T h e S c i e n c e Te a c h e r4444444444

ost people are frustrated with the currentscientific method presented in textbooks(Bauer 1992; McComas 1996). The scientificmethod—a simplistic model of the scientific

Scientific Inquiry

Wil l iam Harwood

A new inquiry

model offers a

successful guide

to how science is

really done

An Activity Model for

M throughout the scientific process. Scientists move amongthe activities in a pattern dictated by their specific needs.The activity model does not contain a set of steps thatdefine “good science,” as suggested by the scientificmethod. Rather, the model offers activities in which sci-entists engage (often more than once) to develop andcarry through an inquiry.

Explaining the activitiesAs mentioned earlier, the model contains 10 main points(activities). Nine of the activities center around “Ques-tions,” which is placed in the middle of the model be-cause asking questions, both general and divergent, iscentral to any scientific inquiry.

Another activity, “Defining the problem,” refers tolimiting the arena the scientist intends to explore. As anexample, the question “What is the effect of global cli-mate change?” is very broad. To narrow the focus, ascientist might study the effect of global climate changeon oceans or on plant diversity.

Working clockwise around the model, “Forming thequestion” refers to developing a question that can drive aresearch study (a convergent process). Next, “Investigat-ing the known” is the process in which scientists consult

inquiry process—fails in most cases to provide a success-ful guide to how science is done. This is not shocking,really. Many simple models used in science are quite use-ful within their limitations. When the simple model fails,however, scientists choose a more sophisticated model tohelp them in their study.

The Arrhenius theory of acids and bases, for example,is a simple model that works within very strict limits, butultimately fails. College students in general chemistry arepresented with three models of acids and bases(Arrhenius, Lowry-Brønsted, and Lewis). Each model ismore sophisticated than the previous one and arose be-cause the simpler model failed in important ways.

The same is true for the scientific method. A newmodel of the process of scientific inquiry is presentedhere and is based on the results of interviews with over50 research scientists from a wide spectrum of disciplines(Reiff, Harwood, and Phillipson 2002). The “Activitymodel for scientific inquiry” (Figure 1) contains 10 ac-tivities in which scientists engage as often as necessary

J a n u a r y 2 0 0 4 4545454545

published books and articles and experts in their area ofinterest. The need to investigate the known comes upfrequently through the course of a scientific inquiry.

In “Articulating the expectation,” scientists develop anexpectation for their study. For some scientists, this maybe a formal hypothesis, but for most it may be a predic-tion or even an unstated expectation. In the most in-volved activity, “Carrying out the study,” scientistschoose the means to investigate their question, gather orcreate materials, and collect data. While carrying out thestudy, problems and challenges encountered by scientistsoften require them to revisit and engage in some of theother activities in the model.

Data can be obtained in a variety of forms dependingon the type of study. But scientists need to confirm thevalidity of the data and “Examine the results.” If scien-tists are uncertain about the data’s validity, then thestudy should be repeated or the design revised.

Once the data is confirmed, the next step is “Reflectingon the findings.” Scientists spend considerable time think-ing about the meaning of their results—how the resultsconnect with what is known and how to explain them tocolleagues. Scientists rarely work in isolation, whichmeans “Communicating with others” isimportant. Throughout the course of aninquiry, scientists communicate with peersin their lab and colleagues elsewhere.Many inquiries involve collaborative ef-forts between several scientists, which re-quire good communication skills. Most of-ten, the last activity in a study is a formalcommunication through an oral or a writ-ten presentation.

Throughout the scientific inquiry pro-cess scientists emphasize “Observation.”Observations may be the starting pointfor some inquiries but are also accom-plished when “Carrying out the study”and “Investigating the known.”

Using the activity modelEven though the different activities werejust explained following a clockwise or-der around the model, inquiry follows nosingle path. To illustrate how the activitymodel is used, Figure 2 (p. 46) shows apartial pathway a geologist might takewhile investigating why a forest of treeshas died (NRC 2000).

Teachers can also use this activitymodel in the classroom as a personalframework for the development of les-sons and units. Teachers may also want tofocus on the tasks involved in specific ac-tivities or combinations of activities. For

F I G U R E 1

Activity model for scientific inquiry.

Questions

Observing

Communicatingwith others

Reflecting onthe findings

Examiningthe results

Carrying outthe study

Articulating theexpectation

Investigatingthe known

Forming thequestion

Defining theproblem

example, searching a certain topic on the Internet is oneway students can “Explore the known.” Teaching stu-dents how to read journals, search the Web, or contactexperts are all skills necessary to effectively explore whatis known about a topic.

