Inquiry-based learning: reconciling the personal with the public in a democratic and archaeological pedagogy

Abstract

This article describes and explores the key elements of an approach to personalised learning which is rooted in student experience and choice. It is shaped by the learner's interest, driven by her curiosity and purpose, yet is capable of supporting the delivery of the valued outcomes of a publicly accountable curriculum. It is an approach which enables a student to participate purposefully in the processes of learning, developing values, attitudes and dispositions for learning, while at the same time acquiring and managing specialist knowledge, skills and understanding in the service of a personally chosen outcome. The journey begins with a particular, concrete place or object, and moves through a developmental sequence of thinking and learning capabilities to a publicly evaluated outcome. It is a pedagogy which integrally supports citizenship education because it addresses questions of value and worth through the narratives uncovered in the world-as-it-is-experienced by the learner. It is an archaeological pedagogy in the sense that it begins with experience and observation, generates narratives and then reconstructs knowledge/s necessary to satisfy the original personally chosen quest, rather than beginning with pre-packaged conceptual expert knowledge. It creates a context for critical subjectivity and engagement with learning and with the world. It is a pedagogy which takes seriously the selfhood of the learner, and the formation of virtue in learning, while at the same time not abandoning the rigour of specialist knowledge in a particular field.

Keywords:

• inquiry-based learning
• critical pedagogy
• personalised learning
• learning power
• archaeological pedagogy
• learning how to learn
• curriculum

Acknowledgements

This article presents and positions the theoretical underpinnings of a project-based, context-driven inquiry which was the focus of a seminar series during 2005/6 hosted and funded by the RSA, and chaired by the author. It brought together researchers, policy-makers and practitioners to theorise this model and then go on to explore its application to four different sets of learners: 16–19 year olds not in education, employment or training (NEETs), young offenders, gifted and talented 16 year olds, and 19–23 year olds on undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses.

The researchers and practitioners who participated in the seminar series have contributed to the outcome in important ways, and in several unpublished reports which have been drawn upon for this article. It was a collaborative project in which it is impossible to tease out the relative, distinctive contributions of each person. It benefited significantly from itself being a ‘bottom-up’ project, involving researchers, practitioners, students and policy-makers in a committed and ongoing dialogue, which co-generated new knowledge and ‘know-how’.

I wish to acknowledge the significant and original input of Tim Small, Lesley James, Milan Jaros, Kathy Pollard, Naomi Milner, Elizabeth Leo, Phil Hearne and four student researchers, Jess, Melza, Jonathan and Jessica. My thanks also to Bob McCormick and David James for their critique and encouragement in the final production of this article.