CHAPTER 27

Inquiry as an Organizing Theme for Science Curricula

Ronald D. Anderson

University of Colorado, Boulder

Inquiry has been a prominent theme of science curriculum improvement efforts ever since the post-Sputnik era NSF-funded science education endeavors appeared in the headlines of the late 1950s. By the beginning of the next decade, inquiry was a big idea in science education, as is well illustrated by the work of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), including their rationale statements prepared by Joseph Schwab and their materials themselves, their Invitations to Inquiry being an especially good exemplar. With a certain amount of ebb and flow, inquiry has persisted as a major science education theme ever since, with its current relevance well illustrated by the National Science Education Standards (1996) and a more recent National Research Council (NRC) publication, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (2000).

The prominence of inquiry has persisted for nearly half a century, with no indication that it will soon disappear. Recognizing that its popularity does not prove its merits, there is reason to ask for evidence-based answers to many questions that can be raised about the place of inquiry in science curriculum improvement. Just what is inquiry? Does it mean the same thing to everyone? Does it mean the same thing in varied contexts? When someone talks about science as inquiry, learning through inquiry, or teaching by inquiry, are they talking about the same inquiry? What are the goals of science instruction that go under this label? Does it result in increased learning? Is it realistic for the average teacher? In summary, does it make sense to use inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula?

The answer to this summary question that you will get here is yes, but it is a very nuanced affirmation. So much depends on what understandings you have of inquiry, and more specifically on your understanding of the nature of science, how people learn, the nature of society and its schools, and the process of teaching.

Inquiry has become a catch phrase encompassing many aspects of science education, but it is also a useful label that summarizes many important ideas and can serve to integrate various facets of educational practice. The many aspects of science education to which the label is applied are among its most important dimensions. So, even though using inquiry to describe an approach to science education can be a tricky exercise in communication, it is worth doing. Other labels could be used; it would be easy to talk about quality science education without ever using the word inquiry. The word is in widespread usage, however, and for broad public discussions, it probably is essential to make use of it in any conversation about contemporary science education.

Such conversation will be much more profitable, however, if we recognize that inquiry is an imprecise word. Using the word in a conversation about science education is a bit like using the word romance in a conversation about human relationships. It has different meanings in varied contexts, and is hard to guess what particular meaning a given speaker has in mind when the word is used. If the word is to continue to be useful we will have to press for clarity when the word enters a conversation and not assume we know the intended meaning.

INQUIRY IN THE NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION STANDARDS

Current discussion of inquiry is shaped by the National Science Education Standards (NSES), the common baseline for defining what quality science instruction should be in contemporary U.S. education. If one reads this landmark publication with care, it is apparent that inquiry is not only widely used in the book, it is used in different ways. Three main usages stand out: there is discussion of scientific inquiry, inquiry learning, and inquiry teaching. These three versions are fairly distinct from each other, even though they also have many connections. In addition, each of the three has various nuances and may be applied somewhat differently, depending on the context (Anderson, 1998).

Scientific Inquiry

“Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work” (p. 23). The work of scientists, the nature of their investigations, and the abilities and understandings required to do this work are at the heart of this usage of the word inquiry. These scientific endeavors are considered as independent of our schooling enterprises, although an understanding of them is a goal of education.

If we wish to move beyond the discussion of scientific inquiry as found in the NSES and address it in more depth, the extensive literature on the nature of science becomes relevant (see Chapter 29 of this Handbook). We are dealing with scientific inquiry and the nature of science as curriculum content or goals of instruction.

Inquiry Learning

As used in the NSES, inquiry learning refers to an active process of learning— “something that students do, not something that is done to them” (p. 2). Although used to describe a learning process, the NSES generally portrays this inquiry process as having some relationship to scientific inquiry; it is suggested that inquiry learning should reflect the nature of inquiry in the scientific context. Within the formal school context, this active learning process is expected to be one that “encompasses a range of activities” (p. 33) with multiple stages, including “oral and written discourse” (p. 36).

Although the NSES connects its rationale for inquiry learning to scientific inquiry—undoubtedly a valuable approach in communicating with a science-oriented audience—we need to understand inquiry learning more deeply. Studies of human learning give us understandings an earlier generation did not have—well portrayed in How People Learn (Bransford et al., 1999)—and we need to utilize these understandings. Although the term constructivist is not used in the NSES, it is clear that what is called inquiry learning is very similar to what others call constructivist learning.

As with inquiry, the constructivist label can be applied to the nature of science, learning and teaching, but it has even greater potential for misunderstanding. In contemporary discussions of the nature of science, for example, there are opposing positions—in what is sometimes referred to as the “science wars”—and constructivist is a “good” word in one camp, but not in the other. Thus, inquiry has more potential for being a useful word that can be applied in these three contexts without undue miscommunication, which is probably one reason why inquiry is used in the NSES but constructivism is not. Nevertheless, in a discussion of learning, constructivist is probably the more useful word, in that it has some generally understood meanings in the context of learning—as distinct from the contexts of science and teaching. Note, however, as used here to discuss learning, constructivism is not the same constructivism used in discussions of the nature of science and which is the subject of debate there. It is the same word, but it used in different contexts to make different distinctions.

As used in this chapter, constructivist learning—as well as inquiry learning—is understood to carry with it the following four elements:

1. Learning is an active process of individuals constructing meaning for themselves; significant understandings are not just received.
2. The meanings each individual constructs are dependent upon the prior conceptions this individual already has. In the process, these prior conceptions may be modified.
3. The understandings each individual develops are dependent upon the contexts in which these meanings are engaged. The more abundant and varied these contexts are, the richer are the understandings acquired.
4. Meanings are socially constructed; understanding is enriched by engagement of ideas in concert with other people.

Obviously, this four-part characterization includes perspectives that resonate with both cognitive and sociocultural views of knowledge construction. Differences between these and other varying theoretical perspectives are not the focus of our attention here. This four-part characterization, however, describes elements that generally are understood to be included in the learning process by those using constructivist/inquiry terminology.

Inquiry Teaching

When used to describe teaching in the NSES, inquiry is employed in quite varied ways. As noted earlier, the NSES writers’ understanding of learning is such that “inquiry is central to science learning,” (p. 2) and as a result it must be central to teaching as well. They note, however, that this focus on inquiry learning “does not imply that all teachers should pursue a single approach to teaching science”(p. 2). Even so, they expect that, “Inquiry into authentic questions generated from student experiences is the central strategy for teaching science” (p. 31). Given their inquiry-based understanding of learning, moreover, it is not surprising that when referring to teaching, they use a broad, process-oriented definition that includes significant attention to inquiry as a learning activity (p. 13). It “refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understandings of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world.” (p. 23) They acknowledge that all inquiry is not the same by distinguishing between a “partial inquiry” and a “full inquiry” (p. 143). Inquiry is part of their picture of assessment as well, and they see it in the context of teaching. “Any boundary between assessment and teaching is lost” (p. 202).

In summary, as a form of teaching, inquiry has multiple manifestations and the NSES generally does not make careful distinctions between these varied forms of teaching, although it does have an entire section devoted to science teaching standards. At the end of the section on inquiry learning above, a four-part explanation was given of what was meant by inquiry or constructivist learning as used in this chapter. It is not possible to give such a concise description of inquiry teaching. It takes an abundance of forms, and the process of inquiry teaching is not as well understood as the desired product of these transactions, namely inquiry learning. It also is probably fair to say that a belief in the value of inquiry teaching probably carries with it a belief in inquiry learning. On the other hand, it probably is less certain that someone who understands inquiry learning as an accurate picture of how learning occurs also has equally strong convictions about the merits of inquiry teaching. In my judgment, belief in the merits of inquiry teaching among science teachers is not as strong as their belief in inquiry learning. Furthermore, common understandings of just what inquiry teaching is in practice are much more varied than understandings of inquiry learning. For further consideration of inquiry learning and inquiry teaching, including lots of examples, see Minstrell and van Zee (2000).

Other Views of Inquiry

The three categories of inquiry described above were identified initially by a careful reading of the NSES. Inquiry has been defined in many other ways in the science education literature. Huffman (2002), for example, conceptualizes inquiry as having “three key components: abilities, procedures, and philosophy. The three different components are represented by concentric circles with abilities at the center, procedures encompassing abilities, and philosophy encompassing both procedures and abilities” (p. 225). Lederman and Niess (2000) contend that the NSES and Project 2061 present inquiry as having three different perspectives. “Inquiry is viewed as a teaching approach, as process skills, and as content” (p. 113). Different category systems may have varied utility, depending upon the context. For our purposes here, neither of these definitional sets seems to have an appropriate place for inquiry as a form of learning.

As noted earlier, the NSES does not set out clear definitions of what constitutes inquiry in various contexts. Possibly in response to a failure to provide clear operational definitions of inquiry in the NSES, the National Research Council released a follow-up publication in 2000 titled Inquiry and the National Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. In this book, the focus is largely on the activities and transactions of people in classrooms, both students and teachers. It is a pragmatic book that addresses the real world of classrooms; as with the NSES itself, depth of understanding about the nature of learning in a more theoretical sense is not featured.

We need both the practical and theoretical. In general, the NSES and the more recent NRC book reflect an appropriate understanding of the underlying theoretical issues, even though their focus is on the pragmatic, and the theoretical is not explicitly developed. The NSES was informed, of course, by the earlier work of Project 2061, and the theoretical was given explicit attention there, for example, in the chapter on learning and teaching in Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1989). We will need to go beyond the NSES and the later companion publication, however, not as a corrective, but as an extension to make more explicit the underlying issues and develop the ideas needed in considering the place of inquiry in developing science curricula.

Although some may prefer to avoid using the word inquiry, because of the lack of clarity in its meaning, it is employed here because of its value in making connections between content, learning, and teaching and because it would be difficult to avoid it. In addition to its many meanings, its use seems to be ubiquitous. The choice being made here is to use the word and make the effort required to clarify what is meant in a given context. In the process one is addressing many of the fundamental issues in science education.

HOW IS CURRICULUM UNDERSTOOD?

As we have seen, inquiry has many meanings, but it does not get any easier to define when we get to curriculum. Professional conceptions of curriculum are markedly diverse. The goal of this chapter is to address in depth the potential of inquiry as an organizer for curriculum. If we are to do so, we also must come to some understanding of what is meant by various individuals and groups when they talk about curriculum.

Schubert (1986) has presented a set of categories for describing alternative conceptions of curriculum. Although there are substantial differences among these categories, there also is considerable overlap in the sense that they may pursue similar goals. At the same time it must be noted that the form of instruction implied in these different characterizations of curriculum could lead to quite different forms of education. A brief summary of these images or characterizations of the curriculum is presented below. After examining them we can consider their implications for using inquiry as a guiding theme for curriculum.

Curriculum as Content or Subject Matter

This image equates curriculum with the subjects taught: “Educators who use this image intend to explicate clearly the network of subjects taught, interpretations given to those subjects, prerequisite knowledge for studying certain subjects, and a rationale for the ways in which all subjects at a particular level of school fit together and provide what is needed at that level” (Schubert, 1986, p. 26).

Curriculum as a Program of Planned Activities

In this image the curriculum is characterized as a collection of planned activities: “The end of planning is to see that certain desired activities are delivered to students. Granted, all these plans have purposes for which the activities are vehicles. Yet it is the activity—what students do—that is the curriculum” (Schubert, 1986, p. 28).

Curriculum as Intended Learning Outcomes

In this case, the curriculum is defined in terms of intended learning outcomes. The focus is ends, with lesser consideration of the means of reaching them. Purpose is specified by the intended outcomes. The current focus on various forms of standards and the growing use of standardized tests obviously is compatible with this orientation to the curriculum.

Curriculum as Cultural Reproduction

This image of the curriculum focuses on perpetuating the extant culture, thus the curriculum is expected to reflect that culture: “The community, state, or nation takes the lead in identifying the skills, knowledge, and appreciations to be taught” (Schubert, 1986, p. 29).

Curriculum as Experience

A curricular focus on student experiences has been prominent in much discourse about education. It has been commonly associated with John Dewey and his writings, but it can take varied forms: “This position holds that educational means and ends are inseparable parts of a single process: experience. To attend to one's experience reflectively and to strive continuously to anticipate and monitor the consequences of one's thought and action relative to the good that they bring is a continuously evolving curriculum. The teacher is a facilitator of personal growth, and the curriculum is the process of experiencing the sense of meaning and direction that ensues from teacher and student dialogue” (Schubert, 1986, p. 30).

Curriculum as Discrete Tasks and Concepts

Yet another way of conceptualizing the curriculum is as tasks and concepts students should acquire: “The curriculum is seen as a set of tasks to be mastered, and they are assumed to lead to a prespecified end. Usually that end has a specific behavioral interpretation such as learning a new task or performing an old one better. This approach derives from training programs in business, industry, and the military” (Schubert, 1986, p. 31).

Curriculum as an Agenda for Social Reconstruction

Rather than personal development, the focus in this image of the curriculum is social ends. A quite radical curricular view, it promotes the idea of students becoming agents of societal change: “This view of curriculum holds that schools should provide an agenda of knowledge and values that guides students to improve society and the cultural institutions, beliefs, and activities that support it” (Schubert, 1986, p. 32).

