SKI WISE Forum
I found the articles about WISE very interesting and thought provoking. So much of what we teach as “science” is not so much science as scientific information – facts and concepts of what we have learned and currently understand about our world. But, science at its core is not information, but a process – a process of inquiry and discovery about ourselves, our world, and our place in it. I found the WISE goal to make the process accessible to students of all ages a laudable one. Too often what we consider learning in our students is rote repetition, rather than thinking, investigating, or drawing conclusions. In contrast, Linn et al, (2003), put forward 4 SKI principles: (1) making thinking visible, (2) making science accessible, (3) helping students learn from each other, and (4) promoting lifelong learning- to help students do science rather than remember it. Williams et al, (2004), describe WISE as an organizational platform to support teacher’s use of inquiry activities in the classroom, and to allow students opportunity for self-direction. I like the opportunities it provides, and feel it would be a useful tool to incorporate in my classroom.
What I found when trying inquiry activities is comparable to what was expressed by Furtak (2006), that students recognize they are not truly discovering something new, that the answers ARE known, and so they want to find out the “real” answer and compare their findings to it. I’m not sure how to get past this. Most of the obvious questions and answers around us have already been explored and students don’t have the knowledge or expertise to ask and investigate truly unknown questions. The students recognize that they are in an artificial world of science, where what they are doing doesn’t matter to the “world of science” beyond themselves.
In science, there are “right” answers, explanations that fit the evidence better than others, so it is natural for students to want to measure their success to the known standards. There is a trade-off here between the “desired understandings” and the “process of inquiry”. I would argue that effective science teaching would find a balance between the two. Teacher training is important to set up inquiry activities in an effective manner, and to provide support to teachers on how to interact with the students in an inquiry environment. I think the approach that Doug took, (Furtak, 2006), is the best one, talking to them about the value of thinking, testing, figuring things out for themselves – the process of learning, as opposed to the information itself. However, young children don’t have this level of awareness yet, so it may be a tough sell in lower elementary. I also think it is wise to discuss and reflect on inquiry findings after the activity to support student understandings and avoid misconceptions. I don’t see inquiry learning being used best in isolation, but rather interspersed with other learning and teaching strategies for a full, well-balanced learning experience.
- Can inquiry teaching be used effectively in isolation?
- Is science learning possible without inquiry?
- Which is the best description: science as inquiry, science is inquiry or inquiry build science?
- Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.
- Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538
- Williams, M. Linn, M.C. Ammon, P. & Gearhart, M. (2004). Learning to teach inquiry science in a technology-based environment: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 189-206.