Archives
Questions & Answers
Kelly H. Ahuna is director of the Methods of Inquiry Program
What is the "Methods of Inquiry" Program?
The Methods of Inquiry Program offers an undergraduate course in critical thinking. Blending insights from philosophy and cognitive psychology, the course offers students concrete ways to approach their studies by helping them become actively involved in their own learning process. All activities in the course explore the theoretical foundations of effective learning. The main emphasis of the course, however, is the development of means to assure comprehensive learning and provide for accurate assessment of what is indeed learned. These means, in turn, lead to an understanding that is necessary for clear critical thinking based on good reasons. Students work on developing an appropriate mindset for learning; thinking critically within disciplines and monitoring their own comprehension.
How long has it been offered and what is the rationale behind the program?
The Methods of Inquiry Program began in 1988 with support from a FIPSE grant and is premised on the assumption that students play a singular role in the learning process. The capabilities and dispositions students bring to the classroom determine the extent to which they take advantage of what is offered. If they involve themselves actively, regulate themselves thoughtfully and bring enthusiasm, curiosity and persistence to their pursuits, they will succeed. The Methods of Inquiry Program offers an opportunity for students to lean how to regulate themselves and, thereby, control their measure of success.
This program formerly was called "Learning to Learn." Why the name change? Has the curriculum changed as well?
The impetus for the Methods of Inquiry Program was a desire by UB faculty and staff to rekindle faculty concern for undergraduate education. When the Undergraduate Council (formed in 1985 to explore this matter) began investigating the efforts of comparable universities to focus on undergraduate education, members became aware of "Learning to Learn" (LTL), a successful learning program for undergraduates at risk (Heiman and Slomianko, 1983). LTL emphasized the role that discrete questions and methodology play in each discipline. At its conception, Methods of Inquiry relied heavily on this framework, but as the course evolved, it moved away from the LTL model. The curriculum now is evenly split between cognitive psychology and philosophy. Half of the course is dedicated to the cognitive psychology topics of learning, memory and motivation, while the other half is dedicated to the philosophical topics of reaching judgments and analyzing arguments. The program is called Methods of Inquiry because it locates the discovery, framing and understanding of questions as central to the learning and critical-thinking processes.
I hear you have a phenomenal success rate. Tell me about it.
We measure the success of the Methods of Inquiry Program by examining grade and retention figures, as well as evidence of increased active learning efforts and improved attitude by the students. Through the years, we have had a fairly stable success rate. Combining the fall 1999, spring 2000 and fall 2000 semesters, for example, we noted a strong influence of the course on GPA. Seventy-seven percent of students entering the course with a GPA lower than 2.0 improved their overall academic performance. Fifty-six percent of students coming into the course with a GPA between 2.0 and 3.0 improved, and 43 percent of those with already strong GPAs above 3.0 also improved. These numbers are representative of other semesters. Similarly, Methods of Inquiry also appears to have a positive influence on retention. A retention study of the 1991 freshmen cohort conducted by the Office of Institutional Analysis in 1997 found that although students who took Methods of Inquiry that year had lower verbal and quantitative SAT scores than the freshman average, they had an 11 percent higher retention rate to graduation within five years. We are in the process of replicating that study for the 1995 cohort. It is for these reasons, among others, that the Faculty Senate Teaching and Learning Committee passed a resolution in 2000 that the Methods of Inquiry Program should be "maintained, strengthened, better publicized and placed high on the list of recommended courses by undergraduate advisors."
What would you say is the most common impediment to students' learning?
I think one of the primary impediments to student success is an unwillingness to take responsibility for what is learned. In Methods of Inquiry, we stress to students that the "locus of control" is in them. In other words, what makes the difference in their success or lack of success in a course is primarily a matter of their effort. If students put in the right kind and amount of effort, they should be able to achieve a level of success. Methods of Inquiry assists by examining what kinds of efforts are most helpful. When students place responsibility for their success or failure on the teacher, the kind of assignments required, their natural intelligence or luck, however, it becomes more difficult for them to be motivated. This inappropriate attribution takes the control away from students and places it in an area where they have no control, making it difficult for students to muster the intrinsic motivation to get to the business of learning.
Is Methods of Inquiry only for students who are struggling academically, or can anyone take the course?
One of the biggest myths about Methods of Inquiry is that it is a remedial course. In fact, the course is a rigorous one, demanding weekly assignments and high-level thought. Students can choose to access the information at its most theoretical or its most practical. Our data show that anyone can benefit from the Methods of Inquiry course, regardless of their previous academic success. Our students each semester are a heterogeneous group, usually representing a fairly good cross-section of the university community (first-years to seniors, 0.0 to 4.0 GPA). Course evaluations tell us that satisfaction with the class is consistent across students, regardless of year in school or previous GPA.