Abstract
For years, inquiry-based learning has been conceived of and promoted as one of the best approaches to learning science. However, there is currently a movement within the science education community that suggests promoting science learning based on scientific practices, instead of inquiry, because in this way, science learning would be more coherent with the enterprise that is science. But, are there well-founded reasons to work towards this shift, or is it just a new terminology with which to refer to inquiry? In order to respond to this question, firstly, the main arguments which support science education based on scientific practices are presented. Secondly, an analysis is made in order to determine the extent to which the approach based on scientific practices is innovative with respect to the inquiry approach. Thirdly, nature of the inquiry and scientific practice constructs is analyzed. All of this is done from a critical and reflective view. Finally, some reflections and suggestions are made in relation to practice-based science education.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
K-12 Framework NRC (2012) document is cited in the majority of the current international studies on practice-based science education (see, for example, the references cited above). In addition, that document is mentioned in the Science Framework of PISA 2015 and 2018 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2017, 2019), which is an international program that currently affects 76 countries.
It is necessary to clarify that NGSS are not an official mandatory for science education in the USA. Indeed, according to the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA, https://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx), various states have not adopted the NGSS, and others have adopted them only partially. Even so, I consider that the NGSS is possibly the most coherent or high-profile document for analyzing science education in the USA. In addition, according to the literature on science education, the NGSS are very influential in other many countries.
This is referred in K–12 Framework (NRC 2012) as follows: “(...) attempts to develop the idea that science should be taught through a process of inquiry have been hampered by the lack of a commonly accepted definition of its constituent elements” (p. 44).
In the K–12 Framework (2012) document, the term “(scientific) inquiry” is mentioned numerous times; however, unlike previous standards NRC (1996), what should be understood by “inquiry” within the practice-based framework is not given (or, at least, not explicitly).
Larkin (2019) argues that “the choice to avoid specific pedagogy in standards documents seems understandable and reasonable because there is even less agreement on pedagogical approaches to teaching science than there is on the standards themselves (…). Yet, it seems paradoxical to try to develop a public understanding of science education [which is promoted in these documents] without some sense of how exactly that education is to take place” (p. 1296; the brackets are mine).
According to Google Scholar, this article currently has close to 1900 citations.
The adjective “epistemic” derives from the Greek term episteme whose meaning in its philosophical acceptance is “knowledge that is methodologically and rationally constructed as against opinions which lack foundation” (Spanish Royal Academy’s Dictionary, https://www.rae.es).
I would not possibly interpret it in this way if Kelly always was talking about “scientific practices” in his theoretical approach. I think that language is very important in any knowledge area, and the selection of a name is always intentional—one is seeking a precise as possible designation of the idea one wants to represent.
Duschl (2008) specifically talks about “a more balanced focus among things conceptual, epistemic, and social” (p. 283).
For Kelly (2014), striving to meet these three objectives of science education demands a critical analysis and discussions about nature of inquiry, which I fully share with him. I consider this is independent of my critique on his terminology usage regarding “practices,” which I exposed above.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.
Abell, S. K., Smith, D. C., & Volkmann, M. J. (2006). Inquiry in science teacher education. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 173–199). Dordrecht: Springer.
Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., García-Carmona, A., & Aragón, M. M. (2017). Enseñar y aprender sobre naturaleza de la ciencia mediante el análisis de controversias de historia de la ciencia. Resultados y conclusiones de un proyecto de investigación didáctica [Teaching and learning about nature of science through the analysis of controversies from history of science. Results and conclusions of an educational research project]. Madrid: Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (OEI).
Allchin, D. (2004). Should the sociology of science be rated X? Science Education, 88(6), 934–946.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Aragón-Méndez, M. M., Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., & García-Carmona, A. (2019). Prospective biology teachers’ understanding of the nature of science through an analysis of the historical case of Semmelweis and childbed fever. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(3), 525–555.
Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding students’ experiments—What kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2719–2749.
Asay, L. D., & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in The Science Teacher, 1998–2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 57–79.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2015). Foundation–Year 10 Australian Curriculum: Science. Retrieved from: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/science/. Accessed 30 Jan 2020.
Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 265–278.
Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112.
Bevins, S., & Price, G. (2016). Reconceptualising inquiry in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 17–29.
Bybee, R. W. (2006). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding a framework for K-12 science education. Science and Children, 49(4), 10–16.
Cañal, P., Pozuelos, F. J., & Travé, G. (2005). Proyecto Curricular Investigando Nuestro Mundo (6-12). Descripción General y Fundamentos [The “Inquiring our World (6-12)” Project. General Description and Foundations]. Sevilla: Díada.