Curriculum as “Currere”

The emphasis here, as with curriculum as experience, is personal growth:

One of the most recent positions to emerge on the curriculum horizon is to emphasize the verb form of curriculum, namely currere… . [It] emphasizes the individual's own capacity to reconceptualize his or her autobiography… . [T]he individual seeks meaning amid the swirl of present events, moves historically into his or her own past to recover and reconstitute origins, and imagines and creates possible directions of his or her own future. [T]he curriculum becomes a reconceiving of one's perspective on life … [and] … a social process whereby individuals come to greater understanding of themselves, others, and the world through mutual reconceptualization. The mutuality involves not only those who are in immediate proximity but occurs through the acquisition of extant knowledge and acquaintance with literary and artistic expression. The central focus, however, is autobiographical. The curriculum is the interpretation of lived experiences” (Schubert, 1986, p. 33).

It involves more than transmitting knowledge, skills, and cultural values; it centers on self-understanding. It depends upon a high level of students’ empowerment and students’ responsibility for their own learning.

Schubert's characterizations of the curriculum are expressed in fairly concrete terms that, in the majority of cases, are relatively easy to visualize and understand; they are largely expressed in the practical language of schooling. As a result they are good companion categories for our discussion of inquiry in its more pragmatic form, such as found in the NSES. Embedded within Schubert's different characterizations of the curriculum, however, are varied purposes of education, understandings of the nature of learning, perspectives on teaching, and more. And a bit like in our discussion of inquiry, we could introduce more subtleties and nuances if we left this practical language and probed more deeply for underlying conceptual and theoretical frameworks. To do so here is beyond the scope of this chapter, but I would encourage the interested reader to refer to a chapter by Elliot Eisner in the Handbook of Research on Curriculum (Jackson, 1992) titled “Curriculum Ideologies.” In it Eisner claims that in any given school there is an ideology or “value matrix” that justifies choices made and gives direction to the curriculum. He notes that in some ways these ideologies are rooted in underlying worldviews. Eisner describes six major ideologies that he finds in American education. Schubert and Eisner are not in conflict with each other; they operate at somewhat different levels.

Two words—inquiry and curriculum—each of which has so many different meanings—have been conjoined as the focus of this chapter. We will address them together at the more practical level of language found in the NRC publications and in Schubert's curriculum writing, but in the process will attempt to go deep enough to seriously attend to matters of educational purpose, the nature of learning, and approaches to teaching. Without this depth of analysis we cannot accomplish the purposes at hand.

THE LITERATURE ON EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

In addition to the literatures on inquiry and curriculum, there is a third area that needs attention before we can attend more directly to the role of inquiry in developing science curricula, namely the extensive literature on educational change. Implied in most discussions of inquiry in science education is the notion that there should be more of it, that is, that our current science education practices are not up to par and we need to change them to include more inquiry, whether that be inquiry as content, learning, or teaching. Assuming this notion as part of our operating perspective here, it is essential that we attend to understandings found in the literature on educational change because they strongly influence how we can expect to connect inquiry and curriculum.

The literature on educational change is extensive and rich. It includes work done from many different perspectives and offers many insights into school practice. For the reader wanting a one-stop overview, the best source probably is the third edition of Michael Fullan's landmark book, The Meaning of Educational Change (2001). Of his many books, this one stands out as a good overview of what the research has to say. Other scholars who stand out among the many who have shaped the field include Seymor Sarason (e.g., 1990, 1996), Larry Cuban and David Tyack (1997), and Matt Miles (1993). It is interesting to note that the field has been influenced by scholars who have approached their work from a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives, for example, social psychology, organizational development, and history. In addition to this work, which has addressed educational change in a general sense, there is literature that is specific to particular subject fields, such as science and mathematics.

For purposes of this chapter, some highlights of this literature need to be identified. To begin with, we need to recognize that changes of the kind under consideration here are not easy. What may seem simple to the uninitiated is in reality a very complex matter. Individual learning itself is complex, and we are addressing it here in the complex social context of a classroom, which in turn is located within the broader context of a school, which furthermore is profoundly shaped by its franchising society, with its many social, political, and economic forces. Failure to recognize this complexity is rampant not only among the public and politicians, but among practitioners and professionals. The educational landscape is strewn with the wreckage of educational innovations that foundered on the misconception of simple solutions.

This complexity may be better understood if we consider the situation from multiple perspectives. A diagram employed in a journal article on this complexity (Anderson, 1992) may be helpful at this point (see Fig. 27.1).

As portrayed here, processes intended to produce changes in educational practice must include both curricular and instructional aspects, and they occur in a broader social context. To understand fully these arenas of action, we need to view them from multiple theoretical perspectives, including philosophical, psychological, sociocultural, economic, and subject matter (in our case, science). The importance of recognizing this complexity and the futility of pursuing simple solutions has never been more obvious than it is now in this day of mandated changes based on the results of standardized tests.

This complexity leads to a second fundamental point—to be successful, change efforts must be systemic in nature. Changing curriculum materials by itself will not bring successful change. New teaching approaches are not the answer. Professional development has not evidenced significant results. Site-based management will not do the job. The list goes on. Even doing all of these together will not work unless it is the right mix of initiatives done in the context of just the right climate and support.

FIGURE 27–1. A model of complexity (Anderson, 1992).

Providing a full picture of what such a successful systemic approach would be is beyond the scope of this chapter, but it may be helpful to point out a few elements of what such a systemic approach would address. What follows are a half-dozen key elements of what research tells us about the complex situation we are facing. Describing these elements may tend toward a reductionist outlook that does damage to the very notion of a systemic approach, so it is done here with caution. Recognize that this description of key elements from the research literature is not intended to imply a list of initiatives which, if successfully pursued, will result in the systemic approach being advocated here. With this caution, some detail is provided about these important facets of the situation.

