What Ever Happened To Scientific Inquiry?

3y ago
13 Views
2 Downloads
1.00 MB
37 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Mariam Herr
Transcription

What Ever Happened to Scientific Inquiry?A Look at Evolving Notions of InquiryWithin the Science Education Communityand National StandardsAugust 2016Wendy Surr, Emily Loney, Cora Goldston, and Jeremy Rasmussen, MidwestComprehensive CenterKevin Anderson, Wisconsin Department of Public InstructionSpecial thanks to:Joseph Krajcik, Michigan State University; Melissa Braaten, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Helen Quinn, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University;and Matthew Krehbiel, Achieve10 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 600Chicago, IL 60606-5500312-288-7600www.midwest-cc.org125 S. Webster StreetMadison, WI 53703800-441-4563www.dpi.wi.govThis work was originally produced in whole or in part by the Midwest Comprehensive Center with funds from the U.S. Department of Educationunder cooperative agreement number S283B120020. The content does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department ofEducation, nor does mention or visual representation of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the federalgovernment.The Midwest Comprehensive Center provides technical assistance to the state education agencies in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Thisassistance is tailored to each state’s individual needs and addresses the priorities of the U.S. Department of Education. The Midwest ComprehensiveCenter is one of the 15 regional comprehensive centers funded by the U.S. Department of Education, and its work is administered by AmericanInstitutes for Research.www.air.org6429 06/16

ContentsPageIntroduction .1Part I .2Methods.2Findings.2Summary .13Part II .15Methods.15Findings.15Summary .19References .21Appendix A. Website Scans . A-1Appendix B. Wisconsin’s Model Academic Standards for Science Crosswalk .B-1Appendix C. List of Sources .C-1Appendix D. Scientific Inquiry Report—Interviewee Information . D-1

IntroductionOnce prominently featured as its own content area within the National Science Standards(National Research Council [NRC], 1996), the term “scientific inquiry” is rarely mentionedwithin the newly released A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, CrosscuttingConcepts, and Core Ideas (subsequently referred to as NRC framework) (NRC, 2012) and NextGeneration Science Standards (referred to subsequently as NGSS; NGSS Lead State Partners,2013). Instead of a focus on scientific inquiry as a separate content area, in the new standardsdocuments notions of inquiry1 have been refined, redefined, and interwoven within a new threedimensional learning framework for science. The three dimensions of science learning, asdescribed in these new standards documents, include core ideas, crosscutting concepts, andscientific and engineering practices. These dimensions are understood as interrelated and,together, foster the learning and application of inquiry characterized as the systematic anditerative process “that scientists employ as they investigate and build models and theories aboutthe world” (NRC, 2012, p. 30). Although the authors refer to the scientific and engineeringpractices as the primary means by which students draw on core ideas and crosscutting conceptsto engage in inquiry, the authors are quick to emphasize that inquiry entails the fluid, integrated,and iterative interplay among these three dimensions of learning.This report explores the evolving notions of scientific inquiry over time, including how scientificinquiry is currently reflected within the new NRC framework and NGSS. This report alsoexplores the extent to which current trends related to notions of inquiry are reflected in the statescience standards adopted by Wisconsin and neighboring states. This report centers on thefollowing guiding question:How is the term “scientific inquiry” currently understood and being used by members ofthe science education community, particularly in light of the NRC’s A Framework for K–12 Science Education and the release of the Next Generation Science Standards?The report is divided into two parts. Part I explores key trends in the use and understanding ofthe term “scientific inquiry” over time as reflected in prior and current national standards andother related sources. Part II examines the extent to which current notions of inquiry outlined inthe NRC framework and NGSS are reflected in the science standards adopted by Wisconsin andneighboring states within the Great Lakes and Midwest regions.The terms “inquiry” and “scientific inquiry” are used interchangeably within this report and are assumed to havethe same meaning.1Midwest Comprehensive Center and Wisconsin Department of Public InstructionEvolving Notions of Scientific Inquiry—1

