Forums

Hi, I have a clear understanding of each - or at least I think so. As I see it, the scientific method or process offers the steps that students should or could follow when engaged in scientific inquiry, which is looking for the "why" or "how" of something. So as I see it - scientific method/process is or are the tools that can be used within inquiry - which is the act of discovering. I have a difficult time with understanding why science teachers want students to put the scientific method in the "correct order." I believe the order should by dynamic and capable of changing as the question and answers change within an activity. It drives me crazy to see questions on tests/quizzes that ask students to number or place the steps in order... What are others' thoughts on this? How do you teach the scientific method - in a linear model or dynamic? Sue

I think the limitations of the scientific method are that is leads to the misconception that science itself is a linear process where the answer is already known and students are just trying to find it. I find that using only the scientific method leads students to believe that science is “done” and everything has already been discovered and they are just learning about it. I like the “Scientific Process” model on the Understanding Science website. [url=http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/scienceflowchart] It represents the process of inquiry. I know many teachers that have this diagram in their classroom and refer to it when working with students.

Sorry-accidentally posted under the wrong heading. I think the limitations of the scientific method are that is leads to the misconception that science itself is a linear process where the answer is already known and students are just trying to find it. I find that using only the scientific method leads students to believe that science is “done” and everything has already been discovered and they are just learning about it. I like the “Scientific Process” model on the Understanding Science website. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/scienceflowchart It represents the process of inquiry. I know many teachers that have this diagram in their classroom and refer to it when working with students.

The two 'processes' come together when scientific inquiry becomes open-ended. When we allow our students the time and provide the guidance to move them toward the development of original research questions, they will then have the means to design their own experiments, test their hypotheses, do the research and data collecting, etc. to practice 'doing' the processes attributed to 'the' scientific method. This month's Science Teacher (November, 2010) had an excellent article about open inquiry on pages 27 - 30. The authors had come up with their version of an older strategy I used with my middle school students in helping them to come up with ideas for science fair projects - the 4 Question Strategy. It is an excellent article that helps to make my point about how these two processes can occur simultaneously. What are your thoughts?

This is a great thread and all the post are very informative! I like Kate's URL to the Berkeley site. This shows inquiry as an iterative process (definitely not a "linear" cookbook procedure of step 1, step 2). I think there's sometimes confusion among some (present company excluded of course) about even the difference between full versus partial inquiry, or guided versus open, etc. I think there's some research that recently found that even students at a very early age can "do" rich inquiry (or critical thinking making predictions, observations, comparing and contrasting, etc.). One area often "neglected" is the habits of mind associated with inquiry, where learning facilitates curiosity, skepticism, and openness to modification in light of new and more informed data. These habits of mind are definitely not "cookbook"! Attached an article from one of NSTA’s journals (it’s a little older), but does provide a nice glance at how we might look at materials and their ability to facilitate different levels of inquiry-based learning. I think NSTA has several books on inquiry too, that go much deeper. Cheers, Al

Attachments

Rubric_for_selecting_inquiry-based_activities.pdf (1.27 Mb)

Teaching The Scientific Method has been so ingrained in us as teachers as well as students that even when presented as one of the myths of the nature of science, people still can’t believe it. When my students in a university elementary science methods course were presented with the fallacy of The Scientific Method in their textbook while reading about the Nature of Science, they had a difficult time believing it were true. Even teachers in their field schools taught the children The Scientific Method. According to our textbook (Settlage & Southerland) in the 1940’s a man by the name of Keeslar wanted to describe the different elements in scientists’ work. He generated a list of activities that he thought scientists did. Based on this list of activities, Keeslar sent a questionnaire to a number of scientists to identify which activities they engaged in the most. By reporting on scientists’ use of different thinking strategies, Keeslar created a list. A science textbook writer saw Keeslar’s list and turned it into The Scientific Method and the rest is history. I've read many places of why The Scientific Method is not accurate, but it was the first time I had ever seen an explanation (at least that I remember) of the origin of "The Scientific Method." It’s very difficult to change something that is so ingrained in people and that has been reinforced in every science course for all those years in school.

Hey I found a recent article in the Science Teacher (Nov 2010) that provides a nice quick read about inquiry called "A Template for Open Inquiry". It provides a nice rubric about the topic and definitely does not present inquiry as a cookbook procedure set of steps.

Attachments

Template_for_Open_Inquiry.pdf (0.72 Mb)

What an awesome discussion. I have spent time reading, researching and reflecting on this thread. There is part of the discussion that I think I disagee with: "the scientific method is great for young children who have not developed a strong cognitive ability to think. It the same as you have to learn to walk before you can run. The scientific method is a way for them to gain an understanding of the process. However, as they grow older and have more experiences and make more decisions they should be weaned off this and introduced to scientific inquiry." I believe all children , even very young children can think scientifically and therefore engage in the inquiry process. I am attaching an article which talks about young children doing science inquiry and a graphic from one of my favorite authors, Karen Worth. So what do others think?

Attachments

Science_in_Kindergarten_Ingrid_Chafour_and_Karen_Worth.pdf (0.48 Mb)

Kathy

Powerful article, thanks for sharing. Noting the obvious 'semantics' that come into play when we use older terminology (i.e., scientific method) with the more nuanced and current construct (inquiry), your article posits that advocated in a recent report by the National Academies--Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8(2007), and the graphic in your article is 'right on'. For those that want some 'hefty' reading, the attached report makes a pretty compelling case that rich inquiry can occur in the lower grade levels.

EXCERPT:
Taking Science to School speaks in a clear, evidentiary-based voice. All young children have the intellectual capability to learn science. Even when they enter school, young children have rich knowledge of the natural world, demonstrate causal reasoning, and are able to discriminate between reliable and unreliable sources of knowledge. In other words, children come to school with the cognitive capacity to engage in serious ways with the enterprise of science. This finding leads to a sobering insight: as educators, we are underestimating what young children are capable of as students of science—the bar is almost always set too low.

Anecdote:
I went to my daughter's back to school night this year and looked forward to hearing about what type of science pedagogy and philosophy would be incorporated for her seventh grade life science class. I was taken back slightly when the teacher said the primary focus of the course was 85% vocabulary in a concerted effort to prepare her students to pass the state assessment. The richness of science where learners generate questions based-on the experiences and curiosities they bring to the classroom are ripe fodder to facilitate rich teacher guided “inquires” aligned with appropriate science content standards.

Given this, one question moving the discussion beyond the debate between the 'method versus inquiry' might be:

Question
How might we facilitate the professional growth with our like-minded colleagues at the elementary level so more might facilitate a richer 'inquiry-centric' approach to students learning science versus too heavy an emphasis on textbook/worksheets or only lecture/demos?

Attachments

Taking_Science_to_School_Teaching_Science_in_Grades_K-8.pdf (1.98 Mb)

[color=blue][b]Anecdote:
I went to my daughter's back to school night this year and looked forward to hearing about what type of science pedagogy and philosophy would be incorporated for her seventh grade life science class. I was taken back slightly when the teacher said the primary focus of the course was 85% vocabulary in a concerted effort to prepare her students to pass the state assessment. The richness of science where learners generate questions based-on the experiences and curiosities they bring to the classroom are ripe fodder to facilitate rich teacher guided “inquires” aligned with appropriate science content standards. [/b][/color]

State testing, while important, is one factor that is forcing teachers to teach to the test or out of the textbook - and state tests are the reason there is limited time, and sometimes no time, for true inquiry teaching/learning in science. And some of the state questions are not written for an inquiry-based classroom or style of learning. Many state tests are not asking our students to problem solve - instead many of these tests are simply asking our students to recall memorized bits of information. I agree that a certain amount of this information is important to have a knowledge base, but students will learn the information if they are presented the content in ways that are engaging and interesting.

And even more problematic are state tests that do not test science or use science as AYP for school evaluation/funding. If science is not valued, it is not taught. Instead science teachers become math and reading teachers - which we really are anyway - but a great deal of the teaching of 'thinking scientifically' is lost as we try to help our students achieve 'meeting/exceeding' reading and math scores. We are helping them exceed at passing the state reading and math tests, but we are failing to engage them in a love of science - we are failing to ingnite a passion for science...and our country is already behind many of the industrialized nations in producing scientists....we need to look at how we evaluate students learning, and we need to demonstrate in state tests that we value science and inquiry! ...(okay, I am off my soap box for now...sorry for the rant.)

What do you see happening in your state? Is science being encouraged? Is inquiry based teaching/learning being encouraged? Are we able to teach narrow and deep (less covered in more time) because science is valued and time is allowed to teach it properly? Or are we teaching wide and shallow (lots covered in a short time) just to get through what we need to for state testing requirements? Thoughts?

Sue

I would like to respond to Al's Anecdote as well: [color=blue]Anecdote: ... I was taken back slightly when the teacher said the primary focus of the course was 85% vocabulary in a concerted effort to prepare her students to pass the state assessment. The richness of science where learners generate questions based-on the experiences and curiosities they bring to the classroom are ripe fodder to facilitate rich teacher guided “inquires” aligned with appropriate science content standards. [/color] My thoughts: In Illinois the 4th and 7th graders take a science component to the state assessment tests. Although vocabulary is important, many of the questions contain charts and graphs that need to be interpreted. With the push of local school districts to have teachers connect their curricula to their state's standards, it is more likely that teachers have already done that work to find those inquiry-based activities that allow students to construct their own knowledge of the important concepts that need to be learned (and assessed). As your child comes home and shares the activities from science class, I hope you are finding that the teacher IS allowing her students to process science, Al. It does all come down to the individual teacher's professional and instructional practices in the classroom. I see NSTA as an elegant leader in informing best practices. Carolyn

Kathy R. wrote: I believe all children , even very young children can think scientifically and therefore engage in the inquiry process. I am attaching an article which talks about young children doing science inquiry and a graphic from one of my favorite authors, Karen Worth... Kathy, when I tried to open the article, it said that the file was damaged. Could you either repost the article or give me the source of the article? Thanks. Kathy Sparrow

Thanks, Arlene. It opened to the pdf for me. Kathy S.

This is an interesting discussion and I'd like to weigh in as well.

The original question itself demonstrates the startling disconnect between the science that is taught in school and authentic science. It is no wonder that students often hold naive understandings of the nature of science.

One of my favorite resources for activities that help students to think like scientists is Teaching the Nature of Science Through Process Skills by Randy Bell. Although the book indicates that it is geared towards grades 3-8, I have used the activities with students at the college level.

For those looking to revise the activities in your curriculum to allow for more open-ended inquiries, I will recommend the two NSTA journal articles attached.

Finally, I was glad to see the Taking Science to School report shared, and I will recommend the accompanying practitioner's book as well: Ready Set Science

Attachments

The Many Levels of Inquiry (Journal Article)

Simplifying Inquiry Instruction (Journal Article)

In order to build upon another scientist's accepted theory, the scientific method must be employed in the strictest sense, and students should be taught to understand the process and the need for the adherence to it. At the same time,students should be given time to design their own experiments,and taught the importance of observation which can lead to accidental discovery and the launch of new work. Both processes are in play during scientific work and study, and I would say that once inquiry leads to a "testable hypothesis", or a new opportunity for more important work then the scientific method should be employed in the more stricter sense.Perhaps inquiry can be seen as an initial stage of the scientific method. In my classroom of sixth graders, I made the distinction between the two as an inquiry activity required a final reflection on their part; whereas a lab activity required a full formal lab report, but this was because I was focusing on trying to teach them to write the report; however, maybe I was really acting upon my own concept of the two processes as stated in this post.

Let me clarify that during inquiry the students come up with a testable hypothesis, but using the scientific method, the testable question has broader applications which are directed at ultimately forming or extending a theory.So, in a sense maybe inquiry can be seen as a "heuristic" , brainstorming activity. Just a thought.

I can highly recommend a book available through the NSTA Science Store - Learning and Assessing Science Process Skills, 5th edition. I purchased it based upon an recommendation from my professor at Montana State University, and I am so glad that I did!

The book 'teaches teachers' how to teach students how to think and perform scientifically. I have the 3rd edition, and I considering purchasing the 5th edition to see what changes there might be. Looking over the 'content' tab, there appears to be some important additions, such as the nature of science.

In the 3rd edition the following basic topics are covered ~ and covered very thoroughly: observing, communicating, classifying, measuring metrically, inferring, and predicting. While I agree there needs to be some 'path or roadway' for students to follow, I really believe if we teach them the basic skills they need, the rest will follow - because it is somewhat the natural order of things...we question, therefore investigate.

The book also goes into greater detail on variables, analyzing investigation and designing investigation - but only after students have mastered the basics.

Do you agree - if we teach them how to act and think scientifically, the rest will follow - without students having to remember a step-by-step process on how to do science? Thoughts?

I don't agree, and I will refer to, "Understanding Scientific Reasoning, 2nd edition", by Ronald N. Griere. The author makes the distinction between expert scientific reasoning (reasoning of the process that has led to great scientific discoveries like Newton's) vs scientific reasoning necessary to interpret a finished research report.In the author's opinion, the first definition of the scientific reasoning process can only be fully understood by highly-trained, specialized scientists.The latter definition can be taught to students of science. I do think that students should still be taught to recognize the steps in the process, if only to appreciate the genius of great scientific work.