Teachers Face Many Dilemmas

Case studies of teachers attempting to move to more inquiry-oriented science education (Anderson, 1995, 1996) show many of the dilemmas science teachers face— situations in which all of the alternative actions available seem to have undesirable consequences, along with what is desired. Teachers experience a tension between alternatives. Although some of these dilemmas may be more perceived than real, they are nevertheless a part of the teacher's reality. Among these dilemmas are the following:

1. Time. There is never enough time to do everything a teacher thinks should be done, and the changes promoted in the National Science Education Standards only make the situation more difficult. Inquiry (however you chose to define the term) takes more time, and the teacher wanting to give more emphasis to inquiry faces a dilemma of significant proportions.
2. Ideal vs. reality. From the perspective of the teacher in the science classroom it generally appears that the NSES portrays an ideal that is in conflict with the realities of the classroom. This tension highlights the fact that change that introduces more inquiry is not easy.
3. Changing roles and work. The school culture has deeply ingrained within it expectations for both students and teachers. It is hard for teachers to change their roles, not just because of the school culture, but because it is difficult for people to change such roles in any context and because the process of learning new roles is more complicated and time consuming than generally thought. And these changes in teacher roles probably are essential if the fundamental desired change is to be achieved, that is, changes in the roles played by students and the nature of the work they do.
4. The preparation ethic. The culture of schools, especially among science teachers, is permeated with the idea that preparation for the next level of schooling is the driving value for their work. As a result, science teachers find it difficult to devote significant efforts to a more inquiry-oriented form of science education because they fear preparation will suffer. Teachers feel that this is a real dilemma, even though empirical research shows these fears to be largely groundless.
5. Equity. Consideration of the preparation ethic leads to yet another dilemma science teachers perceive—what does it mean to provide “science for all”? Many teachers see a tension between providing a strong education for the able and willing students and at the same time providing for the uninterested or less able students.

Significant Changes in Educational Practice Require Changes in Teachers’ Beliefs and Values

Many of the above teacher dilemmas are grounded in beliefs about science, students, and teaching and in values concerning what is important. The influence of teachers’ values and beliefs is well grounded in the research literature and is well illustrated in the case studies cited above (Anderson, 1996), as is the relationship between changes in these values and beliefs and changes in classroom practice. Some of these beliefs are related to the nature of high school subjects (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995) and to teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. The potential relationship between teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and classroom transactions and what students learn has been explored in the literature (Lederman, 1992; Duschl & Wright, 1989; Brickhouse, 1990; Russell & Munby, 1989; Koulaidis and Ogborn, 1995). Changes in educational practice related to the preparation ethic are tied to teachers’ beliefs (Mitchener & Anderson, 1989), as are teacher decisions related to matters of students’ ability, gender, and race (Bianchini, Cavazos, & Helms, 1999).

School Departments Are Important Settings for Change

Although a large proportion of the research on educational change addresses whole school change (Fullan, 2001), the research indicates that deep and lasting change requires intensive department-level efforts. The previously cited case studies illustrate this point (Anderson, 1996), and Talbert (1994) shows that the department is primary among the various embedded contexts where professional identities are formed. Other research pointing to the centrality of the department as the context for educational change has been reported by Grossman and Stodolsky (1994), Little (1993), and McLaughlin (1993). The importance of this context may be related to the next point emerging from the literature, the power of collaboration.

Teacher Collaboration in the Work Context Is a Powerful Influence on Teacher Values and Beliefs

Working together with fellow teachers on day-to-day educational actions—not just in an in-service education context—can be powerful. Talking about the issues raised in the National Science Education Standards is not the same as working together to put ideas into practice. Case studies have shown that this is a setting in which teachers have to come to grips with their values, beliefs, and assumptions and find themselves challenged in this regard as they work with others to develop instruction (Anderson, 1995, 1996). Even though all of the science teachers in a given group may not have the same philosophical perspectives, this sort of collaborative context is where such internal changes emerge. Although new forms of assessment are often presented today as the most influential means of fostering educational change, the research points elsewhere. For further detail on collaboration as an influence on teacher values and beliefs, see Little (1994) and Helms (1995). See also Groarke, Ovens, and Hargreaves (1986); Nolffke and Zeichner (1987); and Tikunoff, Ward, and Griffin (1979); all cited in Richardson (1994).

Parental Support of Reforms Is Essential

Parental support—or probably more important, the absence of resistance—is essential for initiating significant educational reforms. The case studies mentioned above provide striking examples of this situation, with portrayals of changes started in response to new national standards in science and mathematics being seriously restrained by parental opposition. This situation has been studied thoroughly in the field of mathematics (e.g., Peressini, 1996; Romagnano, 1994), with evidence that the assumptions and beliefs of parents are an important part of the overall context in which reform efforts operate.

New Student Roles and New Forms of Student Work Are the Real Indicators of Meaningful Change

This is the moment of truth; if inquiry science education has been installed, it will be evident in new roles played by students and new forms of student work. Even if a number of meaningful changes have been introduced—collaboration among teachers and new roles for them, for example—many reforms seem to fall short when it comes to this “bottom line” of results. Case studies show the possibilities of such significant change, as well as the frequent failure to reach them (Anderson, 1996).

Teachers are at the center of most of the aspects of educational change discussed above. A professional status for teachers that enhances professional decision making clearly is an essential (although by itself not sufficient) element of meaningful educational change.

CONNECTING INQUIRY, CURRICULUM, AND CHANGE

From this description of key elements of the research on educational change, it may be obvious that reforming science education toward a more prominent presence for inquiry will demand a multifaceted approach. It will be essential to have new instructional approaches, revised teaching materials, substantial means of implementation including teacher support and contexts for collaboration, and careful attention to the social context, among others. The issue at hand is how to do it with full attention to the particular forms of inquiry being sought, the understandings of curriculum selected, and the nature of the educational change processes that prevail in the given context. Making these connections is the focus of the remainder of this chapter.

To avoid possible confusion, it is important to relate this discussion to contemporary political events that often carry a label of educational reform. The “standards movement,” with its focus on specified expectations—in the case of science, what is the equivalent of selected portions of the content (only) standards from the NSES—coupled with standardized testing and the imposition of penalties for the failure of schools to reach predetermined levels, is far from an adequate expression of what the research on educational change suggests that we do. Such efforts are not systemic in character. Although such standards and testing may be of some help within a broader endeavor, by themselves they have little potential. Furthermore, these contemporary efforts include little attention to inquiry, in any of the various senses that the word is being used here. In fact, anecdotal information and comments from school personnel lead me to conclude that if anything, these efforts are reducing inquiry as science content, inquiry learning, and inquiry teaching.

In pursuing the goal of relating our understandings of inquiry, curriculum, and educational change, the remainder of this chapter is organized in terms of the three notions of inquiry, that is, inquiry as an expression of the nature of science, inquiry learning, and inquiry teaching. Each form of inquiry is explored as a potential guiding theme for positive science curriculum change.

Inquiry as an Aspect of Science Content

In one sense, adding inquiry to the content of a science course is relatively easy. Abstractions about the nature of science can be put into text materials, student tests, and teacher presentations, in the same manner as any other knowledge. In other ways, the task is far from easy. To what extent can words in a book capture an understanding of the nature of science inquiry? To what extent must it be experienced?

