This page sets out to answer the most obvious and important question about S-TEAM: what is it that we are trying to spread across the world of science teaching? The immediate answer is "Inquiry based science teaching & Education" but this is not a simple or unproblematic concept. If it was, then the perceived problem of low motivation towards science might not exist. For S-TEAM, the problem of proving the effectiveness of IBST is put on hold to some extent, as we are tasked with using methods which are already proven, or at least accepted. From time to time, however, the question of proven effectiveness will arise.
There are, of course, many different opinions about what constitutes 'inquiry' and whether any of its manifestations in teaching are effective in promoting pupil learning or increasing pupil motivation. The two are not necessarily correlated and some researchers (e.g. Kirschner et al, 2006) suggest that 'liking' and 'learning' are not synonymous. We also have to think about 'learning' in relation to a body of scientific knowledge which is too large for any individual pupil, teacher or curriculum to grasp as a whole. This leads to the idea of teaching about scientific thinking, processes or methods rather than scientific knowledge itself.
The Kirschner et al paper was controversial even within Educational psychology. Some responses can be found in Hmelo-Silver et al (2007) and Schmidt et al (2007), and in Sweller, Kirschner & Chinn (2007), a reply to their critics. An up to date review paper on the effectiveness of IBST is Minner et al (2009).
There were some interesting responses from S-TEAM participants when the Kirschner paper was circulated. Jim NcNally comments:
The paper makes a good case, though it is polarised and lacking in understanding of practice (such as Sinclair's?), but of course we are not promoting inquiry over conventional instruction or good traditional teaching - only responding to its rather pervasive absence within a wider and potentially more sophisticated (advanced) pedagogy. The naive embrace of inquiry without an adequate knowledge base (of teachers and their pupils) is destined to fail (in Science at least) in all hands but those of the most inspired and dedicated of teachers. Given the conditions of confidence in that knowledge and some other teacherly instincts, would the writers advocate that teachers ignore the legitimate questions of children arising from their work, or the small, feasible challenges that teachers themselves might pose, secure in their own knowledge, achievement and status?
Is there to be no risk at all, no fun?
Costas comments that This is a very misguided paper partly because it confuses IBSE with discovery learning. Cindy Hmelo-Silver wrote a rebuttal which is both interesting and useful... this discussion is productive
...whereas Pascal Bressoux says
I already know this paper, which is excellent. It relies on psychological theory (of memory) and empirical studies that produce evidence on the lack of effectiveness of problem-based teaching (at least for those students who do not have enough knowledge stored in long-term memory). It also shows that the Rocard report is probably mistaken...
Bob Evans sent this:
[The Kirscher, et al article] caused a few ripples when it first came out; among many other reasons, due to its broad and provocative trashing of almost every established contemporary method of science teaching (including IBST). It's actually interesting to follow the reactions to Kirschner, et al and in turn, their response to those. I am attaching some of the most significant responses (see links above).
My general personal take when reading the original article is that the authors have inferred quite incorrectly that modern IBST methods advocate 'minimal guidance'. That concept, which is a tthe heart of their concerns, is antithetical to everything we do in IBST. We teach in our courses and incorporate in our workshops continuous and thoughtful guidance and scaffolding of learning...inquiry doesn't work without that. For example, even the videos we are accumulating for S-Team show teachers continuously and creatively guiding students as groups, individuals and whole classes. I think the author's reading of some early versions of 'discovery' learning has led them to believe hands-off teaching is a part of modern methods. Of course, as we all know, it's rote, transmissive force-feeding that is off-the agenda for successful learning, being replaced by crafted, motivating guided constructivism. We tell our students that their job is to imagine each student/group as a 'top' that needs to be kept perpetually spinning (thinking, constructing) and that when any top in their class begins to slow down, their role is to give it a spin to keep it going on its own for as long as possible. This vision is of course quite different from one of 'minimal guidance' and so this article does not speak to our methodological reality. But, this is just my general take and not a specific detailed refutation of the points in the article.
(The following paragraph comes from the S-TEAM proposal)
S-TEAM recognises that inquiry-based teaching is complex and that specialist aspects such as argumentation skills or disciplinary differences need to be taken into account. Inquiry based learning methods allow scientific knowledge, processes and contexts to interact in the science classroom to promote scientific literacy. These methods are very demanding of teachers, requiring skills which are not necessarily addressed in current teacher education practices. Teachers also need to be able to manage debate and argumentation in the classroom to achieve learning objectives whilst allowing the kind of curiosity and intellectual freedom characteristic of genuine scientific inquiry.
Generally, inquiry-based science teaching and education engages students in:
authentic, problem-based learning activities where there may not be a correct answer
(ii) experimental procedures, experiments and "hands on" activities, including searching for information
(iii) self-regulated learning sequences where student autonomy is emphasised
(iv) discursive argumentation and communication with peers ("talking science")