A Comparative Model of Field Investigations: Aligning School Science Inquiry with the Practices of Contemporary Science

Abstract

Field investigations are not characterized by randomized and manipulated control group experiments, however most school science and high‐stakes tests recognize only this paradigm of investigation. Scientists in astronomy, genetics, field biology, oceanography, geology, and meteorology routinely select naturally occurring events and conditions and look for descriptive, correlative, or causal trends. Field investigations contribute to scientific knowledge by describing natural systems, noting differences in habitats, and identifying environmental trends and issues; they are designed to answer an investigative question through the systematic collection of evidence and the communication of results. This paper describes the range of field investigations conducted by scientists and K‐12 students and elaborates a comparative model of three different types of field investigations (descriptive studies, comparative studies, correlative studies). These forms of investigation are more representative of current scientific practice and provide rigorous and engaging inquiry experiences for young learners.

Tracking the Footprints Puzzle: The problematic persistence of science‐as‐process in teaching the nature and culture of science

“…Windschitl, Dvornich, Ryken, Tudor, and Koehler (2007) point out that the study of complex systems, whether biological, astronomical, meteorological, geological, and so on, typically requires an approach capable of capturing how multiple variables interact probabilistically. They add that in the natural setting patterns of interaction of interest to the investigator unfold without distortions often induced by actively manipulating and controlling variables in the laboratory setting.…”

Biology Undergraduate Students’ Graphing Practice in Digital Versus Pen and Paper Graphing Environments

“…Recent discussions of K-16 STEM education have focused on the disciplinary knowledge and practices students should develop and use in novel situations (e.g., Seraphin et al, 2013;Wild et al, 2018;Windschitl et al, 2007). Within science these include conducting experiments, understanding and using models, and organizing, analyzing, and interpreting data (e.g., Kjelvik and Schultheis, 2019;Kuhn, 2010;Lehrer, Schauble and Lucas, 2008;Lehrer, Schauble, and Petrosino, 2001).…”

How Do You Like Your Science, Wet or Dry? How Two Lab Experiences Influence Student Understanding of Science Concepts and Perceptions of Authentic Scientific Practice

“…As discussed by Wong and Hodson (2009, p. 110) , “the goal of improving NOS understanding is often prejudiced by stereotyped images of science and scientists consciously or unconsciously built into school curricula and perpetuated by science textbooks.” In contrast to the controlled experiment typically taught in precollege classrooms, Windschitl and colleagues point out, Scientists in astronomy, genetics, field biology, oceanography, geology, and meteorology routinely create models of phenomena not by controlling conditions, but rather by selecting naturally occurring observations and looking for descriptive, correlative, or causal trends in those observations… Indeed, these researchers may be looking for cause and effect relationships through differences between two sets of observations, but these observations do not arise from controlled situations per se . ( Windschitl et al. , 2007 , pp.…”

“…Scientists in astronomy, genetics, field biology, oceanography, geology, and meteorology routinely create models of phenomena not by controlling conditions, but rather by selecting naturally occurring observations and looking for descriptive, correlative, or causal trends in those observations… Indeed, these researchers may be looking for cause and effect relationships through differences between two sets of observations, but these observations do not arise from controlled situations per se . ( Windschitl et al. , 2007 , pp.…”