To address these questions we need to return to our various definitions of curriculum. For discussion purposes, I will set aside Schubert's characterizations of curriculum as cultural reproduction and as an agenda for social reconstruction and divide his other six characterizations of curriculum into two clusters. The first cluster includes curriculum as content, program of planned activities, intended learning outcomes, and discrete tasks and concepts. I am giving it the label of external, since in these characterizations of the curriculum the goals and choice of student experiences have origins largely external to the students. In contrast, the other two images of curriculum—curriculum as experience and as currere—are more personal and have origins more internal to the student—hence the label internal. Obviously there are many ways to categorize these images, but this particular dichotomy may be useful to us in our consideration of inquiry as science content, as well as when we consider inquiry learning and teaching.

Whichever of these two views of curriculum are employed—internal or external—science as inquiry can be placed in the curriculum, but one cluster of curricular images may be more useful that the other for the purpose at hand. If a full understanding of the nature of science is dependent upon personal experience— including attention to the emotional aspects of the experience of being engaged in science inquiry—and related intellectual transactions, the internal understandings of curriculum may be more helpful. Rather than having these experiences predetermined, there is value in having student choice of hypotheses tested, means of doing such testing, and interpretations to be placed on the results. As with actual scientific experimentation, the student can experience the frustrations and excitement inherent in the endeavor, even though in some senses it is a simulated rather than “real” engagement in science. There is a value in students reflecting on this experience and monitoring the outcomes of their personal thoughts and actions, or—to take it a step further—seeking meaning in past related experiences and re-conceiving their perspectives on life and what they are projecting for themselves in the future.

While personally favoring the internal cluster of curriculum images, I recognize that students can experience science inquiry to a considerable degree in curricula whose image is found within the external cluster as well. It is of interest to note, in particular, that Schubert's characterization of curriculum as planned activities appears to be quite congruent with the portrayal of inquiry learning and teaching found in the NRC publication Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Upon reflection, I do not find this surprising, in that the publication is written for practitioners, with an apparent motivation to communicate with them without becoming unduly involved in debates over the nature of the curriculum. Whether one has an external view of the curriculum as determined largely independently of the student, or a view that gives more consideration to the internal dimensions of student interests and prior experiences, the portrayal of the curriculum as planned activities is useful and practical. Descriptions of planned activities can be used to communicate both internal and external conceptions of learning as well as teaching. Furthermore, practitioners with varied understandings of the nature of learning and teaching can engage in meaningful discussion of classroom transactions without foundering on what may seem to be abstract issues.

On the other hand, it may be possible to have such discussions without uncovering fundamental differences among the participants that are truly important to clarity of communication. What is the nature of learning and teaching that is assumed? What understanding of the nature of science do the various participants have? Can practitioners really collaborate with each other in classrooms without getting to these underlying issues? Although I think this publication, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards, is an important and useful tool for practitioners, I would urge dialogue among fellow teachers about its meaning that reaches to the deepest theoretical levels possible.

This deeper understanding on the part of teachers is important if they are to facilitate deep and personal student engagement with the intellectual dimensions of inquiry that students should have. This intellectual engagement generally demands the aid of a teacher who is knowledgeable of the nature of both science and student intellectual development.

Inquiry as science content in the curriculum is well established. It appeared in a rich form in the biology materials of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) in the early 1960s, with considerable influence coming from Joseph Schwab (Sarther, 1991). It is apparent, however, that there is no one particular understanding of the nature of this science to put into the curriculum (Rudolph, 2003; Lederman, 1992) and that what can be captured in the school curriculum is only a partial portrayal (Rudolph, 2003). The understanding of the nature of science that students acquire through an appropriate curriculum can be rich, intellectually challenging, and emotionally fulfilling, but it must be experienced in significant ways for this to be possible (Magnusson & Palincsar, 1995). The nature of the learning experience is a crucial consideration if this goal is to be attained.

Inquiry Learning

In the sense used here, inquiry learning is foundational and essential for a first-rate education. As noted earlier, it is viewed here as synonymous with what is generally called constructivist learning; that is, learners construct meaning for themselves, such meanings are dependent upon prior constructions, the understandings are context dependent, and they are socially constructed. Although some people may view this statement as an ideal, to a much larger extent it is simply a description of how research tells us learning actually occurs. For optimum learning, curriculum and pedagogical practices should be created that enhance this learning process.

Two clusters of curriculum images were identified above—external ones where the origins of the curriculum were largely independent of the students and internal ones where the learners themselves significantly shape the curriculum. Inquiry learning can be incorporated into any of Schubert's eight characterizations of the curriculum, but it is not inherent in the external versions to the same extent that it is in the internal portrayals of curriculum. Inquiry learning is not as easy to add to the former as it is to add the latter. A full flowering of inquiry learning is more feasible in the internal versions because students are more likely to shape their own learning in a direct manner.

A fuller explanation of this point will be easier if it can be made more concrete through a means such as Table 27.1. This table describes two orientations to teaching found among teachers in a series of case studies done of schools engaged in curriculum reform of the kind espoused in the NSES (Anderson, 1996). The schools were selected for the case studies because they were successfully implementing such approaches, but within these schools there was a range of approaches. This table describes a continuum where the extremes were labeled old orientation and new orientation, with the new end of the continuum being consistent with the NSES and constructivist forms of learning. No teacher was totally on one extreme end or the other, but generally teachers displayed a predominance of one or the other. The differences here are described in terms of teacher role, student role, and student work. Because our focus at this point is student learning, our attention is on the latter two. Later we will attend to teaching and what is described in the table as teacher role.

In Table 27.1, the new student orientation is described as a student role as self-directed learner—in contrast to passive receiver—and student work that is student-directed as well—in contrast to student work that is teacher-prescribed activities. Under the new orientation, students process information, not just record it; interpret and explain information, not just memorize it; design their own activities, not just follow teacher directions; and form their own interpretations of data (such as from a laboratory investigation), not just depend upon the teacher's understandings. In addition to this role change, they do different forms of student work. To a considerable extent they direct their own work rather than just complete work-sheets, engage in tasks that vary from student to student, design tasks for themselves rather than depend upon teacher-directed tasks, and do work that emphasizes reading and writing for meaning, solving problems, building from existing cognitive structures, and explaining complex problems.

Determiners of the nature of both student role and student work include the nature of the curriculum as well as the role of the teacher. Comment on the teacher's role will be saved for the section on inquiry teaching below. The nature of the curriculum is the matter at hand. As noted previously, the new orientation to student role and work is possible in any image of the curriculum, but it is more likely in the internal cluster of orientations.

