespread sharing of knowledge. [12] Making. Maybe when the Maker Movement was born it did not have a deliberate intention to be seen as a learning practice; however, it certainly opted for a conscious change of attitude. The creation of new things for personal use, the availability (or not) of goods and the need to go beyond the big economic market logic and rules were the reasons for initiating what has today become a world cultural movement with rami cations in the education eld. [13] Design thinking is a problem-solving process rooted in a set of skills applied to the development of new products and services, and to a whole range of problems through a series of steps: rst, fully understand the problem; second, explore a wide range of possible solutions ; third, iterate extensively through prototyping and testing ; and nally, implement through customary deployment mechanisms. The skills associated with these steps help people apply creativity to effectively solve real-world problems better than they otherwise would. [14] Project-based learning is a teaching method in which students gain knowledge and skills by working for an extended period of time to investigate and respond to an authentic, engaging and complex question, problem, or challenge. [15] Place-based education cultivates a sense of individual identity in relation to the natural environment. It involves the use of local community and environment as the central content in the development of learning activities or goals. [16] As you can see, change is already here. New practices emerge and are experimented everyday, making an effort to go beyond instructionism [17]. Although we cannot talk of a homogeneous and linear progress, we do have signs that we are moving well beyond a “traditional” education process organised around stable and usually hierarchical institutions, concerned with how to optimise the transfer of subject knowledge.

PERSONALISED, LEARNER-CENTRED EXPERIENCES IN WHICH LEARNERS COLLABORATE WITH PEERS, EDUCATORS AND EXPERTS TO CUSTOMIZE RIGOROUS EXPERIENCES BASED ON COMPETENCY AND INTEREST INSTEAD OF TIME AND AGE Though to varying degrees, all the practices listed above show a clear intention to foster personalised, learnercentred experiences, in which learners collaborate with peers, educators and experts in their communities and around the world to customize rigorous experiences based on competency and interest instead of time and age. A common stance appears to be the conviction that individuals today “need a deep conceptual understanding of complex concepts and the ability to work with them creatively to generate new ideas, new theories, new products and new knowledge” ; and that they “need to learn integrated and usable knowledge rather than the sets of compartmentalized and decontextualized facts emphasized by instructionism” [18]. It seems, that is, that although called differently, all the above-mentioned practices build on (socio)constructivism, constructionism and/or the learning sciences – learning theories known for a long time – and that they integrate inquiry, deep learning, authenticity, scaffolding, cooperation and situativity as the means to promote cutting-edge, personalised, selfmotivated learning.


3

Credits: Bekir Donmez

In this context, it wouldn’t seem useful to me to come up with only one, new, holistic, stand-alone 21st century pedagogy. Instead of looking for ‘the winner’ we should be drawing on what is already out there today and re ect on the winning aspects of each practice that could form, together, the main body of a new pedagogy. Today’s education is characterised by a rich body of new practices that change continuously. We do need to invest in this rich diversity but without losing focus and identity. We cannot just add new shiny ingredients to the old recipe. As educators, we need to strengthen those (new) practices, (new) tools, (new) strategies that help encompass a broader de nition of learning with the existing wide range of tools. We need to do so in a way that, in turn, helps learners thrive by engaging in authentic learning experiences which they master themselves, learning experiences that are more natural to the human condition because they connect to our core motivations to directly and deeply engage in learning and do things that truly make a difference to our lives and to the world.

Inquiry, stretched There is, I nd, one practice that has the status and the maturity to be considered as one of the fundamental pedagogies of all times, and that also has, still, the potential to bring disruption and innovation in education: this is inquiry, loved and practiced by millions of educators and learners for a long time [19]. But in order to bene t from its maximum potential under the present circumstances, we need to go back to its foundations, and ‘stretch’ them in directions that help reinforce the broader de nition of learning.

INQUIRY: A FUNDAMENTAL PEDAGOGY WITH INNOVATIVE AND DISRUPTIVE POTENTIAL. WE NOW NEED TO STRECH ITS FOUNDATIONS TOWARDS A BROADER DEFINITION OF LEARNING December 2017, SPOKES #36

