Scientific inquiry for science teachers

Lampkin, Richard H.

doi:10.1002/sce.3730350103

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (NRC, 2011, p. 42) In light of the Practices' elevated status, 1 this article needs clarification why it chooses to deemphasize them. In their stead, this article will (seemingly anachronistically) prefer referring to scientific inquiry as a frame of reference for these reasons: (1) scientific inquiry has a long-standing tradition as well as a firm theoretical foundation in the philosophy of science (Dewey, 1938;Kosso, 2009;Popper, 1959Popper, /2008Radder, 2009) and in science education (DeBoer, 2006;Lampkin, 1951;Schwab, 1960a); (2) scientific inquiry has been serving as an international frame of reference in science education for decades and continues to do so outside the USA (Abd-El-Khalick et al, 2004;Baur et al, 2019;Emden, 2011) -not least in the Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD], 2000[OECD], , 2003[OECD], , 2006[OECD], , 2009[OECD], , 2013[OECD], , 2016[OECD], , 2019, (3) the current Practices claim to be reflective and inclusive of scientific inquiry (Bybee, 2011;Michaels et al, 2008). Scientific inquiry has been the topic of theoretical deliberation since the 1910s (e.g., Dewey, 1910a, b) -it has sprung from a philosophical question rather than from pragmatism.…”

Section: Why Not Scientific Practices -A Kind Of Disclaimermentioning

confidence: 99%

Reintroducing “the” Scientific Method to Introduce Scientific Inquiry in Schools?

Emden

2021

Sci & Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are some crucial critiques on scientific inquiry and “the” Scientific Method in current science education. Recent research literature is replete with arguments against inquiry’s legitimacy to be included in science classes, and it has even been abandoned from the Next Generation Science Standards. Critics of scientific inquiry in schools blame it to be a caricature of authentic inquiry suffering from five shortcomings: (1) knowledge becomes desocialized from its generative contexts, (2) scientific inquiry in schools suggests methodological monism favoring (3) a primacy of experimentation, (4) which portrays scientific inquiry as a knowledge automaton (5) raising an illusion of determination with regard to the generation of knowledge. This article argues for a reorientation of scientific inquiry in schools tentatively embracing “the” Scientific Method anew since critics appear not to sufficiently consider that scientific inquiry operates differently in schools from science. It will be shown that most critiques can be defused when untangling such an illegitimate mix-up of science proper with school science. It will be argued that current (and recent) descriptions of how science generates knowledge lack authoritative validity and should be fundamentally revisited. “The” Scientific Method will be shown to be a valid idealization that can serve as a frame of reference for introductory science classes. Still, it is understood that science education needs to extend beyond “the” Scientific Method if it is to prepare for science-related careers.

show abstract