Linda Heidenrich
SED 625
Con: Inquiry is not the best way to teach science
As a secondary science teacher, I have several constraints placed upon my
curriculum including pacing calendars and standards-based, district-wide assessments.
These constraints prohibit inquiry, or discovery learning, where teachers merely suggest a
learning objective and provide no other intervention throughout the lesson (Adelson,
2004, 35).
In contrast, the secondary science classroom of today demands direct
instruction where the teachers control “the goals, materials, examples, explanations and
pace of instruction (Adelson, 2004, 35).
Our classrooms are dictated by California content standards and standards-based
assessments. Our guide to success is the Science Framework for California Public
Schools (2003) which explicitly states in Chapter 1 effective science programs must
explicitly teach scientific terms to students, reflect a balanced and comprehensive
approach that includes direct instruction, and use multiple instructional strategies. The
national standards for inquiry require students to understand scientific concepts,
appreciate the metacognition associated with science, understand the nature of science
and develop skills necessary to be scientific thinkers with regard to the world around
them. How do students met these goals set by the state and national standards? A
science teacher teaches them. In a study conducted by Dr. Klahr of Carnegie Mellon
University, students who were exposed to direct instruction were better equipped to
detect faulty experimental design.
In addition, 77% of students exposed to direct
instruction were able to design appropriate experiments with proper variables as
compared to 23% of the students exposed to discovery learning (Adelson, 2004, 35).
Experimental design is a cornerstone to scientific success and literacy, yet two-thirds
more students exposed to direct instruction were successful with this task. In addition,
the metacognition of “how we know what we know” about science cannot be discovered.
Science teachers with the background knowledge necessary must provide this
metacognition to their students.
The reality of the classroom prohibits inquiry learning through pacing calendars,
teaching training and misconceptions held by the students. My school district gives me
exactly 4 weeks to teach all cellular processes including photosynthesis, cellular
respiration, diffusion, osmosis and active transport (OUHSD district website).
If I
allowed my students to discover the Krebs cycle, Calvin cycle, Sodium/Potassium pump
on their own, this could arguably take all year and would be frustrating for the students
because many of these processes take place on the micro-cellular level. In addition, in a
study published by Gillian Roehrig and Julie Luft (2004), most teachers are not prepared
in the teacher training programs to implement student-centered learning. Roehrig and
Luft worked with first year teachers asking to be in a program focused on assisting
teachers with inquiry learning. Out of the fourteen teachers, eight were only able to
implement teacher-based learning in their classroom despite the researchers help and two
other teachers gave students projects but focused on a certain process and product due to
their understanding of the nature of science. Only four out of fourteen teachers were
prepared to have truly inquiry, student-based learning in their classrooms. Another
literary review by Barbara Guzzetti (2000) examined studies showing how students learn
counter-intuitive
science
concepts
and
how
students
best
dismiss
previous
misconceptions. The conclusion of her review demonstrated the critical role of the
teacher in learning these concepts and dismissing misconceptions.
She concluded
“refutational text is not sufficient to produce conceptual change in individuals” and
discussion of the text must be “teacher-guided and teacher-supported”.
Inquiry is not the best way to teach science because teachers are not prepared to
implement student-based learning, pacing calendars prohibit teachers from having the
time necessary to implement inquiry learning and students’ misconceptions can only be
altered by teacher-supported text and activities.
In addition, the national inquiry
standards and California Science Framework require multiple instructional strategies
including direct instruction and the need to understand the metacognition of science and
scientific discoveries. A teacher is necessary to fully implement these requirements.
Works Cited
Adelson, Rachel (2004, June). “Instruction versus exploration in science learning.”
Monitor on Psychology, 35, 34-35. Retrieved November 1, 2006 from APA
Online.
California Department of Education, (2003). Science Framework for California Public
Schools. Sacramento, CA.
Guzzetti, Barbara. (2000, April). “Learning Counter-Intuitive Science Concepts: What
have we learned from over a decade of research.” Reading & Writing Quarterly,
16, 1057-3569. Retrieved November 1, 2006 from EBSCO Host.
National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, National
Research Counci. (1996).l National Science Content Standards. Washington, DC.
Roehrig, Gillian and Julie A. Luft (2004, January). “Constraints experienced by
beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons.”
International Journal of Science Education, 26, 3-24. Retrieved November 1,
2006 from ERIC Digest.