[i]Question How might we facilitate the professional growth with our like-minded colleagues at the elementary level so more might facilitate a richer "inquiry-centric" approach to students learning science versus too heavy an emphasis on textbook/worksheets or only lecture/demos?[/i] As a former elementary school teacher who was assigned to teach math and science, I remember the initial discomfort I had when faced with this assignment. I spent ALOT of time researching, searching, talking with colleagues about best practices and how I wanted to structure my classroom. One of the most valuable resources I had was actually a teacher at another school in my district, who had many more years of experience and was a true master at her craft. I was able to observe her teach and she shared some of her lessons and resources with me. It was the helping hand I needed to find my own footing. I think having the opportunity to pair with another teacher, either in a formal mentor/mentee relationship or an informal partnership like mine, is one way to facilitate the professional growth of more elementary teachers. I know a good mentor can be hard to find, but perhaps we should focus on finding and building these partnerships at the elementary level. I am attaching an article the role of mentors in professional development. I am interested to hear what other people's experiences with mentors have been(either as the mentor or the mentee). Did you find it to be a valuable professional development opportunity?

Attachments

Everybody Needs a Betsy (Journal Article)

Hi Kate. You are raising some interesting differences in this forum. I would like to chime in and ask you to please tell me how you differentiate science inquiry from the scientific method. Could you possibly list characteristics for elements that they dhare, too? Thanks a bunch. I look forward to your reply. Patty

I think I want to jump into this discussion again as I want to respond to a couple of different parts of the discussion.

How might we facilitate the professional growth with our like-minded colleagues at the elementary level so more might facilitate a richer 'inquiry-centric' approach to students learning science versus too heavy an emphasis on textbook/worksheets or only lecture/demos?

I think one of the important things that needs to happen at school level is that administrators/principals need to be part of this work. How can we get them on board? I know that inquiry science can be the vehicle for teaching reading and writing because I did it in my classroom. How can we get principals 'to allow' teachers to even teach science? They need to help create a culture where elementary teachers are allowed to teach science without fear of repercussion because of scores on high stakes tests. When I am asked how I would prepare my students for NECAP assessment in math, science or ELA , I respond 'teach mathematics, teach science'. I could go on forever here.

In an ideal world, I would love to be able to go into a school and team teach and mentor and be able to prove that I am not just talking without the research and the evidence to back up my thoughts.

I want to ditto getting 'Ready, Set, Science' into an elementary teacher's hands. I want to go one step farther and organize a book group during school time for professional development. We would read, discuss, practice, discuss and read again.

I am especially partial to Chapter 5 which focuses on discourse. Not to mention that there is discourse is an absolutely essential in ALL disciplines.

Having spent most of my life as a scientist rather than a science teacher, I often think back and ask whether or not I actually ever consciously used the scientific method; answer not exactly. After working on problems for some time, I almost always developed an intuitive feel for how things would behave. In many cases, I had demonstrated my intuition correct long before I understood why. Barbara McClintock speaks of having a feeling for the organism. In addition to teaching scientific method should we let students in on the role of intuition and emotion in science?

First, I am a newer science teacher - although I have had several careers before teaching, so not so new to other things. :-) As a new science teacher, I latched onto the NSTA before I even stepped into the classroom. Once in the classroom, I noticed almost immediately a division between science teachers – on how to teach science – hands-on or packet/textbook or combination of both, and if they teach the scientific method as a set of steps to be followed or as a process (with clear vocabulary and physical experiences with each term) that is dynamic and creative or a combination of both. Here is the NSTA's position on it: Declaration The National Science Teachers Association endorses the proposition that science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products. The following premises are important to understanding the nature of science. •Scientific knowledge is simultaneously reliable and tentative. Having confidence in scientific knowledge is reasonable while realizing that such knowledge may be abandoned or modified in light of new evidence or reconceptualization of prior evidence and knowledge. •Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work. I have also explored this website for additional help in teaching the scientific process: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/index.php So then I wonder - are we really teaching "science," if we are teaching our students to follow a cookbook lab or formula on "how to do science?" Or are there greater benefits from teaching the skills and steps in a manner that enables and encourages them to be creative in finding solutions? And in an era of high stakes testing, are we given the time necessary to teach science as inquiry, or are we forced to consider the textbook and packets to get past the test? When is it best to teach through inquiry, and when it is best to teach using a guided “cookbook” lab or style of teaching science? Thoughts? Sue Hokkanen

Thank you so much Arlene. I am off to the library Pam

Professional scientists, who publish in peer-reviewed journals, use the scientific method.The National Science Standards classify inquiry methods as a general category which includes the scientific method. There seems to be a difference of opinion about something that it based in logical principles? I think that we are not teaching enough about the logical arguments used in science.For example, whatever happened to teaching about the null hypothesis, and teaching that a hypothesis cannot be proved except by negating the null hypothesis? The more we drift away in our teaching from the classical scientific method, the more misconceptions we create for students IMO. Agree or disagree; what do you think?

