ERIC EJ874151: Why Inquiry Is Inherently Difficult...and Some Ways to Make It Easier

2010·0.28 MB·English

by  ERIC

Daniel Z. Meyer, Leanne M. Avery
Why Inquiry is Inherently Difficult…
and Some Ways to Make it Easier
The authors offer a framework that identifies two critical problems in
designing inquiry-based instruction and suggest models for developing
instruction that overcomes those problems.
“I shall not today attempt further While we do not aim to produce a science studies and by the experience
to define the kinds of material I straightforward, “cookbook” process of facilitating a variety of science
understand to be embraced within that for generating inquiry activities, we educators in developing inquiry-
shorthand description; and perhaps I do aim to push beyond “I know it based instruction. This paper can be
could never succeed in intelligibly when I see it”. We feel this can be seen as a formalization of the advice
doing so. But I know it when I see done by considering the design of we find ourselves regularly giving
it …” inquiry activities as a problem space. science educators. Our framework
—Potter Stewart By exploring what makes inquiry can be divided into two broad
Jacobellis v. Ohio inherently difficult, as well as three sections. First, we outline a problem
potential models that overcome space component—an articulation of
these challenges, we aim to build a the challenges in designing inquiry
Justice Stewart’s statement
framework that has heuristic power. activities. Second, we provide a
regarding pornography would seem
That is, it has the potential to suggest solution component—a series of
to be applicable to the current state of
further solutions to the particular activity types that have the potential to
inquiry in the science education field.
problem of designing inquiry activities. resolve the challenges of the problem
We have numerous rich descriptors of
We are aiming for a middle ground space.
inquiry in action (National Research
between the two current extremes:
Council, 2000; Minstrell & van
Our View of Inquiry
something that is more general than
Zee, 2000), as well as robust rubrics
good examples of inquiry activities, The National Science Education
designating levels of inquiry (Herron,
but more specific and oriented towards Standards describe inquiry as “the
1971; Wheeler, 2000; Beerer &
creating activities than outcome diverse ways in which scientists
Bodzin, 2003). In other words, we
descriptions of inquiry in action. study the natural world and propose
know it when we see it. But these
Our analysis is informed both explanations based on the evidence
fall short in providing teachers with
by conceptual frameworks from derived from their work” (NRC,
the tools for how to develop inquiry-
1996). Therefore, we draw heavily
based activities. Much of the research
on studies of scientific practice to
investigating this has focused on the
form our approach. Two concepts in
structural barriers (e.g. time, resources, By exploring what makes
particular have been useful and guide
teacher knowledge, etc.) (Anderson, inquiry inherently difficult,
our further discussion.
2002; Minstrell & van Zee, 2000). as well as three potential
The first concept is the notion that
This research suggests areas for
models that overcome these context matters. This is probably
policy makers and teacher educators
challenges, we aim to build a best encapsulated in Kuhn’s (1970)
to work on, but these descriptions fall
framework that has heuristic principle of a paradigm: scientists
short of actually providing guidance
operate in an existing framework that
power.
to teachers.
guides aspects of their work, such as
26 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
what counts as evidence. This effects of technology. Different actors will This is a very generic diagram of
how participants react to empirical have different conceptions of what the development of knowledge in
evidence. Scientists from different existing technologies are, the nature scientific communities. Phenomena
fields that have points of overlap will of current problems, and what should are observed, and this generates the
approach common topics in different be valued in potential future solutions need to describe, organize, and explain
manners. For example, when results (Pinch & Bijker, 1987). it. This results in the development of
from neutrino experiments differed With regard to both of these new theoretical knowledge. This new
from current theory, different types concepts, we argue that in inquiry framework suggests opportunities for
of involved researchers questioned in general, the role of argumentation new empirical observations. The new
different parts of the theoretical is central (Bricker & Bell, 2008). observations lead to new explanations,
framework (Pinch, 1981, 1985). But The development of scientific and and so on. This is a cycle, and as
the paradigm is more than just a gauge technological knowledge involves member of a community, one never
by which to judge new work. It provides making substantive arguments using needs to consider a beginning. In the
the impetuous and purposefulness that empirical and theoretical warrants. case of individuals, new participants
motivate researchers to take on new Indeed, we use this as a litmus test begin by piggybacking on the work
work in the first place. Individual of inquiry instruction. It must require in progress of others, wherever in the
pieces of scientific work (to the extent and enable students to make non- cycle that might be. (For example, new
one can even define an individual deterministic, empirically supported Ph.D. students begin by working on
piece) only have meaning in their arguments at some point in the the ongoing work of their mentors.)
