CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1   Background of the Study

The field of education like many other fields continuously works with ever changing ideas and methods. Education, however, seems unique in the way new ideas, theories and strategies are tried, used and in some cases, abandoned. It is not unusual to hear the questions; what is the current fad in education? The assumption is that current educational practices and/or method will give way to new ones. For instance, one can remember the focus on the open classroom‖ in the 1970s or the recent debates over the  use of phonics versus whole language‖ strategies for learning to reach (Reynolds, 2000).

Similar types of debates have also occurred in higher education. A prominent debate now in higher education is the examination of learning versus teaching as this concern more in relation to the learning process. The concern over learning versus teaching is not a new debate. One can see roots of this debate in the progressive education movement of the early 1900s (Pulliam and Van 2001) and the work of Rogers (1990) in the mid and late 1960s. The thread of this learning versus teaching debate can also be seen in the writing of influential educators and  learning  theorists.  Cross,  writing about  the  learning process  makes  the  point  ―that  we cannot transfer our knowledge ready – made into students‘ minds (Cross, 2000). Gardner (2000) captures the concern for differences  in learners when he writes ―human minds do not work all in the same way, and human beings do not have the same cognitive strengths and weakness‖. This debate is further described by Barr (2000) as a need to shift from an instruction focus on teaching/model to one where learning was major concern.

Bagg (2002) support this shift by suggesting that ―we need a new paradigm, one which defines the school as learning rather than teaching institutions‖. Barr (2000) see the teaching model as one where the purpose is to provide and deliver instruction through courses and programmes. A typical example could be where the teaching is instructed around classes (2C lecture and 3 unit courses), covering course content and the use of an end – of – course assessment. In this type of model, little concern may be given to learning outcomes or how that learning is produced. The teaching model is further described by Wagner and Mc-Combs (2003:32) when they wrote:

Teachers design for the learner what is required from outside by defining characteristics by instruction, curriculum, assessment and management to achieve desired, learning outcomes”. Teaching models seem to place much of its energy on the process or ways of teaching and less concern on what is learned or how it is learned.

In contrast, the learning model paradigm is to provide learning and to create effective learning environments. Barr and Tagg (2000) describe the learning model as one that frames learning holistically, recognizing that the chief agent in the process is the learner. Thus, students must be active discoverers and constructors of their own knowledge. Carr, further support the need for learner to take control over their learning. Barr and Tagg (2000) believed that learners must be trusted to develop their own potential and encouraged to choose both the way and direction of their learning. Inquiry Method suggests that learners should have meaningful control over what and measure how things are learned, plus how the learning outcome is measured. Getting detailed information on Inquiry Method connections with students‘ achievement remains indispensable to educators; schools need this knowledge to support staff development, instructional management, and staff selection. Educators embrace Inquiry Method because it encourages collaborative learning and students achievements (Dotson, 2009). Instructional management, supervision, and training influence academic achievement. Success with pedagogy depends on teacher competence student participation. Inquiry Method promotes students participation, resulting in