The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 114

OCR for page 114
6 Making the Case for Inquiry Educators need evidence drawn from For example, there are times when research to help them implement and explicit or direct instruction is a more justify inquiry-based approaches to appropriate choice and will comple- teaching and learning science. Many ment inquiry-based teaching, espe- science teachers, for example, question cially when students have already had why they should reorient their teaching a great deal of direct experience with a toward inquiry-based methods. School particular phenomenon. boards may want to know why they This chapter closely examines the should support inquiry-based curricula research base for inquiry-based and professional development. teaching. It begins by looking at the Preservice teachers may question the research on learning and the kinds of need for an inquiry approach in their learning environments that promote courses. Parents may want to know learning. This research is of particu- why their sons and daughters need to lar interest because of the strong learn so differently from the way they parallels between how research says did. Indeed, everyone should want to students learn important science know the basis for choices about concepts and the processes of scien- teaching and learning. tific inquiry that are used in inquiry- Chapter 2 defined inquiry-based based teaching. The chapter then teaching as experiences that help addresses research that is specifically students acquire concepts of science, focused on inquiry-based science skills and abilities of scientific inquiry, teaching. Throughout, connections and understandings about scientific are made with the images and ideas inquiry. That chapter also pointed out, discussed in previous chapters. as does the National Science Educa- Finally, the chapter describes the tion Standards, that effective science limitations of educational research in teachers use many teaching strategies. general. 115 MAKING THE CASE FOR INQUIRY

OCR for page 114
Taken together, the research findings that allow for retrieval and application presented in this chapter build a power- (Donovan et al., 1999). They also have ful argument for inquiry-based teaching inquiry procedures available that help and learning of science. them solve new problems efficiently and effectively. Their extensive and well-organized bodies of knowledge HOW STUDENTS LEARN SCIENCE affect what they notice and how they A recent report of the National organize, represent, and interpret the Research Council entitled How People information in their environments. In Learn (Bransford et al., 1999) demon- turn, this interaction with their envi- strates a broad consensus about how ronments affects their abilities to learning occurs. The report synthe- remember, reason, and solve prob- sized research from a variety of fields, including cognition, child develop- ment, and brain functioning. It also drew from research across content areas, with important contributions from the research on science learning. Several general findings from the study are presented below, with illustrations drawn from research on science learning. These findings are in turn connected to the definition of inquiry introduced in Chapter 2 and used throughout this volume. Research Finding 1: Understand- ing science is more than knowing facts. The emphasis of recent re- search has been on learning for understanding, which means gaining knowledge that can be used and applied to novel situations. Research lems. For their knowledge to be on people who have expertise in a usable in these ways, it must be field demonstrates that they (a) have a connected and organized through deep foundation of factual knowledge, important concepts. Experts must (b) understand facts and ideas in the know the contexts in which knowl- context of a conceptual framework, edge is applicable and must be able to and (c) organize knowledge in ways transfer that knowledge from one 116 I N Q U I R Y A N D T H E N AT I O N A L S C I E N C E E D U C AT I O N S TA N D A R D S

OCR for page 114
context to another. What this means Research Finding 2: Students for science teaching is that for stu- build new knowledge and under- dents to be able to use what they standing on what they already learn, they must understand the major know and believe. Students have concepts, build a strong base of conceptions about natural phenom- supporting factual information, and ena, and those conceptions influence know how to apply their knowledge their learning. When consistent with effectively (Bransford et al., 1999). ideas accepted by the scientific Knowing science, however, is not community, this “prior” or “informal” only knowing scientific concepts and knowledge forms a strong base on information. The research on which to build deeper understand- learning indicates that students need ings. Many learners’ preconcep- to develop abilities to inquire similar tions, however, are inconsistent with to those in the Standards (and accepted, extant science knowledge. discussed in Chapter 2). All stu- These preconceptions are generally dents need to learn strategies for ideas that are reasonable and appro- scientific thinking (Linn et al., 1989). priate in a limited context, but They should be able to describe a students inappropriately apply them problem in detail before attempting a to situations where they do not work solution, determine what relevant (Anderson and Smith, 1987; Driver information should enter the analy- et al., 1985; 1994). Students often sis of a problem, and decide which hold tenaciously to these ideas, and procedures can be used to generate their preconceptions can be resistant descriptions and analyses of the to change, particularly using conven- problem (Glaser, 1992). Through tional teaching strategies scientific inquir y, students can gain (Wandersee et al., 1994). For ex- new data to change their ideas or ample, many students continue to deepen their understanding of believe that the earth is hotter in the important scientific principles. They summer because it is closer to the also develop important abilities such sun, even after being “taught” the as reasoning, careful obser ving, and correct reason. In Chapter 3, Mr. logical analysis (Minstrell, 1989; Gilbert uncovered and worked with Roseber y et al., 1992). Thus the his students’ preconceived ideas research on expertise confirms the about the moon’s phases as did Mr. importance of helping students Hull with his students’ conceptions understand major scientific concepts of forces on stationar y objects. In and related factual information, and Chapter 5, Lezlie comments about develop a variety of inquir y abilities. recognizing her own “misconcep- 117 MAKING THE CASE FOR INQUIRY

