When is
Inquiry Problem Solving and
When is Problem
Solving Inquiry?
Marcia Fetters,
Caroline Beller, Paul Hickman
If a single word had to be chosen to describe the goals of science education during the 30-year period that began in the late 1950s, it would have to be inquiry (DeBoer, 1991, p.206). But what is inquiry? Is there a common definition of this term that all involved in science education agree on? How is the definition similar or different from problem solving (another phrase used commonly is science education literature)? This paper invites the reader along in our exploration of how these phrases are used in the science education (including K-12 settings), science discipline and engineering communities.
Where Did This Question Come
From?
The authors started this exploration during the PhysTEC 3rd
annual meeting, held during the summer of 2002. PhysTEC (funded through NSF and FIPSE grants) is a program
to improve the science preparation of future K-12 teachers. It aims to help
physics and education faculty work together to provide an education for future
teachers that emphasizes a student-centered, hands-on, inquiry-based approach
to learning science (PhysTEC, 2002).
This is in close alignment with mandates given to the science education
community in the National Science Education Standards. The National Science Teacher Association’s
“Standards for Science Teacher Preparation” (1998) states the
following standards for inquiry in a science education program. Inquiry in relations to the standards
includes:
¨ Questioning and formulating solvable problems.
¨ Reflecting on, and constructing, knowledge from data.
¨ Collaborating and exchanging information while seeking solutions.
¨ Developing concepts and relationships from empirical experience.
Accredited institutions are asked to provide documentation on how they
are meeting these guidelines.
Institutions and programs are expected to provide indicators that define
these standards for their institution, descriptions of learning experiences that
support these standards and assessment data on how their teacher education
candidates implement these standards.
Among the “National Science Education Standards” (National Research Council, 1996) are Professional Development Standards which state science teacher preparation should:
¨
Address teachers’
needs as learners and build on their current knowledge of science content,
teaching and learning.
¨ Use
inquiry, reflection, interpretation of research, modeling, and guided practice
to build understanding and skill in science teaching. (p. 62)
At the third annual Physics Teacher Education Coalition (PhysTEC) meeting, three science educators were listening to a discussion of inquiry and problem solving. The audience consisted of physics educators, science educators, and several high school physics teachers. During the discussion everyone was nodding in agreement that inquiry and problem solving should be an integral part of the program. As the discussion continued it became clear, at least to three of the science educators, that the same language was being used but that there were different meanings and applications for these terms. As a result of this observation, the science educators began collecting definitions of inquiry and problem solving from a range of audiences. Many were from undergraduate science students and education students and others were physics and science education faculty. Their definitions were as varied and vague as those of the experts.
The National Science Education Standards (1996) describe inquiry as a multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results. Inquiry requires identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking, and consideration of alternative explanations (p. 23). Chiapetta and Koballa (2002) describe inquiry as finding out about something. It centers around the desire to answer a question or to know more about a situation (p. 91). Sunal and Sunal (2003) define inquiry as the method by which students construct meaning as they learn science (p.13). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (2000) states, after researching inquiry-based science teaching, that “this research suffers from the lack of a shared, precise definition of Inquiry…” (p.124). If the experts have been and still are having difficulties defining inquiry, how can those of us in science and science education classrooms convey the importance of inquiry to our students. Even when there appears to be agreement about what “inquiry” is the literature provides of with variations of inquiry based teaching. The National Research Council (2000) highlights these variations in a chart titled "Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry and Their Variations"
|
·
Essential Feature |
Variations |
|||
|
·
Learner engages in
scientifically oriented questions |
Learner poses a question |
Learner selects among
questions, poses new questions |
Learner sharpens or
clarifies question provided by teacher, materials, or other source. |
Learner engages in question
provided by teacher, materials, or other source |
|
·
Learner gives priority
to evidence in responding to
questions |
Learner determines what
constitutes evidence and collects it |
Learner directed to collect
certain data |
Learner given data and
asked to analyze |
Learner given data and told
how to analyze |
|
·
Learner formulate explanations
from evidence |
Learner formulates
explanations after summarizing evidence |
Learner guided in process
of formulating explanations from evidence |
Learner given possible ways
to use evidence to formulate explanation |
Learner provided with
evidence |
|
·
Learner connects
explanations to scientific knowledge |
Learner independently
examines other resources and forms the links to explanations |
Learner directed toward
areas and sources of scientific knowledge |
Learner given possible
connections |
|
|
·
Learner communicates
and justifies explanations |
Learner forms reasonable
and logical argument to communicate explanations |
Learner couched in
development of communication |
Learner provided broad
guidelines to use, sharpen communication |
Learner given steps and
procedures for communication. |
|
More --------------- Amount of Learner
Self-Direction ---------------- Less |
||||
|
Less --------- Amount of Directions from Teacher
or Material --------- More |
||||
Page 29 National
Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education
Standards. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press
The same vagueness
in the definitions for problem solving
was observed. Ebenezer and Connor (1998) define problem solving as an important
strategy for constructing and negotiating meaning while Sunal and Sunal (2003)
say that “Problem solving is a thinking strategy that attempts to resolve
a difficulty.” (p. 90).