specific context. experience. By non-deterministic, we Once on board, they are part of the
The second concept—interpretive mean to exclude cases (sometimes cycle, and are never working outside
flexibility—comes from sociological found on standardized tests) where of a historical context.
studies of the work of done to develop evidence points (and is often designed This works in the general science
scientific and technological knowl- to point) in a clear, predictable community. However, in the classroom
edge (Collins, 1981a, 1981b). This direction. science setting, particularly at the
refers the situation in which differing pre-college level, things become
Why is this hard?
conclusions can be made from the same problematic. Very few science
set of empirical data. These situations Creating the circumstances in classrooms are structured to allow junior
occur frequently at the cutting edge of which students can make these types students to benefit from interactions
scientific work. In Collins’ research of arguments often runs into two with more advanced students. Rather,
on early gravitational wave detection, problems, which we will term the students are grouped to all be at the
odd results could be attributed to a Getting on Board Problem and the same level.1 Furthermore, students
variety of sources, because there was, Variability Problem. enter into scientific investigations
by definition, no universally accepted The Getting on Board Problem can with little or no background. Hence,
interpretation (Collins, 1975, 1981a, be illustrated by considering the simple no matter what part of the cycle we
1985). In particular, data conflicting diagram in Figure 1.
with current theory could indicate
Figure 1: A simple cycle of scientific work
either counterevidence to that theory
or a flaw in experimental technique.
The formation of scientific knowledge
involves social interactions to reduce
this variability in interpretation to the Empirical data Theoretical knowledge
point that one conception wins out and
becomes accepted as fact. This concept
can also be applied to the development
1. We should note that typical heterogeneous classrooms do not do enough to remedy this problem. Mirroring science communities requires
the interaction of individuals that are not just at different abilities but have different experiences, roles, and objectives. Having students
with a variety of aptitudes but all of whom are engaging in a particular activity for the first time does not overcome the problem.
SPRING 2010 VOL. 19, NO. 1 27
choose to inject students into, it Figure 2: The balancing acts of inquiry design school students. They wouldn’t
is very difficult for it to have any know where to start. However, this
Assignment
meaning to them. challenge might be appropriate for an
Specified Open
The Variability Problem stems advanced undergraduate mechanical
Data
from the need for a real argument. engineering class. (There are other
Making an argument means making Simple Complex problems with this assignment that
statements about relationships. we will discuss a bit later.)
If students are only determining The second balancing act is on
has problems. The specific end is
isolated attributes—say, the solubility the data space that students will work
the traditional cookbook lab, with all
of a particular chemical—there is with. Again, it is the extremes that are
of its well-deserved criticism. There
no argument to have. Some sort of the problem, but also easy to fall into.
will be no variation in data (if done
relationship among variables2 is The simplistic end is the traditional
correctly). The goal is not to make
needed to create the tension that confirmation lab. The simple data
a data-supported argument but to
makes investigations meaningful. is one-dimensional and conforms to
follow directions accurately in order
Furthermore, as noted above, we need the expected pattern, which students
to achieve the predetermined outcome
the arguments to not be deterministic. dutifully report. Since the data is
(Amerine & Bilmes, 1990). There is
This means having a degree of straightforward, any arguments and
nothing to argue over. But the open
messiness to the data. There must be their outcomes are predetermined.
end of the spectrum also has problems.
something there to argue over!