TABLE 27.1
Traditional–Reform Pedagogy Continuum

Predominance of Old Orientation	Predominance of New Orientation
Teacher role
As dispenser of knowledge	As coach and facilitator
Transmits information	Helps students process information
Communicates with individuals	Communicates with groups
Directs student actions	Coaches student actions
Explains conceptual relationships	Facilitates student thinking
Teacher's knowledge is static	Models the learning process
Directed use of textbook, etc.	Flexible use of materials
Student role
As passive receiver	As self-directed learner
Records teacher's information	Processes information
Memorizes information	Interprets, explains, hypothesizes
Follows teacher directions	Designs own activities
Defers to teacher as authority	Shares authority for answers
Student work
Teacher-prescribed activities	Student-directed learning
Completes worksheets	Directs own learning
All students complete same tasks	Tasks vary among students
Teacher directs tasks	Design and direct own tasks
Absence of items on right	Emphasizes reasoning, reading and writing for meaning, solving problems, building from existing cognitive structures, and explaining complex problems

Note: From Anderson (1996).

As in the case of inquiry as science content, our discussion of inquiry learning deserves special attention to one particular image of the curriculum, curriculum as planned activities. As noted earlier, the NRC publication Inquiry and the National Education Standards portrays inquiry in concrete terms through an emphasis on planned activities. A curriculum based on planned activities has the potential of fostering inquiry learning, but realization of this potential is highly dependent upon the teacher's ability to occupy various roles and commitment to particular values and beliefs about such matters as students’ capabilities and how they learn. It may be particularly useful to examine curriculum as planned activities here because it is compatible with the above NRC publication and the NSES, and it has the potential of being conducted in a manner that fosters either inquiry learning or its alternatives. Thus, we need to attend closely to the topic of inquiry teaching.

Inquiry Teaching

As noted earlier, inquiry learning is better understood than inquiry teaching. Inquiry learning can be described in the terms provided for us by cognitive science research or in more pragmatic language, such as that used in Table 27.1 to describe student roles and work. Inquiry teaching is more ambiguous. The description of teaching in this table contrasts a teaching orientation that is predominantly dispenser of information with an orientation as coach and facilitator. The distinction is valuable but not sufficient to distinguish between teachers who foster inquiry learning and those who do not. It is possible to play a teaching role as a coach and facilitator— as described in the table—and not foster inquiry learning among students. There is a strong correlation between the teacher role described in the new orientation and the student role and work found there, but it is not a perfect correlation. A teacher role that looks to be what is described there may not yield the indicated student role and work. The only real test of the presence of inquiry teaching is whether or not students are engaged in inquiry learning.

If we again use the curriculum as planned activities image, and put it into practice in the sense advocated in Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards, we are well on the way to inquiry teaching. But it must be operationalized in a manner that really results in inquiry learning. The teacher so engaged is actively reflective about questions such as the following: Are the students actively constructing understandings rather than memorizing the constructions of others? To what extent are they interpreting and explaining information that comes their way and developing hypotheses about relationships within data sets? Do the students have an opportunity to design and direct some of their own activities rather than just engage in carefully scripted planned activities? Do they have the opportunity to develop— and defend—conclusions they personally draw from the information at hand? Do they engage in activities chosen individually or by a small group, or are they rather consistently engaged in the same tasks as everyone else in the class? Does the students’ work in the class emphasize reasoning, include reading and writing that focus on developing meaning and understanding, stress problem solving of varied types, and address complex problems that provide a context for building understandings from existing cognitive structures?

It is possible to employ a curriculum image from the external cluster—in particular, curriculum as planned activities—and implement it in a fashion that has many of the characteristics of an internal curriculum image, such as curriculum as experience. The most basic issue is not the particular choice of a curriculum image, but whether or not it is put into practice in a manner that fosters inquiry learning; in other words, is something that is called “inquiry teaching” really deserving of this label? A partial basis for answering this question is whether or not it fosters inquiry learning.

Obviously, inquiry teaching is a major topic on its own and an active area of research. It is certainly more than actively reflecting on questions such as the above. In-depth treatment of inquiry teaching, however, is beyond the scope of this chapter. We have touched on it as it pertains to using inquiry as an organizing theme for the curriculum. Research on inquiry teaching, in turn, of course, must attend to context and address many of the matters included in this chapter, such as curriculum content, the nature of the curriculum, and student learning.

Putting It into Practice

As noted earlier, inquiry in its various forms has been put into the science curriculum in various ways for decades. In more recent years—both before and after publication of the NSES—a variety of initiatives have gone in this direction, often in ways that attend to inquiry in its many forms, that is, as science, learning, and teaching. A prime example is project-based science (Blumenfeld, 1994; Krajcik et al., 1994; Marx et al., 1994), a form of instruction that potentially can foster inquiry learning and can bring students in touch with science understood as inquiry. Zuckerman et al. (1998) describe a Vygotskian approach to developing “students’ ability to engage in persistent and systematic inquiry.” It is an elaboration of an instructional approach; inquiry is defined here as an instructional process that includes an elaboration of a learning cycle of inquiry. The goal here is for students to acquire a certain mode of learning, that is, to be able to do inquiry, in contrast to a goal of having students understand the nature of inquiry in science itself. On the other hand, Ahlgren and Wheeler (2002) describe the foundation of the Project 2061 Atlas of Science Literacy, with its many maps, and how the portion on inquiry can be used to teach something about science itself. Cartier and Stewart (2000) provide another example of how science as inquiry is built into a science curriculum, in this case, a high school genetics curriculum. There are a number of examples, but there is still the question of how to put it into wide practice.

CHANGING TOWARD INQUIRY

Inquiry is a viable guiding theme for science curriculum in terms of content, learning, and teaching, but we still face the issue of how to change teaching practices in classrooms to attain the desired inquiry orientation. Whether one is approaching this task as an individual teacher, a science department within a school, or a school system, it is a difficult task; our brief review of the literature on educational change is clear on this point. It also is apparent that beyond an individual teacher, any change endeavor must be systemic, that is, it must attend to many aspects of the situation and it must be done in a manner that attends to the interrelationships among these many facets. Among these many aspects, two stand out—the curricular materials and the teacher. We will address each of them before moving on to the overall systemic situation.

Materials

Curriculum materials have been given highly varied degrees of importance at different times and in different contexts. The attempts to introduce inquiry science education in the 1960s, for example, were centered on innovative new curriculum materials. Although they may not have been billed as such, they often were viewed as teaching materials that should be “teacher proof.” In other words, they were developed with the expectation that most any teacher could use them rather easily in his or her classroom in a manner that would result in inquiry learning and student understanding of science as inquiry. In general, the materials did not live up to this expectation.

On the other hand, the particular materials selected are sometimes thought to be of little importance, at least in the hands of a good teacher. It is assumed that what happens in the classroom depends upon the teacher, and if the teacher is competent, it doesn't make much difference what materials are used.

