This poster reports on an empirical study testing the relative efficacy of carefully designed inquiry based science instruction versus comparable direct instruction with regard to 8^th grade science concept development. Inquiry based science instruction reflects the investigative attitudes and empirical techniques scientists use to discover and construct new knowledge. A related idea is “Scientific Teaching” described in the journal Science (Handelsman et.al.), an aspect of which is that “the teaching of science should be faithful to the true nature of science by capturing the process of discovery in the classroom.” Direct science instruction typically refers to more traditional didactic methods.

            In recent years, with renewed interest in furthering scientific literacy, science education leadership bodies in the United States and the European Union have developed commitments to the teaching of science as inquiry across primary and secondary grades (American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Research Council, National Science Foundation, Osborne, Rocard et al.). With this emphasis on inquiry pedagogy, various stakeholders such as teachers, researchers, curriculum developers, and policymakers have been interested in the actual effectiveness of inquiry based curricula and teaching with respect to science concept achievement. A wide variety of research and evaluation projects have been carried out, and proponents of inquiry teaching claim that this body of work generally supports the effectiveness of inquiry instruction.  

            However, critics point out that little research on inquiry teaching has been comparative, controlled, and unconfounded; they also point to certain results that challenge the assumed superiority of inquiry (Klahr). A meta-analysis of research studies on inquiry instruction did not find them to yield sufficiently unconfounded inferences to adequately address the central issue (Education Development Center). One can read about, “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work” (Kirschner, Sweller and Clark), and one can find a recent critique of constructivism (Sweller). Concern about the ambiguity of experimental research on inquiry teaching, plus the fact that inquiry methods can often be more challenging and time-consuming to put into practice, have caused some degree of pressure for a return to direct instruction in both science and math. Hence, our group has designed and undertaken a controlled, comparative experimental study to carefully test the question: Is good inquiry instruction superior to good direct instruction for science concept development?

            Since it is evident that "experientially-based" instruction and "active student engagement" are both advantageous for effective science learning, “hands-on” and “minds-on” aspects are included in both our inquiry and our direct modes of instruction. The pertinent question we seek to address is not whether active, experiential learning of science is more effective than passive, non-experiential learning, but whether an inquiry approach or a direct approach to experientially-based instruction is more effective for science concept development, when both approaches are expertly designed and well executed. The essential aspect distinguishing inquiry and direct modes was boiled down to an “active agent” of “how students come to the concept.” To minimize threats to validity, we built four features into our research: Specificity, Fidelity, Objectivity, and Transparency. 

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press. Education Development Center. Inquiry Synthesis Project: Executive Summary. Retrieved [12 July 2009] from http://cse.edc.org/products/inquirysynth/ Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S. M., Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific Teaching. Science. 304, 521-522. Klahr, D. Paths of Learning and Their Consequences: Discovery Learning versus Direct Instruction in Elementary School Science Teaching. Retrieved [10 April 2009] from http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/supergroup/ 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(1), 75-86. Lawson, A. E., Abraham, M. R., Renner, J. W. (1989). A Theory of Instruction: Using the Learning Cycle to Teach Science Concepts and Thinking Skills. NARST, Cincinnati, OH. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Science Foundation’s Interagency Education Research Initiative funds this project (IERI/NSF 04-553) Award #0437655. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. Osborne, J. and Dillon, J. (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation. Retrieved [20 January 2010]] from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/fileLibrary/pdf/Sci_Ed_in_Europe_Report_Final.pdf Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate General for Research, Science, Economy and Society. Retrieved [20 January 2010] from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf SAMPI [Web Page] from http://www.wmich.edu/sampi/ Sweller, J. (2009). In Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? S. Tobias, T. M. Duffy, Eds. New York: Routledge. pp. 127-143.