There is a limit on how open a task
This requirement is also not easily
a given set of students can handle.
achieved in the pre-college science
The question is not merely whether
The role of the inquiry
classroom. First, the greater the tech-
or not the students can accomplish
designer is to create a
nical resources of a classroom, the
the task. It is conceivable that a task
greater the opportunity to have data challenge/task/question
that students might technically not
over which arguments can be had. that is understandable by
complete could still enable them to
This threshold can often be beyond learn a tremendous amount through the student as a challenge/
the capabilities of classrooms. Second, the effort. The problem arises when task/question but not as a
the content most pre-college class-
students are unable to determine how solution.
rooms focus on is often very well
to make any movement whatsoever
established. The arguments have
on a task. In other words, the task
simply already happened. Lastly, is so unintelligible to students that Any deviation is automatically
understanding that there is tension or they cannot even proceed in a wrong treated as a sign of poor experimental
ambiguity in data generally depends direction, and therefore, also have technique rather than possible support
on prior knowledge, leading us back nothing to argue over. for alternative conclusions. On the
to the Getting on Board Problem. The role of the inquiry designer is complex end, you have data that is
to create a challenge/task/question that beyond the abilities of the students to
Balancing Acts
is understandable by the student as a collect and/or evaluate. This might
Designers of inquiry-based
challenge/task/question but not as a be for conceptual reasons or for
instruction can re-conceptualize these
solution. Understanding an assignment technical reasons. The data that can be
two problems as two balancing acts as
as a solution means that there will collected with a particle collider offers
shown in Figure 2.
be no argumentation over what is plenty of opportunities for multiple
The first balancing act concerns the the proper solution. It is worth also interpretations—and therefore
challenge or task given to students. noting that the right balancing point arguments—but such equipment is
This can range from very specific depends tremendously on the students. beyond most secondary schools!
and rote to very open ended and ill- The challenge “build a car” is not So the task of the inquiry designer
defined. Each end of the spectrum an appropriate task for most middle is to find (or create) a data space that
2. This does not need, however, to be quantitative in nature.
28 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
is approachable by students but also quite similar to a traditional cookbook on information students assess,
has some work for students to do. In lab. However, it is clearly portrayed as including size of riparian belt, type
other words, the data must be usable being just a tool—as opposed to the of land use near stream, gradient,
in terms of making arguments but entirety of the lab experience. More pollution, and conservation activity.
not so usable that there is only one importantly, a protocol can be applied Students can use this protocol to make
obvious argument available. Again, to a wide variety of situations—not a preliminary assessment of a habitat
the right balance point depends on the just the situation in which it is and, if desirable, make comparisons
particular students. introduced and learned. (Hence, to data gleaned from ground truthing.
some cookbook labs can be adapted This tool enables students to obtain
Frameworks
to form protocols but others cannot.) data for one or multiple sites within
So what to do about these problems? Once the students learn the protocol watersheds or comparative studies
We do not believe there is an easy, in an initial circumstance, they can between watersheds and make
step-by-step way to produce inquiry then apply it to further research. This recommendations for remediation.
instruction. Creativity and context research can be more varied and more Learning a protocol is not just
will always be an essential element. student-directed. a question of now having a new
However, in facilitating pre-service The prototypical case of a protocol is technical skill. The student has also
and in-service teachers’ development the lettuce seed bioassay (Trautmann, been introduced to a way of looking
of inquiry activities, we have noticed 2001a, 2001b). Students are given at the natural world. The dataset they
a pattern in instructional plans that fairly clear directions for producing a produce in the initial learning round is
seem to overcome the barriers we have serial dilution of a salt solution, setting also significant. It can be an indicator
discussed. We propose three models up a bioassay using lettuce seeds, of what aspects of the phenomenon
that inquiry designers can use to and evaluating the results. Once they merits investigation next, just as with
produce more inquiry instruction. have had that experience, they can science at large. Hence, the student has
We must make two important now engage in further, more varied been brought on board the knowledge
caveats. First, we do not claim that research: other concentration ranges, development cycle.
