Skip to main content

Inquiry Teaching and Learning: Philosophical Considerations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching

Abstract

Inquiry teaching can be viewed as an approach for communicating the knowledge and practices of science to learners. In its various forms inquiry offers potential learning opportunities and poses constraints on what might be available to learn. Philosophical analysis offers ways of understanding inquiry, knowledge, and social practices. This chapter will examine philosophical problems that arise from teaching science as inquiry. Observation, experimentation, measurement, inference, explanation, and modeling pose challenges for novice learners who may not have the conceptual and epistemic knowledge to engage effectively in such scientific practices in inquiry settings. Science learning entails apprenticeship and socialization into a legacy of conceptual knowledge and epistemic practices (Kelly. Inquiry, Activity, and Epistemic Practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.) Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation (pp. 99–117; 288–291). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2008). Modern science increasingly relies on abstract and computational models that are not readily constructed from the student-driven questions that often function as an early step in inquiry approaches to instruction. Thus, engaging students in the epistemic practices of science poses challenges for educators.

The argument developed in this chapter draws from an epistemological position that makes clear the need for building from extant disciplinary knowledge of a relevant social group in order to learn through inquiry. Establishing a social epistemology in educational settings provides opportunities for students to engage in ways of speaking, listening, and explaining that are part of constructing knowledge claims in science (Kelly and Chen. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36, 883–915, 1999). This perspective on epistemology emphasizes the importance of dialectical processes in science learning. Thus, an inquiry-oriented pedagogy needs to attend to developing norms and practices in educational settings that provide opportunities to learn through and about inquiry. By considering the situated social group as the epistemic subject, inquiry teaching and learning can be viewed as creating opportunities for supporting the conceptual, epistemic, and social goals of science education (Duschl. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291, 2008; Kelly. Inquiry, Activity, and Epistemic Practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.) Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation (pp. 99–117; 288–291). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2008).

The chapter addresses the philosophical considerations of inquiry in science education by identifying the epistemological constraints to teaching science as inquiry, reviewing the potential contributions of philosophy of science to discussions regarding inquiry, considering how social epistemology aligns with developments in psychology of learning with understandings about science, and offering ways that philosophical analysis can contribute to the on-going conversations regarding science education reform.

Indeed, the very word ‘cognition’ acquires meaning only in connection with a thought collective.

Ludwik Fleck 1935

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 749.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Dewey’s (1938a) definition is as follows: “Inquiry is the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole” (pp. 104–105).

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N.G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., and Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011), Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 518–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ault, C.R. (1998). Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 189–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ault, C. R. and Dodick, J. (2010), Tracking the Footprints Puzzle: The problematic persistence of science-as-process in teaching the nature and culture of science. Science Education, 94, 1092–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayer, A. J. (1952). Language, Truth, and logic. New York Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A. and Granger, E. M. (2010), Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94, 577–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, R. (1991). Confirmation, semantics, and the interpretation of scientific theories. In R. Boyd, P. Gasper. and J. D. Trout (Eds.), The philosophy of science (pp. 3–35). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnap, R. (1950). Empiricism, semantics, and ontology. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4, 20–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.) Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J., & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 237–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19, 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1929). The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action. New York: Minton, Balch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938a). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938b). Experience and education. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teacher's College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.) Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2001). Philosophy of Chemistry: An Emerging Field with Implications for Chemistry Education. Science & Education 10, 581–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, L. (1935/1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. (F. Bradley & T. J. Trenn, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (1988). Social epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. (translated by C. Lenhardt & S. W. Nicholsen). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J. (1997). Research traditions in comparative context: A philosophical challenge to radical constructivism. Science Education, 81, 355–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J. (2006) Epistemology and educational research. In J. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore, (Eds.), Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (pp. 33–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, Activity, and Epistemic Practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.) Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation (pp. 99–117; 288–291). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Carlsen, W. S., & Cunningham, C. M. (1993). Science education in sociocultural context: Perspectives from the sociology of science. Science Education, 77, 207–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations for studying science-in-the-making in educational settings. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world. (pp. 145–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G.J., McDonald, S., & Wickman, P. O., (2012). Science learning and epistemology. In K. Tobin, B. Fraser, & C. McRobbie, (Eds.) Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 281–291). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2007), Reasoning about multiple variables: Control of variables is not the only challenge. Science Education, 91, 710–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1990). Science and relativism: Some key controversies in the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in science inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice as ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and the social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machamer, P. (1998). Philosophy of science: An overview for educators. Science & Education, 7, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M.R. (Ed.): 1998, Constructivism and science education: A philosophical examination. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (Ed.) (2009). Politics and philosophy of science [Special issue]. Science & Education, 18(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J. & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction -- What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474–496

    Google Scholar 

  • Mody, C. C. M., & Kaiser, D. Scientific training and the creation of scientific knowledge. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of science and technology studies (3 rd ed). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A. and Duncan, R. G. (2011), Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 486–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, J. (1996). Beyond epistemic sovereignty. In P. Galison & D. J. Stump (eds.), The disunity of science (pp. 398–416). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 403–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. L. and Stewart, J. (1998), Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1069–1089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 80–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. and Fowler, S. R. (2006), A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. (1960). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J Schwab and P. Brandwein (eds.) The teaching of science (pp. 3–103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B. and Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 632–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, S. & Schreiner, C. The ROSE project An overview and key findings. Downloaded from the internet, 1.11.11, at: http://roseproject.no/network/countries/norway/eng/nor-Sjoberg-Schreiner-overview-2010.pdf.

  • Strike, K. A. (1998). Centralized goal formation, citizenship, and educational pluralism: Accountability in liberal democratic societies. Educational Policy, 12, 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suppe. F. (1977). The structure of scientific theories (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding, Vol. 1: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95, 1086–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J. and Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1953/8). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). New York: Macmillan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank William Carlsen, Christine Cunningham, Richard Duschl, and Beth Hufnagel for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory J. Kelly .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kelly, G.J. (2014). Inquiry Teaching and Learning: Philosophical Considerations. In: Matthews, M. (eds) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_42

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics