Inquiring Scientists Want to Know- Article[1]

8/3/2019 Inquiring Scientists Want to Know- Article[1]

1/5

Inquiring ScientistsWant to KnowBy prompting students to come up with their own answers, inquiry-based

instruction leads to a deeper understandingof scientific concepts.Alan Colburn

Cr ritics have often accused theteaching field of faddishness.New ideas come and go,cynics say. But inquiry-basedinstruction is a clear excep-tion. This teaching practice, whichencourages students to learn inductivelywith the help of real-world exemplars,has a firmly established place in peda-gogical tradition. Fo r hundreds of years,educators and theorists-Johann Hein-

rich Pestalozzi an d Herbert Spenceramong them-have championedstudent learning through concrete expe-riences and observation rather than rotememorization (DeBoer, 1991).Today, we use a variety of terms torefer to this general concept-such asstudent-centeredor constructivistlearning-and we apply the practiceacross the content areas. In science,inquiry-based instruction is founded on

several assumptions:* Learning to think independentlyan d scientifically is a worthy instruc-tional goal.* Learning o think independentlymeans that students must actually think

independently. Critical thinking is acomplex skill that requires instruction,practice, and feedback.

* Thinking is not a context-freeactivity. To gain a deep understanding

ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 63


2/5

of scientific concepts, learners mustactively grapple with the content. Inaddition, students must be developmen-tally ready to understand the contentand possess the requisite sophisticatedthinking skills to comprehend a givenscientific idea. Teachers must chooseactivities that match students' back-ground knowledge and reasoning skills.Why Inquiry-Based Teaching?Why is inquiry-based instruction such agood way to teach science? An d whatdistinguishes it from other teachingpractices? To illustrate the difference,let's look at a science concept familiarto anyone who has left fresh food tomolder on a countertop: Warm, moistenvironments tend to be conducive tothe rapidgrowth offungi. Cold, dryenvironments tend to slow ungigrowth. How might students gain anunderstanding of this idea?The Verification ApproachOn e classic, non-inquiry-based way ofteaching students about this conceptinvolves a laboratory manual detailingan experiment entitled "FactorsAffecting Fungal Growth." The manualintroduces the lab activity with somebackground information and a sentenceor two about the activity's purpose.Perhaps the introduction even tellsstudents the "right answer"-that is, theexpected outcome fo r the activity: "Thisexperiment demonstrates that moldsgrow more quickly in dark, moist envi-ronments than in light, dry ones."

After reading the introduction,students follow the procedure sectionstep-by-step. The manual instructs thestudents to put four pieces of whitebread in individual zip-lock bags an dthen to place on e bag in a refrigerator,one in an incubator, one on a sunnywindowsill, and one ina dark cabinet.Following the procedure section,students fill in the manual's blank datatables with their specific observations

...

1t

I

0'..S-- S* * 6 '0 - . -.- . - .0* * -.. S -

(already outlined in the proceduresection). Finally, students answer themanual's questions about what theywere supposed to have learned in theactivity.

Such an activity could be worthwhileas a demonstration or as a practicesession for students to hone their labskills. As a way for students to learn tothink independently, however, theactivity is considerably less effective.The manual spells ou t everything for thestudents-the question to investigate,the procedure to address the question,the kind of data to collect, and even themeaning of the data. All students needto do is verify the facts that they havealready been fed.The DiscoveryApproachOne response to this step-by-step "cook-

book" approach to teaching is a prac-tice known as discovery learning.Largely triggered by the perceivedthreat of Soviet scientific supremacy inthe 1960s, this U.S. curriculum reformeffort aimed to teach students to thinklike scientists through inquiry and activeinvolvement in the lesson. Today, thephrase often has a negative connotation.Still, this inductive approach to learningis based on a simple and worthy idea:The ideas we tend to retain are thosewe create for ourselves.

