Running Head: SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY IN THE CLASSROOM

Scientific Inquiry in the Classroom

Justin McEntire

Ivy Tech Community College

SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY IN THE CLASSROOM 2

I have always seen inquiry as a process of finding answers that are based upon prior learning in

a logical fashion. Within the classroom this is seen through play, questioning, organizing, and

devising tests. Everything must align with the scientific method, and it is imperative students

understand how science is performed. Whenever possible, the teacher should only act as a tour

guide, helpfully providing suggestions, but not requirements. Education can be either forced or

obtained, but I believe that it is best presented as a reward.

Having said this, a group of teachers recommend a method of providing inquiry within a

classroom (Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, Bohaman, 2005). While I believe any of the writers for

Science Scope would agree with my synopsis of inquiry, they provided an intriguing approach

for bringing science to the classroom. This group uses a retention pond at their school in

Wisconsin. They have students bring questions to class, and air one of them for the whole group.

If the question is not easily answerable and appropriate, they have it tested. This allows students

to ensure their questions are open ended, and age appropriate. The students can then observe and

attempt to appropriately answer their questions over the course of the school year. Since

Wisconsin has winters similar to Indianas, the school allows students to recreate habitats within

the classroom in the winter. This allows students to test viability and absurdity. For instance, the

article reports that one student wanted sharks in his habitat, while another wanted two male beta

fish that would fight. Clearly there are limits to what can be done in a classroom, and students

should learn to focus on practical questions when testing. The article further explains that good

questions come from knowledge, and that is where students should form their hypothesis.

Furthermore, the group also stated that some science questions may take a considerable amount

of time to accomplish, and that time limits should sometimes be set aside. In all, a teacher should
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY IN THE CLASSROOM 3

ensure that students ask good questions according to Blooms Taxonomy, they should base their

hypothesis on prior knowledge, they should test for viability and should not be restrained when

possible.

Put simply, Science Scope almost quotes the National Science Teachers Associations

declarations ("NSTA Position," 2004). They state inquiry should be planned with short and long

term goals, students should ask appropriate questions, the school should provide appropriate

resources, and hypothesis should be based on prior knowledge. Additionally, students should

understand that the scientific method is the correct way to deduce new information, and

everything scientific should be based upon this method. Comparatively, the article allowed for

goals of all lengths, required appropriate approval and resources, and heavily emphasized asking

appropriate questions. If the test is not observable, testable, reasonable, and do no harm, it is not

appropriate inquiry. I believe the method laid out by Science Scope is valuable, since the method

they describe is easily adaptable to other lessons, and aligns nicely with both my definition and

the NSTAs definition of scientific inquiry.

SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY IN THE CLASSROOM 4

References

Lucas, D., Broderick, N., Lehrer, R., & Bohaman, R. (2005). Making the ground of scientific

inquiry visible in the classroom. Science Scope, (3). 39.

NSTA position statement. (2004, October). Retrieved March 20, 2017, from

http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx