Comparison of Strategies: The strategy we used in class for doing batteries and bulbs was very different from Ms. Stone's as described in our textbooks. During Ms. Stone's lesson, she employed mostly Level 1 type of inquiry. Questions and vocabulary came directly from her and children were simply vessels to absorb her teaching. Although they physically conducted an experiment, students were given no freedom to make individual choice or try anything outside of the scope of Ms. Stone's lesson. Each group was given identical materials and was expected to use them in a identical fashion. Because the students all came to this experiment with different levels of prior knowledge, some students got bored easily and became restless and off task. On the other hand, our in-class experiment with batteries and bulbs operated more on Inquiry Level 2. Even though we were first given a teacher generated question, the method to obtain an answer was left up to each of us. Our supplies were similar, but not identical. This allowed us to observe other groups and see how they were using or adapting their materials to achieve their goal. If we had been given more time, we could have moved into a Level 3 Inquiry by constructing our own types of circuits and postulating why one circuit may have produced a brighter light than another. This type of experiment correlates closely with the two points I have chosen to discuss about the Nature of Science.
Beliefs About the Nature of
Science: The two tenets of science that I believe are true are as
follows: 1) Science is the process of inquiry, and 2)
Science is based on assumptions that we believe to be true. I
think that the experiments we have conducted in class and those we
have experienced in our personal history validate these points. For
example, when we conducted the batteries and bulbs experiment in
class, we had a set of assumptions that we believed to be true. Our
discussion before we conducted the experiment verified what many
people believed about circuitry. When we actually did the test, we
attempted to garner results that confirmed our assumptions. We then
compared what we expected to see with the actual results.
Results that confirmed our belief helped to solidify that knowledge
for us. If the results were contrary to what we expected to find, we
experienced cognitive dissonance. In most cases, we were able to
readjust our thinking and by doing so, we had new knowledge to add to
our existing notion about how a circuit works.
Believing that science is the process of inquiry allows us to teach
children in diverse ways and allows them to propose explanations
based on evidence derived from their own work. This helps
children construct their own knowledge and understanding of
scientific ideas as well as understanding how scientists study the
natural world. As we know, constructed knowledge will remain with a
student long after the actual class has passed. A lesson I taught to
a sixth grade class confirms this point clearly for me. The objective
of my lesson was to conduct a scientific observation about light. I
showed the students a simple candle and asked them how many things
they could tell about the candle. Everyone believed they could name
at least five things, but confidence began to dwindle by the time I
asked if they could say twenty things. The students observed the
unlit candle, lit it and continued to observe and concluded
observations with the lit candle in the dark. By the time we
finished, we had recorded nearly fifty observations and could have
added more had time allowed. The students were amazed that we could
come up with that much to say about candles and the light they
produced. Certainly, I could have given them an extensive list that I
had compiled. However, by allowing the students the freedom to gather
evidence based on their own work they took away a deeper
understanding of scientific observation.
Philosophy for Science Learning and Teaching: Both of the tenets discussed above lend themselves to all three levels of inquiry. When students are just beginning to gather scientific evidence, Level 1 Inquiry can be conducted. Even though the teacher provides the question, students will still conduct a directed inquiry for answers. These answers will most likely be in line with assumptions students already believe to be true. In a Level Two or Three Inquiry, the students will still be looking for results that confirm their assumptions, but as they progress from Level Two to Three the question will be of their own design. This is the point true inquiry comes into use, when the student conducts an investigation to answer a question formed from their own curiosities. As teachers of science, it is our duty to guide our students to Level Three inquiry whenever safe and possible.