Didactical approaches like inquiry based education is sometimes propagated, because it is assumed to increase student interest by allowing them to engage in self-selected endeavors, i.e. it gives them autonomy (Minner et al. 2010). The self-determination theory of Deci and Ryan poses autonomy as one of three basic needs for intrinsic interest (Deci und Ryan 1987).
Autonomy is framed differently – as an educational goal – in the developmental, psychological literature (Zimmer-Gembeck und Collins 2003); children are to become autonomous adults.
In this theoretical paper, I will explore the notion of autonomy and the perception of autonomy as a central mediating concept. Education needs to support children to be able to perceive autonomy; this perception of autonomy can occur in highly pre-structured environments. Thus, the perception of autonomy is seen as a central dialectical concept, which negotiates the a priori need to feel as the locus of control with the developmental goal to become a self-directing, autonomous adult. For education, this means that we need to (a) carefully explore ways in which we can support the development of perceiving potentials of autonomous action in a situation, and (b) to further explore in which way seemingly inconsequential aspects in a highly structured learning environment might allow students to feel autonomous. Methods like inquiry based education needs to take into account the learning of navigating the open learning spaces they offer.
References:
[1] Minner DD, Levy AJ, Century J. Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter?: Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2010;47(4):474–96.
[2] Deci EL, Ryan RM. The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1987;53(6):1024–37.
[3] Zimmer-Gembeck MJ, Collins WA. Autonomy development during adolescence. In: Adams GR, Berzonsky MD, editors. Blackwell handbook of adolescence. Malden, Mass., Oxford: Blackwell; 2003, p. 175–204.
[4] Steinberg L. Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In: Feldman SS, Elliott GR, editors. At the threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1990, p. 255–276.
[5] Beckert TE. Cognitive Autonomy and Self-Evaluation in Adolescence: A Conceptual Investigation and Instrument Development. North American Journal of Psychology 2007;9(3):579–94.
[6] Deci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne 2008;49(3):182–5.
[7] Ryan RM, Deci EL. Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In: Deci EL, Ryan RM, editors. Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press; 2002, p. 3–33.
[8] High Level Group on Science Education. Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research. Science, Economy and Society; 2007.
[9] Artigue M, Blomhøj M. Conceptualizing inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education 2013;45(6):797–810.
[10] Hattie JAC. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge; 2010.
[11] Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE. Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist 2006;41(2):75–86.
[12] Benke G, Rippitsch D. Fibonacci Projektberichte 2011/2012. Klagenfurt; 2012.
New Perspectives in Science Education