OCR for page 114
tions” about physics, which made relates to students’ views of science her pay more attention to those of and scientific explanations. Students her students. The research on often think of science as a collection of students’ conceptions of science facts to be memorized and explana- principles is substantial, addressing tions as reports of isolated events. a wide range of scientific areas When this is true, there is less (Driver et al., 1985; 1994; Minstrell, likelihood that students will actively 1989; 1992; Novak, 1987). Research Finding 3: Students formulate new knowledge by modifying and refining their cur- rent concepts and by adding new concepts to what they already know (Driver et al., 1985; 1994). The research on conceptual change indicates that students change their ideas when they find these ideas to be unsatisfactory, that is, when their present ideas do not sufficiently describe or explain an event or obser- vation. Further, they change their ideas when they discover alternatives that seem plausible and appear to be more useful (Hewson and Thorley, 1989). This is what happened with students in Ms. Flores’s elementary seek evidence for different explana- classroom as they considered why the tions, think about why one set of trees grow differently, illustrated in evidence is stronger than another, and Chapter 3, and Lillian’s college stu- make good decisions about which dents, whose understanding of electri- explanation has the most support. cal circuits grew substantially as they Their ideas about natural phenomena were challenged with more complex are unlikely to change on the basis of phenomena, described in Chapter 5. sound scientific reasoning (Songer Other research suggests that whether and Linn, 1991). and how learners change their ideas depends on what they view as evi- Research Finding 4: Learning is dence for or against a competing idea mediated by the social environ- (Duschl and Gitomer, 1991). This ment in which learners interact 118 I N Q U I R Y A N D T H E N AT I O N A L S C I E N C E E D U C AT I O N S TA N D A R D S

OCR for page 114
with others. Saying that learners can Psychological Association, 1993). construct their own knowledge does Students in all four Chapter 3 vi- not imply that they do so alone. gnettes worked hard to devise clear Research indicates that learners arguments for their conclusions; Mr. benefit from opportunities to articu- Gilbert’s students went further by late their ideas to others, challenge reflecting on how good the models each others’ ideas, and, in doing so, were that they used to explain moon reconstruct their ideas (Roseber y et phases and how they needed to al., 1992). Students in ever y vignette account for the models’ deficiencies. in Chapter 3 had all these opportuni- In Chapter 5, Sandy and her teacher ties as they developed explanations colleagues shared student work and for basic obser vations like dying videos of their teaching to reflect on trees, moon phases, and murkiness how what they were doing did or did of lake water. Teachers in Chapter 5 not help their students learn. Re- similarly experienced and then search underscores the value of recognized the benefits of collabora- student self-assessment in developing tion to their learning of both science their understanding of science con- and pedagogy. cepts, as well as their abilities to reason and think critically (Black and Wiliam, 1998b; Duschl and Gitomer, Research Finding 5: Effective 1997). As Black and Wiliam (1998b) learning requires that students note, it is only when students are take control of their own learning. Students need to learn to recognize trained in and given opportunities for when they understand and when they self-assessment that “they can under- need more information. They need to stand the main purposes of their be able and know when to ask: What learning and thereby grasp what they kinds of evidence do I need in order to need to do to achieve.” (p. 143) believe particular claims? How can I build my own theories of phenomena Research Finding 6: The ability to and test them effectively (White and apply knowledge to novel situa- Frederiksen, in press)? Good learners tions, that is, transfer of learning, articulate their own ideas, compare is affected by the degree to which and contrast them with those of students learn with understand- others, and provide reasons why they ing. In order to use what they learn, accept one point of view rather than learners must achieve an initial another. They are “metacognitive,” threshold of knowledge, practice that is, they are aware and capable of using the knowledge in a variety of monitoring and regulating their contexts, and then get feedback on thoughts and their knowledge (Ameri- how well they did. To be able to use 119 MAKING THE CASE FOR INQUIRY

