8/3/2019 45149834
1/2
N O V E M B ER 2 0 0 9 N S TA Re p o r t s 3
Rethinking Sc ientific Inq uiryBy Ma rk Wind schitl, PhD
observations, defining the problem,
constructing hypotheses, experiment-
ing, analyzing results, and drawing
conclusions. Most scientists agree,
however, this does not represent the
way contemporary science works.
First, within the parameters of the
scientific method, questions are often
based on what is interesting or doable,
but in real science, questions emerge
from tentative models of how some
part of the natural world works. A
model represents the interrelationships
between observable world features of a
phenomenon (like a balloon expanding)
and unobservable features (like the in-
creasing number of air molecules collid-
ing with the inside skin of the balloon).
This kind of causal model, when used
in classrooms, is typically an illustration,
updated and changed as new investiga-
tions provide evidence supporting or
rebutting relationships. But when a
testable question is the only criteria for
an investigation, then school science can
become uninformed and content-less.
Random solubility activities are one
example. Data from these experiments
are analyzed to determine only how
outcomes are related to conditions (for
example, small crystals of sugar dissolve
faster in water than large sugar crystals),
but the underlying why explanations(how molecular motion helps
break
the chemical bonds of sugar) are left
unaddressed.
The second flaw relates to the first:
Because the activity has no provi-
sions for students to develop an initial
model to inform their questions, no
discussion can occur at the end of
the inquiry about how new evidence
fits or contradicts the model. Scien-
tific argument does not just seek to
demonstrate relationships between
variables or differences between ex-
perimental groups, but also to use
these findings to convince others that
some processesat the unobservable
levelare at least partially responsible
for the outcomes seen in data.
The third problem with the scien-
tific method is it often promotes direct
comparison between a control group
and a manipulated experimental group
as the only method of investigating the
world. However, in science fields such
as geology, field biology, molecular bi-
ology, natural history, and astronomy,
controlled experiments are all but
impossible; yet they all use systematic
collection of data and coordination
of evidence to propose explanations.
These explanations are often in the
form of models. Our collective reli-
ance on oversimplified formulas for
inquiry learning has given rise to some
classroom practices that need to be
reconsidered.
Investigating arbitrary questions.Authentic science inquiry does
not
involve questions such as Will my
bean plants grow faster listening
to rock music or classical music?
Such questions, although testable,
have little to do with developing any
coherent understanding of underly-
ing causes. The questions are not
grounded in any proposed model,
and the results do not help us un-
derstand any natural processes.
Investigations outside the boundsof the natural world. School
scienceincludes the broad domains of phys-
ics, biology, Earth and space sciences,
and chemistry. It does not investigate
questions of human behavior, suchas How many students prefer
pizza
vs. tacos for lunch? or Does extra
sensory perception really exist?
While these can be motivational
hooks for students, they are es-
sentially content-less inquiries.
Cookbook investigations. Someactivities are so rigidly scripted
that
students do not have to employ any
reasoning skills: All they have to do
is follow instructions. Students can,
in fact, earn passing grades in these
activities without comprehending
the meaning of the work. Such
confirmatory exercises have a le-
gitimate role when students have no
previous inquiry experiences to draw
upon, but a steady diet of these will
soon cause students enthusiasm for
science to wither away.
Substituting isolated processskills for complete inquiries.
The research on learning offers
little evidence that process skills
(observing, classifying, measuring,
predicting, hypothesizing, inferring,
and so on), learned in isolation from
a real investigation, help students
understand the purpose of these
skills. Inquiry investigations should
instead be treated as a coordinated
set of activities and taught as a
whole. Inquiry should be kept com-
plex, but the teacher should scaffold
students efforts as needed. The idea
that any inquiry can be done in a
day shortcuts students opportuni-
ties to reason about scienceto
discuss evidence, compare explana-
tory models, and identify other
sources of information they need
to be more confident about their
explanations.
In my work with students, Ive found
it takes at least a full class period
for them to respond to the question
What evidence do we now have that
supports our explanatory model, and
how strong is it? Though students
need support to have this conversation,
they are the ones doing the intellectual
work, and they get better at it as the
year progresses.
While many science teachers doinstill a sense of excitement and
curi-
osity about the natural world in their
students, my point is that, even for
young learners, science should be about
evidence, causal explanation, and the
testing of modelshowever basic these
models might be. Those interested in
learning more about authentic forms
of inquiry should read the chapter en-
titled What Is Inquiry? A Framework
for Thinking About Authentic Scientific
Practice in the Classroom in Science
as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting from
NSTA Press.
Mark Windschitl, a former secondary
science teacher, is associate professor of
science education at the University of
Washington. He has done multiple stud-
ies on how early career science teachers
develop and how inquiry is implemented
in secondary classrooms.
Some members of the science educa-
tion community have placed much faithin the investigative
formula referred to
as the scientific methodmaking
Natio nal Scie nce Tea ch ers Assoc iation
1840 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington , Virginia 22201-3092
703-243-7100
[email protected]
NSTA Rep ort s, published nine times a
year from Septe mbe r through May, is
NSTA s source of ne ws and informa tion
for and about science teachers. NSTA
Reportsincludes science educ at ionnews, information on
association ac tivi-
ties, and upd ates on teac hing materials
and programs.
Lynn Petrinja k .................Managing Editor
Debra Shapiro .................Assoc iate Editor
Will Thoma s, Jr. .........................Art Directo r
Prod uc tion Staff ......................Nguyet Tran
Jack Parker
Catherine Lorrain
David Beaco m .............................Publisher
Francis Ebe rle ...............Execu tive Directo r
Advertising
Richard E. (Rick) Smith
Managing Director
[email protected]
703-312-9282
2009 Nationa l Scie nce
Tea chers Assoc iation
The m ission of the Na tional Science
Tea ch ers Assoc iation is to promo te
excellence and innovation in science
teac hing and learning for all.
