Communities Of Enquiry In Science Education: Tensions And Opportunities

Author(s):

Lynda Dunlop(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching

Format:

Paper

Session Information

27 SES 05 C, Disciplinary Cultures, Learning Strategies and Communities of Inquiry

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-03

11:00-12:30

Room:

B018 Anfiteatro

Chair:

Anatoli Rakhkochkine

Contribution

Engagement with science has been identified as a key priority to be addressed in Northern Ireland (DE and DEL, 2009), where engagement with science has been found to decline in the last years of primary schooling (Murphy and Beggs, 2003) and the first years of secondary schooling (Royal Society, 2008). This paper brings together the findings of two studies in science education in Northern Ireland that aim to address young people's engagement with science: the Forward Thinking project (funded by the Wellcome Trust), and Primary Communities of Scientific Enquiry project (funded by the AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust). These projects were introduced at a time when the status of science in the curriculum was being challenged; indeed science is no longer a stand alone subject in the primary curriculum; nor is it compulsory beyond the age of 14.

The approach used in these studies (community of scientific enquiry) was based on an adaptation of Philsophy for Children (P4C), a practice that promotes a critical disposition and the questioning of so-called facts (Lipman et al., 1980) by exploring philosophical concepts and working towards the recognition of complexity and an appreciation of difference where it is not possible to reach a consensus (Williams, 2012). Research on P4C in science is limited, however one study based in the UK found gains in scientific reasoning (Sprod, 1998). P4C can be used to support teaching of the nature of science, ethical issues relating to scientific content, e.g. when considering aspects of contemporary science including, for example, advances in biotechnology and reproductive technologies, which raise uncertainties about what is possible, what is right, and appropriate ways to conduct scientific research. An exploration of questions such as these is consistent with a science education for scientific literacy (Millar and Osborne, 1998), which highlights the need for science education to develop not only knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts, but also of the consequences of science, and of the nature of science.

The studies presented here have a common aim to engage children in science by giving them the space to determine and explore the questions of interest to them through a community of enquiry (Lipman, 2003). This presents a departure from the authoritative teacher talk (Mortimer and Scott, 2003) or so-called ‘ritual discourse’ (Halstead and Pike, 2006) that prevails in many science classrooms, with children rarely asking the questions, far less challenging teachers’ explanations or interpretations (Mercer, 2002).

Method

This research involved the creation of classroom communities of enquiry over a period of a minimum of 4 sessions. In each session, children shared a science-based stimulus (for example, a reading, cartoon, video, demonstration or game) in response to which they created questions. These questions were then shared with the group, which selected the questions on which to focus. The lesson was then dedicated to exploring the questions through dialogue, with a focus on enquiry rather than preserving the power in student-teacher relations, as it is in triadic dialogue (Lemke,1990). Each enquiry and the series of enquiries was evaluated by the community, with questionnaires containing open and closed items were used to ascertain children’s and teachers’ perceptions of the approach. A concurrent mixed-methods design was used to determine the extent to which the community of scientific enquiry approach engaged young people with science. A total of 871 children (364 aged 9 - 11 and 507 aged 11 - 14) participated in a series of enquiries related to science in which they decided the questions for exploration, which were then discussed as a whole group with the teacher. At the end of the series, they and their teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire containing closed and open items about their engagement with science.

Expected Outcomes

Findings suggest that most young people (93%) enjoyed the community of enquiry classes and knew more about science as a result of their participation in the classes (89%), however this perception was not validated using tests of subject knowledge. The strengths of the approach include the promotion of an environment conducive to learning, student choice of (in their opinion, interesting and important) topics, and ability to experience different activities. In particular they enjoyed a more active role in their science classes, being able to express themselves and hear what their peers had to say. Challenges to the approach included appropriate implementation: this needs to be flexible and sensitive to competing demands on children (including examinations), ensuring that dialogue is facilitated effectively, and the need for time for the group to develop as a community and to adjust their classroom habitus (Stark and Gray, 1999). The challenges identified by teachers included balancing the demands of a prescriptive curriculum with time to explore students’ own interests and ideas, and encouraging more reticent students to participate. Although the extent to which science classrooms can be truly democratic remains open to question, but a community of enquiry approach to teaching and learning in the subject represents one way of ensuring children have a greater say in what they learn and how they learn.

References

DE and DEL (Department of Education and the Department of Emplyment and Learning), 2009. Report of the STEM Review. Retrieved 30 May, 2014 from: http://www.delni.gov.uk/report_of_the_stem_review.pdf Dewey, J. (2007) Democracy in Education. Teddington: Echo Library. Halstead, J.M. and Pike, M.A. (2006). Citizenship and moral education. Values in Action. Abingdon: Routledge. Lemke, J. L. (1990) Talking Science Language, Lrarning and Values Westport: Ablex Lipman, M., Sharp, A.M. and Oscanyan, F.S. (1980) Philosophy in the Classroom 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Lipman, M. (2003) Thinking in Education (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Millar, R. and Osborne, J. (1998) Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future. London: King’s College. Mercer, N. (2002). Developing Dialogues. In Wells, G. and Clacon, G. (2002) Lerning for life in the C21st: Sociocultural perspectives ont eh future of education. Oxford: Blackwell. pp 141 - 153 Mortimer, E.F. and Scott, P.H. (2003). Making meaning in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Stark, R. and Gray, D. (1999). Gender preferences in learning science. International Journal of Science Education 21 (6) pp 633 - 643. Williams, S. (2012) Philosophy for Children through the Secondary Curriculum. London: Continuum.

Author Information

Lynda Dunlop (presenting / submitting)

University of York

Education

York

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.