Teachers in Conversation

Commentary

We have asked two experts in science and science education to share their thoughts on the case study and the round table discussion. Here are their comments:

From Karen Worth, senior scientist in EDC's Center for Science Education, who chaired the Working Group on Science Teaching Standards for the National Academy of Science's National Science Education Standards effort:

"I read this discussion with interest. Reform of science education at the high school level is a challenge confronting schools across the country. My first reflection relates to the discussion of the meaning of inquiry. All of the panelists expressed a vision of scientific inquiry—and its power in developing the capacity and desire of young people to learn science—that speaks to the core ideas of the National Science Education Standards. In the Standards, inquiry is viewed as a set of skills and a subject for study, as well as an approach to teaching and learning. That the responses varied simply reflects the reality that there are many ways to translate inquiry into classroom practice—even in small ways, as one panelist suggests. I also was struck by the complexity of implementing change, as revealed by the panelists' comments about the resistance to change they find among teachers and parents.

"Perhaps a further discussion might focus on the process of change, the road from here to there. Sometimes education debates become polarized, and people argue for a point of view rather than looking for common ground. This discussion provided inklings of directions we might pursue as we move forward: Ken mentions some of the older teachers from whom he learned; Wayne speaks of 'winning over' parents and teachers through gradual and phased change; Rod speaks of seeing it in action. It seems to me we need to look for answers across groups, keeping in mind those traditional teachers, those demanding parents and those who seem not to care, as well as the range of students."

From Michael Tinnesand, chemist and member of the education division of the American Chemical Society:

"I think both the case and the discussion uncover many of the important issues that accompany inquiry–based instruction. I've noticed lately that if you want to have a spirited two–day workshop, just ask a roomful of science teachers, 'What is inquiry?' There seems to be no end of opinion or passion on the concept!

"I don't know if the discussions drew out the idea that inquiry can be regarded in two ways—both as a means for students to study science and also as a process to be studied on its own. The 1999 National Research Council book [see the Resources section] goes to some length in distinguishing these two meanings.

[The 1996 Standards also touch on this distinction: "Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world." (page 23)]

"My other observation is that inquiry–based instruction isn't always the same. We can have a range from guided inquiry all the way to full inquiry, depending on the amount of direction the teacher sets. Each situation requires evaluation to know how much the inquiry process is allowed to roam."




A website of		Commentary We have asked two experts in science and science education to share their thoughts on the case study and the round table discussion. Here are their comments: From Karen Worth, senior scientist in EDC's Center for Science Education, who chaired the Working Group on Science Teaching Standards for the National Academy of Science's National Science Education Standards effort: "I read this discussion with interest. Reform of science education at the high school level is a challenge confronting schools across the country. My first reflection relates to the discussion of the meaning of inquiry. All of the panelists expressed a vision of scientific inquiry—and its power in developing the capacity and desire of young people to learn science—that speaks to the core ideas of the National Science Education Standards. In the Standards, inquiry is viewed as a set of skills and a subject for study, as well as an approach to teaching and learning. That the responses varied simply reflects the reality that there are many ways to translate inquiry into classroom practice—even in small ways, as one panelist suggests. I also was struck by the complexity of implementing change, as revealed by the panelists' comments about the resistance to change they find among teachers and parents. "Perhaps a further discussion might focus on the process of change, the road from here to there. Sometimes education debates become polarized, and people argue for a point of view rather than looking for common ground. This discussion provided inklings of directions we might pursue as we move forward: Ken mentions some of the older teachers from whom he learned; Wayne speaks of 'winning over' parents and teachers through gradual and phased change; Rod speaks of seeing it in action. It seems to me we need to look for answers across groups, keeping in mind those traditional teachers, those demanding parents and those who seem not to care, as well as the range of students." From Michael Tinnesand, chemist and member of the education division of the American Chemical Society: "I think both the case and the discussion uncover many of the important issues that accompany inquiry–based instruction. I've noticed lately that if you want to have a spirited two–day workshop, just ask a roomful of science teachers, 'What is inquiry?' There seems to be no end of opinion or passion on the concept! "I don't know if the discussions drew out the idea that inquiry can be regarded in two ways—both as a means for students to study science and also as a process to be studied on its own. The 1999 National Research Council book [see the Resources section] goes to some length in distinguishing these two meanings. [The 1996 Standards also touch on this distinction: "Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world." (page 23)] "My other observation is that inquiry–based instruction isn't always the same. We can have a range from guided inquiry all the way to full inquiry, depending on the amount of direction the teacher sets. Each situation requires evaluation to know how much the inquiry process is allowed to roam."