There
is ample evidence that few people really understand the natural
world. Jon Miller's work since 1980 has repeatedly indicated thatfewer
than 10% of U.S. citizens are literate in science. The PrivateUniverse
video indicated for all to see that Harvard graduates are unable
to explain the seasons and other information commonly
taught in elementaryand middle schools (Sahiner & Schneps, 1977).
The more recent Annenberg tapes reveal similar
lack of understanding of basic biology on the part ofMIT graduates (Sahiner
& Schneps, 1997). The cognitive science studies of the
mid 1980s reveal that even the brightest students (university physics
and engineering students) can not use what they seem
to know and do informal classrooms and laboratories to real-world problems
(Champagne &Klopfer, 1984; Mestre & Lochhead, 1990; Resnick, 1986,
1987).
With
such a litany of deficiencies it seems logical that all people would
be anxious to try any new approach that might yield better results.In actuality
the forces are even stronger to return to the tried and true teacher-directed
classrooms where successful students have only to take notes,
pay attention, and demonstrate use of certain vocabulary and certainskills
which teachers and textbooks proclaim as worth remembering.
Project
Synthesis was a large NSF-funded effort to review the NSF Status
Studies (Helgeson, Blosser & Howe, 1977; Stake & Easley, 1978;Weiss,
1978), current textbooks, and the 1977 NAEP results (1978). Fivefocal
areas were used as organizers; one of these was inquiry. In the
final report of Project Synthesis the Inquiry Team
reported that there waslittle evidence that any school or teacher was teaching
by inquiry or that any students were learning by such procedures.
Hurd had reported earlier that inquiry was
a failed effort of the reforms following Sputnik: "Thedevelopment of enquiry
skills as a major goal of instruction in science appears
to have had only a minimal effect on secondary school teaching.The rhetoric
about enquiry and process teaching greatly exceeds both the research
on the subject and the classroom practice. The validity of theenquiry
goal itself could profit from more scholarly interchange and confrontation
even if it is simply to recognize that science is not totally confined
to logical processes and data-gathering" (Hurd, 1978, p. 62).
Inquiry
was a major focus for the reform efforts of the 60s. Joe Schwab
eloquently described the reforms which followed the launching ofSputnik
I by the Soviets in 1957 while calling for an emphasis on a narrative
of enquiry rather than a rhetoric of conclusions (1962). (Hepreferred
to spell inquiry with an "e" to attract even more attention!) During
the two decades following Sputnik, two billion dollars were used inthe
United States to reform school science- almost always with an emphasis
on "inquiry."
But
calls for reform--even reform focusing upon what scientist do aswell as
the results of the doing (i.e., the concepts which describe the waynature
operates)--did not begin in the 50s. Such calls for a focus on the
skills scientist use were first made in the 30s-most
notably in the 31stYearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education
(Whipple, 1932).
Unfortunately,
however, past efforts to focus science teaching and student
learning on the skills, procedures, and thinking scientists use hadlittle
effect on teaching, student learning, or assessment practices. Calls
for emphasis on this second dimension of science (inquiry) neverresulted
in any less focus on student learning of science concepts. But,reformers
have consistently called for a shift to process science for over
70 years.
For
nearly three-quarters of a century in the U.S. reformers have called
for an equal treatment of what scientists know about the naturalworld (concepts)
and the ways scientists go about their work of knowing more
about how the universe works. Unfortunately this two-dimensional
view of science continues where science courses
outline the current concepts heldby scientists and the skills they tap
to arrive at such meaning.
The
greatest contribution of the new National Science Education Standards
(NSES) may be the broadening of the view of the meaning of science
beyond these two dimensions. NSES identifies eight facets ofscience
content to be considered in K-12 classrooms.
These
include:
Unifying Concepts and Processes in Science;
Science as Inquiry;
Physical Science;
Life Science;
Earth and Space Science;
Science and Technology;
Science in Personal and Societal Perspectives;
and History and Nature of Science (NRC, 1996,
p. 6).
It
is noteworthy that "Science as Inquiry" is the second category of
content-before the three discipline-bound categories, physical, life,and
earth/space science. But, inquiry is more than just a facet ofcontent.
It appears along with scientific literacy, content and curricula,
knowledge, and understanding, and science and technology
as a special termneeding definition (NRC, 1996, p. 23).
In
many ways this definition is gibberish. It says that scientificinquiry
refers to the diverse ways scientists study the natural world andhow they
propose explanations based on evidence derived from their work.
(But, do not the explanations they propose usually
precede their manipulation of nature to test
the creation of their minds?) The NSES saysthat inquiry also refers
to the activities of students in which theydevelop knowledge and understanding
of scientific ideas. (But, does this not
create the problem of describing all student activities as inquiry while
also suggesting that the students are merely learning what scientistsknow
without any real investigation of questions?) The definition further
indicates that student activities help student understanding
of how scientists study the natural world.
(But, doesn't this sound like studentsreplicating experiments scientists
have already done?) The definition thenproceeds to a long list of
activities that sounds like the scientific processes
so often central to the reform efforts of the 60s.
We
learned (especially from the inquiry-based programs for elementary
schools during the 60s) that little is gained by teaching skills'because
they are important.' Students rarely see the importance of suchskills
in any way other than the context in which they were presented. The
definition used in NSES does not approach the first
goal of school scienceoffered by the standards: producing students
who can experience the richness and excitement
of knowing about and understanding the natural world.
The definition misses the point of science beginning with questions,
curiosity, wonderment. The definition seems "third person"-something
that people called scientists do, something alien to the lives
of most people.
The
elaboration of inquiry as outlined in the content standards does
little to help with a vision of its meaning. It says that inquiry
is "a step beyond science as process.