these models are anything new. There other toxins, and even other biological A counter example can help
are numerous examples of these indicators. At the most sophisticated illuminate the nature of an effective
models already in existence. Rather, end of the spectrum, the bioassay can protocol. A common physics cookbook
we aim to put a label on them and, thus, become a moderate piece in a larger lab is to measure the period of a
identify how they are instances of a extensive research endeavor.3 pendulum with various lengths and
common phenomenon. By identifying Another example of a protocol is masses. Unlike some cookbook labs,
a common pattern, we hope to provide the Watershed Habitat Evaluation and this is not easily configured into a
guidance for generating new activities. Biotic Integrity Protocol (WHEBIP) protocol. It fails to overcome both
Second, we do not claim that this list (Carlsen and Trautmann, 2004). problems. The data produced is not
is exhaustive. There are certainly other This protocol was created to allow likely to have any ambiguity—and any
sound inquiry-based activities that do scientists to use models to predict that does occur will be attributed to
not fall neatly within these forms. aquatic biodiversity in watersheds. practitioner error. In addition, once the
Protocol Model In this protocol, stream integrity initial data is collected, then what? The
ratings are assigned using land use experience will not introduce students
The Protocol Model has its origins
criteria and can be accomplished to a new empirical realm.
in the Environmental Inquiry Project
using aerial photographs or remote
at Cornell University (ei.cornell. Design Challenge Model
sensing without requiring ground
edu). A protocol is a well-defined The Design Challenge Model
truthing (although in some instances,
procedure for collecting data. In terms has had more common use. Design
it is appropriate). Ratings are based
of definition and clarity of steps, it is Challenges are centered on an explicit
3. This is one way we have seen where (with a lot of work) the Getting-on-Board problem can be overcome. Seniors carrying out an
extensive research project “contract out” their bioassay needs to lower grade students, providing them the opportunity to learn the basic
procedures (Avery, 2003).
SPRING 2010 VOL. 19, NO. 1 29
production task. Often the task will students’ cognitive or technical ability etc.), evaluation measures (ph, DO,
motivate the practical need to acquire to achieve it, but in terms of it being etc.) and simulated runoff (particulate
certain knowledge bases. Sometimes a meaningful competition. Design matter, oil, etc) will be what determine
inquiry designers will use a jigsaw Challenges must include pressures that how the balancing acts have been
arrangement in which students are require student designers to make judg- achieved.
divided into specialty groups to learn ments and back up those judgments Just making something, however,
one of the applicable knowledge bases, with arguments. Hence, the “build a does not make an effective design
then rearranged into design teams car” challenge noted above would be challenge. Construction activities can
made up of representatives from each an ineffective design challenge even be the Design Challenge equivalent of
specialty group. for a group of students that could build a cookbook lab. Consider the common
Forming the explicit charge that a car. More pressure is needed. example of students in physics classes
is given to the students is the critical designing roller coaster rides. The
and creative focal point of designing details of the assignment are crucial
Design Challenges. Accomplishing in determining whether this is an
this goal can determine if the balancing effective Design Challenge. Often,
We do not believe there is
acts have been achieved. As mentioned students design the ride in a fairly
an easy, step-by-step way to
above, a way of framing the problem arbitrary way, and then post facto
produce inquiry instruction.