Part IPart I explores the history of, and current trends in the use and understanding of the term“scientific inquiry,” and how these notions have changed over time. Part I is organized by twoguiding subquestions.Key Guiding Subquestions How was the term “scientific inquiry” understood and defined prior to the NextGeneration Science Standards? How does the current NRC framework and the NGSS define and/or refer to notions ofscientific inquiry?MethodsTo answer this first subquestion, several key sources were reviewed, including two documentsfrom the NRC: the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and Inquiry and theNational Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000). In addition, a limited number of additionalsources, such as research reviews and selected primary sources, were reviewed to help describethe history and evolution of the term “inquiry” across time. The team also conducted interviewswith five science education experts identified as having a role in the development or translationof the NRC framework and NGSS to the field (see Appendix E for a list of key informants andinterview protocols). Responses to interviews were used to augment findings from these otherwritten sources. Findings based on this evidence are summarized in the following section.FindingsInquiry as a Set of Steps and ProceduresEvidence has suggested that after the turn of the century and before the release of the NationalScience Education Standards (NRC, 1996), scientific inquiry was viewed within the sciencecommunity primarily as a set of steps or procedures. Prior to the late 19th century, U.S. scienceeducators treated science as a body of objective knowledge and facts to be learned (NRC, 2000;Rudolph, 2005). In 1909, John Dewey, in a speech given to the American Association for theAdvancement of Science, introduced to American educators the notion of science as a method ofthinking that is equally important to science content (NRC, 2000). In How We Think (Dewey,1910a), Dewey outlined the methods used in the work of scientists, which included a set of fivediscrete steps he referred to as “a complete act of thought” (Dewey, 1910a, pp. 68–78).According to one scholar (Rudolph, 2005), although Dewey’s intent had been to promote thereflective process associated with how scientists’ work, instead what became popularized wasDewey’s set of five discrete steps (Rudolph, 2005).By the early 20th century, a greater emphasis on “thinking like a scientist” and science as alaboratory process that follows a set of prescribed steps and procedures (i.e., the scientific method)grew in popularity and became associated with science education in American schools (Barrow,2006; NRC, 2000; Rudolph, 2005; Wissehr, Concannon, & Barrow, 2011). While there are manyMidwest Comprehensive Center and Wisconsin Department of Public InstructionEvolving Notions of Scientific Inquiry—2

variations in labels and interpretation of the steps associated with the scientific method, thesequential steps and procedures associated with this method often include observation, posing aquestion, stating a hypothesis, conducting an experiment, and evaluating the results of thatexperiment (McLelland, 2006).Inquiry as a Hands-On and Minds-On ApproachIn 1989, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) introduced a morerefined and expanded notion of scientific inquiry, positing that it involved more than simplyfollowing a set of sequential, rigid steps and procedures. This emerging understanding of inquiryreflected new thinking about scientific literacy and inquiry as a strategy for teaching science thatwas beginning to emerge around this time (AAAS, 1989; Barrow, 2006, NRC, 2000; Young,2013). For example, Barrows (2006), in his examination of evolving perspectives on inquirynotes that the American Association for the Advancement of Science created a document entitled“Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy” (AAAS, 1993). In this document, the AAAS included achapter dedicated to inquiry that referred to inquiry as a “habit of the mind” (Barrow, 2006,p. 267). The AAAS document reflected the emerging shift in the science community away frominquiry as a set of rigid, prescribed steps and toward inquiry as encompassing both thought andprocess.This shift in understanding was reaffirmed and further promoted in the mid-1990s when theNational Academy of Sciences released the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996).In the introduction to the new Science Standards (NRC, 1996) the authors explained:The Standards call for more than “science as process,” in which students learn such skillsas observing, inferring, and experimenting. Inquiry is central to science learning. Whenengaging in inquiry, students describe objects and events, ask questions, constructexplanations, test those explanations against current scientific knowledge, andcommunicate their ideas to others. They identify their assumptions, use critical andlogical thinking, and consider alternative explanations. In this way, students activelydevelop their understanding of science by combining scientific knowledge with reasoningand thinking skills. (p. 2)More specifically, the NRC standards defined scientific inquiry as follows:Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world andpropose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also refers tothe activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientificideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world. (p. 23)The publication of these standards solidified emerging notions of scientific inquiry, like those putforth by AAAS, and represented a critical turning point in contemporary views of scientificinquiry. Rather than inquiry being defined as an exclusively hands-on process, or set of rigid andprescribed steps to be followed, the NRC had redefined inquiry as an approach that encompassesboth knowledge and skills (“hands-on” and “minds-on” [NRC, 2012, p. 2]). Scientific inquirywas now recognized as central to how scientific understanding and progress are built and wasprominently represented in the standards as its own content area.Midwest Comprehensive Center and Wisconsin Department of Public InstructionEvolving Notions of Scientific Inquiry—3

