Inquiry

Inquiry is related to what the Framework and the NGSS now call “practices.”  We can think of practices as “unpacking” inquiry. The practices are an attempt to more specifically identify the activities that scientists and engineers actually engage in, like asking questions, or creating and testing prototypes. In early childhood, we use inquiry to refer to the ways in which we want children to engage with content – even outside of STEM – to construct their own meaning about the world (see Constructivism below). Here is one definition of inquiry as it relates to science teaching from the Exploratorium:

“Good science education requires both learning scientific concepts and developing scientific thinking skills. Inquiry is an approach to learning that involves a process of exploring the natural or material world, and that leads to asking questions, making discoveries, and testing those discoveries in the search for new understanding. Inquiry, as it relates to science education, should mirror as closely as possible the enterprise of doing real science.”

Teachers need to have at least a grade-level knowledge of the phenomena kids are investigating, the concepts they are trying to teach, and how the two connect to facilitate inquiry effectively. Teachers should also be immersed in their own facilitated inquiry as a prerequisite to being able to teach in this way. Regarding inquiry when teaching STEM, Banchi and Bell (2008) describe four levels of inquiry, ranging from the most teacher-directed, in which the teacher has total control over the questions, methods, and outcomes of the experience, to the least teacher-directed, in which the students have control over all of these aspects of an activity. These four levels are:

(Llewellyn, 2014, p. 114)

Often, we want our learners to have hands-on, minds-on opportunities with materials, so that they are manipulating them, and coming to conclusions on their own.

“Hands-on science has not always been minds-on science. The opportunity to ask questions, manipulate materials, and conduct investigations—a major emphasis of inquiry-based science—has not always resulted in deeper conceptual learning. That is because the learning is not in the materials or investigations themselves, but in the sense children make out of their experiences as they use the materials to perform investigations, make observations, and construct explanations.” (Keely, 2013, p. 27)

Our approach is that there is room for all of these types of inquiry to different extents, in different early and elementary school classroom contexts. One is not necessarily better than the other. As a teacher, you will need to decide which approach is best for a lesson by considering the content being covered, the abilities of your students, and their prior knowledge. Sometimes, it is valuable to start with a more open exploration (e.g., students explore light by playing with flashlights, mirrors, and other materials) and move to a more focused investigation (e.g., students are challenged to use materials to reflect light on a specific target). At other times, the level of inquiry might move from more teacher-directed to more open. For example, a teacher might provide a specific question for students to address and then allow students to generate their own questions for the next round of testing. However, in science teaching, we do want to make sure that students have some input over their science experiences, regardless of the level of inquiry being used. This is in line with current thinking in science teaching.

Inquiry-based teaching is often challenging for many in-service and pre-service teachers. Therefore, we want to make sure readers get a chance to think about what these types of learning experiences look like, and the inherent challenges in them (e.g., potential stress as a teacher that you do not know the outcome of an experiment that students design). Barriers to facilitating these types of learning experiences may include the following: 1) fear of a mess, 2) concern that the teacher may not know the answer to unplanned student questions, 3) lack of resources or feasibility of testing a student question, 4) worries about time considering on demands or requirements, and 5) lack of control. Other barriers can be teachers’ own misunderstanding of the nature of science—viewing science as a static body of knowledge (in which answers are always right or wrong) vs. as a continuous process of collecting data and refining understanding based on new evidence. Many of us do not view science learning on a developmental continuum, like we do with literacy. We would never give a first grader Romeo and Juliet but in science we continually present young kids with information that is beyond them because we don’t ground it in observable phenomena or consider how their developmental levels come into play. By paying attention to children’s levels of development, we can better meet them where they are at.

These barriers are very real, and they may feel debilitating even when only allowing for minimal inquiry in one’s classroom. If this happens, know that you are not alone. And this approach is different than many early or elementary school teachers or pre-service teachers have experienced or even than they have been taught in other courses.

The approaches we discuss in this text are based on sound research about how kids learn and how science is best taught and learned. Our advice is that you will ultimately need to find your own comfort level, but you have to trust us that going through an experience with young children in which you push yourself to be open to their responses, and to follow their lead (as much as is feasible in your context), will be a great source of professional growth. You will see what it is like, and then you will find your own way. Learning by doing it will, at minimum, give you a chance to see the strengths and limitations of this way of teaching science and integrated STEM, and to find your own path.