Reply to comment

Prince and Infelder have done educators a valuable service by pulling together a large literature under the rubric of "inductive teaching and learning", pointing out similarities and differences between the multitude of teaching approaches that might fall under this rubric, and offering their own advice to educators interesting in exploring new ways of teaching.

Prince and Infelder characterize more traditional teaching practices as "deductive", meaning "first teaches students relevant theory and models, then moves on to textbook exercises, and eventually - maybe - gets to real world applications". Its not entirely clear exactly which of several aspects of the traditional methods "inductive" is intended to improve upon. Sometimes it seems that the delay in getting to "real world applications" is what needs fixing. Most of the time, though, the concern seems to be the need to engage students in activities that call forth some degree of individual thinking and creativity. I'm not sure that "inductive" is the best term for this, since deduction is also involved. Nonetheless, it is useful to have a set of references showing that teaching methods that encourage individual thinking and creativity can indeed be at least as effective as more traditional ones, and in some ways/cases more so.

At this point, though, one needs to read a bit between the lines of Prince and Infelder. For example, they say "the reported outcomes of the effectiveness of case studies versus traditional instruction depend strongly on the assessment tasks"; a similar point seems to hold for other forms of "inductive" teaching. And among their conclusions is "If instructional objectives are at a low cognitive level, requiring almost exclusively rote memorization of facts or mechanical substitution into formulas, there is no reason to use an objective method".

Its certainly worth pointing out that indeed performance evaluations depend critically on how performance is assessed, and that some educational objectives are better served by classrooms that encourage greater individual thinking and creativity than others. At the same time, I'd be more inclined than Prince and Infelder seem to be to use the studies they cite to argue for a substantial change in both objectives and forms of assessment across the educational system rather than as a rationale for caution. Do we really want to encourage student achievement at a "low cognitive level" for any students in any contexts?

On a related note, Prince and Infelder make a point of describing various "inductive" teaching methods with regard to "student resistance", and say "instructors with little or no experience are advised to avoid the more difficult ones". Anyone who has moved towards forms of teaching that involve more reliance on student thinking and creativity will be familiar with the "student resistance" issue. My own experience, though, has been that such resistance has primarily to do with students having poor expectations of the educational system due to prior experiences, and that student "resistance" is replaced with enthusiasm when one makes it clear that the encouragement for individual thinking and creativity is genuine rather than simply a pedagogical veneer for a course with more traditional objectives. Is it really only more experienced teachers who should aspire to something beyond a "low cognitive level" for their students?

Along these lines, it seems to me noteworthy that Prince and Infelder give no attention at all to what educators themselves have to gain from moving to teaching styles that involve greater encouragement for (and reliance on) individual thinking and creativity in their students. Yes, indeed, one has to become more "flexible" in one's approach to the classroom. But the return for that is an effective antidote to "burn out". Instead of living or dying on how successfully one transmits one's "expertise" to students, one can enjoy approaching a group of people to whom one can not only offer one's own understandings but from whom one can learn as well.

Helpful as the Prince and Felder review is, it would be unfortunate if educators took from it only its closing advice and narrower focus. "The many faces of inductive teaching and learning" are not just a new set of tools by which to pursue a traditional objective. They are a part of an ongoing effort to reconceive not only the methods of education but its objectives as well in a way that will encourage greater individual thought and creativity in all students, and teachers as well.

References

This Isn't Just My Problem, Friend: Some Thoughts on Science Education, Education, American Culture, and What to Do About It

Getting it Less Wrong: Some Thoughts on Introductory Science Teaching, 1993

Emergent Peagogy: Learning to Enjoy the Uncontrollable and Make it Productive

Exploring Science as Open-Ended Transactional Inquiry

Textbooks and Science Education