From a combination of conversations with current classmates and colleagues, real work experience in the field of biomedical science, and reflection upon my own experiences in high school and college, I have come to believe strongly that we must focus our attentions on engaging secondary science students in the practice of ‘real science’ in the classroom. As Osborne (2007) explains, we need to move our students away from the fallacious idea that, “because scientific knowledge itself is difficult and hard won, learning and understanding science requires a similar process where the student's knowledge and understanding are assembled brick by brick, or fact by fact (p.174);” we need to help students to “see [scientific] knowledge and understanding as something which is developed, at least in part, through dialogue (p.180).”
A method for teaching science as dialogue is the use of inquiry labs. As the National Science Educatin Standards explains, scientific inquiry encompasses
“the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Scientific inquiry also refers to the activities through which students develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world” (p. 23). Students in inquiry-based classrooms view themselves as scientists, work and communicate in thoughtful groups, practice the process of peer evaluation as a way to obtain others opinions as well as assess the strengths and weaknesses of their work, and make decisions as to how to communicate their work (Llewellyn, 2005).
In our classroom, we plan our labs as inquiry assignments. Most recently, our students investigated enzyme activity under various experimental conditions. The enzyme under investigation was lactase. Our bodies require this enzyme to digest lactose (the sugar found in milk products.) Before beginning the laboratory activity, our classes spent a short time reading about and discussing lactose intolerance. This peeked the interest of many students, as they or someone they know are lactose intolerant. Then, through the use of a guided lab packet, students planned and executed the science experiment of their choice. The variable that students investigated differed among groups: some groups examined whether or not pH level affected enzyme activity, some groups examined whether or not the enzyme worked in goat milk as well as cow milk, other groups investigated whether one brand or type of medicine worked better than another.
A method for teaching science as dialogue is the use of inquiry labs. As the National Science Educatin Standards explains, scientific inquiry encompasses
“the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Scientific inquiry also refers to the activities through which students develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world” (p. 23). Students in inquiry-based classrooms view themselves as scientists, work and communicate in thoughtful groups, practice the process of peer evaluation as a way to obtain others opinions as well as assess the strengths and weaknesses of their work, and make decisions as to how to communicate their work (Llewellyn, 2005).
In our classroom, we plan our labs as inquiry assignments. Most recently, our students investigated enzyme activity under various experimental conditions. The enzyme under investigation was lactase. Our bodies require this enzyme to digest lactose (the sugar found in milk products.) Before beginning the laboratory activity, our classes spent a short time reading about and discussing lactose intolerance. This peeked the interest of many students, as they or someone they know are lactose intolerant. Then, through the use of a guided lab packet, students planned and executed the science experiment of their choice. The variable that students investigated differed among groups: some groups examined whether or not pH level affected enzyme activity, some groups examined whether or not the enzyme worked in goat milk as well as cow milk, other groups investigated whether one brand or type of medicine worked better than another.
As Llewellyn (2005) notes, part of the inquiry process involves sharing and discussing student work and ideas. In relation to the “real science” that scientists do, this inquiry classroom practice parallels the process that occurs at scientific conventions, where scientists gather to discuss their findings. In our classroom, we strive to have whole class discussion of lab results consistently as a way to wrap up an inquiry lab investigation. During the most recent enzyme lab, lab groups discussed the set-up of their experiments and the conclusion that they reached from their investigation. As discussion facilitator, I called on groups and organized their ideas in a graphic organizer on the board (see Figure A and Figure B). I explained to students that this practice occurs at scientific conventions; in essence, they were practicing science as ‘real scientists’ do. I reminded students to take notes on class findings, as they would need to include them in the discussion section of their final lab reports.
Leading this discussion proved difficult – students were not immediately willing to share their results; it took much coaxing and some cold calling of the students to complete the discussion. We only had the opportunity to hear from 3 of our 8 lab groups in 3rd period and 4 of our 8 lab groups in 4th period (see Figure A and Figure B.) The groups were able to summarize their findings concisely. Although certain groups did similar experiments, groups were not willing to describe the variations in results they may have found. I suspect that the students feared being 'wrong'; if their experiments led them to a different conclusion than another group, then they must have done something incorrectly. My CM and I prefaced our discussion in class by saying that groups may have different results, and that was OK. But I remember that I, too, felt the fear of "being wrong" as a high school student and even as an early college biology student. I would like to interview my students to know whether or not my suspicion is true. Although we attempted to make parallels in class to scientific research (i.e. different lab groups often present conflicting results at science meetings but that is how science progresses), I believe we may need to further scaffold our lab discussions. However, there is always a trade-off between balancing time for performing labs, discussing lab results, and teaching all of the science content we are required to teach. I feel that I am constantly reflecting on whether or not we attempt to cover too much material in our science curriculum today; perhaps we should cover fewer topics more in depth, which would allow us more time to familiarize our students with the practice of and theories behind science.
Llewellyn, D. (2005). Modifying a lab activity into an inquiry investigation. Teaching high school science through inquiry (pp. 89-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184.
Leading this discussion proved difficult – students were not immediately willing to share their results; it took much coaxing and some cold calling of the students to complete the discussion. We only had the opportunity to hear from 3 of our 8 lab groups in 3rd period and 4 of our 8 lab groups in 4th period (see Figure A and Figure B.) The groups were able to summarize their findings concisely. Although certain groups did similar experiments, groups were not willing to describe the variations in results they may have found. I suspect that the students feared being 'wrong'; if their experiments led them to a different conclusion than another group, then they must have done something incorrectly. My CM and I prefaced our discussion in class by saying that groups may have different results, and that was OK. But I remember that I, too, felt the fear of "being wrong" as a high school student and even as an early college biology student. I would like to interview my students to know whether or not my suspicion is true. Although we attempted to make parallels in class to scientific research (i.e. different lab groups often present conflicting results at science meetings but that is how science progresses), I believe we may need to further scaffold our lab discussions. However, there is always a trade-off between balancing time for performing labs, discussing lab results, and teaching all of the science content we are required to teach. I feel that I am constantly reflecting on whether or not we attempt to cover too much material in our science curriculum today; perhaps we should cover fewer topics more in depth, which would allow us more time to familiarize our students with the practice of and theories behind science.
Llewellyn, D. (2005). Modifying a lab activity into an inquiry investigation. Teaching high school science through inquiry (pp. 89-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184.