Neither of these extremes is a good grounding for introducing positive educational change. Quality inquiry science materials are of major importance and influence in classrooms; they can be the foundation of quality education. On the other hand, the materials themselves will not do the job independently of a well-qualified teacher. In an analysis of the role that curriculum materials can play—and their relationship to individual teachers, professional development, and school culture— Powell and Anderson (2002) concluded that an answer to questions about the place of materials is dependent upon the given context and situation. Professionals who ignore the value of good materials typically find that an important element of their attempts at educational reform is missing. There are multiple reasons for seeking out the best available inquiry-oriented materials.

The desired materials reflect the vision of science education found in the standards of such documents as the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (AAAS, 1993). In particular, these curriculum materials should have four distinguishing characteristics as follows:

1. are standards-based in that the science content, instructional strategies, and assessment tools optimize student learning as reflected in current research on teaching and learning.
2. are inquiry-based, which includes support for inquiry as a teaching strategy as well as the inclusion of content that addresses the abilities to do inquiry and the understandings about science as inquiry.
3. are based on a carefully developed conceptual framework that reflects the science disciplines and connects factual information to larger ideas, themes, and concepts.
4. are revised as a result of thoughtful and comprehensive field testing, which provides developers with data about the effectiveness of the materials used by teachers and students. (Powell & Anderson, 2002, p. 114)

Good curriculum materials have been presented here as an important vehicle for facilitating inquiry-oriented science education. But some may ask if it would not be possible—maybe even preferable—for a teacher to enter the classroom without such well-developed materials and use one's teaching competence to develop a particular image of the curriculum into reality in the lives of students. This teacher could, for example, begin with a conception of the curriculum as experience (following the tradition of John Dewey), build on student experiences with science-related matters, and facilitate the students’ growth in inquiry, science, and applications of this science to personal and social applications. Yes, I think it is possible, but within the reality of the public school context I also think that literally only one in a hundred teachers has the competences required to do it and do it well. Widespread educational change toward inquiry is not possible without appropriate materials.

Furthermore, I think even the teacher with this desired vision and the necessary competences would find such materials helpful in the typical school context. In the early 1990s I conducted a case study over a period of two years, of a high school science department that was developing and implementing a new inquiry-oriented science program that integrated content from the full range of natural sciences. They had found no published materials with which they were satisfied and had decided to write their own. In an interview near the end of the case study with the science department chair—the leader of the innovative effort and writer of the majority of the materials—we discussed the materials and their development. His firm opinion was if he had to do it over again, he would have purchased the best materials available—even though they were highly unsatisfactory from his standpoint— and adapted them as they went along. Personally, I favor the internal cluster of curriculum images and am attracted to pursuing curriculum as experience or as currere. Even so, in teaching a secondary school science class I would prefer to start with the best inquiry-oriented materials available and use them as a foundation in a classroom that is more “freewheeling” and individually adapted than the materials developers had in mind. Materials are of major importance, even though, by themselves, they do not come close to doing the job.

A Teacher Focus

Assuming quality materials—such as one would expect from a process with the four characteristics given above—the materials themselves are making demands on teachers that are both substantial and meaningful. The best materials are asking teachers to conduct their classes in a manner that is far from routine, introduce multiple forms of inquiry, and lead to student engagement and empowerment. As a result, teachers are being encouraged to move out of their comfort zone, attempt new practices, and challenge some of their personal values and beliefs. Most teachers find such a venture to be very challenging. Teachers have to be the focal point of a move toward more inquiry-oriented science education.

It is inevitable that teachers who move out of their comfort zone to attempt more inquiry-oriented teaching practices find challenges to their values and beliefs. To what extent are these new educational experiences valuable to my students? Are they valuable for all kinds of students? What is most important for them to learn? Will my students miss certain important knowledge if I use this inquiry approach instead of my usual approach? Do I have enough time to use inquiry? These questions are only samples from the many issues that pass through teachers’ consciousness as they attempt innovation. Changing educational practice is not just a matter of learning some new techniques. It is a process of reassessing one's entire understanding of the educational process (Anderson, 1995, 1996; Keys & Bryan, 2001)

Professional development is an important aspect of this process of change, but of necessity it must be a transformative process; routine inservice education is not sufficient. Among characteristics of such in-depth professional development are the following (Thompson & Zeuli, 1999):

1. Cognitive dissonance is created, which disturbs the existing equilibrium between the practices and beliefs of teachers and their experiences with the subject matter, learning, and teaching.
2. Discussion, reading, writing, and revised thinking can lead to resolution of such dissonance when teachers are given the appropriate context, time, and support.
3. The professional development experiences are connected to the teachers’ particular context and their own students.
4. A means is provided for the teachers to develop new classroom practices that are consistent with the new understandings they are developing.
5. As new issues and problems arise, teachers are given the support needed to understand them and put these new understandings into classroom practice.

A bit of reflection makes it apparent that professional development of this sort requires more than creating and scheduling an inservice education class. It must be tied to the inquiry materials being used, have an intimate connection with the participants’ day-to-day work in their own classrooms, and have strong connections to their fellow teachers and the support system provided by their school. It is not an isolated endeavor.

Research makes it clear that collaboration among colleagues is a powerful part of such an initiative, not just in the context of a professional development experience per se, but in the ongoing work context. Collaborative work among teachers can be a powerful influence with a transformative result (Anderson, 1995, 1996). In this context there is a real opportunity for teachers’ beliefs to change as they have reason to think deeply about what scholarship about learning and teaching (e.g., Lambert & McCombs, 1998; Bransford et al, 1999; Mayer, 2002) means as applied to their own “real world” situations. They can become dissatisfied with past beliefs, find viable alternative practices, and connect new beliefs with previous understandings. They can become convinced that new approaches will result in improved student learning (Prawat, 1992; Berlin & Jensen, 1989).

Systemic Support

There is abundant evidence that educational change (whether toward inquiry or anything else new) will go nowhere without systemic support, that is, multifaceted support that addresses all aspects of what is obviously a loosely coupled system of interconnecting components. This generalization has been well established in the field of science education in a cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to improve educational practice (Anderson, 1990) and in case studies of curriculum reform (Anderson, 1995, 1996). With respect to education in general, it has been shown throughout the general literature on educational reform (e.g., Fullan, 2001; Sarason, 1996). Systemic support means support for teachers’ professional growth as described above and a lot more.

With respect to inquiry-oriented science education, this systemic support must be centered on this vision of education, including the various understandings of inquiry regarding content, learning, and teaching. At its center must be the professional growth of teachers built on multifaceted means of support, including appropriate materials, collaborative work contexts, suitable forms of coaching, empowerment, and a supportive work environment. As noted earlier, however, it is far more and includes appropriate initiatives in many spheres of influence, including those of parents, the public in general, policymakers, and various administrative levels.