It is more than learning about observation,
inferences, and experimentation" (NRC, 1996, p. 105). The writers
pontificate that a new vision of inquiry includes processes of science
but requires students to combine process with scientific knowledgeas they
use scientific reasoning and critical thinking to develop theirunderstanding
of science. (By emphasizing "scientific" the writers further
glamorize the skills!) The writers claim that inquiry
teaching will provideall the outcomes for which most yearn. And yet
our experiences of the 60s should cause us
to be skeptical.
Readers
of the NSES are then referred to a table which identifies the
abilities and understandings which define or describe what is to bedone
when inquiry teaching occurs. Interestingly, the same words are usedfor
grades K-4, 5-8, and 9-12. They list only: 1) abilities necessary
todo scientific inquiry, and 2) understanding about scientific inquiry.
Later some guide is given for the abilities and concepts
that underlie inquiry content (NRC, 1996, pp.
145-146).
The
assessment standards provide the richest information about teaching
inquiry. The example given for assessing the ability to inquire(NRC,
1996, p. 98-100) is the clearest vision of the desired skills and howthey
can be assessed in terms of student learning. Perhaps the value of
this description is the specific context and example
given. Unfortunatelyit is only for the high school level and the
activity is designed to be an ongoing project.
Such work would be ideal in college classrooms andlaboratories. One
should be able to exemplify aspects of inquiry in a single
class period.
There
are too few in education who have practiced science-who have experienced
first hand the first goal for science education espoused by thestandards:
student should experience the richness and excitement of knowing
about and understanding the natural world. Many feel they arealready
"process" teachers and that they practice inquiry. They accept astheir
jobs the transmission of this understanding to their students. For
such people a look at the assessment standards is
suggested.
Would
it not be better to insist that all real science starts with a
question-a real question about something in the immediate surroundings?All
humans have questions-as soon as they are aware of things around them.And,
all human beings try to make some sense of the things around them,
i.e., the way nature operates. Unfortunately
this "sense" that all peopledevelop does not coincide with the research
and the consensus developed by the scientific
community. Too often we merely teach what scientists knowand report
and expect this teaching to replace constructions/ explanationsthat most
people have developed on their own-in their day to day living outside
science classrooms. This results in a conflict between what makes
sense and those things teachers an schools report
as important if students are to succeed.
Would
it not be desirable to encourage students to share their own conceptions/explanations
about natural phenomena? Would it not be desirable
to compare these explanations arising from students and use themas a basis
for further investigations? Would it not be desirable if the tests
students devise to provide evidence of the validity of their explanations
were inconclusive? Would it not be appropriate and realisticto have
to develop more tests? Would it not be an obvious question to ask:Has
anyone else over centuries ever asked this or similar questions?
Whatdid they find? How did they interpret their results?
Most
teachers know that inquiry is good-something they should practice,
something that real scientists do, something that reformers havechampioned
throughout their professional lives. And yet it remains something
elusive; something that is poorly defined, something so broad that
all can truthfully say they are doing some of it. And yet is ithelping
us with reform efforts and the realization of the vision in the NSES?
Basic
to the Scope, Sequence, and Coordination Project (the $25 million
reform sponsored by the National Science Teachers Association) wasthat
meaning should be carefully established before use of a term. Are
we guilty of not practicing such a basic feature
of reform in our own discipline?? Inquiry
is a word in common use-but is there common understanding?
Is there any reason to believe that we are any closer to realizing
student learning of inquiry, by inquiry, from so-called inquiryactivities
that we were doing three or four decades ago? What is therelationship
of inquiry to the other seven facets of content included in the
broader view of science content envisioned in NSES?
Maybe
we still need the scholarly interchange and confrontation about
inquiry that Hurd suggested nearly 20 years ago.
References
Champagne, A. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (1984). Research in scienceeducation: The cognitive psychology perspective. In D. Holdzkom & P. B.Lutz, (Eds.), Research within reach: Science education (pp. 171-189). Charleston, WV: Research and Development Interpretation Service, Appalachia Educational Laboratory.
Helgeson,
S. L., Blosser, P. E., & Howe, R. W. (1977). The status
of pre-college science, mathematics, and social
science education: 1955-75. Columbus,
OH: Center for Science and Mathematics Education, The Ohio State
University.
Hurd, P. DeH. (1978). The golden age of biological education 1960-75. In W. V. Mayer, (Ed.), BSCS biology teacher's handbook (3rd ed.)(pp. 28-96). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mestre, J. P., & Lochhead, J. (1990). Academic preparation inscience: Teaching for transition from high school to college. New York:College Entrance Examination Board.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1978). The thirdassessment of science, 1976-77. Denver, CO: Author.
National Research Council. (1996). National science educationstandards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Resnick, L. B. (1986). Cognition and instruction: Theories ofhuman competence and how it is acquired. Pittsburg, PA: Learning Research and Development Center.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Sahiner, A. (Producer), & Schneps, M. (Director). (1977). ThePrivate Universe (video). Washington, DC: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Science Education Department, Science Media Group.
Sahiner, A. (Producer), & Schneps, M. (Director). (1997). APrivate Universe (series) (video). (Available from The Annenberg/CPB Math and Science Collection, 901 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004-2037)
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein The teaching of science (pp. 3-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. (1978). Case studies in scienceeducation, volumes I and II. Urbana, IL: Center for InstructionalResearch and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Weiss, I. R. (1978). Report of the 1977 national survey ofscience, mathematics, and social studies education: Center for educationalresearch and evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Whipple, G. M. (Ed.). (1932). A program for science teaching(31st yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education). Washington, DC: National Society for the Study of Education.
Video References
To get to the top of this page, click here.
To get back to the current issue of the EJSE, click here.
To get back to the EJSE's Archive page, click here.