|
All material is my personal opinion, and not that of any other organization. Copyright 2001. Permission is granted for individual teacher use. All rights reserved. |
At the end of November, 1997, one of my colleagues offered a definition of inquiry that stated the source of investigation questions to be irrelevant. Questions could come from the teacher, the student, the text, classical scientific problems, wherever. The central goal of inquiry is the accumulation of data, leading to formulation of a model or explanation that answers the question. This definition is incomplete, in my opinion, because it would call inquiry activities in which students are directed to accumulate data, and then explain their data. To me, this is not full inquiry, if the student has no agency in determining the question or designing the investigation. And I fear it does not lead to students being capable of asking investigable questions, or crafting investigations, which is what I am striving for. I found a few descriptions of Inquiry I felt were stronger, and sent them to my various correspondents on these issues, along with the question, what is the role of student questions in classroom inquiry? Here are the two descriptions of inquiry from the Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry site I sent out. Responses follow. Hubert Dyasi, Director, Workshop Center, City College School of Education, New York NY Curiosity is the centerpiece of inquiry -- the desire to know (in Greek, scio. -- etymological root for the word science); and curiosity is indicated by a question or questions (voiced or acted out), e.g. "Would Napoleon have won at Waterloo if he had been well on 18 June 1815?" To inquire is to seek, obtain and make meaning from answers to one's questions. In science inquiry, questions generally relate to natural and man-made phenomena. I identify the following components of science inquiry:
Rob Semper, Associate Executive Director, Exploratorium, San Francisco CA Inquiry as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is "The action of seeking, especially for truth, knowledge or information concerning something; search, research, investigation, examination; the action of asking or questioning; interrogation" For me as a scientist, inquiry is defined by a series of features: Scientific inquiry is personally driven Scientific inquiry is concerned with content as well as process Scientific inquiry is as much about asking good questions as getting good answers Scientific inquiry occurs within an existing framework of previous knowledge Scientific inquiry is concerned with gathering evidence Scientific inquiry is developed in scientists through an individual and group mentoring process over a considerable length of time Scientific inquiry involves the skills of directed observation, problem solving, analysis, and experimentation At its heart, the scientific enterprise is driven by inquiry at both the individual and group level. For the individual scientist, the quest for understanding is fostered by an insatiable curiosity about how things work and why things are the way that they are. For the discipline as a whole, progress is measured by the successful progression of responses to questions about the fundamental working of nature. A scientist by definition is naturally an inquirer, and while much of the professional development that a scientist undergoes is seemingly about "learning the lay of the land", the truth of the matter is that a key feature of science schooling is apprenticing oneself to a master inquirer to learn how to ask "good" questions, i.e. ones that lead to fruitful answers. The practice of inquiry is a way of thinking, of processing, of operating in the world. For me, what is key is having an initial curiosity about something and a framework to ask questions. This need for a personal interest in what is being examined is why inquiry cannot be taught as a process skill only irrespective of the topic of study. Scientific inquiry is not unbounded, but rather is corralled by a desire to fit into the particular developing self-consistent world view that is the current scientific paradigm. A key feature of this paradigm is the repeatability of results and the use of mathematics as a consistent tool for maintaining self consistency. The development of inquiry skills is beset by two key tensions, one that occurs between open ended discovery on the one hand and structured investigation on the other. Response from Rich Kinst Nov. 28, 1997 Well Anthony, here I went and set aside the day to do my grades, and you go and make me have to think. I guess I have to agree with both you and your colleague, your definition seems to belie the reality you are facing in the classroom, and his is too restrictive of science as it seems to me to be practiced. First my reservations about his definition. After I read your stuff I asked my conveniently at home biochemist wife with 25 years of experience in research if the inquiry she generally conducted involved what I characterized as "initial" questioning or thinking. She said that of course when she does research it involves an element of thinking about the phenomenon in question, but that the majority of the time, (especially in the early part of her career), her "initial" questions were genereated by others. Her job was to interact in a qualified and quantified way with a somewhat predetermined reality. That seems to me to make the process of inquiry as she has often practiced it, into the realm of the "irrelevant source" your colleague refers to. This is not to say that she interacts with the phenomenon as an unthinking automaton. Rather that the nature of the inquiry is relatively defined and circumscribed. She likened it to being a participant in a building process; testing, evaluating, determining, etc., but generally dealing with, and building upon, the data generated by others in the field. Your definition, on the other hand, fits the type of inquiry she currently practices. But she is a full blown experienced scientist; a team leader at the cutting edge of research in her field. And I guess that is what cuts to the heart of your definition. Semper is right; inquiry is "personally driven". But at what level? How many of our kids will become scientists like my wife? Your definition seems to me to involve science at the cutting edge. One way to look at it is to use the idea of "knowledge and knowledge in use" formulated by Abraham Kaplan. He sees knowledge as infinite; an expanding circle of ever-growing proportions, unlimited in scope or relevance. Knowledge in use, on the other hand, is carefully circumscribed and limited by the carrying capacity of human ability, interraction, and the prevalent paradigm(s) of the time. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think your definition of inquiry lends itself too heavily toward what occurs at the edge of that expanding circle. Which, I guess, brings me to my point vis a vis your quandry. I'll try and illustrate a bit by telling you a story of something that happened to me. A few years ago, a friend of ours was visiting from Germany. He is high up in Lufthansa and was bemoaning his problems with the structure of his company. His job is the development of software and systems for the entire organization. He was unhappy with the attitude of many with his attempts to implement changes in information exchange. He felt that many in the company did not understand what he was trying to do. I had a flash of insight and asked him one simple, but intendedly rhetorical question - What does your company do? He looked at me for a few seconds and started to launch into a long complex answer, and I interrupted him. I said, "your company sells airplane tickets." The conversation went on from there, but my point is this, let us not forget what we are supposed to be doing. I know you are familiar with the work of Gardner et al, and "multiple intelligences". The more I teach the more convinced I become that these theories are true. Our kids are significantly different. They may not yet be fully who they will be, but they are well on the way. Most of them will not, nor should they become, scientists. If this is true, and I am sure it is, then what does that say to our jobs, yours and mine, and all other teachers with the same commitments? I think we have to ask ourselves fundamental questions about our goals and objectives. I see each teacher as a participant in an extremely slow and gradual process; teaching children how to think critically. Inquiry is a major component of that process. Of course we want children to generate initial questions. Of course we want them to think creatively. We want them to stretch their limits and experience discovery. But is that our only goal? I think not. The gift you are giving children by teaching them to inquire must be sculpted in such a way as to reach as many children as possible in every individual classroom. If this is true, and I think it is, your definition of inquiry must come FROM (and that word should be underlined) the kids themselves. What will the learning of inquiry give them? How will the process encourage the maximum number possible to actually go on in their lives and expand knowledge in use? At the same time, how will it yeild a richer and fuller life to those who will not follow that path? For some of them then, the definition of inquiry will be that of your colleague, for some, yours. That is as it should be. The challenge is to design a curriculum that can service the maximum number of children in achieving those goals. You are on a truly exciting path. I hope these ramblings provide you with some help. Richard Nov. 30, 1997 Rich, Thank you very much for your thoughts. You do me a great service, and I think these are really important issues. You are correct that different students have different needs, and within a class, there are different approaches that will be successful with different individual students. I am working on a project, as you know, which is crafting curriculum to be used by many different teachers as well, which introduces yet another element of complexity. I agree with you also that scientists work in many places on the continuum of completely self-driven inquiry, to very directed lab investigations with little room for initiative. The real question to me is not how best we can make our instruction emulate science as it is practiced, but how we can bring the practical world of science and the learning of the student together in a productive way. We get students in the 6th grade who have had a spotty background in science. If we are lucky, they have had one or two teachers in the previous four years who exposed them to some scientific investigations. It seems to me, the real bottom line is what we believe our students to be capable of. Once we have decided this, then our instructional expectations derive from this. In the area of inquiry, the standards (NSES) say students K-4 should be able to "Ask a question about objects, organisms, and events in the environment. This aspect of the standard emphasizes students asking questions that they can answer with scientific knowledge, combined with their own observations. Students should answer their questions by seeking information from reliable sources of scientific information and from their own observations and investigations. The standards go on to describe: PLAN AND CONDUCT A SIMPLE INVESTIGATION. In the earliest years, investigations are largely based on systematic observations. As students develop, they may design and conduct simple experiments to answer questions. The idea of a fair test is possible for many students to consider by fourth grade. For middle school students, the standards are more detailed. They say students should be able to: IDENTIFY QUESTIONS THAT CAN BE ANSWERED THROUGH SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS. Students should develop the ability to refine and refocus broad and ill-defined questions. An important aspect of this ability consists of students' ability to clarify questions and inquiries and direct them toward objects and phenomena that can be described, explained, or predicted by scientific investigations. Students should develop the ability to identify their questions with scientific ideas, concepts, and quantitative relationships that guide investigation. DESIGN AND CONDUCT A SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION. Students should develop general abilities, such as systematic observation, making accurate measurements, and identifying and controlling variables. They should also develop the ability to clarify their ideas that are influencing and guiding the inquiry, and to understand how those ideas compare with current scientific knowledge. Students can learn to formulate questions, design investigations, execute investigations, interpret data, use evidence to generate explanations, propose alternative explanations, and critique explanations and procedures. The middle school standards do not explicitly state the source of the questions to be investigated, but if students are to learn how to refine and refocus broad and ill-defined questions, it would seem to me the way to do this would be to use their own questions, rather than supply them. I am not sure why we would move from a situation in the lower grades where students are asked to use their own questions, to more sophisticated students in the middle grades, and remove this expectation. So back to our bottom line. What is it realistic to expect from our students? I