Cheng, M. F., Wu, T. Y., & Lin, S. F. (2019). Investigating the relationship between views of scientific models and modeling practice. Research in Science Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09880-2
Clough, M. P. (2018). Teaching and learning about the nature of science. Science & Education, 27(1–2), 1–5.
Collins, H. (2015). Can we teach people what science is really like? Science Education, 99(6), 1049–1054.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.
Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.
Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, volume II (pp. 515–541). New York: Routledge.
Crujeiras-Pérez, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2018). Influencia de distintas estrategias de andamiaje para promover la participación del alumnado de secundaria en las prácticas científicas [Influence of different scaffolding strategies for engaging secondary students in scientific practices]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 36(2), 23–42.
Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Why does it matter? Science & Education, 25(1–2), 147–164.
Department for Education. (2013). Science programmes of study: Key stages 1 and 2. National curriculum in England: Science programmes of study.
Durando, M., Sjøberg, S., Gras-Velazquez, A., Leontaraki, I., Martin Santolaya, E., & Tasiopoulou, E. (2019). Teacher training and IBSE practice in Europe–A European Schoolnet overview. Brussels: European Schoolnet.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.
Education Ministry. (2014). Royal Decree 126/2014, February 28, establishing the basic curriculum of primary education. Madrid: Official Bulletin of the State.
Education Ministry. (2015). Royal Decree 1105/2014, January 3, establishing the basic curriculum of secondary education. Madrid: Official Bulletin of the State.
Elliott, K. C., & McKaughan, D. J. (2014). Nonepistemic values and the multiple goals of science. Philosophy of Science, 81(1), 1–21.
Erduran, S. (2015). Introduction to the focus on… scientific practices. Science Education, 99(6), 1023–1025.
Erduran, S., Dagher, Z. R., & McDonald, C. V. (2019). Contributions of the family resemblance approach to nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 311–328.
Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.
Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048.
Forman, E. A., & Ford, M. J. (2014). Authority and accountability in light of disciplinary practices in science. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 199–210.
Furtak, E. M., & Penuel, W. R. (2019). Coming to terms: Addressing the persistence of “hands-on” and other reform terminology in the era of science as practice. Science Education, 103(1), 167–186.
Furtak, E. M., Shavelson, R. J., Shemwell, J. T., & Figueroa, M. (2012). To teach or not to teach through inquiry. In J. Shrager & S. Carver (Eds.), The journey from child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences (pp. 227–244). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
García-Carmona, A. (2020). Prospective elementary teachers’ abilities in tackling a contextualized physics problem as guided inquiry. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física, 42, e20190280. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9126-RBEF-2019-0280.
García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2017). Understanding the nature of science through a critical and reflective analysis of the controversy between Pasteur and Liebig on fermentation. Science & Education, 26(1), 65–91.
García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2018). The nature of scientific practice and science education. Science & Education, 27(5–6), 435–455.
García-Carmona, A., Criado, A. M., & Cruz-Guzmán, M. (2017). Primary pre-service teachers’ skills in planning a guided scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 989–1010.
García-Carmona, A., Criado, A. M., & Cruz-Guzmán, M. (2018). Prospective primary teachers’ prior experiences, conceptions, and pedagogical valuations of experimental activities in science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 237–253.
Harlen, W. (2012). Fibonacci project. Background resources for implementing inquiry in science and mathematics at school. Paris: Fondation La main à la pâte.
Harlen, W. (Ed.). (2015). Working with big ideas of science education. Trieste: Science Education Programme of IAP.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht: Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Crujeiras, B. (2017). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education (pp. 69–80). Rotterdam: Sense.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Jiménez-Liso, M. R., Martínez-Chico, M., Avraamidou, L., & López-Gay, R. (2019). Scientific practices in teacher education: The interplay of sense, sensors, and emotions. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1647158.
Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99–117). Rotterdam: Sense.
Kelly, G. J. (2014). Inquiry teaching and learning: Philosophical considerations. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1363–1380). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kelly, G. J., & Licona, P. (2018). Epistemic practices and science education. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), History, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 139–165). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kim, M., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students’ scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211–233.
Kim, M., & Tan, A.-L. (2011). Rethinking difficulties of teaching inquiry-based practical work: Stories from elementary pre-service teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 465–486.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kreimer, P. (2005). Karin Knorr Cetina. La fabricación del conocimiento. Un ensayo sobre el carácter constructivista y contextual de la ciencia [review of the Spanish version of the book “The machine of knowledge: an essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science”, by K. Knorr-Cetina]. Redes, 11(22), 209–216.