The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) authors further explained how newperspectives on inquiry necessitate shifts in emphasis. The authors noted that the standards putless emphasis on “activities that demonstrate and verify science content” and more emphasis on“activities that investigate and analyze science questions.” Likewise, the standards place lessemphasis on “getting an answer” and more emphasis on “using evidence and strategies fordeveloping or revising an explanation” (NRC, 1996, p. 113).The prior National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) included eight core sciencecontent areas. The standards prominently featured “science as inquiry” as one of these eight corecontent areas. Inquiry was defined as having two complementary elements or pillars:fundamental abilities and fundamental understandings. A set of fundamental abilities andunderstandings was defined for each of three grade bands: K–4, 5–8, and 9–12. For example, thefundamental abilities and understanding for Grades 5–8 are included in Table 1.Table 1. Science Inquiry: Grades 5–8 Fundamental Abilities and UnderstandingsFundamental Abilities Identify questions that can be answered throughscientific investigations. Design and conduct a scientific investigation. Use appropriate tools and techniques to gather,analyze and interpret data. Develop descriptions, explanations, predictions andmodels using evidence. Think critically and logically to make therelationships between evidence and explanations. Recognize and analyze alternative explanations andpredictions. Communicate scientific procedures andexplanations. Use mathematics in all aspects of scientificinquiry.Fundamental Understandings Different kinds of questions suggest differentinvestigations. Current scientific knowledge and understandingguide scientific investigations. Mathematics is important in all aspects of inquiry. Technology used to gather data enhances accuracyand allows scientists to analyze and quantify resultsof investigations. Scientific explanations emphasize evidence, havelogically consistent arguments, and use scientificprinciples, models, and theories. Science advances through legitimate skepticism. Investigations sometimes result in new ideas andphenomena for study, generate new methods orprocedures for an investigation, or develop newtechnologies to improve the collection of data.Source: NRC, 1996, pp. 145–148.Inquiry: The Five EssentialsFour years after the publication of the standards, NRC released a companion document titledInquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000). This document providedfurther explanation and guidance for educators to better understand new views of inquiry and itsrole in science education. Specifically, this document introduced and explained five essentials ofinquiry. These five essentials were intended to better convey that inquiry entails the integrationof knowledge and skills and that the varying science abilities and understandings outlined in thestandards could be conceived as a unified set of essentials.22The five essentials are distinctly different from Dewey’s five steps.Midwest Comprehensive Center and Wisconsin Department of Public InstructionEvolving Notions of Scientific Inquiry—4

These five essentials are as follows:1. Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions.2. Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluateexplanations that address scientifically oriented questions.3. Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions.4. Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternate explanations, particularly thosereflecting scientific understanding.5. Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations.This document provided an in-depth explanation of how new definitions of inquiry were distinctfrom prior uses of the term. For example, the authors explained:Students do not come to understand inquiry simply by learning words such as“hypothesis” and “inference” or by memorizing procedures such as “the steps of thescientific method.” They must experience inquiry directly to gain a deep understanding ofits characteristics. Yet experience in itself is not sufficient. Experience and understandingmust go together. Teachers need to introduce students to the fundamental elements ofinquiry. They must also assist students to reflect on the characteristics of the processes inwhich they are engaged. (NRC, 2000, p. 23)Inquiry-based teaching focuses on developing students’ abilities to ask and evaluate questions tobe investigated, consider the difference between facts and opinions, and formulate explanationsfrom evidence (NRC, 2000). An inquiry-based approach to teaching science was stronglyemphasized in the Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards report. The authors oftwo sources that explore notions of inquiry as reflected in the 1996 National Science Standardssuggest that the term “inquiry” encompasses inquiry-based teaching (Asay & Orgill, 2010;Barrow, 2006).Translation of New Notions of Inquiry to the FieldFollowing the release of the National Science Standards (NRC, 1996) and its companiondocument Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000), the term“scientific inquiry” was fraught with confusion for many educators. Multiple sources suggestthat the term “inquiry” was referred to by varying labels and was interpreted differently byeducators (Asay & Orgill, 2010; Barrow, 2006; Capps & Crawford, 2012; NRC, 1996, 2012;Settlage, 2003; Young, 2013). For example, in his analysis of how notions of inquiry havechanged during the 20th century, Barrows (2006) concluded:Over the past century, science educators have provided multiple interpretations of inquiry.Consequently, K–12 teachers of science, students, and parents are confused there is nouniform agreement among the science education community about what is the meaning ofinquiry as recommended by the NRC (1996). (Barrows, 2006, p. 274)Evidence has suggested that the meaning of the term “inquiry” as a set of steps and proceduresmay have persisted, despite explicit efforts by national organizations to clarify the meaning ofthe term “inquiry” and its role in science teaching (Asay & Orgill, 2010; Barrow, 2006;Midwest Comprehensive Center and Wisconsin Department of Public InstructionEvolving Notions of Scientific Inquiry—5

