Blended instructional approaches in science

Introduction

In 2023, one of the most talked-about papers in education research was "Let’s Talk Evidence – The Case for Combining Inquiry-Based and Direct Instruction" by Ton de Jong and colleagues. This paper has sparked a lot of conversation in teaching circles, especially as it dives into a long-standing debate: how best to balance inquiry-based learning with direct instruction. Drawing on a strong body of evidence, the authors make a compelling case that combining these two methods can be far more effective than using either one alone. In this blog, I’ll take a closer look at the context and key outcomes of the paper, discuss its critical reception, and reflect on how its insights might be put into practice—especially in my own science teaching. Through exploring practical ways to apply these ideas, I hope to highlight how blending instructional approaches can deepen students’ understanding and engagement.

My interest

Looking back on my experience with enquiry-based learning, I can’t help but feel negative about it. In 2007, I was a demonstrator in a problem-based learning (PBL) programme at the University of Leicester. The sessions were like an educational escape room where students were drip-fed pieces of information and expected to piece them together, hoping they’d somehow arrive at the correct conclusions. In reality, they rarely did, and the programme was incredibly unpopular. The students found it confusing and often ended up more frustrated than enlightened, and, frankly, I shared their view. It didn’t seem to lead to genuine learning—more a cycle of trial and error with little sense of real progress. Later, in 2009, when I trained to be a teacher, I encountered enquiry-based learning again, this time in the classroom. My reaction was one of disbelief: how on earth are students supposed to understand a concept they’ve never been properly taught? What may be obvious from the teacher’s perspective can feel overwhelming and near-impossible for the learner. I saw it first-hand the frustration, the confusion, and the ultimate disengagement leaving me questioning how effective enquiry-based learning really is.

My training school prided itself on being evidence-led and progressive—aligning well with OFSTED’s then-preference for teaching approaches that developed higher-level skills as defined by Bloom’s Taxonomy. Yet, despite being strongly encouraged to use it, it was clear that the approach was flawed, and I wasn’t alone in thinking so. Though I was unaware of his work at the time, Chemistry teacher Adam Boxer shared similar reservations. Boxer’s main critique of enquiry-based learning was that it demands a high level of prior knowledge from students to be effective. He argues that students learn best when they’re first provided with core content and a solid foundation of knowledge through direct instruction. Only then, he suggests, might inquiry-based tasks play a constructive role, as students would have the background understanding needed to engage meaningfully with open-ended questions or exploration.

Context of the work

The context for this publication can be traced back to earlier critical work on enquiry-based learning. During the 2021 coronavirus pandemic, four university professors published a commentary in the Educational Psychology Review, highlighting what they saw as a crisis in evidence within science education policy. Co-authored by the Australian psychologist John Sweller, known for his development of cognitive load theory, the paper - titled “There is an Evidence Crisis in Science Educational Policy” - argued that the evidence base for enquiry instruction is notably weak. The authors contended that proponents of enquiry often “exclude” or “mark as irrelevant” rigorous, high-quality studies, particularly controlled trials, which overwhelmingly show minimal support for enquiry learning. Although this paper was not intended as a thorough dismantling of enquiry-based approaches, it raised enough doubt over the validity of the evidence that the educational community began to rethink its reliance on enquiry-based learning, paving the way for more balanced, evidence-driven discussions on effective pedagogy.

Who wrote this paper

The “Let’s Talk Evidence – The Case for Combining Inquiry-Based and Direct Instruction” (2023) paper, first authored by Go-Lab co-creator Ton de Jong and a team of international researchers, has a particularly interesting connection for me. I’m fairly certain I met Ton de Jong in Tallinn in 2019 at a workshop focused on the Next-Lab project. At the time, I was briefly involved in this project while serving as Head of Physics at Uppingham School. We trialled some digital enquiry-based learning in physics and investigated whether it actually led to better learning outcomes. Later, along with colleagues from other schools, I was flown out to Tallinn to examine the results. Little did I know then that these studies would contribute to the evidence base for this recent work. The project’s conclusion - that, in rigorously controlled trials with large numbers of students, enquiry-based learning could indeed lead to enhanced learning outcomes - formed a key part of the findings that underpin this new perspective on blending enquiry with direct instruction.

Go-Lab scientists at Uppingham School

How were the conclusions reached

In developing the Go-Lab project, researchers gathered extensive data on how students interacted with enquiry-based digital environments, frequently assessing learning outcomes in comparison with more traditional methods. These findings became part of the evidence base informing the conclusions in the 2023 paper, which advocates a blended approach combining enquiry-based and direct instruction. By integrating insights from Go-Lab’s trials and studies, the authors were able to support their argument that, while enquiry learning offers significant benefits, its effectiveness is greatly enhanced when paired with structured direct instruction.