OCR for page 114
their learning in the future, people understanding of the major ideas in need time during their learning to their field and inquiry abilities that grapple with specific information, help them solve new problems effi- explore underlying concepts, and ciently and effectively (Finding 1). make connections to what they The research suggests that to develop already know. They need tasks that expertise requires achieving both are challenging but not frustrating and kinds of outcomes specified in the social opportunities to see the useful- Standards: learning subject matter as ness of what they are learning and to well as the thinking strategies needed see its impact on others. Finally, they to use and inquire more deeply into are more apt to apply what they know those concepts. to novel situations if they have learned Inquiry focuses on a scientifically- to extract the underlying themes and oriented question, problem, or phe- principles from their learning experi- nomenon, beginning with what the ences (Bransford et al., 1999; Bruer, learner knows and actively engaging 1993; Byrnes, 1996). Students in Ms. him or her in the search for answers Idoni’s class, for example, were called and explanations (Findings 2, 3). This on to apply their learning to a hypo- search involves gathering and analyz- thetical situation of a fish kill, which ing information; making inferences was quite different from what they had and predictions; and actively creating, observed in the lake. They needed to modifying, and discarding some apply their understanding of the explanations (Finding 3). As students nature and consequences of pollution work together to discuss the evidence, to this new challenge. Several teach- compare results, and, with teacher ers in Chapter 5, for example, Steve in guidance, connect their results with his physics teaching and Lezlie with scientific knowledge, their under- her kindergarten classes, took the standing broadens (Findings 3, 4). As ideas they learned through profes- they develop their abilities to question, sional development directly into their reason, and think critically about classrooms. scientific phenomena, they take increasing control of their own learn- These findings from research into ing (Finding 5). They can use their learning connect in important ways broadened science knowledge and with the definition of inquiry pre- inquiry abilities to address other sented earlier. The Standards stress questions and problems and to de- understanding major science concepts velop or test explanations for other and building abilities to “do” science. phenomena of interest (Finding 6). In These are the capacities recognized in this way, effective learning involves experts, who have a well-structured the reorganization of the deep struc- 120 I N Q U I R Y A N D T H E N AT I O N A L S C I E N C E E D U C AT I O N S TA N D A R D S

OCR for page 114
ture of one’s thought processes. The at the science museum were carefully learner comes to own a new idea or supported to begin with what they new way of thinking. Without this, knew and pursue questions of interest school learning becomes a transitory in order to deepen and broaden their experience with little application to understandings. future thought and action. Research on students who are learning English as a second language points clearly to the need for teachers’ EFFECTIVE LEARNING attention to what these students bring ENVIRONMENTS AND to the science classroom (Fradd and EXPERIENCES Lee, 1999; Rosebery et al., 1992). Research on student learning leads to a question of great practical impor- tance: What kinds of learning experi- ences and learning environments promote science learning? The research synthesized in How People Learn (Bransford et al., 1999) sug- gests that effective teachers employ strategies that attend to four elements: learners, knowledge, assessment, and community. Learner-centered environments pay careful attention to the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs that learners bring to the educational Students from diverse language setting. Accomplished teachers backgrounds vary greatly in their respect and understand their students’ abilities to express, communicate, prior experiences and understandings discuss, and demonstrate their under- and use these as a foundation on standings of science and of scientific which to build new understandings concepts by virtue of their developing (Duckworth, 1987; American Psycho- language abilities (CCSSO, 1999). logical Association, 1993). For ex- Further, like all students, they vary in ample, in Chapter 3, Ms. Flores and what they understand of science; this Mr. Gilbert both elicited students’ is complicated by the fact that their knowledge before launching into their home cultures may not have exposed new topics and used what they learned them to science as generally taught in to focus student inquiries. In Chapter schools. As Fradd and Lee (1999) 5, Joanna and her teacher colleagues note, “the norms and values of science 121 MAKING THE CASE FOR INQUIRY