4

To me, ‘Inquiry, stretched’ means: stretch towards deeper learning. Deeper learning is the process through which a person develops the ability to take what is learned in one situation and apply it to new situations [20]. Through deeper learning, the person develops transferable knowledge, which includes both expertise in a particular subject area and procedural knowledge of how, why, and when to apply this knowledge to solve unique problems in that subject [21]. In this sense, we need to create more opportunities that help relate new ideas and concepts to learners’ previous knowledge and experience, to integrate knowledge into inter-related conceptual systems, and to re ect on one’s own understanding and one’s own process of learning. stretch towards syntonic learning. Papert argued for ‘syntonic’ that is, “being one with what I am doing” by associating (new) ideas and knowledge with personal identity and a sense of personal power. Thus, knowledge turns into something relevant and instrumental for learning and growth, rather than something that comes from ‘the outside’ [22]. In this case, Makers, for example, appear to become ‘one with what they are doing’ in the sense that they are actively involved, deeply engaged, play, research freely, apply expertise and scienceoriented knowledge to new situations in order to pursue and solve personally-meaningful problems, create, innovate [23]. stretch towards tinkering. Tinkering is a creative interdisciplinary approach to science and technology and more of a perspective than a vocation [24]. What is most valuable for my argument here is the so-called ‘tinkerers’ disposition’, i.e. that state of mind of taking oneself through a process of exploring a problem rather than solving it [25]. In this context, inquiry becomes a tool that promotes such an attitude, while learning nds a new expanded de nition: “the mastery of things and an af nity for, and uency in, the ways of knowing-beingbecoming” [26]. stretch for more situativity. Situativity means that knowledge is not just a static mental structure inside the learner’s head; rather, it is a process that involves the person, the tools and other people in the environment, and the activity in which that knowledge is being applied. Allowing for more situativity means moving beyond a transmission-and-acquisition approach to learning, to creating patterns of participation in collaborative activities that change over time [27]. stretch for more authenticity. Authenticity refers to those developmentally appropriate practices and environments that draw from the real-world context, tasks and tools or impact that build on, and connect to learners’ personal concerns, interests, and issues in their lives [28]; but here I would like to connect authenticity also with the use of digital media. In order to bene t from their maximum potential, we need to see them as everyday tools that promote creative thinking [29] by allowing learners to articulate their developing knowledge in a visual and verbal way and engage into a process that supports articulation, re ection as well as open-ended exploration. Last, stretch towards more freedom. One of the hardest things to do when designing inquiry-based learning experiences is allowing for freedom, that is, situations in which neither process nor results are known in advance. This has enormous implications for personalised learning, deeper learning, syntonic learning, tinkering, situativity and authenticity and at the same time requires preparation, expertise and self-con dence from educators. And it is what makes the difference if we want to work on the development of 21st century skills, on creative thinking, on a tinkering rather than a planning disposition [30]. But we are not nished. Stretching inquiry also means de ning boundaries: where do we want those to be positioned? I do not think there is a de nite answer to this question; nevertheless, I see boundaries de ned around: 1) what could take us out of focus, risking that ‘inquiry stretched’ loses identity; 2) some new interesting interpretative contexts; and 3) the sound, consolidated learning theory.


5

Photo by Ricardo Gomez on Unsplash

Defining boundaries 1. DON’T FALL INTO THE TRAP: WHAT SHINES IS NOT NECESSARILY GOLD

But what exactly is interactivity? We very often fall into the trap of calling ‘interactive’ anything from a push-button exhibit to an open-ended experience, risking to miss the essence of it, thereby missing its real value for learning. That very value lies, in my view, in the degree of freedom that determines the relationship between interactivity and engagement and that can, consequently, actively involve the learner physically, intellectually, emotionally and/or socially [31].

The medium is not the message The shift from highly guided knowledge transfer to the more open-ended, activity-based, social learning process is also appropriated in the development of educational technology, namely in the way new media resources are shaped to support new teaching and learning methods. However, introducing digital media in/for learning does not necessarily mean embracing a new pedagogy, and vice versa: traditional teaching approaches can very easily nd a new digital home without the need to change even slightly [32]. Those persisting with instructionism continue to use digital media as add-ons while, as Resnick argues, the need is instead use them “as tools that expand children’s creative thinking” [33]. Today, still, the digital media tools behind many educational initiatives only allow learners to interact but not to create, not fully exploiting the potential of digital media for learning.