Reception

The paper was generally well received within the educational community, sparking considerable discussion and reflection on teaching methodologies, including on Edutwitter. Many educators and researchers appreciated the authors' balanced approach, which acknowledges the strengths of both enquiry-based learning and direct instruction while advocating for their integration. It became one of the most cited educational research papers of 2023 and one of the most influential. Any research that makes such an impact will naturally come under scrutiny, and there has been a critical reception as a result.

Here are a few points of criticism from various sources and educators:

1. Proponents of Inquiry-Based Learning: Some educators and researchers who champion inquiry-based approaches expressed concerns that the paper might reinforce a perception that enquiry learning is substantially ineffective. They argued that while the paper highlights the need for foundational knowledge, it does not adequately acknowledge the role of inquiry in developing critical thinking skills, creativity, and student engagement.

2. Cognitive Load Theory Advocates: Critics aligned with cognitive load theory have pointed out that while the paper's conclusions support a structured approach to teaching, they caution against oversimplifying the learning process. They argue that effective teaching requires a nuanced understanding of how students learn and that uniting enquiry and direct instruction could limit progress.

3. Field-Specific Educators: In specific fields such as science education, some professionals felt that the paper may have overemphasised traditional instructional methods at the expense of recognising the dynamic and exploratory nature of scientific inquiry, which can lead to deep learning experiences when implemented effectively.

4. Overall Educational Community: While some acknowledged the need for a balanced approach, others feared that the paper’s reception could lead to a reduction in enquiry-based methodologies in classrooms, potentially stifling student-driven learning opportunities.

My own view of the criticism is that those who had a pre-existing resistance to enquiry learning disliked the fact that this paper appears to revive it. Some attempted to challenge its validity using cognitive science. Meanwhile, those in favour of enquiry learning seemed to resist the idea that it might only be effective when substantial foundational knowledge is delivered through direct instruction.

Application in the classroom

In my science classroom, I applied the results of “Let’s Talk Evidence – The Case for Combining Inquiry-Based and Direct Instruction” in several meaningful ways:

1. Balanced Instructional Approach: I adopted a blended approach that integrated both enquiry-based and direct instruction. For instance, I introduced foundational concepts through direct instruction and then followed up with enquiry-based activities where my students could apply and explore those concepts practically. This ensured they had the necessary background knowledge to engage effectively with inquiry tasks.

2. Scaffolded Learning: I aimed to scaffold learning experiences by gradually introducing complex topics. I started with direct instruction to cover essential theories and principles and then transitioned to inquiry-based projects that allowed students to investigate these concepts further. This method helped build their confidence and competence as they progressed.

3. Formative Assessment: I implemented formative assessments after direct instruction to gauge my students' understanding before moving on to inquiry-based tasks. This helped me identify any knowledge gaps that needed to be addressed, ensuring my students were prepared for exploratory learning.

4. Focus on Conceptual Understanding: When designing inquiry activities, I emphasised grounding these experiences in robust scientific principles. For example, I framed inquiry projects around real-world problems, allowing students to apply their knowledge while developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

5. Collaboration and Communication: I encouraged collaboration among my students during inquiry-based activities. By providing them with the vocabulary and frameworks needed during direct instruction, I helped them discuss their findings more effectively, enhancing their understanding while also developing their communication skills. 

So, what does this mean for my lessons? A good example comes from the Go-Lab project itself, where students were provided with tools for online circuit construction and then sought answers to specific, tightly controlled questions. I ensure that the pupils know how to investigate the problem, what a successful outcome might look like, and I encourage plenty of peer support during the experiment. However, I also recognise that students may not always be successful and might need the correct conclusion pointed out to them at the end. Therefore, direct instruction must encompass enquiry learning for it to be effective.

Conclusions

I have to confess that I disliked enquiry-based learning from the very start of my teaching career, and I must admit I jumped on the bandwagon, dismissing it entirely. However, I now recognise that some aspects of enquiry learning, especially in science, can be delivered successfully using this approach. That said, I fear that while it can be made to work, it doesn’t come naturally or easily. The danger is that educators may not realise it has been shown to be effective only in tightly controlled, even engineered situations. School leaders might expect to see it implemented during lesson observations, while initial teacher training could overlook the necessary context and situational validity, recommending it as a method that can produce positive results. My final thought is that educational research should be engaged with rigorously—or not at all. My gut feeling as a teacher has been that the loose, uncontrolled application of enquiry learning is pointless, and that belief is fundamentally true. However, through this study, I have discovered situations where it is not pointless and that I can utilise this understanding to improve my lessons.