agree with you, Rich, that our students are in different places, with different needs and skills. But one of my central goals for all of them is to build their ability to think for themselves, to get them to a place where they identify themselves as being capable of solving a problem, not simply following directions. My colleague, on the other hand, is of the opinion that it is not possible to expect middle school students to think of investigable questions, to refine them, and to design investigations to answer them. Our current work is testing my hypothesis. You are correct that the first model I tried was unsuccessful. Students, after one month of guided investigations, did not have the skills needed to take a set of materials and independently generate investigable questions, or design effective investigations. I think I underestimated the difficulty of the task involved. I still feel it is within the grasp of many of my sixth graders, though perhaps not all. The guided investigation I am pursuing now is a hybrid between what we started the semester with, and what my true aim is. The teacher is playing a leading role, but I am using students as the source for the questions we investigate. Further, I am asking the students to design the experiments we will be performing. I will be critical of their designs, requiring data collection, measurement, and controls. This method will begin to develop the skills described in the standards. I do not know whether within the context of a one semester course it is reasonable to expect students to move to autonomous investigations, using different kits. Perhaps it is not. To me, the measure a students' acquisition of a skill is his or her ability to apply it without direct guidance from a teacher. So that is my goal. But as I said, this may be unrealistic within the context of twelve weeks or a semester. Thank you for providing your insights, and those of your wife. I feel very lucky to have a colleague like you to communicate with. Regards, Anthony Response from Richard Kinst Dec. 1, 1997 Good Morning! I probably did a poor job of articulating my position yesterday. I wanted to say that I am in agreement with you both. Of course there are students, (and the numbers will vary from class to class and school to school) that are perfectly capable and trained to achieve the standards. My point is that there will be many not able to, and if you provide the average classroom teacher with expectations, standards, materials, etc, based upon an erroneous suppostion, you have a recipe for failure. I too, as you do, want my students to not just experience inquiry, but to internalize it; have it become second nature; a habit. Perhaps the issue has more to do with the structure of the classroom as it is currently set up than with the use of the kits. Perhaps also, more than anything else, we have to work for change in the continuity of learning that our children experience. Waiting until middle school to teach inquiry is absurd. But I don't want to engender paralysis by analysis. If I didn't think your kits were such a great, terrific, and wonderful idea, I wouldn't be writing this. The academic questions as to what constitutes inquiry seem to me to be an important side issue. The real issue being --- TEACH IT!!!! Most teachers do not. I agree that the simplification of the kits is a good solution. The others are the development of a teacher training program as to how to use them, and an awareness in their design and construction of the varying capacities and levels of student abilities to which they will be applied. Richard Dec. 3, 1997 From Wanderly Carvalho, science educator in Brazil Dear Anthony Your message of november 25th tells me about the activity called Heavy Ice. I thought the extension of this activity (the one you challenged the students to discover all the possible orders of two, three and four colors) was great. It is nothing but than Combinatory Analysis ! You employed a conception that Morin calls "knowledge as a net" . Congratulations. I have several lessons I think I could share with you all, but it will be necessary to adapt them to your reality. Please, wait a little bit more. In january I will probably have more time, so we can talk about it, OK ? I have liked your "Summary of work" a lot ! You were right when you decided to introduce the importance of monitoration (measurement and control) in an inquiry. By the way, when you ask me about inquiry, I tell you I disagree with your colleague's definition. On the other hand, I agree with all those definitions you heve reported, but I would like to make some observations: a)Since the inquiry lead us to a knowledge, when we have a question we are mobilized to knowledge. "Scientific inquiry is much about asking good questions as getting good answers". b)The inquiry is "the action of seeking, especially for truth (...)", but it is necessary to have in mind that the truth is always temporary. Regards Dear Wanderly, Are you quoting someone in particular in your last two comments? I like the ideas. Here is where my investigations of inquiry have led me. First of all, I think I agree with several people who have pointed out that all the definitions I spoke to, including the one I was unhappy with, do describe aspects of inquiry. Classroom inquiry does not depend on the question being generated by the student. However, I still feel student questions are important for three big reasons. First of all, we wish to engage the students, and ignite their curiousity. What better way than providing them a chance to ask and answer their own questions? Secondly, this also allows us, in a constructivist manner, to tap and build upon their prior experiences and understandings. Thirdly, as I have said in my discussions, we wish students to learn to ask good questions, and to be able to refine their questions to make them investigable. I feel if the students begin with their own questions, they will have the experience of seeing the difference between questions that are difficult or impossible to investigate, and those that they can answer through classroom investigations. I am no longer arguing that the source of the question is an essential component of inquiry. There are many different models of inquiry. Some are student-centered, some are not. I am trying to develop a model focused on the experiences of the student, and make that student an autonomous investigator, but this is not the only way. My investigation into helium is leading the students to a beginning comprehension of gases. I am going to try to get my students to write explanations of gases, summarizing their experiences with helium, and with carbon dioxide next week. I hope to post these, along with some photos of my students, in a few weeks. Anthony |
 |
 |