OCR for page 114
are more familiar to students from the opportunities to learn science through mainstream middle-class than to firsthand observations gained from students from diverse languages and “doing” science. cultures (p. 15).” Therefore, learner- Assessment-centered environ- centered environments in which ments help students learn to monitor teachers build new learning on the and regulate their own learning. They knowledge, skills, attitudes, and learn to question why they believe beliefs that students bring to the what they believe and whether there is classroom, are critical to science sufficient evidence for their beliefs learning of English language learners. (White and Frederiksen, in press). These environments provide students Knowledge-centered environ- ments help students develop well- with opportunities for feedback and organized bodies of knowledge and revision. Assessment-centered organize that knowledge so that it environments also help teachers shape supports planning and strategic classroom activities, diagnose stu- thinking. In these kinds of environ- dents’ ideas and products, and guide ments, students “learn their way teachers’ decisions (Duschl and around” a discipline. Like experts, Gitomer, 1997; Gitomer and Duschl, they are able to make connections 1995). As Black and Wiliam (1998b) among ideas. In these kinds of note from their extensive review of the learning environments, teachers help research on classroom assessment, students think about the general “there is a body of firm evidence that principles or “big” ideas in a subject. formative assessment is an essential When they learn new knowledge, component of classroom work, and students also learn where it applies that its development can raise stan- and how. They have opportunities to dards of achievement.” (p. 148) practice using it in novel situations. Assessment plays a major role in the Their learning environments promote classrooms depicted in Chapter 3, as the sort of problem-solving behavior elaborated in Chapter 4. observed in experts (Bransford et al., Community-centered environ- 1999). All of the Chapter 3 vignettes ments require students to articulate showed students attacking problems their ideas, challenge those of others, using their firsthand observations and and negotiate deeper meaning along science knowledge from other sources with other learners. Such environ- to build new general ideas. In Chapter ments encourage people to learn from 5, Gabe’s and Steve’s field experi- one another. They value the search ences, Joanna’s experience in the for understanding and acknowledge science museum, and Lezlie’s experi- that mistakes are a necessary ingredi- ence in the physics laboratory created ent if learning is to occur. Studies of 122 I N Q U I R Y A N D T H E N AT I O N A L S C I E N C E E D U C AT I O N S TA N D A R D S

OCR for page 114
effective environments for learning in physics such as force and motion, science “emphasize the importance of rather than as a dispenser of facts. class discussions for developing a In their studies of young Haitian language for talking about scientific students’ development of scientific ideas, for making students’ thinking ideas, Rosebery et al. (1992) describe explicit to the teacher and the rest of classrooms in which students explore the class, and for learning to develop a their own questions, design studies, line of argumentation that uses what collect information, analyze data and one has learned to solve problems and explain phenomena and observations.” (Bransford et al., 1999, p. 171) Fur- ther, such environments are open to new ideas and ways of thinking, as the community members are both encour- aged and expected to provide each other with feedback and work to incorporate new ideas into their thinking. The development of commu- nity and use of community as both stimulus and context for learning is well illustrated in the Chapter 3 vignettes and in the teachers’ stories construct evidence, consult experts of their own collaborative learning in and literature to help them interpret Chapter 5. their test results, and debate the A number of studies have examined conclusions they derive. The learning environments that incorpo- teacher’s role is to guide and support rate all four of these elements. In them as they explore problems, define their studies of high school physics questions, and build and argue about teaching and learning, Minstrell theories. The learning environment (1982, 1989, 1992) assessed the these researchers describe incorpo- following research-based instructional rates all the features discussed above. techniques: making students’ think- Many research studies of environ- ing visible; bridging from students’ ments in which students learn for preconceptions to scientifically-based understanding use standardized conceptions; and facilitating students’ measures of student achievement, ability to restructure their own knowl- although these measures do not edge. The approach depicts the emphasize the kinds of deep under- teacher’s role as coach in developing standing on which the research is student understanding of major ideas focused. According to the National 123 MAKING THE CASE FOR INQUIRY

