Justice, Christopher et al. “Inquiry-based Learning in
Higher Education: Administrators’ Perspectives on Integrating Inquiry Pedagogy
into the Classroom.” Higher Education 58.6
(Dec 2009): 841-55.
In “Inquiry-based Learning in
Higher Education,” Justice et al use administrator interviews to examine
McMaster University’s introduction of inquiry-based learning as a core
pedagogical method used to develop assignments, courses, and even programs. The discussion has its roots in
organizational change literature, which reveals the “special change resistance
qualities” of universities, as well as Pettigrew’s analysis of the “content,”
“context,” and “process” of change (842).
For McMaster, inquiry-based teaching
and learning develops “higher order…skills through student-driven and
instructor-guided investigation of student generated questions” and encourages
“open-minded discussions, the questioning of assumptions, and the critical
assessment of information, evidence, and argument” (843), which reveals the
relevance of inquiry to the teaching of English, especially rhetoric and
composition, whose introductory courses take these actions as their primary learning
objectives.
Administrators identify the primary
benefit of inquiry in the improved “depth and quality of learning” both within
inquiry courses and in other courses as students transferred their skills. At McMaster, three types of challenges
arose. First, faculty resisted inquiry
for many reasons: 1. They didn’t understand it; 2. They dismissed it as a
passing fad; 3. They disapproved of prioritizing skills over content; 4. They
thought it inappropriate to teach skills that college students should already
have; and 5. They claimed to develop the same skills already, deeming new
methods “wasteful” (848). In response,
administrators found that sharing information on inquiry, preparing
counterarguments, identifying an effective leader as a “champion” (848), and
providing effective resources all helped to address this challenge. Second, it was difficult to recruit the right
instructors for inquiry courses, especially because of the university’s
budgeting and reward systems. Successful
strategies in response included paying more for such courses; using
experienced, established, and secure faculty on whom pressures are somewhat
less; choosing instructors whose current methods suit inquiry, who could
motivate students, and whose educational philosophy matched inquiry goals;
assembling diverse teaching teams; and incorporating peer tutors. Finally, the administrators found that the
university structure, with departments acting as self-governing silos, impeded
change toward inquiry. Solutions here included
simply having deans require cooperation and preparing a variety of arguments to
convince department chairs to participate.
It may seem that English
departments have little need for information on conducting (and surviving) a
change to inquiry-based learning, since some of our writing courses and many of
our individual assignments are already driven by student questions and
interests. In fact, McMaster’s
experiences are useful to us in two ways.
First, many instructors continue to cling to a teacher-centered
pedagogy; even as they have students choose an argument topic or a poem for
analysis, they maintain control over students’ choices regarding genre, style,
process, and more. Instead of claiming,
like McMaster’s faculty, that we ‘already do that,’ we should consider the benefits
of adopting a method that pushes us further.
Second, as compositionists find themselves in a complex and even tenuous
position as part of but in some ways independent of English departments, we can
learn much from the interdisciplinary aspects of bringing together topics and
people to pursue skills that transfer across disciplines. As we consider the
options for our field within and outside of the English department, we may find
that organizational change in pursuit of innovative teaching is very relevant
to our conversations.
