Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education

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.