Advanced

Madness in the Method: A Paradox of Inquiry Learning

Genot, Emmanuel LU and Gulz, Agneta LU (2014)
Abstract
Hakkarainen and Sintonen (2002) praise the descriptive adequacy

of Hintikka's Interrogative Model of Inquiry (imi) to describe children's prac-

tices in an inquiry-based learning context. They further propose to use the imi

as a starting point for developing new pedagogical methods and designing new

didactic tools. We assess this proposal in the light of the formal results that

in the imi characterize interrogative learning strategies. We nd that these

results actually reveal a deep methodological issue for inquiry-based learning,

namely that educators cannot guarantee that learners will successfully acquire

a content, without limiting learner's autonomy, and that a... (More)
Hakkarainen and Sintonen (2002) praise the descriptive adequacy

of Hintikka's Interrogative Model of Inquiry (imi) to describe children's prac-

tices in an inquiry-based learning context. They further propose to use the imi

as a starting point for developing new pedagogical methods and designing new

didactic tools. We assess this proposal in the light of the formal results that

in the imi characterize interrogative learning strategies. We nd that these

results actually reveal a deep methodological issue for inquiry-based learning,

namely that educators cannot guarantee that learners will successfully acquire

a content, without limiting learner's autonomy, and that a trade-o between

success and autonomy is unavoidable. As a by-product of our argument, we

obtain a logical characterization of serendipity. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Working Paper
publication status
unpublished
subject
keywords
Inquiry Learning Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Interrogative model Abduction
project
Knowledge in a Digital World: Trust, Credibility and Relevance on the Web
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
d3b566be-45e6-495e-b9a9-7f643c471a9d (old id 3810282)
date added to LUP
2013-06-11 17:02:22
date last changed
2016-04-16 11:54:40
@misc{d3b566be-45e6-495e-b9a9-7f643c471a9d,
  abstract     = {Hakkarainen and Sintonen (2002) praise the descriptive adequacy<br/><br>
of Hintikka's Interrogative Model of Inquiry (imi) to describe children's prac-<br/><br>
tices in an inquiry-based learning context. They further propose to use the imi<br/><br>
as a starting point for developing new pedagogical methods and designing new<br/><br>
didactic tools. We assess this proposal in the light of the formal results that<br/><br>
in the imi characterize interrogative learning strategies. We nd that these<br/><br>
results actually reveal a deep methodological issue for inquiry-based learning,<br/><br>
namely that educators cannot guarantee that learners will successfully acquire<br/><br>
a content, without limiting learner's autonomy, and that a trade-o between<br/><br>
success and autonomy is unavoidable. As a by-product of our argument, we<br/><br>
obtain a logical characterization of serendipity.},
  author       = {Genot, Emmanuel and Gulz, Agneta},
  keyword      = {Inquiry Learning Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Interrogative model Abduction},
  language     = {eng},
  title        = {Madness in the Method: A Paradox of Inquiry Learning},
  year         = {2014},
}