The linked articles about "Inquiring Based Learning" (IBL) seem to be making the claim that this type of teaching is somehow more effective than lecture based t

The linked articles about "Inquiring Based Learning" (IBL) seem to be making the claim that this type of teaching is somehow more effective than lecture based teaching. I'm not entirely convinced this is true. My doubt is in part fueled by the statements on IBL not really being backed by anything other than intuition on the part of the author of those articles. If it is backed by more than intuition I either misread or they talk about it in an unlinked article. The remainder of my doubt is due to the mismatch with my own personal anecdotes. IBL reminds me a lot of breakout sessions or whatever you want to call mini group projects that take place in the span of instructional block. Some people in those groups will already know the answer, some won't care, and some will count on the person who knows the answer to carry the group because that person isn't so great at teaching it themselves. Why would they ask questions about answers they already know? When I was still in school IBL style was used far more in sciences than something like history. But I loved history. Especially lecture based history classes. Part of the reasons for that many professors I had loved to talk about the subject they taught. That doesn't mean the professors didn't love the subject they taught, but talking about it didn't seem to be something the loved doing. I personally struggled with the IBL format and did well with the lecture based format. I'm not an educator myself. I just bring that up because at least for me I did not find the technique helpful and got less out of it than I did with lecture based classes. Everyone is different. I imagine the IBL format does appeal to some more than others.