Problem solving, according to Principles and Standards for
School Mathematics published by the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000), means engaging in a task
for which the solution method is not known in advance (p. 52). According to
Helgeson (1989,1994), problem solving is often used synonymously with inquiry
and science process skill reasoning.
Rarely do two definitions say the same thing.
Definitions collected from pre-service teachers, science educators and scientists revealed similar ambiguity in the definitions and interpretations. How would you categorize the following statements, Inquiry or Problem-Solving? Key of “correct” answers provided at the end of the paper.
The process of starting from your own observations to
develop an understanding of a concept. The most open [kind of this…]
_____ would start out with deciding what concept you wanted to explore. To ask
a question: to figure out what observation you need to make to answer the
question, to interpret your observations to create models that not only explain
what you saw but predicted something else you might see.
_____ is the curiosity of the mind in action. The ability
to question...
Addressing a
situation, occasionally having to determine what the outcome needs to be, but
usually with that defined, and determining how to achieve that outcome. This
usually involves comparing the situation to previous experiences, identifying
similarities and differences
To take a systematic
approach to a task.
Analysis of the definitions collected reveals that individuals will often use the word to be explained in the definition, for example: "Problem solving is working to solve a problem." In other cases, individuals would use inquiry or problem solving in the definition of the other phrase, for example: "To solve a problem a student must use the skills of inquiry to explore all the variables of the problem."
A review of the literature and initial analysis of collected definitions indicate that while a wide range of audiences use the terms inquiry and problem solving clear and precise definitions of the terms is elusive. Multiple definitions are routinely used for both terms and often the terms are used interchangeably. To explore this phenomena the authors presents the statements listed above, plus 8 additional statements to participants at an interactive panel discussion of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science. Participants were presented with the individual definitions gathered and asked to evaluate the statement as far as intent as one of the following: Problem Solving, Inquiry, Neither, Both. For one of the quotes, the author was a member of the audience (a methods text author). The same set of statements and task was presented to members of the PhysTEC community during the 4th Annual PhysTEC Conference. Complete agreement on the intent of the author was not evidenced for any of the statements.. The following table summarizes the results:
|
Statement ******* Author/ Intent |
AETS Interpretation
*note some participants
ripped dots in half |
PhysTEC Interpretation |
|
1. The process of starting from your own observations to develop an understanding of a concept. The most open [kind of this…] _____ would start out with deciding what concept you wanted to explore. To ask a question: to figure out what observation you need to make to answer the question, to interpret your observations to create models that not only explain what you saw but predicted something else you might see. ******** Scientist/Inquiry |
PS = 0 Inquiry = 20 Both = 4 Neither = 0 |
PS = 5 Inquiry = 16 Both = 7 Neither = 1 |
|
2. _____ is the
curiosity of the mind in action. The ability to question... ******** Middle School Pre-service Teacher/ Inquiry |
PS = 0 Inquiry = 13.5 Both = 2 Neither = 7 |
PS = 1 overlapped with a 1 Inquiry (Venn diagram like?) Inquiry = 14 (includes the one overlapped with PS) Both = 5 Neither = 10 |
|
3. Addressing a situation, occasionally having to determine
what the outcome needs to be, but usually with that defined, and determining
how to achieve that outcome. This usually involves comparing the situation to
previous experiences, identifying similarities and differences. ******** Scientist/Problem Solving |
PS = 13 Inquiry = 0 Both = 9 Neither = 0 |
PS = 13 Inquiry = 0 Both = 6 Neither = 7 |
|
4. Using whatever tools one knows how to use in order to
implement a solution to a given hypothesis. ******** Middle School Pre-service Teacher/ Problem Solving |
PS = 15 Inquiry = 0 Both = 5 Neither = 3 |
PS = 20 Inquiry = 0 Both = 6 Neither = 3 |
|
Statement ******* Author/ Intent |
AETS Interpretation
*note some participants
ripped dots in half |
PhysTEC Interpretation |
|
5. When you look into something. You take time out to
examine something or learn about it. ******** Elementary Pre-service Teacher/ Inquiry |
PS = 2 Inquiry = 11 Both = 7 Neither = 4 |
PS = 0 Inquiry = 12 Both = 8 Neither = 7 |
|