Larkin, D. B. (2019). Attending to the public understanding of science education: A response to Furtak and Penuel. Science Education, 103(5), 1294–1300.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lederman, N. G. (2019). Contextualizing the relationship between nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 249–267.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Is nature of science going, going, going, gone? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(3), 235–238.
Lin, H. S., Gilbert, J. K., & Lien, C. J. (Eds.). (2016). Science education research and practice in East Asia: Trends and perspectives. Taipei: Higher Education Publishing.
Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). Computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning and classroom scripts: Effects on help-seeking processes and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 257–266.
Malkawi, A. R., & Rababah, E. Q. (2018). Jordanian twelfth-grade science teachers’ self-reported usage of science and engineering practices in the next generation science standards. International Journal of Science Education, 40(9), 961–976.
Martins, A. F. P. (2015). Natureza da ciência no ensino de ciências: uma proposta baseada em “temas” e “questões” [Nature of science in science education: a proposal based on “themes” and “questions”]. Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, 32(3), 703–737.
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In E. M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.
Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington: National Academies Press.
Ministry of Education (2008). The Ontario curriculum, grades 1–8. Science and Technology. Retrieved from: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/scientec18currb.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2020.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction —What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
Mody, C. M. D. (2015). Scientific practice and science education. Science Education, 99(6), 1026–1032.
Mulholland, P., Collins, T., Gaved, M., Wright, M., Sharples, M., Greenhalgh, C., ... & Littleton, K. (2009). Activity guide: An approach to scripting inquiry learning. In: AIED Workshop on Exploratory Learning Environments, 6-10 Jul 2009, Brighton, UK.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (Eds.) (2016). TIMSS 2015 encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in mathematics and science. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/encyclopedia/. Accessed 30 Jan 2020.
National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington: The National Academies Press.
Newman, W. J., Abell, S. K., Hubbard, P. D., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 257–279.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington: The National Academies Press.
Nuffield Foundation (2013). Introduction to model-based inquiry. Retrieved from: https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-work-learning/introduction-model-based-inquiry. Accessed 14 Aug 2019.
Öberg, G., & Campbell, A. (2019). Navigating the divide between scientific practice and science studies to support undergraduate teaching of epistemic knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 41(2), 230–247.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Volume 1: Analysis. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2017). PISA 2015 Science Framework. In PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196.
Prins, G. T., Bulte, A. M., & Pilot, A. (2018). Designing context-based teaching materials by transforming authentic scientific modelling practices in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1108–1135.
Ramnarain, U. (2018). Scientific literacy in East Asia: Shifting toward an inquiry-informed learning perspective. In Primary science education in East Asia (pp. 201–213). Cham: Springer.
Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: Directorate General for Research, Science, Economy and Society.
Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground–A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161–197.
Rundgren, C. J. (2018). Implementation of inquiry-based science education in different countries: Some reflections. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(2), 607–615.
Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465–472.
Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry: A way to promote learning during laboratory activities. The Science Teacher, 76(7), 42–47.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487–516.
Stroupe, D. (2015). Describing “science practice” in learning settings. Science Education, 99(6), 1033–1040.
Swain, F. (2019). Is it right to use Nazi research if it can save lives? BBC.com . Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190723-the-ethics-of-using-nazi-science. Accessd 24 July 2019.
Tang, X., Coffey, J. E., Elby, A., & Levin, D. M. (2010). The scientific method and scientific inquiry: Tensions in teaching and learning. Science Education, 94(1), 29–47.
Volkmann, M. J., & Abell, S. K. (2003). Seamless assessment. Science and Children, 40(8), 41–45.
Vorholzer, A., & von Aufschnaiter, C. (2019). Guidance in inquiry-based instruction–An attempt to disentangle a manifold construct. International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1562–1577.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.
Yoon, H. G., Joung, Y. J., & Kim, M. (2012). The challenges of science inquiry teaching for pre-service teachers in elementary classrooms: Difficulties on and under the scene. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 589–608.
Yoon, S. Y., Suh, J. K., & Park, S. (2014). Korean students’ perceptions of scientific practices and understanding of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2666–2693.
Zangori, L., & Forbes, C. T. (2014). Scientific practices in elementary classrooms: Third-grade students’ scientific explanations for seed structure and function. Science Education, 98(4), 614–639.
Zhang, L. (2016). Is inquiry-based science teaching worth the effort? Some thoughts worth considering. Science & Education, 25(7–8), 897–915.
Funding
This study was supported by the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (Government of Spain) under grant EDU2017-82505-P.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declared that he has no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
García-Carmona, A. From Inquiry-Based Science Education to the Approach Based on Scientific Practices. Sci & Educ 29, 443–463 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00108-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00108-8