is to give students a challenge that is apply physics principles to determine
understood as a question but not as a elements like speed. The laws of
solution. A question for which students physics do provide limitations on the
already have a single, preconceived Design challenges often result in design (e.g. a hill can not be too high
solution will not generate the argument tangible products. One example of that a car will not have the energy
opportunity necessary for inquiry. At this is the stormwater treatment design to reach the top), but there are not
the other end of the spectrum, a task for challenge (Carlsen and Trautmann, competing constraints that provide
which students have no conception or 2004). This activity models how cities for points of debate. Once a student
ability to proceed is equally unfruitful. develop systems for collecting and stays within the bounds of physics,
However, it should also be noted that draining runoff from storms. Using any choice is an arbitrary preference,
there is another way in which Design simple materials such as plastic soda and hence, there is no opportunity for
Challenges can be too open-ended. bottles, tape, coffee filters, cat litter, argumentation.4 This illustrates how
Consider the challenge for middle sand, gravel, and plastic tubing, the details of an assignment can have
school students “design and build a students are given the task of creating a profound effect.
paper airplane.” This avoids both of a filtering system that can handle a Although producing a tangible
the problems noted so far. Students simulated storm event over a relative object is perhaps the most common
understand what a paper airplane is, period of time. They need to take into type of design challenge, we should not
they have the intellectual and material account the various types of substances limit our students or our own thinking
resources to meet this challenge, and (such as chemicals, dirt, oils, etc) found to this format. Consider the following
they are likely to propose multiple so- in runoff, the volume of the storm example (Meyer, 2003). Students are
lutions. But then what? The litmus test event, the time between events and the given a scenario in which a community
we described requires warrant-based extent to which the stormwater needs that is experiencing pollution in a local
arguments—essentially saying “this to be filtered. Like engineers in the waterway. The students are divided into
is better because of such and such”. real world, they are also constrained different constituency groups: farmers,
As stated, this design challenge does by materials, guidelines, budget, homeowners, industry, and municipal
not include any means to defend why time, and design. From a curriculum authorities. They are given a variety
one design is better than another. The design point of view, the specifics of of information resources—some
challenge is too open—not in term of the design constraints (size, materials, common and some specific. They then
4. We should note that we are not arguing that such an activity is not worthwhile, but simple that it does not work as an effective design
challenge.
30 SCIENCE EDUCATOR
have a variety of meetings—some Testing Model operates in two problem References
in homogenous groups and some in spaces: physically performing the
Amerine, R., & Bilmes, J. (1990).
heterogeneous groups. The task and relevant tests and determining criteria
Following instructions. In M. Lynch
final outcome of those meetings is for success and failure. In a way, it is
& S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation
to develop a restoration plan. This the combination of the Protocol and in scientific practice (pp. 323-336).
example creates opportunities for Design Challenge Models. A task gen- Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
debate without being too open-ended, erates the needs for various knowledge Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming
but it results in a plan of action rather domains and the development of data Science Teaching: What Research
than a physical product. collection routines. says about Inquiry. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
Product Testing Model Conclusion Avery, L. M. (2003). Knowledge, Identity,
In general, the Protocol Model and We have put forward a framework and Teachers’ Communities of Practice.
Design Challenge Model can be seen that identifies two critical problems Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Cornell University, Ithaca.
as corresponding to scientific work in designing inquiry-based instruction
Beerer, K. and Bodzin, A. (2003).
and engineering work respectively. and suggests three models for
Promoting inquiry-based science
We have used these frameworks with developing instruction that overcomes
instruction: The validation of the
pre-service and in-service science those problems. The Protocol Model Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric
teachers and feel they genuinely overcomes the Getting on Board (STIR). Journal of Elementary Science
represent general frameworks that can Problem by providing students an Education, 15(2), 39-49.
be utilized to inspire and guide further initial experience through clearly Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008).
design of inquiry instruction. We end delineated steps with a data collection Conceptualizations of Argumentation
by proposing a third framework. It technique that can be applied to a wide From Science Studies and the Learning
will take further work to flesh out its variety of further settings. It not only Sciences and Their Implications for
the Practices of Science. Science
details and legitimacy. gives students a new tool, but also
Education, 92, 473-498.
