Abstract
There are some crucial critiques on scientific inquiry and “the” Scientific Method in current science education. Recent research literature is replete with arguments against inquiry’s legitimacy to be included in science classes, and it has even been abandoned from the Next Generation Science Standards. Critics of scientific inquiry in schools blame it to be a caricature of authentic inquiry suffering from five shortcomings: (1) knowledge becomes desocialized from its generative contexts, (2) scientific inquiry in schools suggests methodological monism favoring (3) a primacy of experimentation, (4) which portrays scientific inquiry as a knowledge automaton (5) raising an illusion of determination with regard to the generation of knowledge. This article argues for a reorientation of scientific inquiry in schools tentatively embracing “the” Scientific Method anew since critics appear not to sufficiently consider that scientific inquiry operates differently in schools from science. It will be shown that most critiques can be defused when untangling such an illegitimate mix-up of science proper with school science. It will be argued that current (and recent) descriptions of how science generates knowledge lack authoritative validity and should be fundamentally revisited. “The” Scientific Method will be shown to be a valid idealization that can serve as a frame of reference for introductory science classes. Still, it is understood that science education needs to extend beyond “the” Scientific Method if it is to prepare for science-related careers.
Highlights
When the USA’s National Research Council (NRC) decided to revise their National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), a committee was charged with developing and defining a framework for what would come to be the Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013)
Should consider (1) in how far students can learn about the generation of scientific knowledge from it, (2) how it connects to a more general perspective of all sciences, and (3) how central it is to understanding a single scientific discipline
Much of the above critique could be alleviated if science education could agree that scientific inquiry in schools or “the” Scientific Method should not be read as a book of rule but rather as a frame of reference that provides orientation while preserving individual degrees of freedom
Summary
When the USA’s National Research Council (NRC) decided to revise their National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), a committee was charged with developing and defining a framework for what would come to be the Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Osborne (2011) argues for the Practices’ introduction as a means to translate the ways how scientists generate knowledge more into the classroom; prior to this, scientific inquiry had been interpreted increasingly fuzzy so that no uniform teaching approach had substantiated (cf Barrow, 2006; Furtak et al, 2012b). He claims that Practices conveyed more clearly the expected outcome of teaching in terms of student activity (cf Osborne, 2014). Scientific inquiry has — for a very long time — been considered fit to build a bridge from school into research science; why should this have changed just because of the Practices’ advent?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