OCR for page 114
Research Council (Bransford et al., learning involves the study of specific 1999), “in some cases there is evi- science programs. In the 1960s and dence that teaching for understanding 1970s, a number of curriculum can increase scores on standardized projects, including the Biological measures (e.g., Resnick et al., 1991); Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) in other cases, scores on standardized programs in biology, the Physical tests are unaffected, but the students Sciences Study Committee (PSSC) show sizable advantages on assess- materials in physics, and the Science ments that are sensitive to their Curriculum Improvement Study comprehension and understanding (SCIS) and Elementary Science Study rather than reflecting sheer memoriza- (ESS) units for elementary school tion (e.g., Carpenter et al., 1996; science, incorporated approaches to Secules et al., 1997)” (p. 177). teaching and learning that today Research on effective learning and would fall, at least in part, under the learning environments has interesting heading of inquiry. The term “in- parallels to the process of scientific quiry” was used explicitly in studies of inquiry itself (Duschl, 1992). Both various NSF-funded curriculum learner and scientist actively construct projects (Shymansky et al., 1983). knowledge through confrontation with These studies examined teaching a new question, problem, or phenom- techniques such as “inquiry-discov- enon, gathering information, and ery” (Wise and Okey, 1983), project- creating explanations. Throughout based science instruction the process of inquiry, both constantly (Blumenfeld, 1994; Krajcik et al., 1994; evaluate and reevaluate the nature and Ladewski et al., 1994; Marx et al., strength of evidence and share and 1994), and newer technology-en- then critique their explanations and hanced curriculum (White and those of others. A classroom in which Frederiksen, in press). Although this students use scientific inquiry to learn research suffers from the lack of a is one that resembles those that shared, precise definition of inquiry, it research has found the most effective is possible to look for patterns that for learning for understanding. This show up across studies. consequence strengthens the argu- In the 1980s, several meta-analyses ment for inquiry-based teaching. were done of the original research projects, in which the individual projects are re-analyzed as a whole to RESEARCH ON INQUIRY-BASED yield broader results than any one SCIENCE TEACHING study alone can produce. In general, The final line of research support- these meta-analyses show that inquiry- ing the use of inquiry in teaching and based teaching produces positive, 124 I N Q U I R Y A N D T H E N AT I O N A L S C I E N C E E D U C AT I O N S TA N D A R D S

OCR for page 114
although in some cases modest, (White and Frederiksen, in press), results across a variety of indicators. and positive attitudes toward science For example, studies of inquiry- (Shymansky et al., 1983). In studies of oriented curriculum programs underrepresented and underserved (Shymansky et al., 1983; Shymansky populations, inquiry-oriented strate- et al., 1990; Mechling and Oliver, gies enhanced scientific ways of 1983) demonstrated significant posi- thinking, talking, and writing for tive effects on various quantitative language learners and helped them to measures, including cognitive achieve- acquire English and reasoning skills ment, process skills, and attitudes (Rosebery et al., 1992). toward science. (However, there was David Haury (1993) has provided a essentially no correlation between brief, but thorough, summary of the positive results and expert ratings of above research. His review concludes the degree of inquiry in the materials.) that inquiry-oriented teaching can Wise and Okey (1983) showed a result in outcomes that include scien- positive effect for what they called tific literacy, familiarity with science inquiry-discovery teaching for cogni- processes, vocabulary knowledge, tive outcomes. Although Lott (1983) found only small differences between inductive and deductive approaches, the differences were in favor of the inductive approach, which incorpo- rates elements of inquiry teaching and learning. Other meta-analyses con- ducted independently at approxi- mately the same time, such as those by Weinstein et al. (1982) and Bredderman (1982), produced similar positive results. Studies in particular subject areas, such as biology (Hurd, 1998), also generally favored inquiry- based approaches. Other studies have demonstrated a range of other specific outcomes from inquiry-based teaching, including vocabulary knowledge and conceptual understanding (Lloyd, 1988), critical thinking (Narode, 1987), inquiry abilities and physics understanding 125 MAKING THE CASE FOR INQUIRY

