IBSE Final

4 5

3. Learning science through inquiry

In the process just described, scientists are learning, adding to their own and others’ knowledge about the world

around. Students learning through inquiry are also adding to their knowledge and understanding of science and

in science and at the same time they are learning to inquire: learning how to learn.

3.1 A model of learning science through inquiry

The process begins by trying to make sense of a phenomenon, or

answer a question, about why something behaves in a certain way

or takes the form it does. Initial exploration reveals features that

recall previous ideas leading to possible explanations (“I think it

might be...” “I’ve seen something like this when...” “It’s a bit like...”).

There might be several ideas from previous experience that could be

relevant and through discussion one of these is chosen as giving the

possible explanation or hypothesis to be tried (Figure 1 )

Working scientifically, students then proceed to see how useful

the chosen existing idea is by making a prediction based on the

hypothesis, because only if ideas have predictive power are they valid.

To test the prediction new data about the phenomenon or problem

are gathered, then analysed and the outcome used as evidence to

compare with the predicted result. This is the ‘prediction > plan and

conduct investigation > interpret data’ sequence in Figure 2. More

than one prediction and test is desirable and so this sequence may

be repeated several times.

From these results a tentative conclusion can be drawn about the

initial idea. If it gives a good explanation then the existing idea is not

only confirmed, but becomes more powerful –‘bigger’– because it

then explains a wider range of phenomena. Even if it doesn’t ‘work’

and an alternative idea has to be tried (one of the alternative ideas in

Figure 3), the experience has helped to refine the idea, so knowing

that the existing idea does not fit is also useful.

This is the process of building understanding through

collecting evidence to test possible explanations and

the ideas behind them in a scientific manner, which we

describe as learning through scientific inquiry.

Modelling the building of understanding in this way offers

a view of how smaller ideas (ones which apply to parti-

cular observations or experiences) are progressively deve-

loped into big ideas (ones that apply to a range of related

objects or phenomena). In doing so, it is important to

acknowledge, and to start from, the ideas the students

already have, for if these are just put aside the students

will still hold onto them because these are the ones that

they worked out for themselves and make sense to them.

They must be given opportunities to see for themselves

which ideas are more consistent with evidence. Also, since

ability to question, describe, propose, communicate and

conclude through language are involved in this process, it

follows that inquiry is closely tied to the development and

use of appropriate language.

and experiments. Darwin was driven by curiosity and the desire to answer questions, just as were the science

educators in Box 1.

It is worth pointing out some key characteristics of scientific inquiry as it is done by scientists, to bear in mind

when considering whether inquiry carried out by students is truly scientific inquiry^2.

Scientists conducting inquiry:

ƒ do not know the answer to the question or problem being studied;

ƒ consider the inquiry to be important and engaging and are excited about trying to find an answer;

ƒ know enough about the topic of the inquiry to have some ideas about what might be the explanation or

answer;

ƒ know how to conduct an inquiry scientifically;

ƒ use data as the basis for evidence but do not necessarily collect new data.

A similar discussion of the nature of inquiry in mathematics can be found in the companion Guideline Inquiry-

Based Mathematics Education.

Box 1

In a lecture entitled ‘Wait, wait! Don’t tell me!’, Marc St. John^3 spoke about the excitement of finding an

answer to questions for oneself. He recounts how he and another eminent science educator, Hubert Dyasi,

came to wonder whether, if you shine a light on a candle flame, the flame will make a shadow. They held

different ideas about this, both based on experience of related phenomena. With the candle in front of them,

one said “That flame is nothing but light, and I am sure that light passes right through light. Therefore the

flashlight should shine right through the flame and not make a shadow”. The other said, “No, I can’t see

through the flame. The flame must be blocking light on the other side. There must be a shadow”.

Without spoiling the story by telling what happened when, of course, they shone the flashlight onto the

flame, the point to note here is that they did not know the answer. The author concludes: “inquiry requires

that you know that you don’t know something that you feel you should know. And, in that process, you get

this engagement, this excitement, and energy, just as we did here”.

New

experience or question

Possible

explanation

Existing

idea

Figure 1

Figure 2

New

experience or question

Prediction

Plan and conduct

investigation

Interpret data

Possible

explanation

Existing

idea

New

experience or question

Prediction

Plan and conduct

investigation

Interpret data

Conclusion

Alternative

idea

Possible

explanation

Existing

idea

Bigger

idea

Figure 3

2 A similar discussion of the nature of inquiry in mathematics can be found in the Fibonacci Background Booklet Inquiry in

Mathematics Education, available at http://www.fibonacci-project.eu, within the Resources section.

3 St. John, M. (1998). “Wait, wait! Don’t tell me!” The Anatomy and Politics of Inquiry. The 1988 Catherine Molony Memo-

rial Lecture. City College Workshop Centre, New York.