A good example of discovery learningis the Elementary Science Study, aNational Science Foundation-fundedprogram that brought hands-on sciencelearning to K-8 students throughout theUnited States in the 1960s and 1970s.Students in the study's classroomstypically worked on open-ended,

64 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP/SEPTEMBER 2004


3/5

exploratory lab activities, guided onlyby a handful of questions and somematerials from their teachers. Research(Shymansky, Hedges, &Woodworth,1990; Shymansky, Kyle, &Alport, 1983)indicated that students taught withcurriculums like the Elementary ScienceStudy liked science more and werebetter at "doing science" than peerstaught with other curriculums.

Much as students enjoyed thesecurriculums, however, critics claimedthat discovery-based curriculums werecumbersome and placed unrealisticdemands on teachers to understand anextremely wide range of sciencecontent-an especially unreasonableprerequisite for generalist elementaryteachers. Critics also contended thathaving students "discover" all majorscience concepts wa s unrealistic andcounterproductive.

Inquiry-Based ApproachInquiry-based instruction represents arealistic middle ground between theextremes of verification activities anddiscovery learning. These days, educa-tors almost universally advocate inquiry-based instruction, as demonstrated inthe National Research Council'sNationalScienceEducationStandards(1996) and in the American Associationfor the Advancement of Science'siBenchmarks or ScienceLiteracy(1993).

Inquiry-based instruction represents abroad range of instructional possibili-ties. At on e end of the spectrum,students make few independent deci-sions; at the other end, students makealmost all the decisions. Because theterm is somewhat imprecise, scienceeducators commonly refer to threedifferent kinds of inquiry-based instruc-tion: structured inquiry, guided inquiry,and open inquiry. Herron (1971) andSchwab (1964) conceptualized inquiry-based instruction in terms of who ismaking decisions about various aspects

of a laboratory activity. Does theteacher or student decide* The question to investigate?* Th e procedures to follow inaddressing the question?* Th e data to collect and analyze?

Structuredinquiry. A structuredinquiry version of the bread mold labactivity looks similar to the verificationapproach. Th e teacher or lab manualmight give students step-by-step instruc-tions but does not necessarily provide aready-made data table. Students must

decide for themselves what observa-tions are most important to record andmust figure out, to some extent, themeaning of their data.

Guided inquiry. In the guidedinquiry version of the lab activity,students not only choose what data torecord and interpret the meaning ofthat data-as in structured inquiry activ-ities-but they also design the proce-dure that will address the activity's mainquestion. The teacher might simplydistribute the lab materials to studentsand instruct the students to investigatewhether or not light and temperatureaffect fungal growth on bread. Conse-quently, students' procedures, results,and interpretations in guided inquiryactivities often vary. Such variationsspark lively classroom discussions thatlead to a deeper understanding of thecontent.

Open inquiry. In an open inquiryactivity, students make almost all the

decisions. A scientist conducting inde-pendent research and a studentcompleting a science fair project areboth practicing open inquiry. In thequintessential open inquiry activity, astudent thinks of a question to investi-gate, considers how to investigate thequestion and what data to collect, anddecides how to interpret that data. Thebread mold activity would approachopen inquiry if the teacher simply toldstudents to investigate factors affectingfungal growth, with little or no addi-tional guidance.Challenges ofInquiry-Based InstructionInquiry-based teaching practices canpresent teachers with a number of chal-lenges. Problems surface becausestudents in many classrooms are notused to figuring ou t so much on theirown and may wonder why teacherswon't simply tell them the rightanswers. Students ma y also requiredifferent background skills and knowl-edge. In addition, some parents, admin-istrators, and teachers don't fully under-stand the value of inquiry-basedinstruction.The challenges of implementinginquiry-based instruction yield no quickfixes. Just as a ramp makes it easier tolift a heavy load, teachers may find iteasier to make the transition to inquiry-based instruction by implementingchanges gradually. A teacher accus-tomed to students performing verifica-tion lab activities can gear the activitiestoward structured inquiry with just afew small changes. In the mold experi-ment, the teacher could remove thedata table, conduct a preliminary class-room discussion to point students in theright direction, and, after the experi-ment, ask students to share informationabout the variety and significance of thedata that they collected.Once the teacher and students arecomfortable with these activities, the

ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 65

I


4/5

teacher can begin shifting instructiontoward guided and open inquiry bycontinuing to remove the supports ofthe activity. For example, if an activity'sdirections tell students to pour 10milliliters of liquid in a medium-sizedtest tube, the teacher can instead directthe students to pour "a little" liquid inthe tube. Students will inevitably place avariety of volumes in their test tubes-from almost none to a full tube's worth.