Adah, I see your point, but we are asking students to come up with evidence to support their arguments, and it seems as if we should at least give them the basics of logic as a foundation. I think that the ability to make logical decisions is one of the most important life skills that students can gain from their schooling.Maybe we as educators should give them the benefit of the doubt, and at least a chance to develop their logic as a basis for future critical thinking. Living in the 21c, and being bombarded with so much information, our students must be able to objectively evaluate the veracity of the ideas that are being presented to them.

I think I still strongly disagree about the use of the scienific method with students in the classroom. Using the scientific method in its sequential fashion was what pushed me away from science in my earlier life. Science is messy, it doesn't follow a linear, straight line. I, feel very strongly about this because I was a science phobic in high school and college. I wasn't introduced to the inquiry cycle until I had been teaching about 20 years. At that point science started to become my passion and I knew I needed to learn more. I then entered a M.Ed Science program and began to learn the content using the inquiry cycle. It was taught very differently than what I had previously experienced. The inquiry cycle ( Karen Worth EDC) provided a framework for my teaching of science. Wynne Harlan , author of Primary Science , is another one of my heroes. I think that if we continue to teach high school and college science the way I learned it over 30 years ago ( ??), we will continue to push our students away from science and technical careers. Kathy

Hi Therese and Everyone,
This is a very lively discussion! In responding to these comments by Therese:
There seems to be a difference of opinion about something that it based in logical principles? I think that we are not teaching enough about the logical arguments used in science.For example, whatever happened to teaching about the null hypothesis, and teaching that a hypothesis cannot be proved except by negating the null hypothesis? The more we drift away in our teaching from the classical scientific method, the more misconceptions we create for students IMO. Agree or disagree; what do you think?
I agree that we need to be careful and purposeful in how and what we present to our students. There IS a difference between the process skill of hypothesizing and a formal hypothesis that is determined after some research, posted as a plausible answer or explanation for a scientific problem or question, and used to help craft a carefully designed experiment to collect data to prove or disprove that hypothesis. Using hypothesis as a part of the scientific method and as a key science experience are both important as we provide our students with opportunities to construct their own understandings about the natural world. So I guess I disagree that we should only teach classical scientific method. But I agree that we need to constantly be aware of what and how we present things and continuously check for understanding to 'catch' misconceptions and nip them in the bud.
Carolyn

BUT - I DO agree with you Therese, that we need to teach our students how to synthesize information, evaluate, and logically conclude based on evidence. As you put it: Living in the 21c, and being bombarded with so much information, our students must be able to objectively evaluate the veracity of the ideas that are being presented to them. Again I think these are process skills (key science experiences) that can be taught and practiced with, as well as apart from, the classic scientific method.
Carolyn

Kathy and others, I was also one of those students pushed away from the sciences - actually repelled - because of the linear, textbook, cookbook way it was taught while I was in middle school and high school. I did not enjoy college science either...the lab results were either right or wrong...there was little room for inquiry. Science should inspired curiosity, and not simply offer a path to follow to a known answer. Research and college enrollment has shown that too many of our students today in the U.S. are turned off from the sciences. I am engaging in an action research project on incorporating the 5E learning cycle into lesson and unit plans to increase student interest and motivation in science - as a form of inquiry science teaching. In an initial survey, many of my students indicated that they found science boring or too hard. Already, after only 3 months, student interest and motivation are increasing, as indicated in the student survey results. However, I do agree that we have a responsibility to help our students develop their scientific process skills and scientific literacy. I told my students earlier this year, when their TV won't go on, they engage in the scientific process to find out why - most looked at me funny when I made that statement. Sad, but many of them do not see science as a process or way to finding answers, but simply as steps to be followed or something to be memorized. We need to change student perception of science, if it is our goal to get more students fully engage in the study of it. Sue

