3.2 INQUIRY–BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION
3.2.6 The nature of inquiry activities: Full Inquiry and Partial Inquiry
Many researchers, such as Klahr (2000) and the NSES (NRC, 1996), characterise an inquiry process as consisting of several steps as indicated in the general ‘scientific method’ and as represented in Figure 3.1.
According to Bell, Smetana, and Binns, (2005) two important conditions must be satisfied in order to determine whether an activity involves scientific inquiry. Firstly, the activity/task must involve a research question which has the potential to be answered through a scientific investigation. The second condition is that the activity or task must involve analysis of data in order to answer the research question. While it is important that learners must be involved in data analysis themselves, the learners do not necessarily need to collect their own data in order to satisfy this condition (Bell et al., (2005). Instead, data could be presented to learners for analysis. What is important to be evaluated here is, whether learners are doing their own data analysis and interpretations in order to draw conclusions and answer the research question (Bell et al., 2005). While this might be acceptable in cases where the data gathering process is an elaborate one and difficult in a school setting, it is important that the data collection process and / or the experimental design be provided to learners together with the data so that they can engage with it in a critical manner.
The notion of an inquiry activity being satisfied if it involves only two aspects of investigations namely, the inclusion of a research question and an analysis of data, is problematic because this will be in sync with the definition of a partial inquiry and not that of IPW as indicated for this study.
The NSES acknowledges that not all inquiry is truly deserving of this title and therefore distinguishes between “full-inquiry” and “partial inquiry” (NRC, 2000, p. 143). In spite of the general consensus and approval of this definition of inquiry, there is a significant amount of dispute and deliberation in this regard (e.g., Lehrer & Schauble, 2006; Fortus, Hug, Krajcik, 2006; Duschl & Grandy, 2005; Ford, 2005; Kuhn, 2005; Sandoval, 2005; Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, Bass, Fredricks & Soloway, 1998). At one extreme, the inquiry process is regarded as a simple control-of-variables strategy that can be taught to learners in a single
80 short session (Klahr & Nigam, 2004) and at the other it is a complex and evolving activity which defies simple characterisation (Lehrer & Schauble, 2006), with many other conceptions intermediate between these two (NRC, 2007; Zimmerman, 2007).
The nature of the inquiry activities will determine the complexity of the investigations. The complexity of the investigation given to learners is dependent on the extent of guidance and information provided by the teacher to the learners. The greater the extent of guidance provided for the activity the more closed the investigation and vice versa.
Wellington (1994) refers to different types of investigations across a continuum from closed – ended activities which involve a single pathway and a single answer, teacher–led and teacher- directed with structured guidance at all stages to open–ended activities with many possible routes and solutions, led by learners and with no direction, no structure, no guidance and no constraints from the teacher. Wellington (1994) illustrates his framework diagrammatically and refers to it as ‘dimensions of investigational work’. This framework is represented in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2: Dimensions of investigational work (Wellington, 1994)
As can be determined from the above, not all inquiry activities are equivalent. Inquiry lessons can be described as either full or partial with respect to the five essential elements of inquiry
CLOSED (One right answer, one
route) PUPIL–LED
(Pupils ask questions, no restrictions)
TEACHER LED (Teacher poses
Question or problem) OPEN
(Many possible solutions, many routes)
UNDIRECTED AND UNSTRUCTURED
(No guidance, no constraints)
DIRECTED AND STRUCTURED (Guidance given at
all stages)
81 identified in NSES (NRC, 1996) and as illustrated in Table 3.3, namely, engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration and evaluation.
Full-inquiry lessons make use of each of the five elements described in Table 3.3, namely, where learners engage with scientifically oriented questions; give priority to evidence by exploring; formulate explanations from evidence; elaborate on such findings and evaluate and justify their explanations by communicating these to others. However, any individual element can vary with respect to how much direction comes from the learner and how much comes from the teacher. For example, inquiry begins with a scientifically oriented question. This question may come from the learner, or the learner may choose the question from a list.
Alternatively, the teacher may simply provide the question (Bell et al., 2005).
Inquiry lessons or activities are described as partial when one or more of the five essential elements of inquiry are missing. For example, if the teacher provides an explanation for the expected results then that lesson is regarded as being partial inquiry. Lessons that vary in their level of direction and the extent of guidance and support provided by the teachers are needed to develop learners’ inquiry abilities. When young learners are first introduced to inquiry lessons, they are not developmentally or academically ready to benefit from full inquiry activities. Hence, partial or guided inquiry lessons usually work for such learners (Bell et al., 2005). The information in Table 3.2 earlier in this chapter illustrates this increasing complexity or openness from Grades 10 to 12 for the South African Life Sciences curriculum.
