Exploring IBL

1. Exploring IBL Psychology Network Workshop, 15th January 2010 1.30-3.15pm Philippa Levy

2. Overview • Principles and challenges in designing for IBL in Psychology - reflection and discussion • A conceptual framework and themes from the evidence-base - presentation • Creative solutions - design activity and discussion

3. IBL – designed around students engaging in a process of inquiry/research In groups, identify 3 key principles and 2 key challenges for IBL design based on your own experience/perspective 3

4. Conceptualising IBLHow would you define IBL? In relation to PBL? In relation to research? 4

5. Designed around students engaging in a process of inquiry or research • Emphasises students’ capacity to construct knowledge • investigating authentic - often open-ended - questions or themes • adopting the practices of scholarship or research of their disciplines or professional area • exploring a knowledge-base actively and potentially contributing new knowledge to it 5 defining ibl (a) See also: Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Spronken-Smith et al. 2009.

6. Encourages peer-to-peer collaboration, and partnership (students and staff) Provides support for inquiry in the form of activities, assessments, resources, facilitation, environments Provides guidance on relevant inquiry methods, including how to frame good questions Provides support for development of information literacy, critical thinking, self-reflection and other capabilities Creates opportunities for students to share the results of their inquiries with peers and others 6 defining ibl (b) See also: Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Spronken-Smith et al. 2009.

7. 7 A perspective on PBL vs. IBL • triggers vary • open-ended as regards content and answers • may be driven by students’ own questions • flexible process, not always collaborative • scenario-driven • oriented toward specific content and already-existing answers • problems set by tutors • standard collaborative and facilitated process See also: http://www.mcmaster.ca/cll/inquiry/whats.unique.about.inquiry.htm

8. Perspectives on IBL and research • A differentiated view: IBL as ‘research-like’ learning that can be carried out at any level of sophistication but differs from experiences in which students “actually conduct research” leading to “outcomes of interest and value to the research community” (Elton, 2008: 138) • An inclusive view: IBL in different modes having potential both to engage students with an existing knowledge-base and with the production of new knowledge (following Bereiter, 2002: higher education for ‘knowledge construction’ and ‘knowledge building’)

9. 9 modes of ibl (Levy, 2009) See also: Healey, 2005

10. Inquiry for Learning • ‘Engaging’:IBL tasks are designed to encourage students to interact actively with a knowledge-base in response to questions, problems, scenarios or lines of inquiry formulated by staff (“what is already known on this topic?”) e.g. first-year Law case example • ‘Pursuing’: IBL tasks are designed to encourage students to interact actively with a knowledge-base by pursuing questions, problems, scenarios or lines of inquiry they themselves have formulated (“what is already known on my topic?”) e.g. first-year History case example

11. Inquiry for Knowledge Building • ‘Producing’: IBL tasks are designed to encourage students to tackle open questions, problems, scenarios or lines of inquiry, as formulated by tutors, in interaction with the relevant knowledge-base (“how can I answer this open question?”) e.g. first-year English case example • ‘Authoring’: IBL tasks are designed to encourage students to develop and tackle their own open questions, problems, scenarios or lines of inquiry, in interaction with the relevant knowledge-base (“how can I answer my open question?”) e.g. Masters Architecture case example

12. modes of ibl (Levy, 2009)

15. Modes of IBL How do students experience inquiry on your courses? 15

16. Themes from the IBL evidence-base • improved grades, improved retention at university, intellectual and personal development (epistemological change, increases in confidence), changed conceptions of learning and teaching, better collegial relationships, more independent thinking and working (see Healey & Jenkins 2009 for summary) • inquiry activities identified as ‘high impact’ and appropriate for the first year upwards (Kift 2009; Land & Gordon 2008): but positive effects may be stronger for middle and high performing students (Kuh 2008) - support strategies need to maximise desired outcomes • first-year (and subsequent) inquiry activities may support intellectual and personal development especially powerfully when student-framed and oriented towards ‘knowledge-building’ (see Levy in prep.; Spronken-Smith & Walker in press)

17. First-year experiences – students’ perceptions of benefits and challenges (CILASS study)

18. benefits (‘learning’ orientation) • enhanced ownership • enhanced engagement and motivation • enhanced retention of information • skills in finding and evaluating information • skills in critical judgment/evaluation • positive challenge to assumptions about single authorities and ‘right’ answers

19. benefits (‘knowledge-building’ orientation) • development of personal authority • sense of freedom and of ‘growing up’ intellectually and personally • increased insight into research practices of more experienced researchers • strengthened identification with academic or professional discipline

20. but first-years emphasise • difficulties in online information-seeking and library use • confusion about the purposes of open-ended exploration of ideas and how to go about this • challenges in establishing the direction of their own inquiries • anxieties about being ‘on the right track’ • challenges of team-work and collaboration • the need for plenty of guidance and support

21. Considerations for process support in the first-year inquiry curriculum • embedded support for lower- and higher-order information literacy development • formative feedback, validation • focus on developing students’ conceptions of inquiry/research (beyond ‘information-gathering’?) • focus on links with the practice of more advanced scholars and researchers

22. Some key design principles • Establish desired outcomes • Make the inquiry task central • Align assessment with goals (process and product) • Engage students’ prior knowledge • Build in reflection, dialogue, feedback, collaboration…. • Support development of inquiry and ‘process’ capabilities

24. Some challenges in design for IBL • Creating ‘high impact’ inquiry activities in first year – including opportunities for students to frame their own questions • Supporting inquiry for knowledge-building as well as for learning • Designing for progression through levels of study – step or spiral? • Creating conditions for productive collaboration and community – including working with students as partners • Structural constraints: large cohorts, pressures on staff-student ratios and staff time, unsuitable spaces….

25. Creative Solutions: Psychology 101 Design Activity 25

26. www.shef.ac.uk/cilassfor IBL Design Case Studies 26