During much of the 20th century the discussion of the scientific method was closely connected to the ideas of logical positivism. According to logical positivists scientific statements would be held as "true" so long as they were verified by empirical tests. When it was recognized that how long and how many empirical tests was problematic there was a switch to the principle of falsifiablity. While a statement or hypothesis cannot be proven, it takes only one empirical event to disprove a statement. The recognition that many scientific theories resist refutation in the face of anomalous event lead thinkers in the 1950 to challenge the ideas of logical positivism. Scientific practice occurs within an accepted conceptual framework that is resistant to change. Thomas Kuhn discusses these ideas in his work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Kuhn introduces the idea of a paradigm or accepted world view that directs inquiry and observation within the scientific community. Later thinkers suggest that there is not one paradigm but many. Well if this is true how do we square this with the ideas of empirical verifiability and falsification. Laudan (Progress and Its Problems) argues that the purpose of science is to solve problems. In this context the "workability" rather than empirical verification or falsification is the criterion by which science should be judged. With this we are entering the realm of contemporary relativist thought. In science there are multiple objectives and multiple ways of attending those objectives. The world exists outside of our perception of it. So what we are theorizing or hypothesizing about is not "the world" but rather our perceptions of it. With this empiricism is out the window and we are left with Laudan's ideas of workability: "acceptable answers to interesting problems." "No more fiction for us: we calculate; but that we may calculate, we had to make fiction first". Nietzsche

Adah wrote, “Hi Everyone:
I read the last posting from Mr. Byers and I was not surprised at all. Teachers are judged by the students results on state assessments. The joy of No Child Left Behind. However I have a glimmer of hope in Texas. There is a new assessment called STAAR that will replace our TAKS upcoming. The Texas Education Association (TEA) has put forth the following requirements for lab activities (not paper and pencil)
New laboratory and field requirements in the 2010 science TEKS
New laboratory and field requirements in the 2010 science TEKS
• In grades K-1, districts are encouraged to facilitate classroom and outdoor investigations for at least 80% of instructional time.
• In grades 2-3, districts are encouraged to facilitate classroom and outdoor investigations for at least 60% of instructional time.
• In grades 4-5, districts are encouraged to facilitate classroom and outdoor investigations for at least 50% of instructional time.
• In grades 6-8, students for at least 40% of instructional time, conduct laboratory and field investigations.

I oversee a group of 5th grade teachers and they are worried about how to accomplish that much lab activities to meet the requirements. I just hope this is the sign of the times. Unfortunately they do not require inquiry and many of those teachers are not science certified. We can only wait and see which they use --The Cookbook Scientific Method or real science inquiry?”

Hi Adah,

Speaking from personal experience, classroom and outdoor investigations do require more planning and preparation. However, I personally believe that my students are more engaged and retain the content better when I take the time to teach this way. I am attaching three articles that I recently read that may help the teachers you oversee. One deals with using science notebooks to aid in inquiry in the classroom. The teacher started using notebooks when her students were studying about butterflies. A Dash of Inspiration shares how an elementary school teacher allowed students to build and test different cars and Lego Rammers to help her students understand the concepts of force and energy. Box Up Your Habitat could help your teachers incorporate science, social studies, and English by creating habitat boxes and sharing them with other classes throughout the country.

One thing that you may want to encourage your teachers to do is to each start with one unit. Have them revamp the way they teach that unit so that it reflects the new recommendations. Since you work with a number of teachers, if they each work on a different unit and share their resources, you could essentially change the way you teach your curriculum within a year or two.

Good luck! Ruth

Here are the articles in mentioned in the previous post. They did not attach as I had wanted.

This discussion is very close to my heart. When I was a young teacher I was guilty of teaching the Scientific Method as if it were gospel. This was after I had spent several years in biochemical research. I didn't see much real correlation between my research experience and SM, but I thought it must be the difference between novice learners and experts. However, I began to hear very intelligent, creative science students (especially girls) say that if the SM was what science was about, they didn't want to do it. As I thought about it, SM is a right-brain, linear, logical model, There is little creativity and intuition - the kind of thinking McClintock talked about. And I realized that I knew many linear, logical Ph'D's and most were little more than glorified lab techs, in my opinion. I dropped SM because it was an impediment for novice thinkers - not a way for novice thinkers to do research.
A talk by Vera Rubin clinched the deal. She said that SM had nothing to do with observational scientists, like astronomers, behaviorists, etc. I realized that I was doing novice scientists a huge disservice.
When I started working with NASA scientists I asked about SM. They laughed. Most of them blend observational science with controlled lab experiments and modeling - more accurately described by the model Kate referenced ( Understanding Science website. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/scienceflowchart But it was the starting point of SM that made them reject it with ridicule. SM was also running counter to Nature of Science (NOS).
In about 2005 I was trying to put together a proposal to video several of the exciting NASA scientists I knew. I started talking with NASA scientists and they were interested. One was Phil Christensen. He got so interested he did a teacher conference talk and later the web seminar Arlene referenced.
I don't agree with Terry that SM is for novice learners - what we know as inquiry works better. I have found SM to be a turn off to students and an inaccurate portrayal of NOS. Developing a video series of scientists showing how they do science (like Phil's web seminar) is still real and I know people at JPL who would do the interviewing.

