Abstract
In the previous chapter a specific curriculum topic provided a way of exemplifying an overall pedagogical approach and associated practices. It provided a concrete context for introducing a number of pedagogical issues. In some ways it incorporates recommendations from current research as well as reflections from master teachers. A generic model which is a modification of a current popular model is proposed in this chapter. To give these modifications some concreteness and relate them to the pedagogy of teaching science, I will give a very brief summary of the work of two exemplary scientists – Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell. Drawing upon the in-depth studies of these scientists, I will summarize some essential practices and ways of thinking that can be incorporated into a revised pedagogical model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Gooding in Faraday Rediscovered gives a fuller account of this whole process.
- 2.
This is a curious observation because North reports that Thomson “should be credited for drawing the attention of physicist to the power of analogy (North, p. 123).
- 3.
This proposal runs counter to some recent research (Lesh and Doerr, 2003) where elementary and middle school students are at some point in their investigation moved to mathematical modeling. Some of this research has had real success in moving students to a deeper understanding of what they were investigating. These studies show that it is possible to move even younger children toward the development of mathematical models. Nevertheless, I reserve some skepticism for pushing students too soon to mathematical modeling based on my own experience in working with students. In the context of science teaching, it would be critical that students have sufficient time to become thoroughly acquainted with the phenomena being modeled. Additionally, many elementary teachers do not have the science and math background as well as the sophistication of the researchers in these studies. Until teachers become more proficient in these areas it may be premature to push elementary students in the development of mathematical models when carrying out science inquiry.
- 4.
Recently, with the growing use of computers simulations, modeling is becoming more prominent and is sometimes used at the very start of an investigation. This practice, I argue, is problematic because there is a tendency to move the students right into the use of the simulations or models before they have had a chance to become acquainted with the phenomenon in a more concrete and direct manner. The main point about the developmental progression presented here is that there is a gradual development moving from the “getting a good physical feeling for the phenomenon” to a schematic representation of the phenomenon.
- 5.
There can be inquiry where there is no direct manipulation of materials such as in the observation of the phases of the moon, or long-term observation of living systems. In these situations there is still a need to start out in an open manner gathering information and developing impressions before a more focused and systematic approach is taken.
References
Alibali, M. and Goldin-Meadow, W. (1993). Gesture-Speech Mismatch and Mechanisms of Learning: What the Hands Reveal about a Child’s State of Mind. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 468–523.
Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy. Portsmouth/New Hampshire, Heinemann.
Clarke, D. and Jorde, D., (2004). Helping Students Revise Disruptive Experientially Supported Ideas About Thermodynamics: Computer Visualization and Tactile Models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 1–23.
Cramer, K (2003). Using a Translation Model for Curriculum Development and Classroom Instruction in R. Lesh and H. M. Doerr (eds.). Beyond Constructivism, Modeling and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving Learning and Teaching, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., and Shouse, A. W. (eds.). (2007). Taking Science to School. Washington, DC, National Academies Press.
Gee, B. (1978). Models as a Pedagogical Tool: Can We Learn from Maxwell? Physics Education 13, 287–291.
Gooding, D. C. (2005). Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Visualization, Cognition, and Scientific Inference. In M. Gorman, R. Tweeny, D. Gooding, and A. Kincannon (eds.), Scientific and Technological Thinking (pp. 173–219). Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, pp. 208–209.
Gooding, D.C. (1985). In Nature’s School: Faraday as a Natural Philosopher. In D. Gooding and F. James (Eds.) Faraday Rediscovered (pp. 105, 135). New York, Macmillan/American Institute of Physics.
Harman, P. (1998). The Natural Philosophy of James Clerk Maxwell. Cambridge UK, Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, A., Abraham, M., and Renner, J. (1989). A Theory of Instruction: Using the Learning Cycle to Teach Science Concepts and Thinking Skills, NARST monograph, Number one.
Lesh R. and Doerr, H. M. (eds.) (2003). Beyond Constructivism, Modeling and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving Learning and Teaching. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.
Lesh, R. et al (2003). Model Development Sequences. In Lesh, R. and Doerr, H. M. (eds.), Beyond Constructivism, Modeling and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving Learning and Teaching, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.
Maxwell, J. (1833). A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (1883). In H. Bortoft (1996). The Wholeness of Nature: Goethe’s Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in Nature (p. 380). Barrington, MA, Lindisfarne Press.
Nersessian, N. (1992). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. In R. Giere (ed.), Cognitive Models of Science. Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, p. 25.
Nersessian, N. (1999). Model-Based Reasoning in Conceptual Change. In L. Magani, N. Nersessian, and P. Thagard (eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. New York, Kluwer.
Nersessian, N. (2005). Interpreting Scientific and Engineering Practices: Integrating the Cognitive, Social and Cultural Dimensions. In M. Gorman, R. Tweeny, D. Gooding, and A. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and Technological Thinking (pp. 17–56). Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.
North, J. N. (1980). Science and Analogy in Scientific Discourse. M. D. Grmek, R. S. Cohen, and G. Cimino (eds.). Dordrecht, Holland, D. Reiderl.
Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and Prediction. Urbana/Chicago/London, The University of Chicago Press.
Roth, W.-M. (2001). Gestures: Their Role in Teaching and Learning. Review of Education Research, 71(3), 365–392.
Roth, W.-M. and Welzel, M. (2001). From Activity to Gestures and Scientific Language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(1), 103–136.
Schon, D. A. (1979). Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem-Setting in Social Policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Snir, J., Smith, C., and Grosslight, L. (1993). Conceptually Enhanced Simulations: A Computer Tool for Science Teaching. Journal of Science and Technology, 2, 373–388.
Tweney, R. D. (1985). Faraday’s Discovery of Induction: A Cognitive Approach. In Faraday Rediscovered: Essays on the Life and Work of Michael Faraday. New York, Stockton Press.
Tweney, R., Mears, R., and Spitzmuller, C. (2005). Replicating the Practices of Discovery: Michael Faraday and the Interaction of Gold and Light. In M. Gorman, R. Tweney, D. Gooding, and A. Kincannon (eds.), Scientific and Technological Thinking (pp. 137–159). Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.
White, B. (1993) Thinker Tools: Causal Models, Conceptual Change, and Science Education. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 1–100.
White B. and Frederiksen J. R. (1998). Inquiry, Modeling and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
Williams, L. (1965). Michael Faraday: A Biography. New York, Da Capo Press, Subsidiary of Plenum.
Wise, M. N. (1979). The Mutual Embrace of Electricity and Magnetism, Science, 203, 1310–1318.
Zubrowski, B. (2001). Salad Dressing Physics Curriculum Guide in the Explore-It Series. Farmindale, NY, Kelvin.
Zubrowski, B. (2007). An Observation Tool and Planning Tool for Professional Development in Science Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(6), 861–884.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zubrowski, B. (2009). A Pedagogical Model For Guided Inquiry. In: Exploration and Meaning Making in the Learning of Science. Innovations in Science Education and Technology, vol 18. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2496-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2496-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2495-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2496-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)