Capps & Crawford, 2012; NRC, 2000, 2012; Settlage, 2003; Young, 2013). For example, Assayand Orgill (2010) examined the extent to which the five essentials of scientific inquiry, asoutlined in the companion document Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards(NRC, 2000), were being practiced in actual classrooms. The authors analyzed nearly 300 featurearticles that appeared in The Science Teacher from 1998 to 2007 and discovered that the inquirypractice of gathering evidence appeared in 82% of the articles. However, other essentials ofinquiry, such as learners formulate explanations from evidence, connect explanations toscientific knowledge, and communicate and justify explanations, were present in fewer than 25%of the articles reviewed. The authors concluded from their review that most educators appearedto view “inquiry more as a process than as a vehicle for learning science content ” (Assay &Orgi

What Ever Happened to Scientific Inquiry? A Look at Evolving Notions of Inquiry Within the Science Education Community and National Standards August 2016 Wendy Surr, Emily Loney, Cora Goldston, and Jeremy Rasmussen, Midwest Comprehensive Center Kevin Anderson, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Special thanks to:

Related Documents:

work/products (Beading, Candles, Carving, Food Products, Soap, Weaving, etc.) ⃝I understand that if my work contains Indigenous visual representation that it is a reflection of the Indigenous culture of my native region. ⃝To the best of my knowledge, my work/products fall within Craft Council standards and expectations with respect to

Preface Safety and Special Notices ii Thermo Scientific BindIt Software for KingFisher Instruments User Manual Thermo Scientific Thermo Scientific KingFisher Presto User Manual (Cat. no. N17413) Thermo Scientific KingFisher 96 User Manual (Cat. no. 15018890) The Thermo Scientific BindIt Software user manual can be found in PDF format in the

2 scientific method 2.1 TYPES - SCIENTIFIC METHODS: The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2]

Recall the definition for scientific notation 1. Change these LARGE scientific notation numbers to standard notation and vice versa. Make up a number for the blank cells. Scientific Notation Standard Notation Scientific Notation Standard Notation a. 6.345 10 e. 5,320 b. 8.04 10 % f. 420,000 c. 4.26 10 & g. 9,040,000,000 d. h. 2. Now try .

scientific notation. Operations in Scientific Notation 1. Perform the calculations on the “number” parts in the front of the scientific notation numbers. 2. Use rules of exponents on the 10n parts of the numbers in scientific notation. 3. Make sure your answer is in scientific notation, if

scientific notation. Scientific notation (also known as standard form) is a way of writing very long numbers using the power of 10. Scientific Notation Scientific Notation When writing numbers in scientific notation, we are writing them so that there is a single non - zero digit in front of the decimal point. For numbers greater than 1, b 0.

Express 0.5 in scientific notation Express 0.72 in scientific notation Write 0.05 in scientific notation 1. Denote the decimal numbers in the first column in scientific notation and complete the table given below. 2. Write in scientific notation (i) 0.9 (ii) 0.08 (iii) 0.05 (iv) 0.032 (v) 0.00021 Decimal number in general form

The American Guild of Musical Artists (AGMA) Relief Fund provides support and temporary financial assistance to members who are in need. AGMA contracts with The Actors Fund to administer this program nationally as well as to provide comprehensive social services. Services include counseling and referrals for personal, family or work-related problems. Outreach is made to community resources for .