Students can engage in active problem-solving even before they
master theories and equations.
Higher education is filled with strongly held beliefs that do
not always stand up to rigorous scholarly analysis; for example,
“You can’t be an effective teacher unless you’re
actively engaged in research” or “Students learn more
by working individually than by cooperating in teams.” Another
well-entrenched tenet of traditional instruction is the notion that
students must first master the underlying principles and theories
of a discipline before being asked to solve substantive problems
in that discipline.
An analysis of the literature suggests that there are sometimes
good reasons to “teach backwards” by introducing students
to complex and realistic problems before exposing them to the relevant
theory and equations. A broad range of inductive teaching methods,
such as inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, project-based
learning, case-based teaching and just-in-time teaching, do just
that. What inductive methods have in common is that students are
presented with a challenge and then learn what they need to know
to address that challenge. The methods differ in the nature and
scope of the challenge and in the amount of guidance students receive
from their instructor as they attempt to complete their tasks.
Inductive approaches have many other features in common, all of
which are well grounded in educational theory and widely supported
by empirical studies. Inductive methods are all student-centered,
meaning that they impose more responsibility on students for their
own learning than the traditional lecture-based deductive approach
does. They can all be characterized as constructivist methods, building
on the widely accepted principle that students construct their own
versions of reality rather than simply absorbing versions presented
by their teachers. The methods almost always involve students discussing
questions and solving problems in class (active learning), with
much of the work in and out of class being done by students in groups
(collaborative or cooperative learning).
Of course, the most relevant question from the standpoint of classroom
instructors is, “Do these methods work?” In a word,
yes. While the quality of research data supporting the different
inductive methods is variable, the collective evidence favoring
inductive over traditional, deductive pedagogy is conclusive. Inductive
methods promote students’ adoption of a deep (meaning-oriented)
approach to learning, as opposed to a surface (memorization-intensive)
approach. They promote intellectual development, challenging the
dualistic type of thinking that characterizes many entering college
students, which holds that all knowledge is certain, professors
have it and the task of students is to absorb and repeat it. And
they help students acquire the critical thinking and self-directed
learning skills that characterize expert scientists and engineers.
This is not to say, however, that simply adopting an inductive
method will automatically lead to better learning and more satisfied
students. As with any form of instruction, inductive teaching can
be done well or poorly, and the outcomes that result from it are
only as good as the skill and care with which it is implemented.
Many students are resistant to any type of instruction that makes
them more responsible for their own learning. Instructors who set
out to implement an inductive method should therefore first familiarize
themselves with best practices in using the method, such as providing
adequate scaffolding—extensive support and guidance when students
are first introduced to the method and gradual withdrawal of support
as students gain more experience and confidence in its use. They
should also anticipate some student resistance to the method and
be aware of effective strategies for defusing it. If these precautions
are taken, both the students and the instructor should soon start
seeing the positive outcomes promised by the research.
 Professor
James Trevelyan, discipline chair for mechatronics at the University
of Western Australia, teaches sustainability and professional engineering
skills. Adapted from July
2007 JEE article Technical
Coordination in Engineering Practice.
Richard M. Felder is Hoechst Celanese Professor Emeritus of
Chemical Engineering at North Carolina State University. Michael
Prince is a professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering
at Bucknell University. This article is adapted from “Inductive
Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research
Bases” in JEE (April
2006, vol. 95, no. 2), and “The
Many Faces of Inductive Teaching and Learning” in the
Journal of
College Science Teaching.
|