Finally, with respect to systemic support, it should be emphasized that it must be contextual. There is no gold-standard, all-purpose way of providing systemic support for changing toward inquiry-oriented science education. It must be situated in a particular time and designed for a given situation and for the people and place at hand.

Structures as Well as Culture Must Change

Much of what has been described above with respect to systemic support addresses school culture and changes in teachers’ values and beliefs. But that should not be the limit of our thinking. If we want to put in place a full new vision of science education, that is, inquiry science education in its many manifestations, something must be done to alter the prevailing patterns of school structures (Cuban, 1995). The literature on reform shows that even such seemingly simple changes as putting in place a common planning period for science teachers who are collaborating on their teaching or block scheduling for science classes (neither of which is presented here as a panacea) is very difficult. But structural changes of many kinds may be in order, and they need to be open for consideration, as must any deliberation about what constitutes inquiry science education and how it can be put in place.

This chapter opened with the assertion that it made sense to use inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula, but that this assertion had many qualifications. It should be apparent at this point not only that these qualifications are many, but that they have to be considered in concert. The vision of inquiry science contained in the National Science Education Standards is powerful, has great merit, and is viable in the practical world of schools. In addition, however, it is a lofty goal that is difficult to attain. It deserves the careful attention and concentrated effort that research tells us will be required to put it into practice.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Larry Flick and Jim Minstrell, who reviewed this chapter.

REFERENCES

Ahlgren, A., & Wheeler, S. (2002). Mapping the steps toward basic understanding of scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 11, 217–230.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: AAAS.

Anderson, R. D. (1990). Policy decisions on improving science education: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(6), 553–574.

Anderson, R. D. (1992). Perspectives on complexity: An essay on curricular reform, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 861–876.

Anderson, R. D. (1995). Curriculum reform: Dilemmas and promise. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 33–36.

Anderson, R. D. (1996). Study of curriculum reform. (Volume I of the final report of research conducted under contract no. RR91182001 with OERI, U.S. Department of Education). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Anderson, R. D. (1998). The research on teaching as inquiry. A commissioned paper prepared for the Center for Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education at the National Research Council.

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3–16.

Anderson, R. D., et al. (1994). Issues of curriculum reform in science, mathematics and higher order thinking across the disciplines. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Berlin, B. M., & Jensen, K. (1989). Changing teachers. Education and urban society, 22(1), 115–120.

Bianchini, J. A., Cavazos, L. M., & Helms, J. V. (1999). From professional lives to inclusive practice: Science educators’ views of gender, ethnicity, and science. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association conference in Montreal.

Blumenfeld, P. C. (1994). Lessons learned: How collaboration helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 539–551.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (Eds). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 53–62.

Cartier, J. L., & Stewart, J. (2000). Teaching the nature of inquiry: Further developments in a high school genetics curriculum. Science and Education, 9, 247–267.

Cuban, L. (1995). The hidden variable: How organizations influence teacher responses to secondary science curriculum reform. Theory into Practice, 34(1), 4–11.

Duschl, R., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers’ decision making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 467–501.

Eisner, E. W. (1992). Curriculum ideologies. In Philip W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 302–326). New York: Macmillan.

Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Groarke, J., Ovens, P., & Hargreaves, M. (1986). Towards more open classrooms. In D. Hustler, A. Cassidy, & E. C. Cuff (Eds.), Action research in classrooms and schools. London: Allen & Unwin.

Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: the role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24, 5–11.

Helms, J. V. (1995). Speaking of the subject: Science teachers reflect on the nature of science, science teaching, and themselves. Unpublished dissertation.

Huffman, D. (2002). Evaluating science inquiry: A mixed-method approach. In J. W. Altschuld and D. D. Kumar (Eds.), Evaluation of science and technology education at the dawn of a new millennium. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631–645.

Koulaidis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1995). Science teachers’ philosophical assumptions: How well do we understand them? International Journal of Science Education, 17, 273–283.

Krajcik, J. S., et al. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483–497.

Lambert, N. M., & McCombs, B. L. (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conception of the nature of science: A review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.

Lederman, Norman G., & Niess, Margaret L. (2000). Problem solving and solving problems: Inquiry about inquiry. School Science and Mathematics, 100(3), 113–116.

Little, J. (1993). Professional community in comprehensive high schools: The two worlds of academic and vocational teachers. In J. W. Little and M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 137–163). New York: Teachers College Press

Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (1995). The learning environment as a site of science education reform. Theory into Practice, 34(1), 43–50.

Marx, R. W., et al. (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 517–538.

Mayer, R. E. (2002). The promise of educational psychology: Vol. II. Teaching for meaningful learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers’ workplace context? In J. W. Little and M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts. (pp. 79–103). New York: Teachers College Press.

Miles, M. (1993). Forty years of change in schools: Some personal reflections. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29, 213–248.

Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Mitchener, C. P., & Anderson, R. D. (1989). Teachers’ perspective: Developing and implementing an STS curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 351–369.

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

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Noffke, S. E., & Zeichner, K. M. (1987). Action research and teacher thinking: The first phase of the AR project at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

Peressini, D. (1996). Parents, power, and the reform of mathematics education: An exploratory analysis of three urban high schools. Urban Education, 31, 3–28.

Powell, J. C., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Changing teachers’ practices: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37, 107–136.

Prawat, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100, 354–395.

Project 2061. (2001). Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Richardson, V. (1994). Teacher inquiry as professional staff development. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform (pp. 186–203). Ninety-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Romagnano, L. S. (1994). The dilemmas of change: A tale of two mathematics teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Rudolph, J. L. (2003). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education, 87, 64–79.

Russell, T., & Munby, H. (1989). Science as a discipline, science as seen by students and teachers’ professional knowledge. In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing science: Images of science in science education (pp. 107–125). London: Falmer Press.

Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting “The culture of the school and the problem of change.” New York: Teachers College Press.

Sarther, C. M. (1991). Science curriculum and the BSCS revisited. Teaching Education, 3(2), 101–108.

Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: Macmillan.

Talbert, J. (1994). Boundaries of teachers’ professional communities in U.S. high schools: power and precariousness of the subject department. Paper prepared for Leslie Santee Siskin & Judith Warren Little (Eds.), The High School Department: Perspectives on the Subject Organization of Secondary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Thompson, C. L., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tikunoff, W. J., Ward, B., & Griffin, G. (1979). Interactive research and development on teaching study: Final report. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1997). Tinkering toward Utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zuckerman, G. A., Chudinova, E. V., & Khavkin, E. E. (1998). Inquiry as a pivotal element of knowledge acquisition within the Vygotskian paradigm: Building a science curriculum for the elementary school. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 201–233.