My question is; would teachers use 20 minute videos showing how scientists do science to augment scientific inquiry. One of the big questions in every proposal is 'Is there a need?' and a second is 'Is this an effective way to fill the need?' I would be interested in input.

Don said" My question is; would teachers use 20 minute videos showing how scientists do science to augment scientific inquiry. One of the big questions in every proposal is "Is there a need?" and a second is "Is this an effective way to fill the need?" Don, I think the answer to your question is yes. I think we are all looking for appropriate models and what could be more appropriate than a working scientist? I also think it would be good to have video of inservice teachers who are doing excellent jobs facilitating student inquiry, some guided and some based on students'questions. Kathy

When I first gained my secondary certification to teach history, I took on a floating substitute teaching position to fill my time (and wallet). Ironically, I spent a great deal of time subbing in chemistry, physics and biology high school classrooms. One thing that I found interesting was the choice of videos teachers left for students to watch. My favorite - Myth Busters. While I would not consider myself a huge fan of Myth Busters, I have been known to watch them occasionally. The teachers I subbed for liked them, because they argued that they taught the nature of science through fun and engaging methods. What do others think? Are shows, such as Myth Busters, a true representation of the nature of science? Are there other shows or video considerations that anyone would recommend?

When I was reading through the posts about science method vs scientific inquiry, I noticed there were a lot of comparisons made to science done in school by students and science done by scientists as careers. Many people stated that the science done by scientists does not follow the scientific method at all, yet this is what we focus on in schools when teaching students. Rather than focusing on the distinction of SM vs. SI, I wonder if we can start to discuss how science learning for students is similar or different than scientific research done by scientists? Can we use some of the similarities in our classroom instruction?

I hate the idea that we teach "scientific method" when such thing does not really exist! I had teachers in my department arguing one year over exactly how many steps there are in the "scientific method!" Maybe we do need to teach our students a logical approach to doing a science experiment in which they are testing an independent variable, but we place far too much stock in a set order of events. We might need to do that for a science fair project but do not need to have it as gospell. And, yes, real scientists do not really follow the scientific method or procedure. As far as inquiry. I attended a great workshop on inquiry many years ago at an NSTA conference. The workshop leader had us in groups and gave each group a scenario of what was happening in a teacher's classroom. We were to explain if it was inquiry or not. We were all being very self-righteous in labeling the Inquiry lessons" ones in which there was student exploration. In the end, it turned out that they were ALL inquiry. It is all about the delivery. No one set way to do inquiry. The bottom line in all of this is to provide a good science education for our students by whatever means we deem suitable for what we are teaching and for whom. Stop trying to label things. Do more exploration and call it whatever you like.

We might even discuss the differences in the way research is conducted in pursuit of new understanding for engineering applications. What is the difference in the methods used by scientists vs. those used by engineers? When I did work as a researcher, I found that the most important thing to have was curiosity, followed by a question. We would then devise tests to assess whether our observations were valid, or whether they were statistically insignificant observations (do the observations correlate with the observations?) These observations would lead to more questions, and so on. Of course, it was a little more complicated than that, but if you consider a typical research paper, they begin with the original research questions, discuss methods and results, and end with a discussion of the results and new questions for subsequent research.

I think the scientific method references the steps scientists use while scientific inquiry refers to the actually thought process... a method v. and inquisitive mind.

I think a lot of this is just semantics. What Jennifer said is correct: questions and more questions and what can I do to answer the question. An analysis of what was done. The hardest part of this is to have students actually analyze their results and offer explanations or, if need be, more questions. Middle school students just want to re-hash their results and regurgitate it again. We need to do a better job of teaching analysis of results. Also, the idea that just because a hypothesis was "rejected" does not mean the experiment was a failure! I try to teach them that a rejection of hypothesis is better than one being supported as you actually learn more! Everyone wants to go "I was right! Yeah me!"