OCR for page 114
conceptual understanding, critical diverse language backgrounds, thinking, and positive attitudes toward although in its infancy, has pointed to science. Another review from Flick the need to consider carefully how (1995) addresses research on explicit best to design and structure inquiries instruction as well as inquiry-oriented for these students (Fradd and Lee, instruction. He notes that explicit 1999). Research by Delpit (1995) teaching can produce major gains in suggests the importance of students student achievement on selected kinds receiving explicit instruction in the of instructional objectives, but goes on skills they need to engage in science to point out that “The high levels of inquiry and learn from inquiry experi- teacher supervision implied by explicit ences. Other research by Rosebery et teaching models may not foster the al. (1992), as noted earlier, indicates kinds of thinking required for instruc- that students learning English can tion with complex and more ill-struc- successfully engage in science inquiry tured tasks” (p. 17). and learn science concepts as well as In the final analysis, review of the the language in culture of science. research on the effectiveness of In their research on students with inquiry-based teaching and learning learning disabilities, Scruggs et al. leads to a discussion of one’s objec- (1993) found significantly higher tives for science education. If one learning with an inquiry-oriented accepts the full sweep of content in the approach. Studies continue in other countries as well. A study in univer- National Science Education Standards, including conceptual understanding of sity-level biochemistry in Turkey science principles, comprehension of (Basaga et al., 1994) found higher the nature of scientific inquiry, devel- achievement for students using an opment of the abilities for inquiry, and inquiry-oriented approach than those a grasp of applications of science in a traditional approach. Another knowledge to societal and personal university-level study in Ireland issues, this body of research clearly (Heywood and Heywood, 1992) found suggests that teaching through similar results on pupil tests for inquiry is effective. students in discovery and expository Research on inquiry is continuing. approaches, but greater student Some studies are directed at special motivation with discovery approaches. student populations. For example, A pattern of general support for research on teachers’ roles in promot- inquiry-based teaching continues to ing science inquiry with students from emerge from the research. 126 I N Q U I R Y A N D T H E N AT I O N A L S C I E N C E E D U C AT I O N S TA N D A R D S

OCR for page 114
THE LIMITATIONS AND projects may not be most appropriate CONTRIBUTIONS OF if the goal is for students to memorize EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH information. REGARDING DECISIONS ABOUT Second, research alone cannot POLICY establish what is best. Education is a very complicated enterprise, and most In addition to examining the re- outcomes are influenced by more search base for inquiry, it is important factors than can be identified, let alone to understand what research can and controlled. cannot provide. As Hiebert (1999) Third, research cannot prescribe a points out in his discussions of the curriculum or pedagogical approach research support for the national for all students and for all times. Such mathematics standards, the question decisions must always be made within about the strength of that research is a given context, and the level of fair, even though it does not have a confidence with which they are made simple answer. Simple answers, in changes with new information and fact, do not provide the credibility new conditions. necessary to support a substantially This said, there are several things different approach to teaching and that research can do (Hiebert, 1999). learning. It can be used to make decisions that Research has several limitations. are based on probabilities that a First, research cannot determine goals certain outcome will ensue. Thus, or standards, which are primarily a research can inform decisions but not reflection of values (Hiebert, 1999). guarantee that they are right for all The standards being written by some circumstances. By reviewing many states and districts are largely lists of studies done under a variety of condi- factual information to be memorized. tions and looking for patterns in the These reflect a different set of values results, decision-makers can increase than those behind the National the possibility of success. Indeed, Science Education Standards, which looking at a variety of studies can focus on major concepts in science sensitize decision-makers to the and on learning for understanding. complexities involved in a decision The methods of teaching most appro- and to the crucial issues involved. priate for these different kinds of Research also can help prevent standards vary as well. Inquiry-based mistakes. It can show that some teaching that encourages questioning, goals, however lofty, are unattainable. developing alternative explanations, And it can probe below the surface to challenging each others’ ideas, and indicate why certain results occur: conducting open-ended, long-term why certain programs do not work as 127 MAKING THE CASE FOR INQUIRY

OCR for page 114
THE CASE FOR STANDARDS- expected or certain goals are not BASED INQUIRY achieved. Of particular interest when student learning is being assessed is The research on inquiry-based the nature of the opportunities stu- teaching and learning comes from a dents had to learn and achieve the number of sources. The research outcomes. base on learning and on effective Research can also show what is learning environments makes a strong possible and what looks promising. It case for inquiry-based approaches. can illuminate what students are Research on programs and materials capable of, what improvements are that incorporate inquiry also shows feasible, and what parts of reform positive influences on many critical visions are reasonable. In this re- dimensions of student learning. spect, research can suggest what is Although the research demands a not known and could benefit from clearer definition of terms and falls some additional examination. For short of illuminating all the complexi- example, given the importance of ties of teaching for understanding, formative assessment established in the evidence from several streams Chapter 4, research has begun to of research is both positive and focus on listening and feedback in promising. science classrooms. Effective science teachers take a number of approaches to teaching. However, as this chapter has argued, their use of inquiry can have a power- ful influence on their students’ science learning. 128 I N Q U I R Y A N D T H E N AT I O N A L S C I E N C E E D U C AT I O N S TA N D A R D S

OCR for page 114
129 MAKING THE CASE FOR INQUIRY