Guided inquiry may also work well when the goal is to have learners study particular science concepts. In contrast, a full or open inquiry is preferred when the goal is to have learners sharpen their skills of scientific reasoning. Hence, the participants who were chosen for this study were Grade 12 teachers and their learners, since these teachers and learners should have had at least three years of experience engaging in IPW in the FET phase.
Zion and Sadeh (2007) proponents of inquiry as methods of teaching science identified three levels of inquiry, which are mainly distinguished by the degree of learner involvement / autonomy at the planning stage of the inquiry process. These include:
Structured inquiry at level 1, in which the teacher sets up the problems and processes;
Guided inquiry at level 2, in which the teacher poses the problem and the learners determine both processes and solutions;
Open inquiry at the third and most demanding level in which, the teacher merely
82 provides the context for solving problems that learners then identify and solve.
Herron (1971) identified four levels of openness for inquiry in science activities. Based partly on Herron’s work, Rezba, Auldridge, and Rhea (1999) developed a four-level model of inquiry instruction, which was subsequently modified by Bell et al., (2005). This model of inquiry instruction illustrates how inquiry-based activities can range from highly teacher- directed to highly learner-directed, based on the extent of guidance provided to the learner.
This model is illustrated in Figure 3.3.
Level of Inquiry
How much information or guidance is given to the learner?
Teacher-Directed
Learner--Directed
Question Methods Solution
1- Verification
2- Structured
3- Guided
4- Open-ended
Figure 3.3: Four-Level Model of Inquiry (adapted from Bell et al., 2005) Note: the ticks () indicate the information given to learners.
Level-1 and Level-2 inquiry activities are characterised as low level activities (Bell et al., 2005). They are often referred to as ‘cookbook’ approaches in that the procedure is typically laid out for learners in a step-by-step sequence. Level-1 inquiry activities provide learners with the research question and the method by which the research question can be answered (Bell et al., 2005). In addition, the expected answer to the research question is known in advance. In these activities, learners confirm or verify what is already known.
Level-2 inquiry activities, referred to as structured inquiry, are those in which learners are given a research question and the prescribed procedure, but the answer to the research question is not known in advance. Changing the instructions can easily change a Level-1 inquiry activity to a Level-2 inquiry activity (Bell et al., 2005). For example, if learners were taught a concept that provides them with the expected results of an inquiry activity before they perform it, the activity would be considered Level-1. However, if the inquiry activity were completed prior to learning the concept such that learners do not know the expected outcome, it would be considered a Level-2 activity (Bell et al., 2005).
83 Level-3 and Level-4 inquiry activities are characterised as high level inquiry activities, as they require significant cognitive demand on the part of the learner (Bell et al., 2005). In Level-3 inquiry activities, learners are presented with a teacher-posed research question, but the learners devise their own methods and solutions to answer the question. In this “guided inquiry,” learners practice investigation design. Level-1 or Level-2 inquiry activities can be transformed into a Level-3 activity by having the learners develop their own, teacher- approved method to answer the investigation question (Bell et al., 2005).
Level-4 inquiry activities are those in which the learners are responsible for choosing the investigation question, designing their own procedure for answering the question, and developing their own solutions to the problem (Bell et al., 2005). Only after learners have completed activities at the first three levels are they prepared to tackle the open inquiry of Level-4. This second perspective is supported by numerous studies illustrating learners’
difficulties during inquiry learning. For example, in science settings learners have difficulties with scientifically controlling experiments; they may use biased interpretation of empirical data, and often formulate inappropriate inferences to explain the results obtained (Toth et al., 2002; Chen & Klahr, 1999; Kozlowski, 1996.)
In the South African context, ‘hands-on’ type of activities may be classified as Level-1 and Level-2 type of inquiry activities, while ‘hypothesis-testing’ may involve grades from Level-3 to Level-4 kinds of inquiry activities in the NCS (DoE, 2005b). However, in the CAPS version of the curriculum, the only prescription is that all seven skills must be assessed by the end of an academic year (DBE, 2011b). According to the CAPS policy (DBE, 2011b) in Grades 10 and 11 three practical pieces are prescribed together with a practical examination while in Grade 12 only three pieces of practical work are prescribed for formal assessment.
Furthermore, the CAPS policy does not indicate how the seven skills ought to be assessed.
Hence, the focus becomes one of process skills. The danger of such a situation is the independent or out of context address of these skills. Therefore there is the potential of minimising learner practice and understanding of the role and use of the process skills threaded together in a complete investigation. This state of affairs is no different from somebody learning the steps of a dance, but not having the opportunity of practising these steps in a dance.