Let’s Talk Evidence!

Rebutting De Jong’s (2023) ‘Guided Inquiry’

ed‧u‧lore /noun/

the collection of knowledge about teaching and learning

Edulore is a free newsletter that shares research on the science of learning and evidence-based teaching practices. Subscribe to receive regular articles and free teaching resources. Edulore strives to make research easily accessible for all classroom teachers.

---

From time to time, a paper comes along that tries to settle a long-running education debate by declaring it finished. De Jong et al.’s 2023 article, Let’s Talk Evidence, presents itself this way. It claims we have moved past the argument between direct instruction (DI) and inquiry-based learning (IBL), and that the way forward is to combine the strengths of both.

Sounds nice and diplomatic, so as the authors titled it, let’s talk evidence.

This is not a new move. In 2007, Hmelo-Silver, Duncan and Chinn responded to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark’s influential critique of minimally guided instruction. Their defence of “scaffolded inquiry” reframed the debate by suggesting that, if you just structure inquiry enough, you can get the best of both worlds. The evidence did not support it then, and it does not support it now.

De Jong et al. follow the same pattern. They soften the language, redefine the terms and suggest that anyone who sees this as an either-or debate is oversimplifying. But no matter how the terms are reworded, the same core issue remains. For novice learners and complex content, direct instruction is more effective, more efficient and more reliable.

The Mirage of “Guided Inquiry”

At the centre of the article is the concept of “guided inquiry”, offered as a kind of pedagogical compromise. Not free discovery. Not direct instruction. Something in between, where the teacher supports students just enough to keep them learning independently.

But this middle ground is rarely described with clarity. In practice, “guided inquiry” can mean anything from a structured science practical to an open-ended project with vague scaffolds and lots of group work. Once you provide enough structure to make it effective, it begins to resemble direct instruction followed by an activity. The inquiry is not teaching. It is application.

This is the key point. When inquiry works, it is because direct instruction already did the heavy lifting. The value is in the sequence, not the blend.

What Cognitive Load Actually Tells Us

The authors mention Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), but their treatment of it is shallow. They assume that students already have enough prior knowledge to make sense of partially guided tasks. That is a generous assumption.

CLT shows that novice learners benefit from worked examples, clear explanations and explicit modelling. They are not yet ready to solve problems in a domain they do not understand. Their working memory is easily overloaded. What seems like meaningful exploration to a teacher often feels like noise to a student.

Guided inquiry does not reduce cognitive load. It simply pushes it onto the learner. For many students, this is a fast track to confusion or failure.

This is not a fringe view. A 2018 meta-analysis by Stockard, Wood, Coughlin and Rasplica Khoury reviewed fifty years of research and found consistent, strong positive effects of direct instruction across student backgrounds, age groups and subjects. Their findings were replicated again in 2023 with new data showing DI not only improved academic outcomes but also increased student engagement and confidence.

And before these studies came the most ambitious educational research project ever conducted: Project Follow Through. Over two decades, it compared multiple teaching methods across 75,000 students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The results were clear. Only Direct Instruction improved basic skills, higher-order problem-solving and student self-esteem. Inquiry-based methods not only underperformed but in some cases produced negative effects.

This was not a marginal study. It was a test of scale, equity and effectiveness. And DI was the clear winner.

The False Middle

The call to “blend” inquiry and instruction has become a kind of rhetorical safe zone. It sounds wise. It avoids conflict. It suggests nuance.

But it is not a strategy. It is a posture.

Saying we should “use both” without specifying when, how, or for whom is not guidance. It is vagueness. In practice, it becomes a justification for inquiry to fill time while learning gaps widen. Teachers under pressure to appear innovative are nudged towards open-ended tasks that look student-centred but often achieve little.

There is nothing balanced about using the wrong method at the wrong moment.

Real Classrooms Are Not Lab Conditions

Many of the studies cited in the article are drawn from small-scale interventions. They involve highly trained teachers, well-resourced environments and motivated students. These are not the conditions most teachers work under.

In real classrooms, teachers have limited time, mixed-ability groups, complex behaviour dynamics and pressure to cover dense curricula. Inquiry is expensive. It costs time, attention and consistency. If the payoff is unclear, the risk is not worth it.

The opportunity cost of a poorly structured task is not just wasted time. It is content not learned. It is students falling behind.

This is exactly what Kirschner, Sweller and Clark warned about in 2006. Their widely cited paper argued that minimal guidance during instruction is ineffective, inefficient and inequitable. The less support students receive, the more they struggle. The burden of poor pedagogy always falls hardest on the most vulnerable learners.

The Wrong Outcomes

The article leans heavily on short-term measures. Engagement. Interest. Immediate recall. But these are the wrong metrics.

Teaching is not about how students feel at the end of a lesson. It is about what they know and can use weeks or months later. This is where direct instruction consistently outperforms inquiry. It builds long-term memory. It increases transfer. It strengthens fluency.

Inquiry may feel exciting. But feeling like you are learning is not the same as learning.

The Stronger Model

This does not mean inquiry has no place. Once students have mastered core content, well-designed tasks can help them consolidate knowledge, extend understanding and explore real-world contexts. But this is enrichment, not foundation.

The foundational method must be direct instruction. Not because it is traditional. Not because it is easier to control. But because it works.

It works across settings, ages and cohorts. It works for disadvantaged students. It works for complex content. It is scalable, efficient and replicable. And the research base is not just large. It is consistent.

Final Word

The push to blend inquiry and instruction is not new. It resurfaces every few years, often led by the same arguments and the same kind of studies. What it overlooks is the simple fact that learning is not best served by aesthetic compromise.

What most students need is clarity. They need guidance. They need carefully sequenced, explicit instruction that builds secure knowledge and allows for success.

This is not about choosing sides. It is about recognising what the evidence actually shows. Direct Instruction is not just effective. It is the most reliable, most equitable and most efficient model we have for teaching most students, most of the time.

It does not need to be softened or blended. It needs to be used.