| Chapter 1: | Introduction |
|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
Papert (1991) charged that “telling children how scientists do science does not necessarily lead to far-reaching change in how children do science; indeed, it cannot, as long as the school curriculum is based on verbally expressed formal knowledge” (pp. 10–11).
The way scientists do their work should be demonstrated through classroom instruction (inquiry pedagogy) by having students perform inquiry investigations. Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) wrote that the activities that children do need to be authentic activities where they resemble the work of scientists and where students can develop the kinds of skills used by practicing scientists.
According to the NSES (NRC, 1996), “Inquiry into authentic questions generated by students” remains the central strategy for teaching science (p. 31). Therefore, it is necessary to look carefully at inquiry teaching methods, because inquiry instruction had been ill-defined in the past (Anderson, 1998; Yager, 2000) and must be clarified in order for educators to effectively discuss inquiry teaching and learning, as well as provide a means for teachers to making a true change from traditional didactic teaching to more student-centered learning.
Two specific types of inquiry discussed in this research are guided-inquiry and open-inquiry. In Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000, p. 29), these terms are defined with the assistance of a table (table 1.1.). Open-inquiry occurs when the student is fully in charge of the inquiry investigation, with teacher approval. When the teacher chooses the question for investigation or controls other aspects of the investigation, the inquiry is said to be “partial,” or more guided. The distinction between the types of inquiry has its roots in Schwab's descriptions of the three different approaches in laboratories, varied in their guidance by teacher or materials or in their structure (NRC, 2000).