Consequently, results may vary-prompting great possibilities for classdiscussion on how and why the resultsvaried as they did.

Extension activities in lab manualscan also be a good source of guidedinquiry activities. Students' completionof the manual's verification or struc-tured inquiry activity will only increasetheir chances of success in the guidedinquiry extension activity (Colburn,1997; Colburn & Clough, 1997).The Role of AssessmentBoth during and after this transitionperiod, assessment is crucial. Continualformative assessment of student under-standing through observation, studentquestioning, and written assignmentshelps teachers decide how wellstudents are doing-when it's time tomove on to more open-ended activitiesand when it's time to backtrack andscaffold student understanding. Assess-ment also tells students what is reallyimportant. If the teacher assessesstudents solely on the basis of factualrecall, then students learn that factual

recall is the class's central goal.Teachers' assessments in inquiry-basedclassrooms must stress scientificreasoning and critical thinking in addi-tion to content knowledge. For themold activity, for example, a teachercould assess students' abilities to

* Generateopen-ended, researchablequeries. Extend on the experiment byhaving students develop further ques-tions to investigate after interpreting the

data from the mold activity.*Devise scientificprocedures.Have

students come up with a procedure toaddress a question and situation similarto the mold question already investi-gated.

* Interpretdata.Provide studentswith sample data from a given scenarioand ask them to analyze the data'smeaning and implications.

Most of these problems are closer toessay questions than short-answer ormultiple-choice questions, and they canincrease teachers' grading time. Addingone or two essay questions to an arrayof short-answer items, however, is stilrealistic and doable, even in crowdedclassrooms. It is also crucial. Teachersadvocating inquiry-based teaching mustevaluate students on goals congruentwith the instructional approach.

Educators have long createdsuccessful schools and classrooms withrelatively unstructured, hands-oninstructional climates. Deeply rooted inbest practices, inquiry-based teaching isdesigned to help students leam to thinkindependently and gain problem-solving

skills that will help them throughoutlife. After all, teaching students to raisequestions and find answers for them-selves is the whole aim of scienceinstruction. As citizens, we want toknow that the students who receivehigh grades in science have the abilitiesrequired for independent thought andsuccess in later life.3MReferencesAmerican Association for the Advance-

ment of Science. (1993). Benchinarksfor science literacy. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Colbum, A. (1997, Fall). How to make labactivities more open ended. CSTAJournal, 4-6. Available: www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/workshops/lab activities.html

Colbum, A., & Clough, M. P. (1997, May).Implementing the learning cycle. TheScience Teacher, 30-33.DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideasin science education: mplicationsorpractice.New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scien-tific enquiry. SchoolReview, 79(2),171-212.National Research Council. (1996).Vationalscience educationstandards.Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.Schwab, J. J. (1964). Structure of the disci-plines: Meanings and significances. InG. W. Ford & L.Pugno (Eds.), Thestructzure ofknowledge and thecccrriculum (pp. 6-30). Chicago: RandMcNally.Shymansky, J., Hedges. L., &Woodworth,G. (1990). A reassessment of the effectsof inquiry-based science curricula of the60's on student performance.JournalofResearch in Science Teaching,27(2), 127-144.Shymansky J., Kyle, W. , &Alport, J.(1983). The effects of new sciencecurricula on student performance.JournalofResearch in ScienceTeaching, 20(5), 387-404.

Alan Colburn is Associate Professor ofScience Education at California StateUniversity, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., LongBeach, CA 90840; 562-985-5948;[email protected].

66 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP/SEPTEMBER 2004


5/5

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Inquiring Scientists Want to Know

SOURCE: Educ Leadership 62 no1 S 2004

WN: 0425203461012

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in

violation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2004 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

Documents

Inquiring Scientists Want to Know- Article[1]