2. DO NOT LIVE WITHOUT IT: SCIENCE CAPITAL AND STEM IDENTITY


6

Science capital was discussed by Seakins and King in an article published in Spokes last year. Science capital offers a new way of looking at science education and its goals, as it represents “a ‘holdall’, or bag, containing all the sciencerelated knowledge, attitudes, experiences and resources that you acquire through life. It includes what science you know, how you think about science (your attitudes and dispositions), who you know (e.g. if your parents are very interested in science) and what sort of everyday engagement you have with science.” Here is a stance that goes well beyond science literacy and a tool that helps address several misconceptions regarding science learning. As Seakins and King argue, science capital can represent a way to understand how people relate to science, how to improve that relationship and to “change the eld or contexts in which students operate in order to value more diverse backgrounds, resources and experiences”. Moreover, in my view, science capital should be considered in close relationship with the STEM learning ecology [34], which puts even more importance on the role of the physical, social and cultural context in which learning takes place. The underpinning idea of this eld of research is that learners construct their personal STEM ecosystem and STEM identity through a range of educational experiences in various contexts across formal and informal settings ; and it is this ‘identity’ that gives a sense of ownership when it comes to engaging in STEM-oriented experiences and building one’s own science capital. Contemporary learning theories conceptualise moments of learning as part of a process of identity development rather than as isolated, discrete events. Practice-linked identities typically emerge when learners view their own engagement in a practice as an important part of who they are [35]. This means that “educators in all types of settings need to build on what young people bring to the learning experience—their interests, skills, and personal areas of expertise—and help youth see how their interests can extend into the future. This entails recognizing young people’s interests, supporting them in integrating interests into their learning where possible, and helping them nd a way to deepen interests”. [36]

3. STAY OUT OF FASHION: STUDY THE FOUNDERS OF PEDAGOGY

Innovation has almost become an obsession in all elds, including education. It seems that if we do not attach the adjective ‘innovative’ to something we do, we do not stand up to the quality standards, to the speed of progress, or to the needs of society. But innovation does not only mean looking forward to the new, but also looking back, to decades of research and theory; it means studying the founders of pedagogy deeply and continuously. Beginning with Dewey, who argued that education depends on the action ; on to Piaget, who believed that children develop cognitive structure through action and spontaneous activity and argued for the value of discovery; to Papert, who focused on the involvement of the student in the actual design, construction and creation of “external” products or artefacts ; to Ackermann, who claimed the power of connecting the hand, the mind, the eye and the material ; and many others who illuminate and guide our thinking and our practice. Real disruptive pedagogy comes from them and sometimes it can already be found in their own words.


7

Credits: Patrick Tomasso

Conclusion The 21st century citizen is a privileged individual for she, potentially, has access to a quality of life never seen before ; but she has to strive in order to be able to choose, use, enjoy, understand, participate, personalise, create, in other words, to become the resilient, entrepreneurial, informed, aware and active person required by today’s society. And this is a great challenge – maybe the most important of all. In my view, the only way to meet this objective is through education – but seen in a new context, that is, shifting “the focus of attention from how we should teach to the best ways to learn”. [37] All the practices mentioned above represent important innovations in the eld, and they will take us to grounds never seen before. But the potential of one or more of them to become the disruptive pedagogies of the future lies in the degree in which they manage to really grasp and implement a change of paradigm based, in my view, on the aspects mentioned above. How will we know? Well, this is the really hard part. We will know if we persist in experimenting with these practices and continue creating new ones; we will know if we never stop looking for the learning theory at the foundations of each practice; and we will know if we are ready to revisit evaluation. If we really believe in a new, broader and deeper de nition of learning and in the consequent learner-centred practices, we do need to understand that rather than just trying to measure what children learn or assess “by giving them an exam with right/wrong answers, we should work with children to document their projects, illustrating what they created, how they created it, and why” [38]. We need to focus on the process of learning as much as on the results and on the de nition of what constitutes valid evidence within that highly qualitative and complex process which is learning. I strongly believe museums and science centres have an important responsibility here. Understanding what ‘stretching inquiry’ means in our own practice implies re ecting, for example, on what interactivity, digital experience or freedom in learning mean for the design and delivery of learning experiences for our visitors. It means, nally, understanding where we stand, whether we have been embracing change and the quest for a new pedagogy, both inevitable and necessary if we want to emphasize our role in the contemporary learning society.


8

Photo by Clint Adair on Unsplash

Photo by Clint Adair on Unsplash

References [1] Xanthoudaki, M. (2014) Museums, Innovative Pedagogies and the Twenty-First Century Learner: A Question of Methodology, Museum & Society, 13 (2), pages 253-271, [2] Pellegrino, J.W. and Hilton, M.L. (eds) (2012) Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. The OECD National Skills Strategy aims to measures skills in student and adult populations and, in turn, to work with countries to develop skills strategies tailored to speci c needs and contexts. Sutcliffe, H. (2011) A Report on Responsible Research and Innovation, prepared for DG Research of the European Commission. Kasriel, S. (2017) Skill, re-skill and re-skill again. How to keep up with the future of work , World Economic Forum, 31 July. Bandelli, A. (2017) Education can't keep up with our fast-moving world. Here's what needs to change , World Economic Forum, 27 July.