Focusing on an activity within the model provides theopportunity for students to develop and hone skillsneeded by scientists. Students do not have to engage in amultiweek inquiry project to gain these important skills.For example, teachers could provide students with a casestudy that produced data and ask them to “Examine theresults.” Is the data valid? How do they know? “Reflect-ing on the findings” could be addressed by providing adata set that may have more than one interpretation.How do students resolve the challenge? What wouldthey do to resolve the situation?

The activity model can also provide a framework forstructured, guided, or open inquiry lessons. In an openinquiry lesson, for example, the model can help teachersassess whether students are engaged in necessary think-ing. Do students move from general questions to form-ing questions for study? Do they seek known informa-tion as needed to help them in their inquiry? Do students

T h e S c i e n c e Te a c h e r4646464646

F I G U R E 2

A geologist might take the following inquiry pathway while investigating why trees in a forest died.

have a clear expectation from the study? Are they com-municating with others throughout the inquiry?

Teachers can also use the model as a guide whenproviding explicit feedback to students on how they aredoing science. When students are working on “Defin-ing the problem” or “Forming the question” used for aterm project, they are not preparing to do science butare already engaged in scientific activities. Doing sci-ence, according to research scientists, is not just aboutcollecting and manipulating data (Harwood, Reiff, andPhillipson 2002); a lot more thinking and hard work isinvolved as the activity model shows. Moreover, there isno set of “steps” that define “good science.” Each studyis unique in the pattern of activities in which the re-searcher engages.

One of the key faults of the scientific method model isthe impression it gives that the only communication sci-entists engage in is a report (oral or written) at the end oftheir project. This is far from the case. Often scientistsare part of a team working on different aspects of a studyand often discuss design issues, known information, andresults. In the same way, when students talk with eachother about a problem or some aspect of a project, they“Communicate with others.” Communicating is not justwriting a report or poster at the end of a study. Scientistsrarely do their work alone and depend upon colleagues(both in and outside their laboratories) with whom theycan exchange ideas and discuss work in progress.

How science is doneThe overall intent of this model is to provide stu-dents and teachers with a deeper understanding of

how science is actually done. With this model stu-dents learn that the process of inquiry can follow aseries of twists and turns that ultimately can lead toscientific discovery. n

William Harwood is an associate professor of scienceeducation at Indiana University, 201 North Rose Av-enue, ED 3068, Bloomington, IN 47405; e-mail:wharwood@indiana.edu.

References

Bauer, H.H. 1992. Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method.Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Harwood, W.S., R. Reiff, and T. Phillipson. 2002. Scientists’ con-ceptions of scientific inquiry: Voices from the front. In Pro-ceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conference of the Asso-ciation for the Education of Teachers of Science, eds. P. Rubba, J.Rye, W.J. Di Biase, and B.A. Crawford. Greenville, N.C.: As-sociation for the Education of Teachers of Science.

McComas, W.F. 1996. Ten myths of science: Reexamining what wethink we know about the nature of science. School Science andMathematics 96(1): 10–15.

National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Inquiry and the NationalScience Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademy Press.

Reiff, R., W.S. Harwood, and T. Phillipson. 2002. A scientificmethod based upon research scientists’ conceptions of scien-tific inquiry. In Proceedings of the 2002 Annual InternationalConference of the Association for the Education of Teachers ofScience, eds. P. Rubba, J. Rye, W.J. Di Biase, and B.A.Crawford. Greenville, N.C.: Association for the Education ofTeachers in Science.

Inquiry pathway example.

Activity

Observation

Question

Investigating the known

Defining problem/Forming study question

Articulating expectation

Carrying out the study

Examining results/Reflecting on findings

Forming study question

Observation/Carrying out the study

Observation/Carrying out the study

Reflecting on findings/Questions

Events

Discovery of forest of dead cedar trees

What could have killed so many trees over so wide an area?

Reflecting on knowledge of earthquakes, plate boundaries, coastline subsidence

Did the trees die at the same time?

Expected carbon dating to answer question

Took samples and dated them

Found all trees died about 300 years ago

Was their death related to nearby volcanic activity or some kind of biological blight?

Mapping indicated no evidence for widespread volcanic deposits

Trees not burned and no evidence of insect infestation

Considering role of salt water