6. Exploring some event or idea and trying to understand it. ******** Physics Major/ Inquiry
|
PS = 1 Inquiry = 22.5 Both = 1 Neither = 3 |
PS = 0 Inquiry = 22 Both = 4 Neither = 2 |
|
7. _________ as a teaching strategy embodies most of the
techniques and learning skills science educators consider important when
learning science by investigative methods. ******** Science Educator/ Problem Solving
|
PS = 5 Inquiry = 13 Both = 3 Neither = 3 |
PS = 1 Inquiry = 6 Both = 13 Neither = 9 |
|
8. To take a systematic approach to a task. ******** Elementary Pre-service Teacher/
Problem Solving |
PS = 15 Inquiry = 0 Both = 4.5 Neither = 5 |
PS = 5 Inquiry = 2 Both = 13 Neither = 9 |
|
9. Trying to fix something, or some situation. ******** Biology Major/Problem Solving |
PS = 17 Inquiry = 0 Both = 4 Neither = 6 *2 indicates 1/2 B&E |
PS = 13 Inquiry = 1 Both = 5 Neither = 11 |
|
10. Doing hands on things. Getting messy in science ******** Geology Major/Inquiry |
PS = 0 Inquiry = 4 Both = 1.5 Neither = 20.5 |
PS = 0 Inquiry = 3 Both = 4 Neither = 20 |
|
Statement ******* Author/ Intent |
AETS Interpretation
*note some participants
ripped dots in half |
PhysTEC Interpretation |
|
11. In school science, _________ refers to how students attempt to develop knowledge and
understanding of scientific ideas.
Through activities, students learn how scientists go about studying
the world, communicate with one another, and, through consensus, propose
explanations for how the world works. ******** Science Educator/Inquiry |
PS = 0 Inquiry = 19.5 Both = 4 Neither = 2.5 |
PS = 0 Inquiry = 19 Both = 6 Neither = 3 |
|
12. _____ is taking systematic approach to exploring
something. ******** Geology major/Problem Solving |
PS = 12 Inquiry = 2.5 Both = 7 Neither = 1 |
PS = 0 Inquiry = 0 Both = 16 Neither = 8 |
After reviewing personal and cited definitions for inquiry and problem solving, several questions emerged. As in our case, a grant from the National Science Foundation called for collaboration between the colleges of Arts and Science and Education.
· Does the difference in how people use these terms create a real barrier to collaboration or does it provide a platform for conversation that facilitates the collaboration?
· If the difference is real and significant what effect does it have on programs and reform efforts that call for collaboration across audiences?
· How can and when should discussion about the difference occur to maximize the potential of reform efforts? How do you do this without jeopardizing the partnerships?
In addition to these questions there appear to be some implications for science education. Given the shared language, what do we do about the differences between disciplines in how terminology is used as part of pedagogy and content for Arts and sciences and Education, pre-service/undergraduates and faculty, and teachers and K-12 students. Other possible implications include reform efforts and how language is used in relation to state and/or national testing.
There are several questions
to be posed at this point.
1. Is there a difference between disciplines (i.e. biology, chemistry, physics, earth science, mathematics, and education concerning the definitions of inquiry and problem solving?
2. What other words or phrases that have shared meanings should be explored?
3. What is the role of past experiences of the participants in determining their definitions?
3. Would anyone like to join us in gathering additional definitions?
Chiapetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2002). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (5 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ebenezer, J. and Connor, S. (1998). Learning to Teach Science. U. S. A.: Prentice Hall
Helgeson, S. L. (1989). Problem solving in middle school
science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher: Problem solving (Vol. 5, pp.
13-34). Washington D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.
Helgeson, S. L. (1994). Research on problem solving in middle school. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 248-268). Upper Sanddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000), Principles and Standards for
School Mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, Inc.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
PhysTEC. (2002). PhysTEC Description. American Physical Society, in partnership with the American Institute of Physics and the American Association of Physics Teachers. Retrieved 1/7/03, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.phystec.org/
Sunal, D. W. and Sunal, C. S. (2003). Science in the Elementary and Middle School. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall
***********
Key
Statement #1 – Inquiry (Scientist)
Statement #2 – Inquiry (pre-service teacher: middle grades)
Statement #3 – Problem solving (scientist)
Statement #4 – Problem solving (pre-service teacher)
Powerpoint for this presentation can be viewed and downloaded at: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mfetters/grants.html