I have done a lot of thinking about Inquiry vs Scientific method and after reflecting on all of the conversations, I do have some questions for myself. We want our students to question. We then want our students to back up their claims with evidence so if I expect my students to do it. I better also. To clarify my thinking I did some reading. First I read the [u]Taking Science to School[/u]excerpt posted by Al Byers and then I went back to my science Bible [u]Ready Set Science[/u] I did find some clarification. One of the topics mentioned in the title of this forum talked about was how scientists really work. In Chapter 1 of this book there is a discussion about this very thing. [quote]Over the past few decades, historians, philosophers of science, and sociologists have taken a much closer look at what scientists actually do—with often surprising results. In the conventional view, the lone scientist, usually male and usually white, struggles heroically with nature in order to understand the natural world. Sometimes scientists are seen as applying a “scientific method” to get their results. They are perceived as removed from the real world, operating in an airy realm of abstraction.Studies of what scientists actually do belie these stereotypes. They approach problems in many different ways and with many different preconceptions. There is no single “scientific method” universally employed by all. Scientists use a wide array of methods to develop hypotheses, models, and formal and informal theories. They also use different methods to assess the fruitfulness of their theories and to refine their models, explanations, and theories. They use a range of techniques to collect data systematically and a variety of tools to enhance their observations, measurements, and data analyses and representations.[/quote] Then I was thinking about how Tina described doing both inquiry and the scientifc method with her students and wondering if she needed to have her students use the more formalized methods in report writing. This also led me to the question, does the age of the students come into the equation? So I did some more reading. In Chapter 2 of [u]Ready Set Science[/u] there is a discussion about the terms [i]inquiry[/i] and [i]scientific method[/i]. They call science a practice where you do and learn together. [quote] Throughout this book, we talk about “scientific practices” and refer to the kind of teaching that integrates the four strands as “science as practice.” Why not use the term “inquiry” instead? Science as practice involves doing something and learning something in such a way that the doing and the learning cannot really be separated. Thus, “practice,” as used in this book, encompasses several of the different dictionary definitions of the term. It refers to doing something repeatedly in order to become proficient (as in practicing the trumpet). It refers to learning something so thoroughly that it becomes second nature (as in practicing thrift). And it refers to using one’s knowledge to meet an objective (as in practicing law or practicing teaching).A particularly important form of scientific practice is scientific inquiry. The term “inquiry” has come to have different meanings as the concept has been implemented in curriculum frameworks, textbooks, and individual classrooms in recent years. To reflect this diversity and to broaden the discussion of effective science teaching and learning, the Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade chose to emphasize scientific practices rather than the specific practice of inquiry. This decision has several benefits. What we say about scientific practice applies to inquiry as well as to many other activities that take place in science classrooms. Focusing on practices also places inquiry in a broader context that can reveal when and why inquiry is effective. [/quote] So after all this reading, I am considering using the term scientific practice instead of inquiry and my reasoning is explained above but I still do not agree that we should be using the scientific method in classrooms. I am attaching both of these Chapters so forum readers can do some reflecting and hopefully join our discussion. Sorry I cannot attach Chapter Two because it is 12 MB and the Learning Center will only allow me 10 MB. If someone is very interested I can email the Chapter or tell you how to get it. Kathy

Attachments

1-16.pdf (5.59 Mb)

Tina said they WILL hear it in the media, in the news, in other classes including other science classes (I remember twitching last week when someone on the evening news referred to The Scientific Method - capitals implied). You are absolutely correct. I have never thought about it like this before. Thank you Tina for bringing this to my attention. The students do need to know what it means and maybe from where the term was derived, and the different contexts in which the term can be used. Tina, I would be twitching with you if I had heard this.:-) Kathy

Hello, I am currently an FIU student majoring in Early Childhood Education. This semester I am taking a teaching elementary science course and we are taught about the differences between the teaching through the scientific method and teaching through inquiry. From my experience and from what I have learned, I have come to believe that teaching through inquiry is the way to go. Learning science and making discoveries is a very open, interesting, and creative process. I feel that the scientific methods takes all those aspects away from discovering new things because it is taught in a strict order. The scientific method makes one think that they can only have on hypothesis and one conclusion. Inquiry on the other hand allows students to explore a question through various experiments, observations, and evidence. It also much more enjoyable and makes learning worthwhile for students. Through inquiry students are allowed to become scientist and feel like that are active members of the science world.