Inquiry-Based Mathematics Education: a call for reform in tertiary education seems unjustified

Abstract

In the last decade, major efforts have been made to promote inquiry-based mathematics learning at the tertiary level. The Inquiry-Based Mathematics Education (IBME) movement has gained strong momentum among some mathematicians, attracting substantial funding, including from some US government agencies. This resulted in the successful mobilization of regional consortia in many states, uniting over 800 mathematics education practitioners working to reform undergraduate education. Inquiry-based learning is characterized by the fundamental premise that learners should be allowed to learn 'new to them' mathematics without being taught. This progressive idea is based on the assumption that it is best to advance learners to the level of experts by engaging learners in mathematical practices similar to those of practising mathematicians: creating new definitions, conjectures and proofs - that way learners are thought to develop 'deep mathematical understanding'. However, concerted efforts to radically reform mathematics education must be systematically scrutinized in view of available evidence and theoretical advances in the learning sciences. To that end, this scoping review sought to consolidate the extant research literature from cognitive science and educational psychology, offering a critical commentary on the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning. Our analysis of research articles and books pertaining to the topic revealed that the call for a major reform by the IBME advocates is not justified. Specifically, the general claim that students would learn better (and acquire superior conceptual understanding) if they were not taught is not supported by evidence. Neither is the general claim about the merits of IBME for addressing equity issues in mathematics classrooms.