The Product Testing Model is in- suggests questions to which it can be
Carlson, W.S., & Trautmann, N.M. (2004),
spired in part by the Discovery Channel applied. It overcomes the Variability Watershed Dynamics, Arlington, VA:
show Mythbusters (Rees, 2003). A Problem by being applicable to a wide NSTA Press.
common thread through much of the variety of settings and utilizing messy Collins, H. M. (1975). The seven sexes: A
work on the show, and product testing data. The Design Challenge Model study in the sociology of a phenomenon,
in general, is the challenge to reproduce overcomes the Getting on Board or the replication of experiments in
natural phenomena under lab condi- Problem by presenting a practical physics. Sociology, 9, 205-224.
tions—i.e. in an intentional, control- need to acquire certain knowledge Collins, H. M. (1981a). Son of seven sexes:
lable, measurable, and reproducible bases. It asks students to understand The social destruction of a physical
phenomenon. Social Studies of Science,
manner. In this sense, it is much like a it as a question before understanding a
11, 33-62.
sub-set of design challenges. But there solution. It overcomes the Variability
Collins, H. M. (1981b). Stages in the
is also a second point of contention: Problem by imposing a variety of
empirical programme of relativism.
once results are obtained, how should pressures that allow students to Social Studies of Science, 11, 3-10.
they be evaluated? Consider the task of balance competing needs in a variety Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order:
determining the best paper towel. What of ways. Lastly, the Product Testing Replication and induction in scientific
makes the best paper towel? How can Model overcomes the Getting on practice. Chicago: The University of
a desired characteristic like durability Board Problem by centering on Chicago Press.
be measured (in order to make clear everyday phenomena. It overcomes Herron, M.D. (1971). The nature of
that brand A is more durable than brand the Variability Problem both through scientific inquiry. School Review, 79,
171-212.
B)? And once that is done, how should the challenge of producing the
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure
durability be related to other charac- phenomena in the lab setting and
of scientific revolutions. Chicago:
teristics, like price? Hence the Product through competing values.
University of Chicago.
SPRING 2010 VOL. 19, NO. 1 31
Meyer, D. Z. (2003). Social Engagement Pinch, T. (1985). Towards an analysis of Wheeler, G. F. (2000). The three faces
in Curriculum Design. Unpublished scientific observation: The externality of inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H.
Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell and evidential significance of van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into Inquiry
University, Ithaca, NY.Minstrell, J., observational reports in physics. Social Learning and Teaching in Science (pp.
& van Zee, E. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring Studies of Science, 15, 3-36. 14-19). Washington, DC: American
into inquiry learning and teaching in Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1987). The social Association for the Advancement of
science. Washington, D.C.: American construction of facts and artefacts: Science.
Association for the Advancement of Or how the sociology of science and
Science. the sociology of technology might Daniel Meyers is an assistant professor,
National Research Council. (1996). benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. Department of Mathematics and Science
National science education standards. P. Hughes & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The Education, Illinois Institute of Technology,
Chicago, IL 60616. Correspondence concerning
Washington: National Academy social construction of technological
this article may be sent to <meyerd@iit.
Press. systems (pp. 17-50). Cambridge, Mass:
edu>.
National Research Council. (2000). MIT Press.
Inquiry and the National Science Rees, P. (Writer) (2003). Mythbusters:
Leanne M. Avery is associate professor of
Education Standards. Washington, DC: Discovery Channel.
science education, Department of Elementary
National Academy Press. Trautmann, N. M. (2001a). Assessing
Education and Reading, State University of
Pinch, T. (1981). The Sun-set: The Toxic Risk: Student Edition. Arlington, New York College at Oneonta.
presentation of certainty in scientific VA: NSTA Press.
life. Social Studies of Science, 11, Trautmann, N. M. (2001b). Assessing
131-158. Toxic Risk: Teacher’s Guide. Arlington,
VA: NSTA Press.
32 SCIENCE EDUCATOR