9

[3] Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, K., Sefton-Green, J. and Watkins, C.J., (2013), Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design, Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. MIT Technology Review (2017) Technology Moves to the Head of the 21st Century Classroom, 1 September. Manning, E. (2017) Out with the old school? The rise of ed tech in the classroom, The Guardian, 1 August. [4] Flipped Learning Network (FLN). (2014) The Four Pillars of F-L-I-P™ [5] Precision Pedagogy: Teaching the right thing in the right way to the right learners, Edison Learning, 25 August 2016. [6] Muşata Bocoş and Vasile Chiş (2013). "The Pedagogy and Integrated Activities: Theoretical and Practical landmarks" in "An Integrated Approach to Curricular Contents: Particular Features for Primary Schools", Cambridge Scholars Publishing. [7] https://web.stanford.edu/group/design_education/cgi-bin/mediawiki/index.... [8] David Boud (2002) "WHAT IS PEER LEARNING AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?" Chapter 1, Introduction: Making the move to peer learning, in Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning From & With Each Other, edited by David Boud, Ruth Cohen & Jane Sampson. Published by Kogan Page Limited. [9] https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/gradschool/training/eresources/teachin... [10] Heather Wolpert-Gawron (2016) "What the Heck Is Service Learning?" on Edutopia [11] http://icampus.mit.edu/projects/teal/ [12] MIT - Open learning website. Section: Value of digital learning. [13] Vossoughi, B. and Bevan, B., (2014), Making and Tinkering: Review of the Literature, Paper Commissioned by the Board on Science Education, National Academy of Sciences. Vicki Davis, "How the Maker Movement Is Moving Into Classrooms" on Edutopia, 18 July 2014 [14] Rebecca Linke, "Design Thinking, explained: Solve any business problem with this approach", 14 September 2017. [15] Speaking of teaching. Stanford University Newsletter on teaching. Winter 2001, Vol. 11, No.1. [16] Website: Promise of Place . [17] Sawyer, R. K. (2006) (ed) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, New York, Cambridge University Press. Papert, S. (1993) The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer, New York, Basic Books. Robinson, K., (2009), The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything, London: Penguin. [18] Sawyer, K.R. (2006) Introduction: The New Science of Learning, in Sawyer, R. K. (ed) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, New York, Cambridge University Press, p.2. [19] Xanthoudaki, M. (2012) Quality Science Education: Where Do We Stand? Guidelines for Practice from a European Experience, EU-funded project SETAC. [20] Pellegrino, J.W. and Hilton, M.L., (eds), (2012), Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [21] National Academies, ‘Transferable Knowledge and Skills Key to Success in Education and Work; Report Calls for Efforts to Incorporate ‘Deeper Learning’ Into Curriculum’, Press release 10 July 2012. [22] Papert, S., (2000), ‘What’s the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power’, IBM Systems Journal, 39(3-4) 720729, page 727. [23] Vossoughi & Bevan (2014).


10

[24] https://tinkering.exploratorium.edu/art-tinkering [25] Petrich, M., Wilkinson, K. and Bevan, B., (2013), ‘It Looks Like Fun but Are They Learning?’, in Margareth Honey and David E. Kanter, (eds), Design Make Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators, 12-16, New York: Routledge. Bevan, B., Gutwill, J.P., Petrich, M. and Wilkinson, K., (2015), ‘Learning Through STEM- Rich Tinkering: Findings From a Jointly Negotiated Research Project Taken Up in Practice’, Science Education, 99(1), pp.98-120. [26] Petrich et al. (2013), page 53. [27] Sawyer (2006). [28] Sawyer (2006). [29] Resnick, M. (2017) Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play, Cambridge Massachusetts, MIT Press. [30] Resnick (2017). Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education [31] Roussou, M. (2004) Learning by Doing and Learning through Play: An Exploration of Interactivity in Virtual Environments for Children, ACM Computers in Entertainment, Volume 2(1). [32] Sawyer (2006), p.8. Escueta, M., Quan, V., Nickow, A.J. & Oreopoulos, P. (2017) Education Technology: An Evidence-Based Review, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 23744. [33] Resnick (2017), p.24. [34] Bevan, B. (2016) STEM Learning Ecologies: Relevant, Responsive Connected. [35] Barron, B., Gomez, K., Pinkard, N. & Martin, K.M. (2014) The Digital Youth Network: Cultivating Digital Media in Urban Communities, MIT Press. [36] Bevan (2016). [37] Price, D. (2013) Open: How Well We’ll Work, Live and Learn in the Future, Great Britain, Crux Publishing. Papert, S. (1996) A Word for Learning, in Kafai, Y. & Resnick, M. (eds) Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World, New Jersay, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [38] Resnick (2017), p.152.

Ecsite is the European network of science centres and museums. It gathers more than 350 organisations committed to inspiring people with science and technology and enabling dialogue between science and society. www.ecsite.eu


11